Join the BHA?

[Blue Falcon]

I am considering joining the BHA, but their affiliation with the author David Petersen gives me pause. Could someone please help me understand how a person who worked with The Humane Society to to end our spring bear season in Colorado would be welcome in the BHA? This organization is supposed to promote habitat conservation and promote access in support of hunters and fisherman. So why support them when they support a person who helped take away from the hunters of Colorado?

The Good Hunter - The Sun Magazine

Colorado Particulars - Destinations - Bear Hunting Magazine

 

[veganhunter]

I’ll start by saying I’m a lifetime BHA member and a fan of David’s (Heartsblood is a favorite) so my opinion might not be what you’re looking for but here is how I see it:
1) His comments on bear hunting seem to be solely opposes to the usage of bait or dogs. He seems to imply a “real” Hunter uses spot and stalk methods.
2) There is no organization out there which will align perfectly with all of your beliefs but it’s hard to deny BHA has some serious momentum right now and is the group doing the most good for public land access and habitat improvement. Hell I don’t agree with everything my wife says but I still support her.

 

[ScottH]

Check out Petersen's books "A Man Made of Elk" and "On the Wild Edge", then decide about joining BHA. Not too many his age are as hardcore hunters.

 

[Jacob_Outdoors]

I’m interested in seeing more responses about this, and the perspectives offered.

BHA has been getting flack for some of the people it has been aligning with lately, Patagonia founder Yvon Chouinard is another one that comes to mind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SandyCreek]

the idea that you have to be 100% aligned with a group or person/persons to join together to fight for something you both have in common is ridiculous. agree on the shit you have in common and move that forward then argue over the rest of it later..Also let's not forget we as hunters are the minority in the country.. we need people to fight with us for public access

 

[philos]

the idea that you have to be 100% aligned with a group or person/persons to join together to fight for something you both have in common is ridiculous. agree on the shit you have in common and move that forward then argue over the rest of it later..Also let's not forget we as hunters are the minority in the country.. we need people to fight with us for public access

SandyCreek makes great points here. There is no organization that has a perfect parallel for us-we don't even agree among ourselves (as Roksliders) on quite a few points. We need to look at our opportunity to be involved with some organizations that will fight for our main goals and we need to be more cohesive as a group of outdoors folks- sportsmen & sportswomen.

 

[Trial153]

I think there is a lot to be gained when we focus on our commonality. In fact I think long term that’s our best hope. I see this in BHA a lot and and it a refreshing tone compared to what used to be the default attitude of “ us vs them” . There is way more gray in the world then black and white.

 

[JDeanP]

...

Relevant username.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

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

 

[philos]

Relevant username.

I didn't catch that. Not the best user name for a forum that supports veterans but perhaps there is no meaning behind the name for him or her.

 

[elkduds]

2) There is no organization out there which will align perfectly with all of your beliefs but it’s hard to deny BHA has some serious momentum right now and is the group doing the most good for public land access and habitat improvement. Hell I don’t agree with everything my wife says but I still support her.

BHA is bringing public land issues to a lot of new voters. RMEF eclipses all others in sheer acreage of habitat conserved. Not throwing shade, I am an enthusiastic member of both, along w TRCP, Nature Conservancy, Wilderness Society, Rocky Mountain Wild. Where these groups overlap is what motivates me, not where they diverge.

Some groups united in their vision for the future of public lands? RNC, oil/gas/mining, Kochs. They are accepting new members. But the dues are
going to hurt.

 

[Billinsd]

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

I agree with you on this pretty much. My take on the government is that there's no government of "the people" anymore, not for over a hundred or more years. The government is now our master. The higher the government the worse and less representative, the feds being the absolute worst!! I'm very divided on the public lands issue. I realize too, that it seems like if all federal lands were transferred to the states us hunters would have less access and opportunity to them. The question is how much less opportunity. I don't think much. It could really negatively impact some regions. So, us hunters right now seem to have much better chances not losing any land if it's federal.

I can see where some, like BHA are allying themselves with groups that have worked against some hunts, hunting, in order to keep fed land fed. It's a valid argument. 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.
The president of BHA sounds like a really good guy overall. It seems like some groups are smearing him. I have heartburn about what people have said about some of his positions on hunting. I disagree with him and others that prioritizing utilizing our natural resources and providing for our citizens in the form of lumber, coal, oil and gas should come after accessing public lands. I'm way, way on the other side. People need to heat their homes, feed their families and have a job. The problem is over population and uncontrolled illegal and legal immigration is swamping us.

 

[SandyCreek]

I'm a BHA member and i will say I am not a fan of Land Tawney.. his politics are not on par with mine and some things like this for example really give me pause..: Dem group runs ads for Libertarian to attempt | The Daily Caller

Me thinks Montana Hunters and Anglers is a tad bit slanted

 

[gabenzeke]

I donate a few hundred annually to BHA. I know there are certain aspects of the organization that I'm not real fond of. In fact, I believe I read that Land Tawney worked previously for an organization that was intended to garner support for Obama. And to say I didn't care for Obama is an understatement. But the way I look at it is the NRA isn't doing anything specifically of interest of hunters other than protecting the 2A. Likewise, BHA is doing work solely in the interest of public lands. So if partnering with folks that may not support my exact views on hunting or conservation helps preserve public land and access, so be it. As long as they don't cross the line into directly hurting any form of hunting. Until then, I'll be a member and watching very closely.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[Grundy53]

I'm a BHA member and i will say I am not a fan of Land Tawney.. his politics are not on par with mine and some things like this for example really give me pause..: Dem group runs ads for Libertarian to attempt | The Daily Caller

Me thinks Montana Hunters and Anglers is a tad bit slanted

Same here

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[TheCougar]

I'm a BHA member and i will say I am not a fan of Land Tawney.. his politics are not on par with mine and some things like this for example really give me pause..: Dem group runs ads for Libertarian to attempt | The Daily Caller

Me thinks Montana Hunters and Anglers is a tad bit slanted

Wow. That isn’t pleasant reading. I know the whole “Green Decoy” things is a smear campaign, but that article certainly makes me think twice about joining BHA. I disagree with WVMountaineer in that, with the exception of myself, I don’t agree with anyone 100%! I think that attitude contributes to the hot mess that our society is in. We refuse to see the 99 things we do agree on, and we choose outrage over the 1 thing we don’t agree on. With that in mind, 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.

 

[Copen1822]

I don't doubt for a minute that there are a ton of great BHA members who l would gladly share a camp with. However, I feel the organization itself is very liberal and associations with people like Mr. Peterson make me very happy I am NOT a member. The term "guilty by association" comes to mind.

I fear that they will become so watered down with pseudo hunters that they will end up on the wrong side of core hunting issues in the future.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Billinsd]

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!!

 

[WV Mountaineer]

Bill, I agree with much of your feelings. Where I differ is the staunch demand that many make about conservatives wanting to take public lands. Some may. But, I see no more danger from the few who might, then I do from liberals that hide behind their intent.


There are so many things people chose to over look when they are fed their politics and stances on subjects from special interest groups. What is worse, mining an area for 20 years to reclaim it into more productive wildlife lands or, putting up a million acres of solar panels for green energy? Reality says those acres will be lost forever. Never to be put back into rotation for pubic use. Yet, politics of these special interests groups tell you mining is all bad while neglecting to tell you what their party of choice is proposing and, has accomplished to permanently affect hunting for the worse. This is just one example but, one that must be considered. Why do these groups favor liberal policy when liberal policy serve's the most danger to these lands? Why? How is this possible? A mine that will be reclaimed and will operate under strict guidelines. Or, a solar field smack in the middle of migrations corridors, habitat, etc......






Anyways, when these kind of issues are actually addressed by these groups in a way that benefits hunters long term, I'll start to consider supporting them. Until then, I see the irony as simple to thick and, motivated by politics.




God Bless men

 

[Blue Falcon]

I didn't catch that. Not the best user name for a forum that supports veterans but perhaps there is no meaning behind the name for him or her.

Philos I have been in the Air Force for over 14 year, so I support veterans. I just find the name funny. There was a great AFN commercial in Japan telling people not to be a Blue Falcon, because people were leaving their buddies alone passed out drunk all the time outside the base.