Conservation NW and BHA

[idahohuntr]

I'm the east side co chair and will find time to chime in.  I'm busy coaching state wrestling this weekend, then have to collar cougars all next week, so computer access is going to be tough. 

I can say that so far in the thread it's pretty much the same wore out argument from people that hate CNW.   Whatever. Like any group that's been around for 30 years they have baggage.  I don't like that they worked to stop hound hunting but have worked with them to get some of it back, and they are supportive of some of that legislation again this year.

Maybe if we (hunters) had had that relationship in 1996 the initiative would have been defeated... ?

It's also true that we have a CNW staffer on the state board, as well as a tribal wildlife biologist, WDFW technician, financial advisor, pilot, log buyer, police officer.... Ect. That doesn't make BHA any more closely aligned with the airline industry or tribes than it does CNW.

Our CNW staff member is an avid hunter and  fisherman and is dedicated to that protecting those privileges.  We have been more effective with him on the board and are glad he's a part of BHA.   

My suspicion is that the few of you that are bashing CNW have never spent a minute actually talking to one of their staffers.  It would probably help inform your opinion.

Now we're getting somewhere, thanks for taking the time to address this 

People like Idahohunter are doing BHA a huge disservice with their caustic language and personal attacks, I look forward to asking questions from someone who actually knows something about BHA 

Exposing your illogical statements and misinformation is not a personal attack.  You can continue to try and play the victim card all you want but I'm not going to allow you to post whatever you want without applying critical thought.   

[KFhunter]

Shh, the adults are in the room.  It's time for you to simmer down now.   

[Stein]

Huh?

No,  BHA's mission is to gather up as many names as they can to throw behind legislation they support, like the quite waters initiative blocking access to waterfowlers and hunters alike who used the river system to access hunting areas. 

If BHA had been successful this hunt would be illegal.

What part of the proposal would have made that hunt illegal?

I just looked it up, BHA's position paper on the topic included detailed recommendations on a variety of bodies of water.  For the Flathead, The only change to existing regulations they proposed was to have a seasonal no-wake restriction from 6/1-10/15 (before waterfowl season) coupled with limitations on PWC use in certain areas.  Basically, they proposed limiting excessive summer use by PWC users that has created conflicts with local residents and disruption of stuff like fishing.

[KFhunter]

And you don't see the rub?


Rich Californians moved in to the flathead valley and drove house costs sky high!   And they want pristine quite nature...the same people who give large sums of money to groups like Sierra Club, Pew and others..and by proxy BHA. 

they want those noisy boats off the river in front of their huge new houses!

[dreamunelk]

If BHA is so hunter friendly why is it supporting Wild Olympics?

Supporting an action that makes second growth mono culture wilderness is insane.
Supporting an action that will stop all the hunters who use the roads for bicycling in or using a game cart to get meat out is insane.

This act pretty much only affects hunters since they are the main user for many of the areas.

There is no science that supports.  It is purely political.

[JimmyHoffa]

If BHA is so hunter friendly why is it supporting Wild Olympics?

Supporting an action that makes second growth mono culture wilderness is insane.
Supporting an action that will stop all the hunters who use the roads for bicycling in or using a game cart to get meat out is insane.

This act pretty much only affects hunters since they are the main user for many of the areas.

There is no science that supports.  It is purely political.

They went farther than that.  They supported transferring land from the National Forest to the Park.

[dreamunelk]

If BHA is so hunter friendly why is it supporting Wild Olympics?

Supporting an action that makes second growth mono culture wilderness is insane.
Supporting an action that will stop all the hunters who use the roads for bicycling in or using a game cart to get meat out is insane.

This act pretty much only affects hunters since they are the main user for many of the areas.

There is no science that supports.  It is purely political.

They went farther than that.  They supported transferring land from the National Forest to the Park.

Wow!

How can any pro hunting organization support that?

[Stein]

And you don't see the rub?


Rich Californians moved in to the flathead valley and drove house costs sky high!   And they want pristine quite nature...the same people who give large sums of money to groups like Sierra Club, Pew and others..and by proxy BHA. 

they want those noisy boats off the river in front of their huge new houses!

You stated that they supported an initiative that would have made hunting illegal.  That is factually inaccurate and misleading.  Hunting would not have been illegal or even impacted in any way.  Additionally, it would have improved fishing by limiting PWC use.  For those wanting to form an opinion on the organization, it is helpful to have accurate information.

I am sure there are things BHA does that I don't agree with.  That puts them in the same category as 100% of the organizations out there.

To me, access to public land to recreate is the #1 issue facing hunters.  They are one of many organizations and individuals that have made incredible progress in blocking the sale of land and protecting and improving a national treasure.  That doesn't mean I give them carte blanche, it simply means they are generally pointed in the same direction I am and I am happy they are out there getting stuff done in general.

[KFhunter]

It got a little closer to home now 

they want to do the same thing closer to my home, turn huge nat forest areas into wilderness.   I just got a bicycle for hunting behind locked gates but if they wilderness it I can't use the bike anymore. 

Seriously thinking about getting horses, looks like I'm going to need them to get back past all the boot hunters.   Everyone will be corralled at a few trail heads for access points instead of dispersing throughout the range using various locked gates and wide spots in the roads as jumping off points.   

[KFhunter]

And you don't see the rub?


Rich Californians moved in to the flathead valley and drove house costs sky high!   And they want pristine quite nature...the same people who give large sums of money to groups like Sierra Club, Pew and others..and by proxy BHA. 

they want those noisy boats off the river in front of their huge new houses!

You stated that they supported an initiative that would have made hunting illegal.  That is factually inaccurate and misleading.  Hunting would not have been illegal or even impacted in any way.  Additionally, it would have improved fishing by limiting PWC use.  For those wanting to form an opinion on the organization, it is helpful to have accurate information.

I am sure there are things BHA does that I don't agree with.  That puts them in the same category as 100% of the organizations out there.

To me, access to public land to recreate is the #1 issue facing hunters.  They are one of many organizations and individuals that have made incredible progress in blocking the sale of land and protecting and improving a national treasure.  That doesn't mean I give them carte blanche, it simply means they are generally pointed in the same direction I am and I am happy they are out there getting stuff done in general.

The stuff you came up with is different than what I came up with,  my information is the proposal that failed,  perhaps since it failed they have modified it in order to get it pass this next time.   I don't forgive them their initial attempt however, they tried to make it combustion free...it failed.

[Stein]

Simply show evidence that BHA proposed banning all combustion engines on the Flathead.  I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm just saying I couldn't find anything to support that claim.

The issues are important enough to separate fact from fiction during an age where misinformation spreads like wildfire.

[KFhunter]

Simply show evidence that BHA proposed banning all combustion engines on the Flathead.  I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm just saying I couldn't find anything to support that claim.

The issues are important enough to separate fact from fiction during an age where misinformation spreads like wildfire.

It's all in here, and more!

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/backcountryhunters/pages/2831/attachments/original/1476226083/Quiet_Waters_Proposal_MT_BHA.pdf?1476226083

[Stein]

Scroll down to the Flathead, which is the river you posted about, and you will see they did not recommend any regulations that would impact duck hunters. 

[dwils233]

Shh, the adults are in the room.  It's time for you to simmer down now.   

With all due respect, I tried to be an adult in the room for the last 4 pages. I explained why such groups work together, I pointed out that leap in logic i perceive in the BHA anti-hunting logic, I explained my best understanding of how/why BHA would take grant money from disparate groups...

you've made me clarify how a non-profit receives funding with derision and sarcasm and denigrated anyone who had a different perspective than you. I do not believe I have engaged in hyperbole, personal attacks or even responded to any comment with anything other than an honest, open and polite intention. I don't think its appropriate for a mod to run around insinuating that other people are children because someone holds a different position.  I also don't think it demonstrates good leadership on this forum (for anyone) to act intentionally obtuse, engage in bad faith arguments, ask questions and refuse to engage in a conversation about the answer when its given or to demonize people who disagree with your firmly held position. That's been the running theme for almost this entire thread, no matter how sincere any efforts have been to elevate that conversation. You want to know why fewer BHA members are commenting on this thread? Because they have better uses of their time and energy than  to talking to someone/people who don't want to listen, who doesn't want a true honest exchange of ideas or philosphies. I'll be honest, these conversations about BHA are just as exhausting as I feel about talking guns with anti-gunners.

It is abundantly clear that people on this forum have incredibly strong feelings about BHA. Most who dislike it invoke the same talking points to convey their reasons. Most in support have made their reasons clear. I can only finish by saying this- I agree with most of what BHA does, and I have no problem voicing my concerns when I disagree. I made my voice heard last year at the rendvous in the national board meet and greet and in the chapter meeting. I will continue to be a BHA member because then I can have a say and hold them accountable when I disagree. If you don't weigh in, you don't wrastle. with BHA's membership, they don't need to convince anyone who dislikes them to join, but you're definitely not going to have any sway with their direction if you just hate on them and refuse to participate. Just like CNW is a BHA ally when it suits them, BHA is my ally as it suits me. When BHA actually begins working in earnest against my interests (short and long term), then I'll hold them accountable. Until then, they can take money from anyone they want and work with whoever they want to protect wildlife and public lands and opportunity for myself and my family. I have to assume at least some other BHA members, board members and chapter leaders, corporate sponsors and spokespeople probably made the same value-based decision- they aren't just sheep being suckered into it. I know that others hear will never join BHA and thats fine, but those people really really should stop accusing others of being stupid suckers who are being conned by a bad organization. We've made our choices, we can either try to understand and respect each other for it and engage at that level or we should just stop talking about.

[KFhunter]

I've appreciated your input, that comment was directed at Idahounter, he and I have a very long history of debating various topics from wolves to BHA and a who slew of other topics, very rarely have we agreed on anything, but yes it's happened a couple of times    Over the years he's learned enough about me to get in subtle barbs designed to get under my skin in an effort to get me to say stuff on the forum out of frustration.  It's intentional, and it's subtle enough others may not spot it.   

Mods often take a lot of abuse, morso than regular members as we're loath to be seen as abusing mod powers.  I've seen Bearpaw take an enormous amount of abuse and do nothing in return as a forum owner, it's very unlike other forums I've been on where the owner would punt a member for much much less!   intentionally obfuscating threads is against forum rules and that is what is going on here.   I'm very open to debate and discussing topics like adults, but even I sometimes get drug down in the mud and find myself slinging it too.   While I am a mod here volunteering, I'm also a member.   If I can go a week or two without putting on my mod hat it's a good thing!

Thanks for the critical input, I would like us to continue to act like adults, but understand I am in a pickle between being a mod and being a member, it's like debating with a golf handicap, it's difficult to always be held to a higher standard and not climb down in the mud wallow and start flinging it too.