First Ever WY Governors Wild Bison License
- Thread starter SMOKESTICK
- Start date
llamapacker
Moderator
- Messages
- 1,068
Another disgraceful action on the part of SFW - this time WYSFW. I will never give a dime to this group, even if I had "better odds" of drawing the tag. I got the letter in the mail as well. Outright lies and falsehood misrepresenting odds. It is simple math, and the math doesn't lie. Apparently all the lying is left up to WYSFW. I guess we are supposed to be happy the governor didn't offer WFSFW 50% or more of the proceeds. Obviously they would have kept 100% if it had been offered.
Time to remember RMEF's call for transparency and returning 100% of tag sale proceeds to the department. There would be as much as $15K more returned to the wildlife department if the governor had given the tag to RMEF. Letting WYSFW keep 30% is pure political payoff. Sportsmen should be outraged and contact the governor. He is the one paying off WYSFW, and he is an elected politician. Giving away public resources to a private entity has gotten more than one politician in trouble. Let the governor know you don't appreciate his "gift" to WYSFW.
And don' support this raffle / scam.
Bill
Time to remember RMEF's call for transparency and returning 100% of tag sale proceeds to the department. There would be as much as $15K more returned to the wildlife department if the governor had given the tag to RMEF. Letting WYSFW keep 30% is pure political payoff. Sportsmen should be outraged and contact the governor. He is the one paying off WYSFW, and he is an elected politician. Giving away public resources to a private entity has gotten more than one politician in trouble. Let the governor know you don't appreciate his "gift" to WYSFW.
And don' support this raffle / scam.
Bill
Tristate
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,890
LAST EDITED ON Jun-05-13 AT 12:01PM (MST)[p]"Another disgraceful action on the part of SFW - this time WYSFW. I will never give a dime to this group, even if I had "better odds" of drawing the tag. I got the letter in the mail as well. Outright lies and falsehood misrepresenting odds."
Then take it up in court.
" It is simple math, and the math doesn't lie. Apparently all the lying is left up to WYSFW. I guess we are supposed to be happy the governor didn't offer WFSFW 50% or more of the proceeds. Obviously they would have kept 100% if it had been offered."
Irrelevant, and you don't know that. Could we quit with the emotional junk that clouds everything and discuss this with logic.
Time to remember RMEF's call for transparency and returning 100% of tag sale proceeds to the department. There would be as much as $15K more returned to the wildlife department if the governor had given the tag to RMEF."
Good. Then the same guys that have been waisting millions of your dollars will be able to send that 15k down the drane with little or no results.
" Letting WYSFW keep 30% is pure political payoff."
No its a payoff for service. It looks like WYSFW will be providing a service for the state. Have any of yall thought that the governor has figured out that %70 of the raffle earnings is more money than Wyoming selling or raffling the tag themselves???? Have you EVER known the government to be able to do something cheaper and more effectively than the private sector?
" Sportsmen should be outraged and contact the governor. He is the one paying off WYSFW, and he is an elected politician. Giving away public resources to a private entity has gotten more than one politician in trouble. Let the governor know you don't appreciate his "gift" to WYSFW."
He isn't giving away a public resource. He is paying for a private entity to provide a service. People's time is worth money right?
"And don' support this raffle / scam."
Please elaborate on the word "scam". How is this a scam?
Then take it up in court.
" It is simple math, and the math doesn't lie. Apparently all the lying is left up to WYSFW. I guess we are supposed to be happy the governor didn't offer WFSFW 50% or more of the proceeds. Obviously they would have kept 100% if it had been offered."
Irrelevant, and you don't know that. Could we quit with the emotional junk that clouds everything and discuss this with logic.
Time to remember RMEF's call for transparency and returning 100% of tag sale proceeds to the department. There would be as much as $15K more returned to the wildlife department if the governor had given the tag to RMEF."
Good. Then the same guys that have been waisting millions of your dollars will be able to send that 15k down the drane with little or no results.
" Letting WYSFW keep 30% is pure political payoff."
No its a payoff for service. It looks like WYSFW will be providing a service for the state. Have any of yall thought that the governor has figured out that %70 of the raffle earnings is more money than Wyoming selling or raffling the tag themselves???? Have you EVER known the government to be able to do something cheaper and more effectively than the private sector?
" Sportsmen should be outraged and contact the governor. He is the one paying off WYSFW, and he is an elected politician. Giving away public resources to a private entity has gotten more than one politician in trouble. Let the governor know you don't appreciate his "gift" to WYSFW."
He isn't giving away a public resource. He is paying for a private entity to provide a service. People's time is worth money right?
"And don' support this raffle / scam."
Please elaborate on the word "scam". How is this a scam?
chewyman55
Active Member
- Messages
- 843
Some of the best Tri-isms to date:
"Why do you worry about what other people do that is unsporting in regards to wildlife?"
"I think I could even be a friend to a murderer."
"Taking away so eons (sic) liberty to fly a drone and next time you may not have anyone on your side when they tell you that you can't drink coke anymore..."
"I own you. I take that back. I co-own you."
Lol...You really are a joke around here.
"Why do you worry about what other people do that is unsporting in regards to wildlife?"
"I think I could even be a friend to a murderer."
"Taking away so eons (sic) liberty to fly a drone and next time you may not have anyone on your side when they tell you that you can't drink coke anymore..."
"I own you. I take that back. I co-own you."
Lol...You really are a joke around here.
Tristate
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,890
Well Cheweyman I never take myself too seriously.
But I couldn't help but notice not a single person has responded on this thread in regards to my honest question.
"OK I want someone to make a logical argument on why %30 is "way too much". Lets here it."
And you can't answer that. Instead you come on here with quotes from previous posts thinking that they are some type of character assassination. I am just honored that you keep track of everything I say. I feel a little ashamed that I don't have or know a single quote from you.
But I couldn't help but notice not a single person has responded on this thread in regards to my honest question.
"OK I want someone to make a logical argument on why %30 is "way too much". Lets here it."
And you can't answer that. Instead you come on here with quotes from previous posts thinking that they are some type of character assassination. I am just honored that you keep track of everything I say. I feel a little ashamed that I don't have or know a single quote from you.
Hawkeye
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,012
Tristate-
My father taught me to "never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the differance.? I am violating this cardinal rule by responding to your pointless question.
Here is a simple answer to the question that you believe has stumped everyone on this forum: The purpose of conservation permits is to raise money for wildlife -- not to raise money so that people and groups can line their pockets. I don't expect that this obvious answer will have any impact on you or your arguments. Carry on with your nonsense.
Hawkeye
Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Bowtech Destroyer
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
My father taught me to "never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the differance.? I am violating this cardinal rule by responding to your pointless question.
Here is a simple answer to the question that you believe has stumped everyone on this forum: The purpose of conservation permits is to raise money for wildlife -- not to raise money so that people and groups can line their pockets. I don't expect that this obvious answer will have any impact on you or your arguments. Carry on with your nonsense.
Hawkeye
Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Bowtech Destroyer
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
elkassassin
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 37,352
>OK I want someone to make
>a logical argument on why
>%30 is "way too much".
> Lets here it.
hear!
not here!
The Dew I had for Breakfast wasn't Bad so I had one more for Dessert!
>a logical argument on why
>%30 is "way too much".
> Lets here it.
hear!
not here!
The Dew I had for Breakfast wasn't Bad so I had one more for Dessert!
elkassassin
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 37,352
>There is no debate hear.
>Just one question that no
>one can answer with logic.
> Just a bunch of
>emotion and feelings.
here!
not hear!
The Dew I had for Breakfast wasn't Bad so I had one more for Dessert!
>Just one question that no
>one can answer with logic.
> Just a bunch of
>emotion and feelings.
here!
not hear!
The Dew I had for Breakfast wasn't Bad so I had one more for Dessert!
jm77
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,397
I will contact the Gov's office because, plain and simple, 30% is too much for a group that has so few members they won't tell anyone what their membership is.
By the way, if anyone is interested, at a recent meeting on Wyo G&F funding, your favorite SFW WY Exec Director Smokestick offered his plan to save the Department: 1000 Outfitter Sponsered Non-Resident elk licenses, over and above the current exsisting quota. Now that's the true SFW showing it's colors!
By the way, if anyone is interested, at a recent meeting on Wyo G&F funding, your favorite SFW WY Exec Director Smokestick offered his plan to save the Department: 1000 Outfitter Sponsered Non-Resident elk licenses, over and above the current exsisting quota. Now that's the true SFW showing it's colors!
>I will contact the Gov's office
>because, plain and simple, 30%
>is too much for a
>group that has so few
>members they won't tell anyone
>what their membership is.
>
>By the way, if anyone is
>interested, at a recent meeting
>on Wyo G&F funding, your
>favorite SFW WY Exec Director
>Smokestick offered his plan to
>save the Department: 1000 Outfitter
>Sponsered Non-Resident elk licenses, over
>and above the current exsisting
>quota. Now that's the true
>SFW showing it's colors!
***And Smokestick wonders why I call BS to just about everything he posts when things come to the forefront! I guess that little diddy would have been done and passed before anybody knew what was going on if you hadn't mentioned it. BuzzH and I asked Smokestick numerous times what the WYSFW stance was several years ago on that deal to help the outfitting industry and got absolutely no substantive answer. Now the cat is out of the bag and several of my antagonists wonder why I'm so adamant about putting a stop to this outfit before they get entrenched in any more states!!! Thanks for the update jm77!
>because, plain and simple, 30%
>is too much for a
>group that has so few
>members they won't tell anyone
>what their membership is.
>
>By the way, if anyone is
>interested, at a recent meeting
>on Wyo G&F funding, your
>favorite SFW WY Exec Director
>Smokestick offered his plan to
>save the Department: 1000 Outfitter
>Sponsered Non-Resident elk licenses, over
>and above the current exsisting
>quota. Now that's the true
>SFW showing it's colors!
***And Smokestick wonders why I call BS to just about everything he posts when things come to the forefront! I guess that little diddy would have been done and passed before anybody knew what was going on if you hadn't mentioned it. BuzzH and I asked Smokestick numerous times what the WYSFW stance was several years ago on that deal to help the outfitting industry and got absolutely no substantive answer. Now the cat is out of the bag and several of my antagonists wonder why I'm so adamant about putting a stop to this outfit before they get entrenched in any more states!!! Thanks for the update jm77!
Tristate
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,890
"Tristate-
My father taught me to "never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the differance.? I am violating this cardinal rule by responding to your pointless question.
Here is a simple answer to the question that you believe has stumped everyone on this forum: The purpose of conservation permits is to raise money for wildlife -- not to raise money so that people and groups can line their pockets. I don't expect that this obvious answer will have any impact on you or your arguments. Carry on with your nonsense."
Hawkeye,
This is an argument against the conservation permits as a whole. If you are against the conservation permits that is fine, but not what I am asking about.
People are here arguing that %30 is too much and that it needs to be %10. I want to know what LOGICAL grounds makes them grab numbers out of thin air. Nobody will do it.
The truth is not one single one of us know the operating costs of holding the raffle and not one single one of us know how much will "line someone's pockets, and not one single one of us knows how much will go back into resources for wildlife. But for some reason everybody here "KNOWS" exactly how much is too much money for organizations to receive for their work.
What would you say if people, who know nothing about your costs and margins, saw what your hourly bill is and decided that is too much money for you to be charging? This is a real question. Please answer.
My father taught me to "never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the differance.? I am violating this cardinal rule by responding to your pointless question.
Here is a simple answer to the question that you believe has stumped everyone on this forum: The purpose of conservation permits is to raise money for wildlife -- not to raise money so that people and groups can line their pockets. I don't expect that this obvious answer will have any impact on you or your arguments. Carry on with your nonsense."
Hawkeye,
This is an argument against the conservation permits as a whole. If you are against the conservation permits that is fine, but not what I am asking about.
People are here arguing that %30 is too much and that it needs to be %10. I want to know what LOGICAL grounds makes them grab numbers out of thin air. Nobody will do it.
The truth is not one single one of us know the operating costs of holding the raffle and not one single one of us know how much will "line someone's pockets, and not one single one of us knows how much will go back into resources for wildlife. But for some reason everybody here "KNOWS" exactly how much is too much money for organizations to receive for their work.
What would you say if people, who know nothing about your costs and margins, saw what your hourly bill is and decided that is too much money for you to be charging? This is a real question. Please answer.
Tristate
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,890
"I will contact the Gov's office because, plain and simple, 30% is too much for a group that has so few members they won't tell anyone what their membership is."
This answer did not offer any logic. Just one more emotional opinion. C'mon, back it up with a fact of some type. You can't do it.
"By the way, if anyone is interested, at a recent meeting on Wyo G&F funding, your favorite SFW WY Exec Director Smokestick offered his plan to save the Department: 1000 Outfitter Sponsered Non-Resident elk licenses, over and above the current exsisting quota. Now that's the true SFW showing it's colors!"
More hunting opportunity and fiscal stimulus from interstate commerce! That's my kind of "color" right there. Really who complains about more hunting opportunity and stronger economies?
This answer did not offer any logic. Just one more emotional opinion. C'mon, back it up with a fact of some type. You can't do it.
"By the way, if anyone is interested, at a recent meeting on Wyo G&F funding, your favorite SFW WY Exec Director Smokestick offered his plan to save the Department: 1000 Outfitter Sponsered Non-Resident elk licenses, over and above the current exsisting quota. Now that's the true SFW showing it's colors!"
More hunting opportunity and fiscal stimulus from interstate commerce! That's my kind of "color" right there. Really who complains about more hunting opportunity and stronger economies?
Hawkeye
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,012
Tristate-
I am done responding to your posts. I enjoy honest discussion and debate with people on this website - even those who have vastly different views than me. However, you are beyond help. Your only goal is to perpetually stir the pot and irriate people. I lost my interest in those types of childlish arguments in about 6th grade.
I also find it interesting that you have become the spokesperson/defender of SFW even though you claim to not be a member. I bet SFW is pleased as punch to have someone as articulate and rational as you representing them to the masses. They should make you their official mascot.
Good luck with your taxidermy work and try not to put the wrong cape on the wrong animal. Have a good day!
Hawkeye
Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Bowtech Destroyer
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
I am done responding to your posts. I enjoy honest discussion and debate with people on this website - even those who have vastly different views than me. However, you are beyond help. Your only goal is to perpetually stir the pot and irriate people. I lost my interest in those types of childlish arguments in about 6th grade.
I also find it interesting that you have become the spokesperson/defender of SFW even though you claim to not be a member. I bet SFW is pleased as punch to have someone as articulate and rational as you representing them to the masses. They should make you their official mascot.
Good luck with your taxidermy work and try not to put the wrong cape on the wrong animal. Have a good day!
Hawkeye
Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Bowtech Destroyer
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
jm77
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,397
Tristate
It is obvious you haven't bothered to read these responses because you have been answered many times. Sorry you can't comprehend what these tags are all about and where the money should go.
As far as SFW WY, if they didn't receive these kind of tags(mainly Commissioner) to auction off at the few banquets they have here in Wyoming, Smokestick would most likely be back doing what he does best; managing the hunting on some big ranch for high paying clients.
It is obvious you haven't bothered to read these responses because you have been answered many times. Sorry you can't comprehend what these tags are all about and where the money should go.
As far as SFW WY, if they didn't receive these kind of tags(mainly Commissioner) to auction off at the few banquets they have here in Wyoming, Smokestick would most likely be back doing what he does best; managing the hunting on some big ranch for high paying clients.
Tristate
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,890
I am not a spokesperson for SFW, and I am not a member. I do not believe I ever have been either. What I am an advocate for is hunting. The reason I got on this thread was because of people attacked someone who was only trying to sell raffle tags for a new bison hunt that had never been offered before. THAT"S RIGHT! THEY ACTUALLY ATTACKED SOMEONE FOR OFFERING MORE HUNTING! If the group offering the tag would have been any organization offering this tag and yall attacked them, I would have defended them too. It has nothing to do with how much I "like" sfw. It has everything to do with disliking anti-hunting behavior.
As for wrong capes on wrong animals, I haven't done it yet and I am not planning on doing it ever.
As for wrong capes on wrong animals, I haven't done it yet and I am not planning on doing it ever.
Tristate
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,890
"Tristate
It is obvious you haven't bothered to read these responses because you have been answered many times. Sorry you can't comprehend what these tags are all about and where the money should go."
Every response to my question has been emotional. There has not been one single response using logic yet. Math, legal, public safety, etc.... Have never shown why %30 is too much for this single bison tag. I have read every single post on this thread. The only person who has attempted to show why it is wrong is Topgun, using legal comparitives but that did not work since the bison tag originated completely different than all other tags.
"As far as SFW WY, if they didn't receive these kind of tags(mainly Commissioner) to auction off at the few banquets they have here in Wyoming, Smokestick would most likely be back doing what he does best; managing the hunting on some big ranch for high paying clients."
Are you trying to say that the main goal is to make sure SFW never exists? If that's the case just say it. It will save us all a bunch of bickering about %10 or %30. You can say you want SFW done away with and leave it at that. Why beat around the bush arguing over tiny little things like a single buffalo tag and just say you want SFW gone so you have less competition for hunting tags??? You would here a lot less from me.
It is obvious you haven't bothered to read these responses because you have been answered many times. Sorry you can't comprehend what these tags are all about and where the money should go."
Every response to my question has been emotional. There has not been one single response using logic yet. Math, legal, public safety, etc.... Have never shown why %30 is too much for this single bison tag. I have read every single post on this thread. The only person who has attempted to show why it is wrong is Topgun, using legal comparitives but that did not work since the bison tag originated completely different than all other tags.
"As far as SFW WY, if they didn't receive these kind of tags(mainly Commissioner) to auction off at the few banquets they have here in Wyoming, Smokestick would most likely be back doing what he does best; managing the hunting on some big ranch for high paying clients."
Are you trying to say that the main goal is to make sure SFW never exists? If that's the case just say it. It will save us all a bunch of bickering about %10 or %30. You can say you want SFW done away with and leave it at that. Why beat around the bush arguing over tiny little things like a single buffalo tag and just say you want SFW gone so you have less competition for hunting tags??? You would here a lot less from me.
MulePacker
Active Member
- Messages
- 513
LAST EDITED ON Jun-06-13 AT 10:20AM (MST)[p]PRECEDENT
LAST EDITED ON Jun-06-13 AT 11:07AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jun-06-13 AT 11:04?AM (MST)
Speaking in simple business terms; at least put it our to bid to let the free market dictate what the retained percentage is. If a government official simply hands over a contract, which this seems to be, without putting it out to bid, he/she has no comps to deem the costs associated with the fundraising the most equitable. This what we as the owners of the wildlife expect, or any other government asset, for that matter. Maximum return on investment.
Tristate, to my recollection, you have mentioned Obama care on more than one occasion. Isn't the simple premise that a government is using our resource (Money) in a way that doesn't jive we the way folks want to see their money (Resources) spent by the government? Hunters pay fees and taxes to the wildlife agency (Government) and they raise animals and administrate everything regarding those animals and the use of them. In this case, they are spending 30% of a moose tag. If Obama care is being forced on citizens and we are the ones ultimately paying for it, wouldn't we at a minimum want this to cost us the least amount possible to carry out the task of implementation?
If it is imperative that money is raised off of a public resource, then they who are willing to do the best job for the least amount should receive the contract. From observing what transpired, the agreement seems to have completely skipped any of these considerations.
In business, especially concerning government, if one were to hold a position of power and use this position to benefit a single entity, without due diligence to test what the most efficient and fiscally responsible way to conduct a transaction is by simply handing over a contract to a single party, they would and should be scrutinized and ultimately fired for abuse of power.
Would it be ok if a state department of transportation consistently handed over contracts to the same company over and over again without even testing the market to see if there were cheaper or better companies to do the job?
Would this scenario be defined as collusion?
Is 30% the threshold for what someone would be willing to administer the raising of funds for this tag? Highly doubtful. But no one knows because that process was by-passed.
Again, precedent.
http://unitedwildlifecooperative.org
"We do not intend that our natural resources shall be
exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural resources
for the public as a whole, for the average man and the
average woman who make up the body of the
American people."
Speaking in simple business terms; at least put it our to bid to let the free market dictate what the retained percentage is. If a government official simply hands over a contract, which this seems to be, without putting it out to bid, he/she has no comps to deem the costs associated with the fundraising the most equitable. This what we as the owners of the wildlife expect, or any other government asset, for that matter. Maximum return on investment.
Tristate, to my recollection, you have mentioned Obama care on more than one occasion. Isn't the simple premise that a government is using our resource (Money) in a way that doesn't jive we the way folks want to see their money (Resources) spent by the government? Hunters pay fees and taxes to the wildlife agency (Government) and they raise animals and administrate everything regarding those animals and the use of them. In this case, they are spending 30% of a moose tag. If Obama care is being forced on citizens and we are the ones ultimately paying for it, wouldn't we at a minimum want this to cost us the least amount possible to carry out the task of implementation?
If it is imperative that money is raised off of a public resource, then they who are willing to do the best job for the least amount should receive the contract. From observing what transpired, the agreement seems to have completely skipped any of these considerations.
In business, especially concerning government, if one were to hold a position of power and use this position to benefit a single entity, without due diligence to test what the most efficient and fiscally responsible way to conduct a transaction is by simply handing over a contract to a single party, they would and should be scrutinized and ultimately fired for abuse of power.
Would it be ok if a state department of transportation consistently handed over contracts to the same company over and over again without even testing the market to see if there were cheaper or better companies to do the job?
Would this scenario be defined as collusion?
Is 30% the threshold for what someone would be willing to administer the raising of funds for this tag? Highly doubtful. But no one knows because that process was by-passed.
Again, precedent.
http://unitedwildlifecooperative.org
"We do not intend that our natural resources shall be
exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural resources
for the public as a whole, for the average man and the
average woman who make up the body of the
American people."
Tristate is correct. (that hurt!) No one is making a good argument for why 30% is too much. It is just the number that WYSFW went with. RMEF goes with 10%. If you disagree with WYSFW then do not support them. If you agree with RMEF then support them. If I started a group and only asked to keep 5% would that suddenly make you all think RMEF was wrong?
The group that made a poor decision is the State of Wyoming for not going with the lowest bidder. Perhaps the reasoning was that they thought WYSFW would get a higher price than RMEF and that would offset the loss of 20%. Perhaps no thought was put into it, (most likely answer). Either way if you have a problem bring it to the Gov's office and quit your argument that WYSFW should "just do the right thing." With WYSFW you will be waiting a long time.
The group that made a poor decision is the State of Wyoming for not going with the lowest bidder. Perhaps the reasoning was that they thought WYSFW would get a higher price than RMEF and that would offset the loss of 20%. Perhaps no thought was put into it, (most likely answer). Either way if you have a problem bring it to the Gov's office and quit your argument that WYSFW should "just do the right thing." With WYSFW you will be waiting a long time.
Tristate
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,890
"Speaking in simple business terms; at least put it our to bid to let the free market dictate what the retained percentage is. If a government official simply hands over a contract, which this seems to be, without putting it out to bid, he/she has no comps to deem the costs associated with the fundraising the most equitable. This what we as the owners of the wildlife expect, or any other government asset, for that matter. Maximum return on investment."
Excellent idea Tree. I have no problem at all if the state wants to "put it out to bid" so to speak. However we do run into a couple of problems that I am sure we could get around. First you can't bid on a lesser percentage. It actually doesn't decide who will give more money back to the state. Say for instance SFW bids that it will give %30 back to the state for a raffle tag and RMEF bids %25 back on the same tag. RMEF would receive the tag. But SFW might have been able to make more money for the state than RMEF. Maybe RMEF overprices the raffle tickets and doesn't sell all of them. That's why you really can't base a bid on a percent back plan. Now if you wanted to put it up for bid and these conservation organizations actually had to buy the tag with actual currency then the benefit for the state is secured on the front end and risk has been minimalized. Which I am all for this. Let these conservation organizations assume the risk and not the state.
"Tristate, to my recollection, you have mentioned Obama care on more than one occasion. Isn't the simple premise that a government is using our resource (Money) in a way that doesn't jive we the way folks want to see their money (Resources) spent by the government? Hunters pay fees and taxes to the wildlife agency (Government) and they raise animals and administrate everything regarding those animals and the use of them. In this case, they are spending 30% of a moose tag. If Obama care is being forced on citizens and we are the ones ultimately paying for it, wouldn't we at a minimum want this to cost us the least amount possible to carry out the task of implementation?"
First of all I am no expert on Obama care. Don't know much about it, but no, I don't think it is good for the USA. I am not sure of the relationship you are trying to connect here. However from reading your paragraph it seems that the state getting the most money for the wildlife is what you want. Correct me if I am wrong. I can understand why you would want that. However arguing over "percentages" will not decide whether the state gets the most for wildlife or leaves a bunch of money on the table. Also there isn't one single thing the public sector does that the private sector can't do, better, faster, and cheaper. So we can throw more and more money at the state agencies and watch them fall on their faces or we can experiment with putting the burden of tomorrows wildlife on the private sector.
"If it is imperative that money is raised off of a public resource, then they who are willing to do the best job for the least amount should receive the contract. From observing what transpired, the agreement seems to have completely skipped any of these considerations."
It skipped the considerations because there is no way to accurately compare bids between groups. Take percentages off the table and start having actual dollar figure bids and I would agree that we can get solid competition with the state profiting the most off the wildlife.
"In business, especially concerning government, if one were to hold a position of power and use this position to benefit a single entity, without due diligence to test what the most efficient and fiscally responsible way to conduct a transaction is by simply handing over a contract to a single party, they would and should be scrutinized and ultimately fired for abuse of power."
How do we know that no due diligence was done here?
"Would it be ok if a state department of transportation consistently handed over contracts to the same company over and over again without even testing the market to see if there were cheaper or better companies to do the job?"
Nope. But that isn't happening here.
"Would this scenario be defined as collusion?"
No. Collusion you have to show intent of both parties, not just the decisions of one.
"Is 30% the threshold for what someone would be willing to administer the raising of funds for this tag? Highly doubtful. But no one knows because that process was by-passed."
I am sure that you could find tons of people that will give back a higher percentage to the state for the tag, but that does not mean that the state will receive more money. No one will know because the state, like most things they have their hands on, doesn't know how to maximize returns on investments.
"Again, precedent."
There is none here. Change the process into a firm dollar bid and then you can start comparing apples to apples.
Excellent idea Tree. I have no problem at all if the state wants to "put it out to bid" so to speak. However we do run into a couple of problems that I am sure we could get around. First you can't bid on a lesser percentage. It actually doesn't decide who will give more money back to the state. Say for instance SFW bids that it will give %30 back to the state for a raffle tag and RMEF bids %25 back on the same tag. RMEF would receive the tag. But SFW might have been able to make more money for the state than RMEF. Maybe RMEF overprices the raffle tickets and doesn't sell all of them. That's why you really can't base a bid on a percent back plan. Now if you wanted to put it up for bid and these conservation organizations actually had to buy the tag with actual currency then the benefit for the state is secured on the front end and risk has been minimalized. Which I am all for this. Let these conservation organizations assume the risk and not the state.
"Tristate, to my recollection, you have mentioned Obama care on more than one occasion. Isn't the simple premise that a government is using our resource (Money) in a way that doesn't jive we the way folks want to see their money (Resources) spent by the government? Hunters pay fees and taxes to the wildlife agency (Government) and they raise animals and administrate everything regarding those animals and the use of them. In this case, they are spending 30% of a moose tag. If Obama care is being forced on citizens and we are the ones ultimately paying for it, wouldn't we at a minimum want this to cost us the least amount possible to carry out the task of implementation?"
First of all I am no expert on Obama care. Don't know much about it, but no, I don't think it is good for the USA. I am not sure of the relationship you are trying to connect here. However from reading your paragraph it seems that the state getting the most money for the wildlife is what you want. Correct me if I am wrong. I can understand why you would want that. However arguing over "percentages" will not decide whether the state gets the most for wildlife or leaves a bunch of money on the table. Also there isn't one single thing the public sector does that the private sector can't do, better, faster, and cheaper. So we can throw more and more money at the state agencies and watch them fall on their faces or we can experiment with putting the burden of tomorrows wildlife on the private sector.
"If it is imperative that money is raised off of a public resource, then they who are willing to do the best job for the least amount should receive the contract. From observing what transpired, the agreement seems to have completely skipped any of these considerations."
It skipped the considerations because there is no way to accurately compare bids between groups. Take percentages off the table and start having actual dollar figure bids and I would agree that we can get solid competition with the state profiting the most off the wildlife.
"In business, especially concerning government, if one were to hold a position of power and use this position to benefit a single entity, without due diligence to test what the most efficient and fiscally responsible way to conduct a transaction is by simply handing over a contract to a single party, they would and should be scrutinized and ultimately fired for abuse of power."
How do we know that no due diligence was done here?
"Would it be ok if a state department of transportation consistently handed over contracts to the same company over and over again without even testing the market to see if there were cheaper or better companies to do the job?"
Nope. But that isn't happening here.
"Would this scenario be defined as collusion?"
No. Collusion you have to show intent of both parties, not just the decisions of one.
"Is 30% the threshold for what someone would be willing to administer the raising of funds for this tag? Highly doubtful. But no one knows because that process was by-passed."
I am sure that you could find tons of people that will give back a higher percentage to the state for the tag, but that does not mean that the state will receive more money. No one will know because the state, like most things they have their hands on, doesn't know how to maximize returns on investments.
"Again, precedent."
There is none here. Change the process into a firm dollar bid and then you can start comparing apples to apples.
MulePacker
Active Member
- Messages
- 513
"Again, precedent."
"There is none here. Change the process into a firm dollar bid and then you can start comparing apples to apples."
You asked for a logical arguement and when it is presented you are to caught up in yourself to see it.
Of course there is a logical arguement for precedent. Prior to the bison tag the existing Governor's Permits allowed for a 10% commission to be collected. It would be logical that any new Governor Permits follow that which was already in place or change them all. Of course someone would have to bring the arguement before a jury to see if the arguement was valid. We will see if that happens.
So shoot away Oh High and Mighty Tristate with your rhetoric of how you know more and are the only one who can be correct. While you are at it throw in some insults offend race, color, creed or sex so you feel a little more powerful and don't forget to remind us that we havn't presented a logical arguement yet again.
How is my sentence structure and grammar today? I am still working on it.
5
"There is none here. Change the process into a firm dollar bid and then you can start comparing apples to apples."
You asked for a logical arguement and when it is presented you are to caught up in yourself to see it.
Of course there is a logical arguement for precedent. Prior to the bison tag the existing Governor's Permits allowed for a 10% commission to be collected. It would be logical that any new Governor Permits follow that which was already in place or change them all. Of course someone would have to bring the arguement before a jury to see if the arguement was valid. We will see if that happens.
So shoot away Oh High and Mighty Tristate with your rhetoric of how you know more and are the only one who can be correct. While you are at it throw in some insults offend race, color, creed or sex so you feel a little more powerful and don't forget to remind us that we havn't presented a logical arguement yet again.
How is my sentence structure and grammar today? I am still working on it.
5
"By the way, if anyone is interested, at a recent meeting on Wyo G&F funding, your favorite SFW WY Exec Director Smokestick offered his plan to save the Department: 1000 Outfitter Sponsered Non-Resident elk licenses, over and above the current exsisting quota."
If that's true, all I can is what a POS! Hope some of you guys are writing letters to the G&F Commissioners...
If that's true, all I can is what a POS! Hope some of you guys are writing letters to the G&F Commissioners...
MulePacker
Active Member
- Messages
- 513
"And now you run back to emotion instead of logic"
Are you saying that your posts are only logical and lack emotional response?
Are you saying that your posts are only logical and lack emotional response?
LAST EDITED ON Jun-06-13 AT 02:13PM (MST)[p]>Tristate is correct. (that hurt!) No
>one is making a good
>argument for why 30% is
>too much. It is
>just the number that WYSFW
>went with. RMEF goes
>with 10%. If you
>disagree with WYSFW then do
>not support them. If
>you agree with RMEF then
>support them. If I
>started a group and only
>asked to keep 5% would
>that suddenly make you all
>think RMEF was wrong?
>
>The group that made a poor
>decision is the State of
>Wyoming for not going with
>the lowest bidder. Perhaps the
>reasoning was that they thought
>WYSFW would get a higher
>price than RMEF and that
>would offset the loss of
>20%. Perhaps no thought
>was put into it, (most
>likely answer). Either way
>if you have a problem
>bring it to the Gov's
>office and quit your argument
>that WYSFW should "just do
>the right thing." With
>WYSFW you will be waiting
>a long time.
***You can agree that he's correct if you'd like, but he's not because that is not how the program has been working. Precedent was set when the Governor's Tag Program was instituted that any group selling the tags would receive 10% of the money they made, regardless of what that amounted to or whether they went in the hole selling it for that commission rate. That is true whether it was agreed to in writing or just by a handshake (gentlemen's agreement" as I coined it)! The program was designed to benefit wildlife and not to make money for the organization(s) selling the tag(s). That plan has worked ever since it's inception and it has been very transparent as to how much each tag made, that 90% of that money came back to the Committee for benefit of that species, and that the money was then administered for worthwhile projects with followup to see that it was used accordingly. That is why I, and most others, feel that to take 30% is wrong and all of us would be hollering foul regardless of what organization was involved. That SFW is the organization, with all the other negative connotations it has already fostered, makes it that much more suspect. The other groups started from scratch with 10% and are all still involved at that rate. Now along comes WYSFW with this new Bison tag that is administered in the SAME PROGRAM UNDER THE SAME BILL that merely was changed to add the 5 Bison tags and through some backroom deal they have been offered and accepted 30%. My thoughts are that if they want to administer the other 20% themselves that is above and beyond what the other organizations are keeping, then they should ask for money in a grant that may or may not be allowed by Committee, but if allowed it will be monitored to see that it is used properly just like all the others in a transparent way. There is absolutely no reason why WYSFW should be receiving 3 times the percentage as the others in the exact same Governor's Tag program unless the entire program is changed and agreed upon by all in it!
>one is making a good
>argument for why 30% is
>too much. It is
>just the number that WYSFW
>went with. RMEF goes
>with 10%. If you
>disagree with WYSFW then do
>not support them. If
>you agree with RMEF then
>support them. If I
>started a group and only
>asked to keep 5% would
>that suddenly make you all
>think RMEF was wrong?
>
>The group that made a poor
>decision is the State of
>Wyoming for not going with
>the lowest bidder. Perhaps the
>reasoning was that they thought
>WYSFW would get a higher
>price than RMEF and that
>would offset the loss of
>20%. Perhaps no thought
>was put into it, (most
>likely answer). Either way
>if you have a problem
>bring it to the Gov's
>office and quit your argument
>that WYSFW should "just do
>the right thing." With
>WYSFW you will be waiting
>a long time.
***You can agree that he's correct if you'd like, but he's not because that is not how the program has been working. Precedent was set when the Governor's Tag Program was instituted that any group selling the tags would receive 10% of the money they made, regardless of what that amounted to or whether they went in the hole selling it for that commission rate. That is true whether it was agreed to in writing or just by a handshake (gentlemen's agreement" as I coined it)! The program was designed to benefit wildlife and not to make money for the organization(s) selling the tag(s). That plan has worked ever since it's inception and it has been very transparent as to how much each tag made, that 90% of that money came back to the Committee for benefit of that species, and that the money was then administered for worthwhile projects with followup to see that it was used accordingly. That is why I, and most others, feel that to take 30% is wrong and all of us would be hollering foul regardless of what organization was involved. That SFW is the organization, with all the other negative connotations it has already fostered, makes it that much more suspect. The other groups started from scratch with 10% and are all still involved at that rate. Now along comes WYSFW with this new Bison tag that is administered in the SAME PROGRAM UNDER THE SAME BILL that merely was changed to add the 5 Bison tags and through some backroom deal they have been offered and accepted 30%. My thoughts are that if they want to administer the other 20% themselves that is above and beyond what the other organizations are keeping, then they should ask for money in a grant that may or may not be allowed by Committee, but if allowed it will be monitored to see that it is used properly just like all the others in a transparent way. There is absolutely no reason why WYSFW should be receiving 3 times the percentage as the others in the exact same Governor's Tag program unless the entire program is changed and agreed upon by all in it!
>"If that's true, all I can
>is what a POS! Hope
>some of you guys are
>writing letters to the G&F
>Commissioners..."
>
>
>Triple BB,
>
>Would you care to explain why
>you feel that way?
***Why do you need someone to explain to you why the he** they feel the way they do every time a post is made? If you can't figure it out on your own, then you lack the knowledge of what has been going on in the state of Wyoming and need to do your homework before asking questions that everyone but yourself already know the answer to!
>is what a POS! Hope
>some of you guys are
>writing letters to the G&F
>Commissioners..."
>
>
>Triple BB,
>
>Would you care to explain why
>you feel that way?
***Why do you need someone to explain to you why the he** they feel the way they do every time a post is made? If you can't figure it out on your own, then you lack the knowledge of what has been going on in the state of Wyoming and need to do your homework before asking questions that everyone but yourself already know the answer to!
Tristate
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,890
Hey Flopgun, They aren't selling the tags. I know its hard for you to imagine but this is different business altogether. Did it ever occur to you to think that the state has figured out %10 doesn't work for wildlife? Did it ever occur to you that they might be actually exploring new ways to maximize dollars for wildlife? I know all you think is it is different so it must be evil, but maybe someone in Wyoming has finally seen something unsustainable and has decided to start making changes. I know that frightens and confuses you but such is life.
Haven't I been telling you for months now that these complicated systems for game and social management were broken? Could it be these politicians who are on the inside of this have realized that too and are ready to make attempts to change?????
Haven't I been telling you for months now that these complicated systems for game and social management were broken? Could it be these politicians who are on the inside of this have realized that too and are ready to make attempts to change?????
Tristate
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,890
Because I think if you are going to call another poster on this sight a POS you should be able to back it up with something useful and not just blind hate. I know you think blind hate is great around here but I disagree. That's the kind of behavior that keeps people out of hunting.
TG,
You are still hung up on right and wrong. If you think SFW in any of its various forms will act ethically or morally then prepare to continue to be disappointed. The system may have been setup to work as a 90/10 split but WYSFW went in and asked for 30% and got it. They tried and succeeded. No one to blame but the guy that said yes to the deal.
You say that they don't need the 30%. You are correct. However, when they asked for 30% it was not because of need but rather want. Someone with the State agreed to make a decision based on want and not need. Stop thinking of SFW, WYSFW or AZSFW as conservation orgs and start thinking of them as a tag brokering business. That is more closely related to what they actually get accomplished. They are little more than a tag middle man between the states and the hunter. They make decisions based on what is best for their business not you, I or the state. I know they try to claim otherwise but they are not. Once you accept this then you will stop beating your head against the wall with Tristate.
You are still hung up on right and wrong. If you think SFW in any of its various forms will act ethically or morally then prepare to continue to be disappointed. The system may have been setup to work as a 90/10 split but WYSFW went in and asked for 30% and got it. They tried and succeeded. No one to blame but the guy that said yes to the deal.
You say that they don't need the 30%. You are correct. However, when they asked for 30% it was not because of need but rather want. Someone with the State agreed to make a decision based on want and not need. Stop thinking of SFW, WYSFW or AZSFW as conservation orgs and start thinking of them as a tag brokering business. That is more closely related to what they actually get accomplished. They are little more than a tag middle man between the states and the hunter. They make decisions based on what is best for their business not you, I or the state. I know they try to claim otherwise but they are not. Once you accept this then you will stop beating your head against the wall with Tristate.
llamapacker
Moderator
- Messages
- 1,068
Mulecreek,
You are incorrect, RMEF does not keep 10% of the funds from other tags. They have been very public about their stance on returning 100% of the proceeds from any conservation tag to the state.
Other groups, like MDF, DU, and even RMEF in the past kept 10%. But RMEF has been in the forefront of a push to see 100% of the money returned to the state. They correctly analayzed that sportsmen do not think any group should be enriched for selling these tags, and have called on all groups to be transparent about where the money goes. RMEF is going the extra mile by returning 100% of all tag proceeds to the state
10% to the selling group has historically been the case, and 30% is an abhorrent aberration. I support the RMEF position. I'm not too unhappy with other groups keeping 10%, and there is historical precedent. Grabbing more when you can get it, like WYSFW in this case, speaks volumes about their character. If these groups are really nonprofit conservation groups, they should have no problem returning 100% of the money to the state.Supposedly their entire purpose is to raise money to do good things for wildlife.
Let's hold them accountable and cry foul when any of these groups starts to line their pockets with conservation dollars.
Bill
You are incorrect, RMEF does not keep 10% of the funds from other tags. They have been very public about their stance on returning 100% of the proceeds from any conservation tag to the state.
Other groups, like MDF, DU, and even RMEF in the past kept 10%. But RMEF has been in the forefront of a push to see 100% of the money returned to the state. They correctly analayzed that sportsmen do not think any group should be enriched for selling these tags, and have called on all groups to be transparent about where the money goes. RMEF is going the extra mile by returning 100% of all tag proceeds to the state
10% to the selling group has historically been the case, and 30% is an abhorrent aberration. I support the RMEF position. I'm not too unhappy with other groups keeping 10%, and there is historical precedent. Grabbing more when you can get it, like WYSFW in this case, speaks volumes about their character. If these groups are really nonprofit conservation groups, they should have no problem returning 100% of the money to the state.Supposedly their entire purpose is to raise money to do good things for wildlife.
Let's hold them accountable and cry foul when any of these groups starts to line their pockets with conservation dollars.
Bill
>TG,
>
>You are still hung up on
>right and wrong. If
>you think SFW in any
>of its various forms will
>act ethically or morally then
>prepare to continue to be
>disappointed. The system may
>have been setup to work
>as a 90/10 split but
>WYSFW went in and asked
>for 30% and got it.
> They tried and succeeded.
> No one to blame
>but the guy that said
>yes to the deal.
>
>You say that they don't need
>the 30%. You are
>correct. However, when they
>asked for 30% it was
>not because of need but
>rather want. Someone with
>the State agreed to make
>a decision based on want
>and not need. Stop
>thinking of SFW, WYSFW or
>AZSFW as conservation orgs and
>start thinking of them as
>a tag brokering business.
>That is more closely related
>to what they actually get
>accomplished. They are little
>more than a tag middle
>man between the states and
>the hunter. They make
>decisions based on what is
>best for their business not
>you, I or the state.
> I know they try
>to claim otherwise but they
>are not. Once you
>accept this then you will
>stop beating your head against
>the wall with Tristate.
***I don't know why you lead off your post to me since I wouldn't argue about a single thing you said other than it's incorrect, to the best of my knowledge, that WYSFW asked for 30%. Inside information that I received, and I will not divulge who that inside person is, is in agreement with Bob Wharff that they were offered that amount for some unknown reason without asking for it. However, as Bob himself stated, they "graciously" accepted it and don't see anything wrong with doing that, even though all the other groups retain the standard 10% in existence since the inception of the Governor tag Program.
>
>You are still hung up on
>right and wrong. If
>you think SFW in any
>of its various forms will
>act ethically or morally then
>prepare to continue to be
>disappointed. The system may
>have been setup to work
>as a 90/10 split but
>WYSFW went in and asked
>for 30% and got it.
> They tried and succeeded.
> No one to blame
>but the guy that said
>yes to the deal.
>
>You say that they don't need
>the 30%. You are
>correct. However, when they
>asked for 30% it was
>not because of need but
>rather want. Someone with
>the State agreed to make
>a decision based on want
>and not need. Stop
>thinking of SFW, WYSFW or
>AZSFW as conservation orgs and
>start thinking of them as
>a tag brokering business.
>That is more closely related
>to what they actually get
>accomplished. They are little
>more than a tag middle
>man between the states and
>the hunter. They make
>decisions based on what is
>best for their business not
>you, I or the state.
> I know they try
>to claim otherwise but they
>are not. Once you
>accept this then you will
>stop beating your head against
>the wall with Tristate.
***I don't know why you lead off your post to me since I wouldn't argue about a single thing you said other than it's incorrect, to the best of my knowledge, that WYSFW asked for 30%. Inside information that I received, and I will not divulge who that inside person is, is in agreement with Bob Wharff that they were offered that amount for some unknown reason without asking for it. However, as Bob himself stated, they "graciously" accepted it and don't see anything wrong with doing that, even though all the other groups retain the standard 10% in existence since the inception of the Governor tag Program.
>Let me ask yall something.
>If RMEF gives back %100
>of the sales of these
>tags back to the state
>agency, why sell them for
>the state agency?
***They are doing it to make as much money as they can for the wildlife and will not use any of that tag money for thei own expenses. They are an organization that receives enough in donations and dues money from it's members that they don't need to rely on any tag money to run said operation. It's just the opposite with the SFW in that they obviously rely heavily on making money off all the tags so they can even stay in existence. Doing that takes huge amounts of money away from the wildlife that they claim to be in existence to help. If all that money from tag sales and auctions went to wildlife like RMEF has asked of all organizations the outcry would cease. Even if they kept 10% and had open, transparent books IMHO the outcry would cease.
>If RMEF gives back %100
>of the sales of these
>tags back to the state
>agency, why sell them for
>the state agency?
***They are doing it to make as much money as they can for the wildlife and will not use any of that tag money for thei own expenses. They are an organization that receives enough in donations and dues money from it's members that they don't need to rely on any tag money to run said operation. It's just the opposite with the SFW in that they obviously rely heavily on making money off all the tags so they can even stay in existence. Doing that takes huge amounts of money away from the wildlife that they claim to be in existence to help. If all that money from tag sales and auctions went to wildlife like RMEF has asked of all organizations the outcry would cease. Even if they kept 10% and had open, transparent books IMHO the outcry would cease.
Just received this PM from nfh, an MM member, and with his permission have done a C/P so people can see another facet of the SFW operation. Granted it's one person's perspective, but it sort of corrresonds with just about everything else that's being said about this organization. Here's the PM:
Well a couple of months ago I posted on the Wyoming forum about going to the Cody banquet.
Well since my buddy bought me a ticket I went. What a mistake. They are gold-diggers. First off the fee was $55 that was paid for. The meal was just a slice of prime rib and a tiny tator. I starved.
secondly all the raffles are super expensive. I don't know how a middle class person can afford them.
The silent auction was junk.
All the Sfw idiots walking around got pissy if you didn't buy a raffle ticket. The famous line was ITS FOR THE WILDLIFE.
The main auction was another joke to see. The first item was a really nice Winchester painting. I could see it going for $400 bucks but the auctioneer just stopped it for his buddy at $90 bucks. A lot of people were upset. But yet when an item was stated sold to someone they would go around asking other bidders to get back in, which made more people upset.
It gets better. My Dad tagged along to. Last item was a Remington 870. Only at $150 my dad said that's a steal so he starting bidding. Well at $195 he stopped. one of the SFW members stood behind him raising her hand. My dad said no I am done. Next he knew he won the gun.
Not wanting to cause a outrage he decided to let it go and take the gun. He asked to see it so he could decide if he wanted to go ahead and take it. They told him he isn't allowed to see it so he has to go to gun shop to pick it up. But yet they let a 12 year old win a ar-15 with zero paperwork.
Come the next day he went to pick up the gun and it was a youth 870. WHICH WAS NEVER SAID AT THE AUCTION. He explained to the gun store what happened and he got his money back and the gun store said they may not donate next year.
I am disgusted with the SFW just over a banquet. I don't know half the crap they pull but makes me sick.
Well a couple of months ago I posted on the Wyoming forum about going to the Cody banquet.
Well since my buddy bought me a ticket I went. What a mistake. They are gold-diggers. First off the fee was $55 that was paid for. The meal was just a slice of prime rib and a tiny tator. I starved.
secondly all the raffles are super expensive. I don't know how a middle class person can afford them.
The silent auction was junk.
All the Sfw idiots walking around got pissy if you didn't buy a raffle ticket. The famous line was ITS FOR THE WILDLIFE.
The main auction was another joke to see. The first item was a really nice Winchester painting. I could see it going for $400 bucks but the auctioneer just stopped it for his buddy at $90 bucks. A lot of people were upset. But yet when an item was stated sold to someone they would go around asking other bidders to get back in, which made more people upset.
It gets better. My Dad tagged along to. Last item was a Remington 870. Only at $150 my dad said that's a steal so he starting bidding. Well at $195 he stopped. one of the SFW members stood behind him raising her hand. My dad said no I am done. Next he knew he won the gun.
Not wanting to cause a outrage he decided to let it go and take the gun. He asked to see it so he could decide if he wanted to go ahead and take it. They told him he isn't allowed to see it so he has to go to gun shop to pick it up. But yet they let a 12 year old win a ar-15 with zero paperwork.
Come the next day he went to pick up the gun and it was a youth 870. WHICH WAS NEVER SAID AT THE AUCTION. He explained to the gun store what happened and he got his money back and the gun store said they may not donate next year.
I am disgusted with the SFW just over a banquet. I don't know half the crap they pull but makes me sick.
one_dryboot
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,108
So let's say SFW WY gave back 100% of the money. How much of that would actually go back to wildlife on the ground project ect...??? does money generated from wildlife go into the general fund like some states? SFW Wy will give 70% back per agreement, what will they do with that 70%? how much will actually go back to wildlife?
LAST EDITED ON Jun-06-13 AT 05:41PM (MST)[p]
>So let's say SFW WY gave
>back 100% of the money.
>How much of that would
>actually go back to wildlife
>on the ground project ect...???
> does money generated from
>wildlife go into the general
>fund like some states?
> SFW Wy
>will give 70% back per
>agreement, what will they do
>with that 70%? how
>much will actually go back
>to wildlife?
***Under the present Governor Tag Program in Wyoming the seller keeps 10% and ALL of the remaining 90% that the animal tags make goes into a fund administered by a committee of individuals appointed by the Governor for that particular species. At the present time there are four committees (sheep, deer, elk and moose). I would hope a committee is appointed to oversee the Bison tags as well. BuzzH is a member of the moose committee and if you will go up to his post #45 in this thread and open the links he provided you will see various projects that were funded by that money. When the committee approves a project request they also do a followup to insure that money went where it was supposed to, so it's about as transparent as you can get!
>So let's say SFW WY gave
>back 100% of the money.
>How much of that would
>actually go back to wildlife
>on the ground project ect...???
> does money generated from
>wildlife go into the general
>fund like some states?
> SFW Wy
>will give 70% back per
>agreement, what will they do
>with that 70%? how
>much will actually go back
>to wildlife?
***Under the present Governor Tag Program in Wyoming the seller keeps 10% and ALL of the remaining 90% that the animal tags make goes into a fund administered by a committee of individuals appointed by the Governor for that particular species. At the present time there are four committees (sheep, deer, elk and moose). I would hope a committee is appointed to oversee the Bison tags as well. BuzzH is a member of the moose committee and if you will go up to his post #45 in this thread and open the links he provided you will see various projects that were funded by that money. When the committee approves a project request they also do a followup to insure that money went where it was supposed to, so it's about as transparent as you can get!
LAST EDITED ON Jun-06-13 AT 08:43PM (MST)[p]>Does the committee pay anyone to
>implement their wildlife projects?
>Biologists, farmers, admin, mechanics,
>etc............
The committees look at various projects that various organizations submit to them and decide if they are worthwhile. If a project is approved, then the money required to complete the project is allocated. When the project is completed the way I understand it there is a followup to see that the money was used as requested.
>implement their wildlife projects?
>Biologists, farmers, admin, mechanics,
>etc............
The committees look at various projects that various organizations submit to them and decide if they are worthwhile. If a project is approved, then the money required to complete the project is allocated. When the project is completed the way I understand it there is a followup to see that the money was used as requested.
I am with you brdhuntr.....I am out of popcorn. So, I thought I would go fire up my space shuttle out back, swoop down to Texas, pick up Tristate, flash to Michigan & get Topgun, get in the commuter lane & head to Jupiter to get a 30 pack of beer & some Orville Redenbocker (sp?) & let them discuss this thing while I am idleing at the rest stop on the moon (so they can pee) on our way home before midnight. Gotta be home before midnight.....pumpkins turn into squash on re-entry.
