Organization to be involved with

[rustednuts]

BHA seems all hat and no cowboy.

They killed a bear hunting bear ban bill in CA that was sponsored by HSUS. That’s pretty cowboy. Being new to HT contribute to threads do not just bash. There are other places to do that on the inter.

RMEF is always a great option and some other the other species specific groups.

 

[Solitary Bear]

They killed a bear hunting bear ban bill in CA that was sponsored by HSUS. That’s pretty cowboy. Being new to HT contribute to threads do not just bash. There are other places to do that on the inter.

RMEF is always a great option and some other the other species specific groups.

Did they? I honestly don’t remember BHA officially getting on that train. I really only remember a few like Stubblefield and Callahan calling it out just like every other common sense voice with a platform in the social media world. It seems like a curious position for BHA to officially take since one of its founders was pivotal in the banning of spring bear hunting in Colorado. They were also silent on the BC grizzly ban, Colorado wolf reintroduction and a proposed ballot initiative to ban trapping in Montana.

BHA’s affiliations with Patagonia and The Western Environmental Law Center are troubling at best. Their revenue stream is only 25%ish membership fees which makes one wonder if the other 75% is steering official policy...and then there’s all those pesky redacted financials.

Public land should never be privatized and BHA has tremendous volunteers who do tremendous work (for FREE...as in nothing coming out of their $5 million plus budget), but I can’t get behind them. I think joining a local rod and gun club would have more impact.

In the end though, you are entirely correct that, being an ignorant new guy, if I don’t have anything nice to say I should just accentuate the overwhelming positives of the RMEF or the Montana Bowhunters Association instead of “bashing” your group.

 

[SAJ-99]

Reading all the proposed legislation and realizing how active many of you are has me thinking. When I become a permanent resident of this incredible state, what organization(s) should i read up on and be involved in? Thanks Pete

I think at a minimum you should sign up for various newsletters to keep abreast of what is going on. Montana wildlife Federation and Montana Sportmans Alliance are good ones. After that the best way to make an impact is to make phones calls and email the legislature reps and let them know where you stand.

the problem we have as hunters is we are fractured. There are a lot of great organizations to support, but it dilutes the impact any one of them can have. In addition, the majority of people think only about themselves and how they are impacted. When they don’t get what they want or agree with they go on the internet to complain.

 

[brocksw]

They were also silent on the BC grizzly ban, Colorado wolf reintroduction and a proposed ballot initiative to ban trapping in Montana.

I could be mistaken but I believe BHA testified in opposition to the BC grizzly ban. I don't think they had a real public statement but I believe the BC chapter did stand against it. You could reach out to the BC chapter and get the full story.

Wolf issue was a ballot initiative. Rmef made a video which certainly got a lot of people riled up, but it didn't actually do anything. That's what sucked. No one could really do anything...it was a ballot initiative. Kind of forced to wait for the voters to have their say and hope for the best. If you were waiting for BHA to spend thousands in anti wolf campaigns for CO...yeah that probably wasn't going to happen. But nobody else did either that I'm aware of.

I remember when Aron Snyder was making a big deal about the wolf issue and bashing BHA for "no stance" and telling everyone to go sign up for an SCI membership to fight against the wolf reintroduction. I went to scis website and they just had a statement saying they were against the reintroduction and a donate button to give money. I don't think they've done diddly poo about it and I couldn't tell you if they spent a single dollar fighting it. I'm not a CO resident so maybe I wasn't in their marketing demographic. I stopped paying attention to Sci so maybe something changed and I'm not aware of it. But my take is all the conservation groups and the CO fish wildlife and parks agency, all had their hands tied. They were all at the mercy of the voters. Public stances were more or less hunter's version of virtue signaling.

I know BHA came out against the trapping ban in New Mexico this year, that issue is still going on. It just passed through committee last week I think....and I want to say in Arkansas had a trapping ban bill that BHA opposed too? I don't remember the MT instance so that might be true.

 

[brocksw]

the problem we have as hunters is we are fractured. There are a lot of great organizations to support, but it dilutes the impact any one of them can have. In addition, the majority of people think only about themselves and how they are impacted. When they don’t get what they want or agree with they go on the internet to complain

We're def fractured but I think it's good that there are a lot of options when it comes to conservation groups.

The fewer there are means the more boxes each group has to check to win membership. That means they have to expand their focus to a broader set of issues....like a 1 stop shop. That's going to be difficult to do given the political climate and difficult to do with limited resources. Look at RMEF being fairly silent on some of the issues in MT this year. But there are things they do that other groups won't or can't do either. Same with BHA. Same with wild sheep. Same with Muley Fanatic. They're all kind of specialized. The idea of one group being able to align itself with all of its members' personal opinions and stances on a broad set of issues would be a PR nightmare in my opinion. I'm also not in PR so maybe I'm an idiot talking about what he doesn't know.

I think the biggest problem is partisan drivel that hunters let fracture their own demographic. A cut their nose off to spite their face type attitude for some of it.

 

[Schaaf]

... and a proposed ballot initiative to ban trapping in Montana.

That’s a damn lie. I was on the board when we voted to oppose I-177 and to make it known to the public. It was a unanimous decision.
MT BHA Opposes I-177

I don’t care who you “bash,” but you should be willing to back it up with facts.

 

[SAJ-99]

We're def fractured but I think it's good that there are a lot of options when it comes to conservation groups.

The fewer there are means the more boxes each group has to check to win membership. That means they have to expand their focus to a broader set of issues....like a 1 stop shop. That's going to be difficult to do given the political climate and difficult to do with limited resources. Look at RMEF being fairly silent on some of the issues in MT this year. But there are things they do that other groups won't or can't do either. Same with BHA. Same with wild sheep. Same with Muley Fanatic. They're all kind of specialized. The idea of one group being able to align itself with all of its members' personal opinions and stances on a broad set of issues would be a PR nightmare in my opinion. I'm also not in PR so maybe I'm an idiot talking about what he doesn't know.

I think the biggest problem is partisan drivel that hunters let fracture their own demographic. A cut their nose off to spite their face type attitude for some of it.

I agree to some extent but disagree in another. Fracturing means less impact. If they are 503c then only 10% of budget can go to lobbying. 10% split into 20 different buckets with each wanting different things addressed. Members, like Americans in general, want it all. They want what they want and everyone else be damned. Someone pointed out that RMEF can’t please resident DIY hunters by publicly coming out against and simultaneously please outfitters who’s business is predominantly NRs. So someone is bound to be pissed off when they don’t get what they want. Specialization is a downfall in politics because money and influence is what matters. I would almost prefer the groups send their 10% to a single org to lobby. Bigger impact that way. See MOGA. Some outfitters may not like a bill, but they dare not speak out of MOGA sends a rep to speak in support.

 

[Ben Lamb]

That’s a damn lie. I was on the board when we voted to oppose I-177 and to make it known to the public. It was a unanimous decision.
MT BHA Opposes I-177

I don’t care who you “bash,” but you should be willing to back it up with facts.

*damned

 

[Schaaf]

*damned

Side by side shotgun shootin’ Elitist

 

[Ben Lamb]

Side by side shotgun shootin’ Elitist

*Lord of the Manor

 

[bayoublaster7527]

Did they? I honestly don’t remember BHA officially getting on that train. I really only remember a few like Stubblefield and Callahan calling it out just like every other common sense voice with a platform in the social media world. It seems like a curious position for BHA to officially take since one of its founders was pivotal in the banning of spring bear hunting in Colorado. They were also silent on the BC grizzly ban, Colorado wolf reintroduction and a proposed ballot initiative to ban trapping in Montana.

BHA’s affiliations with Patagonia and The Western Environmental Law Center are troubling at best. Their revenue stream is only 25%ish membership fees which makes one wonder if the other 75% is steering official policy...and then there’s all those pesky redacted financials.

Public land should never be privatized and BHA has tremendous volunteers who do tremendous work (for FREE...as in nothing coming out of their $5 million plus budget), but I can’t get behind them. I think joining a local rod and gun club would have more impact.

In the end though, you are entirely correct that, being an ignorant new guy, if I don’t have anything nice to say I should just accentuate the overwhelming positives of the RMEF or the Montana Bowhunters Association instead of “bashing” your group.

Can’t argue with the great work BHA members at the state level have been able to accomplish across the West. I think some CO resident hunters would like to see BHA distance themselves from David Peterson after his involvement in the spring bear hunting ban and ballot initiative. If it’s hard to defend hunting seasons and opportunities, it’s dang near impossible to get something back that you’ve lost.

 

[brocksw]

Can’t argue with the great work BHA members at the state level have been able to accomplish across the West. I think some CO resident hunters would like to see BHA distance themselves from David Peterson after his involvement in the spring bear hunting ban and ballot initiative. If it’s hard to defend hunting seasons and opportunities, it’s dang near impossible to get something back that you’ve lost.

Well David Peterson did that like 10 years before BHA existed so it's unfortunate that the CO spring bear ban gets roped in to something BHA did.

 

[Solitary Bear]

That’s a damn lie. I was on the board when we voted to oppose I-177 and to make it known to the public. It was a unanimous decision.
MT BHA Opposes I-177

I don’t care who you “bash,” but you should be willing to back it up with facts.

Schaaf, did BHA or the Montana chapter of BHA officially oppose I-177? Not trying to be argumentative because maybe I’ve been misled, but I know the BC chapter opposed the grizzly ban and I assume the CO chapter opposed wolf reintroduction and both had zero appearance of the full weight of BHA behind them. Land Tawney and Ryan Busse have explained BHA’s official position to the BC grizz ban, to CO wolf reintroduction, as well as a few 2a stances that those issues were not within the scope of the laser focus of BHA or that those issues were out of BHA’s niche or that BHA does not get involved with species specific issues. Why not simply state support or opposition?

I’m happy you fellas have found a group you passionately support and you all really do amazing work at the local chapters. I do my rudimentary due diligence into how and where my hard earned donations get allocated and I just don’t feel comfortable with BHA. That doesn’t make you the enemy, or me a liar, or me against public land or public access...it just means I choose to support the organizations who I trust. It also means when someone asks I can voice how I view an organization.

My apologies to the op, I really didn’t mean to derail this thread. Organizations are like boots, backpacks and weapons. Everyone can tell you which one they think is best, but only you can research and experience which one is best for you.

 

[Schaaf]

Schaaf, did BHA or the Montana chapter of BHA officially oppose I-177? Not trying to be argumentative because maybe I’ve been misled, but I know the BC chapter opposed the grizzly ban and I assume the CO chapter opposed wolf reintroduction and both had zero appearance of the full weight of BHA behind them. Land Tawney and Ryan Busse have explained BHA’s official position to the BC grizz ban, to CO wolf reintroduction, as well as a few 2a stances that those issues were not within the scope of the laser focus of BHA or that those issues were out of BHA’s niche or that BHA does not get involved with species specific issues. Why not simply state support or opposition?

I’m happy you fellas have found a group you passionately support and you all really do amazing work at the local chapters. I do my rudimentary due diligence into how and where my hard earned donations get allocated and I just don’t feel comfortable with BHA. That doesn’t make you the enemy, or me a liar, or me against public land or public access...it just means I choose to support the organizations who I trust. It also means when someone asks I can voice how I view an organization.

My apologies to the op, I really didn’t mean to derail this thread. Organizations are like boots, backpacks and weapons. Everyone can tell you which one they think is best, but only you can research and experience which one is best for you.

Dude- click on the link in the post you quoted.

*If you’re wondering why the National chapter wasn’t beating the drums it’s because they let the local chapters decide on state issues. Hence why you cited the issues you did.

 

[Solitary Bear]

Dude- click on the link in the post you quoted.

*If you’re wondering why the National chapter wasn’t beating the drums it’s because they let the local chapters decide on state issues. Hence why you cited the issues you did.

Thank you for the link, as a MT resident I honestly didn’t know the Mt chapter opposed I-177 because they were not listed on the coalition of organizations who opposed it. Maybe I am a damn(ed) liar, but I was referring to the national chapter and why they seem to refuse to use their clout to back the local chapters be it in BC, CO or MT. Can we be friends now?

 

[Ben Lamb]

but I was referring to the national chapter and why they seem to refuse to use their clout to back the local chapters be it in BC, CO or MT. Can we be friends now?

Not weighing in on the merits or having HQ back up local chapters, but simply the thinking behind why so many national orgs defer to local chapters:

BHA, like TU, NWF, RMEF, MDF, etc, are made up of local affiliates/chapters/councils/etc that engage on a lot of different levels, including legislation and ballot initiatives.

MY career was mostly around the NWF affiliate structure, which is similar to how BHA runs their outfit. For 90% of the time, the national crew defers to the local chapters in terms of what the agenda for a specific state shall be. That's an excellent business model, as it keeps conservation close to the ground. It's also a huge point of pride for local folks who serve on boards, committees, etc, because they retain a large amount of independence from the mothership, rather than have to abide by top-down edicts that don't mesh with how the state chapter's membership feels*.

I can think of a few examples in the NWF/state affiliate model where states were about ready to go ballistic on National over their approaches to issues in states where the local affiliate was working. Wolves, prairie dogs, protective designations, wild horses, etc all created conflict between a national group and it's local affiliates, (. So knowing that Land & Gale came from that world of affiliate structure, I can honestly see them saying "let's keep this issue with the locals, as they will be the best voice to fulfill the mission."

You also have to recognize that BHA national doesn't have the staff capacity to weigh in on every state level issue, because if they do it in MT, they're going to have to do it in every other state and province, and that's a significant resource suck, especially when you have competent volunteers & chapter staff at the state/province level. Additionally, with BHA National having a full-time staff person dedicated to lobbying in DC, the budget may not allow for this kind of activity without creating a new Independent Expenditure (costing thousands) to engage meaningfully in that work. Whereas the state chapter can utilize volunteer labor to engage in this work without experiencing the pain of FEC & State filings, etc.

Personally, I'd love to see all orgs grow to the level where they can be more involved in stuff like this, but ultimately, a system designed over 80 years ago that allows for local control of national conservation groups still works well, and until we find a better path, I think it's the right way to go.


*Certain exceptions apply, your mileage may vary

 

[Sytes]

And with Ben Lamb's observed experience shared,

Back to...

Organization to be involved with​

It's a pretty useful thread for those interested.

Oh, another plug for RMEF.

Home

RMEF is the premiere big game conservation organization in the United States.

www.rmef.org

How We Conserve

RMEF uses a variety of tools to accomplish our conservation mission by conserving land, enhancing quality habitat, restoring elk to native ranges, opening public access and ensuring our hunting heritage.

www.rmef.org

Opening and securing quality public access lies at the heart of the RMEF mission. Since 1984, RMEF has opened, secured or improved public access to more than 1.3 million acres of elk habitat across the country for hunters, hikers, anglers and other outdoor enthusiasts to enjoy.

Ensuring the future of our hunting heritage is a crucial part of RMEF’s work. Hunters were the first conservationists and remain the mightiest force the conservation world has ever known. RMEF provides grants for hunting heritage and conservation education programs to help people learn more about our hunting heritage and help them engage in hunting and other outdoor pursuits. Go here to learn more about RMEF hunting heritage grants.

Quality habitat (food, water, cover and space) is essential to ensuring the future of elk and other wildlife. RMEF and its partners provide financial support to carry out prescribed burning, forest thinning, noxious weed treatments, the establishment of wildlife water developments and other projects to enhance elk habitat. Additionally, RMEF provides grants for wildlife management and research.

RMEF works with partners to permanently protect quality elk range, migration corridors and calving areas while seeking to open or improve quality public access opportunities. Conservation tools include land acquisitions and exchanges, conservation easements, contributions and other means.