Outdoor Retailer Show To Leave SLC

NVBighorn

NVBighorn

Long Time Member
Messages
9,458
Hitting them in the pocketbook is the only language they speak.


http://www.tetongravity.com/story/news/breaking-outdoor-retailer-to-leave-salt-lake-city

Breaking: Outdoor Retailer To Leave Salt Lake City


Last year's summer show. This photo is a screenshot from OR's 2016 Summer Market Recap Video.

SALT LAKE CITY ? The Outdoor Retailer show is officially on the hunt for a new venue, with industry leaders saying they hope to find a new location to hold the events "as soon as possible."

According to a report published in The Salt Lake Tribune, the decision to formally leave Salt Lake City and begin the process of seeking a new venue began after talks between outdoor industry officials and Utah Governor Gary Herbert broke down in recent days.



"Unfortunately, what we heard from Governor Herbert was more of the same," an Outdoor Industry Association (OIA) written statement claimed.

?It is clear that the governor indeed has a different perspective on the protections of public lands from that of our members and the majority of Western state voters, both Republicans and Democrats ? that's bad for our American heritage, and it's bad for our businesses. We are therefore continuing our search for a new home as soon as possible.?

Emerald Expositions, the owner of the show, has said that it is currently on the hunt for a new venue.

?We are ... continuing our search for a new home as soon as possible.?

"Salt Lake City has been hospitable to Outdoor Retailer and our industry for the past 20 years, but we are in lockstep with the outdoor community and are working on finding our new home," said Marisa Nicholson, show director for Outdoor Retailer.

On average, Outdoor Retailer brings over 40,000 people to Salt Lake every year, and has been estimated to generate as much as $45 million for the city?s local economy.

Amy Roberts, chief of the OIA, made clear that they will continue to support public lands whether under attack from private, or public interests.

"it is important to our membership, and to our bottom line, that we partner with states and elected officials who share our views on the truly unique American value of public lands for the people and conserving our outdoor heritage for the next generation."
 
Maybe SF or LA. They can sell spotted owl and wolf t-shirts and offer seminars on growing weed on public land.

:D
 
Maybe Reno. Our Governor isn't an idiot and some of our congressional reps could use a lesson in what's important.
 
I say go to Denver there's plenty of grape nuts over there. I'm proud of Herbert ,Utah has 6 or 7 national parks millions of acres of wilderness how much more do you want to take. Sorry I don't trust you.About 30 years ago the federal government came in and made a migratory bird refuge,we could hunt deer pheasants anything other than migratory birds.That lasted for ten years.For the last 20 years it's been closed to all hunting,and that's what will happen to the bears ears.
 
I understand arns. Just don't put too much faith in your state folks either. They will screw you over and rape, pillage and loot everything that you like about Utah in the name of money. They don't care about you. Which migratory bird refuge are you referring to if I might ask?
 
>I say go to Denver there's
>plenty of grape nuts over
>there. I'm proud of Herbert
>,Utah has 6 or 7
>national parks millions of acres
>of wilderness how much more
>do you want to take.
>Sorry I don't trust you.About
>30 years ago the federal
>government came in and made
>a migratory bird refuge,we could
>hunt deer pheasants anything other
>than migratory birds.That lasted for
>ten years.For the last 20
>years it's been closed to
>all hunting,and that's what will
>happen to the bears ears.
>


Who don't you trust?

What's the name of this Wildlife Refuge that is now closed to hunting?

What are you going to do when that POS Herbert locks you out of public land like he locked you out of 2700 miles of rivers and streams?
 
>I understand arns. Just don't put
>too much faith in your
>state folks either. They will
>screw you over and rape,
>pillage and loot everything that
>you like about Utah in
>the name of money. They
>don't care about you. Which
>migratory bird refuge are you
>referring to if I might
>ask?

I believe he is talking about the Ouray bird refuge
 
The constituents so to speak of the show will be ever increasingly parallel to the likes of the Sierra Club and company. Either way access will be restricted more and more. Regardless of the reasons that prevail, in the long run, the sportsman as we know it will lose. There will be a few hold out gigs for the Denny's of the world just like Europe and Africa. Short of that, access will be lost in the name of preservation. I see neither scenario as anything to be excited about.

If you'd of told a crowd circa 1950 that a director of a wildlife board could unilaterally criminalize you for picking up shed antlers on your own property they'd have run you out on a rail. Chew on that for some perspective for awhile.
4abc76ff29b26fc1.jpg
 
"Hunting on the Ouray Refuge is permitted for ducks, geese, coots, pheasants, deer, elk and turkeys ONLY in designated areas with seasons and weapons restrictions. For more information on Refuge hunting areas, maps and regulations download the Hunting and Fishing Regs or call Refuge staff at 435-545-2522. (Problems Printing Your Document? Download the file, place it on your desktop, then print it.) For information on Utah State hunting licenses, seasons, and regulations check out the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources website."


Took this from the Ouray NWR website.
 
It was bird refuge now it's bird and wild life refuge.Its all about power the Feds take from the state the state takes from the counties the counties take from the city's and they all take from us.So these retailers are just like them if they don't get what they want they start making threats and the public takes in the butt again. You talk about Herbert taken all the rivers.What about all the school trust land we own, you and I that's land locked.And we're talking millions of aces by big ranches and land owners. Why don't those retailers go after that. They think they have enough power over the state but not the federal government that's why
 
This sucker is a tar baby the size of the Great Salt Lake.

There is good and bad coming out of this but over all I'm glad to see the Outdoor Retailers go else where.

There are two issue here, both separate yet so tightly bounded together, if you touch either one you get sucked in by the other.

Issue one: Bears Ears Monument and previous Federal Government actions tightening use and management of more of land with in Utah's State boundaries.

Issue two: Utah and Western State's efforts to transfer management and control of Federal lands with in their boundaries, brought on and catalyzed by the Federal Government's constant actions to tightening use and management of more of land with in Utah the Western State's boundaries.

I'm against both issue one and issue two. The Outdoor Retailers support issue one and are against issue two.

What I think and hope may be happening, as a result of the "spot light" that the media has given the Outdoor Retailer Show announcing they are leaving, is broadened the knowledge of an otherwise uninterested and uninformed citizenry. Broadened enough to get them more engaged in resisting more National Monuments and at the same time learning what it will be like if the State takes over the management of all Federal lands in the State.

To the degree that, we start electing Federal Representatives that put a stop to the Federal Government tightening and restricting the use of public lands and get back to managing them under the original intent of the Multiple Use concept, which was the concept that the States agreed to when the USFS and BLM were original founded, and managing these public land, at the Federal level, so they can compensate the State's an equitable income off the acreage. When that happens, the States will back off, because they will no longer have justification to take over the land.

So, good for the Outdoor Retailers, they have opening the ears and eyes of a lot of people that haven't been paying attention. We should leverage their "effort" in our favor. Which is not what Outdoor Retailers want to see happen.

And 1911, you're dead on in your analysis.

DC
 
arns, if you want to compare a National Monument to a Bird Refuge, that's fine. If you want to learn about the actual affects of National Monuments on hunting and not just fear-mongering, here you go...

https://headwaterseconomics.org/wphw/wp-content/uploads/NatlMon_Permitted_Uses.pdf

http://www.publiclandsranching.org/htmlres/PDF/KerrSalvo_Grazing_Natl_Monuments.pdf

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...596/National_Monuments_low-res.pdf?1477946596

As for the Outdoor Retailers show. Anybody that has seen Herbert say this (
) understands that he is promoting the selling of public lands. Too bad SFW is anti-public land or they could pull their support too.

Grizzly
 
You said no migratory bird hunting then you said no hunting allowed at all. You have no clue what you're talking about. A typical Herbert voter.

Oh btw, even the state owned WMAs have restrictions and areas off limits to hunting too.
 
Griz, I suppose most everyone of us on here are committed to the outdoors and the hunting life style, some of us have bigger concerns than "just hunting". I understand what you're saying but for many, many, many of your friends and your neighbors, there is more to this tar baby than just hunting access. You can ignore that if you choice but you may be better served if you tried to see a larger world of the issue, in your effort to secure the hunting life style. Roosevelt certainly did.

DC
 
2lumpy, you made my point exactly. Hunters should join the non-consumptive recreation crowd and fight the land grab precisely because public access is a lot more than just hunting.

SFW is not charged with protecting private property rights, education funding, the oil industry, or grazing allotments. SFW is charged with protecting hunting and angling.

Why hasn't SFW done what they said they would do and protect their hunting members by joining the fight against the land grab?

I pray Herbert and SFW don't get their way and we lose our public lands forever.

Grizzly
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-18-17 AT 00:37AM (MST)[p]Lumpy is right , although not in the way he wants to be. it's about a lot more than hunting. It's about having the freedom of public lands, Hunting is one use but not all.

Herbert is a money loving politician, he has no desire to use public land and sees no reason for its existence.

Multiple use doesn't mean all uses for all lands , all the time. wilderness , wildlife refuges , mine sites and gas and oil drilling are all part of the multiple vise concept.
 
I have yet to see anyone explain why state control of federal lands will make the state immune to the federal laws that control them.
Much less how the state is going to manage all the lawsuits that go with management
14 million to get control and how much to overcome the horse lobby to get rid of vermin on the desert.
 
>I have yet to see anyone
>explain why state control of
>federal lands will make the
>state immune to the federal
>laws that control them.

Finally somebody that understands the intricacies of what is actually happening.

All the laws that the Republicans cite as "overreach" are blind to land-ownership and are just as applicable on State or private land. The land grab is no cure for this "overreach". But only leaves the state with expenses and liabilities that come with ownership without the freedom from federal law.

If the Legislature wanted to actually improve something, they'd just change those laws into something less intrusive, which would actually be far easier and more effective legislatively than the land grab.

But it's not those overreaching laws they're trying to change. They just want the land privatized (see my Herbert video above).

Here's how it works...

Big money special interests pump millions into legislator's pockets (92% of contributions in Utah are from special interests). The politicians keep that money for themselves once they retire.

Those politicians pump millions from taxpayers into SFW/BGF pockets. We have no idea where that money is spent, they refuse to show us, but a Legislative Audit points out concerns regarding that money.

SFW/BGF leaders give money back to those politicians (you can search these contributions online and see the same legislative Audit cited a potential comingling of funds to this effect).

The politicians then again seek to give millions more to SFW/BGF (they're going for $2,000,000 this year alone).

Now we're at a place where SFW/BGF, a group whose sole job is protect sportsmen, apparently is now the only group that instead supports the land grab. Some of you remain blind, most of us can connect the dots.

But the SFW Kool-aid drinkers don't demand that SFW support hunting like they're supposed to and oppose the land grab, they imply that SFW wants to protect other interests instead of hunting and wildlife (like grazing, oil, education funding, commercialization, etc...).

SFW, you aren't an education-funding group, or a drill-baby-drill group, or a sheep-grazers group. You're a hunting group. Join all the other hunting groups and companies and oppose the land grab. It might cost you millions in taxpayer welfare funds, but at least you'd be doing what you're telling your members you're doing.

Grizzly
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-18-17 AT 10:37AM (MST)[p]
From SLTrib.com...

"It turns out that losing the Outdoor Retailer trade show is going to cost the state a lot more than anyone realized ? with a half-billion dollars going away and potentially much more.

That's because just a few short weeks ago the retailers were ready to make a big commitment to the state, according to sources aware of the deal but not authorized to speak, planning to expand dramatically from two shows a year to five, more than doubling the economic impact and locating in Salt Lake City through 2023.

The organizers of the event had been in talks since early this year and had gone so far as to sign a nonbinding letter of intent. (They declined comment, saying they do not publicly discuss confidential documents.) Local tourism officials had begun the process of locking down hotel rooms and rescheduling other convention business for the five scheduled dates."

(http://www.sltrib.com/news/4955606-155/gehrke-stubborn-drill-baby-drill-rhetoric-philosophy-costs)

These land-grabbers are costing us hundreds of millions of dollars, trying to sell our public land to their financial donors... and SFW is carrying their water. Despicable!

Grizzly
 
Grizzly,

Would you kindly post up your 1040 for 2016. In one year please post your 2017 1040. I would like to see how many exact dollars this cost you.

This is what you don't get. Millions go out one door while billions come in another. That's why you are having trouble getting other people to here your plight for your welfare hunt and a hiking trail.
 
Tristate , Many people hear Grizzly. Few listen to you.

We like our hunting and hiking trails, in fact they are yours too. So feel welcome to enjoy the freedom, it's great.
 
Aaaa didn't SFW come out last week with an official stance??? I know Don himself spoke to that stance last night?
 
I'm not looking to be the voice of masses, Piper. I am just trying to explain how this win/loss money relationship works. These politicians don't just wake up one morning and decide to sink your free ride for no reason.

Doesn't mean they are right or wrong. Just means I doubt they care about a newspapers made up millions of dollars.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-18-17 AT 04:37PM (MST)[p]
>Aaaa didn't SFW come out last
>week with an official stance???

No they did not. SFW came out against the selling of public lands, but not the land grab that will invariably lead to the selling of public lands. They have also not demanded that the law include verbiage that forbids the selling of public land. Isn't that the first thing SFW should demand? Either they haven't done it, or they don't have nearly the power and clout they want everybody to think they have. Which is it?

I have personally requested that verbiage from Mike Noel and he refused. SFW either hasn't made that demand or chooses to be okay supporting the land grab without those protections. The fact the legislator's won't forbid themselves from selling land should be enough to make any hunter oppose the land grab. But SFW sits on their hands.

Muley_73, I know you're bloated with SFW Kool-aid, but even people on the inside of SFW are demanding a position against the entire land grab. You can still be a SFW supporter and want to protect public land by opposing the land grab, many other SFW supporters already do.

I look forward to the day that I start seeing emails from SFW telling us to contact our Representatives and tell them to vote against the land grab. I look forward to the day that Don Peay organizes a rally of camo-clad hunters on the Capitol steps opposing the land grab. I look forward to the day I can join SFW and know I'm part of a group that puts wildlife and hunting first, as so many people expect them to do.

We all know how successful SFW has been and can be. As soon as I see that effort put towards protecting public lands and the hunters they're sworn to work for, I'll send in my membership and start contributing. Until then, they're a wolf in sheep's clothing as far as I'm concerned while they sit idly by and release token non-statements without actually taking a stance to save our public lands.

Every other hunting company and conservation group sees what is happening and is trying to save public lands. SFW is doing nothing.

Grizzly
 
"What are you going to do when that POS Herbert locks you out of public land like he locked you out of 2700 miles of rivers and streams?"

Sorry ,,, but there were never 2700 miles of rivers and streams open to trespass in Utah.

Except for a couple of short windows put in place by a judge. One quickly legislated close and another over turned by a higher court,,and rightly so.
 
Im glad im not th only one with multiple personalities on this one. The thought of herbie have control, is scary as hekl. On the flip side, do i really want elizabeth warren in control?

What i do know is this, my redneck, red blooded american side answers "dont let the door hit you in the azz", whenever anyone threatens to leave. It seems like 10-20 years ago, they, and us were in some agreement on public land. If a law came down forbidding rock climbing, the hunters would have protested with them. I dont believe for a second the reverse would be true, and in fact believe much of their ranks to be anti hunting, and anti gun. Its a hit to Salt Lake for sure, but thats it. Them leaving or staying dudnt effect San Juan county economics one dollar. And thats the county that took a big hit from locking down land. Same as Garfield did with Grand Staircase. The gov is the gov for those people too, not just SLC, and these monuments hurt them, one only needs check Garfield county economics before and after Staircase.

Im sure if $fw could have another 200 tags, they could feel the void for the tourism department. Honestly, regardless of your feelings on them, what do you want to bet THE DON aint selling that right now?




"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
I am perfectly fine with the Outdoor Retailers leaving SLC, if in fact they really do leave. I was fine with them being here, as well. (Notice they realy haven't left, just say they won't seek proposals from Utah in a few years.)

The Outdoor Retailers have held far too much influence in Utah politics for way too long. It seems like it was a yearly tantrum about something that always brought on threats. The fact is, The Outdoor Retailers had one and only one card to play - "we will leave if we don't like your politics". That card has been played and they have nothing left constructive to add to the discussion.

The fact is the majority of Utahns support Herbert and the legislature's attempt to reduce the size of the Bear's Ears monument. Of course this isn't unanimous, not even the second coming would be seen as a good thing by everyone in Utah, or any state.

I don't think the majority of Utahns support transfer of federal lands to the state. We will have to see. Overreach in the Bear's Ears and on other federal lands fuels the state's rights movement. I certainly don't think the Feds have Utah's best interest at heart. Doesn't mean that I trust the State government either. Unfortunately there isn't a third, positive alternative.

I'd be happy to just maintain the status qou, but change is inevitable, and the big money interests (politicians, wackos and corporations) will always push to gain some advantage.

Bill
 
Sorry castnshoot but you are actually wrong on this one. Recent court decisions did not create the public easement in Utah's rivers and streams, it merely recognized and clarified the public easement that has existed since the adoption of the Utah Constitution. And by the way, it it not trespassing if you use an easement. Let's hope the Utah Supreme Court gets this one right and unwinds the efforts of the Utah Legislature and groups like SFW to strip the public of its access rights.

-Hawkeye-
 
Bill, I think your observations and comments are very insightful and accurate. These are interesting times for Utah and the rests of the Nation. I believe it is all interwoven, with many of us caught in the middle, without knowing how to find a reasonable resolution.

DC
 
It appears Utah lost far more than they thought. Apparently the Outdoor industry had a letter of intent to expand the twice a year show to 5 times a year. The interbike show was also considering to move to Utah which would have brought an impact of $22 million a year itself. All that Utah delegation had to do was back off on Bears Ears and the transfer. Apparently that meeting didn't go well and they were essentially told to take a hike in a bad way. Right after that meeting they tore up the letter of intent and decided they would depart from Utah. Utah just gave up about half a billion dollars over their ridiculous and stupid interest in remaining in the drill only economy and turning away from a diversification of economy. One things for sure, whatever state gets this show is gonna be greatly appreciative of it. Go ahead Utahns, keep voting for these same crooks not listening to you and screwing you.

http://www.sltrib.com/home/4955606-...by-drill-rhetoric-philosophy-costs-all?page=2
 
I am enjoying this thread, almost too much. Have at it, boys! The Centennial State will happily pick up the slack, with our copious federal lands operated for conservation and recreation. And every year the price of NR tags goes up. Cha-ching!
 
Now the Utah Legislature appropriated $350,000 to pay themselves to teach each other about Federalism. The money came from the Natural Resources Committee and was sponsored by Ken Ivory.

What do you bet the primary focus is using more taxpayer funds to convince more Republicans to privatize public land?

SFW could really help fight this land grab. But, alas, they're apparently the only hunting group to support the privatization of public land. Either that, or they don't want to tick off Ken Ivory and Mike Noel... too big of a chance of losing those millions of dollars of untraceable taxpayer funds. Better just play "neutral" like they claim they did on the Stream Access Bill.

Grizzly
 
Grizzly,
What is so hard to understand about SFWs statement they issued. "SFW is opposed to the sell of any public land". Is that not what we are all fighting for?
 
Grizz so much hate and disdain towards SFW. SFW did come out against privatizing public land. You sound like a disgruntled exemployee. I'd hate to see you stroke out over SFW supporting something you care so much about...public lands.
 
SFW came out against the selling of public land, but not the land grab. There is a huge and distinct difference between the two, and one they know very well. I won't go into the details at this time on how I know they're aware of the distinction, but I may have to in the future.

Notice on my dozens of posts about the financial feasibility of the land grab, nobody has ever disputed the contention that the land grab was economically impossible. Even the politicians know land will have to be sold and refuse to put language in the bill forbidding it. How can anybody support a group that doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to oppose that? Especially when those same guys will proclaim the power of SFW to get things done. Great, then get SFW to oppose the land grab and finish it once and for all.

To oppose the land grab and simultaneously believe in the power of SFW, but not insist that SFW use that power to stop the land grab means you're putting an inanimate organization ahead of the public lands we all depend on. It's counterintuitive to love a group that supports hunting, but believe they shouldn't make a strong stance against the law that will probably have a greater negative affect on hunting than anything else in our lifetime.

Like I pointed out to Deloss, SFW isn't supposed to consider the oil companies interests, or that the land grab means more sheep could graze on what was once a National Forest.

SFW is supposed to work for hunters. They should do their freaking job.

Grizzly
 
Hawkeye, There is a lot of confusion on the so called right to tresspass issue in Utah due to a lot of alternative facts put out by some liberal fly fishing lawyers.

But no you never could just wonder down every dribble of water in Utah when ever you wanted.

This whole thing is being sorted out according to navigability,, just like most states in this country have already done.

And no there is no where near 2700 miles of historically navigable waters in Utah.

That being said,, when all is said and done there will likely be a hand full of new waters opened up on a few stretches of a few bigger rivers.

No re-writing of the Utah constitution needed.
 
>Grizzly,
>What is so hard to understand
>about SFWs statement they issued.
> "SFW is opposed to
>the sell of any public
>land". Is that not
>what we are all fighting
>for?


But they do not say they are against the transfer of federal lands the state. Whether they support privatization or not will be moot. The first time the states are cash strapped they will begin to slowly sell the best most salable lands regardless of what SFW says they want. The states will be managing for the most revenue.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-20-17 AT 10:07AM (MST)[p]

And if you dont think the state of Utah getting the revenue from the outdoor show benefit San Juan county or any oher county indirectly then you have your head in the sand. More revenue for the state takes that revenue demand off of some other area. Thatd be like saying your wife losing her job wont affect how much money you can spend on hunting.

For example, if Nevada outlawed gaming I could say good ridence to it because I dont gamble. But somebody has to make up that revenue and economic input.
 
Castnshoot, I have been following this topic for several years and understand the issue quite well. The fact that you refer to the issue as the "right to trespass" as opposed to the "public easement" suggests that you are either ill informed or have a strong bias on the topic. And frankly, I am grateful for those folks you refer to as "liberal flyfishing lawyers" who had the cojones to take on the State of Utah, the legislature, the DWR, landowners and developers on behalf of sportsmen like you and me. Let's wait and see what the Utah Supreme Court does with this issue and hope they get it right.

If you want to discuss trespassing then let's properly frame the issue. When I enter the Lower Provo River from a public access point and I am politely flyfishing in the campground section below Deer Creek Dam, I am not trespassing. In contrast, if some fool is traipsing across your land, littering or taking a dump on your property then go ahead and have him cited for trespassing and littering. I will wholeheartedly support you on that one. There are already laws in effect to address those problems without having the state legislature take away the public's right to access public waters.

-Hawkeye-
 
+1 Hawkeye.

I was going to respond to Castnblast's misinformed jibberish but decided not to waste my time.

Sincerely,
A fly fishing, small animal killing, concealed carry permit holding, death penalty proponent Liberal.
 
"But somebody has to make up that revenue and economic input."

And.....therein lies the elephant in the room.

DC
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-21-17 AT 12:47PM (MST)[p]Does anyone know what Don Peay said about the transfer of public lands during his speech at the Expo? M73 said that Don addressed the issue on Friday evening. Was anyone in attendance that can provide a report? I would be curious to see if Don and SFW are coming around or of they are still trying to straddle the fence on the issue.

-Hawkeye-
 
There were a list of sfw "mission" bullet points put up on the overhead screen for a few seconds....the first one as I recall stated something on the order of "Keep Public Lands Public". Something to that effect. There was also mention of the Bear's Ears, and the statement was made that "we're not done with that yet".
 
What day was the Public Land Rally that SFW held to march from the Salt Palace to the State Capitol Building?

Grizzly
 
>What day was the Public Land
>Rally that SFW held to
>march from the Salt Palace
>to the State Capitol Building?
>
>
>Grizzly


Just never enough?
 
Why didn't SFW have everybody fill out those cards to send to politicians pre-printed with an anti-land-grab slogan?

They've done it in the past when they were trying to get government handouts for wolf money, so we know they're familiar with the idea.

FYI, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers had people fill out postcards at the Expo to mail to elected officials (it's on their Facebook page).

It would be nice having SFW join the public land train for real and not just try and play down the middle. Instead of using all the tools we've seen in the past, they're hoping to make an obscure, vague post on their website and think it will give them cover as being pro-public-land without actually having to risk their political allies.

I'm not forcing their actions, just simply pointing out their inaction so people can decide for themselves whether SFW is truly a friend of public land or not.

Grizzly
 
>Just never enough !
>
>DC

Hey DC, get SFW to put the same effort into stopping the land grab and saving public lands as when they're asking for taxpayer money, and then we'll talk about "enough".

Grizzly
 
> Grizz cause now you need
>them???? Too funny!!!


Not need them
Just bringing out the observation that all sportsman can see
Too funny!!!
 
Hey Griz, I turn 70 in June, I'm not telling SFW anything, anymore, or anyone else. I told you all, my ship sailed after the end of the last Five Year Mule Deer Committee meetings concluded, some years ago. Nothing left to say, in any formal/proactive way. Haven't attended a public hearing or a SWF planning meeting since. My sum total involvement is helping with the Richfield Banquet and some local, on the ground projects.

I've read your personal experience with SFW, it was the polar opposite from mine. After 14/15 years of involvement, I have upmost respect for Don Peay and most of SFW's leadership.

Regarding SFW's position on Federal Land and my personal experience.

I was in the first SFW meeting, with their Board members, their Chapter Chairmen, and those interested peons, like myself, that wanted to attend. I can't see where anything has changed since that day some, three or four years ago.

It went about like this.

Don asked if he could address the group about a concern he had regarding a movement within the political community in the State to fund an effort, through the Legislature. He explained many Legislators and citizens where very frustrated with the Federal government changing the status of State lands and using the regulation of public land in Utah for National political gain with voters from outside of Utah. Most, but not all, the people in the room were very frustrated with the Federal government's years of managing inside the State of Utah from Washington DC and managing it to get the support of a lot of people who want to see these lands be managed differently than the present USFS and BLM system, and a lot of those groups are anti hunting and anti gun groups. No need to name the groups, we all know who they are.

Don waited while a lot of different individuals expressed a lot of opinions. After a lengthy discussion regarding "what might happen", if the State won and got the land transfer and "what could happen" if they didn't and the Feds continued to use Utah public land as a political tool. I can tell you this, every point that has been made by you and everyone else on MM , for the last three years, was talked about, for and against. It was discussed. And the greatest concern was the, "We don't trust the Feds" and "We don't trust the State", and what ever the hell happens we need to make sure that who every wins this pending "tug-o-war" leaves the land public so it can continue to be available to the public to hunt and fish.

Eventually Don asked, What do you want me to do? Do you want SFW to keep a seat at the negotiating table, to do all we can to make sure we don't loose access? There was "again" a second round of concern expressed by everyone. When you don't trust either side, what should you do? In the end, the group agreed that we need to, about all else, above any personal relationships anyone had with people at the State level, or the Federal level, at the very, very least, we need to stay engaged and demand, with whatever leverage we could muster, that we make sure all of the "public lands" stay public and allow hunting, fishing access.

Now.... as I recall, that was the second to the last SFW meeting I attended. Since that time, Don meet Donald Trump's boys at the Shot Show in Las Vegas, two years ago. He learned, to his surprise, like everyone else, that Eric and Don Jr. where avid hunting/fishing sportsmen. Now.........this was well before the first Republican Debate when everyone in the country thought Donald Trump was a "fool" and a Television Reality Circus Clown. After spend a week with the Trump son's, Don told me, these boys are the real deal and I'm going to try to help get Donald Trump elected, he and his son's are fully supportive of keeping our public land hunting and fishing accessible. Then Don went out and spent 18 frantic months making good on that effort, against all odds. Utah hated Trump, remember? Don Jr., right during the middle of his father's toughest campaigning period, dropped everything and spend two days walking the floor of the Western Hunting Expo and spoke twice to large groups of dinner guests. I posted his picture on MM the night he spoke to the dinner I attended, remember, Griz, remember? You do remember, don't you!

Now how stupid of Don Peay, to attach himself to a "sure looser", ie Donald Trump?

Don Peay is one of the smartest people if ever meet and I've spend hours, one on one, with Leavitt, Huntsman, and countless Federal and State Legislators and bureauocrats. I've been face to face, man to man with Chaffetz and Stewart. Don Peay is smarter than any of them, I guarentee you!

Don Peay has been working, non-stop to make sure guys like you and guys like my kids and grandkids, get to hunt and fish on public land since the day the public land transfer idea spawned four years ago. Before you even knew it was coming. He picked the right candidate to campaign for, didn't he. Utah voted Republican, didn't it. Don doesn't take credit for that but he damn sure should get credit for picking the only candidate, be it Hillary Clinton or any other Republican including Ted Cruz, (who came out for support of the lands transfer) when the only candidate supporting keeping the land public was the "sure looser")

Griz you keep harping and harping and harping, asking SFW to do some thing and take a position.

They have and they've been in the trenches for a lot longer than you have any idea. Don, the extremely smart, but not so likable Don Peay, put all his and your marbles, in the Trump candidacy. Why? For you, you ungrateful, narrow minded, self centered boob.

Griz, you keep asking SFW to take a position. They have! You read it on their web page and I just gave it to you again. Now I'm going to give you a little back at ya! You've earned it.

SFW has to my knowledge, never turned anyone away from their organization, rather than setting on your computer day and night, b!tching about what SFW is or isn't doing, "join again" and start attending their meeting and give you input. You think you can get more by badmouthing them on the Internet forums than you can face, as a paid contributing membe? Your wrong. I was never more than a member of SFW, never a Chapter Chairman, Vice Chairman, never a State officer, nor have I ever had any thing other than a membership in the org. I attended dozens of SFW's meeting, I argued with the Leadership in meeting with them, including Don Peay. Some of them don't all like me very much. I had an influence. Others I know have done exactly the same thing as I have, they've had influence.

If you want influence with SFW, which you keep demanding I or other do, pay your membership dues and do it yourself, on the inside, like a man. You think you know? You don't know squat! If you want to know, put your $35 where your mouth/keyboard is and get involved again, or stop expecting anything but silence.

You tell me Griz, if Don Peay was up your a$$ like you've been up his, would you give him the time of day?

DC
 
DC, there is a lot more that you don't know about this subject than there is that you do know.

I'll send you a PM since some things should be discussed privately.

Grizzly
 
Griz, you're on a mission, don't you dare hold back. You go a head and enlighten us, I would never want be found guilty of hollering Whoa at a horse race.

You shouldn't be so kind, it's not in your nature.

DC
 
DC, thanks for posting and sharing your recollections of SFW meetings. You stated the following regarding the internal SFW discussions on the public lands issue:

"[W]hatever the hell happens we need to make sure that who every wins this pending "tug-o-war" leaves the land public so it can continue to be available to the public to hunt and fish."

"In the end, the group agreed that we need to, above all else, above any personal relationships anyone had with people at the State level, or the Federal level, at the very, very least, we need to stay engaged and demand, with whatever leverage we could muster, that we make sure all of the "public lands" stay public and allow hunting, fishing access."

If SFW is so concerned about protecting the public's right to access public lands so they can hunt and fish then how on earth did SFW end up on the wrong side of the stream access issue? Why did SFW side with the politicians, landowners and developers and go against the rights of sportsmen and fishermen on that important issue? From the outside there appears to be a pattern whereby SFW puts its relationships with donors and politicians above the rights and interests of its constituents. Tell us about the internal discussions that led to SFW supporting HB 141, which limited stream access for sportsmen.

-Hawkeye-
 
"There appears to be", another gaping hole in the "all I'm concerned about is the "CHECK BOOK TRANSPARENCY" of the ant-SFW smoke screen.

Out runs the boy from the back of the bus, again, proving once again, that he will use any and every excuse to undermine and discredit SFW.

I've already told the reasons behind the stream access and now the land transfer issue. And it wouldn't matter one way or the other, to "the boy" because he's only hiding being these, and any other issue, to undermine SFW. In my opinion, of course. He's as TRANSPARENT as a morning dipper, on a two year old.

DC
 
Deloss-

I thought we could have a serious, adult conversation about the issues but I was wrong. If you previously provided a legitimate explanation as to why SFW sided with landowners, politicians, the legislature and the DWR instead of sprotsmen and fisherman on the issue of public stream access then please post a link to that post. I would love to read it and get your insights.

And by the way, I didn't know that I was only allowed to comment on or care about a single issue. I am a passionate outdoorsman and I have actively involved in many issues related to the outdoors for many years. Yes, I am deeply concerned about transparency and accountability of monies generated from our public resources. But guess what, I am also an avid flyfisherman and I am deeply concerned about the stream access issue. And over the last 3-4 years I have also become deeply concerned about the movement in Utah to take control and ownership of our public lands. Those are a few of the issues that I am concerned about and have tried to get involved in.

You are correct that on a number of these issues, I have found myself on the opposite side of the issue from SFW. Despite what you say, I choose my positions based upon the issues and my own personal beliefs -- not just to oppose SFW. For instance, I support public stream access because it is important to me and other fisherman and sportsmen. I did not choose to support stream access just because Don Peay and SFW actively lobbied against it. Another example, I personally believe that monies generated by private conservation groups selling our tags in the name of conservation should be used for actual conservation projects and should be accounted for. I did not choose that position just because SFW and MDF have pocketed over $8 million from Expo Tags alone. One more example, although I am frustrated with certain aspects of the federal management of our public lands, I do not support the transfer of federal public lands to the State of Utah because I know that will lead to the eventual sell and disposal of large portions of those lands. I chose that position because I am a passionate outdoorsman and I want my children and grandchildren to enjoy the same privileges that I have enjoyed on public lands not because SFW has chosen to straddle the fence on the issue or because the Dixie Chapter of SFW has adopted a resolution supporting the transfer.

In summary, I have chosen my position on these particular issues based upon my own beliefs -- not just to undermine SFW. Frankly, the fact SFW has taken the opposing position on some of these these issues is baffling to me, and that is why I am no longer a member. That being said, I agree with SFW on many points. I have friends that are members and even leaders within SFW. And I appreciate some of the positions that SFW takes and projects that they spearhead on behalf of sportsmen and wildlife. I hope that helps you understand where I am coming from but I doubt it will since you seem to believe that anyone who questions SFW on these important issues is simply looking to take down the organization. That sir is a myth aimed at avoiding a discussion of the real issues.

-Hawkeye-
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-22-17 AT 06:35PM (MST)[p]Hawkeye, as far as the stream access issue,, HB141 was no doudt a knee jerk over reaction by the legislature in reaction to the Constner decision.

The Constner ruling was an even bigger over reach in that it gave away far too much in the way of property rights.

The lower court judge that ruled against HB141 knew full well that his ruling would be over turned by a higher court and that is where the final decision of which bodies of water in Utah would be proven to have a historical navagability.

It will not be any where near 2700 miles. In fact the whole term Stream Access is a misnomer as it hast to do with water way easement rights in Utah. It should be River Access.

This whole scenario has played out in almost every state almost just like it is playing out in Utah now. With very few exceptions it almost always comes down to navigability in the end.

I have no idea why SFW takes a stand one way or the other on the stream access issue, but I am not a big fan of their business model as it has to do with skimming off tags.

Also I would not like to see Utah take control of the BLM lands that I like to kick around in.
 
Great come back Lumpy! Boy you really showed him. Hey, maybe you can get that POS Styler to email Hawkeye's boss again. You seemed to really enjoy that chickenchit last time.

If everything Lumpy said was true then that's just another example of $FW saying one thing and doing the opposite with all the koolaid drinkers following along like lost puppies.
 
Castnshoot-

Thanks for posting. We are not too far apart on our views. I tend to lean more in favor of public access and you probably tend to favor of private property rights. My only point is that the Conatser decision did not create new rights for the public. Rather, it simply recognized and clarified the public rights that date back to the Utah Constitution.

Also, it is important to note that the same court (Utah Supreme Court) that decided the Conatser decision will now be making the final ruling in the stream access case. In fact, Justice Durrant, who wrote the Conatser decision, is now Chief Justice of the Utah Supreme Court. I am keeping my fingers crossed for a positive ruling that favors public access rights.

-Hawkeye-
 
I know certain factions of SFW are still upset about the way the group supported the Stream Grab and consider that position a regrettable mistake.

Yet, here SFW sits... repeating the same mistake with the Land Grab. I guess they wanted to privatize our water first, and now our land.

I'd love SFW to prove me wrong and come out against the land grab, but until then we'll keep raising awareness of where they stand.

---By the way, I got another wolf email from BGF today. I guess when you get a multi-million dollar contract to support a position then its worth trying to rally the troops. But protecting public land... meh.

Grizzly
 

Similar threads

J
Colorado CPW Commissioner Debate!
Replies
36
Views
2k
jims
J
gr8fuldoug
SHOT Show Wrap Up
Replies
0
Views
236
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
SHOT Show Day 3
Replies
0
Views
232
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_0772.jpg
IMG_4307.jpg
IMG_4296.jpg
Scan0027.jpg
IMG_0653 copy.jpg
C7046360-C547-4744-B3C3-928978E10249.jpeg
29BB3251-20C6-47AF-B757-5E2AF70B873F.jpeg
A837A649-0B7D-44A5-9FE6-421932E41C16.jpeg
IMG_5139.JPG
Screenshot_20211110-071459_Gallery.jpg
Screenshot_20230719_103107_Gallery.jpg
1682463218439.png
Back
Top Bottom