Green Decoys

[Ben Lamb]

Ben, you are also a member of WSF, correct?

Yes. Although I think I'm lapsed and need to correct that.

JWP - A lot of that $16 trillion had little to do with the issues you are concerned about, and more to do with putting 2 wars on a credit card. But I think we can avoid the budgetary strawmen and focus on what's important: Passing down our hunting & angling heritage to future generations. In that regard, I'll gladly work with anyone who supports that, regardless of their political affiliation.

Thanks & good hunting!

 

[JWP58]

Yes. Although I think I'm lapsed and need to correct that.

JWP - A lot of that $16 trillion had little to do with the issues you are concerned about, and more to do with putting 2 wars on a credit card. But I think we can avoid the budgetary strawmen and focus on what's important: Passing down our hunting & angling heritage to future generations. In that regard, I'll gladly work with anyone who supports that, regardless of their political affiliation.

Thanks & good hunting!

I agree that paying for two wars (and the nation building that's still going on) hurt and shouldn't have ever happened in the first place. But consider that social security and other entitlements accounted for 49% of the budget last year (that went over budget..go figure), i'd say there is plenty of cutting that needs to be done. Foreign aid would be another fantastic place to start gutting as well. Don't even get me started on the dept. of education, and other pointless money pits in Washington.

Fact is if the entitlements were done away with, budgets kept......within budgets, and we worried about the U.S. first, I am 100% confident the USF and US dept of wildlife, BLM, etc. would have zero problem finding enough money to do make it possible to do their job. And who knows, maybe then people wouldn't be looking to sell of our public lands.

Once again, Im sure that's kookoo talk for those that believe the federal government should provide them with everything they "need" from cradle to grave. But instead im sure the top folks of certain organizations are supporting folks that are promising "free college".....well free for someone.

 

[Schaaf]

I thought so. I don't think there is any denying the fact that Gray Thornton's views and opinions are going to be different than Land Tawney's. However, they are both doing an excellent job at what their organization strives for and for that reason I'll continue to support them both.

 

[Oneye]

I agree that paying for two wars (and the nation building that's still going on) hurt and shouldn't have ever happened in the first place. But consider that social security and other entitlements accounted for 49% of the budget last year (that went over budget..go figure), i'd say there is plenty of cutting that needs to be done. Foreign aid would be another fantastic place to start gutting as well. Don't even get me started on the dept. of education, and other pointless money pits in Washington.

Fact is if the entitlements were done away with, budgets kept......within budgets, and we worried about the U.S. first, I am 100% confident the USF and US dept of wildlife, BLM, etc. would have zero problem finding enough money to do make it possible to do their job. And who knows, maybe then people wouldn't be looking to sell of our public lands.

Once again, Im sure that's kookoo talk for those that believe the federal government should provide them with everything they "need" from cradle to grave. But instead im sure the top folks of certain organizations are supporting folks that are promising "free college".....well free for someone.

IMO it has nothing to do with the spending we currently have in other programs. Now I'm not standing up for the program's we waste money on but I doubt conservation would see a big upswing in funding of other programs were shutdown. I'm all for the military but the $700 billion a year we spend on it is building that debt on pretty fast. Conservation makes up about 1% of the federal budget. The outdoor industry contributes $646 billion to economy a year along with all the meat that is harvested and benefits people. That is a broken system and it needs to be fixed.

 

[Mudranger1]

Ben. How do you tell if you can hunt TNC property

 

[Ben Lamb]

Call their state office & inquire about specific locations. They have some that have a lottery/draw and others that you need to get permission. Some are enrolled in different programs that guarantee access (FWP conservation easements, for example).

Here's the Colorado page for TNC: http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/colorado/

 

[Ben Lamb]

I thought so. I don't think there is any denying the fact that Gray Thornton's views and opinions are going to be different than Land Tawney's. However, they are both doing an excellent job at what their organization strives for and for that reason I'll continue to support them both.

Amen. Same goes for RMEF. I strongly support them even though they don't always take positions I agree with, and I'm pretty sure my politics are different than David Allen's regarding certain things.

 

[tjones]

The information is out there. Its not that im going to go out of my way to speak poorly about the organization, but I just don't want to align myself with an org that is run by folks who raise money for and support politicians that.....

-are pro-choice
-pro "affordable care" act
-for an increase of funding to medicare
-voted for Kagan and Sotomayor
and basically tow the democratic socialist line at every turn.

It goes against my ethics and morals, and I cant donate money or more importantly time to it.

If you don't support the groups that are in Helena battling FWP and the legislature for sportsmen do you go the FWP commission meetings and testify on important issues? Same for the Montana legislature, do you make the calls and write the letters to support good bills and battle the bad bills?

 

[npaden]

The information is out there. Its not that im going to go out of my way to speak poorly about the organization, but I just don't want to align myself with an org that is run by folks who raise money for and support politicians that.....

-are pro-choice
-pro "affordable care" act
-for an increase of funding to medicare
-voted for Kagan and Sotomayor
and basically tow the democratic socialist line at every turn.

It goes against my ethics and morals, and I cant donate money or more importantly time to it.

I am also against things you mentioned above, but how much of the $ that are contributed to BHA or TRCP or TU are spent trying to lobby for the items you mentioned above?

I would say these organizations do a good job of spending the money that is contributed to try to accomplish their mission of conservation.

Do I care if a "green" company gives them money? No.

I care what they spend the money on, which seems pretty clear that it is for conserving public lands for recreational use.

I would be more suspicious if a company like ExxonMobile or a big coal conglomerate was contributing money to them. Wait, those are the companies that are funding the green decoy site trying to discredit them.

Sounds like they must be doing a good job based on that.

 

[RobG]

I am also against things you mentioned above, but how much of the $ that are contributed to BHA or TRCP or TU are spent trying to lobby for the items you mentioned above?

Those are 501(c)(3) groups and can't actively influence elections, but can obviously give stances on issues that are important to their mission. As for supporting abortion, Obamacare, etc. state legislators can't do anything about it anyway - always boggled by how much mileage they get from pretending they can. Also, the legislators who oppose those things are free to be reasonable on wildlife issues, but choose not to. It is BHA's job to advocate for wildlife and if a congressman embarrass themselves by wanting to transfer public lands it is their own fault, not BHA for pointing it out.

 

[RobG]

I guess I'll add that the Rs and AFP, etc should be called Greenback Decoys. Those guys are as bad as democrats when it comes to spending, the main difference being they think cutting taxes will somehow fund the expensive programs they want. When you get down to it, wildlife policies are one of the differences where the party differences are clear on issues that can be changed.

 

[6speed]

TRCP and IWL are not even on the radar screen in my state (Idaho), so I can't comment on them.

BCHA has a chapter here. I would not use the term green decoy to describe them. Rather, I would say they are a small "environmental" organization that has hunters and anglers as members. For example, I've never seen them chime in on things like proposed changes to hunting and fishing regs, etc., like most organization that purport to represent hunters and anglers do, so its hard to call them a hunting advocacy group (though habitat is definitely an issue important to hunting).

The only times BCHA have made the press here is when they held their convention nearby in Spokane, and when the chimed in on public lands transfer. They definitely aren't a group that wields any political influence, or has the ability to shape public perception. They seem to represent a very small segment of Idahoans. Its not clear from their website where their funding comes from, but I'm guessing its from a few large donors that aren't based in Idaho?

As I understand it, their leader for Idaho is a former Nature Conservancy activist of some sort. Ironically, here in North Idaho anyway, more land has been closed to hunting by actions of the Nature Conservancy than by any other cause, so its hard not to be a little suspicious. On the surface, it looks like the same people carrying a different flag. I'm not sure she is even actually a hunter or angler or is just part of their professional or volunteer staff? (To gain credibility with hunters here you need to show a notched tag).

Despite being a very red state, we actually have a comparatively good track record in Idaho of preserving public lands and habitat. This has been accomplished by collaborative efforts that appeal to people across the political spectrum. Some of the more radical environmental groups are very counterproductive to this process. They tend to want to litigate instead of collaborate. These are groups like Western Watersheds, GYC, Defenders of Wildlife, and the like.

Most such groups shot themselves in the feet with their unrelenting opposition to wolf delisting. They are all now completely toxic, having lost any credibility they may have had with people that share at least some common interests with regards to conservation.

My impression of BCHA is that they probably fall closer to these litigious type groups, than they do to the more mainstream groups, on the political spectrum. The fact that Rocky Barker endorses them, who is also a mouthpiece for Defenders and Wildlife and the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, does not help their cause, and creates kind of a guilty by association effect.

Most hunters I know haven't even heard of BCHA. Though, most tend to eschew these types of organizations, preferring grass roots actions, pertaining to specific issues. I would say pursuing its current strategy, BCHA will have a tough time being an effective organization in the Gem State.

You should get out more. Idaho is a big state there are a lot more TNC lands that can be hunted on than TNC lands that can't here. As for BHA and hunting, they were one of the only orgs with members who attended the last F&G commission meeting. The meeting where F&G set fishing regulations. Blake Fisher is the former BHA chapter chair and current F&G commissioner. Odds are if you attend a F&G commission meeting you will meet some very good hunters who are concerned with conserving our hunting heritage, willing to speak up and make a difference and are members of BHA. To say they are an organization that isn't doing much in Idaho is evidence that more people need to pay attention to what is going on and stop living in the past.

 

[Pinecricker]

You should get out more. Idaho is a big state there are a lot more TNC lands that can be hunted on than TNC lands that can't here. As for BHA and hunting, they were one of the only orgs with members who attended the last F&G commission meeting. The meeting where F&G set fishing regulations. Blake Fisher is the former BHA chapter chair and current F&G commissioner. Odds are if you attend a F&G commission meeting you will meet some very good hunters who are concerned with conserving our hunting heritage, willing to speak up and make a difference and are members of BHA. To say they are an organization that isn't doing much in Idaho is evidence that more people need to pay attention to what is going on and stop living in the past.

I guess you missed the point that in my end of the state, the Nature Conservancy's actions have resulted in a LOSS of hunting opportunity. Please don't try to whitewash that fact.

There may have been some BCHA members at the latest meeting in Hailey, but I'll bet you won't see many at meetings in places like Salmon, St. Maries, Coeur d'Alene, Kellogg, Jerome, Lewiston, etc. Hell, Blaine County is scarcely even part of Idaho its so gentrified (but it is exactly the kind of place where the Nature Conservancy supporters would be hanging out. Its the perfect place to run around crying wolf to raise money).

 

[6speed]

I guess you missed the point that your end of the state isn't the whole state. No white washing at all compare open TNC acres to closed TNC acres in the state of Idaho then explain how I was white washing anything. Remember to include the 10,000 acre Rock Creek ranch since its still not transfered to F&G.

The las commission meeting probably had fewer BHA members than you will find at the other meetings.You don't see many hunters at the commission meetings period but I would bet you a beer there will be BHA members at nearly every one of the places you listed. I agree with you on the State of Blaine as it is commonly referred to but the BHA member who attended and posted updates was from Boise. It's a growing organization that is most definitely involved in current Idaho hunting and fishing regulations and issues.

 

[Pinecricker]

I guess you missed the point that your end of the state isn't the whole state. No white washing at all compare open TNC acres to closed TNC acres in the state of Idaho then explain how I was white washing anything. Remember to include the 10,000 acre Rock Creek ranch since its still not transfered to F&G.

The las commission meeting probably had fewer BHA members than you will find at the other meetings.You don't see many hunters at the commission meetings period but I would bet you a beer there will be BHA members at nearly every one of the places you listed. I agree with you on the State of Blaine as it is commonly referred to but the BHA member who attended and posted updates was from Boise. It's a growing organization that is most definitely involved in current Idaho hunting and fishing regulations and issues.

Look, I appreciate that the Nature Conservancy allows hunting on *some* of their lands in Idaho, but you really need to look at it in terms of net gain or loss of access before and after their involvement. I think it is fair to say that we've lost more than we have gained here in the Panhandle. Its not a trend that many hunters like to see. If it can happen here it can happen anywhere in the state.

I'm also not sure where Nature Conservancy (or BHA for that matter) stands on issues like predator management and trapping on public lands? Did BHA / NC support delisting? Were they opposed to IDFG's wolf trapping efforts in the Frank Church? Do they support restricting land sets with body grip traps, as has recently been discussed? BHA website doesn't offer any insights into their positions on these topics, so its hard to know just what their position is. How many dues paying members do they have in Idaho BTW?

As far as hunter participation at commission meetings, check the meeting minutes for public hearings in the below link. You will find that there is no shortage of public involvement (when their is an opportunity to participate). Commentors names and topics addressed are summarized in the minutes. With this, the many non-commision, public meetings that IDFG holds in my region are always very well attended by hunters. IDFG would be the first one's to tell you such.

https://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/about/commission/

 

[BuzzH]

Pinecricker, maybe instead of being forced to "guess" where the Idaho BHA chapter stands, join them and ask your questions.

I can tell you that knowing, and having met some of the IDBHA guys, that if it has to do with fishing, hunting, public access, etc. they are involved. Just because you may or may not see their names on a sign in sheet, doesn't mean they aren't involved.

Attending meetings is nothing more than being on record regarding an issue...the work in the trenches takes place behind the scenes.

While I cant, and wont speak FOR the Idaho Chapter, I will tell you that the Wyoming Chapter is flat getting things done here. In the last 10 days WYBHA has sent representatives to the TRW legislative committee meeting, migration corridor meeting, and GF Commission meeting. In that same 10 day period we've had an oped letter in the Casper Star Tribune, dealt with a state lands issue, and some of the board still had time to get out hunting.

Some of the highlights of things we've done this year in WY:

1. Found, and corrected, a flaw in the Wyoming elk drawing that would have resulted in a loss of over 300 LQ elk permits being issued to residents.
2. Testified on a PLPW case where hunters and anglers were about to lose access to a perpetual access easement on the Salt River.
3. Adopted and maintained the Alpine Lakes trails in the Medicine Bow National Forest.
4. Donated to the Wyoming AccessYes program.
5. Provided the initial funding for signs, gates, etc. on critical winter range/seasonal closure areas which leveraged a total of $56K for the project.

I'm sure theres some things I probably forgot about and listing all the meetings, phone calls, and letters we've written on things like RMP's, Forest Plans, Travel Plans, transfer of Public lands, commission meetings, legislative work, etc. etc. would take me all night.

You'll be hard pressed to find a more passionate group of Sportsmen working on a wider range of things that impact hunting, fishing, wildlife, public lands, and public access more than BHA.

The State Chapters are a direct reflection of each states membership and the issues the membership decides to tackle...

Sitting on the sidelines guessing wont do much of anything.

 

[shoots-straight]

I know your efforts Buzz. Thanks for all your doing. We could use more "What ever color" of sportsman you are.

 

[jryoung]

Cougar Bay is a good example of lost waterfowl hunting. There are other properties that are managed by BLM that have easements that were brokered by NC, the Blue Creek area for example.

Is it possible that due to the proximity of Cougar Bay to CdA that it was only a matter of time before it was shut down to hunting and sold to developers and close to hunting permanently? Instead TNC was able to preserve it, but with a loss of hunting which was inevitable anyway? Still, it's just 88 acres that's closed.

As for Blue creek, are you talking about Ball Creek up by Bonners? If so, grab your shotgun, it's open for waterfowl hunting.

Based on this map those look like the only two places mention in North Idaho, one an 88 acre loss, and the other a 2,300 acre gain (or at lease non-loss).

http://www.nature.org/ourinitiative.../unitedstates/idaho/placesweprotect/index.htm

Can you reconcile the difference that I noted above with your comment here? Even a link to the closed properties is fine.

I guess you missed the point that in my end of the state, the Nature Conservancy's actions have resulted in a LOSS of hunting opportunity. Please don't try to whitewash that fact.

 

[6speed]

I'm also not sure where Nature Conservancy (or BHA for that matter) stands on issues like predator management and trapping on public lands? Did BHA / NC support delisting? Were they opposed to IDFG's wolf trapping efforts in the Frank Church? Do they support restricting land sets with body grip traps, as has recently been discussed? BHA website doesn't offer any insights into their positions on these topics, so its hard to know just what their position is. How many dues paying members do they have in Idaho BTW?
https://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/about/commission/

I don't know for sure but I can surmise that TNC has an overall dislike for predator management. I do not support TNC financially. I have seen some very good things they have done concerning habitat and maintaining public access. I have also seen them "sell out" on some issues. Overall I think they are a great organization for protecting habitat. I wish they would pick up on the "Hunting is Conservation" mindset and then I would be more willing to support them.

BHA is not TNC. BHA members that I know are basically Hunting and fishing addicts. I don't know of any BHA members that are againts predator management. I do know of members that help keep predator populations in check every chance they get. As for the membership in Idaho take Buzzh's advice and join then it will be one more. I'll even buy you a beer at the rendezvous in April, hell shoot me a PM I may just buy you a membership.

My final thoughts on this subject.
BHA is involved and making a difference. If they weren't the Green Decoy video would never have been made in an attempt to discredit them. If you know that a fairly new organization is getting that kind of attention wouldn't you want to be involved and have a say in their decision making process? I attended a BHA Hunting film tour. Land Tawney was there. I talked to him for a bit. He easily convinced me of one very important thing. No matter what side of the political bs anyone is on, he will do everything he can to ensure hunting and fishing opportunity for the next generation and the one after that. Since that is what is really important I will continue to support BHA.