Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Backpack Hunting Backpack hunters and anglers organization

You'd need to ask the Forest Service, those rules were in place long before BHA existed.

Why wont bha preserve pristine wilderness from livestock and stock animals? No money in it?

Beats me. Maybe because horses aren't motorized vehicles?

Seriously though, if you want to ban livestock from wilderness, you need to get to work. Don't just piss and moan on the internet and whine about why another organization won't drop what they're doing and take up your personal cause.

Of course im not serious. Unlike the avg bha member, i dont feel like everyone should cater to my personal whim. In reality i really just have fun with bha stuff. Their members are borderline cult members and lose their [bleep] when someone points out they have questionable affiliations (like you). Plus i loathe one of their loud mouth know it all wyo board members (suck it buzz)

Their groupies act like they're saving the world one 'pint night' at a time, and its laughable......even more so when you tell them they arent.

So keep it entertaining and continue the cry baby meltdown.

In the grand scheme of things all bha does is pat its self on the back, and help the p.r. of anti hunting/gun companies. Ya yall are saving us all.......lol

Classy.

That's hilarious coming from the shrillest poster on the thread. Let me know if you want some cheese to go with your whine.

But tell me this. If all BHA does is pat itself on the back, why are you so worried about it? You've got a pretty big axe you're grinding there, you must be really concerned.

Pretty sure the wheel predates them both.

You go girl, fight the good hipster fight.

In designated wilderness, do tell.

Obtuse as always, laffin

The wilderness act outlawed the use of the wheel, which until that point, was perfectly legal to use.

The group you are affiliated with are wilderness advocates. I don't recommend supporting them monetarily.

Yes, I'm very well aware of that. My point was, wheels have never been legal in designated wilderness so wheels don't predate anything in wilderness designated by the act. Which is what we were talking about right? That's not so obtuse, is it?

And thanks for letting me know that BHA are wilderness advocates. Who would've guessed, they've been keeping that a secret. Probably because it's such a nefarious thing to advocate for, unspoiled landscapes.

As long as we're giving recommendations, I recommend that you support the organizations you choose. It's your time and your money, and more power to you.

Whatever organizations you choose to support, you won't hear me telling you to do otherwise because I disagree with your choices. Because it's none of my business.

I am interested in joining a group that protects our public land and the access to the public land. I am willing to contribute financially and volunteer my time to that organization. I am interested in public lands locally and nationally. I sent BHA a email asking about a Indiana chapter. I looked BHA website over and they appear to be the group I may join. Or is there another group or two that you would suggest?
I listen to Randy Newbergs podcast and when I heard him speak of a large section of public land in Idaho that is for sale or sold to a private company it upset me. There is no telling what else is being done locally and nationally. I would like to belong to a public lands group with focused firepower.
Thanks in advance. Looking for recommendations.

I joined BHA for much the same reasons. They look like a good outfit to me.

Another group you may consider is Pheasants Forever. I don't know what they do in Indiana specifically, but in some states that I have lived in, they were very active in creating more public hunting lands and in contributing to habitat improvement on private lands.

Your every post verifies your lack of credibility


mike r

Thank you, that means so much..

There will always be a gaggle of Fudds who will be susceptible to the BHA's "charms," I accept that. Doesn't matter if the ground is burnt flat, just as long as they can take their rifle for a walk on "public lands" it's all good.
But BHA's funding comes from the same foundations that are dumping hundreds of millions into the warmunist cult narrative, and not just that, but the entire progressive, America stinks and we should be just like the EU narrative as well.
There's no reason to have inappropriate wilderness "study" areas hung in limbo for the past 50 years, except politics. There's no reason for anything but appropriate seasonal closures on the roads and trails network, except politics. There's no reason to blindly oppose liquid or solid minerals production on public lands, or grazing, or forestry, or motorized recreation. MANAGING all those, yep, but that's not what BHA does. BHA, and its members, are tools of the Greens. Period.

As of right now there is no Indiana BHA chapter, though I think OH and KY may have them. One thing I recommend for local public land is to make sure your state representatives and state senators know of your support for the Healthy Rivers INitiative (https://www.in.gov/dnr/6498.htm). This has opened and will open more lands for the public to access. IMO, a great program.

That's rich Dave, is your concept of wilderness something that can be turned on and off by throwing a switch or locking a gate? It's clear that the idea of a place you can't access with a vehicle is abhorrent to you but luckily the majority of Americans disagree. If that wasn't true, there'd be no wilderness. You state your opinions as if they're facts but they're not even well-reasoned opinions.

Dave, the truth is there are lots of good reasons to close a small portion of public land to vehicles, as evidenced by all of the different year-round users that flock to wilderness. If there was no advantage to pursuing their pastimes in wilderness, they wouldn't expend the effort of walking in. Just about any of the pursuits you can name are better in roadless areas, and get better the farther one gets away from roads. Take camping for example, that's something everyone enjoys. I do my share of "truck camping" in places I can drive to, and I always bring an extra trash bag or two to clean up the beer cans, used diapers, and garbage people leave in their fire pits. But I don't particularly enjoy looking at live trees that have been slashed by some idiot with a hatchet, or listening to someone else's idea of "good music" at midnight. That's part and parcel of camping in areas with vehicle access. So sometimes I like to hike into areas where I can leave that all behind, lots of people do. Or take trout fishing. There's no comparison between a stream that's accessible by vehicle and one that's not, as far as the quality of fishing. Take mule deer or elk hunting, again no comparison. Radio telemetry studies show that elk especially avoid areas with vehicle traffic. Same with snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, mushroom picking, bird watching, peace and solitude, or fill-in-the-blank. I know you dismiss and look down on these types of users but the truth is, they have as much right to these lands as you, and as much say in managing them as you.

Personally, I'm glad that there are a few areas set aside (again, a small percentage of public lands) with much better hunting and fishing that I can access by just putting in the effort of walking in. Lots of hunters and fishermen feel the same. As much as you like to say otherwise, others aren't "locked out" of these areas. What it boils down to is, those willing to put in the extra effort are rewarded, and those who aren't, arent. I like that concept. It's similar to game management units with limited numbers of big game tags, except the only thing limiting the hunter is his willingness to put in a little effort.

And Dave, as much as you say otherwise, that's what BHA is all about. There's no left-wing conspiracy, and no affiliation with "the greens." That's a fairy tale you ginned up because you know it resonates with lots of people. BHA and "the greens" have one thing in common and that's the desire to keep wilderness areas as they are. Other than that, zero, zip, nada. I've been to a couple of BHA meetings and there were no "greens" there, just hunters and fishermen who like to pursue their pastimes in roadless areas.

Because that's where the best hunting and fishing is Dave. It really is that simple.

Again they just snuggled up with a ceo of a company that is actively attempting to shut down grizzly hunting.

https://www.keepgrizzliesprotected.com/the-scientsts


Does this not bother you? Let me guess "i dont have to agree with someone as long as they donate money". Well have no fear, once grizzly hunting is off the table theyll move to the next objective.

Lets face the reality. The folks at the top of bha hate trump (i doubt land ran a pac for him like he did obama), yvon hates tump. Thats all they needed to know to join forces. They couldn't care less that patagonia opposes big game hunting.

Good post smoke. My thoughts exactly.