Post by: bearpaw on September 29, 2013, 02:25:10 PM
from Toby Bridges
Ryan and Mark;
As a lifelong sportsman, and a strong supporter and student of the North American Model of Wildlife Management, I have to say that I am extremely disappointed in both The Sportsman Channel and Federal Cartridge for airing and sponsoring a show that supports the destruction of the big game herds of the Northern Rockies.
Last week's segment of Randy Newberg's "Fresh Tracks" was one of the saddest "outdoor" or "hunting" shows I have ever endured. Never have I witnessed a bigger lie aired. Do either of you really know the agenda that you've slipped into bed with?
Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is a major sponsor of the show. My guess is that the show was their idea in the first place, a new way to attack the wildlife management practices that rewarded this country with an abundance of game. This bogus sportsman group is extremely pro-wolf, pro-predator - and that came through loud and clear in the manner in which Newberg praised how he could hunt those large roadless tracts due to the difficulty of getting into them...and the lack of other hunters. Still he found nothing. Durng the entire show, supposedly hunting for 30 something days, he saw what...a grand total of a half-dozen deer? Yeah...he mentioned spotting a couple of bucks...one which he claimed to be the biggest backcountry buck he had ever spotted. None of the viewers saw them. So...Did he really...or was that just a scripted ploy to soften the impact that uncontrolled predators have had on that wilderness area and just about every other wilderness area in the state of Montana...and in a majority of Idaho and some of Wyoming?
For a more factual look at what's happening in Montana's remote, roadless, wilderness backcountry - go to this link -
http://www.lobowatch.com/adminclient/WolfImpact10/go (http://www.lobowatch.com/adminclient/WolfImpact10/go)
Apparently neither of you really know much about Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. Have you taken a good look at its Executive Director, Land Tawney?
Tawney was one of a handful of similar minded people who put together another bogus sportsman group, known as Montana Hunters and Anglers Action. They were nothing more than a political activist group. Outsiders could not join the group, or attend their meetings. The Executive Director of the Montana Outfitters and Guides Association tried to attend one of their meetings, just to get a feel for their platform, and was told right to his face that he wasn't welcomed...and told to leave. Land Tawney headed that group, which during the 2012 elections spent several million $$$'s of non-disclosed (environmental group) money on television advertisements (slur campaign) to discredit Denny Rehberg, who was running against Jon Tester for his seat in the U.S. Senate. Rehberg was strongly in favor of aggressive wolf control, and having the gray wolf totally removed from the Endangered Species List and from the protection of the Endangered Species Act.
Tawney was on the (very pro-wolf) National Wildlife Federation staff and payroll. Now he heads an organization that is ONLY PRETENDING to be a sportsman's group...ONLY PRETENDING to work toward conserving hunting opportunities. The man is part of a much larger agenda, which simply looks to shut off public access to public lands.
Randy Newberg's push for even more roadless wilderness is also a part of that idiocy, which I will be sharing later this week in a LOBO WATCH Release.
This morning, I shared some thoughts on all of this on several Facebook pages, including the LOBO WATCH Facebook page, and have already received private messages and e-mails from a large number of sportsmen who "used to" tune into The Sportsman Channel...and who "used to" buy Federal ammo. Now they feel slapped in the face and stabbed in the back. The word I've heard over and over again has been "Boycott" - and as word of this spreads, I kind of feel that the beat of that drum will grow much louder.
And so you will know, I am sharing this e-mail with several hundred members of the Shooting & Hunting Industry and the Outdoor Media - plus a number of real sportsmen organizations.
If you want to know more about how Backcountry Hunters and Anglers feel about the impact of wolves and other predators on big game herds, go to this link, and scroll to page 20...
http://www.backcountryhunters.org/images/journal_pdfs/bcj_fall_2012.pdf (http://www.backcountryhunters.org/images/journal_pdfs/bcj_fall_2012.pdf)
Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH
www.lobowatch.com (http://www.lobowatch.com)
406 542-9751
Post by: blackdog on September 29, 2013, 07:38:16 PM
Post by: Eli346 on September 29, 2013, 07:51:10 PM
Post by: dreamunelk on September 29, 2013, 07:54:01 PM
This group is active in Washington State politics. :yike:
Very active!
Post by: snowpack on September 29, 2013, 07:56:47 PM
Post by: deerslyr on September 29, 2013, 08:44:27 PM
Thats really strange considering Randy was the first person to air a successful wolf hunt on national television that drew TONS of negative criticism, why would BHA still support him and be a "major sponsor" of his show. This post is a bunch of bull. Randy has done so much for the public land hunter its not even funny.
Post by: jackelope on September 29, 2013, 09:46:48 PM
http://onyourownadventures.com/partners.php (http://onyourownadventures.com/partners.php)
Let me get this straight. These guys are complaining because Newberg was promoting roadless areas and tough to access areas?
Post by: JLS on September 29, 2013, 09:55:10 PM
I've watched some of his shows on DIY hunting and they seemed pretty good. That's too bad because I won't be watching them now. Thanks for the heads up.
Anyone that would consider Toby Bridges as a credible advocate for the average do-it-yourself sportsmen is kidding themselves. Randy Newberg is a tireless advocate for hunters and anglers. Toby Bridges is a complete hack.
Randy Newberg has given a voice to hunters nationwide in regards to the wolf issue, and the legalized hunting of them in a civil and articulate manner. I consider Randy an excellent spokesman for hunters, who is well versed in the North American model of wildlife management. Randy values the ability to hunt roadless areas, just as I do. I fail to see how that is a push to end hunting. It's merely a push to provide hunting opportunities that have a wilderness flavor to them.
Toby Bridges does nothing to promote hunting opportunities and rights for the average person. Consider the source. If Toby Bridges told me the sky was blue, I would still double check.
Post by: jackelope on September 29, 2013, 10:03:19 PM
:yeah:I've watched some of his shows on DIY hunting and they seemed pretty good. That's too bad because I won't be watching them now. Thanks for the heads up.
Anyone that would consider Toby Bridges as a credible advocate for the average do-it-yourself sportsmen is kidding themselves. Randy Newberg is a tireless advocate for hunters and anglers. Toby Bridges is a complete hack.
people need to do homework before jumping to conclusions. Reading that article and then boycotting the Sportsman channel and Randy Newberg is ridiculous. You might as well boycott Kimber, CRKT, Seek Outside, and all the other companies advertising in that publication.
Post by: bearpaw on September 30, 2013, 07:18:50 AM
I've heard before that Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is being funded by the greenies. In fact they are siding with Conservation Northwest on many issue in eastern Washington. I don't have any proof yet, but I have been told that Conservation Northwest supports BCHA.
BCHA posted a temporary job position a while back and I looked into this organization and it raised some questions in my mind. I wrote a letter to their organization suggesting my interest in the job and asking about their position on several topics and asking where their funding comes from (because they do not have enough members for the amount of money they are throwing around). I did not get any response.
I would be very cautious about this organization, it may be a front for Conservation Northwest to try and say hunters support their goals. Anyone who does not believe that the greenies are carefully planning all their moves is sadly mistaken.
I don't have any comments about Newberg or the show, because I've never seen the show. But I am wondering where the money comes from for BCHA to sponsor the show?
:yeah:I've watched some of his shows on DIY hunting and they seemed pretty good. That's too bad because I won't be watching them now. Thanks for the heads up.
Anyone that would consider Toby Bridges as a credible advocate for the average do-it-yourself sportsmen is kidding themselves. Randy Newberg is a tireless advocate for hunters and anglers. Toby Bridges is a complete hack.
people need to do homework before jumping to conclusions. Reading that article and then boycotting the Sportsman channel and Randy Newberg is ridiculous. You might as well boycott Kimber, CRKT, Seek Outside, and all the other companies advertising in that publication.
I'm not going to say that Toby Bridges is the most tactful in his writings, but I clearly remember when many members on this forum said people like Toby Bridges were sensationalizing the wolf effects taking place in Idaho and Montana. Now that the true herd numbers is common knowledge, it turns out Toby Bridges and many others were correct about wolf impacts on elk. If you want to say anyone is misleading hunters you may want to start by naming some agency personnel. :twocents:
I'll also remind everyone that Jamie Rappaport Clark who used to head the USFWS is now heading a leading animal rights group. Exactly how many more of our agency personnel would happily take jobs with animal rights groups? :twocents:
Just because someone works for an agency does not mean they are a friend of hunters and fishers, in increasing frequency it may mean the exact opposite. :yike:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on September 30, 2013, 07:55:24 AM
Not listed as a sponsor here.No, it's because they (BH&A) are advocating more, More, MORE restricted access lands, and defacto USFS,BLM wilderness And this backcountry bunch IS a front for them.
http://onyourownadventures.com/partners.php (http://onyourownadventures.com/partners.php)
Let me get this straight. These guys are complaining because Newberg was promoting roadless areas and tough to access areas?
BRC brought thge BH&A to our (motorized) attention years ago
Post by: buckfvr on September 30, 2013, 08:14:19 AM
Trust isnt automatic because of ones affilliations. Distrust is easier to garner.
Having been around for a relatively long time, and been able to watch the progress up to this point, it makes it easy for me to default to distrust. The reasons for that are many, especially in the last decade........then consider the 4 plus decades of my awareness and all the changes I have seen. Thats why there is as much pessimism among the guys my age. We have witnessed 4 decades of everything going down hill for the most part. :twocents:
Post by: CAMPMEAT on September 30, 2013, 08:33:09 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Post by: washelkhunter on September 30, 2013, 09:16:50 AM
Post by: Curly on September 30, 2013, 09:23:22 AM
If you want to get his position on the issue, then maybe go and post on Hunt Talk since he is the owner over there. People have differing opinions on many issues. I won't be boycotting the Sportsman Channel or Randy's show anytime soon. I have to do some more reading on the issue, but don't have time right now.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on September 30, 2013, 09:26:21 AM
I too, like Randy Newman's show.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on September 30, 2013, 09:42:00 AM
Didn't we have our typical arguments on " Backcountry Hunters and Anglers " on here ? I do believe some on here praised them.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
You're right. I remember starting the thread.....
Post by: jackelope on September 30, 2013, 09:45:21 AM
Randy's shows are some of the best (if not THE best) hunting shows on TV.
If you want to get his position on the issue, then maybe go and post on Hunt Talk since he is the owner over there. People have differing opinions on many issues. I won't be boycotting the Sportsman Channel or Randy's show anytime soon. I have to do some more reading on the issue, but don't have time right now.
I sent him a message asking him if he'd care to comment on our thread here. Don't be surprised if he chimes in.
Post by: Northway on September 30, 2013, 10:12:24 AM
I'm undecided on this one and not sure exactly what to think.
I've heard before that Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is being funded by the greenies. In fact they are siding with Conservation Northwest on many issue in eastern Washington. I don't have any proof yet, but I have been told that Conservation Northwest supports BCHA.
BCHA posted a temporary job position a while back and I looked into this organization and it raised some questions in my mind. I wrote a letter to their organization suggesting my interest in the job and asking about their position on several topics and asking where their funding comes from (because they do not have enough members for the amount of money they are throwing around). I did not get any response.
I would be very cautious about this organization, it may be a front for Conservation Northwest to try and say hunters support their goals. Anyone who does not believe that the greenies are carefully planning all their moves is sadly mistaken.
I don't have any comments about Newberg or the show, because I've never seen the show. But I am wondering where the money comes from for BCHA to sponsor the show?:yeah:I've watched some of his shows on DIY hunting and they seemed pretty good. That's too bad because I won't be watching them now. Thanks for the heads up.
Anyone that would consider Toby Bridges as a credible advocate for the average do-it-yourself sportsmen is kidding themselves. Randy Newberg is a tireless advocate for hunters and anglers. Toby Bridges is a complete hack.
people need to do homework before jumping to conclusions. Reading that article and then boycotting the Sportsman channel and Randy Newberg is ridiculous. You might as well boycott Kimber, CRKT, Seek Outside, and all the other companies advertising in that publication.
I'm not going to say that Toby Bridges is the most tactful in his writings, but I clearly remember when many members on this forum said people like Toby Bridges were sensationalizing the wolf effects taking place in Idaho and Montana. Now that the true herd numbers is common knowledge, it turns out Toby Bridges and many others were correct about wolf impacts on elk. If you want to say anyone is misleading hunters you may want to start by naming some agency personnel. :twocents:
I'll also remind everyone that Jamie Rappaport Clark who used to head the USFWS is now heading a leading animal rights group. Exactly how many more of our agency personnel would happily take jobs with animal rights groups? :twocents:
Just because someone works for an agency does not mean they are a friend of hunters and fishers, in increasing frequency it may mean the exact opposite. :yike:
Over the years I've read or watched a lot of stuff put out by folks like Toby Bridges, Scott Rockholm, Bob Fanning, etc.
I'll avoid direct criticism in this case since I get the impression you're not a huge fan of that kind of thing. I will say however, that in the anti-wolf advocacy arena, I believe you have a lot more credibility than they do. When someone at least seems honest, that in itself can go a long ways when it comes to bridging gaps. :twocents:
This is just a guess on my part, but I doubt CNW has enough money to fund any front organizations. My impression is that donations have been pretty slim for them over the last few years as they have shed multiple employees.
Post by: JLS on September 30, 2013, 11:19:24 AM
In contrast, Randy Newberg has repeatedly spoken out in a factual and collected manner. He has represented hunters and anglers on many different levels, and in doing so has drawn the ire of the lunatic fringe, to include Toby Bridges, wolf protectionists, and MOGA. This tells me that his stance is right where it should be.
I do not automatically assume that someone is on my side because of the agency they work for. Nor do I automatically assume that an agency's stance is evil because of group affiliations and/or support.
I spent two weeks bowhunting in Montana. I was in the SW region. Not ONCE did I see or hear a wolf, nor did I see a track, possible scat, or possible kills. I was constantly in to elk, and this was in three distinctly different locations.
Yes, wolves have an impact on elk numbers, but the sky is not falling. One of the areas I hunted has had wolves in neighboring districts for many years. Other hunters kept blaming wolves because they weren't seeing elk. Funny how we were able to find them, but didn't see a single physical sign of wolves despite the fact that we spent ALL day out, every day.
Post by: idahohuntr on September 30, 2013, 07:39:22 PM
This is my opinion only. I consider Toby Bridges to be as much the lunatic fringe as the groups that push too end all wolf hunting. Toby is continually firing off unfounded accusations at all different levels in much the same vein that the talking heads on CNN do to elicit an emotional response.:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
In contrast, Randy Newberg has repeatedly spoken out in a factual and collected manner. He has represented hunters and anglers on many different levels, and in doing so has drawn the ire of the lunatic fringe, to include Toby Bridges, wolf protectionists, and MOGA. This tells me that his stance is right where it should be.
I do not automatically assume that someone is on my side because of the agency they work for. Nor do I automatically assume that an agency's stance is evil because of group affiliations and/or support.
I spent two weeks bowhunting in Montana. I was in the SW region. Not ONCE did I see or hear a wolf, nor did I see a track, possible scat, or possible kills. I was constantly in to elk, and this was in three distinctly different locations.
Yes, wolves have an impact on elk numbers, but the sky is not falling. One of the areas I hunted has had wolves in neighboring districts for many years. Other hunters kept blaming wolves because they weren't seeing elk. Funny how we were able to find them, but didn't see a single physical sign of wolves despite the fact that we spent ALL day out, every day.
I don't know any of these characters mentioned well...I have read and seen some of Newberg's shows/writings and I would agree from what I've seen that he is an outstanding ambassador to our sport. There are a lot of lunatics with no credibility spouting garbage about wildlife management and wolves...usually described as some conspiracy with no reliable evidence to support it.
I also believe the impacts of wolves on elk in Idaho has been greatly overplayed. My family has elk hunted for generations in Idaho. There are areas where wolves have had impacts, and certainly zones like Lolo have had wolf and habitat changes that have dramatically reduced herd sizes. However, by and large, most units in Idaho are doing alright...some are even doing pretty well. My family and friends would hate me for writing this, but yes, if you talk to locals they are going to tell you wolves have killed off all the elk...this is almost an inside joke for locals these days to try and keep all of us non-residents the hell out of their hunting areas. :chuckle: :chuckle: I just got back from scouting with friends in Idaho for a general season hunt...I saw several herds of elk...I have no doubt my friends that have tags will have opportunities in this area.
On the backcountry hunters and anglers, I personally know one of their recent (but past) executive directors. He is very much a passionate hunter. No question. However, if you are an atv/motorized access person I can understand where you may not like this organization. This does not mean they are an anti-hunting group...they are just advocating for wilderness hunting opportunities, which may lead to them siding with "green" organizations when it comes to land planning exercises like designating wilderness areas.
Please let me know if I have not said at least one thing that someone doesn't like/agree with...I can add a few statements on politics and religion to make sure I don't leave anyone out. :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on September 30, 2013, 10:38:33 PM
What many people don't first realize is that these units with greatly reduced herds is causing more hunters to go to the zones with fewer wolf impacts. The end result is that there are far fewer elk/deer/moose on the landscape because wolf numbers are too high.
Conservation Northwest fundraising may be somewhat lower as is many groups, but they have managed to spend millions on Conservation easements, etc. They could easily fund a front organization like BCHA to help achieve their goals of more wilderness which spells out to less opportunity for the average outdoor person. If anyone doubts their ability to politically maneuver, please let me remind you that they have an employee sitting on the wildlife commission and the WDFW and Forest Service cater to their organization more so than to hunters, fishers, ranchers, etc.
I'm still waiting to hear where BCHA gets their funding. ;)
http://www.backcountryhunters.org/ (http://www.backcountryhunters.org/)
Post by: bearpaw on September 30, 2013, 10:54:55 PM
In contrast, Randy Newberg has repeatedly spoken out in a factual and collected manner. He has represented hunters and anglers on many different levels, and in doing so has drawn the ire of the lunatic fringe, to include Toby Bridges, wolf protectionists, and MOGA. This tells me that his stance is
MOGA is the "Montana Outfitters and Guides Association" the industry association in Montana, one of the strongest outfitting industry groups in America, of which I belong so I happen to know exactly what their politics are. You are patently incorrect, they are not the lunatic fringe, they are the industry organization recognized by major sporting groups like SCI, RMEF, USSA, Big Game Forever, etc, as a very important and worthwhile industry organization representing the outfitters of Montana. If Newburg is in fact at odds with MOGA I would question if he is the friend that some of you think he is. :twocents:
Post by: JLS on September 30, 2013, 11:11:31 PM
Read up if you wish.
http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=253976&highlight=moga+rmef (http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=253976&highlight=moga+rmef)
I completely understand you are a member of MOGA and that you will defend them. MOGA has a long track record in the MT legislature for pursuing legislation that is entirely self serving, but are mysteriously quiet on bills that affect sportsmen and wildlife as a whole.
I am not saying all outfitters are bad. I consider some to be good friends. Nor am I lumping all outfitters as bad simply because they belong to MOGA. It really is no different than others decrying BCHA because they have partnered with CNW on issues.
I do know that as a do-it-myself, unwashed, public land hunter, MOGA is certainly not my friend.
Post by: jackelope on September 30, 2013, 11:21:32 PM
Post by: JLS on September 30, 2013, 11:24:39 PM
Just because someone works for an agency does not mean they are a friend of hunters and fishers, in increasing frequency it may mean the exact opposite. :yike:
Just because an association is involved in hunting does not mean it's your friend either. Utah Division of Wildlife, Sportmen for Wildlife, Don Peay, there is some corruption in this circle also. Don Peay has openly voiced his opinion against the North American model of wildlife. If that's his take, he may as well be associated with PETA as far as I'm concerned.
http://www.adn.com/2012/03/03/2350508/private-hunting-rights-weighed.html# (http://www.adn.com/2012/03/03/2350508/private-hunting-rights-weighed.html#)
Note the opposition to Rossi's plan by BCHA? Toby Bridges is also a SFW affiliate.
Post by: bearpaw on October 01, 2013, 07:08:53 AM
Just because someone works for an agency does not mean they are a friend of hunters and fishers, in increasing frequency it may mean the exact opposite. :yike:
Just because an association is involved in hunting does not mean it's your friend either. Utah Division of Wildlife, Sportmen for Wildlife, Don Peay, there is some corruption in this circle also. Don Peay has openly voiced his opinion against the North American model of wildlife. If that's his take, he may as well be associated with PETA as far as I'm concerned.
http://www.adn.com/2012/03/03/2350508/private-hunting-rights-weighed.html# (http://www.adn.com/2012/03/03/2350508/private-hunting-rights-weighed.html#)
Note the opposition to Rossi's plan by BCHA? Toby Bridges is also a SFW affiliate.
As a licensed outfitter in Utah I hunt in Utah every year and know the state and the politics quite well. Utah has arguably the best point system in the country. Half the tags are random draw and half the tags go to applicants with the most points. Unlike Washington, in Utah you will eventually draw one way or the other for most hunts. Utah also has one of the most successful landowner programs in the nation. In their program at least 10% of all land owner tags are given to the residents through a draw. This program has opened up many thousands of acres of private lands to public tag holders, lands that otherwise would not be available to the public.
I will admit that Don Peay has a thirst for auction tags, but so do many other large sportsman's groups, Peay has just been more successful than most groups at getting those tags. However, please cite where Don Peay has denounced the North American wildlife model. :dunno:
Big Game Forever and SFW has taken a lead role in denouncing the ridiculous wolf management that has been forced upon the western states, perhaps that is why you do not like those groups or Don Peay? :twocents:
Thus far Utah has fewer wolves and has had no losses of their elk herds to wolves, I would say Utah has done pretty well under their UDWR and sports groups like SFW and Big Game Forever. :tup:
I remember the WDFW stacking the wolf working group with pro-wolfers and using propaganda promoted by the wolf groups in promoting their wolf plan. Then WDFW used a bunch of pro-wolfers to peer review the plan. Some of the propaganda was removed or reorganized out of public sight after hunters complained. But the bottom line is that the wolf groups have been in the driver's seat on these state wolf plans and in destroying big game hunting opportunities throughout the west. Now to top off everything WDFW has done in developing an undesirable wolf plan to please I-5 corridor residents, now they hold meetings in western Washington to determine how to deal with our wolf problems in eastern Washington. How's that for corruption?
Post by: bearpaw on October 01, 2013, 07:24:47 AM
Just because someone works for an agency does not mean they are a friend of hunters and fishers, in increasing frequency it may mean the exact opposite. :yike:
Just because an association is involved in hunting does not mean it's your friend either. Utah Division of Wildlife, Sportmen for Wildlife, Don Peay, there is some corruption in this circle also. Don Peay has openly voiced his opinion against the North American model of wildlife. If that's his take, he may as well be associated with PETA as far as I'm concerned.
http://www.adn.com/2012/03/03/2350508/private-hunting-rights-weighed.html# (http://www.adn.com/2012/03/03/2350508/private-hunting-rights-weighed.html#)
Note the opposition to Rossi's plan by BCHA? Toby Bridges is also a SFW affiliate.
Quote
The proposal would encourage owners of large private tracts to increase "public-interest benefits" on their land. They could do that by allowing access to hunters, improving habitat for species such as moose, or killing predators, Rossi wrote.
In return, landowners would get special hunting permits "that the landowner would be allowed to use or sell, perhaps with special authorizations such as the ability to hunt outside normal hunting seasons on their lands."
The proposal is modeled on similar programs in western states like Utah and Colorado, where it has been promoted by chapters of the advocacy group Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife and its sister organization Sportsmen for Habitat. The organization has a big expo in Salt Lake City every year where it auctions special permits.
In the West, large landowners are mainly ranchers. In Alaska, Rossi noted in his minutes, they are Alaska Native corporations.
Mark Richards, co-chairman of the grassroots organization Alaska Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, said Alaska hunters wouldn't be the beneficiaries of Rossi's proposal.
Read more here: http://www.adn.com/2012/03/03/2350508/private-hunting-rights-weighed.html#storylink=cpy (http://www.adn.com/2012/03/03/2350508/private-hunting-rights-weighed.html#storylink=cpy)
ABCHA won't benefit, of course they are against the plan. Backcountry hunters is pro-wolf and SFW is pro-wolf management. I submit this is likely the primary reason BCHA is opposed to SFW and Rossi.
Furthermore what would be so bad about opening up lands controlled by native corporations to the hunting public? :dunno:
Could it be that you are so opposed to Don Peay, SFW, and ranchers that you can't see the benefits of opening up privately controlled native corporation lands to some public hunting opportunities?
They seem to put down Utah and Colorado management, those two states have much of the best elk hunting, that's great management.
Post by: JLS on October 01, 2013, 09:21:39 AM
I could care less about SFWs stance on wolves. I don't like their push for more and more auction tags and the continued privatization/commercialization of wildlife. I don't like them making millions of dollars that are very much unaccounted for through tag auctions, with no accountability for how that money is spent.
I will reiterate though, that the original assertion that Randy Newberg and his TV show are supporting the loss of big game hunting opportunities is as ridiculous as they come.
Also, to imply that I am opposed to wolf management is simply asinine. I have been a proponent for very liberal public hunting of wolves from the beginning. You can look all you want, but I guarantee you will NEVER find where I have spoken against open hunting of wolves. Just because I don't buy into the fear mongering that is rampant with Lobowatch, BGF, and SFW does not mean that I oppose responsible and sound wolf management.
Maybe if the anti-wolf hunting groups joined forces with BGF, SFW, and so on and did something meaningful in terms of enhancing and expanding ungulate habitat instead of spending milllions of dollars wasted on their respective propoganda nonsense, we probably wouldn't even be worrying about this right now because the negative impacts on elk and deer from the wolves would be greatly mitigated.
Post by: Curly on October 01, 2013, 09:34:52 AM
I will reiterate though, that the original assertion that Randy Newberg and his TV show are supporting the loss of big game hunting opportunities is as ridiculous as they come.
:yeah:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 01, 2013, 09:35:21 AM
ABCHA won't benefit, of course they are against the plan. Backcountry hunters is pro-wolf and SFW is pro-wolf management. I submit this is likely the primary reason BCHA is opposed to SFW and Rossi.
Rossi is opposed because he's a crook. He had to step down because of illegal hunting activities.
Post by: deerslyr on October 01, 2013, 09:43:08 AM
I will reiterate though, that the original assertion that Randy Newberg and his TV show are supporting the loss of big game hunting opportunities is as ridiculous as they come.
:yeah:
Thats what the original post was about.
Randy has only promoted hunting opportunities and is one of the greatest ambassadors of our sport. Plain and simple. Very disappointing to see BS like this posted on this site, way to try and bring down a great conservationist. And to think some people bought it and now say they wont watch the show or buy Federal ammunition. Way to go Dale :tup:
Post by: JLS on October 01, 2013, 09:50:25 AM
ABCHA won't benefit, of course they are against the plan. Backcountry hunters is pro-wolf and SFW is pro-wolf management. I submit this is likely the primary reason BCHA is opposed to SFW and Rossi.
Rossi is opposed because he's a crook. He had to step down because of illegal hunting activities.
Here you go.
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/spectacular-rise-alaska-wildlife-manager-corey-rossi (http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/spectacular-rise-alaska-wildlife-manager-corey-rossi)
Post by: JLS on October 01, 2013, 09:58:05 AM
I will reiterate though, that the original assertion that Randy Newberg and his TV show are supporting the loss of big game hunting opportunities is as ridiculous as they come.
:yeah:
Thats what the original post was about.
Randy has only promoted hunting opportunities and is one of the greatest ambassadors of our sport. Plain and simple. Very disappointing to see BS like this posted on this site, way to try and bring down a great conservationist. And to think some people bought it and now say they wont watch the show or buy Federal ammunition. Way to go Dale :tup:
http://www.thesportsmanchannel.com/community/blog/2012/08/why-i-hunt-wolves-randy-newberg-sportsman-channel-confront-polarizing-issue-of-wolf-management-head-on/ (http://www.thesportsmanchannel.com/community/blog/2012/08/why-i-hunt-wolves-randy-newberg-sportsman-channel-confront-polarizing-issue-of-wolf-management-head-on/)
Let's see.
Randy worked extensively to delist wolves.
Randy supported the corner crossing bill, which would have opened up land to the public.
Randy supported expansion of wolf hunting opportunities, without doing so in a manner that would have risked relisting as an ESA.
Randy supported landowner's rights to enter in to a conservation easement without any interference by the county and/or state government.
Randy opposed I-161 because it was a vindictive initiative aimed at outfitters in MT.
Randy aired a TV show in which one of the first wolves in MT was legally harvested.
I could go on and on, but there is no need to.
Edit: I will now exclusively buy Federal ammuntion for all of my hunting in order to show my support for Fresh Tracks.
Post by: jryoung on October 01, 2013, 10:07:16 AM
I will reiterate though, that the original assertion that Randy Newberg and his TV show are supporting the loss of big game hunting opportunities is as ridiculous as they come.
:yeah:
Thats what the original post was about.
Randy has only promoted hunting opportunities and is one of the greatest ambassadors of our sport. Plain and simple. Very disappointing to see BS like this posted on this site, way to try and bring down a great conservationist. And to think some people bought it and now say they wont watch the show or buy Federal ammunition. Way to go Dale :tup:
http://www.thesportsmanchannel.com/community/blog/2012/08/why-i-hunt-wolves-randy-newberg-sportsman-channel-confront-polarizing-issue-of-wolf-management-head-on/ (http://www.thesportsmanchannel.com/community/blog/2012/08/why-i-hunt-wolves-randy-newberg-sportsman-channel-confront-polarizing-issue-of-wolf-management-head-on/)
Let's see.
Randy worked extensively to delist wolves.
Randy supported the corner crossing bill, which would have opened up land to the public.
Randy supported expansion of wolf hunting opportunities, without doing so in a manner that would have risked relisting as an ESA.
Randy supported landowner's rights to enter in to a conservation easement without any interference by the county and/or state government.
Randy opposed I-161 because it was a vindictive initiative aimed at outfitters in MT.
Randy aired a TV show in which one of the first wolves in MT was legally harvested.
I could go on and on, but there is no need to.
Edit: I will now exclusively buy Federal ammuntion for all of my hunting in order to show my support for Fresh Tracks.
It doesn't take much objective research to realize the great ambassador Randy is to not only the Public Land hunter, but all hunters. I love how people try and credit SWF/BGF for their stance on wolves. People seem to forget they tried to crater Simpson Tester, then got called out by the NRA, THEN tried to create a revisionist history and take credit for Simpson/Tester.
As for BHA and how they get their funding, you might want to ask their sponsors. KUIU, Kirfaru, Traditional Bowhunters......
http://www.backcountryhunters.org/index.php/who-we-are/friends-and-links/our-sponsors (http://www.backcountryhunters.org/index.php/who-we-are/friends-and-links/our-sponsors)
Post by: bobcat on October 01, 2013, 10:08:01 AM
Post by: JLS on October 01, 2013, 10:15:22 AM
http://onyourownadventures.com/partners.php (http://onyourownadventures.com/partners.php)
Post by: jackelope on October 01, 2013, 11:46:44 AM
Post by: jackelope on October 01, 2013, 11:51:43 AM
Quote
As a lifelong sportsman, and a strong supporter and student of the North American Model of Wildlife Management, I have to say that I am extremely disappointed in both The Sportsman Channel and Federal Cartridge for airing and sponsoring a show that supports the destruction of the big game herds of the Northern Rockies.
Last week's segment of Randy Newberg's "Fresh Tracks" was one of the saddest "outdoor" or "hunting" shows I have ever endured. Never have I witnessed a bigger lie aired. Do either of you really know the agenda that you've slipped into bed with?
How does Randy Newberg promoting wilderness areas and roadless tracts lead to " a show that supports the destruction of the big game herds of the Northern Rockies."
Quote
Never have I witnessed a bigger lie aired. Do either of you really know the agenda that you've slipped into bed with?
What's the lie? What's the hidden agenda?
Go ahead and roll with the anti-wolf agenda. I'm fine with that, but what sort of tinfoil covered world does this guy live in where he comes up with these crazy hallucinations?
Post by: vandeman17 on October 01, 2013, 12:04:01 PM
I am all for more areas that are roadless. Like Jackelope said, while I am willing and able, I will continue to try and find these types of areas to hunt and when I am at the point that I can't anymore, at least I will have the memories of being able to hunt the way I believe we were intended to hunt. I also think that at that point, I will be more interested in sharing my knowledge and just spending time in camp then the actual hunt. :twocents:
Post by: idahohuntr on October 01, 2013, 12:56:36 PM
I am getting really fed up with these so called sportsmen groups that do nothing for the average hunter and just stir up unnecessary controversy and rumors, particularly around polarizing issues like wolf management. Likewise, all these clowns that need to wear tinfoil hats who do nothing but spout bogus rumors and conspiracies need to just go away...they ruin credibility of sportsmen and do far more damage than any anti-hunting group.
Post by: jryoung on October 01, 2013, 04:24:05 PM
BCHA posted a temporary job position a while back and I looked into this organization and it raised some questions in my mind. I wrote a letter to their organization suggesting my interest in the job and asking about their position on several topics and asking where their funding comes from (because they do not have enough members for the amount of money they are throwing around). I did not get any response.
Can you quantify this? How much are we talking about here?
Post by: Northway on October 01, 2013, 05:23:55 PM
Just because someone works for an agency does not mean they are a friend of hunters and fishers, in increasing frequency it may mean the exact opposite. :yike:
Just because an association is involved in hunting does not mean it's your friend either. Utah Division of Wildlife, Sportmen for Wildlife, Don Peay, there is some corruption in this circle also. Don Peay has openly voiced his opinion against the North American model of wildlife. If that's his take, he may as well be associated with PETA as far as I'm concerned.
http://www.adn.com/2012/03/03/2350508/private-hunting-rights-weighed.html# (http://www.adn.com/2012/03/03/2350508/private-hunting-rights-weighed.html#)
Note the opposition to Rossi's plan by BCHA? Toby Bridges is also a SFW affiliate.
As a licensed outfitter in Utah I hunt in Utah every year and know the state and the politics quite well. Utah has arguably the best point system in the country. Half the tags are random draw and half the tags go to applicants with the most points. Unlike Washington, in Utah you will eventually draw one way or the other for most hunts. Utah also has one of the most successful landowner programs in the nation. In their program at least 10% of all land owner tags are given to the residents through a draw. This program has opened up many thousands of acres of private lands to public tag holders, lands that otherwise would not be available to the public.
I will admit that Don Peay has a thirst for auction tags, but so do many other large sportsman's groups, Peay has just been more successful than most groups at getting those tags. However, please cite where Don Peay has denounced the North American wildlife model. :dunno:
Big Game Forever and SFW has taken a lead role in denouncing the ridiculous wolf management that has been forced upon the western states, perhaps that is why you do not like those groups or Don Peay? :twocents:
Thus far Utah has fewer wolves and has had no losses of their elk herds to wolves, I would say Utah has done pretty well under their UDWR and sports groups like SFW and Big Game Forever. :tup:
I remember the WDFW stacking the wolf working group with pro-wolfers and using propaganda promoted by the wolf groups in promoting their wolf plan. Then WDFW used a bunch of pro-wolfers to peer review the plan. Some of the propaganda was removed or reorganized out of public sight after hunters complained. But the bottom line is that the wolf groups have been in the driver's seat on these state wolf plans and in destroying big game hunting opportunities throughout the west. Now to top off everything WDFW has done in developing an undesirable wolf plan to please I-5 corridor residents, now they hold meetings in western Washington to determine how to deal with our wolf problems in eastern Washington. How's that for corruption?
++However, please cite where Don Peay has denounced the North American wildlife model. :dunno:++
From the article:
"Rossi's move to give landowners special rights to the wildlife on their property coincides with the ideology of Don Peay, a Utah guide and founder of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife.
Peay, who stressed that the Utah chapter isn't trying to push its view in Alaska or even with the Alaska chapter, said it's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource. Peay described that egalitarian doctrine, found in Alaska's state constitution and laws throughout the West, as "socialism." It offers no economic incentive for landowners to kill predators, improve big game habitat and even provide food and water for target species.
"We understand the North American model where wildlife belongs to the people, but we're also seeing dramatic reductions in game populations in the western United States under that model," he said. Population pressure, habitat loss from development and the rise of environmental organizations opposed to predator control have put pressure on game herds that weren't envisioned when the laws were written a century or more ago, he said.
"When wildlife is a very highly valued asset, people want more of it and they'll invest additional funds to make sure it's abundant," Peay said.
The same is true of professional guides and outfitters, he added. "They tend to be more involved to make sure there's abundant game herds than a lot of guys who just buy their license the day before the hunt starts and then, when game disappears, the masses tend to complain -- but what did they do to allow that situation to happen and why weren't they more involved to fix it?"
Read more here: http://www.adn.com/2012/03/03/2350508/private-hunting-rights-weighed.html#storylink=cpy (http://www.adn.com/2012/03/03/2350508/private-hunting-rights-weighed.html#storylink=cpy)
He hasn't explicitly denounced the NAWM with that statement, but he's taking a sharp turn in that direction. To men with his views, using the word "socialism" in any form is meant as derogatory.
Post by: Randy Newberg on October 02, 2013, 04:08:52 PM
In this first post, I will show how little Toby Bridges cares about facts. Facts are not a currency with which is comfortable. If facts were a currency, Toby Bridges would be insolvent.
I will copy and paste the relevant facts and misinformation Toby has provided in his effort to take a swipe at Federal Ammunition, using me and my show as his most recent vehicle for doing so. I apologize for the length of this post, but it was Toby who provided so many untruths, and thus the space needed to address them all.
And to think some people will quote, recite, or claim Toby's words as something worth reporting. I suspect when you see how little fact he uses here, as is case with most everything he writes, it will show the danger one's credibility an sustain by taking Toby Bridges' writings and words as truth and fact.
Ryan and Mark;Classic Toby there. No fact, no data, no example, just his mindless keyboard cowboy, pouting because every time he has opened his mouth, he has eaten his foot. But, if it serves the purpose of his agenda, facts are not a concern.
As a lifelong sportsman, and a strong supporter and student of the North American Model of Wildlife Management, I have to say that I am extremely disappointed in both The Sportsman Channel and Federal Cartridge for airing and sponsoring a show that supports the destruction of the big game herds of the Northern Rockies.
Last week's segment of Randy Newberg's "Fresh Tracks" was one of the saddest "outdoor" or "hunting" shows I have ever endured. Never have I witnessed a bigger lie aired. Do either of you really know the agenda that you've slipped into bed with?Please Toby, tell us who Federal and Sportsman Channel have slipped into bed with. It gets good from here on out.
Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is a major sponsor of the show.Wrong - I had this episode planned before we worked with BHA to join to promote this hunt. I like that group and the amount of hardcore backpack hunters who are part of it.
BHA is not a "major sponsor" of our show. The net cash outlay to BHA was not near what our "major sponsors" pay. A "major sponsor" of our show would be Federal Premium Ammunition. This was an episode that worked good for BHA and us, and it was the right thing to do. In 2014, we will be doing a special episode that features another topic and another group.
Toby can criticize BHA all he wants. His right to do so, how ever desperate and factless his efforts are to smear them, me, and Federal.
Personally, I would far rather be associated with a group of serious backpack hunters who advocate for conservation of the best remaining wild habitat we have, than to cast my lot with a small circle of frustrated middle-aged whining wanna be keyboard cowboys who for whatever reason complain about the backcountry areas that give Montana the longest seasons in the country, allows us those long season on general tags, without requiring us to choose our weapon, without making us wait for years in limited entry draws, and results in some of the biggest bulls taken each season.
My guess is that the show was their idea in the first place, a new way to attack the wildlife management practices that rewarded this country with an abundance of game.Wrong again. BHA was asked to be part of this show, after it was scheduled and planned. BHA came into the picture a while after it was "my idea in the first place," not theirs.
It was my idea to make an entire season about backpack hunts and show why I am so passionate about conserving our wild places on public lands. All our episodes for the current airing season, with the exception of the Wyoming antelope hunt, are backpack hunts in some cool areas. Places I want to feature and the type of hunting I like to do.
Sorry, Toby, you are already at strike two.
This bogus sportsman group is extremely pro-wolf, pro-predator - and that came through loud and clear in the manner in which Newberg praised how he could hunt those large roadless tracts due to the difficulty of getting into them...and the lack of other hunters. Still he found nothing.Really, Toby. Came through loud and clear. Wonder if he has any specific example?. Nope. He has none.
Yup, you can hunt those large tracts of roadless ground. You will run into other hunters, as we did, but they will probably not be the Toby Bridges of the world.
So, I found nothing. Really. Evidently Toby did not tune into the first part of the episode where on day one I saw a very heavy four point that I did not go after. The buck was 400 yards. I could have shot from where I was, or I could have tried to get closer. He was a mature buck, but not what I had come for. Again, facts are not needed for Toby.
Durng the entire show, supposedly hunting for 30 something days, he saw what...a grand total of a half-dozen deer?This is a real laugher. I hunted for four days, not "30 something days." We state in the show that we hunted four days. I tried to hunt a fifth day, but 60+ mph winds made it almost impossible.
Where Toby gets "30 something days," is beyond me. Truth and fact is not his strong point, and evidently counting and numbers are not his best area of knowledge.
Yeah...he mentioned spotting a couple of bucks...one which he claimed to be the biggest backcountry buck he had ever spotted. None of the viewers saw them. So...Did he really...or was that just a scripted ploy to soften the impact that uncontrolled predators have had on that wilderness area and just about every other wilderness area in the state of Montana...and in a majority of Idaho and some of Wyoming?Obviously, Toby has never done much in the TV world. From a mile and a half away, footage of a buck is almost impossible. Especially with 35mph winds blowing the camera and tripod around.
A scripted ploy. Now that's funny. Maybe that is something Toby would do. I would not. In our show, you see what happens, good or bad, kill or no kill. If I wanted to script some ploy, I surely wouldn't haul me and my camera guys three hours up a frozen face of rock and snow, in hopes to get a closer glimpse of a buck that was just some TV ploy.
But, for someone who may have the character composition that would do that, maybe it is easy for them to conjure up some conspiracy that I am here to deceive the viewer.
For a more factual look at what's happening in Montana's remote, roadless, wilderness backcountry - go to this link -That drivel was written by Toby himself, with about as much "factual" information as he uses in most of his whining. That piece is worth what you paid for it.
http://www.lobowatch.com/adminclient/WolfImpact10/go (http://www.lobowatch.com/adminclient/WolfImpact10/go)
If one believes Toby as a source of fact and knowledge, then one would probably believe some of what he posted in that link. Watching him in action, or just using this rant against me as a measurement of his ability to use facts and truth, is enough for most people to view a Toby-ism such as that with much skepticism.
Apparently neither of you really know much about Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. Have you taken a good look at its Executive Director, Land Tawney?This is where things get funny and where Toby's attempt to connect some dots reaches "Black Helicopter" type conspiracy.
I wonder if Toby understands that this episode was put on my hunt schedule, permits applied for, and production schedules slotted in August of 2012. I worked with Holly Endersby, the Executive Director of BHA at that time all of this happened. Land Tawney was not even associated with BHA until May of 2013, a time well after the episode has been filmed, logged, and readied for network review.
Toby might read this, so I better type it real slow and in big black letters. Toby - Land Tawney was not hired as the Executive Director of BHA until six months AFTER this episode was filmed.
Imagine that, Land Tawney, the person Toby hates, was not even part of BHA at the time this episode was produced, edited, etc. Oh no. Toby's conspiracy that Land Tawney is the anti-Christ to Montana hunting is now down the tubes.
I have no idea who Montana Hunters and Anglers Action is. I will take Toby's word (stupid of me) to assume they are a group based in some other part of the state, and thus a group that I am not aware of.
Tawney was one of a handful of similar minded people who put together another bogus sportsman group, known as Montana Hunters and Anglers Action. They were nothing more than a political activist group. Outsiders could not join the group, or attend their meetings. The Executive Director of the Montana Outfitters and Guides Association tried to attend one of their meetings, just to get a feel for their platform, and was told right to his face that he wasn't welcomed...and told to leave.
Here is where he has his facts wrong, and Bear Paw, along with all MOGA members should know this, given what a big fit was pitched by MOGA and their Executive Director, Mac Minard.
The MOGA E.D. attended a meeting of Montana Sportsmen's Alliance. Mac stated he was asked to leave and has made many public statements of how MSA asked him to leave.
I know the MSA guys. They are based in my home city of Bozeman. They are not Montana Hunters and Anglers Action group that Toby claims is headed by the big monster known as Land Tawney.
But what the hell, MSA, MHAA, who cares, right? They both have the name "Montana" at the start.
Close enough for Toby. MSA, MHAA, MSU, U of M, what does it matter, so long as Toby can intermix them and attribute what he wants to who he wants, so long as it works for his kindergarten-level journalism.
What a joke. Now, he has the wrong group attributed to the wrong thing, all in his desparate attempt to connect his dots.
News flash for Toby and anyone on a mouth-to-mouth basis with him in their regurgitation of his factless whining. MSA and MHAA are not the same group. MOGA has a tiff with MSA, not MHAA.
Down the tubes with that conspiracy.
Land Tawney headed that group, which during the 2012 elections spent several million $$$'s of non-disclosed (environmental group) money on television advertisements (slur campaign) to discredit Denny Rehberg, who was running against Jon Tester for his seat in the U.S. Senate. Rehberg was strongly in favor of aggressive wolf control, and having the gray wolf totally removed from the Endangered Species List and from the protection of the Endangered Species Act.So, let's get this right, Toby. Denny Rehberg loses an election to an incumbent Senator and it all lays at the feet of a guy in Missoula and some group most have never heard of. As a side note, I voted for Rehberg a few times as he was from the same party I most often associate with, and though his record on public land hunting and fishing was rather abysmal, when I did vote for him, it was because I viewed him as the least harmful of two pitiful candidates.
Now, in 2012, Rehberg enlists the help of those like Toby and SFW to form some of his policies on wildlife and public lands. The election tide is ripe for a Rehberg landslide. He has a strong anti-Obama sentiment to run on. The party opposite of the party in the White House always does well in mid-term elections. Millions and millions of outside money come in for both candidates. He is the Republican Congressmen, running in a state that is heavily Republican.
End result of the 2012 election. Romney wins MT big, as expected, being he is the Republican candidate. Romney 55% to Obama 41%.
Rehberg loses what should have been sure victory, given the tailwinds mentioned above. His abysmal record on hunting, fishing, and public lands finally catch up to him in a state where the majority of registered votes hunt and/or fish.
Rehberg only gets 45% of the vote. Somehow, 10% of Montana voters, about 49,000 of them, decided they would vote for Romney as the Republican Presidential candidate, but for some reason that Toby attributes to the amazing power of MHAA and Land Tawney, those 49,000 Republican-leaning voters reach for the ballot lever and vote against Rehberg. :dunno:
Now that is funny. If MHAA and Tawney have that kind of power, they could be highly paid political consultants in the beltway of DC, not working on non-profit issues in the hinterlands of Montana.
But, it fits Toby's obscure logic, so he publishes it anyhow. Unfortunately, some are foolish enough to believe and recite it, making themselves look as misinformed and schizophrenic as the source from which it came.
Oh, and as it relates to Rehberg's wolf bill, the bill claimed to be the Silver Bullet by Toby, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, and Big Game Forever, it was introduced to the House Committee in which Rehberg was a seated member, in January of 2011. As of the date of the 2012 election Rehberg had not been able to get a hearing on his bill within his own committee. That is laughable, for the lone Congressman from a state struggling to get state management authority of the wolves in the their state. That is how little Toby, SFW, and BGF know about getting anything done that is effective in gaining state control over wolves.
Probably no coincidence that the bill that did give MT and ID state control was originally brought for by Congressman Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) and later co-sponsored in the Senate by Senator Jon Tester (D-Montana). When the Simpson-Tester bill was announced, Toby was sent out with the hatchets by his cronies at SFW and BGF, hacking at all the mainstream groups who could see the Simpson-Tester bill as a way forward, as opposed dead on arrival bill SFW talked Rehberg into sponsoring.
Toby and SFW predicted that Simpson-Tester would be a sellout and we would never be hunting wolves anywhere other than MT and ID. By the end of 2011, MN, WI, and MI were delisted. In 2012, WY was delisted. This summer the USFWS delisted gray wolves in the entire Lower 48.
So much for the crystal ball Toby uses. He has been wrong on every prediction related to wolf delisting. Which, given his "Johnny come lately" arrival to Montana about a decade after most of us had started the heavy lifting on the delisting process, is no big surprise. Yet, he holds himself out as some special knowledge on the topic of wolves and wolf politics.
That wolf delisting topic could be an entirely new thread, where SFW, BGF, and anyone spewing their Toby-like rhetoric would walk away with a 3XL *censored* after about ten posts to the thread.
Randy Newberg's push for even more roadless wilderness is also a part of that idiocy, which I will be sharing later this week in a LOBO WATCH Release.Obviously, Toby never took the time to read the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act, the legislation I mentioned as being beneficial to those of us who hunt the area near where this episode was shot.
Fact - Contrary to what Toby says about "even more roadless.......," the RMFHA adds not one single acre to "roadless" acres in question. All of it is already inventoried roadless area under the Roadless designation of the Clinton Administration.
It does take some of the areas of rock and ice, areas that will never be roaded or developed due to extreme topography and terrain, and changes that from inventoried roadless to designated wilderness. None of that is an increase in roadless area. "Inventoried Roadless" to "designated Wilderness" is still roadless.
For the remaining acreage covered under that Act, it carves out a new designation - Conservation Management Areas. CMA would be a designation that continues all existing uses, such as grazing, etc. It would make wildlife management and conservation the management priorities for those lands given the CMA designation.
Funny that Mr. Bridges fails to note that most the local outfitters are in favor of the bill. Maybe those MOGA members who support this bill are also a bunch of "wolf lovers." :yike:
Toby demonstrates so little understanding of the topics in question, it is only expected that he would be so far off in his logic and so void in any fact in his effort to try make this argument.
This morning, I shared some thoughts on all of this on several Facebook pages, including the LOBO WATCH Facebook page, and have already received private messages and e-mails from a large number of sportsmen who "used to" tune into The Sportsman Channel...and who "used to" buy Federal ammo. Now they feel slapped in the face and stabbed in the back. The word I've heard over and over again has been "Boycott" - and as word of this spreads, I kind of feel that the beat of that drum will grow much louder.Interesting as to how effective Toby's band of misguided fools can be. Since his supposed boycott, the network has provided me copies of dozens of letters of support for this episode, our show and our message. They have sent me one negative reply; a person complaining that I didn't kill anything on the episode.
And so you will know, I am sharing this e-mail with several hundred members of the Shooting & Hunting Industry and the Outdoor Media - plus a number of real sportsmen organizations.
I go to his Mickey Mouse excuse of a Facebook page and he had ten total comments on the post calling for a boycott of Federal. Five of those are Toby himself, four are from people question his rant against me, and one is from a person who follows Toby.
Very impressive for such a supposed "large number." Evidently, Toby and one other person qualifies as a "large number" to Toby. As I mentioned, Toby's comments do demonstrate a struggle with terms related to numbers and measurement.
His claim "that the beat of that drum will grow much louder" is laughable. If anything, it looks like only Toby and one Facebook fool sitting around patting each other on the back, beating their own drum. Big noise there, no doubt about it.
As a friend told me, the empty barrel will make the most noise when you hit it. Once again, Toby shows how empty his barrel is when it comes to these topics; how factless his arguments are; and the danger to anyone who takes a spoonfeeding of his sniveling.
I am pressed for time right now, but if I get time, I will follow with another post that gives little more history to Toby Bridges, his body of work since moving to Montana a while back, and the group of carney-like company he keeps.
Post by: vandeman17 on October 02, 2013, 04:20:31 PM
Post by: bearpaw on October 02, 2013, 10:01:57 PM
Just because someone works for an agency does not mean they are a friend of hunters and fishers, in increasing frequency it may mean the exact opposite. :yike:
Just because an association is involved in hunting does not mean it's your friend either. Utah Division of Wildlife, Sportmen for Wildlife, Don Peay, there is some corruption in this circle also. Don Peay has openly voiced his opinion against the North American model of wildlife. If that's his take, he may as well be associated with PETA as far as I'm concerned.
http://www.adn.com/2012/03/03/2350508/private-hunting-rights-weighed.html# (http://www.adn.com/2012/03/03/2350508/private-hunting-rights-weighed.html#)
Note the opposition to Rossi's plan by BCHA? Toby Bridges is also a SFW affiliate.
As a licensed outfitter in Utah I hunt in Utah every year and know the state and the politics quite well. Utah has arguably the best point system in the country. Half the tags are random draw and half the tags go to applicants with the most points. Unlike Washington, in Utah you will eventually draw one way or the other for most hunts. Utah also has one of the most successful landowner programs in the nation. In their program at least 10% of all land owner tags are given to the residents through a draw. This program has opened up many thousands of acres of private lands to public tag holders, lands that otherwise would not be available to the public.
I will admit that Don Peay has a thirst for auction tags, but so do many other large sportsman's groups, Peay has just been more successful than most groups at getting those tags. However, please cite where Don Peay has denounced the North American wildlife model. :dunno:
Big Game Forever and SFW has taken a lead role in denouncing the ridiculous wolf management that has been forced upon the western states, perhaps that is why you do not like those groups or Don Peay? :twocents:
Thus far Utah has fewer wolves and has had no losses of their elk herds to wolves, I would say Utah has done pretty well under their UDWR and sports groups like SFW and Big Game Forever. :tup:
I remember the WDFW stacking the wolf working group with pro-wolfers and using propaganda promoted by the wolf groups in promoting their wolf plan. Then WDFW used a bunch of pro-wolfers to peer review the plan. Some of the propaganda was removed or reorganized out of public sight after hunters complained. But the bottom line is that the wolf groups have been in the driver's seat on these state wolf plans and in destroying big game hunting opportunities throughout the west. Now to top off everything WDFW has done in developing an undesirable wolf plan to please I-5 corridor residents, now they hold meetings in western Washington to determine how to deal with our wolf problems in eastern Washington. How's that for corruption?
++However, please cite where Don Peay has denounced the North American wildlife model. :dunno:++
From the article:
"Rossi's move to give landowners special rights to the wildlife on their property coincides with the ideology of Don Peay, a Utah guide and founder of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife.
Peay, who stressed that the Utah chapter isn't trying to push its view in Alaska or even with the Alaska chapter, said it's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource. Peay described that egalitarian doctrine, found in Alaska's state constitution and laws throughout the West, as "socialism." It offers no economic incentive for landowners to kill predators, improve big game habitat and even provide food and water for target species.
"We understand the North American model where wildlife belongs to the people, but we're also seeing dramatic reductions in game populations in the western United States under that model," he said. Population pressure, habitat loss from development and the rise of environmental organizations opposed to predator control have put pressure on game herds that weren't envisioned when the laws were written a century or more ago, he said.
"When wildlife is a very highly valued asset, people want more of it and they'll invest additional funds to make sure it's abundant," Peay said.
The same is true of professional guides and outfitters, he added. "They tend to be more involved to make sure there's abundant game herds than a lot of guys who just buy their license the day before the hunt starts and then, when game disappears, the masses tend to complain -- but what did they do to allow that situation to happen and why weren't they more involved to fix it?"
Read more here: http://www.adn.com/2012/03/03/2350508/private-hunting-rights-weighed.html#storylink=cpy (http://www.adn.com/2012/03/03/2350508/private-hunting-rights-weighed.html#storylink=cpy)
He hasn't explicitly denounced the NAWM with that statement, but he's taking a sharp turn in that direction. To men with his views, using the word "socialism" in any form is meant as derogatory.
I'm not a member of SFW and not a huge supporter of Peay but your comment that Peay denounced the North American wildlife model seemed way off base to me and your attempt to show proof that he denounced the North American wildlife model has failed. Peay makes no denouncing statement in that language as you claim and there is nothing written there that seems untrue to me, Peay's comments seem spot on about the direction of predator management and the impacts on our herds.
Please try again to show your proof that he has denounced the North American wildlife management model.
Post by: bearpaw on October 02, 2013, 10:06:12 PM
ABCHA won't benefit, of course they are against the plan. Backcountry hunters is pro-wolf and SFW is pro-wolf management. I submit this is likely the primary reason BCHA is opposed to SFW and Rossi.
Rossi is opposed because he's a crook. He had to step down because of illegal hunting activities.
Here you go.
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/spectacular-rise-alaska-wildlife-manager-corey-rossi (http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/spectacular-rise-alaska-wildlife-manager-corey-rossi)
Thanks for the link, if you break the laws as Rossi did, he should answer for it. No arguments from me on that. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on October 02, 2013, 10:18:00 PM
My take on how Randy Newberg got involved/drug down/run through the mud on this is he supports roadless areas. Roadless areas are not an outfitter's best friend. Not a rancher's best friend. Outfitters and ranchers and whoever else got pissed off at Randy for promoting roadless areas and are now throwing around this crap in order to run down his name. Read the thread that JLS posted from the OYOA Hunttalk forum where he explains all this. I can't figure out why hunters and outdoorspeople in general would be against support for roadless areas. I guess maybe because they're tougher to access? I don't have a problem with that. When I can't go deep into roadless areas because I'm an old geezer, I won't. But until I get to that point, I will keep at it and keep supporting roadless areas.
Sorry but you are wrong on your assumption about outfitters and roadless areas. Many outfitters are kept in business by operating in and providing access and services in roadless areas. As an outfitter I could financially benefit by supporting more roadless areas in NE Washington and in any other state I operate in. As a compassionate sportsman who understands that not all people are fit enough to carry a backpack miles into a roadless area or cannot afford to hire an outfitter to access roadless areas, I have put my compassion that all citizens should be able to use remaining multiple use lands ahead of my own personal gain and that's why I am opposed to creating more wilderness or expanding roadless areas. We have enough roadless areas. If you want more game, we need more predator management combined with more logging. History has shown that is how you improve habitat, provide employment, and keep access open to the average person. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on October 02, 2013, 10:25:25 PM
Post by: huntnnw on October 02, 2013, 10:35:49 PM
Northway, in one of your posts you made a comment about habitat improvement. Roadless areas and the reduction in logging actually are a huge detriment to habitat improvement. What our national forests need is more logging to improve habitat, logging works in the same way as fire, except that employment is provided for humans, that's actually a good benefit in my book. I agree with closing new roads made for logging jobs, but I do not agree with making more huge tracts of roadless/wilderness land that is inaccessible to the average person.:yeah:
Post by: JLS on October 02, 2013, 10:36:58 PM
Roadless areas and the reduction in logging actually are a huge detriment to habitat improvement.
Maybe a huge detriment if you only view logging as the method for improving habitat. I can show you plenty of places that are roadless, have not been logged, and provide very good wildlife habitat.
Before you go jumping to the conclusion that I am anti-logging as well as pro-wolf, I'm not. There is a balance, but the assertion that roadless and unlogged areas do not or cannot provide premium habitat is untrue.
I do freely admit that I find great value in roadless areas where one can distance themselves from any motorized traffic.
Post by: NumaJohn on October 02, 2013, 10:46:09 PM
I also offer my thanks to Mr. Newberg for his thorough response. His post suggests that Toby Bridges' words may not be worthy of our time and attention. But perhaps Mr. Bridges could clear things up by offering a thoughtful rebuttal on H-W Forum?
On a related note, I support Backcountry Hunters & Anglers because, well, I am a backcountry hunter. That organization is not perfect, of course, but I share Mr. Newberg's appreciation that BHA advocates for habitat conservation, sound wildlife management, and fair chase hunting. Last weekend, two BHA buddies and I mountain biked behind a locked gate and, several miles in, came upon a beautiful 6-point bull elk with several cows. I do consider that the locked gate will keep my 81-year-old dad out, will prevent a wheelchair-bound veteran from ever seeing those elk and that country, will keep my young kids out, and will someday in the not--too-distant future keep me out, as well. But as long as the elk have some remote country in which to roam in relative peace, I can accept that imperfect reality. I find it satisfying and appropriate--not just consoling--that wild critters have places besides just National Parks, wildlife sanctuaries, and wilderness areas where they can live away from most of the chaos of our modern way of living. That is a BIG part of the North American approach/model/tradition concerning hunting and wildlife conservation, at least as I understand it. Also, given that many on this site say "We hunters have to work together, not work against each other," I want to emphasize that I would gladly sign well-crafted petitions for re-introducing hound hunting and for allowing ATVs on National Forest roads in Washington where cars and trucks are currently permitted. I would be even enthusiastic about doing so IF there was reciprocity, if others who don't share all of my values about hunting would publicly acknowledge that we are all in this together by joining people like me in advocating on behalf of remote country (and, in some cases, voice their support for restricting certain kinds of access to that country). If it's true we are all in this together, then I hope you won't simply dismiss BHA members, Randy Newberg, and nobodies like me as elitist blowhards who are trying to destroy everyone else's hunting heritage or are naively serving as puppets to allow that to occur. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you do tilt to dismiss, then I would humbly suggest that hunting as we know it is that much more in trouble.
Thanks for your consideration, and yes I am going to try to kill that bull if my muzzy friends don't find him first!
John
Post by: bearpaw on October 02, 2013, 11:31:37 PM
First of all, welcome to the forum and thanks for keeping a civil tongue in your response, I respect that. :tup:
FYI - I post a lot of Toby's writings on the forum and will continue to do so.
In most cases compromise comes somewhere in the middle on any issue, I see Toby and a few others in much the same way as I see Ted Nugent. We need some guys who are more extreme to counter the extremists on the other side of the issue, the common ground found in the middle may be a little more acceptable to the rest of us.
I've been pretty busy myself with hunters and business so I admit I didn't read this last release from Toby very closely. However, as you probably know there has been a slurry of emails back and forth between numerous individuals over that story, I haven't even had time to read them all to form an opinion on everything that's been said.
I did read through your whole post. You have been outspoken against outfitters so understandably the industry is going to be opposed to you. Just look at your frantic response when Toby took your hunting business (show) to task. I don't know you and have never seen your show, we might get along pretty good if we were to meet, I don't know, but I do think your position opposing outfitters is a bit hypocritical when you yourself are making a business out of your hunting. Furthermore, I see your stance on increasing wilderness as a detriment to the average sportsman. Your comments seem to indicate that you like the fact that wilderness limits other hunters from participating. Even though I could profit by expanded wilderness areas I cannot agree with limiting access for the average person and physically limited hunters and setting up more huge tracts of land to benefit only the fittest hunters. That just doesn't seem right to me. On the other hand, some good logging practices will improve habitat and increase elk herds far more than limiting access to the average hunter.
I don't know Toby either but I think he has a sincere interest in saving our game herds. You launched a pretty strong counter attack and I have no idea how many of your statements are factual and I really don't want to be in the middle of this spat between you and Toby, but one thing I would point out is that Rehberg was running against Baucus who was very popular, as we all know it's hard to unseat a popular incumbent, honestly that seems more the reason Rehberg lost. I think your insinuation that Toby Bridges was the reason Rehberg lost is a bit of a stretch. That would be like saying Jay Inslee was elected as governor of WA because I supported McKenna, that would be a stretch.
I would like to see a copy of your show that seems to have excited people, please let me know if there is a way I can see that show online.
Thanks In Advance,
Dale Denney
FYI - I am not opposed to roadless areas, I think we currently have a good balance of roadless and multiple use lands, but I am opposed to the never ending thirst by environmentalists to lock up more land and more land everywhere but where they live. Sort of like the wolf fiasco, it's fine if wolves over populate Montana, Idaho, and eastern WA, but the wolf lovers don't want wolves where they live and that was proven by Representative Joel Kretz.. :chuckle:
Post by: huntnnw on October 02, 2013, 11:38:00 PM
Roadless areas and the reduction in logging actually are a huge detriment to habitat improvement.
Maybe a huge detriment if you only view logging as the method for improving habitat. I can show you plenty of places that are roadless, have not been logged, and provide very good wildlife habitat.
Before you go jumping to the conclusion that I am anti-logging as well as pro-wolf, I'm not. There is a balance, but the assertion that roadless and unlogged areas do not or cannot provide premium habitat is untrue.
I do freely admit that I find great value in roadless areas where one can distance themselves from any motorized traffic.
Here in NE WA and N ID logging has a direct effect on animals and population. Areas that are not logged here are void of animals! or very few. Other parts of the country this may not be the case, they have meadows, open timber and etc that this region doesnt have
Post by: bearpaw on October 03, 2013, 12:13:16 AM
Post by: mkcj on October 03, 2013, 12:38:28 AM
Post by: Bigshooter on October 03, 2013, 12:57:13 AM
Randy Newberg
First of all, welcome to the forum and thanks for keeping a civil tongue in your response, I respect that. :tup:
FYI - I post a lot of Toby's writings on the forum and will continue to do so.
In most cases compromise comes somewhere in the middle on any issue, I see Toby and a few others in much the same way as I see Ted Nugent. We need some guys who are more extreme to counter the extremists on the other side of the issue, the common ground found in the middle may be a little more acceptable to the rest of us.
I've been pretty busy myself with hunters and business so I admit I didn't read this last release from Toby very closely. However, as you probably know there has been a slurry of emails back and forth between numerous individuals over that story, I haven't even had time to read them all to form an opinion on everything that's been said.
I did read through your whole post. You have been outspoken against outfitters so understandably the industry is going to be opposed to you. Just look at your frantic response when Toby took your hunting business (show) to task. I don't know you and have never seen your show, we might get along pretty good if we were to meet, I don't know, but I do think your position opposing outfitters is a bit hypocritical when you yourself are making a business out of your hunting. Furthermore, I see your stance on increasing wilderness as a detriment to the average sportsman. Your comments seem to indicate that you like the fact that wilderness limits other hunters from participating. Even though I could profit by expanded wilderness areas I cannot agree with limiting access for the average person and physically limited hunters and setting up more huge tracts of land to benefit only the fittest hunters. That just doesn't seem right to me. On the other hand, some good logging practices will improve habitat and increase elk herds far more than limiting access to the average hunter.
I don't know Toby either but I think he has a sincere interest in saving our game herds. You launched a pretty strong counter attack and I have no idea how many of your statements are factual and I really don't want to be in the middle of this spat between you and Toby, but one thing I would point out is that Rehberg was running against Baucus who was very popular, as we all know it's hard to unseat a popular incumbent, honestly that seems more the reason Rehberg lost. I think your insinuation that Toby Bridges was the reason Rehberg lost is a bit of a stretch. That would be like saying Jay Inslee was elected as governor of WA because I supported McKenna, that would be a stretch.I would like to see a copy of your show that seems to have excited people, please let me know if there is a way I can see that show online.
Thanks In Advance,
Dale Denney
FYI - I am not opposed to roadless areas, I think we currently have a good balance of roadless and multiple use lands, but I am opposed to the never ending thirst by environmentalists to lock up more land and more land everywhere but where they live. Sort of like the wolf fiasco, it's fine if wolves over populate Montana, Idaho, and eastern WA, but the wolf lovers don't want wolves where they live and that was proven by Representative Joel Kretz.. :chuckle:
Randy said that Rehberg didn't lose because of one guy. He said he lost because of his poor record of supporting hunting, fishing and public lands.
Post by: bearpaw on October 03, 2013, 01:14:49 AM
Randy Newberg
First of all, welcome to the forum and thanks for keeping a civil tongue in your response, I respect that. :tup:
FYI - I post a lot of Toby's writings on the forum and will continue to do so.
In most cases compromise comes somewhere in the middle on any issue, I see Toby and a few others in much the same way as I see Ted Nugent. We need some guys who are more extreme to counter the extremists on the other side of the issue, the common ground found in the middle may be a little more acceptable to the rest of us.
I've been pretty busy myself with hunters and business so I admit I didn't read this last release from Toby very closely. However, as you probably know there has been a slurry of emails back and forth between numerous individuals over that story, I haven't even had time to read them all to form an opinion on everything that's been said.
I did read through your whole post. You have been outspoken against outfitters so understandably the industry is going to be opposed to you. Just look at your frantic response when Toby took your hunting business (show) to task. I don't know you and have never seen your show, we might get along pretty good if we were to meet, I don't know, but I do think your position opposing outfitters is a bit hypocritical when you yourself are making a business out of your hunting. Furthermore, I see your stance on increasing wilderness as a detriment to the average sportsman. Your comments seem to indicate that you like the fact that wilderness limits other hunters from participating. Even though I could profit by expanded wilderness areas I cannot agree with limiting access for the average person and physically limited hunters and setting up more huge tracts of land to benefit only the fittest hunters. That just doesn't seem right to me. On the other hand, some good logging practices will improve habitat and increase elk herds far more than limiting access to the average hunter.
I don't know Toby either but I think he has a sincere interest in saving our game herds. You launched a pretty strong counter attack and I have no idea how many of your statements are factual and I really don't want to be in the middle of this spat between you and Toby, but one thing I would point out is that Rehberg was running against Baucus who was very popular, as we all know it's hard to unseat a popular incumbent, honestly that seems more the reason Rehberg lost. I think your insinuation that Toby Bridges was the reason Rehberg lost is a bit of a stretch. That would be like saying Jay Inslee was elected as governor of WA because I supported McKenna, that would be a stretch.I would like to see a copy of your show that seems to have excited people, please let me know if there is a way I can see that show online.
Thanks In Advance,
Dale Denney
FYI - I am not opposed to roadless areas, I think we currently have a good balance of roadless and multiple use lands, but I am opposed to the never ending thirst by environmentalists to lock up more land and more land everywhere but where they live. Sort of like the wolf fiasco, it's fine if wolves over populate Montana, Idaho, and eastern WA, but the wolf lovers don't want wolves where they live and that was proven by Representative Joel Kretz.. :chuckle:
Randy said that Rehberg didn't lose because of one guy. He said he lost because of his poor record of supporting hunting, fishing and public lands.
Maybe I should have went back and read it again, I thought he was laying blame on Toby and a few others for Rehberg losing, sorry if I misread. He also made some strong comments about Rehberg, I didn't follow that race close enough to comment too much, but when I was in Eastern Montana it seemed the east supported Rehberg and it seemed the more populated western MT supported Baucus. Not positive of the election results, but that's the way it seemed.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/mt/montana_senate_rehberg_vs_tester-1826.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/mt/montana_senate_rehberg_vs_tester-1826.html)
Race Analysis
While Big Sky Country has been Republican at the presidential level for quite some time, at the state and local levels it has a strong Democratic streak extending back to the Progressive era. The western mountains are heavily unionized (Montana is one of the Mountain West states without a right-to-work law), and Democrats with a populist streak, like Gov. Brian Schweitzer, are popular in the state.
In 2006, Jon Tester defeated Sen. Conrad Burns. Burns is the only Republican who had ever been elected to successive terms in Montana history, despite his penchant for cringe-inducing gaffes (such as telling a group of firefighters, returning home from the field, that they had done a "piss-poor job"). Tester was a rancher and state senator who became a darling of the left-leaning Netroots in 2006, and ran a populist campaign against Burns. Despite the pro-Democratic tone of that cycle, Tester won only narrowly.
In the Senate, Tester has had a voting record toward the right edge of the Democratic caucus. That might not be enough in 2012, however. He's facing Republican Rep. Dennis Rehberg, who already represents the entire state in Congress. Most polling has shown a tight race, perhaps with a slight edge for Rehberg.
Post by: Randy Newberg on October 03, 2013, 06:30:12 AM
Randy Newberg
First of all, welcome to the forum and thanks for keeping a civil tongue in your response, I respect that. :tup:
Thank you for allowing me to post.
I did read through your whole post. You have been outspoken against outfitters so understandably the industry is going to be opposed to you.
Do you have any citation of where I have been outspoken against outfitters/outfitting? If so, please post it here for any and all to read.
As a Montana outfitter, you know well the ballot initiative of 2010, called I-161, the initiative that removed the Outfitter Sponsored Licenses where non-residents were guaranteed a license if they used the services of an outfitter.
You may have been falsely told by Mac Minard, the Executive Director of MOGA, that I supported I-161. He told many outfitters that, in an effort to get them to oppose my nomination to the RMEF board of directors. Here is the irony of that.
I opposed I-161, not just in the ballot box, but with my platforms - my large DIY hunting website and my editorials and my speaking. I took a ton of heat from the self-guided hunters who are my audience for my position of opposing that legislation. A ton of heat and it was not a pleasant time to oppose some of your close friends on a topic they were very passionate about.
MOGA loved me at that time. Think about it. The guy with the biggest platform in the self-guided hunting sphere, living in the state where the initiative is being debated, comes out on the same side as the outfitters and tries to kill that initiative. He does so in a very public way, taking a ton of criticism along the way.
Now, for whatever reason, Mr. Minard decides he doesn't like me. He enlists the WYOGA (succesfully) and the IDOGA (unsuccessfully) in an effort to accomplish his personal agenda. He tells those outfitters in other states, and may have told you the same, that I was one of the ring leaders of I-161, when he knows damn well that is a lie. So, if Mr. Minard, or any of your fellow MT outfitters told you I was in favor of I-161, the biggest outfitter change in MT politics, you might want to inform of their bad information.
Today, with three years of hindsight, those of us opposing I-161 have been proven correct in our assertion that it was a bad idea.
In my TV show, I refer more people to outfitters than many booking agencies. Most people watch our hunts and email me with something to the affect, "Randy, that was a great elk hunt, but I live in Maryland and I know nothing about elk hunting. I would really like to do that. Can you recommend a good outfitter to show me the ropes?"
I always send them to guys I know. I don't ask for or want a referral fee, as booking agents ask for. I want these people to know they are going to a good operation and that I referred them because I know and trust that outfitter, not because I got some commission.
This happens almost weekly. I have a handful of guys I know in each western states and when someone asks about that state, they get sent to those I know and trust.
Sorry to sound confrontational in just the second post, but for you to assert that I am anti-outfitter or outspoken against outfitters, is ridiculous and follows the same line of axe grinding that Mac Minard embarks in.
If you doubt what I have stated here, ask Eric Albus. Ask Rod Pascke. Ask Brett Todd. I can give you a list of others, if you want. They are all on the board and in leadership positions of MOGA. They know me. If you are a member of MOGA, you have all of their contact information.
I don't expect to always agree with outfitters and they don't expect to always agree with me. We can work together when it is useful and understand that there will be times that we will disagree.
If you are a member of MOGA, it might be helpful for you understand that your executive director, Mac Minard, has lost any working relationship with the hunting and fishing groups in Montana. I have stated this publicly and will state it here. I refuse to work with a person of his character and integrity. Since many of us are very involved in hunting politics in Montana, having an ED that is completely written off by hunters in this state makes MOGA's work much harder in the legislature.
Assertions such as you just made, without any proof or evidence, seem a rather strange way to start a discussion. For what it is worth, I have been on outfitted hunts, before starting the TV show. I had a great time. I have sent a lot of people to those people I hunted with.
Just look at your frantic response when Toby took your hunting business (show) to task.You might view that as frantic. It is factual. In person with Toby Bridges, there is a good chance the response probably would be frantic.
It is a response to a continued pattern of a fringe operator standing in the cheap seats, lobbing volleys at the folks in the trenches. I have no use for those who do nothing, other than sit behind a keyboard and criticize groups such as Federal Ammo, Sportsman Channel, and many other organizations Mr. Bridges had put in his crosshairs over the years.
Some may agree with him. Fine. A free country and their right to form what opinions they want, from whatever information they get. I don't agree with him, or any of his cadre of like-minded operators.
I have been involved in wolf politics in Montana since beginning. I have seen a lot of good people work very hard to gain state management control of wolves. They took a lot of heat against some very tough odds, yet they prevailed in getting state control. None of that was made any easier by the fringe operators who accomplished nothing, only to criticize those doing the heavy lifting.
I don't know you and have never seen your show, we might get along pretty good if we were to meet, I don't know, but I do think your position opposing outfitters is a bit hypocritical when you yourself are making a business out of your hunting.We probably would get along pretty good if we were to meet. I get along with most hunters and most outfitters. I suspect if you took the time to talk to a few outfitters who know me, you would retract your comment about "your position opposing outfitters."
If I end up on the opposite side of outfitters on an issue, it is not for the sake of opposing them. It would be because we disagree on an issue or a solution. I don't view them being on an opposite side at times as a default position to oppose me. It is because they are operating a business and they will have a different perspective on the topic than I will.
As to me "making a business out of your hunting," yes, it is a business. But, not one that pays any bills. As my wife says, "It is the best job he ever bought." If not for my real life as a CPA, my ability to provide the platform of my TV show and website would not exist.
I see no hypocrisy in my positions that I take. I do them because they are what I think is in the best interest of hunting and conservation.
Furthermore, I see your stance on increasing wilderness as a detriment to the average sportsman. Your comments seem to indicate that you like the fact that wilderness limits other hunters from participating.
We can disagree on the opinion of whether wilderness is good or bad for the average sportsman. I am not an advocate of wilderness in every place. There are a lot of places where wilderness would be a bad idea. There are parts about wilderness designations that are bad for invasive weed management, and some other problems impacting the summer ranges found in wilderness areas.
The irony of Toby criticizing the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act is that the Act establishes a new classification of land status. It is called "Conservation Management Areas." It takes existing uses, locks them in, and makes wildlife conservation the priority for those areas. That is a common sense compromise that hopefully negates the problems that can come with designated wilderness and benefit wildlife and hunting. It is a new approach; a new land classification. Never been used before.
Some wanted it to all be wilderness, but that would not be good. There are local people using those lands and their existing uses need to be protected. If it did not protect those uses, I would not be for this Act. You might want to ask your MT outfitter buddies in that area why they support the Act. Many of them were on the local planning groups who came up with the idea.
And in classic style, rather than get involved in this effort and be part of the solution, the fringe sits on their butts, then when people try to craft workable solutions and try something different, those fringe elements go off half-cocked, uninformed about the proposed solution, and take shots in a manner that fills their agenda. That is not my way of operating and I am tired of that style of behavior.
I come from a logging family. I fully understand the resource industry and the benefits logging can provide for wildlife habitat, when done correctly.
Not sure where you gather the idea that I like wilderness because it limits other hunters from participating. Never said that and never will. Wildernesses are not beneficial because of any impediments they might impose.
In Montana, our wilderness areas provide the longest rifle elk seasons in the country. Rifle hunting starts September 15th and runs until the Sunday after Thanksgiving.
They serve as areas that can provide some security for animals, allowing for longer seasons and better age classes. The animals that summer in wilderness areas usually migrate out of those areas in hunting season, making them available to hunters not able to get into the wilderness. That increases opportunity for all, allows MT to have the longest general seasons in the Lower 48, prevents us from having only limited entry draws for elk and deer, and gets us away from choose your weapon situations. That is all good for hunter opportunity, whether you hunt backcountry areas or on the fringe of those areas when the animals migrate out.
The episode Mr. Bridges is whining about took place east of the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area, along a migration corridor where the deer are headed to winter grounds. There were guys a lot older than me, in different health than me, who shot big bucks last year, when those deer migrated out to the foothills and became more accessible. That happens because those deer have some security cover in the early season and the archery season, allowing them to get some age. Tough country provides that, whether official wilderness area, or not.
My entire platform is about encouraging and helping people participate. It is also about providing the greatest opportunity for long seasons, general tags, and diverse age classes of animals.
I don't know Toby either but I think he has a sincere interest in saving our game herds.
We can disagree on that.
You launched a pretty strong counter attack and I have no idea how many of your statements are factual.....Not strong at all. The best will be forthcoming in the next week. I can provide you citation for every item I mentioned.
...... but one thing I would point out is that Rehberg was running against Baucus who was very popular, as we all know it's hard to unseat a popular incumbent, honestly that seems more the reason Rehberg lost....Rehberg was not running against Baucus. He was running against Tester. Rehberg was the incumbent Congressman who had served in the House of Representatives longer than Tester has served in the Senate. Both had incumbent advantage.
I think your insinuation that Toby Bridges was the reason Rehberg lost is a bit of a stretch. That would be like saying Jay Inslee was elected as governor of WA because I supported McKenna, that would be a stretch.I did not insinuate that Toby Bridges was the reason Rehberg lost. Not sure where you got that. It is my opinion, not insinuation, that Rehberg lost because his voting record on hunting, fishing, and public access was a huge negative in a state where the majority or registered voters hunt and/or fish.
I would like to see a copy of your show that seems to have excited people, please let me know if there is a way I can see that show online.PM your address and I will mail you that episode when it comes out on DVD. I will also send you the DVD with our two-eipsode wolf hunt, the first wolf hunt in the Lower 48 to be aired. You will see why my unapologetic approach to wolf huntng offended those at the NY Times, the Chicago Sun, and most of mainstream media. It was reason for me and my family to receive hundreds of death wishes from the lunatic fringe on the other side.
I suspect it was give you reason to wonder why Toby Bridges would imply that I, Federal Ammo, and Sportsman Channel are so pro-wolf. I doubt you will find any anti-outfitter sentiment in any of the episodes I send you.
Best of luck to you and your clients this season. May your hunts be pleasurable, safe, and abundant.
Post by: JLS on October 03, 2013, 06:51:55 AM
Roadless areas and the reduction in logging actually are a huge detriment to habitat improvement.
Maybe a huge detriment if you only view logging as the method for improving habitat. I can show you plenty of places that are roadless, have not been logged, and provide very good wildlife habitat.
Before you go jumping to the conclusion that I am anti-logging as well as pro-wolf, I'm not. There is a balance, but the assertion that roadless and unlogged areas do not or cannot provide premium habitat is untrue.
I do freely admit that I find great value in roadless areas where one can distance themselves from any motorized traffic.
Here in NE WA and N ID logging has a direct effect on animals and population. Areas that are not logged here are void of animals! or very few. Other parts of the country this may not be the case, they have meadows, open timber and etc that this region doesnt have
I completely agree. I am very excited to see the amount of selective cutting that is taking place along the Clark Fork. I'd like to see more. Selective cutting, thinning, and controlled burning are wonderful things when done in appropriate areas.
Post by: JLS on October 03, 2013, 07:04:22 AM
On a related note, I support Backcountry Hunters & Anglers because, well, I am a backcountry hunter. That organization is not perfect, of course, but I share Mr. Newberg's appreciation that BHA advocates for habitat conservation, sound wildlife management, and fair chase hunting.
I want to emphasize that I would gladly sign well-crafted petitions for re-introducing hound hunting and for allowing ATVs on National Forest roads in Washington where cars and trucks are currently permitted. I would be even enthusiastic about doing so IF there was reciprocity, if others who don't share all of my values about hunting would publicly acknowledge that we are all in this together by joining people like me in advocating on behalf of remote country (and, in some cases, voice their support for restricting certain kinds of access to that country).
Well said John. I have very vocally supported efforts to allow ATVs on county and Forest Service Roads. I think it is ridiculous how little legal use is avaiable in Washington. I vocally opposed the hound initiative, even though I've never owned or used hounds. I would vocally support the re-introduction of hound hunting.
I don't just carte blanche support any new wilderness area. I fully understand there is give and take, and for everything new, something must be given up. How sad it is though, that when folks want to protect a place like the Rocky Mountain Front from road development, gas exploration, etc, they are deemed anti-access and anti-hunting.
BCHA President Holly Endersby was writing hunting articles in Western Horseman many years ago. Whether you agree with all of her stances or not, I feel she has been an excellent spokeswoman and representative of hunters in a periodical that is really not a marketed to hunters. In fact, I am guessing her writings exposed many hobby farm horse owners to hunting for the first time.
Post by: JLS on October 03, 2013, 07:12:34 AM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?action=post;topic=135347.50;last_msg=1808359 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?action=post;topic=135347.50;last_msg=1808359)
http://klazy3.com/about-us/rates-deposit-schedule/ (http://klazy3.com/about-us/rates-deposit-schedule/)
Post by: NumaJohn on October 03, 2013, 09:49:30 AM
The Bob is hardly devoid of game. What a ludicrous idea. Also, I agree with Bearpaw and others who have noted that logging, in many instances, has vastly improved wildlife habitat in northeast Washington. No debating that, I was just being honest about my preference to reclaim some of those vast logged tracts of land for the sake of having more remote country. No, it won't ever be "wilderness" again, but it can be allowed to become more wild. Personally, having hunted a fair bit in the northeast corner these past few seasons, I have never found it difficult to find roads where I could drive my car or truck. A quick look at a map will show there are open roads in all sorts of places. I'll use those roads, like others, but I also won't decry closures--in certain instances but definitely not all--where professional (rather than armchair) wildlife biologists and managers determine that such closures would benefit wildlife.
With respect,
John
Post by: bearpaw on October 03, 2013, 09:51:46 AM
Randy Newberg
First of all, welcome to the forum and thanks for keeping a civil tongue in your response, I respect that. :tup:
Thank you for allowing me to post.I did read through your whole post. You have been outspoken against outfitters so understandably the industry is going to be opposed to you.
Do you have any citation of where I have been outspoken against outfitters/outfitting? If so, please post it here for any and all to read.
As a Montana outfitter, you know well the ballot initiative of 2010, called I-161, the initiative that removed the Outfitter Sponsored Licenses where non-residents were guaranteed a license if they used the services of an outfitter.
You may have been falsely told by Mac Minard, the Executive Director of MOGA, that I supported I-161. He told many outfitters that, in an effort to get them to oppose my nomination to the RMEF board of directors. Here is the irony of that.
I opposed I-161, not just in the ballot box, but with my platforms - my large DIY hunting website and my editorials and my speaking. I took a ton of heat from the self-guided hunters who are my audience for my position of opposing that legislation. A ton of heat and it was not a pleasant time to oppose some of your close friends on a topic they were very passionate about.
MOGA loved me at that time. Think about it. The guy with the biggest platform in the self-guided hunting sphere, living in the state where the initiative is being debated, comes out on the same side as the outfitters and tries to kill that initiative. He does so in a very public way, taking a ton of criticism along the way.
Now, for whatever reason, Mr. Minard decides he doesn't like me. He enlists the WYOGA (succesfully) and the IDOGA (unsuccessfully) in an effort to accomplish his personal agenda. He tells those outfitters in other states, and may have told you the same, that I was one of the ring leaders of I-161, when he knows damn well that is a lie. So, if Mr. Minard, or any of your fellow MT outfitters told you I was in favor of I-161, the biggest outfitter change in MT politics, you might want to inform of their bad information.
Today, with three years of hindsight, those of us opposing I-161 have been proven correct in our assertion that it was a bad idea.
In my TV show, I refer more people to outfitters than many booking agencies. Most people watch our hunts and email me with something to the affect, "Randy, that was a great elk hunt, but I live in Maryland and I know nothing about elk hunting. I would really like to do that. Can you recommend a good outfitter to show me the ropes?"
I always send them to guys I know. I don't ask for or want a referral fee, as booking agents ask for. I want these people to know they are going to a good operation and that I referred them because I know and trust that outfitter, not because I got some commission.
This happens almost weekly. I have a handful of guys I know in each western states and when someone asks about that state, they get sent to those I know and trust.
Sorry to sound confrontational in just the second post, but for you to assert that I am anti-outfitter or outspoken against outfitters, is ridiculous and follows the same line of axe grinding that Mac Minard embarks in.
If you doubt what I have stated here, ask Eric Albus. Ask Rod Pascke. Ask Brett Todd. I can give you a list of others, if you want. They are all on the board and in leadership positions of MOGA. They know me. If you are a member of MOGA, you have all of their contact information.
I don't expect to always agree with outfitters and they don't expect to always agree with me. We can work together when it is useful and understand that there will be times that we will disagree.
If you are a member of MOGA, it might be helpful for you understand that your executive director, Mac Minard, has lost any working relationship with the hunting and fishing groups in Montana. I have stated this publicly and will state it here. I refuse to work with a person of his character and integrity. Since many of us are very involved in hunting politics in Montana, having an ED that is completely written off by hunters in this state makes MOGA's work much harder in the legislature.
Assertions such as you just made, without any proof or evidence, seem a rather strange way to start a discussion. For what it is worth, I have been on outfitted hunts, before starting the TV show. I had a great time. I have sent a lot of people to those people I hunted with.
My info came from MOGA, I've never seen your show. If what you say about Mac is true I will probably hear more about this, however I am cautious about your statements. You have certainly ruffled some feathers, it would seem unlikely that everyone else is at fault and there is no fault on your part as you seem to claim. Unfortunately this is my busy time so further verification will need to wait.Just look at your frantic response when Toby took your hunting business (show) to task.You might view that as frantic. It is factual. In person with Toby Bridges, there is a good chance the response probably would be frantic.
It is a response to a continued pattern of a fringe operator standing in the cheap seats, lobbing volleys at the folks in the trenches. I have no use for those who do nothing, other than sit behind a keyboard and criticize groups such as Federal Ammo, Sportsman Channel, and many other organizations Mr. Bridges had put in his crosshairs over the years.
Some may agree with him. Fine. A free country and their right to form what opinions they want, from whatever information they get. I don't agree with him, or any of his cadre of like-minded operators.
I have been involved in wolf politics in Montana since beginning. I have seen a lot of good people work very hard to gain state management control of wolves. They took a lot of heat against some very tough odds, yet they prevailed in getting state control. None of that was made any easier by the fringe operators who accomplished nothing, only to criticize those doing the heavy lifting.
If you have actually been opposed to unregulated wolf numbers thank you. :tup:I don't know you and have never seen your show, we might get along pretty good if we were to meet, I don't know, but I do think your position opposing outfitters is a bit hypocritical when you yourself are making a business out of your hunting.We probably would get along pretty good if we were to meet. I get along with most hunters and most outfitters. I suspect if you took the time to talk to a few outfitters who know me, you would retract your comment about "your position opposing outfitters."
If I end up on the opposite side of outfitters on an issue, it is not for the sake of opposing them. It would be because we disagree on an issue or a solution. I don't view them being on an opposite side at times as a default position to oppose me. It is because they are operating a business and they will have a different perspective on the topic than I will.
As to me "making a business out of your hunting," yes, it is a business. But, not one that pays any bills. As my wife says, "It is the best job he ever bought." If not for my real life as a CPA, my ability to provide the platform of my TV show and website would not exist.
I see no hypocrisy in my positions that I take. I do them because they are what I think is in the best interest of hunting and conservation.Furthermore, I see your stance on increasing wilderness as a detriment to the average sportsman. Your comments seem to indicate that you like the fact that wilderness limits other hunters from participating.
We can disagree on the opinion of whether wilderness is good or bad for the average sportsman. I am not an advocate of wilderness in every place. There are a lot of places where wilderness would be a bad idea. There are parts about wilderness designations that are bad for invasive weed management, and some other problems impacting the summer ranges found in wilderness areas.
The irony of Toby criticizing the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act is that the Act establishes a new classification of land status. It is called "Conservation Management Areas." It takes existing uses, locks them in, and makes wildlife conservation the priority for those areas. That is a common sense compromise that hopefully negates the problems that can come with designated wilderness and benefit wildlife and hunting. It is a new approach; a new land classification. Never been used before.
Some wanted it to all be wilderness, but that would not be good. There are local people using those lands and their existing uses need to be protected. If it did not protect those uses, I would not be for this Act. You might want to ask your MT outfitter buddies in that area why they support the Act. Many of them were on the local planning groups who came up with the idea.
And in classic style, rather than get involved in this effort and be part of the solution, the fringe sits on their butts, then when people try to craft workable solutions and try something different, those fringe elements go off half-cocked, uninformed about the proposed solution, and take shots in a manner that fills their agenda. That is not my way of operating and I am tired of that style of behavior.
I come from a logging family. I fully understand the resource industry and the benefits logging can provide for wildlife habitat, when done correctly.
Not sure where you gather the idea that I like wilderness because it limits other hunters from participating. Never said that and never will. Wildernesses are not beneficial because of any impediments they might impose.
Your sponsor BCHA advocates for expanding wilderness.
In Montana, our wilderness areas provide the longest rifle elk seasons in the country. Rifle hunting starts September 15th and runs until the Sunday after Thanksgiving.
They serve as areas that can provide some security for animals, allowing for longer seasons and better age classes. The animals that summer in wilderness areas usually migrate out of those areas in hunting season, making them available to hunters not able to get into the wilderness. That increases opportunity for all, allows MT to have the longest general seasons in the Lower 48, prevents us from having only limited entry draws for elk and deer, and gets us away from choose your weapon situations. That is all good for hunter opportunity, whether you hunt backcountry areas or on the fringe of those areas when the animals migrate out.
The situation regarding hunting seasons duration is a quite different in other states and this expansion of wilderness that BCHA seeks is very damaging to access by the average person. I would also suggest that in many areas more logging would result in better habitat and more hunting opportunity than more wilderness ever can provide.
The episode Mr. Bridges is whining about took place east of the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area, along a migration corridor where the deer are headed to winter grounds. There were guys a lot older than me, in different health than me, who shot big bucks last year, when those deer migrated out to the foothills and became more accessible. That happens because those deer have some security cover in the early season and the archery season, allowing them to get some age. Tough country provides that, whether official wilderness area, or not.
My entire platform is about encouraging and helping people participate. It is also about providing the greatest opportunity for long seasons, general tags, and diverse age classes of animals.
The problem is that a select group of people benefit, the average person probably loses opportunity with the continued expansion of wilderness.I don't know Toby either but I think he has a sincere interest in saving our game herds.
We can disagree on that.
If he's not concerned about saving the herds why would he go to so much trouble?You launched a pretty strong counter attack and I have no idea how many of your statements are factual.....Not strong at all. The best will be forthcoming in the next week. I can provide you citation for every item I mentioned....... but one thing I would point out is that Rehberg was running against Baucus who was very popular, as we all know it's hard to unseat a popular incumbent, honestly that seems more the reason Rehberg lost....Rehberg was not running against Baucus. He was running against Tester. Rehberg was the incumbent Congressman who had served in the House of Representatives longer than Tester has served in the Senate. Both had incumbent advantage.
My mistake, it was late, but the same reasons I mentioned apply.I think your insinuation that Toby Bridges was the reason Rehberg lost is a bit of a stretch. That would be like saying Jay Inslee was elected as governor of WA because I supported McKenna, that would be a stretch.I did not insinuate that Toby Bridges was the reason Rehberg lost. Not sure where you got that. It is my opinion, not insinuation, that Rehberg lost because his voting record on hunting, fishing, and public access was a huge negative in a state where the majority or registered voters hunt and/or fish.
I am curious, what positions Rehberg has taken that has hurt hunting, fishing, and public access. Are you referring to public access on private land or public land, there's quite a difference?I would like to see a copy of your show that seems to have excited people, please let me know if there is a way I can see that show online.PM your address and I will mail you that episode when it comes out on DVD. I will also send you the DVD with our two-eipsode wolf hunt, the first wolf hunt in the Lower 48 to be aired. You will see why my unapologetic approach to wolf huntng offended those at the NY Times, the Chicago Sun, and most of mainstream media. It was reason for me and my family to receive hundreds of death wishes from the lunatic fringe on the other side.
I suspect it was give you reason to wonder why Toby Bridges would imply that I, Federal Ammo, and Sportsman Channel are so pro-wolf. I doubt you will find any anti-outfitter sentiment in any of the episodes I send you.
I'll send it to you by pm and I'll watch it as soon as I get a chance.
Best of luck to you and your clients this season. May your hunts be pleasurable, safe, and abundant.
Thanks, good luck to you too!
Personally, I would far rather be associated with a group of serious backpack hunters who advocate for conservation of the best remaining wild habitat we have, than to cast my lot with a small circle of frustrated middle-aged whining wanna be keyboard cowboys who for whatever reason complain about the backcountry areas that give Montana the longest seasons in the country, allows us those long season on general tags, without requiring us to choose our weapon, without making us wait for years in limited entry draws, and results in some of the biggest bulls taken each season.
We'll simply have to disagree on this, I think it's unfair and self serving to continue increasing wilderness areas as your sponsor BCHA advocates when we have so many restricted areas already, to increase wilderness areas limits physically challenged hunters and the average hunter or recreationist from many hunting, fishing, and recreation areas. I would suggest that Montana can support the longer seasons because there is more land. I would also suggest that the greatest numbers of animals and best hunting is in eastern Montana where there are plenty of roads and human activity but where predators have not impacted herds as badly. Wilderness actually creates a haven for predators where it's tough to manage there numbers, I would suggest this has been illustrated widely in ID/MT. I would also say that your comments regarding the older generation could use a little work, that's just a suggestion, take it for what it's worth.
Wished I had more time, it seems like quite a few members like your show. I'm too busy at the moment to figure out who is actually benefiting and who is taking away from hunters. I am also left wondering how Toby Bridges and Mac Minard would respond to your remarks. :dunno:
Thanks again for the civil discussion. :tup:
Post by: bearpaw on October 03, 2013, 10:00:29 AM
Good point, JLS.
The Bob is hardly devoid of game. What a ludicrous idea. Also, I agree with Bearpaw and others who have noted that logging, in many instances, has vastly improved wildlife habitat in northeast Washington. No debating that, I was just being honest about my preference to reclaim some of those vast logged tracts of land for the sake of having more remote country. No, it won't ever be "wilderness" again, but it can be allowed to become more wild. Personally, having hunted a fair bit in the northeast corner these past few seasons, I have never found it difficult to find roads where I could drive my car or truck. A quick look at a map will show there are open roads in all sorts of places. I'll use those roads, like others, but I also won't decry closures--in certain instances but definitely not all--where professional (rather than armchair) wildlife biologists and managers determine that such closures would benefit wildlife.
With respect,
John
Thanks for your comments about the logging in NE WA. I would like to add that as logging has decreased in NE WA due to the efforts of Conservation Northwest and with help from groups including BCHA, the deer herds have decreased. I see no problem with removing new logging roads, but there is no reason to remove long established roads. NE WA has by far the best deer and moose numbers in the state and that is attributable to the habitat created by logging and the many ranching and farming operations. The roads that exist to access the area did not prevent herd growth, the decrease in logging, increase in predators, and other factors are inhibiting greater herd growth.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on October 03, 2013, 10:55:06 AM
Sorry for the delay in a response. I was out on an elk hunt in MT and was getting tons of emails about Toby Bridges' most recent rant.Agree to disagree here too
about ten posts to the thread.
Randy Newberg's push for even more roadless wilderness is also a part of that idiocy, which I will be sharing later this week in a LOBO WATCH Release.Obviously, Toby never took the time to read the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act, the legislation I mentioned as being beneficial to those of us who hunt the area near where this episode was shot.
Fact - Contrary to what Toby says about "even more roadless.......," the RMFHA adds not one single acre to "roadless" acres in question. All of it is already inventoried roadless area under the Roadless designation of the Clinton Administration.
It does take some of the areas of rock and ice, areas that will never be roaded or developed due to extreme topography and terrain, and changes that from inventoried roadless to designated wilderness. None of that is an increase in roadless area. "Inventoried Roadless" to "designated Wilderness" is still roadless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever ridden a mountain sled MR Newberg?? this act = more wilderness
Baby steps Randy, just as inventoried roadless (DE FACTO wilderness) which the USFS has no legal right to declare.
NOR did President Clinton. Careful who we sleep with, since the extreme green crowd have proven to be liars and users. When you are not needed anymore you WILL be abandend to thier other allies the PETA, HSUS bunch!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the remaining acreage covered under that Act, it carves out a new designation - Conservation Management Areas. CMA would be a designation that continues all existing uses, such as grazing, etc. It would make wildlife management and conservation the management priorities for those lands given the CMA designation.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on October 03, 2013, 02:23:40 PM
Personally, I would far rather be associated with a group of serious backpack hunters who advocate for conservation of the best remaining wild habitat we have, than to cast my lot with a small circle of frustrated middle-aged whining wanna be keyboard cowboys who for whatever reason complain about the backcountry areas that give Montana the longest seasons in the country, allows us those long season on general tags, without requiring us to choose our weapon, without making us wait for years in limited entry draws, and results in some of the biggest bulls taken each season.
The best paragraph on this whole thread.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on October 03, 2013, 02:31:44 PM
I am familiar with BHA and their goals and mission. They (we) are a good group and care about wildlife. I'm not sure how anyone would think that being a backcountry hunter would make us pro wolf or anti wildlife? What is this guys deal?
CNW and BHA are not connected. BHA is a group of hunters and outdoorsman. If anyone here has doubts about that, PLEASE FEEL FREE to come to a meeting and see what we're about.
Bart
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 03, 2013, 04:27:31 PM
We'll simply have to disagree on this, I think it's unfair and self serving to continue increasing wilderness areas as your sponsor BCHA advocates when we have so many restricted areas already, to increase wilderness areas limits
The biggest restriction to all hunters in Washington recently has been the logging companies restricting access to their land and going to lease hunting and limiting access permits. You seem to have no problem with that.
All wilderness areas have boundaries. Most hunters have no problem hunting the edges or fringes. Large tracts of habitat benefit the game populations and thus all hunters in the long run. I do agree that main roads should be open to motor vehicles, but they don't belong in every far corner of the woods. Do you want every hunt to turn into a massive road hunt?
Post by: bearpaw on October 03, 2013, 10:55:08 PM
We'll simply have to disagree on this, I think it's unfair and self serving to continue increasing wilderness areas as your sponsor BCHA advocates when we have so many restricted areas already, to increase wilderness areas limits
The biggest restriction to all hunters in Washington recently has been the logging companies restricting access to their land and going to lease hunting and limiting access permits. You seem to have no problem with that.
Not sure where you got the idea I have no problem with the logging corporations closing land, I am very concerned about that. I don't want to trample on private property rights but I tried to get a topic going to look for potential answers and there was so much difference of opinion that I gave up. But that is definitely an issue of concern for all hunters.
All wilderness areas have boundaries. Most hunters have no problem hunting the edges or fringes. Large tracts of habitat benefit the game populations and thus all hunters in the long run. I do agree that main roads should be open to motor vehicles, but they don't belong in every far corner of the woods. Do you want every hunt to turn into a massive road hunt?
Actually there would be more of most game animals if there was more logging and less wilderness.
I have no problem with road hunters if that is how they want to hunt then let them. Of course we don't want roads everywhere but again you are putting words in my mouth, that's not at all what I said and you know that. ;)
There's a pretty good balance of land access right now with plenty of wilderness, I am opposed to adding more wilderness, I think there are 31 wilderness areas in Washington. Exactly how many wilderness areas do we need to satisfy the wilderness crowd?
Alpine Lakes Wilderness
Boulder River Wilderness
The Brothers Wilderness
Buckhorn Wilderness
Clearwater Wilderness
Colonel Bob Wilderness
Glacier Peak Wilderness
Glacier View Wilderness
Goat Rocks Wilderness
Henry M. Jackson Wilderness
Indian Heaven Wilderness
Juniper Dunes Wilderness
Lake Chelan-Sawtooth Wilderness
Mount Adams Wilderness
Mount Baker Wilderness
Mount Rainier Wilderness
Mount Skokomish Wilderness
Noisy-Diobsud Wilderness
Norse Peak Wilderness
Olympic Wilderness
Pasayten Wilderness
Salmo-Priest Wilderness
San Juan Wilderness
Stephen Mather Wilderness
Tatoosh Wilderness
Trapper Creek Wilderness
Washington Islands Wilderness
Wenaha–Tucannon Wilderness
Wild Sky Wilderness
William O. Douglas Wilderness
Wonder Mountain Wilderness
Seriously, this is not enough wilderness? :dunno:
Post by: NumaJohn on October 04, 2013, 01:07:14 AM
To me the issue is not just about wilderness areas but also roadless areas that are not designated wilderness. Big country. My interests, I confess, are not limited to deer numbers and harvest potential. I love hunting remote country, even if there are fewer animals. As I mentioned, last weekend my friends and I saw a big herd bull and several cows a few miles behind a locked gate. It wasn't wilderness, there weren't many animals working the area, but man, that was one of the best experiences of my outdoor life! Clearcuts were nearby, but we had to burn some calories to get to them. On a related note, I want to emphasize that the quality of the hunt matters a great deal to me, and so I would rather shoot a raghorn bull on public land several miles back in than a herd bull out of someone's wheat field along a river bottom or out near Turnbull.
Your list of wilderness areas and your question at the end of the list are presented, if I understand you correctly, to emphasize the vast existing collection of roadless areas in our state. But what if you were to post a comparative list of areas (maybe in acres within GMUs) of the real estate that is not roadless? I am honestly not sure how someone would come up with such a list, but I can tell you that when I look at maps and especially Google Earth, northeast Washington seems to have a lot more "roaded" areas than "roadless."
So I guess after looking at all of the developed areas on the map and in the actual woods, a person could ask the opposite of your question: "Seriously, this is not enough area with roads?" You say there's "a pretty good balance right now," but what criteria are you using to make that assessment? If we had a pie chart that showed the percentage of wilderness and other types of backcountry and the percentage of roaded land in the mountains and the front country, what would the numbers be? How is "balance" determined so that hunters with different preferences can come to some sort of compromise? I do not think the wheelchair hunters are lacking roads, or the road hunters like my 81-year-old dad, or the guys like me who often have only a half day to slip out and try to find a deer.
I mean no disrespect in posing my questions, and I actually think it's not productive to portray the land management issues in dualities that provoke pro or con responses. We all benefit from logging, we all benefit from accessible road systems. Of course. But I think we are all being a bit self-serving here, not just the wilderness crowd or those of us who advocate for more remote country. You pointed that out to Randy Newberg, regarding his TV show, and I know it's true for me as a result of my wanting more remote country for wildlife. Outfitters, probably including you, have their own agendas. None of us operates out of pure altruism, I suspect, but what do we do, given that stark reality? Even after a great deal of thinking about all of this, I am at a loss as to how we hunters are supposed to NOT work at odds with one another if people like Randy Newberg and BCA members are being BBQd for expressing a passion and preference for wild country. We all love the hunt. We all want wolves managed carefully. We all worry about access.
But what do hunters do next? I like the idea, in theory, that we should work together, but are we no better at that than Congress?
John
Post by: Northway on October 04, 2013, 10:18:49 AM
We'll simply have to disagree on this, I think it's unfair and self serving to continue increasing wilderness areas as your sponsor BCHA advocates when we have so many restricted areas already, to increase wilderness areas limits
The biggest restriction to all hunters in Washington recently has been the logging companies restricting access to their land and going to lease hunting and limiting access permits. You seem to have no problem with that.
Not sure where you got the idea I have no problem with the logging corporations closing land, I am very concerned about that. I don't want to trample on private property rights but I tried to get a topic going to look for potential answers and there was so much difference of opinion that I gave up. But that is definitely an issue of concern for all hunters.All wilderness areas have boundaries. Most hunters have no problem hunting the edges or fringes. Large tracts of habitat benefit the game populations and thus all hunters in the long run. I do agree that main roads should be open to motor vehicles, but they don't belong in every far corner of the woods. Do you want every hunt to turn into a massive road hunt?
Actually there would be more of most game animals if there was more logging and less wilderness.
I have no problem with road hunters if that is how they want to hunt then let them. Of course we don't want roads everywhere but again you are putting words in my mouth, that's not at all what I said and you know that. ;)
There's a pretty good balance of land access right now with plenty of wilderness, I am opposed to adding more wilderness, I think there are 31 wilderness areas in Washington. Exactly how many wilderness areas do we need to satisfy the wilderness crowd?
Alpine Lakes Wilderness
Boulder River Wilderness
The Brothers Wilderness
Buckhorn Wilderness
Clearwater Wilderness
Colonel Bob Wilderness
Glacier Peak Wilderness
Glacier View Wilderness
Goat Rocks Wilderness
Henry M. Jackson Wilderness
Indian Heaven Wilderness
Juniper Dunes Wilderness
Lake Chelan-Sawtooth Wilderness
Mount Adams Wilderness
Mount Baker Wilderness
Mount Rainier Wilderness
Mount Skokomish Wilderness
Noisy-Diobsud Wilderness
Norse Peak Wilderness
Olympic Wilderness
Pasayten Wilderness
Salmo-Priest Wilderness
San Juan Wilderness
Stephen Mather Wilderness
Tatoosh Wilderness
Trapper Creek Wilderness
Washington Islands Wilderness
Wenaha–Tucannon Wilderness
Wild Sky Wilderness
William O. Douglas Wilderness
Wonder Mountain Wilderness
Seriously, this is not enough wilderness? :dunno:
I don't know if a list is the best way to represent wilderness areas in Washington. I get your point, but the "San Juan Wilderness" for instance, is 300 acres. Olympic & Mt Rainier Wilderness areas are essentially just additional designations on top of Mt Rainier and Olympic National Park, so no real net gain there. There are a number of other wilderness areas that less than 10,000 acres, or marine island designations as opposed to contiguous blocks of land.
An interesting comparison would be percentage of wilderness designated land + national park land compared to total public lands in WA.
You bring up a question that I have asked myself many times: How much is enough? I don't know the answer to that question yet nor have I heard a comprehensive answer from anyone else.
Post by: bearpaw on October 04, 2013, 11:44:39 AM
Let me put something in perspective for some of you wilderness advocates. Firstly, I don't have a problem with the current wilderness, it's my opinion that 31 areas, some including more than 1 county in their vast size, provide enough opportunity for people to find wilderness escapes in Washington. I wouldn't want to see all those areas disappear, yet on the other hand the majority of people never get more than 1 or 2 miles from a road, so I think it's unfair to continue taking away more and more land from the majority of users and making wilderness out of it. You are making the remaining multiple use forest more crowded all the time when you keep reducing the size of it.
If the wilderness advocates were simply advocating to maintain our wilderness areas I would support them, but they never know when to quit wanting more land and the biggest problem is that they all want to create more wilderness in my back yard instead of in their back yard.
Let's remove some roads and housing from King County and return it to wilderness. In NE WA we already have a vast roadless area in the Kettle Crest, another in the Abercrombie area, and the Salmo Priest Wilderness, that is enough for the number of people that use it. The rest of the forest is multiple use forest, residents graze cattle, we need it for logging, and the bulk of people enjoy that portion of the forest with all types of recreational activity. It certainly seems that anyone wanting to take more forest land away from the majority of users is definitely being the most self serving.
Post by: Bob33 on October 04, 2013, 12:19:06 PM
Personally, i don't see a compelling need for more wilderness areas in Washington. However, I did find it interesting to read posts on here in September from some early high hunters in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness that experienced wall to wall hunters.
Post by: stuckalot on October 04, 2013, 12:41:46 PM
Personally, i don't see a compelling need for more wilderness areas in Washington. However, I did find it interesting to read posts on here in September from some early high hunters in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness that experienced wall to wall hunters.
Part of the problem with many of the wilderness areas particularly in this state is that they are so thick that you literally can't travel off of designated trails. So everyone parks at the trailhead and head into a often relatively small accessible area.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 04, 2013, 02:45:46 PM
If the wilderness advocates were simply advocating to maintain our wilderness areas I would support them, but they never know when to quit wanting more land and the biggest problem is that they all want to create more wilderness in my back yard instead of in their back yard.
Looking at Bob's map I'd say most of the wilderness areas in the state are at the backdoor of Seattle and the I-5 corridor. Pretty much down the spine of the Cascades. Very little wilderness in the eastern half of the State. Now I'm not a lock it up and throw away the key kind of guy. I appreciate multiple use areas. I also appreciate blocks of land off limits to motor vehicles. Deciding the right mix will always be contentious.
It certainly seems that anyone wanting to take more forest land away from the majority of users is definitely being the most self serving.
I fail to see how a wilderness takes anything away from the majority. I want the majority to experience real wilderness. I don't want them to think a park amid the concrete jungle is wilderness. I want them to appreciate real wilderness. In the long run, that's the only way to protect wilderness and ecosystems is if they have value to the masses. If people don't care about or think about wilderness, wild places will disappear a piece at a time and hunting will disappear too, at least as we know it.
One last thought, the ultimate land tie up is PRIVATE property, not public. And the biggest tie up of all in Washington was giving forestland to timber companies. It's finally coming home to roost.
Post by: bobcat on October 04, 2013, 08:48:41 PM
Another thought- wilderness areas would be more productive for deer and elk if people hadn't been putting out fires all these years. Now they're finally letting some of them burn, so hopefully deer and elk habitat in the wilderness areas will improve over time.
Post by: snowpack on October 04, 2013, 09:10:07 PM
I like wilderness areas. The answer to "how much wilderness is enough" is impossible to answer objectively. More land cannot be designated as wilderness without removing it from some other use. There is a benefit to creating one more parcel of wilderness, but it comes at the cost of removing that parcel from other uses.I think part of this is due to the fact that only a few of the wilderness areas are open to the high hunt. If they opened more (like the William O. or the Wenaha/Tucannon etc) they could spread folks around and drop the hunter densities.
Personally, i don't see a compelling need for more wilderness areas in Washington. However, I did find it interesting to read posts on here in September from some early high hunters in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness that experienced wall to wall hunters.
Post by: JLS on October 04, 2013, 10:33:33 PM
Another thought- wilderness areas would be more productive for deer and elk if people hadn't been putting out fires all these years. Now they're finally letting some of them burn, so hopefully deer and elk habitat in the wilderness areas will improve over time.
It's interesting how I've always been able to find deer and elk in the biological desert known as the Bob Marshall, usually around old burns. I think some other members on here have had the same experience.
Post by: idahohuntr on October 05, 2013, 10:40:11 PM
:yeah: I've always had great luck in old burns...archery and rifle elk hunts.Another thought- wilderness areas would be more productive for deer and elk if people hadn't been putting out fires all these years. Now they're finally letting some of them burn, so hopefully deer and elk habitat in the wilderness areas will improve over time.
It's interesting how I've always been able to find deer and elk in the biological desert known as the Bob Marshall, usually around old burns. I think some other members on here have had the same experience.
Post by: bearpaw on October 06, 2013, 09:48:38 AM
I'm not opposed to fires burning in the wilderness, that would greatly help the herds, however, there is a risk that if you let fires go unchecked in the wilderness that they could spread to private lands, populated areas, etc, and cause great losses to innocent people. As in anything, there must be moderations.
Speaking of moderation, the same holds true with this wilderness discussion. There must be moderation, the wilderness advocates never have enough. Even if we created all the wilderness they want today they will be back next year wanting more wilderness because they seem to have no understanding of moderation or consideration for opposing views.
Wilderness advocates probably think of me as a hater of wilderness, quite the opposite is true, I love the wilderness but I understand moderation, I understand that if you make more wilderness you take many opportunities away from many people, I understand that economies suffer when jobs are lost, that grazing, logging, mining, and public access are important to local economies.
There needs to me moderation in all aspects of what we do on earth, simply making more wilderness is not the right answer as it forces more use onto remaining open and accessible areas.
Post by: bearpaw on October 06, 2013, 09:55:51 AM
If the wilderness advocates were simply advocating to maintain our wilderness areas I would support them, but they never know when to quit wanting more land and the biggest problem is that they all want to create more wilderness in my back yard instead of in their back yard.
Looking at Bob's map I'd say most of the wilderness areas in the state are at the backdoor of Seattle and the I-5 corridor. Pretty much down the spine of the Cascades. Very little wilderness in the eastern half of the State. Now I'm not a lock it up and throw away the key kind of guy. I appreciate multiple use areas. I also appreciate blocks of land off limits to motor vehicles. Deciding the right mix will always be contentious.It certainly seems that anyone wanting to take more forest land away from the majority of users is definitely being the most self serving.
I fail to see how a wilderness takes anything away from the majority. I want the majority to experience real wilderness. I don't want them to think a park amid the concrete jungle is wilderness. I want them to appreciate real wilderness. In the long run, that's the only way to protect wilderness and ecosystems is if they have value to the masses. If people don't care about or think about wilderness, wild places will disappear a piece at a time and hunting will disappear too, at least as we know it.
One last thought, the ultimate land tie up is PRIVATE property, not public. And the biggest tie up of all in Washington was giving forestland to timber companies. It's finally coming home to roost.
We have huge blocks which are designate roadless areas and the forest service has actively been removing roads for many years now. You seem to insinuate roads are increasing, they are actually being removed every year. You seem to be thinking in the past on the road and wild places issue.
HHHMMMM interesting comment, private property is the backbone of the US, your comment seems very socialist to me, plenty of other countries like that already! :dunno:
Post by: Randy Newberg on November 01, 2013, 08:39:09 AM
This hunt is similar in that we hunted near a wilderness area, from a small spike camp we hauled in on our backs. We passed on four branch antlered bulls and I shot this buck on the third day. So much for the Toby Bridges theory that these areas are wildife wastelands.
My cameraman, Brad Veis was a great help in getting this buck off the mountain, so it is only fitting to post a picture with him in it.
This episode will air next year and I am sure the Loco Watch crowd will find something else to whine about when they see this one, even with all the animals they will see in the footage.
This buck is smaller than the one we were trying to kill last year in the episode referred to in the original post of this thread. I will be back next year, investing a week of time trying to kill that big one.
Best of luck to all of you in your hunts this season.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi230.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fee53%2FBigFinMT%2FIMG_1807-001_zps1712200d.jpg&hash=033128c78992060c4ac2e8645188241520ff8694) (http://s230.photobucket.com/user/BigFinMT/media/IMG_1807-001_zps1712200d.jpg.html)
Post by: bobcat on November 01, 2013, 08:52:59 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Post by: vandeman17 on November 01, 2013, 09:32:57 AM
Post by: JLS on November 01, 2013, 09:34:42 AM
Glad the biological wasteland treated you well.
:)
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on November 01, 2013, 09:41:19 AM
Post by: bowhunterforever on November 01, 2013, 01:12:32 PM
Awesome buck Randy! Thanks for posting.:yeah: :tup:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Post by: wolfbait on November 05, 2013, 05:31:34 PM
I'm undecided on this one and not sure exactly what to think.
I've heard before that Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is being funded by the greenies. In fact they are siding with Conservation Northwest on many issue in eastern Washington. I don't have any proof yet, but I have been told that Conservation Northwest supports BCHA.
BCHA posted a temporary job position a while back and I looked into this organization and it raised some questions in my mind. I wrote a letter to their organization suggesting my interest in the job and asking about their position on several topics and asking where their funding comes from (because they do not have enough members for the amount of money they are throwing around). I did not get any response.
I would be very cautious about this organization, it may be a front for Conservation Northwest to try and say hunters support their goals. Anyone who does not believe that the greenies are carefully planning all their moves is sadly mistaken.
I don't have any comments about Newberg or the show, because I've never seen the show. But I am wondering where the money comes from for BCHA to sponsor the show?:yeah:I've watched some of his shows on DIY hunting and they seemed pretty good. That's too bad because I won't be watching them now. Thanks for the heads up.
Anyone that would consider Toby Bridges as a credible advocate for the average do-it-yourself sportsmen is kidding themselves. Randy Newberg is a tireless advocate for hunters and anglers. Toby Bridges is a complete hack.
people need to do homework before jumping to conclusions. Reading that article and then boycotting the Sportsman channel and Randy Newberg is ridiculous. You might as well boycott Kimber, CRKT, Seek Outside, and all the other companies advertising in that publication.
I'm not going to say that Toby Bridges is the most tactful in his writings, but I clearly remember when many members on this forum said people like Toby Bridges were sensationalizing the wolf effects taking place in Idaho and Montana. Now that the true herd numbers is common knowledge, it turns out Toby Bridges and many others were correct about wolf impacts on elk. If you want to say anyone is misleading hunters you may want to start by naming some agency personnel. :twocents:
I'll also remind everyone that Jamie Rappaport Clark who used to head the USFWS is now heading a leading animal rights group. Exactly how many more of our agency personnel would happily take jobs with animal rights groups? :twocents:
Just because someone works for an agency does not mean they are a friend of hunters and fishers, in increasing frequency it may mean the exact opposite. :yike:
Over the years I've read or watched a lot of stuff put out by folks like Toby Bridges, Scott Rockholm, Bob Fanning, etc.
I'll avoid direct criticism in this case since I get the impression you're not a huge fan of that kind of thing. I will say however, that in the anti-wolf advocacy arena, I believe you have a lot more credibility than they do. When someone at least seems honest, that in itself can go a long ways when it comes to bridging gaps. :twocents:
This is just a guess on my part, but I doubt CNW has enough money to fund any front organizations. My impression is that donations have been pretty slim for them over the last few years as they have shed multiple employees.
I wonder how many people have actually seen the destruction that wolves have done? Or even dug into the illegal wolf introduction?
How many people are for more wildernesses and wildlife corridors? How many people would push and agenda using the wolves, knowing the truth?
Look at the RMEF as an example, they said nothing for 13-14 years, they watched as many did, the wolves slaughtering the elk and other game herds in MT, WY, And Idaho. They said nothing until people started dropping their memberships like a hot rock.
All of a sudden like IDFG the RMEF leaped to their feet and exclaimed the wolves are at fault.
I personally know Scott Rockholm, Bob Fanning and a few others who have spent the last 18 plus years trying to inform the public as to the truth. These are honorable people who cared about what was happening to all wildlife, these people spent their own $$ and countless hours investigating and researching. They put their name and their credibility out for everyone to see.
"Over the years I've read or watched a lot of stuff put out by folks like Toby Bridges, Scott Rockholm, Bob Fanning, etc."
Where is your name and credibility Northway?
I see the "more wilderness" people jumping on the wagon, I wonder who they work for, Conservation NW or WDFW? It really doesn't matter at this point.
The next push will be for more wildernesses to protected wild creatures like the wolves.
And just think how many people love the same things, but refuse to come together as one and fight for their rights. Instead they bicker about who gets what, when and why. The Indians this or that, the snowmobiles and ATV's, and the list goes on while the pro-wilderness and wildlands more corridors people eat your lunch!
When you can no longer hunt etc. ask yourselves what you might have done to preserve your hunting rights and access to public lands.
In the mean time keep BS'ing your selves, and knocking people who actually really care.
Post by: idahohuntr on November 06, 2013, 09:05:07 AM
Post by: Northway on November 06, 2013, 11:12:02 AM
Bob Fanning ran for governor of Montana. Many details of that unsuccessful campaign are also a matter of public record.
If you cast your lot with those folks, obviously it's your call.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on November 06, 2013, 02:52:46 PM
So, let me get this straight Wolfbait- Because you "personally know" Scott Rockholm and Bob Fanning It somehow gives you credibility??? :chuckle: :chuckle: Who are you to ask Northway if he's got credentials?? :rolleyes:
Post by: TommyH on November 06, 2013, 04:29:34 PM
Post by: wolfbait on November 06, 2013, 05:10:29 PM
I think Scott Rockholm got ran off of here a few years ago. He's a top notch conspiracy theorist and doesn't seem to be reasonable.
So, let me get this straight Wolfbait- Because you "personally know" Scott Rockholm and Bob Fanning It somehow gives you credibility??? :chuckle: :chuckle: Who are you to ask Northway if he's got credentials?? :rolleyes:
You always come through wacoyote, how do you eat with both feet stuck in your tooth? :dunno:
Post by: jackelope on November 06, 2013, 05:26:20 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on November 06, 2013, 05:49:38 PM
If we lose the right to hunt and access public lands it will be because the non-hunting, but voting, majority of the public starts to hear people like rockholm, wolfbait, etc. drown out good men like the Randy Newberg's of the world. Fortunately, wolfbait et al. have no credibility with game commissioners, elected officials, and policy makers and I doubt any but the most intellectually challenged would ever take them seriously.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on November 11, 2013, 07:29:43 AM
http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Scott%20Rockholm.html (http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Scott%20Rockholm.html)
Hahaha hmmmmmm. You were saying something about credentials...I think Scott Rockholm got ran off of here a few years ago. He's a top notch conspiracy theorist and doesn't seem to be reasonable.
So, let me get this straight Wolfbait- Because you "personally know" Scott Rockholm and Bob Fanning It somehow gives you credibility??? :chuckle: :chuckle: Who are you to ask Northway if he's got credentials?? :rolleyes:
You always come through wacoyote, how do you eat with both feet stuck in your tooth? :dunno:
Post by: bearpaw on November 12, 2013, 07:15:55 PM
Regarding the original post, Newberg sent me some videos to watch, unfortunately I haven't had time to watch yet, but I will. Thanks Randy! I also have spoke to the director of the Montana Outfitters Association of which I am a member and I can say there is concern. I don't have any specific details yet, so I am unable to make further judgment or comment on that controversy.
There are some wolf lovers on this forum who try to say wolves do not impact our herds, even the IDFG and MFWP admit wolves have had significant impacts on numerous herds in their states, these same wolf lovers try to pass off these wolf impacted areas as being unaffected, I would say that pretty much reveals the personal agenda of these wolf lovers and generally discredits the honesty or intellect of their comments in my mind. :twocents:
Post by: longrange7mm on November 13, 2013, 08:01:54 AM
Another interesting area is the book cliffs in Utah. It's full of roads and all kinds of oil and gas exploration, but also has excellent elk and deer hunting, sort of shows how false the theory is that elk and deer can't do well around roads and human activity.
:tup: I spend alot of time in this oil field you speak of and yes the herds thrive there....
Post by: idahohuntr on November 13, 2013, 08:29:52 AM
Another interesting area is the book cliffs in Utah. It's full of roads and all kinds of oil and gas exploration, but also has excellent elk and deer hunting, sort of shows how false the theory is that elk and deer can't do well around roads and human activity.
:tup: I spend alot of time in this oil field you speak of and yes the herds thrive there....
Is the book cliffs a limited quota hunt or is it an any buck/bull area?
Post by: CAMPMEAT on November 13, 2013, 09:27:25 AM
Post by: deerslyr on November 15, 2013, 08:14:28 AM
Another interesting area is the book cliffs in Utah. It's full of roads and all kinds of oil and gas exploration, but also has excellent elk and deer hunting, sort of shows how false the theory is that elk and deer can't do well around roads and human activity.
:tup: I spend alot of time in this oil field you speak of and yes the herds thrive there....
Is the book cliffs a limited quota hunt or is it an any buck/bull area?
Limited quota
Post by: JLS on November 15, 2013, 08:19:47 AM
Another interesting area is the book cliffs in Utah. It's full of roads and all kinds of oil and gas exploration, but also has excellent elk and deer hunting, sort of shows how false the theory is that elk and deer can't do well around roads and human activity.
:tup: I spend alot of time in this oil field you speak of and yes the herds thrive there....
Is the book cliffs a limited quota hunt or is it an any buck/bull area?
Limited quota
Which in essence is no different than limiting access via a trespass fee, wilderness access, etc.
Open the Book Cliffs up to a general hunt like the one in the Scapegoat/Bob Marshall complex and see how the hunting is.
Post by: bearpaw on November 15, 2013, 08:31:52 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on November 15, 2013, 09:52:39 AM
JLS hit the nail on the head. The roads themselves do not cause elk and deer to die...it is the access they provide to hunters that make too many roads problematic...unless you limit harvest some other way like having limited tags. But if you have a general hunt area...totally different story. So, no, it does not show how false the theory is that deer and elk can't do well around roads and human activity...apples and oranges.Another interesting area is the book cliffs in Utah. It's full of roads and all kinds of oil and gas exploration, but also has excellent elk and deer hunting, sort of shows how false the theory is that elk and deer can't do well around roads and human activity.
:tup: I spend alot of time in this oil field you speak of and yes the herds thrive there....
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on November 15, 2013, 12:05:27 PM
The Bob and other wilderness limit access to most hunters who cannot access it, so there you go. :chuckle:"most" hunters? Have we gotten to be such a sorry bunch that we cannot access a wilderness area anymore? Are we really so damn realiant on ATV's that we can't use backcountry? That's a sad state of things.
Post by: fair-chase on November 15, 2013, 01:03:23 PM
The Bob and other wilderness limit access to most hunters who cannot access it, so there you go. :chuckle:"most" hunters? Have we gotten to be such a sorry bunch that we cannot access a wilderness area anymore? Are we really so damn realiant on ATV's that we can't use backcountry? That's a sad state of things.
Well, not everyone has a magnificent steed such as yours to ride into the wilderness. :chuckle:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on November 15, 2013, 02:44:27 PM
haha. I guess youre right. :)The Bob and other wilderness limit access to most hunters who cannot access it, so there you go. :chuckle:"most" hunters? Have we gotten to be such a sorry bunch that we cannot access a wilderness area anymore? Are we really so damn realiant on ATV's that we can't use backcountry? That's a sad state of things.
Well, not everyone has a magnificent steed such as yours to ride into the wilderness. :chuckle:
Post by: JLS on November 15, 2013, 04:59:40 PM
The Bob and other wilderness limit access to most hunters who cannot access it, so there you go. :chuckle:
They limit access if:
A) You don't want to pay for an outfitter or leased livestock
or
B) You don't want to or can't hike in on your own.
I don't see how this is any more prohibitive than someone not being able to afford or not wanting to pay for leased access, or buying a governor's tag, or buying a bajillion raffle tickets, or buying preference points for 12 years.
I don't want to pay, so I'll lace up my boots. If you can't lace up your boots, there are other options.
Post by: bearpaw on November 17, 2013, 01:47:04 PM
The Bob and other wilderness limit access to most hunters who cannot access it, so there you go. :chuckle:"most" hunters? Have we gotten to be such a sorry bunch that we cannot access a wilderness area anymore? Are we really so damn realiant on ATV's that we can't use backcountry? That's a sad state of things.
Not everyone is fit to hike miles into the wilderness. Nice try! Sometimes other people should be considered. :twocents:
There is quite enough wilderness that it should satisfy those who prefer to hunt only in wilderness. The fact is that wilderness is not an automatic garden of eden for animals, in fact you will get more production of wildlife herds in logging areas than in overgrown or over aged wilderness.
On top of all that, wilderness and parks today are a place for predators to multiply unchecked except by starvation or competition and dwindle the herds.
Post by: huntrights on November 17, 2013, 06:20:07 PM
:yeah:The Bob and other wilderness limit access to most hunters who cannot access it, so there you go. :chuckle:"most" hunters? Have we gotten to be such a sorry bunch that we cannot access a wilderness area anymore? Are we really so damn realiant on ATV's that we can't use backcountry? That's a sad state of things.
Not everyone is fit to hike miles into the wilderness. Nice try! Sometimes other people should be considered. :twocents:
There is quite enough wilderness that it should satisfy those who prefer to hunt only in wilderness. The fact is that wilderness is not an automatic garden of eden for animals, in fact you will get more production of wildlife herds in logging areas than in overgrown or over aged wilderness.
On top of all that, wilderness and parks today are a place for predators to multiply unchecked except by starvation or competition and dwindle the herds.
:twocents:
There are many hunters (young and old) that have disabilities and many that have just grown older and can't hike the hills like they used to. We should work to keep hunting opportunities open to all people regardless of their physical abilities.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on November 18, 2013, 07:17:19 AM
I watched Pend Oreille County turn into a go-cart track this weekend. Deer hunters ran the roads ALL DAY long looking for easy deer. We watched (and reported) one guy shooting a deer off a paved county road. Those guys are taking more big game hunting opportunity from us than anyone, but the group here tends to support more "access" and more ATV allowances. It's giving hunters a black eye.
Guys that actually get off the roads and work for their hunt earn the respect of the non hunting majority. At what point do we tell the folks that "can't hike" that they can't drive around and break laws either?????
Post by: RG on November 18, 2013, 07:58:01 AM
The Bob and other wilderness limit access to most hunters who cannot access it, so there you go. :chuckle:"most" hunters? Have we gotten to be such a sorry bunch that we cannot access a wilderness area anymore? Are we really so damn realiant on ATV's that we can't use backcountry? That's a sad state of things.
Yes but, at least for my 50 years of hunting, it's always been the "few" who were willing to go more than a mile from a road, and fewer yet who have ever seen a wilderness area boundary sign. Nothing much has changed except ATV's have become fancier and roads fewer. My opinion, fewer roads is a good thing. Show me your handicapped pass and I'll say you should have the right to use any road with your ATV. Otherwise get off your lazy *** and go for a walk, or do your road hunting on roads that are open, there are still a whole bunch of those too. My opinion only obviously.
Post by: huntrights on November 18, 2013, 09:06:11 AM
:twocents:
Every hunter I know will walk a mile or more in, including me, unless they are disabled, or too old or young that they cannot make that journey. However, walking on "OUR" public roads that are now being closed/decommissioned and have been destroyed by various government agencies to the point where it is hazardous for humans to walk on them, and the game animals we hunt (i.e. elk & deer) prefer NOT to walk them is an issue we should all be aware of. Many roads are being destroyed by intentionally crisscrossing the trunks and branches of trees along the old road path, ripping up the road to create extremely uneven surfaces (moguls), and dumping large boulders along the path; all of these destructive procedures create hazardous conditions for humans to walk on and ungulates (elk/deer) prefer to walk to the side where the surface is still smooth at the edge. Many of these destroyed roads have only very steep and virtually impassable terrain on both sides of the road; the road paths are needed for reasonable ingress and egress in hunting areas.
Preserving access to OUR public lands is a growing issue in this state and across the country. If people are breaking laws on their ATVs, then write them a citation. Creating conditions where only the most healthy and robust individuals are able to access decent hunting areas will only harm our hunting heritage.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on November 18, 2013, 11:00:06 AM
Deer and elk can navigate the woods without roads and made trails just fine. An obliterated road doesn't block wildlife movements and to call them a "hazard" in the woods is rediculous. The woods are full of hazards.
I am generally in favor of obliterating closed roads near streams and riparian areas where they are causing increased sediment imputs. I don't mind leaving the exisiting closed roads in the upland areas for logging/fire access.
Post by: RG on November 18, 2013, 12:22:38 PM
:twocents:
Every hunter I know will walk a mile or more in, including me, unless they are disabled, or too old or young that they cannot make that journey. However, walking on "OUR" public roads that are now being closed/decommissioned and have been destroyed by various government agencies to the point where it is hazardous for humans to walk on them, and the game animals we hunt (i.e. elk & deer) prefer NOT to walk them is an issue we should all be aware of. Many roads are being destroyed by intentionally crisscrossing the trunks and branches of trees along the old road path, ripping up the road to create extremely uneven surfaces (moguls), and dumping large boulders along the path; all of these destructive procedures create hazardous conditions for humans to walk on and ungulates (elk/deer) prefer to walk to the side where the surface is still smooth at the edge. Many of these destroyed roads have only very steep and virtually impassable terrain on both sides of the road; the road paths are needed for reasonable ingress and egress in hunting areas.
Preserving access to OUR public lands is a growing issue in this state and across the country. If people are breaking laws on their ATVs, then write them a citation. Creating conditions where only the most healthy and robust individuals are able to access decent hunting areas will only harm our hunting heritage.
huh? How did the game animals ever survive all those centuries when they didn't have roads to walk on? My point about walking a mile and not seeing anybody didn't mean walk a mile on the road. The reason animals don't use roads is because the guy ahead of you drove his ATV down it. I have a quad and use it to drive on the open road to the point where I want to start walking. It saves my pickup from being rattled to pieces. Then I go somewhere off of and away from the roads and, for some reason, I notice animals hang out there too. Maybe they didn't see the roads they could have been travelling on or something. I still say we have too many roads, plenty of them are open for road hunters, the rest can be closed. They need giant boulders and tank traps on the closed ones or lazy *** people who don't want to get out of the truck will still drive on them anyway.
Post by: huntrights on November 18, 2013, 02:26:14 PM
So, do you need a groomed trail or road to hunt???
Deer and elk can navigate the woods without roads and made trails just fine. An obliterated road doesn't block wildlife movements and to call them a "hazard" in the woods is rediculous. The woods are full of hazards.
I am generally in favor of obliterating closed roads near streams and riparian areas where they are causing increased sediment imputs. I don't mind leaving the exisiting closed roads in the upland areas for logging/fire access.
I think you are missing my point. Access to our public lands is a critical component to preserving our hunting heritage. I said nothing about a "groomed trail".
Here is what I said:
"Every hunter I know will walk a mile or more in, including me, unless they are disabled, or too old or young that they cannot make that journey. However, walking on "OUR" public roads that are now being closed/decommissioned and have been destroyed by various government agencies to the point where it is hazardous for humans to walk on them, and the game animals we hunt (i.e. elk & deer) prefer NOT to walk them is an issue we should all be aware of. Many roads are being destroyed by intentionally crisscrossing the trunks and branches of trees along the old road path, ripping up the road to create extremely uneven surfaces (moguls), and dumping large boulders along the path; all of these destructive procedures create hazardous conditions for humans to walk on and ungulates (elk/deer) prefer to walk to the side where the surface is still smooth at the edge. Many of these destroyed roads have only very steep and virtually impassable terrain on both sides of the road; the road paths are needed for reasonable ingress and egress in hunting areas.
Preserving access to OUR public lands is a growing issue in this state and across the country. If people are breaking laws on their ATVs, then write them a citation. Creating conditions where only the most healthy and robust individuals are able to access decent hunting areas will only harm our hunting heritage."
Yes, a path of some kind is preferred by most humans when given the choice. Those paths may give us access to our favorite hunting areas and also allow timely packing out of any harvested game. Yes, some of the road destruction I have seen can be hazardous to humans and ungulates (elk, deer, etc.). Ungulates are obviously more adapted to traversing the surrounding natural terrain than humans so the road destruction will not have the same effect on them. I have photos of paths on the smoother surfaces next to destroyed roads that were chosen as the preferred path by the resident wildlife. Just like people, animals will take the easier path when given the opportunity.
Even a few miles across natural terrain at 45 degree+ inclines over fallen trees and through thick brush can be challenging for the most physically fit hunters; although, elk and deer may make their way better than humans, the more difficult path likely would not be their first choice unless they are escaping from a threat. Once you have made it into your hunting area, if you harvest an animal, you still must carry it out. The hunters I met this season adamantly disagreed with the wholesale closing and destruction of roads. The road paths DO NOT need to be destroyed; there are viable alternatives to road destruction that are ecologically sound while preserving the path for recreational access (i.e. hunting, fishing, hiking, etc.), rescue operations, firefighting, future timber harvesting, etc.
I also spoke to another hunter today who just experienced a closed/decommissioned road who considers himself to be very physically fit. He also said the road destruction was excessive and very dangerous for anyone to walk on. The end result of the road destruction is that people lose access to the affected areas; this appears to be the objective whether our government agencies will admit it or not. How much money is being spent on the needless destruction of roads?
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,139670.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,139670.0.html)
Post by: huntrights on November 18, 2013, 03:02:28 PM
:twocents:
Every hunter I know will walk a mile or more in, including me, unless they are disabled, or too old or young that they cannot make that journey. However, walking on "OUR" public roads that are now being closed/decommissioned and have been destroyed by various government agencies to the point where it is hazardous for humans to walk on them, and the game animals we hunt (i.e. elk & deer) prefer NOT to walk them is an issue we should all be aware of. Many roads are being destroyed by intentionally crisscrossing the trunks and branches of trees along the old road path, ripping up the road to create extremely uneven surfaces (moguls), and dumping large boulders along the path; all of these destructive procedures create hazardous conditions for humans to walk on and ungulates (elk/deer) prefer to walk to the side where the surface is still smooth at the edge. Many of these destroyed roads have only very steep and virtually impassable terrain on both sides of the road; the road paths are needed for reasonable ingress and egress in hunting areas.
Preserving access to OUR public lands is a growing issue in this state and across the country. If people are breaking laws on their ATVs, then write them a citation. Creating conditions where only the most healthy and robust individuals are able to access decent hunting areas will only harm our hunting heritage.
huh? How did the game animals ever survive all those centuries when they didn't have roads to walk on? My point about walking a mile and not seeing anybody didn't mean walk a mile on the road. The reason animals don't use roads is because the guy ahead of you drove his ATV down it. I have a quad and use it to drive on the open road to the point where I want to start walking. It saves my pickup from being rattled to pieces. Then I go somewhere off of and away from the roads and, for some reason, I notice animals hang out there too. Maybe they didn't see the roads they could have been travelling on or something. I still say we have too many roads, plenty of them are open for road hunters, the rest can be closed. They need giant boulders and tank traps on the closed ones or lazy *** people who don't want to get out of the truck will still drive on them anyway.
:twocents:
I'm just curious how you will feel about road closures and destruction when that road you ride your quad on to get the point you normally walk from is closed and destroyed. Your walk to your favorite hunting area is no longer a mile or two through the woods, it's more like a 5 to 10+ mile trek. Most hunters won't be doing that unless they have pack animals. That's what is happening. I guess the moral of the story is don't be so quick to buy into road closures and destruction. It's easy to block roads so motorized traffic cannot enter; it is NOT necessary to destroy them. If someone still enters with a motorized vehicle, they are breaking the law and can/should be cited. An analogy would be we don't shut down hunting because there are a few poachers that break the law. Roads don't need to be destroyed just because somebody finds a way to illegally get their ATV on it.
As access to our public lands is reduced by road closures and destruction, those who use our public lands (hunters, fishermen, hikers, etc.) are forced to congregate in smaller areas and drive to access points from where they walk in if they are able. This results in the "parking lot" situations that are starting to become common sights. Some typical camping areas are also closing which makes the problem worse.
It seems many people think closing off access to our public lands is ok until their favorite areas are affected.
My comments aren't about ATVs roaring up and down roads. My comments are about preserving access to our public lands for all people (young, old, physically fit, or disabled), and for all recreational and commercial purposes. Closing and destroying our roads is a one-way ticket to NO ACCESS.
Post by: idahohuntr on November 18, 2013, 03:15:52 PM
My comments are about preserving access to our public lands for all people (young, old, physically fit, or disabled), and for all recreational and commercial purposes. Closing and destroying our roads is a one-way ticket to NO ACCESS.We are not losing access to our public lands. The access just becomes more difficult than when there was a nice 16 foot wide road to walk on. I don't think all roads should be de-commissioned...but there are many areas in the Lower 48 that I would be thrilled if there were much lower road densities. We don't need to manage public lands so that everyone can easily access them either...some areas if you are too old, too young, too disabled...tough. Go somewhere else :twocents:
Post by: Randy Newberg on November 18, 2013, 04:14:34 PM
First pic is a bull I shot and we are sitting around getting ready for the final loads. It was three miles from the trailhead and three guys with packs got him out easily in two trips, along with all our piles of hunting and TV production gear.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi230.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fee53%2FBigFinMT%2FIMG_1938-001_zpse2ea69bb.jpg&hash=6eb47d9ee03eee6e2fbba91c81c670e81f51436b) (http://s230.photobucket.com/user/BigFinMT/media/IMG_1938-001_zpse2ea69bb.jpg.html)
This pic is a bull my buddy shot the next day. It died four miles from the trailhead, so the three of us grunted it out in one trip of boned out meat and antlers. My legs and back may have voted that we split it into two loads.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi230.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fee53%2FBigFinMT%2FIMG_1955-002_zps0d7a4ba6.jpg&hash=56c456437bfa9e2c57bdfa1d954e2dc40646ff55) (http://s230.photobucket.com/user/BigFinMT/media/IMG_1955-002_zps0d7a4ba6.jpg.html)
Found about a three mile unroaded piece in Colorado earlier that week and found 12 bulls in three days of hunting. Being an OTC unit, I didn't have expectations of big bulls, but there sure were lots of them. Shot a young 5-pointer on the third morning and we had him packed out to the trailhead by mid-afternoon.
Point being, unroaded areas are not predator wastelands like many claim. They are where the best hunting can be had. It is where animals get some age on them, where seasons are longest, and where tags are most available. Not sure what makes that bad for hunters. Especially when the majority of acreage in the states of WY and MT are open to motorized access.
I'm 49 years old and I know I have a lot more elk hunts in my rear view mirror than in my front windshield. I have a strange liver condition that screws up a lot of my hunting days. I already have one heart attack under my belt. I understand that not everyone can get to unroaded areas. Someday, that will apply to me, and probably sooner than I care to admit.
When that time comes, I don't want the great aspects of Montana hunting compromised to accommodate my condition. The great quantity and diversity of elk hunting opportunity Montana provides is not by accident and not by managing for the lowest common denominator.
In the early 1990's (long before Toby Bridges moved to MT), when motorized access was proliferating, MT FWP held many public meetings seeking comment about how we should adjust our seasons to address this issue and the impact it was having on elk vulnerability. We were given some choices that went something like this.
Option A - Either continue with proliferation of motorized access and accept that we will eventually have shorter seasons, more limited entry draws, choose your weapon, and other things that would lessen hunter impacts and allow for some elk to survive with highly motorized hunting activity.
OR
Option B - Accept seasonal or permanent travel restrictions and keep our six weeks of archery and five weeks of rifle, do not have to choose our weapons, and continue with most of our state being general units we can hunt with over-the-counter tags.
In all the meetings I attended, it was nearly unanimous that Option B was best. The support among outfitters was very high, as it was with the public land self-guided hunter. To this date, Montana has some of the most restrictive travel management plans during hunting seasons, all going back to those meetings 20 years ago.
I don't think it is any accident that we also have the longest elk/deer seasons in the west; the fewest limited entry units; no requirement to choose our weapon; and over-the-counter tags for residents. We shoot a lot of old bulls in Montana every year, often because these areas allow elk to get old.
Best of luck to all of you. Headed to northern Arizona next week to hunt elk in another unroaded area.
Post by: huntrights on November 18, 2013, 04:27:28 PM
My comments are about preserving access to our public lands for all people (young, old, physically fit, or disabled), and for all recreational and commercial purposes. Closing and destroying our roads is a one-way ticket to NO ACCESS.We are not losing access to our public lands. The access just becomes more difficult than when there was a nice 16 foot wide road to walk on. I don't think all roads should be de-commissioned...but there are many areas in the Lower 48 that I would be thrilled if there were much lower road densities. We don't need to manage public lands so that everyone can easily access them either...some areas if you are too old, too young, too disabled...tough. Go somewhere else :twocents:
:twocents:
Again, I'm just curious, but how far is a person willing to walk in to harvest an elk and pack it out? What kind of terrain? Then imagine the road that was used to get to the entry point into the hunt area is closed and destroyed. Now the walk that the hunter was willing to take just doubled or more and it's over rough terrain and extremely steep. Eventually it will get so even the most fit among us just might not be willing to walk the distance or traverse the hazardous terrain where once it was just a few miles in and out. Everybody has limitations regardless of age or physical ability. One may say, "... tough. Go somewhere else" if you are too young, too old, or too disabled; however, eventually even the most capable hunters will be affected. Keep that in mind as our roads are closed and/or destroyed. Keeping a road path intact does not necessarily mean easy access; people may still need to walk longer distances if the road is closed to motorized traffic.
I said it before and I'll say it again here:
Support alternative actions like:
Road maintenance rotation.
“Forest roads to trails” and related forest access efforts by one of our Congressional Representatives and others to keep our forests healthy, safe, and accessible.
• Avoid road decommissioning and protect road beds for future use by converting roads slated for closure into trails.
• Close, stabilize and seed road beds; avoid decommissioning
• Ensure public safety by stabilizing and maintaining road beds that can be re-opened for rescues, firefighting, and emergency evacuation routes when necessary.
• Focus on creating and maintaining road loops to ensure ingress and egress for public safety.
• Reduce cost by enhancing partnerships with [Stewardship] groups that can assist with road and trail maintenance.
• Consider converting high maintenance level roads that are not major thoroughfares to lower maintenance levels.
• Ensure access under the Americans with Disabilities Act by designating roads and trails for off-road vehicle access.
Pursue/explore possible funding opportunities for road maintenance:
• Timber sales, Stewardship dollars, Federal road tax
If the users of the public lands cannot speak in a unified voice about the criteria and methods used to close/decommission roads, then access roads will most likely continue to be closed and/or destroyed at an alarming rate. Regardless of your physical ability, eventually one or more of your favorite hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, horseback riding, or other outdoor activity areas will be affected; you will lose access and reasonable ability to use that area.
There are many opinions on the subject depending on personal experiences and knowledge of the facts. Personally, I am in full agreement with our Congressperson - "Support alternative actions".
Post by: huntrights on November 18, 2013, 05:04:05 PM
"Headed to northern Arizona next week to hunt elk in another unroaded area."
:twocents:
It looks like you had great hunting experiences in Colorado and Wyoming.
I have harvested several elk and deer in northern Arizona. I always found lots of access roads and places to camp in the National Forests and other public lands there. What part of northern Arizona are you headed? In my opinion, the terrain in the elk habitat areas in Arizona are not quite as challenging as the elk habitat areas in Washington when it comes to access and ease of traversing the terrain (just take plenty of water). Also in my opinion, the roads in Washington are more critical in providing access to hunting areas than in Arizona. Arizona also allows hunters to retrieve their downed game using motorized vehicles; that is, unless they changed the laws recently. Access to hunting areas in Arizona is definitely far less restricted than Washington. I am sure you will enjoy your hunt there.
Post by: bearpaw on November 18, 2013, 05:13:28 PM
Colorado hasn't been impacted by wolves yet, of course it has great hunting where very few hunters can access. Just like the Selway, Bitterroot, and Thouroughfare elk herds used to be some of the best elk herds before wolves.
This wilderness crowd will try to say that elk and deer have not been impacted by wolves and other predators, but state harvest numbers and game counts from MT/ID/WY in some of the previous best elk hunting zones prove otherwise. :twocents:
In Idaho for example, elk are now doing the best in areas that are not wilderness and do not have unmanaged wolves, wolves are getting managed in the accessible zones, that's why elk have not been impacted as heavily in those zones. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on November 18, 2013, 05:18:38 PM
Post by: huntrights on November 18, 2013, 05:26:34 PM
I'm not asking to take any wilderness away. We have about the right amount of wilderness, unroaded, and roaded areas to accommodate everyone. Rather I am asking the wilderness promoters to quit taking away from everyone else. :twocents::yeah:
Post by: snowpack on November 18, 2013, 05:30:35 PM
The wilderness crowd doesn't care about the average hunter who cannot access wilderness. They only think of how much more hunting they will have for themselves. No sense trying to make sense with them, they only want more wilderness and will step on everyone else's rights to get it.For the bolded, hunters are a minority for the wilderness crowd. The 'other' groups have agendas to make wilderness even more restrictive. A remember a thread a while back about groups wanting to ban horses and other pack animals from wilderness areas. I've even read comments on other sites about restricting firearms discharge on the basis of the noise disrupting wilderness experience (decibels too high). Be a shame to get all kinds of new wilderness and then have the bigger user groups out your use.
Colorado hasn't been impacted by wolves yet, of course it has great hunting where very few hunters can access. Just like the Selway, Bitterroot, and Thouroughfare elk herds used to be some of the best elk herds before wolves.
This wilderness crowd will try to say that elk and deer have not been impacted by wolves and other predators, but state harvest numbers and game counts from MT/ID/WY in some of the previous best elk hunting zones prove otherwise. :twocents:
In Idaho for example, elk are now doing the best in areas that are not wilderness and do not have unmanaged wolves, wolves are getting managed in the accessible zones, that's why elk have not been impacted as heavily in those zones. :twocents:
Post by: Hunter4Life on November 18, 2013, 06:10:27 PM
I'm not asking to take any wilderness away. We have about the right amount of wilderness, unroaded, and roaded areas to accommodate everyone. Rather I am asking the wilderness promoters to quit taking away from everyone else. :twocents:
Well said Bearpaw. Limiting access is limiting hunting. The antis two favorite tactics is to cut access and large predators. Not everyone can afford an outfitter or has the physical cabality to hike long distances. Cut these people of of the hunting community means that our numbers dwindle even more.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on November 18, 2013, 06:16:38 PM
Post by: bearpaw on November 18, 2013, 06:22:20 PM
I'm not asking to take any wilderness away. We have about the right amount of wilderness, unroaded, and roaded areas to accommodate everyone. Rather I am asking the wilderness promoters to quit taking away from everyone else. :twocents:
Well said Bearpaw. Limiting access is limiting hunting. The antis two favorite tactics is to cut access and large predators. Not everyone can afford an outfitter or has the physical cabality to hike long distances. Cut these people of of the hunting community means that our numbers dwindle even more.
As an outfitter I could benefit by added wilderness, but I look at many family members and friends and other hunters I know and it's obvious to me that it's just not the right thing to do, to take away opportunity from so many other people is simply selfish and shows no compassion for those who are disadvantaged for many different reasons. There is plenty of wilderness and unroaded areas for everyone to enjoy who can access it. :twocents:
Post by: JLS on November 18, 2013, 07:08:39 PM
The wilderness crowd doesn't care about the average hunter who cannot access wilderness. They only think of how much more hunting they will have for themselves. No sense trying to make sense with them, they only want more wilderness and will step on everyone else's rights to get it.
And how is this any different than the folks who want roads and ORV trails on every ridge?
You're painting with a really broad brush here. I am not so set on wilderness that I have an insatiable need to make everything wilderness. I fully support protecting wilderness, and expanding it when and where it is appropriate. Just like I support timber sales and new road development when it is appropriate.
Stepping on rights, give me a break.
Post by: Randy Newberg on March 13, 2014, 06:22:07 AM
http://www.roundupweb.com/story/2014/03/12/news/montana-outfitters-support-key-land-conservation-bills/4278.html (http://www.roundupweb.com/story/2014/03/12/news/montana-outfitters-support-key-land-conservation-bills/4278.html)
Evidently MOGA is also supporting the "Loss of Big Game Hunting Opportunities."
As I stated earlier, anyone who follows Toby Bridges for information and insight to topics related to hunting, runs the risk of sporting a 3XL arse hat.
Good luck to all of you in the upcoming draws and may your 2014 season be your most successful yet.
Post by: bearpaw on March 13, 2014, 06:54:21 AM
Imagine the conspiracy. Now, the piece of legislation that was the original point of this thread started by Bearpaw, and sent Toby Bridges into orbit, is now endorsed by the Montana Guides and Outfitters Association. Link below.
http://www.roundupweb.com/story/2014/03/12/news/montana-outfitters-support-key-land-conservation-bills/4278.html (http://www.roundupweb.com/story/2014/03/12/news/montana-outfitters-support-key-land-conservation-bills/4278.html)
Evidently MOGA is also supporting the "Loss of Big Game Hunting Opportunities."
As I stated earlier, anyone who follows Toby Bridges for information and insight to topics related to hunting, runs the risk of sporting a 3XL arse hat.
Good luck to all of you in the upcoming draws and may your 2014 season be your most successful yet.
It's no secret that you and Toby are at odds. That doesn't mean that either of you are always right or wrong! I will continue to post information that Toby provides because he brings up some good points. You are also welcome to post topics or offer your thoughts as well, it's my hope that you can bring up some good points as well.
I find it funny how certain people were throwing jabs at the Montana Outfitters & Guides Association but now they might be OK since they endorse that legislation. :chuckle:
I already knew we (MOGA, of which I am a member) supported that legislation. I haven't read the exact legislative wording and don't know how much it was changed form the beginning, but from the surface now I don't see a problem with it, seems like a good piece of legislation, it guarantees multiple use of the land for most all current activities. That is exactly the type of legislation that Washington needs too instead of legislation that only expands wilderness. :twocents:
Quote
Under the bill recreational and agricultural uses, including grazing, that exist today will continue to be enjoyed by future generations. The bill prioritizes noxious weed control and limits new road building while preserving motorized recreation and public access for hunting, biking, and forest thinning and grazing.
“The proposed Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act is a common-sense approach that will help keep the Front the way it is for our kids and grandkids. It also provides a degree of certainty for our businesses and the tradition of wilderness outfitting” said Pat Tabor, MOGA President-Elect.
MOGA Directors also voted to endorse H.R. 1526.The Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act, sponsored by Montana Representative Steve Daines, renews the federal government’s commitment to actively managing federal forests for the benefit of all.
Post by: bearpaw on March 13, 2014, 07:02:37 AM
The wilderness crowd doesn't care about the average hunter who cannot access wilderness. They only think of how much more hunting they will have for themselves. No sense trying to make sense with them, they only want more wilderness and will step on everyone else's rights to get it.
And how is this any different than the folks who want roads and ORV trails on every ridge?
You're painting with a really broad brush here. I am not so set on wilderness that I have an insatiable need to make everything wilderness. I fully support protecting wilderness, and expanding it when and where it is appropriate. Just like I support timber sales and new road development when it is appropriate.
Stepping on rights, give me a break.
You are taking a generalized comment far too personal, as if I was calling you the wilderness crowd, if the shoe fits then fine you can wear it, otherwise, if the shoe doesn't fit then give me a break. :twocents:
Take a look at the Montana Legislation, that makes a whole lot more sense for most people than the narrow minded approach that so many huggers/envoros have who always want to expand wilderness. :twocents:
Post by: idahohuntr on March 13, 2014, 08:31:11 AM
Post by: bearpaw on March 13, 2014, 09:31:23 AM
I expect wolf supporters to hate Toby, but let me remind hunters, it's guys like Toby Bridges who first brought wolf impacts to the forefront of the media. Toby has been fighting for better wolf management longer than most people have known there were any impacts caused by wolves. Like him or not, he has been at the forefront of getting the wolf issue into the media which has resulted in getting better management. :twocents:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on March 13, 2014, 10:28:24 AM
idahohuntr :rolleyes:
I expect wolf supporters to hate Toby, but let me remind hunters, it's guys like Toby Bridges who first brought wolf impacts to the forefront of the media. Toby has been fighting for better wolf management longer than most people have known there were any impacts caused by wolves. Like him or not, he has been at the forefront of getting the wolf issue into the media which has resulted in getting better management. :twocents:
You think that anything Toby Bridges has done or said has changed the wolf reintroduction plan and implementation of the plan in any way? Give me a break.... All he has done is stir the pot. He hasn't done any of the cooking.
Post by: bearpaw on March 13, 2014, 10:35:15 AM
idahohuntr :rolleyes:
I expect wolf supporters to hate Toby, but let me remind hunters, it's guys like Toby Bridges who first brought wolf impacts to the forefront of the media. Toby has been fighting for better wolf management longer than most people have known there were any impacts caused by wolves. Like him or not, he has been at the forefront of getting the wolf issue into the media which has resulted in getting better management. :twocents:
You think that anything Toby Bridges has done or said has changed the wolf reintroduction plan and implementation of the plan in any way? Give me a break.... All he has done is stir the pot. He hasn't done any of the cooking.
Yes definitely, Toby Bridges, George Dovel, Steve Alder, and numerous other outspoken hunting activists brought the wolf issue to the public view before most hunters knew wolf impacts were an issue. Their voices helped prompt sporting groups and sporting magazines to get on board. Like it or not these guys helped start the movement. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on March 13, 2014, 10:39:30 AM
WDFW is a perfect example, they stacked the wolf working group with wolf lovers and they stacked the peer review the same way.
Post by: idahohuntr on March 13, 2014, 04:09:13 PM
idahohuntr :rolleyes:Yep, wolf supporters hate Toby and they hate Randy...I'm sure Randy has received far more death threats from the enviro crazies for airing a successful wolf hunt on TV though. But as usual you are distracting from my real point: If Toby and Randy disagree about a wildlife management/hunting issue, and you are a public land DIY hunter...you will have no better company than Randy Newberg. End of Discussion.
I expect wolf supporters to hate Toby, but let me remind hunters, it's guys like Toby Bridges who first brought wolf impacts to the forefront of the media. Toby has been fighting for better wolf management longer than most people have known there were any impacts caused by wolves. Like him or not, he has been at the forefront of getting the wolf issue into the media which has resulted in getting better management. :twocents:
These other people you mention (Adler, Dovel etc.) have done NOTHING but help raise money for Defenders of Wildlife. They are way more harmful than any good they do...they peddle distortions and conspiracies and most people see the joke that these clowns are and certainly nobody takes them seriously...certainly not legislators, commissioners or anyone else with any real ability to influence wolf management.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 15, 2014, 05:15:16 AM
Post by: bearpaw on March 15, 2014, 11:19:50 AM
Yep, wolf supporters hate Toby and they hate Randy...I'm sure Randy has received far more death threats from the enviro crazies for airing a successful wolf hunt on TV though. But as usual you are distracting from my real point: If Toby and Randy disagree about a wildlife management/hunting issue, and you are a public land DIY hunter...you will have no better company than Randy Newberg. End of Discussion.If Randy is associated with some of those front groups in MT that support more wilderness or wolves and the removal of ranching from the landscape, then he 's probably not so loved in local areas of Montana or Idaho where they ranch for a living and have to live with wolves. It seems that he publicly opposed MOGA, maybe not a lot of love there either. :dunno:
These other people you mention (Adler, Dovel etc.) have done NOTHING but help raise money for Defenders of Wildlife. They are way more harmful than any good they do...they peddle distortions and conspiracies and most people see the joke that these clowns are and certainly nobody takes them seriously...certainly not legislators, commissioners or anyone else with any real ability to influence wolf management.
Was that a joke, I hope so!
I bet you didn't know Dovel is retired but used to work for IDFG. Alder's group is one of the most popular sporting groups in Idaho with active chapters around the state. How big is your group? Sitka Blacktail, Aspenbud, JLS, Idahohntr? You guys would all be laughed right out of Idaho! OH, I almost forgot, you live in WA and you call yourself Idahohntr!
just sayin.... :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on March 15, 2014, 01:17:32 PM
OH, I almost forgot, you live in WA and you call yourself Idahohntr!
just sayin.... :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
And you call yourself bearpaw. Do you have hairy knuckles and long sharp nails? :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on March 15, 2014, 05:55:14 PM
OH, I almost forgot, you live in WA and you call yourself Idahohntr!
just sayin.... :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
And you call yourself bearpaw. Do you have hairy knuckles and long sharp nails? :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
:yeah: :chuckle:
Post by: Randy Newberg on March 15, 2014, 07:24:11 PM
Yes definitely, Toby Bridges, George Dovel, Steve Alder, and numerous other outspoken hunting activists brought the wolf issue to the public view before most hunters knew wolf impacts were an issue. Their voices helped prompt sporting groups and sporting magazines to get on board. Like it or not these guys helped start the movement. :twocents:
Might want to check with Toby as to when he moved to Montana and compare that to when the wolf issue started. There is a pretty big gap of years on that one.
Toby moved here many years after other hunters had already taken up the cause of gaining state control over wolves. When Toby first moved here, his initial splash in the pond was to shorten the generous Montana archery seasons to make room for a separate muzzleloader season. Toby got his teeth handed to him, left wearing a 4XL ass hat, and disappeared off the radar screen for a few years.
To say Toby is responsible for getting hunters to the wolf issue, or "helped start the movement," is like believing that Al Gore really did invent the internet. Or, that Barack Obama is a fiscal conservative. Toby was a "Johnny Come Lately" to the wolf issue. Toby and his ranting are considered laughing stock for most anyone who has been involved in the topic since the beginning, as many of us have been.
Toby is the same guy who said the delisting legislation, known as the Simpson-Tester rider, would be doom for delisting in all the other states. He and his fringe-operator pals at SFW/BGF went on a hatchet mission to try discredit SCI, NRA, B&C, and CSF for their support of the Simpson-Tester rider. As is almost always the case, Toby's opinions and positions on wolves put him on the losing side of the equation. The rider passed and Montana and Idaho got delisting and Wyoming got language that protected the court decisions they had obtained in their efforts to defend their state wolf plan.
To show what little Toby knows about the issue, look at Toby's claim that the Simpson-Tester rider would sink delisting in all other states. Since the Simpson-Tester bill passed in April, 2011, here is what happened; MN/WI/MI got state control in December 2011; Wyoming got state control in October 2012; and now, the USFWS has petitioned to delist the gray wolf in the entire lower 48 states.
So, in spite of Toby's dire warnings that no other states would ever gain delisted status, the USFWS is pushing forward with delisting of gray wolves in every state. Yet, some people feel Toby is an expert on wolf delisting and wolf management issues. That is like saying Bernie Madoff would make a good financial trustee.
For all the weeping, whining, and gnashing of teeth that Toby put out for public consumption on wolf delisting, he has been wrong on every single warning he issued. Every one.
Given that abysmal track record of prognostication, his lack of involvement in anything related to wolf delisting and state management control of wolves, and his "Johnny Come Lately" status to the wolf issue, Toby is laughed out of the room by people in the know on wolf delisting and state wolf management. Those people laughing are the one who did the heavy lifting for almost two decades on the wolf issue.
If Randy is associated with some of those front groups in MT that support more wilderness or wolves and the removal of ranching from the landscape, then he 's probably not so loved in local areas of Montana or Idaho where they ranch for a living and have to live with wolves.
Anyone who knows me and my relationships with ag producers knows I am most often one of their advocates within the hunting community. In my CPA firm, I have a lot of ag producers who are clients. I meet regularly with members of the Montana Stock Growers Association to work on ways that hunters and ag producers can be allies. I am often criticized for being "Too landowner friendly" for some of the groups involved in the politics.
It seems that he publicly opposed MOGA, maybe not a lot of love there either. :dunno:
I'll correct that for you -
Quote
MOGA publicly opposed Randy......... and his appointment to the RMEF Board of Directors when the Executive Director and one MOGA Board Member sent out emails and made phone calls on behalf of MOGA and without any other MOGA Board Members knowing of this effort. To quote a MOGA Board member who Randy knows very well, and who called Randy after the debacle, "We stepped on our di&^s when we opposed Randy's appointment to the RMEF Board of Directors.
My reason for re-surfacing this thread was to point out that the piece of legislation that Toby Bridges claimed would cause "The Loss of Big Game Hunting Opportunities" is supported by a trade industry whose members make their living via hunting, MOGA. It shows how askew with reality Toby's ranting can be. There are very few hunting and fishing groups in Montana that are not supporting the bill, including the Montana Outfitters and Guides Association.
Point is, using Toby for a source on anything comes with considerable risk. An industry trade association that you belong to, MOGA, has come out in favor of the bill Toby says will result in loss of big game hunting opportunities. If that was the case, I am pretty sure MOGA would not support the bill, and I would not support it.
If people want to cite Toby Bridges as a source of information related to anything in the hunting arena, that is fine. When relying on Toby's blogs and opinions as some sort of factual record, doing so comes with a high level of risk. Just ask anyone who believed Toby's predictions on the future of wolf delisting. This thread is another example.
Best of luck to all of you this year.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 16, 2014, 10:09:23 AM
Post by: bearpaw on March 16, 2014, 05:03:31 PM
Quote
Might want to check with Toby as to when he moved to Montana and compare that to when the wolf issue started. There is a pretty big gap of years on that one.No, I don't know when Toby moved to Montana, but you didn't specify when either, and to be quite honest I have been posting his topics on this forum for many years, so it's not like he moved to MT in the last few years. Toby has been very outspoken regarding wolves in MT and like it or not that has brought more attention to the issue. :dunno:
Dovel and Alder are long time residents of Idaho, and Idahohntr tried to discredit them as well when in fact they have a very large following, so that was very misleading of Idahohntr.
What do you think of "backcountry hunters and anglers" Mr Newberg?(oops!) I have no desire to get in a pissin match over you or Toby......BH&A were my red herring in BP's original post since they are a greenie front group.I don't want to be in the middle of their pissin match either, however I sorta ended up there. :dunno:
Backcountry Hunters is precisely one of the issues that immediately raised a red flag for me too, I looked at Randy's web site and found no mention of BHA on his "Partners" page. Toby claims they are a sponsor.
Quote
Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is a major sponsor of the show.
On Your Own Partners page: http://onyourownadventures.com/partners.php (http://onyourownadventures.com/partners.php)
So I'm left wondering if BHA is one of Randy's sponsors, or if they used to be a sponsor, or what the status of Randy and BHA might be? If BHA is or was a sponsor, I wonder if Randy knows where the money comes from for sponsoring his show and if so perhaps he has distanced himself?
Some info I found regarding Backcountry Hunters & Anglers that does raise questions:
BHA: http://www.backcountryhunters.org/ (http://www.backcountryhunters.org/)
Green Decoys: http://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/ (http://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/)
Quote
At a Glance
Environmentalist activism is the name of the game at BHA, and hunters and anglers are just the camouflage. BHA has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from environmentalist groups, and BHA executive director Land Tawney has a history of liberal election activism.
Quote
Funding
When looking at BHA’s funding sources, it’s easy to forget they have anything to do with hunting and fishing at all. All of its primary donors have extensive ties to environmental activist organizations.
The largest donor is the Western Conservation Foundation, which gave $278,423 to BHA in 2011 and 2012 alone. WCF has given handsomely over the years to notorious environmentalists and animal rights activists, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Audubon Society, Earthjustice (the self-proclaimed “law firm of the environment”), and Climate Solutions, a major proponent of “global warming.” It has also contributed large sums to the Tides Center, funder of all things leftist. It’s hard to imagine Western Conservation Foundation would donate over a quarter of a million dollars to Backcountry Hunters and Anglers if it wasn’t an organization that shared those same ideological beliefs.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 16, 2014, 06:08:22 PM
As a whole, BHA members and leadership are the hardest hunting people I know. A hell of lot better in the woods than most folks.
Post by: bearpaw on March 16, 2014, 06:12:38 PM
BHA is a good group. Not at all anti hunting. Just because we don't want a damn road up every drainage doesn't make a group "anti". Maybe you should check out a meeting or meet some folks that are part of the group before you make a decision.
As a whole, BHA members and leadership are the hardest hunting people I know. A hell of lot better in the woods than most folks.
I'm not doubting the membership, I'm sure there are plenty of hard core hunters, I'm wondering about the funding sources and how the group might be used by greenie orgs to further their goals? Do you know about the questions raised on green decoys website?
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 16, 2014, 06:28:00 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 16, 2014, 07:57:15 PM
BHA is a good group. Not at all anti hunting. Just because we don't want a damn road up every drainage doesn't make a group "anti". Maybe you should check out a meeting or meet some folks that are part of the group before you make a decision.They would be fine if I were a self centered hunter ONLY!
As a whole, BHA members and leadership are the hardest hunting people I know. A hell of lot better in the woods than most folks.
Post by: kentrek on March 16, 2014, 10:18:08 PM
People are angry at backcountry hunters because they dont support all hunting styles ?? Has any one calling them self centered read the name of there organization ? How can any one organazation take into acount every hunter an there needs ?? there are many diferent land user groups in the hunting world an what benifits one usually takes away from another...
I beleive president Lincoln's quote about pleasing people would go along way in this thread
I support Randy Newburgh & BHA
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 17, 2014, 04:30:53 AM
.
They would be fine if I were a hunter ONLY!
........ and what's that quote about "books" and "covers" :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on March 17, 2014, 06:16:58 AM
I'm not doubting the intent of the hunters who are members in BHA, I'm sure there are hunters who want to increase remote hunting opportunities, I'm wondering about the funding sources mentioned on Green Decoys website and how the group might be used by greenie orgs to further their goals of expanding wilderness, ending ranching, opposing pipelines for badly needed energy, and limiting access for the average person?
Can anyone please explain the funding sources noted on green decoys website?
Green Decoys: http://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/ (http://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/)
Quote
Funding
When looking at BHA’s funding sources, it’s easy to forget they have anything to do with hunting and fishing at all. All of its primary donors have extensive ties to environmental activist organizations.
The largest donor is the Western Conservation Foundation, which gave $278,423 to BHA in 2011 and 2012 alone. WCF has given handsomely over the years to notorious environmentalists and animal rights activists, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Audubon Society, Earthjustice (the self-proclaimed “law firm of the environment”), and Climate Solutions, a major proponent of “global warming.” It has also contributed large sums to the Tides Center, funder of all things leftist. It’s hard to imagine Western Conservation Foundation would donate over a quarter of a million dollars to Backcountry Hunters and Anglers if it wasn’t an organization that shared those same ideological beliefs.
The next largest donor to BHA is the Wilburforce Foundation. From 2009 to 2013, Wilburforce gave a total of $110,000 to BHA for a variety of purposes. As with the Western Conservation Foundation, Wilburforce gives heavily to other notorious environmentalists, including the Environmental Law Institute, the Sierra Foundation, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. Wilburforce’s executive director, Tim Greyhavens, previously worked for the Humane Society of the United States, a vegan activist organization with a PETA-like agenda. BHA also received a $69,000 donation in 2012 from Pew Charitable Trusts, which is famous for its ideological tilt. Other donors include the New Venture Fund ($30,000 total), Conservation Lands Foundation ($26,000 total), Lazar Foundation ($25,000 total), and The Brainerd Foundation ($8,000 total), whose mission is “to safeguard the environment and build broad citizen support for environmental protection.” As with WCF and Wilburforce, each of these organizations have deep connections with the environmental movement, which raises suspicions as to what BHA’s motivations truly are.
Post by: Randy Newberg on March 17, 2014, 06:51:45 AM
What do you think of "backcountry hunters and anglers" Mr Newberg?(oops!) I have no desire to get in a pissin match over you or Toby......BH&A were my red herring in BP's original post since they are a greenie front group.I don't want to be in the middle of their pissin match either, however I sorta ended up there. :dunno:
Backcountry Hunters is precisely one of the issues that immediately raised a red flag for me too, I looked at Randy's web site and found no mention of BHA on his "Partners" page. Toby claims they are a sponsor.QuoteBackcountry Hunters and Anglers is a major sponsor of the show.
On Your Own Partners page: http://onyourownadventures.com/partners.php (http://onyourownadventures.com/partners.php)
So I'm left wondering if BHA is one of Randy's sponsors, or if they used to be a sponsor, or what the status of Randy and BHA might be? If BHA is or was a sponsor, I wonder if Randy knows where the money comes from for sponsoring his show and if so perhaps he has distanced himself?
I could have saved you the time and effort of looking. BHA is not a major sponsor of my show, as Toby Bridges claimed. Once again, Toby is never one to let facts get in the way of his opinions. Classic Toby-ism, right there and another piece of evidence that shows how dangerous it is to take as fact, anything Toby states in his whining and sniveling.
If BHA were a major sponsor, you would have seen them mentioned at that link you provided. They are not there and they have never been there.
BHA was provided the "Presenting sponsorship" of the episode Toby is so worked up about. The same as I have provided presenting sponsorship to some of our episodes to RMEF, B&C, MDF, and other groups who I think have a direct connection to the topic of an episode.
Since the members of BHA worked really hard to get the legislation formed and they were one of the many groups who were part of a coalition of diverse users of the land, they got the "Presenting sponsorship." Note, that coalition of groups now includes the Montana Outfitters and Guides Association, so if this legislation is another "Greenie Front" operation, folks might want to inform the MOGA leadership.
I don't know where BHA gets all of their money. I do know that I see them at all the hearings, providing comments that are beneficial to hunting and wildlife. For them supposedly being a "Greenie Front" group, their members are shooting a pot full of wolves and other critters.
I know they worked their butts off to get delisting of wolves in Montana. Funny how I never once saw Toby Bridges at one of those meetings, on any of the conference calls, doing any of the heavy lifting. But, I sure saw a lot of BHA members doing that. In fact, I went wolf hunting last month with a BHA state leadership member.
The BHA guys are good guys. None of their members who I know take their hunting casually. They are very engaged on topics that benefit all hunters.
Though I am not a member, I am impressed with the work they do. I have provided them a rotation in my advertising banners at not cost to them. If the Toby Bridges of the world don't like that, then I feel I am headed down the right path.
In my real life, I am a CPA, so I've gotta get a few tax returns finished and disinherit the Federal Treasury. Glad to provide further explanation to anyone who wants to know more about those people and groups associated with my show and my website.
Post by: bearpaw on March 17, 2014, 07:02:39 AM
Maybe I need to rephrase this...
I'm not doubting the intent of the hunters who are members in BHA, I'm sure there are hunters who want to increase remote hunting opportunities, I'm wondering about the funding sources mentioned on Green Decoys website and how the group might be used by greenie orgs to further their goals of expanding wilderness, ending ranching, opposing pipelines for badly needed energy, and limiting access for the average person?
Can anyone please explain the funding sources noted on green decoys website?
Green Decoys: http://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/ (http://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/)QuoteFunding
When looking at BHA’s funding sources, it’s easy to forget they have anything to do with hunting and fishing at all. All of its primary donors have extensive ties to environmental activist organizations.
The largest donor is the Western Conservation Foundation, which gave $278,423 to BHA in 2011 and 2012 alone. WCF has given handsomely over the years to notorious environmentalists and animal rights activists, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Audubon Society, Earthjustice (the self-proclaimed “law firm of the environment”), and Climate Solutions, a major proponent of “global warming.” It has also contributed large sums to the Tides Center, funder of all things leftist. It’s hard to imagine Western Conservation Foundation would donate over a quarter of a million dollars to Backcountry Hunters and Anglers if it wasn’t an organization that shared those same ideological beliefs.
The next largest donor to BHA is the Wilburforce Foundation. From 2009 to 2013, Wilburforce gave a total of $110,000 to BHA for a variety of purposes. As with the Western Conservation Foundation, Wilburforce gives heavily to other notorious environmentalists, including the Environmental Law Institute, the Sierra Foundation, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. Wilburforce’s executive director, Tim Greyhavens, previously worked for the Humane Society of the United States, a vegan activist organization with a PETA-like agenda. BHA also received a $69,000 donation in 2012 from Pew Charitable Trusts, which is famous for its ideological tilt. Other donors include the New Venture Fund ($30,000 total), Conservation Lands Foundation ($26,000 total), Lazar Foundation ($25,000 total), and The Brainerd Foundation ($8,000 total), whose mission is “to safeguard the environment and build broad citizen support for environmental protection.” As with WCF and Wilburforce, each of these organizations have deep connections with the environmental movement, which raises suspicions as to what BHA’s motivations truly are.
Post by: Special T on March 17, 2014, 08:04:25 AM
It is in our opponents best interest to pick us apart, and ATTEMPT to use groups that most sportsmen view as positive for cover. We see this on a state level where the STATE pits bow hunters muzzy hunters and modern rifle hunters against each other on a regular basis. Another example is the attempt to pit fishermen against HUMAN powered gold panners that use nothing more than a shovel, gold pan, rocker box or small sluice, none of which are gas powered. I can see how cherry picking certain legislation and funding a specific group, for specific legislation, can help move forward a more sinister agenda. I would not isolate BHA in my concern or criticism. ANY group that is habitat focused and not public policy focus IS susceptible to being used as cover.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on March 17, 2014, 11:30:08 AM
Let's see, I see from their website tht they are under the umbrella of an organization calling themselves the Environmental Policy Alliance. Also under that umbrella we have LEED Exposed, EPA Facts, and Big green Radicals.
From what I can see about LEED Exposed, it is an organization dedicated to getting rid of LEED which is some sort of group which has a green rating system for new buildings. Part of LEED Exposed's complaints of LEED is that LEED's requirements cause new buildings to cost more to meet those requirements. But then LEED Exposed also complains that LEED qualified building can save millions on taxes for meeting the same qualifications. So evidently LEED exposed is against spending a little now to save more later.
EPA Facts wants us to believe that everything about the EPA is bad.
The Big Green Radicals Doesn't like the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, or Food and Water Watch. Among those groups' transgressions are pushing for more use of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power which will lessen our dependence on Fossil Fuels, Nuclear Power, and Dams. The Big Green Radicals also don't like that these organizations also try educate people about GMOs by "ignoring scientific consensus" that GMOs are actually good for us. And that they are attacking modern farming techniques, which I would guess, involves GMOs and lots of chemicals.
It sounds like the Environmental Policy Alliance might be funded by Monsanto and Big Oil, but lets look closer.
A little more looking tells me that the Environmental Policy Alliance is a "PR Firm Front Group" for the firm of Berman and Company, run by Rick Berman, once called "DR Evil" by the CBS show 60 Minutes.
"Berman makes his money as a corporate hired gun, setting up front groups to denigrate public interest organizations that threaten his clients' bottom lines," Melanie Sloan, executive director for the nonprofit watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
"These methods of attack rely on the way people read media," Horst added. "They rely on creating confusion."
Well that is obviously working.
Berman & Co. has previously attacked Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
"This feeble attempt at a smear campaign is a good reminder to always consider the source," a Natural Resources Defense Council spokesperson told HuffPost. "As opposed to this newly re-named front group, we've been around for decades. We cite our research. We sign our names on our materials. And we don't lurk in the shadows because there's no reason to hide our good work to protect our air, our water and our communities."
Good point. If the Environmental Policy Alliance is on the up and up, why are they hiding behind a bunch of organizations nobody has heard of? Why don't they cite their research? Why don't they tell us who they really are? My guess is, they don't want their names associated with this. They want to smear people but deny responsibility for that. They are happy to let Rick Berman take the heat for which I'm sure they pay him well.
An interesting take...... http://www.architectmagazine.com/architecture/astroturf-organization-turns-to-green-building-leed-exposed_o.aspx?dfpzone=general (http://www.architectmagazine.com/architecture/astroturf-organization-turns-to-green-building-leed-exposed_o.aspx?dfpzone=general)
Money quote "LEED Exposed is an example of astroturfing, perhaps the first such example from the world of architecture. The site is run by an organization called the Environmental Policy Alliance. That alliance’s website says that it is a "project of the Center for Organizational Research & Education"—an organization with no obvious website or virtual paper trail.
That's the point of astroturfing. The Journal of Business Ethics describes astroturf organizations as "fake grassroots organizations usually sponsored by large corporations to support any arguments or claims in their favor, or to challenge and deny those against them." The organization behind LEED Exposed sounds like your typical D.C. nonprofit organization or think tank, perhaps one that draws its grassroots support from thousands or millions of Americans outraged by green building. In fact, the site is largely the work of a single figure."
Really, this article says it all about your source for criticism of Back Country Hunters Bearpaw.
Post by: bearpaw on March 17, 2014, 11:42:19 AM
I'm only asking the question about where BHA Funds come from, is BHA biggest contributors the grennie groups mentioned, nobody including you has answered that question yet!
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 17, 2014, 11:42:27 AM
Again, I guess I am just old fashioned, but didn't hunters used to protect wildlife and the habitat that supports them? When did this disconnect occur?Maybe I need to rephrase this...
I'm not doubting the intent of the hunters who are members in BHA, I'm sure there are hunters who want to increase remote hunting opportunities, I'm wondering about the funding sources mentioned on Green Decoys website and how the group might be used by greenie orgs to further their goals of expanding wilderness, ending ranching, opposing pipelines for badly needed energy, and limiting access for the average person?
Can anyone please explain the funding sources noted on green decoys website?
Green Decoys: http://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/ (http://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/)QuoteFunding
When looking at BHA’s funding sources, it’s easy to forget they have anything to do with hunting and fishing at all. All of its primary donors have extensive ties to environmental activist organizations.
The largest donor is the Western Conservation Foundation, which gave $278,423 to BHA in 2011 and 2012 alone. WCF has given handsomely over the years to notorious environmentalists and animal rights activists, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Audubon Society, Earthjustice (the self-proclaimed “law firm of the environment”), and Climate Solutions, a major proponent of “global warming.” It has also contributed large sums to the Tides Center, funder of all things leftist. It’s hard to imagine Western Conservation Foundation would donate over a quarter of a million dollars to Backcountry Hunters and Anglers if it wasn’t an organization that shared those same ideological beliefs.
The next largest donor to BHA is the Wilburforce Foundation. From 2009 to 2013, Wilburforce gave a total of $110,000 to BHA for a variety of purposes. As with the Western Conservation Foundation, Wilburforce gives heavily to other notorious environmentalists, including the Environmental Law Institute, the Sierra Foundation, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. Wilburforce’s executive director, Tim Greyhavens, previously worked for the Humane Society of the United States, a vegan activist organization with a PETA-like agenda. BHA also received a $69,000 donation in 2012 from Pew Charitable Trusts, which is famous for its ideological tilt. Other donors include the New Venture Fund ($30,000 total), Conservation Lands Foundation ($26,000 total), Lazar Foundation ($25,000 total), and The Brainerd Foundation ($8,000 total), whose mission is “to safeguard the environment and build broad citizen support for environmental protection.” As with WCF and Wilburforce, each of these organizations have deep connections with the environmental movement, which raises suspicions as to what BHA’s motivations truly are.
BHA is using the money they gather to protect areas for hunters and anglers. We are not "anti" development, ATV, ranching, mining...ect.... We support all of those enterprises when they are done RIGHT. Wiping out habitat unnecessarily to save a few bucks is BAD FOR HUNTERS... I'm not sure I understand why any group that claims to support wildlife and wild places would support that?
As far as the access issue goes... BHA has been trying to get the ATV crowd to talk about trails and better routes in NE Washington for years. They are the ones that refuse to some to the table and continue to lose access. We have tried to help them gain some great trails and routes. Again, we (hunters) are in a sad state when we start equating hunting with ATVing. THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. When did outdoorsmen get so damn lazy that they can't hike during a hunt?
Post by: bearpaw on March 17, 2014, 11:47:55 AM
Easy there Blacktail...
I'm only asking the question about where BHA Funds come from, is BHA biggest contributors the grennie groups mentioned, nobody including you has answered that question yet!
I'm all about protecting our environment and protecting our rights to use the environment. Too many times I see young hunters jumping on the band wagon to create more wilderness at any cost, but they are a little short sighted on the other issues involved with wilderness which includes taking opportunity away from the majority of hunters and recreationists.
WAcoyote do you know who BHA's biggest contributors are? Just asking the question?
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on March 17, 2014, 11:59:39 AM
http://www.activistcash.com/organizations/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/ (http://www.activistcash.com/organizations/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/)
At the bottom of the Activist Cash webpage is the "about us" which says they are part of Center for Consumer Freedom. If you read the article I just linked, it shows that the Center for Consumer Freedom is part of the Berman and Company group. Rick Berman is the executive director of the Center for Consumer freedom! So it's not really a bunch of different groups promoting that BHA is bad, it's one organization that was paid to smear them. If that doesn't smell you'd better visit the nose Dr.
If this campaign is on the up and up, why are they being so devious about it?
Post by: bearpaw on March 17, 2014, 12:00:07 PM
Quote
As far as the access issue goes... BHA has been trying to get the ATV crowd to talk about trails and better routes in NE Washington for years. They are the ones that refuse to some to the table and continue to lose access. We have tried to help them gain some great trails and routes. Again, we (hunters) are in a sad state when we start equating hunting with ATVing. THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. When did outdoorsmen get so damn lazy that they can't hike during a hunt?
Please open up your eyes, not all hunters are young and physically fit, many hunters need motorized transportation to go hunting.
I'm pretty sure that it's groups like Conservation Northwest and BHA that pushed so hard to restrict ATV usage and now we can hardly recreate with ATV's on Colville Forest. Aren't there some pretty close ties between Conservation Northwest and BHA?
Post by: bearpaw on March 17, 2014, 12:05:44 PM
You want to see how disingenuous your source is Dale? Here's another website spewing the same garbage against Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. It's almost word for word the same as on Green Decoys. Man there are a bunch of people who are "exposing" BHA it seems. But look a little closer..........
http://www.activistcash.com/organizations/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/ (http://www.activistcash.com/organizations/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/)
At the bottom of the Activist Cash webpage is the "about us" which says they are part of Center for Consumer Freedom. If you read the article I just linked, it shows that the Center for Consumer Freedom is part of the Berman and Company group. Rick Berman is the executive director of the Center for Consumer freedom! So it's not really a bunch of different groups promoting that BHA is bad, it's one organization that was paid to smear them. If that doesn't smell you'd better visit the nose Dr.
If this campaign is on the up and up, why are they being so devious about it?
I never said that green decoys was good or bad. They present some interesting info about BHA. I am asking if it's true and you still haven't answered the question. I've even sent a message directly to BHA in the past and never even got a reply. Why are the funding sources of BHA such a big secret.
Can anyone please answer the questions about the largest contributors to BHA? Sitka, WACoyote, Randy?
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 17, 2014, 12:08:34 PM
You are wrong about BHA pushing to restrict ATVs on the Colville. We actually tried to increase mileage and get roads opened to them, but the ATV crowd refused to participate. I don't know much about CNW's involvement with the issue.QuoteAs far as the access issue goes... BHA has been trying to get the ATV crowd to talk about trails and better routes in NE Washington for years. They are the ones that refuse to some to the table and continue to lose access. We have tried to help them gain some great trails and routes. Again, we (hunters) are in a sad state when we start equating hunting with ATVing. THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. When did outdoorsmen get so damn lazy that they can't hike during a hunt?
Please open up your eyes, not all hunters are young and physically fit, many hunters need motorized transportation to go hunting.
I'm pretty sure that it's groups like Conservation Northwest and BHA that pushed so hard to restrict ATV usage and now we can hardly recreate with ATV's on Colville Forest. Aren't there some pretty close ties between Conservation Northwest and BHA?
There are no "ties" between BHA and CNW. I think the groups somewhat agree on some issues and disagree on others, but CNW and BHA have very little in common. I'm not really the right guy to act as "spokesman" for either.
I recognize that not all hunters are young and physically fit. Those hunters can hunt off of one of the roads that bisect and parallel damn near every drainage in the state.
How did the older, and less mobile folks hunt 30 years ago?
Post by: bearpaw on March 17, 2014, 12:13:46 PM
While they are hunting in roaded areas you have all the wilderness areas to yourself, have you even hunted them all, I think there are 22 wilderness areas in Washington alone?
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 17, 2014, 12:13:50 PM
I'm not sure it is such a big secret. I don't know all of the sources of funding, but a quick search showed some grants that were awarded. The granting parties are all interested in protecting habitat in the West. I didn't see much that mentioned stopping hunting or recreation???You want to see how disingenuous your source is Dale? Here's another website spewing the same garbage against Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. It's almost word for word the same as on Green Decoys. Man there are a bunch of people who are "exposing" BHA it seems. But look a little closer..........
http://www.activistcash.com/organizations/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/ (http://www.activistcash.com/organizations/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/)
At the bottom of the Activist Cash webpage is the "about us" which says they are part of Center for Consumer Freedom. If you read the article I just linked, it shows that the Center for Consumer Freedom is part of the Berman and Company group. Rick Berman is the executive director of the Center for Consumer freedom! So it's not really a bunch of different groups promoting that BHA is bad, it's one organization that was paid to smear them. If that doesn't smell you'd better visit the nose Dr.
If this campaign is on the up and up, why are they being so devious about it?
I never said that green decoys was good or bad. They present some interesting info about BHA. I am asking if it's true and you still haven't answered the question. I've even sent a message directly to BHA in the past and never even got a reply. Why are the funding sources of BHA such a big secret.
Can anyone please answer the questions about the largest contributors to BHA? Sitka, WACoyote, Randy?
Again, hunters USED to be the driving force for land conservation. Now anyone that tries to protect habitat is a "greenie"...which is synonymous with "anti hunter"??? I'm missing the connection.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 17, 2014, 12:14:56 PM
Why are you so angry at other hunters?I have not hunted them all. How many of them are on the Eastern third of the state?
While they are hunting in roaded areas you have all the wilderness areas to yourself, have you even hunted them all, I think there are 22 wilderness areas in Washington alone?
Post by: bearpaw on March 17, 2014, 12:17:42 PM
I'm not sure it is such a big secret. I don't know all of the sources of funding, but a quick search showed some grants that were awarded. The granting parties are all interested in protecting habitat in the West. I didn't see much that mentioned stopping hunting or recreation???You want to see how disingenuous your source is Dale? Here's another website spewing the same garbage against Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. It's almost word for word the same as on Green Decoys. Man there are a bunch of people who are "exposing" BHA it seems. But look a little closer..........
http://www.activistcash.com/organizations/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/ (http://www.activistcash.com/organizations/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/)
At the bottom of the Activist Cash webpage is the "about us" which says they are part of Center for Consumer Freedom. If you read the article I just linked, it shows that the Center for Consumer Freedom is part of the Berman and Company group. Rick Berman is the executive director of the Center for Consumer freedom! So it's not really a bunch of different groups promoting that BHA is bad, it's one organization that was paid to smear them. If that doesn't smell you'd better visit the nose Dr.
If this campaign is on the up and up, why are they being so devious about it?
I never said that green decoys was good or bad. They present some interesting info about BHA. I am asking if it's true and you still haven't answered the question. I've even sent a message directly to BHA in the past and never even got a reply. Why are the funding sources of BHA such a big secret.
Can anyone please answer the questions about the largest contributors to BHA? Sitka, WACoyote, Randy?
Again, hunters USED to be the driving force for land conservation. Now anyone that tries to protect habitat is a "greenie"...which is synonymous with "anti hunter"??? I'm missing the connection.
Nice try at twisting the facts, I am all about protecting all our wild lands and wildlife, that is how I earn my living, why would I be opposed. However, I am against restricting access for the majority of recreationists. The continued push for more and more wilderness does nothing but congest areas that most people can access and protects it for the young and physically fit. How is that fair?
Post by: bearpaw on March 17, 2014, 12:21:58 PM
Why are you so angry at other hunters?I have not hunted them all. How many of them are on the Eastern third of the state?
While they are hunting in roaded areas you have all the wilderness areas to yourself, have you even hunted them all, I think there are 22 wilderness areas in Washington alone?
Just in the northeast corner we have a very large wilderness area and numerous other large designated unroaded areas that aren't even included in the 22 wilderness areas. Is that not enough room for you to escape roads? What about the vast majority of hunters and recreationists, shall we just continue to cram them into smaller and smaller areas?
Post by: snowpack on March 17, 2014, 12:27:20 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 17, 2014, 12:34:56 PM
We tried to add 13,000 acres of roadless area to that and people lost their minds. Is it so bad to try to ensure that that area remains undeveloped and unroaded?
No, the "rest" of the recreationists should not be crammed into smaller and smaller areas, but NIETHER SHOULD WE. So please tell me why hunting groups would want to support more oil leases and development of our hunting areas? Why would hunters want to continue to allow ATV trails to be cut all over the place?
Post by: snowpack on March 17, 2014, 12:38:47 PM
Again, hunters USED to be the driving force for land conservation. Now anyone that tries to protect habitat is a "greenie"...which is synonymous with "anti hunter"??? I'm missing the connection.I think it depends on 'extent' not 'intent'. You can do things for habitat that protect it and still allow for the billions of people on the planet to utilize it--resources/access.
Post by: bearpaw on March 17, 2014, 12:45:34 PM
Do you mean the "very large" Salmo Priest wilderness area with all 28 miles of trail?? You're kidding right?? :dunno:
We tried to add 13,000 acres of roadless area to that and people lost their minds. Is it so bad to try to ensure that that area remains undeveloped and unroaded?
No, the "rest" of the recreationists should not be crammed into smaller and smaller areas, but NIETHER SHOULD WE. So please tell me why hunting groups would want to support more oil leases and development of our hunting areas? Why would hunters want to continue to allow ATV trails to be cut all over the place?
Is the Salmo not big enough for you to hunt?
Is the Abercrombie and Kettle Crest roadless areas not big enough for you to hunt?
What about the tens of thousands of users who utilize the rest of the countryside? USFS has already reduced the road inventory by 50% or more which has increased crowding in remaining roaded areas, just how far do we have to go to satisfy you? How many people must lose opportunity to satisfy BHA members?
Post by: bearpaw on March 17, 2014, 12:54:26 PM
No, the "rest" of the recreationists should not be crammed into smaller and smaller areas, but NIETHER SHOULD WE. So please tell me why hunting groups would want to support more oil leases and development of our hunting areas? Why would hunters want to continue to allow ATV trails to be cut all over the place?
I'm sorry I missed your question.
I don't think anyone has taken away any wilderness areas, we have only added wilderness areas over the last couple decades, am I wrong?
As I mentioned earlier, I'm almost positive that the CNF told me they have reduced the inventory of roads by more than 50%.
Regarding Oil Leases:
I don't know of any in NE WA but I hunt around the bulk of oil leases in Utah every year and I can tell you the BLM has done a pretty good job of allowing needed oil and gas drilling while protecting the environment. I deal with the same guys who approve oil leases for my operating permits, they try to take everything into consideration. That is some of the best elk hunting in the world, so it can be done if people give it a chance to be done right.
Post by: kentrek on March 17, 2014, 01:50:46 PM
taking opportunity away from the majority of hunters and recreationists
Ever heard of "tyranny of the majority" ???
Post by: bearpaw on March 17, 2014, 02:34:07 PM
taking opportunity away from the majority of hunters and recreationists
Ever heard of "tyranny of the majority" ???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority)
Quote
The phrase "tyranny of the majority" (or "tyranny of the masses"), used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, involves the scenario in which decisions made by a majority place its interests above those of an individual or minority group, constituting active oppression comparable to that of tyrants and despots.[1] In many cases a disliked ethnic, religious or racial group is deliberately penalized by the majority element acting through the democratic process.[citation needed]
Supermajority rules, constitutional limits on the powers of a legislative body, and the introduction of a Bill of Rights have been used to counter the perceived problem.[2] A separation of powers has also been implemented to prevent the problem from happening internally in the government.[2]
I can't see where the majority is taking anything away from the minority or oppressing them. It seems 5% of the people want to take something away from 95% of the people, that would be tyranny! :dunno:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 17, 2014, 02:34:55 PM
Post by: jackelope on March 17, 2014, 02:37:15 PM
Post by: JLS on March 17, 2014, 02:38:38 PM
There are plenty of roaded areas to hunt. Of course, my view on that is all relative, just like Dale thinks there are plenty of wilderness areas to hunt. Look at the Colockum or the Blues. If you can't find a gated road to walk down you aren't looking very hard. In fact, you can usually find an open road to drive down.
I am all for expanding ATV opportunities, but why the heck should I make any effort to when MY advocate groups like BHA are under fire from opposing viewpoints? Why should I care about anything the Blue Ribbon Coalition wants to do?
Quite frankly I'm tired of the "black and white" lines that many folks are drawing. This philosophy that you're "for us or against us" is ridiculous. Yet every time I turn around I hear how all of us hunters need to stick together. Wait a minute, folks are CONSTANTLY blasting others on here if they don't agree 110%, but we're supposed to stick together? Huh, way to work towards collaboration here.
Also, your continued reference to the world class elk hunting in the Book Cliffs is a poor comparison given how restrictive the permits are. You know as well as I do that road density has a tremendous impact on bull survival and age class. It's been repeatedly proven in both Montana and Idaho. That's why you can find Boone and Crockett class elk in Montana in general hunt areas where you can hunt them for 11 weeks a year.
Post by: Special T on March 17, 2014, 03:10:10 PM
It's unfortunate watching a group of hunters and sportsmen arguing between themselves. It's exactly what the anti groups want.
I think that is why it would make sence for anit hunting groups to closet support groups like BHA... For a realitively small price you can have hunters fighting each other verses being unified and fighting back agains the Anti Hunting crowd. When i hear BP and WACoyotehuntr going back and forth it plays into what i would do IF i was an anti hunter stratagist... I also think the inroads that have been made in WA are a direct result of this infighting. :twocents:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 17, 2014, 03:37:03 PM
It sucks fighting with other hunters over access, ATVs, Wilderness, weapon choice, ect.... If we don't have habitat, we don't have wildlife, or hunting. I don't care how people hunt or what they choose to do on their land, but it's unsettling to see public land developed, trashed by illegal ATV use, mined, roaded, weed infested, and generally deteriorated. It is ultimately bad for the resource that we all care about and enjoy.It's unfortunate watching a group of hunters and sportsmen arguing between themselves. It's exactly what the anti groups want.
I think that is why it would make sence for anit hunting groups to closet support groups like BHA... For a realitively small price you can have hunters fighting each other verses being unified and fighting back agains the Anti Hunting crowd. When i hear BP and WACoyotehuntr going back and forth it plays into what i would do IF i was an anti hunter stratagist... I also think the inroads that have been made in WA are a direct result of this infighting. :twocents:
Post by: idahohuntr on March 17, 2014, 03:47:32 PM
I think it's pretty darned sad that there is so much effort to discredit groups like BHA. The folks I've met that are part of BHA are simply blue collar hunters who value the added experience of getting away from roads. I value it myself. I don't like to see other hunters when I'm out, and normally I don't. That is worth a lot to me.:yeah:
Quite frankly I'm tired of the "black and white" lines that many folks are drawing. This philosophy that you're "for us or against us" is ridiculous. Yet every time I turn around I hear how all of us hunters need to stick together.
I think its normal/expected/maybe even good that we debate resource allocation issues like how many bow vs rifle tags or how much wilderness vs road access etc. We all have different values and prefer different things and it is important we stick up for what we think is fair/right. We will never rid ourselves of this conflict. As long as there are deer and elk to hunt, hunters will argue about how tags/seasons etc. should be allocated. As long as there is public land to hunt, hunters will argue about how much/when/where access should be. I'm ok with that.
What I found beyond frustrating is kind of what JLS described above where many people on this forum like to alienate other hunters because they don't agree. If you are not lock-step with them on wolves/wilderness etc. then you are an anti-hunter in disguise. :bash: That mentality is as sad as it is pathetic. We need to find ways to be more inclusive...if we can get the damn sierra club or whoever to side with us on an issue that is good for hunters then who cares? This desire to polarize and fight simply because we are at odds with other aspects of an organization does not mean we can't work together for a mutually beneficial common purpose. :twocents:
Post by: JLS on March 17, 2014, 03:55:16 PM
If I was a new hunter from the Puget Sound who was well experienced in the backcountry and came to this site looking for mentoring, what sort of impression do you think I would have? I would see that there is no middle ground. I would see that folks love to attach labels and resort to name calling. I would see that there is no tolerance for diverse opinions.
Now, when I began relating my experiences to my "hippy" friends, how do you think hunters come across to the majority of the non-hunting public? Again, we all scream about "sticking together", when it's my observation that quite a few folks around are always looking for the opportunity to "stick it to" the folks they disagree with instead of trying to understand where they are coming from.
Times are changing. Change with them or get left behind. If you are irrelevant because of intolerance, your voice will never be heard.
Post by: bearpaw on March 17, 2014, 03:59:07 PM
It's unfortunate watching a group of hunters and sportsmen arguing between themselves. It's exactly what the anti groups want.
I don't disagree with that thought at all, however it's pretty convenient for certain individuals to always come into topics and thread jack or claim myself or others are the problem, they never seem to recognize that maybe they are the problem.
I merely posted a provocative news release not knowing what parts are true or untrue and looking for comments. Since then I've been told I should not post anything from Toby, I've been accused of being against the environment and conservation, when in fact the opposite is true, I posted a perfect example of how oil drilling that his country needs is successfully being done in an area that has expanding world class elk hunting, and a handful of the usual people try to make me out as the bad guy.
Please go back and read all my posts, I have been diplomatic in every post and have attacked noone, these guys just can't take it when my points refute their desire to burden us all with more wilderness. We don't have to have wilderness to have wildlife and a great environment, the earth is sustainable with multiple use, some seem to have been duped by the enviros to believe the earth cannot survive without more and more wilderness. I ask, exactly how much wilderness is enough? After every new wilderness area they want more wilderness. So please tell me, how much wilderness is enough?
This is exactly how the wolf issue went, the wolfers duped the public for 100 wolves per state and now each state has 4 to 10 times as many wolves and there is a lawsuit every time we try to manage wolves. So don't tell me I am the problem.
I will not simply be told I should not ask simple yet important questions. So, I will ask this simple question again in a most respectful manner:
Are the groups funding BHA which are mentioned on Green Decoys website the largest donors to BHA?
Why does nobody know?
Post by: bearpaw on March 17, 2014, 04:11:43 PM
One should also look at the demographic of new hunters that are coming into the fold. The "locavores" are obviously going to have a different philosophy on things than your traditional red plaid wool coat and Willy's Jeep crowd will. Does that mean one has to be right or one has to be wrong?
If I was a new hunter from the Puget Sound who was well experienced in the backcountry and came to this site looking for mentoring, what sort of impression do you think I would have? I would see that there is no middle ground. I would see that folks love to attach labels and resort to name calling. I would see that there is no tolerance for diverse opinions.
Now, when I began relating my experiences to my "hippy" friends, how do you think hunters come across to the majority of the non-hunting public? Again, we all scream about "sticking together", when it's my observation that quite a few folks around are always looking for the opportunity to "stick it to" the folks they disagree with instead of trying to understand where they are coming from.
Times are changing. Change with them or get left behind. If you are irrelevant because of intolerance, your voice will never be heard.
So basically you are saying I should not express my thoughts and should fall in line with you, BHA, Conservation Northwest, and other greenie groups and accept your thoughts as the gospel. If I fail to fall in line I am at fault? :chuckle:
Sorry, but no thanks, we can all think for ourselves and many of us know that multiple use works. :twocents:
Post by: idahohuntr on March 17, 2014, 04:16:56 PM
I have no idea...can you name the largest donors to most groups? Its not always easy to tell and difficulty in getting such information is not always a sign of deception. Where does Green Decoys get its money?
Are the groups funding BHA which are mentioned on Green Decoys website the largest donors to BHA?
Why does nobody know?
I think a more relevant question is: What is BHA doing that is good (or bad) for hunters and anglers? Thats what I would want to know...the funding issue is almost irrelevant as long as they are doing good things for hunters. Ted Turner and Al Gore could write million dollar checks to them for all I care...and if they take that money and put it to work for hunters in the form of conservation, hunting, access etc. then who really cares where it came from? So, I guess my answer is that your asking the wrong question...we should all be asking "what is it they are doing with the money they get/have?"
Post by: JLS on March 17, 2014, 04:18:17 PM
One should also look at the demographic of new hunters that are coming into the fold. The "locavores" are obviously going to have a different philosophy on things than your traditional red plaid wool coat and Willy's Jeep crowd will. Does that mean one has to be right or one has to be wrong?
If I was a new hunter from the Puget Sound who was well experienced in the backcountry and came to this site looking for mentoring, what sort of impression do you think I would have? I would see that there is no middle ground. I would see that folks love to attach labels and resort to name calling. I would see that there is no tolerance for diverse opinions.
Now, when I began relating my experiences to my "hippy" friends, how do you think hunters come across to the majority of the non-hunting public? Again, we all scream about "sticking together", when it's my observation that quite a few folks around are always looking for the opportunity to "stick it to" the folks they disagree with instead of trying to understand where they are coming from.
Times are changing. Change with them or get left behind. If you are irrelevant because of intolerance, your voice will never be heard.
So basically you are saying I should not express my thoughts and should fall in line with you, BHA, Conservation Northwest, and other greenie groups and accept your thoughts as the gospel. If I fail to fall in line I am at fault? :chuckle:
Sorry, but no thanks, we can all think for ourselves and many of us know that multiple use works. :twocents:
Where did I every say that? I'm saying you should express a little tolerance for differing viewpoints as you would expect others do. Your condescension is amazing.
Nice try JLS, as usual you are hijacking the topic and then inferring someone else is the bad guy with your carefully crafted remarks. You are certainly entitled to your viewpoints but yet again I am going to be the one to stay on topic and not distract from the discussion.
Simple Question: Are the groups funding BHA which are mentioned on Green Decoys website the largest donors to BHA?
Green Decoys: http://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/ (http://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/)
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on March 17, 2014, 04:18:56 PM
It's unfortunate watching a group of hunters and sportsmen arguing between themselves. It's exactly what the anti groups want.
I don't disagree with that thought at all, however it's pretty convenient for certain individuals to always come into topics and thread jack or claim myself or others are the problem, they never seem to recognize that maybe they are the problem.
I merely posted a provocative news release not knowing what parts are true or untrue and looking for comments. Since then I've been told I should not post anything from Toby, I've been accused of being against the environment and conservation, when in fact the opposite is true, I posted a perfect example of how oil drilling that his country needs is successfully being done in an area that has expanding world class elk hunting, and a handful of the usual people try to make me out as the bad guy.
Please go back and read all my posts, I have been diplomatic in every post and have attacked noone, these guys just can't take it when my points refute their desire to burden us all with more wilderness. We don't have to have wilderness to have wildlife and a great environment, the earth is sustainable with multiple use, some seem to have been duped by the enviros to believe the earth cannot survive without more and more wilderness. I ask, exactly how much wilderness is enough? After every new wilderness area they want more wilderness. So please tell me, how much wilderness is enough?
This is exactly how the wolf issue went, the wolfers duped the public for 100 wolves per state and now each state has 4 to 10 times as many wolves and there is a lawsuit every time we try to manage wolves. So don't tell me I am the problem.
I will not simply be told I should not ask simple yet important questions. So, I will ask this simple question again in a most respectful manner:
Are the groups funding BHA which are mentioned on Green Decoys website the largest donors to BHA?
Why does nobody know?
I don't know because I don't belong to BHA and I don't have access to their books. But I do know I can't fault the positions they stand for as a whole. At least what is stated on their website.
As for jacking the thread Dale, This thread was about "Fresh Tracks TV Series Supports The Loss Of Big Game Hunting Opportunities" and YOU were he one who injected the BHA as a major sponsor to the show and then injected the Green Decoys to denigrate BHA. Once that was there, I think it behooves open minded hunters to look into Green Decoys and their affiliates and see what their agenda is.
Just because somebody I've never heard of says the sun isn't coming up tomorrow, doesn't mean I'm gonna take their word at face value. I wanna know who they are, what they stand for, and what they have to gain from what they are saying. They certainly aren't saying it for the sake of my well being.
Post by: bearpaw on March 17, 2014, 04:32:13 PM
It's unfortunate watching a group of hunters and sportsmen arguing between themselves. It's exactly what the anti groups want.
I don't disagree with that thought at all, however it's pretty convenient for certain individuals to always come into topics and thread jack or claim myself or others are the problem, they never seem to recognize that maybe they are the problem.
I merely posted a provocative news release not knowing what parts are true or untrue and looking for comments. Since then I've been told I should not post anything from Toby, I've been accused of being against the environment and conservation, when in fact the opposite is true, I posted a perfect example of how oil drilling that his country needs is successfully being done in an area that has expanding world class elk hunting, and a handful of the usual people try to make me out as the bad guy.
Please go back and read all my posts, I have been diplomatic in every post and have attacked noone, these guys just can't take it when my points refute their desire to burden us all with more wilderness. We don't have to have wilderness to have wildlife and a great environment, the earth is sustainable with multiple use, some seem to have been duped by the enviros to believe the earth cannot survive without more and more wilderness. I ask, exactly how much wilderness is enough? After every new wilderness area they want more wilderness. So please tell me, how much wilderness is enough?
This is exactly how the wolf issue went, the wolfers duped the public for 100 wolves per state and now each state has 4 to 10 times as many wolves and there is a lawsuit every time we try to manage wolves. So don't tell me I am the problem.
I will not simply be told I should not ask simple yet important questions. So, I will ask this simple question again in a most respectful manner:
Are the groups funding BHA which are mentioned on Green Decoys website the largest donors to BHA?
Why does nobody know?
I don't know because I don't belong to BHA and I don't have access to their books. But I do know I can't fault the positions they stand for as a whole. At least what is stated on their website.
As for jacking the thread Dale, This thread was about "Fresh Tracks TV Series Supports The Loss Of Big Game Hunting Opportunities" and YOU were he one who injected the BHA as a major sponsor to the show and then injected the Green Decoys to denigrate BHA. Once that was there, I think it behooves open minded hunters to look into Green Decoys and their affiliates and see what their agenda is.
Just because somebody I've never heard of says the sun isn't coming up tomorrow, doesn't mean I'm gonna take their word at face value. I wanna know who they are, what they stand for, and what they have to gain from what they are saying. They certainly aren't saying it for the sake of my well being.
From the original post:
http://www.lobowatch.com/adminclient/WolfImpact10/go (http://www.lobowatch.com/adminclient/WolfImpact10/go)
Quote
Apparently neither of you really know much about Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. Have you taken a good look at its Executive Director, Land Tawney?
Tawney was one of a handful of similar minded people who put together another bogus sportsman group, known as Montana Hunters and Anglers Action. They were nothing more than a political activist group. Outsiders could not join the group, or attend their meetings. The Executive Director of the Montana Outfitters and Guides Association tried to attend one of their meetings, just to get a feel for their platform, and was told right to his face that he wasn't welcomed...and told to leave. Land Tawney headed that group, which during the 2012 elections spent several million $$$'s of non-disclosed (environmental group) money on television advertisements (slur campaign) to discredit Denny Rehberg, who was running against Jon Tester for his seat in the U.S. Senate. Rehberg was strongly in favor of aggressive wolf control, and having the gray wolf totally removed from the Endangered Species List and from the protection of the Endangered Species Act.
Tawney was on the (very pro-wolf) National Wildlife Federation staff and payroll. Now he heads an organization that is ONLY PRETENDING to be a sportsman's group...ONLY PRETENDING to work toward conserving hunting opportunities. The man is part of a much larger agenda, which simply looks to shut off public access to public lands.
Randy Newberg's push for even more roadless wilderness is also a part of that idiocy, which I will be sharing later this week in a LOBO WATCH Release.
So yes, the information that someone else found on the Green Decoy website about BHA is very relevant to this conversation. Please explain how it is not relevant?
Simple Question: Are the groups funding BHA which are mentioned on Green Decoys website the largest donors to BHA?
Green Decoys: http://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/ (http://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/)
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on March 17, 2014, 04:40:39 PM
Simple Question: Are the groups funding BHA which are mentioned on Green Decoys website the largest donors to BHA?
Green Decoys: http://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/ (http://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/)
Heck, I'm more interested in who funds Hunt Washington and SFW and WFW.
:dunno: :chuckle:
Post by: buglebrush on March 17, 2014, 04:47:39 PM
Roadless areas and the reduction in logging actually are a huge detriment to habitat improvement.
Maybe a huge detriment if you only view logging as the method for improving habitat. I can show you plenty of places that are roadless, have not been logged, and provide very good wildlife habitat.
Before you go jumping to the conclusion that I am anti-logging as well as pro-wolf, I'm not. There is a balance, but the assertion that roadless and unlogged areas do not or cannot provide premium habitat is untrue.
I do freely admit that I find great value in roadless areas where one can distance themselves from any motorized traffic.
Here in NE WA and N ID logging has a direct effect on animals and population. Areas that are not logged here are void of animals! or very few. Other parts of the country this may not be the case, they have meadows, open timber and etc that this region doesnt have
Totally True. I have spent over twenty years hunting North Idaho and NE Washington. I cannot overemphasize the positive effect logging has on wildlife in these dense, brushy areas. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on March 17, 2014, 04:56:34 PM
Simple Question: Are the groups funding BHA which are mentioned on Green Decoys website the largest donors to BHA?
Green Decoys: http://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/ (http://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/)
Heck, I'm more interested in who funds Hunt Washington and SFW and WFW.
:dunno: :chuckle:
I'll be glad to answer your questions to the best of my knowledge. :tup:
H-W
I own H-W and have paid for the server every month with an automated payment since I bought it from the former owner. Donations have helped greatly in the past but now Advertising (the sponsors) are mostly funding the cost for about the last two years.
WFW
Funded entirely by memberships and donations , mostly H-W members, except I pay for the hosting of the domain and the website which I don't mind doing.
SFW
I don't know all their revenue sources and will have to speculate, they have a very large and dedicated membership base, but I would be willing to bet the largest revenue source is their big Sports Show in Salt Lake.
____________________________________________
Guys, I don't know the answer to this question, I'm simply asking the question, but some people don't seem to like me asking this question! Why is this any different than if I asked where WDFW funding or where RMEF, SCI, NRA, DU, NWTF, or Mule Deer Foundation funding comes from? Why is it any different than Sitka asking me about the funding of the entities he asked about?
Simple Question: Are the groups funding BHA which are mentioned on Green Decoys website the largest donors to BHA?
Green Decoys: http://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/ (http://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/)
Post by: bearpaw on March 17, 2014, 05:03:53 PM
WFW (Colville Hatchery)
This student learning facility that WFW has facilitated is being funded mostly by local resident contributions and an ALEA grant from WDFW that essentially refunds us for many (not all) operating expenses. We are exploring other future fund raising activities so that we can keep operations in the black as we increase productivity and student numbers.
Post by: snowpack on March 17, 2014, 05:06:49 PM
I think it's pretty darned sad that there is so much effort to discredit groups like BHA. The folks I've met that are part of BHA are simply blue collar hunters who value the added experience of getting away from roads. I value it myself. I don't like to see other hunters when I'm out, and normally I don't. That is worth a lot to me.Yes, there are a lot of roads for hunting; but for western WA, I can't think of any roads that go up into the alpine in an area that allows hunting. There are some scenic roads in the national parks that get up above the tree lines, but use on them is strictly regulated and off of them is virtually prohibited. As far as I know for the westside, all the alpine is in wilderness or one of the three national parks. So the wilderness crowd basically has all that kind of terrain to themselves. Walk in or take a horse....even the mountain bikes can't go in (a far cry from an ATV).
There are plenty of roaded areas to hunt. Of course, my view on that is all relative, just like Dale thinks there are plenty of wilderness areas to hunt. Look at the Colockum or the Blues. If you can't find a gated road to walk down you aren't looking very hard. In fact, you can usually find an open road to drive down.
I am all for expanding ATV opportunities, but why the heck should I make any effort to when MY advocate groups like BHA are under fire from opposing viewpoints? Why should I care about anything the Blue Ribbon Coalition wants to do?
Quite frankly I'm tired of the "black and white" lines that many folks are drawing. This philosophy that you're "for us or against us" is ridiculous. Yet every time I turn around I hear how all of us hunters need to stick together. Wait a minute, folks are CONSTANTLY blasting others on here if they don't agree 110%, but we're supposed to stick together? Huh, way to work towards collaboration here.
Also, your continued reference to the world class elk hunting in the Book Cliffs is a poor comparison given how restrictive the permits are. You know as well as I do that road density has a tremendous impact on bull survival and age class. It's been repeatedly proven in both Montana and Idaho. That's why you can find Boone and Crockett class elk in Montana in general hunt areas where you can hunt them for 11 weeks a year.
For the black and white comment, the way land can be designated is also not necessarily black and white. With the way the USFS have written the Northwest Forest Plan, there is a lot of land that is de facto wilderness...might have a few remaining roads, but no real threats of new roads being opened up. A few decommissioned roads that people can walk, horse or bike in on, and use a chainsaw to winch an animal to a bike trailer. Just because someplace isn't made wilderness by congress under the rules of the 1964 wilderness act, doesn't mean it is destined to be turned into a copy of a weyehauser tree farm.
Post by: jackelope on March 17, 2014, 05:16:22 PM
Guys, I don't know the answer to this question, I'm simply asking the question, but some people don't seem to like me asking this question! Why is this any different than if I asked where WDFW funding or where RMEF, SCI, NRA, DU, NWTF, or Mule Deer Foundation funding comes from? Why is it any different than Sitka asking me about the funding of the entities he asked about?
Simple Question: Are the groups funding BHA which are mentioned on Green Decoys website the largest donors to BHA?
Green Decoys: http://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/ (http://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/)
Maybe it's because nobody here knows the correct answer.
:dunno:
Has anyone emailed or attempted to contact anyone in BHA seeking the answer to this question?
Post by: idahohuntr on March 17, 2014, 05:27:22 PM
I believe bearpaw has and got no response :dunno:
Guys, I don't know the answer to this question, I'm simply asking the question, but some people don't seem to like me asking this question! Why is this any different than if I asked where WDFW funding or where RMEF, SCI, NRA, DU, NWTF, or Mule Deer Foundation funding comes from? Why is it any different than Sitka asking me about the funding of the entities he asked about?
Simple Question: Are the groups funding BHA which are mentioned on Green Decoys website the largest donors to BHA?
Green Decoys: http://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/ (http://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/)
Maybe it's because nobody here knows the correct answer.
:dunno:
Has anyone emailed or attempted to contact anyone in BHA seeking the answer to this question?
To me, there is a far better question we should ask of BHA and all the other groups: What are they DOING with the money?
Bearpaw you are bent on who BHA's biggest donors are...but what is it that BHA is doing that you don't like? Do you think its possible they could support things like increased wilderness (which you oppose for your own reasons) yet still be funded by hunters and anglers???
Post by: bearpaw on March 17, 2014, 06:22:45 PM
Guys, I don't know the answer to this question, I'm simply asking the question, but some people don't seem to like me asking this question! Why is this any different than if I asked where WDFW funding or where RMEF, SCI, NRA, DU, NWTF, or Mule Deer Foundation funding comes from? Why is it any different than Sitka asking me about the funding of the entities he asked about?
Simple Question: Are the groups funding BHA which are mentioned on Green Decoys website the largest donors to BHA?
Green Decoys: http://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/ (http://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/)
Maybe it's because nobody here knows the correct answer.
:dunno:
Has anyone emailed or attempted to contact anyone in BHA seeking the answer to this question?
I believe bearpaw has and got no response :dunno:
To me, there is a far better question we should ask of BHA and all the other groups: What are they DOING with the money?
Bearpaw you are bent on who BHA's biggest donors are...but what is it that BHA is doing that you don't like? Do you think its possible they could support things like increased wilderness (which you oppose for your own reasons) yet still be funded by hunters and anglers???
Yes, I asked how they were funded and how big their membership was through the BHA website when I looked into a job position they were offering about 2 or 3 years ago, but I received no answer.
I posted the news release because I thought it raised questions about the TV show and BHA that hunters might want to know about. Someone posted the link to Green Decoys in this topic or another topic and I looked at that website and it says the largest funders are greenie groups. I still haven't seen anything to prove that wrong and when I ask the question I get a full court press with all kinds of other comments but still no answer to the question.
I don't know where they spend all their money, but I do know they are paying a guy from Deer Park a salary to further their wilderness cause in Colville National Forest just as Toby claims they do in Montana. I highly suspect why they likely didn't reply back to me.
I don't know how true it is but I was also told more recently that CNW is behind BHA's effort. I will not name who informed me for obvious reasons. I cannot prove what I was told is true but I have no reason to not believe that it is true.
How convenient was it for CNW to suddenly have a sportsmen group agreeing with their plan to convert the Kettle Crest and Abercrombie roadless areas to wilderness when most people in NE WA don't want anymore wilderness? So Toby's news release about where BHA spends their money certainly got my attention and the Green Decoys website certainly raises some good questions about where their money comes from and where it's being spent.
Please let me say this again, I know there are a lot of well meaning hunters who are members, maybe some don't care who is bankrolling the cause or exactly what the money is being used for, maybe some want it spent that way, but maybe some do care about these questions. I am trying to learn the facts.
Simple Question: Are the groups funding BHA which are mentioned on Green Decoys website the largest donors to BHA?
Green Decoys: http://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/ (http://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/)
Also for the record, I am not opposed to wilderness, I think we have just the right balance of wilderness and multiple use areas. I agreed with MOGA supporting the multiple use land legislation in Montana because it protects the land and most current uses. What I am opposed to is continually increasing wilderness and reducing public access and opportunity to benefit a few.
I must also ask, How Much Wilderness is Enough?
Post by: Ironhead on March 17, 2014, 06:47:52 PM
I must also ask, How Much Wilderness is Enough?
I am not trying to take a shot at you personally Dale, but I am glad our forefathers didn't think like that.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 17, 2014, 07:46:02 PM
I'm not sure I recall them wanting to restrict how our lands were used.
I must also ask, How Much Wilderness is Enough?
I am not trying to take a shot at you personally Dale, but I am glad our forefathers didn't think like that.
Post by: Randy Newberg on March 17, 2014, 07:51:15 PM
1. The Greendecoy report talks a lot about Ted Turner, his companies, and his Foundation as being a funding source for some of these groups, and that report uses the term "extreme environmentalist" in reference to the Turner entities. Do those of you citing the Greendecoy report think Ted Turner et al is a "greenie front" operation for these groups?
I assume those believing the Greendecoy report feel that Turner et al is a "greenie front" operation, but I am looking for confirmation as to how those "Greedecoyers" look at Turner et al.
2. Do you believe that where a group, a company, or a person gets their income causes them to change who they are and what they stand for? In other words, does this "guilt by association" theory hold true and are you and your positions a function of those who you choose to do business with?
I would be interested to hear answers to those two questions from anyone who is usiing the Greendecoy report for those information.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 17, 2014, 07:55:33 PM
Post by: Ironhead on March 17, 2014, 08:14:52 PM
I'm not sure I recall them wanting to restrict how our lands were used.
I must also ask, How Much Wilderness is Enough?
I am not trying to take a shot at you personally Dale, but I am glad our forefathers didn't think like that.
Well, there are a few National parks I can think of, such as Yellowstone, where they did restrict the use and I feel we are pretty lucky they did.
Post by: jackelope on March 17, 2014, 08:14:59 PM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on March 17, 2014, 08:40:13 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 17, 2014, 09:01:44 PM
Is Trout Unlimited a greenie group? Is the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership a greenie group? Legit questions. I haven't spent as much time losing sleep over this as a lot of you have.
I have a request in to a couple sources asking permission to post their info here that will provide some insight into your questions. :tup:
Post by: Special T on March 17, 2014, 09:06:37 PM
2. Do you believe that where a group, a company, or a person gets their income causes them to change who they are and what they stand for? In other words, does this "guilt by association" theory hold true and are you and your positions a function of those who you choose to do business with?
Randy I think this is actually the MORE important question of the two.... I'm sure we have all heard the saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend!" While many of you are playing checkers trying to find out IF BHA is a good or bad group, some one is playing chess using BHA and many other non profits to move forward an agenda.... What better group to help push something that reduces hunting on a grand scale than a bunch of blue collar hard hunting guys? I can tell you that ever since i was i kid i dreamed about a back country hunt on horses, with elk and snow... Its what magazines like Outdoor Life and Field and stream make us yearn for... Believe it or not People like WACoyotehuntr AND Wolfbait share some of the very same love of the extreme outdoors far away from most people... Yet they are pitted against each other on purpose IMO... Really it is a VERY sound strategy... So WHY is it the best question??? Its NOT Why BHA is advocating wilderness area, but rather WHY is some one else supporting them? Who Are they? What addenda are they interested in?
Let me make an as-sine, obscene comparison... Should Planned Parenthood from the inner city of Chicago accept donations from the Klu Klux Klan? I know its vulgar and not PC but i think in its absurdity it shows WHY many people may be concerned about BHA but more importantly their contributor..
I am fortunate enough to have experienced a great back country hunt off horseback and hope to again some day. I hope everyone that wants to gets the chance. HOWEVER i realize that the cost of a guided trip, Wolves and other road blocks supported by anti hunters makes that dream MORE difficult... Making MORE land harder to access only amplifies this issue... Remember it is the areas in ID and MT that are the most remote that have suffered the most because of the difficulty in managing wolves. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on March 18, 2014, 12:54:53 AM
So, I have a question for all the folks reading the Greendecoys stuff and taking it as the gospel. Two questions, actually.
1. The Greendecoy report talks a lot about Ted Turner, his companies, and his Foundation as being a funding source for some of these groups, and that report uses the term "extreme environmentalist" in reference to the Turner entities. Do those of you citing the Greendecoy report think Ted Turner et al is a "greenie front" operation for these groups?
I assume those believing the Greendecoy report feel that Turner et al is a "greenie front" operation, but I am looking for confirmation as to how those "Greedecoyers" look at Turner et al.
2. Do you believe that where a group, a company, or a person gets their income causes them to change who they are and what they stand for? In other words, does this "guilt by association" theory hold true and are you and your positions a function of those who you choose to do business with?
I would be interested to hear answers to those two questions from anyone who is usiing the Greendecoy report for those information.
I'll make a fair deal with you, you answer my two simple questions that I asked first and then I'll gladly answer both your questions.
1. Are the groups funding BHA which are mentioned on Green Decoys website the largest donors to BHA?
Green Decoys: http://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/ (http://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/)
Also for the record, I am not opposed to wilderness, I think we have just the right balance of wilderness and multiple use areas. I agreed with MOGA supporting the multiple use land legislation in Montana because it protects the land and it protects most current uses including timber harvest. What I am opposed to is continually increasing wilderness and reducing public access and opportunity to benefit a few. So, I must also ask:
2. How Much Wilderness is Enough?
Post by: bearpaw on March 18, 2014, 01:15:47 AM
I must also ask, How Much Wilderness is Enough?
I am not trying to take a shot at you personally Dale, but I am glad our forefathers didn't think like that.
No worries, but that's sort of like comparing apples to oranges. We all are happy that Teddy Roosevelt started the park system and that many species have flourished with the end of unregulated market hunting and with dollars gladly provided by sportsmen. I am supportive of our wilderness and roadless areas, but I am opposed to this continual land grab that's started occurring over the last decade or two. The end result is that many hunters and recreationists lose opportunity when new wildernesses areas are created. My answer is that 22 wilderness areas in Washington (that doesn't include many designated roadless areas) are enough!
Post by: Skyvalhunter on March 18, 2014, 05:27:03 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 18, 2014, 07:24:24 AM
How about this answer- for every acre of land being developed in the west are you willing to trade an acre of wilderness? If I knew things were unlikely to change, I would be happy with the current amount of backcountry land available to hunters. What happens when log prices skyrocket and building roads becomes cost effective to harvest in "Inventoried Roadless Areas" (which have no "real" protection)?? What happens when we need more lead or zinc and some big mining company turns another mountain upside down to get it? Those areas are gone forever.
I must also ask, How Much Wilderness is Enough?
I am not trying to take a shot at you personally Dale, but I am glad our forefathers didn't think like that.
No worries, but that's sort of like comparing apples to oranges. We all are happy that Teddy Roosevelt started the park system and that many species have flourished with the end of unregulated market hunting and with dollars gladly provided by sportsmen. I am supportive of our wilderness and roadless areas, but I am opposed to this continual land grab that's started occurring over the last decade or two. The end result is that many hunters and recreationists lose opportunity when new wildernesses areas are created. My answer is that 22 wilderness areas in Washington (that doesn't include many designated roadless areas) are enough!
Wilderness designation and National Park/Monument designation offers protection in perpetuity. I prefer wilderness and I prefer wild places. If I knew that those areas were to remain as they are, I would be wholly satisfied, but that is not the case at all.
Does that answer the question of how much is enough?
I don't know the book of BHA. I have no reason to try to discredit your source, but the money is going towards something that I believe is important and I support BHA's mission to protect backcountry experiences into the future.
Post by: JLS on March 18, 2014, 07:49:18 AM
Post by: Randy Newberg on March 18, 2014, 08:18:23 AM
I'll make a fair deal with you, you answer my two simple questions that I asked first and then I'll gladly answer both your questions.
OK. See my answers below.
1. Are the groups funding BHA which are mentioned on Green Decoys website the largest donors to BHA?
Green Decoys: http://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/ (http://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/)
I don’t know the answer to that. If I did, I would provide it herein.
I suspect if you take all of their sponsorship of websites, their annual convention, their magazine, and all the other sources of income, those groups listed in the Greendecoy report would NOT be the majority of the support, assuming the Greendecoy report is accurate.
And given who is behind the Greendecoy report, it is a very fair question to ask, “Where did CCF get the information being provided?”
Everyone seems to be of the opinion that Rick Berman and his DC lobbying group who is the source of the report is somehow to be trusted and their word taken for fact. I am not one who takes anyone’s word as fact, especially a bunch of DC lobbyists.
I suspect Berman and Company got the information from somewhere, but they sure have not provided any sources to verify what they have printed. Seems some folks are eager to take them at face value, as it might align with their pre-conceived opinions. That is fine, but I am not one to do so.
I wish could answer your question, but I don’t have the information to do so. If BHA got that much money from WCF and Wilburforce, as Berman and Company stated, or any other group, I really don’t care. What I care about is the results that come from their work.
This supposed guilt by association is a laugher, when I look at the connections to the "Greenie Front" world exist among many groups who are spewing this Greendecoy report as some smoking gun of a communist takeover of the hunting world.
Maybe we should look at who is funding the lobbying efforts of Berman and Company and find out just how hunter-friendly those groups are. I suspect that would be a little more than the long list of dots that needs to be connected and the leaps of faith made, in order to put any crediblity in a report prepared by some highly paid DC lobbyists.
Having read the Greendecoy report and having a couple decades of firsthand experience in the battles for wildlife and conservation, I find the report as a desparate attempt to discredit a lot of good hunters, carried out by some who don't like the fact that they are not able to have their way in selling the public lands or using the public lands as their own little fifedom.
Also for the record, I am not opposed to wilderness, I think we have just the right balance of wilderness and multiple use areas. I agreed with MOGA supporting the multiple use land legislation in Montana because it protects the land and it protects most current uses including timber harvest. What I am opposed to is continually increasing wilderness and reducing public access and opportunity to benefit a few. So, I must also ask:
2. How Much Wilderness is Enough?
To me, if we never added another acre of Wilderness, I can live with that. If that was the majority decision of those who are most impacted and those who use the lands the most, fine with me.
But, if there are places where it makes sense and is supported by locals, as is the case of the Legislation that started this entire sniveling session by Toby Bridges, then I support more wilderness. Anyone who has been to the areas covered by this Legislation will realize that by its very nature of being mostly rock and ice, those areas are already “De-facto” wilderness, as you couldn’t get the world’s best ATV into any of those places.
And, instead of making it all wilderness, the legislation has a new designation called Conservation Management Areas. Those areas protect all existing activities, from motorized trails, to grazing, and anything else that currently is happening there. That was at the request of locals and it makes sense.
Yet, you don’t hear about that from the crowd of whiners. I suspect 99% of the people complaining about this bill have never stepped foot in the area.
The locals who spend a ton of time there, including some of the outfitters how have remarkable success for their clients, are almost unanimously in favor. Yeah, there will always be a few naysayers, due to ideological belief against any sort of land designations. When you have as much support as this Legislation, including locals who are on the ground, it makes sense.
I come from a logging family. I fully understand the notion of multi-use. My younger brother is still a logger. I was too inept as a logger, so I decided to look elsewhere for my livelihood, but I have spent many summers and school/college breaks in the woods, pulling chokers, falling trees, bumping knots, and all the other things that help you appreciate hard work. I worked at a sawmill, now a closed sawmill, while going to college. The timber industry allowed me to pay for tuition while working the graveyard shift and going to school during the day. None of these concerns are lost on me.
From that, I understand the impacts that wilderness designations can have on some industries. Yet, one of the risks of building a business around a public resource, in the case of loggers, public timber on public lands, is that sometimes the public wants something different to happen on those public lands. It might not be something I always agree with, but that is an inherent risk of a business dependent upon public resources.
So, the answer of how much wilderness is enough, depends upon the sentiment of those who use those lands. And in my approach, the closer to the source one lives and the more one uses those lands, the greater voice I would give them, even if it is public land.
Your turn. I've got piles to tax returns to get finished. I look forward to the answers of my two questions that were asked.
Post by: idahohuntr on March 18, 2014, 09:07:27 AM
Link above to financial information for BHA...I didn't really look at it as I am sure it does not disclose names of major donors.
I guess I could care less where a group gets its money from as long as they continue to do things I support. Its a sad reflection of the polarization in this country that if 2 groups who have different views on other issues can't work together when they do have something in common for fear of alienating their members. :twocents:
I also personally know the first (now former) exec. director of BHA...he was the first person to teach me anything about packing with mules and I also enjoyed shooting my bow regularly with him in the Frank Church and have spent many evenings around camp fires with him. He (and his wife who is now an ODFW commissioner) are the nicest, down to earth people you've ever met...and they are die-hard hunters. They prefer to hunt in wilderness areas and would likely advocate for more wilderness designation...they certainly are not some front for enviro groups.
Post by: huntnphool on March 18, 2014, 09:37:47 AM
Today, with three years of hindsight, those of us opposing I-161 have been proven correct in our assertion that it was a bad idea.
In what respects?
Post by: Northway on March 18, 2014, 10:02:34 AM
2. Do you believe that where a group, a company, or a person gets their income causes them to change who they are and what they stand for? In other words, does this "guilt by association" theory hold true and are you and your positions a function of those who you choose to do business with?
Randy I think this is actually the MORE important question of the two.... I'm sure we have all heard the saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend!" While many of you are playing checkers trying to find out IF BHA is a good or bad group, some one is playing chess using BHA and many other non profits to move forward an agenda.... What better group to help push something that reduces hunting on a grand scale than a bunch of blue collar hard hunting guys? I can tell you that ever since i was i kid i dreamed about a back country hunt on horses, with elk and snow... Its what magazines like Outdoor Life and Field and stream make us yearn for... Believe it or not People like WACoyotehuntr AND Wolfbait share some of the very same love of the extreme outdoors far away from most people... Yet they are pitted against each other on purpose IMO... Really it is a VERY sound strategy... So WHY is it the best question??? Its NOT Why BHA is advocating wilderness area, but rather WHY is some one else supporting them? Who Are they? What addenda are they interested in?
Let me make an as-sine, obscene comparison... Should Planned Parenthood from the inner city of Chicago accept donations from the Klu Klux Klan? I know its vulgar and not PC but i think in its absurdity it shows WHY many people may be concerned about BHA but more importantly their contributor..
I am fortunate enough to have experienced a great back country hunt off horseback and hope to again some day. I hope everyone that wants to gets the chance. HOWEVER i realize that the cost of a guided trip, Wolves and other road blocks supported by anti hunters makes that dream MORE difficult... Making MORE land harder to access only amplifies this issue... Remember it is the areas in ID and MT that are the most remote that have suffered the most because of the difficulty in managing wolves. :twocents:
I would be careful about giving the impression that hunting groups are playing checkers while somehow the "greenie" groups are playing this intricate game of chess behind the scenes.
There are deep divisions among various environmental groups. In my opinion, the "green" movement only becomes more fractured over time. The issue of hunting not only pits environmental groups against each other, but also creates friction between donors within individual organizations. The real money in the environmental movement is just to the left of center. That fact has created substantial bitterness from vocal far left groups that envy those dollars. I would venture to guess that the distance between BHA and groups like Idaho for Wildlife is shorter than the distance between Forterra and the Western Watersheds Project.
I'm always suspicious of groups like WildEarth Guardians or Idaho for Wildlife who appear to drum up support by essentially listing everyone who doesn't support their platform as either delusional or an extremist. Some may argue that that approach pays dividends because it galvanizes support for a cause and ultimately gets watered down in resulting policy changes, but you're also manipulating less sophisticated voters, which in my opinion can also create a lot of collateral damage.
Post by: bearpaw on March 18, 2014, 10:17:40 AM
Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is a 501C3 organization, and as such should have readily available financial books.
I suppose that explains how Green Decoys found the financial info, which is likely correct. Maybe some of you don't care, but it makes a big difference for me who is financially behind an organization as it reveals who the purposes of the organization are really benefitting and who may have the most influence in an organization.
How about this answer- for every acre of land being developed in the west are you willing to trade an acre of wilderness? If I knew things were unlikely to change, I would be happy with the current amount of backcountry land available to hunters. What happens when log prices skyrocket and building roads becomes cost effective to harvest in "Inventoried Roadless Areas" (which have no "real" protection)?? What happens when we need more lead or zinc and some big mining company turns another mountain upside down to get it? Those areas are gone forever.That's definitely an honest answer from you, thanks, however it seems like an unfair answer for most people since the majority of Americans including hunters and recreationists lose opportunity and become more crowded in remaining accessible areas with every new wilderness creation.
Wilderness designation and National Park/Monument designation offers protection in perpetuity. I prefer wilderness and I prefer wild places. If I knew that those areas were to remain as they are, I would be wholly satisfied, but that is not the case at all.
Does that answer the question of how much is enough?
I don't know the book of BHA. I have no reason to try to discredit your source, but the money is going towards something that I believe is important and I support BHA's mission to protect backcountry experiences into the future.
As I have mentioned numerous times I outfit in 4 states every year and one area I operate in is one of the top areas in Utah and actually one of the top areas of the world for elk, mule deer, and cougar with plentiful bobcat, coyote and many other forms of wildlife including bison and sheep which have been reintroduced about a decade ago and have grown in numbers. I love that place, about a hundred miles across any direction with almost nobody living there. I've been going there since 1998. It was a draw when I started hunting because it had been over hunted in the past. They even shut down mule deer hunting for 4 years in the 90's so the deer herd could recover. I will admit I was worried when the oil boom started a few years back, there was already some oil and gas wells but with the oil boom there was 20x more activity, it was disappointing to see.
Here's what I found over the years during this intense oil boom, when the oil companies are scouting for new wells and drilling new wells there is a lot of activity and game moves into the next canyon either direction, after the well is finished and the activity leaves the elk and deer are soon grazing on grasses at the well site and cougars and other predators are right there hunting too. Since the oil boom started the elk herd has actually expanded and the deer herd was expanding until cougar numbers increased too much. Now UDWR has made cougar hunting more liberal again so that will let deer numbers expand again. At the same time while wildlife has flourished this area has provided much needed employment and has an excellent local and state economy.
I was still concerned though, there are gas pipes laying on top of the ground coming from all those wells and that bothered me so I asked my special-use officer at the BLM about those pipes. He explained that the BLM determined it was far less impact to lay pipe on top of the ground than to disturb the ground and rock formations by burying it. The pipe can be removed and it leaves the land with little impact. When I go out there I look at the pipes and I think about what I was told and I can see the wisdom in doing that. Literally, you could remove the wells and pipes and the remaining evidence of disturbance would erode away over time.
The Book Cliffs has actually gained in game abundance and quality due to excellent management by UDWR and BLM while the area is also supporting America's energy needs. With proper administration and monitoring the Book Cliffs is proof that multiple use can work in the most extreme circumstances. Please let me also point out, there are several small roadless areas and one really large roadless section of the Book Cliffs that are not developed, so there is the proof that even with extreme demand, several roadless areas have been maintained right alongside intense oil and gas exploration activities.
I honestly believe the doom and gloom scenarios employed by Conservation Northwest, BHA, and other green groups are nothing more than scare tactics used to further their desire to lock the average person out from recreating on our public lands which also means less access for the majority of hunters. This is one reason when you go to the gas pump it costs you $4 per gallon rather than $2 per gallon. It's also one reason we are importing lumber from Canada instead of hiring Americans to work in local sawmills that have been closed due to a lack of logs. It has been proven that if we log properly it's the best land stewardship, slash can be burned so you have the effects of fire, wildlife carrying capacity increases, and roads can be removed when a job is completed. Logging is better than wildfires because it does everything for regenerating the forest that fire provides, yet lumber, paper, and employment are also provided which Americans need.
Post by: bearpaw on March 18, 2014, 11:42:31 AM
From that, I understand the impacts that wilderness designations can have on some industries. Yet, one of the risks of building a business around a public resource, in the case of loggers, public timber on public lands, is that sometimes the public wants something different to happen on those public lands. It might not be something I always agree with, but that is an inherent risk of a business dependent upon public resources.
So, the answer of how much wilderness is enough, depends upon the sentiment of those who use those lands. And in my approach, the closer to the source one lives and the more one uses those lands, the greater voice I would give them, even if it is public land.
Your turn. I've got piles to tax returns to get finished. I look forward to the answers of my two questions that were asked.
Thanks Randy,
I agree almost verbatim with your comments above and with most of your other comments in that post that I didn't quote only due to length. That's why I agreed with MOGA in taking the position to support the land conservation legislation that maintains current uses in Montana. I would welcome the same type of legislation in Washington however, we have a wilderness crowd that wants wilderness no matter what the cost to local peoples. It appears that BHA is being used as an instrument by Conservation Northwest to push wilderness on local people who don't want wilderness, thus one reason this topic was posted on this forum. As mentioned before, when I saw Toby's news release it drew my attention and I wanted to hear hunters thoughts. It appears you and Toby have a pissin match going on of which I don't want to be a part, I didn't know anything about you so it wasn't personal on my part. I think you said BHA only sponsored one show, I understand sponsor dollars are tight in your business but I would certainly wonder if it's worth taking their money in the future if it was my show, not trying to tell you how to run your show, but as you can see, there is controversy surrounding BHA.
Here are answers to your questions!
1. The Greendecoy report talks a lot about Ted Turner, his companies, and his Foundation as being a funding source for some of these groups, and that report uses the term "extreme environmentalist" in reference to the Turner entities. Do those of you citing the Greendecoy report think Ted Turner et al is a "greenie front" operation for these groups?
Here is what I know or have heard about Turner. First he is very wealthy. I have heard he is pushing an environmental agenda but do not know anything about it. He has angered every rancher I know in Montana and has little respect from any of them. Turner had an outfitter who offered elk and buffalo hunts on his land but apparently the buffalo hunts were discontinued, I've never heard why. I didn't read anything about Turner on the Green Decoy website so can't comment on that. That's about all I can say I've heard or read about Turner.
I assume those believing the Greendecoy report feel that Turner et al is a "greenie front" operation, but I am looking for confirmation as to how those "Greedecoyers" look at Turner et al.
2. Do you believe that where a group, a company, or a person gets their income causes them to change who they are and what they stand for? In other words, does this "guilt by association" theory hold true and are you and your positions a function of those who you choose to do business with?
I think it depends on who or what company or group you ask. Some people will do anything for a dollar and others will stand by their principals to one extent or another. As you have probably determined by now, I will stand by my principals. Regarding BHA, what I see is a group standing with Conservation Northwest and opposing local people and trying to force wilderness upon NE Washington. My principals dictate that I must stand against such a travesty. If BHA was supporting legislation for NE Washington similar to the Montana legislation I might quickly change my opposition of BHA. If Conservation Northwest didn't oppose hunting and quit forcing wilderness on local people who do not want wilderness then my opinion might change about them too, but I doubt that will happen any time soon.
Post by: bearpaw on March 18, 2014, 11:48:01 AM
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/index.php/who-we-are/bha-annual-990-s (https://www.backcountryhunters.org/index.php/who-we-are/bha-annual-990-s)
Link above to financial information for BHA...I didn't really look at it as I am sure it does not disclose names of major donors.
I guess I could care less where a group gets its money from as long as they continue to do things I support. Its a sad reflection of the polarization in this country that if 2 groups who have different views on other issues can't work together when they do have something in common for fear of alienating their members. :twocents:
I also personally know the first (now former) exec. director of BHA...he was the first person to teach me anything about packing with mules and I also enjoyed shooting my bow regularly with him in the Frank Church and have spent many evenings around camp fires with him. He (and his wife who is now an ODFW commissioner) are the nicest, down to earth people you've ever met...and they are die-hard hunters. They prefer to hunt in wilderness areas and would likely advocate for more wilderness designation...they certainly are not some front for enviro groups.
Due to your defensiveness I figured you had real close ties to BHA. The tax forms on the links do not indicate donors, only total numbers, but thanks anyway. I think JLS had answered the question about funding pretty well so I will assume the Green Decoys website is likely correct regarding the largest donors to BHA and I would imagine BHA would take legal action if the claims were untrue.
Of course I can't agree with their attempts to push more wilderness on the people of NE WA, the majority of whom don't want more wilderness, most people are happy with our current balance of land use. I am an ardent supporter of multiple use while at the same time conserving our lands and wildlife for future generations.
Post by: jackelope on March 18, 2014, 12:08:50 PM
Is Trout Unlimited a greenie group? Is the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership a greenie group? Legit questions. I haven't spent as much time losing sleep over this as a lot of you have.
I have a request in to a couple sources asking permission to post their info here that will provide some insight into your questions. :tup:
Anything?
Anybody?
Post by: bearpaw on March 18, 2014, 12:12:28 PM
Is Trout Unlimited a greenie group? Is the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership a greenie group? Legit questions. I haven't spent as much time losing sleep over this as a lot of you have.
I have a request in to a couple sources asking permission to post their info here that will provide some insight into your questions. :tup:
Anything?
Anybody?
I haven't got a reply back yet, but will post when I do. :tup:
Post by: jackelope on March 18, 2014, 12:39:28 PM
Is Trout Unlimited a greenie group? Is the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership a greenie group? Legit questions. I haven't spent as much time losing sleep over this as a lot of you have.
I have a request in to a couple sources asking permission to post their info here that will provide some insight into your questions. :tup:
Anything?
Anybody?
I haven't got a reply back yet, but will post when I do. :tup:
What is your opinion of these groups??
Post by: idahohuntr on March 18, 2014, 05:56:44 PM
Due to your defensiveness I figured you had real close ties to BHA. The tax forms on the links do not indicate donors, only total numbers, but thanks anyway.Defensiveness? I know next to nothing about BHA. I was merely commenting that I personally know a former employee and I knew him long before that stint. Also, I have nothing against hunters who want more wilderness for their hunting. Likewise I have nothing against hunters who want more motorized access...some areas I hunt I think should be protected from motorized travel, other areas I wish there were less motorized restrictions. I use mules, atvs, motorcycles, drift boats, airplanes, jet boats, and most importantly my own 2 legs to access areas I hunt. :tup:
Post by: jackelope on March 18, 2014, 06:59:52 PM
Due to your defensiveness I figured you had real close ties to BHA. The tax forms on the links do not indicate donors, only total numbers, but thanks anyway.Defensiveness? I know next to nothing about BHA. I was merely commenting that I personally know a former employee and I knew him long before that stint. Also, I have nothing against hunters who want more wilderness for their hunting. Likewise I have nothing against hunters who want more motorized access...some areas I hunt I think should be protected from motorized travel, other areas I wish there were less motorized restrictions. I use mules, atvs, motorcycles, drift boats, airplanes, jet boats, and most importantly my own 2 legs to access areas I hunt. :tup:
Weird. You sound just like a fellow hunter.
:tup:
Post by: JLS on March 18, 2014, 07:21:20 PM
As to the question of how much wilderness? I don't know. To me it's a case by case situation. Some areas are more valuable than others as wilderness. Others are not worth much because they are fragmented by road corridors. I don't necessarily need more.
Sure, there are folks out there who are pining to add new wilderness areas each and every day, just as there are folks who want to punch roads into untouched drainages.
Also, I am not a pure wilderness guy. I think that there are multiple ways to skin a cat and in the end I don't care if it is a designated wilderness area or not.
The implication that pro-wilderness folks don't view things with a multi-use viewpoint is rather myopic. It's kind of like saying every Republican opposes abortion. Every body of folks is a collection of diverse opinions.
Lastly, if you are going to take Green Decoy as the gospel, it would probably behoove one to research each and every donor to BHA. Just because a group is pro-environment doesn't mean they are anti-hunting. I have flagged penty of timber sales when I was younger and fully see the value in logging. However, that doesn't mean I think every timber sale is a good idea. I value a healthy environment very much and feel that natural resource extraction CAN be beneficial, but also must be done right.
If that makes me a hippy, then so be it. I'd like to see my kids get the opportunity to share the same things that I have.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on March 18, 2014, 08:37:32 PM
"Who funds you guys? How about some “full disclosure”?
The Center for Consumer Freedom is supported by restaurants, food companies and thousands of individual consumers. From farm to fork, from urban to rural, our friends and supporters include businesses, their employees, and their customers.The Center is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization. We file regular statements with the Internal Revenue Service, which are open to public inspection.Many of the companies and individuals who support the Center financially have indicated that they want anonymity as contributors. They are reasonably apprehensive about privacy and safety in light of the violence and other forms of aggression some activists have adopted as a “game plan” to impose their views, so we respect their wishes."
So while they want to "expose" conservationist groups' funding, they hide who sponsors them. Is this the way an up and up organization works? Their "sponsors" or "investors" want to hide in the dark and throw cow pies and not be held responsible.
Post by: Special T on March 18, 2014, 09:09:58 PM
2. Do you believe that where a group, a company, or a person gets their income causes them to change who they are and what they stand for? In other words, does this "guilt by association" theory hold true and are you and your positions a function of those who you choose to do business with?
Randy I think this is actually the MORE important question of the two.... I'm sure we have all heard the saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend!" While many of you are playing checkers trying to find out IF BHA is a good or bad group, some one is playing chess using BHA and many other non profits to move forward an agenda.... What better group to help push something that reduces hunting on a grand scale than a bunch of blue collar hard hunting guys? I can tell you that ever since i was i kid i dreamed about a back country hunt on horses, with elk and snow... Its what magazines like Outdoor Life and Field and stream make us yearn for... Believe it or not People like WACoyotehuntr AND Wolfbait share some of the very same love of the extreme outdoors far away from most people... Yet they are pitted against each other on purpose IMO... Really it is a VERY sound strategy... So WHY is it the best question??? Its NOT Why BHA is advocating wilderness area, but rather WHY is some one else supporting them? Who Are they? What addenda are they interested in?
Let me make an as-sine, obscene comparison... Should Planned Parenthood from the inner city of Chicago accept donations from the Klu Klux Klan? I know its vulgar and not PC but i think in its absurdity it shows WHY many people may be concerned about BHA but more importantly their contributor..
I am fortunate enough to have experienced a great back country hunt off horseback and hope to again some day. I hope everyone that wants to gets the chance. HOWEVER i realize that the cost of a guided trip, Wolves and other road blocks supported by anti hunters makes that dream MORE difficult... Making MORE land harder to access only amplifies this issue... Remember it is the areas in ID and MT that are the most remote that have suffered the most because of the difficulty in managing wolves. :twocents:
I would be careful about giving the impression that hunting groups are playing checkers while somehow the "greenie" groups are playing this intricate game of chess behind the scenes.
There are deep divisions among various environmental groups. In my opinion, the "green" movement only becomes more fractured over time. The issue of hunting not only pits environmental groups against each other, but also creates friction between donors within individual organizations. The real money in the environmental movement is just to the left of center. That fact has created substantial bitterness from vocal far left groups that envy those dollars. I would venture to guess that the distance between BHA and groups like Idaho for Wildlife is shorter than the distance between Forterra and the Western Watersheds Project.
I'm always suspicious of groups like WildEarth Guardians or Idaho for Wildlife who appear to drum up support by essentially listing everyone who doesn't support their platform as either delusional or an extremist. Some may argue that that approach pays dividends because it galvanizes support for a cause and ultimately gets watered down in resulting policy changes, but you're also manipulating less sophisticated voters, which in my opinion can also create a lot of collateral damage.
Checkers vs Chess... I think the Anti's are more PRECISE because they have less $$$. IMO they see where they can make the biggest bang for their buck, while looking farther down the line. I don't want to give the impression that there are guys behind the scenes pulling strings, just a little more strategical and surgical.
Post by: bearpaw on March 19, 2014, 02:28:46 AM
There are deep divisions among various environmental groups. In my opinion, the "green" movement only becomes more fractured over time. The issue of hunting not only pits environmental groups against each other, but also creates friction between donors within individual organizations. The real money in the environmental movement is just to the left of center. That fact has created substantial bitterness from vocal far left groups that envy those dollars. I would venture to guess that the distance between BHA and groups like Idaho for Wildlife is shorter than the distance between Forterra and the Western Watersheds Project.
I'm always suspicious of groups like WildEarth Guardians or Idaho for Wildlife who appear to drum up support by essentially listing everyone who doesn't support their platform as either delusional or an extremist. Some may argue that that approach pays dividends because it galvanizes support for a cause and ultimately gets watered down in resulting policy changes, but you're also manipulating less sophisticated voters, which in my opinion can also create a lot of collateral damage.
I know that WEG are enviro wackos, but you seem to paint IFW in a similar light, please explain why and what you know about what they do?
Post by: Randy Newberg on March 19, 2014, 08:10:59 AM
Dale, this is from the Center for Consumer Freedom website.
"Who funds you guys? How about some “full disclosure”?
The Center for Consumer Freedom is supported by restaurants, food companies and thousands of individual consumers. From farm to fork, from urban to rural, our friends and supporters include businesses, their employees, and their customers.The Center is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization. We file regular statements with the Internal Revenue Service, which are open to public inspection. Many of the companies and individuals who support the Center financially have indicated that they want anonymity as contributors. They are reasonably apprehensive about privacy and safety in light of the violence and other forms of aggression some activists have adopted as a “game plan” to impose their views, so we respect their wishes."
So while they want to "expose" conservationist groups' funding, they hide who sponsors them. Is this the way an up and up organization works? Their "sponsors" or "investors" want to hide in the dark and throw cow pies and not be held responsible.
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
I wondered how long it would take for someone to ask this very relevant question. I don't take anything from DC lobbyists to be factual, until I see it for my own eyes.
Read the highlighted sentence. If that doesn't sound like a typical DC, "Hide the weenie," BS answer to a very important question, then I don't know what is. Maybe they pulled a Hillary, had a cold, fainted, and got amnesia when asked this question. Typical DC Beltway crap.
Attached is just a small list of the stuff Rick Berman is associated with and how much dough he gets for doing such. I don't begrudge anyone for making a great living; more power to him. Doesn't mean I believe a word the successful person says, just because he says so.
As far as this guilt by association, and why I asked the two questions I did, here is a ridiculous example that is far more direct connection to a "Greenie Front" group mentioned in many of the paragraphs of the Greendecoy report, Ted Turner and his enterprises. Once you read this connection, you will see how stupid it is to make these "connect the dots" assumptions the Berman and his DC Beltway boys excel in.
I often end up in discussions with the President of the Montana Outfitter and Guides Association. His office is a few miles from mine. I can see the properties he leases and outfits from my front porch. We have even bumped into each other while out hunting wolves on the public grounds.
The properties leased by the MOGA President are the Montana ranches of the "The Greenie King" himself, the Mouth of the South, Ted Turner. He leases some other ranches, but the majority of his hunts, and they are some super high dollar hunts, are on the Turner ranches.
So, we have the President of MOGA making the majority of his livelihood from a direct financial relationship with a Greenie that Berman and Company make as a primary target in the Greenie world, Ted Turner. Let me repeat - a direct and significant financial relationship exists between the President of the Montana Outfitter and Guides Association and Ted Turner.
I'm not talking a relationship that is six degrees removed as are most the associations provided by Berman in his Greendecoy report. This is a direct relationship.
To make it even worse, Turner does not let anyone, not even his outfitter, hunt wolves on his properties. As such, the largest wolf sanctuary in Montana, outside of Yellowstone National Parks, is the Turner properties leased by the President of MOGA. Talk about a difficult time trying to manage wolves, try to do it when they can run to the sanctuary of the Turner properties. And, outfitters would climb all over each other to lease said properties if ever the current outfitter were to walk away.
I could list many other Montana outfitters who lease properties from out-of-state billionaires, many of those billionaires being huge funders of the Greenie groups Berman and his clients hate. Using the Berman method, one could say that makes MOGA and its members Greenies. :yike:
So, if one were to use the stupid "connect the dots," "guilt by association" theory of Berman and the Greendecoy drivel, one could make a much closer connection that MOGA, and therefore its members such as Bear Paw, are in bed with the King Greenie himself, Ted Turner.
How stupid does the "connect the dots," "guilt by association" theory and philosophy look when applied to the MOGA example, a much closer connection than the far flung connection of Berman and Co in their attack on fellow hunters?
In the MOGA example above, it looks really stupid. And to anyone with much objectivity, the theory looks just as stupid when applied to the groups attacked in the Greendecoy report.
Post by: JLS on March 19, 2014, 10:09:18 AM
To those still drawing the guilt by association conclusion. The Meateater show must be a greenie affiliate too, because Steven Rinella is associated with the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP). The TRCP was also "exposed" by Green Decoy. :rolleyes:
http://www.trcp.org/community/conservation-field-notes (http://www.trcp.org/community/conservation-field-notes)
Take a look at some of the projects TRCP is undertaking. Looks to me like a good, solid, grassroots partnership that is getting some valuable work done. Farm Bill anyone?
http://www.trcp.org/community/trcp-sportsmen-values-mapping-project (http://www.trcp.org/community/trcp-sportsmen-values-mapping-project)
Here is a list of donors to the TRCP.
http://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/theodore-roosevelt-conservation-partnership/ (http://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/theodore-roosevelt-conservation-partnership/)
There is that greenie Ted Turner, who supports the greenie organization MOGA by employing its president, Rob Arnaud for 20 years. I also see in there the Tom Seibel Foundation, whom I have dealt with in the past. I can assure you that they are very pro-gun and very pro-hunting. They fund other silly stuff like the Montana Meth Project. I can very comfortably say that the Seibel Foundation people are astute and intelligent enough that they would not support an organization that is anti-gun and anti-hunting as Green Decoy alleges.
I think it's also important to point out that both the Western Conservation Foundation and the Wilburforce Foundation provided GRANT money (not donations, there is a difference) to organization for the purpose of conservation and education.
Here is a database of grants awarded by the Wilburforce Foundation.
http://www.wilburforce.org/grant-history (http://www.wilburforce.org/grant-history)
Now, when one looks at this you will find some names that are very green. Dig deeper though. For example the Y2Y organization has a listing of their collaborative projects. Take a look at their partners. Is the Montana Dept of Transportation an anti hunting organization, or are they merely trying to do something meaningful for the environment and the wildlife? Couldn't the same be asked of other collaborative partners?
Another grant recipient of the Wilburforce is the Nature Conservancy, which owns properties in Washington that are open for hunting, in an area that provides some valuable access to deer and upland bird habitat. This is a project in Montana that the Wilburforce has helped fund.
http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/montana/placesweprotect/montana-legacy-project.xml (http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/montana/placesweprotect/montana-legacy-project.xml)
As Randy pointed out, be careful in how you try to connect the dots.
Post by: jackelope on March 19, 2014, 11:45:36 AM
Is Trout Unlimited a greenie group? Is the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership a greenie group? Legit questions. I haven't spent as much time losing sleep over this as a lot of you have.
I have a request in to a couple sources asking permission to post their info here that will provide some insight into your questions. :tup:
Does anyone have an opinion on the groups I mentioned in this quote?
Anyone? (crickets??)
Just trying to do some learning here...
Anything?
Anybody?
Post by: Curly on March 19, 2014, 12:02:49 PM
Quote
TU has a basic approach to its conservation strategy. First, we use the best available science to protect headwater spawning habitat for trout and salmon. We reconnect tributaries with their rivers to ensure resilience, and we restore waters where development has impacted trout and salmon and the opportunity to fish for them. Second, we sustain our work on the ground by:
Using the best science to drive conservation priorities
Promoting and maintaining a strong legal and regulatory framework to protect fish and fishing opportunity
Connecting with passionate anglers who want to give back to the resource they value so much
Increasing our ability to engage TU members in conservation by training, educating and building a strong community of angler advocates
Connecting with generous donors and helping them give to the fish they cherish and the places they love
Helping members connect and communicate with one another via our website, TROUT Magazine and the TU Blog
They sound like a good group to me. Just like with any group, I'm sure there are a few wackos. It is a shame that the terms environmentalist and now greenie have become derogatory. As sportsmen, I think we all want a clean environment.....healthy wildlife and fish. And if organizations like DU, PF, TU, RMEF, etc, are made up of people concerned with the environment, what is the harm?
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 19, 2014, 12:28:34 PM
I don't know much about TU. (http://www.tu.org/about-tu) Just googled them and came up with:YES!!! We (hunters) need habitat to support the species we enjoy. "Conservation" should not be a derogatory term.QuoteTU has a basic approach to its conservation strategy. First, we use the best available science to protect headwater spawning habitat for trout and salmon. We reconnect tributaries with their rivers to ensure resilience, and we restore waters where development has impacted trout and salmon and the opportunity to fish for them. Second, we sustain our work on the ground by:
Using the best science to drive conservation priorities
Promoting and maintaining a strong legal and regulatory framework to protect fish and fishing opportunity
Connecting with passionate anglers who want to give back to the resource they value so much
Increasing our ability to engage TU members in conservation by training, educating and building a strong community of angler advocates
Connecting with generous donors and helping them give to the fish they cherish and the places they love
Helping members connect and communicate with one another via our website, TROUT Magazine and the TU Blog
They sound like a good group to me. Just like with any group, I'm sure there are a few wackos. It is a shame that the terms environmentalist and now greenie have become derogatory. As sportsmen, I think we all want a clean environment.....healthy wildlife and fish. And if organizations like DU, PU, TU, RMEF, etc, are made up of people concerned with the environment, what is the harm?
Post by: Northway on March 19, 2014, 12:40:22 PM
There are deep divisions among various environmental groups. In my opinion, the "green" movement only becomes more fractured over time. The issue of hunting not only pits environmental groups against each other, but also creates friction between donors within individual organizations. The real money in the environmental movement is just to the left of center. That fact has created substantial bitterness from vocal far left groups that envy those dollars. I would venture to guess that the distance between BHA and groups like Idaho for Wildlife is shorter than the distance between Forterra and the Western Watersheds Project.
I'm always suspicious of groups like WildEarth Guardians or Idaho for Wildlife who appear to drum up support by essentially listing everyone who doesn't support their platform as either delusional or an extremist. Some may argue that that approach pays dividends because it galvanizes support for a cause and ultimately gets watered down in resulting policy changes, but you're also manipulating less sophisticated voters, which in my opinion can also create a lot of collateral damage.
I know that WEG are enviro wackos, but you seem to paint IFW in a similar light, please explain why and what you know about what they do?
If you don't think IFW is at or near the fringe in terms of advocacy, which group would you place there? Would it be Save Western Wildlife? Some other Group? Or are there no groups on the other side that you believe would qualify as on the fringe?
Post by: huntnphool on March 19, 2014, 12:42:37 PM
Today, with three years of hindsight, those of us opposing I-161 have been proven correct in our assertion that it was a bad idea.
In what respects?
In what respects?
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on March 19, 2014, 12:46:19 PM
The properties leased by the MOGA President are the Montana ranches of the "The Greenie King" himself, the Mouth of the South, Ted Turner. He leases some other ranches, but the majority of his hunts, and they are some super high dollar hunts, are on the Turner ranches.
To make it even worse, Turner does not let anyone, not even his outfitter, hunt wolves on his properties. As such, the largest wolf sanctuary in Montana, outside of Yellowstone National Parks, is the Turner properties leased by the President of MOGA. Talk about a difficult time trying to manage wolves, try to do it when they can run to the sanctuary of the Turner properties. And, outfitters would climb all over each other to lease said properties if ever the current outfitter were to walk away.
So, if one were to use the stupid "connect the dots," "guilt by association" theory of Berman and the Greendecoy drivel, one could make a much closer connection that MOGA, and therefore its members such as Bear Paw, are in bed with the King Greenie himself, Ted Turner.
Now you just turned my world upside down Randy. You mean to tell me that wolf sanctuaries are being sought out as hunting areas by guides and outfitters as prime deer and elk hunting leases? And it's being done by the same guides and outfitters who are so vocal and shrill about wolves being the end of hunting of said deer and elk? And it's all owned by that green terrorist Ted Turner? And even Bearpaw is tainted in this scandal by his association with MOGA? And are you saying that if the President of MOGA gave up his leases on said Turner Property that Bearpaw himself would probably join the scramble himself to lease said property for deer and elk hunting?
Well I'm just going to have to sit down and examine my whole belief system and the meaning of life, because you just blew my mind. :dunno: :rolleyes: :chuckle: :tung:
Not really! In the long run, it's all about money and none of this surprises me.
Dale on the other hand may be a little shocked though to find out because of guilt by association, he's now been exposed as a greenie, environmentalistic, wolf hugger. What a shocking turn of events! This is better than a soap opera......... or even FaceBook! :IBCOOL: :chuckle: :o
Post by: Special T on March 19, 2014, 12:58:23 PM
Here are some examples of what can and does happen... As i like to say the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/14/wyoming-welder-faces-fine-for-building-pond-on-his-own-property/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/14/wyoming-welder-faces-fine-for-building-pond-on-his-own-property/)
Old thread about EPA trying to ban lead
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,11170.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,11170.0.html)
And i cannot find the article i read that talked about the "Sue and Settle" techniques used by Non profits and the EPA, inadditon to the the article i know was posted on here about how the USFS is sued, then fined for non compliance and the non profits are given "damages" and court mandates because the agency cannot comply quick enough... mostly because they are inundated with these kinds of lawsuits...
A pawn doesn't have to do something it normally won't to be useful. A little nudge or steering at the right time or in one direction is all it takes for a DIFFERENT organization to take advantage of it, creating opportunity AND cover. :twocents:
Post by: Special T on March 19, 2014, 01:13:01 PM
A "GOOD" project that i am aware of was some Corridor logging done in the mount baker area that my brother helped with. Strips of timber facing the north were logged about 500 yard long by 50 yards wide in a stand of timber Up and down hill from a logging road This created a lot of "Edge Habitat". It was logged via specific permission to do it that way on public land. It didn't COST the state anything, perhaps a little less revenue instead of a big clear cut because its was less efficient.
Perhaps some changes in logging practices in certain places, and or the building of stock ponds could achieve more gains than new land purchases... If that is how private individuals increase numbers on their land perhaps the state should do more of it. :twocents:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 19, 2014, 01:17:00 PM
One other point. It always appears that "Increasing habitat"= more acreage I believe that better habitat COULD be done with existing land.Really good point! We have a pile of degraded land that needs help. Weed control, logging, tree planting, stream work, road planting.... you name it.... Those things could increase the carrying capacity of our landscape a BUNCH!
Perhaps some changes in logging practices in certain places, and or the building of stock ponds could achieve more gains than new land purchases... If that is how private individuals increase numbers on their land perhaps the state should do more of it. :twocents:
Post by: JLS on March 19, 2014, 01:26:14 PM
One other point. It always appears that "Increasing habitat"= more acreage I believe that better habitat COULD be done with existing land.Really good point! We have a pile of degraded land that needs help. Weed control, logging, tree planting, stream work, road planting.... you name it.... Those things could increase the carrying capacity of our landscape a BUNCH!
Perhaps some changes in logging practices in certain places, and or the building of stock ponds could achieve more gains than new land purchases... If that is how private individuals increase numbers on their land perhaps the state should do more of it. :twocents:
Absolutely correct. There is an endless list of ways habitat could be improved. By stopping the natural cycle of burns, introducing noxious weeds, and concentrating livestock along riparian areas (to name a few things) we've done a lot over the years to screw up the habitat that was originally there.
Post by: huntnphool on March 19, 2014, 01:35:51 PM
:tup:One other point. It always appears that "Increasing habitat"= more acreage I believe that better habitat COULD be done with existing land.Really good point! We have a pile of degraded land that needs help. Weed control, logging, tree planting, stream work, road planting.... you name it.... Those things could increase the carrying capacity of our landscape a BUNCH!
Perhaps some changes in logging practices in certain places, and or the building of stock ponds could achieve more gains than new land purchases... If that is how private individuals increase numbers on their land perhaps the state should do more of it. :twocents:
Absolutely correct. There is an endless list of ways habitat could be improved. By stopping the natural cycle of burns, introducing noxious weeds, and concentrating livestock along riparian areas (to name a few things) we've done a lot over the years to screw up the habitat that was originally there.
Post by: Special T on March 19, 2014, 01:48:58 PM
IMO MORE land and NO managment is worse than no new acrage and a few projects each year... Take for example the Cherry Valley WDFW area the Happy Gilmore helped to organise some improvements to just by mowing a few times! So often (I have heard) that no one wants to OK projects that improve habitat, OR they want the massive funding to do a "Impact Study" For some BS like bigger culverts, stock ponds etc....
Post by: bearpaw on March 19, 2014, 02:17:54 PM
I'm chuckling over the wolf/greenie advocates who think they've finally proven ole Bearpaw wrong, these anti-hunting greenie fringe groups are now proven to be great and wonderful after all. How about a round of drinks for all. :brew: :brew: :brew:
I figured Randy was going to bring up that an outfitter was leasing hunting from Turner, that's why I referenced that in my reply to his questions. It's no big secret that everyone buys products and watches TV made by many anti-hunters and greenies, that's no different than an outfitter leasing hunting properties for his hunters from someone like Turner. At least this property is being utilized for hunting opportunity.
The big distinction is the outfitter doesn't have anti-hunting/greenie groups donating and supporting his hunting and outfitting business. You don't see the greenie groups supporting expansions of hunting opportunity and supporting hunters or hunting businesses because they do not support hunting or access for hunters.
Rather, you see the greenies supporting wolves, restricting hunting for predators, expanding wilderness, taking away hound hunting, outlawing trapping, complaining about outfitters packing hunters into the wilderness, and a variety of other actions that reduce opportunity for the majority of hunters. What you see is the greenies cleverly supporting fringe hunting organizations that want to take away opportunity from the vast majority of hunters to benefit themselves, and these fringe hunting groups think they are saving the world while their heads are buried too deep in the sand or elsewhere to see what's really happening.
You guys who claim you are hunters and support hunting by giving to fringe hunting/greenie groups are welcome to give your dollars to help take away opportunity from the vast majority of hunters. Please go ahead, feel free to donate your hard earned dollars to BHA and Conservation Northwest, etc, etc.
When North Cascades Park and Olympic Park double in size, when the remaining few access roads are removed from the Kettle Crest and Abercrombie areas and it becomes wilderness that 90% of you cannot access, when large areas of the Cascades and Blue mountains become wilderness, when the greenies finally get their huge Yukon to Yellowstone wilderness and you can no longer access those areas, and then when the greenie groups turn around and restrict horses from accessing the wilderness, then please remember, you donated your dollars and helped that happen. You helped that happen with your contributions to these fringe hunting organizations.
So please everyone, feel free to join and give your money to Back Country Hunters and Anglers so they can promote more wilderness and loss of hunting opportunity to the vast majority of hunters.
Hallelujah, beer for everyone.... :brew: :brew: :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on March 19, 2014, 02:29:14 PM
One other point. It always appears that "Increasing habitat"= more acreage I believe that better habitat COULD be done with existing land.Really good point! We have a pile of degraded land that needs help. Weed control, logging, tree planting, stream work, road planting.... you name it.... Those things could increase the carrying capacity of our landscape a BUNCH!
Perhaps some changes in logging practices in certain places, and or the building of stock ponds could achieve more gains than new land purchases... If that is how private individuals increase numbers on their land perhaps the state should do more of it. :twocents:
Absolutely correct. There is an endless list of ways habitat could be improved. By stopping the natural cycle of burns, introducing noxious weeds, and concentrating livestock along riparian areas (to name a few things) we've done a lot over the years to screw up the habitat that was originally there.
I would agree that habitat can be improved and when predators are managed we can fill the current habitat carrying capacity and any additional capacity that we gain with habitat improvements with other wildlife. One of the first things is that predators must be managed, currently we are losing our previously abundant wildlife on currently available habitat due to an over abundance of predators.
I just watched a documentary on public tv about Lewis and Clark, they practically starved in the Rocky Mountains, there was no wildlife, even though modern civilization had not laid a hand on those mountains.
Post by: bearpaw on March 19, 2014, 02:34:38 PM
I can give you one reason WHY its NOT happening... $$$ WDFW and many other agencies (Including schools Etc) Have become addicted to federal grants... My Moto is follow the $$$ and you will find the truth 90%+ of the time... Many of the federal grants are tied to purchasing land so that is what the agencies are doing...
IMO MORE land and NO managment is worse than no new acrage and a few projects each year... Take for example the Cherry Valley WDFW area the Happy Gilmore helped to organise some improvements to just by mowing a few times! So often (I have heard) that no one wants to OK projects that improve habitat, OR they want the massive funding to do a "Impact Study" For some BS like bigger culverts, stock ponds etc....
:yeah: Agreed, they really need to manage the land they have.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on March 19, 2014, 04:35:58 PM
I would agree that habitat can be improved and when predators are managed we can fill the current habitat carrying capacity and any additional capacity that we gain with habitat improvements with other wildlife. One of the first things is that predators must be managed, currently we are losing our previously abundant wildlife on currently available habitat due to an over abundance of predators.
I just watched a documentary on public tv about Lewis and Clark, they practically starved in the Rocky Mountains, there was no wildlife, even though modern civilization had not laid a hand on those mountains.
Most animals in those days lived down in the plains and in the edges of the Rockies. That was where the food was. The Rockies were a climax forest desert so to speak. Settlement and farming and hunting removed most of the animals on the plains and the few survivors were located in the hardest to get to places which were the mountains and canyons. Then forest fires took over and made the Rockies a cervid paradise and helped by more modern management policies, the animals came back in the mountains. But they weren't allowed to come back on the plains in abundance except for deer. Elk and bison are too much trouble for farmers for them to be brought back to the plains in any numbers.
Lewis and Clark weren't starving because of predators. They were starving because the habitat didn't support very many animals. And even though there were very few predators around after the herds recovered, there were still crashes in game populations when habitat grew old or herds got too big for what was available.
Post by: buckfvr on March 19, 2014, 05:03:54 PM
The cup is not half full...........its 3/4 friggin empty on this issue.....................
Post by: bearpaw on March 20, 2014, 08:34:26 AM
I would agree that habitat can be improved and when predators are managed we can fill the current habitat carrying capacity and any additional capacity that we gain with habitat improvements with other wildlife. One of the first things is that predators must be managed, currently we are losing our previously abundant wildlife on currently available habitat due to an over abundance of predators.
I just watched a documentary on public tv about Lewis and Clark, they practically starved in the Rocky Mountains, there was no wildlife, even though modern civilization had not laid a hand on those mountains.
Most animals in those days lived down in the plains and in the edges of the Rockies. That was where the food was. The Rockies were a climax forest desert so to speak. Settlement and farming and hunting removed most of the animals on the plains and the few survivors were located in the hardest to get to places which were the mountains and canyons. Then forest fires took over and made the Rockies a cervid paradise and helped by more modern management policies, the animals came back in the mountains. But they weren't allowed to come back on the plains in abundance except for deer. Elk and bison are too much trouble for farmers for them to be brought back to the plains in any numbers.
Lewis and Clark weren't starving because of predators. They were starving because the habitat didn't support very many animals. And even though there were very few predators around after the herds recovered, there were still crashes in game populations when habitat grew old or herds got too big for what was available.
:rolleyes: :chuckle:
Like you, I wasn't here to see exactly when lighting storms came into existence that cause forest fires. But, I find it highly unlikely there were never any forest fires before Lewis and Clark and that forest fires only occurred after Lewis & Clark. Why would there not be any lightning caused forest fires before Lewis and Clark?
What basis do you have to assume there were no forest fires or habitat before Lewis and Clark and to infer that lightning and forest fires only occurred after Lewis & Clark crossed the Rockies? Thank you for illustrating how "absurd" this greenie explanation sounds?
You claim cervids were on the prairies because of no forest fires or habitat in the mountains. Since it's highly unlikely there were no weather caused forest fires before Lewis and Clark it's far more likely that cervids were on the prairies and nearly non-existent in the mountains because they could only survive in open areas where they could see approaching predators. It's far more likely predators were the reason there were no cervids in the mountains.
I'm confident there have been forest fires all along for centuries and we know that when modern man inhabited the Rockies he replaced the forest fires with logging, so in reality forest regeneration has been occurring for centuries until about 20 years ago when the greenies stopped nearly all logging in many regions.
The biggest factor controlling cervids is most likely to be predator numbers. Trappers started trapping the west and began controlling predator numbers. In the early 1800's thousands of wolves were taken out of the west including Washington and that began helping other wildlife. Farming increased food sources and ungulate numbers increased for that reason too. During the early 1900's wolf eradication and the end of human market hunting helped cervids increase. During the mid 1900's cougar were hunted heavily with bounties and that resulted in ungulate numbers expanding again.
When cougar numbers dropped too low due to bounties in the 50's, 60's, and 70's the bounties were removed and cougar numbers rebounded. Because cougar and cervids were both carefully managed by hunters, both predators and ungulates thrived into this century, yes, wildlife management was working very well, if cervid or predator number expanded too much hunting seasons could take care of the problem.
Most hunters do appreciate predators as long as they are managed. As a hunter I wouldn't even mind a few wolves as long as it's a managed number that doesn't cause ungulate declines and reduce opportunity for hunters. Wolves could have fit in much better if the radical greenies didn't prevent proper wolf management.
Now that greenies have stopped forest regeneration (logging) and greenies have slowed or stopped most meaningful predator management during the last decade, ungulates are now declining in many areas. California is the greatest example of this cycle. Greenies have had the most influence for the longest time in CA, greenies have stopped practically all predator hunting and have stopped most logging on public lands for decades. California probably has the lowest ungulate populations in comparison to what used to exist a few decades ago.
The #1 controlling factor is most likely predators, even with the best mountain habitat ungulates cannot thrive if predators are unmanaged.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on March 20, 2014, 09:27:56 AM
Like you, I wasn't here to see exactly when lighting storms came into existence that cause forest fires. But, I find it highly unlikely there were never any forest fires before Lewis and Clark and that forest fires only occurred after Lewis & Clark. Why would there not be any lightning caused forest fires before Lewis and Clark?
What basis do you have to assume there were no forest fires or habitat before Lewis and Clark and to infer that lightning and forest fires only occurred after Lewis & Clark crossed the Rockies? Thank you for illustrating how "absurd" this greenie explanation sounds?
Here you go Dale, I'll help with your education again, not that it ever does any good. Here's the Idaho Dept of Fish and Wildlife elk report from 2013.
https://collaboration.idfg.idaho.gov/WildlifeTechnicalReports/Elk%20Statewide%20PR11.pdf
If you go down to page 21 of 157 you'll be in the Palouse Zone section and under historical perspective you'll see it says....
"Historical Perspective...
Historically, elk herds were scattered and numbers were low in this area. Few big game animals
were found along Clearwater River by Lewis and Clark in the early 1800s, probably due in part
to the dense, unbroken canopy of forest that covered the entire area. Wildfires burned over vast
expanses near the beginning of the twentieth century, creating vast brush-fields that provided
abundant forage areas for elk. Elk numbers increased following creation of these brush-fields,
and elk numbers apparently peaked around 1950. Elk herds declined, however, through the latter
part of that decade and the 1960s and 1970s, partially due to: 1) maturation of brush-fields and
declines in forage availability; 2) logging and road-building activity that increased vulnerability of
elk to hunters under the then more liberal hunting seasons; and 3) loss of some major winter
ranges. In response to declines in elk numbers, an either-sex hunting regime was replaced in
1976 with an antlered-only general hunting season. Elk herds then began rebuilding."
It says the same thing if you go to page 24 of 157 in the historical perspective of the Lolo Zone.
I know, I know, you don't like science and Idaho Wildlife Dept must be filled with "Greenies" who would put forth such a report and the idea that the panhandle in the days of Lewis and Clark was covered by trees that lightning fires hadn't managed to burn. And finally 100 years later they did burn extensively and it caused a boom in the elk population.
Go ahead, refute what I said and refute the biologists that prepared this report. Stick your head in the sand and pretend I just want to hug trees and wolves.
Post by: bearpaw on March 20, 2014, 09:48:11 AM
Like you, I wasn't here to see exactly when lighting storms came into existence that cause forest fires. But, I find it highly unlikely there were never any forest fires before Lewis and Clark and that forest fires only occurred after Lewis & Clark. Why would there not be any lightning caused forest fires before Lewis and Clark?
What basis do you have to assume there were no forest fires or habitat before Lewis and Clark and to infer that lightning and forest fires only occurred after Lewis & Clark crossed the Rockies? Thank you for illustrating how "absurd" this greenie explanation sounds?
Here you go Dale, I'll help with your education again, not that it ever does any good. Here's the Idaho Dept of Fish and Wildlife elk report from 2013.
https://collaboration.idfg.idaho.gov/WildlifeTechnicalReports/Elk%20Statewide%20PR11.pdf
If you go down to page 21 of 157 you'll be in the Palouse Zone section and under historical perspective you'll see it says....
"Historical Perspective...
Historically, elk herds were scattered and numbers were low in this area. Few big game animals
were found along Clearwater River by Lewis and Clark in the early 1800s, probably due in part
to the dense, unbroken canopy of forest that covered the entire area. Wildfires burned over vast
expanses near the beginning of the twentieth century, creating vast brush-fields that provided
abundant forage areas for elk. Elk numbers increased following creation of these brush-fields,
and elk numbers apparently peaked around 1950. Elk herds declined, however, through the latter
part of that decade and the 1960s and 1970s, partially due to: 1) maturation of brush-fields and
declines in forage availability; 2) logging and road-building activity that increased vulnerability of
elk to hunters under the then more liberal hunting seasons; and 3) loss of some major winter
ranges. In response to declines in elk numbers, an either-sex hunting regime was replaced in
1976 with an antlered-only general hunting season. Elk herds then began rebuilding."
It says the same thing if you go to page 24 of 157 in the historical perspective of the Lolo Zone.
I know, I know, you don't like science and Idaho Wildlife Dept must be filled with "Greenies" who would put forth such a report and the idea that the panhandle in the days of Lewis and Clark was covered by trees that lightning fires hadn't managed to burn. And finally 100 years later they did burn extensively and it caused a boom in the elk population.
Go ahead, refute what I said and refute the biologists that prepared this report. Stick your head in the sand and pretend I just want to hug trees and wolves.
Well the people of Idaho had to axe a couple managers in IDFG in order to get meaningful wolf management in Idaho. Our agencies are full of greenies who went to college to become biologists and managers so now they are reaping the benefits of being in positions to alter game management. I highly suspect the biologist who penned that scenario really believes he is spreading the gospel, but like most greenie theories maybe he needs to review this theory and consider the absurdity.
It certainly doesn't take a rocket scientist to know with relative certainty that lightning and forest fires didn't begin only after Lewis and Clark crossed the Rockies. :chuckle:
Post by: idahohuntr on March 20, 2014, 10:06:57 AM
Like you, I wasn't here to see exactly when lighting storms came into existence that cause forest fires. But, I find it highly unlikely there were never any forest fires before Lewis and Clark and that forest fires only occurred after Lewis & Clark. Why would there not be any lightning caused forest fires before Lewis and Clark?
What basis do you have to assume there were no forest fires or habitat before Lewis and Clark and to infer that lightning and forest fires only occurred after Lewis & Clark crossed the Rockies? Thank you for illustrating how "absurd" this greenie explanation sounds?
I don't recall sitka saying there were never forest fires before Lewis and Clark...but if you know anything about wildlife habitat/forests it is pretty well established that forests go through a process called succession...if much of the land was in climax forest stage (meaning mature forests) then there was probably very little forage at the time that Lewis and Clark traveled through which would mean fewer elk and deer. This does not mean that xxx years before Lewis and Clark there were not large fires that created abundant forage and elk numbers would have been much higher than when L&C traveled through. It is pretty well established that large fires (or mimicing large fires via logging) stimulates growth of important elk forage...but you probably really don't understand any of this and would rather just call these basic concepts some "greenie" enviro agenda to suit your beliefs that until man showed up and put a bounty on wolves and lions there was just no darn elk. I know this probably makes your head hurt when you step back and have to think that there is more to elk and deer population numbers than simply how many of them get eaten by wolves.
I know, I know, you don't like science and Idaho Wildlife Dept must be filled with "Greenies" who would put forth such a report and the idea that the panhandle in the days of Lewis and Clark was covered by trees that lightning fires hadn't managed to burn. And finally 100 years later they did burn extensively and it caused a boom in the elk population.:yeah: :chuckle: Thats his go to move!
Go ahead, refute what I said and refute the biologists that prepared this report. Stick your head in the sand and pretend I just want to hug trees and wolves.
Post by: kentrek on March 20, 2014, 10:17:23 AM
Sooo could lightning be a result of early global warming if it didnt show up till "the big burn" ? :tinfoil: :tinfoil:
:chuckle:
Post by: idahohuntr on March 20, 2014, 10:26:32 AM
Well the people of Idaho had to axe a couple managers in IDFG in order to get meaningful wolf management in Idaho.There you go spouting misinformation again. Please do tell me who "the people of Idaho" axed at IDFG??? The guys in charge at IDFG have been in the agency a long, long time...Jim Unsworth, Virgil Moore, etc. The wildlife bios in North and Central Idaho...been there a long time, still work there.
Post by: Special T on March 20, 2014, 10:34:46 AM
Post by: bearpaw on March 20, 2014, 10:57:05 AM
I don't recall sitka saying there were never forest fires before Lewis and Clark...but if you know anything about wildlife habitat/forests it is pretty well established that forests go through a process called succession...if much of the land was in climax forest stage (meaning mature forests) then there was probably very little forage at the time that Lewis and Clark traveled through which would mean fewer elk and deer. This does not mean that xxx years before Lewis and Clark there were not large fires that created abundant forage and elk numbers would have been much higher than when L&C traveled through. It is pretty well established that large fires (or mimicing large fires via logging) stimulates growth of important elk forage...but you probably really don't understand any of this and would rather just call these basic concepts some "greenie" enviro agenda to suit your beliefs that until man showed up and put a bounty on wolves and lions there was just no darn elk. I know this probably makes your head hurt when you step back and have to think that there is more to elk and deer population numbers than simply how many of them get eaten by wolves.
Idahohntr, I know that I can always count on you for an insult or two, thanks for confirming that. I'm also not surprised to see you try to cover for Sitka's lack of insight on that issue.
The Rockies were a climax forest desert so to speak. Settlement and farming and hunting removed most of the animals on the plains and the few survivors were located in the hardest to get to places which were the mountains and canyons. Then forest fires took over and made the Rockies a cervid paradise and helped by more modern management policies, the animals came back in the mountains. But they weren't allowed to come back on the plains in abundance except for deer. Elk and bison are too much trouble for farmers for them to be brought back to the plains in any numbers.
Lewis and Clark weren't starving because of predators. They were starving because the habitat didn't support very many animals. And even though there were very few predators around after the herds recovered, there were still crashes in game populations when habitat grew old or herds got too big for what was available.
Please read, Sitka says forest fires occurring after Lewis and Clark crossed the Rockies and that brought back cervids. He used that to support his theory that Lewis and Clark weren't starving due to predator impacts. That infers that there weren't enough fires before Lewis and Clark to support cervids. I think his reply to my comments further indicates his dependence on that belief. If he wants to change that claim that is fine, I know that I certainly would.
So what does this greenie fire theory prove? Nothing, and I'll help you understand why.
In Yellowstone there had not been any big fires for decades, finally we had the big fire that burned much of the park. However, prior to that fire elk were already extremely plentiful in YNP in spite of the over aged forest in the park. This is proven by the fact that roughly half the herds migrated out of the park to winter and hunters were given hundreds or thousands of tags every winter to thin the YNP herd. It wasn't until Canadian wolves were introduced that elk numbers crashed and the Yellowstone late hunts had to be eliminated to save the elk herd. In fact YNP officials even claimed that there were too many elk before the wolves. It's obvious Lewis and Clark would not have starved in this portion of the Rocky Mountains that had over aged forests and too many elk during the last 30 years. So this whole aging forest habitat theory isn't worth the paper it's written on. Sure herds will increase or decrease a certain degree with forest age, but the biggest factor to affect cervids is an over abundance of predators and that is pretty easy to see for anyone with an open mind to look at the facts. The elk herds only crashed after wolves were introduced and left unmanaged. :twocents:
Post by: idahohuntr on March 20, 2014, 11:41:32 AM
Now, since you don't want to talk science please address my other question: Who was axed at IDFG "by the people of Idaho"? Please be specific...or retract your mis-informed statement.
Post by: bearpaw on March 20, 2014, 12:18:54 PM
Your yellowstone example is full of fallacies,...but lets just get one thing straight: Logging and fires have huge impacts to elk numbers and if you can't see that...well there is no point trying to explain it to you. The boom in elk numbers in Idaho in the 70's and 80's was a direct result of heavy logging post WWII. :tup:
Now, since you don't want to talk science please address my other question: Who was axed at IDFG "by the people of Idaho"? Please be specific...or retract your mis-informed statement.
Dude, I am all about the real science. What are you talking about that I don't agree with logging/fire improving elk numbers? Of course it does! I always say we need more logging. :dunno:
Idaho got rid of their former director and the Salmon region director (maybe you think they retired on their own wishes) both of which were big supporters of wolves. It's no secret the IDFG leadership is much better now, thus better wolf management decisions being made, but there are still a few IDFG wolf supporters which need to hit the road.
Post by: idahohuntr on March 20, 2014, 12:38:56 PM
So this whole aging forest habitat theory isn't worth the paper it's written on.This is where I am getting your "logging and fire don't improve elk numbers" stance. But they say 90% of communication is non-verbal so maybe I missed something... :dunno: :brew:
Im not sure which guys specifically you are talking about Former director and Salmon region RS...the most recent ones to retire? However, the primary biologists and wildlife admin staff are the same guys and have been for at least the last 12-15 years or so. I do not believe there are any "greenies" with any power at all in IDFG...they are very much a hook and bullet agency from top to bottom.
Post by: bearpaw on March 20, 2014, 01:31:56 PM
So this whole aging forest habitat theory isn't worth the paper it's written on.This is where I am getting your "logging and fire don't improve elk numbers" stance. But they say 90% of communication is non-verbal so maybe I missed something... :dunno: :brew:
Im not sure which guys specifically you are talking about Former director and Salmon region RS...the most recent ones to retire? However, the primary biologists and wildlife admin staff are the same guys and have been for at least the last 12-15 years or so. I do not believe there are any "greenies" with any power at all in IDFG...they are very much a hook and bullet agency from top to bottom.
Yes, you must have misunderstood that, maybe I wrote it in a confusing manner, sorry if I did.
What I explicitly meant is that habitat theory is not an accurate explanation for not having any elk in the mountains when L&C crossed the Rockies, this is proven by the large elk herds in YNP prior to the big fire and intro of wolves. YNP history shows us there can be large numbers of elk in an over aged forest with other predators until there are large numbers of unmanaged wolves.