BHA discussion

[Bushcraft]

No worries Josh...let me try a different tact.

Let's take Area #1 and Area #2.  Both of the land holdings are in the same GMU.

Area #1 is federal land under Forest Service management.  There is almost zero accountability to hunters and the public at large.  Roads are gated or tank trapped.  Campgrounds are closed or run down. There is comparatively little wildlife due to a lack of effective hands-on management in terms of food/water/shelter availability for the critters that call it home.  Since it's public land, you are free to roam it whenever you like and hunt it if you have the requisite license and tags to do so.

Area #2 is private land owned and operated by Farmer Bill.   It holds an abundant amount of game birds, deer and elk given the habitat, water and feed the landowner has put in place and carefully managed over the years as ancillary bi-products of the cash crops he raises to make his living.  Unless someone knows Farmer Bill, people are expressly prohibited from trespassing on his property, much less hunt it even if they have the requisite license and tags for the GMU.

Let's say that there are 2 big bulls on the public land, and 10 big bulls on the private property.  WDFW issues a quota of 5 big bull tags for the GMU.  If you luck out and draw one of the five big bull tags, you are effectively competing with 4 other hunters for the 2 public land bulls.

What I'm curious about is what would happen if the Forest Service was effectively replaced as "the managers and stewards" of those public lands by the highest bidding private organization willing to take on the roles of providing improved road and trail access for everyone (it's still public property!) and improve the food/water/shelter aspects such that there would eventually be a significantly higher and sustainable number of big bulls...thereby equating to more big bull tags and more hunting opportunities for John Q. Public.

So, in the example above, instead of OUR tax dollars being inefficiently allotted to the Forest Service's annual procurement of brand new fleets of vehicles, it's paid to a private entity that over time works efficiently to manage the land and increase the number of big bulls on public land to 10 (for a total of 20 big bulls in the GMU).  The WDFW looks at the population figures and determines that increasing the tag quota in the GMU to 10 big bulls is sustainable.  Now there are 8 more hunting tags available to draw and John Q. Public gets to hunt them.

Mind you, I'm not pounding the table as this being the be-all end-all approach we should do.  It's just an idea I'm throwing out there for discussion.  Maybe there's merit.  Maybe there's not.  I'm generally not a fan of reinventing the wheel so I'd look to see if there are other similar programs being attempted elsewhere so we could review if it is or isn't working, and why.

Does that help explain where I'm coming from?

Regards,

Allen 

It makes sense where you're coming from, but it doesn't make sense to me where you're going with it. There are state parks in SE Washington, and probably other parts of the state, that were shut down. They tried to get private companies to take them over and nobody will take them on. These parks sit vacant now. Overgrown with weeds and unused. What makes you think anyone would want to do this on a huge scale chunk of national forest if they can't get someone to run a small state park/campground? Would it be less expensive to spend the money maintaining said chunk of NF ourselves or less expensive to pay an outside company to do it?

The same baseline reason people do anything...their own personal interests...which invariably comes down to dinero.  The new high dollar Forest Circus federal buildings and their giant parking lots seemingly always full of brand new vehicles is indicative of the money currently being spent by one (public) entity that I know could be much more efficiently allocated/spent under a (private) entity.

[mfswallace]

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?

Tag for answers

[dreamingbig]

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

It is episode 17 of his podcast.  Randy Newberg unfiltered which can be found on iTunes.

[mburrows]

Check out episode 10 of Randy Newberg's podcast as well.  Explains why the transfer of land from Federal to State ownership isn't in our best interest as a community.

[Tim in Wa.]

Allen
 I'm coming around to your point of view on BHA.I jumped on the bandwagon early when there was allot of hype on the kifaru forums but as I read more and more in their quarterly magazine I think I will let my membership expire
Tim

[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.

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?

Of course industry wants to discredit BHA.  Who do you suppose put the Green Decoy stuff together?  See if you can find much about that group.... you won't, because it's Rick Berman, a 'hired gun' for big industry that wants to develop everything.  BHA has taken an open position about protecting public lands from unsustainable development.  We support timber/mining/liquid mineral when it's done properly.  Industry could absolutely not care less about wildlife or our hunting; BHA took a position against that and stepped on their toes.  They hired Berman to discredit us among hunters and appear to be "antis" in some way. 

The funding sources are interested in protecting public land too.  I'm not sure that it's a terrible thing that HUNTERS align some with CONSERVATIONISTS.... after all, without habitat we won't be hunting at all.  If BHA gathers 500k from a group that might otherwise give it to some anti hunting group, I guess that should go in the 'win category'.

[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?

Of course industry wants to discredit BHA.  Who do you suppose put the Green Decoy stuff together?  See if you can find much about that group.... you won't, because it's Rick Berman, a 'hired gun' for big industry that wants to develop everything.  BHA has taken an open position about protecting public lands from unsustainable development.  We support timber/mining/liquid mineral when it's done properly.  Industry could absolutely not care less about wildlife or our hunting; BHA took a position against that and stepped on their toes.  They hired Berman to discredit us among hunters and appear to be "antis" in some way. 

The funding sources are interested in protecting public land too.  I'm not sure that it's a terrible thing that HUNTERS align some with CONSERVATIONISTS.... after all, without habitat we won't be hunting at all.  If BHA gathers 500k from a group that might otherwise give it to some anti hunting group, I guess that should go in the 'win category'.

Thank you for your response. We have established where large parts of BHA funding comes from and it's known that Land Tawney (representing BHA) openly supports Barack Obama (who wants to take away our guns) and other left wing politicians who's policies would likely limit hunting, I'm sorry but this is why I can't get on the BHA bandwagon. If these green groups are supporting BHA then it appears BHA is aligned with them enough to cause concern and appears to be a green decoy as charged in the video.

UNANSWERED 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?

[Karl Blanchard]

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......

[jackelope]

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?

Of course industry wants to discredit BHA.  Who do you suppose put the Green Decoy stuff together?  See if you can find much about that group.... you won't, because it's Rick Berman, a 'hired gun' for big industry that wants to develop everything.  BHA has taken an open position about protecting public lands from unsustainable development.  We support timber/mining/liquid mineral when it's done properly.  Industry could absolutely not care less about wildlife or our hunting; BHA took a position against that and stepped on their toes.  They hired Berman to discredit us among hunters and appear to be "antis" in some way. 

The funding sources are interested in protecting public land too.  I'm not sure that it's a terrible thing that HUNTERS align some with CONSERVATIONISTS.... after all, without habitat we won't be hunting at all.  If BHA gathers 500k from a group that might otherwise give it to some anti hunting group, I guess that should go in the 'win category'.

Thank you for your response. We have established where large parts of BHA funding comes from and it's known that Land Tawney (representing BHA) openly supports Barack Obama (who wants to take away our guns) and other left wing politicians who's policies would likely limit hunting, I'm sorry but this is why I can't get on the BHA bandwagon. If these green groups are supporting BHA then it appears BHA is aligned with them enough to cause concern and appears to be a green decoy as charged in the video.

UNANSWERED 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?

Just curious. What is the primary reason you're opposed to this piece of land becoming wilderness?

[300rum]

Anyone on the fence on this needs to listen to what Bearpaw is saying, I personally know he has researched this as I have.  If you are on the fence you need to search it out too, for yourself. 

Notice a few things.  Terms like "Public Land", "Public Access" and "Federal Land" are thrown out regularly and used almost interchangeably.  They do not mean the same thing, they do not even mean what you think they mean. 

Find out where the money is coming from and also search out who the champions of the cause are.  You have to poke around a bit but you will be able to find out who the liberal leaners are, they tell us (ever so slightly), every single time.   

[WAcoyotehunter]

The proposed wilderness areas are protected (sort of) as Inventoried Roadless Areas.  There are no roads in the areas that BHA is supporting as wilderness. 
It doesn't necessarily need to become wilderness, but there are few designations that provide protection in perpetuity from development or 'sell off'.  We have also supported some sort of backcountry recreation area designation.
I don't know how much wilderness is enough.  it's not up to me to decide.  you seem to think that we have enough.... i can walk across the Salmo Priest in one day (and have).  So i can tell you that we currently do not have enough. 

You didn't answer my question earlier about BHA is "very close" to CNW. 
Have you looked at the Forest Plan??  I suspect you didn't realize that BHA's likely (still drafting) position supports LESS wilderness designation than the FS proposed alternative.... seriously, why are you so anti BHA?

BTW- the fact that Land Tawney supports President Obama is fine with me.  I do too.  The fact that we supported Tester in Mt is GREAT with me.  Otherwise there would be more flammable water pouring into rural residents kitchen sinks.... seriously- we need to have some hunters that care about the environment. 

[WAcoyotehunter]

Anyone on the fence on this needs to listen to what Bearpaw is saying, I personally know he has researched this as I have.  If you are on the fence you need to search it out too, for yourself. 

Notice a few things.  Terms like "Public Land", "Public Access" and "Federal Land" are thrown out regularly and used almost interchangeably.  They do not mean the same thing, they do not even mean what you think they mean. 

Find out where the money is coming from and also search out who the champions of the cause are.  You have to poke around a bit but you will be able to find out who the liberal leaners are, they tell us (ever so slightly), every single time.   

You might want to reconsider your avatar picture if you are so suspicious of "liberal leaners" LOL

TR was the champion of public land protection from industry. 

[Karl Blanchard]

I'm sorry, but what in the world does it matter if you are liberal or conservative?  Didn't know protecting public lands, gun rights, hunting rights, etc.,  was exclusive to one party

[grundy53]

I'm sorry, but what in the world does it matter if you are liberal or conservative?  Didn't know protecting public lands, gun rights, hunting rights, etc.,  was exclusive to one party

Honestly, when it comes to politicians,  gun rights are pretty much a conservative deal. Liberals are against gun rights. When it comes to non profit organizations, I would say every group suing and moving the goalposts on wolves and grizzly are liberal. The group's suing the FS and making proper land management impossible are liberal. So yes I'm leary of joining a group that appears to be ran by liberals. I've really contemplated joining bha. Listening to Randy Newberg,  Steve rinella, and the gritty bowman has almost convinced me. I agree with the basic philosophy, but every time I am about to pull the trigger I get uneasy. By the way I'm totally against the transfer of public land.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

[Bushcraft]

I'm sorry, but what in the world does it matter if you are liberal or conservative?  Didn't know protecting public lands, gun rights, hunting rights, etc.,  was exclusive to one party

What does it matter?  Didn't know gun rights and hunting rights was exclusive to one party?  Seriously???  That is one of the most utterly naïve things I've read in quite some time.  The anti-gun and anti-hunting agendas almost exclusively belong to one party....and that party would be the Democrats.  Supporting their side of the aisle in any way shape or form is a one-way ticket to eventual firearm confiscation and the end of hunting.  Anyone that thinks or believes otherwise is a damn fool.