Hunters Beware: Landlocking Public Access

[bearpaw]

The guys that don't like BHA seem to not like BHA because of the whole pro-wilderness thing. I can't help but wonder if they throw around all the anti-BHA stuff because they're worried about BHA working towards more designated wilderness. I get the whole multi-user group access thing, but it seems like BHA is doing more to promote public land staying public in general than anything else.

@wolfbait  and @bearpaw  ......... Since you 2 seem to be outspokenly against BHA, what organizations or groups that you guys support are working towards keeping public land public?  Please name the organizations you guys support or are in favor of that are working to maintain public access.

WOW, really!

I support almost every major hunting organization, not bragging about how much I have given but since I have been called out on this I will point out that I have donated tens of thousands of dollars worth of hunts to support: SCI (almost every chapter in Washington and numerous chapters across the nation), RMEF (many different chapters), NWTF (many different chapters across the nation including chapters in WA), Washington State Bowhunters almost every year, and I have also donated hunts to other organizations. I also send membership dues to a long list of organizations and I am a life member with several of them.

The only organization I have serious doubts about at this time is BHA, and it's because of the reasons I have mentioned, wanting to increase wilderness areas, supporting the democratic party which is trying to and has successfully eliminated some of my 2nd Amendment rights and many of my hunting opportunities, and has made healthcare even more costly and hard to obtain for working class folks.

So that you can understand my view on wilderness, I'm not advocating to reduce wilderness, I strongly support keeping our current ratio of wilderness and accessible lands. But remember, if you take away accessible lands that will force more people into the remaining accessible lands unless you restrict human use and that is what some people advocate for too. I'm advocating that we should not take away existing access from the majority of users, many of which have no physical ability to access wilderness areas unless they pay an outfitter to pack them. Yes, I know that if half of Washington was wilderness my business might be more successful, but I simply cannot agree with taking away access from the majority to benefit the minority. We should also not forget that our multiple use public lands are important to providing energy for our national security, our economic stability, and forest products for our homes and daily needs.

If you choose to support BHA that is certainly your choice, it's currently my choice to oppose them due to their actions, objectives, and I believe the candidates they support have contributed to the Obama mess this country is trying to pull out of? The fact that some of us have a different outlook on BHA doesn't mean we are not supportive of hunting, fishing, or other outdoor pursuits, and public lands, I think it demonstrates that we are possibly more supportive of these issues and all users. I would never want to see a net loss of outdoor activities or loss of our public lands.

I want to again reiterate that I very strongly support many sporting groups (probably more than some who are questioning my integrity) and I think all those groups strongly support public lands! I'm not aware that any of the groups I support are opposed to public lands, in fact RMEF or NWTF funds are used to improve public land habitat and buy critical lands for wildlife and I have contributed to both of those orgs!

[jackelope]

I was just asking which groups you support. Wasn't trying to call you out or anything...wasn't even really talking about from a money standpoint.

[bearpaw]

I was just asking which groups you support. Wasn't trying to call you out or anything...wasn't even really talking about from a money standpoint.

BHA is one of the few groups I haven't supported, I strongly support most groups. There was about 10 years I quit supporting and was critical of RMEF because they would not speak out about wolves at a time when speaking out was needed to get management, but when their leadership changed, and that may have been because enough people spoke up, the group really took a good turn and I fully support them again now.

You may have missed it, in a previous post I mentioned I agree with BHA on some issues and that I thought over time as the group changes I may agree with them more. I truly believe discussions like this are probably good for BHA or any group. If I was running BHA I would want to know what concerns are out there?

[bearpaw]

I had asked some questions about the truthfulness of the green decoys website. I've seen BHA supporters who talked down the green decoys site, but has anyone shown any proof that it is false? After reading posts and links from BHA supporters it appears some of the claims might be true? For example some people are saying BHA did spend money supporting a democratic candidate and spent money to split the Republican vote in Montana. So I'm still wondering exactly which claims on the green decoys site are false? 

These two posts are quite contradictory regarding BHA political activity:

These smear articles (Green Decoy) all hang their hat on 2 things, a portion of funding from conservation/environmental groups and the money spent in oppostion to Republican U.S Senate candidate Denny Rehburg in 2012, fun fact, MHA also supported the libertarian candidate. It makes perfect sense they would want Denny to lose after learning of his point of view and treatment of public lands as his own, he was dangerous. That action is inline with what they represent, access and protection of our public lands regardless of political party.

So what they have recieved money from Environmental/Wildlife/Conservation groups , it is obvious there is common ground. Protection of our public land, wildlife and resources.

We should be able to see beyond party lines and through this loose crap Green Decoy and all the other regurgitated articles keep banging away at. If, where some of the funding came from is an issue for you and the ACTIONS of BHA, TRCP and the alike don't speak loud enough for you, don't support it, there are plenty of us that will. 

Just to speak to a distinction between BHA and NRA- They are different types of non-profit, with BHA being a 501c3 and NRA being a 501c4. Not to get overly technical but I believe that means while the NRA can be directly involved in political campaigns and donations to elections, as well as lobbying and endorsements, the BHA cannot. I tihnk in this conversation its important to make this distinction because the BHA cannot actually do some of the things its being accused of. Sure Tawney might make another group that does it, and he or others might support a candidate, but BHA doesn't do it. I just don't want anybody to think that BHA can do what the NRA does in regards to the capacity/level of politicking 

[dwils233]

I had asked some questions about the truthfulness of the green decoys website. I've seen BHA supporters who talked down the green decoys site, but has anyone shown any proof that it is false? After reading posts and links from BHA supporters it appears some of the claims might be true? For example some people are saying BHA did spend money supporting a democratic candidate and spent money to split the Republican vote in Montana. So I'm still wondering exactly which claims on the green decoys site are false? 

These two posts are quite contradictory regarding BHA political activity:

These smear articles (Green Decoy) all hang their hat on 2 things, a portion of funding from conservation/environmental groups and the money spent in oppostion to Republican U.S Senate candidate Denny Rehburg in 2012, fun fact, MHA also supported the libertarian candidate. It makes perfect sense they would want Denny to lose after learning of his point of view and treatment of public lands as his own, he was dangerous. That action is inline with what they represent, access and protection of our public lands regardless of political party.

So what they have recieved money from Environmental/Wildlife/Conservation groups , it is obvious there is common ground. Protection of our public land, wildlife and resources.

We should be able to see beyond party lines and through this loose crap Green Decoy and all the other regurgitated articles keep banging away at. If, where some of the funding came from is an issue for you and the ACTIONS of BHA, TRCP and the alike don't speak loud enough for you, don't support it, there are plenty of us that will. 

Just to speak to a distinction between BHA and NRA- They are different types of non-profit, with BHA being a 501c3 and NRA being a 501c4. Not to get overly technical but I believe that means while the NRA can be directly involved in political campaigns and donations to elections, as well as lobbying and endorsements, the BHA cannot. I tihnk in this conversation its important to make this distinction because the BHA cannot actually do some of the things its being accused of. Sure Tawney might make another group that does it, and he or others might support a candidate, but BHA doesn't do it. I just don't want anybody to think that BHA can do what the NRA does in regards to the capacity/level of politicking 

The contradiction is because the green decoys website is intentionally trying to conflate two separate actions by Tawney- that BHA and MHA are somehow linked beyond Tawney being a member of both organizations. Even though I'm a BHA member, I'm trying to just provide some very clear distinctions that are necessary to this conversation. I hope that makes sense. I think people, especially those involved in this discussion about BHA need to keep what BHA does separate from what an individual BHA might do or believe- even BHA leadership. Negligently, accidentally, or intentionally condensing all of BHA into a single decision, a single actor, a single state is problematic and divisive at best

[Special T]

Those old easements of trails should still be intact.... IF there was the will to push to keep it.

I did find a few easements for some pieces old trails BUT the roads to the trailheads don't have USFS easements.  I suppose you could parachute in and land on the trail, then it would be ok.  Other trails needs some more digging to see if they ever had on-paper easements.

I remember a discussion on here about access and that old USFS roads and trails were on maps they were good to go. much like how you cannot fence off a trail that kids have used to get to school for a long time. I want to say the discussion was Montana or Utah....

[bearpaw]

Those old easements of trails should still be intact.... IF there was the will to push to keep it.

I did find a few easements for some pieces old trails BUT the roads to the trailheads don't have USFS easements.  I suppose you could parachute in and land on the trail, then it would be ok.  Other trails needs some more digging to see if they ever had on-paper easements.

I remember a discussion on here about access and that old USFS roads and trails were on maps they were good to go. much like how you cannot fence off a trail that kids have used to get to school for a long time. I want to say the discussion was Montana or Utah....

I think most every forest has a "Travel Plan", and they have a "Travel Plan Map". Typically roads are closed to travel unless specifically identified as being open to travel, there will be a "Legend" which shows what type of vehicles are allowed on which types of roads per the way they are marked on the map. If the road is not marked as being open it is closed to travel.

[bearpaw]

For those who want to know more! From SCI regarding BHA and it's leadership and funding streams...

GUNS & HUNTING, WITHIN SCI
GREEN DECOYS EXPOSED
https://huntforever.org/2018/09/20/green-decoys-exposed/?utm_source=HunterPride&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_campaign=Advocacy2&utm_content=GreenDecoysExposed

[mfswallace]

 

[Slamadoo]

Anyone who seriously thinks that groups like BHA, TRCP, The Meateater crew, Newberg, or the LWCF are sportsmen and women's biggest threats or some sort of "green decoy" needs to look in the mirror and ask themselves what they want for the future of hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation. These groups and individuals are some of our best resources and tools towards preserving our public lands and hunting heritage for future generations.

Maybe I, you, or we don't agree on EVERY opinion or position that they take, but the positives FAR outweigh the negatives.

[jmscon]

Some people only see red or blue and not what is good for hunting or public access. It's hard to believe that both sides could come together for a common goal like hunting when everything has become so politically and socially divided. As hunters we need to be a little environmentalist, a little gun rights advocate, a little keep Federally managed lands Federally managed, a little fiscally conservative and a little conservationist.

There is big money funding the smear campaigns of BHA because of their stance keeping public lands in public hands and the LWCF. It's saddening to see a pro-hunting group spreading negative rumors about another pro-hunting group. It really is a sign of the times and I hope we can come out on top and prevent these campaigns from dividing us as hunters.

[jmscon]

Anyone who seriously thinks that groups like BHA, TRCP, The Meateater crew, Newberg, or the LWCF are sportsmen and women's biggest threats or some sort of "green decoy" needs to look in the mirror and ask themselves what they want for the future of hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation. These groups and individuals are some of our best resources and tools towards preserving our public lands and hunting heritage for future generations.

Maybe I, you, or we don't agree on EVERY opinion or position that they take, but the positives FAR outweigh the negatives.

 

[wolfbait]

I agree that Rinella and Newberg are great ambassadors for hunting. I agree that we need to prevent any net loss of public lands. I agree that we need to find ways to access landlocked public lands, those lands belong to all of the people of the United States. I think most of us agree on these points!

However, depending on your political views, I think it brings up serious questions for some hunters when you look at the leadershiip of BHA, where big donations are coming from, and where big money is being spent by BHA in politics. Rheeberg lost to Tester with the support of BHA, then Tester voted for almost all of Obama's policies. You can thank Tester for the Obamacare mess not to mention many other Obama policies! Yes, I do understand some of you support Obama and the democratic party and I understand many issues are important to us regardless of our political leanings.

But it's not at all crazy to question the underlying political objectives of BHA. Look how long people believed everything on major news media, now we have learned that many of the leading news sources completely made up or altered news stories and refused to report some stories for the political benefit of certain candidates. We've also learning that the FBI actually tried to impact the last presidential election.

I don't think it's crazy at all to question the objectives of a group that has questionable connections and given the extent to which political bias is being perpetuated in all facets of our lives. I suppose maybe it's just a difference in political views as to weather BHA's leaders and funding sources are questionable. It makes sense that if you support the democratic party and Obama policies that you would not mind your BHA dollars going for political campaigns of democrats or to split the Republican vote so the democrat win, it seems that is being admitted. I have to admit that I don't mind and I strongly support the NRA spending money on the political campaigns of candidates friendly to the 2nd Amendment and I would support other organizations if they wanted to spend money on candidates that support hunting, but many orgs don't get politically involved, their dollars are directed toward wildlife. So I understand those who support BHA knowing they are a left leaning politically motivated organization.

However, I do see a difference with the NRA verses BHA, the NRA openly admits that they are spending money to elect pro-firearm politicians. It almost seems like BHA is trying to hide that they support left wing politicians? Does that mean BHA is all bad, certainly not, but at the same time I'm not wanting my sporting dollars supporting candidates of the party that wants to limit the 2nd Amendment and in many cases the party that has restricted hunting and the 2nd Amendment, the party that eliminated or limited hound hunting and trapping in Washington, Oregon, Colorado, California, and has attempted to do so in many other states.

 

The bottom line for hunters etc. is to check into any outfits you want to support for your hunting rights etc.. As we have seen in this thread there are many who work for the other side.

Hell of a note to support an outfit that is working to destroy your hunting, just because some greeny's on a hunting site etc. claim otherwise. Do Your Own Research.

[NumaJohn]

Other side of what, wolfbait?

I'm a BHA member who loves to hunt. That puts me opposite you? You love to hunt, I bet. You value public access to public land, as I do, I imagine.

Seems to me we have much in common, except perhaps what we believe about BHA,

John

[jmscon]

I agree, do your own research!
When you start to use your vote for hunting and public lands first you will start to find that not all blue is against hunting, guns, Wilderness, roadless areas, pro-wolf and not all red is for public access and federally managed lands where so much of go hunting! If you start to vote hunting and public lands first you will start to get out of the deep blue and deep red and see that both sides of the isle can find common ground on things. Our society is so divided from social media and ultra liberal or conservative sites, news, talk shows, etc. that getting unbiased reporting is almost impossible. Fake news, slandering, selective reporting is rampant and ruining us.
My soap box just brok, I’m done.