Pinecricker
New member
It is all specifically closed to hunting, and is very visibly posted as such.
One area was a popular water fowl hunting area, the other was very a good whitetail hunting area.
Green Decoys
- Thread starter Whiptail
- Start date
It is all specifically closed to hunting, and is very visibly posted as such.
One area was a popular water fowl hunting area, the other was very a good whitetail hunting area.
Curious as to what property that is, I'm seeing a lot of opportunity on TNC land in Idaho for hunting & Fishing: http://www.nature.org/ourinitiative...ct/statewide-preserve-public-access-guide.xml
They don't require access as a component of their conservation easements. They leave that up to the landowner.
Pinecricker
New member
BHA's structure is this: Each state that has a chapter which is formed of volunteers who decide what they will and will not work on. MT's chapter works on license allocation, forest planning, wildlife management (like shoulder seasons, etc). I don't know what Idaho's chapter is like, but I know several state chapter leaders who are actively engaged in state level wildlife management.
The national BHA organization works heavily on federal issues and actively lobbies congress on issues related to sportsmen, hunting, angling and public land management. They are a very effective and credible voice on the Hill for our issues. TRCP similarly works on policy at the federal and state level that effects wildlife management and wildlife habitat. They are growing and should have some new staff coming on in the Northern Rockies.
BHA doesn't sue, and their positions are nowhere close to the far left groups Pinecricker mentions.
& I like Rocky. He does some great work.
Like I said, pursuing their current strategy, I don't see BCHA ever being a very effective organization in Idaho. They are preaching to small choir, but don't seem well position to appeal to a broader the cross section of the hunting public that is required to gain momentum.
P.S. When you say you like Rocky's work, I can only assume you are referring to his close association with Susan Stone of Defender's of Wildlife? Because that is the kind of brand image baggage he drags along. Align yourself with people like Rocky if you want, just be aware that it isn't helping your cause any in the eyes of hunters.
Pinecricker
New member
Cougar Bay is a good example of lost waterfowl hunting. There are other properties that are managed by BLM that have easements that were brokered by NC, the Blue Creek area for example.
The Idaho BHA members I know do better than average at notching tags, what a bunch of "environmentalists".
The Idaho chapter also does a bunch of work with IDFG. A member was at yesterday's commission meeting in Hailey, his word was that hunters were basically absent from the public comment period and most commenting were non hunters. He was able to speak many times for hunters views and it was very appreciated.
Give the Rinella podcast with Land Tawney a listen, its great.
The Idaho chapter also does a bunch of work with IDFG. A member was at yesterday's commission meeting in Hailey, his word was that hunters were basically absent from the public comment period and most commenting were non hunters. He was able to speak many times for hunters views and it was very appreciated.
Give the Rinella podcast with Land Tawney a listen, its great.
You don't seem to understand the point of BHA. They are not a habitat organization or a traditional sportsmen group. They are an advocacy group for sportsmen in DC and I'm states. They stand up for our public lands and the wild country, which are important to sportsmen and the future of hunting. State chapters differ but nationally TRCP and BHA do great things and are two of the biggest defenders of sportsmen in DC.
Rocky has done some very good pieces on sage grouse and transfer of public lands. I enjoy his writing style, even if I don't agree with him on some things. I've not seen him be overly gushing towards Suzanne or DOW, but I certainly could have missed that.
Thanks for the clarification on the closures. Seems like small parcels close to occupied lands, and you can still waterfowl hunt below the high water mark on Blue Creek Bay, according to the BLM: http://www.blm.gov/id/st/en/visit_and_play/places_to_see/coeur_d__alene_field/blue_creek_bay.html
Pinecricker
New member
Blue Creek bay was closed off to deer hunting, all the BLM land around there, and it used to be excellent whitetail hunting. The point here is that access and opportunity DECREASED in both areas as a result of Nature Conservancy involvement. Yes they do allow hunting in some places, yes they protect habitat. However, in the case of North Idaho, their impact on hunting has been a net loss in opportunity, which I understand is often the case.
Pinecricker
New member
I don't know the whole story behind it. There may have been a small piece of private that was rolled into the public, but a pretty good chunk of BLM land was permanently closed for hunting. It impacted both whitetail hunting on the ridges, and waterfowl hunting in the marsh at the head of the bay. It was also a good area for grouse.
There isn't much public land around lake Coeur d'Alene, especially on the North end, so it was a loss that was felt by local hunters.
Understood. Thanks for walking me through it! We have a very good chapter of TNC in Montana and they do exceptional work on the ground, at the state capitol and in DC.
I've been hunting a TNC property this season that has an FWP conservation easement on it, ensuring access in perpetuity. I know of a few places that TNC owns that don't allow hunting, but they seem to be the minority. TNC has been a strong advocate for access in MT. Wish it were the same across the country.
I've been hunting a TNC property this season that has an FWP conservation easement on it, ensuring access in perpetuity. I know of a few places that TNC owns that don't allow hunting, but they seem to be the minority. TNC has been a strong advocate for access in MT. Wish it were the same across the country.
JWP58
Banned
I really wanted to join bha, but I just cant align myself with it. The political leaning of the organization and its leaders are so far left of what I consider "rational" its a no go. Maybe that will "change"...we can all "hope"...right?
Last edited:
Could you expand on that? Genuinely curious as to what you feel is too far left.
JWP58
Banned
The information is out there. Its not that im going to go out of my way to speak poorly about the organization, but I just don't want to align myself with an org that is run by folks who raise money for and support politicians that.....
-are pro-choice
-pro "affordable care" act
-for an increase of funding to medicare
-voted for Kagan and Sotomayor
and basically tow the democratic socialist line at every turn.
It goes against my ethics and morals, and I cant donate money or more importantly time to it.
-are pro-choice
-pro "affordable care" act
-for an increase of funding to medicare
-voted for Kagan and Sotomayor
and basically tow the democratic socialist line at every turn.
It goes against my ethics and morals, and I cant donate money or more importantly time to it.
That's certainly your choice, and thanks for the answer. I don't agree with it though, and they have a pretty good track record of being bipartisan and working with anyone they can to advance their goals, including better access for hunting & fishing, better public land management, etc.
Personally, I don't care what people do in their spare time, it's the actions the organization takes that defines whether or not I support them.
But that's just me.
Cheers!
Personally, I don't care what people do in their spare time, it's the actions the organization takes that defines whether or not I support them.
But that's just me.
Cheers!
There goals have nothing to do with the things you listed above. They work with politicians that support the cause they have in their mission statement, and I hate to say it but the majority of republican candidates do not support public lands or conservation efforts. They do not support the farm bill. They do not support the LWCF. Is there exceptions? Absolutely. I understand where you are coming from but simply because they work with candidates that support those things does not mean they support those things. They are doing what they said they would do and that is to strive to protect public lands and access to public lands. Many of the candidates who agree with that notion tend to be somewhat liberal. Don't confuse working with politicians who share their point of view on the issue they are working on with them agreeing on everything that candidate stands for. It simply means they agree on that issue. The reason our congress is so dysfunctional is this same mindset. It has to be all one way or all the other, that simply isn't true.
Schaaf
Well-known member
I had a lot of the same problems that JWP had about BHA, but I ultimately decided that they were doing such a good job at their core values and my core values regarding hunting and fishing and pretty much anything involving the outdoors aligned perfectly with BHA's mission. I myself tend to lean to the right the majority of the time lately I have found myself siding with what would be considered the left when it comes to sportsmen's rights. I think it is foolish to think that you will agree with every person or every organization out there. I may disagree with what Land Tawney's opinion on the matters of pro choice may be but I am confident that when I give BHA money that they are using it wisely to protect my hunting and fishing way of life. This is ultimately what has made my decision to become a life member within the next few months and attending the Rendezvous in Missoula this April.
Ben, you are also a member of WSF, correct?
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,634
This is why one day - only wealthy people will be afforded the luxury of hunting.
smarandr
Well-known member
Nailed it.
If we worried about whether an organization and all its people (whether it be a conservation org or your local grocery store) were 100% ideologically pure nothing would ever get done.
JWP58
Banned
There might be funding for that if people didn't support welfare handouts and massive spending bills such as the "affordable care act"...which turns out is a few billions short of affordable.
Call me crazy, but maybe if we weren't 18 trillion in the hole, people wouldn't be looking to sell off public lands in the first place. Isnt that the guise that most sell off proponents use?
Of course I probably am crazy because I also don't support the holy NRA...or any lobby group really. Because at the end of the day, lobbying is bribery, plain and simple. And with that in mind, principles and ethics are thrown by the wayside because when it comes to bribery, $$$$$$ cash is king.
Im not claiming my stance is the right way, or the way others should conduct themselves, its just my way. The whole "green decoy" thing is absurd anyway. Its just another group of lobbyists ragging on their rivals. I think BHA is made up of hunters, that's not the issue I have with the org.
Last edited:
