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

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?