Join the BHA?

[sveltri]

I too have been on the fence regarding BHA. I was a member for a year, but have often wondered what they have actually done. I think Cam Hanes could take more responsibility for defeating Chaffetz's bill than the BHA, I could be wrong. Did anyone else listen to Rinella's podcast with Bishop? Did I miss something there or was he actually trying to do something good? What has the BHA actually accomplished, I'm asking because I truly don't know what they have done for us. I personally feel like they are similar to the Colorado Bowhunter's Association in that aside from a pint night or a 3D shoot, not too much has recently been done to promote and extend our opportunities to hunt. Yes, I am a "what have you done me" kinda guy when it comes to these organizations. I would agree that having representation in the form of a lobbyist to let gov't officials know that public lands are a priority for is highly important, however, what is discussed behind closed doors may be more detrimental than good. Please educate me.

 

[archer wapiti]

I personally don't want to associate with groups that are fighting against legal forms of hunting on any issues. Same with gun control and people trying to destroy the Constition. It's great to align with backpackers, fishermen, mountain bikers on issues. But not if their organizations fight for any gun control or hunting restrictions. I've tried to organize different groups on issues myself.

The BHA and many like minded are single issue minded. Yes, you can be a life BHAer, and a life NRAer and still be single issue minded. How passionate are you about public lands? Would you vote for a liberal Democrat that you disagree with most issues if he will fight to keep federal public lands, over a conservative you agree with everything except public lands? Then you are single issue minded. I'm a hardcore single minded liberty lover. Less government, less regulations, less taxes, more freedom. I'll vote for anyone or anything who will fight for my Constitutional rights over anyone who promises me public land who is weak or against my Constitutional rights any day of the week and twice on Sunday. I'd give up hunting before I'd ever give up my Constitutional rights. That's who I am.

I struggle with this all the time. I've been a BHA member but am not sure if I'll renew. They seem to be against any other public land use than recreation. It's the same struggle I have with NM senator Heinrich, and I'd never vote for Martin Heinrich despite his being described as the 'real deal' by many prominent public land hunters.

 

[mtwarden]

you should move to Utah and run for office

 

[SoDaky]

Quote Originally Posted by TheCougar View Post
there are some things that are “keystone” issues for each person. Maybe it’s abortion or gun rights or taxes, etc - when those issues come up, a person of conviction can’t turn a blind eye to it and will indeed sacrifice a large commonality for the critical issues they care about. I’ve held off on a BHA life membership because, although they don’t trip any of those issues, some of their political leanings are enough to keep me from committing money.
Well said!!

This.

 

[les welch]

I will never support BHA. I have had many discussions with fellow hunters that feel the same as me. As a big time supporter of individual liberties and the constitution i cannot find myself to support them. A good start for BHA to gain some more support would be to fight laws such as the Wyoming wilderness law. I haven’t heard a peep about that and the state is blocking access without paying a guide fee to millions of acres of federal land. BHA should be outraged over these kinds of laws.

At some point in time, we all have to pick our battles. The WY wilderness law has been taken to court and shot down, more than once. It's a money pit that can't be won with the outfitters for it.

 

[backcountry_hunter]

I was a member for a while and recently let it lapse. Only a little more than a year ago I was razor close to pulling the trigger on a life membership and am glad I didn't. At the end of the day I may not agree with everything they're for... but such is the case with all organizations I belong to. What did it for me was the lack of real action I saw from the group. There was A LOT of gathering at pint nights talking about how great they are and how much they were doing but very little observed action. I don't believe when the Utah Rep redacted his bills, that it had anything to do with BHA.

I support the concept of BHA but would love to see some actual boot leather doing work. Land Tawney traveling the country drinking beer and giving speeches at pint nights may be great for some but not me. Until I see this organization actually taking on real issues in the legal process I'll likely take my support elsewhere. I saw individual hunting celebrities in the last year doing more as one human being than the entire BHA org.

 

[HeadnWest]

I have read through all the post and can say that this is a good conversation and everyone is entitled to what they believe.

I am a BHA member and have seen action in my state that I believe has helped out the Wisconsin sportsman. Like: fighting against railroad locked public land and stream access, fighting for additional stream access, public land clean-up projects, public land adoption, fighting to stop public land sale. These have all been recent actions by BHA in WI.

I also think if you took some time to actually do some research on a state by state basis, info you can find on BHA's website, you will find out that BHA is more then just hosting pint nights and instagrams photos. Educate yourself on what they are doing before you make an opinion.

Furthermore, if companies like First lite, Sitka, Seek outside and others have given BHA sponsorship, and if Steven Rinella, Ryan Callaghan and Randy Newberg, give support to BHA, I believe that they do and will keep the sportsman in mind while making their decisions.

That is my take on BHA and why I will continue to be a member. But like others have said BHA might not be for everyone, based on your beliefs and opinions. Just make sure they are informed opinions.

 

[Huntindog45]

There are two fronts in the fight for protecting hunting and access to public land. One front is out in the public eye with high profile events, social media efforts, and a huge call for gathering support from the general population of hunters. That is the stuff we see. The other front is in offices, via email, phone calls and other very quiet fights that we will never see. BHA has people in both arenas. The stuff they do outside of the public eye is just as critical as the other. Trusting that is occurring requires a small amount of faith. Right now I believe that BHA is working hard fighting to promote public land protection with actions we dont see as well as gathering public support and supplying us with information. the idea that Tawney is only flying around for pint nights is ridiculous. BHA has a large staff of qualified professionals out contacting representatives and working for us in ways we will never see. In order for them to have any success at that they need to have the support from large numbers of the public. If they did not have our support, if they did not have our attention and our backing they would not have the ear of govt officials, law makers and other representatives because they would have not legitimate voice. Right now those representatives will listen to them because they have a following, because they represent a large group.

The same principal applies to Cam Hanes and the other "celebrity hunters" mentioned above. They have a large public following right now so representatives listen to them, and to some extent use them to distribute their own information. Without that large public following they would be useless to the govt representatives. There are so many important figures in our fight. Each has value.

 

[Matt Cashell]

Is it already time for another “BHA is a secret liberal conspiracy” thread? I defend BHA often because I believe in what they are doing for public lands, conservation, and wildlife habitat.

BHA is inclusive. This means they have a widely diverse membership politically that sets aside division on other issues to advocate for the core values of public access and conservation.

The idea that they oppose all mining, logging, and motorized use is patently false, period.

They are in DC now advocating for the reauthorization of the LWCF, which depends on offshore drilling for funding. The LWCF has no down side.

The Montana Chapter is supporting the Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Act, which expands motorized use, logging, AND wilderness.

It’s time to pass the Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Act | Columnists | missoulian.com

I know they have supported other similar collaborative projects in Wyoming and other states.

All across the country they have boots on the ground habitat enhancement projects. Check your local chapter for projects in your area.

I encourage you to research and evaluate BHA based on what they actually do, and not some conspiracy theory built on ad-hominem attack on Land Tawney, or Patagonia, or whatever.

 

[jquarnberg]

Best thing I have seen on this forum regarding BHA... nailed it.

I disagree. As a minority, we have been successful in keeping our interest safely guaranteed. There is no need in aligning with anyone or, any group that doesn't jealously represent ever single legal hunter. We don't need collaborations with non hunting groups to designate public lands away from public control. We also don't need special government designations to protect our lands and access either. It is a fallacy to suggest otherwise.





I know many a BHA member despises my stance on this and the BHA. I keep hearing what they are dong for access. I'm not seeing it. I'm not seeing landlocked public land where access is being won in bounds or, even in increments. All I hear about the BHA comes from its members telling every one how great they are. Yet, all I see from them is special interest lobbying. I admit I do not know it all. Nor am I insulting or degrading anyone. But, instead of pal-ing around with people and groups that are working to take away our hunting rights, directly or discreetly, why not take a stance on the land access issues in the west that are very much affecting public participation on their own lands? I also sense a very heavy political tone in much of what they do. Which reeks of special interest. Not hunter interest.




That's the way I feel and, always will until they give me a reason not to. No offense meant to anyone or their group. God Bless men

 

[chasewild]

I disagree. As a minority, we have been successful in keeping our interest safely guaranteed. There is no need in aligning with anyone or, any group that doesn't jealously represent ever single legal hunter. We don't need collaborations with non hunting groups to designate public lands away from public control. We also don't need special government designations to protect our lands and access either. It is a fallacy to suggest otherwise.

This sentiment is ludicrous.

It's basic math, based on the trends and accepted data from every single state that hunter numbers are falling. Hunter numbers correspond directly -- BY LAW -- to dollars on the ground by virtue of license sales, Pitman-Robertson, and general state funds. Thus, left unchecked and unmitigated, the dollars state's can spend on managing wildlife also drops at a corresponding rate.

Relationships with non-hunters are not only encouraged, but essential to offset that trend. Nonhunter numbers are growing far faster than hunters and those numbers could -- and should -- contribute to the funds to manage state wildlife. If every person wearing Patagonia contributed through the existing channels to wildlife funds, states wouldn't have to come up with new ways to generate funds, but could actually focus on management.

Relationships with non-hunters (like the one BHA and Patagonia displayed in Idaho) also removes hostility in the hunting narrative. Demonstrations like the one at the Rendezvous show that hunters are interested in solving the bigger problems by forming new partnerships and engaging in an intelligent conversation about WHY HUNTING MATTERS. Nonhunters are not antihunters.....yet. So any step to engage a rock climber, fly fisherman, or alpinist about why hunting is good, is a step I will take every time.

I hope everyone on Rokslide would do the same.

 

[Huntindog45]

This sentiment is ludicrous.

It's basic math, based on the trends and accepted data from every single state that hunter numbers are falling. Hunter numbers correspond directly -- BY LAW -- to dollars on the ground by virtue of license sales, Pitman-Robertson, and general state funds. Thus, left unchecked and unmitigated, the dollars state's can spend on managing wildlife also drops at a corresponding rate.

Relationships with non-hunters are not only encouraged, but essential to offset that trend. Nonhunter numbers are growing far faster than hunters and those numbers could -- and should -- contribute to the funds to manage state wildlife. If every person wearing Patagonia contributed through the existing channels to wildlife funds, states wouldn't have to come up with new ways to generate funds, but could actually focus on management.

Relationships with non-hunters (like the one BHA and Patagonia displayed in Idaho) also removes hostility in the hunting narrative. Demonstrations like the one at the Rendezvous show that hunters are interested in solving the bigger problems by forming new partnerships and engaging in an intelligent conversation about WHY HUNTING MATTERS. Nonhunters are not antihunters.....yet. So any step to engage a rock climber, fly fisherman, or alpinist about why hunting is good, is a step I will take every time.

I hope everyone on Rokslide would do the same.

Yep, the attitude that we are going to win through stubborn defiance is pathetic and will lead to our downfall. If we do not work to gain support from other groups we are dead in the water. Just keep banging our head against the wall and stomping our feet and see where that gets us. Evolve or die.

 

[bigdesert10]

Tawney gives me a little heartburn as well, but I am a member and plan to continue my membership. If all conservative hunters abandon these types of organizations, we give up our influence on the matter. We've got to keep them honest and focused on the stated purpose of the organization. BHA probably has about the most momentum of any sportsman group right now when it comes to access. We should all get more involved with them, not less.

Furthermore, it should come as no surprise that BHA is singularly focused on public lands and habitat preservation. If you've read the Federalist Papers, then you know about the concept of "elitism". Competing interests all vie for their causes and, ideally, a balance is achieved. I don't expect BHA to get their way on everything, but it's good to have them pulling that direction while extractive industries are pulling full bore on their end.

 

[vanish]

Huntingdog45 pretty much nailed it. Excellent post.

I live around the corner from Tim Brass, Colorado BHA State Policy Director, so I routinely get to hear about the nitty gritty details of what BHA is doing at both a state and local level. He's a member of CPW's Sportsmen's Roundtable, a position you're not going to get by just being a sportsmen - you have to have the backing of an organization.

We went lake trout fishing last weekend, and talked about habitat stamp money, state trust land access, stream access and a few different proposed land swaps. Did you know that even though it was an approved usage of habitat stamp money to acquire new lands, that fee title acquisitions were blocked a couple years ago due to political pressure? Several great land transfers deals where sportsmen would have had permanent hunting access were stymied because a group of landowners would then not be able to buy the land in the future. Access on the Arkansas river currently has a lawsuit to provide access based on some old commercial laws. Colorado state trust lands are currently only accessible when CPW has a lease, but BHA has been working to improve for ages. ( https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Hunting/CPW_Sportsmen_Roundtable_Aug162014_Summary.pdf ).

When Boulder held its meetings to get an elk hunt started on Rabbit Mountain, Boulder County Open Space, a group of six or more of us just from the county attended every meeting we could. Now, it wasn't solely our group that helped get that passed, but nothing is ever accomplished these days by a single group. If there hadn't been the call out to local BHA members, there would have been significantly less local hunter support.

The accomplishments BHA makes are not huge, nationwide, sweeping changes, nor will they ever be. There's too many competing interests. But 640 acres of access here, an easement there, and no state transfer all add up.

BHA is NOT anti-extraction, nor is it anti-OHV. Everything in moderation. There are hundreds of millions of acres available to both those uses already. Extractive industries already have plenty of seats at the table. Go take a visit to NW CO around Rangely and see how well the habitat has been treated to see why support for new extractive leases meets friction.

 

[orionthehunter1]

State Trust lands in Colorado can be accessed if you know the person or entity that has the recreation rights leased

 

[HeadnWest]

State Trust lands in Colorado can be accessed if you know the person or entity that has the recreation rights leased

If they allow you permission, which they don't have to.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

What is pathetic and demeaning is there is always the choir boys telling everyone how ridiculous they are for not seeing things the way they do. Acting the way a handful of you act on these threads, is not the way to gain support.


As it goes, people are disagreeing fundamentally on the affects and the efforts of why they do what they do. I never read anywhere that stated the BHA’s role was wildlife management. I read where they are concerned with hunting and fishing access. Where is that work and results?


I keep hearing how they don’t oppose responsible redource management and extraction. Yet, until recently, most all BHA members here who would comment, sang praises for potential national monument designations. To protect the are from such activities.




I could go on and on. I won’t. All I’ll say is there is a huge contradiction with the role of the BHA within its actions and what it’s members claim. And, it changes by the thread or debate depending on the topic. All the while, where is the access they claim to specialize in. To me, it seems to be taking back seat to more political topics.





I’ll finish by saying leave your petty personal Insults at the door and talk like we were all face to face. That away we all might get a better understanding of why the BHA is so great in your eyes. Who knows, if you speak with courtesy as well as with with proof of what you claim, you might earn some more members.

 

[vanish]

State Trust lands in Colorado can be accessed if you know the person or entity that has the recreation rights leased

I'm well aware. Some of the land I hunt pronghorn on, the rancher leasing the recreational rights has granted permission for us to hunt.

However, there are 2.8 million surface acres of STL, which your average hunter only has access to 20% of that. Furthermore, of those remaining 2+ million acres, less than 1/3 of that actually has recreational rights leased. That means there are some 1+ million acres of state owned land that nobody is legally hunting.

The problem is the rules surrounding the minimum lease value. The idea BHA is working towards is to reduce the minimum lease rate CPW could pay on those parcels when no private entity wishes to purchase the rec lease. More money for Colorado, and more access for hunters.

 

[mlevimadden]

As it goes, people are disagreeing fundamentally on the affects and the efforts of why they do what they do. I never read anywhere that stated the BHA’s role was wildlife management. I read where they are concerned with hunting and fishing access. Where is that work and results?

They are in DC right now lobbying for the renewal of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. If LWCF isn't access and habitat improvement for public lands and streams, I don't know what is.

 

[vanish]

What is pathetic and demeaning is there is always the choir boys telling everyone how ridiculous they are for not seeing things the way they do.
...
Where is that work and results?
...
I’ll finish by saying leave your petty personal Insults at the door and talk like we were all face to face...Who knows, if you speak with courtesy as well as with with proof of what you claim, you might earn some more members.

You insult anyone in support of BHA with your choir boy comment, and then chastise for personal insults.

You ask for examples, and ignore them when provided.

You ask for courtesy, but provide none.