Join the BHA?

[Nomad]

I don't think I've ever been so conflicted about whether or not to join an organization. I say that as I sit at my computer wearing a public lands tshirt I bought from BHA. If I can hold my nose when I vote, I guess I can do it in this situation too.

 

[jquarnberg]

What a wonderful dream. People in Patagonia with walking sticks, climbers with dread locks, fisherman in vests, hikers in short shorts and mid calf socks, hunters in camo and mt ops hats... all standing hand in hand having world changing intelligent conversation.

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]

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.

..... all i did is express my view regarding a particular stance and i used the word "pathetic." Which I think it is, and I would tend to use that word when arguing in person, on a phone in a letter or online. I own what I say and will never ever be accused of cowering behind internet anonymity (most online forums I actually list my name and personal email in the profile for that reason, I don't think I did on this site but I will update it at some point.) I hate internet warriors who take no personal responsibility for their comments. I guess i could have used softer terminology. And perhaps WVM is correct. I do preach that we need to strive to get along with the other side, we also need to strive to get along within our own demographic. I will try harder to cuddle up and love on everyone, and use softer terminology.

 

[HeadnWest]

WV Mountaineer,

I think the conversation has been pretty civil, not really sure where you think the insults started. I have read all of your post, and while I do not agree with your opinion, I respected it enough to do a little research on what BHA has done for my state. Like I stated before, BHA might not be for everyone, but for me BHA seems to be working for my best interest in my state and the states I hunt out West. I can respect that you do not feel the same. That's ok, we are not always all going to agree, but at the end of the day I think we all want what's best for hunters.

 

[Copen1822]

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.

So we should overlook the fact that these people have actively campaigned against legal, science based, hunting seasons just because they agree that public land is important?

I would think those are exactly the type of people we would NOT want within our ranks. They water down and confuse our message.

All this talk about inclusion, what could be more divisive than Peterson's comments on bear hunters?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Edit for spelling

 

[vanish]

So we should overlook the fact that these people have actively campaigned against legal, science based, hunting seasons just because they agree that public land is important?

I would think those are exactly the type of people we would NOT want within our ranks. They water down and confuse our message.

All this talk about inclusion, what could be more decisive than Peterson's comments on bear hunters?

Archers fight rifle seasons.

Heck, Muzzleloader hunters fight what constitutes a muzzleloader!

The list goes on. We don't all align perfectly on every issue, and that's ok!

Work together when it makes since, and don't when it doesn't.

If you want another example, Yvon Chounaird does not support Grizzly hunting, and I do. But that's not relevant to public land access. We will work together on public land, and against one another on grizzlies.

This is just a fact of life. There are not two life philosophies. There are billions.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

Vanish, I was just following the lead. It is often received with much less zeal then it’s given.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

Headnwest, look harder. It’s not hard to pick up on when you are being called pathetic or ludicrous. Or labeled a conspiracy theorists. But, you weren’t so you missed it.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

Vanish. Provide examples I’ve ignored. Show where I started insulting those that disagreed with me. Show me anything you claim



I’m sorry but , the LWCF was passed in 1964. You are going to have some ground breaking progress or something original. That’s not being mean. That’s being honest. It’s also giving you the drivers seat to prove what you claim.

 

[orionthehunter1]

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.

I wasn't sure you were because you first quoted that they are only accessible if CPW has the lease which is not the case

 

[husky390]

Meh, I passed on them and decided to support RMEF and Blue Ribbon Coalition instead. Cute "Public Land Owner" shirts though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Billinsd]

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.

"Most"steps to engage others about the benefits is great!! Some steps are not good and I won't take them.

 

[Billinsd]

I don't think I've ever been so conflicted about whether or not to join an organization. I say that as I sit at my computer wearing a public lands tshirt I bought from BHA. If I can hold my nose when I vote, I guess I can do it in this situation too.

I respect that and do that in some instances.

 

[WRO]

you should move to Utah and run for office

So let me guess, you did absolutely 0 research on the issue, saw a fear based campaign, and bought a t-shirt.

Congrats I guess on falling into the sheep syndrome that is plaguing our nation.

I' not advocating selling any of our publicly accessible lands (reasonably) , its the stuff that is not readily publicly accessible or usable that needs to be gone or traded.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Billinsd]

Archers fight rifle seasons.

Heck, Muzzleloader hunters fight what constitutes a muzzleloader!

If you want another example, Yvon Chounaird does not support Grizzly hunting, and I do. But that's not relevant to public land access. We will work together on public land, and against one another on grizzlies.

Bowhunters fight for more archery opportunity at the expense of rifle and muzzy seasons. Rifle hunters do not fight to eliminate archery opportunity, because they don't like or approve of beginning. That's what Yvon is doing. This is the difference and it's HUGE to me. Remember Jim Zumbo when he said hunters don't need an AR to hunt? That ruined his career.

 

[Billinsd]

Headnwest, look harder. It’s not hard to pick up on when you are being called pathetic or ludicrous. Or labeled a conspiracy theorists. But, you weren’t so you missed it.

You are definitely getting smeared by a few zealots.

 

[CorbLand]

BHA is taking this fight to where the fight is being fought now, the courtrooms and congress. No longer can we sit back and have things play out the way we want them too. I agree that maybe shutting down the proposed sell of lands from Chaffetz maybe wasn't a great idea but it did do a couple things. First, it showed that when you assemble under one flag, with one goal, you can get something changed. Second, it showed us, as hunters, that we have to actually do something. Third, it showed congress that when we assemble and come together, there is a lot of us.

Conservatives are funny, myself included, we make fun of all the "liberals" out protesting things and tell them all to go get jobs. Then we stand around scratching our heads wondering how the hell they seem to get new laws and regulations passed. Maybe its because they make enough noise and assemble under one flag and get stuff done? As hunters, we are pretty shitty at that. When was the last time anyone actually went to a Fish and Game meeting? I haven't ever been to one, I really should start going. Newberg says it all the time on his podcast, which if your reading this Randy, get Eichler and Lamb back on, freaking hilarious. How many times has he show up to a meeting to have the board thank him for showing up and voice the hunters side? This fight is being fought there and unless we start to make our voices heard there, we will continue to lose.

I am not a member of BHA, I don't always care for Tawny and what he says, I get the feeling that BHA would love to have everything designated wilderness but I love the fact that BHA saw a gap in the organizations supporting hunting and said we are going to fill that gap. That gap was taking the fight to congress and the courtrooms. BHA does nothing different than the NRA, do we need to go back to thread and see the over whelming support the NRA got?

 

[chasewild]

To the extent that my "ludicrous" comment was taken as insulting, I've reached out directly to WV Mountaineer. He can confirm.

I don't apologize for the use of that word. It is, in my opinion, "foolish and unreasonable" (i.e. ludicrous), to refuse to critically look at a problem (decreasing hunting numbers or increased ambivalence toward hunting by nonhunters) and not look for a solution.

I think it is also equally ludicrous to patronize the idea that climbers (with or without dread locks) and hikers (with or without mid-calf socks) and sitka-clad hunters should be in the same room, or at the same table, having the very conversation we're having right now. Do you think Roosevelt came up with the North American Model of Conservation locked in a f*cking cave? Or how about any great idea like democracy, gun powder, or putting wheels on a bow? Collaboration is birth place of our best ideas.

 

[Matt Cashell]

Vanish. Provide examples I’ve ignored. Show where I started insulting those that disagreed with me. Show me anything you claim

WVM, I hope you weren’t referring to my advice to not judge BHA based on conspiracy theories as an insult towards you personally. It was not. If you took it that way, I apologize.

I thought the choir boy comment of yours was meant to be derogatory towards BHA members, but maybe I was mistaken about that.

As for examples. I linked BHA’s public support for the Blackfoot Stewardship bill above. This is evidence of BHA supporting logging interests, motorized use, and wilderness in a collaborative effort.

Other posters had added other examples earlier in the thread.

Specifically on access in MT is BHA’s public support of the Horse Creek deal.

Guest opinion: Horse Creek easement offers public access where it’s needed most | Columnists | billingsgazette.com

Maybe that can give you some more context on what BHA is doing on these issues. There are many more. I do encourage you to reach out to your local chapter and find out what projects they have ongoing.

In regards to the OP, David Peterson’s opinions on bear hunting, bow hunting, and others are not BHA’s organizational positions. They are his alone. I am sure there are many board members and members that disagree with him on those, including me.

 

[mlevimadden]

Here are a few items from a quick google search:

Rallying against the Bundy group and their supporters.
Public Lands Sportsmen Rally Against Bundy Event - Backcountry Hunters and Anglers

Helping push through the acts on the state level to increase sportsmen numbers.
Colorado Parks & Wildlife -
Future Generations Act

Fighting HB 362
Conservation and Public Lands win in Alabama! - Backcountry Hunters and Anglers

Fighting HR 621 and 622 last year.

Local chapters have done plenty of shooting range and stream access point cleanup events. The Utah chapter has hosted several film events at public venues in attempts to increase awareness about the role hunting and fishing play in conservation.

It's an organization that has been around for less than 15 years with less than 20,000 members nationwide. I don't understand why some people seem to expect them to rival the NRA's list of accomplishments.