Fresh Tracks TV Series Supports The Loss Of Big Game Hunting Opportunities

[CAMPMEAT]

Those types of anti groups, BCH&A, Conservation NW etc, are very good about being deceitful, lying people. That's why I don not care what they post or complain about. They mean absolutely nothing to me.


I too, like Randy Newman's show.

[Elkaholic daWg]

Didn't we have our typical arguments on " Backcountry Hunters and Anglers " on here ? I do believe some on here praised them.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

You're right. I remember starting the thread.....

[jackelope]

Randy's shows are some of the best (if not THE best) hunting shows on TV. 

If you want to get his position on the issue, then maybe go and post on Hunt Talk since he is the owner over there.  People have differing opinions on many issues.  I won't be boycotting the Sportsman Channel or Randy's show anytime soon.  I have to do some more reading on the issue, but don't have time right now.

I sent him a message asking him if he'd care to comment on our thread here. Don't be surprised if he chimes in.

[Northway]

I'm undecided on this one and not sure exactly what to think.

I've heard before that Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is being funded by the greenies. In fact they are siding with Conservation Northwest on many issue in eastern Washington. I don't have any proof yet, but I have been told that Conservation Northwest supports BCHA.

BCHA posted a temporary job position a while back and I looked into this organization and it raised some questions in my mind. I wrote a letter to their organization suggesting my interest in the job and asking about their position on several topics and asking where their funding comes from (because they do not have enough members for the amount of money they are throwing around). I did not get any response.

I would be very cautious about this organization, it may be a front for Conservation Northwest to try and say hunters support their goals. Anyone who does not believe that the greenies are carefully planning all their moves is sadly mistaken.

I don't have any comments about Newberg or the show, because I've never seen the show. But I am wondering where the money comes from for BCHA to sponsor the show?

I've watched some of his shows on DIY hunting and they seemed pretty good. That's too bad because I won't be watching them now. Thanks for the heads up.

Anyone that would consider Toby Bridges as a credible advocate for the average do-it-yourself sportsmen is kidding themselves.  Randy Newberg is a tireless advocate for hunters and anglers.  Toby Bridges is a complete hack.

people need to do homework before jumping to conclusions. Reading that article and then boycotting the Sportsman channel and Randy Newberg is ridiculous. You might as well boycott Kimber, CRKT, Seek Outside, and all the other companies advertising in that publication.

I'm not going to say that Toby Bridges is the most tactful in his writings, but I clearly remember when many members on this forum said people like Toby Bridges were sensationalizing the wolf effects taking place in Idaho and Montana. Now that the true herd numbers is common knowledge, it turns out Toby Bridges and many others were correct about wolf impacts on elk. If you want to say anyone is misleading hunters you may want to start by naming some agency personnel.     

I'll also remind everyone that Jamie Rappaport Clark who used to head the USFWS is now heading a leading animal rights group. Exactly how many more of our agency personnel would happily take jobs with animal rights groups? 

Just because someone works for an agency does not mean they are a friend of hunters and fishers, in increasing frequency it may mean the exact opposite. 

Over the years I've read or watched a lot of stuff put out by folks like Toby Bridges, Scott Rockholm, Bob Fanning, etc.

I'll avoid direct criticism in this case since I get the impression you're not a huge fan of that kind of thing. I will say however, that in the anti-wolf advocacy arena, I believe you have a lot more credibility than they do. When someone at least seems honest, that in itself can go a long ways when it comes to bridging gaps. 

This is just a guess on my part, but I doubt CNW has enough money to fund any front organizations. My impression is that donations have been pretty slim for them over the last few years as they have shed multiple employees.
 

[JLS]

This is my opinion only.  I consider Toby Bridges to be as much the lunatic fringe as the groups that push too end all wolf hunting.  Toby is continually firing off unfounded accusations at all different levels in much the same vein that the talking heads on CNN do to elicit an emotional response. 

In contrast, Randy Newberg has repeatedly spoken out in a factual and collected manner.  He has represented hunters and anglers on many different levels, and in doing so has drawn the ire of the lunatic fringe, to include Toby Bridges, wolf protectionists, and MOGA.  This tells me that his stance is right where it should be.

I do not automatically assume that someone is on my side because of the agency they work for.  Nor do I automatically assume that an agency's stance is evil because of group affiliations and/or support.

I spent two weeks bowhunting in Montana.  I was in the SW region.  Not ONCE did I see or hear a wolf, nor did I see a track, possible scat, or possible kills.  I was constantly in to elk, and this was in three distinctly different locations. 

Yes, wolves have an impact on elk numbers, but the sky is not falling.  One of the areas I hunted has had wolves in neighboring districts for many years.  Other hunters kept blaming wolves because they weren't seeing elk.  Funny how we were able to find them, but didn't see a single physical sign of wolves despite the fact that we spent ALL day out, every day.

[idahohuntr]

This is my opinion only.  I consider Toby Bridges to be as much the lunatic fringe as the groups that push too end all wolf hunting.  Toby is continually firing off unfounded accusations at all different levels in much the same vein that the talking heads on CNN do to elicit an emotional response. 

In contrast, Randy Newberg has repeatedly spoken out in a factual and collected manner.  He has represented hunters and anglers on many different levels, and in doing so has drawn the ire of the lunatic fringe, to include Toby Bridges, wolf protectionists, and MOGA.  This tells me that his stance is right where it should be.

I do not automatically assume that someone is on my side because of the agency they work for.  Nor do I automatically assume that an agency's stance is evil because of group affiliations and/or support.

I spent two weeks bowhunting in Montana.  I was in the SW region.  Not ONCE did I see or hear a wolf, nor did I see a track, possible scat, or possible kills.  I was constantly in to elk, and this was in three distinctly different locations. 

Yes, wolves have an impact on elk numbers, but the sky is not falling.  One of the areas I hunted has had wolves in neighboring districts for many years.  Other hunters kept blaming wolves because they weren't seeing elk.  Funny how we were able to find them, but didn't see a single physical sign of wolves despite the fact that we spent ALL day out, every day.

I don't know any of these characters mentioned well...I have read and seen some of Newberg's shows/writings and I would agree from what I've seen that he is an outstanding ambassador to our sport.  There are a lot of lunatics with no credibility spouting garbage about wildlife management and wolves...usually described as some conspiracy with no reliable evidence to support it. 

I also believe the impacts of wolves on elk in Idaho has been greatly overplayed.  My family has elk hunted for generations in Idaho.  There are areas where wolves have had impacts, and certainly zones like Lolo have had wolf and habitat changes that have dramatically reduced herd sizes.  However, by and large, most units in Idaho are doing alright...some are even doing pretty well.  My family and friends would hate me for writing this, but yes, if you talk to locals they are going to tell you wolves have killed off all the elk...this is almost an inside joke for locals these days to try and keep all of us non-residents the hell out of their hunting areas. I just got back from scouting with friends in Idaho for a general season hunt...I saw several herds of elk...I have no doubt my friends that have tags will have opportunities in this area.

On the backcountry hunters and anglers, I personally know one of their recent (but past) executive directors.  He is very much a passionate hunter.  No question.  However, if you are an atv/motorized access person I can understand where you may not like this organization.  This does not mean they are an anti-hunting group...they are just advocating for wilderness hunting opportunities, which may lead to them siding with "green" organizations when it comes to land planning exercises like designating wilderness areas.

Please let me know if I have not said at least one thing that someone doesn't like/agree with...I can add a few statements on politics and religion to make sure I don't leave anyone out.

[bearpaw]

Fortunately wolves have not impacted all units in Idaho or in Montana. But there is no denying the impacts where state agency herd counts are at 10%, 20% and 30% of historic numbers. Sugar coat the truth all you want, numbers don't lie, wolves have had significant impacts on herds in many units. 

What many people don't first realize is that these units with greatly reduced herds is causing more hunters to go to the zones with fewer wolf impacts. The end result is that there are far fewer elk/deer/moose on the landscape because wolf numbers are too high.



Conservation Northwest fundraising may be somewhat lower as is many groups, but they have managed to spend millions on Conservation easements, etc. They could easily fund a front organization like BCHA to help achieve their goals of more wilderness which spells out to less opportunity for the average outdoor person. If anyone doubts their ability to politically maneuver, please let me remind you that they have an employee sitting on the wildlife commission and the WDFW and Forest Service cater to their organization more so than to hunters, fishers, ranchers, etc.

I'm still waiting to hear where BCHA gets their funding. 

http://www.backcountryhunters.org/

[bearpaw]

In contrast, Randy Newberg has repeatedly spoken out in a factual and collected manner.  He has represented hunters and anglers on many different levels, and in doing so has drawn the ire of the lunatic fringe, to include Toby Bridges, wolf protectionists, and MOGA.  This tells me that his stance is

MOGA is the "Montana Outfitters and Guides Association" the industry association in Montana, one of the strongest outfitting industry groups in America, of which I belong so I happen to know exactly what their politics are. You are patently incorrect, they are not the lunatic fringe, they are the industry organization recognized by major sporting groups like SCI, RMEF, USSA, Big Game Forever, etc, as a very important and worthwhile industry organization representing the outfitters of Montana. If Newburg is in fact at odds with MOGA I would question if he is the friend that some of you think he is. 

[JLS]

I know exactly what MOGA is, and I also know that they could care less about the average sportsman.  They tried to have Randy Newberg removed blocked from appointment to the RMEF board of directors because they were butt hurt by his "anti-outfitter" views. 

Read up if you wish.

http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=253976&highlight=moga+rmef

I completely understand you are a member of MOGA and that you will defend them.  MOGA has a long track record in the MT legislature for pursuing legislation that is entirely self serving, but are mysteriously quiet on bills that affect sportsmen and wildlife as a whole. 

I am not saying all outfitters are bad.  I consider some to be good friends.  Nor am I lumping all outfitters as bad simply because they belong to MOGA.  It really is no different than others decrying BCHA because they have partnered with CNW on issues. 

I do know that as a do-it-myself, unwashed, public land hunter, MOGA is certainly not my friend.

[jackelope]

Well, that thread clarifies a little for me.

[JLS]

Just because someone works for an agency does not mean they are a friend of hunters and fishers, in increasing frequency it may mean the exact opposite. 

Just because an association is involved in hunting does not mean it's your friend either.  Utah Division of Wildlife, Sportmen for Wildlife, Don Peay, there is some corruption in this circle also.  Don Peay has openly voiced his opinion against the North American model of wildlife.  If that's his take, he may as well be associated with PETA as far as I'm concerned.

http://www.adn.com/2012/03/03/2350508/private-hunting-rights-weighed.html#

Note the opposition to Rossi's plan by BCHA?  Toby Bridges is also a SFW affiliate. 

[bearpaw]

Just because someone works for an agency does not mean they are a friend of hunters and fishers, in increasing frequency it may mean the exact opposite. 

Just because an association is involved in hunting does not mean it's your friend either.  Utah Division of Wildlife, Sportmen for Wildlife, Don Peay, there is some corruption in this circle also.  Don Peay has openly voiced his opinion against the North American model of wildlife.  If that's his take, he may as well be associated with PETA as far as I'm concerned.

http://www.adn.com/2012/03/03/2350508/private-hunting-rights-weighed.html#

Note the opposition to Rossi's plan by BCHA?  Toby Bridges is also a SFW affiliate.

As a licensed outfitter in Utah I hunt in Utah every year and know the state and the politics quite well. Utah has arguably the best point system in the country. Half the tags are random draw and half the tags go to applicants with the most points. Unlike Washington, in Utah you will eventually draw one way or the other for most hunts. Utah also has one of the most successful landowner programs in the nation. In their program at least 10% of all land owner tags are given to the residents through a draw. This program has opened up many thousands of acres of private lands to public tag holders, lands that otherwise would not be available to the public.

I will admit that Don Peay has a thirst for auction tags, but so do many other large sportsman's groups, Peay has just been more successful than most groups at getting those tags. However, please cite where Don Peay has denounced the North American wildlife model. 

Big Game Forever and SFW has taken a lead role in denouncing the ridiculous wolf management that has been forced upon the western states, perhaps that is why you do not like those groups or Don Peay? 

Thus far Utah has fewer wolves and has had no losses of their elk herds to wolves, I would say Utah has done pretty well under their UDWR and sports groups like SFW and Big Game Forever. 

I remember the WDFW stacking the wolf working group with pro-wolfers and using propaganda promoted by the wolf groups in promoting their wolf plan. Then WDFW used a bunch of pro-wolfers to peer review the plan. Some of the propaganda was removed or reorganized out of public sight after hunters complained. But the bottom line is that the wolf groups have been in the driver's seat on these state wolf plans and in destroying big game hunting opportunities throughout the west. Now to top off everything WDFW has done in developing an undesirable wolf plan to please I-5 corridor residents, now they hold meetings in western Washington to determine how to deal with our wolf problems in eastern Washington. How's that for corruption?

[bearpaw]

Just because someone works for an agency does not mean they are a friend of hunters and fishers, in increasing frequency it may mean the exact opposite. 

Just because an association is involved in hunting does not mean it's your friend either.  Utah Division of Wildlife, Sportmen for Wildlife, Don Peay, there is some corruption in this circle also.  Don Peay has openly voiced his opinion against the North American model of wildlife.  If that's his take, he may as well be associated with PETA as far as I'm concerned.

http://www.adn.com/2012/03/03/2350508/private-hunting-rights-weighed.html#

Note the opposition to Rossi's plan by BCHA?  Toby Bridges is also a SFW affiliate.

The proposal would encourage owners of large private tracts to increase "public-interest benefits" on their land. They could do that by allowing access to hunters, improving habitat for species such as moose, or killing predators, Rossi wrote.

In return, landowners would get special hunting permits "that the landowner would be allowed to use or sell, perhaps with special authorizations such as the ability to hunt outside normal hunting seasons on their lands."

The proposal is modeled on similar programs in western states like Utah and Colorado, where it has been promoted by chapters of the advocacy group Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife and its sister organization Sportsmen for Habitat. The organization has a big expo in Salt Lake City every year where it auctions special permits.

In the West, large landowners are mainly ranchers. In Alaska, Rossi noted in his minutes, they are Alaska Native corporations.

Mark Richards, co-chairman of the grassroots organization Alaska Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, said Alaska hunters wouldn't be the beneficiaries of Rossi's proposal.

Read more here: http://www.adn.com/2012/03/03/2350508/private-hunting-rights-weighed.html#storylink=cpy

ABCHA won't benefit, of course they are against the plan. Backcountry hunters is pro-wolf and SFW is pro-wolf management. I submit this is likely the primary reason BCHA is opposed to SFW and Rossi.

Furthermore what would be so bad about opening up lands controlled by native corporations to the hunting public? 

Could it be that you are so opposed to Don Peay, SFW, and ranchers that you can't see the benefits of opening up privately controlled native corporation lands to some public hunting opportunities?

They seem to put down Utah and Colorado management, those two states have much of the best elk hunting, that's great management.

[JLS]

Just because one does not rabidly call for the extermination of all wolves, and buy into the rhetoric and propoganda from Lobowatch does not mean that they are pro-wolf.  The BCHA group is supported by many avid and hardcore hunters.  I'm not going to name them all.  We can agree to disagree on this.

I could care less about SFWs stance on wolves.  I don't like their push for more and more auction tags and the continued privatization/commercialization of wildlife.  I don't like them making millions of dollars that are very much unaccounted for through tag auctions, with no accountability for how that money is spent.

I will reiterate though, that the original assertion that Randy Newberg and his TV show are supporting the loss of big game hunting opportunities is as ridiculous as they come.

Also, to imply that I am opposed to wolf management is simply asinine.  I have been a proponent for very liberal public hunting of wolves from the beginning.  You can look all you want, but I guarantee you will NEVER find where I have spoken against open hunting of wolves.  Just because I don't buy into the fear mongering that is rampant with Lobowatch, BGF, and SFW does not mean that I oppose responsible and sound wolf management.

Maybe if the anti-wolf hunting groups joined forces with BGF, SFW, and so on and did something meaningful in terms of enhancing and expanding ungulate habitat instead of spending milllions of dollars wasted on their respective propoganda nonsense, we probably wouldn't even be worrying about this right now because the negative impacts on elk and deer from the wolves would be greatly mitigated.

[Curly]

I will reiterate though, that the original assertion that Randy Newberg and his TV show are supporting the loss of big game hunting opportunities is as ridiculous as they come.