I've been getting blasted by their ads and the latest is pretty rich. They are urging change of sage grouse habitat, but show healthy birds cohabititating with cattle.

Why would I want to kick the graze lease holder off the land if it's working out for all of us?

This ought to be entertaining...

Sure they sound like they legitimately care bout hunters and fisherman.

https://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/

Backcountry Hunters and Anglers
One of the latest fronts in Big Green’s spider web

At a Glance

Environmentalist activism is the name of the game at BHA, and hunters and anglers are just the camouflage. BHA has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from environmentalist groups, and BHA executive director Land Tawney has a history of liberal election activism.
Background

Backcountry Hunters and Anglers (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.
Funding

When looking at BHA’s funding sources, it’s easy to forget they have anything to do with hunting and fishing at all. All of its primary donors have extensive ties to environmental activist organizations.

The largest donor is the Western Conservation Foundation, which gave $278,423 to BHA in 2011 and 2012 alone. WCF has given handsomely over the years to notorious environmentalists and animal rights activists, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Audubon Society, Earthjustice (the self-proclaimed “law firm of the environment”), and Climate Solutions, a major proponent of “global warming.” It has also contributed large sums to the Tides Center, funder of all things leftist. It’s hard to imagine Western Conservation Foundation would donate over a quarter of a million dollars to Backcountry Hunters and Anglers if it wasn’t an organization that shared those same ideological beliefs.

The next largest donor to BHA is the Wilburforce Foundation. From 2009 to 2013, Wilburforce gave a total of $110,000 to BHA for a variety of purposes. As with the Western Conservation Foundation, Wilburforce gives heavily to other notorious environmentalists, including the Environmental Law Institute, the Sierra Foundation, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. Wilburforce’s executive director, Tim Greyhavens, previously worked for the Humane Society of the United States, a vegan activist organization with a PETA-like agenda. BHA also received a $69,000 donation in 2012 from Pew Charitable Trusts, which is famous for its ideological tilt. Other donors include the New Venture Fund ($30,000 total), Conservation Lands Foundation ($26,000 total), Lazar Foundation ($25,000 total), and The Brainerd Foundation ($8,000 total), whose mission is “to safeguard the environment and build broad citizen support for environmental protection.” As with WCF and Wilburforce, each of these organizations have deep connections with the environmental movement, which raises suspicions as to what BHA’s motivations truly are.
BHA Leadership

Not only do BHA’s primary donors have extensive ties to the environmentalist movement, but its leadership does as well. A number of top executives and board members currently work or previously worked for notorious environmental activists.

Most prominent is BHA executive director Land Tawney, who ran the liberal political action committee (PAC) calling itself the “Montana Hunters and Anglers Leadership Fund” (MHA). In 2012, this pop-up PAC spent $1.1 million against Republican U.S. Senate candidate Denny Rehberg, who was challenging Democratic U.S. Sen. Jon Tester. The liberal MHA 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. Tawney is also a member of the Montana Sportsmen for Obama Committee and previously served as the National Grassroots Coordinator for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, which, like BHA, is an environmentalist front that poses as a hunter and fisher group.

Taken together, BHA’s funding sources and leadership make clear that the interests of hunters and anglers are the least of their concerns. Environmentalist activism is the name of the game at BHA, and hunters and anglers are just the facade.

I have gladly given them, and will continue to send my $35 membership fee , along with Trout Unlimited and the TRCP and RMEF and Pheasants Forever. Because they do speak for ,and fight for things that are very important to me. I want to keep our Public Lands accessible and belonging to all of America and my kids and grand kids to use and enjoy. Clean water and public access to fish and hunt within the laws , without out paying a fee or asking permission, because we already own it .

I've seen the above statements by GreenDecoys before
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Green_Decoys

Seems like a front group for people and organizations who want to take and rape the resources from our public lands. Same type of opposition when T.R. first started to outline our National Forests and National Parks. T.R and Gifford Pinchot had a massive fight from Senators from Montana and Idaho at that time, who were also tied to the lumber and mining interests. There's a lot of good reading about those days that are very similar to now.
Just my .02

Yep. Greenies will "partner" with the BHA crowd for as long as it benefits them politically and financially. They're in it to win it, and the sportsman who view themselves as "reasonable," will become pawns in the Greenies war.

I was trying to decide last year if I would make a donation to Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. I came across the GreenDecoys webiste, and spent some time looking into the info they posted, as well as info that was pro BCHA. Two sources I found interesting were Steven Rinella on his Meateater podcast episode #22 http://www.themeateater.com/podcasts/podcastepisode022/ , then episode #52 on the Gritty Bowmen podcast http://www.grittybowmen.com/gritty-...her-jedi-mind-tricks-withty-stubblefield . I also called and talked with people at BCHA and went over their 990 tax exempt returns. In the end, I decided to support them. Look beyond the first couple of Google search results, then make up your mind for yourself.

They already are.

The second they took those checks to the bank.

Do they support Multiple Use?

As in the same Multiple Use Act that allows ranchers, hunters, fishermen, shooters, miners, and loggers on the same public land...?

If not, you wake up with your OWN throat cut one morning.

I belong to BHA and do so cautiously but outside of this organization there are few others that want to keep our wild country wild. Within our chapter,hunting is the central obligation and I don't know that any animal rights people would dare attend a meeting. At least someone is speaking for backcountry hunters like myself.

Sounds kind of elitist to me. But, I've never been to a meeting.

Do you gather from the meeting that they support multiple use of the land?

is this one of these new land rights things where
the big mean rancher has too many acres and won't
let the poor lil' "sportman" on the land to hike
and bike ride and hunt and fish for free ?

It goes far deeper than that.

Ranching on public land doesn't give the rancher the right to close public roads and access to public lands. The rancher can lose his grazing permit for even attempting that.

It would appear that the BHA is one of those applauding public access and road closures.

But, apparently, they don't want the ranchers there either. Or the loggers. Or the miners.

Just the folks that can walk 30 miles into a place to hunt.

Hell, some of the members are National Forest Service Rangers that are in charge of closure of roads and access.

And they use THEIR access to scout for trophy animals using government resources.

didn't know it was public land.
i was thinking it was one of these deals
where folks are moaning (like here in Texas)
that they have to pay to hunt someone's
property and they can't just hop the fence
and go hunt like they used to "back home"

Some of the same people condemn paying to hunt on private land too.

You'll see them all amass here in this thread. Just watch.

It's the multi use thing that hangs me up. My dad is in a wheelchair and the only way he sees any land is out the window. If tawney had his way the whole place would be wilderness and guys like dad get screwed.

I had it out with BHA over their push for more national parks. We can't hunt 99% of all park land, so why push for it. The response was that it gives animals a safe place to retreat.....I responded that private land does the same. They of course responded that private land could be hunted and I of course brought up the increased level of predation in the parks by canines and bears.

Watermelons. Green on the outside, commie red on the inside.

Yes. Are you implying otherwise?

Looking at some of their statements on the Sage Grouse issues, yes.

The sage grouse wouldn't even be endangered or threatened if populations of raptors were not prolific beyond reasonable management levels.

Noise doesn't kill grouse.

Cows and loggers don't either.

Thousands of hawks and other raptors eating them like popcorn sure do though.

I've actually done predator control work here in wa for the game dept. Coyotes and believe it or not fences kill the bulk of our grouse.

Love it!

I haven't seen it personally, but heard a very honest report that Ravens are tough on Sage Grouse chicks.

I don't begrudge people that pay to hunt land. I also never needed to do that where I live, so why would I want to start doing it now?

We all have access to public lands now, both wilderness and the forest service lands with roads. There's something for everyone - for people in wheelchairs and for people that hike miles in. There's really no interest in seeing public access eliminated by making federal lands private, or by putting them off-limits to hunting by making them state-controlled or national parks.

GreenDecoys.com is one of the Berman & Co.'s phony front organizations designed to further his clients corporate aims. That includes attacking a group that opposes the client. Berman is a DC attorney who runs a not so ethical PR and lobbyist company.
Green Decoys is not a real organization. Its purpose is to persuade you that some conservation organizations which oppose his clients corporate goals are supposedly frauds and fronts for anti hunters, Communists etc.
They are paid to spin the facts as he wishes you to see them. Sometimes a donor is just a strange bedfellow, but he turns it into a sinister plot. Green Decoys claims Izaac Walton League as an organization supports population control and planned parenthood. HUH? Since when? Oh, since Berman & Co said so via a front org.

Fences can get a lot of them, but proper siting of them is an easy way to mitigate that. Ravens and magpies are hard on the birds as they are big nest predators. At least one relocation of sage grouse I'm aware of they used poison eggs to thin the ravens/magpies/foxes to help give the new birds a better chance of nesting success.

That's internet gold advice...

Proof?

There are so many things wrong with that statement its hard to know where to begin....

Whoever said it knows Jack about hunting, bag limits, population dynamics, natural mortality, habitat... etc.... etc.... etc.....

Support this group at your own peril.

Those from a distance that want to pontificate about the subject only need to look at the organization's leader, L Tawney, to really know what they are supporting.

What I find interesting about these threads is it seems to be a Western thing as where I live I'm about 10 minutes from a large expanse of National Forest and close to TVA facilities which are all open to the public for hunting fishing hiking ,camping, biking, etc.there are also timber leases going on . Never hear of any problems to speak of. I'm sure there is some vandalism but it doesn't seem to be a big issue. Biggest issue is probably drug related.

Well, here is a link to Hamilton College where both the Izaac Walton League and the Sierra Club discussed that very thing among other items that have nothing to do with conservation.
When they start preaching about unfair distribution of wealth I think it is safe to say they have gone far left.

https://my.hamilton.edu/news/story/population-control-and-sustainability

Population Control and Sustainability
Pat Dunn '12
October 29, 2009
Overpopulation is inextricably tied to countless environmental issues: Poverty, water shortages, pollution and waste management, famine, and resource consumption, to name a few. It was this topic, with a focus on family planning and sex education, that was the focus of a discussion on Wednesday in the Kirner-Johnson Red Pit led by Izaak Walton League representative Rebecca Wadler Lase ’00 and Sierra Club representative Cassie Gardener.

Lase opened the lecture with a few frightening statistics. There are currently 6.9 billion people in the world. It took us a mere 12 years to get from five to six million, whereas it took humanity until the middle of the 1800s before the global population hit one billion. Exponential growth becomes even more frightening because, already, 23 percent of the world’s population lives on less than one U.S. dollar per day. This number is expected to grow, as the developing world has the greatest trouble curbing population growth.

Cassie Gardener is the national campus organizer for the Sierra Club’s Global Population and Environment Program, which aims to foster healthy communities by advancing sustainable development programs. Sierra Club has joined with women’s health and rights organizations to teach about sexual and reproductive health, because education of sexual health and contraception has shown to be most effective in lowering birth rates in impoverished countries where population growth is spiraling out of control.

Gardener used a series of interactive visual aids to help to accurately portray the unfair distribution of wealth and resource consumption globally. There are eight Asians for every one American, yet for every dollar in per capita GDP in America, an Asian receives less than one cent. The root of this problem is in overpopulation, and the cyclical nature of poverty requires that we take action now to change the world.

The solution lies in family planning. The two main organizations that head the movement for family planning and education are the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the United Nations Population Fund. Although together these organizations provide services in more than 140 countries, it still isn’t enough. Family planning education has shown a direct correlation with population growth, and it’s urgent, Gardener said, that the U.S. government take a more active role in a problem that will soon become a global crisis.

Gardener urged the audience to try to make a difference. As the wealthiest country in the world, she said, it’s our obligation to take the initiative in solving this problem. Her organization has set a goal for $1 billion in federal aid for international voluntary family planning, and she thinks that with enough support and action on a grass roots level, we can curb population growth and make progress toward creating a sustainable future.

Well, here is a link to Hamilton College where both the Izaac Walton League and the Sierra Club discussed that very thing among other items that have nothing to do with conservation.
When they start preaching about unfair distribution of wealth I think it is safe to say they have gone far left.

https://my.hamilton.edu/news/story/population-control-and-sustainability
[/quote]

Man! I had no idea. We just shoot, hunt, and clean up lakes in our chapter.
I'll bring it up with the members.

We hung about a billion tags on the fence wires. If they'd let us thin the hawks and ravens....I'd be game.

Those tags work. The latter would work very well also.

Man! I had no idea. We just shoot, hunt, and clean up lakes in our chapter.
I'll bring it up with the members. [/quote]


I would be willing to bet that if those same speakers showed up at your local rod & gun club or your local chapter you would hear a totally different speech.
They do not want you to know they hold those views.
They want your money and if they let their true colors show you might stop giving.
Your local chapter may not support those views but your membership dues do.

From what I have been able to find so far, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is an organisation which is worth supporting if one likes wild country. While I support multiple use, all too often multi-use is heavily biased toward resource extraction and degradation of wildlife habitat.
Promoting responsible OHV use, promoting fair chase, preserving wild country, guaranteeing access; these are all things I can get behind.
On the other hand, I can understand those who have some reservations as the organisation does come off as being a little bit elitist. Overall, I see more good than bad. GD,

Lots of pure BS being spouted on this thread, so thought I'd clear up a few things.

First off, I'm the Chairman for the Wyoming Chapter of BHA and we have an awesome board, and members in general here in Wyoming.

I don't consider any of the board as elitist, nor any other members that I have ever been around since my involvement with the group.

Some of the questions asked, does BHA support multiple use? Absolutely we do. What BHA does not support is abuse of public lands. We support the continued federal management of federal public lands, and that they continue to be managed via existing laws, acts, and regulations.

WYBHA also strongly encourages all user groups to engage the various State and Federal agencies, legislatures, and let your voices be heard...whether you agree or disagree with any position BHA may take, doesn't matter. We all should be active participants in the various processes that impact our public lands, public waters, and public wildlife...period.

As to the whole "greed decoy" crap...its just that, crap. The WYBHA board is comprised 100% of hard-core hunters and public land advocates. In the last few years our board members have shot pronghorn, elk, deer, shiras moose, bighorn sheep, bison, mule deer, whitetail, turkeys, etc. etc. You name it, they've hunted it.

Finally, at the recent BHA rendezvous in Missoula, the Wyoming chapter was awarded the George Bird Grinnell award that recognizes the Chapter of the year. It was humbling to accept that award on behalf of the great work the Chapter has done.

Some of the things the Chapter has done in the last few years:

1. Successfully stopped a State land exchange (Bonander exchange) that would have been a loss of about 10K acres of publically accessible elk/mule deer hunting in one of the premier elk areas in SE Wyoming.

2. Passed the most restrictive aircraft/drone regulations regarding scouting from the air in the lower-48, while also maintaining aircraft usage to access landlocked BLM and State lands.

3. Adopted the Alpine lakes trail system in the Medicine Bow National Forest and conduct a yearly clean-up of garbage, check signage, etc.

4. Wyoming BHA holds an annual "taste of the wild" event, where hunters/anglers bring a wild game dish for others to sample. ALL proceeds from the event go the WYGF departments AccessYes program. The AccessYes program opens about 4 acres for every dollar spent for public access to private lands that participate in the program. In the last few years, we've donated over $1600 to this program.

5. Conduct a yearly clean-up of a piece of BLM land north of Laramie where people find it fun to shoot computer screens, couches, bottles, and everything else you can think of. This BLM land was going to be closed to "multiple use", until we agreed to clean it up annually. Last year, BHA members picked up 11 pickup loads of trash from the site.

6. We are very active at the State Legislature, and have worked to kill some very bad bills that would have been horrific for DIY NR hunters of average means. The most heinous was one sponsored by the Wyoming Outfitters and Guides Association that would have moved 60% of all available elk, deer, and pronghorn tags into the "special fee" pool, from the current 40%.

7. Helped kill a State constitutional amendment that would have paved the way for transfer of federal public lands to the States.

8. We are also a member of the Wyoming Sportsmans Alliance, which is an alliance of 8 NGO's that support science based management of wildlife, public lands, and public access. This alliance holds an annual Sportsmen's reception during the State legislative session to connect with the Legislature on issues.

9. We attend almost all GF commission meetings, season setting meetings, and legislative interim meetings that are important to hunters, anglers, wildlife, and public lands.

10. Have a great working relationship with the legislature, Governor of Wyoming, as well as the other top 5 elected officials, county commissioners, and other NGO's.

Its impossible to list all the things that we do, but the above should be sufficient that we flat get it done...oh, and I almost forgot, the entire BHA board is comprised of volunteers...none of our board members are paid a single cent from BHA.

If anyone can find a group that supports the hunter of average means, science based management of our public lands and wildlife, more than BHA in Wyoming, I'd like to know of it and join.

Buzz H,
Thank you for the info.
There's so much misinformation poured out these days I can't tell who's the good guys and who's the bad guys anymore.
I'm guilty of assuming guilt by association myself here.
Keep up the good work. My IWLA Chapter will continue to clean streams and protect our resources in our county. And host Trap events, and Hunter's Education, etc.
D

Yep, thanks buzz. People believe what they want to believe. Any Trump fans here? Don Jr. Is a life member of BHA. Friggin greenie.

Thanks, Buzz. I have all but quit posting on these threads because the same old bullshit just keeps getting rolled out by the usual suspects. About all that I can add is, "idiots abound."

I don't mind if they abound. I just wish they wouldn't expound.

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.

Read them? I know them. Unlike you.

So you agree with them?

You're quoting a few indviduals out of 10,000 plus members yet you feel qualified to comment on the membership as a whole.

You're not.

There are sure those here that follow that same ideology when they aren't allowed to cross private land to get to public land.

You can't judge the whole membership by what a few post.

Not too many people can grasp both concepts of private property ownership or public lands use.

Just like they can't comprehend where leasing private land for hunting and fishing may be their choice, rather than hunting public lands.

We won't even get into the use of deer blinds or feeders...

Crossing private land is 100% a privilege to be granted (or not) by the landowner. Hard to argue otherwise.

There are those that will though.

They are usually the ones that didn't pay attention when they were told you could catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

In Colorado private land does not need to be posted or fenced, it's the trespasser's responsibility to know what's private.

Same in NM. But locally, they want you to have it posted if prosecution is to go to court.

Those GPS chip/maps that show private/public lands in real time are pretty damn good. I used it a lot as a Wildlife Specialist.

Heard of a couple of cases where land that was posted was actually discovered to be public land. They don't look kindly on restricting access in that manner. I believe they were threatened with all sorts of things, including jail and losing their permits if it happened again.

One guy was counting on close to 40 bull elk permits on his private land, and after he was caught keeping a road closed and posted on public land, he never got a permit.

Sounds good to me. That kind of thing just ain't right.

Nope.

I always tried to be helpful to the hunters on BLM we had the permit on. Made good friends with most.

One time though, I had trouble with a group of slob hunters that tore down a gate. I found them and told them I would highly recommend them fixing it before they left, as I had all their license plate numbers.

They did.

Imagine how idiotic I could make members of this site look if I cherry picked stupid comments to make a point.

Seems there is an awful lot of conjecture going on here from people who have political biases more concerned about ideology than about the issues that BCHA deals with.

Fact is, I'm sick of having to chose to vote in favor of having my guns taken away on one side, or all my public lands sold off to the highest bidder on the other.

I want both the 2nd amendment AND public lands... multi use absolutely AND some wilderness!

We saw this past year in the Presidential election that we can get a super candidate when we're pissed enough. Just cuz the parties say I have to chose doesn't mean I'll bend over and take it.

And no, I have no problem whatsoever with private land owners. They're what built this country; but they can't uphold the outdoor heritage this country built on public lands and the mystique of wild places.

Sounds to me like some have more issue with an org that doesn't toe the Rep Party line... which is divestiture of public lands... and look where that'd have got us in the last election... Jeb Bush!?!? Screw that!

thankyou! I wonder what folks want really? Hunting is predicated on having land to do this on. If we don't have a say with what happens to this land we will be out of business. BHA has a strong,positive message and speak for hunters everywhere first. It is the mandate, unaffected by other land user groups. I am landowner,belong to the cattlemen's association and I guarantee you they speak loudly for grazing and other livestock issues but not for wildlife and wild lands. Support BHA ,imo.

Cherry pick?? Heck, you don't have to cherry pick.

I didn't have to cherry pick.
Just open up any article and read them.
Some things they are for I agree with, a lot I don't.
If you feel that they represent you then good for you.
I don't.
I will give my time and money to groups that support habitat and the welfare of game.
I'll figure out how I will hunt them without stealing private property or closing off public lands to the elderly and handicapped.

Two red herrings in one sentence, impressive!!

Could you put up a link to where the organization has this as a goal?

Not kidding if that is true I won't support them.

No, he can't.

And just as a reminder, this guy is a life member:


https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth.../1/Donald_Jr_Out_to_Monatana_to_s#UNREAD

Yep, the usual BHA defenders are all here--

You might be interested to know that BHA got a 113,000 grant in 2015 from an outfit nobody's heard of, the New Venture Fund, which has a budget (or receipts, anyway) of 314 million, more than, say the Center for American Progress.
What is NVF? Well, according to the conservative Washington Free Beacon:

"NVF represents a number of groups that push stringent environmentalist policies, such as the Fossil Fuel Reduction Project and True Friends of Coal, according to the internal documents.

It also uses donations to its subsidiaries to fund other groups that push environmental policies in ways that appeal to voters who might not share an explicit anti-fossil fuel agenda, such as Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Trout Unlimited, and the Bull Moose Sportsmen’s Alliance, all of which received NVF grant funds in 2013."

That's from this link:
http://freebeacon.com/issues/over-100-left-wing-groups-sourced-to-d-c-dark-money-outfit/

There's some other grants, but the fact remains that anyone dumb enough to fall for BHA's sales pitch and pretend they're conservative sportsmen who understand Western public land issues (and that includes Don Junior, sadly), is either dishonest or massively deluded. These are Democratic or left wing fronts, period.

That's ironic coming from "the usual BHA detractor."



Go ahead Dave, tell us all how Don Jr. is a democrat, like you erroneously did once before.

That's solid research, LOL.

I have heard the founder and head of BCHA speak on podcasts and he is a hunter. Men like Steve Rinella and Randy Newberg, who are both by and large Conservative, but know about what it is going to take to continue one of the defining characteristics of this Republic, its outdoor heritage.

I find it tiring hearing all the Party ball washers who toe the very line that'll destroy what they love about this country.

Personally I believe there is a balance we can strike between low gas prices and beautiful wild places. There are many people who'd trade all the mountains in the west for a few bucks. Much less a few billion.

Again I ask... why we just suck it up and choose between a party who'll take our guns and a party that'll sell our public lands? Forget that I want both and I don't think we need to settle.

I'm just not able to get behind anymore wilderness. I can't hit every access point to Washingtons wilderness if I went every weekend for 5 year straight. We MUST be able to manage forests and wilderness designation eliminates that.

I can get behind state losing control to the fed on timberland. ....but the free reign of individual ranger districts doesn't turn my crank. What's totally accepted in the Coeur d alene district just a few miles from the Colville is completely illegal in the Colville. When you give a few people reign over more than a million acres, it won't end well.

Far north Idaho with my youngest.

Looks like Paradise!

Our Chapter is made up of serious hunters ,there is no hidden agenda, ulterior motive or conspiracy of any kind.Just attend a meeting. BHA is a hunting and fishing organization period ..and if you doubt this statement..just attend and listen to what is said. There is no great left wing attempt to take over anything. It is just a voice for those who want to leave a legacy of the wild ,unroaded landscape for the future...huntable land.

Just a general comment from one who is ignorant of BHA but who knows how various designated, western, public lands are used by ranchers for grazing, etc. -- what I have always thought was an utmost absurdity is public land that been allowed to be made inaccessible or mostly so by one or various surrounding private concerns. Doesn't that in effect become their own "back forty" playground?

It seems any land open to public hunting, fishing, snowmobiling, etc. should by right of domain have reasonable access to it for its designated-use purposes even though landlocked by privately owned ground.

I don't remember the when or where details but the example that sticks with me is the guy who had to have his bull elk airlifted out over private ground with a helicopter.

I agree that there "should be" access but again, you're depending on the largesse of the landowner to permit it.

If it's my land, no one is going to tell me who I need to let cross it, or for what reasons. If the USFS or anyone else wants public access, they can persuade a landowner to give or sell them a right-of-way, or stay off private land.

Certainly a landowner would be generous in allowing access but my point is it shouldn't come to that should it?

The USFS or other government entity should have provided -- bought -- that access even at above fair market value to ensure it. To otherwise name land "public" that is landlocked without any access other than from above is a farce.

Nah, you just need a helicopter to get your elk out.

There are a few re-entrant (landlocked) tracts like that.

Mostly, they occurred because the land was open to homesteading, and the land around the tracts became private property after being proved up on.

These tracts can be accessed with permission from a surrounding land owner. (or not)

Far more common are large parcels of BLM or US Forest that have had access roads closed to public travel, and the easiest way to access them is through someone's private property that adjoins it.

I had such a property in the mountains in NM. The forest service had closed at least two roads that gave access to 10's of thousands of acres. My place bordered one of the prime elk hunting areas of the forest there.

I didn't let the public access it through my property. Mainly because I didn't want to deal with them coming and going through my land day and night, several times a year.

I even had major trouble with one guy that showed up DEMANDING that I let him cross. He even told me I HAD to let him cross...

"Nope. I don't. Get your ass off my property NOW, before I have you arrested. And don't come back."

I did let a few good guys through with the right attitudes, though. Helped some hunters that were in trouble many times. Even took my horses and packed out an elk a guy shot that would have spoiled if he didn't get it out that way, and had to go around.

There was a plan to sell off landlocked parts of national forest a few years ago. They compiled a list of them, and were to auction them off, so that the properties could be put on the tax rolls, and become useful again.

But, some organizations rallied and blocked that sale.

Wonder who that was?

Now, it still sits there, useless and inaccessible.

Here in Washington we have done land swaps to make those land locked pieces accessible. There is NO shortage of land to hunt here......until you let the wind farms tie it up. They set up on prime land and then lock out the hunters.

Those get blocked too.

Who does the blocking?

I fully appreciate your approach and wouldn't expect any land owner to give carte Blanche access to the public. My point is it's not your responsibility but rather the land's governing body it seems to me.

It's good of you to help folks out who don't give you the entitled approach and to those who genuinely appreciate it.

If it's a scenario that develops over time which most of these cases are probably the result of I would hold the governing body responsible to obtain that access as in find and fund a way.

BTW, can I come by next fall? 😀

I surely agree with you!

All that land had plenty of access for over 100 years.

Then the USFS closed two roads used to access it.

They KNEW it was going to severely limit access.

They don't WANT you going in there.

They accept that a few "back country hunters" will walk or pack in, but by and large, the area is closed to the public.

That philosophy of road closure has caught on like wildfire with the new management philosophies more recent management with USFS & BLM have.

BTW, paperwork is coming for the sale of the property in the mountains.

You can come hunt at the ranch here in Texas though, and glad to have ya!

Bureaucrats creating their own little fiefdoms running counter to "original intent."

I've never been to Tx other than routing through Houston. A lot of photo's I've seen here and elsewhere seem to show the brush country is similar to Namibia.

Would love to hunt hogs and particularly nilgai. Well, other stuff too. 😏 Aoudad, as a poor man's sheep hunt looks challenging and as table fare I hear they rate right up there with spoiled crow. 😳

Edit: my apologies for the detour.

The land swaps took the sections from a checkerboard to continous pieces. Access is pretty good.

In most cases, it improves things all around.

There are those that protest any land swaps and want to leave things as they are, though.

There's a lot more to those land swaps than the public is generally told.
Consolidation of ownership does make a certain amount of sense, the question is the price paid. The Lochsa land swap proposal was a bad deal, a speculative buy of railroad checkerboard by Tim Blixseth (one of his entities, anyway) with the hopes and plans of a big trade at bigger profit, basically well-above-market.
I don't have a problem with FMV swaps, but when 300 buck an acre mowed off garbage goes to "the public" for 1,400 dollars and above -- that's plain wrong.
And it's also wrong for the megabuck players out there to propose swaps that just consolidate the "kings' forest" kind of arrangements -- that's what drove the Wyoming deal, a desire for raw advantage.

rockinb,

Seems you know what's going on there,

May I ask if you know the "official" reason for the closing of those roads?

Were they failing and impacting fish habitat?

Mostly unused except in hunting season and the forest/blm district had no money in the budget for maintenance?

Generally, the forest/blm has public input on these type of things, at least a comment period. Do you know if they did and what the majority of the comments related to?

If they (NFS/BLM) don't want people in there, they usually have a reason.

Thanks,
Geno

They were going to close ALL the roads in the Gila National Forest in 2011.

Enough public outrage was displayed, as well as enough political pull to stop the closures.

The USFS had never maintained most of the roads in the first place.

I know the public roads in the Lincoln Natl. forest were maintained by the county. Not the USFS.

Usually, it's something simple. Like the USFS doesn't want to maintain the roads. Or they simply just don't want motor vehicles in there.

Here's a bit of what I was personally involved with.

https://www.abqjournal.com/7498/updated-gila-national-forest-proposing-to-close-roads.html

With huge funded groups like the Center For Biological Diversity calling for an entire closure, they met with fierce opposition.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2680281/posts

This was a huge deal in 2011, and they did not expect the public outrage they incurred.

Don't even start with the fish....

I worked to replace several 8' culverts with concrete bridges because fish won't swim through a culvert.....mind you some of these I've fished for decades both high and low sides of said culverts. The initiative closed a LOT of roads here and solved no problems.

From the article you linked to in the abqjournal, it doesn't sound like the forest wanted to close all roads:

"Gila officials acknowledge they’re proposing a major change from current policy in which the forest is largely open to driving cross-country. Their plan would limit vehicles to designated roads and trails, and restrict vehicle camping to areas along the sides of roads or near them."

Yeah, restricting vehicles from off road would be an impact to folks used to driving cross country but it still seems folks could access the forest by road. It was that way in most of the forests in the areas I'm familiar with. Very limited cross country driving with vehicles of any sort, maybe a short drive (100 yds?) off the side of a road to a flat spot to camp.

How many miles of open roads did they leave, looks like they were considering some options:

"Options range from taking no action, which would leave 4,604 miles of roads open, to implementing a preferred alternative, which would leave 3,323 miles open. Other alternatives range from allowing 2,332 miles to 4,266 miles of open roads"

As for maintenance, yeah in both the areas I live the NF roads in some cases are maintained as county roads because they are designated as such (County rd 273 for example), but some of the side roads are maintained, such as it is, by the FS when budgets are available. With the proposed across the board budget cuts for federal agencies under the new administration I'm guessing the situation is not going to get any better.

This is quite the sticky situation all around the NF system, as your article pointed out Ol' Tricky Dick was one of the first to ask for establishment of rules:

"The concern has been around for decades. President Nixon signed an executive order in 1972 to establish policies to control off-road vehicles on public lands."

I'll be the first to say there needs to be some changes, like maybe a bit more logging with an emphasis on thinning for fire prevention. But the word is logging companies want the big trees too, as that's where the higher profits are. Do that and all the old growth advocates come out protesting, nothing gets done, for profit reasons or legal wrangling and our forests are still full of pecker poles waiting for a match.

Then the burned areas are susceptible to erosion and more roads are closed.

Not to mention FS budgets get sucked off for fire events and they have little left to fund other forest needs.

Wish I had a simple solution, but I'm afraid until we can all meet in the middle a little, life will go one pushing and pulling one way and the other.

Thanks for the links,
Geno

PS, yes, I think the CBD has gone way over what it was intended to address when founded. So have some groups on the user side too. And us folks in the middle ground are the ones to get screwed.

The roads they were gonna "Keep Open" were state highways and county roads that had regular vehicular traffic because they went to another town, or to where people lived. They couldn't close those if they wanted to.

They were going to close all other roads.

I fought that battle in 2011...

The main difference between now, and when the Natl. Forests were actually managed well is not only depleted funds from fighting fires, but lawsuits from organizations like CBD and a dozen others that they pay off.

If the forest were allowed by the environmental terrorist groups to be managed properly, there would be FAR LESS fires to suck the money from the budgets. FAR LESS.

The forests are NOT being managed properly. The radical environmental groups see to it.

The next big difference is upper management to regional management. You used to have older folks with large amounts of common sense running things. Now, as they retire, you get college educated radical environmentalists running things to suit THEIR agenda.

I guess you're saying their "preferred alternative" leaving 3323 miles of road open was ALL state highway and county roads? All in one NF. That's a bunch.

According to the article, if they took no action 4604 miles of road would remain open, which by my calculations means there were only 1300 or so miles of what I'll call "real" forest roads coming off those county and state roads. Wow, your county and state sure had a big interest in getting through and around in that forest. Like 3/4 of all the roads in there were state/county "owned".

I don't know the whole story so I'll go with what you say for now. Just seems a bit implausible.

I'll agree that the forests ARE NOT being managed properly and that a major reason is the lawsuits, they tie up bunches of money, and impact the workers in that they have to be very careful in what they say, what they put in documents and emails, and what rules they might like to establish.

And for sure, the influx of new folks overtaking the old guard has had a major influence also, I saw the results in the USFWS.

Thanks again,

Geno

Yeah, and the same Swiss billionaire who gave CBD at least ten million dollars (anonymously) gives money to BHA.

Go figure. Coincidence?

VD, even the Forest Service Officials couldn't deny what they were trying to do.

Lots of the factual information has dropped off the internet now, but U.S. Congressman Steve Pearce's office would probably be glad to provide further facts for you if interested.

It wasn't a "rancher vs USFS" issue. It was the general public that decried the proposed action. The ranchers could have accessed their permits in any event. It was everyday people and hunters, sportsmen and people that just enjoyed the forest that rallied to the cause.

They wanted to shut it down. As much as they legally could.

They lost.

Mr. Skinner brings up a good point about BHA even accepting money from donors like that. If you find yourself taking that money, you are kinda tied to their agenda.

Dave, you're the "journalist." Why don't you do what journalists do and figure it out?

Oh yeah, that's right. I'm sure the answer isn't nearly as good as the question for your purposes.

rockinb,

I'm glad the people "won" for now at least.

As a long time user of the NF system, I realize the benefits to the surrounding communities of having road access available.

However, as a long time user of the NF system, I've also seen a lot of damage done, on road and off road, by "a--holes" who have no interest in what's happening after they leave the forest.

One day I hope to explore the Gila ( I need to catch one of those trout for my unofficial life list ) , never really got a chance to when I lived in the Pinetop AZ area. And at my age, the exploring will have to be by vehicle or "rented horse".

Geno

Who is this "nameless" billionaire? and how much did he give to BHA?

Geno

I think the guy's name is Hansjörg Wyss. The Wyss Foundation.

Not sure of the amounts. Dollars have a way of laundering themselves through other spun off organizations that make transparency nearly impossible.

As with all 501-C corporations, (non-profit) the financial statements are required to be released upon demand. That's the law. Perhaps someone should request those?

I can't imagine taking donations that they wouldn't be proud to own...

Maybe someone higher up the food chain of BHA would answer these questions. I doubt local chapters have much to do with anything other than local fund raisers.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...ate-marred-by-camouflaged-activists.html

We aren't the only ones talking about it...



http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=196037.50

You're quoting the "Liberty News"??

LOL, look at the headline on their home page:


"BREAKING: U.S. Govt. to Simulate Nuke Blast Over Manhattan!"

You guys crack me up. Some people will believe anything they read on the internet, apparently.

I'm simply showing what's out there.

Maybe I could do a better job of vetting...?


The thing is, that when discussion comes up about the funding and donations of BHA, the attacks seem to begin. The sources, and the people quoting the sources... In nearly everything you read about that type discussion.

But, nobody comes forward to deny where they get the money, or the sources of a lot of that money.

The money also seems to be pretty visible in released financial reports the 501-C's are bound by law to release.

The agendas of the donors are also pretty public and well known.

I'm sure not saying BHA doesn't have good intentions. I'm sure they do what they can to help. But, the one thing that keeps us all doing what we do on public lands is the Multiple Use Act.

Upholding the MUA does not seem to be the agenda of the type donors that have evidently propped up BHA in a huge way.

If I'm wrong, please show me.

BTW, I did not do anything other than post another discussion of BHA. That thread is pages long. Take what you want from the entire discussion. As far as I know, I've never been to "Liberty News" website. But even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Well, if you're going to make the case that donors are somehow influencing the direction of BHA, have at it. I'd love to see you or dave skinner try to make that connection, rather than just toss out innuendo.

Billionaires like to give away their money. If they give their money to an organization I support, I don't really care who they are because it doesn't matter unless their donations somehow corrupt the organization.

I've seen zero evidence of that. Have you?

Those billionaires are not in the habit of giving large sums of money to organizations that oppose their agenda, though.

As I said, BHA may do worlds of good.

But, I can't get behind an organization that is propped up by known enemies.

It's sure a free country, and I fully support you and anyone else that has the freedom to support who you want.

No one is asking you to get behind them. Just deal in facts when you're talking about them instead of innuendo and quotes from the likes of the "Liberty News."

So, can anyone come forward to deny that the funds mentioned in that link came from the sources mentioned?

Whenever these discussions come up, the underlying common denominator seems to be that BHA has ties to radical environmentalists that we all know have done everything they can to do away with the MUA, and take more public lands to create more parks, wilderness areas, and other areas where more regulation and less access to the general public for hunting and other things guaranteed by the MUA.

Care to elaborate on that one? What kind of "ties" are you talking about, specifically?


According to the "Liberty News" you're probably a radical environmentalist.

I find a lot of this interesting and would definitely like to see some sort of definitive proof beyond conjecture and rumors prolifereated on the internet.

Something that always bothers me about these conversations, however, is what seems like a presupposition on the part of many Conservatives that land that isn't having resources actively extricated from it is "worthless".

Should public land be managed for multiple uses? No doubt! Among those uses should be backcountry morotrless wilderness... along with all the others. From my perspective (which is admittedly limited) it is wilderness that is in short supply, not other sorts of land and once wilderness is tossed it is typically left that way.

Well said.



There's a bill before congress right now to designate about 60K acres in southwestern Colorado as wilderness. Mostly additions to existing wilderness areas.

If you google "San Juan Mountains Wilderness Act" there's a pretty impressive list of local organizations that formed a coalition supporting the bill including town governments and county governments. Locals get what you're saying.

I have found the people involved in BHA very approachable and this group was formed by hunters and for hunters. Hunters that will work on access issues and speaking to keep the wild country wild. There isn't much of it left,really. BHA speaks for so many hunters out there and I can't imagine many green'ies ever infiltrating this group.

Much less funding them, right?

As far a "backcountry areas where no vehicles can access"....

There's already millions of acres of that.

About all National Forests prohibit vehicle use except with so many feet of a designated road.

The forest land I'm familiar with you could get a rifle and a pack and walk for as far as you want without encountering a vehicle.

That would depend on how far you want to walk.

Yep.

And I don't blame you guys for wanting to get away from other hunters. From my experience though, that doesn't take much walking, as the vast majority of them are just cruising up and down the road with 6 guys in the truck wearing camo and rifles sticking out of every window...

I just don't see the need to set aside MORE land as roadless. Or the need to further restrict multiple use on public lands.

Some abuse it, and they should be fined, jailed, and lose the use of public lands for life when caught.

Thinking that the greenies can't infiltrate a group is sticking your head in the sand even if it was started by hunters and supported. Take alook at REMF a few years ago started getting to green for my taste so i let my memebership go. Seems like there getting back on the right track now so if they stay on it i will renew my membership. When big green money starts showing up i'm very sceptical.

No one said they couldn't. All I said was, "show me some facts."

No dog in this fight just using the RMEF as an example.

thanks rbb,
now I know who he is, presumably.

Guess I'll have to find out if there was strings attached for those "grants". I wonder if BHA publishes a list of their grants and what they were designed to fund? Many/Most grants are written with specific objectives outlined, with reports due to the grant funding agencies of activities the funds were used for.

If Mr Wyss's foundation provided funding to BHA for a study of roadless areas vs roaded areas on elk habitat, or trout stream conditions, then I'm all for them using that foundation money. I'd be interested in seeing the results of such research also.

However, if the grant was to study (or worse propose without study) what effects a complete shutdown of mining/mineral extraction, stopping ALL logging, removing all campsites, preventing access even by hiking/horseback/llamas/etc, and removing all traces of humans from the system.........I'd be opposed to BHA taking their money.

Most of what I outlined in the last paragraph goes against the intent of BHA, they just want "appropriate" use in/on our public lands.

No doubt there's folks in the organization that would like to go further. No doubt the same holds true in all organizations. I'd certainly believe that someone could find evidence of donations(hidden/masked/laundered) to some conservative organizations by organizations supporting the beliefs of the Third Reich. That doesn't mean we shouldn't support the organization as a whole.

From what I've seen, BHA has protected a lot of land critical to healthy fish and game populations. Yep, no doubt some other interests might be excluded, but overall for us hunters (not the ones driving around six to the truckbed "raod hunting") and fishers we know the results will likely be positive for those coming after.

I'm not a fan of complete road access to every inch of FS/BLM land, heck I'm over 60, with a bad back, knees, vision, etc and I'm pretty sure my days of lugging a 50lb+ pack 10 miles into the wilderness are over. But, and it's an important but, I do take advantage of roads that border wilderness land, where I can hike a coupla miles into that area to take advantage of relatively "pristine" and quiet areas away from those road hunters. As I generally hunt alone and like the solitude, those areas are critically important to me and if BHA wants to push for a few more, so be it. Like someone else mentioned, and I paraphrase, those are the areas that seem to be in short supply. Not the areas with roads and noisy campers every weekend and more so during hunting season. Not the streams that are stocked by our F&G agencies, right near a road or a bridge/road crossing that get hammered on opening day of trout season (Heck, I'm in the fish businees and I see the need for those kind of places). There seems to me to be plenty of those type areas already.

For me, (Everyone get that?) there's nothing like walking into a place to hunt and not seeing/hearing another person all day. Or going to a stream and fishing up and down a mile or two and not having to pass up a hole because there's 7 people there already.

So, yeah, BHA is probably going to continue to have my support. When they get to the point of wanting to shut down ALL access, then we have a different situation.

And when I'm older and can no longer hike in a few miles, I'll gladly turn that backcountry land over to the next generation.

Geno

We have 31 wilderness areas in Washington totalling around 4.5M acres. We also have the 1M acres of Colville nf which has about 50acres of ohv trails. There's BLM land all over this state that you can't have motorized access on.



We're not hurting for roadless area here. The problem with making it wilderness is that is can never be managed, logged, accessed by the disabled.

Well,
I'd like to point out that BHA's first funder, the Wilburforce Foundation, is about as green as they get. Here's something you hunters should know...Wilberforce is named after the DOG of a couple of Seattle tech zillionaires, the Letwins. And the first guy running it was, and might still be, Tim Greyhavens. Grayhavens was best known prior as an animal-rights activist -- just the guy to administer grants to "hunters and anglers," right?
Here's from his Wiki:
"Tim proudly points out that except for one not-so-proud day he has worked for nonprofit organizations his entire life, including the Humane Society of the United States and the International Snow Leopard Trust."
HSUS. You betcha.
There's more, I mean, just check out this page --
http://www.wilburforce.org/about-us/
And you should check out what Defenders of Wildlife (you know, the wolf freaks) think about Rose Letwin, the founder of Wilburforce.
http://www.wilburforce.org/about-us/celebrating-rose-letwin/

O.k i have been doing some checking on my own,seems the co-chair for the montana chapter for the BHA is a member of the montana wilderness assc. They(Montana wilderness assc.) have sued the USFS over ever single logging sale that the USFS has proposed. So i ask the BHA and Co-chair how you can support logging if your a member of an assc. that sues over every single sale that is proposed. I am not in favor of roads everywhere I hunt in 2 of the wilderness's here in montana. When board members of orginizations belong to other orginizations that have these types of track records and Green orginizations are donating large somes of money well something smells. We all have our choices but i choose to not associate or belong to these types of groups.

Does BHA support hunting and angling in the backcountry? If so, I'll renew my membership.

Unless they get money from somebody whose okay with killing babies or smoking weed. Do the leaders of this group associates with democrats? Well then, these are bad, bad people!

GOD BLESS 'MERICA!!

Good one Greenhorn!

Didn't you know that Hilary Clinton is the Montana co-chair?

Probably a safe bet that BHA's board voted for Hillary Clinton. Or, in the primaries, Bernout.

Dave, are your eyes brown? I'm betting they are.

Maybe you can point me to where Wilderness was "tossed", because I work in this arena and I'm not aware of a Wilderness designation being undone...ever.

Wilderness is the new currency of environmental groups, and it damn sure isn't in short supply. There is more designated Wilderness today than at any point in history...and that's a fact.

I've enjoyed Wilderness both professionally and personally for over 20 years in my home-state of Idaho, but people that think it's necessary for the "protection" of public lands are kidding themselves. There are a myriad of management prescriptions available, most of which allow for far "better" management of lands imho...acknowledging that "better" is subjective in nature.

Wilderness designation is favored by land-managers in my experience, simply because it allows them to walk away and essentially "do" nothing...if for no other reason that it is the least utilized public land in America. I'm not arguing that it doesn't have some inherent value for the record, just that it has very, very low utilization as compared to other federal lands.

I don't favor another acre in Idaho being designated as Wilderness. Some is fine, but we long ago reached what I believe to be "balanced" in Idaho.

As to the matter of BHA,...they are an extremely "green" group in Idaho. If you believe otherwise you're either a member yourself or you've never researched the issues they weigh in on in Idaho.

This is encouraging. More and more people are opening their eyes and getting a clue.

Well said, Sir!

If I look at this debate from another perspective some interesting things come to light.

Their President is Land Tawney - Ardent Obama supporter in fact Chair of "Sportsmen for Obama Committee" in 2008. He also donated $500 in his name to the John Tester campaign individually and $500 from the organization to a PAC for John Tester. Personally I have no opinion about John Tester, I do have an opinion on anyone that supported Obama being aboveboard about their aims. (Source - http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norindsea.shtml)

From a financial standpoint, their form 990 seems a little wonky to me (I'm an engineer not an accountant) - Form 990 .

$1.26 million in income with 9 employees and zero grants given, but a whole lot of "other expenses" as well as an average salary of $53K for each of those 9 employees. Note in 2014 their executive compensation exceeded 10% of their income.

Public support for 2015 was 58% of their income (Section D). Where did the rest come from?

In Part I-A they gave $106,000 in political expenditures. In Fundraising events (Schedule G Part II) they spent $113K in two events and netted $55K.

Sure, taxes are a bit masked by nature but I look at the numbers and wonder where they got their money and who did they give it to (other than themselves)?

Lots of good charities out there but are folks donating to this one getting their bang for the buck? I wonder but it's up to everyone to make a decision.

Well now, that's certainly interesting info Pugs, thanks.

Of course, they probably don't have to list to whom those political contributions went, (Thanks to citizens united or some other court decision?)

Seems I'm going to have to try to remember to send an email request to BHA before they get any more of my money.

I'm in a bit of a dilemma (anyone else taught that word as dilemna?) now, similar to politics, I have to make a hard choice.

Geno

If one were to care very much about land utilization, multiple use, and beating their bible, and yelling at the damn demoncrats .. that's one thing.

If you're primarily interested in "backcountry hunting and angling" maybe join BHA.

This.

There are benchmarks for efficiency in non-profits for how much money collected goes to the issues they claim to serve and those numbers appear out of whack.

I also agree with a total lack of comfort with the head of the organization being such an ardent Obama supporter, although if this is his single issue the problem there is that the GOP has made sale of Federal lands a part of its platform.

I'm really tired of having to choose between having guns (as I fear we would not if left to the Dems) and having access to use them (as I fear we would not if left to the Reps).

And yes, I recognize that the 2A isn't about hunting at all, but part of our nation's ethos is hunting game held in public trust on lands open to all. That to me is central to the contrast the FFs bought into when they declared independence from the crown.

Anyway great discussion here even if the answers aren't nearly as cut & dried as I'd like. Thanks to everyone who is contributing.

Thanks efw,

that about sums up my situation for the last 40 years or so.

Geno

PS, a ways back someone mentioned, to paraphrase, there's millions of acres of already designated roadless areas (or something similar) isn't that enough? Perhaps the same could be said about "roaded" areas. Without googling it, I'd be willing to make a small wager there are many more acres of public land accessible by road than the roadless areas.

The BS continues I see.

Not sure what the problem is with anyone supporting Jon Tester, he's been a huge asset to the hunting and angling community as well as multiple/wise use of public lands.

https://www.tester.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=3694

Anyone remember anything about the Tester/Simpson rider that delisted wolves in ID and MT and gave both states Management authority of wolves?

Tester is also very opposed to the transfer of public lands to the States...whats not to like?

https://www.tester.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=4396

The Boone and Crockett club, RMEF, BHA and others seem to be happy with what Tester is doing for our public lands, waters, and wildlife.

https://www.tester.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=3803

Of course, as always, feel free to believe the likes of Skinner and Rockinbbar...and their "facts" from sources like their "hero" Will Coggins...hilarious.

Pretty safe wager, by a landslide.

765 designated wilderness areas total of 109,127,689 acres...about 5% of the land mass of the United States. Apparently 95% being open for multiple use isn't enough.

There are 640 million acres of Federal lands total...so less than 1/6 of all federal lands are designated wilderness.

Good discussion Dave, and I'd like to add to it.

First when you talk about being"green," I think you have to define that a little. Are you talking "Green Party" green, or someone like me who values clean water, clean air, and wide open spaces? Like efw, I'm tired of having to choose sides in that particular debate.

Second, you are correct in that there is more designated wilderness now than at any time in history, but that's not surprising since the designation only took place in 1964 and we've added to the total acreage since then. So we're not talking about a big slice of "history." If you want to talk about wildlife habitat and places available for the average guy to hunt, then no we don't have more than in the past. We have less, and we're losing more of what we have every year.

You're right in that there are many different ways to manage the National Forest and BLM lands short of wilderness designation that work well. As far as the "level of use" for designated wilderness IMO that all depends on what your particular use is. I can tell you that during hunting season, people flock to designated wilderness in Colorado and there are many places with too many hunters. Same thing in the summer with some of the more popular hiking destinations like high country lakes. I've seen too many hunters in multiple wilderness locations, the designation is a magnet for hunters to the point that I avoid some of them. There are better places to hunt that don't have the designation, they're just roadless so not as many hunters target them.

As far as more wilderness in ID, I can't comment on that because I don't live there. That's a local/state matter. I can tell you that here in CO, lots of people do favor more designated wilderness, and I cited one example in a previous post. Again, it's a local/state issue.

[quote=smokepole

Again, it's a local/state issue.

[/quote]

We'll agree to disagree on that Smoke. Wilderness is most definitely NOT a local issue...nor are Monuments for that matter. Case in point is the entire Utah delegation opposed the recent Bears Ear designation, as well their state legislature (which they put to a vote).

If you want to argue that since they are federal lands perhaps it shouldn't BE a local/state issue...okay. That argument has merit...but don't tell me it's a "local" decision because it isn't. It's very much a POLITICAL decision, usually driven by special interest groups...like BHA. I know people like the notion of hunting Wilderness areas in particular, but in Idaho it's the least productive land in the state as far as deer/elk populations. I'm generalizing, but call my bluff on that with a box of bullets wager and I'll show you with IDFG's own data.

I realize that causation/correlation may not be in effect where Wilderness designations occur, but your "management" options become much more limited when you impose the constraints that Wilderness brings. Large-scale fires have changed the landscape of the West in particular. It's hard to put out a huge fire when there is no access to it. Hard to manage wolves when there are no access to them, and they can kill freely with little chance of human predation. It's hard to harvest from beetle-killed forests when you can't get to the trees. Wildlife populations are dynamic and I'm not suggesting Wilderness is mutually exclusive of good hunting, but it definitely can create conditions such that it's counter-productive to good hunting.

That's where groups like the BHA come into the picture. They never met a Wilderness proposal they didn't like. The irony of course, is the chickens are coming home to roost as it were.

Hundreds of miles of trails within the Frank Church in particular are literally being lost from a lack of use and maintenance. Wilderness areas in Colorado might be small enough to be utilized by day-hunters, but for MOST of the trails in Wilderness in Idaho....it simply isn't physically feasible for about 99.9% of the population. To compound the issue, Wilderness designation precludes any type of mechanized equipment being utilized to maintain trails (like chainsaws), the USFS typically throws their hands up and says, "we don't have the budget for maintenance". This in turn has led to vast areas being largely inaccessible to ANYONE because the trails are the only realistic travel corridors.

All of this is exclusively my own opinion (with some facts sprinkled in), so you're welcome to call me an azzhat and draw conclusions otherwise of course.

Dave

If wilderness's are a state and local issues then let the states decide how to manage and if they need more that's the problem feds do. As to Tester nope not a fan tried a so called agreement between the timber industry and our lovely Environmental groups to do more logging but he refused to take the litigation out of it so you know what that meant know matter what just do the paper work and the enviro's still could have stopped every timber sale until that part changes nothing will

I reckon some here probably are not happy with Trump's directives today concerning wilderness and national monuments...


Damn. Going back 20 years because of the gov't overreach and presidential abuse.






http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/26/trump-orders-review-national-monument-designations.html

I'm glad that Trump, Pence and the Interior Secy. "get it".

John Tester votes like he represents Cali or New York.

Hope he gets the chance to after 2018.

Testor is an Obama democrat.

iddave,

The locals have a much stronger voice in regard to land management decisions on Federal land, than people from out of the area, that's a fact.

The trouble is, one local that doesn't get his/her way 100% of the time, and its immediately "over-reach", and "DC making all the decisions".

Never mind that in many cases, the locals are in agreement with the decisions. Just because a couple local loud-mouths or politicians don't agree, doesn't mean squat. Show me any proposal on anything where you get 100% agreement...and I'll show you a picture of bigfoot in a flying saucer.

As to your argument about more game being killed outside wilderness in Idaho, cant disagree. But, having worked extensively in Wilderness in Idaho, as well as MT, CO, AZ, NM, etc. I think your comparison is somewhat suspect. A lot of the WA's in all those States are not that great in the habitat department, and never were...we've done a great job of designating a chitload of rock and ice into wilderness. Also, much of the high elevation wilderness is utilized by big-game in the Summer months, but a lot of game transitions out to fall/winter range shortly after the first couple hard freezes of the year.

But even at that, there's still very good hunting to be had.

As to the trails in the Frank, and elsewhere, I agree. But, funding is THE issue, and you can thank Congress for their lack of giving a chit about the trails in the Frank. Tell them to start providing the necessary funding. It costs money to maintain trails...period.

As to the rest, I see no need to fight fires in Wilderness or log beetle killed trees there either. Much of it is has marginal value at best, and even if you could punch roads into it, probably cost more to build the roads than the timber is worth. Clearly below cost venture as a best case.

Been at this stuff for a while myself...over 30 years professionally.

So you know I'm not bullchitting...recognize any of this country? If you've spent much time in the Church...you should.

Tester you mean...you don't know chit from low grade peanut butter.

Also, go back and edit your last post, wilderness is designated by congress and there is no "going back" to review anything about it. Ask Zinke, he'll set you straight.

As per usual, you haven't the first clue.

Yeah. I'm wrong.

OK here's the correction.

Tester. He's still an Obama democrat. No matter how you spell his name.

National Monuments taken fraudulently to lock up millions and millions of acres by abuse of the Antiquities Act.

I should have said wilderness taken by the Antiquities act. Wilderness that was in multiple use. Not "Wilderness" that gets your rocks off...

Since you are so high up, and all knowing, Buzz...

Perhaps you can tell us all why nobody has bothered to deny the financial contributions to BHA by greenie organizations and benefactors?

If it doesn't happen, proof ought to be well at hand to show everyone that only the interests of hunters are the main goal.

I'll not hold my breath though.

Glad to see some adults on here, it was lonely the last time.

Pugs, good for you dredging up the BHA tax returns, any others interested can go here for more paper than you could ever stand:
http://www.eri-nonprofit-salaries.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=NPO.Search

I will comment that the 58% public support percentage claimed by BHA for 2015, which is here:

http://990.erieri.com/EINS/201037177/201037177_2015_0d10c7e9.PDF

is a typical deception.

First, a read of their mission and programs on page 2 of 33 gives their actual activities. Kind of dense, but worth a careful reading.

Now, go to page 9 and you'll see they got $154,035 in membership dues. They claim on page 1 500 "volunteers" so that comes to 308 per active member. "Fundraising event" generated a whole $1,000 even.
Total "all other contributions" were 1,1 million.
But then lower on page 9, the gross income from fundraising is 132,000, minus 58 grand direct expense, leaving 74,000 in fundraising net -- not $1,000.

You have to go clear down to page 31 to see the fundraiser was the "Rendezvous".

As for Public Support, that schedule on page 15 (page 2 of the Schedule A) shows that about half of BHA's money ($646 grand out of 1.265 million total) came from donors giving over $5,000 or over 1% of the gross for the year (which would be grants in excess of 12,650 per check, rather big amounts).
If it were all 12,5 grand checks, that would be a little over 50 checks, but two things are evident:
One, few members of the "public" write such big checks to nonprofits.
Two: There's no Schedule B, redacted or otherwise, that lists the checks.

Why might that matter? Go to page 22. You'll see 106,000 spent on "political expenditures." That's perfectly legal, but substantial. And did BHA use any of their "volunteers" for lobbying? No (page 23). They spent 34,000 on advertising and 62,000 on "direct contact" with legislators, 10,000 on rallies.

So BHA is clearly political. That's fine. And they have an agenda that is focused primarily on wilderness designation and keeping public lands control firmly in the hands of the environmental movement.

That's why I push for education about them.

The real BHA, that is.

I hope more and more get educated.

There are huge deal breakers in there.

Buzz im not saying punch roads in wilderness, log or anything like all im trying to say is manage the land outside of the wilderness and not let the enviro be able to sue to stop every single timber sale no matter what. The Flathead had a huge fire that was the Big Creek fire that burned i think around 186,000 acres very little of it was in Glacier Park. I took part in so called collabrative week long meetings with the Montana logging assc.,USFS,Wilderness Assc. trout unlimited and other groups after all that the USFS decide to log 7,000 acres of the 186,000 that burnt. So 15 years latter what didnt get cut by firewood getters that we were required to leave is blown down rotting. We reguired to leave anything over 18" next to the roads that latter were cut down by fired wood getters it was so bad they had to get law enforcement to watch over it. I tried to get the fish biologist to let us cut some trees down next to streams so the bare mineral soil wouldn't wash into a fish stream after the trees would blow down that they were worried about and we could helicopter them out since one would be in the area and place some shade trees for the stream and he said those trees that blow down and cause sediment in the stream were incidental and didn't count towards his parts per millon that he said was gonna go in the stream it was the roads that were gonna cause most of it. WTF tell me if you can reduce sediment in a stream who cares how you do it. Thats the mentallity. these were s
Dry stream beds that were tributarys to a bigger stream and only small amount of water when the snow melted and we had to stay 300 feet away with our equipment. The Grizzly bear biologist wanted a road decommisioned just because it was gonna be easier for people to see a grizzly bear now and a higher chance for someone to poach one WTF. Untill all that kinda crap changes nothing will get done. We had some republican representaives there but not one Democrap showed up so dont tell me democrates are for multiple use. Ryan Zinke is the best thing thats has happened for the west becoming secretary of intererior, Bet he had a hand in finally allowing wyoming to do something about wolfs.

You're still wrong, you don't even know what a wilderness is...and what monument designation "locks up fraudulently".

For the record how many acres of designated wilderness have been "locked up" in monuments?

No comment on the Simpson/Tester rider? No comment on the RMEF, B&C club, etc. that support Tester's other bi-partisan legislation...just going to continue to ignore the fact?

Tester has a lot of support from Montana's hunting, fishing, and public land users, and for good reason. He's been a rock for sportsmen and public lands.

As to your question about where BHA gets some of its funding, I'm fully aware and have no problem with it. You wont find a group that supports public lands, science based wildlife management, hunting, fishing, and trapping more than BHA. You also wont find any group that has more bad to the bone, hardcore sportsmen than BHA either. I've known many of the guys/gals that support BHA, one hell of a lot longer than BHA has existed.

Yell all you want from the cheap seats, the movers and shakers are making a difference...big-time.

Oh, and did you know Don Jr. is a life member?

Buzz, can you try to be a bit more condescending?

Wilderness has two meanings.

Wilderness has always meant wild, unimproved land. It hasn't been long that the definition has turned into what you refer to wilderness as.

I speak of the first definition.

As I said, there are deal breakers. Your little golden boy senator vote for gun control?

Did he vote to confirm the last SC justice? Deal breaker. You can keep him. My senator is Cruz. I'll keep him.

Good for Don Jr. Did he buy the membership, or did you guys send him one to add his name to the roster?

sherm_61,

You're going to have to help me out here...Wedge fire, 2003?

I don't recall any fires that were 186K in 2003, IIRC, the largest was the little Salmon Complex at about 88K.

Don't want to "guess", like most here are forced to do.

Yeah, I know the definition is confusing for you, its only been around since 1964...

As to Tester, he gets an "A-" rating from the NRA, so no, he doesn't vote for gun control. He's from Montana, a farmer.

Matter of fact, he grew up about 10 miles from where my buddy and I killed these 2 deer:



I wish Tester was my Senator, he's damn good for sportsmen and the 2nd...and public lands, and responsible for getting wolves delisted in MT and ID.

"Designated Wilderness" is what happens when you have a democrat controlled congress.

"National Monument" is what happens when you have a liberal, greenie president, but no backing from congress, and want to take the land away from multiple use anyway.

I'm familiar with the process.

That's why Trump issued the executive order today.


Does the NRA give grades on politicians anymore?

Harry Reid had a pretty good one from them. Doesn't make him a conservative. Doesn't even make him a good guy. It just made him someone that took money from the other side to stay in office.

I'm sure glad nobody is denying, and you even acknowledge where the lions share of BHA money comes from. That's commendable.

You clock out yet, or are you drawing time and half?

[quote=BuzzHYeah, I know the definition is confusing for you, its only been around since 1964...

As to Tester, he gets an "A-" rating from the NRA, so no, he doesn't vote for gun control. He's from Montana, a farmer.

Matter of fact, he grew up about 10 miles from where my buddy and I killed these 2 deer:



I wish Tester was my Senator, he's damn good for sportsmen and the 2nd...and public lands, and responsible for getting wolves delisted in MT and ID.

[/quote] Tester voted for enhanced background checks after Sandy Hook, Just like chuck schumer
That fat bastard would need a hand to climb onto his daddy's tractor, farmer my ass
A degree in music from great falls and a short career as a music teacher

I wish he were your senator as well.

Rockinbbar, do you ever research anything before you spout crap?

The 1964 act had about as much bi-partisan support as one can get:

The final bill passed the Senate, 73-12, on April 9, 1963, and the House of Representatives, 373-1, on July 30, 1964.

As to when I "clocked off", while none of your business,...Tueday...at 6:00 pm, after working 9 straight 10+ hour days, thanks for asking. I reckon I'll be working for free another 10 before the end of the week.

Buzz the total acreage I'm referring to I believe was the wedge in 2003 it was the big Creek drainage it basically completely burnt and the fire about 5 years later made the total around the 186,000 acre.basicall those 2 fires were 1, they burnt together. If Tester wanted to change all this he could have when the Democrats had control of the white house senate and house but he sat on the fence and didnt. Same thing with the wolf never once did I here him say that what the eviros were doing by all the litigation it was wrong

Not once did I hear Tester publically say that let the states manage the wolf he just sat on the fence. Say what you want the wolf has had a big impact on our deer and elk herds especially the moose. We have to many bears and predators period. Take a look at the Yellowstone elk herd I remember before the so call reintroduction of the wolf there were 2,000 cow permits now none

In 1992 there were wolves already here in N.W montana I saw them and new where there dens were. What is now the lost trail refugee, when it was the R Lost trail ranch was were they were an ole rancher on the other side Bob Monk finally shot one because he got tired of them getting in his cows before the feds would admit to them here. So no true reintroduction they were already here it just sounded better to the city folk

Dave, as far as state/local control, what I'm saying is, the state delegation should have a say, Unlike Utah. And not all state delegations are against more wilderness.

Have a say? No, pole, should be veto power AND approval by Congress.

Buzzard and Sherm,

The fires up the North Fork were Roberts and Wedge, there's been so many up there and so much burned, I can't flipping remember any more. The 2001 fire was the Moose, that nuked Big Creek all the way to the old ranger station at the bottom, then R and W, plus Doris, Stanton etc etc in 2003.

Last year, there was a NEW fire in the Roberts burn, unsalvaged. My logging buddies made a lot of money trying to put that one out, one which should never have happened at that scale except it was never salvaged because of the Greens.
Red Meadow fire was the first biggie in 1988, super hot, jumped the North Fork river, all these fires, left to rot not just on the Park side (which is okay, it's a park) but to rot and burn again on the "multiple use" side.

Just an outrageous waste of habitat that could have been kept through logging and salvage, waste of millions of trees, all for the fetish that all forest fires are "natural" and therefore beneficial.