Bowsite.com

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers President and CEO Land Tawney offered the following response: “Ryan Zinke came to the Interior Department with an ambitious vision for overseeing the nation’s great natural resources, but he ultimately broke his contract with the Americans people. His actions - such as undermining the federal Antiquities Act, diminishing good faith collaborative successes in sage grouse management, and pushing resource exploitation at the expense of conservation - eroded public goodwill. “Our American public lands and waters are valuable beyond measure. Sportsmen and women have a special stake in enjoying them, conserving them and defending them. We do not want industrial interests dictating their management, and we will not stand for an administration that values the priorities of big business and a few deep pocketed individuals over the will of the citizenry.”

Paul Babaz, President of Safari Club International made the following statement. During his tenure at Interior, Secretary Zinke, a former Congressman from Montana, implemented several measures designed to enhance wildlife habitat conservation and increase public access to hunting and fishing opportunities. “I know I speak for all members of SCI when I say how much we appreciate the leadership Secretary Zinke has shown in matters of wildlife conservation,” said Paul Babaz, President of Safari Club International. “He has led the way in assuring the federal government works hand in hand with state wildlife management professionals to conserve one of America’s greatest heritages – our wildlife. “I am proud to serve on one of the advisory committees established by Secretary Zinke. As a fellow hunter, the Secretary truly understands the mindset and the needs of our country’s outdoor sportsmen and women. He will truly be missed,” Babaz concluded.

I`m torn as to the issue of State`s rights vs. Federal involvement. Can a state like Wyoming better manage THEIR property.....yes. Can a liberal craphole like Colorado....no.

Land is meant to be used and that is what Trump`s administration is pushing. The left would love to see these lands as nothing more than a sanctuary and never be used. But the public wouldn`t stand for it.

Not when one or other of those voices is lying through their teeth.

As far as Zinke goes, he's out because of ethics issues. As far as BHA goes, they are to the left of many on protection of natural places from exploitation by big timber/mining but are to the right of the whackadoodle leftist organizations. Some people just label anything that doesn't tow the Rush Limbaugh line as "leftist" because it doesn't align with their exact brand. That's what this ultimately comes down to.

I'm not a member of either, but where hunting issues are concerned, SCI is on our side more than BHA. BHA appears to me to be Prius-driving Sierra Clubbers in plaid flannel, some of whom (in leadership) might go pheasant hunting occasionally to maintain their "hunter" status.

We all know how the pendulum swings in politics. Obama appointed a sleeping bag saleswoman to head Interior, and weaponized Interior and most other agencies to illegally implement some onerous rules as "law" by circumventing Congress. Trump has appointed polar opposites in many cases because the great red swath of America wants Washington insiders mostly of their lives. Next go-around may find the pendulum swinging even further left, which will divide our country deeper. Look at what's happening in France right now because of a green overreach. A Warren, Sanders, or O'Rourke presidency might make the French uprising look like a church picnic...

And honestly, the more liberal people we can bring into hunting's ranks, the more secure hunting's future will become. If left leaning people had more hunters, it'd be reflected in some of their politician's positions.

I continually meet older hunters who are dropping out because so many roads into their lifelong hunting areas are being closed. Access for older hunters is a problem expressed publicly by the CO CPW game managers. Someday the BHA flat-brims will grow old too. Where I live, USFS vehicle closures are continuous and unrelenting. Vehicle access is NEVER reopened once the gates are locked or the berms dozed.

But what I don't see are compensatory numbers of REI folks running down to Cabelas in their Yakima-topped, Bernie-stickered Subarus to take up hunting just because public lands are being closed off to the unwashed undesirables among us.

Like Glunt expressed, balance is key. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see that with BHA. What has BHA done to advocate for more and better access into suitable hunting areas for the millions of older hunters who are dropping out at an alarming rate? Seems like they are fighting tooth and nail to push those hunters out of the way. I hope I'm wrong, but that's how it looks from here.

I am a BHA member (as well as PNY, etc) and I know and believe they have a core mission to help secure access for the public along with a strong base of hunting leadership.

Not every member of BHA is a hard core Bowhunter nor are they aligned with a singular political party. Last time I checked, neither were RMEF or PNY nor was it a requirement. I’m not naive enough to think you will ever join a club you are 100% aligned with.

***After reading these two paragraphs of yours I have to say that you are so far off base as to be laughable. The BHA organization is certainly not composed of young liberals with mainly a preservationist mindset and your Prius driving Sierra Clubbers notion and how you came up with that is more than questionable.

Lou, everywhere I go in the National Forest system and BLM lands, there are roads within a mile of just about every single square foot of the entire property except in designated "roadless" areas. We can stand to have a few of these roads closed. It's ok for people to have to walk a mile or two and if they can't, well, I'm sorry, but I don't think that "the forest" should be wheelchair accessible. I'll be old one day and there'll be areas that I can no longer access one day, yes. Time gets us all and hunting is not the only activity that older people give up because they can't do it anymore and much of people giving things up has to do with them not keeping themselves healthy - that's not my or the forest's fault.

I once climbed the 11 thousand foot peak behind my house in CA and upon getting to the top, found an old man already at the top. After talking with him for a while, he told me he was 82 and he climbed the peak twice a week. The nearest trailhead was 7.2 miles and 4.5K feet below us.

People don't need roads to hunt. They need roads to road-hunt. And there's plenty of them wherever I go across this country.

Jaquomo, you'd be funny if you weren't so blatantly ignorant.

"honestly the more liberal people we can bring into hunting's ranks, the more secure hunting's future will become. If left leaning people had more hunters, it'd be reflected in some of their politician's positions"

I hunted 8 states this year and not only did I see overwhelming support for what Zinke was doing I heard many people form several states excited about new federal lands being opened up to hunting by this administrations actions.

Everyone I talked to in Utah was happy with Trump/Zinke overturning what they thought was an overreach with the antiquities act. They all felt that the reversal was critical to ensure hunting opportunities.

I keep hearing about Trump/Zinke selling off our public lands but I've not heard of a single actual instance of that happening. Where exactly did they sell off our land?

If all you can come up with is them making it easier to drill for oil and gas, tell me, just how do you get to your hunts? Do you only travel by bicycle? How do you heat and cool your house? How does that clean water get to your tap? Compromises have to be reached. We can't have it all.

Don`t be offended if we don`t take your opinion seriously.

I like you have not seen where any of the federal land sold. Do you have a link where someone from BHA actually said this?

I have worked in Oil and Gas for 15 years, so obviously I’m pro-drilling and exploration activities while being environmentally responsible . Probably a point myself and SOME other BHA members may not agree on. So what? Doesn’t mean I’m not going to support the other good things they do towards public access.

I may believe gross scoring is bullshit for being now recognized, doesn’t stop me from being a member of PNY. Same difference.

I will also say that I don’t think Ryan Zinke did a bad job. I would also say that I’m not 100% educated on the detailed issues of why he resigned other than pressure from the left media on frivolous travel, etc.

Maybe I'm missing something here in the middle of roadless country, with five wilderness areas within an hour drive and hundreds of thousands of acres of roadless NF all around where I'm sitting right now. But I've never heard a hunter or outdoorsman here asking for roadless or wilderness areas to be opened up. No one is trying to take away opportunities for backcountry experiences. Roads are not just for road hunting. They are also for access to where hunters strike out on foot.

I agree that some places are way over-roaded and many should be closed down. But we have activists in policy positions in the NF who overreach. I've met with some about certain unnecessary road closures, and their expressed reasoning was personal/political. And I agree that backcountry hunting is not for everyone, especially those who are physically unable. I don't want to see drilling rigs in designated wilderness, nor do I want to see landowners who are good stewards of wildlife habitat screwed by an overreaching federal government. It's about balance.

The original point of this thread was which position is right about Zinke. From the Colorado perspective, Zinke and Interior worked with the State on a win-win sage grouse protection program that valued the needs of all stakeholders and was lauded even by our liberal press as a great example of governmental-private partnership, as opposed to ramming things down our throats like the previous administration. His department has tried to balance priorities, as he pledged to do when he was confirmed. Did they do a perfect job? Hell no. No one does because government is inherently imperfect.

But back to the original post. Land Tawney rants about "the will of rhe citizenry". Which citizenry is that? The will of the citizenry of the 30 states that voted for Trump, or of the 13,000 members of BHA?

So to the OP question, I believe Babaz's position is closer to the truth than Tawney's reactionary, pound the podium diatribe. Feel free to disagree. Thats what makes this country great (even New York and California).

Hmmm.......

And you live in Wisconsin? Does that make you unqualified to talk about Western public land issues?

I've always considered myself a very conservative person in economic perspective, beliefs and politics. I may not agree with everyone in the BHA organization in all things but I've hunted with a lot of "Green Decoys" and am happy to accept that moniker myself. I live at ground zero for the political push to transfer federal land to state ownership. Much of the video in the link below was shot in a favorite hunting spot of mine, a drainage that is home to numerous mountain goats, an area where an isolated population grizzlies concentrate during the spring breeding season, an area that will be developed and mined for its rich copper and silver deposits. When that happens it might bring what some call "progress" to our county in terms of jobs, but it will also have a toll on the wildlife and resources as more people move in.

Did Zinke do a great job? Personally, I was dissapointed in some of his actions but figured he was better than some of the other choices. I'm concerned that in 6 months those who are concerned about the environment and responsible resource development might look back and think he wasn't so bad after all.

I do not know how BHA functions on the national stage, but after watching their antics in Alaska over a few years, I can assure you that they are very much in bed with the anti-hunting and more rabid environmental groups.

When I sat on the Alaska Board of Game, BHA continually proposed and supported ridiculous, anti-game-mgt changes to the code. They were/are a very squirrelly bunch.

Pete

I have not looked in detail at decisions to sell any public lands from the DOI and have not heard that he was pushing for public land sales. It would be interesting to compare land sales under his watch with land sales under Obama’s DOI.

Leases (oil, gas, mining, timber, grazing, etc) are a totally different issue - and NOT A SALE OF PUBLIC LANDS! I am all for multiple use with good management and stewardship to help keep these lands open for all.

It seems that the big butt hurt from BHA was the review and removal of lands that were designated as National Monuments by Obama. I certainly thought that was an overreach by the Obama administration. As did most people you talk to down in Utah! I applauded the actions by the current administration!

Designation of BLM/NF lands as NM is not a good thing for sportsmen. Most of the NM lands are a loss to sportsmen for access to hunt and hunters should not support that designation. Roads are closed and fences built around these areas at the taxpayers expense. Additionally, designating these lands as NM also is a hit to taxpayers as multiple land use is not allowed and they then become non-revenue generating.

I was hopeful that Zinke would be able to open up National Monuments and National Parks to hunting. Until the existing Monuments and Parks are opened to hunting, any additional designation is a loss to sportsmen, even if they say that the new designation will allow hunting, it will most likely be eliminated with a change to a Democrat administration.

I’m on SCI’s side with respect to Zinke.

Believe it or not, but in this day and age, it is still possible to think for yourself and agree with two groups who may not be totally aligned politically. This requires thinking for yourself, which is obviously a lot to ask of some people on here.

Bottom line.

Preservation results in a net loss of value for the land and the species that inhabit it. Thus, BHA is standing to the LEFT of center to the detriment of sportsmen and taxpayers of the USA.

If our public lands continue to have more “protection” and loss of revenue generation potential, the entire system will tip to bankruptcy and we will lose it all.

Think about it however you will. That is the truth.

The best way to avoid that is to dump the Trump and nominate a REAL Republican candidate. Most people in this country are not far left nor far right. Letting the wackos on either end of the spectrum control the narrative is a losing scenario for everyone. The first party to wake up and nominate a more centrist candidate will likely win. We don't know the real reason Zinke quit, but it's pretty obvious no one of substance can/will work for Trump, and he's surrounded by scandal. We need a real President, not a self serving, wannabe dictator who puts himself before the best interest of the country.

Where I struggle with BHA is that there doesn't seem to be much difference between them and Sierra Club. Hopefully someone will enlighten me.

I just read the official press releases from each organization about the Zinke resignation, and they might as well have been written by the same PR firm.

On the other side, Sierra Club's public face now looks more like an official arm of The Resistance backed by the Big Green industry.

I stand corrected and may rethink BHA.

Instead, what I have seen is the BHA pushing for land designation that removes management control from the public use doctrine that defines all public owned and federally owned land in this country I know we all believe differently as the har a national monument proposes. But, what do we gain when we statue away the policy that guarantees management be public approved as a majority and, in the scope of the land use possible for those individual lands?

I don't doubt that 100% of them members are well intended. What I have a problem with is the organization appears to be against anything that represents conservation. And, 100% in support of preservation.

Responsible land use practices was is one of the defining goals of the BLM. Its purpose is to lease mineral rights to private entity's for local economic survival. Yet, we see no support of that. Only opposition from the BHA if it has industrial purpose attached. That isn't common sense. Nor is it practical. IT also reeks of political motivation. So, compromise is not an alternative from many people's perspective. Nor should it be. Because the BHA is claiming one thing but acting in another way. Political tools do not support multiple use management. Nor does it have any positive affect for sportsmen. Like I said first post, give examples where their influence is being used as their mission statement claims. Then I can be corrected to some degree

Lou - Dig a little into the background of the their Board of Directors. Most come from leftist orgs.

Im a hunter who relys on public land and likes backpacking into remote places but also likes snowmobiling, 4 wheeling, and being able to fill the tank on my truck without insane fuel prices.

I just have to take issues and sides as they come.

"Responsible" is the operable word in that sentence, and is always open to debate. It IS appropriate to preserve some natural ecosystems and protect them from ANY development. With our increasingly obscene overpopulation it is becoming more difficult to set aside meaningful tracts of land for those of us to enjoy, who will take the time and effort to visit, hunt, and fish without resorting to mechanical contraptions, and pass down those areas to future generations. You can argue that we "need" those resources. But if we don't come up with alternatives, now, we will still need them when they run out; and they WILL run out.

Lou said; "...with five wilderness areas within an hour drive and hundreds of thousands of acres of roadless NF all around where I'm sitting right now."

What he didn't say is that although they meet the definition of a Wilderness Area, they are pity-fully small. A half day hike into any of them will result in hiking back out if you continue. They're better than nothing, but only Alaska and possibly Montana have any true wilderness areas, and even they are subject to the intrusion of aircraft overflights.

JohnMC.

If you really do believe in a "Deep State" in the US, how can you not recognize that Trump is NOT fighting against it, but trying to be the leader of it?

It`s like being a wife beater but supporting laws against wife beating. What are we to believe.

I believe many are not skeptical enough of the true motives of certain groups and their true agendas. I won`t use the term "naïve" but pretty damn close.

Lets not create access and actually use the land in a intelligent manner but lets erect those god awful wind turbines and solar panel arrays. I bet many still believe the "Bundy situation" was really about grazing rights....pfffffft.

Logging is ugly and has to be stopped but wind turbines everywhere are just fine.

FYI, at current usage levels we have about 250 years of "known" oil reserves today. We have plenty of time to come up with realistic alternatives without forcing energy poverty by subsidizing inefficient "clean energy"

backwoods, let me fix that for you......

All politicians and administrations are all about spin !

Can't argue with you there. People who think they are non-polluting have to be blind. Now they could require them on every building in every city. Closer to where the power is needed and you can't make a city uglier anyway. But I like dams even less. The one solution to many problems is population control. But no one wants to talk about that.

"...we have about 250 years of "known" oil reserves today."

Many of which are in currently unspoiled areas, that will be devastated by development. For what? A short term reprieve, and loss of those habitats forever.

There are no easy answers. A little compromise on each alternative until we come up with real solutions is better than 'rape and pillage'. At least wind turbines can easily be retired and removed at some point. Not so with many other alternatives. But then, the way we're going 250 years should be plenty of time.

Your point? The conflict of interests is transparent and obvious. Do you think Trump Tower Moscow is a dead issue? Or is it more likely just on hold until he's no longer President? Of course during that time in between as President he NEVER gives any consideration to how he might influence his future business. And the Saudis? He refuses to confront them. Why? Because of common interest with the US? That's not what he said. He said they make HIM lots of money.

Has he delivered on any promises?

"Repeal & Replace and we're going to love the replacement". I'm still waiting. The "great replacement" is the important part.

Build a wall that Mexico will pay for. Even with an out of control deficit he wants us to spend billions on a 'monument' that will have little effect on illegal immigration. Again, the second part of the promise is the important part. I also wonder why there has been no environmental impact study for such a structure.

Start a pissing contest on trade and then blame the other countries when they retaliate? I

He's also the laziest President we've ever had. He criticized previous Presidents for playing too much golf, yet he's played far more than any President ever did. He wastes millions of tax payer dollars traveling to and from his Florida resort, as well as "campaigns" just to hear applause. He conducts himself more like a playboy than a President. He's been caught in so many lies, how can anyone believe anything he says? His life has always been and always will be all about him. That's not what I want in a President, no matter what party he pretends to support.

It's pretty hard to see your point because you live in a country that elected Barack Obama as president. As a result, I am going to forever ignore any opinion you have.

See how easy that was? No critical thinking skills needed nor employed....

Umm, no. They do believe in following travel management plans though and legal use of ATV's.

Amazing that any of our predecessors ever killed anything before ATV's and 4wd's came around. Having to walk sure is a bummer...

Wrong.

"The one solution to many problems is population control. But no one wants to talk about that."

I'm ready, but you will not like how that conversation goes...

"At least wind turbines can easily be retired and removed at some point. "

Decommissioning is the least of the damage. Folks that are proponents of wind and solar pretty much neglect the fact that the mining for the raw materials used in panels and the rare earth magnets in wind turbines are ecological nightmares. But hey the damage is caused in Bumphucistan or some other 3rd world sh!thole so who cares. Right?

I guess my issue (I know, personal problem) is with the perception by older hunters that they are being systematically pushed out of places they grew up hunting because they aren't able to hike the miles in on the closed roads to get to where they used to start hunting, where some spent their lives learning to hunt.

Does it matter? Probably not, because they'll drop out soon enough and the younger hunters, those still left doing it, will grow up accustomed to closed roads and big areas inaccessible due to beetle kill deadfall.

Russia. An international business man meets with officials from other countries while doing business. Hold the presses. This is done every day and it's not an issue. If it were an issue 2 years of witch hunting would have come up with something. There's nothing there.

Obamacare, So far he has done all that he can. If the law is to be changed, it has to go through congress. Progress has been made and it is dying on the vine. The wall. We spend about $100 Billion a year on illegals now. A $5-15 Billion investment to help keep them out is a no brainer. Everyone in charge of dealing with the problem wants it. Walls work everywhere else, they'll work here.

Trade. He's playing hardball instead of letting them walk all over us. He has brought China to their knees and made them lower their tariffs on us. They also just caved and bought 2 million tons of beans.

Foriegn policy. North Korea, ISIS, nuff said Economy, unemployment, growth, all great.

He has kept more campaign promises than any president in recent history. I wish he had appointed an AG who would actually enforce the law when you have so many from the other side who have abused their power. Go after them and lock them up.

Dude, you need to get over your TDS and acknowledge the good things. Who cares if he is an ass. He's getting the job done in a major way.

Ziek, you are obviously looking for the bad and missing the good. Sad to be so pessimistic.

It is difficult to see with all of the slanted media and certainly the majority of the peer pressure on the Front Range is anti anything that Trump does. I certainly looked hard for anything good for 8 years under the previous administration and did not see any pro-American agenda.

The actions of the current administration have been very positive for Americans and American interests around the world. No matter what you think of our President on a personal level, he has and continues to make this country a better place for all Americans.

Does it matter? Probably not, because they'll drop out soon enough and the younger hunters, those still left doing it, will grow up accustomed to closed roads and big areas inaccessible due to beetle kill deadfall."

One thing about some of the complait of being "locked" out that older folks have is that the inventory of national forest road is constantly being shuffled as roads that were put in decades ago are gated or decommissioned by the USFS. Hunters tend to forget that roads are not put in primarily for hunting access but access to log. As new roads open up in other areas some roads have to be closed to stay within maintenance budgets. If it weren't for road closures around here, there would be even fewer elk from all the pressure of people driving and road hunting during our 6 week long rifle season. Many of the road closurers are seasonal and open back up during summer months to allow for wood cutting and berry picking. When I hear the complaints about such and such a road that was open back in 1980 being shut down, I never hear acknowledgments that other roads are open in other areas. I understand it is a perception issue. Many of those same people do not realize that "the good old days" opportunities they enjoyed in their 30's and 40's are no longer available to the next generation without restrictions because of the increased pressure from a growing population of hunters. I know that license sales indicate fewer hunter numbers overall, yet my experience is that hunting pressure and total days in the woods is growing, not shrinking.

Example in point, many of the west's coniferous stands are clear cut for a reason. Shallow rooted, broad species that catch the wind won't last in a select cut. The residual stand looks good for a couple months. However let it go through a few growing seasons and you'll have lost 80% of the stand you left. The west was clear cut rotationally before and, that needs to be continued on lands that are open to do so. The benefits are undeniable in habitat improvement.

The Sierra Club has come out to say it isn't against all logging. However, that doesn't make it true. I guess I'm saying what I did way back. All the talk about what the BHA is. How about some links to see for ourselves. Latching on to a proposal and agreeing with it isn't ground breaking work. Add in the fact the only thing I have heard them speak out on is how horrible it is to oppose a National Monument and, I'm left wandering where the results of all this work is. Seriously. I want to believe in this group. I'm just not seeing any reason to. How about some info about what they have been working on and, accomplished for Sportsmen access? All this talk about how we feel. Lets get something to ponder on besides that.

With all due respect Jeff, people were saying that before Obama was elected and then again before he was reelected and it never happened. And they had control of it all for the first two years and all they did was Obamacare. The only real push for gun control came after Sandyhook from a couple far-left Dems in congress like Feinstein.

I hate to say it but I prefer these lands to be in the states hands rather than the corrupt Federal governments.

The truth these preservation groups do not tell you is that many of the wilderness and NM designated areas have been exposed to all sorts of influence of man activities over the years and, they are still the special places designation proponents claim is needed to protect these places from. It is indeed a land grab of a different sort. I'm sure most consider it a righteous, noble effort. No matter how misguided history tells us that is.

This thread has stayed up high all day. So, I know it is being read by many. So, I'll try this another way. Ziek, AT, Michael, Ike, or any of the BHA members I didn't name, will you please provide real life proof in links or cited articles where the uninformed can look at the facts of what the BHA has actually accomplished through its efforts of access for hunters and fishermen? I'm not knocking any of you, wanting to argue, or suggesting you are wrong. What I am saying is for 4 years this has been claimed by all BHA members but, I have yet to see an example of their work doing what their mission statement claims is their intent.

It'd be nice to put a face to the claims. For the benefit of everyone. Plus, it would be a good opportunity to learn more about the BHA.

I truly do not know how to make this any more plain and simple. I don’t need or expect a definition of what they say they do. I’m requesting info on what they have accomplished concerning access for hunters and fishermen. The effort and results of that work should be plain and clear. And known by all members.

It’s a really simple request. I’m giving you and all other members a chance to sell this organization to the unknowing, the skeptical among us, and anyone else that will listen.

I’m not poo-pooing anyone. Nor am I interested in a sage grouse study. I want to know if I join my dollars are going to be spent on issues like corner jumping, whether or not the BHA is trying to get hunters access to the national monuments we’ve been booted from, and to be updated periodically of the progresses of such efforts.

I don’t need stances on political issues defined by any group. I’ve already got my own interpretation of those. I don’t need to hear why NM’s are so great. Because I KNOW federal law concerning public land use. And completely understand that signing away public approval of any Land that gets a federal designation is not a win for hunters. I NEED to see where the BHA is truly taking the access issue by the horns. I’m not alone either. Do you want more members? This is what’s required to gain them.

In any organization, you will get individuals, that may or may not believe in what you do, in regards to use, etc, but in the end, if the land is not open, and saved, we all lose

So either who funds you and who you are connected to is a big deal or it isn't. I'm directing that at both sides.

The Wyoming chapter of BHA was also instrumental in blocking the Bonander land exchange, which preserved access to some premo hunting in an area where access is already an issue.

elk yinzer, you need to understand how the petroleum industry works before making statements about it...

This whole concept is a bone thrown to a few people in a handful of western states who dream of it because of federal mismanagement and incompetence, and a scare tactic for fundraising and recruitment for private organizations who oppose it. Chaffetz's bill didn't have an ice cube's chance in hell of even making it out of committee and he knew it.

What they will do is appoint the worst possible judges, every single time and those judges, un-elected and unaccountable will take away our rights. This is not even debatable.

If Hillary had been elected, we would, today, have 2 more liberal activist judges on the Supreme Court and they would, without a doubt, rule that 2A only applies to the national guard. This is absolute fact. That is how the Democrats will take away our rights. One Obama appointed judge stopped the entire grizzly hunt this year. One guy decided he knew more that the entire USFWS and both Idaho and Wyoming game departments. This is why any hunter who ever votes for any Democrat is shooting himself and all of us, in the foot. Name one Democrat Senator who didn't vote for Obama's leftist, activist appointments. All of our rights will be taken away by the Courts, not by legislation. That is the single most important thing to remember when going to the polls. Will a judge vote to uphold the constitution or vote to change it base on his personal political opinion?

"Congress shall immediately pass universal legislation providing for a timely and orderly mechanism requiring the federal government to convey certain federally controlled public lands to states."

Jaquomo: "Maybe I'm missing something here in the middle of roadless country, with five wilderness areas within an hour drive and hundreds of thousands of acres of roadless NF all around where I'm sitting right now. But I've never heard a hunter or outdoorsman here asking for roadless or wilderness areas to be opened up. No one is trying to take away opportunities for backcountry experiences. Roads are not just for road hunting. They are also for access to where hunters strike out on foot."

I'm in Jaquomo's camp on this one. I take offence to IdyllwildArcher's comments that if older hunters hadn't "let themselves go" they could still be enjoying HIS wilderness. I can walk a "Mile or two" just fine thank you. What I can't do is walk from the paved road 15 to 20 miles to the drainage I wish to hunt that has been open to public for decades. I'm not proposing wilderness areas be turned into ATV parks or any similar result. I don't own horses (nor can I afford them) and when I choose to hunt the wilderness it will most likely involve an outfitter. I do enjoy a base camp hunt and occasionally include an overnight or spike camp experience. I generally leave my ATV back home as my 4X4 can usually get me close enough with much less noise. I don't recall ever seeking to ruin another guys hunt to benefit my own. His "let them eat cake" attitude is leaving me flat. ATV folks that violate should be held accountable. That doesn't forgive a Liberal agenda exercised by the past administration that has too often abused general access . There agenda IMHO was and is suspect. I too have made my living in the Oil & Gas industry. I know from experience that multiple use including LIMITED exploration will benefit the nation and can be done right.

LaGriz

"Transferring public lands to the states is not part of the Republican Party's official platform."

...is incorrect. It got put into their last platform update about 2 or 3 years ago. That part of their platform is 100% wrong-headed, no matter if Lou is correct or not with his point that "it'll never happen."

I could make the same claim about repealing the 2a. It'd spark a civil war. Obama in 8 years didn't bother to tackle it.

We've got one side here saying we don't need to worry about public land transfer but still touting the tired line, "Obama's gonna take our guns," and the other side saying basically the opposite.

While I agree with you on your point about judges, they're nominated by the president so I don't see how who we vote for for POTUS has any bearing on support of BHA.

My life revolves around public land bowhunting. I'm not a gun aficionado. I'm quite frankly far, far more worried about BLM lands being transferred to the states and then sold and that access lost forever, than I am about bump-stocks and background checks.

The day the Federal Government calls for the handing in of our guns is the day a civil war starts in this country. It'll never happen. That can't be said for incremental loss of our public lands.

Yes, there are a small number of Republican politicians who want the states to take over all of the National Forests and BLM. That will never happen. For me it is a non-issue.

The type of judge that the 2 different parties will appoint is what will decide if we can continue to hunt and defend ourselves. What certain Republicans want to happen is not nearly as important as what all Democrats will ensure to happens.

I apologize if you're offended by my statement and I certainly didn't mean to come off as telling older hunters "tough shit, gramps." Single roads that reach far back into isolated areas are one issue that certainly is different than what I referred to as "a grid," of roads as is the case and mostly what's being closed down nowadays. Road closures that require horses to now access land are an entirely different issue.

EDIT: The "let themselves go" comment was in regards to the many "hunters" i see everywhere I go who are 50, 75, 100+ pounds overweight riding around on ATVs and side-by-sides road hunting. Those folks certainly have let themselves go and that weight and the sedentary lifestyle that goes along with it is why so many of these unhealthy folk's hunting is limited. They certainly only have themselves to blame and more roads are not an answer to their dilemma.

And the states have a well-documented history of selling those lands off in financially hard times or blocking hunting access to them ala Colorado.

What we don't have a well-documented history of, is the Federal Government asking us to turn in our guns. I've never been told to hand in any of my guns. Have you?

It's the judges who actually make substantive things happen (or stop them) these days. In today's messed up climate, activist judges have more power than the president, Congress, or any federal agencies.

"Everyone is Entitled to Their Own Opinion, but Not Their Own Facts”

Yes, I did ask you to support a anti-wolf campaign in Colorado ran by BGF. Let me make that perfectly clear as well. NO ONE ELSE IS DOING A DAMN THING TO FIGHT THE FIGHT. SHOW ME A MORE PALATABLE ALTERNATIVE AND I'LL SUPPORT THEM. DOING NOTHING BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE BGF IS NOT AN OPTION.

Call me anti public land all you want to make your point and justify support for things that will cause us harm. I will continue to do everything in my power to ensure the future of bowhunting. I am convinced that getting conservative judges appointed is the single most important factor in seeing that happen.

You are somewhat correct in my thoughts on the BHA. Where you and a lot of other BHA members are wrong is why I am asking the questions. I truly want to believe in this group. I want to have a place to stand in a group of force that says do not tread on the American Hunters rights. However, I am not seeing anything to assume the BHA is that group. I get told differently all the time by it's members that would rather try and insult me then to simply answer the dang questions for all to see. I'm not gaining anything here nor do I have anything to gain here. But, the BHA sure DOES. So, why not help your cause and answer the friggin' question. My mind isn't made up on it and things change daily. Nothing is concrete. So, people can be won. Including people like me. If the effort and work is there to do it.

Giving the examples of what I asked is the only way to do that.

Merry Christmas, guys. I sincerely hope you and your families have a wonderful time over the holidays.

Happens all the time Jim, the epidemy of Bowsite. Some cannot just sit back, read what you write, and think about it before responding. They hope a shotgun approach will impress others I guess...

And your pride as WI as the conservative bastion is laughable as WI went for Obama twice - how quickly we forget.

There are hot button issues in politics that are nothing more that talking points to gain support. Abortion is a huge issue and Republicans all over the country say they will end abortion. It will never happen. It is one of those issues that will cause politicians to loose their jobs and they will not do that. Public land transfer is the same. A majority of western Republicans will not vote for it. It would cost them their jobs and they won't do it. I'm sorry if my opinion scares you but it's not going to change. When and if I see actual legislation that will put our public land at risk, then I will join you. I'm not going to support politicians who's actions I know will erode our freedoms because of something I don't think will happen.

We all have to weigh what might happen and what will never happen and make our own decisions. I will never, ever vote for another Democrat because they always, always support judicial activist on the courts. I can't stress enough that this how we will lose our hunting and self protection rights.

FYI, the 2nd amendment does not have to be amended to take it away. A simple ruling that says it was meant to only apply to the national guard will end our rights to protect ourselves in a heartbeat. Look at past rulings. Liberal Judges believe it applies only to the Guard and Conservative Judges believe it applies to the people. If we had 2 more Ginsburgs instead of Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, that would be our reality today. I don't think people realize just how close we came to losing it all.

If you believe in the Republicans, you will always have that gun, but the pond will be gone, they will fill it in and build a Wal Mart......

I always thought that was clever in many ways

Some of us can spot a Trojan Horse a mile away.

"Like I said you are free to voice your opinion....we just won`t take it seriously."

You can speak for yourself; I don't get where you get off speaking for the rest of Bowsite. And your opinion matters no more or less than anyone else here. How pompous of you.

Nope, not comparing them at all. I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy in stating that hunters from CA have no legitimate opinion in discussions about National policy when you come from a state that is far from the most conservative in the union. And ridiculous as well since CA is not only in the West and has a boat load of public land in it, but the ridiculous notion that CA hunters have any control in Sacramento regarding goings-on in the state somehow delegitimizing their opinions... Get off your pedestal.

Last week on a Pa hunting site, was a liberal "large carnivore biologist" arguing with her disdain of bear harvest numbers. Other methods than hunting were suggested by her:) I went to her Facebook page to see her in a "Public Land Owner" tshirt she got when she became a member of BHA. I have now seen these same Tshirts on anti-hunting women. They also own public land right?

Will BHA come out with a "Public Land HUNTER" shirt? Lol

Oppose or support. I oppose anything politically motivated when it comes to my hunting rights. Period.

I realize its on a small scale, compared to PA, which to me is as screwed up as NJ when it comes to bear hunting,,,,,,

It's been a number of day since Zinke announce his resignation and so far every hunting group that has made a statement has extolled his accomplishments except for one. Even the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partners gave him credit and they tend to be overly protectionist at times. BHA is the only hunting group that I've seen that thinks he did a bad job. And that's all I'm going to say about that.

Plus, BHA has a "cool factor" with younger folks. Liberal politics, nature, cool slogans, a perceived "cause", peer acceptance by nonhunters. Youth magnet.

Trial, comparing P&Y and BHA is basically an oxymoron. The former is a hunting club and bowhunting advocacy group. The latter is a conservation organization with a narrow focus (public lands/wilderness). You're just throwing mud at this point and it's not doing anyone any good.

To close, Jim, you're largely preaching to the choir insofar as your message of judicial activism and voting. The vast majority of Bowsite followers vote Republican. I don't see how the discussion started with BHA and changed to judicial nominations. Being a member of BHA has no effect on who people vote for POTUS. The only relation is Republican's support of public land transfer, which is wrong-headed. As a voter, I'll continue to encourage fellow hunters to push the Republican Party to change this wrong-headed policy.

Good luck with that. EVERY anti-hunter org is essentially a leftist liberal org. If you can find an anti-hunter org that is predominantly conservative by all means...... show me. The largest enemy of hunters is not freeing up a bit of NM overreach to protect it FOR hunting use, multiple use. The biggest danger to hunting is anti-hunter orgs. I'm a hunter. That is my priority and that is what I care about. I know who my enemy is. It was not Zinke.

There was a time the Sierra Club called itself a "sportsman's group" Over time a..... group of people...... have completely changed their mission. I see much the same taking a foothold in BHA. First they will weaken on the hunting front in order to align more with larger preservationist orgs, increase membership, etc. (Non-hunter backcountry "fishermen" were always halfway there, =D.....) the more they align with what many feel are the enemy of hunting.... the more Sierra Club they will become.

Are they really a hunters advocate? Or are they primarily a protectionist advocate that still has some hunters in it?

As was stated well above...... I don't give a rats azz about some mission statement on a website. That is less than worthless, demonstrably so. I want to see their actions, as well as who they ally themselves with. That speaks volumes. What they DO...... not what they SAY. Many orgs before them start off with a mission that loses it focus and is corrupted over time.

I don't agree 100% with SCI...... but hands down they have done far more for hunters and hunting than BHA...... it's not even close, they are 100% a hunting advocate. From a hunting standpoint..... Zinke was very very good for hunters. An advocate. I'm of the impression BHA would throw hunters under the bus if it meant more national park (read "no hunting allowed") status..... of which NM status is basically a preparation to move it to National Park status. The Obama administration overreach in these cases needed to be reversed. Who in the BHA org that didn't see that as bad for hunters...... it's an indication IMO of their moving closer to Sierra Club model. Becoming HINOs...... hunters in name only.... IMO they have picked the wrong battle on this NM/Zinke front.... their "allies" are driving their bus.....

And the only way to do that is to join BHA! haha

What happened to the "Big Tent?" We have to be ok with SCI that has given legitimacy to high fence hunters and the guys that kill farm-raised deer in small pens by giving them a records program and awards for their "hunts," yet BHA are not only outcasts, but actively working against all of our collective interests?

I call double standard.

EDIT: I know that SCI has done a lot and spent a lot of money defending hunting rights and I acknowledge that contribution. I bring up the HF issue only to point out the hypocrisy of calling for inclusion and then not including everyone in that.

I do think that there needs to be discussions on how to increase our membership.

BHA has been able to pull in a lot of younger people and there are things that can be learned from their process.

If BGF had 100 million to spend and CO passed a "shoot a wolf on sight" law tomorrow, it would still be illegal. Until BGF controls the Federal Government, the only thing they can do is separate you from your money.

P&Y has an image problem. Maybe we need a cool slogan to put on t-shirts and have hot busty chicks wear the tank top version in ads. "Size matters!"

To retouch on the subject, it isn't the members political preference that causes problems. It is perception that the Organization leans mostly left on policy, that irritates people. It is the Organization's willingness to be against anything conservation based when preservation is an option. it is the willingness of the organization to designate publically managed property into strictly government control. It is the ignorance of federal law that irritates people. And, it is the inability to see the results of the work the BHA is doing that makes people suspect.

I know there are some great people in the BHA. However, there seems to be a huge disconnect between the personnel in the field and the people in management. I could be wrong about that to some degree. But it has always been something that stuck out to me.

Yet I see it happen all the time.

Boomer Sooner

" It is perception that the Organization leans mostly left on policy,"

I guess that would depend on how you define "leaning left." I'll give you the NM thing, but advocating against roads, unfettered ATV access, and for wilderness is not leaning left. It's just leaning non-road-hunter. The main purpose of the organization is preserving wild places and their access for hunters and anglers. There's nothing left-leaning about that policy unless you cede some serious righteous territory to the left.

Might learn something about the man if you watch and pay attention...

Make your own decisions.

**********

This press release is a useless missed opportunity. Zinke is resigning; there is no need to comment - in a very one-sided manner btw - on his performance record at this point. This press release should have been more strategic. It should have emphasized BHA's vision and goals toward the protection of public lands and waters for hunters and anglers and how those values and talents should be demonstrated in the future Secretary. Instead, the statement is unnecessarily abrasive and divisive and could weaken our influence among our contemporaries, not to mention erode the diversity within this organization itself. This statement has already drawn attention and criticism on other boards and forums. Is that really what BHA wants people talking about?

Interestingly, on our website, don't we judge Zinke's record? Go look at it. Our assessment of his performance is essentially 50/50. Where are the corresponding positives in this press release? BHA's press release implies our wholesale agreement with the statements and that is clearly not the case.

This was a missed opportunity. The BHA CEO took precious PR time to discuss old news and rail against the government instead of reaffirming the organization's mission as a way to expand the membership and influence the future appointment. Is this an indication of his inability to advance this organization with a strategic, forward-looking action bias? Sincerely James Fowles

That is an absolute fabrication of what I've been saying and I would expect better. I'm tired of you guys accusing me of things I've never said or supported. Just because I don't agree with you 100% does not mean I want the opposite. A retraction would be the ethical thing to do now. Certainly, If I've accused any of you of something not true, I would apologize.

I've never once said, "don't support BHA". Not once. I question their politics and the press release about Zinke is worth discussing. That's it.

I don't know your political views but you are following the leftist program of lying about your opponent. That's what they do. They lie all the time about just about everything. Hunting, animal rights, the environment, immigration, private industry, big oil, you name it. That's the only way the can get people to follow them. The truth is never bad enough.

I said I was done but I can't sit back and let you guys accuse me of this crap.

Since I'm here again, I have to respond to the ridiculous billboard that said Republicans would drain the pond. That's absolute BS. I don't know a single Republican who is not for protecting our public lands and protecting our environment. I've known plenty of Execs at BP, Conoco, Exxon and not a single one wants to pollute our environment. They all wanted to provide a vital service to our country while keeping our lands as clean as possible. You buy into the Hollywood version of big oil and private business being evil and don't consider for a minute that we all want the same thing. Certainly there will be those who cut corners and abuse our lands but those people are very few today.

JSW “Pay attention and I'll say it one last time. OUR PUBLIC LANDS WILL NOT BE TRANSFERRED TO THE STATES OR THE PRIVATE SECTOR. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN. I'm not going to waste my time saying it again. I will admit that there are minor instances where land is traded that benefits both the private sector and our wildlife overall. Some of those transfers are not in our best interests and some are extremely beneficial. That is different.”

Democrats also appear to be in favor of keeping public access and limiting extraction and disruption of those areas. Unfortunately, they are anti 2nd Amendment and against so many other issues I support, so I can't vote for them.

It just pisses me off that our elected Republicans keep trying to turn Federal lands over to the States or companies for profit.

what we lack in the country, is just plain "common sense"

Shoot the horses.

You mustn't know many Republicans, or more likely you believe their BS as much as you lump ALL Democrats into one evil group.

"...Execs at BP, Conoco, Exxon and not a single one wants to pollute our environment. They all wanted to provide a vital service to our country while keeping our lands as clean as possible. "

That's only partially true. They do it to make money, and weigh the environmental risk against the financial risk.

Neither group is all evil nor all saints. Like everything, the truth is somewhere in the middle, and rhetoric like yours in not helpful.

Any viable business operates to make money or they wouldn’t be in business. I can tell you that the safety and protection of the environment in the community comes first. If you don’t take that line, you won’t be in business long. I have worked in refining for 15 years and I’ll say we spend most of our capital on compliance related projects and others that just improve conditions in the communities we operate in.

The reality is your not distilling whiskey in your basement, your providing fuel for the country and it’s a major operation to do so which can absolutely affect the environment if done incorrectly. It’s not something anyone that I work with or have worked with take lightly.

There is so much crap spread about how one party wants to take your land while the other wants to protect it. It’s lies. The politicians calling for land transfer are idiots. It will never happen. Because the numbers to do it aren’t there. And never will be. But, it’s sure easy to scare people to your party by instilling the fear it will happen. They use this fear to assemble votes. And, it’s worked well.

Look no further then this thread to see the lies spoke as the gospel. It is simply ridiculous that facts are no longer important to quite a few people.

Rudyard Kipling

Trial153. He said he won't waste time 'splainin' it to [you] again, never said he didn't care, and never said it shouldn't be an issue sportsmen (and women) to be concerned with.

I know JSW (Jim) personally and have for decades. He is good people...

I don't have a strong opinion on Zinke, SCI, or BHA. My concern is that another stable, capable person won't work for Trump. And after the last several days, all that is left in the administration are ass-kissers. I'm a Republican, but Trump is unqualified, unsuitable, and unacceptable as President. We can and MUST do better.

There is no debate that SCI has done a ton in litigation and spent boat loads of money on defending hunting and we should all be appreciative for that. The reason I brought up what I and many others view as a glaring flaw in the institution that is SCI, is because whenever there is any questioning of SCI's practice of handing out awards and a records program for high-fence hunting, thereby legitimizing the practice that so many find distasteful, the SCI apologists jump all over people questioning the practice with much the same claims:

"That stance pretty much puts another wedge among the shrinking numbers of hunters...….'divide & conquer!' "

Yet, many of those same people will hypocritically (not the poster I quoted) attack BHA because the group doesn't tow their exact line of politics/world view.

There's either a big tent or there isn't. It goes both ways.

Merry Christmas Everyone. I wish you all the best.

Distasteful is a interesting term. Distasteful because folks all don't hunt the same? That is divide & conquer mentality which plays into the ANTI hunting crowds wheelhouse. Our numbers are too small to divide ourselves based on methodology of take and the tools used. Furthermore, those distasteful "awards & record book entries" come at a cost to that outdoorsman that has decided to participate...…..that cost (boat load of money) goes into saving the heritage that we all claim to love. YES, when BHA (or anyone else) comes up with a better mousetrap (not towing the line) I am convinced that human nature will take over.........folks will flock to that group with their volunterism & their dollars. For today, the formula comes down to money to fight from a legislative position, conservation position and also directly with the ANTI's. BHA (in my observation) has to step into the fray and show their true colors (position). Half measures are unacceptable as it causes confusion & distrust.......which is echoed throughout this thread. Heck, I hope BHA has a New Years resoulution to convince thousands of outdoorsman that they are truly carrying the banner for all hunters and I will quickly join the ranks. I belong to more organizations than I can count presently but each does something RELEVANT to our cause as hunters. BHA appears to have a image issue that must be addressed much more quickly than anything SCI has supported over the last few decades with huge success. BHA address the concerns CLEARLY and DIRECTLY they could possibly be the force that expands the Big Tent. I dont drink pints nor use twitter as I find those activities slightly distasteful, but i am all about new ways to save our hunting heritage. (-;