BHA discussion

[Bushcraft]

I can't and won't find fault with anyone that wants to get involved, but IMHO there are much better organizations at the local, state and national levels with considerably more influence (than BHA) that need our help.  Plus, as an aside, those organization's leadership tend not be left-leaning Obama supporters.

Not to get too political, but I'd encourage you to reflect on in it in terms of what I try and describe as "The Holy Trinity".

1: You need to belong to the NRA to protect your gun rights (and/or GOA, NSSF, etc).
2: You need to belong to SCI to protect your hunting rights.
3: You need to belong to the "Critter Club" of your choice (RMEF, WSF, RMGA, MDF, DU, etc.)

In. That. Order.

Unfortunately, unlike the first two 501c4 organizations, most people join one of the critter clubs not realizing that nearly all of their 501c3 non-profit statuses expressly prohibit them from working to directly influence legislative issues.  (I was on of them!) So, they inadvertently give their time, money and energy towards land preservations and species specific conservation issues.  Don't get me wrong here because I'm absolutely all for them, but what good does wild thing and wild place conservation ultimately accomplish if we are prohibited from owning firearms and hunting?

Regards,

Allen

[WAcoyotehunter]

I can't and won't find fault with anyone that wants to get involved, but IMHO there are much better organizations at the local, state and national levels with considerably more influence (than BHA) that need our help.  Plus, as an aside, those organization's leadership tend not be left-leaning Obama supporters.

Not to get too political, but I'd encourage you to reflect on in it in terms of what I try and describe as "The Holy Trinity".

1: You need to belong to the NRA to protect your gun rights (and/or GOA, NSSF, etc).
2: You need to belong to SCI to protect your hunting rights.
3: You need to belong to the "Critter Club" of your choice (RMEF, WSF, RMGA, MDF, DU, etc.)

In. That. Order.

Unfortunately, unlike the first two 501c4 organizations, most people join one of the critter clubs not realizing that nearly all of their 501c3 non-profit statuses expressly prohibit them from working to directly influence legislative issues.  (I was on of them!) So, they inadvertently give their time, money and energy towards land preservations and species specific conservation issues.  Don't get me wrong here because I'm absolutely all for them, but what good does wild thing and wild place conservation ultimately accomplish if we are prohibited from owning firearms and hunting?

Regards,

Allen

Thank you for your thoughts Allen.  I understand your opinion, but do not share it.

I like BHA because they fight for the landscapes that I treasure.  I hunt in wilderness areas and backcountry areas because I enjoy being away from the crowds and roads associated with "frontcountry" hunting (though I hunt some in the frontcountry too- and enjoy that) .  BHA is the only group that provides that organized collective voice for backcountry hunters.  I also am pretty left leaning...I'm a democrat.  I don't know the leadership's political affiliations, but considering the right wing is the group supporting public land sell off and development, I suspect (and hope) they are left leaning. 
I also belong to Sportsman's Alliance, they do my bidding against the anti hunters and I like their message and public perception.  They seem to represent hunters, trappers ect. pretty well and are well organized politically to lobby.

I don't support the NRA and do not consider them a "hunting group".  If they would be a bit more reasonable with some of their positions I would be more likely join.

There are lots of groups out there and a lot of them are filling niche markets that people feel strongly about.  BHA is the group that provides a collective voice for my style of hunting and recreating. 

Regards,
Bart

[Bushcraft]

Bart,

As primarily a DIY wilderness backpack hunter, I absolutely share your passion for wild places and the wild things that inhabit them. 

With that being said, and no disrespect intended whatsoever, the bigger picture we are confronted with isn't merely about our preferred style of hunting or recreating.

I'm sorry, but you are woefully misinformed with regard to BHA being the "only group that provides an organized collective voice for backcountry hunters".  Sure, they'd like you to believe that, but it's a gross fabrication.  I can name a few handfuls of organizations right here in Washington that have been doing both frontcountry and backcountry related legislative and conservation stuff for many, many decades.  BHA strives to keep federal land open to the public, not necessarily for hunting.  Note the subtle but important difference.  As for BHA’s leadership’s political affiliations, it’s well known that Land Tawney is an avid left-leaning Obama supporter.  That is a rather damning inconvenient truth that BHA would just as soon sweep under the rug lest it turns off both current and potential BHA membership. 

"Backcountry Hunters and Anglers" is undeniably one of the catchiest sportsmen's groups names going for those of us that like to hunt & fish in wild and scenic places.  It's an awesome marketing angle that I wish I'd come up with...but, when you look past the catchy name and dig into what they are legally restricted from doing by their 501c3 charter, they are but an ant compared to the 800 lb. 501c4 gorillas of SCI, NRA and to a lesser extent the Sportsmen's Alliance (which I applaud you for belonging to BTW).  Particularly when it comes to the IRS's definition of "attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation."  Point being, there are bigger, better, stronger more legislatively influential pro-gun, pro-hunting and pro-wildlife/wildland conservation organizations that you could lend your support to besides/before BHA. I won’t even go into their Green Decoy issues relating to their core financial supporters. Ugh.

And you are absolutely correct that there are indeed lots of groups out there filling niche markets that people feel strongly about.  HSUS, PETA, Born Free and Defenders of Wildlife are but a few that immediately come to mind.  It just so happens that ALL the anti-gun and anti-hunting groups are run by left-leaning democrats  that are very politically influential that would love nothing more than to take away your firearms and stop hunting altogether – regardless of whether it’s in the frontcountry or the backcountry...and they won’t rest until they accomplish those mandates.

By extension, it stands to reason that supporting and voting for democrats that share their beliefs at the local, state and national level ultimately makes someone part of the anti-hunting problem.   I don’t say that with any malice or mean spiritedness, but I’d appreciate it if you let that last part sink in a bit.  It matters.

If we hunters don’t circle the wagons soon with organizations that have real meaningful clout and vote our base principles, we won’t be hunting in 10-15 years. Perhaps much sooner.

Regards,

Allen

P.S. – For what it’s worth, I beg you to open the NRA’s latest monthly issue of “American Hunter” magazine and tell me the NRA isn’t the largest and most politically influential hunting group on the face of the planet. 

[dreamingbig]

Just because they can't support politicians directly doesn't mean they can't influence.  They can and do organize grass root support for important topics and encourage/inspire folks to participate in the political and legal arena that drives our country.  I am a member of the NRA, RMEF and BHA and they all have their place:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JasonG]

I'm Member of NRA, BHA, RMEF, TU, the more the better chance we have.!!

[Bushcraft]

I don't disagree DreamingBig, but my point is that there are other more influential organizations that deserve our support before BHA.

Let's take your situation for example...an important component of what I referred to earlier as the Holy Trinity is missing.  You've got your gun rights and critter club of choice covered with the NRA and RMEF (both outstanding organizations BTW), but I'd encourage you to join the world's foremost hunting rights organization as well (SCI).  Depending upon where you live in the state, I'd be happy to introduce you to some outstanding local chapter members that are doing great things here in the state, region and beyond.  Clearly, you understand the value sportsmen's organization provide and we need your help!

I'm pushing a deeply discounted multiple choice annual membership at the national level whereby a person is a member of the NRA, SCI and then the critter club of their preference.  It's a tall order bringing a concept like it to fruition. We'll see if it pans out.

Anyway, thanks for being a member of some great organizations.  I wish more sportsmen would do so and get more involved at the grassroots level.

Best regards,

Allen

[WAcoyotehunter]

Bart,

And you are absolutely correct that there are indeed lots of groups out there filling niche markets that people feel strongly about.  HSUS, PETA, Born Free and Defenders of Wildlife are but a few that immediately come to mind.  It just so happens that ALL the anti-gun and anti-hunting groups are run by left-leaning democrats  that are very politically influential that would love nothing more than to take away your firearms and stop hunting altogether – regardless of whether it’s in the frontcountry or the backcountry...and they won’t rest until they accomplish those mandates.

By extension, it stands to reason that supporting and voting for democrats that share their beliefs at the local, state and national level ultimately makes someone part of the anti-hunting problem.   I don’t say that with any malice or mean spiritedness, but I’d appreciate it if you let that last part sink in a bit.  It matters.

If we hunters don’t circle the wagons soon with organizations that have real meaningful clout and vote our base principles, we won’t be hunting in 10-15 years. Perhaps much sooner.

Regards,

Allen

P.S. – For what it’s worth, I beg you to open the NRA’s latest monthly issue of “American Hunter” magazine and tell me the NRA isn’t the largest and most politically influential hunting group on the face of the planet. 

Thanks Allen-

I recognize that most anti hunting groups are led by left leaning democrats.  It's true.  My problem with the right has more to do with their outright attack on land conservation actions (i.e. LWCF, Development, lands transfer ect) and the apathy towards species conservation (i.e. attacks on the ESA).   BHA focuses on those issues that I feel are as important to the future of hunting as gun rights.  Without places to hunt and wildlife worth hunting our future is bleak. 

I'm not attacking those other groups, they fill an important role.  BHA is politically savvy and spends time lobbying with the right people protect wild places.  I have been to Wa DC to talk to representatives on behalf of BHA and also represent them in a collaborative effort in NE WA that is working to increase logging yield on the National Forest.  It's a good grass roots group that way.

I like that I can describe BHA to a 'hipster' or non hunter and they understand it.  We're not 'species centric' like DU or RMEF, we are just a group of people that love the backcountry and quiet places and want to keep some of it that way.

I have been a member of RMEF and DU in the past, and could join them again.  I like those groups too.  The NRA is not one that I can buy into.  I can't stand the hard core right wing attitudes of the group.  I don't identify with people like Ted Nugent and don't care to have him represent me.  I am not really a gun enthusiast, but appreciate that there is a group to represent my need to own a few.

[2MANY]

It's just a matter of time before our "back country" becomes a park.
Nothing will stop it other than limiting the amount of people we let in the country and/or limiting our population growth.
Anyone that thinks different is an idiot.

I do respect everyone's individual efforts to keep it from happening.
Vasectomy is the answer.

[jackelope]

I'm curious to know where SCI and the NRA stand on the selloff of public lands?

Allen-you know my wife and I have volunteered for SCI in the past. We're also members of BHA. I am a member of the NRA as well as a couple other species specific org's.

[Bushcraft]

That's a good question Josh.

I can't speak for the higher ups in the NRA, but I haven't heard a peep from anyone in the rank and file or upper echelons of SCI that have even mentioned public land transfer, much less be proponents of it.  Same goes for the Republican leadership throughout our state.  I'm fairly certain that given how involved many of us are on the conservation side that there would be a widespread severe allergic reaction and that it would be shot down in flames.

That said, I have wondered at times if there are some federal public lands that could be better managed for wildlife and hunting on a hybrid public/private system.  We have state and federal agencies that we have essentially hired to be stewards of both the land and the animals that inhabit them, but we know all too well some of the drawbacks of those agencies efforts, or complete lack thereof sometimes.    Perhaps "hiring" a more directly accountable private organization to manage them for the benefit of the public might help increase access, habitat, wildlife populations and hunt quotas.    It's not a transfer of public land to private ownership, it would a transfer of management lease to a more directly accountable entity.

Regards,

Allen

[jackelope]

That's a good question Josh.

I can't speak for the higher ups in the NRA, but I haven't heard a peep from anyone in the rank and file or upper echelons of SCI that have even mentioned public land transfer, much less be proponents of it.  Same goes for the Republican leadership throughout our state.  I'm fairly certain that given how involved many of us are on the conservation side that there would be a widespread severe allergic reaction and that it would be shot down in flames.

That said, I have wondered at times if there are some federal public lands that could be better managed for wildlife and hunting on a hybrid public/private system.  We have state and federal agencies that we have essentially hired to be stewards of both the land and the animals that inhabit them, but we know all too well some of the drawbacks of those agencies efforts, or complete lack thereof sometimes.    Perhaps "hiring" a more directly accountable private organization to manage them for the benefit of the public might help increase access, habitat, wildlife populations and hunt quotas.    It's not a transfer of public land to private ownership, it would a transfer of management lease to a more directly accountable entity.

Regards,

Allen

My initial concern with that would be the gateway effect. That step could be the gateway to privatized land that we as hunters would no longer have access to.

[Bushcraft]

Josh,

Hmmm...I'm not so sure.  To a certain extent, doesn't the overall concept already exist?  Take special permit tags for example, if you don't have a big bull tag you can't hunt the public area for one.  Didn't draw a doe tag or cow tag for the kiddo?  Same thing...can't hunt that public ground for that animal.

For the sake of clarity, I'm not talking about a leasing type of arrangement that would restrict public access and hunting opportunities any more than those things already exist.  It ultimately doesn't matter who the managing entity or agency is, but if a more private type of organization that is more directly accountable for managing the land can be compensated based on the quantifiable performance of better access, better habitat, better poaching enforcement and more wildlife quantities for the benefit of the public that are lucky enough to draw...then we John Q. Public guys would have more quality hunting opportunities. 

I dunno.    Makes me wonder if the concept has been tried elsewhere.

Regards,

Allen

[bearpaw]

I agree with Allen 100% regarding groups, if you own guns and hunt he has it exactly right. 

1. NRA
2. SCI
3. Your favorite specialty group(s)

I fully support keeping all our public lands publicly accessible as they currently are. I do not support expanding wilderness as it limits too many recreational users from using public land that they used to have access to. Every time you create new wilderness you force more users into a smaller accessible area. The problem with BHA, it was established by other left leaning groups who needed to figure out a way to get some hunters and anglers to support their underlying agenda. They came up with a catchy name and well meaning hunters have signed on not knowing the potential underlying ramifications.

BHA wants to expand wilderness, sounds great but that really limits most Americans for the benefit of a few who most likely will never even see all of this wilderness in their lifetime. We have almost 110 million acres of wilderness in the US that most people can't or don't have the ability to access! How much wilderness do we need? I'd like to hear an honest answer to that question, "How much wilderness do we need?"

It seems much wiser to carefully manage all the wild areas that we currently have and maintain access as we know it now with the current opportunities for all Americans to continue enjoying the outdoors the way we do now. I hate to see a bunch of physically fit young guys who are well intentioned, but who simply are not considering, realizing, or caring how their actions will impact millions of other Americans, many who are older or physically limited.



Washington’s 31 wilderness areas

When the Wilderness Act passed in 1964, three areas in Washington were awarded the status. Fifty years later, the state has 31 Wilderness Areas totalling 4.5 million acres.

Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/outdoors/article25878187.html#storylink=cpy



List of U.S. Wilderness Areas
Four federal agencies of the United States government administer the U.S. Wildernesses, which includes 759 Wildernesses and 109,754,604 acres (444,161.12 km2). These agencies are:

United States Forest Service
United States National Park Service
United States Bureau of Land Management
United States Fish and Wildlife Service

This is an area larger than Iraq or the state of California.

Read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Wilderness_Areas

[2MANY]

Just a matter of time.........


The Associated Press

PORT ANGELES, WASH.
Washington's Fort Flagler State Park is one of two in the system that could be part of a pilot program to bring in more private business development.

The Peninsula Daily News reports (http://bit.ly/27SBljJ ) that the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission is considering seeking proposals for private development of some park amenities, like cabins or food service, at Fort Flagler or Millersylvania.

Fort Flagler is on Marrowstone Island and Millersylvania is about 10 miles south of Olympia.

State parks spokeswoman Virginia Painter says the system already has concession agreements without outside vendors, but the pilot program would let the parks reach out to companies for development at a specific spot.

The soonest the commission could take action on the pilot proposal is September.

Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/latest-news/article79814937.html#storylink=cpy

[Special T]

Privatization of federal lands is pushback for the politicians being in cahoots with antis to harm the multipal use concept. In an ideal world the feds could have the land but logg graze and mine on it. The ESA is the problem and privatizing the land is just one way to reduce the problem. The sue and settle tactics are a cash maching for bs non profits. I would much rather add the usfs holdings to the DNR than private hands but unfortunaly no one really wants to adress the core issues... to many hands in other peoples pockets.