Home

I have been to their site before and know some of the people with them, on the committees. Perhaps they are worth the price of admission.

Been thinking the same thing. The bank account just got a little bit lighter.

Sam the Mighty Farmer says

Along with a few 'do-gooder', transplant "Montanan's" who live on the opposite side of the state.
(some of whom post on this sight....)


You better not be talking about ME, Sam.

I finally read the HSUS complaint. It's all BS, but the interesting thing is the organizations listed and the token "hunters" they found (not).
There's like ten people driving this, one lady represents two "groups" and her husband is listed as a private citizen and "sportsman." That -- or get divorced and pay. She's a zealot.
As for Smokey -- BHA is a joke, you are willing to sell out everything for "roadless areas," right?
And you support predator restoration? Did you know the science is in and wolves eat down 75 to 85 percent of the production? Have you ever considered that hunter success is important to the survival of hunting and OUR recruitment? And that good game production happens where the vegetation is managed to create forage?

I always see elk in seas of pumpkin patches and road hunters behind a windshield or handlebars.

Damn this gets old. Can you read the English language?

Go back, read what I wrote, and tell me how on earth you came up with me being in favor of predator restoration.

Oh, that's right, I'm a member of BHA, so that means I'm a professional "greenie," no doubt a wolf-lover and Obama supporter to boot. You crack me up.

In my post above, I referred to the initial RMEF position as a mistake that I was glad they corrected.

As far as BHA being a joke, no, it's not. Obviously, it has a different focus and different priorities than you.

But I do get a kick out of people who say out one side of their mouth: "we as hunters need to stick together" and then out of the other side "that group is a joke" because we have different priorities and focus. It's the pinnacle of hypocrisy.

And WTF are you talking about "sell out everything?" That's nonsense and you know it.

I like to hunt roadless areas, and the reason I like to hunt roadless areas is really simple: The hunting is better there. Much better.

It's been documented in study after study that elk and big mule deer don't like vehicular traffic. They leave areas with lots of it, and so do I.

I'm not out there advocating the creation of more roadless areas, I just want to keep what we have. And if you look at the percentage of public lands that are roadless, the vast majority are not. Even in roadless areas, ranchers aren't locked out. My favorite area to hunt has sheep all over it more years than not, and the last bull I stuck an arrow in was in a roadless area that was "locked up" to vehicles but not to the rancher on horseback running his cattle there, who I had a nice conversation with.

So yes, I belong to BHA. Name another pro-hunting organization that's focused on preservation of roadless areas. What organizations do you belong to and what do you do to preserve hunting?

People who want to drive everywhere whine and bitch about being "locked out" of roadless areas. Which is hilarious to me because all you need to hunt roadless areas is the willingness to walk a couple miles.

That is, if we're still talking about hunting here.

Are we?

As for BHA - I think the Clearwater Basin Collaborative in ID and BHA's role in it (increased access, increased logging, increased backcountry protection, and all partners agreeing from left to right as a win/win) negates the "pro-green, enviro-wacko" diatribe. So, too, would going to one the National Rendezvous. Then again, the nutcases on the left try to paint NRA members as rabid, Rambo-esque retards Hell-bent on overthrowing the government and shooting every minority, woman, and child in sight.

Neither baseless stereotype is correct.

This thread provides some good examples of why conservatives are losing a lot of political battles: they spend much of their time fighting each other and arguing over ideological purity instead of uniting to defeat the opposition.

Whether we are talking about control of the senate or defeating attempts to marginalize and ban hunting it takes some unity to win. You will notice that our opponents don't have this problem. And it helps them win.

We need to get our act together.

I went to the one in Denver. It was pretty good, lots of serious hunters and good gear on display there. Got to try out the new Paradox pack (that was the one they loaded with rocks and had the "guess the weight" contest) and ended up buying one. I'm glad I did, and I hope to be hauling some heavy loads of something other than rocks in it come this September.

That's exactly right.

I get into discussions that can get heated here because I tend to see the overall picture about the big battle we have on our hands now.

While I may not use what you use for a gun, or may not hunt the way you hunt, I'll fight for your rights and freedom to do so, and use what you want.

We have allies in the fight to keep the radical environmental groups from totally controlling public lands, and what goes on within them. It's not just about hunting. It's about freedoms and multiple use our public lands have had since they were created.

We not only need to stand together as hunters, we need to embrace these allies and join forces with them. The environmentalist, anti-hunting, and anti gun groups are doing that very thing. Divided we fall.

Exactly. It's long past time we all figured that out.

Ah, now we're down to the crux of the matter, as I suspected. For me, it is about hunting. And shooting, hiking, fishing, and camping on public lands.

Last time I checked, that was the reason for this website.

I support multiple use. As long as it doesn't screw up the land and water for the things listed above. Logging and grazing are pretty much managed so that they don't. Mining is pretty much kept to limited areas where it doesn't, although historically that wasn't true. And still isn't, if we were to give mining companies free reign on things like the Pebble Mine. Oil and gas drilling needs to be managed so that it doesn't.

Lastly, you do recognize the arrogance inherent in this statement:



It implies that the people you get into these heated discussions with don't have the same insight as you. Which I can assure you is not the case.

Sorry, but the entire "hunters and anglers" movement is based on splitting the hunter baby. That's why it's funded by Commie foundations, not real members. You're a token, Smokey, or what is regarded as a useful tool, in a deliberate strategic ploy to co-opt the conservation cred away from the long-standing institutions and traditionally conservative (and CONSERVATIONIST) sportsmen to a preservationist, anti-human utility model.
One of the things you kids need to realize is, hunting is only five weeks a year. Ya gotta be able to do something the other 47 weeks to buy all that gear that also gives you the disposable income to be able to take the time off required for the sort of hunting experience you crave.
Second, you can't "preserve" the landscape. It's dynamic, even wildernesses. If you want to do any kind of vegetation management (yo, food) and have it be cost-effective, you need to put iron on the ground and iron needs road access to get the wood (which pays for the management) out to a mill. Nothing else works on the bottom line.
Don't you guys "get" that the same people funding the uber radicals like CBD also fund the "moderate" groups? Ever heard of astroturf? Ever heard of good cop bad cop? Of having a radical out front to make YOUR positions look reasonable? Duh!
As for the Clearwater group, I doubt the BHA people support access unless it's through private property, and only for nonmechanized recreational use with a sop thrown to the mountain bikers.
Go ahead and be misguided, kids.

You might doubt it, but you'd be wrong. It seems you have a lot of hyperbole but little facts.

You are right about a division within the sporting ranks, though. You've done that to yourself.

+1. No facts. Calling the rest of it hyperbole is being charitable.

Love to see your information on how BHA is funded Dave. Care to share that?

If BHA is a deliberate "strategic ploy" to co-opt the conservation movement, is must have been founded by a bunch of radicals. Who are they Dave?

I suspect that Dave will pull up this site: http://www.greendecoys.com

Amazing how IWLA (been around a very long time), Trout Unlimited (yeah, because they are a "fake" group), BHA and others headline that site.

And yet, a quick analysis of who runs that site and who pays them and for them is rather telling. There are not many people out there who can get paid to run a group by groups that they used to work for, and then hire themselves and their family out as "consultants" to both groups to be paid to do "research" on their target organizations.

Last time I checked I didn't need your GD permission to talk about what I want to talk about.

And the last time I checked, Rick didn't need a dumbass for a moderator either.

If you read at the top of each page, the title says "Where the outdoor flame burns bright". Discussion or subjects are not limited to "hunting". But if that trips your trigger, you may want to consider staying out of the "freakshow" as you put it...

If you think that statement was arrogant, you are entitled to your opinion. I call it educated. I have dealt with the enemy on many fronts. Not just anti-hunters.

Lastly,....

.... You support a lot, as long as it's done the way YOU think it ought to be done.

All that you mentioned are "managed"... Some of them are being "managed" into extinction as industries.

The very laws and policies that keep those industries on public lands are what keeps YOU hunting on them.

Well, that discussion of finding commonalities and not differences didn't last long...

Ya think?

I don't know why we always end up on the opposite end of things. Perhaps it's because we really ARE.

I know I see things in pretty much black and white. I don't have much compromise to me... That's what got us in this mess of loss of freedoms and gun rights and hunting in the first place.

But I'll be damned if he's gonna tell me one more time that I can't talk about anything but "hunting".... I WAS talking about hunting.

That's right, you don't need my permission. And I don't need your permission to comment on what you say either. And let's be clear, I'm not attempting to moderate anything, it's an open forum. I'm just saying things you don't want to hear.

My point about this being a hunting site is this--you keep saying you're all about hunting and doing all you can to preserve our tradition.

But you're not, you're all about multiple use on public lands. Which is fine, just don't misrepresent what you're about here.



LOL, are you telling me you're any different? You, who see things in black and white and don't have much compromise in you?