HuntStand Hunting App
BHA on Colorado wolf introduction
Moose
Contributors to this thread:
MichaelArnette 09-Feb-20
Treeline 09-Feb-20
Bowfreak 09-Feb-20
Bowbender 09-Feb-20
standswittaknife 09-Feb-20
Glunt@work 09-Feb-20
Grasshopper 10-Feb-20
Metikki 10-Feb-20
WV Mountaineer 10-Feb-20
Bowbender 10-Feb-20
Pete In Fairbanks 10-Feb-20
Brotsky 10-Feb-20
Bowbender 10-Feb-20
Trophyhill 10-Feb-20
sticksender 10-Feb-20
HH 10-Feb-20
Woods Walker 10-Feb-20
NoWiser 10-Feb-20
GF 10-Feb-20
Bowfreak 10-Feb-20
GF 10-Feb-20
KSflatlander 10-Feb-20
Bowfreak 10-Feb-20
KSflatlander 10-Feb-20
Trophyhill 10-Feb-20
Surfbow 10-Feb-20
NoWiser 10-Feb-20
JSW 10-Feb-20
KSflatlander 10-Feb-20
JSW 10-Feb-20
Treeline 10-Feb-20
Trial153 10-Feb-20
Native Okie 10-Feb-20
Brotsky 10-Feb-20
elkmtngear 10-Feb-20
Woods Walker 10-Feb-20
LUNG$HOT 10-Feb-20
Trophyhill 10-Feb-20
Trophyhill 10-Feb-20
KSflatlander 10-Feb-20
JohnMC 10-Feb-20
standswittaknife 10-Feb-20
Huntskifishcook 10-Feb-20
NoWiser 10-Feb-20
LUNG$HOT 10-Feb-20
Trophyhill 10-Feb-20
Woods Walker 10-Feb-20
KSflatlander 10-Feb-20
Trophyhill 10-Feb-20
Woods Walker 10-Feb-20
KSflatlander 10-Feb-20
Trophyhill 10-Feb-20
Trophyhill 10-Feb-20
KSflatlander 10-Feb-20
JohnMC 10-Feb-20
Huntskifishcook 10-Feb-20
JSW 10-Feb-20
KSflatlander 10-Feb-20
Trophyhill 10-Feb-20
JohnMC 10-Feb-20
Huntskifishcook 10-Feb-20
NoWiser 10-Feb-20
KSflatlander 10-Feb-20
Trophyhill 10-Feb-20
KSflatlander 10-Feb-20
KSflatlander 10-Feb-20
Trophyhill 10-Feb-20
JohnMC 10-Feb-20
Surfbow 10-Feb-20
KSflatlander 10-Feb-20
WV Mountaineer 10-Feb-20
yooper89 10-Feb-20
Jaquomo 11-Feb-20
KSflatlander 11-Feb-20
Grasshopper 11-Feb-20
Metikki 11-Feb-20
HH 11-Feb-20
WV Mountaineer 11-Feb-20
elkstabber 11-Feb-20
Stix 11-Feb-20
KSflatlander 11-Feb-20
Stix 11-Feb-20
JohnMC 11-Feb-20
TrapperKayak 11-Feb-20
Myke 11-Feb-20
Woods Walker 11-Feb-20
TrapperKayak 11-Feb-20
HH 11-Feb-20
KSflatlander 11-Feb-20
NoWiser 11-Feb-20
Trophyhill 11-Feb-20
KSflatlander 11-Feb-20
Outdoordan 11-Feb-20
elkmtngear 11-Feb-20
NoWiser 11-Feb-20
TrapperKayak 11-Feb-20
elkmtngear 11-Feb-20
TD 11-Feb-20
KSflatlander 11-Feb-20
TrapperKayak 11-Feb-20
Glunt@work 11-Feb-20
HH 11-Feb-20
bigeasygator 11-Feb-20
NoWiser 11-Feb-20
JohnMC 11-Feb-20
elkmtngear 11-Feb-20
Brotsky 11-Feb-20
ground hunter 11-Feb-20
KSflatlander 11-Feb-20
KSflatlander 11-Feb-20
JohnMC 11-Feb-20
bigeasygator 11-Feb-20
JohnMC 11-Feb-20
Brotsky 11-Feb-20
WV Mountaineer 11-Feb-20
KSflatlander 11-Feb-20
bigeasygator 11-Feb-20
JohnMC 11-Feb-20
WV Mountaineer 11-Feb-20
KSflatlander 11-Feb-20
bigeasygator 11-Feb-20
HH 11-Feb-20
JohnMC 11-Feb-20
WV Mountaineer 11-Feb-20
WV Mountaineer 11-Feb-20
KSflatlander 11-Feb-20
bigeasygator 11-Feb-20
KSflatlander 11-Feb-20
WV Mountaineer 11-Feb-20
bigeasygator 11-Feb-20
KSflatlander 11-Feb-20
WV Mountaineer 11-Feb-20
TD 11-Feb-20
RK 11-Feb-20
JohnMC 11-Feb-20
Trophyhill 11-Feb-20
RK 11-Feb-20
JohnMC 11-Feb-20
KSflatlander 11-Feb-20
bigeasygator 11-Feb-20
kscowboy 11-Feb-20
bigeasygator 11-Feb-20
KSflatlander 11-Feb-20
bigeasygator 11-Feb-20
Bowhunter 11-Feb-20
TrapperKayak 11-Feb-20
KSflatlander 12-Feb-20
MichaelArnette 12-Feb-20
TD 12-Feb-20
Glunt@work 12-Feb-20
WV Mountaineer 12-Feb-20
TrapperKayak 12-Feb-20
Bowbender 12-Feb-20
bigeasygator 12-Feb-20
Woods Walker 12-Feb-20
Trial153 12-Feb-20
WV Mountaineer 12-Feb-20
bigeasygator 12-Feb-20
Woods Walker 12-Feb-20
KSflatlander 12-Feb-20
HH 12-Feb-20
Jaquomo 12-Feb-20
Bowbender 12-Feb-20
KSflatlander 12-Feb-20
NoWiser 12-Feb-20
TrapperKayak 12-Feb-20
HH 12-Feb-20
KSflatlander 12-Feb-20
TD 12-Feb-20
Bowbender 12-Feb-20
TrapperKayak 12-Feb-20
akbow 12-Feb-20
HH 12-Feb-20
TrapperKayak 12-Feb-20
TrapperKayak 12-Feb-20
HH 12-Feb-20
akbow 12-Feb-20
KSflatlander 12-Feb-20
JohnMC 12-Feb-20
Grey Ghost 12-Feb-20
KSflatlander 12-Feb-20
TrapperKayak 12-Feb-20
Myke 12-Feb-20
TrapperKayak 12-Feb-20
TD 13-Feb-20
TrapperKayak 13-Feb-20
Bowbender 13-Feb-20
TrapperKayak 13-Feb-20
HH 13-Feb-20
Myke 13-Feb-20
kentuckbowhnter 13-Feb-20
TrapperKayak 13-Feb-20
KSflatlander 13-Feb-20
HH 13-Feb-20
KSflatlander 13-Feb-20
Surfbow 13-Feb-20
JohnMC 13-Feb-20
akbow 13-Feb-20
JSW 13-Feb-20
TrapperKayak 13-Feb-20
KSflatlander 13-Feb-20
TrapperKayak 13-Feb-20
HH 13-Feb-20
KSflatlander 13-Feb-20
HH 13-Feb-20
Woods Walker 13-Feb-20
HH 13-Feb-20
09-Feb-20

MichaelArnette's embedded Photo
MichaelArnette's embedded Photo
Your thoughts? I’ve been a member and am re thinking

From: Treeline
09-Feb-20
I have talked on a personal level with several of the top guys.

Their current position is to stay out of it.

If you ain’t part of the solution....

From: Bowfreak
09-Feb-20
I'm not surprised. If it walks like a duck....

From: Bowbender
09-Feb-20
What's the phrase...."It's not in their wheelhouse."

09-Feb-20
Main reason I will NEVER be part of this group (clowns). I’m a diehard Colorado Bowhunter assoc, rmef, nwtf, P&y.. but will never join this group until they stand up for hunters..

From: Glunt@work
09-Feb-20
Plenty of wildlife issues they have been involved in that aren't centered around land and access when you browse their media section. This issue is huge. Even if their membership is split on the wolves, the terrible precedent set by circumventing the biologists with a ballot measure should be enough to warrant opposing this.

From: Grasshopper
10-Feb-20
I was kicked off their Colorado facebook page because I disagreed with them. WTF? 95% of the posts I saw were Trump and his staff bashing. Absolute hatred for the BLM and interior leadership. Severe Donald Trump Syndrome. I asked the questions would they still kick me off if I was a dues paying member but got no response.

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?

From: Metikki
10-Feb-20
They are standing up..... for their pro wolf leadership and you can just about guarantee they got $$$ for this very stance.

10-Feb-20
The group on a national level, sure does pick and choose it’s “wheel house” in ways that makes it hard not to ask why the wolf issue is not in its WHEEL HOUSE.

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.

From: Bowbender
10-Feb-20
All I know is, per some BHA'ers, us gray hairs need to step aside and turn the North American Hunting model success story over to the Patagonians. 'Cuz they're the ones that got us this far in the last 50 years and will be staunch supporters of hunting and trapping over the next 50 years. Make no mistake. The unholy alliances BHA has formed will be fully realized hunting is on the "block". Their support will drop quicker than a frenchmans rifle. Why? Cuz hunting ain't in their wheelhouse.

10-Feb-20
Anyone else recall when RMEF made a similar decision (to stay out of the wolf reintroduction issue?) It was back when USFWS was having the scoping meetings regarding the project.

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

Pete

From: Brotsky
10-Feb-20
BHA needs to change their name to Backcountry Brewers, Flat Brimmers, and Instagram Influencers.

From: Bowbender
10-Feb-20
Yeah, but BBFBII doesn't roll off the tongue near as sweet.

From: Trophyhill
10-Feb-20
BHA are a liberal organization. Elitists........

From: sticksender
10-Feb-20
Too bad. IMO this is THE most significant issue to affect hunters in Colorado since the bear referendum in 1992. To me it is puzzling that any group purporting to represent hunters' interests could be neutral on this.

From: HH
10-Feb-20
Imagine getting kicked off the site for a different view of the world of hunting, etc.

K~

From: Woods Walker
10-Feb-20

Woods Walker's embedded Photo
Woods Walker's embedded Photo

From: NoWiser
10-Feb-20
Did Pope & Young Club take a stance?

From: GF
10-Feb-20
“ the terrible precedent set by circumventing the biologists with a ballot measure should be enough to warrant opposing this.”

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.

From: Bowfreak
10-Feb-20
BHA's choice to remain "neutral" has hunters who are BHA members throwing money to support the other side. I have wanted to support them from the beginning but their coziness with the left is all I needed to see.

From: GF
10-Feb-20
“ the terrible precedent set by circumventing the biologists with a ballot measure should be enough to warrant opposing this.”

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.

From: KSflatlander
10-Feb-20
“BHA's choice to remain "neutral" has hunters who are BHA members throwing money to support the other side. I have wanted to support them from the beginning but their coziness with the left is all I needed to see.”

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?

From: Bowfreak
10-Feb-20
BHA members are donating money, at a minimum through dues, to an organization that chooses to support the other side of the wolf reintroduction ballot measure by not offering opposition. If you are a bowhunter, this is where your money goes.

From: KSflatlander
10-Feb-20
If BHA is staying out of the issue then I don’t follow. Because they are staying out of it they are for it?

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

From: Trophyhill
10-Feb-20
If the BHA is "neutral", they have in effect taken a stance for reintro. BHA is unequivocally a left leaning liberal organization. I met a few of their top dogs a few years ago here in NM, and they are indeed liberals with a hidden agenda..,......

From: Surfbow
10-Feb-20
Some of these posts are so empty of data and so full of crap...

From: NoWiser
10-Feb-20
Has Pope and Young taken a stance? If they haven’t, then are they also taking a stance for introduction, like BHA apparently is?

From: JSW
10-Feb-20
Folks, Pope and Young has not taken an official stance. We have had representation at a number of meetings that discussed how to deal with this issue. While we haven't issued an official position statement on this, I can say with confidence that the Pope and Young Club is and always has been opposed to wildlife management by referendum. We will stand with the professionals and make a statement soon.

From: KSflatlander
10-Feb-20
"BHA is unequivocally a left leaning liberal organization. I met a few of their top dogs a few years ago here in NM, and they are indeed liberals with a hidden agenda."

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.

From: JSW
10-Feb-20
Same topic, different NGO. A number of interested parties met in Reno last week to make a plan of attack. I attended for P&Y. Several groups will be working together in a concerted campaign to fight the forced re-introduction. I still have a problem with claiming they are re-introducing a sub species that was never native in the first place but I digress. Significant funds are being raised, primarily from SCI and it's Chapters, to fight the initiative. You should see a press release on this soon. It was a very big deal.

From: Treeline
10-Feb-20
Thank you Jim!

From: Trial153
10-Feb-20

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. 

From: Native Okie
10-Feb-20
Yep! Thanks, Jim! Appreciate all you do!

From: Brotsky
10-Feb-20
Thanks for the update Jim! Makes sense and a deliberate, well thought out approach is always best!

From: elkmtngear
10-Feb-20
Can't understand why a so-called "Backcountry Hunters" association, wouldn't have a dog in this fight? Should be on the forefront of issues for them. As someone mentioned...RMEF took a similar tack once, and learned their lesson the hard way.

If it walks like a duck...

From: Woods Walker
10-Feb-20
I think you mean the "BackSTABBING" Hunters and Anglers.

From: LUNG$HOT
10-Feb-20
I’ll be completely honest. I’ve been on the fence this whole time about BHA. At their surface they seem to have some good intentions, similar interests, and what sounds to be a group of like minded individuals who care about and support hunting and the hunting community. However, I’ve always been in the “actions speak louder than words” crowd and I ABSOLUTELY can’t believe as an organization they wouldn’t take a stance on this issue! Especially if they claim to be who they say they are. As stated above, this is most likely the biggest issue we hunters as a group have faced in a very long time. It’ll be a cold day in hell before I support any organization who presents themselves with such cowardice when the chips are on the table. Pick a side or I promise... the hunting community will pick one for you!

From: Trophyhill
10-Feb-20
To answer KS, if one can call being a member of and supporting the liberal democrat agenda, "lose" information, then ya got me. But when you talk about one platform to sportsman, and another platform to others while running for a political position, the intent is as clear as the nose on your face.

From: Trophyhill
10-Feb-20
Lungshot, it's because they do have a hidden agenda. They won't admit it publicly because they will lose membership. They are antis in sheep's clothing. Their affiliations with liberal groups like the NWF are hardly "loose" affiliations

From: KSflatlander
10-Feb-20
Trophyhill- I see nothing but unfounded opinion without evidence to back it up. I would really like to see some credible evidence for your strong words against BHA.

From: JohnMC
10-Feb-20
To you folks that think BHA shit don't stink. Why do you think the majority of conservative hunters have issues with BHA? Don't you think if they were just what they pretend to be, a group that's only goal was to protect and look out for interest of public land hunters and anglers we would welcome them with open arms much like is the case with most other groups that are there to protect our interest.

10-Feb-20
JohnMC x2....

10-Feb-20
20% of BHA's membership is Democrat, so it doesn't seem that the majority of conservatives are against BHA, just a select group on this forum. I would also love to see some factual evidence backing up the above claims. All that has been presented so far are strong opinions and cute analogies involving ducks, pigs, and noses.

From: NoWiser
10-Feb-20
Where is your data that most conservative hunters have issues with BHA? Conservative hunters on this site like to pile on them, but I know plenty outside of this site that support them. Do they support everything they do? No. Do they support their overall message? Yes.

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.

From: LUNG$HOT
10-Feb-20
I hear ya Trophy, I feel like they’ve definitely been forced to show their true colors on this one and it’s definitely an eerie shade of blue with pink in the middle! This is not an issue where you can just safely sit on the sidelines and use the excuse of not wanting to get involved. I don’t know about you KS but any “Pro-Hunter” group not willing to speak the eff up on this issue isn’t a group I want representing us and you definitely won’t see me in their corner anytime soon.

From: Trophyhill
10-Feb-20
Oh for crying out loud Flatlander and some of you others who think I'm making loose accusations. Do your own homework. Do a quick Google search. The CEO is a full blown liberal. Sat on one of Obama's committees. Takes money from anti hunting groups. Was part of the National Wildlife Federation (another liberal group). The information is all out there! You can ignore it, or you can see it for what it is and come back to the good side and help fight the good fight......

From: Woods Walker
10-Feb-20
You're wasting your time David. I'm still waiting for answers from the Backstabbers from 6 years ago! They won't/can't/don't care. They're just peachy keen until you question them and then the REAL face comes out.....and it ain't pretty.

From: KSflatlander
10-Feb-20
You’re the one with the accusations. I’m not going to back it up for you. And do you really think all people in the U.S. fit in two groups...liberal or conservative? I know I don’t. Likely you don’t either. Most people are not that simple minded.

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.

From: Trophyhill
10-Feb-20

Trophyhill's Link

From: Woods Walker
10-Feb-20
Correction....5 YEARS AGO.......Still waiting......

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

From: KSflatlander
10-Feb-20

KSflatlander's Link
I can see why the American Land Council doesn’t like BHA.

From: Trophyhill
10-Feb-20
Flatlander, empower yourself. Don't take my word for it. Look it up for yourself.

From: Trophyhill
10-Feb-20

Trophyhill's Link

From: KSflatlander
10-Feb-20
Good advice. I think I will.

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.

From: JohnMC
10-Feb-20
Hey flatlander is this you? If so sounds like someone that could profit from BHA’s agenda. Included the endangered wolf...

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

10-Feb-20
The Americans Lands Council is an advocate for the sale of our public land. Why would hunters ever support or get news from them?

From: JSW
10-Feb-20
NoWiser

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.

From: KSflatlander
10-Feb-20
Yep that’s me. I’m not sure what your point is but I have never profited or worked on wolf issues. I work mostly with energy companies to help them permit their projects.

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?

From: Trophyhill
10-Feb-20
Just one of the many articles out there. Like I said, don't take my word for it. Look it up. I've done my homework. I know who these liberals are. And the groups that fund them. Sorry, I'm not drinking the koolaid. ;) took me all of 5 seconds reading about Land Tawney to know who he is......

From: JohnMC
10-Feb-20
Just seems strange a guy that makes his living being in tune with all things environmental would be both naïve to BHA and so concerned in defending. When you say energy company is it safe to assume most of the companies you work for are wind/green energy companies opposed to more traditional oil and gas energy?

10-Feb-20
Fortunately we live in a land where we aren't forced to drink any koolaid, and we can agree to disagree. Good hunting to you.

From: NoWiser
10-Feb-20
JSW,

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.

From: KSflatlander
10-Feb-20

KSflatlander's Link
I’ve been looking and it seems BHA does a lot of good.

“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?

From: Trophyhill
10-Feb-20

Trophyhill's Link

From: KSflatlander
10-Feb-20
Off the mark John. You know what they say about assuming. I don’t discriminate and work for all forms of energy. I did some natural gas pipeline work last week. Helped with Keystone XL. And of course I work on solar and wind projects. I’m located in the heart of America’s best wind resource.

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.

From: KSflatlander
10-Feb-20

KSflatlander's Link
I thought you didn’t drink the kool aid?

From: Trophyhill
10-Feb-20
environmentalists' ONLINE-ONLY letter to the editor Jan The Missoulian recently quoted Land Tawney, executive director of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, as being concerned about Montana’s economy if the state were to become responsible for managing federal lands. The irony of his concern may have been lost on some Montanans ("State senator leads debate on federal lands in Montana." Jan. 18).

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

From: JohnMC
10-Feb-20
If it is BS answer my question above. Why do so many that support many other groups that represent sportsmen. Why no criticism for those other groups like there is for BHA?

From: Surfbow
10-Feb-20
Who here bashing BHA is also a member of the NRA? Asking for a friend, he says the NRA doesn't give a rip about hunting either...

From: KSflatlander
10-Feb-20
Based on the sources for most of the negative information that I have found, it appears that opposing organizations that are for the sale and energy development of public lands are using propaganda to sway public opinion of BHA. BHAs mission directly opposes actions that will reduce the sale and develop of public land. Sources included above.

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

10-Feb-20
I'm certain that most all members of the BHA are great people that believe in the organization based on the work and contributions they provide for it. And, get tired of being labeled as political partisans. But, the facts on national and the leader of the BHA, makes it hard to get by that to people who see it that way. Its pretty simple really. The BHA has printed many a word on their stances involving all sorts of hunting related topics not involving access. A BUNCH. Members never seem to take issue with that being pointed out unless it involves wolves. And, those of us looking for a place to put support for our hunting rights never miss that reality.

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.

From: yooper89
10-Feb-20
What a terrible time to run out of popcorn. You all hold tight, I’ll be back in a bit!

From: Jaquomo
11-Feb-20
I'm sitting this one out. Not in my wheelhouse.

From: KSflatlander
11-Feb-20
Hey Justin. Thanks for the info. And well written as usual. I’ve done some digging on the root sources of the negative BHA info. The root sources I’m finding are not hunters or don’t have pro-hunting agendas. That makes me cautious to outright discard BHA.

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.

From: Grasshopper
11-Feb-20
I understand there are back door discussions going on right now about wolves, and the Colorado senate bill to introduce them. I am told there are negotiations ongoing between the Senator and pro wolfers to supposedly pull 107 once a bill gets signed into law that supports wolf introduction. The bill is being revised right now, and may hit committee soon. JMHO, all options are looking like losers on this one, and the story keeps getting bleeker.

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.

From: Metikki
11-Feb-20
Land Tawney was the head of a PAC for the Bamster, in Illinois. Several years ago, I was threatened/dared to debate him on Facebook and their page. He was going to clean my clock lol I was then banished from EVERY MEMBER’s fb page. EVERY MEMBER.

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

From: HH
11-Feb-20
I am so glad someone posted that FLer resume bullet. I figger they would banned me again for a second life.

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~

11-Feb-20
Ryan, in a democracy, the masses opinion wins. No different here. If it were a legitimate concern to be put to a vote, of the number of those would like to hunt them in CO versus the ungulate species they’ll kill off and keep at low numbers, I’m betting the wolf hunters would be out voted.

From: elkstabber
11-Feb-20
Surfbow, the NRA made a very positive difference in VA by helping to lift the Sunday hunting ban in 2014. Truthfully, the NRA made a lot of Republicans support Sunday hunting that were otherwise opposed. The NRA did this by adding Sunday hunting to each politician's "report card". The NRA has definitely been good to hunters in VA.

From: Stix
11-Feb-20
Wow! So many people with no life! How come you're not outside enjoying the outdoors? Ice fishing, snow shoeing, waterfowlin? Is this what happens when you get old & wrinkly? Sit and complain?

A word od advice...Don't let the old man in.

From: KSflatlander
11-Feb-20
Dirk- Out of all the bills BHA is in support of that is the only one you highlight. Kind of cherry picking aren't you. Did you know the Public Land Renewable Energy Development Act was a bipartisan bill? Introduced by a Republican. The other bill in your screenshot is the Recovering America's Wildlife Act...introduced by a Democrat. It is co-sponsored by Rep Gaetz (R) from Florida. Man, that guy is such a liberal.

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.

From: Stix
11-Feb-20
I suggest everyone look at Paul Navarre as an example on how sportsmen should show themselves. He gets involved in issues he's passionate about, Never puts down fellow sportsmen, Is outdoors doing the things he loves, posts factual information, stays above the frays.

All of this stuff is WASTED ENERGY!

From: JohnMC
11-Feb-20
Stix that is funny. You are BHA's biggest fan boy who wasted a lot of time defending them. Says a lot about the issue when the best, FanBoy Number Uno can come up with is "So many people with no life!"

From: TrapperKayak
11-Feb-20
Munch, munch, munch...more popcorn please. :)

From: Myke
11-Feb-20
I have hunted outside of Yellowstone park several times in the presence of wolves. In the upper reaches or headwaters of the Thorofare and Yellowstone rivers . . . way back in.

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.

From: Woods Walker
11-Feb-20
I'm still waiting for an answer to my question from 2015 Stix, or is this still your position.....

"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.

From: TrapperKayak
11-Feb-20
'Those big wolves that were introduced long ago, are genetically built for an entirely different ecosystem. Canada, with vast expanses of empty land.'

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.

From: HH
11-Feb-20
Myke yer spot on. Those wolves never were in lower 48. Wolves International has been taking Artics and Northern Canada Grays and doing all kind breeding for years now. The super Killer is what they want. A giant Pack dog that can take down a Bull Moose after running him for a day or so with just three dogs!

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~

From: KSflatlander
11-Feb-20
I looked at their website. Read the negative and positive reviews on BHA. Dug into the sources and donors. When I look at it wholistic i disagree with your position. It seems BHA has a good mission and I agree with it.

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.

From: NoWiser
11-Feb-20
KS, If you don't immediately condemn someone for being a democrat or liberal, you have no place on this site. It doesn't matter what their mission is, only the letter next to their name.

From: Trophyhill
11-Feb-20
Well........I tried leading him to water...,........but he's choosing the BHA koolaid.

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

From: KSflatlander
11-Feb-20
“KS, If you don't immediately condemn someone for being a democrat or liberal, you have no place on this site. It doesn't matter what their mission is, only the letter next to their name.“

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.

From: Outdoordan
11-Feb-20
I have met and had some laughs with Land. His heart is in the right place, and he believes he is doing good for his members, sportsmen and public lands. I was a member for a year or two, but have found it hard to continue as some of their stances are not aligned with mine. But perhaps none are. Listen, if we can not include all sportsmen in dialogue, because of their respective party affiliation then we are ultimately going to divide our ranks and lose. I agree with some that the wolf thing in CO is going to happen naturally or via introductions. It is up to Sportsmen/women to try and get common sense hunting regulations started now. Just my .02 cents.

From: elkmtngear
11-Feb-20
When in doubt, follow the money. The more I look into BHA...the more they seem "Environmentalist" than "Conservationist". See attached article

http://www.americanlandscouncil.org/backcountry_hunters_anglers_reveals_thier_radical_side

From: NoWiser
11-Feb-20
Jeff, I'd recommend you take your own advice and follow the money with regards to the American Lands Council. Of course they'd oppose BHA, they want to see federal lands disposed of.

From: TrapperKayak
11-Feb-20
'....the more they seem "Environmentalist" than "Conservationist"..." These two entities used to be much more aligned in years past than they are now. At one time, they were close to being meaning the same 'group'. But they each aligned with and latched onto their respective party, which is now more polarized than ever. So these groups are too. At one time they both had the same goal. In some ways I think they still do without realizing it or wanting to admit it, for fear of alienating their own kind. Or more-so, now, their ways to a means are vastly different, but the goal is similar - they both want to preserve nature. Eventually, I see this cause as re-uniting both groups, once their respective party affiliations die. Or maybe one of the parties itself dies. It is kind of looking like that is happening now. One is committing political suicide as we speak. Yay!

From: elkmtngear
11-Feb-20

elkmtngear's Link
OK Jim, here's an article from Ammoland (I know the CEO personally, and he is certainly not an Environmentalist, or "tree hugger").

As I said, follow the money

From: TD
11-Feb-20
Basically..... if Sierra Club supports it, you will never see Backcountry Hikers and Fashionable Fishermen oppose it. They are joined at the hip now. Same folks rubbing elbow to elbow running the show. Same money involved. Same circles. Supported by the same donor groups. Same business plan. Same cocktail parties. A sub-chapter. That is what they are becoming. 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.....

From: KSflatlander
11-Feb-20
Subspecies is a relatively new concept in science. You got it backwards. A species was split into subspecies for management genetic variation purposes.

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

From: TrapperKayak
11-Feb-20
I respectfully disagree. From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the term 'subspecies' was first used in 1681. Def: 'a category in biological classification that ranks immediately below a species and designates a population of a particular geographic region genetically distinguishable from other such populations of the same species and capable of interbreeding successfully with them where its range overlaps theirs.'

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).

From: Glunt@work
11-Feb-20
Wolves in CO and Wyoming were designated C. L. Irremotus and C.L. Youngi.

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.

From: HH
11-Feb-20
And they were hunted to extinction. Think the Sub was called Rocky Mt Timber Wolf and the time of last know harvest in the 1930's.

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~

From: bigeasygator
11-Feb-20
OK Jim, here's an article from Ammoland (I know the CEO personally, and he is certainly not an Environmentalist, or "tree hugger")

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?

From: NoWiser
11-Feb-20
Bigeasy, I was going to point out that the article was written by the Environmental Policy Agency (Berman) as well, but it's not worth my time. Facts don't seem to matter here whether it has to do with BHA or wolves.

From: JohnMC
11-Feb-20
To answer your question gator. They find issues that align as you say with the Democratic party and use them them to hope to find a single issue that other wise conservative outdoors will vote for the liberal democrat. One example Jon Tester in MT. Google Jon Tester and BHA you will find article after article of them telling their member what a swell guy he 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.

From: elkmtngear
11-Feb-20

elkmtngear's Link
"Facts don't seem to matter here whether it has to do with BHA or wolves".

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 !

From: Brotsky
11-Feb-20
A perfect example of subspecies comparisons for wolves is the whitetail deer. They are all odocoileus virginianus. Using the same theory on introduction as wolves you could take a Canadian whitetail and drop it in the Florida keys to replace key deer and everything is same same. See the insanity?

11-Feb-20
I have to laugh at what I read.., I am in the UP. Out on the shoes and snow machines all week. Yep them wolves are killing them deer real well.......wolves what a joke..... Even when I lived in Ontario. They breed like rats, you will not kill them off....

From: KSflatlander
11-Feb-20
Trapper- that is fine if you disagree. If you have 40 years of experience in biology then you know the standard for species classification is the Linnaeus system. It has been that way for centuries. Kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species. This system is still taught in biology today. There is no subspecies in the Linnaeus system. Subspecies was just a guessing game until genetic science came along which has only been in the last 50 years.

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.

From: KSflatlander
11-Feb-20
Dirk- Who said there was no difference between subspecies? Sure there are differences; however, even your link shows that Canadian wolf subspecies size ranges encompass the the N. Rocky Mt. Gray Wolf. Geography and temperature are the environmental influences for wolf subspecies. Natural selection still works.

From: JohnMC
11-Feb-20
KS simple yes/no question. Do you support wolves being introduced into CO?

From: bigeasygator
11-Feb-20
One example Jon Tester in MT. Google Jon Tester and BHA you will find article after article of them telling their member what a swell guy he is.

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"?

From: JohnMC
11-Feb-20
Gator the point being he votes with the dems on most everything. If I was in MT I would not support him because he is good on one issue. NRA gives him a 'D", Planned parenthood gives him "100%", he voted to impeach Trump, voted against Kavanaugh. I could go on and on.

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

From: Brotsky
11-Feb-20
Tester had an A rating before he voted against Kavanaugh....funny how one vote can swing that.

11-Feb-20
Yes. BEG losses his lunch at the thought of anything Trump. So, he'd be right on board with anyone who opposes him.

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.

From: KSflatlander
11-Feb-20
I do not support wolf by ballot...no

From: bigeasygator
11-Feb-20
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

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?

From: JohnMC
11-Feb-20
KS - Do you support them being reintroduced in any form? Yes or No

11-Feb-20
BEG, a handful of one party talks radical concerning transfer. The other party in whole doesn't but, see's no problem in setting aside huge chunks for windmill farms. Which is the greatest threat? I'd say he one that is/has happened. Wouldn't you?

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.

From: KSflatlander
11-Feb-20
Yes, if biologists and wildlife managers thought the reintroduction was best for the overall ecosystem. Like in Yellowstone.

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

From: bigeasygator
11-Feb-20
BEG, a handful of one party talks radical concerning transfer

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.

From: HH
11-Feb-20
Of course he does. That brings the mighty $ to the Bio leafies. Lots of studies and GVT and state $ in that. Win Win for the Wood boogers. They get millions in grants and study money to suck on. Not much different than studies into semi-conductors and wind farms. All must have years of EIS's and blah, blah, blah.

That's just the Leaf Licker Lifecycle.

K~

From: JohnMC
11-Feb-20
So KS you think wolves have been an over all good thing for Yellowstone and areas in WY, ID, MT that they expand to? Then I whole heartily agree you should join BHA and get very involved. You and them are a perfect fix for each other. This is why it is nice to know where some one sits before they tell you where they stand.

11-Feb-20
I'm not dumb enough to think a party platform speaks for all people in the Republican party. Democratic either. However the Democrats seem to vote across the board on every issue. For prof, if what you say were true, in 2016 we'd had bills being voted on by a republican congress making land transfer a real thing. But, it hasn't happened nor will it happen. Its a fallacy sheeple repeat over and over with not one example to prove otherwise

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

11-Feb-20
FWIW BEG, I doubt there are many standing in line to put oil rigs on any land.

11-Feb-20
We really tear into each other on these debates, myself included.

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.

From: KSflatlander
11-Feb-20

KSflatlander's Link
Yes John, there is plenty of long term studies on the effect of wolf reintroduction into Yellowstone. See link.

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.

11-Feb-20
LOL, but you know I am unaffiliated. But you Democrats don't have a candidate worth voting for, unless of course one is a member of the Communist party;-)

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!

From: bigeasygator
11-Feb-20
BEG everything Republican is smeared by Tawney and twisted into a political issue. EVERYTHING

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.

From: KSflatlander
11-Feb-20

KSflatlander's Link
Justin- you think green energy is a bigger threat than outright selling federal lands? I don’t follow.

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.

11-Feb-20
I've already answered the question.

From: bigeasygator
11-Feb-20
I've already answered the question.

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.

From: KSflatlander
11-Feb-20
Are you ok with opening more federal lands to oil and gas? Where does that fit on your threat scale?

11-Feb-20
BEG, I did answer. You just didn't like the answer. But, to clarify it for you one more time. When your sole intent is to pander to one party, be it political motivation or what you feel is right, you will find a reason to always find fault with the opposition. And, that has always been where the BHA ends up on the national level. Its a question that answers itself. Since Tawney is the leader, he gets that charge. But, feel free to correct that if you have evidence proving that reasoning faulty. Bring the receipts

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.

From: TD
11-Feb-20
Been following the wolf debacle for some time. Not an expert on it by any means but do know a fair amount on the history of it all. At one time prior there were roughly 32 subspecies of wolf recognized. This was consolidated down to 4 in the late '70s as the EPA kicked in. It was done politically and specifically to facilitate wolf introductions WRT EPA lawsuits/mandates. The people involved admit this, the purpose of the consolidation.

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......

From: RK
11-Feb-20
Ks

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

From: JohnMC
11-Feb-20
Got to give it KS he did his research on BHA. Found they align nicely with both his political views and stance on wolves and joined. Nothing wrong with that at all. Just wish the group would not hide their views in sheep clothing. Why not just say what they are a group that represents the more liberal hunters and anglers like KS. The guy I hunt elk with political beliefs are 180 degrees of mine. Love the guy but try to not talk politics.

From: Trophyhill
11-Feb-20
Welp? My job is done on this thread. Exposed a couple more liberals ;)

From: RK
11-Feb-20
Trophy. LMAO!!

From: JohnMC
11-Feb-20
Trophy ever wonder why they have to be “exposed”. Most on the right are happy to admit their views. If someone’s view line up with liberal democratics or as some are calling themselves these days democrat socialist like the front run for democratic presidential nominee. Why not own it and not pretend to be something they are not?

From: KSflatlander
11-Feb-20
Fair enough. I’m ok with agreeing to disagree on BHA. I don’t care if the are left or right as long as they keep fighting to keep public land public I’m on board.

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?

From: bigeasygator
11-Feb-20

bigeasygator's Link
But, feel free to correct that if you have evidence proving that reasoning faulty. Bring the receipts

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

From: kscowboy
11-Feb-20
Please don’t confuse my handle with this guy. Not all of us in Kansas are this out of touch with reality. $5 says this guy is a Johnson County Democrat. They know more than the rest of us locally and nationally.

From: bigeasygator
11-Feb-20

bigeasygator's Link
How about Land thanking Trump and numerous Republican legislators for reauthorizing the Land and Waters Conservation Fund.

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

From: KSflatlander
11-Feb-20
Wow kscowboy, you have so much knowledge to offer on this subject. Did you always sit the bench and cheer? You know that reality is relative right?

From: bigeasygator
11-Feb-20

bigeasygator's Link
Here’s BHA coming out in support of a bill that would have opened access to waterways in Louisiana. The bill was written by a Republican (Kevin Pearson).

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.

From: Bowhunter
11-Feb-20
This is a prime example of why this kind of stuff goes through. Hunting organizations not helping support the hunters on fighting these issues. The same thing happened In Oregon in the 90’s with the hounds, and the wolves In the 90’s. We don’t need to worry about the antis out there, we need to worry about the idiots we have within that are afraid of standing up for these things because it might hurt their bottom line!! BHA is a joke!

From: TrapperKayak
11-Feb-20
KS, dna/genetics being used to distinguish 'subspecies' just confirms what scientists and casual observers have suspected all along using more conventional scientific methods, that regional variations within the same species occur no matter what system of taxonomic classification taxonomists applied to the animal in question. Like said above, you dont introduce an Alberta whitetail to southern Florida. And on the average, rocky mt wolves found in CO AVERAGED smaller in size than the northern Canadian wolves, no matter what you name them, species or subspecies, so introducing them to CO is just a bad idea in terms of maintaining natural balance of the ecosystem as a whole there. Its being considered as a tool to further a political agenda ignoring good science which is now verifiable using genetics, where in the past, the use of physical characteristics and other scientific methods prior to DNA mapping, like competition, determined introduction impacts. It's always some 'policy' that overrides the science. Like with fish especially. People want revenue from fish harvest so they put non native fish into waters so they can sell licenses. The same idea for the wolves in the lower 48...someone wants their policy agenda passed along. In this case, maligned also. And I also do believe wolves could o,ce again be exterminated from the lower 48. If they could do it in the 19th and 20 centuries, they could surely do it now with more advanced means and far more people.

From: KSflatlander
12-Feb-20
Trapper If you are a wildlife biologist with 40 years of experience you know better. Taking a gray wolf from the Canada Rockies to the northern American Rockies (only a few hundred miles apart) makes sense biologically. They occupies nearly identical niches. Does the size of the Canadian wolf overlap with the Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf? You would not be able to tell the difference between the two by size as their size overlaps.

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.

12-Feb-20
This thread has nothing to do with democrats or republicans. Has to do with ballot box legislation of wildlife conservation and organizations who are unwilling to stand up against it

From: TD
12-Feb-20

TD's Link
You know the LAW didn't change the names. Please don't play the games. USFW changed the names to FIT the demands of the new law. It was done to facilitate the introductions that were coming and the suits being filed under the law.

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......

From: Glunt@work
12-Feb-20
I am firmly opposed to forcing wolves into CO but its not because of the wolves. I was naive and supported the original intro into WY, MT, & ID. The original agreement TD referenced, reached after a lot of debate, and public meetings was reasonable in my view. It would have meant each state would adapt to 2000-3000 elk per year being wolf chow.

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.

12-Feb-20
BEG, you are a master at deflection. You’ve always taken statements and keyed on one phrase, one word, anything in it that would allow you to twist it into a misquoted point. This was no different.

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.

From: TrapperKayak
12-Feb-20
KS, your geography is a little off. The distance (for eg.) from Gunnison to Yellowknife is 2300 miles. I said Northern Canada wolves in my comparison to central Rockies ssp in size, which averages noticeably less, and also is different in behavior. The Canadian ssp most likely pack hunted in larger packs to more effectively hunt large herds of animals. They hunted caribou, not elk, which comprise smaller herds. Caribou are adapted to stay atop snow more efficiently than elk, and can run for sustained speeds for longer distances. These adaptations give the northern CA wolves an advantage when hunting elk in the central Rockies I'd wager. I could be wrong. Most science is based on theory AND experimental evidence. If you read my example of fish introductions and compared the biology of that vs wolf ssp, you misinterpreted it. I was comparing the POLICY of the introductions, not the biology. I was comparing the intent of doing so, that it is always in someone's special interest to do it for their advantage over some other interest group. That is what is happening here. And they (Sierra Club and the pro wolfers) are using a group, BHA, with supposed similar interests of both sides, to further their cause, albiet dishonestly IMO. Any biologist would know you don't compare ssp of animals of one species to two entirely different species. Cmon Man! Another thing, Sierra Club top dogs consist in part of former EARTH FIRST leaders, a known ecoterrorist organization. Google it if you don't believe me.

From: Bowbender
12-Feb-20
Not an expert on wolves, their sub-species, etc... Reintro of an existing species (HTF do you reintroduce an existing species).... But one thing I am pretty good it at is filtering out organizations that promote horsesh!t as rose petals.

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.

From: bigeasygator
12-Feb-20
The premise of this thread is the BHA’s willingness to get politically involved in issues not associated with access

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.

From: Woods Walker
12-Feb-20
"All I received was a smart ass answer that the gray hairs need to step aside."

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

From: Trial153
12-Feb-20
The willfull ignorance thats on display here makes it all the more apparent why I am member of BHA and make a monthly donation to TRCP. 

12-Feb-20
SMH BEG. You really are special

From: bigeasygator
12-Feb-20
You like to say things like that, but you never answer my questions, WVM. Talk about deflecting...

From: Woods Walker
12-Feb-20
Thanks for proving my point trial!

From: KSflatlander
12-Feb-20

KSflatlander's Link
TD- the link above is an unbiased scientific peer reviewed journal (a.k.a. science) that studied the genetic markers for wolves. They did not believe the evidence was there genetically for all subspecies which were split before genetics were even a science. There is something you need to understand about subspecies. There is not a clear defined line between subspecies especially with animals (like wolves) with a wide dispersal rate. Hell, even determining species in wolves has been a challenge due to the wide genetic variation. You're conspiracy theory that the USFWS biologists are doing this to end hunting is BS...I don't know how else to say it. I can't speak to the changing of the management goals as I have not researched it. Thanks for the link and I will look into it.

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.

From: HH
12-Feb-20
Blaahhhh

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~

From: Jaquomo
12-Feb-20

Jaquomo's Link
Hate to derail this insightful thread, but here's an excellent/slanted article from NPR quoting one of the wolf proponents explaing why the NA Model no longer works, and why we need to now take wildlife decisions "out of the hands of scientists and into the hands of the people". For real.

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.

From: Bowbender
12-Feb-20

Bowbender's Link
KS,

"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.....

From: KSflatlander
12-Feb-20
Thanks for the scare tactics Bowbender. I simply don't buy it. We will have to agree to disagree.

Best of luck to you in the 2020 hunting season.

From: NoWiser
12-Feb-20
That article will get the blood pressure up, Jaq. I thought it did a pretty good job of showing what kind of nutjobs we are up against not just regarding wolves, but regarding hunting and wildlife management in general.

From: TrapperKayak
12-Feb-20
KS 'How can this be?' Because these populations are going to fluctuate forever, both the wolf and the elk, like a pendulum, just like every other predator prey relationship does based on the number of each. Basic population dynamics. Its not only just the numbers either. The whole ecosystem factors into the fluctuations. And you are STILL misinterpreting my analogy of the intro'd species. I an not comparing the introductions themselves, I am comparing the INTENT of the intro., which is to GAIN something for their own interests and for the advantage of the groups they are in bed with Jeeze...I thought I made that pretty clear. To further contend as aspect of your rebuttal though, I am also talking about 'non-native' in the sense that it is also regional within the same continent. You are aware of the Lake Trout invasion in Yellowstone Lake, right? How about brook trout (char actually), in western waters displacing bull trout and westslope cutthroat? How about Rainbow trout, native only to west of the continental divide, now hybridizing with native cutthroat (cutbows) on the eastern slopes of the Rockies? None of these invasions are considered desirable by those who wish to keep Natives Native... I suppose that is an agenda by an interest group, eh? Yeah! But it could be argues that emulating God's natural creation is a better 'agenda' than placing a 'non'native' wolf ssp. in an area formerly uninhabited by said ssp., with an intent by an interest group that vastly opposes God's intention of keeping native species 'pure', while at the same time 'artificially' drastically reducing a prey population for the intent to disadvantage human hunters in taking ungulate species? I would think that any group that proposes to do this, if that is indeed what they are doing, should be boycotted by the group interested in keeping natural stuff natural as god intended. One last thing, then I'm don here. Solar panel covered 'green energy fields' consist of vast (in some cases square miles) of BIOLOGICAL DESERTS in which the species variation is nil. How can this equate to 'greening of the environment'? Every energy extraction method comes at a cost in some form. that is a basic principle of physics. 'Energy is neither created nor destroyed, merely changed.' Wind, biofuel (corn), solar, hydropower, etc....they all cost as much to produce energy as does fossil fuel extraction and use, just in different forms. Bye!!!

From: HH
12-Feb-20
Its always been about the Intent. The political intent to change popular idea to love the Wolf, change the old pastimes of hunting and individualism. NPR is very model of “It takes a village” not the rugged individual.

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

From: KSflatlander
12-Feb-20
Trapper- I get your points I think. I just don't agree that the reintroduced wolves are "non-native" and are much different than the wolves who inhabited CO in the past. Genetic science backs this up.

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.

From: TD
12-Feb-20
Yep. If it fits the agenda..... coues and eastern whitetail WILL be rationalized as the same....... especially if 99% have never seen both, clueless as to the differences and don't really care the outcome..... i.e. with wolves, it's not their livestock nor their livelihood being destroyed. Millions now being spent on trying to control the damage they themselves introduced.... that they promised was the best way to "manage" wildlife. When will these people be held accountable for it? Accountability.... like love I guess, means never having to say you're sorry.....SNAFU and move on to creating the next mess...

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.....

From: Bowbender
12-Feb-20

Bowbender's Link
TD,

"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.

From: TrapperKayak
12-Feb-20
'Sierra Club top dogs consist in part of former EARTH FIRST leaders, a known ecoerrorist ororganization.' Sorry, I mis spoke on this. It wasn't EARTH FIRST!, it was the Cascadia Forest Alliance, a Portland based timber sales protesting organization, also known ecoterrorists, some of whom moved into Sierra Club. Just as bad, IMO.

From: akbow
12-Feb-20
Sooo.... Can we just take some RM Bighorn Sheep and put them in the Desert and call them Desert Bighorns? They are still sheep and from the same Mtn Range--sometimes within short distances apart. Just a little different size.

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

From: HH
12-Feb-20
Sure if your a Liberal Eco climate doomsayer. They share some DNA right.

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

From: TrapperKayak
12-Feb-20
Hey, Jurassic Park is to DNA cross-cloning as Star Wars is to NASA. The future is now.

From: TrapperKayak
12-Feb-20
Hey, Jurassic Park is to DNA cross-cloning as Star Wars is to NASA. The future is now. Desert Bighorn is a subspecies of RM Bighorn. Add nelsonis to Ovis canadensis. Who knows, elbow, maybe the RM BH would 'evolve' into the Desert BH in some period of time...??? Some are claiming the larger N CA Canis Lupus is....in the YSNP region since '95.

From: HH
12-Feb-20
Thats abosolutly true. Where they penned them on the park.

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

From: akbow
12-Feb-20
Sorry, I wasn't serious. i was just stirring the pot. Either side has about as much chance at changing the others mind that I do to convince my dad that Hilary is not a crook. No amount of logic will change their mind.

From: KSflatlander
12-Feb-20
Hey Trapper, how many generations does it take to change the phenotype of a dog? If you think I’m full of BS then please explain why the average size of Yellowstone, Idaho, and MT wolves are less than the original reintroduced pack? Explain that with your bio knowledge please. How many generations of domesticated fox does it take before a change physical change similar to domesticated dog characteristics (curly tail)? It’s a lot less than 25 years or generations.

From: JohnMC
12-Feb-20
akbow just because it is a slow boring time of year. I would love to hear your logic on why hilary is not a crook. :0-

From: Grey Ghost
12-Feb-20

Grey Ghost's embedded Photo
Grey Ghost's embedded Photo
This is how I envision most BHA members. Sorry, Ryan. ;-)

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

From: KSflatlander
12-Feb-20
Nah we wear Sitka only. Way off GH.

From: TrapperKayak
12-Feb-20
KS, that (Jurassic Park and Desert BH reference) post was in response to akbow (not elbow) and HH pattern examples. Actually, I believe both are actually remotely possible in this modern era and I was kinda serious, really thinking how long does it take? It was not a direct shot at you, there are several on here that think the N CA wolf is nearly genetically identical to and can evolve into the smaller counterpart within several generation in the central Rockies. (pm sent).

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

From: Myke
12-Feb-20

Myke's embedded Photo
Myke's embedded Photo
I have witnessed Yellowstone wolves in action hunting migrating deer. Mid October hunts just outside the park when the deer were moving. Amazing how they hunted together. I have pics how they placed themselves on small rises, waiting for the alpha to drive a bottom. Once the black alpha came through, he howled, they all got up, and moved up the valley and started a new drive. The guides said that they rarely went after prey high speed into deep timber, mostly across burns and into the river bottoms. Saw one burst across a burn at full speed on the scent trail of a deer. They can really open it up. If the deer has no head start, it had no chance. Those were open country wolves that could really cover some ground. I bet if they wanted to, they could have been in Colorado within a week or so. I can not imagine how biologists thought that they would keep these wolves contained within the Y/P boundaries. Shoving them into Colorado just ain't right.

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.

From: TrapperKayak
12-Feb-20
Pachyderm, not pattern. Freaking spell check.

From: TD
13-Feb-20
Outside the park? And the anti's say there's no good reason to own an AR with 20 rd mags........

From: TrapperKayak
13-Feb-20
Bowbender, that Sierra Club article looks like it was written by a 4th grader doing a book report from the inside jacket flaps. Seriously, that's who's trying to educate CO public on the subject? It reads like the author is just learning how to speak English. Crikey!

From: Bowbender
13-Feb-20

Bowbender's Link
Trap,

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.

From: TrapperKayak
13-Feb-20
Yeah, and their false claim of "indiscriminate hunting and trapping...'' disrupts wolf family structure... yadayadayada, like they are akin to human families. Really pouring it on thick aren't they? Catering right to the huggers and uninformed sympathizers...pathetic. Typical nowdays.

From: HH
13-Feb-20

HH's Link
Ya all need to read this link and paruse it. This Org is Ground Zero for all your Woe's in NA with wolves. Flatlander would read this and prolly believe what they are selling. Sounds scientific but most of it is Opinion Based Science or what the Woke call Fake Science.

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~

From: Myke
13-Feb-20
"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."

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.

13-Feb-20
One of these days, hopefully not too late, people will realize that the wolf supporters intention has nothing to do with wolves but has everything to do with eliminating hunting by humans.

From: TrapperKayak
13-Feb-20
I think we all realize that, that is why there are over 200 posts on here.

From: KSflatlander
13-Feb-20

KSflatlander's Link
Two lessons in life that have served me well: 1. Always order the mushroom swiss burger. 2. Do not take science or species information from someone who can’t spell the species name.

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.

From: HH
13-Feb-20
You are least informed biologist I have heard post on anything. Your facts are always wrong or by omission lacking 50% of the rule and you spit sophomore Bio theory like your a full geneticist.

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

From: KSflatlander
13-Feb-20
Wow HH I’m impressed with the writing. That was a fast response too. I’m not sure you misspell a word. Is this you or did your BIL write that? Maybe your BIL chuckles because he just knows you and does it out of respect because he’s out of responses to your nonsense.

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.

From: Surfbow
13-Feb-20
"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."

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

From: JohnMC
13-Feb-20
I finally learned something new from this thread. HH can write a coherent sentence if he wants to.

From: akbow
13-Feb-20
Oops! My apologies on how I worded that JohnMC and Trapper. I totally wrote that backwards. I can't seem to convince my father that Hilary IS a crook. He worked too many years in government and his whole life in unions. It's hard to beat that out of him. Sorry about the derail.

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.

From: JSW
13-Feb-20
Every time you hear a self described scientist claim you can't refute the science just remember this.

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.

From: TrapperKayak
13-Feb-20
Depends on the type of 'scientist'. There are many science disciplines, and many differing opinions within one science discipline. You can't generalize scientists like that with any greater degree of credibility than scientists can generalize the science in question. You need proof, and that almost NEVER happens in any field, even in the field of science, despite the claims of some who practice it, or follow it. Blanket statements like that^^^ bother me.

From: KSflatlander
13-Feb-20
JSW- nobody said our scientific understanding doesn’t change or hasn’t been wrong in the past. Remember when it was the sun revolving around the earth. What if we just accepted that the earth was stationary and the sun revolves around the earth. I’ll tell you that the GPS never would have been invented. That is what science is. Scientists publish journal articles exactly so they can be challenged and our understanding gets better through challenges over with time.

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.

From: TrapperKayak
13-Feb-20
akbow. No worries. Glad the apple fell far from the tree though. However , I am career Fed. bio. But I'd still like to meet your father in a dark alley...maybe I can beat him into believing... ;) JUST KIDDIN OF COURSE! I don't want to end up on Hil's list.... ;) TK

From: HH
13-Feb-20
Nothing personal there in my response just observation and having some real Science folks in family.

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~

From: KSflatlander
13-Feb-20
HH- Good luck on your 2020 hunts. I hope you get one of those 180ib super wolfs. It will be a new state record because the last time I checked the largest wolf taken in Idaho since the reintroduction was 135lbs.

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.

From: HH
13-Feb-20
Ive held 150lbers so don't know where you got that fake info. That's 150lbs in late Dec BTW. Seen a few in a state I cant name larger.

K~

From: Woods Walker
13-Feb-20

Woods Walker's embedded Photo
This Is Like Having The CF Back Again!
Woods Walker's embedded Photo
This Is Like Having The CF Back Again!

From: HH
13-Feb-20
Guess they ahoyld have kept it?

K~

This Topic has been locked. Thank you.

  • Sitka Gear