Goodbye to BHA
- Thread starter hossblur
- Start date
Pretty simple I don't think we want any development on public lands. Furthermore, I hate wind power! I think they need/want to put the wind generation on public lands because there is not enough Return on investment so there are very few takers on private property!!!!!! Its simply not worth it for private land owners. Say no to wind!
LuketheDog
Well-known member
Yeah, because disapproval from them rank-and-filers is just piss in the wind anyway! I'm withholding my membership renewal for now...
Nameless Range
Well-known member
Re-upped with BHA for another three years yesterday.
Strongly disagree with this bill and their support of it, and to each their own, but for me, bailing on BHA over this alone would be succumbing to the Fallacy of Understated Evidence.
Sure, I can successfully identify some general fact (that this is a bad bill and therefore supporting it is bad) about BHA that is antecedently more likely on the assumption that BHA is bad for public lands and hunting than the assumption that they are good, but that would ignore a pile of other more specific facts about BHA and the work they’ve done, facts that, when viewing their whole body of work, leads me to believe they are a net good for the types of hunting I like to do and would like to keep doing.
Accountability matters, and I will never be a life member of any organization, because religion has never suited me.
Development on our public lands matters deeply as well, but I wonder how much we’re arguing over the drapes while the house is burning to the ground.
Strongly disagree with this bill and their support of it, and to each their own, but for me, bailing on BHA over this alone would be succumbing to the Fallacy of Understated Evidence.
Sure, I can successfully identify some general fact (that this is a bad bill and therefore supporting it is bad) about BHA that is antecedently more likely on the assumption that BHA is bad for public lands and hunting than the assumption that they are good, but that would ignore a pile of other more specific facts about BHA and the work they’ve done, facts that, when viewing their whole body of work, leads me to believe they are a net good for the types of hunting I like to do and would like to keep doing.
Accountability matters, and I will never be a life member of any organization, because religion has never suited me.
Development on our public lands matters deeply as well, but I wonder how much we’re arguing over the drapes while the house is burning to the ground.
Last edited:
That's a silly argument. I had no quarrel with BHA on other LAND related issues I may not of 100% supported.
I took a thrashing over Patagonia. Mostly because "an enenmyvof my enemy...".
I don't backpack. I do own ATV. Etc, etc, etc.
This is different. BHA is openly hostile to OG. So much so they had a campaign mounted against them, GREEN DECOY.
By supporting this bill, not just sitting quiet, but openly supporting it, and NOT REEVALUATING whrn the outcry from membership was extremely loud, they entered the "pick your favorite energy", or "carbon footprint" fight.
Then looked stupid trying to hide it.
The Press Release said they realize energy development will happen, but....
If that is the case then A LAND CONSERVATION org should support the source that creates the smallest footprint, ie, the least public land lost. They did the polar opposite, while blowing smoke.
This one cost, and will cost the support of a lot of good folks, who 100% believe "public lands in public hands", and for what? No hard money, no hard investment, large development, but at least our CO2 output is low? Where is that in the mission statement?
Maybe that's an issue? BHA isn't millions of members. It's not that old. When you loose leadership folks in Wyoming and Utah, and you don't look at WHY, perhaps your tone deaf? So much so that you issue a PR statement from TU and TRCP.
I've gotten a lot pm here, and elsewhere. BHA has a problem. There is a disconnect. Too much time in DC might cause that. No amount of pint nights will fix losing touch. Once it's lost, i don't get it back. Ask Lands sisters group(DU). Ask the NRA. Long after the Bro hunter fad passes the true believers will remain. Unless they quit believing.
If BHA is disconnected from the public land hunter then other prohunting organizations aren't even the public land hunters time zone.
There is a huge contingent of pro hunting organizations that wouldnt shed a tear over land transfers, privatization and if everything went pay to play they would smile knowing they just got a bigger piece of the pie.
So be careful jumping ship just yet the water maybe colder then you think.
There is a huge contingent of pro hunting organizations that wouldnt shed a tear over land transfers, privatization and if everything went pay to play they would smile knowing they just got a bigger piece of the pie.
So be careful jumping ship just yet the water maybe colder then you think.
beginnerhunter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,320
Man, really good comments from both the leave camp vs stay in BHA camp (the fact that not many are advocating for BHA's support of the bill is telling...)
Ima stay, but I do think climate change is distracting them from their primary mission. Sure, its indirectly related to the health of our public lands, but the org is pointless if we can't, you know, use those public lands.
Ima stay, but I do think climate change is distracting them from their primary mission. Sure, its indirectly related to the health of our public lands, but the org is pointless if we can't, you know, use those public lands.
Hoss, I respect your position, and understand why you've taken it. BHA says they believe this bill will allow development to be steered away from core important habitat, and towards areas that are not critical to our end of use. To be honest, I don't know if that's right or not, I haven't combed through the language of the bill, but that seems to be the rationale they are sticking with. What I do know is that they have been a vocal opponent to land transfer at a time when land transfer is a real danger. They may take peripheral positions that I don't agree with, and that won't make me happy, but as long as they continue a hard fight against the land transfer crowd, I will continue to support them for that alone.
idahohuntr
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2013
- Messages
- 345
Good discussion. I'm generally supportive of BHA - but this is definitely concerning to me. Will be curious to watch future actions - nobody is perfect, but if they are just picking one energy developer over another in place of actually fighting to protect public lands and wildlife...not sure I can stay behind them.
Ben Sellers
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2018
- Messages
- 573
After thinking about this a while, I emailed BHA to tell them I think they’re on the wrong path on this bill and that this development should happen on private land. I have no delusions that my email will make any difference but at least they know how another member feels. I did not cancel my membership but will see what else happens between now and when I need to renew.
antlerradar
Well-known member
Development is going to happen on the places with the best wind power potential. It is not going to matter if those place have a high value for something else. Energy development seams to win out over just about all other uses. Looks like BHA is going to learn this the hard way.
BluegrassBilly
Active member
Having been in politics, I know that the sausage-making ain't pretty. Sometimes you ultimately lend your support to a somewhat bad bill because the alternative was worse and you want to keep your seat at the table. I suspect this may be one of those moments. Regardless, I'm sure this issue is giving the board reason to be cautious of mission creep.
And I’m not contradicting that at all, as I said, I haven’t read the bill, I’m just stating the rationale that BHA communicated to me.
I’m just not willing to withdraw my support for BHA as a whole over this 1 issue, even though it does cause me concern.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
I was very important to bold the words for me in my post.
I believe thresholds exist, and they are often personal. I don't think if someone has already jumped ship on BHA due to their own thresholds being exceeded that there is anything particularly wrong with that. Personally, I am now more wary of BHA than any time before. The things mentioned by those in the know above, the crush on Patagonia, and now this, are definitely lending themselves to a narrative some folks have about BHA that strays from their mission statement. I feel it too, and will reevaluate my position in the future.
As I said before though, they do an enormous amount of good for the types of hunting and fishing I do and want to continue doing, and they speak up clearly and with conviction for things I believe in that other conservation orgs seem a bit timid if not silent about.
It is difficult to read the landscape, but I think it would be reasonable to say these are alarming times. I encourage you to listen to the most recent BHA podcast with Hal Herring, Randy Newberg, and Land Tawney. It ain't a squishy lovefest for renewable energy or kumbaya, it's a call to arms spoken forcefully and to me seems far more meaningful than this bill I don't agree with.
Last edited:
All respect for Nameless. We agree / disagree though valued discussions hold the best merit to evaluate.
***
This is not BHA's first, second nor third issue that's struck the wrong chord. I've read some HT'ers in this thread comment a fantasized, "jump ship over this one issue"... Far from it.
This is the next of a few significant issues that define the backstory written by BHA leadership (Top tiered) and not necessarily the story as written by it's members of past and present.
Rationalize away. To each his/her own.
***
This is not BHA's first, second nor third issue that's struck the wrong chord. I've read some HT'ers in this thread comment a fantasized, "jump ship over this one issue"... Far from it.
This is the next of a few significant issues that define the backstory written by BHA leadership (Top tiered) and not necessarily the story as written by it's members of past and present.
Rationalize away. To each his/her own.
Is rationalizing simply a term for someone coming to their own decision that may not align with yours? If I do it, it's a fact based decision whereas the contrary is rationalizing? Interesting.
LuketheDog
Well-known member
I wouldn't expect a lot of critical thinking from her on ANY issue...
