Bowsite.com

Their current position is to stay out of it.

If you ain’t part of the solution....

Some of the members certainly are awesome guys, but I do not get the positions or lack thereof. Where is the leadership? I wonder if it is related to the flow of money and the donors?

I’m sure there are some great guys in the group. I’m also sure of the political partisanship that the BHA plays on a national level.

It did not take long for RMEF to come to their senses and understand the consequences.

Pete

K~

Now THAT should resonate, no matter WHO you are!!

A major value of a Republic is that it upholds the principle that no one should be deprived of their rights simply because they’re in the minority.

Now THAT should resonate, no matter WHO you are!!

A major value of a Republic is that it upholds the principle that no one should be deprived of their rights simply because they’re in the minority.

Bowfreak- do you know BHA members who have donated to CO wolf introductions? Or are you speculating? Do you have credible examples and sources to back up your claims about who BHA is cozy with?

What are your examples of their coziness with “left” organizations?

So because you have talked to some of their "top dogs" and you thought they were liberal? Do you know them personally? What made you think that? If some BHA members are liberal then that makes them a liberal organization with a hidden agenda? Seems like a far stretch to say an organization has a hidden agenda. I don't think your assessment meets the definition of "unequivocally." Unequivocal (Webster def.)- leaving no doubt, clear, unambiguous. If you got nothing to back it up except that you met a few unnamed top dogs once then it's just your opinion based on some really lose information. It's not unequivocal.

Wovles are coming to CO regardless of how they get there. Either on their own or via relocation, it doenst matter because end result is the same.  This thread is indicative of why hunters are so ineffective of late. They would rather shake their baby rattles and spout off nonsense then think and act strategicly to further their own interests. 

The reality of the public sediment on this issue should lead rational hunters to prioritize a meaningful presence at the table to secure and implement a successful long term managment plan.

But by all means bash away at BHA and keep fooling yoursleves pretending your the smartest people in the room. 

If it walks like a duck...

I’ll wait patiently for P&Y’s official stance. I hope to see them officially oppose the reintroduction, but I’ll be interested to see the reactions here if they don’t.

For what it’s worth, I have no issues with P&Y. I’m only picking on them because they are well respected here and so far have taken the exact same stance (none) as BHA on this issue.

For the record I’m not a member of BHA. I just think those who are going to make statements like that should back it up. If they don’t it’s just slander.

I think WW is on to something. I think I did question Trophyhill.

http://leatherwall.bowsite.com/TF/lw/thread2.cfm?threadid=267202&category=88#3765052

Regardless, just because a organization who fights to open public land for hunters and fishermen remains neutral in the CO wolf issue doesn’t mean they are against us.

I have 24 years experience in the the environmental field which includes environmental investigation and permitting, biological and fisheries evaluation, threatened and endangered species, wetland delineation, ecological risk assessment, and hazardous waste remediation. My projects have addressed new and proposed wind farms, fiber optic cable systems, pipelines, transmission lines, highways, and reservoirs. For various wind energy projects, I have worked as a Project Manager and managed projects throughout the Midwest, including Missouri, Iowa, Texas, Nebraska, Illinois, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas, and Ohio. I have also has helped plan, install, and sample groundwater monitoring wells and has participated in hazardous waste and multimedia environmental sampling for clients including EPA, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), military installations, and private-sector clients. I have also worked as a Environmental, Heath & Safety Director and was responsible for OSHA compliance for a highway and bridge contractor.

Specialties: Project Management Wind Energy Projects, Linear Projects, Reservoir Projects Wetland Delineations Biological Surveys (birds, fish, bats, plants) Endangered Species Surveys Habitat Assessments

I take issue with the following statement.

"For what it’s worth, I have no issues with P&Y. I’m only picking on them because they are well respected here and so far have taken the exact same stance (none) as BHA on this issue."

Unlike the other NGO, we are not ignoring the problem. We are working with several other groups to figure out the best coarse of action. Just because we haven't released a position statement doesn't mean we have not taken a stance. This is a huge issue and we are likely to mirror what some of our partners are doing to show solidarity. There's no need to have a dozen different position statements that may not be in sync.

If it makes you feel better. "The Pope and Young Club is against using the ballot initiative process to manage wildlife." You can quote me on that.

Since it’s from LinkedIn profile it doesn’t list that I’ve been a bowhunter for 34 years and been shooting a bow since I could walk.

Anything else you want to know about me John?

I’m not doubting you one bit. I’m simply stating that, to date, two groups have not taken a public stance on wolf reintroduction. One gets crucified for it and one gets a pass.

My point is that this thread has nothing to do with wolves and everything to do with politics.

“Tawney, seeking further assurances, said he also reached out to Trump Jr., a member of his group. On occasion, the two men exchange hunting stories and photos via text.”

Seems like Trump Jr might be a BHA member. Is jr a liberal now? Is he the enemy because he’s a BHA member?

Keep searching to see if I have a hidden agenda. Like I said I’ve had a bow in my hand since I could walk. I would venture I've been a bowsite member long before you. Been here since the late 90s. Any more personal attacks? Who are you and what do you do for a living? Oh ya you’re an anonymous poster.

I’m no advocate for BHA. I just know BS when I see it. It’s not hard to spot if you care to look. It’s called not drinking the kool aid.

Good day brother bowhunter.

While Backcountry Hunters and Anglers may pose as an authentic voice of Montana sportsmen, it’s actually a camouflaged activist group that gets the majority of its money from a handful of out-of-state liberal foundations. There are several such “green decoy” groups in Montana, which are funded by fringe environmentalists hiding their extreme agendas behind the hunting and fishing community.

Whatever one thinks about land management policy, Tawney’s concern about Montana’s economy is ironic because his group shares funding and ideological ties with the fringe environmentalists who are actively trying to shut down Montana’s ranching, timber, gas, oil and coal industries – no matter what it costs the state’s economy or how many Montana jobs it kills. Tawney himself worked on the campaign of Barack Obama, who is no friend to Montana sportsmen.

Readers should be aware that when they see the name “Backcountry Hunters and Anglers,” they’re really seeing Big Green and its San Francisco sugar daddies.

Will Coggin

Maybe there so much criticism because too many drink the kool aid of propaganda without checking sources. Mob mentality.

I know many of the members probably don't care a lot for me. I took task with the BHA quite a few years ago and made it my point to fight the continual dribble of land transfer the group used to gain support. I don't mean it wasn't a relevant issue. But, it wasn't as many members made it appear. Because, there are only two major threats in this country concerning public land and it's users right now. One is designating to a special classification. The other is green energy.

Regardless of what the BHA says, Corporate America is not after "public land". What interests Corporate America is the resources, if marketable, on and under certain lands. Nothing more. On BLM lands where feasible, If not already corporate owned, the rights to those resources can be leased, mined, drilled, cut, etc.... for the cost of a very cheap lease in comparison to purchasing the land in order to do it. Also, the only thing hurting access to public lands in this country currently, is private property rights. So, it gets old to hear otherwise with a political party attached. And, that is why so many people take task with the BHA KSFlatlander.

Here’s some doozy questions to ponder. Are there any CO wolf hunters who support the wolf reintroduction in CO? Hoping for a wolf hunting season in the future? Do hunters concerns over elk population impacts supersede wolf hunters desires to have a huntable population in CO? Don’t know but it’s an interesting quagmire lol.

Trophyhill- do you know who Will Coggin works for? Look it up.

This whole wolf introduction thing is just stupid, but then again I am sitting here watching the news about how Denver just repealed it's 30 year ban on pit bulls. Duh, why were the banned on the first place? Maybe death and carnage to human life? Lessons of the past sure just get lost on the next generation, and history repeats itself with undoubtedly similar outcomes.

Someone needs to get to Trump and Trump Jr to keep wolves listed in Colorado until we get the stupidity of this all figured out. I don't trust Colorado voters, the legislature, or anyone who is negotiating language for this bill behind closed doors.

IMHO BHA is big medicine in the new age plans of hunting and scientific game management.

For sure, most folks don't fit into two groups, but wallets usually only have one compartment and that's where a persons vote goes to keep it full.

If P & Y does not take a stand they will loose lots of everyday bow hunters and never return to them. I hope they can do the right thing even if it puts them in Jeff Bezos' and Googles reticle.

K~

If oil and gas drilling is allowed on public lands they why are you against renewable energy on public land? Based on my experience, they typically don't put solar projects in elk habitat nor on the side or top of a mountain. I've seen them on flat desert terrain where the sun shines a lot. As far as wind goes, I highly doubt a wind turbine is coming to national forest land where you hunt elk. It's too expensive to build because it costs to much to build in areas that doesn't already have roads and a transmission line to the grid. There's nothing stopping developers from putting renewable projects on federal lands now. It's just a tough permitting process. Likely this bill is to streamline permitting on BLM land. I thought conservatives were for streamlining or eliminating permitting challenges?

Good advice Stix. It's a tough boring stretch from now until turkey season lol.

IMHO - Those big wolves that were introduced long ago, are genetically built for an entirely different ecosystem. Canada, with vast expanses of empty land. This is why they are spilling out of the park, and expanding their range. The problem is with an inability to control their numbers. Introduced species have caused problems all over this land. People are slow learners. Let the state biologists run the show. They know their ecosystems best. It is not only their job, it is their life. Leave it to politicians and judges to screw stuff up.

"I'll speak up and say I don't know Woods Walker, ad I am not really interested in finding out."

Don't know, don't care? Your words, not mine. Got it.

Maybe try this is a solution: Wipe them all out and start over with the 'proper' species (the native one). Trap all you can and ship them back to Canada. Then wipe the lower 48 slate clean. Like with invasive fish in a watershed, 'rotenone' so-to-speak, the entire stock of these invasive wolves and re-introduce a few 'native' ones to YNP all over again. If you can't find a 'native' pair or two, leave as was prior to 'mid-90s after eradication of these invasives.

More popcorn please.

I think they now have that animal in the Minn in there Lab, I mean kennel. Look for that dog to be Dropped in CO or MT, OR, NM

K~

I’m not one to completely condemn someone simply because they are a democrat or republican. Or condemn an organization because the have left or right members or leaders. I don’t drink the kool aid.

If BHA wants to remain neutral regarding wolves in CO I understand why and have no problem with it.

I think I’ll sign up as a member today.

Good day.

There's still time to fix him. There is only one thing I can't fix........

Oh man I feel sorry for you Nowiser. If you think bowhunter in America or everyone on this site is a conservative republican then your wrong. I do have a place on this site and I’m standing right next to you. I know you don’t like it but we have somethings in common.

I’m the one who is drinking the kool aid when your willing to condemn half of all Americans because they are democrats? Seriously! Please go buy a mirror today and just look at your reflection for a while. I’m afraid your self awareness is broke.

EDIT: I missed the joke...sorry NoWiser.

http://www.americanlandscouncil.org/backcountry_hunters_anglers_reveals_thier_radical_side

As I said, follow the money

WRT wolves and the issues raised above..... These wolves were considered different subspecies for a great many years. They were separate taxonomy up until introduction plans began to be formulated...... A subspecies known as the Rocky Mountain Wolf. (A subspecies many say were more closely related to the red wolf than the Mackenzie) That subspecies along with many others was eliminated from legal language (in the late '70s if I recall) and all lumped together under "Northwestern Grey wolf" specifically for introduction purposes (could then call it "reintroduction" in the EPA lawsuits) They were "officially" and very conveniently combined into one just prior to the introductions. The Mackenzie wolves introduced were NOT the native subspecies that was endangered other than they were both "wolves". But several subspecies were combined in official taxonomy to expedite things for the introduction.That is what gives the wolf supporters the cover of saying they "are the same wolf" when they are not and were not considered to be prior. In a classic move, they didn't change the wolf. They simply changed the language. You know, like from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"..... so as to cover all arguments and opposition against their dogma, so to speak....

Then.... another curve ball was "introduced"..... Distinct Population Segments or DPS. After combining the subspecies in to one, they had to find a way to legally manage the introduced species separately so as not to let the increased populations in some areas effect introductions and delisting in others. That's a whole nother subject.....

Absolutely science fact statement. Canis lupus was exterminated from Colorado. They want to reintroduce Canis lupus. Sorry but that’s Biological fact.

I agree with TD, this has always been my understanding of how these separate populations are grouped taxonomically, and how they interact. Regional variations are often apparent in size, coloration, sometimes appearance of certain features, etc. And I believe the assessment about changing the taxonomy to fit their agendas in the '70s to sway decisions. (I have been doing this for 40 years.. Fish and Wildlife Biology experience btw).

They dropped those sub-species designations. Still plenty of references to them around. Whether a sub-species or just a geographic variation they were smaller.

FL Has his wallet ahead of his facts. That's not uncommon with folks though. Why the same guys running the show in USA now will continue to for a few more years. Then, this Super Canada Wolf stuff will be sent to the dust bin.

K~

That's not an article from Ammoland, that's an article written by the Environmental Policy Agency posted by Ammoland. The Environmental Policy Agency is a merely a front for a smear campaign run by Berman and Co. (Green Decoys is a project of the EPA). It's pretty clear who's behind it all and why.

BHA's mission is clear. The fact that a big part of their mission has aligned with the platform of the Democratic party and not the Republican party (ie, retention of Federal lands for the purpose of public recreation) seems to unnerve a lot of people. For those that think BHA is a front, what is the end-game? And how does bringing together a bunch of people who are legit sportsmen who are passionate about the outdoors and preserving access help in delivering whatever this end game is?

I always find it beneficial to know where some one sits before I know where they stand. My guess that most of people that are a strong supports of BHA at least lean left on many issue. Nothing wrong with that, but you support a group that going influence election on one issue. You have to know almost everyone that goes to Washington is going to vote party line at the very least more times than not.

The point is not WHO wrote the article...it's about the actual monies received from radical environmentalist groups, which "potentially" has weight when it comes to standing up for issues like Wolf Introduction. Here's the link to the actual IRS complaint, which clearly shows the huge amounts of money donated to BHA by these organizations (actual tax documents) if you scroll down through it. You are incorrect...FACTS do matter !

I'm not saying subspecies has not been used or isn't useful. Many subspecies are only recognized through genetics as was pointed out in your definition. If they were doing DNA test in 1681 then that is news to me. Until the advancement in genetic science and DNA mapping a subspecies was a best guess.

With that said, any subspecies of Canis lupus will have size overlap. The largest Rocky Mt. subspecies will be bigger than the smallest Canadian subspecies. I think this subspecies difference as a reason not to reintroduce Canis lupus from Canada is a red herring. Most biologist won't buy it...I know I don't.

So the organization whose mission is to keep public lands in public hands went to bat for the candidate with a track record of doing just that in Montana instead of the candidate with a track record of advocating for Federal land transfer and this is a sign that there's some bigger agenda afoot? How is this proof that BHA is a "Green Decoy"?

I am not ok with him as a whole package. Are you?

FWIW, he is trying to paint you as the guy playing politics. Yet, I'm willing to bet him or anyone else, they can't find one example where public land has been sold or transferred due to a Republican administration or congress. But, he'll sure pony up and act like there has.

So just because they haven't been successful, it's not relevant? If many on the right had their way, Federal lands would be a shell of what they currently are. Straight from the Republican Party platform:

"Federal ownership or management of land also places an economic burden on counties and local communities in terms of lost revenue to pay for things such as schools, police, and emergency services. It is absurd to think that all that acreage must remain under the absentee ownership or management of official Washington. 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"

One can only control the future, WVM. When it comes to which party is aligned with keeping Federal lands what they are...it ain't the Republicans.

Gator the point being he votes with the dems on most everything

He's a Democrat. Shocking. Again, I don't understand how this is somehow proof of some ulterior motive by BHA.

You said if BHA truly was "a group that's only goal was to protect and look out for interest of public land hunters and anglers" they would be welcomed with open arms. They have aligned themselves with politicians who are doing just that (ie, protecting the interest of public land hunters and anglers) - and yet you have a problem with them. Tell me how Planned Parenthood's support of Tester has anything to do with ensuring public lands remain in public hands?

A compromising point for someone like Tawney is his willingness to smear anything Republican due to a very small percentage of the party, yet support the party who wants to take our recreation lands for green energy.

Would you be for wolf reintroduction if CO wildlife biologists were for it? Or any other reason?

You act like this is a radical wing of the party. The language I quoted is straight out of the Republican Party Platform.

Regarding energy and development, no, I don't see that as a tremendous threat isolated to a single political party. One party wants to put oil rigs on the land; one wants to put windmills.

Show me one example of Land Tawney "smearing" anything Republican that wasn't directly in conflict with the mission of BHA. Go ahead...I'll wait.

That's just the Leaf Licker Lifecycle.

K~

BEG everything Republican is smeared by Tawney and twisted into a political issue. EVERYTHING. For as guy that seems to have it all figured out, you miss a lot of obvious realities

FYI, Ryan (KSflatlander) and I have shared a meal and an adult beverage or two. We discuss hunting/politics on a semi-regular basis. This year we will most likely share a hunt.

We disagree politically and are very far apart on many issues, but do on occasion find common ground. Ryan is as decent a person as you will ever find. Sure, his political ideologies are wrong (as we said to each other on the phone today in fun) but I have no doubt you would not find a more honest and respectful person if you were debate/discuss with him face to face. And, we discuss the wolf issue and what I am surprised about is Ryan never says a negative word about someone he disagrees with to me. It is always the facts he talks about.

Just an FYI, we sometimes lose sight of what's important when we get into discussions sent over the Net. Again, myself included! Carry on.

If you look at from a ecosystems health perspective wolves had a net positive impact in Yellowstone. If you look at from a elk hunter perspective you don’t like any impact that might effect elk populations. I’m a biologist, I’m for keeping the ecosystem healthy. Usually the rest takes care of itself.

I did join BHA today.

Thanks Frank...you stinking republican. I’ll give you my BHA sticker to put on your truck. That way my liberal friends will know your in on the conspiracy.

As I said today, I am not sure of this issue. Elk opportunities seem to be on the decline, and I don't like that. But you have some valid points about the ecosystem and many probably do enjoy the wolf howls. I would rather a hunter take and eat an elk than a wolf if I had to choose, and hope that human is me!

Again, show me one example of Land putting Republicans on blast that isn’t related to something counter to BHA’s mission. Bring the receipts.

Attached is an article about Jason Chaffetz who introduced a bill to sell 3.3 million acre as of federal land. I’m guessing but I don’t think green energy occupies 3.3 million acres of federal land. BHA lobbied to stop it. I’m liking my new BHA membership more and more.

No, you didn’t answer my question. I’m not surprised though. That’s what you get when you play in ridiculous conspiracy theories and not facts.

Ryan, oil and gas has far less impact on the landscape. Short and long term. You won't find migration routes interrupted by their workings. Neither offer the danger to birds that wind farms do. And, neither require the foot print that wind farms and solar fields do.

I'm 100% ok with opening more federally managed lands to oil, gas, mining, and timbering. All are heavily regulated concerning the environment, all have mandated reclamation plans after being conducted, and all have regulations that require best management practices be followed while in the process of working.

All that aside, NF's were set aside to be owned by the American citizen, to offer natural resources for this development and growth of this country, while offering its citizens a place to recreate. This goes back to the beginning of the 20th century. BLM lands, by doctrine, are to be even more intensive with resource procurement. I believe the system we have is not broken. Except the politics that has strangled Natural Resource extraction in this country. This isn't the early 1900's.

All this comes from personal experience and knowledge of actually doing it for living. I've been the private entity harvesting the resource and, the state and federal inspector monitoring the harvesting of those resources. On public lands.

People claim to want to deal in fact. Fact is the wolf introduced was no more the indigenous wolf than saying coues deer are whitetail therefore introducing eastern whitetail to the AZ desert would be a "reintroduction". They would however be correct in saying they were both whitetail deer. Or the replacement on the plains of native Americans by Europeans was a reintroduction of humans. Both humans i believe, so it really doesn't matter..... all the same....

All too late now of course. Just a burr under the saddle when it's brought up and told you are "incorrect" they are the "same". They are the "same" only because they changed the name specifically to claim so. And just a reminder to never forget that these people will tell you anything. It's for your own good you know.....

The whole introduction was full of such lies. One of the biggest being with the full extent of the numbers and populations originally agreed to. Changing the terms after the deal was agreed to. Debating the pros and cons of a case or issue is desirable. Enlightening even. Being told knowing lies and denials to your face to advance an agenda is called don't wizz down my back and tell me it's rainin'.....

Leftist? Right? It's a human trait/condition that effects both side and requires diligence and awareness. It just that the left with assaults on rights we currently have, 1st and 2A being a prime examples..... well, depending on what the meaning of "is" is and keeping your doctor if you like him and such..... they seem to have a corner on it at this time......again, for your own good of course.....

BHA is sitting on the sidelines because a good amount of their support/money/allies are the same support as those pushing the intro. Pretty simple. They don't want to rock things sitting at the cool table. RMEF had much the same problem years ago. They righted the ship by getting rid of those promoting it and getting off the fence and into the game that so directly effected their membership if not their leadership. They were a great help in finally getting wolves delisted. Maybe a bit too late, but hopefully not too little. Maybe BHA can get their stuff together and tell their leadership to get in the fight, now. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

I see more virtue signalling and preening than advocation for hunting. Maybe you'd see more action if wolves ate cutthroat trout......

BHA membership fits you to a T

We all have places in life. That is one of your places.

Good stuff. It's what makes the world level

TD- respectfully, I don’t know where you are getting information. First, the EPA has never had anything to do with endangered species or wolves. That’s the jurisdiction of the USFWS (wildlife biologists). Second, the reintroduction of gray wolves from the Canadian Rockies to the American Rockies makes biological sense based on the habitat they are taken from and released in. It’s a much further stretch to take a white tailed deer from Canada and release in Florida and visa versa. This is evident buy then difference in habitat. Your point is not really comparing apples to apples biologically. However, if you did take a larger Canadian whitetail to Florida I imagine they wouldn’t do so well due to thermoregulation. Through natural selection the Florida deer that were smaller adapted better to the habitat. If the Canadian deer did reproduce then over time you would see the smaller offspring would likely do better and reproduce more. Thus getting smaller over generations. The changing of management goals is not cool since they agreeable to all parties. I get your concern and I share it.

Regardless of our differences you are all my brothers in bowhunting. Hey, am I welcome the next bowsite annual meet and greet get together? Can I hang with you conservatives and non-BHAers?

WV- the actual footprint of a wind farm is actually quite small in comparison to a mine. More equivalent to oil wells. Why do you think farmers and ranchers sign wind leases? Because they can still farm and ranch. It’s typically 1-2% reduction in land use. I know because I have done the calculation using GIS and it’s public record. Also wind and solar leases are usually 25-30 years. They are also bonded and have reclamation plans. The different is they wind and solar project don’t have oil spill or waste like oil, gas, mining. The power goes on the public grid for public consumption. If oil and gas can do it why not other energy sources?

Here’s Land commending Trump appointed Interior Secretary Bernhardt (a Republican) for proposing expanding hunting and fishing access on wildlife refuges and fish hatcheries.

So again, please, just one example of Land bashing Republicans on something that isn’t counter to BHA’s mission.

So there’s three examples of BHA supporting Republicans when they support BHA’s mission. Again, please provide one example of them not supporting Republicans for something that isn’t counter to BHA’s mission.

With your white-tailed deer example, is the temperature, rainfall, topography, habitat, forage, predators, competitors, etc. even remotely close to Alberta? C’mon man.

Are you really going to compare introduction of a non-native fish that isn’t even the same species to this wolf reintroduction which is the same species that occupies the same niche? It’s not even close to being relevant.

The Idaho wolves we reintroduced from Canada and the average size killed is less then 100lbs. The introduction of a super wolf from Canada is a myth.

I linked just ONE of many articles explaining the WHY they claim the Mackenzie wolves were the same wolves that were indigenous to Yellowstone. When people called them on the fact they were NOT the same subspecies this is what they pointed to, nuh uh they said.... "technically".... legally, they were the same...... Just kind of forgot to mention the part where they (the wolf intro folks) were the ones who consolidated the subspecies.

The consolidation was not done for scientific reasons. In fact the subspecies were expanding for many years prior to that point. It was done for political reasons and lawyers. Again, it's a lie these introduced wolves were the same subspecies. (see: coues deer are really eastern whitetails, no difference....) Instead of admit it they still choose to hide behind it. Too late to do anything about it now. But the facts on the ground are always facts. And they knew them when they did it. But waved off concerns to push an agenda. Now buckets of taxpayer money is going into aerial and other paid management in an effort to control them. Money dumped on top of the taxpayer money used to introduce them in the first place. Thanks folks. brilliant. Now they want to spread their "success".

I used to have a copy of the ORIGINAL introduction agreements that the states signed on to, agreed to, read the whole document. Read up on it..... pretty eye opening on how they changed the deal and drew up a new agreement once the camels nose was in the tent..... or just the tip as they say....

BHA..... my understanding is the Sierra Club was/is instrumental in proposing the introductions to CO.

Sierra Club. Little wonder Sierra Club Lite is sitting this one out. Again, they are joined at the hip. Same lawyers, same funding, pro bono work, etc. They are either being told to step down or they know they don't want to upset their big brother.... but none of this has anything to do with the words they use for the name of their org..... you know, hunters....

If I were a member I'd be upset, feeling I'd joined a org to promote hunters and hunting. not some environmentalist group think OVER hunting. But not being a member, the last thing I'd do is join them at this point. I'd lend my support to SCI and others who actively support hunting. I am a member of P&Y, who has stated they are working on their official position. We'll see what they come up with. I feel their membership is requesting a position (or help) and they are listening instead of telling folks to sit down and shut up. Let us smart people handle things......

The big change in minimum numbers by USFW (after it was too late), the ongoing string of lawsuits and the ridiculousness of it all soured me from ever supporting something similar with a species that can have such a dramatic impact if mismanaged.

I urge BHA members (regardless of whether you like the idea of more wolves in CO or not), who are opposed to wildlife management through ballot initiatives, to encourage the organization to take a stance opposing it. It may not be their main focus but BHA does take positions on wildlife management issues that are far less impactful than this. They recently were active on an issue in NM that changed resident tag allocations by less than 1%. Major wildlife management decisions being made through the ballot process is a bigger issue than that. Our CPW has already taken a position against introduction so the ground zero biologists are on the right side. No need to spend a bunch of money or time fighting it, just a position letter emailed to the Denver Post and posted on BHA social media. State chapter would be fine, doesn't even need to be from the top. Doesn't even need to oppose the idea of wolves in CO either.

It really is the right thing to do whether you do or don't want wolves here, whether you drink Bud Light or craft beer and regardless if your hat brim is curved or flat.

You’ve done nothing but show examples on an ACESS issue. I nor anyone else ever questioned that.

Instead of twisting this in typical fashion, stick to the original issue. The premise of this thread is the BHA’s willingness to get politically involved in issues not associated with access. And in everyone of those issues, they have never had a positive thing to say about a republican representative in the matter they choose to voice the organizations stance on. That phenomenon isn’t foreign or vague. It’s the heart of this thread. Not the isdue you’ve twisted it too. There is no need to highlight the BHA’s stance on access issues, They really wouldn’t be here if that was ever a question.

Ryan, public and private land are two different things. Green energy sites on public ground will be gated and off limits to access from the public. No farming around it, hiking, hunting, etc.... claiming the same small foot print that applies on private ground will be the way it’s handled on public land is simply wrong.

A little while back one of the BHA members, not sure if it was the regional director/lawyer dude, or another fanboy, but one of them made the statement that BHA is looking to partner with "non-traditional" groups, companies, etc... like Patagonia. Now Patagonia is on record as being anti-gun. I asked the question, when hunting is on the block, under attack, will these "non-traditional" groups you've climbed in bed with, lend support to hunters, or give the knife in their backs another twist. All I received was a smart ass answer that the gray hairs need to step aside.

BHA is an environmental group, wrapped in camo.

They've gotten plenty involved in issues that aren't related to access. Here's a link that highlights the issues BHA is focusing on, not all of which are access but all of which align with their mission focused on wild, public lands and our ability to recreate on them. So again, please provide me one example of the national leadership of BHA getting politically involved in an issue in a way that was not consistent with their mission and values. I've asked for a single example. Despite a lot talk, no one has provided one.

Bingo......that's been my experience with the Backstabbers also. Or no answer at all......

Dirk- Try finding a scientific peer reviewed journal article. What you post is opinion from the opposing side. If you find one I will listen. I'll even look myself and if I find one that says wolves did not have a net positive ecosystem effect in Yellowstone. Did wolves reduce elk...yes absolute scientific fact. But that is only the effect on one species not an ecosystem effect.

Trapper- We have done this experiment already. What has happened to the wolf population in Yellowstone? The wolf population went up and the elk went down. That was part of the reason for reintroduction. However, the Yellowstone herd has been increasing significantly over the last few years even with wolves. How can this be?

I understand and agree that the average size is smaller. Easily fact checked. However, you can not admit that the size between the two subspecies overlap. That is important biologically. What is the average size of those wolves taken by hunting and trapping in Idaho and Wyoming. What is the average size of the Yellowstone wolves now? They are smaller. Why?

I did miss your point about reintroduction about non-native fish. I completely agree that historically introduction of non-native species (a different species not from North America) has almost never worked out positively. But that is not what is going on with the wolf. They are the same species inhabiting the same continent and ranged in the same geography as the reintroduction site. And the subspecies size DO overlap. It is not the same thing. The Canadian super-wolf is a myth and a red herring. Lastly, have they even decided where they would get the wolves from if they do introduce in CO? Would they not look to capture the ID, MT, YGA wolves? If have not seen definitively that they would Canadian wolves anyway. Oh, and the capture site for the Yellowstone wolves were from the area near Hinton, Alberta (which is in the Rocky Mountains) approximately 800 miles away from Yellowstone.

Again, I do not think it is a good idea to do biology by ballot box. It should be up to the USFWS if they are on the ESA list. It should be up to CPW if Canis lupus is delisted from the ESA. If CPW biologist are against reintroduction then I would default to agreeing with them.

As of yesterday, I am a proud member of BHA. If they partner with groups for which I am not a member to protect access and hunting on public lands then good for them. It's OK to work with people and organizations even if sometime you don't agree. It's called compromise and it's a shame that has become a dirty word these days.

They can map Genome's back to the first mother and your saying they cant determine a the preceding DNA and how it was changed there after?

You may need to some Grad work in the modern Lab.

Fake science to fit a narritive is akin to Fake news.

K~

As far as BHA and this issue, it frustrates me that they won't get involved, but I understand why. Casting their lot with ranchers and outfitters would be antithetical to their core mission.

"It's OK to work with people and organizations even if sometime you don't agree. It's called compromise and it's a shame that has become a dirty word these days."

What you consider compromise, I call selling out. I'll not be part of ANY organization that whores it self out for $$ and support. Sierra Club is VERY anti-gun and there support for hunting is marginal.

They can't even bring themselves to acknowledge what a fantastic program the PR act is without damning it because of $$ derived from so called "assault weapons". You wanna compromise with groups like that, go right ahead? When, not if, when hunting is on the block, let's see how much support and "compromise" ya get from the Sierra Club/Patagonians.....

Best of luck to you in the 2020 hunting season.

Og course NPR wants to fool folks now. People to power until the GVT knows more and they always do............not.

The Wolf is key to the progressive climate/western lands policy changes.

These Wolfers are prolly a decade ahead any organized “keep the west the west” Organization. Have chit pots of $ are non taxed entities and have Hollywood to Google support.

These folks down the road. Want average Joes Bow, Rifle, Cattle, Sheep and your diesel.

Can laugh “it wont happen in my life”. Go try hunt chamois in France or Switzerland!

K

Like I said we have done this experiment before and the existing reintroduced wolves were not the super wolves/killers that some say they are. There will always a cost to reintroduction of a predator as they will find and kill prey. Absolutely and not argument there. I'm an elk hunter and value elk but I also value the other wildlife (game and non-game) and the ecosystem. We should conserve what we can and I think BHA is doing that.

Sorry I missed your point twice. It was unintended.

Anyway, that cat is out of the bag, never going to be put back in. Again, that was the goal all along. It's a done deal now.

Just still left with a foul taste after being knowingly lied to. But now being told yet again... trust us, we know what we're doing. And the best rationalization for the debacle offered is..... well, we had to. And again.... it's really for your own good, now sit down and shut up.... nothing to see here...

Anybody hear any word from BHA yet? Just curious..... maybe they haven't been made aware of the issue..... LOL! Yeah, maybe that's it.....

"Anybody hear any word from BHA yet? Just curious....."

As long as BHA has strange bedfellows such as the Sierra Club, I wouldn't hold my breath. 'Course.....could be just another scare tactic.

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I DO want a Desert BH tag someday!

Same with Rocky MT Elk from NZ. Bring some back and place them back in nebraska and call them the massive Prarie Elk found til 1815 or so.

Fighting over Fake Relocation symantics of non native species is a bad road to go down on both sides.

We are not far from ancient dna goung into pacaderm embryo’s . 5 yrs at estimates if sucessful in lab.

This wolf junk in NA is laying ground work for that conversation in the not so distant future.

This is just the begining. Super Mammals need super predators.

K

When they first had them ine USFWS emoloyee wote about the super size of them.

Its all open source you can read that program summeries Hell It was in several Nat Geo mags

K

That print was a birthday gift from my liberal older sister in the early '90s after I had completely switched from a rifle hunter and bait fisherman into a bowhunter and fly fisherman. I appreciated her humor.

Matt

akbow, you are correct, Sir Edmond Hilary was not a crook.

Pic - See if I attached the right one. S/B 4 wolves in this pic- 3 white, one black. They just completed a 'drive". One white sitting on a brush pile at 12 o'clock; two white at 8 o'clock-one sitting, one standing, one blackish alpha on at 7 o'clock, who is hard to make out. There were at least 5 more not in this pic. This was taken in the upper Thorofare drainage in Wyoming, outside the SE corner of the park. Not the best pic, sorry- but it gets the point across. The deers heads were on swivels up there.

Did you read the other link embedded in the article? Reading between the lines, it's readily apparent that the one of the goals of wolf reintro is an effort to eliminate hunting.

I love dogs. Care about them. Hate to see shelters filled with them. Guess I should partner with PETA or HSUS cause they love dogs, too. It's not BHA's goal that I object too, hell that's all of our goal. I object to some of their bedfellows in an effort to attract "support". Oh yeah, and the dismissive attitude of the ones have attained so much for the hunting community.

This is how they are selling the people the Species -Subspecies argument. This is new on their site. So, they just invented that there were only Four sub species of NA wolves and they were all Grays. Complete Fantasy-Land. They even throw in the Giant Plains Wolf Lupis Nubilus !

They are so far ahead of Stop the Scurge of the Wolf by states is not funny. Read on in the link you'd think your getting educated but some reading and research by a real source you's find almost all the info is sketchy and runs awash with common theory set forth for several decades.

Fighting over small differences in our opinions is what is moving these Wolfers further and further and laying ground work for Setting large swaths of USNF's off limits just for projects like "returning the land to its intended design" off limits to humans. Think that sounds nutty ? Read on......

K~

Well there is a problem for the BHA crew to handle - Why wait on the sidelines, BHA? I am going to see some of those guys this weekend at a banquet in WI. I am going to ask them.

Lupis Nubilus...that is the biggest clue that HH frankly doesn’t know what he doesn’t know.

HH- I posted the link earlier but post it again just for you. You can read about wolf subspecies genetics from a real science paper. Maybe it will help you understand why wolf subspecies distinctions are not concrete and changing through genetics science.

Prior to DNA mapping, subspecies was biologists best guess based mostly on geography and physical characteristics. Even today, we have to recheck all scientific species names before publishing our reports because species names are ever changing with the advancement of genetics. And that’s the species name...let alone subspecies. Actually we rarely use subspecies names.

You got one thing right HH. Don’t trust opinion articles or websites. Go to the source. Maybe you should start going to the source and posting instead of calling everything fake you don’t agree with or understand. Your not fooling anyone. It just shows you’re just a copycat follower.

My Bro in Law is a full senior wetlands Biologist of 55yrs (the super-fund man) and my sister is Senior Bio Chemical Scientist who runs a lab in RI. So to hear your ramblings is like two locusts fluttering its wings.

I have spoken to my BIL a few times on your simple Bio lessons you regurgitate here. He has a good laugh. You both have one thing in common however. You have both been affected by your environment as to your leanings. You have chip just like my BIL against DJT. Yep, when DJT signed exec order getting rid of BO's addition to the Clean Water Act guys like you lost your minds and your wallets with respect to all the million's guys like you were stealing from folks with BS Studies and Enviro Consulting. I get it. I really do and I see it in your writings here every time your finger touches a key. Your on here cuz you have 1/2 the work you had under BO's BS regulation by fiat.

I see things as right and wrong. Either they are black or white. Gray area's only exist by non conformists and folks blinded by the politics of progressiveness. In my line work there was no second place for failure. You did your work well or you did not come home at all. So, by same token I am a product of my environment. Right is No Fake Wolves in Lower 48, Wrong is leaf licker's around the world trying to reverse engineer what has already occured to a pre-designed era at the cost of our people. Simple really.

K

You go right to the personal attacks make a lot of assumptions about me. You couldn’t be further from the truth but personal attacks are about right for a copycat follower like you.

Listen HH, I appreciate your sacrifice for our country. I’m sorry you were injured. You are a soldier without a a leader or enemy; therefore, you create them so you can focus the energy the way you were trained. Yes, this is personal but please do not consider it and attack. I sincerely wish peace for you.

But you don’t know what you don’t know even if your BIL and sister do.

One science is just like the other, so of course they are wolf experts too...

I think this is a good argument that neither side is going to back down from. It has enlightened me a bit on the subject. I am a bit on the fence--I can see that bringing in larger wolves can be detrimental in the beginning, but I would also think that evolution will balance those larger wolves to being closer to what was here originally. I would think the smaller wolves (from the Northern wolves) would be "naturally selected". I'm not sure how that works in the artificial environment that has been created though. Certainly the environment has changed from what it was when the "smaller" wolves evolved in the Southern Rockies. Plus, I have no idea how many years that would take for the smaller wolves to evolve--if they even would. Lots of variables.

In the 1970's it was reported that 86% of scientists agreed we were heading into a new ice age, it was man made and billions of people would be dead by 1989. Remember that one.

Then it there was the certainty that London would be under water by 2000. I could keep going. Scientist, like journalist have opinions and an agenda.

The best quote I've read this year. "The left wing media desperately wants America to be a horrible place." You could change "media" to "scientists" and "America" to "humanity". Same people, same agenda. But,hey, we aren't smart enough to argue with them.

What is your alternative to science and the scientific method? Just guess and make stuff based on intuition and anecdotal experiences? Put HH in charge or have politics dictate or pick and choose science. I think hitler tried that. I promise you this...we are better off relying in science to help guide our decisions as a society and species.?If we lose our faith in science and mathematics then we are in for tough times. So what if science is wrong about climate change and we did what we could to minimize it and prepare. What if the science is right about climate change and we don’t minimize and prepare. The second scenario is a much tougher road for us.

Back to the OP, I’m on day 2 of my BHA membership and no liberals have contacted me yet to give me the details on our conspiracy. There is still an elk season in Idaho wolf country and I’ll be purchasing a tag in 2020.

I hunt and fish 250 days or more a year. I come here after my morning workout's, runs and ruck. Everydays a Sat for me, has been since I retired at 46yrs. Yeah, I got hurt several times. Would have been happy to give all I had just as well.

But yes no hate for you or attack. Just plenty of smiles upon digesting poorly reseached opinion of your so called science.

There was another big kink in the Wolfer and "return the nation to the Prey and Predator only plan"

DJT by Exec order several days while the sheeple were thinkin "he cant do anything they are holding impeachment trial"! Well, he reversed the BO "dark of night during last days of his Admin" he signed over massive lands to the Monuments Act. That all gone. So no land set aside for loosing wolves , etc.

I have my ID 2020 tags Wolf was first I got along with a bear, elk, deer. Right after MT Elk and possibly right back to camp in MT. Little late on elk in ID most good GMU's been sold since Dec 15th OTC. To add Jan 01 prices jumped a bunch. Think my elk tag was $32.00 for NR. That and I wont see 5 guys in MT's on that hunt.

K~

I’m glad to hear that you get to spend all that time in the woods doing what you obviously love. You have earned it 20 times over IMO. Thanks again for you service and I wish you internal peace the rest of your days.

Maybe I’ll meet you one day at a BHA meeting or something lol.

K~

K~