What can you tell me about BHA, their positions on AR's, age restrictions. mag capacities. Who are the originators of the org.

Google searches has them in poor light.

I belong to the B.C. chapter of BHA , so this is not on the table here. BHA's mandate is land use issues and very pro hunter- it is a hunting organization

You undoubtably found the "Green Decoys" which is not valid in my opinion. The one other issues, BHA has gotten some flack over is the "Quiet waters initiative" which did not pass and was an admitted mistake but was driven by the state organization.

I have been very involved in BHA. It is a very pro hunting / fishing and pro public land and pro habitat group. Take a look at their body of work as a whole which I think will put them in a very good light. They are very boots on the ground, local driven group.

Kevin, I am all for local involvement in preserving public and private land for the good of both hunter and non hunter alike, The people closest to the issue usually have the best insights. I have hunted a half dozen western states and would like to support access and preservation of our federal lands. The stuff out there about founders of BHA having close ties to groups that would restrict gun ownership of particular type and age restrictions concerns me in regards to the 2nd amendment.

Since you are very involved in BHA, can you tell me what BHA's position is on AR's? I cannot find any declared position online.

Thanks

I saw the BHA debate over on the campfire. After reading through it, and listening to the advocates (BuzzH and others) and the critics (Dave Skinner, Tarkio) it was a no brainer for me. I signed up.

Why would or should BHA have a position on ARs? I don't know their position on steel import tariffs either, and don't see that it matters.

You can ask them yourself via facebook or email. I don't see any public position, nor do I personally think it matters as they are not really a gun group .. they are an access and opportunity and fair chase group.

As for founders vs leaders those are different. I have met one of the founders a few years back and he will hunt with a trad bow every time he can .. that is all I really know.

BHA is a group focused on the 2 biggest threats to hunting:
1.) Habitat Loss
2.) Hunter access

While gun rights are important to me, it is not the only core issue for which I cast my vote. That's every US citizens right and decision to make.

if you want to support a group who advocates very effectively to protect and open lands to public hunting and angling, the BHA would be a very good choice

if you want a group that advocates for LBGT, steel tariffs, self driving cars, ARs or a myriad of other different topics, might want to look elsewhere

If you insist on political-purity, or have a stringent litmus test, BHA is not for you. If you're concerned about the heritage of our public lands, keeping and increasing them, BHA is for you.

I've never heard of the BHA until now. Sounds like a worthy cause.

I am a Public Land Owner.

+1 Wish I was at the Rendezvous, sounds like it would be a blast!

Our public lands represent the greatest accumulation of undistributed wealth in the world. I stole that from big fin.


mike r

Can I hunt the back 40?

Sure! If you can get there on foot or by horseback go for it.

I have two horses, "righty" and "lefty." RIghty is in a cast right now, but he should be OK by hunting season.

I respect your decision to support bha, although I don’t understand it.

When I see an organization funded by groups who are antithetical to my core beliefs all the while advocating for one thing that I’m in favor of, color me jaded, but I do not trust nor can I support them.

The money and leadership of this organization screams “wolf in sheep’s clothing”. League of conservation voters right now is spending a ton of $ against our R congressman accusing him of attacking public lands and monuments. There’s zero truth to that, but I’d say it works because there are hunters out there who will blindly swallow that line of bullshlt hungrily without ever looking into it. League of conservation voters is s huge supporter of bha. To those who say, what does it matter...? The bha leadership uses this group and these actions as a tactic and their ultimate go al is more governmental control of most everything including who can use what public land, what you’ll be able to hunt with, the size of magazine etc.

Is be interested in knowing just what isn’t valid?

Who funds green decoys?

I had the same thought/question.

The site is put up by the Environmental Policy Alliance with the tased goes of uncovering the $ behind many environmental advocacy groups and efforts.

They are multi-faceted and have green decoys which covers bha, Montana wildlife federation, Montana forward, and the Izaak Walton league.

I still have not seen anyone explain what green decoys puts forward is not valid or not true.

You impugn BHA because of its donors, but you have no idea who's behind "Green Decoys."

Dig a little deeper.

Dear God, a member of the tinfoil hat brigade.

I just went and read the “Green Decoy’s” website. They are absolutley right, BHA is about Environmental Activism. As posted above they are active about the two biggest threats to Hunting.
1. Habitat Loss
2. Hunter Access

I am a BHA member and will continue to be, you should too, if you are a hunter.

+1

+2

I’ve tried, but tinfoil just isn’t a good look for me- obviously some don’t mind the look

I’m on the BHA outreach committee in Austin, Tx. I’ve worked in DC and am very aware of how the inside of that process works and have also been a cop now for 10 years (I’m very skeptical about everything). I believe strongly in the mission of BHA-to keep public lands in public hands and to retain access for hunting and fishing. Anyone is welcome to DM me and I would gladly talk about BHA and public land issues.

Green Decoys was done by people working for Berman and Associates, which is frankly pretty opaque, a PR firm for "bad" businesses. But the report itself is all verifiable.
Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is funded by Big Green, trying to put a "hunter and angler" gloss on the ponytailed urban granola muncher stereotype. And yep, you can have access, just only by hoof or foot. Only. Just like the Greens want the same thing. Money sets the agenda, which comes from the left wing of America's billionaire class.

I'm good with that.


Except when it comes from the right wing of America's billionaire class. Which is most of the time.

+1

Ole Dave must be slipping up. This thread was dormant for a month before he commented on it. His bosses must of gotten after him for not staying on top of the fight against public lands!

Don't worry, Dave's sock puppet will be along shortly to help out.

Giving out "Handy's" ?

As long as you only hike or ride horses, they are for you.

Want to ride a bicycle? BHA is not your friend.

Personally, I am for Americans accessing public land. Some folks believe that unless you choose to access their way, you should not have access.

Bullsh**. You can access the vast majority of public lands any way you please.

I get it, you are a wilderness advocate. As an American that lives, and recreates, in and around several wilderness areas, I see an elitist attitude displayed.

Only one of us wants to restrict others access.

No that would be polesmoker, as long as he's done with you and buzz first, he's gentlemanly after all.

So, you are opposed to wilderness areas then. Do you also need pavement all the way in?

I am all for limiting some areas to foot traffic only.

Right on cue.....

One man's elitist is another man's visionary... thank God for "elitist's" like John Muir and Teddy Roosevelt.

In 100 years there will likely be no wilderness left on the planet so we may as well put roads into every nook and cranny so everyone with an atv can access it, because that's worked out so well in Montana.

It may come as a surprise, but nature has a value that is independent of our needs and desires, even our existence.

It's genuinely hard to fathom someone arguing against wilderness on a backpack hunting forum...

I actually want all nf roads to be gated and chained off. All wilderness...

Nice try but I'm content with the small fraction of public land that's wilderness staying that way. The reality is, only one of us is demanding that 100% of public lands be open to his preferred method of travel. That seems to be putting your own preferences above everyone else's so who's the elitist?

I'm at the age where I have a few more years of being able to access wilderness. When I can't access it any more I'll still be happy to know that those places are available for others to access, if they want to. The country would be lesser without them.

The problem isn't Wilderness, it is Wilderness advocates. It seems that they can't get enough and want to force that upon everybody. Wilderness has preserved public land from roads and improvements that are claimed to be better for the environment, people and users. Wilderness does exclude a lot of people incapable of heavy packs and long hikes. I have no issue with that, those places are already preserved by Wilderness allotment.

What really stinks, is how much land is tied up that isn't Wilderness by being called a "study" area, which virtually makes it Wilderness. When is enough really enough. People that want Wilderness can go there and anywhere else they choose, but the reverse is not true and so much public land is inaccessible by the public.

No, it's not "inaccessible by the public." Every year where I hunt I see all manner of people hiking the trails. And some on horseback. And a big herd of sheep and their herder. Dave skinner will tell you that in Colorado it's not really wilderness because there are people behind every tree.

So, how much is that exactly? I've yet to run across any.

The total amount of Wilderness is minuscule relative to anything else.

Wilderness Study Areas are only "tied up" in the minds of people that want to exercise their "right" to access them with ATV's... News Flash: your stinking ATV is an infringement of others rights to enjoy the peace and purity of the backcountry.

Talk about elitists imposing their fumes, noise, and oil leaks on others...

That's a really sophomoric comparison. How much land is unaffected by human beings since the migration west over 100 years ago? There is a surplus of federal land in the Rocky Mountain states that has been preserved by the Federal Government as Forest Service. Wilderness areas in these lands have kept growing in comparison to what was originally set aside. Wilderness advocates seem to think that all land that isn't designated Wilderness is full of roads and easily accessed. You need to get out more and see how remote some of this country really is.

I feel the same way about stock. All they do is destroy trails and [bleep] on them. Can we ban their use too? I hope so, its just an easy way for lazy fat old people to access "their" land....what a joke. I get really triggered when i see fatties riding horses. I mean i packed my micro brews in on my back...

Really? What's sophomoric is that you have nothing to defend yourself. Talk about unarmed. How many acres? Simple question

And now there is a surplus no less? Say who? You? By what authority? By what measure, is there a surplus? Still growing? How much did it grow last year? Let's have some objectives measures here.

I get out quite a lot, thank you.

As I said, only one of us wants to restrict access. BHA is a perfect organization to support for people with this mindset..

I am opposed to public land being set aside for two special user groups. Are you good with having wilderness areas closed to horse traffic?

As a horse owner I have no problem with that.

I'm not, and I'll never ride a horse in one. Thing is, these areas have always been open to people riding horses and it ain't my place to change all that because I don't like horses. But you need to ride your atv there, so we all need to bow to your wishes, right?

First sentence: wow you are soo principled.

Second sentence: so we should just accept status quo at all times? You wouldve been popular in the deep south during jim crow....(see that liberal tactic i used there?)

Can someone explain to me why we need more access in/on any public lands in the continental US? I hunt several Western States every year and believe we have too many roads already. Don't get me started on *#@"$## ATVs. Biggest crock of BS ever.

I think there's been a mistake here. You've mistaken me for someone who gives a sh** about what you have to offer.. You've proven yourself to be a jackass.

This is certainly a way to not convince anyone of anything. Horses have historically been allowed into all back country due to their existence so much before any motorized use. It wasn't that long ago, motorized travel was allowed in back country, but that has been shut down to almost zero. Changes in your favor are always more welcome than changes in someone else's favor, that is clear.

If you don't like motorized use, you already have Wilderness areas and Wilderness "study" areas that you can visit without being molested by the motorized use, why not just go there and be happy. Instead it seems that you need to make everything the way you want and that is the biggest rub with the other side of the issue when those people just want a share of that access. I don't believe that other users want to open up the Wilderness to that type of use, just preserve their ability to use what is left.

Oh no, no mistaking a holier than thou pos like you

I think the fair way to resolve this is 50/50. Take all the public land in the western US, make 50% wilderness, 50% not. There you go.

What about the rest of America? Before it was all busted up, even the Great Plains was wilderness. Why not make more wilderness out of the rest of the country, then you would put less strain on the present wilderness and the rest of the Eastern migration wouldn’t have to travel all the way to the Rockies.

I like that. Make Wyoming all wilderness tho to keep out the greenie doper kueers.

LOL, call me whatever you want, that's seems to your strength. At least I know the difference between civil rights and roadless areas.

I'm sure the people who were on the wrong side of jim crow will be glad to know you equate what they were subjected to with bubba not being able to ride his ATV everywhere he wants to on the National Forest.

Where did you get that idea, I haven't said anything remotely like that. In fact, here's what I've said:





Try reading what's on the page before spouting off.

You seem to believe your wants and whims are civil rights.

Are you an official representative for bha?

What on earth gives you the idea I'm an "official representative" of anything? Are you an official representative for an organization opposed to wilderness designation?

My mistake for not clarifying "you' actually was a reference to "you" in the third person, not you directly. But you, (not in the third person) continue to criticise and call names and that is another weakness with your argument when you are trying to make a point and not make enemies.

The points of the BHA and followers are all selfish and self serving, that is where I have a problem with the Wilderness debate, because it continues to suit only one side of the whole issue. How the existing Wilderness is used is acceptable to me, I just get weary of the continual attempt at creating more and locking up more land to a limited use and access.

Another BHA thread?

Great.

Summary- No conservative organization lobbies for wilderness protection and access. This is because the republican party wants to liquidate your public lands.

Therefore, if you are interested in keeping those pesky republicans from selling your lands to big private landowner interests, you have to support some organizations with a liberal bent.

Its politics, its messy and I hate it. Likewise, I hate the small business regulations that besiege me every day too, which I why I vote for those republicans to represent me. I just wish they'd stop being to antithetical to public land hunters. Until then, I'll fight them them on that issue.

As a lifetime NRA member, as soon as they support keeping public lands public, I'll re-up with another lifetime membership. Until then, BHA is a public hunter's thug to fight our fight.

It was just a harmless question. Just curious is all. Sorry to offend your fragile psyche.

I would point out that you didn't answer.

Not so. As I said above, I'm at the age where I'll only be able to do backpack hunts for a few more years. And when I'm no longer able to do them, I'll still support preservation of wilderness areas so that others who want to get away from motorized vehicles can.

I also support the use of wilderness by people on horseback, and I don't ride horses. I support the use of wilderness by climbers, and I don't climb.

None of that can be called self-serving.

If you want to open up all wilderness, then everyone who values solitude in the backcountry (and there are lots of different user groups) will be denied. And you will be in effect ending backpack hunting because there won't be anywhere worth hiking into to hunt.

Even though the vast majority of public lands are open to vehicular travel, you would take the small fraction that isn't and deny all of those user groups. Yet it's "the other side" that's self-serving. Your argument doesn't hold water.

LOL, no offense taken Jackson. You would point out that I didn't answer? Wow, thanks, nothing gets by you.

I would point out that you didn't answer either.

That's a great summary, here's another:

I dont represent any organization and i am not sponsored or paid by any company, foundation, lobby group, or individual

You still haven't answered

That's right, I haven't answered. That's because I'm part of the vast left-wing conspiracy and we like to operate in secret.

Ooops, there's Yvon on the phone, gotta go!!

Your jokes suck almost as bad as your opinions

Very well said! No one seems to have an issue with the NRA being a single issue group, but because BHA is, and they are work with people on both sides of the political fence, just like the NRA used to (when there were Democrats that would earn an A rating with them), they are seen as the enemy. Just like the NRA, we need single issue groups fighting for public lands to fight the people on the other extreme. Where do we end up on most issues when you have this? In the middle, a place that works for most of the people that the issue matters to.

Opinions are like sock puppets, everybody's got one. Oops, there's Nancy Pelosi on line 2, talk to you later.

Was daddy tawney on line one?

No, line one was Michelle Obama but thanks for asking.

Are you in the habit of calling other men "daddy?" There seems to be a common thread in your posts, references to homosexuality. It appears to be all you think about.

No atv's in my garage, horses either.

Just an outdoorsman that wonders how an non-native species group gets wilderness access, but bicycles and game carts are a scourge upon the holy land.

Only when its an accurate description. And for you, papa tawney is accurate. It seems as though either his hand is shoved up your rear, or you just love him and his lobbying so much you think he's the second coming.

So are you affiliated with bha beyond just a card carrying member?

Dont get your patagucci undies in a wad..

Undies in a wad? Hardly Jackson. I just find your constant references to homosexuality puzzling and odd. No one else on here does that.

I've never met Land Tawney. You no doubt know more about him than I do.

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

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

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

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

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

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

So keep it entertaining and continue the cry baby meltdown.

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

Classy.

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

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

Pretty sure the wheel predates them both.

You go girl, fight the good hipster fight.

In designated wilderness, do tell.

Obtuse as always, laffin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your every post verifies your lack of credibility


mike r

Thank you, that means so much..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Good post smoke. My thoughts exactly.

Thanks B.

Jackson, what does "snuggle up" mean, pray tell? Is it one of those phrases you and Dave like to throw out because it has connotations but no real meaning or substance? Innuendo is your stock in trade.

Didn't you say you were a big supporter of RMEF? What was your position on wolf reintroduction, did you support that? If so, did you renounce your membership when RMEF came out in support of it?

Youre playing semantics. I mean their board members took selfies with him, they pushed a cute meme all over facebook and instagram, they gave him a lengthy speaking slot at one of their circlejerks, oh and they took his cash (who knows how much, i doubt they would say). Thats what i mean by snuggle up to.

But again, you were probably in the selfie line so you dont care about their stance on hunting.

Does rmef openly oppose and lobby against the hunting of predators like wolves? Ya i didnt think so...


Now go ahead, dodge and deflect, its your M.O. This is why i oppose bha. All of their board members and lackeys cant answer questions honestly and straight forward. Dont be ashamed, just admit wilderness is more important than hunting and fishing.

Selfies and memes? "OMG!!"

You crack me up. Wilderness is more important than hunting and fishing?? Where'd that come from?

I can't speak for others but not for me personally. Hunting and fishing is the reason I visit wilderness.

And what is your question anyway? The one I'm not answering?

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

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bhh6hiMBYoh/

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bhro7g1gfAG/

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bhkv1oXBuG-/

Sycophant game is strong. Just search some hashtags associated with that clown....

Its obvious you are for the campaign against grizzly hunting and you want them relisted as an endangered species. There i answered it for you, since you lack the integrity to answer it yourself

What's obvious is, in the absence of facts you'll say just about anything that fits your agenda.

You've never asked my opinion on grizzly hunting or listing. If you had, I'd have answered.

You're as FOS as a Christmas turkey.

You spoke well. The only thing I'd add is I value peace and quiet when I'm in the woods hiking, hunting, and fishing ... something I cannot get when road lice invade the area. We have areas here designated for off-highway vehicles .. 4x4s, motorcycles, and ATVs. We have areas designated for foot / hoof traffic only. The two simply do not mix. There's a place for both ... but not together.

Tom

I asked you if his stance bothered you(just 6 posts prior). You refused to answer. So now youre just a blatant liar.

And you still didn't provide an answer, just like your affiliation with bha. Shocker. Deflect and lie = polesmoker m.o.

Feel free to answer those Q's and prove me wrong...but you wont possibly because youre ashamed of your own views?

His stance doesn't bother me, even if I don't agree with it. So, what DO you support Handy and what have they (and you) done to improve hunting on public lands? Anything besides yourself?

What is this giant trap you think BHA has set?

Are you opposed to their stance on public land preservation and access?

Do you support fighting politicians who do want to liquidate our public lands to private ownership?

I get it, everyone has their issues that they get fired up about. Your constant meddling in these threads makes me think you strongly oppose the above, but I hate to make assumptions. I would say that you don't care either way, but again, you've made it a constant need to talk about patagonia's CEO and some giant BHA trap that is going to take us all down, leading me to believe you have some passion for this one way or the other.

Or, maybe you are just really bored.

Who are these "politicians who do want to liquidate our public lands to private ownership". and what legislation are they proposing to do so?

Im opposed to organizations talking out of both sides of their mouth. They claim to be the mouthpiece for hunters, yet take money from groups against hunting. Im opposed to vagueness and lack of transparency.

Oh and i am 100% against buzzh

First, asking about my opinion on grizzly hunting is not remotely the same thing as asking if someone else's stance bothers me. Apparently you don't understand the difference. If you're going to call someone a liar, try to have your facts straight.

Second, I've answered the question of whether Chouinard's views and stances bother me, you just missed it so I'll say it again: The views and stances of Yvon Chouinard or any other individual donors to BHA don't bother me one bit. The fact that they choose to donate money to BHA does not mean that BHA endorses all their stances on other things (other than public land and wilderness preservation). Chouinard is free to support any cause or organization he chooses, same as you or I.

And as I said in my earlier reply to the question on Chouinard, I have no idea about the various stances and politics of all the donors to the organizations I support, like the NRA. The NRA takes in so much money that it's virtually guaranteed that I don't agree with all its donors. Yet I still belong, because it's an effective advocate for something I believe in.

The only reason I haven't answered your question on my affiliation with BHA was because I wanted to watch you stamp your feet and bang your spoon on your high chair, convinced I'm a board member or some such. It's been entertaining. My only affiliation with BHA is my annual membership. As a matter of fact, I need to check on that it may have lapsed. Thanks for the reminder.

Last, on your question about grizzlies my opinion is that all of those issues should be decided by the cognizant state game management agencies, and the decisions should be based on the opinions of the people they hire to make those decisions. If their biologists say that populations are at or above objective, there should be hunting.

If we had grizzlies in Colorado, I'd be more involved in those discussions. But we don't so I defer to the citizens of the states with grizzlies.

So, you are 100% opposed to public land hunting then - 'cuz clearly Buzz is 100% for it.

As always, you are against everything, but you don't seem to be FOR something that benefits hunters of public lands. That pretty much makes you an anti-hunter as far as I'm concerned.

Lol buzz does like to crawl up and nail himself to the public land cross doesn't he. He also likes to run his suckhole about things he hasnt a clue about.

And polesmoker, im glad to see you finally developed a spine! Now you're one rung higher than buzz, congrats.

Classy, as always.

Personally, I think smokepole has done a very good job articulating the main points. Myself, I primarily recreate on wilderness period. Sure I hike sometimes on NF or BLM , but given my rathers I head to places I feel are less populated, more natural, and more pristine. I don't like people driving up next to my camp and doing whatever. I'll stick with the walkers and pack animals as long as I can get there.

As far as cozying up to someone who's CEO has been against Grizz hunting and people taking selfies etc, I feel that is an excellent moment. The Recreation and Hunting worlds do not need to hate each other, they need to find common ground to protect land, animals, and water ways. The aforementioned CEO has some excellent hunting and fishing stories BTW and would probably out fly fish most of us. Now is BHA perfect ? No, they have gotten on the wrong side of a couple issues, and when asked they will freely admit it. Have you ever made a mistake ? It happens.

BTW, we are not forcing you to join any group. If you don't like it, don't join and find a group you like . However, don't continually bash and slander them because they are supporting hunting and fishing on public land and people from all walks (even recreational) can get on board with that.

Maybe he was for it before he was against it......

There is some truly weak schidt going on in this this thread. Between skinner and handjob, whose incoherent diatribes have me thoroughly confused, I don't know w/ whom I am aligned and maligned. I am told I am a fudd greenie pole smoker who wears a truckers hat and drinks micro brews.

In reality I am a a Tacticool, beret wearing Coors drinker who hunts Griz w/ a knife while wearing Patagucci duds in a wilderness area w/ other public land snobs who walked there.

For those that would sneer at my beliefs and preferences: EAT A DIK.
For those that sincerely disagree; I really don't care.


mike r

You go girl

Me thinks the political trolls are hot and heavy on this forum. I wonder who's funding them?

Whomever is paying for jhandy sure ain't gettin' his money's worth.

Here is an interesting thought. Would you rather the groups/people opposed to hunting and fishing give their money to other groups instead of BHA? say, perhaps, PETA? The Humane Society of the United States? I would be thrilled to death if George Soros gave $10 or $100 million to RMEF!

I have seen quite a few examples of BHA doing habitat projects. I have not seen those opposing BHA give examples of what they do. Are they perfect? Probably not, but by golly I think they do a lot of good.

Yeah, who wouldn't like to direct Soros's dollars to elk hunting, or Koch brothers for that matter.

Handy never did respond to multiple requests for who he supports. He likes to ask questions but not answer them. Esp. when they leave him no legs to stand on. He, like jaguartx and a fair number of others are really interested in problems or solving them. They are only looking to fight. It's all in the battle, not the war. You see that a lot with career activitists of many types. I notice it lots of modern feminist. They want to fight, not win. JH is just a frustrated feminist looking for a new battle ground.

I have been a member of RMEF and the Mule Deer Foundation for 20 years. They do real habitat work.
40+ years with the Minnesota deer hunters association. I have spent many a weekend helping them when asked.
30+ years with DU. I have built and put up over 200 wood duck houses and help with woody camps over the years.
15+ years with the Ruffed Grouse Society. I have volunteered my time helping set up and maintaining a lot of the RGMA's in the state over the years.
What the fug have you done other that be a member of a bullchit group?

BHA is no different than the Sierra Club. In fact most of the crap they post on social media is word for word copied from them.
The PolyMet mine is a perfect example. What BHA posted on social media about it was copy and pasted from the Sierra Club and Friends of the BWCA. Even the ultra leftest Minneapolis Star and Tribune had to call the claims they were making as false. Governor Goofy admitted he hasn't seen any scientific evidence that should stop the mine from opening but he keeps caving to the ultra leftist groups and will not sign off on it.

BHA has never had a good word to say about Secretary Zinke and most of the crap they post is once again copy and pasted from the Sierra Club.
Why haven't they said a word about Secretary Zinke announcing this past Monday a proposal to open more than 248,000 acres to new or expanded hunting and fishing opportunities at 30 national wildlife refuges? One would think that is right up their alley but like all the leftest anti Trump A holes they could never give any credit even when it is rightfully due.

Yvon is probably weeping today with a lot more bha donors as WY approved grizzly hunting. Another victory despite the anti's.

https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/s...ng-and-fishing-opportunities-30-americas

👍

Oh boy, the Patagonia koolaid drinkers are having a rough couple of days...grizzly hunting, more access (although probably not pristine backcountry required by most). Everyone keep their eyes peeled for hipsters out on ledges...

Judging from the level of coherence, I'm going with the CCC.

Not sure which koolaid drinkers you're hanging with but personally I'm in favor of both. Preservation is not a good wildlife management model.

Im sure

Just as sure about it as all the other stuff you've posted.

You don't know Jack, son.

Refuges tend to get overpopulated with species like deer, it ain't rocket science.

Oh im sure opening up refuges for more access to hunting and fishing is a great thing. Im also sure the bha loving/zinke haters are sad today.

Im also flattered you think im being paid or funded by some shadowy group (kinda like who funds bha). This is just a non-hunting season hobby.

You dont know jack, but obviously know polesmoke'in, pappy. You go girl

LMAO, when I said you worked for the CCC, it was a joke Jackson. So don't flatter yourself.

And personally, I don't know any ZInke-haters, but keep making stuff up, it's what you're good at.

BHA had a press release on the proposal to increase sportsman's access to national wildlife refuges 2 days ago speaking favorably both the proposal and Zinke.

Don't let the facts get in the way of your agenda.

Well thats better than the "he stole your land" b.s. from a few months ago. Maybe they learned a lesson...

You go girl! Keep fighting the good fight lol

LOL, you mean to tell me, Jackson's just giving us all a Handy?

"What the fug have you done other that be a member of a bullchit group?"

Is this directed at me? If so, you want to see my credentials in outdoor volunteer time?

What the "fug" do I do? More than "helping". RMEF member for 22 years. MDHA member for roughly 20 years. PF member for 24 years. PF committee member for 24 years including holding treasurer for 3 years, VP for a number of years, and chapter president for the last 9 years. Cant tell you how many food plots or tree plantings (thousands of trees) I have done, but it is a lot, typically 5+ per year. A couple pollinator plots installed, one on the high school property. Only 1 prescribed burn. Banquet chair for around a dozen or so fundraisers to financially support a ton more projects. Built and put up quite a few woodie houses. Founder and Executive Director of 2 Youth Outdoor Days with the current one drawing over 2,000 kids annually. Board of Directors and Vice President of a local large conservation organization in which I (we) do a ton of habitat, youth, and other conservation projects that are more numerous than i want to list. FSC instructor for 19 years (although that is not exactly conservation, investing in our youth is pretty important). Guest speaker at over 2 dozen audiences (including schools on various conservation issues). Next time you want to call someone out on something and ask them what the "fug" they do, you better make sure you have something on your resume better than they have. "Helping", although nice and I certainly appreciate your efforts, isn't exactly a place to throw stones from.

It doesn't sound like anybody has changed their mind with all this chatter, so if you just put it up for a vote, BHA gets a NO from me.

It's not up for a "vote."

It's a personal decision, and nobody's business but your own.

There is no making you happy, you just have to bitch about something. I can’t imagine going for a nice walk in the wilderness and then listen to you bitch about it.

You have a great sig line. Where did I post that? I would like to have the original framed.

Be careful around bridge, tunnels, or anywhere there is the slightest echo. You will drive yourself crazy, 'cuz when it comes to bitchin' you're the bitch's bitch...

LOL, you and Handy are the ones bitching about BHA, and trying to tell everyone which organizations they should support.

Minding everyone else's business like a couple of old women with nothing better to do. You need a nice walk, it'll clear your head.

The all knowing self righteous lord of the wilderness snobs/lemmings hath spoken. All hail the great polesmoker

Heaven forbid someone point out the irony of who gives bha money. You know, like the guy that openly opposed what just passed in Wyoming.

No worries Jackson. I would tell you to take a few midol and it'll pass, but I don't think midol works fort post-menopausal women.

Hey smoke, you might try one of those midol. It seems you take every opposing viewpoint on wilderness personally.

Unfortunate to be so angry with public access advocates.

You would know old timer. Have fun at water aerobics....

I have no quarrel with public access advocates. It's a**holes I'm opposed to.

And I'm not angry. I save that for important stuff, not trolls like Jackson.

Why do you and handy feel it necessary to put words in others' mouths, tell others what they're opposed to, and tell others which organizations they should support?

Don't you you have enough of your own stuff to tend to?

LOL, you couldn't keep up with me junior.

Well, I see the discussion has continued.
:"Liquidation of public lands?"
That's a completely false narrative. You're not going to see en bloc sales of public lands to the private sector anytime soon, for at least two reasons:
Number one, there are no corporations interested. The evil timber industry no longer exists, the large corps are now all REITs focused on profit through real-estate management with timber an incidental. Then, the fact is, the recreational RE market isn't that big. Average wages still stink, so there are a relatively few people who are interested in starter castles on big chunks of forest. No customers there.
Number two. No matter who you are, public land in large chunks, where you don't have to hunt down the owner to ask permission, is a widely supported concept. Even if the customers were there, the public won't support massive sales that would anyway dent the larger ownership. Only in the case of close-in, isolated, or swappable lands could you expect sale -- and that would probably have to have an acre-for-acre factor that the public finds acceptable or favorable.
But liquidation as a narrative is a total effing lie. A Goebbels-style Big Lie aimed at the gullible by the dishonest. It just deflects from the real issue, which is the allocation of purposes on public lands -- set aside for a selfish elite (wilderness and roadless) or the greatest good over the long run (multiple use).

And Beretta says he doesn't CARE if Soros gives a zillion to RMEF? Precisely the problem. Soros, and his spawn, are fiscal rapists who could care less about American principles or values. America just happens to be where the money is, not counting his skinning off Asian capital 20 years ago. Then you need to understand that Soros is not an idealist by any stretch of the imagination. He gives to further HIS causes and expects results from his funding, results he cares about. What are they? Not what you want, or what RMEF wants.

Never mind that RMEF did support wolves for a while, while accepting granting funds from the usual suspects of Green Incorporated. There was a house cleaning of the board and the membership when the full effects of wolf predation became obvious to all, as did the politics of wolf repopulation.

Actually it was dead. But it's clear that you' like it to continue. "You go, girl."

Wow, thats next level pompous azzhole, quoting yourself being a dick....impressive

Thanks for the compliment, I was really concerned about your take on all this.

Obviously. How were the old folks down at the aqua center today?

I've used Aqua Velva, but never been to an "aqua center." What is that?

The discussion will die about the time BHA does. Hope it's soon.

BHA will die when people no longer value wide open spaces or unspoiled landscapes.

Or when you have something substantive to say, which will probably be in the same time frame.

So hateful, apparently you adhere to Clayton Bigsby's belief in "if ya got hate in yer heart, let it out!". So rude, those bha lackeys are....

Not hateful at all, Jackson, just an observation. If Skinner had anything substantive to say he wouldn't need to invoke Goebbels, Soros, "Green Incorporated," "the selfish elite" and all his other assorted boogeymen. You want to see hatefulness, read your boy Dave's posts.

There's no need for that kind of pejorative emotional nonsense if you have anything of substance to discuss.

Puff it, smokey.

Glad to see the efforts BHA did last week in DC lobbying for a continuation of the LCWF that is set to expire in September. Regardless of whom helps get it done, the LCWF needs to be renewed and I would like to see it made permanent. Great program that is serving it's intended purpose IMO.

Says the guy who's been the most rude and classless poster I've seen on this forum.

Sorry, didn't mean to slight you Jackson. Skinner's got nothing on you when it comes to classless, rude, and hateful posts.

It's almost as if you two take your cues from the same master.

Its was a joke genius. Just when i think you couldn't be any dumber...you go and type that...derp. Go suck off some bha board members

Classy, as always. You know more about BHA board members than I do, seems you're obsessed.

How's that working out for you?

Pretty well. You know despite the efforts of bha's favorite lib ceo, grizzly hunting is going to happen in WY. [bleep] bha, buzz, land tawney, and you.

Bha is a cheap hooker, they'll crawl into bed with any sleaze with money....and more the merrier

Classy, as always. Did BHA come out with a position on grizzly hunting? I missed that, what was it?

Almost hate to wade into the middle of this 'discussion'...

I want to support BHA, really do. On the surface, I like what they stand for. But as long as they collaborate with organizations like Y2Y, I can not. Alberta hunters will be very, very negatively impacted if Y2Y's agenda is successfully pushed thru. Our current provincial government is very receptive to them, and the last thing we need is a hunting org lobbying in the same direction. IMO.

Page 12, below, BHA is listed as a collaborator. Along with CPAWs, AWA, and others. These orgs may not be well known down in the States, but up here they will be the death of public land hunting. It's happening right now, large tracts of public land have been turned into Provincial Parks- some allow foot access hunting for now, others are no hunting- and more slated for the near future. Partially due to the lobbying of these groups. I strongly support conservation, but we need to find solutions that don't go to the lengths that Y2Y/CPAWs/AWA want... And BHA needs to distance themselves from these groups. IMO.

https://y2y.net/publications/Y2Y_2015_Annual%20Report.pdf

Funny you mention that, i dont recall very many times they "come out" with a position on anything (probably don't want to upset donors). Well except the whole "trump stole your land" bullschit...which was an obvious lie. But they sure do like partnerships with companies and organizations that dont care for hunting.....odd.

So, let me make sure I have this right--you're criticizing BHA for their position on grizzly hunting, but you don't know what their position is.

Does that about wrap it up?

Im criticizing their lack of public stance, and their partnership with a buffoon that campaigned against it. Dumbass.

Sometimes i wonder if you're just really good at playing stupid, or if you are simply beyond stupidity....im guessing the later is correct.

Criticizing their lack of a public stance?

Since when do you get to decide which issues an organization you don't belong to takes a "public stance" on?

What business is it of yours?

And what is the "partnership" you're referring to? Oh I forgot, the dreaded selfies and memes.

Youre either a useful idiot for bha, or a boob.

Oh my. "Jackson Handy" called me bad names.

What am I to do?

My opinion, a Troll with a political agenda.

You know what Jackson ? I have not always agreed with my wife in the 20 years we have been together, but we agree on most stuff and have had a very productive relationship.

If you can not understand how people do not always agree 100 percent on everything can be productive then perhaps you should try.

No doubt Kevin. A political agenda and nothing substantive to say.

Laugh at him. Some more.

I like your company and would like to thank you for being pro hunting, and to my knowledge you havent campaigned to end it. More than some others can say.

Thanks

Yes we do a lot for hunting and conservation in general. For the record, I personally support the GYE grizzly hunt, but the reality is it is such a small number, it probably doesn't matter much, so I almost don't consider it having any skin in the game. I know some of the more extreme fringe groups will file lawsuits, because they see the area as more of an open zoo and don't really understand living with large predators. I think those bears, need to learn the hunters are not a dinner bell. However, I also personally, am not in favor of the reduction of monuments, though I do believe Obama should have used the Bishop recommendation a few years before which was close in size to what it initially was. I personally, spend a fair amount of time in the Escalante area in the spring just having fun, so that one is personal. Really, I'm sort of done talking politics, and would rather talk hunting/ fishing / gear

Happy Hunting

Amen to that. I'm in the market for a 12-man tipi sized shelter. I'm familiar with Kifaru tipis but haven't used a Seekoutside.

What are the differences in size, construction, etc?

You can come to our GJ Facility and see any of them setup or there is a place in Evergreen I believe that retails a few.

Short comparison is (and I haven't seen one of the others in year)
Seek Outside is Round vs Oval similar sq footage
We offer a dedicated vent that can close , a sod skirt, a storm flap on zippers , guy out points on all seams, stove port is different
Our Apex is a Dyneema interior / Waterproof Exterior
Functional Feature differences - Our guy outs allow flexi pitch to pitch 8 man size if needed , we have more venting options,
I think our liners fit pretty tight and very well so you don't loose much space
If you want screens ours are sewn in
We offer a seam sealing service at an additional charge
Fabrics probably similar but I guess they are berry compliant , we have never tried to certify , we have probably a higher waterproof rating and more reliable coating is my guess
We have a lot of interior / nest options if desired.
We have a pretty stringent QA process , thus we have some blem sales from time to time .. we are pretty picky
We generally have less stretch in our seams due to our construction


I'm sure others may chime in.

A 12 person, with a Big Mama Ti stove would be a pretty sweet rig for cold camps


Thanks

Ah, KT is a BHA-firm corporate sponsor employee, at least. Sure, Kifaru sells the hiking hunter good gear, and needs as much land as possible upon which to market the experience, and the gear. Got it. Vested interest. Kinda like Randy likes "roadless areas" because he can still film there without a permit. No mercenary interest at all. Of course, I admit mne. I like logging.

As for BHA's position on G bear, Yvon opposes it, Yvon bankrolls BHA, what else do you need to know.

One other thing I got a laugh out of, I didn't know this, but BHA has a
BHA Launches Hike to Hunt Challenge
Posted by Backcountry Hunters & Anglers | July 19, 2017

and the sponsors are

BHA corporate partners Kimber, Kifaru, First Lite, onXmaps, Schnee’s, Vortex Opticsand YETI are showing their support for backcountry lands by providing an array of prizes for participants.


Yeti? Really? Kimber? Really? Are these guys really on the same page?

Apparently the sponsors of said event are complete idiots. I’m sure they run their succcessful businesses the same way. I find the statement that you support logging a bit telling. Apparently we need more roads into national forests. With any luck, they can all be like the Medicine Bow NF with a road every half mile or so. Then, again with more ‘luck’, the state guide association will convince the state legislature that non-residents will get hopelessly lost in all wilderness areas (re no roads) and they’ll shoot all the grizzlys upon sighting such a terrifying beast.

Think I’ll pass and hang with BHA.

Dave, if your "serious" writing gig doesn't pan out, I think you have real potential as a comedian, that last post was some of the funniest stuff I've read in a long time. Especially the line above, associating Kevin with Kifaru is hilarious. And entirely consistent with the overall quality and accuracy of your research and opinions.




Dave, that's what's commonly known as an association fallacy. But I prefer to call it a red herring because you've got more red herrings than a Chinese trawler. Yvon supports preservation of existing wilderness, and he supports BHA which is an advocate for preservation of existing wilderness. Yvon understands the intrinsic value of wilderness and roadless areas, and uses those areas. Outside of that, Yvon is free to support whatever else he wants to support with or without the blessing of BHA. Why would BHA take a position on a state game management issue anyway, it's not what they're about.

And tell me Dave, what does "bankroll" mean? If it means "contribute to," then I also bankroll BHA as do many others here. For the simple reason that the best hunting and fishing is in roadless areas and we'd like to keep what we've got. It really is as simple as that. Most BHA members have no financial interest in the backcountry Dave, for most of us it's personal.

Everything is not a nefarious plot driven by mercenary interests as you seem to think it is Dave. Some people really do value wilderness but your distorted worldview prevents you from seeing that and it's a shame. I know the owner of Kifaru, I've shared a few camps with him in the backcountry both hunting and fishing. He had the passion for backcountry hunting and fishing before he started his company and that led him to start making the gear that didn't exist for hunters back then. I can tell you with 100% certainty that if his company hadn't taken off and he'd done something else, he'd still be hunting and fishing in the backcountry and still be supporting BHA. I don't know Kevin as well but I've met him and read his posts here. I know we've traveled and hunted some of the same areas and I can say the same about him--he'd support BHA regardless. And the same for Randy Newberg, it's obvious from his videos and TV shows that he loves what he's doing and really does value wilderness and the mission of BHA. All three of these guys know that the best hunting and fishing is in the backcountry and they want to preserve it for future generations, that's a tradition that dates back to Teddy Roosevelt and others.

It really is as simple as that Dave, and it's a real shame that your distorted, cynical worldview blinds you to the fact that people can support the preservation of roadless backcountry for something other than mercenary interests.

PS, edited to add: If you bothered to do even minimal research on Randy Newberg, you'd know that he doesn't make his living doing hunting videos. You apparently know nothing about the man but feel entitled to cast aspersions and question his motives.

If Randy = Randy Newberg, I bet you can't prove he's ever filmed without a proper permit. "Roadless areas" would still require permits and not all regions/districts will grant film permits for them. IIRC, specifically Region 1 of the USFS for designated wilderness areas.

Good post Smoke, using facts and reason in a debate should be the standard in the Backpacking forum. The lack of personal attacks and acrimony has long been the best feature of this forum.


mike r

Wilderness advocates are not friends of the American hunter. Or getting more Americans accessing public land.

Go to any pro wilderness group meet and greet. Show them all of your hunting pics, talk firearms and trophy hunting.

Discuss the merits of using a game cart in designated wilderness. Make sure you lift your pinky while drinking.

It will be immediately apparent just how accepting of your lifestyle they are.

That would depend on whether those wilderness advocates are hunters or not, obviously. I believe it's already been pointed out here that BHA came out in support of hunter access in national refuges so your premise is a non-starter.

I'm a wilderness advocate. I've donated lots of money and thousands of hours to promote hunting and habitat conservation through organizations like RMEF and by helping over a thousand new hunters get their licenses by teaching our hunter education course.

That took over a thousand hours of my own time, all as a volunteer, promoting the sport of hunting. I'd turn your post around and say, people who spout nonsense and falsehoods are not friends of the American hunter.

Blanket statements like yours and Skinner's are seldom true but don't let that stop you.

There are lots of wilderness advocates here who are (obviously) pro-hunting. It's the backpack hunting forum after all. Without wilderness and roadless areas there would be no backpack hunting so like someone said earlier, it's amazing to see someone come on the backpack hunting forum and be against the concept of backcountry.

I have to disagree, but I have several friends that work for places that advocate wilderness like The Wilderness Society that are avid hunters. I will agree the fringe part of some groups are not a friend, but that goes for both the right and left.

Perhaps it is far different in Montana, but I know in my neck of the woods, that the vast majority of Elk killed in the units near me are in wilderness (excluding private ranches). There just is not a lot of action outside of that with the exception of an occasional elk that someone gets lucky with off a 4WD road or the first morning of rifle season. Outside of that if you want real opportunity, better get the backpack together and go in the wilderness or at least to the fringes of wilderness.

I never said that Randy makes his living off hunting, or even if he makes a profit. But what he does is a business, and as a business, he's got some tax support if he loses money, and he obviously does what he does because he likes to do it rather than just hunt for himself.

Nor will I argue about what elk do. It's amazing to see them zoom off to cover after the first shots, or jump fence to haystack paradise. They are amazingly skittish anyway, all year.

I only bought a couple tags in Colorado, and only actually hunted one time, it was like third rifle, three days or five days, I can't remember which. But I was shocked and stunned at the herd of orange. Only saw one decent fiver, when I cut over and above him, there was another guy closer and tracking, so I just had to bail and that was it, back to town. Nice walk, kinda boring for the most part, I gave my fellow hunter his dibs, dropped over the ridge away from him and gone. I'm good with that, hope he ate well. But it was kind of a shock to hunt in those constraints after growing up with five weeks of opportunity and decent, regular success.

The only other time I bothered was when I had permission around Trinidad on private ground. Bought the tag, second rifle, had to work instead..Had been there prairie dogging a number of times and knew where the good animals were, so that was a pretty major disappointment. Colorado could do better with fewer tags at a higher price for a longer season, but they're just the way they are with all those short, stupid special seasons and everyone in a nutty rush.

The bottom line for me on BHA is, the push is to close off lands from all uses of any kind (except hiking and horsey) just so the hunting is good a few days, or weeks of the year, and nothing else matters. I understand the passion, as I felt it for a while. But because of that passion, the BHA crowd is just as selfish as the wilderness people.
My position is, rational seasonal closures and access management, integrated with forestry over the long run, would result in more productive habitat, better hunting for everyone, and a broader economy both locally and regionally. Let wilderness be wilderness, but enough is enough.

This is the first rational post I've seen from you on this subject. I also think I understand your perspective, may not agree with all of it but we can have a conversation vs innuendo and smoke screens.

First, about Colorado. Elk hunting in Colorado is about one of two things - hunt on private or get off the road. I don't have access on private and am not paying for a guided hunt so my only option is to get off the road. "Get off the road" means off any easy access. I know guys that hunt '3-4-5 miles' off the road and still come up empty. Walking 2.75-3.75-4.75 miles back a road/trail then a short walk off the access point doesn't count. Elk have figured that out. Off the road means bushwacking, hiking to yonder ridge, etc. To do that you need a dearth of roads. Roads mean access, access means hunters, hunters mean no elk. Its that simple to me.

"Integrated forestry" I'm not sure what that means. Forest management I could buy into in limited amounts. Forest fires are fueled by undergrowth. Forest fires also clear large openings in forest. Fire creates habitat. In the end, I'll default to Mother Nature to create habitat - unless I'm not understanding the concept of integrated forestry. As an aside, I'm not against forestry, just don't think we need as much as we have/do. I work in the coal mine industry so am no stranger to resource extraction. And for the record, I'm not fond of some of the issues mining and logging create. At least in the east, logging is likely the least regulated industry around and creates large scale sediment issues.

'Access for everyone' is a subjective thing. Wilderness/no roads is access for everyone - for everyone who cares to walk or take a horse. When I see 'access for everyone', that means to me, everyone with an ATV. I despise ATVs in hunting country - except to retrieve animals or for the handicapped. Outside of that, get your ass off the iron pony and walk. Probably for this reason alone, I'm against more roads/trails into forests. I've seen enough ATV abuse to last my lifetime. I could tell stories for the rest of the day but suffice to say I'm not an ATV fan. And I don't buy the whole "gated road" concept. Another series of stories. ATV guys have abused that privilege to the point where I won't even entertain the thought.

'Broader economy' sounds like business language. I'd dare say the economies of the west are fueled by recreation dollars, not resource extraction industries. I'm sympathetic to business cases but not in this context. Growing trees in the US is not rocket science and is not a scarce or limited resource.

If your last sentence is truly your motivation for wanting more access, I can live with that and agree with some of it in principle. If we were the decision makers, we could reach a compromise that meets in the middle. As to some of the supporters of BHA, they may have ulterior motives including some that are counter to your way of life (logging as I understand). I would stand with you against them if I thought you weren't simply being a lumber whore at all costs.

Gotta go catch a few trouts.

I don’t quite understand this idea that if there are roads there are no elk. Do the elk magically disappear? I’ve hunted with family in Utah for elk and there are plenty of two track roads all over the mountains and those guys kill elk every year that they have tags. The elk might move around more but the idea that the only way to kill an elk is to backpack 5 miles into steep country and carry it out on your back is a bit false. Unless of course if that’s the only legal option.

If you're referring to my post, open roads with elk hasn't been my experience - unless for some reason people aren't using them. The context was Colorado but I've found the same thing in Wyoming. I've never hunted Utah but suspect they don't have the same amount of pressure as Colorado and Wyoming, and likely Montana.

Winters, I'm going to paste yours here and reply accordingly, in italic, or "Dave": I don';t know how to run the graf functions here..:

This is the first rational post I've seen from you on this subject. I also think I understand your perspective, may not agree with all of it but we can have a conversation vs innuendo and smoke screens.

First, about Colorado. Elk hunting in Colorado is about one of two things - hunt on private or get off the road. I don't have access on private and am not paying for a guided hunt so my only option is to get off the road. "Get off the road" means off any easy access. I know guys that hunt '3-4-5 miles' off the road and still come up empty. Walking 2.75-3.75-4.75 miles back a road/trail then a short walk off the access point doesn't count. Elk have figured that out. Off the road means bushwacking, hiking to yonder ridge, etc. To do that you need a dearth of roads. Roads mean access, access means hunters, hunters mean no elk. Its that simple to me.

[i][/i] You are only in Colorado for short times every year and that's your biggest constraint toward understanding. Seriously. I'll also say it's too bad you don't have access on private, scored by actually building relationships with private landowners. I got the "goods" at Trinidad because I publicly supported the idea of coalbed methane production on their ranch and that of their neighbors, the thing there was they held the mineral rights, it wasn't the "split estate" thing. But aside from the "business," I could also speak "cow" and all that, so we became actual friends over time, not just incidental allies. The wells went in, the pumps still run, and the elk are still there.

"Integrated forestry" I'm not sure what that means. Forest management I could buy into in limited amounts. Forest fires are fueled by undergrowth. Forest fires also clear large openings in forest. Fire creates habitat. In the end, I'll default to Mother Nature to create habitat - unless I'm not understanding the concept of integrated forestry. As an aside, I'm not against forestry, just don't think we need as much as we have/do. I work in the coal mine industry so am no stranger to resource extraction. And for the record, I'm not fond of some of the issues mining and logging create. At least in the east, logging is likely the least regulated industry around and creates large scale sediment issues.

Dave: Least regulated? Really? That may happen in Tennessee, failure to control sediment and all that, but out West, every state and the Feds have pretty strict regulations on soils and water management. Plus most loggers have at least one or two certified persons on the crews who keep the rest in line. Never mind that loggers are outdoorsmen, too. You have to be, you're sixty miles from town, no help close, in all weather, you better be an outdoorsman or you'll be dead soon. As for mining, are you white collar or in the hole? That matters perspective wise.
INTEGRATED forestry, which you SHOULD understand, means to log, AND burn and consider the next forest. Combining fire with mechanized harvest is typical for the tribes because that's how Indians managed their woods before the white guys showed up. And it is amazingly effective, I have been on "closed" rezzes with the tribal foresters and it's good stuff. It's not done elsewhere because the court system blocks everything (thank you, Greens, like those who fund BHA).
Also, and this is important, the tribes can't print money. They get some subsidy, but comparatively little. So -- they have to do things that make economic sense, and that's critical. Sometimes, they just have to "let it go and hope for the best," that's a direct quote from a tribal forester in Washington state regarding the impacts of a terrible wildfire. Other times, they can capture value, scoring JOBS (which some Indians really like, trust me), revenue for the tribe, and other cash to buy seedlings and jump-start the next forest, the one they want to see, not seven, but NEXT generation from now.
So the lesson learned from the tribes, and my attitude is, public lands policies need to be economically rational and generate value, not literally burn cash that could be better used elsewhere -- or left in the hands of the people who generated that cash in the first place.

'Access for everyone' is a subjective thing. Wilderness/no roads is access for everyone - for everyone who cares to walk or take a horse. When I see 'access for everyone', that means to me, everyone with an ATV. I despise ATVs in hunting country - except to retrieve animals or for the handicapped. Outside of that, get your ass off the iron pony and walk. Probably for this reason alone, I'm against more roads/trails into forests. I've seen enough ATV abuse to last my lifetime. I could tell stories for the rest of the day but suffice to say I'm not an ATV fan. And I don't buy the whole "gated road" concept. Another series of stories. ATV guys have abused that privilege to the point where I won't even entertain the thought.

Dave: Yeah, it's subjective. To wilderness people, multiple use means that more than one person can hug an old-growth tree at the same time. Or hike down a trail at the same time. And your attitude about the iron pony says a lot. I'll agree during hunting season, partly, especially for regulated retrieval and handicap access, but not the rest of the year. And when you talk about ATV people and "abuse," that's also not kosher. Yes there are idiots, I hate them, I scream and yell at them all the time. But think about guns and shooting areas -- extend your "ATV" attitude and there shouldn't be any place to shoot on public lands, either, because someone MIGHT be stupid. Punish the guilty, but don't use them as a surrogate or excuse to completely wreck something you might not like, but others love. That's complete Fudd thinking, like the gun controllers using school freaks to get at guns in general.

'Broader economy' sounds like business language. I'd dare say the economies of the west are fueled by recreation dollars, not resource extraction industries. I'm sympathetic to business cases but not in this context. Growing trees in the US is not rocket science and is not a scarce or limited resource.

Dave: You are WRONG about recreation as a driver. Maybe in the places you go, but tourism and recreation doesn't carry the economy through the entire year, not even close. Tourism is always "extra" except in a few tourist traps, like Jackson and Aspen -- not places I want to be with stratospheric costs and terrible pay, totally have and have-not places.

If your last sentence is truly your motivation for wanting more access, I can live with that and agree with some of it in principle. If we were the decision makers, we could reach a compromise that meets in the middle. As to some of the supporters of BHA, they may have ulterior motives including some that are counter to your way of life (logging as I understand). I would stand with you against them if I thought you weren't simply being a lumber whore at all costs.

Dave: Lumber whore? Try timber beast, in that I've seen what happens to a landscape (that was managed for 10,000 years by Indians for human benefit before Columbus) when the false ideolgy of "nature" takes over. In forested, mountainous landscapes, especially in the dry West, you either log it, or burn it preemptively, or it finally gets tired of waiting and burns from ridge to ridge, taking the good stuff as well as the bad. THEN you get your sedimentation, oh, baby. It ain't rocket science, you're right about that -- its sleazy, slimy politics.

Gotta go catch a few trouts.

A couple of clarifying things. First thanks for the post, it was mostly civil. We may still not agree on everything.

Second, I've only lived in Tennessee for the past 10 years, I'm from PA. I've worked in the coal fields across all of Appalachia. "Logging regulation" is a joke in the east. Logging is the preceding activity on all mine projects. I've seen it, turned them in, and have zero empathy for rape and pillage logging. Conducted 'correctly' different story - I just haven't seen it very often in the east.

Third, I have and ride ATVs - responsibly. I get my deer off our 1000 acre lease (timber land conducted responsibly BTW) most years by ATV. I'm not against responsible ATV usage. Here's the rub - who enforces the idiots? I've had ATVs drive through the woods past my deer stand on public land here in TN several times. I've had guys drive by me on gated forest roads in Wyoming and Colorado numerous times. I've had bad ATV experiences in every state I've hunted on public or private. Its to the point where I'd prefer to outlaw all ATVs on public land. I'll walk rather than deal with the idiots. I'll also have less company in the woods/mountains if everyone had to walk which is a win for all - except the slobs which I don't care about.

In a rather Capt Obvious sort of way, I think the main issue is that you see wilderness initiatives as a threat to your livelihood. People on this thread see wilderness/forest access as a threat to our favorite past time and/or way of life. I'm on the side of reducing access to wilderness areas and creating more where possible simply because I spend 50-60-70 days or parts of days a year on public land recreating of some sort. If you count my job, its alot higher than that. Without public land, I'm not entirely sure what I'd be doing both professionally and privately.

I am also not advocating for making all public lands restricted access. Without public access we wouldn't have the national park system, WMU/GMU/WMA, etc. I get it. But to say we need to increase access, at least on existing wilderness areas, I'm not in. In my mind, we don't need more roads through our NF - we have enough already. We don't need a road every square mile.

In addition, a difference exists between access and experiencing an area. Experiencing an area is pretty limited when your peering through a window of your car or off the back of an ATV. If people want to experience a place, walk/hike into it, spend time in it. You don't need a road for that; all you need is public access. You also don't need to hike 5 miles over hill and dale.

Or take a horse. I've seen trails in the Smokys severely damaged by horses but can live with the trade-off as long as excesses don't occur.

Bottom line - if you'd approach the whole wilderness/BHA thing from a threat to your livelihood viewpoint, most people here would be sympathetic. Innuendo, smoke and mirrors, only raises suspicion and questions motive.

Threat to my living? Not directly, but it's certainly a threat to anything but a tourism economy. And you should know that BHA is an outgrowth of an attempt to coopt the NRA on conservation issues because the NRA is a lot more pragmatic on conservation than environmentalists. Greens don't like that at all and spend millions on the subject, including to BHA.

I said nothing about increasing access on EXISTING WILDERNESS AREAS. I grew up next to the Bob Marshall, and when my Dad was into it, we hunted there all the time. I appreciated that, let it be what it is. But after a while, it seemed that Greens figured everything that hadn't had a road, but did have trails, should be wilderness too. And then, places that had had roads, that were closed, or not "engineered," oh THAT qualifies for wilderness. There's a reason Montana hasn't designated any new wilderness areas since 1988. basically because we're far beyond the 1964 original intent.
Then there was the "roadless initiative" to get around the fact that wilderness became politically toxic. I don't suppose you know the law, the various clauses that impose no deadline on Congress to act. So, the Clinton Administration did a withdrawal, then a "rule" that turned 58 million acres into "de-facto" wilderness administratively, regardless of forest plans, suitability, future changes. And the Bush administration was so wrapped around the axle about 9/11, they neglected domestic affairs. So -- that roadless rule was the biggest designation of wilderness since Carter and the post Watergate Democrats hosed Alaska in 1980.

As for slagging logging prior to mining -- what did you expect? Even a good forest has a lot of waste that can't be merched. Then, the point is to clear the land, and it's going to be dug up anyway. Tell me what you see in select-harvest units where the long-term forest is the goal. Not clearing ground for a mine.
What is more important in my view is, what's the RECLAMATION gonna look like. Mine clearing isn't forestry, not really. You should see some of the mines in NW Colorado and all the animals. I wish they would profile the dirt more naturally, but the reclaimed areas are green, good eating for some really impressive rackage (which you can't get at unless you're buddies with the miner's union).

Finally, there's that 50 days a year you get. I'm lucky if I get two days in a row. Always been that way. But that means I don't get to "be" anywhere for long especially if there's someplace else I want to be before I have to get to work.

Wow.

Care to elaborate?

Yes.

Just wow.

So, smoker, your lights come on and your pickup hauls your gear all by majick, does it? Never used a mineral out of a hole in the ground your entire life, have you?
Why in tarnation, if you are going to have a mine anyway (that does happen) underneath a forest, wouldn't you log it off, sell the good wood and slash the rest? And furthermore, if it's going to be a mine, what's the point of caring if the forestry is "pretty?" Or the dirt? What if the topsoils are marginal anyway and there's no justification in banking them for reclamation later?

Oh, and by the way I just saw something about how the Piceance Basin (W Co) is going off the charts on gas potential for the future. Why the heck shouldn't that be utilized?

Come on Dave, you can do better than that. We've had this conversation more than once and you know I'm not anti-mining or anti- oil & gas.

And here's a news flash, the Piceance Basin has been producing copious quantities of gas for many years now.

I just find it fascinating that you seem to value land only for what can be extracted from it.

You seem to only value land that bha says is acceptable.....

P.s. so what liberal trash is big gap daddy tawney propping up this election cycle? #phucbha

You seem to follow me around like a lovesick puppy dog.

While I can't slight your taste in men, I don't roll that way.

PS, I was hunting roadless and wilderness areas long before BHA existed.

Says the dipchit that went out of his way to talk [bleep].....now you have my full attention. [bleep] cry about...

Go girl!

P.s. I'm sure you've been a left wing ideologue long before the left mouthpiece bha was formed.

Oh, smoke, I get you --
You don't oppose mining (except here); you don't oppose forestry (except here) and (here); and you support access (excpet this kind) and (that kind).

So let me ask you, regarding the "roadless initiative," do you think that was an appropriate move by the Clinton Administration?

Good question Dave but to tell you the truth I don't remember enough about the specifics to discuss them intelligently except to say that in general I'm opposed to unilateral executive orders on land use designation.

I'd be willing to be that there was overreach in some areas, and also some areas were protected that should have been.

Jackson, ain't nobody cryin here but you. I "have your full attention," eh.

Is that supposed to mean something?

Ya it means [bleep] you, you bha lackey.

Now go get your old azz cardio at the gay pride March with all the other pole smokers....

As a life member of the NRA, I'd like to know the NRA's stance on conservation. I've never seen it. Maybe you can show me?

Such an angry little man. With a fixation on homosexuality.

Coincidence?

If you listen to buzz, they should stay out of hunting.....but you should also get mad at the NRA for staying out of hunting. Sense and logic, the bha way......

No anger, just honesty. As a bha promoter you might have to go look up "honesty" in the dictionary, it's a rare thing in bha world (see "trump stole your public land" outrage)

Back at work today, eh Jackson?

Nope I'm off work today. Worked 18hrs yesterday and was awake for over 28 straight. Ya work, something you wouldn't know about...unless you're down at the gloryhole...

Timber, I'd answer you but you said earlier you believed "liquidation of public lands" is on the agenda. That's not correct. The issue is how the public lands will be MANAGED.
Smokey, if you can't remember the "roadless rule," the politics surroundiing which iwas kind of the genesis for groups like BHA, then why would I bother? But to refresh your fading memory, the Rule set aside, unilaterally, over much local protest, 58 million acres of land as "de-facto" wilderness with only the narrowest of exceptions. Further, in the 1,914 page or so "rule" in the appendices there was a discussion about how road removal (unroading) would eventually "qualify" millions more acres for roadless and therefore "potential wilderness" status.

LOL, what's a "gloryhole" Jackson, I can't keep up with your homosexual topics.

I'm sure...Colorado + pole smoker = queertopia

You literally have the gayest user name I've ever seen, and a bha lover too......coincidence? Doubt it...

Nice dig on Colorado, which was your location when you first signed on here. Probably bogus, eh?

"Smokepole" is slang for a muzzlemoading rifle which is what I like to hunt with. Anything else is projection on your part.

And why is it that you never seem to post on weekends?

Unlike Tawney and other bha "lobbyists" some folk work on "weekends".

I'm sure you're a top tier "muzzleloader", pole smoker. And ya [bleep] the colorado nanny state....bha fits right in...anti gun

Admit it Jackson, you're a paid troll. Single issue focus, no substantive posts, no contribution to the purpose of the forum, nothing positive to say, and you only post during the week. Plus, you're as FOS as a Christmas turkey, saying stuff like "BHA is anti-gun."

You're only here to stir up schit and you know it. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck.......

And you're not even good at it.

Lol you are [bleep] clueless. People get paid to call out bha lackeys like you? Must be nice, I just feel a responsibility to call bha on their [bleep].

You go girl, crybaby

Hardly Jackson. Just calling a spade a spade. You're an empty bucket, nothing of substance, nothing to offer.

No wonder you're such an angry little man.

Me too, just calling a queer a queer. I cant help it that your life's cause is to be a mouthpiece for an organization that is habitually untruthful and extremely secretive about where their money comes/goes. Plus buzz represents them, and I will spend the rest of my time on this planet talking [bleep] about that piece of garbage.

Keep crying about it....

The only mouthpiece on here is you pal. The only time I talk about BHA is when an idiot like you brings them up and spouts nonsense like "BHA is anti-gun."

I suppose that explains why a VP from Kimber is on their board.

Oh I'm using buzz's thought process(bear with me its blatantly retarded) . If they dont come out with a statement professing their support for the 2nd amendment, they must be against it. Just like he wants the nra to do the same on public land issues.

Of course they aren't real open on many of their stances. Their pride and joy Yvon is though.....

You go girl! Get down to colfax and make that money.....

LOL, you're one angry, confused little man. Buzz never said that.

Yes he did, then he backtracked it, because he is a coward. Not here but on another forum. I'm not angry, I'm honest.

jack, please cut the "I'm honest" BS. You aren't and that statement is just part of it.

Leroy, please go back to your circle jerk

Got a link?

Ask him yourself, I'm guessing you two are girlfriends

Reading this was like watching a train wreck. Thanks for staying classy Smokepole, nicely done.

+1

Didn't think so.

Go over to rockslide and look yourself you ignorant prick. Lazy [bleep]. Only thing you're willing to work for apparently is cock in your mouth....

Now, was that so difficult to answer a question Jackson?

Next, work on making a post without homosexual references. Your fixation on homosexuality is wearing thin. Maybe a Dale Carnegie course would help.

Then again, probably not. It's safe to say, you never met Will Rogers.

asalamalakum!

I read about BHA,,,, They are trying to be active in the UP, and they have some good ideas, however I have not been very impressed by those I have met. I went to the Wis Deer Classic this spring and they had a booth. 3 young men, that all looked the part, but in talking to them, did not seem to be woodsmen, or know much about it.

The concept of BHA is to keep public land open, which I agree with, but they talk politics, and when I questioned them, on their stance on trapping, they acted like they were gut shot,,,,, I mean I got the feeling, they knew little about it, or even agreed with it. They also had little knowledge on bowhunting issues, that are pressing in some places.

If they want members in the UP, they better have guys or gals, that give out a better vibe,,,,, there was something about those guys, that just caused me pause, were they hunters or protectionist,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, not saying I would not join, but I had doubt about the org

And you're giving Jack a pass?

Yeah your guys got "class"

I don't think they're giving him a pass, quite the opposite.

Gah do you do anything besides personal attacks? The bha way..

Your best post yet. If you could keep them all at one word, that'd be awesome.

Not sure if you are referring to my statement or not. I thanked Smokepole for staying classy. I purposely did NOT thank others for staying classy as they obviously had not. In fact, many of those replies are downright disgusting.

As for the 3 guys in MI, I hope that it is recognized that the whole organization may not be adequately represented by those 3. I don't trap, so I wouldn't be able to articulate anything well with regards to trapping other than I support it. And I am not sure of BHAs stance on trapping...it isnt BHATs! Doesnt mean they are a bad org because trapping isn't part of their platform.

Our local BHA chapter has on its board a fellow who has written articles and posted prolifically on local forums, against trapping or hunting of predators, especially wolves. Hard to imagine how someone so misinformed is placed in a position of leadership of a 'conservationist hunting' org.

Hard to imagine? Not really. There was a time when RMEF had fallen completely into the eco-camp, neutral on wolves as they munched their way through populations in Idaho, Montana and elsewhere. There was a house-cleaning.

I was interested too in BHA and spoke to members out in WA. All were against wolf and cat hunting, anti trapping and anti hound hunting. A few thought assault weapons should be banned. Did not walk away impressed.

When BHA starts taking positions on things like assault weapons or predator hunting and comes down on the wrong side (in my opinion) I'll cancel my membership. Until then it doesn't make a whole lot of difference to me what any individual thinks.

Its just a phrase. I was trying to be charitable.


I mean this respectfully, but... Even if the individual/individuals are board members?

I'll take it respectfully, and appreciate it that way. Which board members are anti "assault weapon" or anti predator hunting?

I'm so shocked...oh wait, no I'm not. This seems to be the avg bha supporters beliefs....

P.s. get your tickets to the 2019 circle jerk in Boise, maybe Yvon will be footing the bill again...and posing as a friend to hunters. Hell maybe in '19 they suck Ted Turner's weenie for some money too.....

Bha is like a cheap hooker, they dont give a phuuck for nothing...

For me this is about the local level issues and where the Alberta chapter BHA is coming down on issues that negatively affect me, my teenage sons- who are avid outdoorsmen, and my hunting friends. Instead of preserving and improving access to our public lands, we are loosing hunting access up here at an alarming rate. And we Albertans stand to pay an even heavier price if the agendas of some of these orgs- that BHA is collaborating with- get pushed thru.

I just realized that whole paragraph was rather off track from predator hunting/assault weapon banning. Haha. I'll PM you a name, you should be able to Google up some interesting reading Re; our BHA board member's anti-predator/wolf trapping/hunting position.

Does Alberta have large sections already leased off by outfitters and off limits to others? Some of which when they come up for sale, the anti-hunting organizations outbid even the outfitters, which essentially means those sections are shut down to all hunting.

I've read this has been an issue in other provinces.

Here we go again.

https://www.outdoorlife.com/senator-mike-lee-pledges-long-term-attack-on-public-lands

OK, I see that an advisor to the board of your local chapter thinks wolves shouldn't be hunted. That's a little different than "BHA Board Members for assault weapons bans and against predator hunting" don't you think?

I would be interested to hear where BHA (not an individual member) comes down on the wrong side of public access issues in your opinion.

What an idiot, this is a real gem: "Lee dismisses our national forests as “royal forests,” comparing the Forest Service to the British Royalty."

He has it exactly backwards. The best thing about public lands in North America, and our wildlife management on public lands is the "Democracy of Hunting," wherein an average guy who doesn't own large tracts of land can hunt species like elk, sheep, and bear that need wide open spaces.

Mike Lee needs to go away.

Tell Senator Mike Lee what’s on your mind. I googled ‘contact Senator Mike Lee ‘ and went straight to his contact page. I filled out the necessary blanks and then typed in my concerns about our public land. I hit send and it went through.
It’s as easy as that.
Later in the day BHA sent me a email with the information about Lee with links to my Senators in Indiana. I followed the prompts and I already have received email from one Senator thanking me for my concerns.
It’s as easy as that.
We need to get busy fellas ...

Yep.

Nope, Lee is right. National Forests are run like a fiefdom by the environmental groups who oppose anything that might make fiscal sense. Look at the constant litigation by any and all Green groups, see what that does not just to hunting, but everything else.

Right Dave, public land is bad for hunting. Makes sense to me.

You say such funny schit! Meanwhile, game abundances are maintained at some of the greatest densities ever. On a next to nothing budget, they maintain thousands of miles of roads so Dave don't have to walk (if he ever went hunting, which is pretty unlikely), and millions of people will use those national forests and have a grand time doing it while Dave sits in his mother's basement pecking out angry messages on his keyboard.

Lots of assuming going in that article. Can't speak for the other states, but here in Montana, if fed lands were transferred to the state, those lands would remain public land as part of the public land trust, as required by the state constitution.

It appears many think that if a transfer to states occurred, the lands would be sold off to the highest bidder per the article claiming many states aren't financially able to manage an increase in acreage if a transfer happened and would sell to cover expenses, yet our fed guv is running a $21 trillion+ red gash through the books. What would prevent the feds from doing the same thing, ie. selling off land to cover the debt?

The Fed's are allowed to run in a deficit, most all Western State's Constitutions do not allow it. Land held by most State trust boards are required to make a profit, if they don't they often get sold. In Colorado and New Mexico, if state trust land is not leased by the Department of Parks and Wildlife, you aren't hunting on it. In NM, CO and WY, you can't camp on State trust Land. In addition, most of our state land is leased for cattle or mining and is then treated as private property which we don't have access to it. I'll be looking for something else to do instead of Hunt if Mike Lee gets his way.

I'll go out on a limb and say, the same thing that's prevented it from inception. You can't say the same about states.

Wrong, Montana has sold off some of its State Lands. It wasn't that long ago that you couldn't hunt State Land in Montana without permission of the leasee, and it was a hell of a fight from the hook and bullet crowd that changed the law.

As to what would stop the "feds" from selling public land to cover the debt?...How about 320 million pissed off public land owners, for a start.

As I've said before, let the Feds have the parks and wildernesses, those feds who want to manage multiple use can transfer to state agencies and have a life long relationship with their district or region (not you, Buzz, you can stay a Federal parkie) rather than transferring out every time they learn something.

This thread is great. Dave Skinner is the Jeff O of the conservative side. So [bleep]!ng stupid you almost feel bad for him. Then you realize he must have gotten ptsd after his dad took him on to long of a hike in the wilderness. Poor Dave.


Jackson Handy is almost assuredly JWP58's sockpuppet. He's got a hard on for Buzz and Randy after Randy booted him from Hunttalk. Guy has an impeccable morale compass.

The Kinda Guy You Want on Your Team

The feds aren't "allowed" to run a deficit, they just do. Ever heard Of Graham Ruddman? With regard to the other states, citizens at the state level are responsible for the gov. they put in power. If you don't like the way your state runs your trust lands, then make the change, just like we do at the national level. Fed lands are leased for cattle, mining etc as well, and the FS, BLM et al can and do put controls and closures on fed land just like states do on "their" land.

Wrong? Tell us what public land trust land was sold off? Are you referring to land swaps where the state gets equal or larger acreage/value land in return for trading state land to the private party? Are you aware of Montana code where it states trust lands must be kept "In perpetuity"?

Who were the "leasee" 's requiring permission from the potential hook and bullet crowd? Do you mean leasee's like our local gun clubs here in the Flathead who lease trust land from the state? The feds put restrictions on leased fed lands as well and can close off whole swaths of public land for "study purposes", mining claims, logging operations etc. etc.

The "pissed off public land owners" scenario works the same way at the state level too, Buzz. Governors and state legislators are no more immune from the wrath of angry citizens than the fed counter parts and in many ways are more sensitive to the state issues because of proximity to state capitals compared to our fed capital in DC.

When Montana became a state they were granted 5.9 million acres. They now have 5.1 million acres.

Montana State Land holdings have declined by 800,000 acres since statehood.

As to the State land issue regarding hunting/fishing/camping/recreational access...Jack Atcheson Sr. and the Skyline Sportsmen began a campaign to keep the lease holders from denying hunting, fishing, and other recreation from State lands.

https://plwa.org/montana-state-public-trust-lands-history/

It was the first time I became actively engaged in fighting for public access to public lands...do it all the time now, as recently as a couple weeks ago when myself and a handful of dedicated sportsmen testified in front of the Laramie County Commission to keep 2 county roads open that were petitioned by a landowner to be abandoned. If there was no opposition, recreationists would have lost access to a bunch of BLM lands.

Story here:

https://www.wyomingnews.com/news/lo...dfda8a2-744c-11e8-a09e-a7764ffad983.html

Any more questions?

Thanks for posting the articles. They help validate my point.

Montana citizens stepped up to the plate and forced the state to come to real terms with the state constitution, not their interpretation of it. And they did it without help from the feds or out of state entities.
The same thing happens at the fed. level' albeit at a much slower pace and exponential increase in costs.

From my post above:

"..citizens at the state level are responsible for the gov. they put in power. If you don't like the way your state runs your trust lands, then make the change, just like we do at the national level. Fed lands are leased for cattle, mining etc as well, and the FS, BLM et al can and do put controls and closures on fed land just like states do on "their" land."

State citizens are responsible for determining what form of "concent" they choose to give to those who govern them. They/we can be taken advantage of at all levels of government.

If fed public lands were transferred to the states, the people of those states have the power to make sure those lands are kept in the hands of the public. They don't need fed oversight to make it work, they just need to be good citizens, whether BHA is involved or not.

The people also have the power to make sure the land stays public without transfer, and with much less risk. By telling Mike Lee to take a flying leap, which is what will happen. Here, any amendment to the state constitution has to be by ballot initiative, which is how we lost our spring bear season even though the majority of Coloradans were not against bear hunting. Anything can happen with a ballot initiative.