Conservation NW and BHA

[bearpaw]

I don't see green groups pouring millions of dollars of grant money into the NRA or SCI? By pouring millions into BHA the green foundations and green groups doing this are getting extremely effective lobbying efforts to expand wilderness, this in effect shuts out the majority of users from easily accessing traditional hunting and fishing areas. The whole concept is brilliant, they have hit a home run.

I understand some hunters and anglers are strong supporters of the green ideology. If you are a person who thinks large National Forest areas (many of which are already designated as roadless areas) should be turned into wilderness or made into parks or monuments, if you think putting restrictions on waters commonly used by many types of recreationists is needed, if you think that putting more and more users into smaller and smaller accessible areas will benefit you, if you want to side with green groups rather than side with other outdoor users on many issues, then I think BHA is probably the perfect organization to join and support.

NE Washington is a perfect example. There are thousands of acres already designated by the Colville National Forest as roadless areas but for some reason this already designated back country is not suitable to BHA and Conservation Northwest who want to remove certain existing access roads and make more and larger wilderness areas. The majority of people in NE WA oppose this, yet green groups like Conservation Northwest and BHA almost successfully forced the issue onto our local area. This is why BHA is getting millions of dollars from green foundations, those green foundations are buying influence and very effective lobbying power. It's brilliant!

[idahohuntr]

I engage in this forum to discuss ideas and policies and laws and regulations that involve hunting and wildlife management.  These topics sometimes require a thick skin - but they are usually important and worthy of discussion.  I reject the hyperbole that BHA is anti hunting or a green decoy because the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.  I also reject the notion that I have to agree 100% with all positions of an organization, all its members, all their funding sources, all the time or they are my sworn enemy because that is simply illogical.  These positions and ideas have nothing to do with individual members on this forum. For anyone to suggest these discussions are borne out of some petty desire to get under their skin speaks far more about their motivations than mine.   

[bearpaw]

Administrator Hat On
There are quite a few members who belong to BHA, some of our moderators support BHA, I really feel that it's each person's decision who they want to support. We are all different in what we may choose to support and the more discussion that occurs on any topic the more information people will have. I think this is a good discussion as long as we can avoid personal attacks on each other. While I personally choose not to belong to BHA and I will probably post some of my personal views about the leadership and financing of BHA I do understand there are many very dedicated hunters who belong to BHA and are very passionate about advocating for wilderness and public lands, there are also other hunters who are opposed to certain BHA goals, this forum is a good venue for members with varying viewpoints on either side of the issue to express themselves.

[Bob33]

Administrator Hat On
There are quite a few members who belong to BHA, some of our moderators support BHA, I really feel that it's each person's decision who they want to support. We are all different in what we may choose to support and the more discussion that occurs on any topic the more information people will have. I think this is a good discussion as long as we can avoid personal attacks on each other. While I personally choose not to belong to BHA and I will probably post some of my personal views about the leadership and financing of BHA I do understand there are many very dedicated hunters who belong to BHA and are very passionate about advocating for wilderness and public lands, there are also other hunters who are opposed to certain BHA goals, this forum is a good venue for members with varying viewpoints on either side of the issue to express themselves.

Well said. Far too often there is too much shouting for either side to hear the other.

[Stein]

 

This is probably the best moderated forum I have been part of.  Although it gets frisky from time to time, differing viewpoints are allowed which usually isn't the case in other places.

Without doubt, there are some tectonic changes to hunting that are being ushered in from both new hunters as well as non-hunters.  Not everyone will agree for sure, I simply hope we can focus on the issues, avoid name calling and try our best to have the facts straight.

I'm not a part of BHA in any way, I've never been a member but wouldn't be opposed to joining.  Clearly, the B stands for Backcountry (aka places with no motors), which means they are in support and supported by people that enjoy and want backcountry experiences.  There is also the portion of hunters that think there is probably too much backcountry already and we should have more motor access.

The other piece is the 97% of people who don't hunt yet have a voice in what happens to public land.

Finally, this isn't a new issue, there was widespread disagreement when Yellowstone Park became the first national park. 

Some of the locals feared that the regional economy would be unable to thrive if there remained strict federal prohibitions against resource development or settlement within park boundaries and local entrepreneurs advocated reducing the size of the park so that mining, hunting, and logging activities could be developed.  To this end, numerous bills were introduced into Congress by Montana representatives who sought to remove the federal land-use restrictions.

It is a discussion that has been going on for at least 150 years, what is the proper use and disposition of public lands?

[grundy53]

Well said!

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk