What do you guys know about this organization?

https://www.backcountryhunters.org/mission_and_values

I was watching a Clay Hayes video one day and he was wearing a tee shirt that had "Public Land Owner" on the front. I liked it so I Googled the shirt to buy one, and this organization's web site popped up and the shirt is for sale on their site.

If you read their mission statement they seem pretty legit.

Considering joining, but sometimes organizations mission statements can be misleading...

They have a "Pint Night" at Cahaba Brewing on January 22nd. I think I'm going to go check it out and see what it's all about first hand. Plus I like beer.

https://www.backcountryhunters.org/birmingham_pint_night

At first glance they seem to be like tree huggers with guns, bows and arrows that like to drink beer and kill and eat wild game.

They have pint nights here in NC but they are usually abut 1.5-2 hour drive for me so I haven’t been to one.

I’m going to join. I try to support all of our public lands rather it’s WMA’s or State Parks. I have a State Parks Supporter tag on my truck and enjoy hiking the trails. Me and some buddies just yesterday were talking about hunting Lowndes WMA next year.

I’ve been a member for a few years . They do great work in ensuring our public lands remain huntable. Very worthy cause

The bunch that Steve Rinella runs with are all in on BHA. It seems like a very solid and definitely growing group, but they are very much western oriented. They seem to be be making efforts to migrate east, which is great, but I wouldn’t expect them to be lobbying for causes in Alabama anytime soon. That said, I’ve looked at their membership options, and if I had $2500 to burn...I’d think seriously about doing one of there Lifetime promo packages. They have some badazz gear attached to some of them.

Good group with a good mission. As Ike said, they seem to be more focused on the Western states, but they are trying to get a foothold here. We need more groups to advocate for public lands, especially in Alabama. They may not be one of the main voices in the state lobbying the legislature for public land causes, but they will be another voice and we need more voices. Legislature is seated in March and the same groups that have opposed state parks and Forever Wild in the past are already planning to knock the legs out from under both during the upcoming session.

I'm a member. And yes they are currently more western oriented. But as more and more people are squeezed for money wma's, national forest etc, becomes more and more important to insure public land access is available to the everyone.

Btw, I would like to have a pint night in the huntsville area for the north al guys. Heck whether your a BHA member or not just get together to meet more aldeer members is always good thing.

A good place to get a feel for what they’re about is their podcast “BHA cast n Blast”. It’s a good one, and is hosted by Hal Herring, an Alabama - Montana transplant. He’s a career outdoor writer, and seems like a pretty cool guy.

Good organization. They work mostly at state levels, but some national level lobbying too.

There mission basically butts heads with the republican party platform position of liquidating public lands. They aren't politically affiliated, but it's kinda how it works.

This will make some queasy. I hold my representatives responsible for their obligation (IMHO) to keep our public lands public. Sausage making is ugly business.

We don't have specific state chapters, so I they made a regional southeastern group.

Theodore Roosevelt conservation partnership is another good one (TRCP). They have full time lobbyists in DC and seem to focus more on national policy fights.

I'm all for advocating for public lands and have watched from afar as the BHA has grown. Some good people are involved and supporting, including some friends of mine.

That said, and again I believe they have good interests at heart, the underlying politics of BHA might not be that which some here would agree with.

An example: should a private landowner be required to give access to the public to a river that runs through his/her property? BHA was against the reduction of the public lands in Utah and against the return of land to states. It publicly denounced the Malheur NWR takeover along with other groups including Audubon Society and Defenders of Wildlife.

As with any organization, do your homework.

Here is some info about financial sources for the organization and others. In this, the group and others like it are called Green Decoys. It's worth your time to read this:

http://www.americanlandscouncil.org...nding_anti_federal_lands_transfer_groups

A speech from Dan Ashe, former USFWS director under Obama:

https://mountainjournal.org/conservation-movement-must-evolve-or-lose-its-relevancy

A big feature in Men's Journal in which BHA is called "The Resistance.":

https://www.mensjournal.com/adventu...nters-fighting-for-public-lands-w494518/



Hal Herring grew up running the woods and creeks here in north Bama. He has some interesting opinions. Here are some of his columns:

https://www.fieldandstream.com/politics-hunting-and-fishing

https://www.fieldandstream.com/authors/hal-herring

Another, about the Malheur NWR-Bundy situation which explains a little more about what he believes:

https://www.hcn.org/hcn/hcn/issues/48.5/the-darkness-at-the-heart-of-malheur

Scroll to the bottom to find out where TRCP gets a chunk of its money. It ain't pretty. Also one reason TCRP wouldn't give any statement or stance on firearms issues.

http://www.americanlandscouncil.org...nding_anti_federal_lands_transfer_groups

TRCP is a lobbying and policy-making group. Associating with Good ol' T.R. gives them some cachet, but Good ol' T.R. was an "ends justify the means" president who believed in doing whatever he wanted for the good of the public. Be sure to do your homework on organizations.

http://www.trcp.org/what/sportsmens-access/

I'll check it out. I'm always looking for new podcast content to listen to while I'm travelling.

Thanks... I'll take the time to read all the articles you posted. I figured that these guys, even though they are all about guns, eating wild game, hunting and fishing, would have to be on the same side from time to time with people like the Green Party, Sierra Club, Conservation Fund, Nature Conservancy, etc... All of whom I would consider liberal organizations with little regard for the rights of property owners.

Being a rural land owner who's land butts up to both state and federal public lands, I am always concerned about the rights of property owners, but at the same time I am all for ensuring abundant land for hunting and recreation for future generations. There is a fine line between the Government protecting the rights of some people, while at the same time not infringing on the rights of others. Which is one of the same reasons that I lean Libertarian. The less big government the better.

That said private industrial and commercial land owners have a pretty dismal record of land stewardship over the last few hundred years. And it wasn't until the Government stepped in that some of those lands were saved and properly managed, brought back to beautiful wilderness areas for us all to share and enjoy.

it is kind of a dichotomy that the Republican party who is all about gun rights has taken a stance that it wants to give as much land back to the State's control as possible when the States have a poor track record of keeping that land for the Public's use. if we're going to keep our guns, then we need a place to go hunt with them.

Agree. It's a quite interesting dynamic.

Do you take a hardline FU approach or decide to maybe occasionally possibly hold your nose with "them" to achieve something? And I'm sure that's something some of the members of other green orgs think about, too. Sierra Club went through that about 15ish years ago when they tried to burnish their Us v. Them image by acknowleding hunting-fishing importance. But then they went stupid against trapping, had anti-gun members revolt, and it left things much like before. Izzak Walton League was similar, I think, but no one knows what it is now.

We certainly love the jobs that Big Corporation brings to an area. Then we wonder WTF and ponder the tradeoffs when Big Corporation's fly ash dam bursts and phucks up an entire river. Or the coal company leaves polluted creeks and denuded land "for someone to re-forest." Or the miles of canals from oil-gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico results in more coastal erosion.

I'd love to find a group like BHA that fights for public lands, funding for water-land conservation, and yet doesn't hop on the "no one needs an AR or 30-round magazine!" or "all private landowners must provide access always!" bandwagons.

Let's just say, for example, that Alabama DCNR suddenly was given all the national forest lands here. Bankhead, Talladega (both units), Tuskeegee, Conecuh. Bankhead and T'dega alone comprise almost 600K acres.

DCNR currently is underfunded and understaffed. Suddenly you'd have myriad groups wanting nothing to be done, protections for this bird or that lizard, timber cutting, sale of the land for development - "Hey, you can fund the department for X-years!" - marginal-mild development for outdoors use, and then even more specific things like mountain bikers wanting this or hikers wanting a set-aside or deer hunters wanting trophy bow only buck restrictions.

"Here's your 600K acres. Enjoy." sounds good in theory, sort of. The can of worms that would open, not to mention the rush for development-use at a time when cities are growing and people clearly want more outdoors recreational opporuntiies, would be immense.

Thanks Clem for the information.