No luck:
I will try my best to answer in the short time I have in between tax returns. I think you asked an honest question. Lots more to write than what I have here, but hopefully it clarifies much of what you asked.
First, I have no agenda to abolish SFW. The core of the contention is about how groups should be funded with public resources that are owned by the citizens, how that funding might be used to the detriment of hunters, the level of transparency/accounting, and the amount of self-enrichment that may occur.
I represent a perspective that is different than what is promoted by SFW in many instances. My perspective is that wildlife is held in trust for the citizens of the state. Wildlife is not to be allocated to any specific group for the gain of them or their constituency, to the detriment of the other citizens. That is not only my perspective, but the perspective of the many courts who have ruled on the topic. It is what the courts call the Public Trust Doctrine.
The Public Trust Doctrine is rooted in the 10th Amendment that was part of the Constitution written when we won freedom from England. When the colonists decided they would hold on to the rights of wildlife as collective citizens, that was a conscious decision. They had seen the abuses and exclusion when wildlife was held by the King and the landed nobility. In America, it would be the people?s wildlife.
That set forth a series of court cases, every one of which has sided with the notion that wildlife is held in trust by the states, for the benefit of their citizens. The citizens are the beneficiaries, with the state authorities being the trustees of that wildlife asset. With no benefit to one group of beneficiaries at the detriment of other beneficiaries. With fiduciary duties being placed on the trustees to act in good faith, open and complete actions, with the primary purpose of managing the trust assets (wildlife) for the greatest good of the beneficiaries (citizens).
If SFW is dependent upon, or promotes, the kind of wildlife management that violates the Public Trust Doctrine, then we will obviously have a disagreement. SFW policy will be in disagreement with lots of people who understand and believe this Doctrine to be one of most important principles of wildlife management and allocation.
For those who support the SFW model that allocates trust assets (tags and hunting opportunity) to a specific group of people to the detriment of the other beneficiaries, they will probably see my efforts as an attempt to abolish SFW. It is not. It is an attempt to show how the Public Trust is being violated, and to promote the principles to those who want to change what they don't like in UT.
I don't have a problem with conservation tags, themselves. In many instances, when managed properly, they have done much good. The problem most have is how they become abused, with zero accountability or transparency. And, when they are used for a funding source that is then taken to other states to try implement the UT/SFW model there.
We have them in most every state. But, in most every state they are handled way different than in UT. In most states, they are limited in number, usually only a few per species. In most states you get to hunt only the open seasons. In most states, the proceeds go directly to the state agency for habitat work. In most states, they are not used as the primary funding vehicle for conservation groups; rather those groups go out and do their own fundraising from their own sources.
I can look at the sheep tags for my home state of MT. There is ONE auction and ONE raffle tag. Scarcity keeps prices very high, and does not allow a small pool of guys to buy their way to the front of the line for this very scarce resource, thereby retaining public acceptance of how it works. The money goes to an earmarked account within the agency. It is used for some amazing work. Wild Sheep Foundation keeps 10% for selling, and given the increased value they can get at their convention, is probably a good deal for the state of MT. The state holds the raffle, keeping all proceeds from that, using it for access programs.
Point being, conservation tags have their place in the minds of many. In my mind, they have a place, so long as they do not violate the tenets of the North American Model of wildlife conservation. So long as they do not become the primary business model of a non-profit group, especially a group who refuses to provide any accounting of the proceeds and funds operations in many other states that have a different idea of the way wildlife should be allocated.
Under the principle of the Public Trust Doctrine, I have no say in what you guys decide to do in UT, given I am not a citizen of UT. All citizens of UT are the beneficiaries of the public trust that is recognized for purposes of managing your wildlife. As non-residents, any opportunity that you share with us is gravy. You are not required or compelled to share with us, unless you find it a good deal for your citizens to share with non-residents.
What does become my business, and the business of every person outside of UT, is when the UT model is used for funding SFW activities in other states. If you look at the history of this discussion, not too much was spoken by outsiders regarding SFW, until a few years ago. Most disagreement was among UT guys. When SFW showed up in surrounding states using the UT revenue stream, you saw an increase in interest from hunters in other states.
I try to put myself in the shoes of a UT hunter to see the appeal to the SFW model in UT. Though I struggle to understand it, I am sure there are UT perspectives I don't see, but that does not necessarily make my perspective the only perspective. So long as it stays in UT and that is what the majority of UT hunters want, fine with me.
I would ask you to put yourself in my shoes as someone in MT. We spent 17 years fighting the wolf issue, working toward delisting, implementing our own plan, getting delisted and relisted as the courts used MT/ID as the ping pong ball. We were patient as WY and the USFWS fought their battle. All the while, we are asked to stand on the sidelines while wolves grow like crazy, impacting our wildlife herds.
Finally, in 2011, ID and MT delegations came forward with a solution to get us delisting; that protected all that WY had won in their battles with USFWS; laying the ground work for delisting in other states. It does so in a manner that has a chance of actually passing, rather than the Dead-on-arrival bills SFW was promoting; bills still not head by a committee to this day. Finally some light at the end of tunnel, allowing us to get on with our wolf management plans.
Then, we start getting copies of emails that SFW is trying to kill the deal. A UT group who is a recent arrival to the wolf issue, with very little skin in the game compared to us who have fought for years. We sit in on phone calls with Congressional staff. We visit with lobbyists in DC. We learn what SFW is doing. Almost in disbelief at first we kind of shrug it off as too insane to be true. Eventually, the email piles grow to the point where there is no denial that SFW is using the UT income stream to sink the best chance we have had in years.
It finally comes out that SFW is officially against the bill and is trying to gain favor of other groups to try kill it. None of the other groups join, putting SFW on an island. Seeing the likelihood they will lose, they go on a full court press, hacking on all the other groups, sending out their hatchet squads, etc. making the job of getting this passed much harder than it otherwise would have been. We expected to fight the pro-wolf crowd, but would have never imagined having to fight SFW/BGF.
Fortunately, SFW gets their butts handed to them on this one; MT and ID get delisting; the path is set for the Great Lake States who get delisting in December; WY is protected to continue fighting with the USFWS to the point that it looks like they will get delisting this year.
If left to SFW, none of this would have happened. Because of SFW, it was a lot harder to gain the victory than it could have been. If not for SFW fighting it, resources and political capital could have been combined to gain even more ground on wolves and ESA issues.
Hopefully that gives you perspective of why it is hard for out of state guys to find much appreciation for the efforts of SFW. And, why MT and ID hunters have taken an interest in what SFW is doing in UT, as that is their funding source for work in other states. Why someone like me, who has been involved in wolf politics since 1994, takes serious issue with SFW trying to kill our best delisting option in fifteen years. Why it causes me, and others to spend more time finding out how SFW is funded and how we can communicate with more people as to what went down.
Put yourself in the shoes of an AZ hunter who has spent the last three months fighting the AZSFW proposal that is a copy of the UT model, except it asks for 100+ more raffle tags. AZ hunters have worked tirelessly to create some amazing habitat in marginal country, building an elk herd that is cherished. They wait years for a tag.
Now, along comes the derivative of the UT model, with the same cast of characters advising and starting the group. It is done in backroom deals in the cloak of darkness. Though UT SFW tries to disassociate when it starts going south, their finger prints are on it from the beginning. If you were an AZ hunter, you would suddenly be very interested in what happens in UT
Put yourself in the shoes of the AK hunters who thought things were going pretty well for the most part. Along comes SFW, bragging that they planted one of their own as the Director of AK G&F, causing the existing director to be relegated to some outpost, for nothing more than being outside the political friends of SFW.
The person who is now the AK Director has no qualifications, no experience, and lots of friends in UT. He eventually resigns under charges of illegal hunting and outfitting, but not before dismantling many years of work in AK G&F. As his last parting gift, he sends 4 of the 11 Governor?s tags to UT for his friends at SFW to auction, collecting their 10% commission, plus reasonable administrative fees. Do you now see why the AK guys are keeping an eye on UT?
Do you see why the WY guys are keeping and eye on SFW, when SFW came forward with a proposal to give the WY outfitting industry a special tag allocation?
Do you see why out of state hunters are concerned about the UT model and its funding source, a funding source, unique to the entire country, and by most all perspectives, a complete wipe out of the Public Trust Doctrine.
That is an honest answer to what I think you asked as an honest question.
I am sure to some, it seems biased, as they are vested in SFW and inclined to agree with their leaders in times of dispute about what really went down. Everything in that answer above is fully supported by documents. Everything there has already been proven on this forum, our forum, or other forums. None of that has been denied by SFW, just rationalized or swept under the rug.
You ask how I can support RMEF or MDF. Pretty easy. I look at the people involved and the work they are doing. They are people who have demonstrated trust and commitment to the cause. They are working toward a goal that is shared by the common hunter who makes up most of their membership.
I also look at what they are NOT doing. What a group is NOT doing, is sometimes is more telling about the leadership and the organization.
RMEF and MDF are NOT going to other states, trying to replicate the UT model. They are NOT going to other states and trying to get their own people planted as Directors and Commissioners. They are NOT going to Washington DC, trying to kill the only feasible progress that could come in the wolf issue. They are NOT ??
Point is, some groups earn your trust by their actions. Other groups earn your distrust by their actions.
Personally, I watched the UT deal from afar for a few years, kind of curious as to how it would work and eventually shake out. Though we would burn down the Capitol building in MT if ever we went to a UT-type tag deal, I was curious as to what the UT hunters saw in it.
Once the UT model started easing across the western landscape, I started paying a lot more attention. When UT hunters could get no accounting it was concerning that a classic public resource takeover might be underway. As the large numbers of UT hunters made demands on SFW for accounting, yet none was provided, it became obvious that some fire existed among all the smoke.
I am not vested in abolishing SFW, as you claim. I do understand why you feel that way.
I am interested seeing the influence of the UT model not make it to my home state, or to the states of hunters who believe in the NA Model.
I am interested in giving information and voice to UT hunters who want to see some balance restored to the way their trustees allocate wildlife opportunity in UT.
I am interested in speaking up on behalf of the thousands of self-guided hunters who we have targeted as the audience for our TV show and our talk forum.
I suspect most the volunteers of SFW are like volunteers of most group ? committed to betterment of the species or the state of hunting. That is a commonality among the volunteers of all groups. When I look at the direction or means by which the SFW leaders want to accomplish their objectives, I don't see much commonality with other groups.
If the majority of UT hunters want to continue with the dark secret model of no accounting or transparency, then fine. Knock yourselves out. I sure see a lot of UT hunters who do not like it, and given how the skids are greased within the political system and the Wildlife Board, change will be difficult. My effort in a debate is to show there is information and historical principles that support those wanting change in UT, or change in other states where SFW ideas are popping up.
Hopefully that gives you an honest answer of why others from outside UT are watching the UT/SFW model; how we can support other groups who are not engaging in the same antics as SFW; and why it is not hypocrisy to support those groups.
As far as RMEF and MDF involved in auction/raffle tags, I know what little RMEF makes on auction tags - Almost nothing. RMEF is complete and open with their accounting on these tags. I am not familiar with the MDF accounting, but will be making an inquiry as we near the debate. I have asked for the SFW accounting and will see if I get it. I see no hypocrisy in supporting those groups with a different history of how they use their funds than does SFW. I have confirmed what little RMEF makes on them and the RMEF policy applied when agreeing to auction a tag.
Gotta go. Need to disinherit the Federal Treasury a little more. Will be glad to answer any other questions directed at me, as I find time between now and the filing deadline of the 17th.
Thanks for being forthright about your perspective and where your question comes from.
"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
