Frustrated with Washington BHA event Free the Snake

[idaho guy]

Idaho Guy, would you be good with the new nuclear energy start up at Hanford taking over the need for hydro dams?  I gotta think cold, free flowing rivers would greatly benefit wildlife as the dams kind of act like the solar panels and greatly mess up anything under and above them.

I’m for nuclear just not by my house ha ha. I think we could have cold free flowing rivers with hydroelectric power. No one has tried anything new with dams they are just obsessed with removing them. It’s the safest renewable energy source we have. Not having had large scale nuclear energy production as a Country before, I think there could be dangers we aren’t even aware of. But I do think Nuclear should be part of the energy solution. Why not harness hydro? We just need to invest in new technology and ways of doing it. The technology is there but apparently there’s no money in it because the politicians etc won’t even talk about it. Just rip the old dams out ? Doesn’t make sense especially when they are working hard to double our electric power consumption.

[KFhunter]

We might be on the cusp of Nuclear fusion, that would change everything

Like a little mini sun

[dwils233]

I'm not surprised one bit. I'm just disappointed I ever gave them money.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

me too. BHA Looks great at first glance but take a deeper look and 

I looked at their Facebook page for a few weeks when I was thinking of joining. They have a deep and passionate hatred of anyone who doesn’t follow their agenda to the letter.. I changed my mind about joining,

Saw their agenda 20 tears ago when I was a WSSA member and they can move in with their buddy Insleaze or your favorite commission members

If you think BHA is working to undermine hunting via the commission I have to assume you have either not watched what they've been doing for the last 2 years, or you think they are playing a very underhanded and nefarious game to destroy hunting in this state by standing up for it.

In regards to the snake river dams, two things can be true at the same time
1. Removal of the dams is widely regarded as a critical requirement to stave off extirpation of salmon and steelhead in those waters
2. Removal of the dams poses massive deleterious outcomes that must be resolved first, if they can be resolved at all (barging, power replacement, etc)

I think BHA is advocating for #1 but I haven't seen anything dismissing #2. I would imagine that an event advocating for #1 would be a perfect place to discuss #2 with those parties, particularly with vocal advocates for removal. They should be asked how they have considered the impacts and mitigation ideas. I think it's reasonable that BHA, within their mission, would be in favor of removal and I don't think they are ignoring the facts that we have to answer all the questions around removal.

I don't think BHA is obligated to host an oppositional debate panel to something within their mission, any more than SCI is required to give equal time to PETA at their convention. I do think BHA is well served by listening to opposing views and answering questions and I bet that's something that can be done at this event. A debate between two entrenched and oppositional positions usually just results in talking points being lobbed across the room- I think thats less beneficial than showing up to an event held by opposition and just asking questions with honesty and transparency.

BHA is never going to be all things to all people, and it is likely going to take positions on things that some hunters, anglers and members might oppose. Some members didn't want them to weigh in on spring bear, others want them to stay out of salmon issues. The challenge therein, is choosing the right amount of energy and emphasis to apply, and hopefully doing it with enough nuance to be effective and intelligent. If you're looking for an organization that you agree with 100% of the time, I think it'll be a lifelong challenge. I work with BHA because I agree with most of what they do, not everything.

I think the WA chapter, which is just a bunch of volunteers, has proven to be sportsmen and women who really care about hunting/wildlife in washington. I think nationals can be a mixed bag. That means I'm about 75% in agreement with what they do and thats good enough for me. I can also tell that for some people, even if you agreed with 95% of what they did, it wouldn't be enough. Different strokes. What I don't understand is when people take any opportunity to attack an org (not accusing the OP of that).

Can BHA be better? absolutely and the same can be said of plenty of non-profits. But I think they are working hard to prove to this state that they do care about hunting and habitat. If you don't like the way they are engaging on an issue, talk to them and ask why they did it and give them hard questions. But there is a difference between good faith criticism and bad faith denigration. Only one of those fosters improvement. I would think that after the last 18 months or so, WA BHA had earned some wary trust from hunters but its obvious they will never be the right org for everyone.

As far as solar impacts on habitat, WA BHA has done a lot of work in the shrub steppe for sage grouse cover/feed and fence removal for mule deer habitat. I can't imagine a world where they would put that on the table as an easy trade for salmon/steelhead. Thats why its an important to question to ask them how they resolve the two.

[NumaJohn]

What a sensible, balanced post, dwills233. Thank you.

John

(full disclosure: I am a longtime and continuing BHA member)

I'm not surprised one bit. I'm just disappointed I ever gave them money.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

me too. BHA Looks great at first glance but take a deeper look and 

I looked at their Facebook page for a few weeks when I was thinking of joining. They have a deep and passionate hatred of anyone who doesn’t follow their agenda to the letter.. I changed my mind about joining,

Saw their agenda 20 tears ago when I was a WSSA member and they can move in with their buddy Insleaze or your favorite commission members

If you think BHA is working to undermine hunting via the commission I have to assume you have either not watched what they've been doing for the last 2 years, or you think they are playing a very underhanded and nefarious game to destroy hunting in this state by standing up for it.

In regards to the snake river dams, two things can be true at the same time
1. Removal of the dams is widely regarded as a critical requirement to stave off extirpation of salmon and steelhead in those waters
2. Removal of the dams poses massive deleterious outcomes that must be resolved first, if they can be resolved at all (barging, power replacement, etc)

I think BHA is advocating for #1 but I haven't seen anything dismissing #2. I would imagine that an event advocating for #1 would be a perfect place to discuss #2 with those parties, particularly with vocal advocates for removal. They should be asked how they have considered the impacts and mitigation ideas. I think it's reasonable that BHA, within their mission, would be in favor of removal and I don't think they are ignoring the facts that we have to answer all the questions around removal.

I don't think BHA is obligated to host an oppositional debate panel to something within their mission, any more than SCI is required to give equal time to PETA at their convention. I do think BHA is well served by listening to opposing views and answering questions and I bet that's something that can be done at this event. A debate between two entrenched and oppositional positions usually just results in talking points being lobbed across the room- I think thats less beneficial than showing up to an event held by opposition and just asking questions with honesty and transparency.

BHA is never going to be all things to all people, and it is likely going to take positions on things that some hunters, anglers and members might oppose. Some members didn't want them to weigh in on spring bear, others want them to stay out of salmon issues. The challenge therein, is choosing the right amount of energy and emphasis to apply, and hopefully doing it with enough nuance to be effective and intelligent. If you're looking for an organization that you agree with 100% of the time, I think it'll be a lifelong challenge. I work with BHA because I agree with most of what they do, not everything.

I think the WA chapter, which is just a bunch of volunteers, has proven to be sportsmen and women who really care about hunting/wildlife in washington. I think nationals can be a mixed bag. That means I'm about 75% in agreement with what they do and thats good enough for me. I can also tell that for some people, even if you agreed with 95% of what they did, it wouldn't be enough. Different strokes. What I don't understand is when people take any opportunity to attack an org (not accusing the OP of that).

Can BHA be better? absolutely and the same can be said of plenty of non-profits. But I think they are working hard to prove to this state that they do care about hunting and habitat. If you don't like the way they are engaging on an issue, talk to them and ask why they did it and give them hard questions. But there is a difference between good faith criticism and bad faith denigration. Only one of those fosters improvement. I would think that after the last 18 months or so, WA BHA had earned some wary trust from hunters but its obvious they will never be the right org for everyone.

As far as solar impacts on habitat, WA BHA has done a lot of work in the shrub steppe for sage grouse cover/feed and fence removal for mule deer habitat. I can't imagine a world where they would put that on the table as an easy trade for salmon/steelhead. Thats why its an important to question to ask them how they resolve the two.