Utah and the little Circus

T

TheElitehornhunter

Guest
The wildlife board like always is very interesting. SFW and MDF tried to play the victims. Lumpy2 Mr Christensen tried telling people that the reason UWC was making a proposal was because they were trying to dismantle the orgs. Some people have different opinions of transparecy. Don Peay told everyone that is the reason why wildlife in Utah is so great. He can walk on water like Jesus. Bryon Bateman cried a lot in his comments and he tried to justify that everything they are doing is 110% legal. If that is the case then why not show people where the money is going. MDF apparently sent out an email saying if people would come and speak against the UWC Proposal then they all would get a free hat. HAHAHA

The wildlife board are to old to sit for very long. I think we need some younger guys on the board then these old men because they have a very hard time when someone makes a motion. I think they all need to stay home or go to a resthome.

MDF tried hard passing off expenses that still doesnt tell people where the money came from since the conservation tags and expo tag monies are placed in the same account.

Hopefully MDF will volunteer and do the right thing.
 
So Elite?

I'll bet you didn't get a Free Hat?



[font color=red size=redsize=18"face"]SHOW THEM TO ME![/font]
If You Love Your Country,SHOW THEM TO ME!


I've got Wild Honey Tree's and Crazy Little Weeds growin around my Shack!
These Dusty Roads ain't streets of gold but I'm happy right where I'm at!
All these Perty little Western Belles are a Country Boys Dream!
They ain't got Wings or MM Halo's but they sure look good to me!
 
"Come and show your support if you can. If you show up to the meeting, MDF will give you a free MDF hat."
I only saw one hat and it looked old and worn. I didn't see one new MDF hat in the crowd.
The DWR has their heads so far up SWF's butt they'll never see day light.
Wes
 
A circus is exactly what it is. It was sad to sit in that meeting and witness it unfold before your very eyes. The DWR is afraid of a legal battle because some attorney for SFW said adding stipulations now would be breach of contract. But according to the March 31st 2005 minutes ##### Diomand even voiced that there needed to be transparency and accountability from both of the organizations. All of it voiced in a second motion and they all were ok with it. So I'm confused when the convention rule in 2005 was worded to do just that...make changes (stipulations) to the rule.
 
I wish there had been video feed of the meeting because the picture I had in my mind the entire day listening to the audio feed, and I did listen to the entire thing until they went to item #13, was that the Board was a bunch of old men that didn't want to be there and were probably having to poke each other to stay awake by the time item #12 came up! I knew what was going to happen with it when they did what they did with #10. It was a complete travesty as far as I was concerned. The fact that the DWR Director gave a long winded speech favoring those organizations that was similar to his letter to the RMEF after their call for transparency and accountability was too much. It's obvious he and most of those Board members are beholding to DP and SFW and are on a short leash! Short of getting enough people to boycott the Expo to get their attention, I don't know what can be done to turn the tide.
 
That's what I pictured in my mind as well TG, but I also pictured them with nice shiny new MDF hats on their heads as well x(
 
>A circus is exactly what it
>is. It was sad to
>sit in that meeting and
>witness it unfold before your
>very eyes. The DWR is
>afraid of a legal battle
>because some attorney for SFW
>said adding stipulations now would
>be breach of contract. But
>according to the March 31st
>2005 minutes ##### Diomand even
>voiced that there needed to
>be transparency and accountability from
>both of the organizations. All
>of it voiced in a
>second motion and they all
>were ok with it. So
>I'm confused when the convention
>rule in 2005 was worded
>to do just that...make changes
>(stipulations) to the rule.

I'm pretty sure that the sfw attorney you're referring to is a employee of the state representing the dwr. Nothing to do with sfw. I was there and im sure they introduced him as Marty bushman from the attorney generals office. If I heard wrong I apologize
 
Now I am an outsider and only know what I have read mostly on here. I wonder if a person starts looking into the background of these guys are they old college buddies of Done, where do they get to hunt in the fall, are they getting consulting fees from SFW or MDF and that is why they don't want the proposal????
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-16-12 AT 10:18PM (MST)[p]Just thinking...what about a website containing....

- List of all the vendors currently signed up for the 2013 expo (avoid list) with some North American Wildlife model friendly alternative businesses (good guys).

- List of all of the conservation raffle winners for 2013 - or a spot on the website to recognize them when they become available (AKA "the list of shame")

- Copy or link to the UWC petition with nearly 1,100 signatures asking for transparency

- Carefully selected audio snippets from the DWR meeting today - the more arrogant the better...maybe put a couple sheep grip and grins next to the audio file so people can put a face to the voice

- A list of carefully selected Utah legislators and their contact info (pot stirrers) - freshman lawmakers love to make a name for themselves and always have access to media, abuse of power is always a top story (and the website would be a good reference for the reporters)

- free bumper stickers with the url the website handed out at every wildlife event between now and next expo

The Utah guys have LOTS of options and plenty of time....git r done.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Aug-16-12
>AT 10:18?PM (MST)
>
>Just thinking...what about a website containing....
>
>
> - List of all
>the vendors currently signed up
>for the 2013 expo (avoid
>list) with some North American
>Wildlife model friendly alternative
>businesses (good guys).
>
> - List of all
>of the conservation raffle winners
>for 2013 -
>or a spot on the
>website to recognize them when
>they become available (AKA "the
>list of shame")
>
> - Copy or link
>to the UWC petition with
>nearly 1,100 signatures asking for
>transparency
>
> - Carefully selected audio
>snippets from the DWR meeting
>today - the more arrogant
>the better...maybe put a couple
>sheep grip and grins next
>to the audio file so
>people can put a face
>to the voice
>
> - A list of
>carefully selected Utah legislators and
>their contact info (pot stirrers)
>- freshman lawmakers love to
>make a name for themselves
>and always have access to
>media, abuse of power is
>always a top story (and
>the website would be a
>good reference for the reporters)
>
>
> - free bumper stickers
>with the url the website
>handed out at every wildlife
>event between now and next
>expo
>
>The Utah guys have LOTS of
>options and plenty of time....git
>r done.

you are a stand up guy. do you also work for the Obama campaign
 
Conservative Republican but thanks for asking.

God forbid Utah hunters use their significant financial power to make a statement. What an evil concept. Shame on me.
 
I wasn't sure who that attorney was representing but his statements were not quite accurate. Hawk eye later explained to the board in his speech that due to the 2005 minutes when the convention rule was put in place that it was worded as it was to allow the board to make adjustments to the rule if needed. So I never understood why Mr. Bushmen made some of the statements he did. As far as I could tell, he was siding with the two organizations and made statements that scared the board members from making a decision. A board member even stayed that he didn't want to create a legal issue if a decision was reached today. Bateman repeatedly reminded the board that they had a contract and that they should stick to it. But its not hard to understand, don Peay agreed with the second motion from the board in 2005 but the board never followed through with that second motion which in turn, opened the door for SFW to spend a lot of money where they pleased and now that UWC wants that second motion from 2005 enforced, now Bateman from SFW doesn't want to stop milking the cash cow. Without a doubt you could tell Bateman was worried during most of the meeting. I don't even know the guy and could still tell he was nervous.
 
Here is a wild idea. Maybe no one on the board is corrupt. Maybe they all feel they are doing the right thing. Maybe these evil old men know things you don't??????? If yall could put as much energy into deer management as yall do speculating on, and hating others in the wildlife conservation business, you could have probably tripled the available tags in your state by now.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-17-12 AT 07:11AM (MST)[p]And if one person who has only been on here 2 or 3 weeks stirring the pot looked into everything being talked about that has been investigated throroughly for the last 5 or 6 years since this whole Expo started he might shut his yapper! These guys have been nvolved with trying to correct this Utah stranglehold that DP and his SFW organization has on the Board and DWR for a long time and all you know is how to glue eyeballs in mounts. Do a few days or more study on this whole deal and you night change your tune! Did you listen to any or all of the meeting yesterday like a lot of us did. It was obvious that the Director sucks when it comes to this situation no matter how great some have said he is. He should not be using his position to make positive comments regarding those organizations and yet he wrote a letter to RMEF under the DWR letterhead and yesterday spoke out with a lengthy speech on how great they are and that other groups shouldn't fight and get in their way. Who the He** does he work for? It's ironic that a person in his position wrote that letter responding to RMEF when the RMEF letter wasn't even talking about Government agencies. You do know the letters I'm talking about or maybe you don't Mr. Taxi man! Anyway, it makes people suspicious and wonder if just maybe when someone does that they are just a little bit worried that the letter was indirectly intended for them because of ongoing corruption in the organizations. Nah, couldn't be the reason he wrote it!
 
>Here is a wild idea.
>Maybe no one on the
>board is corrupt. Maybe
>they all feel they are
>doing the right thing.
>Maybe these evil old men
>know things you don't???????
>If yall could put as
>much energy into deer management
>as yall do speculating on,
>and hating others in the
>wildlife conservation business, you could
>have probably tripled the available
>tags in your state by
>now.


YOU are an genius......NOT SO MUCH!
 
Tristate-you said it all when you said the "wildlife conservation business". That is the real problem when the states allow a private business to exist on the money from selling tags. We got so pissed off here that we wrote all the legislature, hounded the media, bombarded Game & Fish and in general created so much pressure that SFW/MDF had to tuck tail and run. You can do the same thing. Use pressure on the politicians in both parties, get someone in the media to start sniffing around the money trail. Get a public interest law group to take a case forward pro bono. Plenty can be done if you all figure out how to organize the pressure. Go after it like a real fight and don't let them up for air. Good luck.
 
Topgun, what did I post on a previous thread about breaching the contract??? Do you remember? And what do you know, that fact comes up again at this meeting. Even if you win your arguement in court the lawyer fees can break all parties involved, even yours. How are you going to be helping wildlife when the DNR gets dragged into the suit and has to spend a couple of million in attorneys fees????? Funny how the new guy here knew more than the old loudmouth.
 
>Tristate-you said it all when you
>said the "wildlife conservation business".
>That is the real problem
>when the states allow a
>private business to exist on
>the money from selling tags.
>We got so pissed off
>here that we wrote all
>the legislature, hounded the media,
>bombarded Game & Fish and
>in general created so much
>pressure that SFW/MDF had to
>tuck tail and run. You
>can do the same thing.
>Use pressure on the politicians
>in both parties, get someone
>in the media to start
>sniffing around the money trail.
>Get a public interest law
>group to take a case
>forward pro bono. Plenty can
>be done if you all
>figure out how to organize
>the pressure. Go after it
>like a real fight and
>don't let them up for
>air. Good luck.


Or heres a better idea, START ADDRESSING THE REAL PROBLEMS!
 
I was at the meeting and was very dissapointed. I wrote a letter and sent them this today.

Wildlife Board and members of the Fish and Game for Utah:

I went to the public meeting on Thursday that was about the convention/expo permits. I have never been to one of those meetings. I found it to be very interesting of I gained A LOT of knowledge from this meeting.

I went to support UWC of accountability and transparency. To me, the average Joe Hunter, this makes sense. If you are giving my tags, my families tags and my friends tags to a group or 2 in the name of conservation, then I want to see what is being done with that money to help our suffering wildlife. I don't think that is too much to ask for. You give a little and you take a little. Right now, its TAKE A LOT and don't ask don't tell.

As the meeting went on, I believe it was the assistant AG, came up and gave you guys an escape goat. Meaning that you cant change because its in the middle of a contract, even though there is wording in there that makes it so YOU can. I find it interesting that just a few months back you were talking about the CONSERVATION permit rule and were able to change that rule in the middle of the contract. The change was to BENEFIT the organizations that already get plenty of from us. You were breaking that rule and there was no consequence, but you change the rule to now be in compliance with what you were already doing.

If YOU changed the CONSERVATION permit rule, why can you not change the CONVENTION tags?

I left the meeting very discouraged. Why??? Well, you are always told to go and voice your opinion. If you don't come, your voice will never be heard. When there were 25 comment cards, the director asked us to not come up and just say who we are supporting. I THINK THAT WAS 100% wrong. Public meeting---public concern!!! I felt that there was a RUBBER STAMP already before this meeting took place. I wanted to say a few things and just before I went up, the director asked to be brief. I know, it is a long meeting. BUT, there was a lot at stake for a lot of people. We came to voice an opinion and were told, basically, sit down and lets get this over because I have more important things to do.

I have heard that SFW and the Wildlife board are ?IN BED TOGETHER?, but have never realized more than ever at that meeting. Now, that's just my opinion. Me, Landon R. Not from any other group or organization, just from me. That is what I got out of the meeting. Why did I get this feeling? Don Peay gets up and pats himself on the back so many times, I think that he wore his shoulder out. Then, After that, the director basically bows down to Don Peay and the groups. As I was told by one of the Lawyers at the meeting, ?you just had a lesson in politics!?

I hope that you would move forward and make the right choices from here on out. I know I am just 1 person, but I hope that you read this letter and realize that there are many others out there that feel the same.
 
FYI Mr. Smartazz taxi man, several attorneys familiar with contract law spoke up during the meeting and said they deal with contracts every day and the way that Expo contract is worded allows for the Board to make changes at any time during the contract period. A lot of us have read it after it was placed on this website a few weeks ago and it's written so that it's pretty easy to understand that it can be tinkered with by the Board. However,it made a real good excuse for them to vote like they did and I doubt any of us were surprised at those tactics. They obviously also have the AG's Office in their pocket with the guy saying what he did at the meeting to back them up. I doubt that anyone would waste money in court on this mess unless they have the time and don't need much of an income while it was in litigation. I guess the guys in Utah will have to figure out what's next to repair what is obviously broken there, but we're doing a pretty good job right now of keeping it there, as witness to the AZ public and backers like people on this site putting a stop to it before the SFW got entrenched there with their attempted under the table tag grab!
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-17-12 AT 08:43AM (MST)[p]A lawsuit will be filed against the DWR and Don Peay/SFW. Books will be opened and the the truth will come out. Other Lawyers have also said that Lawyer Marty is wrong. Lawyers have said that rules can change and it's not a breach in the contract. Because in the rules then it gives the Wildlife Board the ability to make changes. It's pretty much the same as the DH rule.

This was a famous scare tactic which isn't going to scare anyone away
 
>LAST EDITED ON Aug-16-12
>AT 10:18?PM (MST)
>
>Just thinking...what about a website containing....
>
>
> - List of all
>the vendors currently signed up
>for the 2013 expo (avoid
>list) with some North American
>Wildlife model friendly alternative
>businesses (good guys).
>
> - List of all
>of the conservation raffle winners
>for 2013 -
>or a spot on the
>website to recognize them when
>they become available (AKA "the
>list of shame")
>
> - Copy or link
>to the UWC petition with
>nearly 1,100 signatures asking for
>transparency
>
> - Carefully selected audio
>snippets from the DWR meeting
>today - the more arrogant
>the better...maybe put a couple
>sheep grip and grins next
>to the audio file so
>people can put a face
>to the voice
>
> - A list of
>carefully selected Utah legislators and
>their contact info (pot stirrers)
>- freshman lawmakers love to
>make a name for themselves
>and always have access to
>media, abuse of power is
>always a top story (and
>the website would be a
>good reference for the reporters)
>
>
> - free bumper stickers
>with the url the website
>handed out at every wildlife
>event between now and next
>expo
>
>The Utah guys have LOTS of
>options and plenty of time....git
>r done.

A couple more things that could be on that website...

- Copies of news briefs and letters from real conservation orgs like RMEF and the NRA that call out the credibility of the EXPO con orgs and caution against taking information from them at face value. Nothing says more than the respect of your peers.

- The letter from the DWR director talking up the con orgs and their leadership (I think it was during the Big Fin debate discussion)- Forget sbout worrying about the "perception" of a conflict of interest, the DWR director chose to embrace the concept with pride.

- A list of CON ORG superstars like Corey Rossi and a detailed list of "accomplishments"

- A list of the non-SFW sponsored conservation orgs that attended the 2012 expo (I have seen the list, you can count them on one hand). Pretty odd considering it was supposed to be a "conservation" expo.

- It would also be neat to see a chart that shows how the supply of iconic western mule deer tags (in the PUBLIC non landowner drawing) has faired in Utah relative to other Western states. Odd that a state with mule deer issues chooses to toue itself as a western success story...but who cares about numbers right?

- Media clips from schemes the CON ORGS have tried to spread into other states (like the channel three interview in Arizona)

This website would make a great boy scout project, saving the future of western hunting would be worth a merit badge. Some 15 year old kid could probably knock it out in two hours.

Ryan

-
 
>>Tristate-you said it all when you
>>said the "wildlife conservation business".
>>That is the real problem
>>when the states allow a
>>private business to exist on
>>the money from selling tags.
>>We got so pissed off
>>here that we wrote all
>>the legislature, hounded the media,
>>bombarded Game & Fish and
>>in general created so much
>>pressure that SFW/MDF had to
>>tuck tail and run. You
>>can do the same thing.
>>Use pressure on the politicians
>>in both parties, get someone
>>in the media to start
>>sniffing around the money trail.
>>Get a public interest law
>>group to take a case
>>forward pro bono. Plenty can
>>be done if you all
>>figure out how to organize
>>the pressure. Go after it
>>like a real fight and
>>don't let them up for
>>air. Good luck.
>
>
>Or heres a better idea, START
>ADDRESSING THE REAL PROBLEMS!

And the REAL PROBLEMS are?
 
>>Or heres a better idea, START
>>ADDRESSING THE REAL PROBLEMS!
>
>And the REAL PROBLEMS are?

The current wildlife model does not generate enough money to solve population decline and therefore tag availibility suffers. Solve the money issue for the long term, put in effective, dynamic spenders in the DNR and watch. I am not talking about the rinky dink few hundred thousand you are fighting for right now but tens of millions of dollars more.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-17-12 AT 09:29AM (MST)[p]Sounds like an Obama stimulus plan in the works, LOL! Where do you propose to get all these millions of dollars when we don't even seem to have enough money for schools, road repairs, and decaying infrastructure projects, etc.?
 
Sounds about the way we all believed it to be. I am curious about the threat of a lawsuit however, will SFW/MDF be able to use the money they make from the tags given to them by the public, to sue the public?? Yeah I agree it would be bad for SFW/MDF to sue the state and divert valuable assests from the state to courts, so now I have to wonder aloud again, if the wording in the previous contract allows for changes and the the wildlife board refuses to do so, perhaps its time to let the wildlife board know that we(the public via class action) plan to sue the DWR, and SFW/MDF.

How sad has hunting become that it is now wildlife buisness, not wildlife managment.

Lastly, the supporters of SFW/MDF, now that it is proven in the light of day, at a public meeting that SFW/MDF care only about the dollar, not the hunter, how does that taste? Too bad, because I believe the SFW membership, that donate their time and energy to good projects have been TOTALLY SOLD OUT. THE DON has made you guys not conservationists, but "useful idiots". The only use THE DON has for you guys is a membership number that he can use to bully the DWR/legislature.

When are the wildlife board elections, what are the procedures for recall?



When they came for the road hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the oppurtunists I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the public land hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for me there was no one left to say anything!
 
>LAST EDITED ON Aug-17-12
>AT 09:29?AM (MST)
>
>Sounds like an Obama stimulus plan
>in the works, LOL!
>Where do you propose to
>get all these millions of
>dollars when we don't even
>seem to have enough money
>for schools, road repairs, and
>decaying infrastructure projects, etc.?

By working with, not against, those people you hate so much. You remember those evil rich people that you think don't have any say in "your" wildlife.
 
>How sad has hunting become that
>it is now wildlife buisness,
>not wildlife managment.

Hunting was always wildlife business and wildlife management was always part of it, as it is now. The difference being that for years the margins were wide and everyone could be apathetic to running it like a business. Now the margins are very narrow and every penny must be scrutinized.
 
Not sure your point of reference, those of us over 20 remember when the only buisness in hunting was buying a tag at a store, and then hunting. There wasn't an expo, SFW, "conservation tags", etc..., OH and buy the way, more deer. Interesting how now that we talk about margins, profit, expos, etc, we have less and less deer. Not a brain scientist, but since SFW came onto the scene, the deer pop. crashed, yet THEIR margins have grown. If I failed at my buisness for the last decade, I wouldn't have a buisness, SFW became more powerful, GOTTA LOVE GOVERNMENT WELFARE!! Sorry SFW, put there was a time we joined RMEF and the likes and did things SOLELY for the betterment of wildlife, NOT to increase the old profit margin!

Tristate, ever wonder why Ducks Unlimited is succesful year after year without the controversy and welfare? And again this year, with most of the country in a drought, i have a 107 day season. The answer of course is easy, DU ACTUALLY DOES SOMETHING, and doesn't spend all its time in PR. Success breeds success, DU doesn't need a couple hundred tags to support itself, because we can all see DU is successful so we support it. Without the welfare, SFW ceases, the only reason they are around is that public welfare, not because they have been successful at any of there stated goals! FACTS ARE STUBBORN THINGS!!


When they came for the road hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the oppurtunists I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the public land hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for me there was no one left to say anything!
 
"Not sure your point of reference, those of us over 20 remember when the only buisness in hunting was buying a tag at a store, and then hunting."

There are more equations in business than you buying your tag. Even back then. You just didn't care what else it took besides you buying the tag.

"Interesting how now that we talk about margins, profit, expos, etc, we have less and less deer."

You are right. That is interesting. What is more interesting is the expo is using less than %1 of the tags but you can blame them for all of the problems.

"Sorry SFW, put there was a time we joined RMEF and the likes and did things SOLELY for the betterment of wildlife, NOT to increase the old profit margin!"

There was a profit margin then too. You were just naive of it. Back to when you thought all there was to hunting was buying a tag.

"Tristate, ever wonder why Ducks Unlimited is succesful year after year without the controversy and welfare?"

What fairy land are you living in. Come down to Texas and Louisiana and ask people what they think of DU. You will get some favorable response but you will get a mountian of unfavorable ones. The main reason Delta Waterfowl has been as successful as they have been is because they opposed several points DU was pushing. Also DU is apples and oranges to SFW and the expo. How can you compare hunting that requires tags to hunting that doesn't require tags and never has???? I personally think DU screwed the gulf coast and I haven't donated to them in eight years.
 
Come to Utah in November, I will take you out and show you the tens of thousands of tundra swan out in the marsh, yup they are a draw and tag species. Perhaps we can then go check out all teh sandhill cranes.

You pretty much made my argument, how many tags did Delta Waterfowl get?

See, I am aware of profit margins, how big should they be in a not for profit?

Again, where is any success that can be tied to SFW? Sheep?? Numbers declining, Moose? same, Deer, you know it, Elk, get real, elk were on a massive upswing before SFW.

By the way, I not for the massive ammount of tags SFW/MDF are given, but that is not the argument for now, the argument is what are you doing with it? And as we heard(some saw) at the WB meeting, your never gonna know!

Hey Tristate, why don't you give me your credit card number, I promise I will use the lions share of your credit to fund wildlife, swear to god, just give it to me, pinky swear I will magically bring back a species, just give me your number! Really, but beware if your curious about what a lions share is or what I am doing, you should know that I will sue to stop you from finding out. So, when will I get your credit card number? Hurry dude, the future of hunting is dependent on that number. YOU CAN TRUST ME!! Come on man, I need that number, just trust me, trust me, trust me.

To quote the greatest president ever, "trust but verify" thats all any of this is about. It had to take more time to fight openess than just being open.

Oh by the way when is THE DON meeting with Randy?


When they came for the road hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the oppurtunists I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the public land hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for me there was no one left to say anything!
 
"You pretty much made my argument, how many tags did Delta Waterfowl get?"

I pretty much didn't make any arguement for you, but you are changing your arguement now.

"See, I am aware of profit margins, how big should they be in a not for profit?"

GIGANTIC! But that is not the point I am trying to make. I am talking about profit margins in the DNR.

"Again, where is any success that can be tied to SFW? Sheep?? Numbers declining, Moose? same, Deer, you know it, Elk, get real, elk were on a massive upswing before SFW."

Still blaming a group with control of less than %1 of all the tags with all of your problems. Thats really bad statisitics. In fact its not statistics at all.

"To quote the greatest president ever, "trust but verify" thats all any of this is about. It had to take more time to fight openess than just being open."

That is not what all this is about and you know it.
 
Sure it is. If SFW and MDF had a complete audit so people trusted them to use the money correctly there would be none of these discussions. Trust but verify is a perfect analogy. There is only one reason not to open the books to a complete audit and that is the use of funds generated by the public resource being abused. Can you tell me the reason they are refusing to have an audit?
 
Sure it is. If SFW and MDF had a complete audit so people trusted them to use the money correctly there would be none of these discussions.

So your telling me if the UWC gets them to have an audit, which by the way costs money, the UWC will just go away and quit attacking them. They will give up on trying to get the %90 of five dollars. They will give up on trying to get the 200 tags put back in the draw???? You know thats not the case. Just go back and read some of the posts over the last two weeks. People want SFW destroyed and it ain't just cause of disclosure. There is no chance of any results coming out of an audit that everyone would be happy with. That is an impossibility, so why waist time trying to keep enemies happy anymore. Fight them to the bitter end. This is how people start behaving when you attack them. Why would you even be surprised?
 
You're talking out your azz again Mr. Taxi man! The UWC went on record yesterday during the Board meeting when the top man stated that all we want is transparency and accountability, not for the SFW or the tags or the Expo to go away! You can come up with some real horse poop and all it shows is that you are not versed at all in what is going on. If you had listened to the meeting yesterday you would not have stated what you just did. All you're interested is creating a stir to have your name in the forefront on every thread from the way it appearsto most of us.
 
>You're talking out your azz again
>Mr. Taxi man! The
>UWC went on record yesterday
>during the Board meeting when
>the top man stated that
>all we want is transparency
>and accountability, not for the
>SFW or the tags or
>the Expo to go away!
> You can come up
>with some real horse poop
>and all it shows is
>that you are not versed
>at all in what is
>going on. If you
>had listened to the meeting
>yesterday you would not have
>stated what you just did.
> All you're interested is
>creating a stir to have
>your name in the forefront
>on every thread from the
>way it appearsto most of
>us.

Really????? So the UWC gave up on the %90 of $5 agenda. They aren't going to ask for that anymore???????????? Keep telling lies dude. I am never amazed by people who lie. Thats pretty normal. But I am amazed at the few people who will start to believe their own lies.
 
SWF and MDF are feeling the heat. That's the ONLY reason they came in at the last minute and asked to have some reporting responsibility imposed on them. They may be doing some good, BUT FOR WHO? It sure isn't the average hunter. It's for the minority special interest hunters that can afford to spend the money to leap frog to the head of the line every year while the majority of the hunters wait in line for years and may never hunt in the limited entry trophy areas. At yesterdays meeting it was made clear how in bed the board is with SFW. When it becomes the official position of a government agency to criticize anyone who dares question their beloved private enterprise business something is wrong. How far up the ladder does the corruption go? It appears it goes all the way to the top. Contrary to their belief these are not the kings deer and Don Pay is not the king. Wildlife is a public resource and needs to be managed for the MAJORITY of the hunters not a small minority. The boards needs to be held accountable. This is just the tip of the iceberg. We are nipping at their heels now and they are starting to take notice.
Wes
 
You'd fuggin argue that the sun isn't going to come up tomorrow just to make another post! Did I say anything about your %90 (sic) statement or anything else about the proposal in my post? No, I didn't, so there are no lies in anything I mentioned. I have no idea what the future will hold when the contract comes up for renewal and nobody else does either. Whether any further action is taken or proposed will probably be based on what the MDF and SFW do voluntarily while the contract is still in place for the next several years.
 
Exactly Wes.

Utah hunters need to unite and continue to press the issue. Those of us on the outside, we can help you with emails and phone calls, but those of you in Utah need to take the bull by the horns and confront it head on. Unite with a common goal and things will change.

Not too long ago here in Arizona, SFW, under the guise of AZSFW, made a run to grab our tags and auction them off. Arizona hunters and sportsmen united. And with the help from many from across the country, we "blitzkrieged" our State legislature. The Governor. The local media..... We had a united, grassroots message. And it worked. Not only did SFW hightail it outta here, but AZSFW was completely disbanded!

The power of people works. But you must be united and have a clear message.

That fact of the matter is....you just might have to wait until this current contract is up. That's unfortunate. Good luck....and stay the course!
 
I am a first time poster, very long time lurker, and former native Utah resident.

If Tristate is not Don Peay himself, he is one of his paid underlings.

I have to say, I dont know how you guys in Utah have tolerated this as long as you have. We listened to the Wildlife Board meeting yesterday, it was absolutely incredulous, and shameful. People outside of Utah just can not believe the level of "legalized" racketeering that goes on down there. My buddy said if he did not know that it was an actual Wildlife Board meeting, that he would have thought it an elaborate ruse of comedic theater.

You good folks in Utah keep up the good fight, especially the UWC. I cant find allot of info on their website, and its a bit slow. But from what I've been able to ascertain through this rule amendment issue over the weeks, these folks are truely bottlers, salts of the earth.

Those 200 tags are a public resource, they belong to all the people of Uath. The Wildlife Board voted in 2005 to have these rules attached to the tags, and some how that never happened? Horse pucky!

And then to listen to all the whining from SFW/BGF folks about being attacked? If being held to account for the responsibilty that comes with those, the peoples tags, is an attack. Then I'm all for more 'attacks'. After what these guys have perpetrated on the sportsmen of Utah, Montana, Arizona, and Alaska, what do they expect. Sportsmen have had enough of the backroom corruption and racketeering of these guys.

Why does every other conservation org out there, operate under a different model than SFW/BGF/MDF? Why do these guys need to be subsidized, and given public welfare. Do they not have good leadership skills? Poor marketing skills? An unfortunate upbringing? Or is it just plain laziness? All rhetorical of course.

Its truely shameful. While I'm not a UWC member, I will be in about 15 minutes, along with a donation. Keep up the good work.
 
>I am a first time poster,
>very long time lurker, and
>former native Utah resident.
>
>If Tristate is not Don Peay
>himself, he is one of
>his paid underlings.
>
While I'm not
>a UWC member, I will
>be in about 15 minutes,
>along with a donation. Keep
>up the good work.

Welcome, SWH. Glad to have you on board!

And keep on posting, Tristate. We can use more good people like SWH!
 
"Maybe these evil old men know things you don't???????"

If they know things the public doesn't, that's just more of the same problem. The WB, DWR, and Legislature are PUBLIC SERVANTS, and none of what they do should be done with "things we don't know". Lack of transparency is the majority of the issue here!

____________________________

I hunt. I fish. I VOTE.

Get the F out of SFW
 
"When are the wildlife board elections, what are the procedures for recall?"

No elections for the Wildlife Board. They're appointed by the Governor. I don't know if there are any measures in place for recall. What you should be asking is how the names get put forth to the Governor. The most recent appointee is John Bair, formerly of SFW.


____________________________

I hunt. I fish. I VOTE.

Get the F out of SFW
 
>"Maybe these evil old men know
>things you don't???????"
>
>If they know things the public
>doesn't, that's just more of
>the same problem. The WB,
>DWR, and Legislature are PUBLIC
>SERVANTS, and none of what
>they do should be done
>with "things we don't know".
>Lack of transparency is the
>majority of the issue here!

You can't teach logic to some people. Maybe they have it. Maybe you don't.
 
Welcome, SWH. Glad to have you on board!

And keep on posting, Tristate. We can use more good people like SWH!


Yes I am sure you can USE more people smart enough to think I am Don Peay or I am on his payroll. Thats just what your cause needs, piles of more misinformed pathetic fools ready to sling any wild assumption their brains can muster.
 
We know who you are and you have the same completely misguided thoughts and concepts about selling all the tags at high prices just like DP. In other words, there are two nut cases out there that think alike and fortunately they are few and far between, LOL!
 
Thanks for the welcome. I dont plan on posting much. I wont have the time when I get back home.

I have watched this and other forums over the years. When SFW/BGF is down to just one or two guys trying to carry all that tainted water by themselves. You know they are from a select pool. I watched it play out in Alaska, lots of big talking folks when the leadership has all the politians bought and paid for. But when Rossi fell, the membership was like cockroaches when the lights come. Same in Arizona, and its happening at home in Montana right now.

It is interesting how a guy from Texas knows so much about the political workings of Utah? I come back to Utah, and hunt, all the time. I dont keep up that well. Sounds like Trisate has a vested interest in selling Utah's public property.
 
"you have the same completely misguided thoughts and concepts about selling all the tags at high prices just like DP."

Admit it. You have no idea of how supply and demand works do you. Plus you can't imagine what added dollars would do to state wildlife agencies. Lets set up a hypothetical.

Lets say Utah gave 15 sheep tags to SFW for auction and raffle giveaways. SFW is very excited and thinks they stand to make 1 million dollars off the sheep tags. Meanwhile the state decided it will run its own auction for the remainder of 85 sheep tags. So the state has increased the supply of sheep tags on the open market by almost 6 fold. So now all the sheep tag buyers sit back, and since they do understand the rules of supply and demand, they realize it is going to probably be cheaper to by the auction sheep tags directly from Utah. Now COMPETITION comes into play. Now that a majority of buyers are flocking to the state run auction of the 85 tags demand at the SFW function falls and subsequently the auction prices fall. So the year before the average price of a sheep tag sale was 60k. Now the average price of a sheep tag sale falls to 25K. Now go back and look at the state before was selling each drawn person a sheep tag for $508 dollars. So the state made 43K on Sheep tags. Now with the auction of the 85 sheep tags the state made 2.1 million dollars. And now guess what they have 50 times as much money just to blow on sheep management. So with more money they start growing more sheep. In a few years they realize they can start sellin 125 tags instead of 85. Now supply increases more and the price falls even more. Remember these are hypothetical numbers but the rules are real. You must quit thinking in the greedy now and start thinking about the real possibility of the fiscal power of wildlife.
 
This is for sure an SFW/BGF underling. He is still argueing market strategy over actual wildlife gain. Trying to fill his Texas pockets with profits from Utah public resources. These guys are all the same. We need a few more of them to speak up, and really help the cause.
 
Stillwater can you read? Did you read the part about millions of dollars more for sheep management. How is that arguing market strategy over wildlife gain? The state gets the money and then they can spend it on wildlife. The fact is I am puting our childrens hunting futures over YOUR greedy hunting plans now.
 
So then your on board with making sure the majority, 90% of the money raise on convention tags, goes back to the division and wildlife. We are in agreement then.
 
The more posts I read from this guy the more I have to shake my head wondering what fantasy world he lives in to come up with some of the chit he posts, LOL! He's advocating selling all wildlife to the highest bidder any way you put it and that's completely against the NAM and exactly what DP and his phiolosophy is and it sucks big time. The only way that could begin to work is if there was a ton of wealthy people who would keep the demand high enough by paying money the largest percentage of the public couldn't afford. Even if they could afford it, the overall philosophy of the majority of hunters is not to buy their animals and that concept is so far off base and against the majority of people that it's exactly the class warfare that he keeps accusing us of and despises.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-18-12 AT 01:27PM (MST)[p]>So then your on board with
>making sure the majority, 90%
>of the money raise on
>convention tags, goes back to
>the division and wildlife. We
>are in agreement then.

Dang. SWH! You just signed up and we're USING you already! Awesome!

And it appears we're able to USE Tristate as well, and he's not even a member!
 
I find Tri humorous myself, when I read his posts for some reason I can't help but think of this character.

9999sideshowbob.jpg
 
>"You pretty much made my argument,
>how many tags did Delta
>Waterfowl get?"
>
>I pretty much didn't make any
>arguement for you, but you
>are changing your arguement now.
>
>
>"See, I am aware of profit
>margins, how big should they
>be in a not for
>profit?"
>
>GIGANTIC! But that is not
>the point I am trying
>to make. I am
>talking about profit margins in
>the DNR.
>
>"Again, where is any success that
>can be tied to SFW?
>Sheep?? Numbers declining, Moose? same,
>Deer, you know it, Elk,
>get real, elk were on
>a massive upswing before SFW."
>
>
>Still blaming a group with control
>of less than %1 of
>all the tags with all
>of your problems. Thats
>really bad statisitics. In
>fact its not statistics at
>all.
>
>"To quote the greatest president ever,
>"trust but verify" thats all
>any of this is about.
>It had to take more
>time to fight openess than
>just being open."
>
>That is not what all this
>is about and you know
>it.


Last I checked the DWR was a government agency and as such is not set up to maximize profits. Nor supposedly was it SFW or MDF mission to maximize profits. Their mission was to increase wildlife and habitat. That is what is sold to the WB when these groups come hat in hand for some government cheese.

As for you supply and demand argument, deer numbers are drastically down statewide, so less supply, why isn't SFW giving back deer tags? If supply and demand had anything to do with it a smaller supply of deer tags should follow fewer deer.

Tristate, last spring, THE DON, came to a meeting in Salt Lake, and did a little dance, at the end of which he guaranteed transparency. LAST SPRING. Not this week because of the great work of Hawkeye, LAST SPRING. Why did Hawkeye have to waste a second of time on this? THE DON made a commitment, he was lying. All summer THE DON was going to debate Big Fin. Again there were arangments made, hell even THE DON TOUR 2012 was agreed to, THE DON made a commitment, HE LIED. At what point is it THE DON and SFW being dirty, lying, backroom dealers, causing the issue, not guys saying, "hey, what did we get for our money(tags)"? Why did it take Hawkeye, along with a lot of pressure from all us to get THE DON to agree to some kind of accounting in a backroom deal before the WB meeting? THE DON, Byron, et al, could wake up tommorow and decide to publish SFWs financials on facebook, WHY HAVEN'T THEY?

Lastly, why has RMEF not only seperated themselves from SFW/MDF, but helped to call them to the carpet? Is RMEF just jealous? Does RMEF secretly have Tony Abbott on their board? What does RMEF have to gain by doing so, other than they realize that at some point SFW/MDF will be opened up, and will go away when the heart and soul of both, the membership, see what an absolute joke these orgs have been in using money effectively. Your friends say a lot about your character, and for some reason RMEF doesn't want to be friends with SFW/MDF anymore!




When they came for the road hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the oppurtunists I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the public land hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for me there was no one left to say anything!
 
>So then your on board with
>making sure the majority, 90%
>of the money raise on
>convention tags, goes back to
>the division and wildlife. We
>are in agreement then.


Where in any of that post dId I mention one red cent of any convention tag going back to the DNR? You really score an F on reading comprehension. But just like must of your buddies that doesn't stop you fRom pulling assumptions out of thin air.
 
>The more posts I read from
>this guy the more I
>have to shake my head
>wondering what fantasy world he
>lives in to come up
>with some of the chit
>he posts, LOL! He's
>advocating selling all wildlife to
>the highest bidder any way
>you put it and that's
>completely against the NAM and
>exactly what DP and his
>phiolosophy is and it sucks
>big time. The only
>way that could begin to
>work is if there was
>a ton of wealthy people
>who would keep the demand
>high enough by paying money
>the largest percentage of the
>public couldn't afford. Even
>if they could afford it,
>the overall philosophy of the
>majority of hunters is not
>to buy their animals and
>that concept is so far
>off base and against the
>majority of people that it's
>exactly the class warfare that
>he keeps accusing us of
>and despises.

That may be the dumbest thing ever written on these forums. You actually complain that there aren't enough rich people to drive the price of tags up to make enough money for the DNR and at the same time complain average people won't be able to afford it?????? Like I said before you have no clue of how supply and demand works.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-18-12 AT 06:23PM (MST)[p]Troll

Its a good thing your not on my pay roll. I'd fire you, for making my competition's job easier. Your still talking about economics, wrong subject. You may think you know what your talking about there, but you are off on a tangent. Everyone watching this knows that. That is why you have no support. The vast majority of sportsman, are good honest folks. They know better.

They understand why the North Americam Model of Wildlife Conservation is good for them. They understand that when they give their time and hard earned money to real conservation organizations, that it goes to work for wildlife. That in turn pays dividends for them and their children. And their childrens children.

You keep talking markets, supply and demand, and economics. Some how that is the line you take to defend organizations that are funded by the public's resources and property. The many taking care of the few, that can't seem to make it on their own. The welfare queens of the conservation world. How is it that every other organization out there, runs there "business" without majority support from the goverment, and the tax payers? But SFW/BGF and MDF are such good business men, that they need goverment assistance? Well more than just assistance, rather most of their funding. I have never asked a goverment to fund my business. I never will. If it fails its because I'm not a good business man. I had a bad model. Not because the goverment and the public did not fund me. SFW/BGF and MDF are not successful as independant business men, or as independant conservation organizations. They are only successful at the politics of division. And the practice of raiding, and making a living from publicly funded coffers.

I am sure there are some welfare moms out there that do great things with their welfare money too. That does not excuse the fact that they wont get a real job, and stand on their own two feet.
 
Stillwaterhunter---That's another great post that I'm sure will go right over the troll's head and he'll come back with more BS, but you hit the nail right on the head again.
 
I just sent this email to the board members concerning that meeting on Aug 16th.

I hope it does some good!

Utah DWR board members:

My name is ############# and I've lived in Utah my entire life. But only hunted for 5 years. Hunting was not a family tradition growing up but I've wanted to make it a tradition with my kids. Starting this year with my oldest son, I decided to bring him along with me to the Aug 16th meeting so he might understand better how this entire thing works. From the decisions on tags to projects to changes concerning our wildlife herds here in Utah. It was a new experience for the both of us. I'm not part of any organization. Just an average Joe hunter who has a deep passion for hunting and loves the outdoors. I've always wanted to make a difference and help anyway I can to better the herds in Utah. Whether it be volunteer work for a project or just knowing that my hard earned money is going to helping conservation of all species in Utah.

I attend the annual hunting expo here in Utah every year and have made sure I put my name in the drawing for the convention tags. We love to go and are glad to see all the taxi work and share an environment with so many others who share the same passion as myself. It's great. I don't ever want to see the expo leave the state of Utah. My name has never been drawn for a premium tag at the expo nor with the DWR but it's good to know the money I have given, is hard at work for conservation. So I thought. Then I heard about the UWC proposal recently and thought I'd look into it a little bit and see what I could learn. I read the minutes online from the March 31 2005 meeting when the convention rule was put into place and quickly discovered that there is no such real accountability for the organizations that run the expo. No real financial auditing of either organization. No specific bank accounts that funds would be distributed to or pulled from. Just expenditure lists given that could be written up to satisfy the naive. Although reading Mr. Diamonds concerns and wanting to include the transparency and accountability of the organizations as a second motion to the rule was a great idea and was also agreed with by Don Peay and MDF. Oh, and to learn that Miles Morietti was the Director at the time of all this taking place and to find out that he now is involved with SFW is very troublesome. Why did nobody follow through with Mr Diamonds second motion? Was it purposely not enforced? Why would board members be allowed to be connected with these organizations? and vise verse? The board members back in 2005 I believe were greatly concerned about conservation and the NAM. It would be hard to say that about the board members today after attending that meeting. As so many guests gave their short 3 minute speeches, some of you board members seemed disconnected from what you were hearing. Some looked as if to almost accidentally fall asleep.


What I'm confused about was the final discussion given after hearing from the public on item agenda #12 on Aug 16th. SFW claims it's an attack and that organization has done so much for wildlife and how people want the expo to go away and tried to make it sound so personnel. Then UWC wants accountability for the money involving the application fees. At the end of all the talking concerning item 12 you ask for a short recess to make a decison......Make a decision on what?????? IT'S IN THE RULE ALREADY to show accountability and transparency for all involved with the convention tag funds. So what is there to rule on? However there is something that needs to begin to be enforced.

To me this entire thing isn't about who wins and who loses. Or who does more for wildlife. It's about who can do more than what they already are. It's about following through with amendments that have already been put in place. It's about who's out to really help wildlife in Utah versus who's out to help wildlfe and make personal gains from it. As you can easily see our deer herds are hurting immensely. Are they suffering due to so many looking for personel gains in the process? I would think it places a significant roll in it. But not entirely.

Look at Arizona's super raffle that they do yearly. 100% of the funds goes back to their wildlife. Sponsors and other things pay the overhead costs involved. Why can't Utah do something similar? I don't think Utah's deer herds are going to get better until so many decide to put conservation first instead of their pocket books. I'm not against these organizatons making some money. I'm against them being dependent on a public asset to make money. Without the average Joe hunter, there wouldn't be an expo.

I've heard some say that we should auction all the tags off to the highest bidder. That it would make a lot of money for the state. Well that would be quickly turning this sport of hunting into a rich mans sport. Which is completely against the NAM. But where do you draw the line? How many tags do you need to auction off to get the funding to pay for these projects? Why do so many consider doing volunteer work but expect to be compensated? That's not volunteer work. To me volunteer work is giving my time and hard work for free. To better a situation without running up costs for others that are trying to make a positive impact. I think many people involved with wildlife need to think about many of the questons that I've asked in this letter. I really wish I could get some answers. For there are alot of other hunters that are voicing these same concerns. They aren't expressing them to you because they have ran out of hope. Hope that things will turn around. It's hard to have hope that the DWR and the two organizations will voluntarily sit down together and come up with a solution.

I think that SFW and MDF should really look at how much money they profit from the expo and ask themselves if they are doing as much as they can to help the wildlife in Utah.

I think that all you Board members need to think about how important your decisions are. The impact that those decisions have on our environment, our wildlife, the hunters, and the reputation for this great state.

I hope I have shed some light on what many hunters are talking about and are hoping to see some changes. Some changes that were set up to begin from the very start. Since March 2005. Only you can make this happen. Many are hoping to see it happen.
Let's make it happen.

Thanks for your time.
 
Good letter BillyBoB! FYI, Mr. Miles Moretti is the CEO of the MDF, and that organization partners with the SFW to put on the Expo, but the MDF is the only organization actually on the contract with the DWR to run it.
 
If you could go back and actually read I am talking about the state selling the tags, not the SFW or MDF. That doesn't violate your NACM model bull.
 
You're full of chit and don't have a clue what you're talking about again because regardless of who sells the licenses, if they are so high-priced that only the rich can afford any of them it would be against the NAM and probably represent theclass warfare struggle that you say you are against and what we're for. Go away as nothing you come up with makes any sense to anyone but yourself.
 
MDF may be the only organization on the contract but SFW is still pulling the strings. Look who did most of the talking at the meeting, Bateman, Pay and other SFW cronies.
Wes
 
BillyBoB

Nice letter, well done.

Troll

Nice attempt at retreat. They say you should quit while you are ahead. You are so behind, why stop now?
 
How in the world is auctioning a tag a violation of your sacred NAM. It isn't. The state charges money now for the tags and believe it or not there are people who can't afford a tag now. Does that mean that NAM has been violated???? No! Face it, your sacred NAM doesnT set the price for what a tag can cost. NAM isn't some all killing trump card to pull out when your brain can't win an argument.
 
Trollstate

Care to expound upon your earlier defense of SFW/BGF=MDF, and the CONVENTION tag issue? Nice distraction, heading off on tangents of conservation tags, and anti hunters.

Lets hear some more about the "business" of wildlife. About short term gains on government welfare funded, over leveraged dirivatives. Verses long term gains of profitable secured dividends.

Tell us more about the great rewards of embracing this philosphy. I was still living in Utah when Don Peay got things rolling, I remember it well. Were there some great things accomplished back them? Sure, but that has been a long time ago. Back then it was about the deer and elk herds. Well elk have rebounded everywhere, not just Utah. And last I checked the deer were still declining. As evidenced by the continued reduction of tags. What did you tell us earlier about supply and demand? I was with everyone else when they cut tags back then, but I was wrong, like alot of other folks were. Its been 20 years of broken promises. Give us more money, give us more trust, give us more of your wildlife. But the deer herds are no better than they were then. And yet the "profit margins" have grown exponentialy.

I keep reading that "at least these guys are doing something". Doing what? We have had big mule deer declines in parts of Montana in the last year from EHD. As soon as the word was out, and before we knew about the EHD cause. SFW/BGF guys were on it trying to raise money and spin political gain from it. Its shameful, and its dishonest. It proved to me evrything I had ever suspected about this group.

Lets hear it Trollstate. Tell us how wonderful Don is. Tell us how he saved us all, and wants to save us some more.
 
Do me a favor and go back and find one single place anywhere on these forums where I claimed SFW or MDF or Don Peay had the answers to fix wildlife. Your barking up the wrong tree boy.
 
Trollstate

You defended the Wildlife Board. They are 100% for $FW, as evidenced by the Board meeting itself. You cant unravel all this. You then went on to make a case about seperating the 90% split in the UWC proposal, from the transpancy part of the proposal. Anybody that concerned about $FW keeping money generated on public resources. While down playing the transparency part it. Has a vested interest in the money. To then go on and on about the "business" of wildlife, says it all. That is the $FW mantra.

You might have done a really good job of not making a verbatim defense of $FW. And I dont blame you for trying to distance yourself from them. Alot of folks have. The fact remains, their water is in your bucket. You are attempting to make their case.

Like you said earlier. You know what this is really about.
 
I never defended the wildlife board. I simply told y'all the wall you were going to hit the minute people started talking about changing a contract. Just because I tell you the truth doesn't mean I am on their side.

As for separating the %90 I have been saying all along that y'all should do that for three reasons. First, grabbing at money while members of the UWC repeatedly claimed they ONLY wanted transparency was making them look dishonest and greedy. Second, it was puting the cart in front of the horse. If things are not transparent then theUWC did not know how much of fees they could responsibly grab at. Third, it was peanuts. People were driving a wedge between hunters over peanuts.

As for going on and on about the business of wildlife, it's just the truth again. Doesn't mean I am preaching someone else's mantra, just means I am not going to BS you. If you think the DNR doesn't require funding and that conservation projects are paid for with fairy dust and good wishes then pull that lever for Obama in November and feel confident he will fix your wildlife issues with warm and fuzzy feelings.

All things asside, I guess you couldn't find me preaching for support of SFW or MDF or your friend Don Peay anywhere on here so all you had to fall back on was stupid assumptions.
 
Trollstate

The UWC grabbing at money? You just summed it up. It is still $FW's take of public resources that you are worried about. The proposal is to make sure the money goes back to the division where there can be an accurate accounting of it. So the people of Utah can have an actual say in what is done with their public resource.

Keep trying to distance yourself. It is really not helping. As much as you think that it might be.

Bottom line. You are overly concerned with $FW's ill gotten money. You are argueing for them to retain their welfare check. You say they should get to keep it. While also argueing the Division needs funding. You cant have it both ways. If the Division needs funding. It appears that the UWC has a proposal to see that happen.

Why are you so concerned with $FW keeping money they make from public resources?

Obama? You are the one that thinks "business" is run from public resources. Argueing for $FW making profits from public resources, is like argueing for the stimulus. $FW is no better than Solyndra. Where did the money go?

Who is for Obama?
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-19-12 AT 06:23PM (MST)[p]>Trollstate
>
>The UWC grabbing at money? You
>just summed it up. It
>is still $FW's take of
>public resources that you are
>worried about.

Actually, no. I am not worried about that. 1 more dumb assumption on your part.

The proposal is
>to make sure the money
>goes back to the division
>where there can be an
>accurate accounting of it. So
>the people of Utah can
>have an actual say in
>what is done with their
>public resource.

The people of Utah are having a say in the use of their public resource. Once again like most of these nuts you fail to realize even the people you hate have just as much say in management of the resource as you do.

>
>Keep trying to distance yourself. It
>is really not helping. As
>much as you think that
>it might be.

I am not worried about distances, just the truth.
>
>Bottom line. You are overly concerned
>with $FW's ill gotten money.

Once again find one single quote where I am concerned about their money. Just like all the rest of your dumb assumptions, you won't.

>You are argueing for them
>to retain their welfare check.
>You say they should get
>to keep it.

Sure why not its peanuts and the DNR gets to experiment with new ideas for tags and capitalization.

While also
>argueing the Division needs funding.

Yep

>You cant have it both
>ways.

Yes you can.

If the Division needs
>funding. It appears that the
>UWC has a proposal to
>see that happen.

At the cost of dividing hunters, and Cheating the DNR out of enormous amounts of money later. Which translates to screwing the next generation of hunters.

>
>Why are you so concerned with
>$FW keeping money they make
>from public resources?

I am not.
>
>Obama? You are the one that
>thinks "business" is run from
>public resources.

Some businesses are whether we like it or not.

Arguing for $FW
>making profits from public resources,
>is like argueing for the
>stimulus. $FW is no better
>than Solyndra. Where did the
>money go?

Not even close. That's apples and oranges. Also Solyndra went ##### up. sFW is still in business.
>
>Who is for Obama?

You sucka. hahahaha :7
 
The UWC grabbing at money. You brought it up. It was your inaccurate claim. It was your concern, not mine. You introduced it to the onversation.

Of course $portsmen for Welfare have a say in Utah's wildlife management. The people of Utah also have right to know how much of a say that is. If they can generate money for wildlife through conservation or convention tags, thats a good thing. The people of Utah not knowing how their public resources are being exploited. Not a good thing. The money generated through convention tags not going directly back to wildlife in a transparent fashion. Also not a good thing.

As for you being concerned about $FW's money. The simple fact that you keep working the line that have, says all that anyone here needs to know.

If the money is peanuts. Then why do the Expo in the first place? If it truely is peanuts. Lets get that out in the open. Lets make sure those few precious peanuts go back to the Division and the wildlife.

The only division being created is from $FW. The only future funds being deprived from the division are those that $FW does not return to the Division.

Just because $FW and other "business's" benefit from welfare. Even though it did not do Solyndra any good. Does not take away from the fact that it is welfare. It is goverment subsidization, it is wrong. Wether you take from the many to provide for the few. Or you take from the few. To provide for the many. It is the same. It is wealth redistribution. It runs counter to good, solid American principals.
 
"running into a wall when it came to changing a contract"
Get it straight Trollstate....the contract doesn't need to change... It needs to be enforced. The second motion to the convention rule states the need for transparency and accountability. The second motion hasn't been followed through with....Yet.....
 
>"running into a wall when it
>came to changing a contract"
>
>Get it straight Trollstate....the contract doesn't
>need to change... It needs
>to be enforced. The second
>motion to the convention rule
>states the need for transparency
>and accountability. The second motion
>hasn't been followed through with....Yet.....
>


Funny but members of the UWC feel that the contract needs to be changed.
 
From its current configuration. To include the 2005 motion and intention, for transparency and accountability. That the Wildlife Board voted in favor of. When Miles was the director. Before he was with MDF.
 
FALSE.....
I was at the meeting..Only morons in that room thought the contract needed to be changed due to Mr. Bushmen giving a false statement that it would be a "breach of contract". That's when the board members panties got all bunched up and quit thinking about what the motions of the convention rule actually stated.

Makes me wonder who actually did their homework before the meeting. Or wait.....makes me wonder who's in bed with who?
 
Tristate....
Why do you keep calling M&Mers boys??????
The only person on this thread making childish comments is you. That's why you get so much crap for what you say. It's either false statements or a childish comment.
 
You can tell who is sleeping in the same bed with each other. They are overly concerned that the other party. Whom they claim not to sleep with. Has good linens. Regardless of who pays for them.
 
>The UWC grabbing at money. You
>brought it up. It was
>your inaccurate claim. It was
>your concern, not mine. You
>introduced it to the onversation.

Yep. Not sure what your point is but yep I introduced it.
>
>
>Of course $portsmen for Welfare have
>a say in Utah's wildlife
>management. The people of Utah
>also have right to know
>how much of a say
>that is. If they can
>generate money for wildlife through
>conservation or convention tags, thats
>a good thing.

Yep sounds like they have. May not be as much as you want and it may be plenty for others.

The people
>of Utah not knowing how
>their public resources are being
>exploited. Not a good thing.
>The money generated through convention
>tags not going directly back
>to wildlife in a transparent
>fashion. Also not a good
>thing.

Sentence fragments, not a good thing. As for transparency you can go back and look at several of my posts agreeing that should be a priority. I don't see why y'all keep bringing this point up when I have never disagreed with it.
>
>As for you being concerned about
>$FW's money.

once again your words, not mine.

The simple fact
>that you keep working the
>line that have, says all
>that anyone here needs to
>know.

What? Is that English?
>
>If the money is peanuts. Then
>why do the Expo in
>the first place?

Generates revenue for the surrounding municipality from outside revenue streams while also allowing the DNR an experimental view of capitalizing a resource.


If
>it truely is peanuts. Lets
>get that out in the
>open. Lets make sure those
>few precious peanuts go back
>to the Division and the
>wildlife.

Feed that short sighted greed, boy.
>
>The only division being created is
>from $FW. The only future
>funds being deprived from the
>division are those that $FW
>does not return to the
>Division.

Did you just use the Peewee Herman law of debate. "I know you are, but what am I?"

>
>Just because $FW and other "business's"
>benefit from welfare. Even though
>it did not do Solyndra
>any good. Does not take
>away from the fact that
>it is welfare. It is
>goverment subsidization, it is wrong.

Really???? You ever shipped anything. Do you drive a company car? Do you ever eat beef? Have you ever gotten a home mortgage? How about a small business loan? Did you ever eat rice? Did you ever by wool pants? Did you ever go hunting on a CRP field? Did you ever use electricity in your home? Did you ever go to a professional sporting event? Did you ever drink milk? I could make this list a few thousand long but hopefully you get the point that subsidizing is in YOUR life. Every day.

>Wether you take from the
>many to provide for the
>few. Or you take from
>the few. To provide for
>the many. It is the
>same. It is wealth redistribution.
>It runs counter to good,
>solid American principals.

Actually in this case it may be a matter of imminent domain which I believe may actually be addressed in the constitution. How about the NACM?
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-19-12 AT 07:29PM (MST)[p]If the WB is in bed with SFW and even Director Jim K since he fired off at the RMEF when they said non-profit groups should be more transparent.In other words the Board, DWR, and SFW are all in bed together. NONE of them favor transparency nor have they enforced the ruling placed upon the Convention/EXPO tags back in 2005.

WHY? Shady deals? All three are afraid of what can be found on the financial books?

If the ruling was confusing then why did they all just ignore it all those years? Surely, someone should have followed up on the ruling? Did someone give someone else a gift or two and everything just went quiet?

It's time to make things right.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-19-12 AT 07:30PM (MST)[p]I see, Everyone is doing it, so that makes it OK.
 
Elite's got it figured out.
Why can't tristate?








Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning conservation...
"The movement for the conservation of wildlife, and the conservation of all our natural resources, are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and method."

"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."

"It is in our power...to preserve game..and to give reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the skill of the hunter,whether he is or is not a man of means."
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-19-12 AT 07:59PM (MST)[p]>Elite's got it figured out.
>Why can't tristate?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning conservation...
>"The movement for the conservation of
>wildlife, and the conservation of
>all our natural resources, are
>essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
>method."

Democracy has not been buried here.

>
>"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."

If this were the truth there might not be any hunting at all.

>
>
>"It is in our power...to preserve
>game..and to give reasonable opportunities
>for the exercise of the
>skill of the hunter,whether he
>is or is not a
>man of means."

If this is the case plenty of people are Getting screwed by the state wildlife agencies. I know tons of people who can't afford a license or permit now. Come to think of it charging more for nonRes licenses is probably a violation of old Teddy's rules here.

Face it slick, you are sitting here gobbling up spin.
 
"Elite's got it figured out.
Why can't tristate?"

The reason Tristate doesn't get it is because you can't fix stupid. Some guys have just tasted to much koolaid.
 
Stillwater gets it too. So many others get it. I guess the koolaid does cause stupidity.
LOL!


Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning conservation...
"The movement for the conservation of wildlife, and the conservation of all our natural resources, are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and method."

"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."

"It is in our power...to preserve game..and to give reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the skill of the hunter,whether he is or is not a man of means."
 
Stillwater, you have been channeling my mind buddy. Thanks for injecting new blood into this discussion.

Billybob, that link you provided about Grinnel was one of the single best links I have ever clicked on. It should be required reading for every hunter and taught in every hunter education class.

One more thing. I spent an entire Saturday in March pouring over the 2012 expo details. I looked at everything and determined it to be a financial loser for everyone but the promoters. The expo is said to add crazy numbers to the Utah tax base, based on the geographic participation of the vendors I cannot see it. In my opinion the expo is simply a marketplace for hunting tags and matchmaking service for outfitters (as long as the outfitters include the the "M" word outfitter) in the deal. The onsite validation of Utah hunting licenses is a sneaky way to pad the participation numbers. I wouldnt be surprised if 50% of the non-resident raffle tags are purchased by the vendors. The raffle tags add to the illusion that Utah hunters support the big picture. It also provides a dribble of data the promoters can distort to justify future expos. Without the raffle tags the expo would appear to be what it really is, a place where public assets and hunt information are sold to people with deep pockets. I WOULDNT BE SURPRISED IF RAFFLE TICKETS ARE GIVEN AWAY FOR FREE TO VENDORS AND VIPS...the audit that will eventually come will certainly include proof of payment for each tag...or lack theerof.

Debating the Kool Aid crowd about ethics and fairness is a lost cause. The people running the expo are not hunters, they are businessmen. They view a DIY hunter as a wasted opportunity. They have twisted the people hired to serve as checks and balances (politicians, DWR directors, state attorneys). The only way to fix this situation is to cut the fuel line on the wealth tag engine. Take away their marketplace and increase the cost for them to collect the data they need to promote both the auction and raffle tags. A reputation directed attack seems to be in full gear and it may pull in members of the pro-hunting (but non-participating) crowd. If this crowd knew that the demand curve, wealth tag market and 24 hour a day camara surveilance data service were controlled by a single group things would happen really quick.

Does anyone know where the Utah DWR Christmas party was held last year? Were conservation group members invited? Will there be a party this year? Just curious.

Ryan
 
>FALSE.....
>I was at the meeting..Only morons
>in that room thought the
>contract needed to be changed
>due to Mr. Bushmen giving
>a false statement that it
>would be a "breach of
>contract". That's when the board
>members panties got all bunched
>up and quit thinking about
>what the motions of the
>convention rule actually stated.
>
>Makes me wonder who actually did
>their homework before the meeting.
>Or wait.....makes me wonder who's
>in bed with who?

True! From a previous thread you hoped we all forgot about. Here is what one of the UWC croud said and you hoped no one noticed.

"With these known facts, both parties (MDF & DWR) should immediately agree to open the existing contract and make it right. Any hesitancy or excuses by either organization that this shouldn't be done will tell the tale as to whether they want to do what is right for wildlife or continue on with a corrupt system that appears to be putting wads of money in pockets somewhere"

Now he admited he did not get to go to the meeting but he was e-mailing the board members. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.
 

Similar threads

JakeH
Potential chages to the conservation tags system.
Replies
17
Views
1k
elkhunterUT
elkhunterUT
Tristate
A story of what can be.
2
Replies
101
Views
4k
elkfromabove
E
deadibob
Anyone remember that one time back in the good ole days? The year was...
Replies
34
Views
2k
BearBait49
BearBait49

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

91BAD1FD-081C-4A9D-AFCA-E8F62B907B64.jpeg
18355B78-BF21-4ED9-A9C6-BFBB45902CCE.png
20220608_215949.jpg
utah buck 88.jpg
3DEFA42C-0F64-443D-BBE9-83191F9F9192.jpeg
IMG_0253.jpg
IMG_1811 (1).jpg
IMG_4296.jpg
IMG-4858.jpg
DSCN3731.JPG
Heavy Buck!!
How big is this bull?
Back
Top Bottom