Ending trapping

[BuzzH]

Form past posts, seems like this is Coming from a WY resident, siding with the commission, more interested in satisfying WyOGA, than NR applicants.

Seems you haven't a clue...unlike you, I'm not forced to guess what went on with the Commission.

Just send your address, I'll get that 12 cents in the mail so you can be happy.

 

[07yzryder]

It's sad, trapping is very misrepresented. People get some messed up ideas like with guns. "Traps cut legs off" "animals chew their own leg off and crawl off to die"

Lots of BS. When I did trap never had an issue. Any animal could have been released, worst one was a fox has a cut on his foot which he woulda survived easily. Well worst was the one who had a slight disadvantage against a falcon since he had a leg tied up.

That said trapping is american history and I support trapping. It's a hell of a way to try and earn a living, I ran a 24 trap trapline which is nothing compared to those who make a living off it but holy crap, hiking, miles on the truck, smells, smells, more smells...

 

[Danomite]

Does anyone have the answer to this?
Because I can't believe such BS.

The governor has until April 9 to sign bills. If she doesn’t sign a bill by that date it’s pocket vetoed.

 

[wind gypsy]

Lol...so a group that calls itself Backcountry HUNTERS and Anglers doesn't care about hunting rights and you are cool with that because if you dig deep on their website and find their mission statement they tell you this?

I honestly don't have anything against BHA personally, but that is pretty weak in my opinion. If they aren't going to advocate for hunting rights they should take the word Hunting out of their name. It would be an honest representation of the groups focus...today that is not the case.

This is a thread about trapping being banned where BHA was one of the few sportsman's organizations fighting for trappers, and you are trying to kick BHA for not advocating for hunters?

They advocated for trappers which IMO is a step BEYOND just advocating for hunters yet here we are calling them out for not being advocates for hunters..

No good deed goes unpunished with the BHA derangement syndrome folks apparently. Who needs enemies with allies like this...

 

[bsnedeker]

This is a thread about trapping being banned where BHA was one of the few sportsman's organizations fighting for trappers, and you are trying to kick BHA for not advocating for hunters?

They advocated for trappers which IMO is a step BEYOND just advocating for hunters yet here we are calling them out for not being advocates for hunters..

No good deed goes unpunished with the BHA derangement syndrome folks apparently. Who needs enemies with allies like this...

I get that it's early and maybe you haven't had your coffee but if you read what I actually wrote you'll see I'm doing no such thing. Have a lovely day!

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[wind gypsy]

I get that it's early and maybe you haven't had your coffee but if you read what I actually wrote you'll see I'm doing no such thing. Have a lovely day!

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Fair assessment. I tend to agree with your sentiment and that is the main reason I'm no longer a member but do see them as a big ally on many issues.

 

[brocksw]

Fair assessment. I tend to agree with your sentiment and that is the main reason I'm no longer a member but do see them as a big ally on many issues.

Look around the country this year. Trapping ban in Arkansas. Black bear hunting ban in CA. Trapping Ban in NM. Montana bills 505, perhaps the worst piece of elk legislation in 100 years. Montana Bills 143, 306, 281. Not to mention fighting against public land transfer bills in MT and WY. Standing against ebikes in non-motorized areas nationwide.

No Rmef, No MDF, No WSF, and in almost all cases except for 1 or 2 that I'm aware of...No SCI.

Take a stab at the 2 organizations leading the charge in all of the above issues....

Backcountry Hunters and Anglers
Wildlife Federation

But please Roksliders...keep hating on BHA because that's productive (not directed at Wind Gypsy).

 

[bsnedeker]

Look around the country this year. Trapping ban in Arkansas. Black bear hunting ban in CA. Trapping Ban in NM. Montana bills 505, perhaps the worst piece of elk legislation in 100 years. Montana Bills 143, 306, 281. Not to mention fighting against public land transfer bills in MT and WY. Standing against ebikes in non-motorized areas nationwide.

No Rmef, No MDF, No WSF, and in almost all cases except for 1 or 2 that I'm aware of...No SCI.

Take a stab at the 2 organizations leading the charge in all of the above issues....

Backcountry Hunters and Anglers
Wildlife Federation

But please Roksliders...keep hating on BHA because that's productive.

My dude...yes, there is quite a bit of hate for BHA around here. There are also folks like me who don't support the organization for various reasons, but have no hatred towards them. You should try to learn to tell the difference before you get super defensive about it. WG's entire sentiment was "that is the main reason I'm no longer a member but do see them as a big ally on many issues." How is that hating on BHA in any way?

The local BHA chapters are all pretty awesome in regards to hunting in my opinion. The national org...not so much. Some people are cool with that (and BuzzH has some good points in support of that opinion I think), some aren't, and that's OK! People can choose where to give their money. I focus on RMEF because I personally feel they do the most good and put more money on the ground than anyone else....that's just my opinion. I also strongly disagree with BHA on a number of issues, including what I view as their ridiculous stance on ebikes (an ebike has no more impact on the landscape than a mountain bike so I feel they should be treated the same), which is why I don't give them my money...again, my opinion. Doesn't mean I hate them or think they are "green decoys", it just means I spend my money elsewhere.

 

[brocksw]

My dude...yes, there is quite a bit of hate for BHA around here. There are also folks like me who don't support the organization for various reasons, but have no hatred towards them. You should try to learn to tell the difference before you get super defensive about it. WG's entire sentiment was "that is the main reason I'm no longer a member but do see them as a big ally on many issues." How is that hating on BHA in any way?

The local BHA chapters are all pretty awesome in regards to hunting in my opinion. The national org...not so much. Some people are cool with that (and BuzzH has some good points in support of that opinion I think), some aren't, and that's OK! People can choose where to give their money. I focus on RMEF because I personally feel they do the most good and put more money on the ground than anyone else....that's just my opinion. I also strongly disagree with BHA on a number of issues, including what I view as their ridiculous stance on ebikes (an ebike has no more impact on the landscape than a mountain bike so I feel they should be treated the same), which is why I don't give them my money...again, my opinion. Doesn't mean I hate them or think they are "green decoys", it just means I spend my money elsewhere.

1. I didn't reply to you or tag you or @ you.
2. Not defensive....just pointing out facts
3. Look at all the BHA hate in this thread and others...that's where my last statement is directed, not a Wind Gypsy, or you, hence the reason I didn't reply to you or tag you or @ you.

 

[bsnedeker]

1. I didn't reply to you or tag you or @ you.
2. Not defensive....just pointing out facts
3. Look at all the BHA hate in this thread and others...that's where my last statement is directed, not a Wind Gypsy, or you, hence the reason I didn't reply to you or tag you or @ you.

1. I can respond to anything whether it's directed at me or not...free country and all. You replied to WG's reply to my reply to his reply to my initial post (whew!) which is why I responded if that helps you.
2. Yeah dude, pretty defensive.
3. Glad you added your disclaimer about not calling out WG, but your initial response sure looked that way!

 

[brocksw]

1. I can respond to anything whether it's directed at me or not...free country and all. You replied to WG's reply to my reply to his reply to my initial post (whew!) which is why I responded if that helps you.
2. Yeah dude, pretty defensive.
3. Glad you added your disclaimer about not calling out WG, but your initial response sure looked that way!

You win.

 

[BuzzH]

Gianforte isn't doing much to help...

Gianforte gets warning in killing of Yellowstone wolf

Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte received a warning from wildlife officials after killing a radio-collared wolf near Yellowstone National Park without first taking a mandated trapper education course — a violation

helenair.com

 

[wind gypsy]

Gianforte isn't doing much to help...

Gianforte gets warning in killing of Yellowstone wolf

Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte received a warning from wildlife officials after killing a radio-collared wolf near Yellowstone National Park without first taking a mandated trapper education course — a violation

helenair.com

Wow.

 

[Hoodie]

Seems like BHA is being held to a different standard than literally every other org.

This seems to be how it's going

1) Legal threat to hunting/fishing/trapping whatever comes up
2) Local BHA chapters vocally oppose
3) Crickets from RMEF, MDF, etc. (local chapters or otherwise)
4) Everyone gets on Rokslide and shits on BHA, while talking up all the orgs that didn't bother to mention the problem. Usually with the caveat "Yeah well I mean the local chapters are okay I guess."

What about the local chapters of "real pro sportsmens orgs" like RMEF and MDF?

They just get a pass?

I mean on the first page of this thread someone said "the anti-predator hunting BHA crowd makes me sick." Where was strong pro-predator hunting response from RMEF or MDF when the California bear bill popped up?

If silence is supposed to be consent it seems to me we should be shitting all over all the "real pro sportsmen's organizations" at this point.

I guess since RMEF didn't say anything about the NM bill I should just assume they're actually part of a conspiracy to take my guns away.

What a joke.

 

[MTSasquatch]

Gianforte isn't doing much to help...

Gianforte gets warning in killing of Yellowstone wolf

Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte received a warning from wildlife officials after killing a radio-collared wolf near Yellowstone National Park without first taking a mandated trapper education course — a violation

helenair.com

Between him assaulting a reporter, trying to illegally shoot a moose from a borrow ditch, now poaching a wolf because he didn’t have a trapper’s license, this guy just can’t miss an opportunity to break the law! Not to mention that god awful elk bill he got fwp and the speaker of the house to try and ram through, among other ill-conceived wildlife-related legislation.

him poaching a wolf by illegally trapping doesn’t make trapping look good in this state for those opposed to trapping who are already disgusted by Jersey Greg. I hate to say it but my sense is that trapping across the west is on borrowed time. Build that fur collection while you can!

 

[BuzzH]

Laws only apply to the common Montana R and NR hunters and trappers.

I mean, its not like Gianforte is the guy that appoints the MTFWP Director and the FWP Commission or anything, how was he supposed to know the regulations of the Agency he over-see's?

 

[brocksw]

Seems like BHA is being held to a different standard than literally every other org.

This seems to be how it's going

1) Legal threat to hunting/fishing/trapping whatever comes up
2) Local BHA chapters vocally oppose
3) Crickets from RMEF, MDF, etc. (local chapters or otherwise)
4) Everyone gets on Rokslide and shits on BHA, while talking up all the orgs that didn't bother to mention the problem. Usually with the caveat "Yeah well I mean the local chapters are okay I guess."

What about the local chapters of "real pro sportsmens orgs" like RMEF and MDF?

They just get a pass?

I mean on the first page of this thread someone said "the anti-predator hunting BHA crowd makes me sick." Where was strong pro-predator hunting response from RMEF or MDF when the California bear bill popped up?

If silence is supposed to be consent it seems to me we should be shitting all over all the "real pro sportsmen's organizations" at this point.

I guess since RMEF didn't say anything about the NM bill I should just assume they're actually part of a conspiracy to take my guns away.

What a joke.

That's pretty much the head on the nail.

Rmef, wsf, muley Fanatic, etc do some good work...but are absolutely held to a different standard.

 

[MtGomer]

I also strongly disagree with BHA on a number of issues, including what I view as their ridiculous stance on ebikes (an ebike has no more impact on the landscape than a mountain bike so I feel they should be treated the same), which is why I don't give them my money...again, my opinion.

Their ‘stance’ on e bikes is that electric motors are motors. That is not an opinion.

This is pretty simple stuff.

The ‘words don’t have any real meaning’ double speak language game that the Marxists in our country play is ridiculous and it’s so cringe to see hunters buy into the same tactics.

 

[bsnedeker]

Their ‘stance’ on e bikes is that electric motors are motors. That is not an opinion.

This is pretty simple stuff.

The policy on motorized travel was put in place long before electric motors on bikes were a thing. That rule was put in place with dirt bikes and atvs in mind. That is not an opinion.

E bikes are no louder than a regular bike and have no more impact on trails than regular mountain bikes. There is no logical reason one should be allowed while the other isn't.

It's pretty simple stuff.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[MtGomer]

The policy on motorized travel was put in place long before electric motors on bikes were a thing. That rule was put in place with dirt bikes and atvs in mind. That is not an opinion.

E bikes are no louder than a regular bike and have no more impact on trails than regular mountain bikes. There is no logical reason one should be allowed while the other isn't.

It's pretty simple stuff.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

All bikes and ATVs will be electric in 50 years from now, probably sooner. Saying motorcycle then will be implied electric, as it is implied gas today.

If you believe the areas that are designated non-motorized should be undesignated, to allow motorized travel, then I disagree, but I respect your opinion.

Claiming motors are not motors is something else.