PLease consider signing the BHA's Sportmen's Pledge:

http://www.backcountryhunters.org/index.php/sportsman-s-pledge?limitstart=0

Done!

done.

And, please consider joining if you like hunting in areas undisturbed by modern conveniences. No matter where you live there is likely an area near you that the group is working to keep wild.

Here it is:

"As a North American hunter and angler, I pledge to speak up on behalf of conservation of the clean water, wildlife habitat, sportsman access, and public lands that belong to all of us. I will defend these values against those individuals, organizations and corporations who would sell or transfer our public lands and erode our habitat, opportunity and freedoms. I welcome new sportsmen and women, young and old, and will lead by example. I pledge to leave our wild public lands in better condition than I found them so that future generations can enjoy the benefits we are blessed to have today."

This summarizes my life's work, the interest to do so instilled at an early age.

Just keep in mind before you sign it. As things change, habitat changes whether it is wild or not. While we all like the idea of a untouched landscape, ecosystems to thrive and be healthy require young succession. Young succession doesn't happen in wilderness areas of the east, or many in the west. Perhaps instead of signing away the future of hunting by giving up the ability to actively practice wildlife management of an area, consider signing up with an organization that allows habitat improvements but, only foot travel.

Proper stewardship of the resource's and a strong future for hunting is what you should sign up for if your are either of these? Signing over proper habitat management to people who have no idea or interest in the American hunter and their future just doesn't make sense. Not suggesting anyone here is, I only KNOW that in time, as hunter interest dwindle, so will hunter representation.

I love wild places and we have those. But, I love hunting and the freedom it provides more than a good idea that WILL not best represent hunting for the long run. Prey numbers of the not so distant path says what we were doing was what was best for all interests. Yet, we see these new movements that will eventually knock off the hunter for the interest of preservation.

Just something to think about as these type threads seem to be making a regular appearance here. So their consequences should be understood fully before you financially spread their purpose. God Bless

Not so distant past. Not "the not so distant path". God Bless

Not sure where you're getting such twisted information about the intentions of BHA, Justin. The organization promotes maintaining the processes that support healthy watersheds and wildlife habitat on public lands. Without those elements, there won't be much in the way of wildlife to hunt.

Just today, there was a news report that mule deer numbers in Colorado have declined by 30% in the last decade.

Wake up, people.

Done, thanks for posting the link Stix!

I agree Feather Merchant. What I disagree with is signng over our right to those lands to lobbyists and pockets deep enough to ensure it.

I'm not entirely doubting the interests of the BHA or all its members. What I am certain about is these wild places have management plans in place. Most require public input. Input that must be addressed by in-taking and implementing public interests before it is simply passed. So, EVERYONE gets a voice. Public lands locked up in designations often do not have these same criteria. When they do, it has no guarantee or check in place for public input like National lands non-designated. So interests groups lobby/buy their management, since Congress has all the power, not the people.

If you doubt that, spend a couple hours researching it. Trout unlimited and any group associated with them are the worse. At least we know where HSUS of America stands. What we get blind sided by in these instances is when these designated areas come up for a revised management plan. I see the likes of Sierra clubs, Wilderness coalitions, Backcountry organizations, all collaborating with the likes of these groups. These groups are not are friends. They are our enemy. And their pockets are much deeper than ours.

Backcountry, I mean no disrespect at this point. But, clean water can and is accomplished in the much greater acreages of federal lands that allow active habitat manipulation. It has no merit due to the dangers designating or lobbying lands to be wilderness areas. Healthy habitat requires habitat manipulation. Big trees are very rarely a sign of anything but stagnant life in the ecosystem. And if I remember correctly, and I do, your web page has dropped several listings of collaborating partners that insist on ZERO habitat manipulation.

So, while you have a plan, you'll watch it go sour as your bought out. And if you don't lose that fight in every instance, by eliminating the professional biologists from managing some of the land for hunters/hunting, your results will be exactly opposite of your mission statement. To say it ain't so is simply being naive. Tell that to the people of Oregon, Washington State, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, Idaho, California, and Alaska to get started. God Bless

I'm also not real sure how a company can sell public land, as your pledge states.

I gotta a simple statement for everyone. No one wants pollution. And there is no danger in a Walmart popping up n public lands. And while the federal government owns a lot of the mineral rights in places, it doesn't in others. So trying to stop those areas of private ownership from being mined or drilled for oil or gas is immoral. Besides, after spending 20 years in the forestry field, and a few in mining, neither create pollution. This isn't 50 years ago.

Suggesting there is a problem where there isn't one, is reason enough to doubt what your intentions are. It makes ZERO sense. God Bless

Not sure what "collaborating partners" you are referring to, Justin. Can you name them so we all know who they are?

If you are implying that BHA is pro-wilderness, you are right in one sense, wilderness designation is among a range of options to protect lands that merit such designation. It is not the only approach to resource protection, nor is it BHA's intent to see that all public lands are converted to wilderness status.

BHA opposes wilderness designations in some cases, especially in situations where lands in question do not meet wilderness quality standards, or where such a designation would preclude mechanical manipulation of vegetation to improve critically deficient forage quality such as for mule deer or sage grouse.

On the other hand, wilderness can provide the security habitat that some wildlife, elk in particular,need to escape excessive motorized use and human disturbance. If you doubt that, talk to any elk outfitter in the west and ask where they hunt. I'll guarantee you--it's a long damn way away from roads. Often that means in wilderness areas.

Regarding old growth timber, I must say that I have never seen a situation where water quality has been improved by excessive logging or any other large scale surface-disturbing activity. I can point to many cases, however, especially in the Northwest, where such practices have severely degraded streams and watersheds and caused a tremendous decrease in salmonid habitat through erosion, sedimentation and increased water temperatures. But logging, properly done, can restart the successional processes that promote new plant growth and forage that game animals need as part of their habitat requirements. No question that wildlife thrive best in a landscape that has a matrix of young and mature vegetative cover, and very importantly, that linkages or movement corridors remain to connect them.

Since you expressed your position on the matter quite clearly, Justin, and stated that you mean no disrespect at this point, I think it's fair to say you reserve the right to disrespect my position on defending BHA in subsequent posts. That's fine, but I also think it's fair to admit that you yourself make a living cutting timber--you've said so in the past. Therefore, it is understandable that your philosophical position is based, at least in part, on an economic argument.

What we need, and wildlife needs, are not the extreme voices that would promote only preservation, or only resource extraction, but balanced multiple uses...which, by the way, does not mean every possible use on every square foot of ground.

I'll end by recommending everyone interested in the wilderness debate read the essay by John Hart in the latest edition of High Country News (www.hcn.org) where he considers the polarizing "wilderness or wasteland" philosophies. He states, and I agree, "When the choice arises between wilderness status and a pattern of economic use that is gentle and intelligent, I may just find myself on the 'anti-wilderness' side."

Why do you think the Mule deer have declined in Colorado, much of the west, and Canada?

Here is the result of a study conducted by several western states.

" Mule deer researchers and biologists implicated at least 5 major factors believed to be responsible for the decline: 1) decreases in amounts and quality of critical deer habitats, 2) competition with elk and other grazing livestock, 3) diseases, 4) predators, and 5) hunting.

I'm not going to quote the whole study. But, the one we all need to realize is number 1 and number 4. Number 1 is due to a lack of young succession, as quoted by the article, due to fire suppression. Number 4 is due to several reasons. The biggest being preservationist groups disguised as conservationists.

WV Mountaneer x2

WV: Texas uses the "habitat manipulation" process you speak of. A majority of the state of Texas is under private ownership with very little public land. Sure the rancher use "habitat manipulation" to Increase game numbers but at a very large cost to the workingman hunter who has no public land, so he has to pay to hunt on these ranches, a great deal of them high fenced. This type of privatization of public wildlife is exactly what the BHA is fighting against. And to top it off, every aspect of fair chase is ignored by these high fenced ranches as well. Selling wildlife on ranches is not what was meant by the North American Conservation Compact that Teddy Roosevelt envisioned.

The following is a quote from Ron Paul at a recent Western Conservative Convention, offering his version of "habitat manipulation":

During a forum in Las Vegas Wednesday, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) told the Republican audience he would like to see federal public lands in Nevada privatized.

Speaking at the Western Republican Leadership Conference, Paul declared that Nevada, which has a large percentage of federally-owned public lands, ought to become more like Texas, where “private owners” have “developed all the natural resources.” Paul went on to say “how wonderful it would be if land will be or should be returned to the states and then for the best parts sold off to private owners”:

PAUL: Take a look at the state of Nevada. Do the people own the property in Nevada? No. Who’s the biggest landowner? It’s the federal government. I would like to see the development of this state the way that Texas had the privilege of developing. Before we went in the Union, it was owned entirely by private owners and it has developed all the natural resources, a very big state. So you can imagine how wonderful it would be if land will be or should be returned to the states and then for the best parts sold off to private owners.

Paul’s remarks fall in line with the attacks on public lands from conservative lawmakers and corporate front groups. For instance, Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) has been waging war on public lands from his helm as chairman of the House Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, while the Koch Brothers have funded pro-oil events across the West.

Stix, no law in the land will allow that if the land stays non designated. It is when it is designated, by federal law mandate, does the public have no input in management, and this is a possibiity. Then and only then. While I agree Texas style ownership doesn't benefit public user's in the fact they probably don't allow hunting, they do have that right to mange their land as they see fit as they OWN it. As long as it has no ecological affect on water quality or the environment.

Let's not get this debate side tracked with assumptions that aren't realistic. We could assume their are aliens that are invading tonight because someone says they believe in them but, it just isn't so. Public land, belongs to the public. No one or law can change that except a special designation. No president, congress man, senator or corporation. Federal pubic property is open to and required to publish management plans for public input and write them with those objectives in the goal management. Not because I say so but, because THE FEDERAL LAW says so. It only changes when a designation is attached, like Wilderness, or national Monument, or National Park.

While these designations all started well intended, they have been hijacked by left wing radicals that feel man has no place in these areas. They take public land, restrict access, sometimes eliminate it, charge fees to access them when you are fortunate to move into place on the attendance list,and work to eliminate HUNTING in every single case. Through disguised management or out right designation of certain areas, it has and is happening at alarming rates. And every single one of these areas all over this country were designated by well intended initial ideas. Yet after these collaborating groups have gotten their foots in the door, they buy their interest next revision. With no recourse or way for the public to contest. It's the fine print that comes with it that becomes the thorn in our side after it has been lobbied in.

You can believe as you wish. Or you can look for yourself and see the real results of these type movements. And while the BHA might be well intended, might I add, it isn't the answer. The answer starts with awareness, and never ends. This is an assault. No conspiracy theory here. Look for yourself on these attempted designations. Look at who's involved. Research these blooming conservancy's, organizations, and where they've put their money and efforts. You'll see for yourself.

We could argue this all day. I've seen it in person, researched it for years, and refuse to take a good sounding idea that threatens freedom, public land ownership, hunting rights, private property rights, correct wildlife management involving habitat and animal alike, as the right answer when history has proved exactly opposite every single time. God Bless

Backcountry, the BHA website changed about 1 year ago. It used to have it on there. As well as have the BHA listed as collaborating partners alongside the groups I've already named in other collaborating attempts. I do remember this quite well, very well, I linked several of them to the Sierra Club in less than 3 minutes.

I do not cut timber. I manage forests. I supervise the cutting of that timber to ensure it meets management goals. You can try to discredit my philosophical opinion if you like. But, nobody here has more interest in a thriving, healthy environment more so than I do. I'd be out of work pretty quickly if it were not so. So philosophically, I'm speaking from education, knowledge, and science. Where are you coming from?

I love old growth forests as well. We have those, we don't need more. We need our federal lands managed in some capacity to ensure we, the hunting public, have a viable place to pursue our quarry. Not for our grand kids to walk through endless stagnant forests void of wildlife. I'm pro ecologists and hunter, nothing more.

I do take note that you turn my stance into a pro extraction view. No where have I, or will I ever say that. I'm as open minded about that as anything. Much more so than you it seems. I can point out many more cases of where preservation has went awry then stream degradation created by logging practices considered the norm 20 years ago.

Organizations want control of it these public lands. And I can't keep from asking why? Why, when the theories you present aren't even a possibility unless you get what you are selling. You want to decide when, where, if any at all, management is allowed. You want to decide if private landowners and mineral right owners get to exercise their rights to the resource they own. You stress this from a stance that insinuates you know best about all interests, and the ecology that comes from it. All this when in reality, the side you present suggests very differently in the science department. And you do it by presenting it as a way to protect the environment. It is a questionable approach to no one except those that have seen it first hand or have the personal experience and scientific knowledge to know better.

As you know, the Sierra Club was started with good intentions and served a great role for a while. While it claims to be hunter friendly for the most part, it's actions, and the results that come from them, say very different. Everyone and everything is measured by the fruit they bear and the results they get. Which is why your organization isn't the answer. Show me in proof where this organization has done anything to secure a thriving future for hunting. Base it on science, not what you like. Come back in ten years and do it again. Unfortunately, my point, and the results will be done and irreversible by then if you get what you want.

Just guessing here but, I'd venture to say that elk do just as well or better in farmland as they do in the mountains. While we need those wild lands for the type recreation a good bit of us seek, we don't need to surrender our place at the table to the management of those places. The Yellowstone wolf debacle is proof of that. And I have zero problem with the wolves being in Yellowstone. I do have a serious problem with their law suit driven assault on the places they were never intended. And no one that spent more than 5 minutes looking into it before it happened can claim that result wasn't to be expected. I see the same thing happening here. And the history of it is on my side. God Bless

Talk about unrealistic assumptions and conspiracy theories, Justin! Sounds like what you're describing is what happens when the land barons get control. Then you really won't have a voice in how those lands are managed. Bless your poor, uninformed, West-by-God Virginia heart.

For once we agree Justin,lol.

Do I really come off that over bearing? Or are you like Merchant, when some one disagree's with you you resort to insulting them and where they live? Like minds think a like...... Last time I disagreed with him, no doubt showing him the deficiencies in his argument by simply stating the obvious, he did the same. You guys must be brothers, cousins, best friends???????

I just took a quick look. You guys are fond of the nature conservancy and the trout unlimited, not to mention the Wilderness society. All of which are no friend to the hunter. While the NC blatantly says they are against hunting and fishing, TU and the WS isn't quite as out spoken against hunting. They just express it in the management they propose when they collaborate for designation of federal lands. If you think collaborating with them to designate federal lands as your personal, private play grounds is ok, then we will just leave it at that and let the readers decide for themselves.

You've stated your purpose. I just see things differently. You approach your objective behind the assertion of protecting those lands. When the reality of common federal law says they are already protected from everyone, private or government. To deviate from that makes ZERO sense. Yet deviation from that is what your group, and it's friends insist on and have to have to be viable. The question still remains as to why? And it always will as you refuse to acknowledge law and truth. Instead, you lobby money for a cause that has no real need or meaning, unless eliminating public input is your goal. And you play with friends that have been doing it for a long time, and are no friend to the American hunter. And history shows their intent every single time a federally designated land revises it's management plan.

So, assumptions are present but, not from me. As there is not ONE piece of evidence that doesn't support my claims. You can't say that. So who is assuming here. And to continually point that out with no regard to nothing but these reality's shows common sense, not a conspiracy driven train of thought.

So you can insinuate I'm assuming things or I am a conspiracy nut all you would like. I'll return the favor and say prove me wrong. If you do, you'll gain another supporter. However, if you come back at me with just another version of your mission statement, it'll simply prove my point. Prove what you say. I demand that confidently because I know you can't multiple manage public federal land as well as the agencies doing it. And I know the federal law concerning the requirements to manage that federal public land. Currently, they protect us from lobbyist and special interest groups. The sole purpose of the BHA is to change that.

"You've stated your purpose. I just see things differently."

Yup.

I can take some insults, Justin, but when you accuse me and Feather Merchant of being brothers, cousins, or best friends, you've crossed the line.

Oh, and you forgot to add, "God Bless."

The difficulty with these kinds of arguments for me is that they always seem to ignore one basic fact.

In 1876 there were 74,000,000 people in the country.

In 1940 there were 140,000,000 people in the country.

1n 2014 there are over 320,000,000 people in the country.

They didn't make any more land.

So more people are being crowded into the same space and somehow that needs to factor into the discussion. Do I love wilderness areas, sure. But I don't see any of the "conservation" groups addressing the fact that our population is growing exponentially.

Is part of the answer to start to limit the amount of land that someone is allowed to own? Are we going to start to pass laws that force people to only be allowed to live in certain areas? What happens when the population density starts to make those places uninhabitable (anybody want to live in Detroit?)?

I believe that BHA is making a good step towards helping the wilderness stay wilderness, but until there is a comprehensive discussion that includes the effects of increases in population I don't believe that these discussions are addressing the whole issue.

TBB

I'm signing the pledge shortly. WV Mountaineer has fired a lot of cautionary words at us which boil down to his asking us to do nothing. Do nothing and eventually we will lose most, if not all,of our public lands.

The main thing I would urge each of you is to vote for the candidate who most pledges to support our hunting lands. To me, it should be of equal importance as party affiliation, concern for the budget/spending and illegal immigration, among others.

There is support in congress now for the sale of our public lands. Whether or not that happens this year, the next or the next decade, depends on you.

This is too important to turn into a name-calling free-for-all. And this is not the time or place to debate the issue of over- population.

I think everyone comes at the issue of habitat conservation from a different perspective, shaped by a number of factors including political, philosophical, their life experiences including education, occupation...even religion. That said, I'm still not sure how Justin comes up with the accusations he has made about the intentions of BHA and whatever supposed malevolence he suggests is behind asking like-minded sportsmen and women to sign the pledge.

It IS an attempt to show legislators and decision-makers that those who value the hunting and fishing tradition on OUR public lands that will we oppose the growing movement to sell off OUR (not the federal government's) public lands, particularly our few remaining undeveloped, wild lands.

Here is my take...

There is a major push in the west to, first, make federal lands state lands, then, privatize most of these lands.

This is backed my many "conservative" groups (and no, I am not a liberal) that claim to be hunter friendly. Being hunter friendly, to me anyway, does NOT mean taking places I hunt and selling them to those that would profit from it.

I want to keep public lands public and that is a major goal of BHA and why I choose to my continuing support of this grass roots group.

"Besides, after spending 20 years in the forestry field, and a few in mining, neither create pollution."

That's a bit of a stretch to put it mildly. Better than 50 years ago in most instances perhaps.

I'm not only mad that Feather Merchant got off a serious topic, I'm even more mad, and insulted, that WV Mtneer accused us of being related.

Merchant, you rattled my chain a while back concerning a video. You were literally beside yourself telling everyone how good it was, how bow hunting was in danger due to the compound, etc... I disagreed, at which time you replied with a wise crack about the lack of Mensa members in West-By-God Virginia. Refer to Backcountry's post about West-By-God Virginia. I saw the resemblance there and in the way you both respond to disagreements. Being a WV native and hearing it frequently, I find those kind of remarks usually come from the same type of people, in the same type situations. :^) Please understand though, there was no sulking going on. I work in the WOODS, not an office with a computer to reply on demand. So I respond in the evenings after work.

olbuflo, that same threat has been existent since the government acquired it. It hasn't happened yet, nor will it. By federal law, Non-designated PUBLIC land cannot be sold without first allowing the public to decide whether to sell it. Congress CANNOT just pass a law affecting the management of non-designated federal land without public input and approval. While I agree if land is designated, it will likely never be sold, it only becomes a possibility under some form of designation. Because the public has NO recourse or legal means from stopping it. For several reasons.

The first reason the selling of federal land only becomes legal and possible with any form of land designation, is due to the fact the land doesn't belong to the government until it is designated!!!!! It belongs to you and I, and always will until designated!!!!!!!! This isn't a guess people. It is Federal LAW. Because any form of land designation requires congress becomes the law, with no granted, guaranteed clause for public input, unlike non-designated federal land. Land designation of any kind has this as a written LAW to accompany that designation. It isn't rocket science to see the hypocrisy when you state it is important to designate land. It is the most misdirected argument used to justify an existence by asking us to trust the same people you say can't be trusted.

Hey Backcountry, I know putting you in with the likes of Merchant doesn't do the ego any good. I'm sorry if it hurt. Reality can be painful at times. :^) God Bless

I don't know how it is in other places but you can log and mine in the national forest in alabama. I signed it because the state owned land where I lived is being lost rapidly.

If it is being mined, it is because private owners own the mineral. No law or land designation will stop that. PERIOD. It has already been beaten to death in courts around this land, and it loses every time. If it is being logged, it is the result of a prescribe forest/wildlife management plan that REQUIRED public posting, input, and APPROVAL. Since the logging is being conducted to improve YOUR hunting, you made a bad decision. God Bless

WVMtneer, you have been seriously misled about how federal land can be sold or disposed of. Normally it goes through an administrative process that includes public input, but it can also happen through an act of Congress, a political move, if you will, which can circumvent the existing federal laws. If you're talking about a Wilderness designation, that takes an act of Congress, too.

Federal laws including the National Forest Management Act and the Federal Land Management Policy Act both set out processes that require the agencies that manage these lands to develop plans for their use. The Forest Service develops Forest Plans and the Bureau of Land Management produces Resource Management Plans for the lands they manage, respectively. Both of these require public input, yes, but the plans are revised periodically.

Mining and logging occur on public lands under the provisions of the multiple use concept these agencies operate under. They issue special use permits, or sell the right to mine and log to private companies, but there is a royalty fee they have to pay. Those funds go into the federal treasury to help pay the cost of managing those lands. The resources themselves are owned by the public. We as tax-paying citizens only fund the agencies to manage the resources on our behalf.

That is why it is important that we as hunters need to inform our legislators how we want our public lands managed. If these lands are privatized, hunters and other users will no longer have access to them. Period. Well, unless a person buys access rights like they have to do in Texas.

In no way did Stephen or olbuflo make a bad decision. As long as those lands remain public, they have a voice and a vote.

It can be mined because the BLM leases mineral rights. I understand where your coming from though. We have the forever wild program in our state that's supposed to protect state lands since we are losing ours at a steady pace. Problem is the are in league with the Sierra club just as much as hunters , and though you can hunt on most of their properties, you have to be mindful as they put in more trails to attract the general public. Not very forever wild in my opinion. But I pick my battles as they arise. My states horrible at land management,and my portion of the states becoming extremely fragmented. People aren't even farming much here anymore when they can retire by selling to developers. Hell our states broke ,at least according to the governor. And until I find something better ill sign their petition since no one is representing hunters here. If you can recommend a good hunters organization I'll listen.

Bureau of Land Management in Alabama prepared this resource Management document in 2002 concerning these lands. Notice what it says. While preparing the management plan, it published it for public viewing and approval. Here is the quote from the opening of the document.

"In July, 2002, BLM published a "Notice of Intent" to prepare the Alabama-Mississippi Resource Management Plan (RMP). As part of the planning process, a supporting environmental impact statement (EIS) was prepared. The RMP and EIS were developed concurrently, considering a range of alternatives and with full public participation. The Draft RMP and EIS were released for public review in August, 2007 and the Proposed RMP and Final EIS were issued in August, 2008. The approved RMP and Records of Decision (ROD) were signed in March, 2009."

If they are leasing it to be mined, it is because the public supported it. Here is the link to the article.

http://www.blm.gov/es/st/en/fo/Jackson_Home_Page/planning/alabama _and_mississippi.html

God Bless

Justin, if Feather Merchant used the phrase, "West-by-God Virginia," I never noticed. I don't pay much attention to him. I used the term totally independently but didn't mean it in a derogatory way. I first heard from a department head up at the university here in town who hails from West Virginny.

It sort of sets a defiant tone, don't you think? So I guess you come by it honestly, misguided as you often are, especially about BHA.

That's my point. I'm content the way things are here. At least as far as federal lands are concerned. If I lived where you lived I might feel different. If I lived out west I might feel different. I haven't joined their org. I only signed a pledge. I was sincere in my request that if you can show a true sportsmans lobby that might get things done where we live shoot me a p.m.

Stephen, you might check the National Wildlife Federation, or the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP), both good organizations, in my opinion.

BHA deals with public land issues. I was surprised to learn there is BLM land in Alabama, but I was aware of National Forest.

Don't be mislead to think those federal lands are not in danger of being privatized in Alabama, either.

Backcountry, if pointing out the actual law, the way things work legally, and the way our Public lands are managed is being defiant, I'll take that any day. Especially when considering the alternative can be summed up, defined, and personally described by it's own members, as a group that often buddy's with the hunter's enemy, to strip the public of control of it's own land.

Throughout this thread, I've explained federal law, the way public lands are managed, the reasons they can't be taken from us the way you suggest, and the reasons they can and will be if your organization continues to buddy with them to designate public property to federal ownership and control. You haven't said anything to contradict it because the reality of truth is in my argument, not yours.

I get what you are saying and agree it sounds great in theory. However, this isn't a new idea, and it isn't the best or even a good idea due to the reasons I've pointed out. None of it is speculation. None of it is based on ideas. It's based on history, the history of who you routinely collaborate with to accomplish these designations, and simply understanding and knowing forest ecology and wildlife biology.

I look at the west, where these grass root organizations mostly start, and routinely did and do work to designate land, and realize with dwindling prey numbers caused by a lack of hunter representation, outrages license cost, way more draw than otc opportunity's, etc... there is a need for some organizations to represent our interests. One that is wiling to work with other organizations that don't share multiple use doctrines or practices to accomplish this, simply isn't the best representation for the American hunter. Because the more land you strip from public control, the more land you are inadvertently putting into the arena that very deep-pocketed lobby groups WILL be able to manipulate the management on. And those groups are either against, or not interested in hunting rights or the future of hunting.

Stephengillies, the single best lobby group to represent the American Hunter hands down is the NRA.

Gentlemen, get it right. Educate yourself. Our future depends on it. I'm done. God Bless

BTW, I'm well aware of the laws and procedures for federally manged public land. Stating I'm confused doesn't do well. If you'd like I can and will give you the EXACT number of laws and regulations that must be adhered to to do a revision on non designated, federally managed, public property. 14 LAWS and 38 REGULATIONS. 14 federal laws and 28 regulations protecting us from what you claim to be a real threat. Those laws are granting the public control of how these lands are to managed

There is some definite deficiencies in one of the arguments being presented here concerning the lack of knowledge on how these lands are managed. And it isn't the one I present. God Bless

Thanks for your input gentlemen. Now I have to dig deeper. Y'all have a good day.

WV, we'll just have to agree to disagree...you've already said more than you know.

Done! I also joined a month ago.

Placing blame on the Koch brothers? How about George Soros? I see the links to The Sierra club may have never been severed......

As WVa previously stated, several years ago, as an HTE/IBEP instructor somewhat specializing in animal rights and enviro issues, I too went from BHA to several links that included the Sierra Club, and a couple links thru the Sierra Club grapevine to several domestic terrorist groups. Recently I went to BHA's website to see they've distanced themselves.... And I was glad to see that.... Until the Koch brothers statement just sent up another progressive red flag...

I believe that WVa and I stood together during that years-ago, initial push for BHA to answer questions about their relationship with SC. I stand with him again. He is well versed in facts and legalities, (not theories) much more so than I for certain. Be careful for what you seek.....

No outdoorsman I know wants polluted cities or abused destroyed forests. I hunt Marcellus ground and the prevailing company has kept the ground- thousands of acres, open to hunting and has made it much better for critters and hunters alike.

Does BHA advertise on Archerytalk or hunting.net, Tradtalk or POA etc.?

Well, now I'm curious, and I have to try to see this from both sides of the fence. To start, I actually with WV (Justin), and I think I understand the why behind it. Here is my take, and by all means feel free to argue the point, because I haven't done the research (yet). To Justin's point, I believe that he is saying that un-designated public land cannot be sold, protected, or for that manner have anything done to it without public approval through some means, be it survey, notice of intent, or whatever. To that end they (the public) can stop private ownership or other methods to limit public access for hunting and recreation by simply responding to and/or replying to the survey, notice of intent or what have you. By being an involved citizen and member of the hunting community, if you want to keep your rights, you should stand up for them, simple as that, and once again I think that is what Justin is saying - stand up for your rights because you should do so as a responsible hunter and citizen, period. And, to me, this is the BEST way to stop infringement of our rights to public land, which is where I think I understand Justin's point to be. Also, to support that statement and Justin, I think his point and certainly my own point would be you should do this REGARDLESS of whether you sign a pledge or join a group or whatever - you should just do it as part of being a US citizen and hunter, period. Please, Justin, correct me if I'm wrong here.

Now, to play devil's advocate here: we (as a society) are lazy and rarely if ever defend our own rights without prompting. Organizations like the BHA are initially put in place to help spur us to action and make us stand up and take notice, and at first they will work and have the best interests of the hunting community at the forefront. I honestly fall into the lazy category, well, in defense of myself I would prefer the "to preoccupied with marriage and 6 kids and a full time job and taking care of my more pressing responsibilities to worry about hunting rights" category at present. So, the BHA pledge does initially show promise to me because it seems like an easy way to say "I'm standing up for my rights, don't take my hunting land away from me".

BUT, and this is the kicker for me and why I support Justin's point of view here: Take a peek at the corporate sponsors on the BHA page. Do you think any one of those guys who are sponsoring this group are doing so out of the kindness of their hearts? Or do you believe that they are doing this because there are a bunch of guys who are showing interest in hunting, that probably have money to buy the sponsors products. The sponsors have a vested interest in keeping hunting a money making enterprise, simple as that. And, if given the opportunity to make more money by "representing" the members of their group (the BHA) and making their decision for them to designate a piece of land that was already legally owned by the public, just so that they could eventually privatize it and sell expensive guided hunting trips and such off it or sponsor said company to sell more product, then I think you don't see the point of capitalism. My point here is that given enough monetary incentive - any group will take the opportunity to make that money. And, they won't hesitate to use you as a pawn to do so, simply by pulling up a membership or pledge roster and saying "all these guys support us, we represent their interests and have gotten their permission, no need to contact them, we will make their decision for them". I personally don't want any group or lobbyist or organization to make my decision for me. And, if through preoccupation I DON'T make a decision, I can't blame anyone but myself. I can do something about myself, I can get off my butt. I can't do anything about the lobbyists, especially if I join them and let them represent my interests.

Stating that you have ZERO effect as an individual is pitiful IMHO. YOU HAVE ALREADY LOST. Join your state org for BOWHUNTING, and at least have some representation or current knowledge of issues at the state level.

I simply can't understand WV's antagonistic feelings toward BHA unless he actually supports things that BHA opposes. That would include illegal ATV activity on public lands, mandated privatization of public lands for disposal, passing on costs of environmental impacts from ill-conceived projects to public taxpayers, reduced opportunities for quality hunting and fishing experiences, deterioration of wildlife habitat, unscientific, un- enlightened resource management based on lobbyists' and politico's interests, all forms of resource abuse, disregard for the North American model of wildlife management, "unfair chase" in hunting methods...etc.,etc. The list could go on and on.

The point is, when a group or an individual opposes something, it implies they also stand for something.

Complacency only means that the unimaginable could happen.

Justin you have conducted yourself as a gentleman on this thead. Good information well presented. Dale, thank you for some clear concise information as well.

Personally I not only dislike but distrust zealots.

I'm quoting and paraphrasing from Backcountry above, and please, understand I am not trying to nitpick, but trying to strengthen my point only.

"BHA opposes"..."unscientific, un-enlightened resource management based on lobbyists' and politico's interests"

Answer this: based on the statements quoted above, how can BHA oppose something on the one hand, but on the other take money from sponsors who would most certainly have lobbyists trying to push politicians in a direction to better line their own pockets? I personally find it dubious and I'm skeptical of any group who does this, regardless of their stated mission. I would love to be proven wrong and I would love to see that the money that has been donated be used to truly make a better situation for hunters in general. But, based on past history, for profit companies don't just give money for a better world, they do so to have a better seat at the table when time comes to make decisions that will fill their coffers.

PS: I believe that Justin is only trying to make this point himself, but I could be very wrong here and will take my lumps if I am. I also believe that he also tried to do so on the thread that was bumped, but then emotions got in the way of great discussion. Sort of like what is happening on this thread.

Healthy environments support healthy wildlife populations that hunters spend a fair amount of money to pursue. Hunting and other forms of outdoor recreation are a big part of the economy, especially in states where public land makes those opportunities available to everyone.

People don't have to support companies they don't like by buying their goods, and nothing compels people to support causes they don't believe in. But we all need some sort of economic base to survive. Balancing a strong economy with a healthy environment everything needs to survive and prosper can be a challenge, but the two don't have to be mutually exclusive. They just have to be done appropriately and carefully thought out.

Different people may have different thresholds for what they consider a healthy environment. Conditions some people might find acceptable, others may not. Some people may feel that shooting rats at the dump or fishing for carp at the outflow of the sewage lagoon is good enough. And sadly, that may be all some people can afford due to their personal circumstances. But ensuring that other options remain available will require that sportsmen and women make the effort to do whatever it takes to protect that heritage. BHA happens to be an organization of like- minded sportsmen that hold to that higher ideal. And they stand against that which diminishes the opportunity for a quality experience, however one might define it, but it basically comes down to quality of habitat.

If people are satisfied with the way things are or the trend towards diminished opportunities for a quality outdoor experience on public lands? Fine, BHA is probably not for them.

By the way, would the Leatherwall continue to exist without some sort of corporate support? Of course it could--we could all chip in for the privilege of access, which provides a forum for discussion of issues that are related to or effect traditional bowhunting. But we would only do that if we felt we were getting our money's worth.

Some people might buy some of the merchandise those sponsors sell, and the owner of this site might be making just enough to put up with the aggravation of providing this service.

Sidman: You got this one wrong:

"Do you think any one of those guys who are sponsoring this group are doing so out of the kindness of their hearts? Or do you believe that they are doing this because there are a bunch of guys who are showing interest in hunting, that probably have money to buy the sponsors products."

Our sponsors are not becoming sponsors as part of an advertising scheme or to drum up more business as you state. I can tell you that I have met the owners of some of these companies and their true reason in sponsoring us is that they believe in our mission. They truely have a love of the outdoors and wild places. They are different than the folks who advertise in outdoor mags trying to drum up business, and there are better ways to spend money than to become a sponsor in an organization that counts barely 5,000 members.

"how can BHA oppose something on the one hand, but on the other take money from sponsors who would most certainly have lobbyists trying to push politicians in a direction to better line their own pockets?"

This is a falsehood because for this to be true, the sponsors would only be in it for the money to drum up more business/profits, etc. As I already stated they are truly not in it for the purpose. So it contradicts your point that you express as a fact.

Unfortunately the American corporate and public mentality has been corrupted to think that profits are boss, so there is a concensus amongst Americans to this thought such as yours "they're only in it for the money". Thae fact that corporate sponsors can actually back an organization solely because they align with their values sounds foriegn. I suggest that facts be told without the corrupt mindset that you speak of. It really has corrupted the brains of the american public, and in most cases it's true because most of the corporations in America today put MAXIMIZING profits as number 1 priority, and care little about their employees or conservation, what I call the "walmart syndrome".

Fortunately we have corporate sponsors that are content with their profit margin, feel the need to give back without expecting anything in return except an organization that stands as good stewards of our public lands.

Stix: I honestly hope that you are right in your statements, because that would mean that you have a strong backing and source of funds to help keep things like privatized hunting at bay. I think we all agree that having high fenced hunting and being forced to hunt based on an industry vision rather than hunting when,how, and where we have the right to do so is a bad thing. It would be nice for all involved if your sponsors are truly providing funds to fight the good fight.

In my defense, I feel you are also correct in your statement that "in most cases it's true because most of the corporations in America today put MAXIMIZING profits as number 1 priority, and care little about their employees or conservation". I fall squarely into the "don't trust corporate America" camp, and I will stay in that camp until such time as I see a company do the right thing instead of doing what they deem necessary for their stockholders and/or senior executives. I have very little trust of those in position to be monetarily motivated. However, I can certainly remain open to discussion and I would love to hear from your sponsors myself. I will try to make some time in the near future to do more research on your organization and those companies. I can then make a better informed decision and/or retract my statements as fact and knowledge dictate. I will hold any further comment until I have done my own due diligence, and I thank you for the information.

Yep it sounds like you and me along with most of the population of the US have seen enough out of corporations to have a general distrust of them. And this distrust is rooted by witnessing them through our life. The BHA is blessed to have corporate sponsors that have a real commitment to conservation.

Yep it sounds like you and me along with most of the population of the US have seen enough out of corporations to have a general distrust of them. And this distrust is rooted by witnessing them through our life. The BHA is blessed to have corporate sponsors that have a real commitment to conservation.

I trust corporations 10 fold the trust I have in government. Ask a vet their opinion Of the VA FIASCO..... OR AARP- supporters of Planned Parenthood and They are adamantly against the 2nd amendment.

AARP started out innocently "to help protect senior citizens" from POSSIBLE scenarios. Sound familiar? Now they speak for govt mandates and side with "common sense" progressive ideals while making a BOATLOAD of money for their executives. And corporations are to be distrusted? Surely some are......

If one believes in what BHA does then by all means join up! What is the Pa segment involved in currently? Sunday hunting? What are your thoughts on the possible merger?

This is like the 3rd or 4th thread about BHA here on the wall. One thread wondered why hunters won't give up memberships in other orgs like RMEF, NRA etc. and every hunter join BHA. So BHA must have so much political clout......

So I must ask how many members does BHA have in the fold? 30,000? 50,000? 100,000? 100k is nothing to the federales......

What is the total number of members that are bow hunters? You could earn yourselves a few members here with good representation.

I sent a thread from my phone about 5 pm or so while waiting on a landowner. It hasn't showed up. I'm not sure why. It was in response to the acquisitions Backcountry made about where I stand. For the life of me I really can't see why this is so hard for him to understand. I oppose these organizations because of the results they produce. Results that come from their collaborated attempts to strip public ownership of federally managed land from the hands of the public, and putting it into the hands of congress. Plain and simple. And they accomplish this by collaborating with out spoken opponents of hunting. They disguise it behind nifty mission statements that promise better management for the future of hunting, while the management we get is far from it.

We need wild places and wilderness. We need solitude. It can be accomplished and still mange for the betterment of all wildlife. But, it can't be done by blocking the management process to create stagnant ecosystems. Period, End of story. No other way of looking at it because it simply isn't true no matter the mission statement or organization you attach to it. It is scientifically impossible. And where the real problem arises is the Wilderness Coalition, the Trout Unlimited, and the Sierra Club never stops at multiple use. They lobby for it all come revision time. And with no laws to ensure the people have veto power, they get what they can buy from their Representatives in Congress. And their bank accounts are huge.

So, we have a responsibility to our future to do the right thing. The right thing isn't to help them accomplish it. The right thing is to get involved. The time it takes you to read this post is the same amount of time it will take you to contact your congress representative and tell them where you stand. You can even email it. They work for us. They exist to express our wishes, not to be paid to strip us from them. It really is this simple.

These debates get confusing because both sides claim to want the same thing. While some members of both sides most assuredly do, one side knows how to get/keep that protection while the other claims to with well elaborated, emotional plays on the average hunter. No science, law, or history to back their claims. Just a plea for your money to support their cause. And the results of those causes are NEVER in favor of the hunter in the long run because the hunter is never unified. We bicker about weapons choices, politics, Corporate America etc...

But, the reality is, that is needed to accomplish the interests of those that truly do want to displace the American Hunter from the ecosystem. They use bogus examples and our lack of knowledge against us. Public land managed by the feds is owned and controlled by the people. This is ensured by 14 federal laws and the regulations that come with them. All put into place to prevent exactly what they claim is going to happen. The only way those laws get surpassed is by some form of federal land designation.

As pointed out by me every post, including this one, Any form of federal designation demands the guaranteed public management laws be dropped. They MAY claim to consider public input in management on their mission statement but, with no laws in place too ensure it, we are at there mercy. This is where these collaborating, anti-hunting groups get what they want. And where the American hunter loses another piece of public property to radical groups. Never to get it back.

We all want to blame population and sprawl as reason why ground is getting more limited. The US population has grew 1% over the last 3 decades or so. 90% of that growth is in the east. While they do not make more land, that growth is centered around the populace, not the wilderness. It isn't as they make it appear. This growth is not hurting our wild places. Federal designation is.

What follows federal designation is lower game numbers, lower hunter numbers if hunting is even allowed, which equates to less opportunity, higher license cost, poverty in surrounding economies, and a nail in the coffin in our way of life.

It is easy for these guys to insinuate anyone who disagrees with them is doing so with hidden agendas. They simply try to spin it and label them as pro extraction, or someone who doesn't need or appreciate the resources. It is simple babble because when faced with the truth of federal laws and real life results, they can't do anything but, personally attack their opponent. Backcountry, you can try to spin it to put my on my heels but, there is no bigger proponent of wild lands on this site than me. The difference is, I'm knowledgeable, credible, and know the difference between a good sounding idea and what it takes to manage them for everyone.

Merchant, get over your butt hurt, go get a crossbow, or just become the authority you seek on these subjects. Any or all three will lead to a better informed Merchant.

God Bless to all

I've been told that traditional archers make up the fastest growing segment of BHA's membership...not sure how they know that unless they ask people what their interests are when they join. Maybe I can find out and report back.

I see no reason to give up membership in another group to join BHA, some groups have compatible goals...others, not so much. There's a lot of conservation work that needs to be done, too much for any one group.

Do the research--most all have websites and Facebook pages where you can check out topics of discussion.

Sidmand, you got my point.

Backcountry, you relayed a huge reason why we are even in this predicament. Opinions on a healthy ecosystem are just opinions unless science proves it.

God Bless

I started the thread regarding having so many different sportsmens organization spreading our numbers thin. I never called for quitting organizations, but instead it would be more fruitful for sportsmen to join one org that is more encompassing to all sportsmen. My opinion that instead of several smaller groups lobbying on behalf of sportsmen, one powerful group with state chapters and a national chapter would give greater bang for the effort. I mentioned that the BHA had this type of hierarchy, which I feel is effective for lobbying on behalf of it's members.

Traditional bowhunters make up a majority of BHA's membership. It seems our values on conservation parallel. Our national membership stands at about 5K with 17 state chapters. The membership rolls are growing steadily.

WV continues to be deluded and delude others in his incoherent, self-inflated ramblings.

Statements from his recent post:

"Results that come from their collaborated attempts to strip public ownership of federally managed land from the hands of the public, and putting it into the hands of congress."

Just the opposite, in fact. The BHA Spotsman's Pledge sends a warning against the growing movement in Congress to pass legislation forcing the federal government to dispose of public lands.

"They use bogus examples and our lack of knowledge against us."

By putting your "lack of knowledge" on display, you are your own worst enemy, Justin.

"Any form of federal designation demands the guaranteed public management laws be dropped."

BHA supports science-based management of our public lands. Federal lands are all designated as such and managed according to federal laws. Management laws are not "dropped."

"The difference is, I'm knowledgeable, credible, and know the difference between a good sounding idea and what it takes to manage them for everyone."

Pretty inflated opinion of yourself, considering your own posts demonstrate otherwise.

Your continued attacks and misrepresentations of BHA will not go unchallenged. Let people decide for themselves whether or not to sign the Sportsman's Pledge.

hcorrigal, are you still confused about this? Christian people can disagree with someone and still be a christian. They can kill stuff and still be a christian. You seem to be really confused about that.

Backcountry, you can say whatever you want. People have no problems understanding what I write and the message it contains. You don't, you just can't rebut it in anyway but with the same old claims. I've asked you several times to give real life examples of how great your organization is but you can't. You can't because they do exactly as I suggest. And not because I said so but, because that is just the way it is. If they were as you suggest, I'd entered a year ago.

I'm not inflating myself. I'm just stating the obvious. Would you believe I was a world champion bow shot? Even though real world results suggest different? Even though I've never shot in a world championship? No you won't. No matter how many times I say it. This is no different. You can keep on saying the exact same thing, refuse to support your claims with law and factual info, and suggest I'm in the dark concerning your organization. It doesn't change the reality that none of it is true.

Readers, get it right. I have binders and binders of publically published, federal documents that prove my claims. The internet will show you the truth by simply looking for it. The track record of BHA's collaborating partners is undeniable in black and white print they publish, not me. The facts of this are easy to see an undeniable no matter what I or Backcountry say. They changed their webpage the last time this happened to drop those collaborators from site. They haven't went away though, and the fact they refuse to stop dealing with them proves they are't the group to best represent us.

I'll stop when you prove what you say. Prove it bud. Public federal documents and all sources say very different from your claims. I'm not attacking anyone or any organization. You insinuate this is personal. It isn't. I just reuse to let you spread this as the truth. It isn't! Words are just words. Actions are what means something. And the results they produce are what those actions are to be judged by. God Bless fella's

Jason, your venemous claims and accusations are untrue and simply ridiculous. By continuing with such babble, I expect the moderators will shut down this topic because of your ignorant ramblings. That would be a disservice to those bowhunters on the Leatherwall who are genuinely interested in working together with other sportsmen to ensure there will be places to hunt and fish on public land.

You are trying your best to convince them that that is a bad idea for reasons I can't fathom, other than 1) it is against your own beliefs and interests, or 2) you have been badly misinformed yourself.

Regarding your demands that I refute your statements, readers only need to access the BHA website and see for themselves the kinds of activities BHA is involved with, state-by-state. They can follow discussions and ask questions on the Facebook link. Then they can decide for themselves instead of relying on your egocentric pronouncements as the basis for whatever course they choose to follow.

I don't want to get involved in the discussion above (it creates angst, and I hate angst), but the truth is membership numbers and the members' political votes will give us all strength in fighting for the protection of our public lands.

BHA seems like a good choice and I like the Montana members I've met. Many of them are traditional bowhunters.

I take no pleasure or pride in participating in this discussion, either.

Opinions are one thing, being uninformed and in error is forgivable, but passing off outright misrepresentations as truth is unacceptable and cannot go unchallenged.

Sorry I had to do it, my apologies.

Yes, Moderators as the thread starter I ask: can we just have this thread pulled? There are more issues out there that unite us rather than divide us. I am sorry that I even brought i up. MY goal was to only bring forth signatures to the pledge, and inadvertently it was tainted with vitriol. I ask members here to no longer post to this thread, and to value what unites us as conservationists, and traditional archery enthusiasts.

God's Blessings us all ~<><

Vitriol?? Only previous history. I typed on 3 different occasions, where I went thru the links on BHA's site at the time, all 3 times I deleted the post due the possible damage that could have been done.

WV's position is based on history- pretty simple. I support him because I researched the links at that time. Ya know if someone would have come out and said "Hey we didn't know....." Or "we're sorry no one researched our links...." They had the opportunity to make great progress in membership. Instead WV was attacked-shoot the messenger. There is no harm in making a simple mistake and in fact one could gain more respect by "sacking up" and admitting the mistake.

I hope BHA evaluates the connections to the left leaning orgs. There is always room for folks that volunteer time and effort for our outdoor values. But you MUST be honest and true to your GOAL- NOT the political hysteria. Yes there are folks wanting to privatize certain lands but there are also those that want no human activity at ALL- and right now they are in power thru media and financially they kick our arses. Remember the cheerleader that legally killed a lion and posted it to social media? We as hunters are now being hunted.

ANY ENTITY, be it business, corporations, individuals, Christian or non, republican or democrat must be dealt with equal zeal and direction, whether they need admonished or congratulated.

Again if anyone thinks that ONLY an organization can make progress on an issue, you've already lost. Your org gets you in the door so to speak but you as a member still need to become active enough to drop a simple email or phone call. Orgs don't work without you as a member doing a bit of work.

I have learned that as things now stand it will be a cold day in (well I am sure you know where it will be a cold day) before I sign a pledge to the bha.

So Stix and Backcountry, this thread has been beneficial. Thank you for bringing it up.

With Wv, Dale and Penny. Will not sign.

There was enough effort and energy spent here in this thread, to change law.

In Pa there was a movement to change the Safety Zone for archery down to 50yds. The Strictly Sticks group of Trad Bowhunters collectively signed ALREADY PRINTED letters asking ONE local state rep to support the change and introduce a bill. He needed 200 letters before he would consider such legislation.

Only thru those SS guys signing their names, the legislation was introduced and another state rep was told-he supported it, then another and another....

I believe that orgs need (people) efforts to succeed not that people need orgs. Don't know how else to say it.

Dale, I would like to know who BHA have aligned themselves with. I have not seen any links on their site. PM me if you do not want to post.

Thanks

The BHA has/does align themselves with the Trout Unlimited, Sierra Club, Wilderness Coalition, the Nature Conservancy, and the Wilderness Society. This was directly linked from their webpagee up until the last time a thread like this went sour. So they changed it.

Yet, those collaborations are still present. A simple google or bing search of BHA collaborating partners reveals they are still working with them A simple google search of those collaborator's webpage reveals the same.

It must also be noted, only these type groups are trying to designate pubic land. Your RMEF and your NWTF are joining ranks to squabble over scraps left at the table. I have watched te NWTF step away from these collaborations, as well as the National Wildlife Federation. You have to ask why? And when you talk to their biologists, they say why.

Type in these collaborator's and see what they are doing to capture your public land, strip it from public input come management time, and lobby and get management that only benefits the sector of people who "think" old growth, untouched wilderness is the key. It is exactly why these collaborations are losing the interst and friendship of the NWTF and NWF. It really is that simple.

Set in a few designation meetings elbow to elbow with state and chapter leaders and biologists of the NWTF and NWF, pick their brain, They are the ones truly educated on these things as they are the ones watching the left wing radicals stab the sportsmen in the back come revision time, when the public has no granted lawful input. Do internet searches. Read your local management plans, see what it says. Look at the lawsuits attached to your local public land every single time they try to practice wildlife management. Look who they are filed by. It is the exact same groups the BHA collaborates with to designate our public property! Folks, sleeping with the enemy makes you the enemy.

It is all there for you to see for yourself. Don't take any ones word for it. See for yourself. God Bless

I also noticed the links are gone. They could have removed them several years ago, which I hope and believe the case. At that time the pres of SC was at one time the head of Earth Liberation Front. That's what made me go thru the chain of links.

Rob I' m sorry, I will not elaborate any more. It's water under the bridge and frankly should BHA make a good honest effort towards their goals- which are honorable, who knows just how effective they may become. They have their work cut out for them and someday I may actually support them- you just never know:)

Wv you posted same time as I. Thank you.:)

For some reason my iPhone browser is back to posting under my old handle again grrrrr.

To show I mean nothing personal towards anyone, if BHA pubically releases a statement they will do nothing but support hunting rights by refusing to collaborate with the enemy, and pushing for the American hunter with proper multiple use management, I will stay out of these threads. God Bless

As a member I feel the need to chime in to set some facts straight. I did a lot of research on this group (BHA) before joining, to find out their true motives/goals and this is what I found.

They are true to their goal of promoting hunting and fishing, primarily on public lands. Supporting expanded access to public lands for the workingman hunter, who can't afford high fenced hunts.

They are true to their goal of enacting and promoting Fair chase in the hunt. Opposing high technologies (such as drones etc) that give hunters an unfair edge, devoted solely to the kill.

They oppose illegal ATV use and work to enact legislation aimed towards curbing it.

They're and organization that supports state issues by having affiliated state chapters that are better equipped to handle state and local issues.

They are wholly devote to protecting the habitat for game and fish to thrive on wild lands

They do collaborate with many orgs that promote like minded ideals, clean water, enhanced habitat, promote hunting/fishing and improved access, when working to achieve these goals.

They do not carry forth what is considered a left wing agenda that some of these collaborating orgs have, such as global warming etc. They do not promote anything that is outside of their agenda of the items I have listed.

WV mountaineer: I would appreciate that you get your facts straight BEFORE posting. The advancement of character bashing is an old political trick, that we see enough of in American politics, used as a means to aadvance or protect an agenda.

I've stayed out of this thread, mainly because it has been full of irrational claims that are tiresome to argue, especially with someone whose mind is already so fully set in stone.

WV - your claims are downright bizarre and twisted. I would highly encourage you to make the effort to get to know some active BHA members. I know many, and they could hardly be described in any way as "left-wing radicals." Instead, they are simply dedicated sportsmen who are working hard to protect our public land hunting opportunities, pure and simple.

The fact of the matter is, you're speaking from conjecture of what you "think" BHA is all about, and in the process you've leapt to no shortage of foregone, but off-base, conclusions. In contrast to your opinions, there have been a number of people chiming in on this thread who actually KNOW what they are talking about in terms of BHA, because they are active members speaking from first-hand experience.

Tell me - how many BHA members have you met personally and discussed public land issues with? I would be happy to meet with you any time if it's convenient, and tell you about the things I'm personally working on, on behalf of BHA.

None personally. I'm sure it is composed of some great people who share the common goal of wanting to ensure the long term goal of hunter rights. However, you guys are missing the point of why I oppose your group. How many times in this thread did I admit that the BHA might be composed of well meaning members? How many times? I'll let you count so maybe you'll see it for yourself instead of assuming I have something personal to gain by opposing this group. I even said the BHA might be well intended, twice. I'll save you the count on that one. Your missing the bigger picture here.

The bigger picture is you collaborate with groups that aren't friends with hunting to designate pubically owned property. And you cannot beat them. Their bank accounts are in the billion's. So don't play their game. They need the support of hunters and fisherman to gain a designation because the representative in the area it is being proposed, depends on those same hunters and fishermen to elect them. And many of them are hunters and fishermen themselves. The problem arises,once designated, it is DONE. They buy what they want come revision time. My goodness, do your homework so I can quit typing this.

I'll charge you the same. How many of you have took the time to look at what happens when these radical groups get land designated? How they push for wilderness. No fire control when necessary, no trout stocking, limited access. Limited days of access. Sometimes no access at all. Ever again can another human ever walk in these places. No multiple use wildlife management once designation is done. If it is tried, it is tied up in law suits. Local economies die with the forest.

Anyways, I don't have the time to keep doing this. There is a simple way to gain the support you seek. Refer to my previous post. Until then, join a hunter friendly, make no apology group that pushes hunting rights with no regard for the radical idea. There are a couple of them. And as these collaborations continue, more will surface and come back. But, don't help them by collaborating to take away public land from the public!!!!!! God Bless

Who claimed anything bad about BHA members? Of course other than the ones shooting at the messenger. We all would like to hunt pristine forest, ice cold creeks and most would give their right arm to do so. So we are mostly just like the BHA membership. It's not the membership that l worry about at all. It's the partnering orgs they side with.

Look....it's up to the BHA membership to find out on their own about current relationships. WV has seen the links to collaborators most current. Interestingly now they are gone.

IMHO Wv has been very professional during the course of the thread, I applaud him.

So BHA members are you partners with The Nature Conservancy?

Dale - the active membership is reflective of BHA's parternships, and more importantly what those partnerships accomplish.

I also feel like there is a bit of naivety going on here, by associating other organizations with BHA, just because the two may have been part of a collaborative at some point. So let me lay out a few things based on firsthand experience, as opposed to what someone claims they read on the internet:

- Collaboratives commonly consist of various groups who may not necessarily be politically aligned in general, but are aligned with mutually overlapping goals on a specific issue or initiative. This is common, and it is how things often get done.

- The reality of getting things done at the political level (where all public land issues are ultimately decided) makes these sorts of collaboratives important and often productive, and frequently involves groups with divergent interests, who may have to put aside various parts of their larger agendas in order to do exactly what a "collaborative" does - collaborate.

- BHA has been involved with a lot of different collaboratives, and these collaboratives have involved a wide variety of different groups that we happened to have some mutually-overlapping goals with on that specific issue. It does NOT mean that BHA is totally aligned in every way with every one of these other organizations.

For example, in Idaho, there is currently a working group called the "Clearwater Basin Collaborative." The goals of the collaborative are, "To provide recommendations for actions concerning management of lands within Clearwater Basin in Idaho."

Among the members of this collaborative (in addition to BHA)? The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, The Lewiston OHV Club, The Nez Perce Tribe, Independent Loggers, Idaho County Commissioners and yes (*gasp*) - the Wilderness Society and the Nature Conservancy, among others.

I bring up this example beause there seems in this thread to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what collaboratives actually do. In reality, collaboratives like this often do not comprise a whole bunch of groups that all think, act and vote the same - sometimes far from it. Instead, they bring together diverse groups, with different priorities, in order to WORK OUT SOLUTIONS, or to at least provide land managers with a spectrum of input, not all of which may be agreeable to all collaborative partners.

In the examples above, do you think that RMEF is automatically politically aligned with The Nature Conservancy just because they both have a seat at the table in this collaborative? Do you think that the Lewiston OHV club are all card-carrying members of the Wilderness Society? Of course not. And that's the whole point of a "collaborative" to begin with. But if you don't understand that, and you're just looking to score easy points with "guilt by association" insinuations, then I suppose these realities are burdensome.

Smithammer, thanks for proving my point.

Junea, Yes and Yes. God Bless

The NRA and the sierra club both helped push forever wild in Alabama. Does that mean they're in bed together? I've scoured the net the last couple of days,and I've noticed there isn't a group I can completely agree with. But I also know that the laws put in place already can and do get manipulated, just like every other law. I'm not defending BHA but in reality every org. that I've checked so far if you play the six degrees of separation game you'll find things you don't like. Oh and by the way there's a thread on bow site now dealing with the flip side of wilderness hunting in Wyoming, that is interesting. It seems to me that both sides are right and wrong at the same time so maybe y'all should wrap this one up.have a great day : )

Junea, I have never seen links on the BHA website to any the groups mentioned. There were definitely references to the BHA's collaboration with these groups on issues we mutually agree with. In the case to promote BHA's goals, politics does make strange bedfellows. It is present in all forma of the American system. ie. US providing assistance to Iran during the Iran/Iraq war many years ago. The US had no other interest with Iran's goals other than to stop Iraqi aggression(Iraq torpedoed the UUS Stark destroyer).

Unfortunately this is the way sometimes it has to be. I don't like that the BHA may have collaborative dealings with the Wilderness Society), but if they have a goal on a particular issue, I am glad that they are open minded to get full support.

I have also found proving evidence that even when the BHA collaborates with other orgs, they wont subscribe to their agenda if it doesn't align with the BHA's. Case in point, I was told by a national wildlife federation director that they are "disappointed" that the BHA wont jump on the "Global Warming" bandwagon while a lot of other so-called conservation orgs are doing so. The BHA's response was that getting into this discussion does not promote the BHA's mission of Public land conservation, Habitat Sustainment & Fishhery and Game Animal sustainment.

So there is your "conspiracy theory" of collaboration.

Junea, I have never seen links on the BHA website to any the groups mentioned. There were definitely references to the BHA's collaboration with these groups on issues we mutually agree with. In the case to promote BHA's goals, politics does make strange bedfellows. It is present in all forma of the American system. ie. US providing assistance to Iran during the Iran/Iraq war many years ago. The US had no other interest with Iran's goals other than to stop Iraqi aggression(Iraq torpedoed the UUS Stark destroyer).

Unfortunately this is the way sometimes it has to be. I don't like that the BHA may have collaborative dealings with the Wilderness Society), but if they have a goal on a particular issue, I am glad that they are open minded to get full support.

I have also found proving evidence that even when the BHA collaborates with other orgs, they wont subscribe to their agenda if it doesn't align with the BHA's. Case in point, I was told by a national wildlife federation director that they are "disappointed" that the BHA wont jump on the "Global Warming" bandwagon while a lot of other so-called conservation orgs are doing so. The BHA's response was that getting into this discussion does not promote the BHA's mission of Public land conservation, Habitat Sustainment & Fishhery and Game Animal sustainment.

So there is your "conspiracy theory" of collaboration.

You can look at it as "proving your point" if you wish, but what I'm really doing is explaining why your "point" is overly simplistic to the point of being clueless about what it sometimes takes to get things done with public land issues.

Like I demonstrated with the CBC example above, one could just as easily say "if you support RMEF then you support the Wilderness Society too!!" or, if you're a member of "Independent Loggers" in the Clearwater, then you support The Nature Conservancy!!" When if you take a little time to gather a more in-depth understanding of what the situation is, both in the example I gave above and many other examples, I would hope you'd see that's actually not the case.

Tell me, WV - are you willing to share what sportsmen conservation groups you support? Just curious.

Junea, I have never seen links on the BHA website to any the groups mentioned. There were definitely references to the BHA's collaboration with these groups on issues we mutually agree with. In the case to promote BHA's goals, politics does make strange bedfellows. It is present in all forma of the American system. ie. US providing assistance to Iran during the Iran/Iraq war many years ago. The US had no other interest with Iran's goals other than to stop Iraqi aggression(Iraq torpedoed the UUS Stark destroyer). Unfortunately this is the way sometimes it has to be. I don't like that the BHA may have collaborative dealings with the Wilderness Society), but if they have a goal on a particular issue, I am glad that they are open minded to get full support.

I have also found proving evidence that even when the BHA collaborates with other orgs, they wont subscribe to their agenda if it doesn't align with the BHA's. Case in point, I was told by a national wildlife federation director that they are "disappointed" that the BHA wont jump on the "Global Warming" bandwagon while a lot of other so-called conservation orgs are doing so. The BHA's response was that getting into this discussion does not promote the BHA's mission of Public land conservation, Habitat Sustainment & Fishhery and Game Animal sustainment.

So there is your "conspiracy theory" of collaboration.

You guys do your thing. You can quit trying to prove that your NOT the bad guys. As stated, I do not doubt that mostly, nor does anyone else. Tell me how a small group, used as a pawn to help open the door to gain control, can out lobby the Billion dollar radical groups. Remember, they can't designate without your support due to the stigma that comes with their organization. So they gain your trust, lock out granted public input and buy their management

Your a young organization. They'll do you like they have done the NWF and the NWTF here when they get the chance. They'll do you like they have done the outer banks. You'll see in time.

Stephengillies, the radical groups cannot out lobby the NRA. If your hapy with your membership in the BHA, that's all that matters.

All law, truth, and expected results that needs to be said has been said. The rest is just arguing personal feelings. God Bless

I'm not in BHA they don't even have a chapter in my state, and like I said I'm not defending them just making an observation. Or maybe I'm just stirring the pot: ) You have a blessed day but please try to spell my name right lol.

I see ya'all took my advice to quell this one. I can only leave this discussion with one point. In American politics (hunters included) there seems no willingness to negotiate in good faith, maybe it's for good reason, I don't know. I remember the first election I voted in, Ronald Reagan for president. After his election he had a hostile congress. He was able to get legislation passed by inviting democrat members to whitehouse for frank discussions, give and take sessions. No one gave in on any core doctrin but were able to come together on common ground.

I am proud to say, this is what BHA does. We were started by a group of hunters, over a campfire that found there is no organization on the Federal level with state chapters that truly represent the hunters as conservationists.

In us congress, state legislatures, and local govt, no one is doing this anymore. It's all filled with attacks. I believe the BHA rises above this to actually benefit outdoorsmen. We can all have opinions that are formed based on our experiences. Mine is formed by actually seeing what progress the BHA has made.(please refer to website for this--it would take up another 5 threads). But in the end, we all have to agree to disagree and move forward doing what we think is best for hunting and fishing. I guess that we all should be respected for our positions as long as we believe we are doing the right thing for our sport.

The orgs that ive represent in my past have invariably ended up at some point in a strange bedfellow situation. It's politics.

It is one thing to be aligned with an opposing org every now and then, but totally another when you link up your adversaries as a collaborator. The WWF for example wants to end hunting-ALL hunting. They are very close with The Nature Conservancy as per TNC's website. That's just one example I found in a couple minutes.....

Again if you feel it necessary to be part of these collaborations then by all means.

Dale -

I think you're continuing to misunderstand the nature of "collaboratives," as the term is used in typical public land planning processes. Please take another look at my post above, and I'll say it again - there can be many different players with a seat at the table in a "collaborative." It does not mean that everyone is politically aligned, or even totally in agreement. Collaboratives are attempts to bring different players, with different perspectives and priorities to the same table. While you may find this hard to believe, that can actually be a good and productive thing.

We have nothing to do with WWF, whether you are referring to the World Wresting Federation, or the World Wildlife Fund. ;-)

Your previous links-including several years ago included a DIRECT LINK to Like minded groups which included the Sierra Club. Will you admit to that without flaming WV?

I do understand collaboratives as I've experienced several unsavory occasions- IMHO, in my history and background.

As WV has stated you fellers have a history with leftist progressive orgs. When someone uses the latest progressive talking point- the Koch bros.( who the hayl are they anyhow other than rich conservatives?) then you, Stix rails about republicans and Ron Paul but you totally ignored the left and their anti-hunting anti gun anti fishing anti human directives then you want hunters to join anglers in brothering up with these groups? Really?

Some may find logic in your way of thinking and will join your club. Good for you and them! I won't be alive to see the day where all we can do is READ about what it was like to hunt the "unprotected" hills and valleys of Pa or Ny. Nor The Rockies where I lived and worked in Utah.

Was there not a recent attempt in Ca. To ban human presence on state/fed ground that was deemed to dry for human existence due to global warming drying out the forest? The fear was that the humans MAY start a fire..... Didn't this attempt occur within the last few months? I need to find this and see who the orgs were that were involved.....

Sooooo sack up here and now.... Was the Sierra Club link provided on your site?

Your previous links-including several years ago included a DIRECT LINK to Like minded groups which included the Sierra Club. Will you admit to that without flaming WV?

I do understand collaboratives as I've experienced several unsavory occasions- IMHO, in my history and background.

As WV has stated you fellers have a history with leftist progressive orgs. When someone uses the latest progressive talking point- the Koch bros.( who the hayl are they anyhow other than rich conservatives?) then you, Stix rails about republicans and Ron Paul but you totally ignored the left and their anti-hunting anti gun anti fishing anti human directives then you want hunters to join anglers in brothering up with these groups? Really?

Some may find logic in your way of thinking and will join your club. Good for you and them! I won't be alive to see the day where all we can do is READ about what it was like to hunt the "unprotected" hills and valleys of Pa or Ny. Nor The Rockies where I lived and worked in Utah.

Was there not a recent attempt in Ca. To ban human presence on state/fed ground that was deemed to dry for human existence due to global warming drying out the forest? The fear was that the humans MAY start a fire..... Didn't this attempt occur within the last few months? I need to find this and see who the orgs were that were involved.....

Sooooo sack up here and now.... Was the Sierra Club link provided on your site?

Phil please delete the double post thank you:) my head hurts

With the way the internet works, I'm amazed how the software can recognize words or phrases and search for other sites that have similar terminology and provide links to those sites. I don't know if that is what might have happened in this case.

I find it highly unlikely that there was ever a direct link to the Sierra Club.

From what I understand about the formation of BHA, the ten or so hunters who were there included people with natural resource backgrounds who worked with various agencies. As such, they were very aware of the problems and impacts that were degrading wildlife habitat and diminishing the hunting experience, and threatening the future of the hunting heritage. They recognized the need for a non-politically aligned organization that would promote protecting wildlife habitat based on the scientific principles they were trained in.

Other organizations may happen to have interests in protecting habitat, as well, or healthy watersheds, etc., that result in better conditions for humans as well as wildlife. That's what stewardship is. Sometimes that means active, on-the-ground measures such as logging, thinning, controlled burning, brush clearing activities and the like. In other places, natural processes don't need active human intervention and to provide wonderful hunting and fishing opportunities. And some people may choose to visit such places just to hike, camp, and take photographs.

It is unfortunate that BHA's detractors would condemn it for at times having some overlapping or mutually-beneficial interests with those organizations. Nor does that mean they share the same philosophies about hunting or other resource uses.

Most people know what a "Venn" diagram is...if not, do a google search. Hopefully that will explain how some overlapping areas of mutual interest exist. Those are the interests that we would seek in collaborations such as Smithhammer described.

Even athiests and the religious breath the same air.

No thanks.

Frankly Dale, I can't even make sense of most of your last post.

But to answer your question - no, in my memory, I cannot recall a time when there was a link to the Sierra Club on the BHA website.

I can tell you that as a group that advocates on behalf of sportsmen, we do not align ourselves with, or agree with, groups that are anti-hunting.

BHA supporters, It amazes me how everything confrontational and contradictory to what you claim, (regardless of what federal law, the undeniable facts of truth, the history aligned with your collaborating partners, and the reality of your own decisions with whom you share these designations with), confuses you guys. It is a nomenclature that comes with your debate. Built in by necessity I suppose. BTW, nice choice of words with the "align" bit.

Merchant, I haven't addressed you due to the lack of intelligence you are exhibiting. It kinda goes along the lines that thread you referenced happened. You say something, I disagree, you turn yourself into the victim, then resort to name calling. You have this act down pretty good.

God Bless to all

I'm done with this thread. All anyone could ask of any org is to be true to your goals for the sake of your membership. Sometimes you may walk a fine line but take care of your membership not your affiliations.

Nobody and nothing human-created is perfect. Thus, no program or plan is perfect for all. Mountaineer, your line of thinking reminds me of the status of the members in congress: "my way or no way".

I'm signing off this thread also. Tiresome reading your blather.

What is amazing, WV, is how those with the most uninformed opinions seem to be the ones who hold onto them so tightly. It is truly astonishing how these same people are the most vocal in putting their opinions on display.

Solomon had much to say about these types of people and warned against the folly of arguing with them. I should have taken his advice...

Whoa there, FM! I don't think Stix started this thread only to have it devolve into a grudge match. I do believe, however, that you were only trying to point out somes lapses of credibility on WV's part.

"Brother" Justin, aka WVMtn-eer, might have gotten his stories mixed up a little, but he has a right to his opinion. I regret, however, that what he reports as "fact" is in fact, just his opinion. Problem is that others on here don't make that distinction.

What really bugs me, though, is how unsubstantiated rumors become so ingrained in people's minds and gives a good organization like BHA an undeserved black eye, even as it continues to work for the interests of its most strident detractors.

FM, I met Mark Baker up in Montana and he's a solid individual, sportsman, family man and bowhunter. His observation certainly applies here.

There are a lot of similarities between the "Worth watching" thread and this one with a lot of the same players making the same arguments concerning another organization. Maybe they should start their own group and call it the "I'm a'gin it club!"

One of their membership requirements should be the pledge to never again hunt on public lands that these organizations have worked to protect, enhance, or maintain.

I am willing to concede that BNA does some good. That it may protect some public land. I will also concede that its members have pure hearts and the best of intentions.

But. Like COB always says you knew there was a "but" here. But as long as they in any way associate with anti hunters or anti 2nc Ammendment types they will not get my support.

Ya'll can call me all the names you want. I an't budging an inch.

I believe there was a dust up with RMEF a few years ago regarding some roadless area management that cost them some members. Then RMEF realized their error and changed their position. I don't know the details, but I do know that RMEF has poured a LOT of money into land acquisitions that have protected ell habitat all across the country, even in the East.

Hard to fault that, but somebody probably will. Same with what TU has done, as well. WV doesn't like them either for some reason--maybe they got up in his grill over one of the timber harvests he was involved with?

The seemingly blanket condemnation of conservation organizations is where I began to have my doubts about the long-winded argument being based on science. There may be some points based on science, but overall it is no more than a statement of opinion. Wasn’t aware that the Sierra Club had ruffed up the NWTF. I’d like to hear more about that given that I was involved with NWTF for a number of years.

What I’ve read of Trout Unlimited’s efforts over the years have been positive things from my viewpoint.

As an NRA instructor of better than 25 years, who at one point did a lot of recruiting for the organization, I have also supported TU off and on as funds allowed over the years. I see no contradiction in supporting both.

Given Justin’s chosen occupation, I can understand why he views things as he does. I believe there’s a major influence imparted by regional experiences as well. He's certainly entitled to his opinion.

Never realized the word conservation is a dirty word to so many outdoorsman.

As stated in one of the threads above, do your own thinking and research and provide support as you see fit.

Nope, I don't like or dislike them. I don't support them for the same reason I don't support your organization.

Backcountry, tell me where I've stated an opinion? Show me what you say. You've been asked umpteen times. I've states federal law, I've stated you collaborate with enemy's of hunting, I've stated that your BHA cannot out lobby them, I've stated your BHA probably has good intentions. And I've stated you react like feather merchant when someone disagrees with you. None of that is opinion.

You take pot shots at what I do for a living when you don't appear intelligent enough to even understand what it is. You lump it into a self coined Pro extraction view point to emotionalize your point. For the life of me, I will never understand your type. When pointed out factual realities about your organization, you immediately resorted to name calling, tried to discredit anyone who disagrees with anything more than a "I Think", and out right denial. I wasn't saying anything but the truth. I even admitted the BHA took the links down. Instead of addressing any of this, you have resorted to exactly what you imply you are above. No answers. No assurance you'll look into it. No inclination you even knew it existed or your group practices such things with known, out spoken opponents of hunting.

Your taking this personal and it isn't. Any organization that attempts to strip public property from the hands of the public, In effect stopping multiple use management, locking it into a designation that has no federal law to ensure the public has no veto power or granted input into management is at fault. Period. End of story. Because federal law concerning these areas were drafted to prevent the public from ever being removed from it's position, because of what you suggest is going to happen if they are removed. Federal law prevents it currently but, only exposes it to such dangers after a designation. That isn't opinion. It is federal law backed up, and the hard cold facts of it. No speculation, no assumptions. No twisted info. It is the way it is no matter who says different.

Feather merchant can't even have a debate on it. He is to juvenile to be able to do anything but try and do the same thing you have done, with less tact. He doesn't know the law, the history, or anything other than trying to pitch what he thinks. And that is fine. He has that right. Just like it is yours to do so.

Feather merchant, You have tried to make this personal from the first time I mentioned your name, from the comforts of your couch I might add but, you can't. I imagine that is where most of your confrontations occur. I break more of a sweat passing gas than anything you can say or do concerning this debate or anything else. Educate yourself to the facts of these matters and one day you might be able to contribute to these discussions with something besides a lame, weak, poor me routine.

To all, my profession does NOT bias my opinion on these matters. It ensures I know of what I speak and back it up with facts and laws. Not emotion led pleas for support. Just federal law, real life results, and history. God Bless

WV, everything you say is only opinion unless you have citations and references to back it up. I thought you claimed to approach issues from a scientific basis? You claiming something, anything being a fact does not make it so.

I'm not the one who resorted to name-calling, although I did make statements to the effect that your allegations were uninformed and ridiculous and your ramblings ignorant and often incoherent. I said you may have gotten some bad information and simply mistaken in your statement of "facts," but I didn't call you names.

As far as me attempting to refute your allegations, that would be futile and a waste of time. Coming from me alone, my statements would only be opinions from your viewpoint, anyway. That is why I suggested that anyone interested should look into BHA themselves, not simply take my word for it...or heaven forbid, take yours.

Now see, I just went against Solomon's advice again.

What would you like citations for? Some are hard documents provided and obtained in our own fight here. Most can be linked on the internet, due to designations all over this country.

Man, I was hoping not to come to this due to having to do this once again. But, here we are. This is going to take a while and several nights around our schedules. I want one assurance. Do not bail out on me when this gets tough. Stay civil, as your struggling with that now. And when provided with what you seek, admit what it is. If I'm to dedicate my next few evenings to this again, that's the deal.

I'm having a hard time figuring out exactly what you are contesting. But, if you tell me what you doubt about my claims, I'll provide you the links to prove what I say. God Bless

Justin, much as I would like to continue the discussion, I simply don't have time for this exercise right now. I have work deadlines and also am in the process of moving by the end of the month. Hopefully we can resume the discussion at some point.

That should give you some time to find or invent whatever documentation you claim you have been using to base your opinions on. But there's no way you're going to prove that BHA is working to take public land away from the public, or that they are collaborating with anti-hunting groups to eliminate hunting because those allegations are not only wrong but downright libelous.

You obviously have made up your unrepentent mind that you simply don't like BHA or people that support the organization. That's fine, it's not for everybody. Apparently your world view just doesn't line up with that of those who started the group or those who are working to carry on their vision.

Backcountry, Feather Merchant I don't want to try and take over Justin's fight here, Lord knows he is doing just fine without my help.

What I would like to know is. Are y'all willing to admit that the BHA (pick your own term here) has cozied up to, sat at the table with, got in bed with, agreed with, aligned themselves with any group that has as part of its agenda the elimination of hunting, in any form, or our 2nd Amendment rights.

If you believe the end justifies the means and it is ok to align the BH with any of these groups can you admit it here.

Penny, WV, Why are you willing to cozy up with orgs that promote the selling of US forest, BLM, federal lands to states or individuals, that would turn hunting into a business and pay to play on these previously held public lands?

Based on what I've seen here from their supporters I'll pass on BHA.

I'm a life member of the NRA.

I responded to Feather Merchant's plea via private message. What and who I support is my own business. I do not need to post the list to establish my creds. At least I would hope so. Maybe not. After all REMF?

"Based on what I've seen here from their supporters I'll pass on BHA."

New River - what "supporters" of BHA are you referring to, specifically?

To clarify my question above, BHA's "supporters" are its members.

BHA also has "corporate sponsors" and you can see all of them here:

http://www.backcountryhunters.org/index.php/who-we-are/friends-and-links/our-sponsors

I would encourage you to take a look at who our sponsors are - virtually all of them are hunting product companies (many of them well-known and respected traditional archery companies) as well as Traditional Bowhunter Magazine...even the firearms manufacturer Kimber is a BHA corproate sponsor.

I think this list is very telling of what BHA is, and just as importantly, what it ISN'T.

They're there to save the wildlife, not hunting. Its kinda like the new "day the earth stood still" when he says he's here to save the earth, not its people. It came to saving it from the people.

Right now hunting and bha's purpose are in each others best interest. But the day "will" come where their save the habitat could mean no more hunting in a lot of areas. That's happened some already by other orgs. I'm not doggin anyone but sure not signing something that could stop my sons from hunting.

Penny, nice try with the old "when did you stop beating your wife" approach....or maybe in your case, husband. So when did you?

Supporters posting on this thread has been enough for me. I actually went on the BHA site and found things I didn't like either that I won't get into here.

BHA supporters – let me overstate the obvious here, you’re doing more harm than good by insulting people, regardless of the attributes of your organization.

Not an effective means of recruitment guys.

Good luck with it.

Merchant, I have yet to get angry. Not even remotely so. I'm the kind of guy that goes away when I'm angry, for the betterment of everyone. Besides, I've named the one and only organization I support. It is the NRA. I am currently looking into the Safari Club. Haven't done enough research yet as to say about them.

I back the NRA because they back hunters. Period. No arguing there. Pure 100% representation. No hunters, no second amendment. So they put there money to push our rights. If you guys can't get past the firearms thing, that's your decision. I can because I like hunting on Public land controlled by the public. Not political lobbyist.

I never stated we should do nothing. What I have said numerous times, is we should all involve our selves independently as well. We control it. We shouldn't be lazy and join a broad stroke group to do our work for us. Email, call, or best of all, write a personal letter to your congressman. On the outside of the letter write "Personal/confidential" on it. It ensures they open it. Not an aide. Federal law demands the congress man or women must open that letter. I bet you can guess why I know that.

Stix, provide an example of where US forest service land is being sold without the permission of the public. Provide an example where BLM is too. Basically, any public land managed by the federal government is what I'm asking. Examples please. Not he said she said. Black and white truths.

Backcountry, I'll be waiting when you get the time. God Bless

Dept. of interior policy is all non designated lands can be leased or sold with congressional approval. Take from that what you will. That's their version of permission. That was taken from their website.

Considered.........From checking out website and reading above.

"I hunt alone"

BHA set a good example and you will gather a "good pack" to hunt with. Good luck, but the changing world is a force to be reckened with. Keep the faith, as gorilla warfare(small groups) has always kept the big dogs of government at bay and always will.

My apologies to Penny Banks for assuming his name meant he was a woman. I just don't know any men with the name of Penny.

Folks, I think it's time to put the sarcasm aside and each of us take the high road. You may not find that BHA represents your interests as well as some groups who focus more on private land issues.

But I will reiterate the points that seem to be causing the most contention: BHA in no way supports the transfer of public lands into private hands, as a number of members of Congress are advocating.

BHA is composed of hunters working to see that the time-honored heritage of hunting continues and is passed along to future generations. BHA supporters/sponsors such as Kimber, among others, would certainly never support an anti-gun, anti-hunting organization. And I'm sure they thoroughly checked out BHA's claims and credentials before signing on.

In land assets, The Dept of interior only manages BLM lands and National Parks. BLM lands were derived from the unclaimed lands in this country. Hence it was claimed by the government because no one claimed it at the time. And the National parks goes without stating. To truly understand the opposing argument, you have to understand and know the differences between public and government owned land. And you have to use that understanding to cipher through these broad based claims that the government is selling public land with that knowledge.

Since It's inception, the Department of interior was never intended to manage federally owned land for the public. It does do so, and does have management plans that represent public approval and require public input. But, that was never it's intent. Yet, as recreation has increased, it manages many of it's surface area for recreation as well. It is important to note that BLM land, and many of the resources below the ground, belong to the government. Not us. And if they have a management plan that requires public input, it is because they have allowed it by writing it in. Each land holding is independent of other BLM lands, and dependent on the management plan it has been prescribed. So, it really boils down to what they have allowed as to what rights the public really has on their land.

I've been waiting on that one. If you'll notice in previous posts I stipulated publically owned land, managed by the feds. This example is precisely why I did that and very important in understanding why designations are not the answer on publically owned land, therefore useless, unless you like the idea of lobbyists buying their management. There are distinct differences in the two. However, I applaud you for looking for yourself. I'm afraid to try and spell your name so I'll just leave that out. :^)

God Bless

Man I just want to go hunting. Good points on both sides but it's given me brain drain : ) I'm out.

WV:

"Stix, provide an example of where US forest service land is being sold without the permission of the public. Provide an example where BLM is too. Basically, any public land managed by the federal government is what I'm asking"

Without BHA leading the charge against a sale of public land, we have politicians such as Rand Paul at the Western Conservative Conference spouting this: The following is a quote from Ron Paul at a recent Western Conservative Convention, offering his version of "habitat manipulation":

During a forum in Las Vegas Wednesday, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) told the Republican audience he would like to see federal public lands in Nevada privatized.

Speaking at the Western Republican Leadership Conference, Paul declared that Nevada, which has a large percentage of federally-owned public lands, ought to become more like Texas, where “private owners” have “developed all the natural resources.” Paul went on to say “how wonderful it would be if land will be or should be returned to the states and then for the best parts sold off to private owners”:

PAUL: Take a look at the state of Nevada. Do the people own the property in Nevada? No. Who’s the biggest landowner? It’s the federal government. I would like to see the development of this state the way that Texas had the privilege of developing. Before we went in the Union, it was owned entirely by private owners and it has developed all the natural resources, a very big state. So you can imagine how wonderful it would be if land will be or should be returned to the states and then for the best parts sold off to private owners.

Face it, most of us will never have the resources to buy large ranches of land for hunting/fishing purposes. We are also unlikely to join a co-op or hunting club that purchases private land. Public land gives us all opportunities to hunt/fish/camp/hike large tracts of public land and makes us landowners in our own right. With many of our politicians taking positions as Mr. Paul, we need an organized effort to keep this from happening, much like the NRA is keeping further infringement of our 2nd amendment rights. So our efforts in most cases are pro-active to a political threat..

I'm going to try this from my phone. Hopefully it works.

Ron Paul can say all he wants about privatization of federal lands, and as my last post pointed out, there are some that do not even need public approval to do so legally. Yet, there is not one piece of publically owned property that can be sold due to the 14 Laws and accompanied regulations that come with them, that prevents it.

There is a huge difference between BLM land and say National Forest's. BLM land belongs to the government. The National Forest belongs to the people.

God Bless

I tried to keep it short honestly :)

I lived in Utah in 1980. Worked the Wilberg mine that fed a power plant that powered cities, hospitals schools etc. A year after returning home the Wilberg mine caught fire and I lost 6 buddies in that fire.

The coal traveled on an conveyor above ground for 8 or 11 miles thru the ugliest ground i ever saw. The taxes from the coal companies went To the state of Utah to fund their education system and public library system. And they had one of the best education systems in the country at that time.

In the mid nineties Clinton came to office and basically stole, with the help of groups like the Sierra Club, outdoor/nature groups, the land from the STATE of Utah (it's citizens) making it federally protected against development, thus preventing anymore opportunity for coal/energy to take advantage of arid ugly brown with white alkali powdered ground. A small part was a canyon area. Part of this tract is what's called "The Grande Escalante Staircase" thus Clinton created a National Park WITHOUT INPUT OR APPROVAL FROM congress or Public entities including THE CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF UTAH. And private entities/corporations are POSSIBLY deceitful with bad intentions?

A large tax base was lost, the Utah citizens then had to ABSORB the loss in taxes, job potential, and monies going into their education/library system thru tax increases- across the state. Then, the companies that OWNED the ground (mineral rights) sued for losses and settled for millions upon millions of $$...... Guess who paid for that? Certainly not the Clinton's, or the enviro groups. The US taxpayer who didn't have a say in it at all! Pretty efficient huh?

According to your assessment and history of BHA and the protection of fed public ground against selling off of ground- BHA would support this blatant abuse of govt. powers and our constitution, keeping the ugly barren ground away from private entities or energy companies that may NEVER have even used it? The land grab was to ensure scientific explorations of the area. Within a short period of time even the geologocical expeditions were PREVENTED! If BHA would not support this land grab (I assume you wouldn't right?) would you support the RETURN OF STOLEN LAND BACK to the state of Utah?

Your have a fear of Ron Paul yet all he did was talk..... Yes it needs to be monitored but soooooo much has to take place.....

The only inhabitant of the arid ugly ground outside of Huntingdon Utah was the hairy-chested-butt-scratchers that rode dirt bikes on holidays from the mines.

Try the link: http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis106/escalante.html

Wish we had an edit feature...... "with the help of groups like the Sierra Club, outdoor/nature groups" should be worded "with the support of..."

I wouldn't sign any pledge, period. Sign if you like but consider this; once you're signed up and the BHA changes their goals, ideals, ethics, you're still signed up. You cannot unsign a pledge. Frank

"Hmmmm...I though that in a democracy"

The US is not a democracy it is a constitutional republic with democratically elected representation.

Government was/is to be BY and FOR the people. That's why most changes (especially those limiting our freedoms) occur under the guise of "with safety in mind" or "for the children" as opposed to "you're gonna get screwed" :)

Think of the Utah case I stated above. If the govt deems land needs protected then NOBODY will use it. The hunting rule book in the state of California right now states it will block ALL HUNTING activity (paraphrasing of course) in case of drought conditions. Pretty broad description there to limit human activity. Lots of areas can be hunted of course in drought conditions in other states but we need to keep an eye on this......

Merchant, I mean no disrespect. But, my point has been explained about 20 different times now. You've just missed it like you missed the NRA thing. I'm not typing it again. What I will say is their is a distinct difference in public property and federally owned property managed for use by the public. And that distinct difference is why designations on public owned land is not only useless, not needed, and down right wrong. God Bless

WV & Others: There was a whole lot more than Ron Paul calling for public land sale. The 50 or so western conservative congressmen adopted it as a platform. This was not a small group of insignificant attendees. These were our lawmakers adopting a position to sell off public lands. I call that a credible threat.

As I said, not many folks have the resources to but large tracts of ranchland to hunt/fish on. These lands give everyone an opportunity and need to be protected from sale to private enterprises.

WV,(I'm taking a break from the packing/moving to peek in on the ongoing conversation):

I don't believe you understand the threat Stix and everyone is trying to warn of. You can call it whatever you want, but the only difference in federal land status is which department of the federal government is responsible for its management. There are basically two departments--the Department of Interior, which covers the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, National Park Service (National Parks and Historical Sites, etc.), and the Fish and Wildlife Service (National Wildlife Refuges. The Department of Agriculture includes the Forest Service which manages the National Forest System Lands, ie--the National Forests. There may be some others that I've missed, but those are the main ones.

ALL the lands these agencies control are public lands, managed by their respective agencies which establish rules for the use of the lands. And no, not all lands are open to all uses. For example, hunting may be allowed in some National Monuments, or portions of them, and the same for wildlife refuges--some areas are open to hunting, other areas are not.

The agencieswhich are funded by appropriations from the national treasury, through legislation passed by Congress. Congress can pass legislation to direct that the managing agencies dispose of lands under their jurisdiction. Yes, it would be a fight, but it could be done if enough legislators support such legislation.

If you understand differently, please explain how so. Also, please explain what you mean by "designation" and why you feel it is wrong. Your explanations so far haven't been easy to follow, especially by dim bulbs like Feathers.

Bottom line, Congress can pass legislation that could result in federal/public lands be surplused/disposed of. If the states obtain these lands, they can sell them to private interests without having to go through the federal review processes that I believe you are referring to. At any rate, BHA opposes the disposal of these lands as it would jeopardize what public access exists to them.

Backcountry, my post are confusing you because you aren't as familiar with the subject as I am. You are correct about some of that though. You got the managing agencies where they belong. You are incorrect about how much of that land truly belongs to the public. And the reason that public land is managed by the USFS is because National Forests were bought with our money, and designated from inception to be owned and managed by and for the public. Namely the wildlife, water, and timber resource's. So, the reason the rest do not belong to the public is they do not share that goal, nor the laws that ensure it. So, they are not all public lands. That is where you are wrong.

National Forest's are the only public land you mentioned because it is the only mandated so by federal law to belong to the public. That is why it is the only federally managed public land that is required to include public approval for management as a guideline for every square inch of it. And it will forever remain that way unless designated to full government control. I'll leave this topic with this quote. "National Forests are largely forest and woodland areas owned collectively by the American people through the federal government and managed by the United States Forest Service, part of the United States Department of Agriculture."

Also, I'm not being a wise guy but, no one here is more up to date on national monuments, and the policies that come with them, then me. You can take that to the bank.

You are also right about the fact this is not the time to be complacent. Get involved individually, and stay involved. Just don't buddy with known enemies of hunters to designate my land. I don't care what you do to the federal government's land. Just leave out the radical preservationist groups, and leave mine alone all together.

I am really done this time as we are at the point that nothing else can be said. We want the same things. However, you refuse to acknowledge the difference between public and government land. So there is nothing else to say other than what's been said about 20 times now by both positions. God Bless everyone.

WV, you can believe that you're the only one who knows anything about public land issues, but you would be wrong about that, too. National Forest lands weren't "bought with our money" as you state. They were decreed as such from the public domain. But at this point it doesn't really matter and to continue this debate would be useless.

What matters is that people here understand that Congress does indeed have the power and authority to dispose of public land by passing legislation to do so.

Like-minded sportsmen, working together, can accomplish a great deal to ensure that the tradition of hunting and fishing on public land continues. That's what BHA is about, and that is the message that the Sportsmen's Pledge conveys to our legislators.

FM--only if you are as bad at math as I am at shooting bows and arrows! Besides, adding two negative numbers yields a bigger negative number. Is that what you mean? Wouldn't that make you twice as dumb, or half as smart?

Your exactly right Backcountry. If you'd read any of my posts you would see where I said given to the public by the government. You'll have to excuse me for not typing everything every time. I'm kinda busy between this nonsense. The later National Forests were bought with tax payers money as well. Public land that belongs to the public whether designated or bought by the United Sates Forest Service. It belongs to the public, not organizations, government, or corporations. God Bless

Justin, I'm not arguing with you for the sake of arguing, only to get the "facts" stated correctly. While lands that make up the National Forest System were not bought by the Forest Service with taxpayer's money, they are certainly managed by taxpayer's money allocated by the legislative branch of the U.S. government.

But yes, National Forest lands are among the public lands BHA wants to ensure remain in public hands, not organization's or corporation's.

That's what the Sportsmen's Pledge is about.

If you have already registered, please

sign in now

For new registrations

Click Here