SFW -- In-search of truth...

N

nmhntr

Active Member
Messages
184
Recently, I have been getting very confused with all the political stuff and misleading messages on what I assumed were all non-profit hunting organizations. After the SFW banquet, I heard a couple things about the SFW organization that are VERY concerning assuming they are true.

I am writing this thread with an open-mind trying to find the truth. I don't know if these questions are true or just stories from a crazy friend.

1. Is SFW is a for profit company? Not at 501-C non-profit like RMEF.

2. Are SFW banquet auction items not donations at all? Are they just selling items for companies?

3. Is the SFW chapter in NM associated with AZ or UT?

4. Why did SFW-AZ lobby to remove 350 of the best AZ tags from public hunters?

5. Is SFW associated with the recent removal of big horn sheep tags from the public NM draw?

I am waiting for answers to these straight forward questions before I determine if I am going to attend the SFW banquet next year.
 
Greatwestern, you can search google for "19.31.17 nmac bighorn." Read about it yourself. I'm interested if SFW is tied to these recent private bighorn tags in NM.
 
Ya, righto...still wondering WHICH bighorn tags were 'recently removed from the NM draw'?

Also, curious as to how you figure sfw has ANYTHING to do with the two bighorn private land arrangements?
 
Here is the truth about SFW-NM, I am on the state board and there is a ton of misinformation out there, but if actually searching for the truth, here it is.



1. Is SFW is a for profit company? Not at 501-C non-profit like RMEF.

SFW-NM is a 501-C, non profit - have the ID and forms and file tax returns to show this.


2. Are SFW banquet auction items not donations at all? Are they just selling items for companies?


There are several items in the auctions that are donated, there are several that are purchased then resold at auction. We usually get these items at a discount.


3. Is the SFW chapter in NM associated with AZ or UT?

We are associated with UT, all the ties are mainly with the magazine, and on some National issues (wolves). The UT board does not tell NM on how to run there state buisness, and we dont tell them how to run there state buisness. Thus we keep all money rasied in NM for NM.

Contrary to the Anti SFW crowd - AZ is not associated with either us or UT. If they were tied to UT they would have had some pages in the magazine. They never have been in the mag. That should be proof enough that there is no association.

4. Why did SFW-AZ lobby to remove 350 of the best AZ tags from public hunters?

You would have to ask the SFW-AZ group.


5. Is SFW associated with the recent removal of big horn sheep tags from the public NM draw?

No - there was 2 sheep tags before that FNAWS gets, one to auction, one to raffle. 90% of money raised goes right back into the sheep program. With the success of this program, especially the Desert Sheep. NMG&F decided to go to 4 tags, 2 desert tags, 2 Rocky Mountain tags. These tags will probably be auctioned/raffled by FNAWS as well.


I know the anti-SFW crowd will come on and try to discredit / slander this. However this is the truth. If your not involved then you cannot know what goes on.



Outside of a horse is good for the inside of a man.
 
30...good day...being that you are on the board for NM,a few quick questions...

Is it in the plans (or will it ever)of nmsfw to ever go after primetime NM hunting tags as has been done in AZ and UT, for example 16A-16D Elk, unit 2's for deer in Jan, and any other prime units and/or hunts in this state?

How much of the money raised by sfwnm goes back to on the ground efforts to actually help wildlife and habitat?

Is sfwnm not a "subsidiary" of the utsfw? What is the real connection between the two?

These are concerning questions knowing what the parent group in Utah has done with the tags in that state, the "coup" the Arizona group tried to pull, and the Alaska wildlife director scheme.

There is a reason why so many people are cautious about your group. Look at the history of anything "sfw."

Have a great day.

Carlos

ps...were you at sportsmans with your group recently?
 
As stated SFWNM only affilation with UT is national issues and the magazine. We are not required to send UT any monies beside pay for number of magazines we get in NM. Nationally we have been supportive of the efforts on the wolf issue. That is only tie with UT.

AZ is not in any way shape or form connected to SFW UT or SFW NM. They are a completely seperate group. You have the haters that say otherwise, however the proof is that in no SFW magaizine have you ever seen AZ in it.

The premium tags in NM, no we have not even considered this, I am one that will fight against this. I have seen the benifit that UT has done with this model, I do think that if we could get the sportsman of NM to come together we could do more without going down that route.

However you will have to come to the table with the LO's, Cattle Growers, Trappers, Outfitters, Oil & Gas, Mining, ect. They have as much to do with the land / wildlife as us regular joe hunters. As long as we fight against them - nothing is accomplished.

As far as money on the ground, I can say this, that no one in NM has taken a salary, we have paid out some wages for a secretary. Other than that it has all gone to either try and increase membership numbers, or on the ground projects. One of the main projects we have is installing pipe fencing around wildlife water sources vs the old t-post wire fencing, that has been torn down by cattle. We also have a large project that will be done in 2012/13 in partership with the BLM in 2A.


No I was not at sportsmans the other day. ABQ has a fishing derby coming up soon, they where probably there promoting it.





Outside of a horse is good for the inside of a man.
 
"That is only tie with UT."
"AZ is not in any way shape or form connected to SFW UT or SFW NM"

With the same desire u have to separate yourself from other SFW groups, we have the same desire towards them too, NM SFW included.

"As long as we fight against them - nothing is accomplished."

This is partly true but not completely. 30" do u think too many tags have been issued to LOs? If so, what is SFW doing about it? Do u think OFs should have kept 12% entitlements? Would SFW prefered that? I already know that one. I dont like to come across with an attitude but I think your orgs interests are more in line with "big business" and while it is true that we all need to come to the table, I think "habitat" is your soap box but I can tell u there are alot of sportsmen that know well the bigger issues.
 
I don't typically get vocal about hunting but I am way more confused than when I started. I am still extremely interest if NM SWF was involved with the two private ranch bighorn tags? Did SFW lobby congressman or the head of NMDGF with the money I paid during the banquet to steal coveted tags owned by the state of NM? Assuming this is true, I believe that SWF will eventually want to steal a portion of the very best elk and deer tags in the state....

On the flip side, I thought that the NM SFW banquet was a lot of fun. The speech during the banquet by the head of NMDGF was very interesting and uniting all hunters is a concept that needs to be practiced more. I especially liked the talk by the rancher/outfitter that raffle off the Barbary sheep hunt for 4 hunters. Looking back I don't know if his speech was disingenuous in an attempt to sell his hunting package for more profit. Was this barbary hunt one that SWF simply "purchased?" It is an interesting concept to unite all hunter to fight against non-hunters. I support that aspect of your group. Just tough to find a balance -- think NM landowners have been getting too much for to long with over 12% of our public tags. For example, a single TX landowner in unit 13 gets more elk tags than any single archery season. I don't think that the current ranch allocation of tags is fair.

Nevertheless, I am getting cold feet about your group.

Did they pay a really pay a guy from utah $150k per year to start the AZ SFW group?
 
nmhntr...i am not even close to sold on this group based off what has happened in UT, AZ, and AK...if you go to the UT or AZ sites you should be able to find a lot of good reading material...if nmsfw truly is not a "subsidiary" of the parent sfw group i would be really amazed...just not being part of the sfw magazine doesn't make sense...don peay has his boys out in force and i really believe it's only a matter of time before nmsfw tries to steal primo NM public tags for their auction...

...if nmsfw was really not interested in these primo tags would they be willing to write it into their bylaws to not become thieves of the public? also, if they were to get some tags would they promise to send at least 90% of the proceeds back to the NMDGF solely for the purpose of habitat management? FNAWS does this and i am not against it as it benefits all wildlife...does sfw disclose where every penny is spent?

just looking for some answers...
 
30" already said they were a chapter of SFW.

I fail to understand why some states/Organizations have this auction/raffle tag distribution ass backwards.
You don't give the tags to a private organization along with all the proceeds, then have them send some of the money back to the Dept. Isn't that just common sense?

Up here, all the money goes to the dept, minus a commission. Oregon gives 10% to the selling organizations, and none of that 10% has to be for habitat. We have somewhere around 20 auction tags and we just don't have these pesky problems. Granted, our hunting sucks but I would like to think our department could see the folly in giving a few hundred tags to an independent Organization and then rely on them to give some of it back.

If the only thing a chapter gets from the parent SFW is a magazine they have to pay for, why be a chapter? Start your own Org with a clean slate and none of the dirty laundry.
 
^Exactly...same paradigm we've got working here.

NMHntr, still waiting for you to identify these 'stolen' tags?? Prime example here how idiot internet rumors are conceived and perpetuated.

Also, the two herds with an LO allocation exist ENTIRELY on private land, and there are public draw tags for both properties. Granting the ownership a percentage of liscences for the populations their properties exclusively support is perfectly reasonable and fair.

I've heard all of 30" rhetoric before, but there are always these little crumbs of suggestion lying about that seem to whisper loudly of the ties that bind. This is one of his interesting little blurbs from one of the recent Don Peay SFW threads:

"Sean we got more going on in NM right now, everything is looking very positive for NM. It is looking like well over 250K should hit the ground in NM in the next couple of years.

Along with fighting the anti-trappers.

my repsonse to big fin got posted up above his for some dumb reason.



Outside of a horse is good for the inside of a man"

I do know I'd need a mountain of tangible evidence at my disposal to be convinced of ANYthing ANYone affiliated with ANY SFW would have me believe. I never much cared for folks that talk out both sides of their mouths.
 
Bull, We came out against SB196 from the get go, not because of the OF allocations, not because of the NR allocations, it was because of the increase in $ required by all "requirement of the purchase of general hunting license" and because of decreasing G&F funds and the decrease in economic value that the NR brings to the state.

We see the benifit of working with the oufitters and the land owners. Both groups have bad and good, just like us hunters. There is a middle ground that would be most benifitial to the state. I think the LO system is a great way of doing buisness, is the current system abused by some - YES, can it be worked in a way to help habitat and hunting opportunities for everyone - YES.


nmhntr - no we did not lobby for the sheep tags. It was between the G&F and the LO in question. I can say this, that the LO in question has spent over a million dollars of his own to provide the habitat needed to grow the sheep population on his deeded land.

The barbary hunt was partially donated - I think just enough to cover his costs.

Again the AZ was started by guys in AZ, it was not started by anyone in UT. PERIOD. There is not one piece of evidence that can be produced that shows otherwise.

ixsolracxi - the 90% is not in FNAWS bylaws it is set by NM congressional laws. So no matter what group get the tags 90% goes directly to the G&F for habitat and or related matters.

Bob - like oregan it is the same in NM. 90% goes directly to G&F set by laws in the state. 10% goes to the org. pays for the venues, running the raffles, advertising, bank fees, ect.

As far as a new org, it takes 10 years to get the name out, we are finally seeing some fruits for our efforts in NM. There are a lot more hunters out there that do not know MM exists that are SFW followers, volunteers and donors.


GW - What in that DP SFW thread to you concieve as a lie? I never have talked out both sides.

A lot of SFW haters have posted rumors that are incorrect. It becomes a little like banging your head against a brick wall to prove your point even when you supply ample evidence to support the facts.








Outside of a horse is good for the inside of a man.
 
by the way nmhntr - I do not hide behind a disabled profile.







Outside of a horse is good for the inside of a man.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-11-12 AT 07:28PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Apr-11-12 AT 07:24?PM (MST)

All rhetoric aside, the actions of SFW have spoken for themselves in the states where this group has established itself.

First, SFW has taken and will continue to attempt to remove hunting licenses available to all hunters in a PUBLIC draw and make them available through their own system, thereby generating revenue for their organization.

Secondly, SFW New Mexico is in fact associated with SFW Utah. Furthermore, Don Peay is actively present in both the Utah AND Arizona versions of SFW.

Thirdly, what it happening in New Mexico is exactly how SFW establishes themselves in a state before they begin lobbying that state not only to make tags available through their own "raffles", but also to lobby to change the fund allocations so they end up taking more than the current 10% cut referenced by 30inch above. Ie., they quietly establish a presence by throwing a few banquets, throwing the anti wolf banner around their shoulders, building membership, and working on making key connections before they make their inevitable tag grab.

Fourth, SFW has taken and will continue to take the revenue they generate from their tag "raffles" and other assorted fundraisers to pay lobbyists who work to pull tags away from you, the public hunter. So, not only would you be competing in the annual draw for less tags, you would be spending additional cash on raffle tickets, entrance fees to events, etc.

Fifth, and 30inch I will let you tell us, what percentage of revenue generated from the big tag raffles in Utah goes back to the State, and what portion goes back to SFW? Also, why don't you enlighten us as to exactly what the original proposed raffle tag revenue allocation percentages were in Arizona and what they were when SFW made its second attempt?

Sixth, just because a business, organization or corporation is set up as a "non profit" is NOT an indication that board members, directors, managers, or the like are not capable of pulling significant salaries or other forms of pay. While this is currently unlikely in New Mexico, I would love to hear some public disclosure from SFW as to what salaries or other form of pay SFW pays to its leadership in Utah and Arizona, as well as how much is spent on events such as a "Longhorn" event or whatever they are called?

Additional Questions for SFW:

How many tags have been drawn or won by SFW board members/staff in SFW raffles?

Will (or has) Don Peay accepted Randy Newberg's invitation to debate the pros and cons of SFW in a public forum?

30inch, what is your take on the communism comment made by a top SFW member in the past couple of months?

Other than some token projects, I for one fail to see how the actions of SFW have truly and tangibly benefited the sportsmen of the states of Utah and Arizona. Don't let this post fool anyone. SFW has and will continue to attempt to privatize hunting opportunities available through public draw systems. When they are successful in doing so, they make certain to do so in a manner which benefits them monetarily.

I have outfitter and DIY friends on both sides of this fence. But, let me tell you one thing, and that is SFW has a proven track record of being a self-interested and very profitable organization where it has managed to successfully grab tags.

Here, the record, or rather the ACTIONS of SFW speak at a much greater volume than any of their words.

-Cody
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-11-12 AT 08:57PM (MST)[p]SFW ========= SFW.You mean to tell me you ain't associated
with SFW AZ.Yeah right....

Worst of all youR associated with SFW Utah.
Thats a big NO NO.Here in NM....
 
Let me start by saying that I do not know much about SFW. I have read all of the negative comments about them on here and other places as well as the few posts supporting and/or defending them. I am confident that they do some good and some not so good things, like most organizations.

With that said, I think that raffle and auction tags are a good thing. If some of the money comes back to the NMGF Dept. to be spent on habitat improvement that is good. If they keep some of the money, that is fine by me if they spend some on habitat as well. If NM bylaws require 90% to go to the G&F department then a private organization helped raise money for public use. I personally think that if they sell a sheep tag for $100k and spend only $3K on habitat improvement then that $3K will go a lot farther than $3k G&F would receive for a NR drawing that tag. Of course $90K will go a lot farther. I think most of us can agree that government organizations are far more financially inefficient than almost any private organization.

I also think that money should be able to buy hunts that the average hunter can not afford. I think that it is a very socialist mentality to think that all opportunities should be financially obtainable to everyone. If someone wants to spend $100k for a sheep tag, then that is their right, even if the "average joe" can't afford to do the same. Maybe the "average joe" should work harder or spend less and they too could buy a hunt, although not necessarily one that costs that much. Each of us has the choice of what we spend our money on. Some people have more money than others. But the beauty of capitalism is that many can succeed beyond what they thought possible. I can not afford a hunt even remotely close to that cost, nor could I imagine spending that much on a hunt.

Another thing that I think people on here fail to realize is that the animals belong to the residents of NM, not the hunting residents of NM. I don't know exactly how many New Mexicans hunt but my guess is that it is around 50,000. Each year around 150,000 apps are submitted and many of us submit several. If 50k of us hunt, then around 2 million don't hunt. These sheep belong to the non hunter as well. How are more tags in the public draw helping them compared to a potential $90K donation to help habitat? As hunters we receive the bulk of this benefit, whether in the form of public draw tags or better habitat, ie. more animals to hunt.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-11-12 AT 09:24PM (MST)[p]>Let me start by saying that
>I do not know much
>about SFW. I have
>read all of the negative
>comments about them on here
>and other places as well
>as the few posts supporting
>and/or defending them. I
>am confident that they do
>some good and some not
>so good things, like most
>organizations.
>
>With that said, I think that
>raffle and auction tags are
>a good thing. If
>some of the money comes
>back to the NMGF Dept.
>to be spent on habitat
>improvement that is good.
>If they keep some of
>the money, that is fine
>by me if they spend
>some on habitat as well.
> If NM bylaws require
>90% to go to the
>G&F department then a private
>organization helped raise money for
>public use. I personally
>think that if they sell
>a sheep tag for $100k
>and spend only $3K on
>habitat improvement then that $3K
>will go a lot farther
>than $3k G&F would receive
>for a NR drawing that
>tag. Of course $90K
>will go a lot farther.
> I think most
>of us can agree that
>government organizations are far more
>financially inefficient than almost any
>private organization.
>
>I also think that money should
>be able to buy hunts
>that the average hunter can
>not afford. I think
>that it is a very
>socialist mentality to think that
>all opportunities should be financially
>obtainable to everyone.
>If someone wants to spend
>$100k for a sheep tag,
>then that is their right,
>even if the "average joe"
>can't afford to do the
>same. Maybe the "average
>joe" should work harder or
>spend less and they too
>could buy a hunt, although
>not necessarily one that costs
>that much. Each of
>us has the choice of
>what we spend our money
>on. Some people have
>more money than others.
>But the beauty of capitalism
>is that many can succeed
>beyond what they thought possible.
> I can not afford
>a hunt even remotely close
>to that cost, nor could
>I imagine spending that much
>on a hunt.
>
>Another thing that I think people
>on here fail to realize
>is that the animals belong
>to the residents of NM,
>not the hunting residents of
>NM. I don't know
>exactly how many New Mexicans
>hunt but my guess is
>that it is around 50,000.
> Each year around 150,000
>apps are submitted and many
>of us submit several.
>If 50k of us hunt,
>then around 2 million don't
>hunt. These sheep belong
>to the non hunter as
>well. How are more
>tags in the public draw
>helping them compared to a
>potential $90K donation to help
>habitat? As hunters we
>receive the bulk of this
>benefit, whether in the form
>of public draw tags or
>better habitat, ie. more animals
>to hunt.

"Socialist mentality".... this is so very typical of what SFW has used in its campaign against the average joe hunter. As a supporter of SFW I am not the least bit surprised that you have failed to answer some very basic and straight forward questions and have instead chosen to attempt to deflect facts and supporting the privilege of hunting public lands as being part of a "socialist mentality." Btw, if you do not know much about SFW as you claim, I recommend you do your homework as I have before throwing any "socialist" comments in my direction. Not appreciated.

Take this statement by Coryb as evidence of the underlying mentality and disinformation put forth by SFW. Again, no answers to basic questions. Instead, and as is typical of this group and its supporters, we are provided with additional rhetoric compounded by hypothetical questions.

Answer some factual questions SFW. Why is there no public disclosure and so much smoke and mirrors?

-Cody
 
For the record:

1) I never supported SB196 (it's retarded), but it was better before SFW greased their wheels with it than it is today. SFW did not fight against the NR pool split, they supported it.

2) Now Dusty again claims they were on the same side as the "average joe hunter". Yea, whatever. I'm not going to waste anymore of my time posting up old forumn links and meeting minutes to prove this is BS.

3) If people have questions I strongly recomend they do their own research rather than asking for biased opinions on the internet. Try reading the meeting minutes on the G&F website and the old newsletters on SFWNM's website.

4) the old Q/HD rule would have helped increase the frequency that "average joe hunters" could draw the Q/HD tags, but Dusty was ticked off that he couldn't draw a 2B deer tag two years in a row if this rule were to stay in effect. And yes, Robert Espinosa, Dusty, & the other SFW clan got the game department to reverse this rule without giving it a chance to work and prove it's worthiness.

5)If you ever hear that SFW is FOR the "average joe hunter"... RUN! Because it's nothing more than a sales pitch.

6) I am not aware of one thing that SFW has done that was strictly intended to benefit the "average joe hunter". Do you? I've heard claims for years of them buying pipe to keep cattle out of wildlife guzzlers, etc. How many have been fenced and where are they? Got any pictures to prove it?

7) SFWNM history proves that they are more in line with Guides & Outfitters, Cattle Growers, and land owners than they are with Dusty's so called "average Joe's". Should we all be working together? Absolutely! But why does SFWNM always choose sides with the others? Who does Robert sit with at banquets? Outfitters or average joe's?

8) Let's say that SFWNM had an item up for auction at their banquet that they purchased and the price wasn't quite what they thought it should be. Would any member of the SFWNM's leadership start bidding on this item just to run the price up? Has this ever happened? Is this type of practice honorable?

So how about it Dusty, Robert, Tiger... care to "set me straight"? Let's hear some more sales pitches. Show us some more smoke, some may enjoy the entertainment.

Prove me wrong and not only will I pay for a membership and make routine donations, I will help sell many more and fight the fight right along side you.

good luck.

Back to the topic of the OP's question regarding SFW and sheep tags on private land. The complete answer is in Greatwesterns post. These landowners deserve a couple sheep tags to sell. Plain and simple. If it wasn't for their $$$ and efforts I could not have applied for a sheep tag they way I did this year.


Sean
 
My opinion on auction tags is this:

A very low percentage of tags used to auction and/or raffle off is a great way to raise money for the Game & Fish Department.

RMEF & MDF have done a great job promoting these tags and bringing top dollar to the state.

I could care less if these tags are sold by RMEF, MDF, SFW-NM or the Boy's and Girls clubs of NM, so long as whoever has them to sell does everything in their power to promote them so that they do bring top dollar.

The reason I say this is becuase the current system for this in NM is done very well. The current system has not been abused in any way, at least not yet. It works, so lets leave it alone.

If the G&F department doesn't use a penny of it for habitat improvement projects, that's fine because I think they need to spend it on hiring more conservation officers who can in turn help reduce poaching and catch the ones doing it.
 
Cody,

Not even responding what your questioning is UT and AZ.

I have said the decisions made in NM are by NM state board which are all NM residents. PERIOD




Sean,

Yes, we disagreed on the Q/HD rule and we fought hard against it. The Caldera was the main reason for eliminating the rule. Along with doubling the odds on the lesser units that regular joes hunt every year because the odds are great. Yes we had the regular guy in mind in doing so.

Yes for the pics on the guzzlers/springs, how about in the neighborhood of 200,000 feet, BLM takes care of getting it up. We did not buy the pipe. It was donated by Williams Production. We just arranged for that and matching funds to get it put up. Call John Hansen at the BLM for locations.

As far as the LO, Outfitters, Cattle Growers. They are allies not the enemy. Is it all one way - no not at all. Has there been compromises - Yes. The political stroke we have gained by reaching out can get many more things accomplished than by making them the enemy.



Outside of a horse is good for the inside of a man.
 
I never said nor implied that those groups are the enemy.

If you've read some of my other posts regarding these groups you will see that I have consistently been willing to work with them and I am very appreciative of the great things that some landowners and outfiters have done for game and habitat.

One post I shared what I experienced in unit 17 two years ago. The Cat Mountain Ranch pays to pump water where there is no cattle, the reason is to provide water for wildlife, period. Some of these tanks are on State Land that any tag holder can walk in and hunt. This is a very honorable act.

The bottom line is YOU claim to be for the "common joe" and that is simply not what has been happening. Actions speak louder than words.

The truth might be that you yourself really do care about the "common joe" hunter because that's how you see yourself, however the actions of SFW-NM have not followed this mindset.

I understand that there is a fine line between being adamant when fighting for what you beleive in and not making enemys. There has to be compromises. I get that, I live it every minute of every day. What I'm saying is that SFWNM so far has made decisions that I (the common joe hunter) feel were not made with my, or any other "common joe hunters'" best interests in mind.
 
>
>Sean,
>
>Yes, we disagreed on the Q/HD
>rule and we fought hard
>against it. The Caldera was
>the main reason for eliminating
>the rule. Along with doubling
>the odds on the lesser
>units that regular joes hunt
>every year because the odds
>are great. Yes we had
>the regular guy in mind
>in doing so.
>


Dusty, why didn't you fight to keep the Q/HD rule in effect, but get them to exclude the Caldera? I 100% agreed that this needed to happen in order to keep the Caldera raffle tags and the money they generate for the cost to operate the preserve.

You did not have the "regular guy" in mind for his benefit. Fighting to eliminate this rule and saying you had guys like me in mind makes me feel like you intended to screw us.

Like I said before, I'm willing to meet with you in person so that I can show you why I so strongly supported the Q/HD rule and you can show me why you were on the opposite side of the fence. That's the only way to clear the air on this topic. Afterwords we'll have to either agree to disagree or one of us will have to thank the other for the enlightenment.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-12-12 AT 10:25AM (MST)[p]Nah 30", you'll notice that I refrained from calling you a liar ;)

About talkin out both sides: You've repeatedly insisted to me and others on here that your group has NOTHING to do with your parent entity ouside of the acronym and some periodical publication. Yet you consistently make cryptic remarks on SFW threads that would seem to imply the NM Chapter's solidarity and direct identification with SFW proper.

You have also shirked the majority of my questions in the past, much as you have done with Cody's here.

Per Bob's suggestion (which I have made to you before), why maintain the affiliation in light of the prevalent and intense current level of animosity toward SFW here in the western states if you actually ARE as loosely associated with your parent entity as you claim? There simply must exist some incentive, which I'm quite positive will never be disclosed to the discerning 'joe average' public.

Like I said, I would need a PILE of tangible evidence to corroborate ANY sfw entity's claims, and such evidence is in exceedingly short supply.
 
Sean,

Along with doubling the odds on the lesser units that regular joes hunt every year because the odds are great. Yes we had the regular guy in mind in doing so.



I am sure you can show how it would be good for a unit like the 2B deer hunts.

I can then show that for units like Sargents, 34, 16 and others that in less than 3 years it would negate any benifit, however the less popular units would have had there odds get worse and worse. I ran down many Q/HD units via spreadsheets back when this was an issue, and when you weighed in everything it did nothing but eliminate the possibility for a person to draw a Q/HD the following year. The effects of the rule would have been good the 1st year, less the 2nd year and then get worse and worse until the draws odds are back to where it began. Which varied by unit, some 3 years, some 5 years.



Outside of a horse is good for the inside of a man.
 
GW

Why answer those questions when they have nothing to do with NM.
UT does what UT thinks is best.


Here in NM we do what board and membership thinks is best, right or wrong, we do what we think is better for NM.


see above response from bob on why the name is important, we have been on board for 7+ years in NM, it wasn't till the last few the antiSFW crowd got vocal.




Outside of a horse is good for the inside of a man.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-12-12 AT 01:10PM (MST)[p]"we have been on board for 7+ years in NM, it wasn't till the last few the antiSFW crowd got vocal."

Might be a clue in there somewhere.
 
30inch:

This gives me an idea of how you might be able to increase your membership.

Hold a vote on a name change along with the cutting of all ties to the SFW organization (national and otherwise).

Allow new members to vote, I bet you will have a surge in membership greater than you had in the last 7 year. People will join just to get rid of SFW in NM.

You can then market all the good work you do with less criticism.

Under normal circumstances I would not join any organization that thinks the current LO system is a good one. It is a system that invites abuse. During the last 20 years public draw tags have decreased while LO have stayed constant or increased.

However for a opportunity unite sportsmen I would definitely consider joining.
 
>Sean,
>
>Along with doubling the odds
>on the lesser units that
>regular joes hunt every year
>because the odds are great.
>Yes we had the regular
>guy in mind in doing
>so.


What you are missing is that the "Regular Joe" hunter as you refer to him, would love the increased opportunity of hunting higher quality units. This mindset is like this "Lets throw them (Average Joe) a bone and tell them that they are better off with greater odds in lesser units"

So, No, the way I see it, you did not have any Regular Joe's in mind with this.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-12-12 AT 03:39PM (MST)[p]Again, there are many more reasons to not change.

1. National wolf issue.
2. Magazine.
3. Established name.
4. Current membership.

just because of a few internet cruziers that believe SFW is bad, for every one of those we have hundreds of supportive members that fully endorse SFW-NM.

I did say the current LO system needs work to eliminate the abuse.




Outside of a horse is good for the inside of a man.
 
Folks, I really dont think you need to be a brain surgeon to read between the lines. We just need to educate a few of the "regular joes" who have had the wool pulled over there eyes and are members of SFW. 30" do u have the SFW tattoo yet?
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-12-12 AT 04:03PM (MST)[p]>Sean,
>
>Along with doubling the odds
>on the lesser units that
>regular joes hunt every year
>because the odds are great.
>Yes we had the regular
>guy in mind in doing
>so.
>
>
>
>I am sure you can show
>how it would be good
>for a unit like the
>2B deer hunts.
>
>I can then show that for
>units like Sargents, 34, 16
>and others that in less
>than 3 years it would
>negate any benifit, however the
>less popular units would have
>had there odds get worse
>and worse. I ran down
>many Q/HD units via spreadsheets
>back when this was an
>issue, and when you weighed
>in everything it did nothing
>but eliminate the possibility for
>a person to draw a
>Q/HD the following year. The
>effects of the rule would
>have been good the 1st
>year, less the 2nd year
>and then get worse and
>worse until the draws odds
>are back to where it
>began. Which varied by unit,
>some 3 years, some 5
>years.
>
>
>
>Outside of a horse is good
>for the inside of a
>man.

Well Dusty, you're going to have to show me. You & I have already been down this road and I just don't see how your theory holds even a drop of water. Sounds like Robert has convinced you to his way of thinking and you don't even know it.

Maybe the opposition to it was all your idea and you sold Robert on your ideas to the point of him writing his big spiel in the SFW-NM newsletter about getting all the members on board in opposition of the Q/HD rule...?

Either way, you are mistaken and you screwed us "common joes". Sad part of this is, is that most "common joes" beleive what you say because they expect they can trust you. If they would have done the math themselves and were at least fairly good with math then they would know that the theory you're selling is false and misleading.

Numbers don't lie Dusty. I can prove it would have worked.

The only people who didn't want it were "some" of the people who would have had to sit out the first year, AND the SFW.

I drew a 2b Jan archery tag the year before & would have been one of the ones who couldn't apply for any of the Q/HD deer tags. I would not have applied for deer at all. If you think I would apply for a "lesser unit" you're mistaken. If I want to hunt deer it's 2b, 2c, or Colorado. If I want to hunt elk, it's the 16's or Colorado. If I don't draw a good tag, I'll go to Colorado and shoot a cow elk or buy a landowner tag to put some meet in the freezer. My family has not purchased beef in years. God has been good to us, our freezer has been full of elk, antelope, oryx, & deer meat for years.

Your theory regarding the lesser units becoming harder to draw is bogus at best. Will there have been a change to the drawing odds of say unit 53 cow tags? "Theoretically" yes, it's possible to have a change, BUT of what %??? 0.2%? Maybe.

The bottom line Dusty is numbers don't lie. This rule WOULD have improved the odds for the better hunts. That's a FACT you can not deny.

Hurting the odds on the lesser units is pure speculation, and yet SFW chose to side with "speculation" in lieu of facts that would have had a REAL benefit to us "common joe's"!

See where I'm coming from?
 
Dusty, see post 34.

I just realized how some reply's get posted above where you had planned them to go. They go after the post you clicked on the "reply" button.

Now we know... ;)
 
The political/financial agenda behind SFW has been revealed. So what now?
1. You have to expose these crooked dealings to all SFW members.


30", I hate seeing a guy get beat up on a forum. But after Utah and Arizona, you can't blame any of these guys for the rant.
 
nmhntr, coryb...check this link to the bowsite...you can learn a lot from the people don peay has hurt the most...also check out the utah board and run a search, grab a few beers, and start reading...to think the nmsfw is not being run behind the scenes by donnie you are being naive...he runs the show and is the master puppeteer...look at the moves they have made in states like UT, AK, and even NM to get their "puppets" in place on game commissions...we already have it here, it is just a matter of time before an attempt is made at taking tags from the general public draw (after repealing the law mandating 90% go back to g&f of course)...

http://forums.bowsite.com/TF/bgforums/thread.cfm?threadid=407769&messages=17&forum=36
 
Dusty/30", I have no doubt you are an upstanding guy and outdoorsman. In fact, you'd likely be someone who I'd welcome into my camp.

However, the point myself and others who have cared enough to research SFW are making is that this group has proven itself very self-interested and even more problematic to the name and future of all hunters. As someone with unique hunting industry and conservation group ties, I can also tell you that SFW's tenants are not in line with those who truly promote hunting and conservation. Most of the posters on this thread are not just internet ranters bent on disparaging SFW. In fact, several of the posters here are well respected hunters, guides, and outdoorsmen with the resources, connections and knowledge that would well serve a group that properly discloses its group's dealings, finances, and intentions. In fact, if anyone from SFW would ever answer any difficult questions, or if SFW would demonstrate that it is in fact putting more than just token amounts of generated revenue into conserving habitat and increasing hunting opportunities, I would support it. Unfortunately, SFW flat out refuses to answer any direct questions or disclose where it's funding goes. You can see where I am coming from when I state that SFW's actions and the very public actions of its higher echelon speak for themselves.

Remember, SFW started out as a small, benign group in Utah and Arizona before generating the revenue needed to pursue its true agenda. While you may be well intentioned, your parent group continually proves that it is not. Given the opportunity, SFW WILL make a tag grab here in New Mexico.

I recommend that everyone interested in this thread educate themselves with the information that is available for SFW and that they make their decisions from there.

Thanks and goodnight,

Cody
 
Guys I am not from NM however I do hunt down there most years. My brother lives in Las Cruces and we usually try to plan at least one hunt a year togther.

I will say this and let you to your business. If you actually spend time in UT and are not just forming an opinion of the SFW on the internet you would see for yourself the good they do. The SFW has come under fire on the internet by a fairly small relentless group. The fact is SFW actually gained membership this past year in UT. Guess who was joining. Avergage Joe hunters that have seen first hand the good that SFW has done and is continueing to do.

NM is your state and you should do as you all see fit. But remember how much BS flows on internet with any issue. Basing your opinion on the internet forums alone is not really the best route. IMHO.
 
Anybody here familiar with the members of the NMG&F Commission? That is where SFW will plant their toadies. I'm curious if they've made a serious play yet. That will tell you if they are after your tags.

***********************************
Member RMEF, UBNM, UWC & the SFW Hate Club
 
Sean - Q/HD - I put it before the FCBA, SFW members and every member and every hunter in the four corners I got face time with and no one liked it. I talked to over 100 dedicated regular joe hunters.

It was not Robert convincing me, it was me putting facts down and my suggestion to Robert. I wrote the senators and had many of my friends do the same. Again the stance we took was from outdoorsman. not Robert.



In response to the rest - Time and again. NM is NM, UT is UT. What part of that do you not understand?


Cody ask question about NM, as Sean has and he got answers, want to know about UT, go ask Byron.






Outside of a horse is good for the inside of a man.
 
The last we got together was when they revamped the A+,

We had propsed Option 1, which was supported by G&F. It would have open up an additional 100K acreas of public hunting area. Would have increased regular joe opportunity. Would have clearly defined the allocation of LO tags based upon acreage.

However, G&F and us did not do a good enough job of "selling" it so to speak, Because it still had more than zero LO authorizations in it the NMWF fought it.

So basically option 3 was passed through that did very little to change from what it was before.




There should be some very hard formulas based up on total tags in unit, vs deeded acreage. Clear and consise maps of property. I think signs - at least at roads. I also would have a "reward" type system so that if a LO, goes above and beyond for habitat, water source, that it would be possible for him to get some bonus tags. Trying to limit to RO I think would be a disaster in regards to elk. I would also do something with the SCR program, great in concept but poor execution.

I think some penalites in place that if a UW LO gets caught by violation of rules, then all tags for his ranch is taken away for some period, 5 years?

Also some provisions to open up Land locked areas should be addressed.

Open to some common sense ideas? Just as long as it is not the zero LO tag mentality.





Outside of a horse is good for the inside of a man.
 
SFW, NMWF, RMEF, STFU, whatever aside... this "common joe" hunter does not agree with the logic or math in regards to the Q/HD rule idea working after a couple of seasons.

Just had to share my opinion on that particualar topic as a "common joe" hunter. There is not 1 person that speaks for all "common joe" hunters.
 
Common sense says you better repeal the Jennings rule before you go disciplining LO's or else they'll just shoot them all and be done with us "common joes".

There are countless solutions to depredation that are far better than the senseless killing that the Jennings rule allows.

Make you a deal Dusty... if the SWF-NM can get the Jennings rule repealed within the next 24 months, I will financially support your group and will forgive & forget everything else that's ever happened, including my personal beef with Robert. Plus I will defend you & the SFW on every website I can find, or keep my mouth shut/fingers off the keyboard.. your choice.

If you & SFW-NM can accomplish this first and then what you posted above you will have done more for NM hunting and wildlife than anyone else ever has or ever will.

What do you think? Do we have a deal and can you get it done?
 
That is on, as you, I agree the Jennings rule is bad and high on the list to do.

Can we get it done? Dont know but the next legislative session will be the time to do it.



Outside of a horse is good for the inside of a man.
 
Totally agree on Jennings law, until it is repealed the LO system will remain as is. Once it gets in front of the legislature it will take EVERYBODY pushing because the AG industry will show up in force.
 
nmelktrout,

Give my brother Jordan a call, I'm sure he would be more than happy to give you some of his thoughts on SFW.

Cody Christensen
 
Yes, SLM.

It will take a big push by us. It will take letters, emails, phone calls and a lobbist in Sante Fe.




Outside of a horse is good for the inside of a man.
 
I have opinions, lots of them. Some opinions support SFW, some do not. If balance of power is kept, New Mexico should be better of with SFW than without. If the same foothold and monopoly as Utah comes to fruition, you've made a mistake. With that in mind it comes down to trust and speculation.

http://unitedwildlifecooperative.org
 
The NRA has a very strong opinion of SFW and I suggest that anyone interested in this issue take the advice given by the NRA and ?exercise caution in accepting as fact, or repeating, any claims made by Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife.?

http://www.montanasportsmenalliance.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/NRA-press-release.pdf

30Inch, as requested, I am putting some questions together for you that are specific to the NM Chapter of SFW.

-Cody
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-14-12 AT 12:05PM (MST)[p]>The NRA has a very strong
>opinion of SFW and I
>suggest that anyone interested in
>this issue take the advice
>given by the NRA and
>?exercise caution in accepting as
>fact, or repeating, any claims
>made by Sportsmen for Fish
>and Wildlife.?
>
>http://www.montanasportsmenalliance.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/NRA-press-release.pdf
>
>30Inch, as requested, I am putting
>some questions together for you
>that are specific to the
>NM Chapter of SFW.
>
>-Cody
__________________________________________________________


That right there says an awful lot about the honesty and integrity of SFW. This is what everyone has been referring to in a lot of the other posts.

No one can deny that SFW has done many, many dishonest things.

I do thorough background checks on people prior to hiring them. I do the same thing before investing in anything.
It's sad that the world is so full of liars and cheats. Some are blessed with the gift of gab and could sell ice to eskimo's, that's why SFW exists. They have a good sales pitch that plays on the emotion on hunters. Problem is people don't do their research and end up just not knowing any better and they follow their sheppard like a blind sheep.

My decision was made a long time ago based on my own personal experience with the NM leader years before SFW began.

Eliminating the jennings rule is the #1 most important thing that needs to change in NM in my opinion regarding sportsman and conservation issues.

It is so important to me that I offered to make a deal with Dusty and I am a man of my word. The last piece of the puzzle is that IF they can repeal the jennings rule, there has to be a good solution for the landowners who are legitimately having crop depredation. That solution can not include any type of wanton waste of game nor any language that will allow ungulates to be slaughtered.

Possible solution to replace the jennings rule is to go back to the old way of depredation hunts via 4th choice applicants. Similar to the way Oryx depredation hunts work.

Will the SFW-NM for once lean towards taking sides with us "common joe's"? Or will they again choose to take sides with landowners and outfitters with pure and complete disregard for what the best interests are of the "common joe"? History tends to repeat itself, but only time will tell.

So long as the SFW -NM are the ones who take the lead on changing this legislation the deal will be complete. They can not simply writle a letter and claim "Look what we did" like they tried to pull on the wolf delisting.
 
A man named Pete Cemillero was hired directly by Don six years ago to start AZSFW. It is true that they set up entirely seperate 501-3c organizations. Pete stood up in front of the Mojave Sportsman's Club and promised that AZSFW would never try to get tags for auction and raffle like Utah. How stupid do you at SFW think people are? You set up the various states where big game has high value, you get lobbyists, outfitters and wealthy hunters to sponsor the launch and serve on your boards. You infiltrate the G&F departments with your people. You go for the tag grab for funding and you refuse to have transparent books. If it is such a great model why is every other wildlife organization pulling out and stopping all funding in Arizona? You do what you want in NM. I gave up for good after many years of hunting your state.
 
At least if SFW gets auction tags non-residents will have another option to obtain tags to hunt on public ground in New Mexico. I say bring in the Utah model. It really can not get much worse for non-residents but I am sure many will try to make it so.

I am not complaining my friends and family have had a great run of luck and had some really enjoyable opportunities. I feel for the next generation that wants to hunt out west.

Divide and conquer - watch and you will see it works.

I wish New Mexico SFW all the best.
 
Iowan---You better start looking into the way they do those tags before you start all your praising of the SFW and saying that it's another way to help the nonresidents gain tags! You obviously aren't aware that in order to be in the raffle for any of those tags in Utah you have to show up IN PERSON at the EXPO in SLC to validate your $5 purchases! How many people do you think will visit SLC that are of any real distance from there to do that? That's the whole resason that a lot of residents have no problem with the system since the tags are taken fron the NR pool to begin with and then the residents are about the only ones who are able to buy those $5 chances because of the way it's set up!
 
SFW front man says we wouldn't ask for tags, jump forward a few years and the front man isn't that guy asking for the tags, someone else is BUT it still SFW.
Sorry but SFW has shown it colors in Ut,Wyo and other states so be afraid be very afraid.

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]
 
It is all about money, and who you know.

With all this technology now, would not be hard to pull-up some info.

I am not going to mention any names!

Love,
JIMBO
 

Similar threads

M
Changes in Regulation
Replies
4
Views
828
ICMDEER
ICMDEER
Simpleton
Mule Deer Proposal
2 3
Replies
223
Views
7k
Robiland
Robiland

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

1EB7C5C2-E753-4F5A-AD40-5DFE3373291A.jpeg
90C75B2B-3ADA-4A17-83CD-4007DDEF4CA2.jpeg
0D08ACC5-62FC-4C4E-8BBB-6FA00525F275.png
EF29B204-E6C1-4D44-B215-F9FD9C0BCD25.jpeg
IMG_9537.png
IMG_0106.jpeg
44565F7E-8178-4B0F-8EE7-F16468F2467D.png
1703775676686.png
My '23 Muley.jpg
4835458C-B154-4FB2-B639-B5962AFEC30B.jpeg
F99D4077-122C-4551-A302-11C20ADFF58D.jpeg
20220916_080431.jpg

New Mexico Guides & Outfitters

H & A Outfitters

Private and public land hunts since 1992 for elk, mule deer, sheep, pronghorn, black Bear & lion hunts.

505 Outfitters

Public and private land big game hunts. Rifle, muzzleloader and archery hunts available. Free Draw Application Service!

Sierra Blanca Outfitters

Offering a wide array of hunt opportunities and putting clients in prime position to bag a trophy.

Urge 2 Hunt

Hunts in New Mexico on private ranches and remote public land in the top units. Elk vouchers available.

Mangas Outfitters

Landowner tags available! Hunt big bulls and bucks. Any season and multiple hunt units to choose from.

Back
Top Bottom