LAST EDITED ON Dec-08-12 AT 09:35PM (MST)[p]BuzzH,
You initially posted my comments in bold type, followed by your comments in regular text.
Here are my responses to your comments:
Where are those groups spending their money? Last I saw, most of the money raised by those groups leave the state and are spent elsewhere.
Thats funny...and the height of absolute hypocrisy for you to ask where ANY group spends their money. You've been asked that same question dozens of times and you give vaugue answers, at best.
Really? WY SFW has spent all of its money addressing Wyoming issues. Almost every other National organization is mining Wyoming?s natural resources and taking 70-80% of the money raised here and allocating it somewhere else.
Yes, our group did donate hay to the National Elk Refuge but more importantly, we stopped the former refuge manager from starving the elk he was hired to manage, even though he had an anti-feeding agenda. After the initial "Hay Day", we have donated hay in support of maintaining our elk feed grounds. As is usually the case, there is more to the story than you know or would care to know about. Your hate for everything SFW will not allow you or some on this site to see anything WY SFW has done as being beneficial.
Seems like theres always, "more to the story" every time SFW is involved with anything. Ever ask yourself why thats routinely the case?
Yes, there usually is more to the story than you care to learn about. I guess you did not care about the actions of the past NER Manager as you would have allowed him to continue starving elk and undermining the express purpose of the NER. Somehow things like this are just lost or glossed over by guys like BuzzH. Your hatred for all things SFW has blinded you and it is impossible for you to see anything we do as beneficial.
Our priority has not been just to focus on habitat.
I'll give you that point, see, I give credit where due, and where proof exists. WYSFW doesnt even list habitat issues as an objective on your web page. Funny though that you've stated a few times that restoring mule deer is a big concern of yours, but then point out that habitat issues arent a priority.. Not sure how WYSFW is going to restore mule deer when the WYG&F, and biologists all say habitat issues are the biggest concern. But, like I said, I concur that habitat isnt your focus.
Yes, that is all the G&F biologists want to look at is habitat. How has that helped mule deer? Golly, it seems as though we have been getting the same stories for at least a decade and how have mule deer numbers fared? I guess you are content to just keep doing the same things and hoping that miraculously things turn around for mule deer and their habitat. WY SFW is going to push for another direction as we are tired of seeing nothing change. Yes, we are finally getting the G&F to look at other things to try while we wait for habitat conditions to change.
We have focused our attention and energy on legislative solutions. As you also know, we have spent a lot of our time, energy & resources fighting to ensure that Wyoming was able to manage wolves based on Wyoming's desire to contain wolves in NW Wyoming.
Great work! Were you planning on taking all the credit for wolves coming off the list or where you going to go ahead and give Salazar, Mead, hunters, fishermen, and several dozen other groups some credit?
In case you missed the news, I wouldnt be celebrating your "victory" just yet. Appears a couple lawsuits are on the horizon questioning Wyomings wolf management plan...or lack-there-of.
WY SFW has never taken sole credit for obtaining wolf delisting under Wyoming?s plan. We have always said that it was a combined effort of the Wolf Coalition, Senator Kit Jennings and former USFWS Regional Director Mitch King. Governor Freudenthal & Mead have also played a significant role in Wyoming being where we are today. Once again, where were you, BuzzH? You were cheering for and continue to cheer for the opposition. Is it any wonder that you and I might disagree on this topic? Furthermore, you keep stating that all of this would have not been necessary had Wyoming went with trophy status statewide. I guess you cannot see how that has played out for other states which implemented trophy management statewide? Let me explain it to you; they also face litigation. Oh yeh, except for Idaho & Montana, which threw Wyoming and every other state under the bus and settled for a two state delisting. Brilliant!
]b]By being engaged in legislative issues, WY SFW has established the Wyoming Wildlife & Natural Resource Trust. This was tried twice before SFW existed in Wyoming.[/b]
Wow!!! Thats great that your group was solely responsible for the WWNRT (insert sarcasm). Did you inform all the other Wyoming Conservation groups, wildlife groups, citizens, hunters, fishermen. legislature, etc. that worked their butts off that without you, they'd of had no chance?
WOW!...JUST WOW!
Once again, it was a team effort; however, it was solely left to WY SFW to defeat every attempt to insert fee title acquisition into the bill. For those that don't know, that was why past efforts failed. Do your own research and fact check as I was there BuzzH and you were not! Once again?..
I met with Governor Freudenthal to discuss access issues and he suggested that we focus on the Wildlife Trust.
Probably good advice, because everyone knows that without WYSFW leading the charge, the Wildlife Trust wouldnt have had a chance.
Don?t trust me on this one, do your own fact checking. Call Governor Freudenthal and ask him. Ask former Speaker of the House Randall Luthi. As I said, it was a team effort, but it was left to WY SFW to defeat all amendments which attempt to insert fee title acquisition. Had one of those amendments passed, the AG community as well as the oil & gas would have killed the bill.
Access remains a huge issue that we will continue addressing.
****WARNING****
WYSFW, along with their leadership, want to bring Ranching for Wildlife, CWMU, and similar programs to Wyoming. Their idea of increasing "public access" is to give landowners transferable licenses (the only way RFW or CWMU programs can work) to sell to the highest bidder in exchange for allowing a handful of residents "access" to these ranches. I suggest all Wyoming Sportsmen look into these programs in Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. Ask the Residents there how happy they are with the "public access" provided via these programs. You'll quickly find that in all those states, that the average guy has been bent over via these programs. Wont be any different in Wyoming.
I thought you claimed WY SFW had no plans? I would also ask sportsmen to look into these programs. Wyoming doesn't need to adopt any plan from other states but there is nothing that suggests we cannot look to other states and modify their programs to meet Wyoming?s challenges. As always, the devil is in the details.
WY SFW has supported license fee increases in 2007
Yep, and you'll be supporting them again in 2012.
Nope. WY SFW will not be supporting license fees in 2012. Furthermore, I doubt we will be supporting license fee increases in 2013 either.
We worked with the Woolgrowers to expand local county predator boards to include sportsmen and established general funding dollars to address predators. This has improved to focus of predator management to benefit wildlife populations not simply address livestock predation.
I dont buy it. I want some hard data to prove that coyote control has improved big-game herds in Wyoming. Any dumby that would throw money down the drain on predator control doesnt understand a single thing about coyote biology, reproductive rates, etc. As a government hunter friend of mine said, and is still true today..."you shoot one coyote, 10 come to his funeral".
Honestly, you'd be using your money more wisely buying mule deer and antelope fawns pajamas to keep them warm through their first winter of life...and thats a fact.
BuzzH, you should do some research as you will find numerous accounts of benefits derived via predator management. You probably do not believe in providing deer with a supplemental feed during harsh winters either. While you are doing your predator research, maybe you should also look at supplemental winter feeding as well. It is amazing what you can learn when you actually look for information.
WY SFW also helped pass the recoupment bill which restores money to the WY G&F where the legislators have passed laws which obligated the G&F to offer reduced price license fees, etc.
This generates about $1 million annually.
Glad to see you arent taking ALL the credit, for once.
Nothing happens because of a sole organization or individual but it takes someone showing up and exhibiting leadership. Setting by idle, wishing that license fees weren't climbing so high and accepting the increase as inevitable is another good example of leadership. Hmmmm??..
Please explain to me how WY SFW is "catering to wealthy hunters and the outfitting industry?"
Its already been stated, numerous times. You and WYSFW have supported outfitter sponsored licenses, transferable landowner tags, and also support RFW, CWMU type programs. Tell me how any of those things dont vastly favor the wealthy hunters, outfitters, and landowners?
It has already been stated on here that most of the private lands that allow hunting are either leased or only family members & friends are allowed to hunt. It has also been explained several times that WY SFW endorsed stabilizing the Outfitting Industry. You and several others have inferred that translated to set aside licenses for Outfitters. Once again, your interpretation is wrong. As stated above, the devils are in the details. Just case one states program does it one way, doesn't mean all others must follow suit. One could equally suggest that willingly accepting license fee increases favor the wealthy hunters, outfitters and landowners as they will soon be the only people able to purchase licenses. You are brilliant BuzzH!
Why would a political organization expend energy fighting this fight when the wealthy hunters and outfitters would absorb this license fee increase with little concern for how it might impact the average Joes, many of which are stating that they will simply no longer hunt/fish?
I've wondered how you and WYSFW could ever support programs that clearly favor the outfitters, landowners, and wealthy hunters. In particular when you trumpet on about how you're "just looking out for the average guy"...
Once again BuzzH, you have nothing to provide except smartallect responses. Once again, just for your benefit, I have never claimed to represent anyone other than members of WY SFW. However, I will say, it is our members that have expressed concern over the G&F proposal to increase license fees during one of the highest times of economic uncertainty. Furthermore, WY SFW and its members have pointed out the difficulty other states are now experiencing following their 2009 license fee increases. They say; ?Don?t worry; there are more hunters than we can supply licenses for.? Meanwhile, they deny that it will ultimately reduce the number of hunters/anglers/trappers. The truth is they don't care as they want non-traditional funding sources to replace sportsmen as they are no longer our advocates.
Some of the SFW chapters have given money to the access yes program.
According to research I've done, ONE chapter donated an undisclosed amount in 2010.
I also know that the G&F conveniently failed to recognize the same chapters donation before. Any wonder why they might not have been as inclined to donate more this go around.
Many of our members contribute individually, as do I.
Thank you, I wasnt asking about individuals though.
If more individuals would contribute to the access yes program there would not be a need for other organizations to make contributions.
There are many ways to address access and we will look to increase access.
Yeah, I know, you want RFW and CWMU programs that allow a very, very, very small number of resident hunters limited amounts of access to private lands. Its also fair to note that typically, the public hunters have no say in when, or where they hunt. They're told when and where they can hunt, never allowed to scout, etc. Usually, publically drawn tags are not even valid on accessible public lands within a RFW operation (Colorado for instance).
Just because other states have made the number very, very, very small doesn't mean that Wyoming would need to follow suit. Again, the devil is in the details and you have seen nothing as nothing has been put out there for you to attack.
How much of a priority is access for the G&F Department and how are they trying to expand access?
Apparently more of a priority than it is for you and your club. The ACCESSYES program was not initiated by WYSFW, unless you're going to again take credit for something you didnt do. I've been told by numerous ACCESSYES coordinators that they could vastly increase the number of ranches enrolled, but lack funding.
It would seem to me, that any group thats really looking out for the average hunter and access, would be making significant donations to a public access program. In particular when that program is already established and returns 4 acres of access for every $1 invested. But hey, what do us average guys know?
The truth is the current program cannot get any larger due to the cost associated with its implementation. How many ranches have left the program because an outfitter has come to the landowner(s) and offered more money for the hunting? The smaller landowners or those with parcels interspersed with state lands are enrolling. None of the larger landowners are even considering enrolling in the program because they cannot compete with an open market. The programs you mentioned from other states cost how much for the states to implement? How much more hunting is provided on private lands under their programs than those same private lands provided prior to the implementation of those programs? I have said it before, as a past biologist for Deseret Land and Livestock I know what happened when they enrolled into the CWMU program; 27% of the hunters paid to hunt so that 73% could hunt for the cost of their license. Furthermore, while at Deseret, all of the elk hunters were guided including the hunters which drew the public licenses. They hunted alongside the pay hunters. Deer hunters hunted during the entire 10 day season that paid hunters had. Everyone played by the same rules. No one was allowed scouting but what else would you expect from a working ranch. It is private property and has other priorities besides hunting.
But hey, what do us average guys know?
Are you saying that you are an average guy or are you trying to imply that you are speaking for the average guy?
How's that TOPGUN?