BHA interview-cue the haters!

[Bigstone]

Van Tighem is all for this group which means foot access only, no atv's, no predator hunting, no random camping, and on and on and on! They could start out with a definitive statement regarding crown land grazing leases because this is one of the biggest problems Albertans face for access.

[Don_Parsons]

My next move is too jump on board with AFGA, since they have grass roots here in Alberta, and promote it with folks that live in our province.

Don

[alta270]

Originally Posted by matt1984

Here's a quote from Stephen Legault, program director for Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y)

"The main thing that kills grizzly bears in Alberta is access, and anytime we’re reducing access to core grizzly bear habitat, we’re making progress.”

Full quote is:

Stephen Legault, program director for Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y) Conservation Initiative, said progress is being made overall, and notes there is good news in the draft recovery plan.

He said it’s good to see a commitment from the government to lower the acceptable thresholds for the concentration of roads open to public motorized access.

“What we’re seeing is a commitment to lowering the acceptable road density to allow for broader conservation opportunities,” he said.

“The main thing that kills grizzly bears in Alberta is access, and anytime we’re reducing access to core grizzly bear habitat, we’re making progress.”

While the government is lowering the allowable road density in certain bear management areas, Legault said, it does appear the definition of what constitutes a road is changing.

“We will be pushing hard for the lowest possible threshold for recovery, for the lowest possible threshold for linear density,” said Legault.

It is clear when reading the Grizzly Recovery Plan, and hunters were on that board, that linear disturbances, which roads, cutlines and OHV trails are, significantly affect grizzly bear recovery. Read the plan if you doubt that.

Here, I will provide a link, unlike others in this thread, who make assertions but won't back them up:

http://aep.alberta.ca/files/GrizzlyB...Jun01-2016.pdf

I for one am glad that access is constrained, as the sooner grizzly bears recover, the sooner we will have a season for them again. Being a champion of our fish and wildlife is nothing to be ashamed of. Being a champion of our wild spaces is equally nothing to be ashamed of. Wanting unfettered mechanized access is a questionable conservation ethic.

[alta270]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

This is really concerning, in a negative light for BHA.

BHA is committed to promoting the creation of a National and Provincial Park system where the elimination or reduction of non-aboriginal hunting is part of the plan.

Nothing is further from the truth, and stating a "big lie" is not being an honorable tactic. I have specifically posted their hunting policy, and there is nothing in it that states non-aboriginal hunting is part of the plan. Nothing. Do I have to show you that link again?

Hey, why not. Just to show you how it is done.

http://www.backcountryhunters.org/ac...nd_opportunity

From their website:

The Sportsmans Pledge

As a North American hunter and angler,

• I pledge to speak up on behalf of conservation of the clean water, wildlife habitat, sportsman access, and public lands that belong to all of us.
  
• I will defend these values against those individuals, organizations and corporations who would sell or transfer our public lands and erode our habitat, opportunity and freedoms.
  
• I welcome new sportsmen and women, young and old, and will lead by example.
  
• I pledge to leave our wild public lands in better condition than I found them so that future generations can enjoy the benefits we are blessed to have today.

And this supposed to be a PRO-hunting group?

Pretty much looks like it to me.

[alta270]

Originally Posted by kujoseto

You haven't substantiated your glowing praise of BHA.
How about this:
defend your point by finding evidence (not just persuasive opinion from the questionable organization) to prove walking buffalo wrong

See post above.

You have shown you're not interested in proving him right by doing your own Google search. Which to be clear, isn't research. If there is anyone here who has an informed opinion on these matters, it's walking buffalo. You resist buying in to his opinion but in doing so are aligning with the opinion of the BHA group. Either way you'd be taking sides without looking into things for yourself. He's simply suggesting if you did look further, it would quickly become obvious to you where Y2Y stands.

Unless I am aware of the facts, I don't buy into anyone's opinion. Just saying it is so doesn't make it so, and Walking Buffalo has shown a strange way of trying to substantiate his assertions. I am open to learning, but don't just say it, show it.


We are conflating Y2Y with BHA in many of these discussions. BHA is definitely not anti-hunting. Y2Y has some groups supporting it that most of us would say are antis, but many are not. All I am asking is to see real documentation, documentation that no one has been able or is unwilling to show, that they have an anti-hunting policy.

[matt1984]

Originally Posted by alta270

I for one am glad that access is constrained, as the sooner grizzly bears recover, the sooner we will have a season for them again. Being a champion of our fish and wildlife is nothing to be ashamed of. Being a champion of our wild spaces is equally nothing to be ashamed of. Wanting unfettered mechanized access is a questionable conservation ethic.

Grizzly bear numbers seem to be doing pretty damn well in the places they are attempting to limit access. I see probably 5x more Grizzly bears in the Castle, and Livingstone ranges then I see in Banff where the access is extremely limited. If you don't think the Grizzly population is healthy in the Castle maybe you should spend a weekend or two down there

[alta270]

Originally Posted by Bigstone

Van Tighem is all for this group which means foot access only, no atv's, no predator hunting, no random camping, and on and on and on! They could start out with a definitive statement regarding crown land grazing leases because this is one of the biggest problems Albertans face for access.

The AFGA, ACA, Ducks Unlimited and the Nature Conservancy have the same restrictions on their lands. If it's good enough for the hunting organizations.....

[alta270]

Originally Posted by matt1984

Grizzly bear numbers seem to be doing pretty damn well in the places they are attempting to limit access. I see probably 5x more Grizzly bears in the Castle, and Livingstone ranges then I see in Banff where the access is extremely limited. If you don't think the Grizzly population is healthy in the Castle maybe you should spend a weekend or two down there

Agreed, grizzly is doing much better than 10 years ago there. Problem is that endangered/threatened species are managed on a provincial, not WMU, level.

[sjd]

I think the question hunters in Alberta need to ask is why did the AFGA basically concede its proud history on conservation and support for huntable parks and basically allow itself to become infiltrated by motorized interests and become a mouthpiece for ATVs.

Check out AFGA's "top issues" page - 15 things listed - only one land sales, really has any conservation focus at all. Actually opposes habitat protection as Wildland Parks.

I remember the days when AFGA used to be a leading voice for the protection of public lands. Seems like a long time ago, now.

AFGA has shown it will choose unrestricted ATV access on public land over protection of habitat every time. Their position opposing a huntable wildland park in the Castle that will improve habitat for wildlife was a disgrace.

The reason BHA is growing so fast is that many hunters are hungry for a voice that will speak up for protection of habitat, controls on ATV abuse, and wild huntable areas that are rapidly disappearing. I'm sorry that AFGA abandoned this space.

I support the need for both motorized and non motorized areas, but we haven't got the balance right yet. 90% of Alberta's public land is still unrestricted to ATVs. Way too much of Alberta's public land remains unregulated and we need more areas with designated trails and more areas kept wild by restricting motorized use.

[purgatory.sv]

Just a comment then information taken from the y2y site.



As partner you play a role,but who defines indigenous?
The only group mentioned that could have access are indigenous.
Activities will be available but it could be selective?
The following link is a revised update of who could hunt in the park .


https://y2y.net/news/y2y-hunting-pol...vised-2012.pdf
Y2Y's Hunting, Trapping and Fishing Policy Revised Fall 2012 The Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative (Y2Y) is committed to the ecological integrity of, and long term health of habitats and wildlife populations within, the Yellowstone to Yukon region. Within this context, Y2Y recognizes that hunting, trapping, and fishing:

are indigenous rights;

are part of the cultural heritage and economy of the Yellowstone to Yukon region;

are appropriate activities within the Yellowstone to Yukon region, provided that they are conducted in an ethical manner that includes fair chase principles; and

may be appropriate means to help maintain or manage fish and wildlife population health.


In addition, Y2Y acknowledges the legitimacy of wildlife sanctuaries set aside from hunting, fishin,g or trapping where wildlife populations can recover from the impacts of the developed landscape, to protect wildlife genetics from the impacts of selection from human-caused mortality, and which act as source populations for hunting, trapping, and fishing opportunities outside their boundaries.

[HIGHLANDER HUNTING]

[QUOTE=Newview01;3547515]Of course they aren't threatening in real life, what a stupid thing to state.

What changes are coming to the porcupines? No OHVs?[/QUOT

I'm fairly certain that you don't speak to people in real life with this kind of disrespect. If you do, well you probably don't have too many friends.

As for the Porkies.........GO DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!!!!!!

Direct your hate mail to:
highlanderhuntingpodcast@gmail.com

Have a nice day bro.

[HIGHLANDER HUNTING]

Maybe since people are more interested in what the Y2Y stance is on hunting over the BHA stance on anything, Highlander Hunting Podcast will seek out an interview with the local Y2Y people. Apparently the Canadian office is located in Canmore.

But we really didn't want to have a political podcast. I hate that kind of back and forth. It's a backcountry hunting podcast first. So if we do interview Y2Y, it won't be for a while.

Next three episodes:
building a backcountry rifle, Mike is a great resource of info on this subject.
all about rifle scopes, interviewing a local Vortex prostaff, but he kept it pretty vendor neutral.
all about binos and spotters, same prostaff from Vortex.

Cheers,
John, Highlander Hunting Podcast on ITunes and Google Play
highlanderhunting.podbean.com

[SlimChance]

Originally Posted by alta270

We are conflating Y2Y with BHA in many of these discussions. BHA is definitely not anti-hunting. Y2Y has some groups supporting it that most of us would say are antis, but many are not. All I am asking is to see real documentation, documentation that no one has been able or is unwilling to show, that they have an anti-hunting policy.

I think keeping the two distinct is important, as many conservation minded organizations provide funding when projects overlap in scope.

As an example (this isn't BHA or Y2Y, but illustrates the point well):

In 2015/2016 the ACA funded projects by CPAWS and AFGA. (Report available at: http://www.ab-conservation.com/grant...rant-programs/)
If we just corrolate any funding with complete synchronization of ideology, then the ACA must be both rabidly anti-hunting and vociferously pro-hunting at the same time.

It's a lot more likely that organizations work together when they have a mutual goal, even if all their goals don't overlap.

[walking buffalo]

Has anybody been hunting in the Nahanni or Naats'ihch'oh Parks recently?
No? You're not allowed? Thank Y2Y....

Non Aboriginal Hunting WAS part of the cultural heritage and economy of these regions.
Y2Y lobbied in direct conflict with their policy in these cases.

Do you expect to be able to hunt in the Flathead or South Okanagan Parks if they are established as Y2Y is lobbying for?

Has anyone seen Y2Y's main Canadian lobby partner CPAWS, do anything recently to maintain hunting for non-aboriginal people?

BHA Alberta has aligned themselves with these groups.

BHA US chapters took money from the Wilburforce Foundation, a large financier of Y2Y initiatives and a recent recipient of awards from the infamous Defenders of Wildlife.


Nice bed....

[Echo-Gecko]

building a backcountry rifle,

Can't wait for this one! Thanks John

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by SlimChance

I think keeping the two distinct is important, as many conservation minded organizations provide funding when projects overlap in scope.

As an example (this isn't BHA or Y2Y, but illustrates the point well):

In 2015/2016 the ACA funded projects by CPAWS and AFGA. (Report available at: http://www.ab-conservation.com/grant...rant-programs/)
If we just corrolate any funding with complete synchronization of ideology, then the ACA must be both rabidly anti-hunting and vociferously pro-hunting at the same time.

It's a lot more likely that organizations work together when they have a mutual goal, even if all their goals don't overlap.

Yes, that is part of the challenge.

Yet there needs to be a cognizant and honest exposure of who you are working with, a recognition of potential conflicts.

Just using a "partner" for leverage becomes very dangerous when they weigh more than you.


IF BHA openly recognized that Y2Y has anti-hunting tendencies that have proven to be fatal to non-aboriginal access to lands within the corridor, that would be honest and productive.

Despite their propaganda stating otherwise, Y2Y regulated restriction objectives are NOT conducive for maintain non-aboriginal access to nature.

"WE BELIEVE in connection, not separation; in living with nature, not against it."


And yet Y2Y pushes hard to National and Provincial Parks where hunting is eliminated or severely reduced, the ability for non-aboriginal people to pick berries or mushrooms or medicines is no longer allowed.


It wouldn't take much for BHA to take it's own path....

[crazy_davey]

Originally Posted by alta270

In other words, you're going to keep attempting to denigrate me, but not actually provide any back up to YOUR assertions. YOU made the claim, it is not our job to substantiate it... it is yours.

So, once again, please provide substantiation to your claims.

I'm pretty sure you already know all you want to about BHA and Y2Y. You are just here at AO to troll. I find it very funny that your very first post here at AO was in the "BHA Alberta Chapter" thread.

Kevin, is that you?

[SlimChance]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Yes, that is part of the challenge.

Yet there needs to be a cognizant and honest exposure of who you are working with, a recognition of potential conflicts.

Just using a "partner" for leverage becomes very dangerous when they weigh more than you.


IF BHA openly recognized that Y2Y has anti-hunting tendencies that have proven to be fatal to non-aboriginal access to lands within the corridor, that would be honest and productive.

Despite their propaganda stating otherwise, Y2Y regulated restriction objectives are NOT conducive for maintain non-aboriginal access to nature.

"WE BELIEVE in connection, not separation; in living with nature, not against it."


And yet Y2Y pushes hard to National and Provincial Parks where hunting is eliminated or severely reduced, the ability for non-aboriginal people to pick berries or mushrooms or medicines is no longer allowed.


It wouldn't take much for BHA to take it's own path....

I don't think you're wrong to not trust Y2Y. They appear to use or fund hunter friendly groups when it works for them and are just as happy to partner with anti-hunting groups.

I don't see an issue at all with BHA accepting grants. These would be one time, project specific, donations. I do understand the worry that constant funding could lead to meddling with direction and leadership.

I think though, if BHA or similar groups play their hand well, it could be hugely beneficial. Grants are going to go to whomever has a history of delivering. If BHA can create hunter friendly backcountry areas, they may be able to pull those grants away from CPAWS and others who want only parks.

[fargineyesore]

Originally Posted by sjd

I think the question hunters in Alberta need to ask is why did the AFGA basically concede its proud history on conservation and support for huntable parks and basically allow itself to become infiltrated by motorized interests and become a mouthpiece for ATVs.

Check out AFGA's "top issues" page - 15 things listed - only one land sales, really has any conservation focus at all. Actually opposes habitat protection as Wildland Parks.

I remember the days when AFGA used to be a leading voice for the protection of public lands. Seems like a long time ago, now.

AFGA has shown it will choose unrestricted ATV access on public land over protection of habitat every time. Their position opposing a huntable wildland park in the Castle that will improve habitat for wildlife was a disgrace.

The reason BHA is growing so fast is that many hunters are hungry for a voice that will speak up for protection of habitat, controls on ATV abuse, and wild huntable areas that are rapidly disappearing. I'm sorry that AFGA abandoned this space.

I support the need for both motorized and non motorized areas, but we haven't got the balance right yet. 90% of Alberta's public land is still unrestricted to ATVs. Way too much of Alberta's public land remains unregulated and we need more areas with designated trails and more areas kept wild by restricting motorized use.

So you're saying that only groups that oppose OHVs are real conservationists?

[alta270]

Originally Posted by crazy_davey

I'm pretty sure you already know all you want to about BHA and Y2Y. You are just here at AO to troll. I find it very funny that your very first post here at AO was in the "BHA Alberta Chapter" thread.

Kevin, is that you?

In other words, you can't answer the questions either. Stick to the point and quit sidetracking and deflecting.

[alta270]

Originally Posted by fargineyesore

So you're saying that only groups that oppose OHVs are real conservationists?

Can you seriously suggest that OHV use in the backcountry, especially in the East Slopes, is conducive to a conservation ethic?

[sjd]

Originally Posted by fargineyesore

So you're saying that only groups that oppose OHVs are real conservationists?

Nope, I'm saying that groups that work to conserve habitat on public land from industry and recognize that ATVs have impacts that need to be managed and aren't appropriate everywhere are conservationists.

Do you agree?

[boah]

Originally Posted by alta270

Can you seriously suggest that OHV use in the backcountry, especially in the East Slopes, is conducive to a conservation ethic?

If laws are enforced and people are educated, yes. Designated trails and installation of bridges by volunteers, you would think would go a long way. But, unfortunately atv's have been banned in a large area that had this. Now over population in other ar as will become a problem. Great big snowball.

[BDAJ]

Highlander - great podcast! Looking forward to more in the future. As an Outdoorsmen I take great interest in others information and direction towards hunting, angling, and conservation.

Ecko Gecko - thanks for sending me the podcast.


Did I just comment on the OP's original intent of this thread without becoming insulting or making it political? Holy crap I think I did!

When is the backcountry/mountain rifle podcast out that Gecko mentioned?

Kind Regards,

BDAJ - Proud Hunter, Angler, and Conservationist.

[Echo-Gecko]

Originally Posted by BDAJ

Highlander - great podcast! Looking forward to more in the future. As an Outdoorsmen I take great interest in others information and direction towards hunting, angling, and conservation.

Ecko Gecko - thanks for sending me the podcast.


Did I just comment on the OP's original intent of this thread without becoming insulting or making it political? Holy crap I think I did!

When is the backcountry/mountain rifle podcast out that Gecko mentioned?

Kind Regards,

BDAJ - Proud Hunter, Angler, and Conservationist.

I think they come out on Tuesdays?
It should be a good one.
I'm sure they will confirm that the 270 is much better than the 30-06......Can of worms emoji anyone?

[HIGHLANDER HUNTING]

Originally Posted by Echo-Gecko

I think they come out on Tuesdays?
It should be a good one.
I'm sure they will confirm that the 270 is much better than the 30-06......Can of worms emoji anyone?

Hope to have the rifle episode out Tuesday. Maybe Wednesday.
Mike will walk everyone thru his next build- his first Remington chambered in the venerable 270 WSM. I think he said he wants a flat shooting, short action magnum cartridge for the mountains......at least I think that's what he said😆

[alta270]

Originally Posted by HIGHLANDER HUNTING

Hope to have the rifle episode out Tuesday. Maybe Wednesday.
Mike will walk everyone thru his next build- his first Remington chambered in the venerable 270 WSM. I think he said he wants a flat shooting, short action magnum cartridge for the mountains......at least I think that's what he said😆

Ahhhh... then he should have gone with the .243 or 6mm

[alta270]

Originally Posted by boah

If laws are enforced and people are educated, yes. Designated trails and installation of bridges by volunteers, you would think would go a long way. But, unfortunately atv's have been banned in a large area that had this. Now over population in other ar as will become a problem. Great big snowball.

Yet we have plenty of pictures and videos where OHV users avoid the bridges, and run right through the streams. Or making new trails. Our headwaters, streams and wetlands can't take the impact.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by alta270

The AFGA, ACA, Ducks Unlimited and the Nature Conservancy have the same restrictions on their lands. If it's good enough for the hunting organizations.....

So what do we need more land with those restrictions for?

[alta270]

Originally Posted by Newview01

So what do we need more land with those restrictions for?

I guess you don't understand the need for a healthy habitat with a comment like that. If you don't have a conservation ethic, and are in it only for your self, you are part of the problem, not the solution.