BHA discussion

[bearpaw]

I've never once voted for a democrat, but demonizing and alienating people based on political leanings is a sure fire way to ensure our doom.  There are more of them then their are of us, and that gap will continue to grow.  Champion the open minded to our cause, don't call them names and dismiss them.

I agree it's wrong to demonize individual Democrats. My sister and my dad are democrats, how can I hate them? But, I can honestly say most leaders in the (D) party are anti gun and anti hunting. Hillary, Barack, Chuck Shumer, some even in our state, etc, etc!

I think the challenge is to get people to look at each issue individually rather than making guns and hunting a party line issue. For the record I'm pretty fed up with the (R) party too, the leadership is controlled by big international business that gets cheap labor in third world countries and pushes out American business.

I wished there was a better way to be in the middle because most of us are probably somewhere in the middle.

[WAcoyotehunter]

Go to a BHA event and get involved.  If you want to guide the direction of the group, be involved in it.  This is  dnot a distant group of people directing a state chapter. There is great autonomy among state chapters and if you want to make a meaningful change, get involved.

[bearpaw]

The second that privatization is mentioned the discussion ends for me.  How is private land ownership working out for the Westside of oregon and washington?  $300 access passes and the like. 


Also, I asked who you were affiliated with and you said know one.  But obviously you do work and are active with SCI?  Whole point of the post was to drag BHA through the mud, from someone who "works" for a different organization competing for the same dollars......

I really don't think that's the case. If you read his post I think Allen meant he volunteers his time, he held an elected position in his chapter, he was not paid. In case you didn't know, many groups pay employees. For example NWTF, RMEF, and MDF have paid positions and SCI and BHA probably do too, but Allen was an elected officer who volunteered his time. I think he said he belongs to other organizations as well. Please correct me if I am wrong Allen?

I also think you are confusing privatization of services or administration with ownership. I would adamantly oppose any selling off of public lands unless it was merely an exchange of lands, which is already commonly done. However, I agree that a private contractor might provide much better administration of some public lands. I also think a private contractor might be much more efficient at fire suppression. Let me repeat, I would never support, nor should any citizen, the selling off of public lands.

[Karl Blanchard]

I've never once voted for a democrat, but demonizing and alienating people based on political leanings is a sure fire way to ensure our doom.  There are more of them then their are of us, and that gap will continue to grow.  Champion the open minded to our cause, don't call them names and dismiss them.

I agree it's wrong to demonize individual Democrats. My sister and my dad are democrats, how can I hate them? But, I can honestly say most leaders in the (D) party are anti gun and anti hunting. Hillary, Barack, Chuck Shumer, some even in our state, etc, etc!

I think the challenge is to get people to look at each issue individually rather than making guns and hunting a party line issue. For the record I'm pretty fed up with the (R) party too, the leadership is controlled by big international business that gets cheap labor in third world countries and pushes out American business.

I wished there was a better way to be in the middle because most of us are probably somewhere in the middle.

Thank you for articulating that better for me Dale!  That was more what I was trying to get at.

[Bushcraft]

The second that privatization is mentioned the discussion ends for me.  How is private land ownership working out for the Westside of oregon and washington?  $300 access passes and the like. 


Also, I asked who you were affiliated with and you said know one.  But obviously you do work and are active with SCI?  Whole point of the post was to drag BHA through the mud, from someone who "works" for a different organization competing for the same dollars......

Nop

I really don't think that's the case. If you read his post I think Allen meant he volunteers his time, he held an elected position in his chapter, he was not paid. In case you didn't know, many groups pay employees. For example NWTF, RMEF, and MDF have paid positions and SCI and BHA probably do too, but Allen was an elected officer who volunteered his time. I think he said he belongs to other organizations as well. Please correct me if I am wrong Allen?

I also think you are confusing privatization of services or administration with ownership. I would adamantly oppose any selling off of public lands unless it was merely an exchange of lands, which is already commonly done. However, I agree that a private contractor might provide much better administration of some public lands. I also think a private contractor might be much more efficient at fire suppression. Let me repeat, I would never support, nor should any citizen, the selling off of public lands.

You've got it exactly correct on all accounts Dale.  My response to him left exactly zero room for confusion.  Is the information in our "signatures" not visible for everyone? 

[HighCountryHunter88]

The second that privatization is mentioned the discussion ends for me.  How is private land ownership working out for the Westside of oregon and washington?  $300 access passes and the like. 


Also, I asked who you were affiliated with and you said know one.  But obviously you do work and are active with SCI?  Whole point of the post was to drag BHA through the mud, from someone who "works" for a different organization competing for the same dollars......

I really don't think that's the case. If you read his post I think Allen meant he volunteers his time, he held an elected position in his chapter, he was not paid. In case you didn't know, many groups pay employees. For example NWTF, RMEF, and MDF have paid positions and SCI and BHA probably do too, but Allen was an elected officer who volunteered his time. I think he said he belongs to other organizations as well. Please correct me if I am wrong Allen?

I also think you are confusing privatization of services or administration with ownership. I would adamantly oppose any selling off of public lands unless it was merely an exchange of lands, which is already commonly done. However, I agree that a private contractor might provide much better administration of some public lands. I also think a private contractor might be much more efficient at fire suppression. Let me repeat, I would never support, nor should any citizen, the selling off of public lands.

who's going to pay for the private contractor?

[bearpaw]

Go to a BHA event and get involved.  If you want to guide the direction of the group, be involved in it.  This is a distant group of people directing a state chapter. There is great autonomy among state chapters and if you want to make a meaningful change, get involved.

If BHA had a major change in leadership and financial support by green groups looking to lock up lands and eliminate hunting disappeared I might get involved to try and encourage multiple use of our lands for all Americans, the way we have it now, but I'm sorry, if your leader Land Tawney supported Barack then I'm almost certain he is supporting Hillary. I'm not going to give one penny of support to the woman who started her presidential campaign on gun control and who has said we need to eliminate the 2nd Amendment, and who will appoint anti-gun justices to the SCOTUS. 

I've tried to understand my dad and to reason with him, he is totally about his guns but loves Obama and Hillary. He thinks they will keep his social security coming. He thinks the NRA is lieing, that Obama really doesn't want to take our guns, I've learned that I simply have to avoid talking politics with him.

[Karl Blanchard]

That's great that you volunteer but how about starting a thread about how great sci is and how much good they are doing?  Why start a sling fest thread about a different organization who competes for the same dollars?  I don't care if an individual is paid or not, the point is there is almost always an agenda when dollars are involved.  My guard went up half way through the first post

[dreamingbig]

Signatures are not visible on Tapatalk so that could contribute to the confusion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bearpaw]

The second that privatization is mentioned the discussion ends for me.  How is private land ownership working out for the Westside of oregon and washington?  $300 access passes and the like. 


Also, I asked who you were affiliated with and you said know one.  But obviously you do work and are active with SCI?  Whole point of the post was to drag BHA through the mud, from someone who "works" for a different organization competing for the same dollars......

I really don't think that's the case. If you read his post I think Allen meant he volunteers his time, he held an elected position in his chapter, he was not paid. In case you didn't know, many groups pay employees. For example NWTF, RMEF, and MDF have paid positions and SCI and BHA probably do too, but Allen was an elected officer who volunteered his time. I think he said he belongs to other organizations as well. Please correct me if I am wrong Allen?

I also think you are confusing privatization of services or administration with ownership. I would adamantly oppose any selling off of public lands unless it was merely an exchange of lands, which is already commonly done. However, I agree that a private contractor might provide much better administration of some public lands. I also think a private contractor might be much more efficient at fire suppression. Let me repeat, I would never support, nor should any citizen, the selling off of public lands.

who's going to pay for the private contractor?

Many people don't realize that the USFS is funded by taxpayers. Logging is alsmost non-existant, logging used to pay more of the cost. That means you and I are paying. It has been proven many times over that private industry can generally do a better job at less expense. It is my opinion that the right private contracter could do a better job of keeping forest roads maintained, effectively fighting forest fires, etc, etc. These various things could be on a bid basis and awarded to different contractors. Then we would not be paying for all the huge buildings and parking lots full of new trucks. Something like that might save millions of taxpayer money and be more effective.

[Karl Blanchard]

Proud supporter and active member are two different things.  I'm a proud supporter of lots of things but that doesn't mean I'm actively organizing, lobbying, fundraising.

I'd be saying the same things about someone from BHA if they came on here slinging mud about sci

[WAcoyotehunter]

The second that privatization is mentioned the discussion ends for me.  How is private land ownership working out for the Westside of oregon and washington?  $300 access passes and the like. 


Also, I asked who you were affiliated with and you said know one.  But obviously you do work and are active with SCI?  Whole point of the post was to drag BHA through the mud, from someone who "works" for a different organization competing for the same dollars......

I really don't think that's the case. If you read his post I think Allen meant he volunteers his time, he held an elected position in his chapter, he was not paid. In case you didn't know, many groups pay employees. For example NWTF, RMEF, and MDF have paid positions and SCI and BHA probably do too, but Allen was an elected officer who volunteered his time. I think he said he belongs to other organizations as well. Please correct me if I am wrong Allen?

I also think you are confusing privatization of services or administration with ownership. I would adamantly oppose any selling off of public lands unless it was merely an exchange of lands, which is already commonly done. However, I agree that a private contractor might provide much better administration of some public lands. I also think a private contractor might be much more efficient at fire suppression. Let me repeat, I would never support, nor should any citizen, the selling off of public lands.

who's going to pay for the private contractor?

Many people don't realize that the USFS is funded by taxpayers. Logging is alsmost non-existant, logging used to pay more of the cost. That means you and I are paying. It has been proven many times over that private industry can generally do a better job at less expense. It is my opinion that the right private contracter could do a better job of keeping forest roads maintained, effectively fighting forest fires, etc, etc. These various things could be on a bid basis and awarded to different contractors. Then we would not be paying for all the huge buildings and parking lots full of new trucks. Something like that might save millions of taxpayer money and be more effective.

We do that with a stewardship contract.  The logs are sold to high bidder and a portion of the money is then earmarked for roads/trails/campgrounds.... whatever a group of stakeholders decides.  Its a great day to move timber and meet local needs on USFS land

[JimmyHoffa]

The second that privatization is mentioned the discussion ends for me.  How is private land ownership working out for the Westside of oregon and washington?  $300 access passes and the like. 


Also, I asked who you were affiliated with and you said know one.  But obviously you do work and are active with SCI?  Whole point of the post was to drag BHA through the mud, from someone who "works" for a different organization competing for the same dollars......

I really don't think that's the case. If you read his post I think Allen meant he volunteers his time, he held an elected position in his chapter, he was not paid. In case you didn't know, many groups pay employees. For example NWTF, RMEF, and MDF have paid positions and SCI and BHA probably do too, but Allen was an elected officer who volunteered his time. I think he said he belongs to other organizations as well. Please correct me if I am wrong Allen?

I also think you are confusing privatization of services or administration with ownership. I would adamantly oppose any selling off of public lands unless it was merely an exchange of lands, which is already commonly done. However, I agree that a private contractor might provide much better administration of some public lands. I also think a private contractor might be much more efficient at fire suppression. Let me repeat, I would never support, nor should any citizen, the selling off of public lands.

who's going to pay for the private contractor?

Same people paying the gov workers now.  In a previous job (fed gov), we would have to identify positions to cut from time to time for budgeting concerns.  Generally, it was more of a trade--cutting one gov employee got back two contractors.

[jackelope]

The second that privatization is mentioned the discussion ends for me.  How is private land ownership working out for the Westside of oregon and washington?  $300 access passes and the like. 


Also, I asked who you were affiliated with and you said know one.  But obviously you do work and are active with SCI?  Whole point of the post was to drag BHA through the mud, from someone who "works" for a different organization competing for the same dollars......

I really don't think that's the case. If you read his post I think Allen meant he volunteers his time, he held an elected position in his chapter, he was not paid. In case you didn't know, many groups pay employees. For example NWTF, RMEF, and MDF have paid positions and SCI and BHA probably do too, but Allen was an elected officer who volunteered his time. I think he said he belongs to other organizations as well. Please correct me if I am wrong Allen?

I also think you are confusing privatization of services or administration with ownership. I would adamantly oppose any selling off of public lands unless it was merely an exchange of lands, which is already commonly done. However, I agree that a private contractor might provide much better administration of some public lands. I also think a private contractor might be much more efficient at fire suppression. Let me repeat, I would never support, nor should any citizen, the selling off of public lands.

The biggest reason I support BHA is their fight against federal land transfer.  Who else is fighting that fight?
http://www.backcountryhunters.org/colorado_bha_op_ed


http://www.backcountryhunters.org/top_five_reasons

Top Five Reasons Why Transferring Our Public Lands to State Ownership is a Bad Idea
 
Posted by Backcountry Hunters & Anglers | March 08, 2016
   


1.States manage their lands to make money, not to provide opportunities for recreation.
2.States can’t afford to manage our public lands and would be forced to either raise taxes (a nonstarter) or sell them to corporations or wealthy individuals.
3.Public lands are good for the economy.
4.Currently, many state lands across the country don’t allow hunting or camping…or even hiking.
5.You already own them. As a U.S. citizen, you own our public lands. The government is just the caretaker. Once you lose them, you’ll never get them back.

If you’re angry that some politicians and special interests are trying to steal your public lands, here's three easy ways that you can help push back against this public land seizure.
1.Sign BHA’s sportsmen’s pledge and join the fight to keep public hands in public hands.
2.Show your public land pride with one of BHA's "public land owner" t-shirts.
3.Contact your elected officials and let them know where you stand on this issue.

Guy Eastman, Eastman’s Hunting Journal. August. 2014 (Live chat).

“It’s a very stupid idea.... I think we can all agree that protecting our public lands is probably more important than anything else ... once the public land is gone, we can never get it back again. Public land loss is permanent, period."

[bearpaw]

That's great that you volunteer but how about starting a thread about how great sci is and how much good they are doing?  Why start a sling fest thread about a different organization who competes for the same dollars?  I don't care if an individual is paid or not, the point is there is almost always an agenda when dollars are involved.  My guard went up half way through the first post

Allen had commented in another topic regarding BHA and I had commented too as well as a few others. It was decided that it wasn't appropriate to have these posts in the other topic, so I moved these posts to a new topic. That is how this topic came to be, Allen didn't started this topic.