Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Backcountry hunters and anglers. ......???

That goes both ways.

Obviously the organization is controversial, to say the least.

There's more than one view on things. Some organizations are Left leaning in both funding and policy. Some are middle of the road, and have a few items they lean left on, and few they lean right on. And some are pretty conservative in funding, policy and actions as well as agenda.

It's okay to support whatever you want. Or to not support it.

I see BHA as a middle of the road organization.

But those middle of the road policies and ideologies are what keep me from supporting them

Just like you were all in for the National monument designation there outside Las Cruces. I opposed it.

We will probably always differ on some things.

Yup. I'm a member.

I see nothing controversial except conspiracy theories that have no basis in facts. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but they are not entitled to make up facts.

The last time this topic went multiple pages, two posters alleged that I was someone whom I am not, and a third accused me of hiding behind a screen name. I PM'ed all three with my name and a brief description of my background. Never heard from one of them, the second one's curiosity was satisfied and I did have a thoughtful exchange of views with the third one, based on facts and figures rather than fiction and innuendo.

I'll just say that any organization that claims to align itself with hunters and anglers yet push for more parks, is doing a disservice to its customers.

I can visit every national park in my state in a year, as,long as I don't spend much time in each one. We're flush on parks. What we need is someone or something to gain control of the USFS and get them to do things that make sense and cents. I've seen them spend pooptillions to close a road in some of the most often burned by forest fire areas.....to just rebuild it the next year to do it again.

We need multi use forests. I'll use the Colville for example, one of the larger national forest areas and in it lies almost no motorized access to anything not street legal. I can take my 10k lb excursion on the logging roads, but not a quad. How is this wise? The NF is 1.1 million acres and there's only two areas that ohv use is legal.

The same 1.1m acres has seen countless roads ripped out because they claim to not be able to maintain them, yet they've gone unmaintained for 20 years. Sure they're not great, but have proven to stand up to the seasons.

That 1.1m acres doesn't have enough access to bring in the snow recreation that it once did. There used to be many snowmobile systems but they too have been closed.

Now I'm sure that the group will say "that's not our target members" which I get.....but considering the CNF borders the salmo-priest wilderness just a few miles north, why are we attempting to wildernize the CNF?

I'm all for wild hunts, I have many in my life and loved them all, but at the same time it is nice to take a disabled guy and go for a ride in the woods.

If BHA was more in line with multi use of land instead of creating parks I would be all in....but as long as they intend to take that away from us during the 330 days we can't hunt I will not support them and continue to question their intentions.

When, exactly, did the sage grouse come on the radar as being threatened?

Next question. How long have these lands been cohabited by sage grouse and cattle?

The view of BHA on grazing and the Sage Grouse.



http://www.backcountryhunters.org/tags/sage_grouse

I'm not sure how much more needs to be done around here on riparian zones. Every drop of water has a pretty substantial buffer zone.

Perhaps other areas are not the same. We have more problems with farmers farming edge to edge here in Washington than I see in other areas.

A series of annual population surveys published in 2007 seemed to show sage grouse declining to historic lows. However, subsequent annual surveys performed under the auspices of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies indicated that the 2007 numbers were most likely the low point in a normal population cycle. Based on these data and new habitat restoration projects, the US Fish and Wildlife Service withdrew its listing proposal in 2015.

Nonetheless, sage grouse habitat has declined by about half since the first habitat surveys were done. The primary threats to sage grouse are fire, invasive species and energy development. Grazing is way down the list, in my opinion. Until we can get a handle on cheatgrass invasion in sage brush grasslands, things are not going to get a lot better.

There are initiatives underway to enlist ranchers and federal land permittees restore to degraded habitat to benefit both sage grouse and livestock (https://www.sagegrouseinitiative.com). This program has had the most positive impact of any that I am aware of.

I don't mind giving some ground if the science is solid, and valid provenance is at hand to back it.

Far more often is the cases of bad science being twisted to fit an extreme environmental agenda.

If someone is gun shy about these things now, who can blame them? Especially given the history of these cases.

It's gotten to the point that when someone cries wolf, we all run false flags up the poles.

Divisiveness. It's not just related to democrat and republican.

Interesting comment I highlighted considering your previous posts on this thread...

My experience/knowledge base agrees strongly with what mudhen posted regarding sage grouse.

The knee jerk reaction is to dismiss the agenda based biased science when they start taking public land for any reason based on "saving a species".

If there actually IS a valid argument, it would be the first one of the last thousand presented that way.

Field mice, salamanders, butterflies, tortoises, wolves, grizzlies, and the list goes on and on have been pawns for liberal, radical environmental terrorist organizations that have the ultimate goal of locking down all public lands for all uses... Especially hunting, fishing and shooting. (After they rid it of ranching, logging and mining, and driving across any of it in anything but a horse.)

They may fund you and say they are on your side. And actually mean it, until the next target IS you... Nothing but another pawn.

Ah. I see what happened with my post.

It should have been typed as : It's gotten to the point that when someone cries wolf, we all see the false flags run up the poles.

No harm no foul. Though you and I differ on some aspects of land/natural resource management we really aren't that far apart. BHA, as Buzz (who's not a Ranger ) pointed out, does a lot of things that I find good and meritorious. You and I could quibble over the details, but I think you'd agree with a whole bunch they support.

Regarding sage grouse, they are the current version of the spotted owl for many groups. The good news is a lot of folks saw that coming and a ground up, grassroots network has been working on the issue for going on 20yrs in a lot of places. I went to my first meeting of one of these groups, hosted by a large ranch, for ranchers, in 2001. Now if we can just keep the politicians out of the way and let the biologists and managers do what they know works...

I just spent a bunch of time reading a bunch of papers written on the sage grouse. Like this one, and they make the bird sound so stupid that it can't possibly be saved from itself......much like the spotted owl. We did learn that the owl was actually quite adaptable.
http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2014/04/17/the-role-of-livestock-in-sage-grouse-decline/

I don't see much elitist about it . I belong to BHA and thankfully others feel the same about our incredible,unroaded lands.Boone & Crockett have a similar approach and I believe is TR was alive today he would be a part of it to. Like any group or organization ,individuals must speak up loudly for what they believe in-leaving it to others is not an option. I am a dyed in the wool conservative who believes we need some wild country to hunt ,fish etc for our soul..Cheers...Tony

Once I saw the author I knew which way the article would slant. He's been grinding the anti-livestock axe for a LONG time.

I hunted the south side of Fort Peck reservoir in the early 90's. We saw lots of sage grouse. That area hasn't change much if at all since then yet the sage grouse numbers are way down. That tells me it isn't a habitat issue, but a predator or disease issue.

Yep. George did some work for me in the past, and he's not a bad fellow to share a campfire with. However, he is terminally biased when it comes to multiple use on federal lands, especially logging and grazing.

I have been following BCH on FB for about a year.
All you need to know about them is just read the comments on any of their posts.
Anyone that posts anything "reasonable" gets blasted.
Nothing but a lot of tree hugging leftists that hate private land owners.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

READ THEM!!
" Start arresting and fine land owners that use blocked public lands as their own to the fullest extent of the law. Because they will! One branch gets over turned. Bust their ass! You want to play ignorant. Pay for it too!"

"The land thieves don't own these lands but as has been said, they treat it as if they do own it. For the most part these are right wing political land thieves who would scream if someone cut them off from their land."

"This seems like a no brainer. ALL public land should be provided access. If landowners don't want to play ball then the government needs to claim imminent domain and just take land at a discount and make access available, simple now, no more land locked land."

"They should at least be able to let the public to hunt claim a road path under iminant domain"

"You act like that's supposed to stop me."

Just a couple of comments from the "members" about landlocked public lands.