Join the BHA?

[Billinsd]

In order to be United, we must ALL work together to come up with acceptable compromises. United means everyone, not just everyone who shares your personal beliefs. I think you'd be hard pressed to find more than a handful of people who agree with you on everything.

No, united doesn't mean everyone, look it up. Joined together politically is one of the definitions.

 

[Billinsd]

I'm sorry, but I don't see the world this way. There is no "hunter vs anti-hunter". There is a whole spectrum of opinions on what is ethical and what should or should not be legal.

The whole idea of "death by 1000 cuts" is anti-democratic to me. You must have compromise in order to survive as a society.

In your first sentence you contradict yourself. Hunter versus anti hunter is in the spectrum. Death by a 1,000 cuts means slow death. When it's applied to politics it means a slow progression of laws and regulations slowly achieving the end political goal. It's like how some like me say more and more "common sense" gun regulations are eroding our 2nd Amendment instead of outright getting rid of the Second Amendment by Amending it. We have been compromising on more and more gun control regulations. However, yes a society does need to make compromises, but not all the time on everything and they are tiny to huge.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

The bottom line is this. Had the BHA and, many of its members not taken such politically backed stands on common issues, taken questionable funding, not purposely found those against hunting to buddy up and collaborate with, and not pushed government designations that takes public land management out of the hands of the public, these threads would not exists. It really is that simple to me and many others. And, it will take a lot of work to erase those realities in a lot of people's mind. Not because I doubt the integrity and intent of most members of the BHA. I just know in all of life, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, It is likely a duck.

 

[Trial153]

He hath spoken. You have all been given the bottom line.

 

[Matt Cashell]

And, it will take a lot of work to erase those realities in a lot of people's mind.

Literally everything you listed was an opinion, not an independent reality. It seems like you won't be able to get past those to support BHA and the work they are doing. That's unfortunate. It seems like you are pretty upset about the opinions of some members, some association with mainstream companies like Patagonia, and support of National Monument Designations.

Perhaps you can take solace in that BHA partners with other companies that are more in line with your ideals like Kimber, Savage, Cooper, Weatherby, and others. Or maybe they also don't make the cut with their association with BHA?

You can come out and hunt a National Monument, and see what it is like, and you might find out why so many people appreciate the protection. The Missouri Breaks National Monument has broad support in Montana across the political spectrum with residents that live near and far. Let me know if you want to check it out, and maybe we can share a camp. Just like BHA's advocating, having these conversations face to face often make the most headway.

Cheers.

Edit to add:

If you are looking for someone a little closer to talk to about BHA, Virginia has the Capital Chapter of BHA:

Capital Chapter Board - Backcountry Hunters and Anglers

West Virginia doesn't have a chapter yet, but that board looks like a pretty grounded group based on those histories. Maybe they can expand on what they have going locally.

 

[Mike7]

I personally have learned some things from this thread. It sounds like BHA might(?) benefit from more members of varying views participating and ensuring that there is always a voice for those wanting general public land access and protection of wildlife & hunting.

But if BHA fails, I would recommend consideration of all of us forming a legislative, legal, and lobbying organization, which shall be called...
Protection, Enhancement, & Access to Nature by Independent Sportsmen/women. Yes also known as PEANIS.

 

[JWP58]

I just hope bha's new best bud is successful in protecting wy/id/mt Grizzlies. They are too cute and cuddly to hunt.

#patagoniaisprohunting


P.s. bha wont fail, theyve shown the uncanny ability to partner up with anyone with a buck to give. No strings attached of course.....right buzz?

 

[WV Mountaineer]

Literally everything you listed was an opinion, not an independent reality. It seems like you won't be able to get past those to support BHA and the work they are doing. That's unfortunate. It seems like you are pretty upset about the opinions of some members, some association with mainstream companies like Patagonia, and support of National Monument Designations.

Perhaps you can take solace in that BHA partners with other companies that are more in line with your ideals like Kimber, Savage, Cooper, Weatherby, and others. Or maybe they also don't make the cut with their association with BHA?

You can come out and hunt a National Monument, and see what it is like, and you might find out why so many people appreciate the protection. The Missouri Breaks National Monument has broad support in Montana across the political spectrum with residents that live near and far. Let me know if you want to check it out, and maybe we can share a camp. Just like BHA's advocating, having these conversations face to face often make the most headway.

Cheers.

Edit to add:

If you are looking for someone a little closer to talk to about BHA, Virginia has the Capital Chapter of BHA:

Capital Chapter Board - Backcountry Hunters and Anglers

West Virginia doesn't have a chapter yet, but that board looks like a pretty grounded group based on those histories. Maybe they can expand on what they have going locally.

Matt, when did your opinion become the gospel defining what the BHA really stands for?

You can sing their praises all you want but, because you see it different doesn't make your "opinion" the only relevant one. I guess it goes back to perception. Mine is certainly different then yours it appears, on some things. I'm "A" OK with that too. So, regardless of how many times you insist otherwise, my "opinion" means more to me then yours does.


Matt, I am well aware of the NM's that allow hunting. Would you like me to list the one's that do not? If so, Tell me again how the BHA and their love for National Monuments is in line with whats best for hunting. It will drive my point home when I list them. Just one example of my opinion.


Thanks for the link as ell. When the administration changes and, the push to turn a large chunk of the Mon national forest into a National Monument resumes here, I'm pretty sure the BHA will be setting across the table with the Sierra club, the wilderness coalition, the wilderness society, The Audubon society, TU, and a host of other hunter "friendly" groups, to "protect" this area through "conservation". Then you can tell me how great it will be for Congress to be the only lawful managers of this forest instead of the people.


I'm not being a wise guy either. Just getting to the point.

 

[BuzzH]

WV Mountaineer,

Perception and reality aren't the same...if only obviously. Your perception is yours, and yours only, and has nothing to do with facts.

Secondly, your claim that NM designation allowing congress to be the only lawful managers is not true...JLS that posts here, schooled you on that as well not long ago.

Carry on...

 

[Matt Cashell]

I'm not being a wise guy either. Just getting to the point.

I appreciate that, and I don't think you are being a wise guy. I care about this stuff, and appreciate the discussion.

Matt, when did your opinion become the gospel defining what the BHA really stands for?

Even with the name of Matthew, my opinion is not the gospel for BHA, or anything else. Thanks for illustrating my point. My opinion isn't what BHA stands for. Neither are the opinions of David Peterson, Yvon Chouinard, or even Land Tawney. That is what is frustrating about these threads, people try to assign an individual's opinions to the organization's platform. The organization's platform on the issues is easy to find:

Issues

If you support those, then you should consider BHA.

Would you like me to list the one's that do not?

The NM Designations BHA has advocated for do allow hunting.

I'm pretty sure the BHA will be setting across the table with the Sierra club, the wilderness coalition, the wilderness society, The Audubon society, TU, and a host of other hunter "friendly" groups, to "protect" this area through "conservation".

Is that a hypothetical or actually proposed? If it is going to happen, I don't see a downside to having hunters at that table.

 

[Trial153]

If your not sitting at the table your on the menu.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

BUZZ, no one schooled me on anything. Why do you always try to make this a personal insult? Can you not simply stick to the points? Federal law says NM law is statutory. There are no guarantee's of the finalized management plan since NM Management plans are drafted POST designation. That is a plain and simple fact. We can all set here and say that Public input is going to be considered. I will say that is true. The problem is, we have no way of choosing which input actually gets drafted into the final plan. Congress is the only one with that lawfully granted right with any federal land designation. PERIOD. To say otherwise is LYING or, a sign of ignorance. Look around at the NM's that do not currently allow hunting that did prior to designation. What does that mean? And, who can use that as proof of the truth? It isn't you.


Matt, I will start at the end and go towards the front. Whether or not the Monument will happen is unknown. I think it is safe to say that it won't go through while Trump is in the office. Yes, hunters need to be there if it does go through. However, if it was like the wilderness designations, what our collaborators promise they wanted and, what they lobbied for in a post designation management plan is going to be vastly different. Which is why I do not trust these groups and these friendly collaborations. If the antis don't get it in the first plan, they will get what they can buy when they revise it. You can take that to the bank.

Look around for proof. Like I said, lots of NM that no longer allow hunting that did prior to hunting. Which is why the BHA saying they are for hunting on NM means absolutely nothing to me. They cannot guarantee that. NO ONE can. ONCE designated, the land is at the woes of CONGRESS and no one else. Federal laws says that. That is what is frustrating to me. And, to hear guys constantly say that the BHA doesn't support that. I KNOW that. What I also know is they cannot responsibly, truthfully, or legitimately say they can STOP it. That is just the truth. No opinions needed. So, you can call my stance an opinion. It is. But, it is based on what I have seen. And, I wasn't looking through slanted glasses when I saw it. Only I saw things that made me question why? I do that with every thing. I also appreciate the civil tone and honest effort to show the good they do accomplish.


James, maybe you are right. However, what would be better is if there was no table to set at. These lands belong to US. They have current statue and regulations to ensure they work for all of US. To me it is fallacy to suggest this must change. I only see political fear mongering to motivate this change. I simply believe that education about these lands, their title, their ownership, their intended role, and how they are managed is a better alternative then handing over our management of them to the federal government.



This is likely my last post. I'm tired of bumping heads about this. Facts are facts. Reality is reality. That is simply the way it is. However, it is painfully obvious how people perceive that is very subjective. I strongly agree it takes involvement. I do appreciate the discussion and intent to get it right. That is my role here. Not to trash the BHA. I have never doubted the intent of the men in the trenches.


God Bless men

 

[Schaaf]

I don’t believe this will change anyone’s opinion but I do take offense when I hear there has been no tangible work done by BHA. I have been a member of this site for 4 years and a Montana Chapter Board Member for over 2 years. Most recently the majority of my work has been centered around the Horse Creek Conservation Easement and so far I have nothing to show for it. I wrote the article that Matt referenced earlier in this thread. I have also walked door to door collecting signatures of support for this Easement, traveled around Eastern Montana to various sportsmen’s banquets collecting signatures, even sat down at the kitchen table with the landowners trying to figure out how we can push this over the goal line.

On February 18th, I traveled 8 hours one through a snow storm to testify in front of the Montana Land Board and hopefully explain to them just how important this Easement is to hunters in this area. As someone that grew up in the closest town to the Easement I felt I owed it to everyone still living there to stand up for them. I don’t believe this is just another Easement. As many know, Montana has 7 game management regions, this Easement would be in Region 7. In Region 7 there are 12 counties. The county that this Easement is located, Wibaux County, contains less than 1% of Region 7’s publicly accessible acres for hunting. There is not an area in the state of Montana that public access is needed more.

I have also organized conservation projects on the Charles M. Russell NWR in Eastern Montana that have included sagebrush planting, fence pulling, and juniper thinning. Next on the schedule is a fence pulling project on June 2-3 on a 10,000 acre parcel of land that was acquired using funding from LWCF (open invitation to anyone willing to pull fence, drink beer, and eat some of my antelope brats).

I have backpacked into the Bob Marshall wilderness for BHA to clear trails that hadn’t been open in over a decade.

I have worked with legislators drafting bills that help promote access across Montana, most recently the MT-PLAN. A program that allows for direct private donations to a fund to be set aside for access projects. Of which the first two donors was BHA and RMEF.

I have worked with land managers at NWR offices to implement the use of electronic calls for predator hunting.

I’m tired of having to prove my work as a volunteer for BHA. I would rather be left alone and do my work under the radar, just like I would rather be left alone and just hunt on public land.

I have also transported over 10 million barrels of oil through the state of Montana for my career. Yet I choose to stand up for National Monuments.

I don’t give a shit who Land Tawney voted for, I can disagree with him on who to vote for president but yet stand beside him on hunting issues. Him and his family have done more for hunting than I could ever hope to with his father being one of the founders of RMEF and his sister working for DU.

I’ll finish with that, I’m tired of rambling on my phone.

 

[Matt Cashell]

I’ll finish with that, I’m tired of rambling on my phone.

Justin,

I would like to believe you are well aware of my appreciation, but in case it wasn't clear:

Thanks for everything you do with BHA and on your own for hunters and fisherman in Montana. Thanks on behalf of myself and my young children, who are just starting to explore the great wild public lands of the West.

 

[ethan]

I actually spent time volunteering at the BHA booth this afternoon at a total archery challenge event. I don’t agree with 100% of what they do but I do to an overwhelming majority of it. I think the whole Patagonia thing was a wise decision on their part. Again, I don’t think Patagonia is all in for North American sportsman, but the attention brought to the issue was huge and let’s face it, money talks.

But I agree with what has been said about the Wyoming issue. I think it’s horse shit that we need a “guide” to access our own land in Wyoming if we aren’t a resident and I have not gotten much of an answer as to why BHA doesn’t have a position on this.

 

[Cant hit em]

HAS THE OP MADE HIS DECISION ?


FINAL ANSWER BLUE FALCON ?


JOINING or NO ?

 

[JWP58]

I actually spent time volunteering at the BHA booth this afternoon at a total archery challenge event. I don’t agree with 100% of what they do but I do to an overwhelming majority of it. I think the whole Patagonia thing was a wise decision on their part. Again, I don’t think Patagonia is all in for North American sportsman, but the attention brought to the issue was huge and let’s face it, money talks.

But I agree with what has been said about the Wyoming issue. I think it’s horse shit that we need a “guide” to access our own land in Wyoming if we aren’t a resident and I have not gotten much of an answer as to why BHA doesn’t have a position on this.

You answered your own question. Money talks. There is no money in changing the wy wilderness rule (which i enjoy). If a huge donor wanted them to fight the good fight, you bet they would.

 

[Mtnman84]

I believe the Wyoming wilderness rule should be on top of the list. Millions of acres that is federally funded and pay to play. It makes me angry just thinking about it. I have a limited bull tag and over half of the unit is in accessible due to the wilderness. I spoke with the local warden and he said he believed the law was a joke but he would have to enforce it. Something needs to change BHA should be fighting that battle every chance they get

 

[Blue Falcon]

HAS THE OP MADE HIS DECISION ?


FINAL ANSWER BLUE FALCON ?


JOINING or NO ?

I have decided that I will not be joining the BHA at this time. I feel that several people have valid points on both sides of the argument, but I will hold off on joining until I feel that my money would be used most effectively. I also feel they should turn their focus away from their "fair chase" initiatives which I see as a total waste of time. I do agree with their position on drones, but how much money do they need to sink into the initiative. We already have enough groups working against hunters to take away opportunities which balances out any fair chase issues. They could instead focus these dollars on hunter opportunity, which could be way more constructive. I will be joining the RMEF. I feel that their goals are more inline with my own, and they continue to produce tangible gains here in Colorado.

 

[cnelk]

Ive often wondered why the WY wilderness rule doesnt apply to NR hikers, bird watchers, photographers etc.

If it were extended to those groups, would BHA/Patagonia be more apt to get involved to get it changed?

Maybe NR WY hunters should re-think their process and petition to include ALL NR wilderness users to have to use a guide?

Boy, that would cause a stir