BHA discussion

[WAcoyotehunter]

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

The problem is that State Parks are under funded. They do not have enough funding to be maintained. If we want to keep our parks we must find a way to fund them, allowing private vendors and services is a way to bring in badly needed funds.

This issue is much different than the wilderness issue.

How is it different?
Transfer of public lands to private ownership. Who's to say that the next big chunk of the Marckworth state forest doesn't get sold to Weyerhauser because the state doesn't want to pay to maintain it? Then that big and public chunk of land is now pay to play just like the state park 2MANY mentioned.
P.S. there is a lot more to the public land transfer debate than just wilderness.

It sounds as if you are addressing three issues which are quite different?

1. Designation of Additional Wilderness Areas
This issue is primarily green groups and BHA wanting additional areas designated as wilderness. This impacts recreationists who have used the forests and mountains for decades. If these areas were previously designated as multiple use areas where there has been any logging or oil and gas exploration then a change to wilderness also impacts local economies, business, and even the cost of fuel at the gas pump for every American.

2. Funding State Parks (WA)
This has nothing to do with wilderness. These are highly accessible state lands which are in our state park system. Examples include Mount Spokane with the popular ski area and Riverside State Park in the city of Spokane. While I served on Inslee's State park's Task Force I became well informed, the parks are under funded and have cut maintenance and staff to the point they are unsustainable. At the same time people are asking for more state parks and services on these parks. We listened to citizens all over the state, people want to use these parks but the legislature does not want to fully fund them. The task force recommended increasing private venders and service providers to increase revenue to support the parks which at the same time provides more products and services to the public visiting our state parks. It was recommended to find ways to fund current parks and find ways to expand state parks and their usage. This issue caused the creation of the Discover Pass which has fallen short of fully funding state parks.

3. Debate over Federal or State Control of USFS & BLM Lands
This issue is mostly in regards to USFS and BLM limiting grazing, logging, mining, and recreational use on multiple use public lands. Several western states legislators have proposed that states take over control of federal lands to maintain historic public and private usage. Concerns have been that states may not be able to fund the administration of additional lands and some states may sell off public lands. There certainly are valid concerns on both sides of this issue.

Land that has roads, been logged, and mined are generally not eligible for wilderness.  On the Colville (for example) the only pieces that are eligible to be listed as potential wilderness is already designated roadless and somewhat protected.

BHA supports multiple use and has supported additional logging and motorized and non motorized (mtn biking) recreation.  I'm not sure why you feel like BHA is just a wilderness group?  To put it into perspective, BHA supports the same amount of additional wilderness on the Colville as Vaagen Bros lumber.... We're not exactly asking for the world, and we're encouraging additional opportunity for EVERY other group....

[Bushcraft]

Just curious Bushcraft, but what organization are you affiliated with?

I'm not employed by any if that's the nature of you question.  The organizations I belong to and/or support with my time money and energy are in my signature below.

Regards,

Allen

[bearpaw]

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

The problem is that State Parks are under funded. They do not have enough funding to be maintained. If we want to keep our parks we must find a way to fund them, allowing private vendors and services is a way to bring in badly needed funds.

This issue is much different than the wilderness issue.

How is it different?
Transfer of public lands to private ownership. Who's to say that the next big chunk of the Marckworth state forest doesn't get sold to Weyerhauser because the state doesn't want to pay to maintain it? Then that big and public chunk of land is now pay to play just like the state park 2MANY mentioned.
P.S. there is a lot more to the public land transfer debate than just wilderness.

It sounds as if you are addressing three issues which are quite different?

1. Designation of Additional Wilderness Areas
This issue is primarily green groups and BHA wanting additional areas designated as wilderness. This impacts recreationists who have used the forests and mountains for decades. If these areas were previously designated as multiple use areas where there has been any logging or oil and gas exploration then a change to wilderness also impacts local economies, business, and even the cost of fuel at the gas pump for every American.

2. Funding State Parks (WA)
This has nothing to do with wilderness. These are highly accessible state lands which are in our state park system. Examples include Mount Spokane with the popular ski area and Riverside State Park in the city of Spokane. While I served on Inslee's State park's Task Force I became well informed, the parks are under funded and have cut maintenance and staff to the point they are unsustainable. At the same time people are asking for more state parks and services on these parks. We listened to citizens all over the state, people want to use these parks but the legislature does not want to fully fund them. The task force recommended increasing private venders and service providers to increase revenue to support the parks which at the same time provides more products and services to the public visiting our state parks. It was recommended to find ways to fund current parks and find ways to expand state parks and their usage. This issue caused the creation of the Discover Pass which has fallen short of fully funding state parks.

3. Debate over Federal or State Control of USFS & BLM Lands
This issue is mostly in regards to USFS and BLM limiting grazing, logging, mining, and recreational use on multiple use public lands. Several western states legislators have proposed that states take over control of federal lands to maintain historic public and private usage. Concerns have been that states may not be able to fund the administration of additional lands and some states may sell off public lands. There certainly are valid concerns on both sides of this issue.

Land that has roads, been logged, and mined are generally not eligible for wilderness.  On the Colville (for example) the only pieces that are eligible to be listed as potential wilderness is already designated roadless and somewhat protected.

BHA supports multiple use and has supported additional logging and motorized and non motorized (mtn biking) recreation.  I'm not sure why you feel like BHA is just a wilderness group?  To put it into perspective, BHA supports the same amount of additional wilderness on the Colville as Vaagen Bros lumber.... We're not exactly asking for the world, and we're encouraging additional opportunity for EVERY other group....

That was very clever! 

The green groups like Conservation Northwest which BHA is very close to has strangled timber businesses. Vaagens has been forced to come to agreement in order to try and keep logs roilling into the mill.

On the Colville (for example) the only pieces that are eligible to be listed as potential wilderness is already designated roadless and somewhat protected.

Local people do not want more wilderness, if this land is already off limits to development then why does it need to be made wilderness? The proposal is actually to remove some existing roads and access, let's please be truthful! 

[WAcoyotehunter]

I wasn't being coy, I was being honest.  The timber industry can't access much of the proposed land anyway and has supported the wilderness.  The conservation groups have also fought for increased yield on the forest.  That is the point of a collaborative effort.

Dale can you explain how and where BHA is "very close" to CNW?  It's untrue. 

Some local people do want more wilderness... remember that I live and work here too.  We also want more logging and industry.  We can have both, and more trails and recreation opportunity.  There is enough forest for everyone. 

[bearpaw]

I wasn't being coy, I was being honest.  The timber industry can't access much of the proposed land anyway and has supported the wilderness.  The conservation groups have also fought for increased yield on the forest.  That is the point of a collaborative effort.

Dale can you explain how and where BHA is "very close" to CNW?  It's untrue. 

Some local people do want more wilderness... remember that I live and work here too.  We also want more logging and industry.  We can have both, and more trails and recreation opportunity.  There is enough forest for everyone.

For decades green groups have been stopping logging, mining, public access, and forcing more and more wilderness on Americans, this is no secret, it needs to stop. "We have enough land of no use".

Thankyou for agreeing that we need more logging. Green groups have caused logging to be almost non-existent on federal lands this has hurt rural Washington. I honestly know of very few local residents who want more wilderness. Most of that seems to come from groups like CNW and BHA!

If you do a google search this is some of what you find about BHA:

http://libertynews.com/2016/01/exposed-backcountry-hunters-who-protested-standoff-and-ripped-down-temporary-sign-at-oregon-refuge-are-bankrolled-by-big-foreign-special-interest-money/

In this case, the money trail leads us to a nasty reality. While it’s likely that a vast majority of the members of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers don’t support policies and regulations that give the federal government more extraordinary power, they need to know the organization itself is completely bankrolled by billionaires who want government control over all backcountry land.

And yes, even foreign billionaires.

How do we know? Simple. Just take a look at their financial disclosures.

The most recent financial disclosure reveals an avalanche of money that starting flowing in back in 2011. In 2011 the organization had only $30,000 coming in from grants. In 2013, just two years later, the group took in a haul of $492,000 in grant money.

Wyss Foundation – $300,000 (Additional $50,000 from Wyss Action)

The Wyss Foundation exists thanks to 79 year old Swiss billionaire Hansjorg Wyss. To date the Wyss Foundation has dropped a stunning $350 million into various radical environmentalist groups, most of which is designed to mold land use policy in Washington, D.C., and Western states.

What kind of policy? The kind that keeps Americans from farming, ranching, building or conducting commerce on backcountry land. The kind that makes for certain the government is constantly gaining more land and more control over land.

Wilburforce Foundation – $30,000

It’s important to note that Wilburforce Foundation gave Backcountry Hunters & Anglers their first infusion of cash back in 2011. The Wilburforce 2011 grant of $30,000 was the first grant the group ever had and the only grant they received in 2011.

What is the agenda of Wilburforce? If you guessed keeping humans away from large swaths of land by keeping it in control of the fed, you would be correct.

Backcountry Hunters and Anglers
https://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/

Here are more numbers regarding BHA's major donors. What's important is to look at who is being funded by who: BHA, Earthjustice, Greenpeace, just to name a few! Read and watch for yourself: 

Along with receiving nearly $280,000 in 2011 and 2012 from the Western Conservation Foundation—which also funds Natural Resources Defense Council and Earthjustice (the “law firm of the environment”)—BHA has received $165,000 from the Wilburforce Foundation in recent years, a Seattle group that also funds Greenpeace, the Sierra Club Foundation, and others. BHA also received $100,000 from the wealthy, radical, San Francisco-based Hewlett Foundation and nearly $60,000 from the environmentalist Pew Charitable Trusts for “policy” in 2012/13.

“Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is just one of several groups funded by Big Green that trips over itself to brag about its ‘sportsmen’ credentials while advocating left-wing interests,” said Coggin. “BHA is nothing more than a new shade of camo to hide an environmentalist agenda.”

BHA is one of several “sportsmen” groups that takes substantial money from Big Green. The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP) gets 77% of its contributions from just 8 donors, much of it from San Francisco-area environmentalist foundations. Trout Unlimited, which helped form TRCP, has taken tens of millions of dollars from San Francisco-area foundations that want to shut down major energy sources in America. The Izaak Walton League of America, meanwhile, has taken millions from anti-energy activists, including the anti-gun, Chicago-based Joyce Foundation, on whose board President Barack Obama sat for 8 years.

To learn more about environmentalist front organizations and their wealthy funders, visit www.GreenDecoys.com. To schedule an interview, please contact Alex Fitzsimmons at (202) 420-7875 or fitzsimmons@environmentalpolicyalliance.org

Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2014/08/irs-complaint-targets-backcountry-hunters-anglers/#ixzz49iNN3xLX

I answered your questions. Please answer these three questions:

If this land we speak about in NE WA is already off limits to development then why does it need to become wilderness?
Do you agree with closing the roads that are proposed to be closed as part of the wilderness deal in NE WA?
How much wilderness is enough?

[JasonG]

Strange BHA anti Gun, They give you one when you become a life member!

[bearpaw]

I want to emphasize, I'm sure that members of BHA think they are doing what's best for hunting, this is not geared in an ill manner toward anyone, I doubt many realize there may have been underlying motives in the creation of BHA. It sounds pretty good, I myself could subscribe to much of their ideology and nearly joined one time until I researched to find out more about the group and heard about their green connections. 

[JimmyHoffa]

Strange BHA anti Gun, They give you one when you become a life member!

I don't think that was directly stated.  It is a group that tends to run in circles with green groups.  Green groups are almost exclusively backing liberal/left/dem politicians.  I don't think I need to explain much about how 'guns' have basically turned into a binary issue attached to one party or the other. 

I was just about to join BHA years ago.  I figured they would've been more the advocacy I would've preferred.  At about the same time I heard of the group, there was an issue that popped up near the coast called the Wild Olympics Campaign.  The campaign was trying to shift a bunch of acreage to the national park (unhuntable).  BHA was along with the campaign, being touted along as how it was going to be a great deal for all the forest, fish, wildlife and animals and even hunters and anglers were supporting the cause.  But it would've eliminated HUNTING !!! on a lot of land.  I just can't seem to want to back a group that makes bed fellows with the left.

[dreamingbig]

BHA is against the transfer of public lands.  That is enough for me.  I have heard Land Tawney speak 4x minimum and he hasn't mentioned expanding wilderness.  Sure they support clean water but who doesn't?  Do we want China mining or cutting our timber in our national forests?  It will happen if the national forests are given back to the states.  The state budgets can't support the management and will be forced to sell.  There is enough track record and history to know it is true.

So I say I will support any group right now that will stand up to this nonsense of the transfer of public land that we ALL already own back to state ownership.  Sure national forests can be managed better but let's fix that.  The alternative will be a disaster and it is just what the robber barrons of yesteryear want to happen.  They know most of the general public is asleep on this issue.   Just ask some of your non hunting friends and family.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bushcraft]

BHA is against the transfer of public lands.  That is enough for me.  I have heard Land Tawney speak 4x minimum and he hasn't mentioned expanding wilderness.  Sure they support clean water but who doesn't?  Do we want China mining or cutting our timber in our national forests?  It will happen if the national forests are given back to the states.  The state budgets can't support the management and will be forced to sell.  There is enough track record and history to know it is true.

So I say I will support any group right now that will stand up to this nonsense of the transfer of public land that we ALL already own back to state ownership.  Sure national forests can be managed better but let's fix that.  The alternative will be a disaster and it is just what the robber barrons of yesteryear want to happen.  They know most of the general public is asleep on this issue.   Just ask some of your non hunting friends and family.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But keeping the supposed transfer of public lands at bay shouldn't be enough for you if you profess to be a hunter and value hunting as a key component of sustainable, science-based wildlife management!  Glomming onto this aspect alone is just incredibly short sighted, which is my point regarding the need to belong to the 800 gorilla organizations like the NRA and SCI before you belong to a critter club or the likes of BHA.

Honestly, if all you want to prevent is the transfer, just join the Sierra Club or their ilk and sell your hunting gear on Craigslist.  From what I've seen, BHA just comes across like a carefully crafted hunting themed cover page for the Sierra Club curriculum.

Regards,

Allen

[dreamingbig]

I haven't done enough research on SCI.  What is their stance on public lands?  How do they do more for our ability to hunt than say RMEF?  Are they actively lobbying to delist wolves?  What is their stance on the ESA?  How are they actively fighting to change or close the litigation loophole that allows 501c3 to be paid for litigating?  Where are we going to hunt if we don't have any public land and predators such as wolves, grizzly and mountain lions aren't kept in check?

All things that keep me up at night.  I know that 80% of my neighbors could care less.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bushcraft]

I haven't done enough research on SCI.  What is their stance on public lands?  How do they do more for our ability to hunt than say RMEF?  Are they actively lobbying to delist wolves?  What is their stance on the ESA?  How are they actively fighting to change or close the litigation loophole that allows 501c3 to be paid for litigating?  Where are we going to hunt if we don't have any public land and predators such as wolves, grizzly and mountain lions aren't kept in check?

All things that keep me up at night.  I know that 80% of my neighbors could care less.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Simply put, SCI is the preeminent hunting rights organization on the planet.  We are a proponent of sustainable science-based management of wildlife and firmly believe that hunters and hunting are critical components of that management process.

To answer you questions, public lands are where most of us hunt, so it stands to reason that we naturally want to have those ecosystems efficiently and effectively managed.

Yes, they are the leader in actively lobbying to delist wolves (I've personally helped in this regard at the state and national level).  See the advertisement below I designed and had placed in the 2013 Washington Game Regs on behalf of all the SCI chapters in Washington State.  Believe me, there is a MAJOR story to tell behind getting the go-ahead from WDFW to allow this in the regs.  We work hand in hand and assist WDFW with conservation projects all the time (and legislative issues behind the scenes), but we will also not hesitate to hold their feet to the fire if the situation warrants it.

The ESA is of course valuable, but it's oversight should be based on science, not public emotions...see the theme here? 

RMEF is a 501c3 and at it's core works to conserve habitat for elk and other wildlife.  Clearly that's wonderful, additive and valuable, but they don't claim to do anything that directly protects hunting rights and they are prohibited by their 501c3 charter to get too political.

Not sure I understand the legal question you posed...please reframe with an example.

There are already vast tracts of public land locked up in local, state and federal land.  SCI works hard at the local, state and federal level to make sure access is improved or at least maintained and they are POUNDING the table with regard to predator management.

Here's our problem as I see it, SCI is incorrectly perceived as being a club for rich white guys that go on safari hunts in Africa.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  You would be amazed at the millions of dollars and legislative arm bending that occurs right here in Washington year around.  We need to a better job of getting the word out and we need help from hunters that value their hunting heritage.

I'd be happy to send you more information or get you in touch with a local chapter if you like.  There are a number of casual summer chapter events around the state you could attend with like minded people that care deeply about the future of hunting in this state and beyond.

Best regards,

Allen

[Bushcraft]

Here is this year's advertisement in the printed Washington Game Regs.

[dreamingbig]

Thanks for the info. 

Listen to Randy Newberg.  He has an excellent podcast on the lovely legislation that is being abused by attorneys to get paid for litigating regardless of they win or lose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bushcraft]

Sure...do you have a youtube link or do I need to subscribe to his podcast to download it?