Post by: ribka on February 15, 2019, 06:33:05 PM
Can someone explain why BHA would aligned themselves with an organization run by an anti hunting eco terrorist?
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/wa_bha_comments_6140
Post by: KFhunter on February 15, 2019, 06:36:34 PM
Post by: h20hunter on February 15, 2019, 06:42:01 PM
Post by: ribka on February 15, 2019, 06:45:44 PM
I’m not too bright but maybe someone can explain to me that BHA suports legal ethical hunting.
Love to hear the twisted logic. :dunno:
Post by: Stein on February 15, 2019, 06:53:58 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: KFhunter on February 15, 2019, 06:56:32 PM
They dupe hunters into joining, as you were Ribka, in order to show a "bi-partisan" or broad base support for their greater agenda of making more wilderness areas and shutting down access to many hunting and fishing areas. Oh they'll say they are for increased access, but it's political double speak, that access isn't viable for the majority of hunters and fishermen.
The water thing in Montana is a great example, so much for motoring to your duck hunting spot, you'll have to paddle a canoe or not at all. That in effect closes off a majority of the river systems in Montana, a guy can only paddle upriver so far!
"look, hunters support this too!" say's the Sierra Club and CNW as they cozy up with BHA.
Post by: ribka on February 15, 2019, 07:09:35 PM
The link is a stance of BHA opposed to the transfer of public land, what connection is there to bear hunting?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The link notes the conservation chair for BHA is the spokesperson for CNW
The head and founder of CNW, Mitch Friedman, is a self admitted eco terrorist who engaged in terrorist activities against the logging industry. He helped get most logging on public lands shut down in the western US with resulted in a environmental disaster and huge forest fires in the western US the past 30 years.
The forest fires killed countless elk , mule deer and endangered species and released 1000’s of Tons of carbon into the atmosphere. Ironically Mitch Friedman just came out in favor of a carbon tax in Washington https://www.conservationnw.org/news-updates/statement-endorsing-initiative-1631/
so CNW could cash out on regressive taxes that affected primarily poor minority groups. And as documented CNW pushed uncontrolled Canadian wolf expansion into Washington and Oregon. And CNW has closebties with anti hunting groups at least according to their social media
Crazy that supposedly pro hunting BHA would align themselves with these anti hunting kooks and scam artists
Post by: mtn muley madness on February 15, 2019, 07:15:46 PM
Chase Gunnel-Communications director at CNW
On CNW's meet our staff web page there is also a lady wearing a BHA t-shirt who is the finance manager.
BHA is nothing more than a platform for groups like CNW. They fight the fights groups like CNW want to fight but don't want to take the heat on because they may be controversial or a 'hot topic.' Instead they mask it as hunters and fisherman so people turn on them not the true enviro groups.
The poo runs deep.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 15, 2019, 07:21:35 PM
I used to be a member of BHA in Washington until I saw they aligned themselves with the anti hunting organization Conservation NW. the conservation chair for BHA is also the spokesman for conservation NW.It appears to me that you are suggesting anyone that has the same view on a position (say, opposing a specific land transfer bill) means they are "aligned" in all other ways? That's just dumb, so you must be suggesting something here that I'm not understanding.
Can someone explain why BHA would aligned themselves with an organization run by an anti hunting eco terrorist?
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/wa_bha_comments_6140
If you are suggesting BHA is anti-hunting - how do explain the mountain of evidence to the contrary? For example, I think I've watched a tv show where the WA chair of BHA hound hunts lions with Steve Rinella...certainly you would not consider that an anti hunting platform, would you?
Post by: dwils233 on February 15, 2019, 07:22:07 PM
The more I learn about BHA the worse it gets, there's no denying the vast majority of their funding comes from radical environmental groups.
They dupe hunters into joining, as you were Ribka, in order to show a "bi-partisan" or broad base support for their greater agenda of making more wilderness areas and shutting down access to many hunting and fishing areas. Oh they'll say they are for increased access, but it's political double speak, that access isn't viable for the majority of hunters and fishermen
Said once on here so I'll say it again:
If BHA takes money from "radical environmentalist" sources- is that a bad thing? As long as BHA continues doing it's mission, that's less money they would give to org's working against that mission. There's only so much money in that pie and it's much better if BHA gets it over say Greenpeace
Finally, it behooves people accusing BHA of this conspiracy to undermine hunting and access to play the story out all the way. Once again- are all these companies secretly anti-hunting or just so niaive and stupid they all got conned into GIVING PROFITS away to destroy their own busnet by funding an anti-hunting organization?? Rinella, Newberg, Trump Jr. Then would all have to be stupid or anti-hunting? I don't even want that to sound sarcastic, seriously asking to know what anti-bha'ers think is the rationale.
As far as the CNW thing goes....having and using someone as an ally doesn't mean you always agree with them about everything. It might mean you agree on one thing and work towards that together while holding on to deep and fundamental differences on other issues.
Post by: KFhunter on February 15, 2019, 07:24:42 PM
Post by: dwils233 on February 15, 2019, 07:43:39 PM
I'm sure all that money comes with no strings :rolleyes:
Sure, if by strings you mean " awarded a grant based on meeting the outlined requirements during the submission process" with the only strings being to attempt to fulfill the intent for which the grant was issued.
And I guess every corporate sponsor of BHA is in on the conspiracy too then?? Or just bad at and ignorant of their own business interests?
Post by: KFhunter on February 15, 2019, 07:59:26 PM
That's a good one!!
Post by: ribka on February 15, 2019, 08:01:37 PM
CNW supported legislation to shut down hunting seasons in Washington. I guess that is why I think they’re anti hunting but maybe not as smart as you to decipher the nuances lol
What about Mitch Friedman is a self admitted eco terrorist who destroyed personal property and spiked trees on Public land, our trees, that injured innocent loggers just engaged in
Lawful employment trying to feed their families.
How Are all the wolves pushed by CNW benefiting highly endangered mountain caribou herd in N Idaho. I believe they were wiped out. So
Much for the eco terrorist concern for endangered wildlife.
I can’t stop laughing at the excuses made for the scam group CNW. :hello:
I used to be a member of BHA in Washington until I saw they aligned themselves with the anti hunting organization Conservation NW. the conservation chair for BHA is also the spokesman for conservation NW.It appears to me that you are suggesting anyone that has the same view on a position (say, opposing a specific land transfer bill) means they are "aligned" in all other ways? That's just dumb, so you must be suggesting something here that I'm not understanding.
Can someone explain why BHA would aligned themselves with an organization run by an anti hunting eco terrorist?
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/wa_bha_comments_6140
If you are suggesting BHA is anti-hunting - how do explain the mountain of evidence to the contrary? For example, I think I've watched a tv show where the WA chair of BHA hound hunts lions with Steve Rinella...certainly you would not consider that an anti hunting platform, would you?
Post by: dwils233 on February 15, 2019, 08:25:38 PM
So your argument is that BHA is a money laundering organization, turning radical environmental terrorist money into good clean money for hunters :chuckle:
That's a good one!!
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic, intentionally obtuse or antagonistic but being awarded a grant is not the same as money laundering. if a organization that does veteran rehab/therpy by taking them hunting or fishing wins a grant from a pubic health non-profit, it doesn't mean they "laundered the money into a radical militant group" it means the veteran group wrote a proposal that the grant issuing body believes falls within the purview of the applications and awards.
I am doing my level best to engage in this as a conversation in a good faith outreach with someone/peoplre who obviously hold a different perspective than me. I'm not trying to do anything other than answer the question (in my perception) as it was originally posed.
Post by: hunter399 on February 15, 2019, 08:35:46 PM
Post by: ribka on February 15, 2019, 08:38:16 PM
https://www.conservationnw.org/of-cougars-science-and-public-trust/
Maybe you can spin this too :chuckle:
I used to be a member of BHA in Washington until I saw they aligned themselves with the anti hunting organization Conservation NW. the conservation chair for BHA is also the spokesman for conservation NW.It appears to me that you are suggesting anyone that has the same view on a position (say, opposing a specific land transfer bill) means they are "aligned" in all other ways? That's just dumb, so you must be suggesting something here that I'm not understanding.
Can someone explain why BHA would aligned themselves with an organization run by an anti hunting eco terrorist?
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/wa_bha_comments_6140
If you are suggesting BHA is anti-hunting - how do explain the mountain of evidence to the contrary? For example, I think I've watched a tv show where the WA chair of BHA hound hunts lions with Steve Rinella...certainly you would not consider that an anti hunting platform, would you?
Post by: KFhunter on February 15, 2019, 08:39:03 PM
So your argument is that BHA is a money laundering organization, turning radical environmental terrorist money into good clean money for hunters :chuckle:
That's a good one!!
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic, intentionally obtuse or antagonistic but being awarded a grant is not the same as money laundering. if a organization that does veteran rehab/therpy by taking them hunting or fishing wins a grant from a pubic health non-profit, it doesn't mean they "laundered the money into a radical militant group" it means the veteran group wrote a proposal that the grant issuing body believes falls within the purview of the applications and awards.
I am doing my level best to engage in this as a conversation in a good faith outreach with someone/peoplre who obviously hold a different perspective than me. I'm not trying to do anything other than answer the question (in my perception) as it was originally posed.
I'm sorry, did you read the last thread discussing BHA's funding and being labeled as a green decoy?
I was assuming you had, if not here's some reading to see what I'm referring too
https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,235660.0.html
the fact is most of BHA's funding is from radical environmental groups, not grants.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 15, 2019, 08:41:43 PM
I'm not following - I'm talking about BHA...not CNW. You are saying because two separate groups both oppose a piece of legislation they are aligned in all other ways? BHA is not anti hunting...so thats an absurd argument. I don't even care if one of their volunteers works for CNW. Show me where BHA is doing things to undermine hunting and promote anti hunting initiatives...please hurry...I think its important we alert Kimber, Weatherby, Cooper Firearms, Federal Premium ammo, and many other big hunting and firearms businesses that they've all been duped! :chuckle:
CNW supported legislation to shut down hunting seasons in Washington. I guess that is why I think they’re anti hunting but maybe not as smart as you to decipher the nuances lol
What about Mitch Friedman is a self admitted eco terrorist who destroyed personal property and spiked trees on Public land, our trees, that injured innocent loggers just engaged in
Lawful employment trying to feed their families.
How Are all the wolves pushed by CNW benefiting highly endangered mountain caribou herd in N Idaho. I believe they were wiped out. So
Much for the eco terrorist concern for endangered wildlife.
I can’t stop laughing at the excuses made for the scam group CNW. :hello:I used to be a member of BHA in Washington until I saw they aligned themselves with the anti hunting organization Conservation NW. the conservation chair for BHA is also the spokesman for conservation NW.It appears to me that you are suggesting anyone that has the same view on a position (say, opposing a specific land transfer bill) means they are "aligned" in all other ways? That's just dumb, so you must be suggesting something here that I'm not understanding.
Can someone explain why BHA would aligned themselves with an organization run by an anti hunting eco terrorist?
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/wa_bha_comments_6140
If you are suggesting BHA is anti-hunting - how do explain the mountain of evidence to the contrary? For example, I think I've watched a tv show where the WA chair of BHA hound hunts lions with Steve Rinella...certainly you would not consider that an anti hunting platform, would you?
Post by: grundy53 on February 15, 2019, 08:42:55 PM
A high ranking BHA member in Colorado chapter helped get spring bear season shut downHe's actually the chair/founder of the Colorado chapter and now he's fighting Colorado's state bow association
I’m not too bright but maybe someone can explain to me that BHA suports legal ethical hunting.
Love to hear the twisted logic. :dunno:
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: grundy53 on February 15, 2019, 08:45:31 PM
You are judged by the company you keep. BHA is pro hunting as long as you do it their way...I used to be a member of BHA in Washington until I saw they aligned themselves with the anti hunting organization Conservation NW. the conservation chair for BHA is also the spokesman for conservation NW.It appears to me that you are suggesting anyone that has the same view on a position (say, opposing a specific land transfer bill) means they are "aligned" in all other ways? That's just dumb, so you must be suggesting something here that I'm not understanding.
Can someone explain why BHA would aligned themselves with an organization run by an anti hunting eco terrorist?
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/wa_bha_comments_6140
If you are suggesting BHA is anti-hunting - how do explain the mountain of evidence to the contrary? For example, I think I've watched a tv show where the WA chair of BHA hound hunts lions with Steve Rinella...certainly you would not consider that an anti hunting platform, would you?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: SWHUNTER on February 15, 2019, 08:47:54 PM
Post by: grundy53 on February 15, 2019, 09:01:57 PM
Does BHA views on Grizzly reintroduction in the North Cascades align with CNW's view?Or ask their views on hunting Grizzlies. Since they are such good pals with Patagonia. Patagonia is one of the groups that sued to stop Wyoming and Idaho from having grizzly hunts.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: grundy53 on February 15, 2019, 09:03:08 PM
And Patagonia?I'm not following - I'm talking about BHA...not CNW. You are saying because two separate groups both oppose a piece of legislation they are aligned in all other ways? BHA is not anti hunting...so thats an absurd argument. I don't even care if one of their volunteers works for CNW. Show me where BHA is doing things to undermine hunting and promote anti hunting initiatives...please hurry...I think its important we alert Kimber, Weatherby, Cooper Firearms, Federal Premium ammo, and many other big hunting and firearms businesses that they've all been duped! :chuckle:
CNW supported legislation to shut down hunting seasons in Washington. I guess that is why I think they’re anti hunting but maybe not as smart as you to decipher the nuances lol
What about Mitch Friedman is a self admitted eco terrorist who destroyed personal property and spiked trees on Public land, our trees, that injured innocent loggers just engaged in
Lawful employment trying to feed their families.
How Are all the wolves pushed by CNW benefiting highly endangered mountain caribou herd in N Idaho. I believe they were wiped out. So
Much for the eco terrorist concern for endangered wildlife.
I can’t stop laughing at the excuses made for the scam group CNW. :hello:I used to be a member of BHA in Washington until I saw they aligned themselves with the anti hunting organization Conservation NW. the conservation chair for BHA is also the spokesman for conservation NW.It appears to me that you are suggesting anyone that has the same view on a position (say, opposing a specific land transfer bill) means they are "aligned" in all other ways? That's just dumb, so you must be suggesting something here that I'm not understanding.
Can someone explain why BHA would aligned themselves with an organization run by an anti hunting eco terrorist?
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/wa_bha_comments_6140
If you are suggesting BHA is anti-hunting - how do explain the mountain of evidence to the contrary? For example, I think I've watched a tv show where the WA chair of BHA hound hunts lions with Steve Rinella...certainly you would not consider that an anti hunting platform, would you?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: mfswallace on February 15, 2019, 09:04:17 PM
BHA
Reveals Their Radical Side
Posted by Macon Richardson 1321sc on May 20, 2016
6a31d5e51feb8b88ac4ad4506012e7ef158f2757496169baa95f131f4b3bbe56_large.jpeg
Backcountry Hunters & Anglers (BHA), a deceptively named environmentalist group, has exposed its true, radical intentions by proposing extreme restrictions for anglers, boaters, and others in Montana.
The proposal, called the “Quiet Waters Initiative,” seeks to restrict motorized watercraft on over 50 Montana waterways. An article in the Independent Record states:
“BHA presents recommendations to drastically restrict waterways without demonstrating any necessity to protect public health, public safety, public welfare, or to protect property and public resources,” [Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks] FWP says in agenda materials.
"The initiative claims safety concerns, yet Montana already has laws against operating a vessel in a reckless or negligent manner, and the initiative’s name implies it is primarily focused on eliminating the noise engines produce, the agency [FWP] says."
Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is identified as a “green decoy” group because of its deceptive title. Its name appears to be friendly to hunters, sportsmen and firearms enthusiasts, but behind the outdoorsy name is a group funded by leftist foundations and environmentalists, with goals very different than those supported by true hunters, anglers and sportsmen. The research website, “Activist Facts,” points out:
“BHA represents itself as good-ole-boy outdoorsmen who simply want to hunt and fish and be left alone. But don’t be fooled. As evidenced by both its sources of funding and current leadership, BHA is nothing more than a big green activist organization pushing a radical environmentalist agenda.”
Activist Facts identifies BHA’s largest funding sources as the Western Conservation Foundation (WCF), which in 2011 and 2012 donated $278,423 to BHA. WCF has given to other known far-left radical groups including Earth Justice and the Tides Foundation. BHA also receives donations from the Wilburforce Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts, and several other foundations known for their extremist ideological leanings.
Land Tawny, the director of BHA, is also a leftist operative who ran the liberal political action committee (PAC) with an equally-deceptive name, “Montana Hunters and Anglers Leadership Fund (MHA),” which, according to Activist Facts: “
…spent $1.1 million against Republican U.S. Senate candidate Danny Rehberg, who was challenging Democratic U.S. Sen. Jon Tester. [Land Tawny’s PAC] also spent $500,000 in support of the libertarian candidate as a strategy of drawing votes away from the Republican. MHA received several hundred thousand dollars from the League of Conservation Voters, a liberal environmentalist group.”
Given the radical environmentalist roots and affiliations of BHA, it’s not surprising that they lobby hard against local government in favor of continued federal control of public lands, water, and resources. In its attempt to deceive and frighten Americans into embracing federal control of public lands, BHA spreads false narratives such as:
State and local control of public lands will limit access for hunters and sportsmen
Public lands transfer will result in sell-off and privatization of public lands
Not only are these talking points untrue, they’re nearly opposite of the truth. The facts show that the federal government regularly auctions off public lands, and restrictions to public lands are enacted regularly by federal agencies.
By proposing extreme restrictions on boating, fishing, and other outdoor activities on Montana’s rivers, lakes and streams, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers has ironically revealed its radical identity. This green decoy’s true goals are increased restrictions, decreased access, and decreased freedom for everyone on America’s public lands.
Post by: dwils233 on February 15, 2019, 09:07:18 PM
So your argument is that BHA is a money laundering organization, turning radical environmental terrorist money into good clean money for hunters :chuckle:
That's a good one!!
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic, intentionally obtuse or antagonistic but being awarded a grant is not the same as money laundering. if a organization that does veteran rehab/therpy by taking them hunting or fishing wins a grant from a pubic health non-profit, it doesn't mean they "laundered the money into a radical militant group" it means the veteran group wrote a proposal that the grant issuing body believes falls within the purview of the applications and awards.
I am doing my level best to engage in this as a conversation in a good faith outreach with someone/peoplre who obviously hold a different perspective than me. I'm not trying to do anything other than answer the question (in my perception) as it was originally posed.
I'm sorry, did you read the last thread discussing BHA's funding and being labeled as a green decoy?
I was assuming you had, if not here's some reading to see what I'm referring too
https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,235660.0.html
the fact is most of BHA's funding is from radical environmental groups, not grants.
links not working for me, but if its the one I remember I did comment on that one as well- with the exact same points I raised earlier in this thread.
Either BHA has conned major players like DJT jr, Rinella and Newberg, as well as hugely successful firearm and hunting companies OR those companies and people really really bad at protecting their business interests OR they are part of BHA's conspiracy to destroy hunting.
and as far the they tax reporting for BHA goes, their primary funding is from one line item "contributions/grants" most of the time funds/trusts, non-profits don't do blank contributions they give out money through grant cycles/requests. My point with that has always been if some radical environmental group is going to give away money towards a environmental/conservation program BHA is no matter what a better option than HSUS or greenpeace. and I totally understand that other people view this as a more black and white situation than I do......but if we start talking about never taking money from an organization that might also give money to org we don't like....we're going to start losing faster and harder than ever- because than greenpeace/hsus gets all the money and we lose a seat at the table that we worked really hard to earn as a valid voice in preserving our wildlife and lands in a room full of people/orgs who already are apprehensive of us
Post by: mfswallace on February 15, 2019, 09:08:20 PM
BY ROCKY BARKER
APRIL 16, 2018 07:15 PM,
UPDATED APRIL 18, 2018 05:22 PM
Bob Anderson, of Meridian, looks on as Clay Hayes, a bowmaker at Twisted Stave, takes aim at a target on April 15, 2018. The Backcountry Hunters & Anglers rendezvous wrapped up at the archery range at Boise’s Military Reserve after a weekend of seminars and events dedicated to outdoor recreation and public land use.
Bob Anderson, of Meridian, looks on as Clay Hayes, a bowmaker at Twisted Stave, takes aim at a target on April 15, 2018. The Backcountry Hunters & Anglers rendezvous wrapped up at the archery range at Boise’s Military Reserve after a weekend of seminars and events dedicated to outdoor recreation and public land use. NICOLE BLANCHARD NBLANCHARD@IDAHOSTATESMAN.COM
They are fit, young and diverse. They are obsessed with hunting and fishing. And they’re doing everything they can to protect public lands, access to rivers and wildlife habitat.
Membership in Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, the organization that held its annual rendezvous in Boise this weekend, is growing — fighting the trend of fewer hunters nationwide.
BHA began around a campfire in Oregon in 2004. It had fewer than 2,000 members five years ago. That’s become 20,000 members today, in 41 chapters across 39 states and two Canadian provinces — and the group expects to hit 30,000 by the end of this year.
More than 1,300 people came to Boise on Saturday, wearing T-shirts that said “Public Land Owner” and “Hunt to Eat,” to participate in seminars about wolves, fish handling and calling bugling elk. More than 3,000 Boiseans joined them at their “Beers, Bands and Public Lands” event Friday at the Centre on the Grove — including Boise Mayor Dave Bieter and gubernatorial candidates A.J. Balukoff, a Democrat, and Lt. Gov. Brad Little, a Republican.
The group’s success appears the latest example of a revolution in public lands advocacy, through which a new generation of outdoor recreationists have turned their hobbies into an effective political voice. Their inspirations include Yvon Chouinard, the climber, environmentalist and owner of Patagonia, who is fighting the Trump administration over monuments and spoke at the rendezvous about public river access.
“I was stunned. I had no idea they would have that kind of a crowd,” Bieter said. “I also was surprised by the demographics.”
THE PEOPLE OF BACKCOUNTRY HUNTERS AND ANGLERS
Most people in attendance this weekend were in their 20s and 30s, including men and women with children. That’s in contrast to the older crowd of about 200 who participated in Saturday’s Second Amendment rally at the Capitol.
The number of people who hunt has steadily declined since 1980, affecting funding for fish and wildlife management agencies in the process. A 2017 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service study found the number of American hunters had dropped by 2 million since 2011, to a total of 10.5 million people.
But that research determined 101 million people over 16 — 40 percent of the U.S. population — participate in wildlife activities as a whole, including angling and wildlife watching.
BHA appeals to hunters, anglers, hikers and others who care about wild places, rivers and public lands. It could help shift the trend, both in national interest and in public-agency wildlife funding.
“Last night I talked to Trump supporters and Trump haters,” said J.D. Miller, of Boise, treasurer of the group’s Idaho chapter. “We’re all here because we love public land.”
20180414_112150
Clint Engebretsen of Granite Falls, Montana, checks out the feel of a Kimber rifle as Rod Cleveland of the Montana manufacturer looks on, April 14, 2018 at the Centre on the Grove in Boise.
Rocky Barker rbarker@idahostatesman.com
That politics has fueled the organization’s growth — in particular, the effort by Western states to force the federal government to transfer or sell public lands, such as national forests and rangeland. Backcountry Hunters and Anglers received attention in 2016 when it was revealed that Donald Trump Jr., a life member, persuaded his father to change his choice for Interior secretary to Montana’s Ryan Zinke.
The group came into its own in early 2017, when Utah Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz reintroduced a bill ordering the Interior secretary to sell or dispose of more than 3.3 million acres of public land.
Angry hunters, anglers and other outdoor enthusiasts flooded Chaffetz’s office and Instagram account with protests in response to alerts by BHA and other advocacy organizations.
The earlier support for Zinke was based on his record as a state legislator and his opposition to public land transfer. “He was the pick of the litter,” said Land Tawney, a 43-year-old native Montanan who serves as the group’s president and CEO. “He was the best choice from what we had in front of us.”
But soon, Zinke espoused a policy of energy domination and balancing the budget at Interior. He reversed a collaborative compromise on sage grouse and began a White House-ordered review of reducing national monuments using the Antiquities Act, a law first used by Backcountry Hunters and Anglers hero Theodore Roosevelt.
The group issued alerts and began an ad campaign in Montana, generating thousands of comments into Zinke’s office. Its efforts were for naught, as President Donald Trump signed an order shrinking the Bears Ears and Staircase-Escalante national monuments in Utah.
“It was the largest rollback of conservation in this country’s history,” Tawney said.
In late 2016, then-President Obama designated a 1.35 million acre swath of forest and red rock canyons in southeast Utah as the Bears Ears National Monument. According to a White House statement, the monument was established “to protect some of our country’s most important cultural treasures, including abundant rock art, archeological sites, and lands considered sacred by Native American tribes.” It was a victory for local tribes and conservationists, but some Utah residents are wary of what they see as government overreach and are encouraging their state officials call on the Trump administration to rescind the monument status.
However, Zinke has improved policies supporting greater access to public lands and to protect wildlife corridors, Tawney said. They are closely watching how Zinke decides on a proposal to reverse a ban on copper-nickel mining next to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area wilderness in Minnesota, where the group has more than 700 members. They hope the ban stands.
“If that happens, we’re going to applaud the heck out of him,” Tawney said. “That’s what’s different about BHA, we call them as we see them.”
THE FUTURE OF FISH AND WILDLIFE?
At Saturday’s trade show, rendezvous participants sighted rifles and tried out fly rods. They bought clothes from companies like First Lite of Sun Valley, which makes hunting clothing, and Patagonia, which makes gear for everyone from climbers, surfers and hikers to fly anglers.
A new U.S. Department of Commerce report released in February found that outdoor recreation contributed $373.7 billion to the nation’s gross domestic product in 2016, or 2 percent of GDP. The industry’s contribution was larger than that of all mining activities, including the extraction of oil and gas, the federal government reported.
Heather Kusmierz, 36, came from South Kingstown, Rhode Island, to be at the rendezvous and learn how she can make a difference. She left the finance industry to travel the world before coming home to teach computer science. She wanted to take up archery and only could find lessons through a local bowhunters group. She soon expanded her vision to hunting.
“I wanted to produce food from my archery,” she said.
Patagonia’s Chouinard, 79, said recreationists need to stand united to counter industries that want to control public land.
He’s acted on that talk — spearheading the recent move of Outdoor Retailer, the industry’s largest trade show, from Salt Lake City to Denver because of Utah politicians’ support for shrinking national monuments and transferring public land to the states. And in BHA, he sees the wide swath of the outdoor recreation community needed for political success.
“They say that hunters and tree-huggers can’t get together,” Chouinard said. “That’s bulls---. … The only way we’re going to get anything done is to work together.”
crowd (2)
A crowd of 5,000 turned out for the Backcountry Hunters and Anglers Rendezvous event, "Beers, Bands and Public Lands," Friday at the Boise Centre on the Grove.
Photo courtesy Backcountry Hunters and Anglers
Post by: jackelope on February 15, 2019, 09:09:20 PM
Post by: grundy53 on February 15, 2019, 09:12:33 PM
I used to be a member of BHA in Washington until I saw they aligned themselves with the anti hunting organization Conservation NW. the conservation chair for BHA is also the spokesman for conservation NW.It appears to me that you are suggesting anyone that has the same view on a position (say, opposing a specific land transfer bill) means they are "aligned" in all other ways? That's just dumb, so you must be suggesting something here that I'm not understanding.
Can someone explain why BHA would aligned themselves with an organization run by an anti hunting eco terrorist?
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/wa_bha_comments_6140
If you are suggesting BHA is anti-hunting - how do explain the mountain of evidence to the contrary? For example, I think I've watched a tv show where the WA chair of BHA hound hunts lions with Steve Rinella...certainly you would not consider that an anti hunting platform, would you?
I don't think the local chapters or members are anti hunting. It's the national leadership that is suspect especially Land Tawney. But I don't think even they are anti hunting really. They just don't want humans to interfere with the wild. They are often more aligned with eco groups than they are with hunting groups. Your example of the mountain lion hunt with the chair of Washington chapter is actually a good example. He's a member on here and often joins in on contentious topics. When he does he's usually on the side that is the least popular to the majority on here.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: grundy53 on February 15, 2019, 09:20:24 PM
Do we abort the Mule Deer Foundation because CNW partners with them too?Are they going to have the owner of Patagonia come speak at their annual meeting?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: dwils233 on February 15, 2019, 09:22:47 PM
Sitka
mystery ranch
STone Glacier
Danner
Cooper firearms
Kimber
Ferderal Premium
First Lite
Weatherby
Onx Hunt
gohunt
Leupold
Also radical environmentalists who guide BHA on the board of directors
Ryan Callaghan
t, Edward Nickens (editor at large field & stream)
and holds the radical environmentalists as prominent life members
Steve Rinella
Donald Trump Jr
Randy Newberg
but because they might ocassionally agree on a policy issue with a environmental group, or win a grant from a trust that also gives money to a group we don't like, BHA is out to destroy and end hunting! I just don't understand this view, I'm yet to hear a strong explanation of this concept
Post by: idahohuntr on February 15, 2019, 09:23:32 PM
Do we abort the Mule Deer Foundation because CNW partners with them too?The examples are literally endless if we fall for this insanity that you can not ever agree on anything with another group because then it means you are aligned on everything else with them.
Post by: jackelope on February 15, 2019, 09:26:19 PM
Do we abort the Mule Deer Foundation because CNW partners with them too?Are they going to have the owner of Patagonia come speak at their annual meeting?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
No idea, Grundy.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190216/ba29907313cd7df260f8c4cdd0c60749.jpg)
Post by: andersonjk4 on February 15, 2019, 09:27:48 PM
Here is a link to the BHA board of directors. Most of them are hunters and a few of them are very serious hunters. How can a company be anti-hunting when it’s board of directors is full of hunters?
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/board_of_directors (https://www.backcountryhunters.org/board_of_directors)
(Note: this post is not directed at anyone in particular. I am offering my thoughts on this issue as I have thought long and hard about this issue before choosing to support BHA. Every group has its “less than desirables”. It doesn’t mean the entire group reflects those same traits. Look no further than hunters as a group, a few bad apples sure gave give the whole group a black eye in a hurry).
Post by: grundy53 on February 15, 2019, 09:29:59 PM
Radical environmentalist corporations according to this thread:Those companies have conservation NW spokesman on their boards?
Sitka
mystery ranch
STone Glacier
Danner
Cooper firearms
Kimber
Ferderal Premium
First Lite
Weatherby
Onx Hunt
gohunt
Leupold
Also radical environmentalists who guide BHA on the board of directors
Ryan Callaghan
t, Edward Nickens (editor at large field & stream)
and holds the radical environmentalists as prominent life members
Steve Rinella
Donald Trump Jr
Randy Newberg
but because they might ocassionally agree on a policy issue with a environmental group, or win a grant from a trust that also gives money to a group we don't like, BHA is out to destroy and end hunting! I just don't understand this view, I'm yet to hear a strong explanation of this concept
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: idahohuntr on February 15, 2019, 09:33:19 PM
Same here...I've yet to hear even a single reasonable explanation. Just fear mongering innuendo by people who will never hold a candle to BHA members who are some of the biggest public land hunter advocates the world has ever known.
but because they might ocassionally agree on a policy issue with a environmental group, or win a grant from a trust that also gives money to a group we don't like, BHA is out to destroy and end hunting! I just don't understand this view, I'm yet to hear a strong explanation of this concept
Post by: KFhunter on February 15, 2019, 09:34:37 PM
Post by: grundy53 on February 15, 2019, 09:35:13 PM
While I may not agree with every aspect of BHA and every member, I still feel they do a very good job in their stated mission. They do not claim to be a group that is going to go out and fight for hunting. But does that make them anti-hunting. Yes some of their members/leaders may not be the best for hunting, but they must bring something else to the table that helps further their mission. Does everyone here who is a member and/or supporter of the NRA agree with every position that organization takes, or agree 100% with every member/leader/donor? NRA is notoriously silent when it comes to a lot of hunting issues. Does that make them Anti-hunting? I don’t agree with a lot of the stuff the NRA puts out and I’m sure if I dig into their list of leadership and donors I would find a lot of people and organizations I don’t agree with, does that mean I shouldn’t support them even though I think they do a good job at pursuing their overall mission? I support the NRA and I support BHA even though I don’t agree with 100% of what they both do. If we only support those groups we agree 100% with, the resources will be spread out so thin over so many little groups that the big issues will be lost to those who are more organized.If the NRA had a spokesman from the Brady campaign on their board I would question them too. I was a member of BHA but decided to let my membership lapse. I just never felt comfortable with them. To me they just give off a con man vibe.
Here is a link to the BHA board of directors. Most of them are hunters and a few of them are very serious hunters. How can a company be anti-hunting when it’s board of directors is full of hunters?
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/board_of_directors (https://www.backcountryhunters.org/board_of_directors)
(Note: this post is not directed at anyone in particular. I am offering my thoughts on this issue as I have thought long and hard about this issue before choosing to support BHA. Every group has its “less than desirables”. It doesn’t mean the entire group reflects those same traits. Look no further than hunters as a group, a few bad apples sure gave give the whole group a black eye in a hurry).
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: grundy53 on February 15, 2019, 09:36:35 PM
Radical environmentalist corporations according to this thread:Those companies are making way more money off of BHA members than they are donating. It's business.
Sitka
mystery ranch
STone Glacier
Danner
Cooper firearms
Kimber
Ferderal Premium
First Lite
Weatherby
Onx Hunt
gohunt
Leupold
Also radical environmentalists who guide BHA on the board of directors
Ryan Callaghan
t, Edward Nickens (editor at large field & stream)
and holds the radical environmentalists as prominent life members
Steve Rinella
Donald Trump Jr
Randy Newberg
but because they might ocassionally agree on a policy issue with a environmental group, or win a grant from a trust that also gives money to a group we don't like, BHA is out to destroy and end hunting! I just don't understand this view, I'm yet to hear a strong explanation of this concept
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: KFhunter on February 15, 2019, 09:43:15 PM
I also think they like the idea of more wilderness, they don't run cattle, or mine for minerals, or work in the logging industry. They want to reach as many people as possible and sell their TV for the most amount of money possible..aligning with various groups like BHA, RMEF, SCI and others helps achieve those financial goals.
I don't take my voting que's from hollywood actors or NFL players.
Post by: dwils233 on February 15, 2019, 09:45:19 PM
Radical environmentalist corporations according to this thread:Those companies are making way more money off of BHA members than they are donating. It's business.
Sitka
mystery ranch
STone Glacier
Danner
Cooper firearms
Kimber
Ferderal Premium
First Lite
Weatherby
Onx Hunt
gohunt
Leupold
Also radical environmentalists who guide BHA on the board of directors
Ryan Callaghan
t, Edward Nickens (editor at large field & stream)
and holds the radical environmentalists as prominent life members
Steve Rinella
Donald Trump Jr
Randy Newberg
but because they might ocassionally agree on a policy issue with a environmental group, or win a grant from a trust that also gives money to a group we don't like, BHA is out to destroy and end hunting! I just don't understand this view, I'm yet to hear a strong explanation of this concept
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
until BHA succeeds in its mission to end hunting...then they make no money. The logic doesn't hold. it would be like a for profit energy company creating and giving away cold fusion....
Post by: grundy53 on February 15, 2019, 09:50:13 PM
Never said it was their mission to end hunting. But I guess if you are too busy having pint nights and discussing how you are going to save the wilderness from those evil Republicans you might not actually get much done.Radical environmentalist corporations according to this thread:Those companies are making way more money off of BHA members than they are donating. It's business.
Sitka
mystery ranch
STone Glacier
Danner
Cooper firearms
Kimber
Ferderal Premium
First Lite
Weatherby
Onx Hunt
gohunt
Leupold
Also radical environmentalists who guide BHA on the board of directors
Ryan Callaghan
t, Edward Nickens (editor at large field & stream)
and holds the radical environmentalists as prominent life members
Steve Rinella
Donald Trump Jr
Randy Newberg
but because they might ocassionally agree on a policy issue with a environmental group, or win a grant from a trust that also gives money to a group we don't like, BHA is out to destroy and end hunting! I just don't understand this view, I'm yet to hear a strong explanation of this concept
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
until BHA succeeds in its mission to end hunting...then they make no money. The logic doesn't hold. it would be like a for profit energy company creating and giving away cold fusion....
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: grundy53 on February 15, 2019, 09:51:57 PM
Don't hurt your shoulder patting yourself on the back...Same here...I've yet to hear even a single reasonable explanation. Just fear mongering innuendo by people who will never hold a candle to BHA members who are some of the biggest public land hunter advocates the world has ever known.
but because they might ocassionally agree on a policy issue with a environmental group, or win a grant from a trust that also gives money to a group we don't like, BHA is out to destroy and end hunting! I just don't understand this view, I'm yet to hear a strong explanation of this concept
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: KFhunter on February 15, 2019, 09:53:51 PM
No, BHA's mission is to gather up as many names as they can to throw behind legislation they support, like the quite waters initiative blocking access to waterfowlers and hunters alike who used the river system to access hunting areas.
If BHA had been successful this hunt would be illegal.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 15, 2019, 10:04:35 PM
Talking about Rinella and Newberg in case that wasn't crystal clear. :tup:Don't hurt your shoulder patting yourself on the back...Same here...I've yet to hear even a single reasonable explanation. Just fear mongering innuendo by people who will never hold a candle to BHA members who are some of the biggest public land hunter advocates the world has ever known.
but because they might ocassionally agree on a policy issue with a environmental group, or win a grant from a trust that also gives money to a group we don't like, BHA is out to destroy and end hunting! I just don't understand this view, I'm yet to hear a strong explanation of this concept
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: Mtnwalker on February 15, 2019, 10:11:15 PM
Huh?
No, BHA's mission is to gather up as many names as they can to throw behind legislation they support, like the quite waters initiative blocking access to waterfowlers and hunters alike who used the river system to access hunting areas.
If BHA had been successful this hunt would be illegal.
What part of the proposal would have made that hunt illegal?
Post by: KFhunter on February 15, 2019, 10:13:28 PM
check out how much water BHA wanted to restrict to canoe's and paddles (all the miles and miles of green lines)
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=235660.0;attach=513070;image)
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=235660.0;attach=513073;image)
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=235660.0;attach=513075;image)
Post by: idahohuntr on February 15, 2019, 10:24:08 PM
Randy Newberg and Steve Rinella are great hunters and advocates for hunting, that said they are also elite hunters that need big wild open spaces to make great TV, that doesn't necessarily align with multiple use public lands for the average hunter and outdoor recreationist...it just wouldn't do to have a truck or ATV drive through the set would it?This drivel is hilarious. Go watch some of Newbergs content - you will find out you are dead wrong. Alas, it doesn't really matter, you have no capacity to see past your uninformed hatred of BHA.
I also think they like the idea of more wilderness, they don't run cattle, or mine for minerals, or work in the logging industry. They want to reach as many people as possible and sell their TV for the most amount of money possible..aligning with various groups like BHA, RMEF, SCI and others helps achieve those financial goals.
I don't take my voting que's from hollywood actors or NFL players.
But to others reading along - if you don't already know of Newbergs content - check him out. He's the real deal, comes from a logging family, down to earth, shows don't hide anything...including running into other hunters while out hunting our great public lands.
Post by: KFhunter on February 15, 2019, 10:30:57 PM
They sought to remove combustion engines off that piece of water, which is huge. You can only paddle so far in a day!
It looks like they proposed to leave the majority of the Flathead river under current regulation. I see where they wanted to get rid of jet skis and add a seasonal no wake zone in 2 of the 7 portions but other than I don’t see where they said no combustion engines or made any hunts illegal
I added the maps to my post above
Post by: grundy53 on February 15, 2019, 10:37:01 PM
I agree Randy's show is great and he is a great spokesman for public land hunting. I also said most members are great and in it for the right reasons. It's the national guys like Tawney I don't trust. Randy is involved but with so much on his plate between hunting season trade show season and tax season I doubt he is involved in the day to day decisions. I feel the same about Rinella. In fact I'm going to his show next month. My wife thinks I have a man crush on him. But that's another story.Randy Newberg and Steve Rinella are great hunters and advocates for hunting, that said they are also elite hunters that need big wild open spaces to make great TV, that doesn't necessarily align with multiple use public lands for the average hunter and outdoor recreationist...it just wouldn't do to have a truck or ATV drive through the set would it?This drivel is hilarious. Go watch some of Newbergs content - you will find out you are dead wrong. Alas, it doesn't really matter, you have no capacity to see past your uninformed hatred of BHA.
I also think they like the idea of more wilderness, they don't run cattle, or mine for minerals, or work in the logging industry. They want to reach as many people as possible and sell their TV for the most amount of money possible..aligning with various groups like BHA, RMEF, SCI and others helps achieve those financial goals.
I don't take my voting que's from hollywood actors or NFL players.
But to others reading along - if you don't already know of Newbergs content - check him out. He's the real deal, comes from a logging family, down to earth, shows don't hide anything...including running into other hunters while out hunting our great public lands.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: KFhunter on February 15, 2019, 10:40:40 PM
Randy Newberg and Steve Rinella are great hunters and advocates for hunting, that said they are also elite hunters that need big wild open spaces to make great TV, that doesn't necessarily align with multiple use public lands for the average hunter and outdoor recreationist...it just wouldn't do to have a truck or ATV drive through the set would it?This drivel is hilarious. Go watch some of Newbergs content - you will find out you are dead wrong. Alas, it doesn't really matter, you have no capacity to see past your uninformed hatred of BHA.
I also think they like the idea of more wilderness, they don't run cattle, or mine for minerals, or work in the logging industry. They want to reach as many people as possible and sell their TV for the most amount of money possible..aligning with various groups like BHA, RMEF, SCI and others helps achieve those financial goals.
I don't take my voting que's from hollywood actors or NFL players.
But to others reading along - if you don't already know of Newbergs content - check him out. He's the real deal, comes from a logging family, down to earth, shows don't hide anything...including running into other hunters while out hunting our great public lands.
You could be right about Newberg, I'm not a fanboy of anyone. Enjoy your lazyboy watching your favorite hunting shows - I'll be in the woods, I don't watch a lot of hunting shows, I'm always like "why am I watching this crap and not hunting myself?" then I go outside.
but if what you say is true about Newberg's logging family, I'm curious how he could support BHA's drive for more wilderness :dunno:
Post by: ribka on February 15, 2019, 11:46:35 PM
The full time paid spokesman ( not a volunteer)for cnw is on the board for BHA
CNW is run by a self avowed eco terrorist
Why would BHA put a spokesman for an anti hunting organization and eco terrorist who destroyed the eco system of the western US on its board if it is pro hunting?
I'm not following - I'm talking about BHA...not CNW. You are saying because two separate groups both oppose a piece of legislation they are aligned in all other ways? BHA is not anti hunting...so thats an absurd argument. I don't even care if one of their volunteers works for CNW. Show me where BHA is doing things to undermine hunting and promote anti hunting initiatives...please hurry...I think its important we alert Kimber, Weatherby, Cooper Firearms, Federal Premium ammo, and many other big hunting and firearms businesses that they've all been duped! :chuckle:
CNW supported legislation to shut down hunting seasons in Washington. I guess that is why I think they’re anti hunting but maybe not as smart as you to decipher the nuances lol
What about Mitch Friedman is a self admitted eco terrorist who destroyed personal property and spiked trees on Public land, our trees, that injured innocent loggers just engaged in
Lawful employment trying to feed their families.
How Are all the wolves pushed by CNW benefiting highly endangered mountain caribou herd in N Idaho. I believe they were wiped out. So
Much for the eco terrorist concern for endangered wildlife.
I can’t stop laughing at the excuses made for the scam group CNW. :hello:I used to be a member of BHA in Washington until I saw they aligned themselves with the anti hunting organization Conservation NW. the conservation chair for BHA is also the spokesman for conservation NW.It appears to me that you are suggesting anyone that has the same view on a position (say, opposing a specific land transfer bill) means they are "aligned" in all other ways? That's just dumb, so you must be suggesting something here that I'm not understanding.
Can someone explain why BHA would aligned themselves with an organization run by an anti hunting eco terrorist?
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/wa_bha_comments_6140
If you are suggesting BHA is anti-hunting - how do explain the mountain of evidence to the contrary? For example, I think I've watched a tv show where the WA chair of BHA hound hunts lions with Steve Rinella...certainly you would not consider that an anti hunting platform, would you?
Post by: idahohuntr on February 16, 2019, 07:56:23 AM
Lets add some logic to your drivel...the guy is not an anti-hunter and he wants to also volunteer with BHA when he's not at work. Pretty simple. You are letting your hatred absolutely blind you to real facts and its sad. I don't agree with a lot of CNW stuff and I'm sure they have lots of staff who don't hunt or are anti-hunters...this guy is not one of them and so I don't see any logical link to condemning BHA because they have a volunteer who who works at CNW.
Also, as I stated earlier - your suggestion that if 2 orgs both oppose the same legislation that means they are aligned on all other things...literally the dumbest argument I've heard in a long time.
BHA is a hunting organization made up of hunters and anglers across the country - they are the fastest growing hunting org in the country. Its so absurd to suggest they are anti hunting I don't even get why you would pursue such an illogical argument.
Deflect and lie
The full time paid spokesman ( not a volunteer)for cnw is on the board for BHA
CNW is run by a self avowed eco terrorist
Why would BHA put a spokesman for an anti hunting organization and eco terrorist who destroyed the eco system of the western US on its board if it is pro hunting?I'm not following - I'm talking about BHA...not CNW. You are saying because two separate groups both oppose a piece of legislation they are aligned in all other ways? BHA is not anti hunting...so thats an absurd argument. I don't even care if one of their volunteers works for CNW. Show me where BHA is doing things to undermine hunting and promote anti hunting initiatives...please hurry...I think its important we alert Kimber, Weatherby, Cooper Firearms, Federal Premium ammo, and many other big hunting and firearms businesses that they've all been duped! :chuckle:
CNW supported legislation to shut down hunting seasons in Washington. I guess that is why I think they’re anti hunting but maybe not as smart as you to decipher the nuances lol
What about Mitch Friedman is a self admitted eco terrorist who destroyed personal property and spiked trees on Public land, our trees, that injured innocent loggers just engaged in
Lawful employment trying to feed their families.
How Are all the wolves pushed by CNW benefiting highly endangered mountain caribou herd in N Idaho. I believe they were wiped out. So
Much for the eco terrorist concern for endangered wildlife.
I can’t stop laughing at the excuses made for the scam group CNW. :hello:I used to be a member of BHA in Washington until I saw they aligned themselves with the anti hunting organization Conservation NW. the conservation chair for BHA is also the spokesman for conservation NW.It appears to me that you are suggesting anyone that has the same view on a position (say, opposing a specific land transfer bill) means they are "aligned" in all other ways? That's just dumb, so you must be suggesting something here that I'm not understanding.
Can someone explain why BHA would aligned themselves with an organization run by an anti hunting eco terrorist?
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/wa_bha_comments_6140
If you are suggesting BHA is anti-hunting - how do explain the mountain of evidence to the contrary? For example, I think I've watched a tv show where the WA chair of BHA hound hunts lions with Steve Rinella...certainly you would not consider that an anti hunting platform, would you?
Post by: MtnMuley on February 16, 2019, 08:23:30 AM
Post by: KFhunter on February 16, 2019, 08:37:18 AM
yet most of them choose to keep it on the downlow..why is that?
Post by: KFhunter on February 16, 2019, 08:40:11 AM
Can you show me anywhere where Backcountry Hunters and Anglers have done likewise with any of their funders?
Can you show me where BHA has disavowed Tides, Pew, Sierra Club or any of its subsidiaries? <--largest source of funding for BHA comes from these groups
Can you show me where BHA has disavowed or even disagreed with CNW?
and don't try to sell me this line of crap that BHA is going to turn this green eco-terrorist dirty money into clean useful money for hunters and anglers :rolleyes:
Post by: Stein on February 16, 2019, 08:45:28 AM
https://www.conservationnw.org/news-updates/bpag-letter-wildlife-funding/
Washington Wildlife Federation
Hunters Heritage Council
Puget Sound Anglers
Washington Trollers Association
Ilwaco Charter Association
Here is a stance they have taken:
Quote
We support $60 million in additional funding for the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife, including modest fee increases and $45 million in General Fund appropriations.
To avoid associating or affiliating with them, maybe we should call our representatives and demand no general funding or extra money for WDFW.
This type of thinking is a huge part of the trouble we have in this country. The though of "you are either 100% with me or you are my sworn enemy" is taking over both sides of the political spectrum and leaves zero space to work together and accomplish anything. Many here are probably old enough to remember when people used to put aside their differences and work together on common goals.
3% of the people in this state over 16 hunt. If we continue to push away anyone that isn't in 100% agreement with every stance we have on any topic, hunters will become extinct. Hunting numbers in our state are down 11% in 10 years despite the population booming 22%. Youth hunting numbers are down 22%.
When a group of organizations come together and try to get additional funding for WDFW to provide general funding for fish and game conservation, or try to stop selling of public lands and we tell them to go to h-e-double hockey sticks and call out and cut ties with any organization that happens to agree with a good idea just because CNW also does, we are doing a tremendous disservice to the future generations that will not enjoy the privileges we do.
Post by: KFhunter on February 16, 2019, 08:49:30 AM
stop duping hunters into joining a green decoy
Stop trying to restrict my access (ATV's, Boats with engines, Trucks etc) quit trying to run cattle out of the woods, quit trying to shut down rural livelihoods!
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on February 16, 2019, 08:52:13 AM
I can say that so far in the thread it's pretty much the same wore out argument from people that hate CNW. Whatever. Like any group that's been around for 30 years they have baggage. I don't like that they worked to stop hound hunting but have worked with them to get some of it back, and they are supportive of some of that legislation again this year.
Maybe if we (hunters) had had that relationship in 1996 the initiative would have been defeated... ?
It's also true that we have a CNW staffer on the state board, as well as a tribal wildlife biologist, WDFW technician, financial advisor, pilot, log buyer, police officer.... Ect. That doesn't make BHA any more closely aligned with the airline industry or tribes than it does CNW.
Our CNW staff member is an avid hunter and fisherman and is dedicated to that protecting those privileges. We have been more effective with him on the board and are glad he's a part of BHA.
My suspicion is that the few of you that are bashing CNW have never spent a minute actually talking to one of their staffers. It would probably help inform your opinion.
Post by: KFhunter on February 16, 2019, 08:57:27 AM
I'm the east side co chair and will find time to chime in. I'm busy coaching state wrestling this weekend, then have to collar cougars all next week, so computer access is going to be tough.
I can say that so far in the thread it's pretty much the same wore out argument from people that hate CNW. Whatever. Like any group that's been around for 30 years they have baggage. I don't like that they worked to stop hound hunting but have worked with them to get some of it back, and they are supportive of some of that legislation again this year.
Maybe if we (hunters) had had that relationship in 1996 the initiative would have been defeated... ?
It's also true that we have a CNW staffer on the state board, as well as a tribal wildlife biologist, WDFW technician, financial advisor, pilot, log buyer, police officer.... Ect. That doesn't make BHA any more closely aligned with the airline industry or tribes than it does CNW.
Our CNW staff member is an avid hunter and fisherman and is dedicated to that protecting those privileges. We have been more effective with him on the board and are glad he's a part of BHA.
My suspicion is that the few of you that are bashing CNW have never spent a minute actually talking to one of their staffers. It would probably help inform your opinion.
Now we're getting somewhere, thanks for taking the time to address this :tup:
People like Idahohunter are doing BHA a huge disservice with their caustic language and personal attacks, I look forward to asking questions from someone who actually knows something about BHA :tup:
Idahohunter has stated he is not a member or affiliated with BHA in anyway when asked by Bearpaw
Post by: idahohuntr on February 16, 2019, 09:06:20 AM
Exposing your illogical statements and misinformation is not a personal attack. You can continue to try and play the victim card all you want but I'm not going to allow you to post whatever you want without applying critical thought. :sry:I'm the east side co chair and will find time to chime in. I'm busy coaching state wrestling this weekend, then have to collar cougars all next week, so computer access is going to be tough.
I can say that so far in the thread it's pretty much the same wore out argument from people that hate CNW. Whatever. Like any group that's been around for 30 years they have baggage. I don't like that they worked to stop hound hunting but have worked with them to get some of it back, and they are supportive of some of that legislation again this year.
Maybe if we (hunters) had had that relationship in 1996 the initiative would have been defeated... ?
It's also true that we have a CNW staffer on the state board, as well as a tribal wildlife biologist, WDFW technician, financial advisor, pilot, log buyer, police officer.... Ect. That doesn't make BHA any more closely aligned with the airline industry or tribes than it does CNW.
Our CNW staff member is an avid hunter and fisherman and is dedicated to that protecting those privileges. We have been more effective with him on the board and are glad he's a part of BHA.
My suspicion is that the few of you that are bashing CNW have never spent a minute actually talking to one of their staffers. It would probably help inform your opinion.
Now we're getting somewhere, thanks for taking the time to address this :tup:
People like Idahohunter are doing BHA a huge disservice with their caustic language and personal attacks, I look forward to asking questions from someone who actually knows something about BHA :tup:
Post by: KFhunter on February 16, 2019, 09:10:41 AM
Post by: Stein on February 16, 2019, 09:11:18 AM
Huh?
No, BHA's mission is to gather up as many names as they can to throw behind legislation they support, like the quite waters initiative blocking access to waterfowlers and hunters alike who used the river system to access hunting areas.
If BHA had been successful this hunt would be illegal.
What part of the proposal would have made that hunt illegal?
I just looked it up, BHA's position paper on the topic included detailed recommendations on a variety of bodies of water. For the Flathead, The only change to existing regulations they proposed was to have a seasonal no-wake restriction from 6/1-10/15 (before waterfowl season) coupled with limitations on PWC use in certain areas. Basically, they proposed limiting excessive summer use by PWC users that has created conflicts with local residents and disruption of stuff like fishing.
Post by: KFhunter on February 16, 2019, 09:13:28 AM
Rich Californians moved in to the flathead valley and drove house costs sky high! And they want pristine quite nature...the same people who give large sums of money to groups like Sierra Club, Pew and others..and by proxy BHA.
they want those noisy boats off the river in front of their huge new houses!
Post by: dreamunelk on February 16, 2019, 09:13:51 AM
Supporting an action that makes second growth mono culture wilderness is insane.
Supporting an action that will stop all the hunters who use the roads for bicycling in or using a game cart to get meat out is insane.
This act pretty much only affects hunters since they are the main user for many of the areas.
There is no science that supports. It is purely political.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 16, 2019, 09:15:19 AM
If BHA is so hunter friendly why is it supporting Wild Olympics?They went farther than that. They supported transferring land from the National Forest to the Park.
Supporting an action that makes second growth mono culture wilderness is insane.
Supporting an action that will stop all the hunters who use the roads for bicycling in or using a game cart to get meat out is insane.
This act pretty much only affects hunters since they are the main user for many of the areas.
There is no science that supports. It is purely political.
Post by: dreamunelk on February 16, 2019, 09:21:14 AM
If BHA is so hunter friendly why is it supporting Wild Olympics?They went farther than that. They supported transferring land from the National Forest to the Park.
Supporting an action that makes second growth mono culture wilderness is insane.
Supporting an action that will stop all the hunters who use the roads for bicycling in or using a game cart to get meat out is insane.
This act pretty much only affects hunters since they are the main user for many of the areas.
There is no science that supports. It is purely political.
Wow! :bdid:
How can any pro hunting organization support that?
Post by: Stein on February 16, 2019, 09:22:41 AM
And you don't see the rub?
Rich Californians moved in to the flathead valley and drove house costs sky high! And they want pristine quite nature...the same people who give large sums of money to groups like Sierra Club, Pew and others..and by proxy BHA.
they want those noisy boats off the river in front of their huge new houses!
You stated that they supported an initiative that would have made hunting illegal. That is factually inaccurate and misleading. Hunting would not have been illegal or even impacted in any way. Additionally, it would have improved fishing by limiting PWC use. For those wanting to form an opinion on the organization, it is helpful to have accurate information.
I am sure there are things BHA does that I don't agree with. That puts them in the same category as 100% of the organizations out there.
To me, access to public land to recreate is the #1 issue facing hunters. They are one of many organizations and individuals that have made incredible progress in blocking the sale of land and protecting and improving a national treasure. That doesn't mean I give them carte blanche, it simply means they are generally pointed in the same direction I am and I am happy they are out there getting stuff done in general.
Post by: KFhunter on February 16, 2019, 09:24:42 AM
they want to do the same thing closer to my home, turn huge nat forest areas into wilderness. I just got a bicycle for hunting behind locked gates but if they wilderness it I can't use the bike anymore.
Seriously thinking about getting horses, looks like I'm going to need them to get back past all the boot hunters. Everyone will be corralled at a few trail heads for access points instead of dispersing throughout the range using various locked gates and wide spots in the roads as jumping off points.
Post by: KFhunter on February 16, 2019, 09:27:00 AM
And you don't see the rub?
Rich Californians moved in to the flathead valley and drove house costs sky high! And they want pristine quite nature...the same people who give large sums of money to groups like Sierra Club, Pew and others..and by proxy BHA.
they want those noisy boats off the river in front of their huge new houses!
You stated that they supported an initiative that would have made hunting illegal. That is factually inaccurate and misleading. Hunting would not have been illegal or even impacted in any way. Additionally, it would have improved fishing by limiting PWC use. For those wanting to form an opinion on the organization, it is helpful to have accurate information.
I am sure there are things BHA does that I don't agree with. That puts them in the same category as 100% of the organizations out there.
To me, access to public land to recreate is the #1 issue facing hunters. They are one of many organizations and individuals that have made incredible progress in blocking the sale of land and protecting and improving a national treasure. That doesn't mean I give them carte blanche, it simply means they are generally pointed in the same direction I am and I am happy they are out there getting stuff done in general.
The stuff you came up with is different than what I came up with, my information is the proposal that failed, perhaps since it failed they have modified it in order to get it pass this next time. I don't forgive them their initial attempt however, they tried to make it combustion free...it failed.
Post by: Stein on February 16, 2019, 09:30:45 AM
The issues are important enough to separate fact from fiction during an age where misinformation spreads like wildfire.
Post by: KFhunter on February 16, 2019, 09:39:48 AM
Simply show evidence that BHA proposed banning all combustion engines on the Flathead. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm just saying I couldn't find anything to support that claim.
The issues are important enough to separate fact from fiction during an age where misinformation spreads like wildfire.
It's all in here, and more!
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/backcountryhunters/pages/2831/attachments/original/1476226083/Quiet_Waters_Proposal_MT_BHA.pdf?1476226083
Post by: Stein on February 16, 2019, 09:52:59 AM
Post by: dwils233 on February 16, 2019, 09:54:27 AM
Shh, the adults are in the room. It's time for you to simmer down now. :-X
With all due respect, I tried to be an adult in the room for the last 4 pages. I explained why such groups work together, I pointed out that leap in logic i perceive in the BHA anti-hunting logic, I explained my best understanding of how/why BHA would take grant money from disparate groups...
you've made me clarify how a non-profit receives funding with derision and sarcasm and denigrated anyone who had a different perspective than you. I do not believe I have engaged in hyperbole, personal attacks or even responded to any comment with anything other than an honest, open and polite intention. I don't think its appropriate for a mod to run around insinuating that other people are children because someone holds a different position. I also don't think it demonstrates good leadership on this forum (for anyone) to act intentionally obtuse, engage in bad faith arguments, ask questions and refuse to engage in a conversation about the answer when its given or to demonize people who disagree with your firmly held position. That's been the running theme for almost this entire thread, no matter how sincere any efforts have been to elevate that conversation. You want to know why fewer BHA members are commenting on this thread? Because they have better uses of their time and energy than to talking to someone/people who don't want to listen, who doesn't want a true honest exchange of ideas or philosphies. I'll be honest, these conversations about BHA are just as exhausting as I feel about talking guns with anti-gunners.
It is abundantly clear that people on this forum have incredibly strong feelings about BHA. Most who dislike it invoke the same talking points to convey their reasons. Most in support have made their reasons clear. I can only finish by saying this- I agree with most of what BHA does, and I have no problem voicing my concerns when I disagree. I made my voice heard last year at the rendvous in the national board meet and greet and in the chapter meeting. I will continue to be a BHA member because then I can have a say and hold them accountable when I disagree. If you don't weigh in, you don't wrastle. with BHA's membership, they don't need to convince anyone who dislikes them to join, but you're definitely not going to have any sway with their direction if you just hate on them and refuse to participate. Just like CNW is a BHA ally when it suits them, BHA is my ally as it suits me. When BHA actually begins working in earnest against my interests (short and long term), then I'll hold them accountable. Until then, they can take money from anyone they want and work with whoever they want to protect wildlife and public lands and opportunity for myself and my family. I have to assume at least some other BHA members, board members and chapter leaders, corporate sponsors and spokespeople probably made the same value-based decision- they aren't just sheep being suckered into it. I know that others hear will never join BHA and thats fine, but those people really really should stop accusing others of being stupid suckers who are being conned by a bad organization. We've made our choices, we can either try to understand and respect each other for it and engage at that level or we should just stop talking about.
Post by: KFhunter on February 16, 2019, 10:05:11 AM
Mods often take a lot of abuse, morso than regular members as we're loath to be seen as abusing mod powers. I've seen Bearpaw take an enormous amount of abuse and do nothing in return as a forum owner, it's very unlike other forums I've been on where the owner would punt a member for much much less! intentionally obfuscating threads is against forum rules and that is what is going on here. I'm very open to debate and discussing topics like adults, but even I sometimes get drug down in the mud and find myself slinging it too. While I am a mod here volunteering, I'm also a member. If I can go a week or two without putting on my mod hat it's a good thing!
Thanks for the critical input, I would like us to continue to act like adults, but understand I am in a pickle between being a mod and being a member, it's like debating with a golf handicap, it's difficult to always be held to a higher standard and not climb down in the mud wallow and start flinging it too.
Post by: bearpaw on February 16, 2019, 10:18:38 AM
I understand some hunters and anglers are strong supporters of the green ideology. If you are a person who thinks large National Forest areas (many of which are already designated as roadless areas) should be turned into wilderness or made into parks or monuments, if you think putting restrictions on waters commonly used by many types of recreationists is needed, if you think that putting more and more users into smaller and smaller accessible areas will benefit you, if you want to side with green groups rather than side with other outdoor users on many issues, then I think BHA is probably the perfect organization to join and support.
NE Washington is a perfect example. There are thousands of acres already designated by the Colville National Forest as roadless areas but for some reason this already designated back country is not suitable to BHA and Conservation Northwest who want to remove certain existing access roads and make more and larger wilderness areas. The majority of people in NE WA oppose this, yet green groups like Conservation Northwest and BHA almost successfully forced the issue onto our local area. This is why BHA is getting millions of dollars from green foundations, those green foundations are buying influence and very effective lobbying power. It's brilliant!
Post by: idahohuntr on February 16, 2019, 10:35:27 AM
Post by: bearpaw on February 16, 2019, 11:02:06 AM
There are quite a few members who belong to BHA, some of our moderators support BHA, I really feel that it's each person's decision who they want to support. We are all different in what we may choose to support and the more discussion that occurs on any topic the more information people will have. I think this is a good discussion as long as we can avoid personal attacks on each other. While I personally choose not to belong to BHA and I will probably post some of my personal views about the leadership and financing of BHA I do understand there are many very dedicated hunters who belong to BHA and are very passionate about advocating for wilderness and public lands, there are also other hunters who are opposed to certain BHA goals, this forum is a good venue for members with varying viewpoints on either side of the issue to express themselves.
Post by: Bob33 on February 16, 2019, 11:13:38 AM
Administrator Hat OnWell said. Far too often there is too much shouting for either side to hear the other.
There are quite a few members who belong to BHA, some of our moderators support BHA, I really feel that it's each person's decision who they want to support. We are all different in what we may choose to support and the more discussion that occurs on any topic the more information people will have. I think this is a good discussion as long as we can avoid personal attacks on each other. While I personally choose not to belong to BHA and I will probably post some of my personal views about the leadership and financing of BHA I do understand there are many very dedicated hunters who belong to BHA and are very passionate about advocating for wilderness and public lands, there are also other hunters who are opposed to certain BHA goals, this forum is a good venue for members with varying viewpoints on either side of the issue to express themselves.
Post by: Stein on February 16, 2019, 11:21:19 AM
This is probably the best moderated forum I have been part of. Although it gets frisky from time to time, differing viewpoints are allowed which usually isn't the case in other places.
Without doubt, there are some tectonic changes to hunting that are being ushered in from both new hunters as well as non-hunters. Not everyone will agree for sure, I simply hope we can focus on the issues, avoid name calling and try our best to have the facts straight.
I'm not a part of BHA in any way, I've never been a member but wouldn't be opposed to joining. Clearly, the B stands for Backcountry (aka places with no motors), which means they are in support and supported by people that enjoy and want backcountry experiences. There is also the portion of hunters that think there is probably too much backcountry already and we should have more motor access.
The other piece is the 97% of people who don't hunt yet have a voice in what happens to public land.
Finally, this isn't a new issue, there was widespread disagreement when Yellowstone Park became the first national park.
Quote
Some of the locals feared that the regional economy would be unable to thrive if there remained strict federal prohibitions against resource development or settlement within park boundaries and local entrepreneurs advocated reducing the size of the park so that mining, hunting, and logging activities could be developed. To this end, numerous bills were introduced into Congress by Montana representatives who sought to remove the federal land-use restrictions.
It is a discussion that has been going on for at least 150 years, what is the proper use and disposition of public lands?
Post by: grundy53 on February 16, 2019, 02:59:09 PM
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk