Grizz and Friends

Muley_73

Very Active Member
Messages
2,395
As I was saying last week...
46155img8812.png
 

grizzly

Long Time Member
Messages
4,793
Somehow anytime SFW/BGF say something stupid, their ~3 supporters run to wolves as the be-all and end-all. We can be talking about stream access, National Parks, or the privatization of public land and wildlife... yet, the supporters somehow bring up wolves. I've ignored it because it is completely not germane to the conversation and understanding the complex history of the wolf fight is not for the faint of heart. But since I was specifically called out about it, here we go. Time for a little history lesson...

Start here:

(https://onyourownadventures.com/hun...98-OYOA-at-the-Western-Hunting-Expo-SLC/page2). Post 31 is quite good. It talks about SFW/BGF supporting the Rehberg bill, HR 509, which never made it out of committee, instead of the Simpson-Tester rider that actually was successful in delisting wolves.

Then read this thread (https://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?250214-Wolf-wing-nuts-lose-again!) and you will see the response to the delisting from RMEF followed by an email from BGF claiming responsibility for the victory.

Then read this thread (https://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?246130-Imagine-that). Go to post 2 and you'll see the following email sent to BGF supporters...

A number of you have heard of the decision by the government not to appeal Judge Johnson's decision in support of Wyoming's wolf management plan. Congratulations to the people of the state of Wyoming and all of the attorneys who have been working on this litigation for the last several years.

A year ago, the experts told us the only solution was to change Wyoming?s plan, capitulate, wait for the next Wyoming plan to be challenged in the courts in a couple of years and continue to fight the Judge Malloy decision in the Ninth Circuit court of appeals in San Francisco ? basically a BIG losing strategy for five years - all the while wolves would continue to destroy game herds of the West. When no one else wanted to fight, and even told us, it couldn't be done, SFW and Big Game Forever said, we will see if Congress will act. Now with 61 Co-sponsors in the house and senate we have shown restoring states rights is a viable possibility. In so doing we have put a lot of pressure on lots of people, in lots of places to do the right thing and get wolves delisted now. So, another major victory in the wolf war. US Fish and Wildlife decided not to appeal Judge Johnson?s ruling, which validates Wyoming?s wolf plan. Deciding not to appeal represents a common sense approach in support of science and good public policy. This is not only a victory for Wyoming, but for every state. It is a definitive legal decision which shows that the Federal Government may not usurp state management decisions. A very hard fought victory in support of the sovereignty of state wildlife management.

Don Peay
Big Game Forever


Then read this(https://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/NRA_SCI_CSF_Disavow.pdf) and you will see where NRA/Safari Club/Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation tells the media to...

"exercise caution in accepting as fact, or repeating, any claims made by Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, Big Game Forever or any person claiming to represent them. Due to the blatant misrepresentation contained in the press release circulated by these two groups, any claims they make in the future should be thoroughly investigated and independently confirmed."

Then read this (http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/story/1300697820a6c76kh830f) to see the BGF response that includes the following excerpt, "The Joint Press Release focused on private communications that were purportedly leaked to the public. We welcome the opportunity to set the record straight. The draft communications from Big Game Forever were sent to a very limited group of trusted individuals. Any dissemination was without the permission or knowledge of Big Game Forever. Additionally, such draft communications were not only preliminary and non-final in nature, but were prepared in an effort to increase collaboration based on conversations with third parties."

To help tie it together, read this thread (https://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?246173-Wolf-Twist-4).

As you can see none of these words are my own, but merely a compilation of emails and press releases. These do however represent what I believe, due to a preponderance of the evidence, to be a fair representation of the facts. I know most people won't take the time to familiarize themselves with all this, but its out there for those who care to.

Now that this info is out there, maybe people can focus on the issues at hand instead of trying to drum something up from years ago.

Grizzly

PS. My feelings about certain "conservation" groups should in no way be construed to say that I support wolf reintroduction anywhere, as that is simply not true.
 

Muley_73

Very Active Member
Messages
2,395
Grizz,
Just last week that was the group BHA was standing in alliance with. BHA members on social media said they were 100% for wolf reintroduction. Deflect all you want. Try and drag SFW and BGF into it to try and justify and gain support. But like I said last week this is who you choose to side with.
 

Muley_73

Very Active Member
Messages
2,395
Puff,
Again I guess somebody had to raise those snowflakes that think anything they go against is a Nazi. You're making you're arguement like you're trying out for a spot on MSNBC.

But I am glad that you all seem to be in alliance with an Anti Hunting organization. It just confirms your rational.
 

pufftuffly

Active Member
Messages
446
I'd rather have wolves than our public land sold off to the highest bidder.

Wolves suck but living in a private land privatized wildlife shithole like TexASS would suck even more.
 

Muley_73

Very Active Member
Messages
2,395
Point taken Puff, loud and clear. Wolves and anti hunting groups, sounds like a well thought out plan.
 

Awesome

Active Member
Messages
209
Thank god man came along before the wolves wiped out game species hahaha

Nothing wrong with having some wolves around. If a few lazy fat **** people give up hunting Im ok with that.

And look at the bright side. Instead of being able to blame weather for why you didn't kill something you can blame wolves! Sounds so much more manly!
 

huntin50

Very Active Member
Messages
1,348
A few of my personal thoughts.

I have more confidence in local control of our lands and policies, than strangers in Washington. Like Lumpy has said we have enough land lockup or restricted.

There is danger in working with and supporting anti hunting groups.

Trump has his baggage and problems. I'm still glad Trump and Pence are looking out for hunters and gun rights, instead of Hillary, Pelosi, and Elizabeth warren.

The so called bad evil Don Peay was the person running the show in Utah to help Trump in his campaign. This helped hunters and gun rights by a mile in my book. The stock market likes it as well!
 

grizzly

Long Time Member
Messages
4,793
Muley73 count...

Nazis - 1
BHA - 1
MSNBC - 1

Responding to facts and staying on subject - 0


Grizzly

-----------------------------------------

"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
 

grizzly

Long Time Member
Messages
4,793
>I have more confidence in local
>control of our lands and
>policies, than strangers in Washington.
> Like Lumpy has said
>we have enough land lockup
>or restricted.

Yet the groups you support spend all their time lobbying in Washington with the groups that are locking up our land... and actually propose locking up wildlife too.


>The so called bad evil Don
>Peay was the person running
>the show in Utah to
>help Trump in his campaign.

Trump won battleground states like Florida, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan... but hard-core Republican Utah was a toss-up without SFW to the rescue. They deserve all the credit for that miracle, just like wolves. Oh, wait.

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------

"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
 

Muley_73

Very Active Member
Messages
2,395
Grizz,
Fact- You said you would rather side with Sierra Club than SFW.

Fact- you drug SFW into this tread. It has zero to do with SFW. It's has to do with Sierra Club pushing for more wolves. Again the same Sierra Club you said you were allies with. One week ago.

Fact- BHA members are in favor of reintroducing wolves.

So keep deflecting and trying to make it about SFW. It's about wolves and anti hunting groups.
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
5,996
Pardon my confusion. THE DON. When he runs his mouth and its not popular, JMO, Muley,and friends come out to tell us " Don speaks for himself", but then $FW takes credit for their insider connections, meaning THE DON.

Which is it? It can't be both. Or is he like everything else $fw, taking credit for everything under the sun, yet completely naive about anything shady?

It is XMAS so I tried the $FW/BGF model at my house. Told the wife I needed a new bow because wolves were at the doorstep, the only thing saving her was that new Bear.



"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 

Muley_73

Very Active Member
Messages
2,395
Hoss,
I get what you're saying, but that's not the point of this tread. Not everything is connected to the SFW. It's just an easy target to point anytime other groups get called out. Are you pro wolf, pro anti hunting? I don't think you are? But BHA and its allies are. That is an issue that has zero to do with the SFW.
 

grizzly

Long Time Member
Messages
4,793
>Grizz,
>Fact- You said you would rather
>side with Sierra Club than
>SFW.

Where? I just did a word search and the name Sierra literally never once appeared in a post that I made. Not one time. For any reason. This isn't even an argument on semantics... I literally never even said the word.

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------

"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
 

grizzly

Long Time Member
Messages
4,793
Muley73, I received a completely unsolicited PM yesterday from one of the three remaining SFW supporters regarding the previous SFW thread that somehow tried to tie it back into wolves. I realize that's all you guys had to hang your hats on and now that's been pulled out from under you. It's got to be rough.

I've provided verifiable proof and reasoning for SFWs positions during the wolf fight. I honestly have no idea where BHA stands on wolf reintroduction. I support BHA and their fight to Keep Public Lands In Public Hands, but I'd like to know where they stand on wolves.

Please post any documents from BHA leadership and Press Releases regarding the matter so I can understand their positions.

If forced to choose, I'd rather have public lands with wolf hunting than wolf-free private land. Obviously you and I differ on that. But we all know SFW cares more about ranchers and landowners (stream access, CWMU, privatizing wildlife, land grab) over public access, so that's not surprising.

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------

"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
 

Muley_73

Very Active Member
Messages
2,395
Grizz,
I don't hang my hat on anything. But thank you for at least admitting that you and your groups are pro wolf and support anti hunting groups.
 

grizzly

Long Time Member
Messages
4,793
LAST EDITED ON Dec-12-17 AT 10:16AM (MST)[p]>Grizz,?
>Fact- You said you would rather?
>side with Sierra Club than?
>SFW.

Where? I just did a word search and the name Sierra literally never once appeared in a post that I made. Not one time. For any reason. This isn't even an argument on semantics... I literally never even said the word.

Then I ask for you to provide BHAs position on wolves, because I honestly don't know what it is and you keep repeating the same claim like a cuckoo clock... and the above post was your response.

I mean this from the bottom of my heart... You and SFW deserve each other. You're peas in a pod.

And just like the last thread, I've provided the proof for everybody to see. You clearly can't have a factual evidence-based discussion, so unless that changes I'll just leave this thread here for others to read and refer back to every time an SFW fanboy claims responsibility for wolf hunting. I did my part, the info is compiled for anybody that has the intellectual honesty to read for themselves.

-------------
SCENARIO: SFW hits Muley73 over the head with a piece of wood.

Me: Are you okay? SFW just hit you with a 2x4.

Muley73: No they didn't. It was a 1 1/2 x 3 1/2. And if it wasn't for SFW the greenies would've closed down logging and we wouldn't even have lumber anyway.

Me: (shake head and walk away)

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------

"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
 

Oneye

Active Member
Messages
351
>Grizz,
>I don't hang my hat on
>anything. But thank you
>for at least admitting that
>you and your groups are
>pro wolf and support anti
>hunting groups.


Man Muley73, I actually agree with you in that I would rather not see Wolves reintroduced and not spread beyond the areas they already are, but you are so terrible with your arguments and push back in the most childish of ways like a 2 year old kicking on the floor. I don't want to see Wolves reintroduced, mainly because it seems once we reach the population goal set, environmental groups continually move the goal post farther and farther down the field. If we could agree on a number, and manage to that number without constant lawsuits to stop wolf hunting I would actually support seeing a few Wolves, they would be a very fun animal to hunt. I just don't trust the groups pushing this to keep their word because they've proven they won't in the past.

That being said....after reading through your comments today Muley73, I think the thing you've most convinced me to do is re-up my BHA membership for 3 more years in the next week. Thanks.
 

huntin50

Very Active Member
Messages
1,348
Grizz,

I think is was about 3 years ago, you said SFW was going out of business. One of your groups, RMEF didn't get the Expo contract. Boo Hoo.

You said SFW now only has about three followers a few minutes ago.

Last year banquets all over the state had great attendance, many were sold out weeks in advance. We have to turn away people because we just don't have enough space. The expo has increased in revenue, attendance, and there is a waiting list for future booth space.

I guess you were wrong three years ago, and currently off on your numbers.

There are a lot of people who don't see things the way you see them.

You have a lot of passion and concern. Just because you see things your way doesn't mean they are always correct nor have the majority support.

This thread was and is about groups that you support, now want wolves in Colorado.

Best wishes.
 

Muley_73

Very Active Member
Messages
2,395
So hung up on the hate for SFW that is all you can see. Yet I'm the childish one. Again nothing to do with SFW. It's has to do with the original post. Sierra Club supporting wolf reintroduction. The same Sierra Club that Grizz and other BHA members stood with last week. But it makes sense, BHA members last week said they support wolf reintroduction. Nothing to do with SFW at all gents. Own the demons you sleep with. I always have.
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
5,996
>Hoss,
>I get what you're saying, but
>that's not the point of
>this tread. Not everything
>is connected to the SFW.
> It's just an easy
>target to point anytime other
>groups get called out.
>Are you pro wolf, pro
>anti hunting? I don't
>think you are? But
>BHA and its allies are.
> sThat is an issue
>that has zero to do
>with the SFW.


Sure it does. Remember, $FW used the crisis of mule deer to come to power. Its the MO. There is opportunity in crisis, and they always seem the opportunity. I notice you didn't answer the question on THE DON. though.

As for BHA, I joined them this year. I did it while not completely agreeing on land management(I don't support expanding wilderness everywhere), but there are choices in life, and I agree with them more than disagree so I joined.

Wolves don't scare me. Government via courts and lobbyists do. Texas style of hunting scares me. $FW are both pro crony lobbyist, and anti public ground hunting.

So, again. Why should I, an average dude, sign in with an org that has continually been on the side of closed access? Closed public hunting?

What do you offer me? CWMUs? Outfitters? High fence? High dollar tags?

Ill take my chances with a wolf, at least I know its gonna kill me, it doesn't pretend otherwise.

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 

Muley_73

Very Active Member
Messages
2,395
Hoss,
I never once said to join the SFW. Helll I'm not even currently a member. But joining other groups that are built with a membership that is pro wolf, anti hunting tolerant makes zero sense to me! I don't want privatized hunting only either. But the antis are lots bigger and have deeper funds than the "hunting" groups currently championing them. In the end that is a pretty scare partnership.
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
5,996
I look at the guys/companies in BHA circle. Am I to believe Meateater wants an end to hunting? Newberg? Firstlite? Your contention is that file who make a living hunting, are suicidal? Uninformed?

Why aren't u a member of $fw? Aren't you scared of wolves? $FW/BGF, are the front line on wolves, so why aren't u with them?



"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 

Muley_73

Very Active Member
Messages
2,395
Hoss,
Also groups like REI who also contribute dollars to organizations such as Defenders of Wildlife. The Sierra Club was once a hunting organization. I see Steve R and Randy N as individuals that are hunters no question. But are they the base? Or are they celebs making money off your public resource? Everybody wants to scream SFW is tainted because it's about money. You think these celebs aren't tied to the money? I support the keeping public lands open. But aligning with groups that have fought decades for closing down hunting is madness to me. Why is the BHA siding with those groups? Because they have a stronger voice in the political areana? If that is the case think about it for a minute. Those groups will be even more powerful if they can claim that even hunters at times stand with them. That has an impact with uninformed Senators and Reps. Side with who you want Hoss. But you've always been one that claims to think independently. Now you're leaning on Sportsmans channel celebs to validate.
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
5,996
LAST EDITED ON Dec-12-17 AT 12:31PM (MST)[p]Muley. I actually learned about Steve's podcast on Joe Rogan. Learned about Randys from Steve's.

I don't watch much Tv so their podcasts are access to them. I learned about BHA from Steve. I already supported RMEF, so I knew of Randy years ago.

I learned about $FW in the 90's. Byron Batemans boy Brett was a framer for the contractor we drywalled for. He came and told me about them, their vision, when they were doing raffles as fund raisers. Brett is a good dude, but we don't agree on hunting, his dad was an outfitter, now he is. So I didn't join. Then prop 5. Without a doubt $FW was invaliable in that movement. And I will always give them their due credit for it.

But. They changed their focus. They started as a group wanting to be a voice for Utah sportsmen with the DWR. THE DON, being the lobbyist he is, learned there was better money selling crisis, and selling connections, than being a spokesman.

That brings us to today. Today there is better money in selling a wolf crisis, then in "saving the mule deer", so $FW is chasing that crisis.

I don't know JMO. I knew his dad. Good dude, figure so is JMO. Brett Bateman, I worked on 3 of his houses, known his wife since 7th grade. Good people. There is a whole group of guys around here involved with them. All good guys. But they seem to have no issue with the direction of $FW. Perhaps they believe they will be safe from the privatization that $FW champions. Maybe they prefer CWMU, or outfitted to public. I don't know. Still good guys.

Now. The 2 questions u still haven't answered. Should we take THE DON at his word? Or not?

Why don't you belong to $FW?

And now a third, because I actually do try to be open minded. Who is better at public land issues, other than RMEF? My dues come up on March if their is someone better than BHA is be glad to look at them.



"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 

Oneye

Active Member
Messages
351
>So hung up on the hate
>for SFW that is all
>you can see. Yet
>I'm the childish one.
>Again nothing to do with
>SFW. It's has to
>do with the original post.
> Sierra Club supporting wolf
>reintroduction. The same Sierra
>Club that Grizz and other
>BHA members stood with last
>week. But it makes
>sense, BHA members last week
>said they support wolf reintroduction.
> Nothing to do
>with SFW at all gents.
> Own the demons you
>sleep with. I always
>have.


And yet again you make no argument, just do some petty circling again. I've told you I generally agree with you on wolves and don't care to see them reintroduced, or move beyond the areas they already are, especially if the same fights over management of them are coming. Don't care to see wolves expand, don't care to see them wiped off the map either. The fact you think all these HUNTING companies and organizations that make their profits and gain their memberships off HUNTERS is about as dumb of an argument you can make, and you really have to reach to make it. You believe compromise or putting differences aside at times is a bad thing, I, and most American's don't. The enemy of the enemy is my friend. I disagree with the Sierra Club on 95% of what they do and stand for, but we can work together on that 5% and settle the 95% when appropriate. You are something else, and beyond a child, you're a troll.
 

Oneye

Active Member
Messages
351
>And now a third, because I
>actually do try to be
>open minded. Who is
>better at public land issues,
>other than RMEF? My
>dues come up on March
>if their is someone better
>than BHA is be glad
>to look at them.
>
>
>
>"The only thing that stops a
>bad guy with a gun
>is a good guy with
>a gun"

REMF is holds probably the best middle of the road stances on all issues, and BHA is the best hunting organization for public land hunters. They are well worth their membership fees and more. I belong to about every conservation/hunting group except one but those two are where I feel easily best as to where I spend my money.
 

Hawkeye

Very Active Member
Messages
2,703
It is fun to log on to the site and see some of the same debates raging on. I have a couple of comments. First, I choose to support groups that most closely align with my views as a sportsman. Over the years, I been a member of many different organizations-some of whom I no longer support today. For instance, I no longer support SFW due primarily to its position on the NACM, stream access, and transparency/accountability with public assets.

Second, the information that Grizzly shared above regarding SFW's involvement in the wolf issue is right on point. Several years ago, I had a chance to dig and and learn about this issue while attempting to coordinate the debate that never happened between Don Peay and Randy Newberg -- key up the Gilligan's Island Theme Song. The story that is told by SFW/BGF here in Utah is very different then the story that is told by the other groups involved. And most importantly, the documents and press releases from that time period make it pretty clear how that whole episode went down.

Finally, it is okay to disagree about core issues. Over the years, I have been involved in some very heated debates on this site and otherwise. As long as folks stick to the issues and express their views respectfully, I believe that the discussion and debate is helpful and informative. I do not agree with the mantra that if you question a conservation group then you are somehow furthering the anti-hunting movement. Those groups should be questioned and challenged. I also do not believe that you have to personally attack folks on the other side to make your point. I have a lot of respect for some individuals within SFW, including JMO and others, even though we disagree on key issues. Like others, I have been guilty at times in the past with being too agressive in my comments. When that happens, it only dilutes your position.

Carry on!

-Hawkeye-
 

Muley_73

Very Active Member
Messages
2,395
Hawkeye,
I never said going against SFW was siding with the anti hunting groups. What I said was BHA members are currently siding with known anti hunting organizations. It's a huge difference. But I don't expect most to here to wrap their heads around any reality. They are so consumed by the SFW hatered they can not look objectively at any issue. Just like you, that's when you jumped in and that was your focus.

Sierra Club is actively promoting wolf reintroduction in Colorado. One week removed from being publically supported by BHA. That's a fact and reality. Cut it up dice it twice and sprinkle in Randy N and Steven R. on top if you like. Keep all the lands public I'm all for that. But at the end of the day if the voice you used to get it is the same voice that turns on all hunters that should be a concern for true hunters.
 

Hawkeye

Very Active Member
Messages
2,703
-continued from my prior post above-

Fourth, rather than listening to others and trying to understand their position, it is always easier to attack them personally and accuse them of being intellectually inferior and consumed by blind hate. These types of dismissive and shallow arguments prevent any real debate or discussion and are typcially a sign that your position lacks any real merit.

So how bout answering Hossblur's question? Why aren't you currently a member of SFW? And what group would you suggest sportsmen join if they want to protect access to public lands, streams and rivers?

-Hawkeye-
 

NeMont

Long Time Member
Messages
12,569
Does BHA have a position on the Bears Ear reduction that happens to be the same as Sierra Club's? Yep, does that mean BHA and Sierra club's agendas are in lock step? Nope. To claim they are one and the same is dumb.

Often in complex issues like the Bear's Ear and President Trump's plan to reduce the size of it there are often strange bed fellows thrown together. To say that BHA sold out it's pro hunting, pro public lands agenda by opposing President Trump move on the NM to Sierra Club is not an accurate way to argue the issue.


Nemont
 

Muley_73

Very Active Member
Messages
2,395
LAST EDITED ON Dec-12-17 AT 04:12PM (MST)[p]Gros,
No my inbox is not full. Because I don't speak for the SFW. I'm my own voice. You guys like to act like I'm SFW because I said in the past that they have done more for Utah wildlife than any other conservation group. I've also said they have the strongest political voice in Utah. All still true and I still stand by that. But I am not SFW nor to I care to be. I'm simply pointing out realities.

Anytime I have explained my support for SFW grizz and others have screamed and puked about how can you support them. "Yes they do good but the bad they do overrides the good". Yet now when the exact scenario is being played with other groups and organizations you all say "oh it's ok because...". It's hypocritical and that is my only point. I could give 2 shiiits on who hoss or oneeye or Hawkeye pay their yearly dues to. They all do some good. But I don't think I'll chose to side with anti hunting groups. And I'm glad to see who will. :)

You all can relax, this is the interweb and that's about it. Forum for opinions. You'd think after reading only posts from this website that Hawkeye would have won in a landslide with his crusade. But in reality, nope that wasn't the case at all. Carry on all.
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
5,996
Muley.

Your obviously versed in outdoor issues. I did BHA this year because I felt they were doing good.

Why are you not with $FW anymore? I can answer why I'm not, why is that so hard for you?


And again here it is, the $FW code speak. "Political voice". So, we are talking THE DON. I'm not a member, but I see the pics of him with the Trump folks, the governor. So $FW has this political insider which gains them clout, BUT.... lets not notice that $FW insider, THE DON, is anti public hunter, anti stream, anti north american model?

Or are we to believe that he checks his personal thoughts when glad handing politicians?

I agree it can be hypocritical. But, on my list of priorities, better public land access, more public opportunity comes long before my fear of wolves.

I do think in the end the Sierra club, Black Diamond, etc will find conflict with hunters. But I prefer there be hunters for them to conflict with.

RMEF gets my nod. But, I'm open to a better group than BHA., $FW isn't close.



"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 

Hawkeye

Very Active Member
Messages
2,703
LAST EDITED ON Dec-12-17 AT 06:13PM (MST)[p]Perhaps I am just a glutton for punishment but I thought I'd respond to your last comment since you've thrown it out there a couple of times. When I choose a side on issues that relate to wildlife conservation, access to public lands, transparency with public assets, etc., I do not pick a side based on which group has the loudest voice or which group is most likely to win. And I take a position based upon what I think is right.

I knew from the moment I got involved in helping RMEF with its Expo proposal that it would be an uphill battle but I thought it was the right thing to do. I was not the least bit surprised by the end result, nor do I regret getting involved. If I merely wanted to support the group with the loudest voice in Utah and the inside track with Utah politicians ($$$), I would still be a member of SFW. That was never my agenda.

-Hawkeye-
 

Outdoordan

Very Active Member
Messages
1,791
I just did a search on the BHA site and saw no reference, press release, or communication regarding wolf reintroduction. I would like to see a link to said statement from "last week".

Idaho has had an up and down relationship with wolves, but it seems to be getting smoother now that wolf management has been in our states hands for a number of years. There is also a growing number of people whom want to come to Idaho to hunt wolves specifically, not incidentally.

I like the fact that I may at one time get to participate in the management of wolves via my bow or 7mm. I believe that will be quite a rush.
 

Muley_73

Very Active Member
Messages
2,395
Outdoor,
The comments and statements were made by BHA members on social media. I never once said it was BHA making a official statement. My point is that is the position of many of their base.

I'd love to hunt wolves myself.....but I'd much rather never get to because they are not there. Your last comment sounded like vigilantly thought process.
 

Outdoordan

Very Active Member
Messages
1,791
Do you mean, vigilante? No, I usually buy a tag every year. I don't need to be a vigilante. The fact is, whether you want them or not they will, through expansion, continue to march across the west. Environmentalists will continue to work through the court system to expand the species. It would be much more prudent to establish, pre-wolf (an argument could be made that they already exist in parts of Utah and Colorado, albeit rumor), a management plan for each state in the west. IMO.
 

Muley_73

Very Active Member
Messages
2,395
Outdoor,
Yes I agree that we are to that point..now. We were not at that point when many anti hunting groups funded and pushed for wolf reintroduction. That is my point. You give ground and you will always pay for it. We now justify a win in that the wolves are't as bad as we thought or we have better control of them now. But the reality is we (hunters) lost that battle and now are just trying to make the best of it. We should fight to win battles for hunters not just make the best of it. You show your are willing to settle you'll be expected to settle in the future. Having wolves reintroduced was bad for our future wildlife period the end. Those supporting wolf reintroduction are not friends of hunters in the end.
 

wilhille

Active Member
Messages
223
Wth are you talking about Muley? Because you claim you saw a few posts on SOCIAL MEDIA, you come to your conclusion? That seems to be the ONLY basis for your argument. What kind of sense does that make?

These outlandish claims you make, without a single bit of proof, makes me wonder what YOUR true agenda is. What groups do you support?
 

wilhille

Active Member
Messages
223
Wth are you talking about Muley? Because you claim you saw a few posts on SOCIAL MEDIA, you come to your conclusion? That seems to be the ONLY basis for your argument. What kind of sense does that make?

These outlandish claims you make, without a single bit of proof, makes me wonder what YOUR true agenda is. What groups do you support?
 

grizzly

Long Time Member
Messages
4,793
LAST EDITED ON Dec-15-17 AT 09:04AM (MST)[p]That's easy. He supports a group that wants privatized public land, locked gates, closed streams, and no wolves to eat the wildlife that now belongs to the landowner.

There, I just put the true agenda of SFW into one sentence.

EDIT: clarified the positions above are those of SFW, not Muley73 specifically.

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------

"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
 

Muley_73

Very Active Member
Messages
2,395
No not a post. It was a long thread back and forth with several members of BHA. So no I did not see a post and make an assumption. It was a long discussion with multiple members. They were very clear on their stance and support. They were very clear on other organizations they were comfortable aligning with. BHA's official stance maybe pro hunting, but if your members are in support of groups that are not it is dangerous. Just like Sierra Club was originally a hunting organization and it's membership shifted over time to become an anti hunting organization.
 

Muley_73

Very Active Member
Messages
2,395
Grizz,
No you know that's not true you're just flaming up because the only thing you see is hate for SFW. That is not what I support and never have. It's just easier to claim that than own your own issues. You're flat out lying when you made that last comment.
 

TOPGUN

Long Time Member
Messages
10,637
Cody you need to step back and look closer at what you're saying and then IMHO incorrectly concluding. Just because "several members of BHA" or "multiple members" say they support another organization or say what other one(s) they may be comfortable with, as you put it in your last post, doesn't mean that they are speaking for the BHA or it's entire membership! More than once you've explained that in your opinion SFW has done many good things, but that you don't agree with everything they do and aren't even a member. Then when someone on here incorrectly states that you're aligned 100% with everything they do or have done it ticks you off and rightly so. Get my drift?
 

grizzly

Long Time Member
Messages
4,793
You claim to see "a long discussion with multiple members" and erroneously assign the position to BHA. Lets see what you're talking about here, post the link.

You guys like to claim SFW was neutral on streams, when the quotes to the contrary are well-published. You like to claim neutrality on the land grab when all media (including some Chapter votes) show the exact opposite. I provided all the info about SFW working against S-T (which delisted wolves), the public shaming by NRA & SCI, and the response from BGF alluding to leaked emails and your, and lumpys, response is to talk about various 3rd world dictatorships and never once confront the truth of SFW and wolves.

Your defenses are running thin.

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------

"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
 

Muley_73

Very Active Member
Messages
2,395
LAST EDITED ON Dec-15-17 AT 10:41AM (MST)[p]The tread was on a post made by Jay Scott on his IG page. Jay took it down after several hrs as it was getting out of hand. Including a BHA vocal member making violent threats, ironically an REI employee. But by all means question me when you are typing blatant lies. What else are you lying about Grizz? You say my defense is thin. Everything I type is truth because I don't need to lie and I was raised better than that. You are straight up lying with some of your posts.

I have said multiple times that I do not agree with everything that SFW does or says. When I have you guys scream and yell that it can't be both ways. When I now call you out in the same way you all gasp and act like it is completely different. I do see a difference but its way different than what you see. BHA members are being vocal and clear that they support wolf reintroduction, they are vocal and aggressive in supporting and aligning with groups that are openly anti hunting. SFW has many faults but at the end of the day they are pro hunting organization and they do not align with anti hunting groups. If groups are ok with wolves and anti hunting groups they are not friends of hunters. They may help keep land public and love backpacking and fish in those public lands but they are also fighting and funding the fight to end sport hunting. That is a huge difference. If you are so blinded by your hate of SFW that you believe it is better to side with pro wolf and anti hunting groups in the end you are not defending the future of hunting.

What is BHA official stance on wolves? Do they support the reintroduction for are they against any wolves? I honestly don't know I just know what their membership is claiming aggressively on social media.
 

TOPGUN

Long Time Member
Messages
10,637
Cody---"What is BHA official stance on wolves? Do they support the reintroduction for are they against any wolves? I honestly don't know I just know what their membership is claiming aggressively on social media."

If you don't know, then why are you posting all this garbage when just a certain few members of that organization, if they indeed are even members of BHA, are making those posts you're commenting about?! IMHO grizzly is way out of line in attacking you the way he is on this, but you are making it easier for him to do that when you have kept on posting like what those people are saying is what all BHA members think and what the official BHA stance is on the matter.
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
5,996
I listen to Rinellas podcast. He's not anti wolf. He's a BHA member. Pretty sure that doesn't mean BHA is either.

I'm not for open carry, because of NRA membership does that mean they don't support it?

I keep reading your posts. In still waiting for the groups that are pro public land, pro public hunter, pro NA wildlife management.

I'm open minded, show me a better path,I'm there. Right now. RMEF and BHA are it.


"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 

Muley_73

Very Active Member
Messages
2,395
Wait, so I am an official spokesman for SFW anytime I support them? Or make a comment. But when BHA members make comments and give their thoughts its just their thoughts and its not tied to the organization? Hmmm again with the hypocrisy.

BHA does have a good platform with supporting public lands. I support public lands and its the direction I would like to see things go. Members being vocal about supporting wolf reintroduction is very concerning. Especially when one week removed from rallying in Utah against downsizing the national monuments one of the major organizations BHA was rallying with is pushing for wolves in CO. I also think they are very focused on specialized "back country hunting", their agenda is not spread over a very big demographic of hunters.(other than grabbing hold of the public lands platform). Before that what did they stand for? More wilderness areas? Is this where the alignment with groups like Sierra Club and REI come from? I listen to all you guys scream about opportunity, its one of the things you blast me for on my support of the SFW. Yet wolves will take more opportunity away for years and years to come. Its the reason the antis fund and push wolf reintroduction. If wolves knock down populations (which they will and have) it means less animals for hunters to harvest. Less tags, less hunters and our voice weakens. Sure they want the public lands open and protected but having hunters share this land is NOT part of their agenda. It is the exact opposite. Does SFW always take the best stance on public land? Nope I don't think they do. But in the end do I really believe their agenda is to end public land hunting? Not at all. Groups like Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife to want to end all hunting including public land hunting. If hunters choose to side with those groups we will lose in the end. That is just a fact. So support which ever group you like, but if that group is pro wolf I don't think any members of that group should ever cry about opportunity. Your opportunity is being eaten by wolves.

You all ask what groups I support. It depends on the situation. Like I have said from the beginning.

That's my last post on this. Headed south for one last hunt this season. Hope you all have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! Top I hope 2018 is a BIG WIN for you in all sincerity!!!
 

wilhille

Active Member
Messages
223
"You all ask what groups I support. It depends on the situation."

What a chicken sh$! answer.

As for your argument, it is obvious that you have no merit in anything you say. It is a bunch or he said she said that for all I know you made up. If you were a high schooler, I would think that the bha founder stole your girlfriend and now you're just pissed. It really does seem that childish, when you bring nothing but an article about ANOTHER TOTALLY DIFFERENT group and say that you heard somewhere that one or two of the thousands of BHA members MIGHT like wolves. Just dumb.
 

grizzly

Long Time Member
Messages
4,793
muley73, you are correct that the way I worded my original post 45 was inappropriate as it was assigning you personal responsibility for SFW's beliefs and actions. I edited it as soon as I saw your response and realized I had made that mistake. I apologize for putting those words in your mouth personally as that was not fair. I will work to keep my posts more generalized and not personal. Sorry about that.

Back to the discussion at hand, you continuing to say BHA supports wolves when there is no evidence of a systematic belief is not a strong argument. Even if there was a discussion on Jay Scotts page from "multiple" BHA members supporting wolves, it does not draw a correlation to the group as a whole.

The difference between your conclusion and that of SFW being anti-public-land-hunter is the positions I have shown SFW take are from the leadership and typically positions given to the media as part of a lobbying campaign. These are very different circumstances.

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------

"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
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
5,996
>Wait, so I am an official
>spokesman for SFW anytime I
>support them? Or make
>a comment. But when
>BHA members make comments and
>give their thoughts its just
>their thoughts and its not
>tied to the organization?
>Hmmm again with the hypocrisy.
>
>
>BHA does have a good platform
>with supporting public lands.
>I support public lands and
>its the direction I would
>like to see things go.
> Members being vocal about
>supporting wolf reintroduction is very
>concerning. Especially when one
>week removed from rallying in
>Utah against downsizing the national
>monuments one of the major
>organizations BHA was rallying with
>is pushing for wolves in
>CO. I also think
>they are very focused on
>specialized "back country hunting", their
>agenda is not spread over
>a very big demographic of
>hunters.(other than grabbing hold of
>the public lands platform).
>Before that what did they
>stand for? More wilderness
>areas? Is this where
>the alignment with groups like
>Sierra Club and REI come
>from?
>I listen to all you
>guys scream about opportunity, its
>one of the things you
>blast me for on my
>support of the SFW.
>Yet wolves will take more
>opportunity away for years and
>years to come. Its
>the reason the antis fund
>and push wolf reintroduction.
>If wolves knock down populations
>(which they will and have)
> it means less animals
>for hunters to harvest.
>Less tags, less hunters and
>our voice weakens. Sure
>they want the public lands
>open and protected but having
>hunters share this land is
>NOT part of their agenda.
> It is the exact
>opposite. Does SFW always
>take the best stance on
>public land? Nope I don't
>think they do. But
>in the end do I
>really believe their agenda is
>to end public land hunting?
> Not at all.
>Groups like Sierra Club, Defenders
>of Wildlife to want to
>end all hunting including public
>land hunting. If hunters
>choose to side with those
>groups we will lose in
>the end. That is
>just a fact. So
>support which ever group you
>like, but if that group
>is pro wolf I don't
>think any members of that
>group should ever cry about
>opportunity. Your opportunity is
>being eaten by wolves.
>
>You all ask what groups I
>support. It depends on
>the situation. Like I
>have said from the beginning.
>
>
>That's my last post on this.
> Headed south for one
>last hunt this season.
>Hope you all have a
>Merry Christmas and Happy New
>Year! Top I hope 2018
>is a BIG WIN for
>you in all sincerity!!!



You know what, you made 2 fair points.

First, it is hypocritical to slap you for $FW, then turn around and give a pass. I would only say you defend them over more than one issue, but, I can't give Rinella or Callahan a pass for not being spokesmen, then not you.

The second point was actually something I debated before sending money. I too feel they are a bit heavy handed on wilderness only issues.

I try to join 2. One hunt centered, one public land. For years it was DU and RMEF. I thought with all the Rob Bishop noise I might get in with BHA.

I listened to a Newberg podcast. He was discussing how his first question for candidates was how are they on public land?
I 've been feeling lately like the world of hunting is closing in. Privatization, every swinging ##### trying to find a way to capitalize on hunting(founders venture being one of the latest), it seems I need to stand with guys pushing back. $fw/bgf/mdf are not those groups. Like I said, I'm open minded about groups, but I have decided my question is how does the public(land and hunter) benefit.

Good luck to you too man.

On a side note my 6yr old asked Santa last week if he shoots any of his deer. Hopefully that's not what your after!

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 

Muley_73

Very Active Member
Messages
2,395
Wil,
You appear to be yet another Johnny come lately. I have gone over all of this more times than I care to for many years. Go ahead and research me. The fact that I don't take a bunch of time to specifically answer your question as in depth as you'd like should not be taken personal. I don't even know you enough to make it that. :).

Hoss,
None of Santas crew will be harmed. Just whitetail (low fence) :).

And now I am really out. Cheers all!
 

Outdoordan

Very Active Member
Messages
1,791
LAST EDITED ON Dec-15-17 AT 10:26PM (MST)[p]Just so we're clear here:

Mission
"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."

Issue 1. Access and opportunity:
Defending Stream Access
Advocating for the Land and Water Conservation Fund
Working to Enhance Access to Public Land

Issue 2. Public lands and waters:
Habitat Conservation
Conserving Priority Landscapes
Responsible OHV Use and Management
Defending Our Public Lands Legacy

Issue 3. Fair chase:

Issue 4. Stream access now:

Issue 5. What would Theodore Roosevelt do:
(Basically making sure the current and future administrations keep the ideals of hunters and anglers at heart.)

Not any reference, positive or negative to wolf reintroduction. Let's keep debates factual and amiable.
 

Muley_73

Very Active Member
Messages
2,395
My comments have all been facts. Hopefully more will look close at the base and see for themselves.
 

johnnyutah

Member
Messages
94
"My comments have all been facts. Hopefully more will look close at the base and see for themselves."

This quote explains a lot. Opinions and preferences should not be confused with "facts." Attacking others' character, opinions and/or preferences under the guise of "facts" is very very fuzzy math.
 

TOPGUN

Long Time Member
Messages
10,637
>No I stated fact on the
>things that were fact and
>opinion on opinion.


I thought you said you were going to south Texas to hunt whitetails and not argue with these guys any more! Just can't stand to step away can you, LOL!
 

TOPGUN

Long Time Member
Messages
10,637
>Gotta have something to do on
>the plane. But just
>land in Corpus Christi so
>I am out now.
>:)

Hope you have great time down there and kill a big one, and maybe a hog or two!
 

joesikora

Very Active Member
Messages
2,471
LAST EDITED ON Jan-01-18 AT 07:52PM (MST)[p]I have a question, why would some groups want to bring wolves back? Won?t they destroy the elk and deer herds, that we all donate time and money too? Oh anything thing do the changes Trump wants to make to the National Parks good or bad for hunters?

Thanks Joe

"Sometimes you do things wrong for so long you
think their right" - 2001
"I can't argue with honesty" - 2005
-Joe E Sikora
 

grizzly

Long Time Member
Messages
4,793
Most scientific evidence shows wolves lower elk and moose numbers (obviously not good for hunters, though others see it as a rebalancing of the ecosystem). Wolves also reduce coyote populations, and the reduced predation by coyotes and reduced competition from larger ungulates often results in increased deer and antelope populations. Left unchecked, wolves are decidedly bad for game populations, but it's yet to be seen how a tightly managed wolf population would affect game numbers because we haven't been able to manage wolves as such to find out.

I don't know of any hunting groups that are pro-wolf. They may exist, but I've never seen any evidence of it, at least by the major hunting organizations.

Trump isn't considering anything to do with National Parks except switching parts of GSENM into a National Park, which would close hunting forever. This bill goes before Congress shortly and is clearly the major anti-hunting bill that is under serious consideration right now.

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------

"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
 

elkassassin

Long Time Member
Messages
27,118
I Think Deep Down/Back East!

The USFS is Pro Wolf!

And Don't BS Yourself!

There's a Few on Here/MM as Well!











It Won't Be Long and a 22" PISSCUTTER will be known as a Trophy that will be put on the Wall!




90087hankjr.jpg
 

AspenAdventures

Very Active Member
Messages
2,888
The trolls just cant help themselves on this site anymore...back to the sewer with ya!

"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato
 

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