Goodbye to BHA

hossblur

Active member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
115
I was "woke" to the public land fight by Randy. Saw him on TV wandering around not killing anything and looked into him. In doing so I discovered BHA.

The idea of a group who valued public land AND guns I was drawn to. Im not a wilderness athlete, nor a backpacker. But I spend an unbelievable amount if time on public ground and i want it there for future generations.

I knew that there would possibly be a time when the roafless, wilderness side would conflict with the way I roll. But I hoped that would be AFTER we squashed the "sagebrush rebellion" .

I stood up for, took abuse, and loudly supported BHA. Including through Patagonia. Which honestly was a very hard pill to swallow. I figured the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

However. I am interested in public land. I am bot interested in the green new deal, or some man made climate change fight.
I saw the "windmill bill", and to my shock, BHA supporting it. I was instantly curious. I asked around, I asked my chapter, I asked members I respect. I asked HQ. I have not seen or heard anything to convince me that BHA isn't involved as a nod to the carbon footprint crowd.

So, I'm out. I will not renew my membership. I will gladly join them on land issues. If i see a change in direction, I'll consider otherwise, but if Land and co want in on "climate change" or pick your preferred way to develop public land, they can consider me an enemy.
 

Ben Sellers

Active member
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
190
Is the issue you’re upset with windmills on public lands or buying in to climate change or both? Personally I think spending time on CC would dilute BHA’s resources and alienate some of their constituents.

Hopefully they are getting ready to punch someone in the teeth on the next public land transfer or sale. It is time for a symbolic but epic show of force to get public land transfer off the agenda.
 

jake23

Active member
Joined
Oct 30, 2018
Messages
108
Location
Arroyo Grande, CA
Is the issue you’re upset with windmills on public lands or buying in to climate change or both? Personally I think spending time on CC would dilute BHA’s resources and alienate some of their constituents.

Hopefully they are getting ready to punch someone in the teeth on the next public land transfer or sale. It is time for a symbolic but epic show of force to get public land transfer off the agenda.
Is there much of a difference between the sale or transfer of public lands and leasing them to be developed/altered to a state of which it is not usable or even has a negative effect of the surrounding environment and ecosystem?
 

neffa3

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
2,103
Location
Wenatchee
Exactly what part do you disagree with?

I find it interesting that people blast conservation groups for ignoring the fact the we NEED minerals and energy, then blast them again when they do support it.

Would your alternative be that they stay completely out of energy policy despite that it directly impacts public lands and wildlife, or that they should never support energy development on public lands at all, or that they only support your preferred method of energy development on public lands?
 

Ben Sellers

Active member
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
190
Is there much of a difference between the sale or transfer of public lands and leasing them to be developed/altered to a state of which it is not usable or even has a negative effect of the surrounding environment and ecosystem?
I have no more issue with windmills than I have with oil or NG wells on public land. In SOME places it is probably ok. On the whole, I’d rather both be on private land.

However, putting structures on leased public land is not as bad as selling it, to me. Not great, mind you, but not as bad. That doesn’t automatically rule that land out for our grandkids.
 

jake23

Active member
Joined
Oct 30, 2018
Messages
108
Location
Arroyo Grande, CA
I have no more issue with windmills than I have with oil or NG wells on public land. In SOME places it is probably ok. On the whole, I’d rather both be on private land.

However, putting structures on leased public land is not as bad as selling it, to me. Not great, mind you, but not as bad. That doesn’t automatically rule that land out for our grandkids.
I for one would prefer both be on private land as well. I just feel that there is such a small difference between selling it and leasing it to be developed. I have never seen one of these leases close down and clean up/restore the area to it’s natural state. I could be wrong, or just have a narrow view/experience in this regard. But I have been out hiking and hunting in some pretty remote pieces of national forest and BLM and come across old abandoned mines, wells, structures, etc that are just rotting. Not to mention they are an eyesore.

So yes our grandkids can still go and have a picnic and camp out under a windmill or behind an oil derrick. But will they want to?
 

hossblur

Active member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
115
As of now I'm only a member of RMEF.

OUR MISSION
Backcountry Hunters & Anglers seeks to ensure North America's outdoor heritage of hunting and fishing in a natural setting, through education and work on behalf of wild public lands and waters.
A Vision for Backcountry Conservation

Our freedom to hunt and fish depends on habitat. While many of us enjoy hunting and fishing on a range of landscapes, including farm fields and reservoirs, there is something special – even magical – about hunting deep in the backcountry or fishing on a remote river.
Wilderness hunting and fishing deliver a sense of freedom, challenge and solitude that is increasingly trampled by the twin pressures of growing population and increasing technology. Many treasured fish and wildlife species – such as cutthroat trout, grizzly bear and bighorn sheep – thrive in wilderness. Others, like elk and mule deer, benefit from wilderness. From the Steens Mountain Wilderness in Oregon to the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness in Idaho and the Boundary Waters of Minnesota, BHA members treasure America's wilderness system and strive to add to it.
We take the advice of Theodore Roosevelt: "Preserve large tracts of wilderness ... for the exercise of the skill of the hunter, whether or not he is a man of means."
A Hunt for Wild Lands
A land facing ceaseless development. A people overly reliant upon technology and motorized equipment. A quality of life – particularly the sporting life – that seems increasingly in jeopardy.
These are some of the basic tenets of our call to arms – for North American sportsmen and -women to stand up for the wild country and fish and wildlife that depend on it. Now, more than ever before, we need wild lands: places to rekindle the fire at the heart of the human soul. Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is a nonpartisan group of sportsmen and -women who are standing up for these places and for the outdoor opportunities they represent.
Decades have passed since President Ronald Reagan signed the last significant wilderness bill. Today, with the increased pressures of natural resource extraction and continued threats to the high-quality hunting and angling experience, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is taking a leadership role in advocating for the conservation of wild places. It’s time for national conservation groups from all corners of the continent to set aside differences in philosophy or politics. It’s time to shake hands. It’s time to get something done. The continuation of the very things we love – hunting, fishing, wild places, wildlife – depends upon our ability to move forward.
The visionaries who gave us this great legacy of wildlands – individuals like Theodore Roosevelt and Aldo Leopold – realized something that sometimes is forgotten today: Without wild places for wild animals, there will be no place for sportsmen to hunt and fish.
"This country has been swinging the hammer of development so long and so hard that it has forgotten the anvil of wilderness which gave value and significance to its labors. The momentum of our blows is so unprecedented that the remaining remnant of wilderness will be pounded into road-dust long before we find out its values."
These prophetic words were written by Aldo Leopold in 1935.
The membership of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers values the traditions and heritage our wild lands, waters and wildlife sustain and we are driven to protect our wild places before the value noted by Leopold is lost forever

I don't see anything in there about combating carbon, or man made climate change.

There are groups that fight those groups, and I haven't joined one.

I thought i was joining a LAND preservation group. I see nowhere in that bill any land being preserved.

Then in top of that, i get "Take Action" emails on BLM director. First thing i thought was "your now giving this jackwagon say in windmill development?"

I haven't changed my thoughts on public land. You all have a loud mouth friend.

But easting time currying favor with the green new deal crowd is a colossal waste if time, IMO.
 

wllm1313

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
4,070
Location
Aurora, CO
Would your alternative be that they stay completely out of energy policy despite that it directly impacts public lands and wildlife, or that they should never support energy development on public lands at all, or that they only support your preferred method of energy development on public lands?
My preference would be that conservation orgs approach any discussion of energy development on public lands with healthy skepticism. I would prefer they not endorse any bill that states a gov agency "shall permit/develop" and in bills that have the language a gov agency "may permit/develop" I expect them to ask for riders that allocate some amount of $$$ to restoring landscapes and conservation, and put moratoriums on development in areas with venerable species/ecosystems.

There is a big difference between saying we have to develop energy on our land, and we will consider development if it makes sense from a ecological and economic perspective.
 
Last edited:

hossblur

Active member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
115
Im a pragmatist. The idea of museum management is asinine. So. If we agree we are going to have to have energy, than I support the smallest footprint possible.

But i see it disingenuous to spend so much time on the boundary waters, or Alaskan copper mines, tgen turn around and be pro "clean" energy development.

I cross the middle of a wind farm on my way to my summer camping, and elk hunting.

Buzz said it best.

"This is my boundary waters"
 

jake23

Active member
Joined
Oct 30, 2018
Messages
108
Location
Arroyo Grande, CA
Im a pragmatist. The idea of museum management is asinine. So. If we agree we are going to have to have energy, than I support the smallest footprint
That footprint doesn’t need to be on public land. It is just way cheaper if it is. Hell, I want to own a ski resort and casino just outside of Yellowstone. Can I lease some federal lands there to do it?

Using public lands is one thing. Developing them is another. Developing them for a profit is a whole new level. And developing them for an agenda is the topper.

If we need power so bad, maybe the companies should buy their own land just like everyone else has to do!
 

COEngineer

Active member
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
468
Trout Unlimited and TRCP also gave their stamp of approval.

TRCP statement on bill


I think the big difference between what this bill proposes and what happens currently are these 2 points:
  • Direct at least 25 percent of royalties to a conservation fund.
  • Direct another 50 percent to state and local governments where projects are located.
I'm not saying it's a great bill, just trying to answer some of the questions. Seems to me that if we could keep windmills, etc off public land altogether, that would be best, but considering that federal land is multi-use, that's probably not feasible. Maybe this is the best we can do?
 

MTGomer

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2015
Messages
2,355
Location
MT —> AZ
Trout Unlimited and TRCP also gave their stamp of approval.

TRCP statement on bill

I think the big difference between what this bill proposes and what happens currently are these 2 points:
  • Direct at least 25 percent of royalties to a conservation fund.
  • Direct another 50 percent to state and local governments where projects are located.
I'm not saying it's a great bill, just trying to answer some of the questions. Seems to me that if we could keep windmills, etc off public land altogether, that would be best, but considering that federal land is multi-use, that's probably not feasible. Maybe this is the best we can do?
There’s another thread on here titled ‘windmills coming to public lands’ or something like that, that does a pretty good job explaining how little money it would generate, how there’s no mechanism to guarantee it would benefit the local area, and how much ground is disturbed by these developments.
 

Northwoods Labs

Active member
Joined
Aug 28, 2015
Messages
610
Location
Danbury, Wisconsin
Is it there position on the windmill bill, or the perceived position on climate change that is driving you away?

I guess I wouldn't quit a group because I disagreed with their stance on one bill (which I do on this one). They have done a lot of great work. You just aren't going to agree with EVERYTHING a particular group does.

As for the Patagonia thing, if hunters really were so up in arms about that, then those folks need to quit being so sensitive
 

Northwoods Labs

Active member
Joined
Aug 28, 2015
Messages
610
Location
Danbury, Wisconsin
Trout Unlimited and TRCP also gave their stamp of approval.

TRCP statement on bill

I think the big difference between what this bill proposes and what happens currently are these 2 points:
  • Direct at least 25 percent of royalties to a conservation fund.
  • Direct another 50 percent to state and local governments where projects are located.
I'm not saying it's a great bill, just trying to answer some of the questions. Seems to me that if we could keep windmills, etc off public land altogether, that would be best, but considering that federal land is multi-use, that's probably not feasible. Maybe this is the best we can do?

Saw that TU did, not surprised. Climate change is a big issue for them, being a group advocating for trout and salmon species it is easy to see why.
 

hossblur

Active member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
115
Is it there position on the windmill bill, or the perceived position on climate change that is driving you away?

I guess I wouldn't quit a group because I disagreed with their stance on one bill (which I do on this one). They have done a lot of great work. You just aren't going to agree with EVERYTHING a particular group does.

As for the Patagonia thing, if hunters really were so up in arms about that, then those folks need to quit being so sensitive

You have to pick a fight you have a chance to win. You can't fight the sagebrush rebellion, wilderness, energy companies, and AOC.

A lot of folks do good work. But when I see "sportsman groups support", i see 3. And to be fair TRCP and BHA are pretty close to the same.

I'd been fine if they just stayed quiet.

Also. There is no bigger or louder critic of SFW. My main complaints with them are 2. One tags. 2. "Funds going to Wildlife".

Dig into this bill. The wording is similar for a REASON. It's not a steady stream. A lot of hands involved. And that "discrepancy" word pops up.

If we are going to yurn away and close our eyes, the land holder, US, should get something to show for it.
 
Top