You guys know anything about Backcountry Hunters & Anglers ?? I have been addicted to Steve Rinella's podcast lately.. I have heard them on the PC.. Sounds like these guys are on the ball...

? Nothing Guys ??

Some claim that BHA ‘s mission is more environmentally guided preservation than hunting preservation. Their donors are often large corporations like patagonia and some others with questionable views on hunting’s role in conservation. Maybe Dave Skinner will be along to add to this, I know he was doing some questioning about their donor info a while back. To me they seem like a cloaked environmental outfit with a catchy name. Maybe I’m wrong.

Was just watching “Meat Hunter” on Netflix with Steve Rinella (I believe). He doesn’t strike me as our enemy.

Yeah, you are wrong. Yes they are pro habitat ... understanding that without habitat there is no game. Yes they are pro-environment as is any thinking hunter. They are also pro-public lands, understanding that our public lands heritage sustains our passion for the hunt. BHA members are not to be found in plywood blinds overlooking a pile of bait, rather they tend to be found with a pack on their back miles off the road system. Solid folks who understand and are working to protect both habitat and our connection to it.

Get involved with the BHA ... only then you can make an informed decision.

Thanks coot. I’ll do some research on them.

Timbermaster,

I believe in these folks, having been a member since BHA was founded. These folks are the real deal. Tell you what, I'll put skin in the game. PM me your name & address and I will set you up as a BHA member and pay your first years dues. This will give you an up-close look.

was a member for a year. a couple of issues that came up i thought they were a bit tree hugger about so did not renew. I aksed one of the folks trying to get me to renew about it and got an answer that didnt re assure me so didnt renew. like the idea and concept just not what i saw/heard.

I'd like to hear what BHA's stance is on the Second Amendment, the whole enchilada, semi auto's, Ar15's. And please don't tell me they are single issue and avoid 2nd Amend. discussions.
The enviro-angle is find and dandy but when you have Patagonia in your corner, that is not conducive to constitutional values.

Join. Going to perpetuate our sport a lot more than the Texas Cornflinger & Box Blind club ever will.

No offense to Texans meant.

Not necessary my friend. However it is a very nice gesture. If I find that BHA is aligned with my hunting values, I won’t hesitate to join.

Just found this relating to the BHA. Read it for what its worth.

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

"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."

The whole green decoy thing is, in itself, an attempt to mischaracterize and disguise political motivations.

BHA and other groups oppose public land transfer. So called “conservatives” want the transfer to occur and attempt to portray BHA as a liberal group. It’s not, although because the dems are currently the party most against the transfer, BHA does share some of the same goals.

Hardly a liberal group in practice however. It would be like if RMEF and the Sierra Club found themselves working to preserve the same piece of property. Nobody would call RMEF an animal rights activist group, but goals do align from time to time.

Well stated. I joined early and I've been to their get togethers here when they're in town. I didn't see any tree huggers, just hard core hunters.

Guys like Skinner can't stand BHA because it advocates for roadless and wilderness areas which are anathema to them. BHA doesn't advocate for roadless areas because Patagonia does, we do it because roadless areas are the best places to hunt and fish. Period.

On the face of it one would think that the greenies and hunters would be natural allies, and if it were not for the greeny obsession with the anti-firearm/hunting agenda it would be a comfortable alliance that would produce great benefits for rural communities.

Shame most greenies are wack-jobs.

True.

I belong to the NRA for 2A advocacy as do many other BHA members.

You should be asking the NRA what its stance on public lands is, both the Second Amendment and public lands are important for the çontinued survival of gun rights and hunting.

I was a member in WA for two years. I would say they are more a fraternal organization than anything. I think they overstate their power/effectiveness, and play the scare game a little too much. They have created a sort of "public land puritanism" whereby hunters are often "litmus tested" whether an animal was killed on public lands or not. If not, they are ridiculed. This happens on social media like mad. They have exhumed poor old Roosevelt to the point it's nauseating, and I don't think they are as transparent in their spending as they should be. BHA pays Tawney about 100K, spends another 100K on travel (?), and gets about 1.1 mil in contributions. Would like to see those detailed out. This would go a long way allay fears of the green decoy bit. Listening to Land in interviews, I'm weary of how often the "just being there' line is brought up. Yes, just being there is important, but that does nothing for fishers and hunters. And I think an unintended consequence of being a single-idea org is that while voting in public-land friendly people might help pubic lands, those same people are not as sympathetic to the interests of hunters. I think BHA needs to focus more on working with pro-hunting people who need to be more pro-public lands than the obverse. I can convince a more conservative person to be pro-public lands, than a big gov't liberal to be pro-gun or pro-hunting. I think this is why they get labelled green decoys as well. And I think it's shortsighted on BHA's part not to recognize that. Tawney has often said, "The name of the org is hunters and anglers," but forgets that the actions speak louder than words. They have yet to fully realize the enemy of your enemy is NOT your friend.

Great post.
They have no problem walking hand in hand with enviro-nazi groups.
Now they are sticking their nose here in Minnesota copper nickel mining. They have written the same crap you can find on Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness.
Let me tell you, Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness is no friend of hunters.
Go back to Montana Tawney, the people that live and work on the range don't want you or your liberal BS here.

Here is a thread from last year about them. They sound a little sketchy to me.
Kinda like the Humane Society asking for donations to help the homeless animals but they have turned into a radical animal rights group.
https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/11981840/1

I just looked at their website. 6 of the 10 members of the Board of Directors are also employed by major outdoor companies (Kimber, Yeti, Field & Stream, petersen's hunting, First Lite, etc). THis is not necessarily bad, but I wonder...for example, with the Bear's ears monument fight, I learned that the pro-monument side was powered by major outdoor companies such as as REI and Patagonia, and there is evidence that these companies may be mostly interested in supporting and expanding the high volume "industrial tourism" that supports their business, with no regard for other concerns. This can lead to hypocrisy and serious conflicts of interest (lots of good articles in the Canyon Country Zephyr about this, for example http://www.canyoncountryzephyr.com/...hompson-high-country-news-by-jim-stiles/).

I was also a member of BHA from the beginning but dropped out after a representative of the local chapter came down on what seems to me to be the wrong side of the 2nd amendment regarding assault rifles, and then Mr. Tawney proclaimed the acquittal of the Malhuer NWR defendants as a travesty, attack on our public lands, etc, while never even ackowledging that the reason for the acquittals was prosecutorial overreach and misconduct that were great examples of where our federal govenment has lost it's way. I worte Mr. Tawney about this but received no response.

On balance the BHA may actually be a worthwhile organization...I might sing up again but not sure yet. I e mailed them to ask for a financial statement and tax return.

WISC

Tawney is no friend to either hunters or 2A advocates. Another green decoy.

Everything I have seen of these guys is driven by the more wilderness/roadless etc. Ultimately more federal involvement and control driven by and paid for by people who are not backcountry hunters in the least.

When an outfit sets up shop in Montana yet is paid for from out of state (1st red flag), and that location they choose in Missoula (2nd red flag) and that funding comes primarily from the coasts (3rd red flag) and their leaders and donors are staunch supporters of the left (4th red flag), they are no-one and nothing I want any part of and do not support.

Your choice, but I see them far more of an enemy than my friend.

I will answer your question, yes BHA is on the ball and on point.

I cant believe how fast the membership has grown since I joined, how many State Chapters there are, and how much this organization gets done at the State and Federal levels.

While I could speak specifically about each State Chapter, I will only speak specifically to what the Wyoming Chapter has achieved in a relatively short 3.5 years that I've Chaired the State Board.

The first thing we did was find a group of dedicated, hardcore, hunters and anglers to join the board and we're all volunteers, we make nothing for what we do. The board here works tirelessly for public lands, wildlife, habitat, hunting, fishing, trapping, public access, etc.

A list of some of the things we're involved in:

1. We attend most all GF commission meetings.
2. We attend the Legislative sessions every year.
3. We have members/board members on various blue ribbon task forces appointed by our Governor, the WPLI process, etc.
4. Involvement in RMP's, FP's, travel plans, etc.
5. Actively work with the Office of State Lands and Investment on various State land issues (usually access related, land exchanges, improving access, etc.).
6. One of 8 member groups of the Wyoming Sportsmen's Alliance.

Things that we've accomplished in the last 3 years include:

1. Yearly funding to the Wyoming AccessYes program which yields public access to landlocked public as well as private lands for hunting and fishing in Wyoming.
2. Clarified flight/UAV regulations to make it illegal to scout big and trophy game from the air, I would argue the most solid regulations in the U.S. on that issue.
3. Reward program for the conviction of illegal off-road violations.
4. Sign project where we paid for signs to explain seasonal road closures and how they enhance wildlife habitat. We leveraged about 5K in funding for the project.
5. Buck and Rail fencing project to stop illegal off-road use in important wildlife habitat, specifically riparian/wetland areas.
6. Yearly cleanup of Federal Lands near town here where people shoot TV sets, computers, bottles, cans. etc. This land would be closed to shooting if not for our involvement in the yearly clean up.
7. Stopped a horrific state land exchange that would have resulted in a loss of about 5K acres of public access to some of the best elk hunting in the Laramie Range in elk unit 7.
8. Solved an issue with the license draw for Resident hunters here that would have resulted in about 500 Wyoming Hunters not drawing LQ elk tags.
9. Donated money to a reward program and money to directly pay a private land owner that has their land enrolled in the AccessYes program, that suffered vandalism to their summer cabin and equipment. The vandalism occurred during hunting season, but was not done by hunters. A Wyoming Chapter Board members was one of the first to personally donate to the compensation fund, and BHA was also one of the first sportsmens groups to donate money as well. We feel that private landowners that provide public access are absolutely crucial in our partnership to enhance public lands, habitat, access, and also wildlife.
10. Assisted with a mule deer capture/collaring effort to help understand migration corridors in several mule deer herds across the State of Wyoming.

I could go on and on about the things that the WYBHA chapter has done in the last 3 years, and IMO, we're just getting warmed up.

I'm a life member, and if there was a better organization that represented the interests of public lands, wildlife, hunting, fishing, and trapping than BHA...I'd be a member. Fact is, there just isn't.

As far as the green decoy crap, just consider the source...that's all I ask.

Finally, as to our board, I'd put them up against the board of any other wildlife group any day as the most dedicated and serious hunters, fishermen, and trappers found anywhere. They get it done, in the field and off...they represent everything that is right about public lands, public wildlife, habitat, hunting, fishing, trapping, and being engaged citizens in all of it.

Just go to ProPublica. I am inherently queasy about non-profits. Been involved in quite a few in various ways, and no matter how “good” the cause, they all have been flush with money and plenty of profit.

i ain't never heard tell of them, but i don't get out much now like i did in times past.

one thing for sure, habitat is everything. then we can harvest what the habitat produces.

You’d think that a so-called green decoy would at least have the balls to support a trapping ban if they want to further the liberal agenda

https://www.backcountryhunters.org/montana_bha_opposes_i_177

Okay, I'm here. BHA stinketh.

BHA is a Green group, period, funded by the same large foundations that bankroll Greens. It's an outgrowth of a strategic realization by Greens that they had no "hook and bullet" presence at all except a small proportion of "woo woo" hunters who, in the larger arena, would be absolute Fudds when it comes to gun rights, or even a right to hunt. In 2000, the green funders got the Clinton Administration to do what was called the "roadless initiative," which was basically an administrative, not Congressional, move to turn 58 million acres of Forest Service ground into wilderness. But NRA, on behest of its actual members in the West, who not only understand gun rights but public-lands access issues, opposed the roadless rule.
Pew Trust, which is green as grass even though it's oil man Joe Pew's money, took a small part of its billions and analyzed the lack of sportsman support for this 58 million acre travesty, and learned something important. Sportspeople are NOT organized like they should be, in staunch defense of the full spectrum of hunter opportunity. We're species specific (like RMEF, MDF, NAWS) or regional, with the only "national" thing being Safari Club, maybe the North American Hunting Club (which is a marketer, mostly) and, mostly by default, NRA. Most NRA members historically have been hunters who also like guns a lot. But NRA is a default voice, an incidental sort of deal, plus the main threat for so long has been gun rights. Think about what comes after guns have been demonized out of the mainstream -- then, no more single-shot "hunting rifle" or shottie for YOU.
So Pew and Audubon (which got like 10 million from Pew to p1mp for the roadless thing, gave money to TU to create the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Alliance as a TU "project." Membership was free, and the slogan was "Guaranteeing you a place to hunt and fish."
An excellent white lie. Hunting is allowed in wilderness -- and will probably be the last place hunting IS allowed given the animal rights freaks.
But wilderness hunting is hard, not for everyone. Which is fine with me...my Dad and I spent a LOT of time hunting the Bob Marshall out of Schaefer, and a LOT of time dragging our goodies back to civilization -- or at least the airstrip.
Then in about 2001 (it didn't take long), the greens started the "hunter and angler" narrative, as opposed to sportsmen and sportswomen, TRCA was the first. Move on to 2004 and the Outdoor Writers convention in Spokane, where I think Dave Keane criticized the Sierra Club for its support of roadless areas and wilderness. He was blasted by a small number of "woo woo" outdoor writers, plus a number of "usual suspect" blatant Green writers, plus a couple of Green spin houses, but the casualty was Outdoor Writers, which split into two groups, traditionalists, and the New Age types.
From that point on, Green groups have waved their token rusty Rem 700 beaters around and claimed the "hunter and angler" mantle, or tried to. But even writer Dave Petersen (a complete Wildlands Project green, who hunts regularly) conceded that only 20 percent of sportspeople buy into the "green" purist faction where hunting (only with proper respect and gratitude for Natures (capitalized) bounty) is the highest, best, and preferably only use on public lands besides hiking or primitive recreation. Most other sportspeople understand that managed game and managed habitats can be great experiences, and that other activities like grazing, petroleum, even mining, are necessary and appropriate in our modern society. I mean, even the most ecologically-correct put gas in their Subaru to drive to the trailhead, and need a job to pay for the gas and ammo.
Bottom line is, most members of the NRA "get it" in the larger context of realizing prosperous countries that can afford game management do a better job of providing sustainable game harvests for the long term, that there is a huge difference between conservation and preservation. But because hunting isn't NRA's top priority, there's a chance that BHA, TRCA and whatever could chisel off gullible Fudds to take positions counter to NRA, weakening NRA not only in terms of its admittedly-secondary, "default" position as the voice of sportspeople -- but also weaken NRA in terms of what has become its primary mission....protecting our Bill of Rights from the depredations of the American left wing.
Now we come to BHA. BHA was started by some Trout Unlimited staffers in Oregon, and on the early board of directors was one of the people who attacked Keane in Spokane. a former "environmental" reporter who quit to go to work for Resource Media, which is a "nonprofit" subsidiary or spinoff of Fenton Communications. This matters because Fenton is completely left-wing, got famous for the Alar apple scare which devastated apple producers in the Northwest and elsewhere for a few years, you know, with Meryl Streep freaking out before Congress? Yep, that was Fenton. But Resource Media is a spin-support house for greens, giving them expertise and media-effectiveness support pro bono, funded anonymously by the same big Green outfits that fund Environmentalism, Inc.
Keep in mind that Trout Unlimited has been co-opted for years (remember, they took Pew's money to start TRCP) and is primarily a green group, getting seven figure checks from Big Green every year. Ducks Unlimited is the same way. Getting the same money they have from sportsman members is much more difficult -- and by gosh, no matter who you are, you do what the funders want or you don't get another check. TU and DU say they do it for the trout, or the ducks, but it's trout or ducks uber alles.
It turns out I can probably prove that BHA is almost totally funded by the same multi-billion dollar leftie foundations that fund, for example, the warmunist cultists. I have the documentation I need, I just haven't sat down with it yet. Can't get a fat foundational or corporate grant to do it -- spin pays much better than telling the truth -- that's why, no kidding, there are FOUR public relations staffers for EVERY credentialed reporter in America. But I promise, I will do the math by the end of summer. For now, however, bottom line:
If you're a greenie Fudd or closeted Democrat and think your hunting, or wilderness (either in law or policy) should take precedence over everything, then BHA is for you.

X2...as much as I love tinkering with rifles they are pretty meaningless to me without hunting access and animals to hunt, therefore habitat. I’m an outdoorsman first and foremost, guns are the tools to participate in the dance.

So Land Tawney didn't support the Obama campaign?

Not trying to start a pissing match but you really didn't answer the question. Your example infers the source of money for a non profit is not important so long as the money is spent on the cause you deem vital to your personal interest. So we should assume you wouldn't have a problem with the NRA filling the bulk of their coffers from groups like the kkk, or neo nazis as long as they use the funds for defending a common goal such as gun ownership rights.

You say that as if I owe you an answer, which I don't. I'm not a spokesman for BHA, and I don't know if BHA even has such a thing as an "official position" on 2A. As I said, for 2A issues I support the NRA. Does the NRA have an official position on issues other than 2A that are important to me? I don't know, and I never thought to ask. Mainly because it doesn't matter to me.

As far as funding from the KKK and the like I'm not really interested in hypotheticals. Here's a good hypothetical for you though. If it looked like there were enough votes in congress to implement an "assault weapons" ban and in the middle of a pitched battle over that the KKK donated a lot of money to the NRA and those funds helped defeat the ban, what would you have to say about that? I'd say, I'll keep my AR and keep my distance from the KKK. I don't have a problem separating the two.

I didn't bother to read Skinner's post because I've read it many times before and it's always the same bunch of aspersions and innuendo. My stock answer to his stock schtick is, if a leftist Swiss billionaire wants to donate money that helps keep some short-sighted knucklehead congressmen from giving away our public lands, I don't have a problem with it, and it doesn't mean I agree with his leftist politics. I don't have a problem separating the two.

Look at who's behind the "green decoy" stuff. A Washington shill , er, sorry I meant "lobbyist."

Thanks guys.. After going back and forth in my head I just joined.. I hate giving money to anything that is trying to chip away at the freedoms this country has and all the boats that we as a nation has raised... I don't usually don't.. All I have to hear is one thing and I am out.. So I figure that if one day we as Freedom loving gun nuts start to take pages out of the watermelon/greendecoy play book of Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals just maybe if we join in enough numbers we can take back our internal dialog as a nation..

In Canada, we don't have wilderness preserves like there are in the States and we need that sort of preservation now before we give it all away to corporate interests. I guess I must be one of those "greenies". Habitat loss is the biggest threat to all species. Of course, that habitat loss is mostly attributable to the burgeoning human population.
You know, if one half of the US population died tommorrow, there would still be at least as many people in the US as there were when I was in high school in Idaho. If half of the people in the world died tomorrow, there would still be nearly twice as many people in the world than there were when I was In high school. This is a problem, folks, and we knew it was a problem 60 years ago. Nonetheless, we continue to facilitate increasing population and did so in order to ensure a growing economy. In other words, we did it for the money (and power and self interest).
Habitat preservation is a necessary thing. GD

Way to go, Cigar. You joined an outfit run by a guy who helped put Obama in the White House. Not the best thing for, as you put it, "freedom loving gun nuts." Now, I understand there's not much wilderness in Maryland, except maybe in the Annapolis legislature or Baltimore, so it might sound cool to have "more wilderness." But in practice, wilderness is an economic loser for the most part, and not necessarily the best option environmentally. You've heard of all the fires in the West? Well, last year, Montana burnt more ground (over a million acres, 3/4 forested) than was smoked in the 1910 fires that pretty much galvanized policy for the next 60 years. A lot of these fires burnt out of wilderness, but more important, many fires burnt in areas that USED to have decent road access. The road access is needed to jump on the fire before it gets too big and hot. After that, all you can do is back way off and hope you have time to put in a fireline that won't be overrun.
The net result is, there was a lot of that "habitat" and habitat attributes that went totally up in smoke and won't work for game production for quite some time. That's not a problem if there's similar habitat nearby, but when you burn from horizon to horizon, odds are the good stuff is gone.

Problem is they aren't stopping anyone from "giving away" public lands.

They actively advocate to tie up more land, impose the feds into more management and control, limit more everyday people by promoting more wilderness crap.

Right now they are considering dropping a bunch of WAS that have been in place for years, didn't meet the requirement to be a stand alone wilderness but maintained the wsa designation. Even thouhg the original designation was to drop as soon as an area was deemed not acceptable for the next level of protection.

These have drug on for decades beyond the original timeline. It has closed up huge tracts from common people. Congress is considering dropping the wsa and reverting these to standard public land management. BHA is screaming fro the rooftops that congress is "giving away" millions of acres of land. Losing control and protection bull crap. So these dollars aren't for protection etc. It is all about control by people thousands of miles away from the area to be managed and the people who utilize said areas.

Screw bha

This is borderline ignorance ... or you're not from the west. Out here, what we're seeing is large private companies closing their holdings to public access entirely or moving to a quota-based trespass fee system which locks out the bulk of the public. The only land the public has regular access to is precisely that wilderness.

I'm not sure if I'm for BHA or against, but I am for the truth and YOU are not telling it.

Tom

I assure you I live in Montana and absolutely assure you bha is strongly advocating keeping wsa under that designation even though they were designed to revert to their previous management which was (SPOILER ALERT!!!) public land.

WSAs were a step towards evaluating an area to determine if it needed to be made into a wilderness area. Original guidelines stated if the area didn't meet the requirements to become a full-fledged wilderness area it was to revert to its previous management. So, this crap drug on for decades. Most WSAs are still WSAs never destined to become full fledged wilderness areas. Currently there is a push to revert these back to normal public land management and use. But with money from the coasts and useful idiots who are easily duped into believing the scary guy behind the curtain is going to "give all the public land away" they advocate to maintain these areas, limiting activities that normal public lands allow.

I would love to have you show me where any corporation has blocked you from using public lands? No one can do that. Yes they can block you from trespassing on THEIR land. That is one of the basic tenets of this country, the right to private property. Are you bitching about that? Here where I live, there are nearly 26,000,000 acres of public lands that, if you can legally get to a border of that land, you can access it and use it to you heart's content. I believe there's more because the chart I used doesn't have corps acres incorporated. If you are FROM HERE, you obviously know they have some acreage here too, right? That also doesn't count section 16 and 36 in most all townships across the sate. You were aware of those too because you are FROM HERE, right?

For you to state wilderness areas are the only areas the public has access to is a bald-faced lie. I am looking out my windows and can see thousands of acres of BLM land that you can go roll around on and take a glorious public-lands dirt bath any time you want. I don't get where this crap comes from.

BHA is all about exerting more and more federal control over land under the guise of "protecting and preserving".

I don't think the BHA is all bad.

But, they are certainly controversial. Always have been.

It just seems to me that if an organization with a certain mission statement, when sticking to that statement, would not invoke controversy within the community it proposes to serve.

Buzz,

quite the list of accomplishments.

#3 on your list of things from the last three years is likely to piss off a few folks. Rewards for turning someone in who rides in a closed area. How outrageous.

Geno

PS, I was going to comment more but this whole BHA, DU, TU thing reminds me too much of how during many election cycles I'm just about disenfranchised. Want to support the 2A and pro labor causes ? Good luck in this or a few other states I've lived in. Want to support the 2A and keep large private companies away from public land management (Fee Demo types, let private concessionaires control access to some of our NATIONAL forests, that kind of stuff)? Again, good luck where I have lived. Many times I become a single issue voter and vote "conservative" and hope things I hold near and dear in other respects don't get trampled on.

Not sure how you can come to that conclusion. There are still lots of people who think divesting public lands is a good idea and we haven't heard the last from them. BHA has come out against it pretty vigorously and is at least as influential as any other group. Lots of hunters including me are in alignment with their position.




"Everyday people" are not limited in using wilderness, that's a non-starter. The vast majority of public lands have roads and 4-wheeler access that "everyday people" who don't want to walk a mile or two can access. Screw BHA? I say screw people who think every square mile of public land needs motorized access. It doesn't.

My favorite places to hunt and fish are roadless "wilderness crap" because that's where the best hunting and fishing is. There are lots of others who think the same way and we're not going anywhere. Except hunting and fishing in the "wilderness crap."

LOL, Dale Carnegie, is that you??

Tom, you're actually the myopic one. Tark has it right.

The changes in private timber company policy, and charging for access, or closures, are in fact partially but significantly rooted in the loss of PUBLIC lands access through road closures and other restrictions. When the same number of people seek to recreate using the same means after 50 percent of the roads are closed, what happens? Use patterns intensify, or users go someplace else, like private forest ground.
USED to be, the timber companies didn't care, just as long as users didn't mess up the roads or hurt their trees. Of course, all of us have noticed that as America continues to decline, outdoor recreationists have gotten stupider and stupider as well, tearing up private AND PUBLIC property and costing shareholders money. I mean, for gosh sake, have you ever seen an "impromptu" shooting area? What a mess!

Charging for access has a strategic component. The timber companies have mostly restructured to REITS, real estate, and to getting cash flows by whatever means, with TREES being just one way of making money.. That has started to include "monetizing" recreation access, and furthermore cuts out the moron visitors that used to tear stuff up).If it costs a lot to access private ground, then that puts the pressure on the government (not the smartest people) to buy "conservation" lands (which are the worst "timber", wink wink) at an inflated price. The REITs get out from under their underperforming holdings for way more money than they deserve, while still charging for access to the remaining lands.

Yep, sounds great to me.

So you are telling me you think it is a good idea for the federal government to increase its land holdings, exert more control over those holdings and limit people more in their use of those holdings?

I am not saying there is anything wrong with wilderness areas. What I am saying is that we don't need the government to control any more land than they already have and don't need any more wilderness acres than they already have.

The wsa issue is a hot topic for me. Many of these areas were created in 93. If they passed muster, they were to become a wilderness area. If not, they were to revert to standard public land which they were before. These areas didn't pass muster. Now they should revert as the original (not sure if it was legislation or rule making)legislation was written.

Enviro groups like bha have stymied the reversion of these lands as they were to their original management and use.

Reality is, this group promotes control over lands and management over public lands far away from the lands and the end user. I do not think this is a model I support because it does give far more credence and import to the deep-pocket guys. Just as TOM tried to scare everyone that corporations are closing off access to our public lands, the reality is deep pocket corporate types like Chouinard are doing just that. Limiting the multiple use of OUR (they are mine too) public lands.

Wilderness areas are an anathema to most local communities they are in proximity to. You guys only see 1 aspect, "I hate hearing or seeing 4-wheelers" but the reality is, these areas create a lot of problems not the least of which are weeds and fire danger.

I expected that from you, Smoker. You see it as free stuff because you're only paying a tiny bit of the actual costs and getting an unearned goodie. But it is overpaying for someone else's albatross. Have you ever considered if the respective STATE bought these lands for actual FMV and then maybe charged reasonable resident recreation fees, logged it when needed, and so on?

Tarkio,

I understand some of your concerns, loss of revenue from timber harvests to rural counties and such. However, I don't mind promoting control and management over public lands far away from the end user to paraphrase your point..

You see, I'm the end user of public lands, not only those outside my back fence, but also those in AZ, OR and WA and hopefully in the future other states (like MT) too. And I'd like to know that areas such as those BHA wants to "preserve/ conserve/ protect" or whatever descriptive term you'd like to use will still exist when I get there. In many of our minds, there are plenty of accessible places for the "everyday people" to use. I'm one of them, as I get older my trips farther afield from a road are becoming fewer and fewer. Like a few others have posted though, my odds of encountering game or a nice fishing spot go up tremendously when I can get away from the roads, even just a mile or two. But, I have millions of acres I CAN already access, and not so much that isn't already impacted.

The bigger issue, perhaps, with the lack of "multiple use" (economic benefit?) is the need for tort reform so the managing agencies can get on with the work of managing rather than responding to FOIA requests and lawsuits. Having retired from a career in natural resources and having a wife still employed I have some experience. More so my wife. She has just spent man hour after man hour (woman hours? ) putting together papers for the solicitors to respond to a suit that's holding up some projects (timber harvest, post fire response, that type stuff.) It had a big impact on the amount of work she was able to do on other necessary projects. Her agency would just love to get on with wild horse projects, forest rehab, timber harvests, recreations site work, fire/fuel management. and so on. However, every project they propose it seems as though one group or another is suing. If it's not the "enviros" it's the ranchers. A never ending merry go round.

You have a point about the wilderness study areas. Either designate or take them off the roster. Of course, should an agency decide to do just that, the lawsuits will start again. Sometimes upper level management might just decide to leave them in a state of limbo so their employees can get on with other work.

Geno

Have you ever considered that states DO own land? And I don't see they do a very good job of managing it at all. I've lived in a bunch of states and all i see is really piss poor management, much more severely underfunded state management agencies, and no sign they will improve anytime soon.

I'd love to see a lot more federal lands "unroaded" and converted into wilderness areas. Not less.

Dave,

I live in California. I DON'T want this state buying anything, FMV or overpriced even. There would be NO logging, and recreation fees would not be "reasonable". And I'd really worry about the "so on " part. (hunting? not any more. Fishing? it's cruel, not any more! motorized travel? only with your electric vehicle or on our shuttles, to places we tell you to go)

No thanks, I prefer to leave our National public lands in National hands. That way even folks in MT have a vote (through their representatives in Congress) on what happens to OUR public lands.

Geno

PS, I bet there's a few folks in other states that feel the same way.

State lands are under an entirely different mission statement and purpose. Most are managed to show a maximum profit to benefit schools in the state.

Different ballgame.

But, for certain keep trying to compare apples to oranges.

Not once the states own them. That is, in fact, the point.

Nice try Dave, but I'm pretty sure I'm paying much more than you are. Any time you want to compare tax returns and see who's paying for what just let me know. Free, my a**.

It's just another one of the fallacies you're so fond of. Public land is paid for by everyone who pays taxes, and it benefits many different industries and uses including those that put much more of a burden on it than I do. Including your favorite extractive industries. I use it a few weeks out of the year and the only things I take are renewables like game and fish.

Nice try though, keep it up and maybe someone will buy it.

LeRoy, you are full of beans.
You say "unroaded?" Well, Babbitt tried it with his "ways" interpretation of RS 2477 roads on BLM, and Dombeck's USFS actually buried in the appendix of the Roadless Initiative (which started this "hunter and angler" effort by the Greens) a discussion of "unroading" and its potential to qualify millions upon millions (I think 120 million acres) as "roadless" and therefore as eventual wilderness. A complete bustardization and bowdlerization of the original intent of the Wilderness Act of 1964.
And Valsdad raises a good point about WSAs. The Act intended, but failed to put in SHALL language, to review, then recommend either to release or designate wilderness. At that time, the USFS was about as great an agency as it could be, and their reviews were balanced. Only the wilderness people and greens (like Sierra Club) thought the recommendations fell short. But the lack of SHALL language and a deadline for Congress has left WSA's that are not appropriate as ransom to have every possible designation (including eventual "unroadings") to happen, someday. Keep the issue open and the funds coming, rather than do the prosaic work of caring for designated wilderness.
Finally, the fact is, Montana does a screaming good job of managing state forest lands, a great middle ground between locked up burnfields like the Forest Service and mowed private monocultures (private). We have a sustained yield harvest mandate that limits the top end but still requires production for revenue, managed by people who will spend their careers in Montana and build the kind of long-term knowledge required. Right now, Montana is so far ahead of the other landowner classes in terms of habitat performance, it's sick. Other states, they can be stupid or enlightened, that's THEIR call as well. But federal management via litigation is such a waste of potential.

Geno,

Like I said before, I have no problem with wilderness areas but count me as one that believes we have enough. I am not so much driven by the fantasy that we might be able to recover our logging industry. My disdain for these wilderness and study areas are all the problems they cause for local residents and the states they are located in. I am talking about decreased revenue, decreased tax base, increased risks from noxious weeds because of the limits placed on controlling them in these areas. Greatly increased risk of fires stemming from ZERO logging, thinning or management of fuel. Count me as one that thinks we have enough wilderness areas in the country. There are 765 wilderness Areas in the USA. That totals 109,129,657 acres according to wiki which I loath to quote but I am short on time. That totals a land mass LARGER THAN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

If you look at the recent wilderness designations made in the past 10 years, a great majority of them were made with an ulterior motive. Oftentimes that motive is a left-leaning anti natural resource; anti-local (which oftentimes has been conservative populace) benefit to the point of being punitive. And ultimately to simply increase the federal governments control and sway over more and more of the country (and in this case typically the west).

So I will ask you the same question I posed previously, do you thing the federal government has enough land? Do you support them increasing their land-holdings? Do you support them having more and more control of life on a small local level because of their insatiable appetite for more land?

I would contend we have far more designated wilderness areas than needed. That combined with public land available for access makes for more than enough public land available. Much of this public land is restricted to various degrees from ohv usage. More and more of our blm and usfs land is restricted in the users' ability to use ohv. They certainly are not relaxing those rule on "normal" public land. Same for state land here where I live.

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'd just like to see the land that's public now and roadless now (not necessarily designated wilderness) stay that way. Because as I said, that's where the best hunting and fishing is.

True story, one of my favorite places to hunt used to be non-motorized access only. It has a small stream that holds cutthroats. A few years ago you could walk in 3 miles on an easy trail and catch lots of 13-14 inch fish in a few scattered plunge pools. Then they opened it up to motorbikes. I went in last year and was lucky to catch a few small fish. I did get to pick up some cigarette butts and styrofoam worm cartons though.




I'd like to see your data that backs up your assertion there. Because I don't believe it's necessarily true, especially in areas that draw a lot of non-resident hunters and fishermen. Hotels, stores, restaurants, outfitters and other rural businesses in this state depend on visitors to make their living, and the visitors want unspoiled vistas. Wilderness areas are a big draw.

I read this whole conversation and it wasn't even close. I googled BHA and signed up.

Tarkio, where you come to think, "we have far more designated wilderness than needed" I can't imagine. You are free to have your opinion, however unwarranted, but that's all it is - your opinion. For sure it isn't mine nor that of anyone else that is a serious outdoorsman of any sort. Anyone that hunts public land for big game out west, or anywhere else for that matter, understands that. The orange army is everywhere. And that is just one argument that we don't have enough wilderness.

Answers: yes, they have "enough" land. No, they have no need to "increase their land holdings". I don't see an "insatiable appetite for more land" and therefor have a hard time answering that question.

My personal opinion, based on years of running around in various types of backcountry, there are many good reasons for the restrictions you noted to OHV use on public lands, not the least of which is damage (likely caused by a few, just like in the informal shooting areas another poster noted) to the land by not staying on designated routes. I personally don't think they should be relaxing most/many of those rules. I've seen it on a very large tract of land (the Big Boquillas in N AZ) where access had to be limited due to "jerks" (for lack of a better term) using OHV inappropriately, this given a very liberal OHV use policy for retrieving game taken away from the road. Yes, I've personally seen the ATV tracks going up the side of the hill, followed them to the top, and saw no evidence of a kill anywhere in the area. They road up there to hunt/glass and it wasn't even that large of a hill. Now, should I choose to, I have to pay an access fee to access thousands of acres of state and blm land in the checkerboard. To top it off, scouting is now limited, your access fee only covers the season for the tag you hold, and so on. Had folks not f'd things up it would still just be a sign in at the gate operation. It's not the only place I've seen evidence of OHV use in unauthorized areas. Including an instance of an "a hole" driving right past me, and right past the sign and onto a horse and pedestrian trail. In a forest where there was OHV trails and areas. Why not just use those?

Does the govt try to obtain inholdings? Yes. In some cases off set by trades. It makes management easier.

Do I think that perhaps there should be more weight given to local input. Yes. Perhaps there wouldn't be as much need if the lawsuit stuff subsided in a major way.

Enjoy your evening,

Geno

PS, how much of that land you noted as Wilderness is in AK? I like knowing that in the future folks will have a chance to see a good section of that area undeveloped.

PPS, I'm not a big fan of some/many of the wilderness/National Monument designations over the last 20-40 years myself.

Leroy, you're just proving the point, just like Smokepole. If you put wilderness over everything, your hunting over everyone (including, I guess, the "orange army"), then BHA is your group. But when the orange army fades away because hunting has become SUCH a pain in the @$$ (do you spike camp with your kids in wilderness?) and the move is made to restrict hunting even in wilderness, what will you do?
Pole, I'd sure be interested in knowing what land was OPENED to mechanized access? Really? I've not seen that in Montana in at least 23 years now since the first grizzly restrictions.
And as far as wilderness being a boon to rural businesses....hunting is five weeks a year in Montana. What about the other 47? Oh, hikers? Um, no, it turns out that wilderness use days in total are only two percent of total visitation last time I checked Region One. And, over the year, over HALF the RVDs of that type are, HUNTING. 98 percent of the rest of the visitation for these businesses is in other categories.

More fallacies Dave. The orange army has the vast majority of public land with lots of road access. The only way they'll "disappear" is if public lands are divested.

Thanks Dave, I knew you were not my type of people.

I'm pretty much an old guy and my ability to access wilderness is quickly becoming limited. So, my interest is in preserving quality hunting for others, not for me. But you wouldn't know about that - it's all about you.

Look to Texas the Southeast and much of the midwest where private hunting clubs and leases are where, "hunting has become SUCH a pain in the @$$" that people quit hunting. I know I did when I lived there.

And who says hunting is going away in wilderness areas? You. That sure is some crystal ball you have there.

the places that I've lived with bonafide wilderness have been places where the people really appreciated it. Some because they used it directly, others for the industry that grows up around it.

Dave, you make up more BS than most people on this forum and that's saying something. Anyway, you lost one today. Wasn't even close,

Since Jan 1, 2018 I have hiked and hunted Public land in AZ., NV., Id., Wy., and Mt. Anyone who doesn't understand how valuable and unique this opportunity is, needs to set down the pie, push away from the keyboard and go outside.

The U.S. govt does not own the public land, we do.


mike r

Very well said.

Please tell me how much is enough?

Right now in the United States we have wilderness areas that add up to a land mass equal to the state of California. Over 109,000,000 acres currently in wilderness areas and that doesn't include WSAs

How much more would you like to see? How about if we add more that would amount to another land mass area the size of New mexico or Arizona? Would that satisfy you?

I also appreciate your sideways swipe at me as not being a serious outdoorsman. That's 2 different attacks of me simply because of my opinion and beliefs. Real open-minded of you.

I am very amused by these statements that the orange army is everywhere. I agree if everywhere is within a mile of any road. But the reality of vast swaths of PUBLIC LAND in Montana is farther than a mile from any road and all you have to do is hike that mile+ on most public lands and you are alone. This fallacy that you have to be in a wilderness area to achieve this peace is not reality here in Montana.

When land is placed in a Wilderness Area or wsa, the local governments lose tax revenue, lose production which also impacts tax revenue, creates headaches such as harborer of weeds and pests including predators that often times cannot be hunted or controlled in these areas. All these things negatively affect local economies. Yes, hunters bring in some money, but in Montana, our hunting season is extraordinarily long compared to may states and it is still only 6-8 weeks long. Meanwhile, the local community has to survive the full 52 weeks out of the year.

Wilderness areas also take loggable areas out of production and limit managers' ability to control fuel which in turns creates large stockpiles of fuel just waiting for the conditions to be right and become an enormous wildfire that is impossible to control.

Asking for data is valid and fair. I do not have it at hand right now. What I do have is personal first-hand experience living in proximity to these areas, working in these areas, working on ranches and friends having ranches that abut these areas. Working in the extension service servicing regions that had tens of thousands of acres of wilderness and wilderness study areas. Those of us that live it know the reality.

geno,

Thanks for your post. You reference problems with A-holes inappropriately using OHV on public lands. I am with you that this is a serious problem. ANd because of this, restrictions continue to tighten on what might be considered "normal public land" in this conversation. Based on what you and I agree upon, more and more "normal public land" is under tighter and tighter restrictions on motorized vehicle use. Yet others here complain the only way to access areas without motorized vehicle use is through wilderness areas. That logic makes no sense based on what we just agreed upon.

Enforcement and penalties for breaking the law/rules with motorized vehicles are terribly strict in my part of the world, as they should be. I like many others have been rudely interrupted in my hunts by A-holes on wheelers. Doesn't mean we need more millions oc acres in wilderness. Maybe we just need to enforce the laws we have and better educate those that use public lands? Kind of reminds me of the public debate following a school shooting. Do we further legislate and control the populace in general? Or do we attack those that are creating the problems?

Enough with the straw man argument. No one here is saying do away with all wilderness. If you recall, my comment is that I do not support bha because they are proponents of more and more wilderness and more and more restriction on federal land as well as more and more federal land in general equating to more and more control by the feds and more intrusion into the lives of those of us that live in these regions.

How much more land would you like the feds to control and limit access to?

Tarkio,

On that we can certainly agree. Unfortunately, in many of the places I have hunted the agencies don't have the money to adequately (in my opinion at least) enforce those OHV restrictions. Oh, there may be some after the fact enforcement if someone happens to get a plate number and a picture. That does not help after the damage is done. Or they may get lucky and just happen to catch a violator on their way out of a closed area.

Have a nice evening,,

Geno

I look out my window on the AB wilderness area, and you have no clue. the weed problem is centered around the trailheads (yes motorized vehicles). I'm not sayin' trailheads are bad, but don't blame the wilderness for problems caused by motor vehicles.

the wilderness i've seen is not really very valuable as timber sales (and yes, I've spent a good chunk of my life on a log skidder). too steep and low grade timber stands. the timber sales are not as much of a boost as they used to be because insurance has forced the loggers to mechanized logging shows where large companys that can afford tree shears and processors employ very few people to harvest incredible amounts of timber. again, not a bad thing because it is safer, but it reduces the number of people making money from those sales.

fire danger? well, I've seen far more fires start on private land and burn onto wilderness than vice versa (and yes, i've been a wildland firefighter for years). roads to access fires? forest fires are attacked from the air and followed up by hand crews for the most part. dozers and fire engines are generally utilized to protect structures and other improvements in the interface.

the wilderness greatly helps the surrounding landowners via hunting rights. not a bad thing in itself, but creates other issues. one is reducing public access to the elk herds during general rifle season so elk numbers cannot be managed very well. another problem is the surrounding landowners are fighting tooth and nail to close any public access they possibly can to so they can have more control the game herds on wilderness behind their property.

"the deep pocket guys" have much more influence at the local level.

so, I've voted republican since I could vote, I've owned ranches in Montana, been a logger, wildland firefighter and hunter, and I'm a member of the BHA.

Balderdash. Which tax revenues do local governments lose when federal lands are designated wilderness? Wilderness generates revenue and local sales tax because lots of people want to visit wilderness and they spend a lot of money locally.

And as far as hunting in wilderness areas, you must be joking when you say it can't be done? I do it every year.

You talk about hunting season in Montana, but google "Estes Park Colorado." It would not exist without the wilderness of the Rocky Mountain National Park next to it, and it's packed with tourists year-round but especially all summer. You can't drive down the street or get a seat in a restaurant. during the summer. It's the same with other small towns located near popular wilderness areas.

And as someone already pointed out more than half of that "State of California-sized" wilderness you like to talk about is in Alaska where virtually no one in the lower 48 will ever travel so you need to factor that in to your calculus. It sounds like a big number but there are huge parts of the country with no wilderness. That's why we have so many non-residents flocking to Colorado every hunting season, and it matters not the length of the season, a lot of rural businesses couldn't make it without that influx.





You're entitled to your opinions, but just know the difference between your opinions and reality.

Wow, Estes Park as a shining example? Rocky Park is fine and dandy, but don't forget you've got the Denver Metroplex as a draw base two hours away at most. Never mind that's industrial tourism on an epic scale, there's a too many unhuntable elk problem there, et cetera. Oh, that's right, it's a NATIONAL PARK, not a WILDERNESS AREA -- whole 'nother ball of wax.
The other thing about Estes, or Winter Park, or Granby -- lots of money, probably, but its paid to seasonal workers. Nobody who lives full time in Estes is taking vacations to places like Estes, they can't afford to patronize the kind of businesses they work in, unless they own the business. Up here in Montana, its a fact that the closer you get to Glacier, the lower the wages and higher the poverty level. All the "studies" gloss that over.
Another aspect of the wilderness experience in Colorado, its it's not really wilderness in the sense of solitude. Most of these wildernesses get so much traffic, at least for the first eight miles, there's no firewood below eight feet off the ground, no time at which you're out of sight of another hiking party (at least on summer weekends). These are almost all "nonmotorized hiking areas" that were formerly deserted, but after designation became yuppie magnets for those who like to make lists of all the "wildernesses" they've "conquered."
Tourism and recreation are a terrible base for a local economy. Seasonal, low paying, fickle both by weather AND the larger national economy, as tourism cash, even for hunting, is based on the "player" being prosperous enough to have the cash for "fun stuff."
Finally, I want to emphasize that I live in a county that is the size of Connecticut all by itself, about 2.1 million acres. Of that, fully 1.1 million acres of it is already full-honk USFS wilderness, plus there's another 300,000 thousand of Park that is managed as wilderness through the park plan. I'd say that's more than enough. As for "multiple-use" -- that's down to maybe 400,000 acres at best, and that's not saying much considering most of the road network has been closed or gated off year round, when seasonal closures would work just as well in terms of wildlife management needs.
So, I understand there are hunters who want to prioritize their pleasure over all else, just like there are Fudds who will sell out the rights of others just as long as their ox doesn't get gored. Fine, join BHA.

There it is...

You can know all you need to know about an organization by who is a member and who isn't.

Mostly elitist Fudds.

As a member, I take offense. You're off the Christmas card list.

I don't mean any offense to most folks. You included.

It's just got that feeling about it. Like something is not what it seems. I know I'm not the only one that smells that either.

But each to their own. As long as you are happy.

When public lands are moved into a wilderness or wilderness study designation, grazing rights are severely impacted and limited. Limiting grazing limits numbers of animals in a county. Limiting numbers of animals greatly impacts local revenue. Look at the CMR. When they created it, the powers that be promised to never exclude or negatively impact livestock use and particularly, access to water for livestock. Know what happened there.

So, by your reasoning, because it's a long ways away, Alaska doesn't count? I don't get it. One of the things you promote about the awesomeness of wilderness areas it the Fricking peace and tranquiity and the most far removed, peaceful and tranquil wilderness areas out there doesn't count in your book. How the hell does that work exactly?

I agree there are wilderness areas that benefit the local economy. But for every one of those, there are many that do not.

Help me where I said hunting in the wilderness can't be done??? I hunt in wilderness and study areas myself.

I have no clue? I have fought weeds on wilderness areas for years. Yes some weeds are introduced by motorized vehicles, but the designation makes it nearly impossible to really fight the problem. Once there are weeds there, simply the exclusion of vehicles doesn't magically make them go away. Restrictions on access, control typ both essentially make most weed control efforts futile. Look at the CMR. Unbelievable canada and now knapweed. I don't give a [bleep] where they started. The fact you cannot spray only creates more damn weeds. A lot of the canada if ound on the lakeshore. Pretty damn certain there aren't motorized vehicles driving the beaches of ft peck.

And selectively choose my words and ignore others. I never said all wilderness negatively impacte logging. Certainly a fair amount of the areas in our area are affected. The second part of my point was land managers inability to manage FUEL leads to sever problems. I never said fires start in wilderness areas exclusively and those cause problems. Damn, you need to maybe visit www.RIF.ORG.

Tell me what does happen when a fore starts on wilderness areas or on a study area. Can you race in with your ranch outfit and put it out? Will the feds dispatch crews to cut lines right away? No. This combined with excess fuels because of limited managment is what I am saying about them contributing to fire issues.

I fail to follow your attempt at a point where you say wilderness helps landowners via hunting rights? But creates access problems> So it helps landowners but hurts hunters. And then you say surrounding landowners shut public access?? And yet as hunters, many on here are extolling the virtue of wilderness. I am missing something here and I am not being a smarta$$. I simply don't follow your comment.

Not so up here in Oregon. Recreate, hunt, and fish tons of wilderness and wilderness study areas up here, and seasonal stock use is just part of the landscape. Without near constant maintenance by stockmen, probably half of the water developments would become non-functional and wildlife would suffer.

There's about a 95 mile long stretch of the Deschutes River up here that's managed by the BLM, ODF&W, and the Warm Springs tribe. They decided to toss out grazing, and now have fires almost annually that burn right to the river banks. Stock used to keep the fuel loads down to a reasonable level and fires were near non existent. Now fine fuels can be measured in tons per acre.

The areas I am familiar with, some still have some grazing. Most all had grazing significantly decreased. A number are getting decreased regularly and severely limiting water access at the same time, effectively making it near impossible to graze.

Tons per acre? Now THAT's ironic. I take it the grazing elimination is to "save salmon." Well, one of these days, you'll have a big fire year followed by the wrong kind of winter, that dumps half the canyon onto whatever spawning reaches there are.

As for the maintenance of water in wilderness, it's considerably more difficult to maintain without the use of heavy equipment, and while the ability to use such is THEORETICALLY allowed, just TRY to get a permit. Takes years if ever.

Well, that's the power of innuendo, Skinner's stock in trade. Something seems off, but you just can't put your finger on it.

You can form your opinions on the membership based on what you read here, or you could go to one of the BHA meetings and meet some of the folks there and see for yourself. I'm sure there are some whose politics I don't agree with but you can say that about any group, especially if innuendo is your thing.

Maybe it didn't come across like you meant it?

Same here. Sometimes dodging the sheep is a pain in the neck but they don't call it "The Land of Many Uses" for nothing.

Sounds good. I haven't seen a piece of multi-use, nonwilderness, public land in the west that couldn't benefit hugely from a decrease in livestock grazing. If there is one thing that range management people agree on with near unanimity, it's that those lands are severely overgrazed.

Frankly, I see no shortage of grazing in designated wilderness, and plenty of water too development too.

Dave, seriously you crack me up. The only thing consistent in your blather is the inconsistency. Take this gem above for example. You just told us in a previous post that wilderness access is so tough that it precludes the "orange army" and will result in the end of hunting as we know it. But here you're saying that it's really not wilderness at all because there are people behind every tree, stripping the land of firewood and making nuisances of themselves. And it's those damned pantywaist yuppies no less!!! They must be some tough sumbitches to get all the way back to where the orange army dares not tread.

Which is it Dave, incredibly tough access or so easy that there are people behind every tree?

And your comment about the RMNP not being wilderness is incorrect. Have you been there and seen it for yourself? Google it if you don't believe me but at least get your facts straight. A small percentage of it is developed with campgrounds, parking lots, and so forth but most is wilderness.

And last but not least, not everyone in resort towns is a low-wage seasonal worker Dave. If people couldn't make a living there the towns would not exist, it's as simple as that. These towns are full of small businesses and small business owners and employees who make a living year-round. You discount these folks because they're not in mining, logging, ranching, or energy which are the only uses you think matter. Rather, these mom & pop operators own restaurants, grocery stores and shops, gas stations, small hotels and cabins, outfitting and guide services, snowmobile and bike rental shops, and so on and so forth. And they cater to people you like to look down your nose and sneer at, as if your favorite uses of public lands are the only ones that matter and the rest of "those people" can go pound sand. But it's "those people" who want to prioritize their uses over all else, right Dave?

You are wrong about that "one thing" and agreement among the professionals in that field.

Worst thing about bha? Buzzard is a mouthpiece for them.

Arrogant, progressive, untruthful, the list goes on....try to get a straight answer out of the guy. Textbook lib.

Anyone want go explain the love fest for the founder of Patagonia? Was this dude handing out 100 bills and handys at the last bha circle jerk?

I hear buzz is in love.....

If y'all ever find a conservative/republican public land conservation group please let me know. I'll save you a bunch of time. There ain't one.

Why? Cause the republican party has as one of their platform issues, the liquidation of public lands, an issue that I am diametrically opposed too.

I haven't voted democrat in a long time, but I sure as hell ain't gonna let the idiot republicans sell off our public land. So I support BHA and TRCP with my money to fight those stupid repubs.

Makes me a mess politically, but thats how it is.

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

Sooner or later the Greenies will turn on any and all hunting. They don't even like you walking across "their" land.

True conservatives while understanding we HAVE public lands want them used for Multiple Use. Not locked away per Greenie agenda, or taken under illegal pretenses as many democrat presidents have done with illegally using the Antiquities Act.

I like the public agenda bha projects, i just dont care for the dooshes running it or their less than transparent financial expenditures. Maybe they dont want credit for what they do, they sure dont make it well known where their money goes.

Ya i get it Republicans are bad, so are Democrats.....real news flash info...

Now back to yvon, yvonne, whatever the great Patagonia masters name is, lets hear his magnificent hunting stories....

The real threat for sportsmen is the loss of public lands. We have constitutional protections of our firearm rights. Not so for public lands.

Yeah, they are left leaning over there at BHA, no one should deny it. But politics and life is messy and ugly. So be it. They serve a purpose that I'm interested in and I will support cautiously.

I understand your point.

I just think that maybe rather than getting in bed with liberals, there should be a new movement to preserve public lands with strict adherence to the Multiple Use Act that protects everybody's right to be there doing what they do on public lands.

There's really no need to get in bed with liberals. If someone is industrious enough, they could suit the action to the cause... without sidetracking and sullying themselves with the likes of liberals, who will indeed stab them in the back.

We were a corporate sponsor of BHA early on when it first got going. I didnt like the way the organization was moving, and jumped ship as soon as it became clear who they were affiliated with. Some of their affiliations are cause for concern, and I would highly advise anyone interested in joining to do their homework first. There are a lot of outdoor organizations that help protect and enhance wildlife habitat, BHA doesn't have a corner on that market.

One thing that would be a plus is for everyone to get behind revocation of public land use for slobs.

Shoot holes in stuff like windmills, water tanks, signs, etc. - Banned for life.

Leave gates open that causes livestock to stray... Banned for life.

Flagrant littering. Banned.

Poaching. Banned.

Tear up the land with your atv or vehicle... Banned.

These slobs can mess things up quickly for everyone by getting the fence sitters to get off their fences.

Always wondered why people do that. We have literally millions of acres that are open to hunting, fishing, or anything else. Yukoners are pretty good, they seem more inclined to clean up their camps and leave things how they found it.......BC residents are another breed entirely. My trapline is right on the Yukon/BC border and we have been getting a lot of BC guys crossing over the last few years....you can track them by their garbage, and if it isn't nailed down they take it. Talked to our local CO about it and he said its a problem all along the border.

There is plenty of info on Chouinard if you bothered to look. Pioneering rock climber, alpinist and explorer. Author of classic books, inventer of gear still in use today and self made billionaire. He was one of the earliest proponents of the "clean climbing" ethic. He puts his money and influence towards the causes he believes will be most effective in protecting the wild places including the BHA.

He is also a dedicated backcountry angler.

What contribution or accomplishment have you made?


mike r

Kind of agree with Rock on a ban sort of thing. Just the other day I was scoping a mine evaluation with a friend, we were coming back towards town after leaving the mine site, taking the "fun" way home as we had time.
First off, the mine gate had been smashed into (it was a big, tough gate) and the warning signs all shot to heck. WTF? Then, I was more than a little ticked off to see many incidences of day glo clay birds at various and sundry sites, and some actual war zones, everything shot to heck, and this was on timber-company lands. No respect at all.
I want lands to be used, managed, but left in good condition. Use and enjoy them as they are YOURS, which they are, and it could be, under precepts of systematic multiple use management, all good, for everybody.
As for BHA, they skunk. Green tools.

Why don't you just move here where most of the public lands can only be accessed by government employees, and all the ordinary citizens are banned.


Sounds like that is what you are after.

No it isn't. Not at all.

I'm saying the lawless slobs that ruin the use of public land for everyone need to be legally banned from it. Permanently.

Follow your own suggestion and sashay down here and see the damage the slobs do, that cause entire areas to be closed to public use....

If you'll read up the thread a couple of posts made by me, I assert that if we are to have public land, that land needs to be used under the Multiple Use Act in which it was created....

Nothing I have ever said condones locking down public lands for use by govt employees only.... Ever.

I vehemently OPPOSE that.

Just get your facts straight.

Oh no, im interested in his HUNTING (capitalized for you) stories. I hear he has lots.

You are advocating eternal loss of citizen access rights for littering...don't you think a large fine or confiscation of property would be more appropriate.


I suppose you could stretch it to crucifixion for the ATVs though...I could support that in a pinch.

And here is another question, do you pack your excrement out with you?


After all, you may as well go all the way.

Aw, gee, JB.
You do use a shovel when doody calls, right? Or at least get a decent distance off the trail?

Damn right I'm advocating for that.

Once again, you have not seen acres and acres of public lands littered to the point of rendering it hazardous to everything. Including wildlife and livestock.

I'm not talking about sheets of toilet paper after they take a dump.

I'm talking about truckloads of trash they brought to dump. I'm talking about campsites that look like a garbage truck rolled over...

These are many of the reasons the Greenies want to lock down public lands for use by the public.

You damn right I think they outta be banned. They have proven that their lawless disregard for public land deems them unfit to continue to deface it.

These lawless idiots are a main talking point when the greenies want more land "protected"...

Get a clue.

Oh his HUNTING stories. Since that is the only outdoor activity you appear interested in he was renowned, in the early days of Yosemite and remote Sierra climbing, for providing fresh meat in camp. It was rumored that he ate porcupines and ground squirrels as well as more familiar game.

Please enlighten us on your outdoor expertise and experience.


mike r

If you feel so strongly about it then why don't you sit out there with a camera and report the miscreants.

And you are right, I have never seen anything like you describe, on public land or private.


But what you are describing is "dumping", not "littering".

THIS is littering. I can show you acres and acres of the same crap in NM.

One area is an easily accessible area used to shoot on. There's acres of shot up TV's, bottles, clay pigeons, cans, targets... etc.

Now we are just arguing terminology.

But, once again, you are not here to see it. But there you are saying how we should take acre of it...

Locking down the land so that nobody can use it is one answer. The liberal answer... But, not mine.

That's rich coming from a guy named Handy. As far as Buzz, sounds like you have a hard on for him, what's up with that?

No, I am attempting to point out that you are advocating the cessation of citizen rights for anyone that drops litter...which is what toilet paper is.

Whatever.

Not arguing with an Aussie that has no grasp of the situation or the remedy.

Also,... public land use isn't a "right". Misuse of it is a crime though.

Gwooone...and you said you weren't a liberal, you fibber you.

Gee golly you dont say? I dont like know it all jack wagons

I understand there is a problem, and I also have absolutely no issue with perpetrators being fined heavily and/or suffering the loss of property used in said act...but you need to be carefully specific with what you are asking for or the next time you take a crap you may find yourself unable to access that public land you like so much.

Yeah. That's me alright. A liberal.

You remind me of this guy....



This ain't Dodge City, and you ain't Bill Hickok...

I wish i had a fraction of his acting ability and a goodly portion of his bank account.


That man can really act.

Oh, a self-loather eh? You can get medication for that you know.

Could act.

He's dead.

Too bad buzz cant get meds for being 'tarded. Who knows about the know it all liberalism, maybe one day they'll find a cure.

Now lets hear some Patagonia hunting stories....

I like this guy....^^^^^

An interview with Yvon Chiounard

http://www.businessinsider.com/patagonia-founder-yvon-chouinard-slams-donald-trump-2016-9

It'll be a return to the Dark Ages if Donald Trump is elected, according to Patagonia's founder Yvon Chouinard.

In a recent interview with The New Yorker, the environmentalist and businessman painted a dark picture of the future when the topic of the current election cycle came up.

"Trump is the perfect person to take us to the apocalypse," Chouinard told the New Yorker, after claiming we're "seeing the end of empire, the end of globalism."

"People will revert: protecting your family, protecting your village. Like the Dark Ages. I honestly believe that," Chouinard said.

Where Yvon Chiounard contributes his political funds:
...lots of democrats on that list...
https://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/yvon-chouinard.asp?cycle=16

Jealous?

Personally I don't give a flying fugg about Chouinard or his politics. I do care about keeping public lands public, and keeping the fraction of them that are roadless, roadless.

If any of you geniuses can name an organization that more effectively advocates toward those ends, I'm all ears.

On some public lands in the West, that is required. Take a rocket box and a bottle of Chlorox. Not really a big deal. you need to get out more.

[

But you probably should. Yvon and Patagonia made a big deal out of sponsoring Buffalo Fields campaign when the state of Montana started the annual bison hunt outside Yellowstone. The biology was sound and the hunt helped bring in more funds for state coffers but Yvon and co. would have none of it. They had their paid goons disrupt activities of law abiding citizens partaking in legal hunts.

So, yes, politics do matter.

So you can't name a more effective advocate for public and roadless lands than BHA, got it.

Compared to that big picture issue, a single disrupted buffalo hunt is but a transient blip to all but those directly affected.

And if I had been affected, I'd be pissed at Chouinard, not an organization that wasn't involved.

"You say that as if I owe you an answer, which I don't."

Smoke, Buzz commented earlier about the work he and his fellow local bha members did to maintain hunting access in the Laramie area (?), and that's good. But was BHA really necessary for them to get the job done? Did BHA send them funds they just couldn't do without in order to accomplish the task? I doubt it. I have found that if people really care about a subject, such as protecting public lands, they do just as much or more good by getting local grassroots support without depending on outside sources, especially those with questionable political standing.

I don't need to name "a more effective advocate for public and roadless lands than BHA" even if it existed because we as individuals can get a lot done on our own at the local level if we think it important enough. Don't forget, the public lands employees/officials in your area of interest live there too and must deal with the local populous on a daily basis. That local populous has a lot more sway than the guv officials want to admit.

That local populous has much more sway when it's organized and a voting bloc.

And PS, no you don't owe me an answer. But I guarantee if you had one, you'd give it. So the non-answer is an answer, just not one that you like to admit to.

So, how much have YOU done? smokepole has a point.

I see, sounds like there aren't any great stories.....maybe because he doesn't really hunt?? GASP!

RMEF is one. They actually tell you where and to whom their money (your dues) go to.

You're right, so organize your own local group and create your own voting block.
And you'd be more effective too.

I'm a back country hunter and (not so much) angler in real life.

Looked into these folks and decided they are elitists - not for me.

YMMV and have at it.

On a different front, but by speaking out at a town meeting on school security issues I, all by my little lonesome in not so many words called BS on school "security" to our superintendents face and got the ball rolling in creating a safety and security committee which spent several months working on better security at our local schools. By doing so the group got the school dist. to work with law enforcement in adding another RO and create more stringent protocols for active shooter/intruder situations. Still not enough but more than what was being done before. Didn't need the NRA or anyone else, just stood up and took a stand.

So how about YOU?

Well, for a few weeks a few years ago, I had an unobtrusive piece handy in a technically (District policy) "gun-free" school, as the situation seemed to call for it. I suspect- but never asked - that the Principal (a former Miss Alaska) also did.... she didn't take kindly to anyone f'kin with our kids...or the school. She is a hunter/ NRA member also.

At the time, it seemed the thing to do. What they don't know, don't make a chit of difference... Or it might.

I live in Australia, you [bleep] wanker.

And still has more acting ability than I, probably a better bank balance as well.

I know, yet you claim to be an expert on pretty much everything American. Maybe you need to get out more.

You are a liar, I claim no such expertise.

But I do know lying low life pieces of [bleep] and you are most definitely one of those.

Whatever crybaby. You are definitely a whiner too. Not only do you know all about America, you know all about me too. Now, where did I lie?

Of course you do. that's what you do here.

Cool, now make up something else I didn't say.

See my post above, I don't pay attention to Chouinard or his politics, or whether he hunts. That's a non-issue for me.

I'm a life member of RMEF, how about you? You ever helped out on any of their projects? Their focus is not roadless public lands though. But I think you knew that.

Organize my own local group?? Why, because you don't like the group I choose to support? What a bunch of busy body, mind-everybody-else's-business, culture warriors we have here. The leftist SJWs have nothing on you guys.

Tell you what, you're the one who feels so strongly that I shouldn't support BHA, why don't you organize a group that's better and I'll join it. Let me know when you're up and running.

It shouldn't be a non issue since your beloved org is gaga over him.

Since youre a rmef member you know they have actually put their money to acquiring land to secure public land access. Honestly besides ceremonial actions at meetings and campaigns wtf has bha ever done? What do they spend their enviro money on? Pint night at the local hipster joint?

So you're going to tell me what should and shouldn't be an issue for me? That's rich. Just like I said above, a bunch of busy body mind-everybody-else's-business culture warriors we got here.

They spend their money lobbying and they work at the grassroots level. Go dig up buzz's old post on all the stuff his local chapter did. They do lots of stuff like SBTCO advocates above, show up at meetings, make their voices heard, write letters to the editor, advocate for roadless public lands, and so on and so forth. But I think you knew that.

What have you done? Besides toss out questions on the internet I mean?

So wtf do they cash for to go to public meetings and to write letters? I guess they need money for the bribery....i mean "lobbying". I find it hilarious you cant defend the sycophantic behavior towards yvon, so you just marginalize it, intellectually dishonest but expected. Whats next? Partnering with peta and the humane society?

P.s. dig up buzz's bullchit? Lol lol no thank you. As i said before, he is the worst thing about bha.

Buzz gets out and supports what he believes in. That's what it's all about, just like SBTCO says.

And yes, as I said above, I don't give a Crap about Chouinard or his politics. Is that all you've got?

The reference to HSUS and PETA was hilarious though, keep 'em coming.

I'm honestly interested to hear of other conservation organizations who stated goal is to secure public lands for the public.

I know two, BHA and TRCP.

There are a lot or orgs interested in habitat, but that bridges a large gap of mostly private, with some public. I support many of these too.

Still waiting to hear who these other public land groups are.

Add PF to your list in the Midwest.

Apparently its all bha's got, since thats all any member seems to be gushing about. Forums, bookface, Instafamous, nothing but memes pics and azz kissin.

Figured there was something to the groupie chit......guess not. Dude is just another elitest with a mansion in Jackson that fly fishes. Oh and runs a company that funnels money to environmental radicals.....sweet.

Thanks bha, give yvon a good rub&tug for all us hunters since he's so good for us...somehow....some way.....

elitist that fly fished? That's bad, huh? Because he fly fishes or he is worth some money? If he bass fished with bait, would that make him okay? Or does he have to be poor too? Can he be poor and fly fish?

I suppose only impoverished, catfishing, prairie dog shooters are acceptable to you. I suppose you also find guys like Tom Selleck on the NRA BOD offensive to you too, so that's why you don't belong to them either.

I sense a lot of jealousy in your hostility. Maybe some major penis envy too. BHA does more than you do (which is pretty much nothing but whine).

Its hard to know wtf bha does for some reason they are real open with details, just vague one liners.

But hey if you like buzz, flattys, and pint night...go for it.

Oh and....

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bht5nlKnfeY/


So cute..

That's rich, coming from the king of vague one-liners and innuendo. You haven't posted a fact since you started in on this thread.

And for a brand new guy, you sure have a lot of background on Buzz and what he's posted here. Especially since he hasn't posted in a while.

What was your previous moniker, and why did you change it?

Timber, you know that BHA and TRCP are front groups and totally anti-development, right? The only access they care about is walk-in access, nonmotorized only, for "quiet use" -- these groups didn't spring up from grassroots, they began with large foundational grants, Pew Trusts started TRCP with money laundered through Trout Unlimited, and BHA was nothing until the big Green foundations started cutting THEM checks.
And I have to love Smoker's attitude about Yvon, who is a first-rate hypocrite, all that high tech gear raped from the earth so he can sell it to people wanting to escape modernity. What the heck, the money is being spent the way Smoker wants it spent.

I just found this wonderful place, its amazing. Thank you for the warm welcome .

I'm just waiting for one thread about BHA that isn't ripe with controversy.

Surely one exists?

Right?

Not gonna happen. BHA is a green front, intended solely to co=opt a small, gullible, selfish slice of the sporting "community" and pretend they speak for everyone, ALL the "hunters and anglers," which in turn is an invented phrase that didn't exist prior to about 2000, when Pew created TRCP.
If BHA is ever successful in terms of policy, once they are no longer useful, the Green funders will drop them.
By the way -- one funder of BHA, only about 50 grand, gave FIVE TIMES that amount to the International Fund for Animal Welfare in 2016. IFAW is not exactly a sportsmen's group, mmmm? But, but, but, the money SPENDS!

Not in the "hunters campfire" forum. You could post something about the NRA being a champion for 2A rights and someone would be along shortly to tell you the NRA is not ideologically pure enough. Can't see the forest for the trees kind of thing.

On the backpack hunting forum BHA is not so controversial. That's because backpack hunters tend to place a high value on roadless public lands which is the whole point of BHA. The busy bodies who potrray themselves as freedom-loving individualists but like to tell other people how to think don't hang out there yet.

Hell, Skinner would have you believe that the use of "hunters and anglers" in the name was a vast left-wing conspiracy.

I never heard of them until I was hunting a few years back in Wyoming with a friend. The friend is a lunatic lefty...he hunts, but is very closed minded overall. He wants the government to control everything, hates individual rights like the Second Amendment and was an Obama/Clinton nutcase. He's the type of guy who argues that no one needs anything other than one pump shotgun and one bolt action rifle, and all other weapons should be banned. With that as background, he tried to get me to join BHA (this was as he was trying to get me to vote for Hillary Clinton). He argued that BHA is one of the only real pro-hunting groups because they focus on environmental issues rather than gun rights. What he said to me is that rather than wasting money to let people own "assault weapons", BHA works to protect wildlife habitat. Then he said he loves them because they are, as he said, "progressive" in all respects.

He's only one guy, and a political extremist at that, but when I did research on BHA I saw a group that looked a lot like a front group for the typical leftist agenda.

Why am I not surprised by Remsen's tale?

Give it up, Smokey, the funding doesn't lie. You've got 158 million acres for you and your pals. Isn't that enough?

Dave, maybe you should give it up. You have had your ass handed to you a couple of times on this thread. You have your agenda that you can't give up, no matter how irrational it may be. But you can keep it to yourself.

Sure it is Dave. Why don't you point out where I said it wasn't?

Oh, I forgot,this is all about Chouinard. Carry on. Wake me up if you come up with anything new or noteworthy.

Dave's had his ass handed to him so many times he thinks it's a TV dinner.

Dave, I've got news for you. Those aren't mashed potatoes, and that ain't gravy.

This is hysterical! LMAO!!

Your defensiveness betrays you.

Defensiveness? What I said was offensive as hell. Which Dave richly deserves of course, and I know he'd do the same for me. I expect no less. This is culture war at its finest.

I'm glad I saw this. Trout unlimited has been pursuing me hard with relentless mailings asking for money and membership. It is always about the fish and water. Never a mention of politics.

Who funds "Green Decoys?" Might be worth a look.

Eight pages dipsh it. Not your last Offensive-as-hell post

So i see yvon is apart of an anti wy/id grizzly hunting group. Interesting based off of his super cool "bullshit" quote. Wonder what backcountry HUNTERS and anglers think about his anti hunting stance......

J H, the money Spends man. These people would have to work at Dick's Sporting Goods and below otherwise.

https://youtu.be/qorjzRaLwF0

Thats the dipshit bha wants to hook their wagon to. An anti hunting elite that is dumb enough to think an outfitter would use a coveted once in a lifetime tag on a sow (which might not even be legal depending on regs). Fear mongering liberal.

Maybe they'll just encourage all their anti hunting customers to flood the grizzly application process

Non-motorized access sounds fine to me.

Again, as soon as the republican party drops the liquidation of public lands from their platform issues, I'll reconsider strong support opposing them in this matter.

Its a messy political world but keeping those country clubber repubs on their toes is my duty.

So, TR, how do you GET to the "non-motorized access?" Float on your magic carpet, right?

And that line about "liquidation" is a total lie. There's no capitalist interest in buying these lands to bulldoze them as there's no market. In fact, the forestry REITs are sniffing around, hoping to sell their PRIVATE stuff -- the problem is, they want to sell at a price mjultiples of what the land is actually worth. Forests will stay forests, sage will stay sage. There are only a few trophy buyers out there and they only have so much money. Only fringe lands would ever be privatized and only in the narrowest scenarioes, like near a relatively few cities and towns needing expansion room.

As for the "country-club" Republicans, those are your allies in this, the ones being squeezed for getting in bed with the Greens. The Bush administration was rife with clubbers.

Get a good pair of boots, cinch down that pack and walk.

I know that large private interests (energy companies, Koch brothers, etc) are pushing privatization of federal lands. I can't for the life of me imagine why that would be, can you? Its just simply a coincidence, right?

My senator and representative (both repubs, both I've voted for) have told me they stand behind their premise of eliminating the federal government as a landholder. Their words, not mine.

I can't stand country club republicans. Mostly cause I can't stand golf, but I find that they are not really interested in conservative ideas, just like Bush wasn't.

It’s always interesting to me how guys say certain organizations will do this or that as if it’s as plain as the nose on your face but then won’t post a link to said organization doing it. In this case it’s an ethereal fear that involves no alternative course of action to support the matter at hand.

Show me a Conservative organization dedicated to accesss and public lands and I’ll sign on. Until then I’ll do what I can with the organization that’s there to do what it can for my best interests.

Anti hunting campaigns are your best interest? Because thats what bha wants to jump in bed with......or already has. Yvon is sooooooo cool man

Why bother posting a link when the websites are already there to sucker you in, to be led by the nose? I'm curious, efw, do you support Obama's national monument designations? Were those kosher?

don't know squat about them other than a liberal I know in Homer loves them.

Birds of a feather.

Hook their wagon to? WTF does that even mean?

Money pulls the wagon. Yvon gives money. Was that so hard, smokester?

No, not hard at all dave. Maybe I should have stated the question a little differently: "Is that all you've got?" Sorry, stupid question, I should have known it was.

Just so we're clear dave, if Chouinard wants to contribute money to an organization that advocates keeping public lands public, I'm 100% OK with that.

It's a free country right? He's free to contribute to his preferred organizations, and I'm free to do the same, right?

Unless you have a problem with that.

Could you post a link to where BHA has endorsed an anti-hunting message?

David Duke endorsed Pres Trump but I didn’t withhold my support saying that Trump was a white supremist...

Exact same thing going on here.

I wouldn't give up on the NRA if Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner supported them either...

I'll say it one last time. As soon as another org shows interest in protecting public lands for the public taxpayers, I'm all in with them.

Please put up some contact information so I can support these organizations.

Until then, while continually voting for conservative candidates, I will support organizations directly fighting the Republican platform issue of public land liquidation. Its messy, messy stuff but nothing is clean in politics.

Also, last TRCP and BHA fliers I got had dead animals/birds in the grips of hunters, guys holding guns, rods and fish. If this is an anti-hunting message y'all must think that Ted Cruz is a liberal.

Where has the republican party issued a platform on public land liquidation? I hear this rumor and accusation continually and have yet to see or read any where in the press the repubs have plans to do such. Where have repub. congressman put forth a bill, resolution, anything with legal precedent to liquidate public lands?

Just another witch hunt to find solutions (BHA) to problems that don't exist?

Thats it in a nutshell.

This is the Republican Party platform on America's Natural Resources: Agriculture, Energy, and the Environment
America's Natural Resources: Agriculture, Energy, and the Environment

We are the party of America’s growers, producers, farmers, ranchers, foresters, miners, commercial fishermen, and all those who bring from the earth the crops, minerals, energy, and the bounties of our seas that are the lifeblood of our economy. Their labor and ingenuity, their determination in bad times and love of the land at all times, powers our economy, creates millions of jobs, and feeds billions of people around the world. Only a few years ago, a bipartisan consensus in government valued the role of extractive industries and rewarded their enterprise by minimizing its interference with their work. That has radically changed. We look in vain within the Democratic Party for leaders who will speak for the people of agriculture, energy and mineral production.

Abundant Harvests (Top)

Agricultural production and exports are central to the Republican agenda for jobs, growth, expanded trade, and prosperity. Because our farmers and ranchers care for the land, the United States does not depend on foreign imports for sustenance. Americans spend a smaller percentage of their income on food than any other nation. On average, one American farm produces enough food to feed 155 people. No other nation has been as generous with food aid to the needy. We have good reason to celebrate our domestic security in food.

We are the largest agricultural exporter in the world, and our exports are vital for other sectors of our economy. Those exports drive additional economic growth as each dollar of agricultural exports generates another $1.27 in business activity. That is why we remain committed to expanding trade opportunities and opening new markets for agriculture. Under a Republican president, America’s trade negotiators will insist that our global trading partners adhere to science-based standards with regard to food and health regulations. We will not tolerate the use of bogus science and scare tactics to bar our products from foreign markets, nor will we allow insufficient health and safety standards for products imported for our consumption.

We must also ensure that domestic policies do not compromise our global competitiveness through overregulation and undue interference in the marketplace. There is growing recognition that federal dairy policies, crafted during the Great Depression, are increasingly an impediment to the ability of our dairy producers to meet the expected doubling in global demand coming by 2030. We oppose the policies pushed by special interest groups seeking to stop or make more expensive our current system of safe, efficient, and humane production of meat. Congress has repeatedly had to block the current Administration’s draconian rules concerning the marketing of poultry and livestock. This regulatory impulse must be curbed, not on a case-by-case basis, but through a fundamental restructuring of the regulatory process. In the meantime, the intrusive and expensive federal mandates on food options and menu labeling should be ended as soon as possible by a Republican Congress. We oppose the mandatory labeling of genetically modified food, which has proven to be safe, healthy, and a literal life-saver for millions in the developing world.

The Democratic Administration’s sustained support for additional regulation of agriculture has directly resulted in higher costs of production for those who produce the food we eat. This federal regulatory overreach has resulted and will continue to result in higher food prices for Americans. These higher food costs are particularly challenging for those Americans struggling to make ends meet.

Like the rest of the economy, agriculture has suffered through eight years of the Democrats’ regulatory juggernaut, particularly from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). States, not Washington bureaucrats, are best equipped to engage farmers and ranchers to develop sound farm oversight policies. The EPA’s Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule, issued jointly with the Army Corps of Engineers, is a travesty. It extends the government’s jurisdiction over navigable waters into the micro-management of puddles and ditches on farms, ranches, and other privately-held property. Ditches, dry creek beds, stock ponds, prairie potholes, and other nonnavigable wet areas are already regulated by the states. WOTUS is now subject to judicial review and must be invalidated, but that will not be sufficient. Unelected bureaucrats must be stopped from furthering the Democratic Party’s political agenda through regulatory demands forced upon citizens and businesses beyond that which is required by law. We must never allow federal agencies to seize control of state waters, watersheds, or groundwater. State waters, watersheds, and groundwater must be the purview of the sovereign states.

Farmers and ranchers are among this country’s leading conservationists. Modern farm practices and technologies, supported by programs from the Department of Agriculture, have led to reduced erosion, improved water and air quality, increased wildlife habitat, all the while maintaining improved agricultural yields. This stewardship of the land benefits everyone, and we remain committed to conservation policies based on the preservation, not the restriction, of working lands. For this reason, ranching on public lands must be fostered, developed, and encouraged. This includes providing for an abundant water supply for America’s farmers, ranchers, and their communities.

Farming and ranching remain high-risk endeavors, and they cannot be isolated from market forces. No segment of agriculture can expect treatment so favorable that it seriously disadvantages workers in other trades. Federal programs to assist farmers in managing risk must be as cost-effective as they are functional, offering tools that can improve producers’ ability to operate when times are tough while remaining affordable to the taxpayers. Even so, the expansion of agricultural exports through the vigorous opening of new markets around the world is the surest path to farm security.

While uncertainty about natural weather and markets is a risk farmers and ranchers always face, government should not add to their uncertainty by inaction and delay. Thanks in large part to a lack of leadership from the current Administration and congressional Democrats, the last Farm Bill took far too long to enact, creating instability about farm policy for nearly two years. Republicans are dedicated to leading this country forward, which includes getting things done on time, including the next Farm Bill.

The Democrats play politics with farm security. Much of the Democrats’ delay had nothing to do with the vital role of American agriculture. It concerned their efforts to expand welfare through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which now comprises more than 70 percent of all farm bill spending. During the last eight years of a Democratic Administration, nearly all the work requirements for able-bodied adults, instituted by our landmark welfare reform of 1996, have been removed. We will restore those provisions and, to correct a mistake made when the Food Stamp program was first created in 1964, separate the administration of SNAP from the Department of Agriculture.

Like all other sectors of our society, agriculture is directly impacted by the constant advance in technology. Agriculture now faces a revolution in the generation of “Big Data” — information produced not only through public oversight of regulations and programs, but also from private business records of farming and ranching operations. In the interest of protecting the safety of our farmers and ranchers, we will advance policies to protect the security, privacy, and most of all, the private ownership of individual farmers’ and ranchers’ data.

The U. S. Forest Service, within the Department of Agriculture, controls around 200 million acres of land with enormous natural resources, especially timber, a renewable resource providing jobs for thousands of workers that should be used to the best economic potential for the nation. Many of our national forests are in worsening health with the threat of invasive species, insect mortality, and the severe risk of wildfire. The increase in catastrophic wildfires has been needlessly killing millions of animals and destroying homes and watersheds for decades in the western states. The expense to suppress wildfires related to failed federal forest policies continues to increase. When timber is managed properly, the renewable crops will result in fewer wildfires and, at the same time, produce jobs in the timber industry for countless families. We believe in promoting active, sustainable management of our forests and that states can best manage our forests to improve forest health and keep communities safe.

A New Era in Energy (Top)

Our country has greater energy resources than any other place on earth. Our engineers and miners, the men and women whose labor taps the forces of nature, are the best in the world. Together, the people of America’s energy sector provide us with power that is clean, affordable, secure, and abundant. Their work can guarantee the nation’s energy security for centuries to come if, instead of erecting roadblocks, government facilitates the creation of an all-of-the-above energy strategy.

We applaud congressional Republicans for doing just that through far-sighted legislation. Both Houses have passed bills that will modernize pipelines and the electric grid, protect the grid from disruption, expedite energy exports, and lower energy costs. A Republican administration will build on those policies to find new ways to store electricity, a breakthrough of extraordinary import.

Planning for our energy future requires us to first determine what resources we have in reserve. Thirty years ago, the world’s estimated reserves of oil were 645 billion barrels. Today, that figure is 1.65 trillion barrels. The more we know what we will have in the future, the better we can decide how to use it. That is why we support the opening of public lands and the outer continental shelf to exploration and responsible production, even if these resources will not be immediately developed. Because we believe states can best promote economic growth while protecting the environment, Congress should give authority to state regulators to manage energy resources on federally controlled public lands within their respective borders.

The Democratic Party’s energy policy can be summed up in a slogan currently popular among its activists: “keep it in the ground.” Keeping energy in the earth will keep jobs out of reach of those who need them most. For low-income Americans, expensive energy means colder homes in the winter and hotter homes in the summer, less mobility in employment, and higher food prices. The current Administration, and particularly its EPA, seems not to care. Its Clean Power Plan — the centerpiece of the President’s war on coal — has been stayed by the Supreme Court. We will do away with it altogether. The Democratic Party does not understand that coal is an abundant, clean, affordable, reliable domestic energy resource. Those who mine it and their families should be protected from the Democratic Party’s radical anticoal agenda.

The Democratic Party’s campaign to smother the U.S. energy industry takes many forms, but the permitting process may be its most damaging weapon. It takes an average of 30 days for states to permit an oil or gas well. It takes the federal government longer than seven months. Three decades ago, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) leased 12.2 million acres. In 2014, it leased only one-tenth of that number. Our nuclear industry, cleanly generating almost 20 percent of our electricity from its 99 plants, has a remarkable safety record, but only a handful of plants have been permitted in over three decades. Permitting for a safe, non-polluting hydroelectric facility, even one that is being relicensed, can take many years because of the current President’s hostility to dams. The Keystone Pipeline has become a symbol of everything wrong with the current Administration’s ideological approach. After years of delay, the President killed it to satisfy environmental extremists. We intend to finish that pipeline and others as part of our commitment to North American energy security.

Government should not play favorites among energy producers. The taxpayers will not soon forget the current Administration’s subsidies to companies that went bankrupt without producing a kilowatt of energy. The same Administration now requires the Department of Defense, operating with slashed budgets during a time of expanding conflict, to use its scarce resources to generate 25 percent of its electricity from renewables by 2025. Climate change is far from this nation’s most pressing national security issue. This is the triumph of extremism over common sense, and Congress must stop it.

We support the development of all forms of energy that are marketable in a free economy without subsidies, including coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear power, and hydropower. A federal judge has struck down the BLM’s rule on hydraulic fracturing and we support upholding this decision. We respect the states’ proven ability to regulate the use of hydraulic fracturing, methane emissions, and horizontal drilling, and we will end the Administration’s disregard of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act with respect to the long-term storage of nuclear waste. We encourage the cost-effective development of renewable energy sources — wind, solar, biomass, biofuel, geothermal, and tidal energy — by private capital. The United States is overwhelmingly dependent on China and other nations for rare earth and other hardrock minerals. These minerals are critical to advanced technology, renewable energy, and defense manufacturing. We support expediting the permitting process for mineral production on public lands. We support lifting restrictions to allow responsible development of nuclear energy, including research into alternative processes like thorium nuclear energy.

We oppose any carbon tax. It would increase energy prices across the board, hitting hardest at the families who are already struggling to pay their bills in the Democrats’ no-growth economy. We urge the private sector to focus its resources on the development of carbon capture and sequestration technology still in its early stages here and overseas.

American energy producers should be free to export their product to foreign markets. This is particularly important because of international demand for liquefied natural gas, and we must expedite the energy export terminals currently blocked by the Administration. Energy exports will create high paying jobs throughout the United States, reduce our nation’s trade deficit, grow our economy, and boost the energy security of our allies and trading partners. We remain committed to aggressively expanding trade opportunities and opening new markets for American energy through multilateral and bilateral agreements, whether current, pending, or negotiated in the future.

Energy is both an economic and national security issue. We support the enactment of policies to increase domestic energy production, including production on public lands, to counter market manipulation by OPEC and other nationally-owned oil companies. This will reduce America’s vulnerability to energy price volatility.

Environmental Progress (Top)

Conservation is inherent in conservatism. As the pioneer of environmentalism a century ago, the Republican Party reaffirms the moral obligation to be good stewards of the God-given natural beauty and resources of our country. We believe that people are the most valuable resources and that human health and safety are the proper measurements of a policy’s success. We assert that private ownership has been the best guarantee of conscientious stewardship, while some of the worst instances of degradation have occurred under government control. Poverty, not wealth, is the gravest threat to the environment, while steady economic growth brings the technological advances which make environmental progress possible.

The environment is too important to be left to radical environmentalists. They are using yesterday’s tools to control a future they do not comprehend. The environmental establishment has become a self-serving elite, stuck in the mindset of the 1970s, subordinating the public’s consensus to the goals of the Democratic Party. Their approach is based on shoddy science, scare tactics, and centralized command-and-control regulation. Over the last eight years, the Administration has triggered an avalanche of regulation that wreaks havoc across our economy and yields minimal environmental benefits.

The central fact of any sensible environmental policy is that, year by year, the environment is improving. Our air and waterways are much healthier than they were a few decades ago. As a nation, we have drastically reduced pollution, mainstreamed recycling, educated the public, and avoided ecological degradation. Even if no additional controls are added, air pollution will continue to decline for the next several decades due to technological turnover of aging equipment. These successes become a challenge for Democratic Party environmental extremists, who must reach farther and demand more to sustain the illusion of an environmental crisis. That is why they routinely ignore costs, exaggerate benefits, and advocate the breaching of constitutional boundaries by federal agencies to impose environmental regulation. At the same time, the environmental establishment looks the other way when environmental degradation is caused by the EPA and other federal agencies as was the case during the Animas River spill.

Our agenda is high on job creation, expanding opportunity and providing a better chance at life for everyone willing to work for it. Our modern approach to environmentalism is directed to that end, and it starts with dramatic change in official Washington. We propose to shift responsibility for environmental regulation from the federal bureaucracy to the states and to transform the EPA into an independent bipartisan commission, similar to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with structural safeguards against politicized science. We will strictly limit congressional delegation of rule-making authority, and require that citizens be compensated for regulatory takings.

We will put an end to the legal practice known as “sue and settle,” in which environmental groups sue federal agencies whose officials are complicit in the litigation so that, with the taxpayers excluded, both parties can reach agreement behind closed doors. That deceit betrays the public’s trust; it will no longer be tolerated. We will also reform the Equal Access to Justice Act to cap and disclose payments made to environmental activists and return the Act to its original intent.

We will enforce the original intent of the Clean Water Act, not it’s distortion by EPA regulations. We will likewise forbid the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide, something never envisioned when Congress passed the Clean Air Act. We will restore to Congress the authority to set the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and modernize the permitting process under the National Environmental Policy Act so it can no longer invite frivolous lawsuits, thwart sorely needed projects, kill jobs, and strangle growth.

The federal government owns or controls over 640 million acres of land in the United States, most of which is in the West. These are public lands, and the public should have access to them for appropriate activities like hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting. Federal ownership or management of land also places an economic burden on counties and local communities in terms of lost revenue to pay for things such as schools, police, and emergency services. It is absurd to think that all that acreage must remain under the absentee ownership or management of official Washington. Congress shall immediately pass universal legislation providing for a timely and orderly mechanism requiring the federal government to convey certain federally controlled public lands to states. We call upon all national and state leaders and representatives to exert their utmost power and influence to urge the transfer of those lands, identified in the review process, to all willing states for the benefit of the states and the nation as a whole. The residents of state and local communities know best how to protect the land where they work and live. They practice boots-on-the-ground conservation in their states every day. We support amending the Antiquities Act of 1906 to establish Congress’ right to approve the designation of national monuments and to further require the approval of the state where a national monument is designated or a national park is proposed.

There is certainly a need to protect certain species threatened worldwide with extinction. However, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) should not include species such as gray wolves and other species if these species exist elsewhere in healthy numbers in another state or country. To upset the economic viability of an area with an unneeded designation costs jobs and hurts local communities. We must ensure that this protection is done effectively, reasonably, and without unnecessarily impeding the development of lands and natural resources. The ESA should ensure that the listing of endangered species and the designation of critical habitats are based upon sound science and balance the protection of endangered species with the costs of compliance and the rights of property owners. Instead, over the last few decades, the ESA has stunted economic development, halted the construction of projects, burdened landowners, and has been used to pursue policy goals inconsistent with the ESA — all with little to no success in the actual recovery of species. For example, we oppose the listing of the lesser prairie chicken and the potential listing of the sage grouse. Neither species has been shown to be in actual danger and the listings threaten to devastate farmers, ranchers, and oil and gas production. While species threatened with extinction must be protected under the ESA, any such protection must be done in a reasonable and transparent manner with stakeholder input and in consideration of the impact on the development of lands and natural resources.

Information concerning a changing climate, especially projections into the long-range future, must be based on dispassionate analysis of hard data. We will enforce that standard throughout the executive branch, among civil servants and presidential appointees alike. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political mechanism, not an unbiased scientific institution. Its unreliability is reflected in its intolerance toward scientists and others who dissent from its orthodoxy. We will evaluate its recommendations accordingly. We reject the agendas of both the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, which represent only the personal commitments of their signatories; no such agreement can be binding upon the United States until it is submitted to and ratified by the Senate.

We demand an immediate halt to U.S. funding for the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in accordance with the 1994 Foreign Relations Authorization Act. That law prohibits Washington from giving any money to “any affiliated organization of the United Nations” which grants Palestinians membership as a state. There is no ambiguity in that language. It would be illegal for the President to follow through on his intention to provide millions in funding for the UNFCCC and hundreds of millions for its Green Climate Fund.

We firmly believe environmental problems are best solved by giving incentives for human ingenuity and the development of new technologies, not through top-down, command-and-control regulations that stifle economic growth and cost thousands of jobs.


I don't see anything in there about selling off land.

I sure agree with lots of the above!

The closest thing to sell-offs is this:

"We call upon all national and state leaders and representatives to exert their utmost power and influence to urge the transfer of those lands, identified in the review process, to all willing states for the benefit of the states and the nation as a whole."

In Montana, that would mean the transfer of the surface estate, and possibly subsurface minerals where not severed, to the state school trust system.

I must also address Smoker's yap about "keeping public lands public." First, in a transfer, the lands would pretty much STAY public, and while current Montana state trust land use by public recreationists is somewhat restricted (ironically, pretty much like BHA would like it), I would suspect the trust laws would be changed either by initiative or legislation to encourage a wider range of recreational access, reasonably priced, on Montana trust lands.
Second, what Smoler and the other BHA supporters here DON'T say is, BHA's version of "public" and of "access" is grossly limited compared to the kinds of public access that was encouraged, not just allowed, by the "multiple use" doctrine established in 1960 under the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act. Multiple use covers all of it, the "work" side and "play" side on "Land of Many Uses." BHA seeks a very narrow "quiet use" model, focused on hunting and muscle power only, a model favored by probably 5 percent of the actual user public. The other 95 percent want modern, 21st century access, meaning motorized toys -- which are not a problem if managed well with SCIENTIFICALLY, not ideologically, based policies.

I personally have no problem with motorized closures during hunting season, or closures for resource damage, or permitting in popular areas to prevent overuse. What I do have a problem with is BHA's seeking of exclusive use of large chunks of the landscape where only their approved uses are allowed at the exclusion of pretty much everyone else.

It's not in the Republican platform, but there are several politicians who support it. And BHA opposes it, and lets politicians know that.

As far as a "witch hunt" what is it that BHA does that you consider one? Which witches are they hunting?

C'mon Dave. The fact is, the vast majority of public lands are open to motorized use. If BHA wants to keep the current roadless areas roadless, that's not excluding "everyone else," because "everyone else" has unfettered motorized access to the vast majority of public lands. Maybe "everyone else" should be happy with motorized use of the vast majority of public lands, and quit whining about the small fraction they can't drive their vehicles through.

And there is no "exclusive use" of roadless lands. Anyone and everyone can use them. All they need is a willingness to get off their asses and walk a little.

This was the most egregious.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...noredirect=on&utm_term=.54faa7ad36ff

Sportsmen killed it.

Well, you quoted it but apparently didn't read it.

"We assert that private ownership has been the best guarantee of conscientious stewardship, while some of the worst instances of degradation have occurred under government control."

It was pretty much common sense.

Those tracts of land are landlocked. They can't be accessed, and they are not providing any property tax income, or any other income. They just sit there.

As the article and he correctly state, these tracts were identified by the USFS and BLM during the Clinton era for disposal. It was killed then, and it was killed later. So the land just sits there.

Pretty much killed Chaffetz's career, too. And it was enviros, not sportsmen, who raised Cain about the disposal legislation. The Greens have pretty good mass-messaging infrastructure, paid for by the billionaire foundations, and Chaffetz learned that the hard way. It paralyzed his office. I heard through the Utah grapevine that out of a sample of 200 messages that could be identified with a sender, not one of those senders ever donated to Chaffetz's campaign, and only a third were actually from Utah, even fewer from his district.

But that's the reality of politics today, and no wonder nobody with a spine ever sticks around long. Gowdy, for example.

Ok, so it seems we've accepted that the repubs are interested in divesting lands? Glad we've moved on.

In general, its OK to preserve landscapes that no one can access too. In fact that may be more important than the tracts that we can access.

I can tell you that I sent Chaffetz a message on that one and I am not a utah resident. His defense of his "sportsman" character shows how backed into a corner he got by the army of orange.

Chaffetz seemed to have a good head on his shoulders but ultimately he's a politician and getting chewed up and spit out is part of the game. He should of ignored his big money interests on that one. I will say from someone who detests the republicans position on public lands, I think the party may have gotten the message, so his sacrifice is our grandchildren's gain temporary gain.

Yeah.

The Commies won that round...

Yipee....

BCHA spurted up when I was living in Alaska in the mid 2000,s, I didn’t support them then and don’t see that changing anytime soon. They have a very elitist attitude on most subjects. There philosophy was that everyone should live out of a backpack. And while I like backpack hunting there needs to be a balance. I’m not a young buck anymore, approaching 50 and the idea that I shouldn’t have opportunities to hunt without doing some 20 mile death march is not necessarily appealing. Add to that the idea of packing really big game those distances is equally unappealing. They are a very self serving group, like most greeny orgs.

I see a lot of BHA members that hunt out of just about anything and everything including, but not limited to, a backpack. They seem a lot less elitist than many of the people on this thread.

Are you saying that you don't have those opportunities now? Are you saying that BHA wants to make all hunting backpack hunting? I must have missed that.

I'm 60. I'll hunt the backcountry until I can't any more, and then be happy that there are still places where the young bucks (including my sons) can hike into, if they want. Just like I did.

I'm a BHA member and my hunting transportation can a does include airplane, snow machine,truck ,boats of several types as well as backpack. I don't use a wheeler but I'm not against it in areas that it's already allowed because I understand not every can or wants to backpack hunt.

For me it's about keeping public lands open and available to sportsmen and to not have public land locked up by private corporations whatever your mode of transportation.Public land is one of the main reasons I chose to live in AK where there is lots of it.

Please tell us all which private corporations have lock up what public lands?

Are you only proposing keeping public lands open to sportsmen, or do you support the Multiple Use Act and it
's policies that keep public land open to everyone?

Keep in mind this was quite a few years ago but I’ll give you the example I’m referring to. As you head north from Fairbanks in Alaska they have an area called the dalton highway corridor. It runs from the Yukon river to Prudhoe bay which is about 350 miles of road. You cannot drive anything motorized off that road, gotta be on foot or on horseback and you can’t even fire a rifle within 5 miles of the road on either side, bow hunting only.. There was a push to open up parts of it to motorized access in the corridor and the BCHA fought against it. This is literally thousands of sq miles of awesome country for moose, bear, caribou, wolves and fur. Going east it goes to Canada and going west it goes to the ocean. Essentially an area damn near the size of colorado! I recall members of BCHA using the rebuttal of people should just get in better shape , keep it pristine and no atv’s or whatever. No one is hiking 10,15,20,25,30 ,50,80 etc miles off that road to shoot a moose and pack it out. That land was essentially untouchable and unused by anyone. This was also at a time where the state was turning over millions of acres of land to the native corps who then posted and enforced no trespassing on it. So many of us were hit directly by losing ground we were hunting in for years. Members of BCHA were on forums and at F&G meetings fighting it the whole time. That’s the extent of my perspective of the organization and I felt like their mission statement was contradicted by their actions, instead of fighting for public access they went all greeny against the ATV’s with the backpacker attitude when it made no sense under the circumstances.

Honest question, have you ever read the MUSYA? Its pretty apparent that you never have or you didn't comprehend what it says. Where, in the act, does it say that every acre of land must remain open for every use under the sun?

I'll save you the bother of looking, although you really should read it, it doesn't say that at all.

You have a complete and total misunderstanding of the MUYSA, what it says, and what it does and how its applied.

As to what corporations or individuals have locked up public lands, there are many examples, a big one is an entire swath of South Central Wyoming in checkerboard ownership.

Alaska Cub nailed it spot on. BHA wants, in the end, exclusive use of as much land as possible for those who think hiking or horsing in is the only acceptable recreational use, or land management means. It's all about keeping public lands open ONLY to a select group of "hunters and anglers." I won't say sportsmen because sportsmen believe in honesty and fair play.
And of course Buzz, the federal agency employee, would weigh in here that the Mulitple Use Act is honored by hike-in only on every possible acre. Certainly, MUSYA was not about maximum use of every possible acre, but it was intended to OPTIMIZE both economic and recreational outputs from public federal lands, an all-options approach. The idea was a productive, attractive landscape, PLUS prosperous local communities.
As for the "locked up" public lands in Wyoming, that's 150 year old Union Pacific checkerboard, railroad land grants. It is still checkerboard because the adjacent sections were too bony to homestead, even too expensive to buy outright when the GLO was still selling land. Further, for a long time there was pretty much open access across all of it for grazing, hunting, mineral development and exploration -- nobody felt it really necessary to either buy out UP and/or swap out lands and block up ownerships, it was everyone's empire and that was a good, even wonderful thing. While it's been a long, long time since my last adventure in the Red Desert, it was wonderful, and multiple use.
Things are, of course, different now. Union Pacific probably doesn't like public trespass and damage, so they are exercising their rights.

The friend of mine who is a BHA zealot (and I say that intentionally) always uses the line that about "my public lands". I think he gets it from BHA talking points. When he says this to me, I ask him where "his" public land ends and the guy who wants to snowmobile or ATV on that land begins. And, as always, it becomes a rant about how public lands are only to be used for certain purposes and in certain ways, which is where he loses me. I know what they are doing when they claim that they are "our" or "my" public lands, but then qualify that by excluding so many potential uses of the lands. It''s not about the public at all.

Buzz, you are as fulla schidt as a Christmas turkey...

No it doesn't say every acre. But it also by the same token doesn't say it CAN'T be every acre either, does it? The letter as well as the intent of multiple use is to utilize the land for multiple purpose in the areas described. Most people feel like it DOES apply to all public land. Aside from distinct designations, and the UNLAWFUL ones like your buddy Obama implemented illegally through misuse of the Antiquities Act.

Don't patronize me by saying what I do and don't understand either.

One thing I understand perfectly well were large tracts of public land illegally closed off to public access by douchebags like you in the US Forest Circus. For no other reason than they could...

THAT'S the elitist BS that people refer to with BHA and it's followers and donors.

The checkerboard lands you talk of were done way before you were glimmer in your daddy's eye, and there was a reason for that back then. If you know the history, perhaps you can enlighten others as to why the land was checkerboarded.

As far as the legal owners being forced to let you or anyone else through their property just to access public land... well, that tramples on private property rights and freedom. Something you don't understand I'm sure..

What do you hunt on copper nickle mines?

Rockinbbar,

The intent of MUSYA is what matters, not what you, or "most people" FEEL. If you want to talk about feelings, well, there are folks that deal with that...I'm not one of them.

The MUSYA clearly states that some lands will be used for less than all of its resources, and the harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources, each with the other, without impairment to the productivity of the land, with equal consideration being given to the relative values of the various resources and not necessarily the combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar return, or the greatest unit output.

Under MUSYA, the FS is required to consider all uses, and how management decisions will impact things like water quality, timber, recreation, fish and wildlife, range.

I can tell you for a fact, that water quality, recreation, and fish and wildlife needs were not equally considered in regard to management decisions and actions under MUSYA. Lots of examples of that.

I would like to see a comprehensive list, from you, regarding the "large tracts of public land" that the FS has closed off public access to. I'll be waiting for your list...state by state is preferable.

The question you asked wasn't about the "why" private landowners have locked the public out of their public lands, just that you needed proof of it happening. Happens all the time, millions of acres are public lands are locked out by private landowners/corporations, etc. Many roads, even those with prescriptive easements are illegally gated by public landowners (see Crazy Mountains in MT as classic example).

In Utah the Mormon Church....

Montana is getting bought by the Oprah’s and Ted Turners of the world and it wouldn’t take many of them to buy every inch of decent ground in our 3rd largest state.

I’m for keeping public lands public and being able to get away from the noise and beer can pollution and ruts and general disrespect for the land that ATV’s and other motorized vehicles bring. Just like I enjoy drifting certain rivers in a driftboat for the peace and quiet they offer and get annoyed by the jetsled ass holes that have no business on that water. Other bigger rivers that are more conducive to a sled shouldn’t find the guys in driftboats thinking they own the hole or the river by anchoring in it all day and should continue down river after fishing it for awhile. Selling or giving the states OUR land is a disaster in the making and if that happens we’ll all be using the Texas model of “hunting”. I prefer to have choices like whether to hike my ass off or whether to hunt over a feeder. Whether to fish from a drifter or a sled. Some places an ATV is acceptable and some places they have NO business. Before the bullshitt red herring of “I’m disabled” comes up just let me say that exceptions and allowances SHOULD be made for the disabled. If your disability is that you’re too fat to hike in then toofuckingbad, lose some weight or find a horse willing to haul you and your donuts in. 😁

It’s nice to be able to really get away from the noise into unspoiled country and the satisfaction of having escaped to the true wilderness.

Bleeding Heart [bleep]

Tweakers? 😁

I believe I mentioned the "intent" of the MUSYA. Perhaps "feel" was the wrong word. "Interpret" would have been a better one. But, you keep relying on twisting things around to suit your agenda..

You want to see a comprehensive list... state by state... Do I look like your secretary? I thought we had already discussed your patronizing, condescending mannerism. Perhaps that is the reason that people think you are eletist douchebags?

What I can tell you about closed tracts of Forest Circus lands is that I started getting people driving into my ranch in NM asking if they could cross my land onto Natl Forest land.

Why?

Because the Forest Circus had closed, locked and stopped access to the land beyond my property boundary. From two different roads. Really? Yes, they are closed and locked. OK> call them and tell them to open the gates. They were open a couple weeks before hunting season.

This went on for two or three years. Hunters asking to get through my land because the Circus had closed the gates just prior to hunting season.

I made some calls to a US representative that I knew pretty well, and the gates became open again.

My neighbor, who worked in management for the Circus told me that orders came down that they weren't supposed to lock those gates anymore, but as soon as it blew over, they intended to lock them again.

Yeah, they serve the public interest alright.

Just what I figured, your definition of "closed off" is not being able to drive to every acre and roads with gates.

Maybe try hiking into some of those "closed off" forest service public lands behind those gates, I hear good things:

Not only that, but the existence of large tracts of public land where any average joe can just pick up and go hunt is pretty much unique to North America.

That some who call themselves outdoorsmen would piss it away is remarkable.

Oh Buzz. You are such a superhero posting all those pictures.

And yes, people should get pissed off when their access roads are closed by douchebags just to be douchebags.

Access restriction is fantastic for those that choose to access in the accepted way. The problem arises when those placing the restrictions gore your ox.

Bareback unshod horseback only, with mandatory pack in-pack out for horse waste sounds reasonable to me. Wool and leather only for hikers, no synthetics. Canvas tent only.

I can pull it off, why can't you be reasonable and aquiesce to my utterly reasonable restrictions on your public land access?

You probably just need to be in better shape....

The problems arise when the restrictions get discriminatory.

I am neither for nor against BHA, as I honestly don't know much about them and what they support outside of public access, but I think a lot of people on these boards would do well to attend a BLM or Forest Service public meeting: specifically one for developing a Resource Management Plan or Forest Plan. The controversy is mind boggling, and the comments from the public are telling; both "sides" giving comments like "there's a special place in hell for you" or "you're the Devil's whore"...

Get involved in these planning meetings and I will bet people will begin to understand why multiple use means....multiple use. Just don't go to those meetings with a biased mindset towards your "side". Everyone thinks that their favorite resource is the most important and should be given priority over everything else. Please realize that managers have to a) consider all of those concerns (yes, even those you don't agree with) and b) what the laws and courts require them to do. I'll agree that some federal managers are absolutely incompetent and biased, but there's just as many in the state and local governments and in the private sector.

Another thing to realize is that lots of seasonal closures to roads and other activities is because of extreme pressure from the state government...not necessarily (and quite often not at all) from the federal agency. Shed hunting in WY west of the continental divide is banned in winter by the state government, but lots of people blame the BLM or Forest Service simply because they don't understand how the system works. I'll guess that similar situations exist in other states.

Wrong again rockinbbar,

The superhero's are the people like my father and grandfather who had the vision to demand that wildlife and the habitat they live in be given a fair shake with equal consideration to other uses. People that realized a long time ago that multiple use doesn't mean roads across every acre of public lands. An oil well on every acre, an atv trail on every acre, etc. That road closures are not done to be "douchebags", but to provide things like non-motorized hunting opportunities, secure fawning/calving areas, to protect water quality, and reduce road maintenance costs....just to name a few.

If not for the incredible efforts and sacrifices of the previous generation of hunters/conservationists, I wouldn't have been afforded the great opportunities to experience wild places, wild lands, and several hundred successful public lands hunts.

I have a very large obligation to keep these places, our wildlife, and the habitat they need intact for future generations. Its not just by chance that a hunter of average means can experience what I have on our public lands, its taken a lot of effort by a lot of people.

We don't have to reinvent the wheel, just have to maintain the one we've been given...I will do so, and with gusto.

Some more public land areas that were "closed" by douchebags, only to be douchebags...

Your gateway to opening up "closed off" public lands:





More horrific limited access federal public lands:





Sometimes, even those "douchebag" private timber companies partner with the MT State Lands office and USFS to close some gates...walk 7 hours behind the gate, who knows what you might find?



That crazy Wyoming BLM making me hike into their motorized restricted areas...what a joke!

There ya go! Attaboy!

That's that elitist attitude comin' out some more!

I'm sure you'll have new members knocking your doors down to join.

Am I the only one the appreciates the irony of limited access professed by people flying and or driving thousands of miles to get to such places?

The boys from No.7 county all switched to RMEF plates......so we would not know they were from Kalispell.


Its almost as bad.



Anybody know if these guys have special licence plates.....so I can watch for them too?

Not Buzz.

He scouted them from a NFS pickup...

Plenty of Fed lands in AK shut down to hunting, much was promised (but not delivered) to the State at Statehood... much more was given away with one side getting to pick all the parcels... eliminating traditional access points by the hundreds and locking out landowner/users.

I do not hunt anything on posted PRIVATE property.
I do hunt on state land that was once iron ore mines. If you didn't know there was a mine there 45 years ago you would never guess there was.
BHA has sided with every green organization to block a mine that isn't near federal land. This is a state issue that needs to be settled by the people of the state. Not a bunch of leftists tree hugging the sky is falling outsiders.

I'll drive a few hundred miles for good elk hunting. Lots of people do every season. The best elk hunting happens to be in areas that are roadless, so I'm also willing to walk a few miles to get to it.

It ain't rocket science and it's hardly a mystery.

Nailed it, Steelie.
Buzz, you really don't get it. It's a fact that both BLM and USFS give primary treatment to wildlife and habitat uses above all others, part of that is the court system and the eco-freaks, but the freaks have a lot of willing partners within the agencies. You are one of them, of many, sadly.
As for access, the simple truth is BHA cares only about one class of access, primitive means only, and only for one class of user. It is an exclusive-use model, and it is your right to advocate for it. But cloaking yourself in "public access" is, in practice, dishonest.
As for closures, the Flathead National Forest has about 2400 miles of single-track trails, about 1100 miles of those outside of wilderness, which takes up about half the forest already. I'm fine with the existing wilderness, or was, with the Bob Marshall. But each new addition (Great Bear, Scapegoat) has seemed less wise.
So, out of the 1100 miles of non-wilderness trail, 47 miles are open to singletrack motorbikes. The road system isn't that much better, every side road seems to have a gate 100 yards in, you can't see the gate from the main road most of the time. And we have these road standards, based on old radio-collar surveys done in the early 1990s by light plane. Planes don't fly the mountains at night or during bad weather. So, on nice days, when people want to go in the woods on a nice day, the radio trackers found sow bears got away from the roads. They had maybe 4500 total location data points, no more than 6000 all told.
Well, a few years later, we have GPS sat collars and real time location uploads, hundreds of thousands of data points. Guess what? In the afternoon, Momma Bear is in the weeds with the cubbies. But at 3AM, she and cubbies are booking down the road! And pooping in the road! THe bears are smart enough to avoid humans when the humans are active, while the bears get after it at night. Bears are smart, agency scientists are not. The old, obsolete data still stands as "best available" because the newer stuff would mess up the shut-down, lock up and burn-down agenda.

One class of user? Hardly Dave. Every year in my area I see sheep herds and herders, fisherman, hikers, outfitters and their clients on horses, climbers, and mushroom pickers and people who just camp and drink beer.

Weren't you the one who said that wilderness in Colorado isn't really wilderness because there are people everywhere, and you can't get away from 'em? How do all those people get in there, seeing as how they're "locked out?"

Are they picking the locks?

I don’t know chit about what BCHA is actually doing down here in the lower 48 , but I definitely sense that same elitist attitude from those here that are members or support them as I saw when they popped up in Alaska 10+ years ago. On the surface they claim to represent ALL hunters and anglers and the goal of fighting for public access, but the truth is, and it’s evident by the responses here, that they are only for their version of public access and land use. About as tolerant as liberals are if you wish to see the land used differently than they do. I went and checked their site and as I suspected they supported Obama’s move to turn the bears ears in Utah into a national monument. Which has a direct negative affect on my family in Blanding. I could have guessed that without even looking it up. Very sneaky organization, like a wolf in sheeps clothing.

Damn right they supported that!

And all the others too.

Basically, they support what the agenda of the donors are.

What I'd like to see happen is BHA become self sufficient and self supporting. Or another organization born that IS.

NRA is probably the only membership organization out there that can be called self-supporting, or funded mostly by the grassroots Average Joe..
Most environmental groups, and BHA is no exception, depend on a small set of major donors that in turn set the real agenda because they are signing the staff checks. Trout Unlimited and National Wildlife Federation are also dependent on mostly-anonymous megadonors rather than their grassroots members, or membership dues. TRCP was created by large environmental foundations to p1mp an alternative narrative, try to fill a messaging gap the NRA pretty much left open. NRA is a sportsmen's leader mainly by default, gun people often hunt, and want to protect both hunting and gun rights, with the guns first, the hunting second.
Whether or not a "sportsmens" group will ever form? No, I don't think so. Conservatives are cheap, not interested that much in political activism, so even conservative billionaires aren't spending the money, at least not yet, like the left has been doing. I mean, I joined NRA because I like it, but I donate because I feel I have to, not because I like giving away money for something I shouldn't have to, eh?
So, when it comes to a public lands group, that would speak for real sportsmen, well, there's another thing. Most hunters are species specific, Elk Foundation. Mule Deer Foundation. Whitetails Forever. Pheasants Forever. Ducks Unlimited. Or they are regional and local, not national, in outlook. There's no National Association of Mutually Supporting and Amazingly Loyal Hook and Bulleteers. And, have you ever been at Fish and Game meetings where the various factions fight each other over their chunk of the harvest pie? Primitive versus modern archers versus blackpowder versus inline versus scopes versus centerfires? And that's just one issue? It's ridiculous, yet the nature of the beast. The funders, creators, and agenda-setters of BHA, TRCP and whatever other "hunter and angler" groups have popped up since 2001 recognize this insularism, the fractionalization of "sport," and have invested millions in order to take advantage of the sick reality that sportspeople are already divided and therefore relatively easy to conquer.
That sound familiar? Sure, it's the same lying narrative you hear from "gun owners who support gun safety" -- I own a gun but I want other gun owners locked up -- I hunt, but I support only hunting MY way.
There is more than one kind of Fudd.

Fine, but don't pound on your chest about limited access Muskox, when just flew thousands of miles on commercial airlines to get there. I'm betting he don't walk 80 miles into the Arctic either to get said oxen.

It smacks of all the other specialty groups. Everything is good, so long as you do it their way. Fugg'em

Thanks, I'll try not to. Is that a big problem where you're from? I haven't seen so much whine since last time I was at the liquor store.

Nope. But, it's funny and many welfare folks can't see it. Congrats?


If you want limited access, go out your door and start walking. There is no such thing, other than what these elitist, half greenie cack suckers want you to believe.

Nothing "elitist" about every US citizen having the right to get out and enjoy their public lands, or fighting to keep them. Those rights and land belong to all, no matter their color, race, religion, age, or anything else.

They wont be squandered on my watch...no way.

Some spend their time making 91k posts on a hunting board, others spend their time advocating for public lands and wildlife with great success.

All a matter of priorities.

Carry on.

Mining out here is altogether different, and it literally destroys habitat for eons. Whole mountain ranges are gouged out and moved onto valley floors in heaps. Aquifers are destroyed forever, also. If things were completely left to this corrupt State there would be no more hunting for the average guy...none.

It means they couldn't get his cock out of their mouth, and the azzhole is anti hunting.

And some spend their time running their suck hole trying to promote a [bleep] show special interest group that is willing to cut off their nose to spite their face to get $$$

But hey, what could we expect from a regressive liberal. A spineless redheaded stepchild that cant answer simple questions with simple answers. He just glosses over the inconvenient questions and flaps his suck hole about how great he is in his own mind....

Have you ever posted anything factual? Or are homoerotic fantasies all you've got?

Apparently you didn't see the massive pr campaign with the patagucci king. You're lucky because during the yearly circle jerk pint week its all bha lackeys could post about on social media

Now when he is openly against grizzly delisting and hunting seasons they are all quiet....odd.

I don’t think it’s an issue of fact or fiction, it’s happening.

https://gearjunkie.com/yvon-chouinard-patagonia-hunters-anglers

Its all good brah, he's pro public land! (Says the bha groupie)

I wonder how he feels about bear hunting (oh wait), lead projectiles, firearm ownership in general?

So, the owner of Patagonia supports BHA.

Yawn.

No, wait a minute, it's gotta be a vast left wing conspiracy.

LOL, keep em coming!

Ya thats right, dont bite the hand....

Be honest how much coin did he donate?

Conspiracy? Wow going to the "i dont have an argument " well that quick huh? Shocking.

Heres an idea, since they've jumped in bed with yvon, i think a name change is in order...."backcountry retards and anglers" has a good ring.

Ill bet there’s a bunch of really good dudes that are members of BHA , guys like smokepole and buzz, I just don’t think they really know what the org is after or who it’s being funded by. You can’t be a hard core hunter and be a member of a org that is in bed with the biggest and wealthiest liberal anti hunting organizations. Like I said earlier the name of the group is sneaky because all of us that like hunting and fishing the backcountry could be lured by the name , but underneath that name there’s a bunch more going on.

OK, I give up. How much??

I'm just dying to know how much a private citizen of the US donated to a non-profit organization, I think that's a huge issue, and entirely my business. You champions of individual freedom are something to behold.

You go girl.

Thanks for the acknowledgement cub. What does "in bed with" mean, and which organizations are you talking about? Yvon Chouinard is a private citizen, right?

What exactly do you figure Patagonia's stance is on trophy hunting?

How many more Americans access public lands because of their funding?

I'm sure there are lots of people in BHA who have no idea what the real end game is. The left works by implementing its agenda in steps rather than all at once. Today's allies are tomorrow's targets. The "tree huggers" have no interest in allowing hunting, anywhere. They use talking points and buzz words like "our public lands" to make their foes believe there's a common agenda, but rest assured that once they succeed in getting "our public lands" protected from some types of use, they will then stab the hunters who supported them in the back and demand that "our public lands" be made safe for everyone, and that means no guns allowed.

It's the historical way these people work. Use your opponents to get power, then purge everyone but the true believers. Stalin did it to the Bolsheviks, the "tree huggers" will do it to the BHA types.

Yeah man he’s a private citizen who happens to be the founder of a billion dollar company that has donated naerly 100 million dollars to organizations that would do everything they could to make sure you never shoot a animal again. Patagonia likes to blur their mission statement between outdoorsman and granolas because they know that many outdoorsmen use their products,shop their store and spend money through dozens of venues that benefits habitat. But if you follow the money I don’t see Patagonia with its millions of dollars donated , at the forefront of anything hunting. But with acts like BHA being aligned with them on things like the National Monuments created by oblunder they see an opening to unite with BHA. I don’t know how you follow the money but cmon man, if it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck......pretty sure it’s a duck.

Stalin and the Bolsheviks? Are they big contributers too?

Fascinating, so many compelling facts you guys have.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. And the BHA people I've run across are all the type who insist that you can't believe your eyes.

What exactly do you figure that Patagonia's stance is on trophy hunting?

Don't know and don't care. Is the subject here Patagonia, or BHA? What do you suppose BHA's stance is on trophy hunting?

Dont know. They are pretty tight lipped on their stances and financial transactions/donations. They like generalizations.

Id like to know how they feel about trophy hunting, lead bans, firearm ownership, "assault weapons", and exactly where their money goes. But not only will the national bha crew wont answer those questions, but neither will a regional minion like buzzard. See he only runs his suck hole on the convenient b.s.

If they were truly transparent i could maybe support them (whenever buzz isn't associated with them)

Dont know. They are pretty toght lipped on their stances and financial transactions/donations. They like generalizations.
/quote]

So, in other words you are just making things up. Par for the course on this site, champions of fake news.

I see the thought police are out in full force this morning, but seriously, who do you think you're fooling Jackson? You say could support them? That's a good one, keep 'em coming. You're not here to discuss facts, you're here to sling mud and innuendo. Because innuendo is all you've got.

BHA's position on trophy hunting is pretty clear from the stories they publish in their magazine along with all the photos of hunters posing with trophies. It's no secret, anyone can read those. Anyone who's interested in facts.

As far as "assault weapons" and such, I don't believe they have an official position which is not surprising. What's the NRA's position on maintaining roadless areas? I'd be willing to bet they don't have one, not that it matters.

But as long as we're on the subject of the NRA, are you familiar with all of its donors and their politics? I'm 100% certain that there's more than one big contributor whose politics I don't agree with.

And if you ask me about that, I'll tell you the same thing I tell you about BHA. The politics of its individual donors don't matter to me and are none of my business. I either choose to support them for their core mission or I don't.

One thing I won't do is try to tell other people which organizations they should support. That's none of my business either.

You cant be serious....


Im here because this place is awesome. And ya i do hate buzz and everything he stands for, starting to really hate you too.

That's right, you are a CHAMPION. Sure you're a clueless prick, but thank GOD you're fighting for everyone of us poor slobs that have never seen more than 23 acres of hunting land at a time.

You are the one who is anything but serious.

Well that does it then. You're off the Christmas card list.

Lol i didn't know limp wristed libs like you celebrated discriminatory holidays....

Careful.

I doubt the BHA wants your endorsement. They may be interested in your money though. Send 'em some...


Don't know who Jackson is, but he has more info than he lets on it seems.

I wouldn't support anything Yvon Chouinard was associated with unless it was some group of fools starting a suicide club.

LOL, I sure hope so.

And how did you divine this? By waving a pair of dowsing sticks over your keyboard no doubt.

Funny!

Don't quit your day job though. Oh Wait... You have one?

That says it all.

Best post in the entire thread

Im going down to goodwill today to look for gucci gear, used so i dont contribute to the anti hunting company. My plan is to proudly display my gucci gear in grip and grin photos and start my own social media campaign this fall #pharkpatagonia #suckityvon

It says a lot, for sure. We all know Buzz is an Obama/Clinton lover/voter.

But beyond that, it shows the liberal mindset of voting themselves favors in lieu of what's best for the country.

Have you looked at Tester's voting record? He as voted pretty much down the democratic line, opposed trump at nearly every turn. He is pro-illegal immigration, support sanctuary cities, Opposed trumps SCOTUS pic etc. I don't see a 2A vote as a US senator, but my guess is he would follow the Democratic line when the time comes. The problem with these "conservative" democrates is that they talk a conservative game, but they vote with the party on nearly very vote especially the cloture vote which is often much more than the final vote.

https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/20928/jon-tester

Of course Buzz looks at that. He strongly approves.

Well, Yvon's a billionaire, right? Here's some grantmaking bullet points posted on Patagonia's site:

89 MILLION: Dollars donated for environmental work since we started our tithing program in 1985
954: Number of environmental groups that received a grant this year
156,401: Dollars given to nonprofits through our Employee Charity Match program

Oh, TITHING program? Like in the Earth is a R E L I G I O N? Plus, gotta lover the huge employee participation, pay scales must be impressive.

121,000: Dollar amount (at our cost) of new and used clothing given through our clothing-donation program

Wow, that's a lot.

175 MILLION: Dollars 1% for the Planet® has donated to nonprofit environmental groups since it was founded in 2002 by Patagonia founder Yvon Chouinard and Craig Mathews

So that's on total revenues of eleven billion point seven five?

Finding actual grant numbers is kind of rough. As a corporation, PG gets the writeoffs and reports those against its corporate income, but might not have a 501c3 which is required to list grants made -- but those groups near the Dillon Outlet in Montana are listed as:


Supported Grantees

Climate Smart Missoula
Defenders of Wildlife
Great Burn Study Group
Madison River Foundation
Montana Raptor Conservation Center
Prairie Dog Coalition of The Humane Society of the United States
Public Land/Water Access Association, Inc.
Save the Yellowstone Grizzly
Western Sustainability Exchange
Wildlife Conservation Society Community Partnerships Program

Defenders of Wildlife and The Prairie Dog Coalition of HSUS? Not exactly sportsmen groups, hmmm.

Just a reminder to the 24hourcampfire as to WHO is a commie, cocksucking SOB

Yeah, we know all about you. Thanks, but no need for the reminder.

We ain't talking about your whore of a mother or your fa g daddy/uncle, you stupid cum sucker.

Another commie reminder about Smokepole, et al.

Having anger management issues again, I see. Medication, medication, medication. You can do it!

Have a good day.

Cigar is good. Sorry you have flashbacks for sucking your dad's cock will mom filmed it. You sorry POS.

Fix your typos. Insults are much more effective without typos. But then, they still don't mean anything.

What got your dander up today? Some look at you cross-eyed? Stub your toe? Maybe you just spilled your milk and the dogs ate your cookies. Tough being you. I know. But you will sweeten up someday.

Give me your address you POS, I'll happily give you mine you piece of sheit.

Why would I do that? Really? Are you feeling homicidal today also?

You wouldn't, you're a coward POS. Your mom never backed down from an angry cock, I'm surprised you would.

I wouldn't what? What did I say I would that I wouldn't?

What about you? What would you, would?

You are definitely having a bad day. I can see that. Even by your standards. I hope your weekend is happier. But I have my doubts.

Hey Libcunt Leroy Beans

Go back to watching your child pornography and leave the adults alone.

Nothing but adolescent insults. jk- you really aren't even 16 yet are you. More like 14 and you're just learning about bad words, right?

They are against energy development - have pushed liberal candidates that will shut down ANWR, west slope of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, all in the name of habitat. They giver money to liberal candidates. All I need to know.

Wow, I forgot about this thread. But yep, BHA is a front. Bump.

Dave, I want to personally thank you for convincing me to join. Thanks!