Backcountry hunters and Anglers

B

BillyBoB

Active Member
Messages
904
Came across an interesting post on Facebook



The CBU Quarterly has been delivered. I wrote a hard hitting article on green decoy groups, specifically Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. My friend Paul Ellis called me to compliment me...my CBU email inbox is full of hate-mail...obviously the $$$ Green Groups $$$ receive the Quarterly. My good friend Kerry White sent me a message to "Endeavor to perceiver". Indeed :)

Here is my article in its entirety:

In August of 2014, the Environmental Policy Alliance filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) against the now Missoula, MT based group, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. At the time of the filing, BHA?s business address was listed as Joseph, Oregon.

BHA is registered as a 501(c)(3) entity, and as such, files a Form 990 tax return. The IRS has set instructions for completing Schedule B - ?organizations that meet the 33 1/3% support test and received a contribution greater than 2% of the amount on Form 990, Part VIII, line 1h must complete Schedule B?.

According to research by the Environmental Policy Alliance, BHA appeared to meet or exceed that requirement to complete Schedule B and failed to complete Schedule B in violation of IRS rules.

Backcountry Hunters and Anglers was founded as a voice for sportsmen but funding for this organization suggests that it is yet another, in a long-line, radical environmental group.

The complaint states that contributions from the Western Conservation Fund (WCF), the Wilberforce Foundation (WF) and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundations (HF) appear to violate the 2% limit. Specifically:

 2011 BHA Revenue - $353,294, WCF Grants - $99,020, % of BHA Revenue ? 28.03%
 2012 BHA Revenue - $537,195, WCF Grants - $179,403, % of BHA Revenue ? 33.04%

 2011 BHA Revenue - $353,294, WF Grants - $30,000, % of BHA Revenue ? 8.49%
 2012 BHA Revenue - $537,195, WF Grants - $34,275, % of BHA Revenue ? 6.38%

 2012 BHA Revenue - $537,195, WCF Grants - $100,000, % of BHA Revenue ? 18.62%

Furthermore, both the Hewlett Foundation (HF) and the Wilburforce Foundation (WF) are both private foundations and file Form 990-PF. As a result, the HF grants exceed 2% of BHA?s public support while BHA claimed, for 2012, they received 99.96% of revenue from the public. Likewise, in 2011, WF exceed the 2% rule while BHA claimed 99.94% public funding.

The Western Conservation Foundation also funds the Natural Resources Defense Council and Earthjustice. Just recently, the Natural Resources Defense Council has come under U.S. Congressional investigation and may need to register as a foreign agent due to relationships with Chinese Communist Party Officials .

Specifically, the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee, in a letter to the NRDC, stated:
?The committee is concerned about the NRDC?s role in aiding China?s perception management efforts with respect to pollution control and its international standing on environmental issues in ways that may be detrimental to the United States,?
Lawmakers on the committee have asked the NRDC for several documents and an explanation to why the group isn't registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act regarding its relationship with Chinese officials.

NRDC Strategic Engagement Director Bob Deans stated ?We?re proud of our work, in China and elsewhere, helping to create a more sustainable future for everyone, and we look forward to discussing that work with Chairman Bishop and the committee.? Lawmakers say the NRDC promotes ?the image of China as a global environmental leader.?

In the U.S., the NRDC takes a hostile approach in their fundraising efforts proudly claiming to sue the United States Government once every ten days since Trump became President.

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, or more likely Switzerland and the sprawling 63-acre New York estate of Hungarian George Soros.

Hansjorg Wyss: According to the website Activist Facts, Swiss billionaire Hansjorg Wyss, thru his Wyss Foundation is:

?dedicated to funding radical environmentalist groups that lock off large sections of the American West from development or cattle grazing. In its most recent tax year, the foundation gave six-figure grants to the liberal ?sportsmen? group Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, the Center for American Progress, environmentalist law center EarthJustice, the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, and the Big Labor-tied Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. In December 2013, the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation?which has been widely criticized for taking foreign money while Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State?announced it had received $5 million from Wyss.
Among the major projects of the Wyss Foundation is purchasing large tracts of rural wilderness and closing it off to resource development, including by handing the tracts over to the government. In 2003, Wyss funded a campaign led by The Wilderness Society to withdraw 26 million acres from productive uses in resource extraction, grazing, and outdoor recreation.
And outdoor recreation?

Research by Green Decoys revealed Swiss billionaire Hansjorg Wyss, thru his Wyss Foundation, has pumped $22 million into the Western Conservation Foundation and the New Venture fund.

The Western Conservation Foundation funds the Missoula based Hellgate Hunters and Anglers. The New Venture Fund operates the Western Values Project, who, in turn, funds Backcountry Hunters and Anglers.

The Wyss Foundation has poured $25 million into the Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Montana Conservation Voters Education Fund, Montana Wilderness Association, Montana Wildlife Federation and other Montana Groups. The Wyss Foundation also funds the Sierra Club.

George Soros: Billionaire George Soros funds the Open Society Foundations. Green Decoys, through public financial records, has reported the following relationships and financial contributions.

Resource Media is an Open Society client that manages Montana Mountain Mamas. One of the ?Who We Are? Montana Mountain Mamas is Patricia Dowd, who has worked for the Greater Yellowstone Coalition and the Montana Water Stewards ? a group formed to pass the Confederated Salish-Kootenai Tribes Water Compact. In Dowd?s words ? ?At first glance, people think it's only pertinent to the Flathead area, but once you start looking, it's a western Montana issue that affects people around Bozeman and all the way to Billings.? In other words, the majority of Montana?s adjudicated water rights will be subjected to the CSKT Water Compact. There is an old say in the West, ?Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting?.

Open Society also funds the Tides Foundation to the tune of $63 million. The Tides Foundation contributed $1.7 million to Montana Conservation Voters Education Fund, Montana Environmental Information Center, Western Organization of Resource Councils and Forward Montana.

Open Society sent $1.9 million to the New Venture Fund, who operates the Western Values Project who also funds Land Tawney?s Backcountry Hunter?s and Anglers, along with Hansjorg Wyss?s Wyss Foundation. The picture is developing and what the print shows is Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is funded by out-of-country billionaires Hansjorg Wyss and George Soros.

Klein Limited (Klein LTD). Green Decoys has tracked $23 million dollars from Klein LTD to Sea Change Foundation. The money trail after that is not specific, other than the $23 million was distributed to the U.S. Climate Action Network, Resource Media (Montana Mountain Mamas), the League of Conservation Voters Fund (Montana Conservation Voters) and the Energy Foundation. The Energy Foundation then distributed funds to the Montana Wilderness Association and the Montana Wildlife Federation.

The biggest financial contributor to Montana U.S. Senator Jon Tester, outside of Law Firms and Securities and Investment firms, is the League of Conservation Voters. To date, the League of Conservation Voters has nearly doubled the contributions of investment banking giant Goldman Sachs.

On July 12, 2017, the Washington Times wrote an article regarding Klein Ltd. According to the article, the U.S. House called for a probe into ?foreign funding of anti-fracking advocacy?.

In a June 29, 2017 U.S House letter to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, Klein Ltd was singled out to investigate whether Russian oligarchs have used shell companies to fund environmental activism. The Washington Times continued ?The U.S. fossil-fuel boom, driven by technologies like hydraulic fracturing, increasingly presents a threat to Russia?s stranglehold on oil and natural gas exports to Eastern Europe. Last month, U.S. producers shipped for the first time liquefied natural gas from a Louisiana export terminal to Poland?.

Forward to 2018 and this week, after President Trump pressed for European NATO nations to pay their fair share, Poland was the first to step up and offer land for U.S. military bases.

Klein Ltd is a shell company registered in Bermuda. It conducts business from the law offices of Wakefield Quin. Wakefield Quin is a known attorney office that manages money for any one of several Russia state oil interests that has also been linked to Russian money laundering in the British Virgin Islands. Sea Foundation has donated to the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council and the Energy Foundation.

This article is a synopsis to why CBU was formed. The threat to any form of recreation that we enjoy on our public lands, as well as private property interests, is very real and very present. We need to end divisions between user groups and form a united front to protect and preserve our multiple-use recreation on public lands, protect private property rights, support responsible resource development and insure agricultural lands are free to produce commodities the American public desires.

Ben Erickson ? CBU Principal





"Wildlife and its habitat cannot speak. So
we must and we will."
Theadore Roosevelt
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-26-18 AT 07:14AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jul-26-18 AT 07:08?AM (MST)

WASHINGTON ? If the oil and gas industry wants to prevent its opponents from slowing its efforts to drill in more places, it must be prepared to employ tactics like digging up embarrassing tidbits about environmentalists and liberal celebrities, a veteran Washington political consultant told a room full of industry executives in a speech that was secretly recorded.

The blunt advice from the consultant, Richard Berman, the founder and chief executive of the Washington-based Berman & Company consulting firm, came as Mr. Berman solicited up to $3 million from oil and gas industry executives to finance an advertising and public relations campaign called Big Green Radicals.

The company executives, Mr. Berman said in his speech, must be willing to exploit emotions like fear, greed and anger and turn them against the environmental groups. And major corporations secretly financing such a campaign should not worry about offending the general public because ?you can either win ugly or lose pretty,? he said.
Continue reading the main story
Document

?Endless War? and Other Rallying Points

This transcript of the speech made by Richard Berman in June in Colorado Springs to a group of energy executives, as well as other documents, provides a unguarded glimpse of Mr. Berman?s lobbying tactics.




OPEN Document

?Think of this as an endless war,? Mr. Berman told the crowd at the June event in Colorado Springs, sponsored by the Western Energy Alliance, a group whose members include Devon Energy, Halliburton and Anadarko Petroleum, which specialize in extracting oil and gas through hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking. ?And you have to budget for it.?

What Mr. Berman did not know ? and what could now complicate his task of marginalizing environmental groups that want to impose limits on fracking ? is that one of the energy industry executives recorded his remarks and was offended by them.



But the speech, given in June at the Broadmoor Hotel and Resort, where the Western Energy Alliance held its 2014 annual meeting, could end up bringing a new round of scrutiny to Mr. Berman and the vast network of nonprofit groups and think tanks he runs out of his downtown Washington office.

Mr. Berman repeatedly boasted about how he could take checks from the oil and gas industry executives ? he said he had already collected six-figure contributions from some of the executives in the room ? and then hide their role in funding his campaigns.

?People always ask me one question all the time: ?How do I know that I won't be found out as a supporter of what you're doing?? ? Mr. Berman told the crowd. ?We run all of this stuff through nonprofit organizations that are insulated from having to disclose donors. There is total anonymity. People don't know who supports us.?

-NY TIMES


The Environmental Policy Alliance is one of the front groups created by Berman.



Do your own research. BHA has made no secret about funding or working with groups and Buisnesses that have some shared interest, (Patagonia).

The petro companies don't like dealing with the feds so they are financing the "land transfer" scheme. They fund Berman. They fund ALC. My bet is our dear Senator Mike Lee is getting a fat check as well.




From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
Every ounce of carbon based mineral ?WILL? be dug or drilled up and used by ?ALL? of us.

Just to simplify the arguments.
 
So, they are partially funded by groups that oppose drilling, fracking, grazing, and development of wildlands... hmmm.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-26-18 AT 11:10PM (MST)[p]>BHA is for wolves and hence
>I am against them....

I've heard that claim but haven't seen it verified. I'm not disputing, but please post up source so I can research their position for my own information. I can't find a single article supporting that statement via a Google search. Maybe I'm missing something that you could share.

I attended BHAs Rendezvous in Boise this year. There were great speakers such as Steven Rinnella, Randy Newberg, Cory Jacobson, and Remi Warren. Or what some people here would apparently call, anti-hunter radical environmentalists.

I saw thousands of hunters working to protect public land, but never heard anything about supporting wolves. I look forward to your reply.


Check out...
https://www.idahostatesman.com/news...s/letters-from-the-west/article209080404.html

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------
"This is a classic case of a handful of greedy fly fishermen getting too greedy." -Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as told to KUTV

"It's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource."
-Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as quoted in Anchorage Daily News
 
I know Rinella, Newberg don't speak for BHA, but both of them seem to be where I am also. That genie got let out of the bottle, its never going back in, so I support populations getting to objective so the states can manage.

Utah gives BGF hundreds of thousands to "stop wolves", yet they walk across the border daily.

Adventure, I enjoy your writings but I'm pretty sure your incorrect on this one.



From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
I might be but went on a hunting trip with someone deeply involved in pretty much all those politics and knows everyone and I was shocked when he told me how many people, he quoted Rinella as using the example of everyone want to hunt Alaska and it has gobs of wolves...its fine there... and doesn't hide it...says he wasn't sure about Newberg...but thought he was leaning that way...somebody ask him on one of his live threads....seriously I was floored......Shane Mahoney...pro wolf.... just look at RMEF "public statement" on wolves finally after years is wishy washy and carefully rides the fence attempting to appeal to all sides and not piss either side off too much when I thought it would be a sentence like this "RMEF is totally against the re-intro of wolfs in the lower 48".....read it....my friend very smart guy and I talked for days...we were hunting Barb Sheep in a Barb Sheepless area...lots of talking time. Really I was shocked I thought ANY hunter would be seriously anti. he said the Jim Zumbo era all Anti wolf...the under 45...more pros and view themselves more as Hunting "conservationists" than "hunters" and need to "appeal" to the changing masses or "lose it all"...

If you start hearing ##### like balance of nature...bio diversity...sharing the forest...for the overall health of the herd and environment...only the old and the weak....imagine hearing a "wolf howl" in a wild place...showing hunters in a more conservation light...watch the f out...

I hope I'm wrong but I don't think I am.. I know i'm not wrong on all of it..but I am super busy and don't have lots of time right now to do any more specific digging....so anyone want to look into it please do...it all make me sick to my stomach... He watches this stuff very closely and said he predicts Colo will have wolf re-intro in between 3-5 years...
 
Additionally when I came back I spoke about all this with a friend of mine who is also involved in watching these politics closely very anti wolf like I am...and he pretty much confirmed what I had been told...... It appears my assumption that it was a no brainer ANY hunter was anti wolf...but apparently I was very wrong on this...so if I am wrong on this I will be thrilled and apologize humbly...just pretty sure I'm not
 
You just wrote a lot of stuff and never backed up your claim that "BHA is for wolves"

I'm all for gentleman's disagreement, and never even disputed your claim because I've searched for clarity and can't find it.

But if you're going to blanket a group of over 20,000 hunters represented publicly by some of the best and brightest in hunting... you should probably back that up with something other than "a guy I know".

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------
"This is a classic case of a handful of greedy fly fishermen getting too greedy." -Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as told to KUTV

"It's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource."
-Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as quoted in Anchorage Daily News
 
Ask em... I hope I'm wrong... and when they start with some of the song and dance I mentioned above...instead of "We are against wolves PERIOD"

Did you read RMEF statement???

But seriously I don't have time to spend on any of this is you are curious look into it....
 
I'm not here to bash any hunters....but wolves are a big topic to me...this is not just a 'a guy" this guy is very very involved and a member of BHA...trips to DC regularly interacting with Congress members and others. He wasn't just making a bunch of crap up to jeopardize our friendship for the heck of it (got just short of "heated') a few times and he knew it was making me mad and I did'nt like it one bit...but he is an honest and straightforward guy and spends tons and tons of his time and money on public land use and has some amazing qualities...just thinks wolves should be part of the picture.

For what its worth and it might not be worth ##### I was in LE in some form or fashion for over 20 years and have a pretty good BS meter..and he wasn't making it up and it was confirmed by another good friend who is involved in the anti wolve thing of mine as being pretty accurate, yet he thought it might even be worse...
 
You say "ask em" and "this guy is very very involved and a member of BHA."

Who should I ask?

How about a Board of Director for BHA? Well, that's me. I'm the Northern Region Director for BHA-UT and I've literally never heard a soul say they support wolves.

I've done the research and can't find a thing supporting your claim. You've made the claims, and I respected those claims and asked you to post them up. That's more than fair. You've spent a lot of time not posting the sources but telling us why we should believe a third-party account. It would've been easier to just post the sources.

I've sat in the BHA leadership meetings. I've had conversations with Land and Ty. I've organized events and donated time and money. I've literally never heard anybody from the organization take a pro-wolf stance.

I'm sure there are individual members of every persuasion, but I've heard nothing from the group. EVER.

If there is an effort by BHA to support wolves, I need to know about it so I can address it with the higher-ups. If it's all fake news, then let's just call it that and let it die there.

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------
"This is a classic case of a handful of greedy fly fishermen getting too greedy." -Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as told to KUTV

"It's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource."
-Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as quoted in Anchorage Daily News
 
And Why Will Colorado be the next State with Wolf Re-Introduction?

Because it's Filling Up Fast with EX-KALI Dope SMOKIN Hippies from Many other Places as Well!

RMEF used to put up a Fight but them Days are Gone!










I know so many people in so many places
They make allot of money but they got sad faces

It Ain't Easy being Me!:D:D:D
 
Adventure you are correct. Rinella statements have been that guys are against wolves but can't wait to get to Alaska where their are tons of them.

Newberg actually filmed a wolf hunt, one of the first of seen. He has also talked about them not being a big deal having grown up in Minnesota around them there.

Again, I don't speak for BHA or its members. The reality is the reality. Wolves are reintroducing themselves. They will never be irradicated again so we can continue to give millions to folks like BGF or we can manage them.

There are only 2 groups that are pro wolf. The reintro crowd, and the lawyers our side keeps paying.


From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
SFW AND MDF seem to be small potatoes compared to $$ funneled into these organizations. Just sayin.
 
>Adventure you are correct. Rinella
>statements have been that guys
>are against wolves but can't
>wait to get to Alaska
>where their are tons of
>them.
>
>Newberg actually filmed a wolf hunt,
>one of the first of
>seen. He has also
>talked about them not being
>a big deal having grown
>up in Minnesota around them
>there.
>
>Again, I don't speak for BHA
>or its members. The reality
>is the reality. Wolves
>are reintroducing themselves. They
>will never be irradicated again
>so we can continue to
>give millions to folks like
>BGF or we can manage
>them.
>
>There are only 2 groups that
>are pro wolf. The
>reintro crowd, and the lawyers
>our side keeps paying.
>
>
>From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN,
>PUBLIC LAND.

How Bout it HOSS?

You Really Think there'll ever be anymore Wolves than what we have now in any kind of big numbers?

I Know alot of TARDS trying to put a Big Coyote on the Wall!

I Know!

I Know!

I've already had a Wolf Lover tell me there's Laws against that kind of TARD Mentality!











I know so many people in so many places
They make allot of money but they got sad faces

It Ain't Easy being Me!:D:D:D
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-28-18 AT 07:36AM (MST)[p]

SFW has tried to expand and been REJECTED and turned away from everywhere its tried. If it wasn't for the welfare tags it would have dried up years ago.

BHA is expanding like crazy, so they raise more money.






From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
Ya Ever Notice?

Every Time Money is Involved(And When Ain't Money Involved?) Somebody is Not F'N Happy!










I know so many people in so many places
They make allot of money but they got sad faces

It Ain't Easy being Me!:D:D:D
 
Grizzly...great...like I said I hope I'm wrong what is their 'public' statement....sounds like you might be a in a great position to fire off an email or make a phone call although seeing it in written form would be better.

Sounds like we are on the same sinde pro hunter and anti wolf...
 
>Grizzly...great...like I said I hope I'm
>wrong what is
>their 'public' statement....sounds like you
>might be a in a
>great position to fire off
>an email or make a
>phone call although seeing it
>in written form would be
>better.
>
>Sounds like we are on the
>same sinde pro hunter
>and anti wolf...

Surely it's got to be on their website right? A firm statement against wolves anywhere in the lower 48? I mean they have our best interests in mind. Grizz?


#livelikezac
 
Alos rinessla point is BS the idea Alaska 'abounds' with game has not been my experience. I hunted it twice...once for moose and once for caribou. the moose hunt was out of a plane with a friend of mine north of Valdez in the Copper river valley. I the ide was to fly until we spotted something...hope a lake was close by....land waiting until the next day and hunt. We flew of like 8 hours a day for 4 days over vast amounts of country and saw like 15 moose and they are pretty easy to see. I remember thinking if i was to spend the same amount of time in NW Colo I would have seen hundreds if not thousands of Deer and elk....when I asked...he said "oh the wolves keep the numbers low" I killed a 60 incher and felt really really lucky to do it.

The other hunt for caribou for years I had been wanting to hunt the infamous Mulchatna Herd out of Soldotna...I saw the horns from the previous batch of hunters at the docks and all rag horns and was kind of deflated. The owner said since they stopped aerial wolf hunting the herd had cratered and those bulls were pretty typical telling me he had seen packs-groups of hundreds of wolves dogging the bigger herds of caribou saying the big bulls take the brunt of it as they bring up the rear and tend to be alone or in small groups. I killed a good bull ...not great but solid good and BY FAR it was the biggest bull we saw andthe float plane pilot said.."oh that is the best one this year and likely will be..we did'nt get one that good last year...so I can say from personal experience and the experience told to me from people living there....making their livelihoods... Rinellas point is crap
 
So this post has a ton of information facts or fiction we know not, but what started out as a question asking is BHA a real group for real hunters got slowly migrated to a pro vs.con Wolf battle. That clearly there is no evidence to back up that claim? back to the original question that many, many people are wondering-

?Backcountry Hunters and Anglers was founded as a voice for sportsmen but funding for this organization suggests that it is yet another, in a long-line, radical environmental group?.

This has been stated on many website and they can truly follow the money contributing to BHA back to environmental groups that are opposed to public land and hunting- and to this day I don't think anyone truly knows-
Everyone knows what they have been told and sold on, but where and what's the truth- So at an ungodly amount of money being donated or washed through this group and then 20,000 members with membership dues at Im assuming $30 or close. Where does that money go and how are they giving back to wildlife and conservation- are they putting it back into the ground like MDF and the conservation tag money or where does the money go once BHA gets it? What are they doing and why should anyone join or support this group?
 
Ill let Grizz answer the projects part. I truly don't have a list.


But other than the shadow groups associated with Richard Berman oil lobby, who else is accusing them of being "environmental radicals"?

Spend 10 sec on their website and see the associated companies. Not really anti companies. You get a Kimber gun for being a life member.

Rinella, Newberg, Remi Warren, Cory Jacobsen. Not really guys associated with radical environmental causes.

On the other side lobbing assaults you have BP, Haliburton, Ken Ivory, Cliven Bundy.

The OP is a hit piece straight from RICHARD BERMAN. Spend 2 minutes looking into this guy, and anything he says you will know to be a lie.

BHA has made no secrets about working with various groups to accomplish goals.


From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
>Wonder what the NRA says about
>wolves. mtmuley

I pay the NRA to guard the Second Amendment. If I decide to pay BHA I expect them to do things in the best interest of hunters and Anglers. Keeping the Wolves Out of the lower 48 would be in my best interest as hunter.


#livelikezac
 
I'm reply to 24, 26, & 27...

NRA was instrumental in the delisting of wolves. SFW/BGF was not involved in the delisting of wolves but tried to erroneously take credit for it. They were publicly smacked down by NRA for this.

As to BHA projects, transparency, and financials....

This link provides their 2015 and 2016 Annual Reports https://www.backcountryhunters.org/mission_and_values. They do not have the duty of transparency of other groups since they don't take public money, but I would still like a more detailed accounting in the future for members and donors alike.

I requested a more detailed accounting at the BHA Rendezvous and was told that was happening. I emailed the Regional Coordinator as recently as July 18th of this year (and cc'd the Utah Board) with a request for a rating from Charity Navigator. That site has given very positive accountability and transparency ratings for TRCP and RMEF and I would like to see the same third-party accreditation for BHA.

BHA is a fledgling group, having grown from 5,000 to 20,000 people in the last few years, so I understand they are dealing with growing pains, but I feel it's time they provide that information in more detail to donors and volunteers.

I'm certainly not going to be a hypocrite on transparency and what is expected from one group should be expected from the rest. With that said, there is a giant discrepancy in age, size, and maturity of a group like BHA as compared to SFW. SFW taking millions in public dollars puts it in a class of it's own in reference to demand for transparency, but I feel BHA has room for improvement and am working towards such.

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------
"This is a classic case of a handful of greedy fly fishermen getting too greedy." -Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as told to KUTV

"It's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource."
-Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as quoted in Anchorage Daily News
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-28-18 AT 05:35PM (MST)[p]>>Wonder what the NRA says about
>>wolves. mtmuley
>
>I pay the NRA to guard
>the Second Amendment. If I
>decide to pay BHA I
>expect them to do things
>in the best interest of
>hunters and Anglers. Keeping the
>Wolves Out of the lower
>48 would be in my
>best interest as hunter.
>
>
>#livelikezac

There were wolves in the lower 48 before BHA.

Like i said earlier, you either keep beating your head against a wall and sending lawyers money, or you figure out how to deal with them on the landscape.

We hand BGF hundreds of thousands yearly, but the wolves just walk in from Wyoming. That money would be a lot better spent on habitat than paying Benson's mortgage


But I'd think you'd be more concerned the group you pay to protect the 2A is even involved in anything wolf. What's that got to do with guns?

From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-28-18 AT 06:11PM (MST)[p]>Newberg actually filmed a wolf hunt,
>one of the first of
>seen. He has also
>talked about them not being
>a big deal having grown
>up in Minnesota around them
>there.
>

>From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN,
>PUBLIC LAND.

I grew up in Minnesota as well Hoss. Spent two years in Ely on the edge of the Boundary Waters after High School. Went to a lot of House Parties and it was real common to see pictures of dead wolves in the garages of those houses. The deer population is generally one to three deer per square mile. In the winter time they would yard up in Cedar stands. Winter is long in that part of the country and when it snows it stays on the ground and piles up throughout the winter. Deer are pretty easy picking for wolves in those conditions. I could go out and listen to them howl any night I wanted to, but I never did see one, and it wasn't from lack of effort. If I wasn't in the woods for some College lab assignment, I was hunting and fishing in it. I met a lot of good people while I was there, you know Minnesota friendly and all. Never did run into anybody that thought wolves were a good thing, outside of a few misguided College hippies.


#livelikezac
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-28-18 AT 06:53PM (MST)[p]>>Wonder what the NRA says about
>>wolves. mtmuley
>
>I pay the NRA to guard
>the Second Amendment. If I
>decide to pay BHA I
>expect them to do things
>in the best interest of
>hunters and Anglers. Keeping the
>Wolves Out of the lower
>48 would be in my
>best interest as hunter.
>
>
>#livelikezac


Ain't gonna happen. Look around DW. Or keep your head in the sand. Montana has been there, done that. AND, we still have elk. Interesting. Nope, I'm not pro wolf. But, I've had to accept. By the way, who do you trust to keep public lands public? mtmuley
 
>LAST EDITED ON Jul-28-18
>AT 06:53?PM (MST)
>
>>>Wonder what the NRA says about
>>>wolves. mtmuley
>>
>>I pay the NRA to guard
>>the Second Amendment. If I
>>decide to pay BHA I
>>expect them to do things
>>in the best interest of
>>hunters and Anglers. Keeping the
>>Wolves Out of the lower
>>48 would be in my
>>best interest as hunter.
>>
>>
>>#livelikezac
>
>
>Ain't gonna happen. Look around DW.
>Or keep your head in
>the sand. Montana has been
>there, done that. AND, we
>still have elk. Interesting. Nope,
>I'm not pro wolf. But,
>I've had to accept. By
>the way, who do you
>trust to keep public lands
>public? mtmuley

Hell Mtmuley we both know that, my heads not in the sand, that horse has left the barn. Mtmuley we have between 250k and 325k elk in Colorado, more than any state or province. We've got a moose herd that is as prolific as anywhere in the country. When wolves finally take hold, those days will be over. Who do I trust to protect our public lands? Nobody. But that's just who I am. Eventually we'll need it, in one form or another, as population grows, and it will be gone forever. Heres to hopein it's long after your great grandkids, great grandkids have past.

#livelikezac
 
I read all these different posts coming from manly two or three guys stating how the NRA and the SFW has and is destroying the world as we know it. They claim anything that they want too about SFW and they are always telling the truth. "that is what they tell us" Birdman tells us he is on the board for SFW. Birdman tries and dispute some of these unproven allegations and these same guys run him down say he is naive, a kool-aid drinker and even worse a liar.
They claim if the NRA does not make a statement now "that they agree with" then they must be against us and hate the middle class hunter. These guys claim the NRA IS just using scare tactics to get people to join the NRA that there is no real threat to losing the 2nd Amendment. But these same guys say we are going to lose the public land and all the public land will be sold to the devil. Really Who is using scare tactics.
I have asked and others have asked if not the NRA or SFW then who. Not a word silence.
Now same interesting info "right or wrong I do not know" comes out against BHA and these same guys come out and say that is unfounded it is just an attack job by big oil. Really that is your defense.
Grizz comes on and says this is all wrong I know because I am on the board "you must belive me I know better than all"
Newberg is involved so it is good "he is the second coming you know"
I want to ask a question.
Grizz why did you not tell us you where on the BHA board before now?
Birdman told us right from early on he was on the SFW board. Did you not Want to tell us because you thought it might make your arguments look like you are just attacking a rival group.
Hoss really get of the stupid coments about the wolf's are walking across the state lines and BGF is not doing anything to stop them it really sounds childish.

I will state that the SFW should show the finances on the money that they bring in from the consevation tags and where the money is going and any other organizations that get conservation tags should be held to that same standard and the DWR needs to be held accountable for the way they handled the EXPO bid.
Utah is not alone in the strem access issue and as much as I know Utah is probably the most liberal state at allowing access to streams involving private property.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-29-18 AT 08:45AM (MST)[p]Notdon.

Couple things.

First, BHA is recruiting via fear, but its not made up or fictional. Utah AG has $3million, a Lousianna law firm, and its Senator introducing 3 bills aimed at "transferring land".
BHA is fighting it. RMEF is. TRPC is.

Second. GO DO SOME RESEARCH FOR YOURSELF.

Third. What is the conspiracy? BHA is actively fighting public land sells, but using leftists money to do it so......?

Your a hunter. Your a tiny group, shrinking every day. Without other groups with us, we loose. Us, SHOOTERS, fishermen, hikers, campers, bird watchers, have to use each other, that's reality.

You want to argue small things, or point out things we already know(Patagonia isn't a hunting company), while Mike Lee is selling off YOUR LAND.

If you don't have the land, your not hunting, shooting, or fishing.Who the hell cares after that if they drive Subarus, or have purple hair?











From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
How will all the hunters that rely on trail cameras to find their game,,feel about BHA?s trial ballon looking into regulating them on federal, and in some cases state lands?
 
>How will all the hunters that
>rely on trail cameras to
>find their game,,feel about BHA?s
>trial ballon looking into regulating
>them on federal, and in
>some cases state lands?

It's a discussion on fair chase regarding "live-action" trail cameras... https://www.backcountryhunters.org/live_action_game_cameras

I think they should be outlawed while hunting as well as drones.

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------
"This is a classic case of a handful of greedy fly fishermen getting too greedy." -Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as told to KUTV

"It's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource."
-Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as quoted in Anchorage Daily News
 
Like all technology,, live action trail camera technologies will make the old style cameras obsolete soon enough.

So yes IMO that is a valid discussion the hunting community needs to have, as it has to do with fair chase.

At the same time BHA?s goal is to secure access. Yet they are looking into pushing other regulations that effect hunting rights.

I hope you can see how an organization
like BHA , being in bed with so many clearly anti-hunting benefactors might make some people nervous.

The mind set of some of these BHA benefactors is the same mind set that has kids now days believing that if a man puts on a dress that he then becomes a women.

So please be carful when crawling between those sheets in the name of hunters.
 
The oldest political trick in the world is rallying people around telling and displaying things that will appeals to them when you long game is much much different
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-29-18 AT 06:14PM (MST)[p]Adventure,
You?re not wrong. I've done battle personally with multiple BHA members and ?claimed? local leadership that were very adimately pro wolf. Grizz and myself have gone round and round. Ironically most of the convos via IG were deleted shortly after. Of course Grizz is going to make excuses, they are a group that has excepted him in and given him a position he desires.

BHA is not long term positive for hunters. They are bed fellows already with many that are anti hunting. That is a fact.
 
Let Me get My DEW Chillin!








I know so many people in so many places
They make allot of money but they got sad faces

It Ain't Easy being Me!:D:D:D
 
"Pro-wolf", "Anti-wolf", give me a break. That's like being pro or anti grizzly.

Anyone on here that thinks wolves could be eradicated if enough "groups" were "anti" wolf is a plain fool.

I can tell you this: in Wyoming, BHA has supported state control and management of wolves at every turn. What does that make the Wyoming Chapter of BHA?
 
"Jim" no one on hear is saying you are going to eradicate wolves but we shore can do a better job at controlling the numbers than some of them green anti hunting groups that BHA is spooning with.
 
Hoss I'm sure you missed my response.


Newberg actually filmed a wolf hunt,
>one of the first of
>seen. He has also
>talked about them not being
>a big deal having grown
>up in Minnesota around them
>there.
>

>From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN,
>PUBLIC LAND.

I grew up in Minnesota as well Hoss. Spent two years in Ely on the edge of the Boundary Waters after High School. Went to a lot of House Parties and it was real common to see pictures of dead wolves in the garages of those houses. The deer population is generally one to three deer per square mile. In the winter time they would yard up in Cedar stands. Winter is long in that part of the country and when it snows it stays on the ground and piles up throughout the winter. Deer are pretty easy picking for wolves in those conditions. I could go out and listen to them howl any night I wanted to, but I never did see one, and it wasn't from lack of effort. If I wasn't in the woods for some College lab assignment, I was hunting and fishing in it. I met a lot of good people while I was there, you know Minnesota friendly and all. Never did run into anybody that thought wolves were a good thing, outside of a few misguided College hippies.


#livelikezac

#livelikezac
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-29-18 AT 10:35PM (MST)[p]Who gives a shizz if wolves run all over Andarkos ground. Or the Wilks Bros?

NO LAND, NO HUNTING.

Why this concept is so freaking hard for some of you I don't grasp.

What part of "a new homestead act" DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? The bull of "state management" ain't being discussed. Lee wants it sold, ALL OF IT.

BUT, since some of you are a little slow on the uptake, it means ALL the places you hunt are gone. You lost access.

WE LOST ON WOLVES. In case you missed it, the feds went into Canada, grabbed a few, AND SHOVED THEM DOWN OUR THROATS. How on gawds green earth do you think your going to change that now?

WE LOST. BHA wasn't on the landscape when that happened, they had ZERO to do with it.


I WAS THE OP. How the hell did it go from a warning that MIKE LEE is fixing to sell your land, to arguing about wolves?

PULL YOUR HEADS OUT. The Titanic is going down and a few of you are rearranging deck chairs. YOUR LAND IS UNDER ASSAULT TODAY. And it ain't a canine taking it, its dudes with ACTUAL POWER. If you don't like BHA so be it, but at least get in with a group fighting. SFW and the NRA ain't lifting a finger to help. WHICH WAS THE ORIGIN OF THE POST.





From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
>Hoss I'm sure you missed my
>response.
>
>
>Newberg actually filmed a wolf hunt,
>
>>one of the first of
>>seen. He has also
>>talked about them not being
>>a big deal having grown
>>up in Minnesota around them
>>there.
>>
>
>>From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN,
>>PUBLIC LAND.
>
>I grew up in Minnesota as
>well Hoss. Spent two years
>in Ely on the edge
>of the Boundary Waters after
>High School. Went to a
>lot of House Parties and
>it was real common to
>see pictures of dead wolves
>in the garages of those
>houses. The deer population is
>generally one to three deer
>per square mile. In the
>winter time they would yard
>up in Cedar stands. Winter
>is long in that part
>of the country and when
>it snows it stays on
>the ground and piles up
>throughout the winter. Deer are
>pretty easy picking for wolves
>in those conditions. I could
>go out and listen to
>them howl any night I
>wanted to, but I never
>did see one, and it
>wasn't from lack of effort.
>If I wasn't in the
>woods for some College lab
>assignment, I was hunting and
>fishing in it. I met
>a lot of good people
>while I was there, you
>know Minnesota friendly and all.
>Never did run into anybody
>that thought wolves were a
>good thing, outside of a
>few misguided College hippies.
>
>
>#livelikezac
>
>#livelikezac

Interesting you mentioned that.

I've never been to the Boundary Waters. Spent time calling and emailing about protecting that region this winter. GUESS WHO PUT OUT THAT CALL TO ACTION, BHA. Seems them radical left wingers you claim them to be, feel protecting your old stomping grounds an important fight.

DW. Its been decades since the wolf was reintroduced. In that time hunters have lost power, lost hunters. Why are we still fighting over something we lost? WE LOST. If we keep fighting 30 yr old battles we are gonna keep losing.

I don't know where you live. I live in Utah. Mike Lee is no joke. He's a "member in good standing" with the dominant church here. His family is deeply connected to power. The money backing him is NO JOKE. Your talking the entirety of the petro companies in the country. You have a repub house, senate, and soon to be supreme court. The President is a land developer.

How you guys can sit around arguing about wolves, when they are NEVER going away, while real power is coming FOR YOUR LAND, I don't understand. These guys aren't even lying and using the "states rights" lie. It is about selling ALL the land. The Henries, the Kaibab, the Gunnison Basin, ALL OF IT.

Hunters can't win a fight with Lee and Oil. Not enough money. Not enough power. Especially with SFW fighting on the other side(probably SCI as well). The NRA is controlled by oil donors so a natural ally of hunters has silenced itself. So now we are forced to find allies elsewhere.


From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
Hoss you are right ther biggest threat is public lands...my non BHA friend cited numerous examples to me of the liberal tentacles running through the BHA...is it because they want to minimize oil and gas development and such or more of a control over all that happens in the wild...places...I can see the liberal bent on Colorado trying oh sooooo hard to minimize the importance of hunting dollars...you know wildlife watchers way way outspend hunters...HUH??? Well that includes anyone that goes on a hike and say HEY there is a deer...and if they are from out of state and the family spent 7 grand for a trip...well that 7 grand is accounted for as wildlife watchers...but I will disagree the wolf fight is not over...a few sightings in Colorado...but no larger releases..Colo is much more highly densely populated than any of the other western states that are dealing with wolves...

The biggest hunter recruitment and retention is success in my view...the more wolves the less game the less opportunity... I know a guide in Wyoming that says the elk hunting is moving from the high ground to the flats the elkl like to see the wolves coming...lots of blm flat ground in Wyoming in Colorado most of the flat land is private...

So I don't know is BHA a lesser evil??? maybe...maybe not
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-30-18 AT 00:19AM (MST)[p]Show me one place BHA has acted to stop hunting. One place.

Not some convoluted 3rd person Alex Jones Conspiracy about 2%of their funding ......

Show me where dudes in Public Land Owner t shirts have stopped your hunting.

Your right. They are for limiting oil and gas. Guess who else is, dudes who hunt where they want to drill. Dudes in the book cliffs. Dudes in g and h in Wyoming. Are they commie pink o too?

Your not going to eradicate wolves. Not in Colorado especially. We won't in Utah. Not in Wyoming. But Wyoming is the state with brains. They aren't fighting 39 yr old battles. The second they hit objective, they were in the management business. Same with Grizzlys.

We can either grab some natural ally in folks that use public land, or we can sit back and watch it disappear. Allying with Russia to beat the Nazis, didn't make us Russians.

From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
>Like all technology,, live action trail
>camera technologies will make the
>old style cameras obsolete soon
>enough.
>
>So yes IMO that is a
>valid discussion the hunting community
>needs to have, as it
>has to do with fair
>chase.
>
>At the same time BHA?s goal
>is to secure access. Yet
>they are looking into pushing
>other regulations that effect hunting
>rights.
>
>I hope you can see how
>an organization
>like BHA , being in bed
>with so many clearly anti-hunting
>benefactors might make some people
>nervous.
>
>The mind set of some of
>these BHA benefactors is the
>same mind set that has
>kids now days believing that
>if a man puts on
>a dress that he then
>becomes a women.
>
>So please be carful when crawling
>between those sheets in the
>name of hunters

You realize if you own a cell phone, drive a vehicle, use a computer YOU are supporting those companies that has kids be living if your a boy and put on a dress your a girl, right?

So unless your living off the grid and walking around, perhaps your contacts should be put under the microscope?

Does yourcassociation with companies that are anti hunting, anti gun magically make you so?

Same challenge I made to another conspiracy theorist.

Where has your hunting been stopped by BHA? Not Alex Jones Conspiracy. Nor 3rd person. Where has that happened?

You do realize Trout Unlimited is on that same list of bull Richard Berman keeps putting out. Are they closet environ too?
From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
>"Jim" no one on hear is
>saying you are going to
>eradicate wolves but we shore
>can do a better job
>at controlling the numbers than
>some of them green anti
>hunting groups that BHA is
>spooning with.

It's jm.

While you're worrying about who is giving money to a group keeping thousands of acres of public land accessible so you can hunt and fish there, Wyoming is managing and decreasing wolf populations. In fact for 2018 wolf quotas are up, all supported by BHA in Wyoming.
 
I emailed a leader at BHA to see if they have ever taken a position on wolves. He replied that they hadn't, and likely wouldn't, because they are a public land advocacy group and not a wildlife advocacy group.

In fairness to DW, this goes to his point regarding NRA being a single-issue organization, a point well-taken; although they have proven to step outside of that realm to delist wolves
:), and to join American Petroleum Institute and the National Mining Association in support of energy development in the Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act x( .

***** PS. Many hunting groups opposed that law... https://www.fieldandstream.com/blog...ife-leaders-join-opposition-wilderness-releas

However, he NRA came out in support of the law, stating the law "will make public hunting lands not suitable for wilderness designation available to millions of Americans that are unfairly closed out from them now?protecting the ability of the American people to access lands that belong, not to the government, or to extremist environmental groups, but to the people.? *****

In related news, there's an article in the SLTrib today (https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2018/07/30/trumps-drive-energy/) about the leasing of 500,000 acres for drilling. Quoted is Land Tawney of BHA, "When you look at energy domination, all other uses lose. The natural resources, hunters and anglers, the artifacts, hikers, campers, grazers,? lamented Land Tawney, executive director of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. ?Energy dominance is not the way our public lands are set up. They were set up for multiple use.?

??I am very nervous about the quality of the experience and the quality of the habitat,? said Michael Lipps, a BHA member from Midvale. ?If you put too many roads in, you might push animals out of areas that really need to use them, specifically on the upper ridges. If they move down too low, they are going to find poorer forage.?

This is the type of activity of BHA. Protecting public lands from the American Lands Council, a group openly hostile to the public ownership of land, as well as oil industry groups that have paid millions to smear hunting groups trying to stop the overutilization and single-use systems espoused by the energy industry.

Hoss made a great point. Can anybody point to a situation where BHA worked against the interest of hunters and anglers? Or would you rather take the word of the oil industry and ALC that are openly attempting to seize public lands from public hands forever?

Anti-BHA - oil industry and land grabbers
Pro-BHA - Rinella, Remi, Newberg

Who do you really think is pro-hunting here?

One more thing, BHA Utah is working on a get-together in the near future (tentatively 8/7/18) with Land Tawney, Pres and CEO of BHA, as well as other national leaders. Anybody who wants to get info straight from the horses mouth instead of paid NYC smear merchants is invited to attend. I'll post more info once its finalized.

Grizzly
 
>Hoss is angry!

Some days its like dealing with infants.

Heard Newberg say first its always the camera mans fault. If no camera man then blame wolves.

Its hard to pull folks from their orthodoxy. Especially when folks like Lee try to make land a republican/ democrat issue. Or NRA makes you choose land or guns.

Kinda seems like land should be off limits, then we can argue the rest.

Its OK to be a Mormon, conservative, pro gun and want to keep public land. Guys like Lee are trying to equate public land with gun rights and abortion. And he uses oil lobby money to do it.
Land don't know political parties.

But ya, I was ?.
From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
Grizzly, if what your leader of BHA says is true, why are they looking into getting involved in the regulation of trail cameras?

Is that an access issue?

I hate to have to point this out again, we all are the biggest supporters of the oil companies.
 
Castnshoot, because BHA fights for the public land hunter and angler. As their Mission Statement says, "Backcountry Hunters & Anglers?seeks to ensure North America's outdoor heritage of hunting and fishing in a natural setting, through education and work on behalf of wild public lands and waters."

What part of 'wild public lands' and 'natural setting' is achieved by lazy guys sitting at home or in camp and running their ATV to a water hole or salt lick when an animal shows up? What part of Fair Chase is achieved by some dude flying his drone up and down the hillside looking for animals and buzzing over the guys that got up early to get to the top before sunrise?

You have about 664 posts that say repeatedly, "Every ounce of carbon based mineral ?WILL? be dug or drilled up and used by ?ALL? of us." As if that's some sort of excuse for the oil companies pillaging our public land.

Clearly you have a relationship with oil companies, maybe you work for one, but your argument is completely devoid of forethought. Even if that statement was true and technological advances failed to produce viable alternative energy (something that is completely unknowable), using it as a reason to not protect what public land we have left is as stupid as saying, "Everybody will shoot their last deer eventually" or "Everybody will die someday."

Sure, both those are true, but I'd like to enjoy what hunting I have left and what time on Earth I have left. Those are horrible excuses to not preserve and protect what we have today, whether it be resources, public land, hunting, or life.

Clearly you and I have very different perspectives about what hunting and public lands are all about. You go ahead and fight for drones, live action game cameras, and oil companies getting every last drop whenever they want it.

I'll keep fighting to keep wild lands wild and public lands public. This is a gentleman's disagreement I'm very comfortable with.

Grizzly
 
>>Hoss is angry!
>
>Some days its like dealing with
>infants.

I just have to remind myself that if somebody can't conjugate a sentence or spell beyond a third grade level, why would I expect their reading comprehension to be any better.

It's no wonder one can make a cogent argument, fully backed with evidence, and feel like it went in one ear and out the other. They never even respond to the evidence, they just run back to home base and start over with an argument that has been completely discredited.
 
>
>
>https://www.facebook.com/groups/40552002858/permalink/10156791002487859/
>
>This was just posted on Bowhunters
>of Utah.
>
>Sure looks like wolves in Utah
>to me?
>
>Can we get a refund BGF?
>
>
>
>From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN,
>PUBLIC LAND.


Looks to be a Couple of BIG COYOTES!

Did They Shut the Camera Off Right before they Shot them?








I know so many people in so many places
They make allot of money but they got sad faces

It Ain't Easy being Me!:D:D:D
 
>I emailed a leader at BHA
>to see if they have
>ever taken a position on
>wolves. He replied that they
>hadn't, and likely wouldn't, because
>they are a public land
>advocacy group and not a
>wildlife advocacy group.
>
>
>Grizzly


Grizz their statement kinda reminds me of that white stuff on top of chicken #####.

#livelikezac
 
>>>Hoss is angry!
>>
>>Some days its like dealing with
>>infants.
>
>I just have to remind myself
>that if somebody can't conjugate
>a sentence or spell beyond
>a third grade level, why
>would I expect their reading
>comprehension to be any better.
>
>
>It's no wonder one can make
>a cogent argument, fully backed
>with evidence, and feel like
>it went in one ear
>and out the other. They
>never even respond to the
>evidence, they just run back
>to home base and start
>over with an argument that
>has been completely discredited.

We are smarter than you all, we are more educated than you all, we know more than you all and we always tell nothing but the truth you all lie. Just asked me I will tell you so. There is only one right and you all are wrong I am always right.
Sounds like a bunch of elitists

"Its hard to pull folks from their orthodoxy. Especially when folks like Lee try to make land a republican/ democrat issue. Or NRA makes you choose land or guns"

Get over it Hoss you are so far out of touch with reality. Your anger and pettiness has taken any sense of logic from you.
The NRA has not taking a stand yet they are not making anyone chose between public land and guns.
 
So are you saying that if one doesn't jump head first into supporting BHA then we are stupid?

Or is there room for reasonable intelligent minds to disagree on such matters?
 
NotDon,

Remember when I mentioned the part about making a cogent argument backed by evidence and it goes in one ear and out the other?

You just said NRA hasn't taken a stand on public lands, right after I posted a link from Field & Stream of the following groups opposing an oil drilling law:


"More than 200 fish and wildlife scientists and managers, including 12 former directors of state fish and game agencies, have signed a letter to Congress?opposing the Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act (H.R. 1581/S. 1087).

That letter writing and signing was organized by the?Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, which consists of most of the nation's sportsmen's conservation groups, including Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, Mule Deer Foundation, National Wild Turkey Federation, Delta Waterfowl Association, Izaak Walton League. Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Quality Deer Management Association, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers and BASS -- to name a few."

I then posted the NRA stance on it where they said the law "will make public hunting lands not suitable for wilderness designation available to millions of Americans that are unfairly closed out from them now?protecting the ability of the American people to access lands that belong, not to the government, or to extremist environmental groups, but to the people.?

Notice they followed the Green Radicals playbook of demonizing opposition as 'extremist environmental groups'.

And your next post is that the NRA doesn't take positions on public lands?

Grizzly
 
>So are you saying that if
>one doesn't jump head first
>into supporting BHA then we
>are stupid?
>
>Or is there room for reasonable
>intelligent minds to disagree on
>such matters?

Absolutely there is room for disagreement, even gentlemanly ones. There are many people on here that can have intelligent and respectful discussions and agree to disagree.

There are others that live in false dichotomies, red herrings, and even willful ignorance.

Vanilla, you and I don't always agree. JMO, huntin50, and DW are just a few others with which one can disagree and it can be done respectfully.

There are others that purposefully state unverified information repeatedly after being proven incorrect as if it never happened.

You've seen it on the stream access discussions. In another current discussion, one person has accused another mm'er of refusing a meeting which he says was never even offered. The accusations continue in spite of his denial and offering to have the meeting at any time.

To expect everybody to agree and reach the same conclusion on a subject is ridiculous, but so is attempting to have a discussion with somebody that didn't even want to listen and respond accordingly, but just regurgitate their last post... regardless of new information provided.

******

I'll admit my posts could be more tactful as I often am too succinct and maybe even harsh. I'll work on that. One thing that I will say is I always try and back up my posts with facts. Read through my posts and you'll almost always see sourced material and actual quotes. I get frustrated when the response post ignores everything that was just proffered and the reader responds, not to the available information, or even with information contradicting that which I provided, but instead attacks as though my post lacked substance when it was literally right in front of them. That's something I will be more careful about.

Grizzly
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-30-18 AT 11:02PM (MST)[p]Vanilla called me out in #63 for being condescending in my posts. I certainly didn't mean it that way, but after reviewing them I see his point. I grew frustrated with attacks that I feel are unsubstantiated and was too harsh in my response posts. I apologize to anybody I offended with my posts. I'll work to soften those in the future.

Grizzly
 
Not really trying to call anyone out. Just trying to illustrate that land use issues are complicated and not really black and white.

Grizz, if we lined up every issue we'd agree on a heck of a lot more than we disagree upon. But I respect your opinions and believe you at least do your homework even when we disagree. I can live with that.
 
I really enjoyed reading these responses to my OP.
Ive learned a lot through these threads and I am thankful to many of you.
My post stirred a debate but one I could call more respectful than what I've seen in other threads. Hence the reasoning for my gratitude.
Like was mentioned earlier, these issues aren't black and white and still leave me concerned about the future of hunting, and future access to OUR public lands.

Where will all this lead? I have no idea. But it seems there are still many battles ahead. I think we all want to still have access to our streams, be able to hunt fair chase, and have opportunities to spend time in lands that were inherently ours to share. We may have different perspectives on which side is good and bad, but I think we want the same things.
It's all jigsaw puzzle to me and there are pieces that have me concerned.
I pray my kids and my future grandkids, as well as yours, have the same opportunities as myself in regards to the outdoors and wildlife.
Working together through this entire debacle to allow all this to continue for future generations will be greatly needed.





Wildlife and its habitat cannot speak. So
we must and we will."
Theadore Roosevelt
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-31-18 AT 07:24AM (MST)[p]Not black and white?

Your either going to stand up for public land, or your going to sell it to the high bidder.

NEWSFLASH. None of you are the high bidder.

Where is the grey area?

The fact that some of you can't see that this issue is black and white, is simply mind blowing.

As for BHA.

Grizz and I showed you the link. Then the stories. We showed the the guy lying to you. Copies of the lies. Etc, etc, etc. And some of you still quote the lies as doctrine. NOT ONE of you can show ONE time BHA stopping hunting.

I used to wonder who listened to InfoWars and Coast to Coast with George Noory. Reading some of the stuff you post, answered that.

"Hi George, this is notdon, calling on the west of the Rockies number. George did you know BHA is running FEMA prison camps disguised as hunting meetings"?

Like I said, orthodoxy is hard to break.

When your house is on fire do you stand at the end of the road and check to see if the firefighters are Repub or Dem? If they drink Starbucks or Black Rifle? Did they drive to work in a Ford or a Subaru? NO. YOU PUT OUT THE FIRE.

The fire is "land transfer" . THE ARSONIST IS MIKE LEE.


Now he will tell you about those evil liberals. And how he is pro gun, anti abortion, small government, Apple pie. He'll spin some yarn about states rights.

Knowing not one of you will ask if he protects 2a why do we need NRA. If he's anti abortion where is the Mike Lee ammendment chalking roe v wade. If he's small gov, why is our debt growing. And if he's states rights, why is the dope still federally illegal dispite states voting for it.

Mike Lee is for Mike Lee. And the tiddy little profit Mike Lee can get selling lands is to benefit Mike Lee. He's no constitutionalist, he's from a line of political powerbrokers(he ain't the first Lee in DC).

BUT, he knows westerners aren't fans of DC, or regulation, so that's what he uses to advance his cause, MONEY AND POWER. Knowing all the while most of us will be busy hunting, fishing, camping, and not interested in POWER.



This land issue is entirely black or white. Well, actually green and silver.



From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
The fact that BHA has made no stand on wolves is telling. If they were all in for hunters they would be against reintroduction in places they don't exist in any numbers like Colorado and Utah. But the seeming work they do to protect public lands seems to be reason enough to throw in with them. No different than I throw in with the NRA because of their stand on the Second Amendment. The problem I have is the if your house burns down it makes mine look better attitude. Stay positive and sing the Praises of the group you believe in rather than tearing down another. Now if there was a group that hated wolves, stuck up for the second like the NRA, and fought for Public Lands like BHA, that would be a group I would give more than just a membership fee to. Unfortunately that group doesn't exist.



#livelikezac
 
There is more to land use issues than simply the public land transfer, hoss. A lot more. The feds can retain the land for the rest of eternity and there will still be other issues involved. Quit being such a narrow minded bonehead.

Pull your head out long enough to see what is going on in the world. Then you might see the gray.
 
>There is more to land use
>issues than simply the public
>land transfer, hoss. A lot
>more. The feds can retain
>the land for the rest
>of eternity and there will
>still be other issues involved.
>Quit being such a narrow
>minded bonehead.
>
>Pull your head out long enough
>to see what is going
>on in the world. Then
>you might see the gray.

Yet the privatization removes all gray and we fade straight to black. There is no room for error on this. Privatization is irreversible.


Grizzly

-----------------------------------------
"This is a classic case of a handful of greedy fly fishermen getting too greedy." -Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as told to KUTV

"It's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource."
-Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as quoted in Anchorage Daily News
 
Agreed. I haven't seen anyone on this thread argue for privatization, however. So what are we yelling at?
 
Sadly, there are hunters that support the land transfer. There are hunters that vote for politicians that openly support privatization. There are hunters that stand by (and even support) the prominent sportsman's group in Utah while they endorse the privatization of streams, wildlife, and at least at certain Chapter levels, the privatization of public land.

I begrudge nobody that stands on the highest mountain top yelling of the threats to public land and those that want to take it away. Hunters have to win 100% of the time. The land grabbers only have to win once for it to be all over forever.

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------
"This is a classic case of a handful of greedy fly fishermen getting too greedy." -Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as told to KUTV

"It's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource."
-Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as quoted in Anchorage Daily News
 
>There is more to land use
>issues than simply the public
>land transfer, hoss. A lot
>more. The feds can retain
>the land for the rest
>of eternity and there will
>still be other issues involved.
>Quit being such a narrow
>minded bonehead.
>
>Pull your head out long enough
>to see what is going
>on in the world. Then
>you might see the gray.
>

GO READ LEES SPEACH. He isn't talking "transfer"

Go read the speech.

A new homestead act isn't "multiple use", its PRIVATE OWNERSHIP.

Lee ain't even trying the guise of "transfer". It is SELL.

So thanks for not knowing what your talking about, then telling folks what's going on.

Quit being lazy and go read what the man said.


DW, I read that there have been some meeting on reintro in Colorado. Ill assume the hunters and ranchers got yelled out by the wolf folks and nothing happened(seems a repeated blueprint for these things).

I don't know Colorado's approach.

In Utah we are starting to see more and more of them. I doubt we will follow Wyoming and be ready to go with management. We like lawyers and lobbyists here.

Is Colorado calling for eradication? Shoot on sight? If they are walking into Utah from Wyoming, is assume the same is true for Colorado.

In not sure what you want groups to do, other than throw money away trying to stop them. Its a loser, has been for decades.

But, I know BHA has discussed the ethics of trail cams, so I agree they aren't straight land issues. As a member I've never been asked by them.


From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-31-18 AT 01:14PM (MST)[p]
>Here's an example of what I'm
>talking about. If you go
>to this guy's page you
>won't see a single fishing
>pole, a single firearm, a
>single bow, or single dead
>critter. How do I know
>what he really stands for?
>He might be the greatest
>advocate of all time, or
>he could be the biggest
>anti hunter ever.
>
>
>https://m.facebook.com/groups/24829...4719660019459&ref=m_notif?if_t=group_activity
>
>
>#livelikezac

What do you see on the Colorado Chapter page? Does that look anti-hunting?

I don't even have Facebook, IG, Twatter, or any other social media so you won't find any of that on me either. Do you question my dedication to hunting?

Here's a picture of John Kerry hunting, does that make him pro-hunting?

4773890.jpg


Here's a picture of Obama shooting, is he pro-gun?

6982obamashootingc031737460s885x516.jpg


Here's a picture of Justice Elena Kagan hunting ducks with Scalia, is she pro-gun?

61417kagan2.jpg



Grizzly

-----------------------------------------
"This is a classic case of a handful of greedy fly fishermen getting too greedy." -Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as told to KUTV

"It's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource."
-Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as quoted in Anchorage Daily News
 
This question is for grizz and hoss. Are you guys members of the NRA? Not a loaded question. Just curious. Thanks for your time responding.
 
Not currently. Was for a while. Actually considered joining again after the Pulse nightclub shooting.

Been BHA 2 years if that matters. Hold no position. Never personally met Grizz.





From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-31-18 AT 03:54PM (MST)[p]Hoss, is Mike Lee the only thing going in public lands issues now? Because if I remember correctly, I seem to remember someone saying Bishop was the boss? You?re so singularly focused on one issue you can't see the forest through the trees. You can continue to attack me, tell me I'm stupid, say I don't know what's going on, but your posts are betraying your ability to be rational I n this.

Grizz, I agree on all the statements you made. If we lose on public land transfer, we are toast. However, where it gets murky is that a vote for someone that opposes the public land transfer is NOT automatically a vote for someone that supports my hobbies and love for hunting and fishing. In fact, many who oppose the public land transfer equally or maybe even more so oppose hunting and fishing. Now, before Hoss freaks out and says I'm stupid, I'm not implicating BHA in that. I'm talking elected officials. This issue, even on the public land transfer, is not black and white. What good are these public federal lands to hunters if we can't hunt them like we have historically been able to do? If we are shut out, we're shut out. Doesn?t really matter why, does it?
 
Responding to post #69
Hoss....
What I meant by not black and white is to me it seems, due to groups intentions and actions, including funding, there is not a cut and dry group out there that seems to be on one side of the fence or the other. Whether that is in regards to their work, public statements on stances, or their groups funding. Some groups have simply not even taken a position on some of these topics for example.


Hoss, you and I are on the same page. Your passion on these topics has shown. ?Vanilla saying you're angry?
I like that! Cuz I am passionate too and share the same position you have. Although I think you have a better way of wording it than I do.






"Wildlife and its habitat cannot speak. So
we must and we will."
Theadore Roosevelt
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-31-18 AT 04:49PM (MST)[p]Vanilla it twas you who told me to pull my head out.

You keep saying land transfer. Mike Lee is calling for its sell. Not transfer. Not states rights. SALE.

Part of the transfer lie that Bishop tells is how poorly managed our lands are, that Utah could do better. My point is if that is true, he is in charge of both agencies, perhaps the buck stops at his desk.

If the Jazz suck, you fire the coach, get new players. You don't sell the team.

However. A few weeks ago, Lee came out and went straight to sell it. He didn't want the state to take over management.

Lee has 3 bills he said he would introduce on this.

Go read the speech. The part where he compares public land to the "kings forest" is pretty entertaining.

Vanilla is this was a case of disagreeing over a road here or there. Or things like that you would be completely correct. If was was about atv trails, in with you.

Its not. Don't believe a word I said. Don't believe BHA. Just go look for yourself. Do a search of the ALC, Richard Berman, Wilks bros.
Go look for yourself.

Again. I own a frame meathauler. I don't backpack. I sxs, atv. A toyhauler. I'm not some rabid enviro.

But I start chasing antelope on the parker on Aug 18. Then deer on Manti, then elk in Uintas. Then youth waterfowl.Then deer again on the Manti(12 yr old can hunt all 3). Then elk again in Uintas(horrible bow hunter) Then back to Manti to hunt deer, then back to Uintas for elk. Then all of Nov, Dec, some of Jan in the swamp.

Not much of a fisherman. Camp in the summer.

Half of my year I spend on public ground. The Wilks, or BP owning it means that's all gone. And for what? What do you, Vanilla, get for selling off 600 million or so acres? What do you get?

Thats my point. That's were the focus is.

And yeah. I trust Land Tawney more than I do Mike Lee or Rob Bishop. If Tawney proves that misguided, you'll see me lighting him up too. I'm an equal opportunity offender.

I'm pro 2A. Staunchly so. You come tell me a politician is messing with it, ill vote with you.

We need land to be the same.





From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
>
>Responding to post #69
>Hoss....
>What I meant by not black
>and white is to me
>it seems, due to groups
>intentions and actions, including funding,
>there is not a cut
>and dry group out there
>that seems to be on
>one side of the fence
>or the other. Whether that
>is in regards to their
>work, public statements on stances,
>or their groups funding. Some
>groups have simply not even
>taken a position on some
>of these topics for example.
>
>
>
>Hoss, you and I are on
>the same page. Your passion
>on these topics has shown.
>?Vanilla saying you're angry?
>I like that! Cuz I am
>passionate too and share the
>same position you have. Although
>I think you have a
>better way of wording it
>than I do.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>"Wildlife and its habitat cannot speak.
>So
>we must and we will."
>Theadore Roosevelt

I thought Vanilla was funny. Made me chuckle.

We totally agree.

When this misguided land grab gets slapped down, THEN is when we argue amongst ourselves.

My dad died of lung cancer. I got 2 more years of hunting with him because we could road hunt in a jeep with an oxygen tank in the back seat. In pro multi use.

But BP isn't. Nor the Wilks, nor Andarko, etc.

To me BHA is fighting with the most passion, and using other non traditional to help. I guess I'm using BHA the same way.

I still think Vanilla was funny.


From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
YBO, I was a member of NRA for many years. I have since let that lapse. To prevent redundancy, the reason why is in my response below.

Vanilla, I totally agree that just because somebody opposes the land grab doesn't necessarily make them a friend of hunting. However, in my view, if they support the land grab then they are certainly anti-public land hunting. They may not oppose the idea of hunting (or firearms), but they do want to limit or remove our ability to use public land to enjoy hunting. For example, a common proposition is to seize all public lands not currently in a National Park. Have you heard one person then propose opening hunting in National Parks? No, because this isn't about hunting to them. It is about the land.

I do not believe that the NRA is making a continued concerted anti-public land effort, though their aligning with the oil and mining lobbies to support a wilderness bill that was virtually unanimously opposed by sportsmen's groups is troubling.

The primary reason I am not a member of the NRA is because I can't have my money going to people like Rob Bishop and Mike Lee. Some people will risk their lands to save their guns. Pro-gun people may or may not support public lands. Anti-Public Land people are definitely trying to take away my ability to hunt, hike, fish, camp, ATV, etc...

To summarize my beliefs...

Pro Public Land = May or may not be pro hunter
Anti Public Land = 100% anti public land hunter

I'm sure some people disagree with me, and that's fine. But I think I've made my point clearly and in a well-justified manner.

Grizzly
 
Hoss- I don't support the land transfer. I adamantly oppose the State of Utah taking ownership of the federal public lands in Utah. I've fought access and use issues for almost 10 years now. You can keep yelling, but you're still not telling me anything new. I know what Mike Lee proposed. I don't agree with it. I never said I did. I've never even hinted at that. I know about the ALC. I know I want the lands to stay in federal control. I've made all that clear on this forum for years. So again, what are we (you) yelling about? You just sound ridiculous now. Sorry, but you do.



Grizz- fair points. I can see why you have taken that position. I'm not there yet. I can't trust a person on public lands that I know would take away my ability to hunt the second they could if they had the power. Again, my feeling is simply that if we are shut out, we are shut out-and it doesn't matter who did it to me. Finding elected officials that are pro public lands and pro hunting are who I want to associate with.
 
Vanilla, show me the forest through the trees. Your post make no sense to me. It sounds like you say you don't want our public lands sold off but yet you'll keep voting for the a$$wipes who want to sell it off. Am I wrong?
 
>Vanilla, show me the forest through
>the trees. Your post make
>no sense to me. It
>sounds like you say you
>don't want our public lands
>sold off but yet you'll
>keep voting for the a$$wipes
>who want to sell it
>off. Am I wrong?

Pretty much my confusion as well.


From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
There financials are super suspect. If they spent as much on opening up land as they do on beer kegs for rendezvous then maybe I'd think about joining. They also lost me when they promoted the hell out of Yvon Chouinard for speaking on their behalf. Yeah the guy might be for public lands but he is in no way a hunter or a friend of hunting. Just check his track record and things he has done to stop the bison hunt in Wyoming and how hard he is fighting against Wyoming's grizzly hunt.
 
NotDon,

Remember when I mentioned the part about making a cogent argument backed by evidence and it goes in one ear and out the other?

You just said NRA hasn't taken a stand on public lands, right after I posted a link from Field & Stream of the following groups opposing an oil drilling law:


"More than 200 fish and wildlife scientists and managers, including 12 former directors of state fish and game agencies, have signed a letter to Congress opposing the Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act (H.R. 1581/S. 1087).

That letter writing and signing was organized by the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, which consists of most of the nation's sportsmen's conservation groups, including Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, Mule Deer Foundation, National Wild Turkey Federation, Delta Waterfowl Association, Izaak Walton League. Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Quality Deer Management Association, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers and BASS -- to name a few."

I then posted the NRA stance on it where they said the law "will make public hunting lands not suitable for wilderness designation available to millions of Americans that are unfairly closed out from them now?protecting the ability of the American people to access lands that belong, not to the government, or to extremist environmental groups, but to the people.?

Notice they followed the Green Radicals playbook of demonizing opposition as 'extremist environmental groups'.

And your next post is that the NRA doesn't take positions on public lands


Grizz I am sorry I need to clean up my post for you.
The NRA HAS NOT TAKEN A STAND YET ON THE CURRENT PUBLIC LAND TRANSFER SUPPORTED BY MIKE LEE.
I was not talking about H.R 1581/S 1087 I really had no idea about that bill.
We can argue all day about Mike Lee and his public land transfer wither who supports it or who don't. But the fact of the matter when no one good runs against Lee, Bishop or who ever else on the Republican party you do not like. Lee or Bishop is what you get. The candidates that have run against Lee, Hatch, Bishop, Stewart, Love and Curtis through the years from both the Republican primary to the Democrat canidate has been awful.
I know Hoss "us good standing folks only vote for another good standing canidate" but really Hoss Mike Lee's opponent was a Transgender that self proclaimed to be left of Sanders. Do you think we only voted for Lee because he was in good standing as you put it.
By the way Hoss George Noory Up All Night Coast to Coast is entertaining when you are driving late at night trying to stay awake.
I am not going to argue anymore about who supports what and who supports who. I think we have got an idea where we all stand. But if you know of better candidates in Utah than the ones we got in office please let me know I would be happy to take an honest look at them.
 
>They also lost
>me when they promoted the
>hell out of Yvon Chouinard
>for speaking on their behalf.
>Yeah the guy might be
>for public lands but he
>is in no way a
>hunter or a friend of
>hunting. Just check his track
>record and things he has
>done to stop the bison
>hunt in Wyoming and how
>hard he is fighting against
>Wyoming's grizzly hunt.

Yvon may have a different opinion on specific species than you, but to claim "he is in no way a hunter" is provable not true. He describes himself as a lifelong hunter, has told public stories about hunting, and even received an award from Outdoor Life in 2010 where he was announced as a lifelong hunter and angler. He might not hunt the way you or I do, but he is a hunter in his own way.

?They say that hunters and tree huggers can't get together. That's bullshit. The only way we're going to get anything done is to work together.? - Yvon Chouinard
 
>But if you know of
>better candidates in Utah than
>the ones we got in
>office please let me know
>I would be happy to
>take an honest look at
>them.

Great question. I've been trying to figure out more about Eric Eliason who is running against Rob Bishop but can't figure where he stands on public lands. Anybody know?

*********************************************

Also, I found this excerpt from an article written by Hal Herring, contributing editor at Field & Stream, that was published June 25, 2007. Oh how times have changed....

"But on the issue of public lands in general and their value to the future of hunting and fishing, Peay and SFW have taken an unequivocal stand in opposition to some Republican policies. When the Bush administration presented a precedent-setting plan to sell off 300,000 acres of federal land, Peay and SFW were adamantly opposed. SFW has also bucked entrenched so-called ?wise-use? groups and advocated for more controls over all-terrain vehicle use on isolated public lands."

Grizzly
 
Grizzly, shooting a few birds at a high dollar retreat does not make one a hunter even you pointed that out. Will we ever see him an ad with a grizzly like KUIU? His story he told about his daughter putting a road kill deer in her trunk by herself also shows how full of it he is.
 
Yep Yvon and Patagonia are real hunters. They are trying the same crap with this years grizzly hunt


Bison hunt opponents seek license
By MIKE STARK
Of The Gazette Staff

More than 8,000 people have applied to hunt for bison that wander out of Yellowstone National Park this winter.

Some of those who applied, though, don't actually want to shoot.

Members and supporters of the Buffalo Field Campaign, a group that has advocated for protection of Yellowstone bison, have applied for some of the 10 tags. If their application is among those drawn in Friday's lottery, they have agreed not to fill the tag - and clothing company Patagonia has agreed to reimburse their application fee.

Buffalo Field Campaign's Mike Mease said 25 to 30 people in his office applied for a bison tag and other supporters of the organization may have done the same.

"Our e-mail list reaches over 10,000 people so it's hard to judge how many people were motivated to go out and purchase it," Mease said.

Last month, the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission approved a bison hunt, allowing 10 animals to be killed between Jan. 15 and Feb. 15. The hunt will happen outside Yellowstone's borders in areas used by bison in the winter.

The bison hunt is the first in Montana since 1990.

About 3,500 applied for the last bison hunt. State officials expected more of the same this time around.

"We knew there was an awful lot of interest," said Ron Aasheim of Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks.

After the application deadline passed earlier this week, state officials counted about 8,200 applicants for the bison hunt, including 305 from out-of-state residents.

Aasheim said there's nothing to prevent anyone - including members of the Buffalo Field Campaign who won't use the license - from applying as long as they meet the basic requirements.

"If they choose not to use it, that's their prerogative," Aasheim said.

Mease said his group doesn't oppose hunting but said a bison hunt in Montana shouldn't happen until there's an established wild herd outside of the park, one that's managed not as livestock but as wildlife.

"It has to be done properly," said Mease, who added that his group probably will document the hunt and seek media attention.

Lisa Pike, director of Patagonia's environmental programs, said the company has supported the Buffalo Field Campaign through small grants and clothing donations since 1997.

Patagonia will reimburse the cost of the bison license - $75 for residents and $750 for non-residents - for anyone who is awarded a tag but doesn't use it, Pike said. The company has not taken a stance against hunting overall but objects to the bison hunt near Yellowstone because it won't be a "fair chase hunt or ethical," Pike said.

"It's not a real hunt in the true sense of the word," she said.

The hunt is not intended to cull the bison herd. Recent estimates indicate there are more than 4,000 bison in Yellowstone.

The bison have been at the center of controversy for years. Some are worried that bison that leave the park could spread brucellosis, a disease that can cause abortions and other problems, to neighboring cattle. Others dispute that claim and say bison should be allowed to migrate outside the park.

Copyright © The Billings Gazette, a division of Lee Enterprises.
 
Orion, thanks for the info. That type of activism regarding bison is definitely not something I can support. I can respect somebody for choosing what species to hunt, etc... as I know great sportsmen that only fish and hunt birds, but prefer not to hunt big game and such.

However, the bison campaign is too far in my book and is enough for me to not shop at Patagonia even though I do appreciate some of the other things they've done for conservation. Thanks again for the info, that's the type of stuff these threads need. Facts, not conjecture. You've changed my opinion.

DW, I'm glad you're back as I look forward to your response to #77 as I felt your questioning of a man's hunting credentials based on social media as off-base. I posted examples of Obama, Kagan, and Kerry hunting and with firearms to illustrate the point that online pictures show very little regarding ones hunting beliefs. For all we know, he's a regular MM'er that keeps it off his social media for business purposes.

I'm not comfortable questioning a man's beliefs based on a lack of pictures on social media. It seems a scary line to live by. Especially since there are some very avid hunters that keep it off social media believing that pictures of dead animals do more harm than good. Not necessarily my belief, but an opinion I respect. I look forward to your thoughts.

Grizzly
 
>Here's an example of what I'm
>talking about. If you go
>to this guy's page you
>won't see a single fishing
>pole, a single firearm, a
>single bow, or single dead
>critter. How do I know
>what he really stands for?
>He might be the greatest
>advocate of all time, or
>he could be the biggest
>anti hunter ever.
>
>
>https://m.facebook.com/groups/24829...4719660019459&ref=m_notif?if_t=group_activity

One more thing, DW, maybe I'm wrong but in your post you said you didn't see a single bow. Isn't that him with a bow on his back riding his bike? And all the pics of him teaching kids to shoot bows?

Grizzly
 
Don?t even get me started with Patagonia. Glad they are openly showing their true colors now. (Even if they try to say they aren't anti...)
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

4F40160E-A09C-4175-9B64-A5734F7295C3.jpeg
FullSizeRender.jpeg
IMG_5892.jpeg
310DA641-ABEC-4DB8-BD95-ACD164B89822.jpeg
Screenshot_20231108_203659_Photos.jpg
1675831161250.jpeg
IMG_1657.jpeg
86D33F99-7B8F-436E-8FB7-6C15F6594B23.jpeg
2AEA8B2C-171B-4711-B7CA-CAF4AF3256FA.jpeg
2020 EM early Sept 067.JPG
BC8614C8-8990-4308-93A9-782B855106FB.png
Couple Big Bucks
Back
Top Bottom