SFW rightfully named "Lobbyists"

U

utahheadgear

Guest
Check this out. I think this is the first time I've seen SFW called what they really are....lobbyists. No different than the lobbyists in Washington DC.

Now, you may think lobbyists are good, or you may think they are bad, but the fact is SFW IS a lobbyist organization.

Personally, I think lobbyists are part of what's wrong with our country. I also think they are part of what's wrong with Utah hunting, as this article makes pretty clear, I think.

"Plane to catch".....yeah right!


http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50889688-76/wildlife-deer-percent-utah.html.csp
 
It's an article, right, wrong or indifferent everyone has the right to their own opinion as the author has done. What would this country be if we couldn't have our free speech?
 
Apparently it cannot be quantified which parts were "poor" and "inaccurate"???
 
it seems to me that the real problem is with the wildlife board. even if sfw is lobbying they are the ones making the final decisions. right? i'm really not sure how the process works to be honest. just now trying to figure it all out. who are these people on the board and how did they get there? one thing i think needs to happen if its already not is for those who are on the board need to be on a two or a four year term. just like any political office, there needs to be new blood every few years to decrease the possibility of corruption. is there term limits for the wildlife board. why is the public not involved on who gets voted in to such a important position?
 
thanks brian. sow how does the governor get the names to appoint? is there any kind of term limit for them? can anybody be nominated for the position? i'm not a sfw fan by any means but its hard for me to bash them when they're just doin their job. sure they have an agenda. one that most regular hunters disagree with no doubt. but, they are not making the final decisions. the wildlife board has the ability to tell them to get bent right? maybe there are individuals on the board that is in bed with sfw and if thats the case than they need to be weeded out for sure. or at least be on a term limit so they get rotated out and get some new people in there every couple years
 
Utah Code
Title 23 Wildlife Resources Code of Utah
Chapter 14 Division of Wildlife Resources and Wildlife Board
Section 2.5 Wildlife Board Nominating Committee -- Creation -- Membership -- Terms -- Quorum.

23-14-2.5. Wildlife Board Nominating Committee -- Creation -- Membership -- Terms -- Quorum.
(1) There is created a Wildlife Board Nominating Committee which shall consist of 11 members.
(2) The governor shall appoint members to the nominating committee as follows:
(a) three members shall be appointed from a list of at least two nominees per position submitted by the agriculture industry;
(b) three members shall be appointed from a list of at least two nominees per position submitted by sportsmen groups;
(c) two members shall be appointed from a list of at least two nominees per position submitted by nonconsumptive wildlife interests;
(d) one member shall be appointed from a list of at least two nominees submitted by federal land management agencies;
(e) one local elected official shall be appointed from a list of at least two nominees submitted by the Utah Association of Counties; and
(f) one range management specialist shall be appointed from a list of at least two nominees submitted jointly by the Utah Chapter, Society of Range Management and the Utah Chapter, Wildlife Society.
(3) Each wildlife region described in Subsection 23-14-2.6(1) shall be represented by at least one member and no wildlife region may be represented by more than three members.
(4) The nominating committee shall nominate at least two, but not more than four, candidates for each position or vacancy which occurs on the board.
(5) (a) Except as required by Subsection (5)(b), as terms of current board members expire, the governor shall appoint each new or reappointed member to a four-year term.
(b) Notwithstanding the requirements of Subsection (5)(a), the governor shall, at the time of appointment or reappointment, adjust the length of terms to ensure that:
(i) the terms of board members are staggered so that approximately half of the board is appointed every two years; and
(ii) members from the same wildlife region serve staggered terms.
(c) If a vacancy occurs for any reason, the governor shall appoint a replacement in the same manner that the position was originally filled to serve the remainder of the unexpired term.
(6) The nominating committee shall select a chair and vice chair from its membership.
(7) Six members shall constitute a quorum.
Amended by Chapter 36, 2003 General Session

Tony Abbott
www.myfreehunts.com
The next buck to have a fawn will be the
1st.
 
Not sure about right now but when I was running the MDF Don Peay of SFW was on this nominating committee that gave the names to the Governor.

Tony Abbott
www.myfreehunts.com
The next buck to have a fawn will be the
1st.
 
really? having don peay on that committee is a huge conflict of interest is it not?
 
>really? having don peay on that
>committee is a huge conflict
>of interest is it not?
>

ya think

4a7d1f93337c7fd7.jpg


The harder you work the luckier you get!!
 
So the UWC is mad because the SFW supposedly has too much power and influence so they want to become just like them so they can have too much power and influence to get what they think is right?

Anyone ever heard two wrongs dont make a right? Also when this guy Hansen assumed the SFW was acting in the best interest of themselves and "rich hunters" that was his opinion not fact.
The last poll that was takin on here titled "for or against" their was clearly more people for the wildlife board's decision than against. They're was 3 options given to the board and none of those addressed building the herd but, the board clearly wanted to make building the deer herd a priority going forward with 29 units rather than 5 regions. The author didnt mention that in the article.

Hansen's remarks that "social issue" is code name for "special interest" is speculation at its finest. Just sounds like to me Hansen wants his piece of the pie.

It was very clear the author had his own agenda when printing his article.
 
"The last poll that was takin on here titled "for or against" their was clearly more people for the wildlife board's decision than against."

Brutus to say that poll had anything of value is retarded. A lot of people on MM are in favor of Option 2, but MM is a small group of hunters.

The only good thing about the poll was brutus was able to practice his counting skills.
 
Elite,
I don't think that Brutus said the Poll for or against pulled a lot of weight. He was just pointing out the obvious for people that don't seem to hear what the majority want.

Elite you seem to forget that option two was voted for by the majority of the state Racs and then a majority vote by the Wildlife Board.

Elite you can cry, moan, and complain all you want but majority always wins. This article regarding the SFW is stupid. I don't even like the SFW and I think this article is stupid. They handed the State a check to improve the deer herds in the state of Utah. It had nothing to do with the vote!

Any organization that is part of transferring funds does not just hand over the money in a envelope where no one can see. If I was a SFW member I would want the money exchange to take place in a public place with public recognition.
 
>So the UWC is mad because
>the SFW supposedly has too
>much power and influence so
>they want to become just
>like them so they can
>have too much power and
>influence to get what they
>think is right?
>
>Anyone ever heard two wrongs dont
>make a right? Also when
>this guy Hansen assumed the
>SFW was acting in the
>best interest of themselves and
>"rich hunters" that was his
>opinion not fact.
>The last poll that was takin
>on here titled "for or
>against" their was clearly more
>people for the wildlife board's
>decision than against. They're was
>3 options given to the
>board and none of those
>addressed building the herd but,
>the board clearly wanted to
>make building the deer herd
>a priority going forward with
>29 units rather than 5
>regions. The author didnt mention
>that in the article.
>
>Hansen's remarks that "social issue" is
>code name for "special interest"
>is speculation at its finest.
>Just sounds like to me
>Hansen wants his piece of
>the pie.
>
>It was very clear the author
>had his own agenda when
>printing his article.


It's NOT the UWC that's mad, it's the MAJORITY of hunters in the state. The 3 RAC's that voted for opt 2 certainly DID NOT represent the majority of Utah hunters, although in your dreams it may have.

"Anyone ever heard two wrongs dont make a right? Also when this guy Hansen assumed the SFW was acting in the best interest of themselves and "rich hunters" that was his opinion not fact."

Now that statement makes me laugh, thanks, I needed one. Of course SFW is acting in its own best interest! By creating what they pushed so damn hard, they are virtually assured MORE tags to sell, which is the only revenue keeping them a viable organization! And WHO does SFW cater to?? Those with the dollars and the NEED to hunt big antlers! Good grief.

"They're was 3 options given to the board and none of those addressed building the herd but, the board clearly wanted to make building the deer herd a priority going forward with 29 units rather than 5 regions. The author didnt mention that in the article."

Guess you haven't been paying much attention. How the heck does option 3 help build the herd????? All it does is grow a FEW more bucks and does nothing to grow the herd or its health! At the most, the 29 unit option gives more latitude in where HUNTERS hunt and how many, it has nothing to do with the herd. But then you know that huh?
 
I keep hearing the same thing over and over again. " The majority did not want option 2" where is this a known fact? Was there a real pole given to "ALL" Utah deer tag holders, asking them which option they preferred? I sure never got asked.
 
stillhunterman, your not the majority! Just cause you say it doesnt make it true. Last time I checked 3 is the majority of 5. Man quit yer boobin and b!tchin, I point out that this guy hansen was stating his opinion not facts and you act as if I took your birthday away! Alls your doing is stating your opinion that the SFW is going to get more dollars out of more tags with 29 units. If you think theres going to be big bucks runnin everywhere now that thers 29 units and raising the buck/doe ratio from 15 to 18 bucks youve got a rude awakening coming. Maybe you should quit harboring so much hatered toward the SFW and "those with the dollars and need big antlers" and focus on the DWR that sells the tags to the different foundation's.

I'm pretty sure you need to pay attention when you read the posts. I didnt say option 3 would build the herd. I said the board was given 3 OPTIONS to choose from and none would build the herd. If you would have listened to the board meeting you would have herd the board talk about every issue affecting mule deer numbers and that they (DWR) needed to focus on doing everything possible to focus on these problems and build the deer numbers. The board took the racs recomendations into considerations and thought that option 2 was the best way to start getting are deer herd back on track.

Take a breath, calm down and READ carefully before you post.
 
At least i'm objective. I have zero interest in the SFW and have never purchased an auction tag. I dont harbor any feelings good or bad toward people who buy auction tags or sell them. I'm pretty sure I pay closer attention than most to all details not just the ones that suit my personal gains.
 

Similar threads

Hunt4more
Elk Big Horns Type NINER
Replies
1
Views
510
nfh
nfh

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_6998 copy.jpg
AZ elk 2.jpeg
IMG_4875.JPG
IMG_0053 copy.jpg
IMG_0164.jpeg
37B0AAEE-244D-4B55-9697-F308E467D781.jpeg
IMG_0787.jpeg
Md216.jpg
MD217.jpg
8AE6BB82-1D09-491D-8B37-49B2229F6A7F.jpeg
D81CE768-215A-4A13-8EE6-007608D50CCA.jpeg
B9887A49-534A-4343-BD2C-73D357B4C007.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom