Bowsite.com

As background, there are some proposals on the table that would screw bowhunters. The CBA is trying to prevent loss of bowhunting opportunity. According to Petersen, this is a bad thing. Read it and judge for yourself.

___________________________

Hunters must speak up now to protect wildlife

Every five years, Colorado Parks and Wildlife revises its big game season structure, which determines how many licenses will be issued in various seasons for the next five years. That time is now, and if you are among the growing number of hunters who agree there are way too many of us out there in September (unlimited either-sex archery elk tags, plus deer, bear, pronghorn, grouse and muzzle-loading ), now is your chance to help spark needed change. Time is short, with the comment period ending Feb. 4, and I urge you to go online and fill out the opinion survey today. It only takes minutes.

Wildlife management in Colorado is dysfunctional, with science and public interest being overruled by politics and special interests. Please take this opportunity to tell CPW what we are seeing out there and how we feel about it.

If we who hunt in Colorado (residents and visitors alike) don’t speak up, then self-serving groups like the Colorado Bowhunter’s Association will continue to have their way at the expense of the wildlife resource and the vast majority of hunters. (And by the way, I am a bowhunter.)

As a group, we hunters are unsophisticated when it comes to biology and politics, always seeking more opportunity while refusing to sacrifice anything for the long-term good. Now is our chance to change that sad history. Please take the survey.

David Petersen, Durango

With all the added gun seasons, over killing of cows by rifle quota, and increase in predators that has taken place over the last ten years, this fella thinks it’s bowhunters that should be punished? I can’t get his thoughts.

I love to rifle hunt as much as anybody. But, what this guy is suggesting is a complete oxymoron of the problems. What a jack wagon. Preach about sacrifices, science, etc... yet leave that out as his own reasoning.

David seems to be making three points:

1. Make your opinion known to the CPW during the comment period.

2. The CBA is evil and self-serving.

3. There are too many bowhunters out there so let's limit tags.

Given that David Petersen has made a living for many years with his writing he must have been limited in published words or else he would have better explained his points. If you've read any of his books you know that he's not short on words.

Unfortunately, there simply isn't enough material in his writing to figure out what he's really getting at. #1 is obvious. #3 has been mentioned here on bowsite a bunch of times. So #2 is the mystery. From what I've learned about the CBA they are the bowhunters' greatest advocates in CO. There is no doubt that the CBA has benefitted all of us that have hunted in CO.

So it seems that David Petersen just wanted to take a free swing at the CBA, probably for personal reasons, if I had to guess.

Jaquomo, FWIW he probably stood against the spring bear season because he simply hates predator hunting. He's written about it a lot. That's primarily what turned me off from him. It's either David Petersen's way or it's wrong.

CBA presented hard statistical evidence showing that the miniscule cow harvest by bowhunters is not a factor in the decline of the elk population in SW CO. There are many other significant factors in play, but bowhunters are not one of them.

Petersen is a professional writer. He understands syntax and word counts. He could easily have explained his real intent but for some reason he has a bone about the CBA and chose to generalize and throw the whole organization under the bus in a large public, nonhunting forum. I hope all bowhunters remember this next time one of his books is released.

He makes is sound like the CBA only serves it's officers or an elite group. The CBA represents Colorado Bowhunters. They serve Colorado Bowhunters to the best of their ability. They are all volunteers and do the best that they can. Bowhunting in Colorado would be nothing without the CBA. Thank God they are so self serving.

If you bowhunt in Colorado and don't like what CBA is doing, join, get involved and make a difference. To quote Fred Bear, "If you are not working to protect hunting, then you are working to destroy it."

There is a lot going on with the upcoming season structures in Colorado. There is a big push to limit all elk tags for bowhunters but not for rifle hunters. I can't think of anything more ridiculous. Get involved people. Make a difference.

There is a lot more I would like to say but I won't.

Just kidding but really. I wasn't in CO when the spring bear season was voted out, but WV has it right - guy seems like a total jack wagon.

Say, isn't BHS a self-serving special interest group? Last time I checked.....

That's smacks of being in someones back pocket. Self interest indeed......

Dave hates the idea of otc licenses, thinks it should all be a draw now. He hates the idea of otc with caps for non residents, thinks he deserves to be in the woods with less pressure on elk. He's something else...

His stance in BHA is something else. He used to drive his lil Toyota pickup everywhere to get closer to game, off road and all. But yet it's not ok for guys to drive atvs in to retrieve game. He's got quite a name for himself around Durango, has his own followers that really worship him. It's a shame to see him bashing the CBA again, but what else is new from Dave.

Looks like its signed "David Petersen, Durango"

That would be like me making a statement and some of you saying I represent the NRA or P&Y because I am a life member in the organizations.

If you want to argue that the guys views are wrong, have at it. I might even agree with you. However if you play the guilt by association card, well I can call bull shit on that.

I don't think we all need to agree on everything, but this guy doesn't seem like he shares that sentiment with the way he's talking. I generally will talk to anyone ... right up until they won't listen to my thoughts.

Colorado Bowhunters Association is a great group, and you would not have spit, without them

First off Peterson wasn’t a founder of BHA. If you want to who was and when BHA was first organized. Here is a link.

https://www.backcountryhunters.org/about

Secondly Peterson was one of several people that organize the Colorado Chapter of BHA. If you want to learn more about the Colorado chapter, it’s programs, BOD, and leadership team you will find it in the link below. However I suspect that none of the facts matter to and you rather post agenda based miss information.

https://www.backcountryhunters.org/colorado_bha

Wonder why he didn't call out the state ML association, or those lobbying for more rifle seasons during September?

So you saying he in this letter is speaking for either the CO chapter or BHA? Show me where it’s states that in any way shape or form?

You still didn’t show where other than in your own convoluted mind show where Peterson is speaking for or representing BHA?

Pope and Young, to promote and protect Bowhunting. BHA, to preserve and protect public lands and water. NRA to protect the 2nd admendment. RMEF to further the conservation of elk and it habitat.WSF to put sheep on the mountain.

I was told Petersen is no longer on the board, but that is hard for folks to disassociate too. Hanoi Jane will always be Hanoi Jane.

I hope BHA starts coming to commission meetings and testifying on behalf of hunters, on hunting issues rather than just being a "land use" organization. I really like some of the members. Ivan was at the last commission meeting, he is awesome. Tim Brass is awesome. Hope they show up and testify on the proposed Bobcat ban, that is a hunter/hunting issue, not a land use issue.

Not a good time for a prominent outdoorsman like Petersen to be ripping and dividing hunters on a huge public forum.

The issue I have is that you brought BHA into this conversation because its YOUR agenda. The fact that he is a member gives you a, rather weak excuse to take a shot at BHA, all to SERVE YOUR interests. Could it be that the only reason you posted this was to take an unwarranted shot a BHA? There you go being self serving to your agenda.

Unfortunate. Misguided.

I posted it because bowhunters need to know that an outspoken, nationally-known bowhunter is publicly ripping other bowhunters to nonhunters without giving specifics. He is also a well-known divider, as OB and others have noted. He needs to just shut up and work with the Commission for positive change instead of damaging bowhunters in front of hundreds of thousands of readers.

I just hope whatever new policies are implemented that something comes back around to screw him.

If this was his personal viewpoint he should of stated as such. So as far as most are concerned....he is speaking for Col. BHA.

I was curious on that,,,,, Colorado is not a trapping friendly place anymore, and its going to get worse,,,,,,

Most Everyone has an agenda or is selling something - people that say otherwise aren’t being honest with themselves...

Todd Brickel Vice Chairman - Public Relations

Please post here if possible

What the hell does BHA have to do with his letter. Please tell me??? This is just a way to put a bad pug for BHA because you don't like them. Grow up . By the way I'm not a member of BHA and am a life of the NRA and a many year member of CBA and I live in Pennsylvania..

That said, it's been shown that bowhunters taking cows are having a negligible influence on the topic at hand and I find it very at-odds with Peterson's "mantra" that he should mind that a few hunters "harvest" cows, when the real issue is how many total animals are being killed.

I totally understand gun hunters and bow hunters wanting CO to go to a draw to limit the hoards, whether or not I agree with the move. But honestly, if elk numbers are down, the way to fix that is to address the gun tags as that's where the heavy hitting is done.

Lastly, my opinion is that the attack on CBA was ridiculous and unfortunate. CBA has been a force for good, period. Also, this has nothing to do with BHA and Peterson is not a founding member of BHA.

Here is the deal, radical ideas cause less then favorable responses sometimes. While I understand separating the two from one another, I also understand Lou’s point. You’ve got a guy that took opportunity to cast a shadow on the CBA. He’s got to expect backlash from it. And, when someone does something as dumb as this, you’ve got to wander why. That’s human. Not conspiracy theories.

Saying that his views personally have no reflection on his role in an organization he’s involved with is an abject failure at being honest with ourselves and how history has always worked with humans.

Within this very thread are admissions that interest groups look out for themselves. However, we will absolve Petersen of his interests and leverage with BHA. That’s terrible reasoning.

Maybe the BHA needs to make a statement now.

What?????? Trial, are you saying David Peterson is a reflection on and gives insight into what "traditional" archers are thinking? As a bowhunter who likes to shoot wooden arrows out of different styles and vintages of longbows and recurves (some more "traditional" than others I guess), I take exception to that absurd remark! I am a life member of the CBA and have always appreciated the voice they give me as a bowhunter in Colorado, both when I lived there and since I moved away several years ago. I wish New Mexico had such an organization. As for BHA I have never joined and will never join an organization whose purpose is to lock-up our public land with more federal government regulation and control, providing access only to those willing to hike or horsepack for miles to enjoy hunting and fishing opportunities. I use and enjoy wilderness areas probably more than the average bowhunter (especially because I've lived very close to several wilderness areas for the last 40 years), but that doesn't mean ALL public land should be turned into roadless wilderness areas with no access--not even by mountain bikers. There is a need to responsibly use natural resources on our public lands for fuel, mineral production, and building materials. Motorized public land users should have the same privileges to responsibly recreate on public lands (albeit limited) as those of us who chose to "use the quads God gave us" as BHA used to say so pompously. That doesn't mean I'm not friends with plenty of BHA members but David Peterson doesn't speak for this "traditional" archer!

As stated several times above, all "conservation" organizations are by their nature "self-serving groups". Why form an organization if you don't have some type of mission or purpose? Join the ones that best serve your own desires. If you're a bowhunter who lives or hunts in Colorado, the CBA, while far from perfect, is one of the best bowhunting organizations in the country.

Mike

I also said he is a "noted hunting writer". Does that imply I said he was speaking for all hunting writers too? You need to slow down and think before hitting that submit button. Your habit of twisting people's posts to fit your narrative doesn't help your cred.

Congratulations, we are now proving to the media that this tactic works and that by that we want more of it.

Lou, thank you for posting this and bringing it to our attention. It sucks he chose to do that, to throw the CBA and bowhunters under the bus. Sad he chose to send the letter into a major newspaper. If you wouldn't of let us know about this, it probably would of gone without notice. Glad the CBA got involved. Will it help, probably not.

The purist element may be what ruffles the feathers of many. I guess he has his vision of what life's purities are and he writes and works to promote (push?) those views. The below is a description from one of his books WRT to his view of hunters and hunting:

""Description:

In Heartsblood, nationally acclaimed nature writer and veteran outdoorsman David Petersen takes a clear-eyed look at humans and hunting, and reaches conclusions sure to challenge everyone’s preconceptions. He draws clear distinctions between true hunting and contemporary hunter behavior, praising what’s right about the former and damning what’s wrong with the latter. Along with his extensive personal experience, Petersen draws on philosophy, evolutionary science, biology, and empirical studies to create an engaging and literate work that offers a unique look at hunting, hunters, anti-hunting, and, in the words of the author, "life’s basic truths.""

WRT to the BHA....I never heard of them until this thread. Here is what someone(s) posted on Wiki as thier issues or goals:

"Issues[edit]

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers main issues are:[2]

Preventing excessive off-road vehicle traffic on wild land Educating the public on hunting and fishing Preserving natural forests and public lands from development[2]

The group supports federal ownership of federal public lands and is opposed to legislation that would transfer ownership of these lands to states or private interests.[7] Executive Director Land Tawney has stated, "We see states trying to take over national forests and BLM areas as a threat to public lands that could lead to privatization and loss of habitat and access."[5]

The organization supports legislation to ban the use of drones while hunting, calling the technique unethical.[8][9]

The group hosts an annual "Rendezvous" event where members can come together in support of the BHA mission and objectives.[5] "

Someone above mentioned the BHA is connected to or partnering with the Sierra Club. That caught my eye as I'm not a Sierra Club fan at all. I did some looking around on the BHA internals and found the below. I guess it's up the BHA members here to decide if the BHA offers full disclosure and represents their views accordingly.

(You may also want to read about the BHA's leadership...according to this activist-watch website - https://www.activistfacts.com/person/land-tawney/)

https://www.activistfacts.com/organizations/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/

""Backcountry Hunters and Anglers

One of the latest fronts in Big Green’s spider web

At a Glance

Environmentalist activism is the name of the game at BHA, and hunters and anglers are just the camouflage. BHA has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from environmentalist groups, and BHA executive director Land Tawney has a history of liberal election activism.

Background

Backcountry Hunters and Anglers (BHA) represents itself as good-ole-boy outdoorsmen who simply want to hunt and fish and be left alone. But don’t be fooled. As evidenced by both its sources of funding and current leadership, BHA is nothing more than a big green activist organization pushing a radical environmentalist agenda.

Funding

When looking at BHA’s funding sources, it’s easy to forget they have anything to do with hunting and fishing at all. All of its primary donors have extensive ties to environmental activist organizations.

The largest donor is the Western Conservation Foundation, which gave $278,423 to BHA in 2011 and 2012 alone. WCF has given handsomely over the years to notorious environmentalists and animal rights activists, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Audubon Society, Earthjustice (the self-proclaimed “law firm of the environment”), and Climate Solutions, a major proponent of “global warming.” It has also contributed large sums to the Tides Center, funder of all things leftist. It’s hard to imagine Western Conservation Foundation would donate over a quarter of a million dollars to Backcountry Hunters and Anglers if it wasn’t an organization that shared those same ideological beliefs.

The next largest donor to BHA is the Wilburforce Foundation. From 2009 to 2013, Wilburforce gave a total of $110,000 to BHA for a variety of purposes. As with the Western Conservation Foundation, Wilburforce gives heavily to other notorious environmentalists, including the Environmental Law Institute, the Sierra Foundation, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. Wilburforce’s executive director, Tim Greyhavens, previously worked for the Humane Society of the United States, a vegan activist organization with a PETA-like agenda. BHA also received a $69,000 donation in 2012 from Pew Charitable Trusts, which is famous for its ideological tilt. Other donors include the New Venture Fund ($30,000 total), Conservation Lands Foundation ($26,000 total), Lazar Foundation ($25,000 total), and The Brainerd Foundation ($8,000 total), whose mission is “to safeguard the environment and build broad citizen support for environmental protection.” As with WCF and Wilburforce, each of these organizations have deep connections with the environmental movement, which raises suspicions as to what BHA’s motivations truly are.

BHA Leadership

Not only do BHA’s primary donors have extensive ties to the environmentalist movement, but its leadership does as well. A number of top executives and board members currently work or previously worked for notorious environmental activists.

Most prominent is BHA executive director Land Tawney, who ran the liberal political action committee (PAC) calling itself the “Montana Hunters and Anglers Leadership Fund” (MHA). In 2012, this pop-up PAC spent $1.1 million against Republican U.S. Senate candidate Danny Rehberg, who was challenging Democratic U.S. Sen. Jon Tester. The liberal MHA also spent $500,000 in support of the libertarian candidate as a strategy of drawing votes away from the Republican. MHA received several hundred thousand dollars from the League of Conservation Voters, a liberal environmentalist group. Tawney is also a member of the Montana Sportsmen for Obama Committee and previously served as the National Grassroots Coordinator for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, which, like BHA, is an environmentalist front that poses as a hunter and fisher group.

Taken together, BHA’s funding sources and leadership make clear that the interests of hunters and anglers are the least of their concerns. Environmentalist activism is the name of the game at BHA, and hunters and anglers are just the facade.""

https://www.greendecoys.com/

He does hold accountable hunters for their actions as everyone of us are on public trial every day and for our very future. Some people won't like that, particularly those that confirm our worst stereotypes to non-hunters who are also the first to cry "big-tent," and "who cares what the lefties think," as they vote away our hunting rights.

I don't agree with him entirely, especially his anti-ranching stance and trad-snobbery.

Lastly, I'm fairly certain I read his book based off the personal recommendation from the OP, another man I hold in high regard but don't agree with 100%.

I side with BHA on some issues.

Your quote is all about following the money. I'd encourage you to follow it the other direction. The interest behind the dollar always has a motive.

"Sportsmen for Obama"? Well... Ok then.....

If he made them, (I'm not sure if he did), I disagree with those efforts. He's definitely left of you and I and I knew that from reading his book.

I do agree with him though, on his stance on conserving wild places and holding each other (fellow hunters) read: slob hunters, accountable for our actions. And I'm fundamentally opposed to HF and road hunting, which I view as a lazy whoring of our great heritage, which is his main thrust.

Serious;y, the only thing I can say is to try and get past the discomfort my statement caused you by being reasonable. My response wasn't the least bit shallow. I didn't bash the BHA or any of its members. Only sated the issue at hand. You have no problems questioning my actions so, you shouldn't be surprised when the same was demonstrated. Especially when such a radical, high profile person openly associates with your club. To be transparent regarding my earlier response, the last time I checked, a bowhunter wrote the letter the OP quoted and, not all BHA members are likely bow hunters. Due to these circumstances, it would seem to me that my shallow way of reasoning things seems more then legitimate.

I did everything I could to keep from bashing the whole organization while stating the obvious. Because as simple minded as I am, I can read and correlate what things are implied by people. And we know Ole Dave does that with his own admission of "collaborating efforts to found the BHA" and, "To start the CO chapter of the BHA".

Back to the real topic, great response from the CBA.

EDIT: I'd like to reword "farther left" to "critical of slob hunters, road hunters, Big Extraction," and the like. I'd like to think that conservation of not only our animals, but wild places and 'real' hunting (not driving around on an ATV/pickup truck looking for something to shoot), has nothing to do with a liberal mindset. It's a conservative mind set because it's trying to conserve what is valuable from the past, which is the true heart and soul of conservatism.

If it's ok to shoot a deer in autumn, it's ok to shoot a bear in spring.

He's a trad-snob.

It doesn't make everything he says wrong and it doesn't make BHA an anti-hunting group just because he founded a state chapter. I'm a local chapter leader of the My Wiener for Women Battalion (MWWB). It doesn't mean I speak for men and it doesn't mean that any man who associates with me agrees with 100% of what I believe in.

Everyone on this thread, even men I admire and would share a camp-fire with, I'm sure I would not agree with 100% on all their beliefs, just as I would not agree with everyone at an SCI or Ovis gathering, despite the fact that I have friends who belong to one or both organizations.

Peterson is an animist trad-snob. These sorts have good hearts and are partially right. They're just overly self-righteous. He righteously holds hunters feet to the fire. But he's dead-wrong attacking the CBA as I pointed out in my first post on this thread.

Petersen is a complete fallacy of his own reckoning.

WV, are you a member of any clubs? By your reasoning, you ought to rethink membership in any group who has a member as 'radical' as Petersen, including your political party, church, archery club, Bowsite, etc. Again, just because the guy started the chapter at some point in the past does not mean he speaks for all of us here currently. Broad-brush thinking accomplishes nothing. You've heard that old quote about what the word 'assume' means, right? Lou was absolutely right (as he usually is) to post his letter and bring it to everyone's attention-hunters need to keep abreast of what other hunters are saying and doing, regardless of what organization they are affiliated with (or not) when they say it.

Sorry Idyll, but you're out of the club. Your wiener is known to the State of California to cause cankers and/or mirth effects.

Am I missing something obvious here? Are we not saying the exact same thing?

WRT BHA...... like it or not....this tool (very accurate assessment by Bowfreak) is associated with it.... very deeply so. Just ask him. It's all over his bio. If you want to defend the org..... then a public disassociation from him would be in order. Or own it. It's going to be linked one way or the other. That some might feel that's not "fair" ..... it is what it is.... lots of stuff in life not "fair". With tools like this it's a package deal....

IF.... in fact BHA is a pro-hunter org and not just morphed into some quasi-Sierra Club..... then somebody ought to tell them to get their nuts off the top wire and make some kind of statement on the matter. Otherwise like it or not they are going to be painted as being in same corner as the tool who was a big part of their founding.... who intentionally and very publicly threw one of the best state pro-hunting orgs under the bus to promote SOMEBODIES agenda. If BHA does not agree with him, then man up and either disassociate or make some kind of statement. But get the hell off the fence. Let it be known where you stand. Or rename the org to Backcountry Hikers and Fashionable Fishermen.

So far, here BHA seems to appeal very much to the under forty, new to hunting group. The ones inspired by Rinella and such that have had what I would refer to as a new spiritual/natural awakening. Almost the new deep state yoga. The "Wild" is almost a creature to them, an admirable, life giving creature that nurtures and needs nurturing. It's love must be returned.

As most older hunters have been nearly life long hunters, we don't actually realize that we share some of this thought, but it's so ingrained that we have never had to articulate it. We love wild places, but the difference is we don't disassociate the Wild from reality. It's natural, but it is not mystic.

Also I believe many of the young BHA are more apt to kill a deer and eat it, in almost a ritualistic way, celebrating their new, raw connection to mother earth. They are much less apt to go into the mountains and hunt sheep or goats and surely not predators. So they see "protecting" these "super wild" places as an act of giving back. Hike, sure, maybe even catch a fish, but that's it. And don't forget that many of these younger BHA members are just that, young! They can still walk for miles and miles with a thirty pound pack, because they know they are not going to be making multiple trips out with heavy loads of meat. So vehicular restricted access is a plus to them.

I believe the mindset of the average new BHA member is more to preservation than conservation. And they have a right to follow their hearts. But I also believe they are being used and misled by a bigger more intentional body. I also believe that many will have moved on from their "know where your food comes from" epiphany in several years and will be on to the next great life-giving movement.

But the aftermath will remain.

Though I think you might have actually nailed it. I don't worship Gaia, do not have a mystical connection to "Mother Earth" or nature, and I suspect many of the BHA crowd may indeed outgrow their newfound hunting hobby and simply end up left-leaning (with respect to guns) preservationists with no real understanding of hunting or its role in conservation.

Good chance I am wrong (I often am, about a host of things). Indeed, I hope so.

Good discussion all around though.

And I’m very specifically talking about the BHA movement in BC.

I was listening to a Rinella podcast the other night at work....:) he was interviewing some guy about the Prarie Area Rebuilding program in Az. Im in Pa so it didnt have much connection to me. Right up until the guy who has a solid hunting background, states hes partnering with WWF -World Wildlife Fund and they are basically the driving force in trying to "Rewild" the praries, to replace cattle with Bison. I about drove my little Armadillo Sweeper off the road! Why do the "New wave" hunter/bios think that WWF is happy and will never fight to end hunting?

Did not BHA seek to lower non res elk tags in Co and Utah? Fight for the Roadless initiative in Wa? Now one of the originators is trashing a STATE hunting org? But yet the National group doesnt mutter a word..... This is their MO. Remember recently when a western state was trying to delist the wolf and offer a hunting season? BHA didnt make a statement at all until 5 minutes after that state did remove the protective status.

Absolutely fantastic posts above, TD, Ambush and Ben Yahuda- Bravo!

My feelings also. Every time I step back and try to give BHA an honest consideration of support I find more things that raise my eyebrows, and step back away. The more I learn the father I step away. All the associations with other traditional anti-gun, anti-hunting, anti-everything snowflakes. I think I'll pass.

Forgive me for liking all three of those things...

Sure did Nick. Click the link in Grasshopper's post.

But when there is something effecting hunters in a controversial way, and a statement is made negatively towards traditional hunting methods, theres ALWAYS a thread that connects BHA.

A recent post on the Pa Game Commision Facebook page, which is a really great tool for the PGC to reach folks everyday, had a review of the 2018 Pa Bear season. Comments follow of course and one lady in particular trashed the PGC for permitting bears being killed by hounds and over baitpiles. She recognized herself as a large carnivore specialist biologist or something of the sort..... I never heard of that tag myself lol she was so intelligent she didnt know that in Pa its unlawful to use dogs or baitpiles. Lol So I go to her facebook page only to see she is a pro-wolf rewilding fan. Its her right btw. But right there on her page she proudly displays her promos of the BHA. BHA didnt make those criticisms of PGC, she did, so BHA remains not connected, butbfor that little thread, Similar to this Petersen situation? So I see a trend here.

BTW Ole Land Tawney hisself was sposed to engage me on the BHA page but of course "poof" he never showed and my access to the posts through some mutual friends was gone lol

BTW- the lady leveling criticsms against the PGC was not a Pa resident.

If any ofvthe western state hunting orgs want a reduction in non-resident elk tags thats their business not mine. BUT heres a national org lobbying for Pa hunting members and their $$$ also support that reduction, when many of those NR's are from Pa!

Many employers do just that to look up people that have applied for a job.

Im not hiring

Personally, I'm siding with CBH and SCI.....there is no waffling there.

Why assume these new members will move on completely from all hunting into the next phase of life? They have kids they will hunt with, have memories created and traditions begun.

That is a very broad assumption (leap) about thousands of members. I'm a member, but joined years ago after my lifestyle has been established. I don't worship Gaia (don't use it) . Its far better to have them try hunting, and some move on, than not even try at all.

As far as Land Tawney, yeah, my initial reaction to reading about his support of Obama was the same as most of the posters on this thread. But then consider this - one of my very best friends with whom I elk and deer hunt voted for Obama but we still hunt together. Has it come to this? That we are suspect (paranoid even) of hunters who vote democrat? If someone joins BHA because they want to ensure access to wildlife refuges to hunt small game in the east, how have they become the problem? Dave Peterson alone is responsible for his column.

Everything in his letter was good until he called put the CBA as a self serving special interest to a quarter of a million non-hunting voters without providing specifics. That's where he crossed the line. He's no "canary". Rather, he's just an obnoxious, squawking parrot.

Dirk, again, what is "enlightening" on book of faces with regard to BHA?

There is now rifles hunting elk in bow season, muzzle loaders in bow season, and an increase of all sorts of other recreational people in bow season, country wide. Especially in CO. And this butt head takes a personal shot and we are supposed to try and understand his logic. There is no logic to that. NONE.

Elk resources are completely capable of regenerating and sustaining as long as we don't have too many protected predators and too many rifles killing them before it can do so. That is simple logic. No special reasoning to understand that is required.

He did just as Lou and Dirk said. I have no ability to understand his reasoning as anything but self serving.

If that wasn't human nature, internet forums would be terribly boring...

A battle rages over sunday hunting in Pa. BHA just jumped on the SH wagon to see it pass. Thats good- but now they got their nose inside the tent. One of their members publicly trashed the United Bowhunters of Pa relentlessly over the new implementation of new deer management-AR's- several years ago, on cyber media... For a couple years. Do you see a pettern here? You can't blame BHA directly but its kinda weird their members feel obligated to trash orgs that dont think like them.

Especially when we are right in the right in the middle of 5 year season structure discussions that could have a profound effect on bowhunting opportunity.

Thats where Mr. "You're a special interest but I'm not" crossed the line.

MB- have you criticized your fellow BHA members or just me? :) Perish the thought lol

Only 1 gentleman has manned up to state that Petersen doesnt speak for him- that being elkster. I have respect for that.

A long line of actions that speak to Mr. Peterson’s inflated view of himself and his arrogant attitude that he displays to whom ever and whenever he wishes when I benefits him or simply makes him feel validated

What I will NEVER agree is right is for one hunting organization to bash another on a public forum. There's not enough of us and our numbers are dwindling. There was a time when I would have said the ethics of the hunt take precedence over giving our brethren a pass, but over the last 2 decades things have gone far worse than anyone could have anticipated.

His choice of words is also inexcusable for a professional writer:

"Wildlife management in Colorado is dysfunctional, with science and public interest being overruled by politics and special interests." Going on to seemingly define that "special interest" as a state bowhunting organization- I hope that was just an epic mistake, but it sure doesn't seem like it.

My take on it is this- coming from a state that is the perfect model of this problem (NJ)

#1-Wildlife management is dysfunctional. TRUE- biologists have been reporting data pretty objectively, and the public in general is not listening. Where I live in NJ, I had a biologist come out because there were so many bears my kids couldn't play in the yard and the bears destroyed $300 "bear proof" garbage cans. The biologist PINGED OVER 30 BEARS WITHIN A MILE OF MY HOUSE. THOSE ARE JUST THE TAGGED ONES. The response of the state was to try and ban bear hunting from the "cute and fuzzy" crowd (now the majority). People here - despite the fact everyone knows someone in their family or has been involved in an vehicle collision with a deer causing thousands in damage, injury and/or death of the driver want to STERILIZE deer at the cost of about $1000 per animal. When culls are needed, only the cops and their buddies are allowed to shoot ("the paper always refers to them as 'professional sharpshooters' whatever the hell that is) and they largely leave the meat to rot except in some cases where it's donated to a kitchen. But not at 3am when they shoot 100 deer. Ain't NOBODY dragging 100 deer out of the woods in 1 night. Which then leads to the absurd coyote and bear problems we have,

#2 Politicians win elections just by saying they will stop hunters. Phil Murphy won (IMO) based solely on that and his froting at the mouth at high capacity magazine- which is anything over 7 rounds effectively making every police officer in the state a criminal overnight because they forgot to put in that provision (OOPS!). No grandfathering. This was later amended along with Phil Murphy reneging on his promise to stop hunting (HAHAHAHAHA!).

In the few small pieces of land a guys can get to within a half hour of his house, it IS filled with the "orange army" despite massive restrictions and truly unintelligible zones/regulations/game limits/etc. which change yearly and often mid season. In fact, there have been some years where you have to call in at 5am to see if the season is still open.

David Petersen should know better than to bang out a poorly written, confusing piece of trash like this. I know what he's talking about and you'd probably agree if he properly composed this ridiculous letter, but the damage is done.

Think, Petersen- this is literally what you get paid to do.

Was there ever a retraction or explanation of these hastily chosen words?

Excellent post, Motega. And very timely, given that we here in Colorado are in a fight for the future of elk, moose and hunting here in CO with the wolf-forcing ballot initiative, and the organization Petersen helped found, BHA, has decided to "sit this one out".

There was no retraction from him. He truly believes what he published. Those of us who watched him support the anti-bear hunting ballot issue back in '92 are not surprised. He is all for hunting as long as everyone does it his way, for his approved species, under his parameters, using his methods.

There is an unfortunate tendency with philosophers to get stuck on semantics. Back to the earliest roots of the American spirit of fierce individuality authors like Walt Whitman, celebrate the individual even when they are hypocritical. I mean the whole damn "Blades of Grass" is ABOUT self-aggrandizement - "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes." Or consider this bit of nonsense paradox from every Western philosophy 101 class: "THIS SENTENCE IS FALSE" (think about it until you see the paradox). Petersen is stuck on the idea that his definition of hunting is this pure act of participating as honestly (as he sees it) as possible in the human predator vs. prey relationship with little room for straying from a strict moral code cobbled together from prehistorical or native practices where it's the simplest of tools aided by the mind alone that is the only way to "truly" hunt.

No before you flush ALL of that down the toilet ask yourself where your own personal limits are... Odor elimination is probably not remotely on anyone's list of unfair tactics. How about trail cams en masse sending real-time data surveilling game? I won't do it, but I'll certainly enjoy the tender loins of an animal you shot that way, and it doesn't present much of a moral objection these days because even then there's an AWFUL LOT of work that goes into a successful hunt. How about the new rangefinder/electronic scope combos that light up a target dot after doing the math of your bullet caliber, weight, charge, temperature, wind drift, and elevation? Drones? Spotlighting/jacking is illegal so most would say they are OK with it, but would you if the law permitted it?

I won't tell another hunter what to do except to trust the BIOLOGISTS when they are left to do their job without the pressures of the politicians or anyone but their own.

I choose to do things a little harder than most, but I keep my commandments to myself. I'd like to see hunters exercise as much patience with the general public as possible so we can continue to enjoy our sports, and while we should police our own ranks as far as the law is concerned, it's gotta stop there. I have no more business telling a guy how to legally hunt than I do how to to dress. I may not like to see a dude in a Brazilian thing on a beach and be repulsed by it, I may tell my kids not to do the same, but I'm not going to climb on top of the highest lifeguard stand and shout about it up and down the beach.

David lost his way, probably out of well-intentioned frustration, but that doesn't excuse it. If the biologists weren't pressured to make the decisions he's got no business inserting himself between the science and his own personal ethics.

I'll leave you with some quotes from a much older and more grounded hunter-philosopher who didn't have to wade through the murky waters modern day technology has presented. Jose Ortega y Gasset in a truly great work "Meditations on Hunting":

"One does not hunt in order to kill; on the contrary, one kills in order to have hunted...If one were to present the sportsman with the death of the animal as a gift he would refuse it. What he is after is having to win it, to conquer the surly brute through his own effort and skill with all the extras that this carries with it: the immersion in the countryside, the healthfulness of the exercise, the distraction from his job."

"The hunter who accepts the sporting code of ethics keeps his commandments in the greatest solitude, with no witness or audience other than the sharp peaks of the mountain, the roaming cloud, the stern oak, the trembling juniper, and the passing animal. "

Happy New Years guys-

....When you are fed up with the troublesome present, take your gun, whistle for your dog, and go out to the mountain...

This is why I suggest that BHA is little more than the Sierra Club in camo, co-opting young idealistic millennials who also happen to sometimes hunt and fish. When a major threat to hunting on public lands jumps up, they hide behind the "that's not our core mission" mantra. Land Tawney is probably too busy fundraising for Elizabeth Warren to be concerned with this issue.

You have poor judgement or few friends?

I am just kidding, couldn't pass on such an open barn door.

Missouribreaks, if someone hunts ducks, turkey, coons on public land but doesn't bow hunt elk do you think they are not supporting your interest? They are selfish? Selling out hunters? We need more voters hunting even if they are not hunting the species you prefer.

Ummm, not necessarily. Socialist liberals who also happen to hunt occasionally are NOT who we need voting. I'm willing to bet that more than 80% of voting BHA members in CO will vote "yes" for wolves.

And guess what? Everything we currently enjoy as far as hunting, you can thank "a bunch of old, wrinkly, grey haired, white guys."

The most important conversations I have are the ones with non-hunters, anti-hunters or adult onset hunters. Since hunters will never be the majority, making sure I'm capable of intelligently conversing with the majority to ensure that they understand the cultural, ecological, etc. importance of hunting is the, singular, most important thing I can do to ensure that hunting (holy shit, yes, hunting, not "hiking") sticks around for my kids, their kids, or generally for as long as possible/sustainable.

BHA provides the most effective platform to do that. BHA does not 100% align with traditional hook and bullet crowds -- nor was it meant to. And yes, BHA's original message was heavily "protect public lands" from sell off/transfer -- and yes, I agree that threat is a bit strained. But, what BHA has done is forged new relationships that even if they aren't immediately hunter-centric, they create an opportunity for me -- a dyed in the wool hunter -- to have a convo with someone wearing a Patagonia vest because they heard a podcast.

BHA is definitely not perfect. I would not pit BHA against CBA as Petersen did -- that piece is unfortunate. But equally unfortunate are the comments on this thread that claim omniscience of BHA, all of the chapters, all of the projects that are geared towards hunters -- the SW Elk problem being a case in point. BHA never took a position on SW Colorado elk herds, but the Durango chapter is involved. Same with wolves, BHA probably won't take a position, but the leadership component of BHA and its members are.

As for the "grey haired, crusty, wrinkled old white men" comment, there is, of course, a kernal of truth to that, but that's too simple to just lump eveyone on this thread into that category. Some of the best ideas upon which BHA/CBA/WSF/RMEF/MDF rest are crafted by those people. We ought not cast out the good with the bad -- but as paradigms do shift, we ought to recognize when ideas are no longer effective.

The season structure in Colorado is an example of where CPW staff said things need to change in the SW. That was never BHA's position and is not BHAs goal. CPW bios recognized an issue, fashioned a response, and supported that response with data. Steven Rinella's anecdotes about hunting in SW colorado during muzzy season, the number of people that showed up at the Durango BGSS meeting, and ubiquitous (unanimous) perspectives of crowding and elk numbers obviously didn't help arguments for the status quo. But, I digress.

I'll keep my BHA membership. I'm going to keep hunting. I'm going to keep working to protect hunting. That's all I can do.

Petersen needs to be careful before he Zumbos himself.

As a general rule, in my time working with special interest groups and state/local chapters of groups like these we are our own worst enemies.

I've EASILY had more rights taken away by other sportsmen than I've ever had taken away by antis. United we stand, divided we fall.

A couple years back the state of California illegalized all trapping of bobcats. The entire time they were moving it through the legislative process they promised that they wouldnt try to ban hunting bobcats.

After trapping was illegal they snuck in a ban on selling any bobcats killed in California. After that went through, and there was no more commercially harvested bobcats it was easy for them to say the only reason people were still hunting them was for bloodsport.

As of 12/31/2019 it's now also illegal to hunt bobcats in CA. You might think so what, its California. They probably dont have many cats. Well you would be wrong. CA is easily one if the best cat trapping states- or I should say it was...

Hunters didn't stand with trappers because they were promised nobody ws as coming for their sport.

I see the same thing right here on this site. Lots of Bowsiters despise gun hunters. Guess what. There are a hell of a lot more gun hunters than bow hunters. We should want good relations with all user groups

Michael

I would think such a passionate advocate of BHA would at least want to know. Or is ignorance truly bliss?

I am on the sportsperson's round table. It's a privilege.

And Bowbender, ignorance isn't bliss, but we all have limited bandwidth and I can't (won't) chase every quibble on a bowsite thread to its logical terminus. Thanks for your thoughtful comment.

The BHA must be much more then they seem. Or, more hunters are blatantly left leaning then seems possible. Politics. You gotta love it. It even confuses wrinkled old white guys sometimes. SMH

If that's the case where is there support opposing the ballot initiative for reintroducing wolves to Colorado against the recommendations of real biologists and game managers? Perhaps they don't want to alienate those newly forged relationships with groups that are not, what was the phrase, "hunter-centric"

"I can't (won't) chase every quibble on a bowsite thread to its logical terminus."

I wouldn't call the support of HR 3794 a quibble on the Bowsite. So instead turn a blind eye.

Those of us with a few gray hairs and some wrinkles (Lou notwithstanding) have fought this fight for possibly more years than you have been alive. One thing you can be sure of. The opposition never stops. Ever. Their idea of compromise is not to give an inch. When a method of hunting comes under attack, see if the Pata-Gucci crowd aligns itself with you. See if your less than hunting-centric groups come to your (our) aid. Sorry, but Charlie Brown ain't trusting Lucy to hold the ball.

To suggest BHA is a bad thing is silly- you may not agree with every position they take, but they remain truly dedicated to the core problems we face and I'm proud to be a member. I hope that we can all put aside small differences to see the larger picture. It's easy to sling stuff online, if all f you were around a campfire at hunting camp I'd bet 99.9% of this would be settled agreeably in the time it takes to cook a loin extra rare. If you enjoy hunting camps y'all better learn to put aside your relatively small differences or there won't be any hunting camps in your grandkids lifetime.

They’re far from just public land advocates. I wouldn’t give them a dime.

Matt

Same goes for BHA and any other organization.

Seems very reminiscent of the RMEF around the time of the wolf intro. Over time they had been very much derailed off of their original mission and much of the leadership slowly taken over by "Sierra Club" mentality. They sat on the sidelines as several in the leadership were actually publicly supporting the introduction. A great number of the membership were screaming for the club to get off their azzes and take a stand against the intro.... or at least some aggressive management such as WY wanted.

When the whole debacle went completely south, membership got off THEIR azzes and cleaned house. Leadership got active and made a stand. A bit too little and way too late.... but at least they righted the ship and started tacking in the right direction again. And their support and political pull has been a great help.

Maybe the current membership of HUNTERS within the BHA should do the same? They are in many opinions much too cozy with full blown anti hunters. And these are holding far too much sway in the org. That or just go on ahead and become a chapter of the Sierra Club as seems to be the direction. Baby and bathwater thing.... maybe the baby is worth saving.... maybe just the bathwater cold and filthy.... dump it. Refill.

If you think that may be a bit extreme..... you folks have not a clue of what the Sierra Club was 40-50 years ago and what it has currently morphed into. Some of us old wrinkled guys have something called "prospective" and have seen what goes on. We aren't what some may describe as "born yesterday".....

The first BHA website, (before they were uncovered) before they changed up the web addy and page, had the Sierra Club listed on their ‘Sister Website’ links.

This needs to be read again and again....

“ From: Jaquomo01-Jan-20Private Reply It also doesn't help that BHA has one of the strongest advocates of wolf forcing on their national Board of Directors. This is why I suggest that BHA is little more than the Sierra Club in camo, co-opting young idealistic millennials who also happen to sometimes hunt and fish. When a major threat to hunting on public lands jumps up, they hide behind the "that's not our core mission" mantra. Land Tawney is probably too busy fundraising for Elizabeth Warren to be concerned with this issue.

Wonder if Tawney and Obama are going to the big funeral gig in Iraq?

Honestly, 99% of their membership seems truly lost to what national claims, the clubs funding, what national's stance is on any topic, what the club truly promotes, etc... They join based on the clubs mission statement or, local chapter contributions to trail work, etc..... And, will argue the benefit of the organization based on nothing but the reason they decided to join. With zero research or willingness to look past their own preconceived notion of what the BHA truly works to achieve.

Looking at this thread at how members like Stix manipulate their words to disguise their intent is no different then listening to national's mission statement versus what they spend a good bit of their time actually doing. Stix originally claimed he was pro wolf, deleted that during editing, and has since went on to explain how he is against any wolf introduction in Colorado. However, when asked, he claims he has no opinion on reintroduction anywhere but Colorado. Come on man. Which is it? It's the same stuff you hear from most of the outspoken members. They say what seems digestible while truly hiding or dismissing their true feelings. I'm so tired of hearing how their fight for public land is their only goal when research will tell you they are far more involved taking opposing stances on the current administration's appointee's, some random sage grouse study, or how conservatives are plotting to "Sell Public Land".

The national chapter is nothing more then a political tool. Period.

The recent partnering with Patagonia was a biggie for me. Patagonia has a link on their website for donating to HSUS. I read the rationalization BHA put out for working with Patagonia but it didn't sway my opinion of the move. I have no problem being in the same camp on an issue when I agree with them on but they aren't a fit for me. Environmental issues will often find us hunters with some teammates we normally see on an opposing bench but there are limits.

They have done a great job with branding, reaching young people and overall social media presence. I have friends who are members and they are all good guys with great intentions.

As I stated earlier, when hunting is under assault will the Patagonia crowd step up and help? And as seasons are lost or cut back I suspect those new found hunters that BHA attracted on college campuses will move on to the next "cool" thing.

Hey, that's awesome!!! Leadership and staff positions filled by those with no or limited hunting experience. Silly me....forgot... BHA and it's alliances aren't hunter-centric.

I'd like to mention an item you brought up - STL.

Not disparaging BHA, but STL is a drop in the bucket of what we should be doing. It is possible, and likely, that much of the new rec leasing is still going to be ag leased, not sure how it will all work out, and we should have access to all of it, but if it is all over grazed - what did we gain? You guys want STL bad just because it is public owned and apparently we should be entitled. I find very little about STL exciting.

What we should be doing is what Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho are doing. We had BGAP for a few years, and for years now CPW was supposed to be launching an access working group to expand private land access for big game. We need west of I-25 access expansion. In no way should we be tooting horns yet, our access still sucks comparatively.