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.
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.
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.
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.
We're def fractured but I think it's good that there are a lot of options when it comes to conservation groups.
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.
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.
Side by side shotgun shootin’ Elitist
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.
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?
Dude- click on the link in the post you quoted.
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?
www.rmef.org
