Time for Land Tawney to step down?

neffa3

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
2,474
Location
Wenatchee
@hossblur if you think that the stance or direction that BHA takes on any subject is up to Tawney alone then you've never been a part of a non profit. Send a letter to the board, or better yet so up to one of their board meetings in person.
 

Ben Long

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
1,008
Location
Kalispell, MT
BHA works on a lot of issues. Some are super important to me, others less so. (Sunday hunting in Pennsylvania, for example. I"m all for it but it has no direct bearing on my life.) My point is, it's the nature of groups that there are some isssues that resonate, some that don't, with each member. The important thing is to find a group that reflects your values and support it. There are plenty to choose from. It's a free country. (For now, anyway.)
 

hossblur

Active member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
162
BHA works on a lot of issues. Some are super important to me, others less so. (Sunday hunting in Pennsylvania, for example. I"m all for it but it has no direct bearing on my life.) My point is, it's the nature of groups that there are some isssues that resonate, some that don't, with each member. The important thing is to find a group that reflects your values and support it. There are plenty to choose from. It's a free country. (For now, anyway.)

I believe the H in BHA is some version of the word hunt, as in hunters?

The b is for backcountry

The a for anglers, as in fishing.

There is no c for climate change.

I could post the mission statement where it clearly doesn't mention climate change or carbon footprint, or developing public lands., but I'm sure you've read it.


As for Tawney doesn't make decisions alone. OK. Coaches don't play the game, CEO doesn't make the widget, developers dont build houses.

None the less, THE BUCK STOPS SOMEWHERE.

And ya i did contact them. First there was no answer. Then As more guys turned up the heat there was the TRCP press release sent back. Then after more push back the Q&A.

Either I'm damn noisy, or there were a ton of other folks not so keen on being dragged into the climate black hole when they thought they were putting public land in public hands.

But hey. If your contention is all of management is equally to blame, so be it, they need all go then.

My contention is there is only ONE boss, and if you sign your name to it, you live with it.

Plus we would have to ignore Tawneys use of social media and pretend we all Hadnt heard and read his tirades numerous times.

Ryan Callahan talks about trail diplomacy all the time. Perhaps Land needs to catch Cals week in review?
 

geetar

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 28, 2019
Messages
370
Location
the land of Andy Griffith and Robert Ruark.
Seems simple enough. I don’t need to know your religion , gender, or your political stance to join forces with you as a backcountry hunt and angler but it also seems inevitable that lots of things turn political and go downhill from there. I mean look at some of the threads on here. There are people I’ve never seen post a photo or story related to hunting on “ Hunt Talk “ but politics come up especially controversial subjects and they get on that like white rice.
 

Turtle30

New member
Joined
Oct 10, 2019
Messages
3
Im way more interested in the "John Muir" insult. Can someone explain that one to me?
 

wllm1313

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
5,001
Location
Aurora, CO
Im way more interested in the "John Muir" insult. Can someone explain that one to me?
I'm assuming something like this...

Teddy Roosevelt: Conservationist, Wise Use, National Forests
John Muir: Preservationist, No use, National Parks

Essentially he was saying Hossbur had an antiquated perspective on public lands due to his hands off approach.
 

kmott

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
454
Location
idaho
True, although historic changes have been much less dramatic, i.e. 2 degree increase over 5,000 years not in 5 years.

To your point, "so what", well why do we manage elk and deer, why not just shoot as many as we feel like, why manage predators? We do these things to mitigate dramatic change from year to year, to maintain consistency so that it's easier for us to plan and live our lives. Sure humans will not go extinct in the next 100 years due to climate change, but you may lose your home to sea level rise or floods and crops may be decimated by droughts, snow, floods, etc. Those of us with the least means are going to be those most effected.

The conversation get's muddled by the massive amount of partisanship going on right now, this hasn't been and shouldn't be a my team your team conversation.

(Don't make me post that damn Nixon state of the union for a 5th time, republicans were the party of sportsmen and championed environmental protections not wanting to f-up the woods is not a goal owned by the Democrats)

The demand for energy goes up every year, there is plenty of market share for wind, solar, O&G, and coal. There is nothing wrong with adding new jobs to our economy.

The population of the world is also increasing, we voted and Ben Lamb is not going to get the infinity stones, therefore we need to conserve and protect our wild places which in my mind means thinking critically every time we build new energy infrastructure on public lands.
your talking apples and oranges . climate change will have little to no effect on animals, same as humans.

when I was KID so called experts screamed that we were going into another ice age. then in the 70s and 80s they started screaming global warming, due to the hole in the ozone. which apparently healed itself because now the "so called" experts are starting to cry the little ice age again.

truth is , no one has a clue what the climate might be like a hundred years from now. could be a wee hotter ,could be a wee colder . but it won't be much different then it is today either way. and ,god forbid , "scientists" find a way to keep us all alive that long, it still won't affect our lives in any meaningful way.
 

wllm1313

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
5,001
Location
Aurora, CO
your talking apples and oranges . climate change will have little to no effect on animals, same as humans.

when I was KID so called experts screamed that we were going into another ice age. then in the 70s and 80s they started screaming global warming, due to the hole in the ozone. which apparently healed itself because now the "so called" experts are starting to cry the little ice age again.

truth is , no one has a clue what the climate might be like a hundred years from now. could be a wee hotter ,could be a wee colder . but it won't be much different then it is today either way. and ,god forbid , "scientists" find a way to keep us all alive that long, it still won't affect our lives in any meaningful way.
I'm seriously trying to be diplomatic here, you should read more.

The ozone hole is still a problem in the souther Hemisphere... ask some of our NZ members. Since the Montreal Protocol, we limited use of CFC that is we actually did something and the hole seems to be slowly shrinking. If anything your example in favor of international climate accords.

Our lives are currently being effect in meaningful ways so are the populations of lots of animals, you not noticing is a product of shifting baseline syndrome.
 

LopeHunter

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
2,410
Location
MO-->CA-->NW-->AZ&NW
Nuclear Energy is the answer to all energy issues. The navy has been using them since the 1960s and they have been kicking ass with them. Power of the sun ☀ to unlock all the energy you need.
And zero carbon if I understand the process. And, we would be energy self-sufficient for generations and stop sending our borrowed dollars to regimes that do not like our way of life and culture.
 
Top