SFW Meeting Report

Hawkeye

Hawkeye

Long Time Member
Messages
3,012
Well, I just returned home from the SFW meeting and I wanted to post a short report before I go to bed. The meeting started at 7 pm and finished just after 11 pm. SFW was represented by most of its officers and board members and its accountant, including Don Peay, Byron Bateman, Ryan Foutz, Troy Justensen, Mike Pritchett, John Bair and others. There were probably 30-40 people in attendance including many monstermuley.com members (dryflyelk, deerlover, llamapacker, grizzmoose, etc.). There was also at least one member of the media in attendance-a reporter from KSL.

Overall, I would say the meeting was a success. Everyone was polite and professional. SFW gave its presentation and then Don and other SFW representatives fielded questions raised by those in attendance. The most important issue that came to light was SFW?s admission that it has done a poor job with transparency and that it is committed to improving in this area. SFW provided some general financial information at the meeting. In addition, SFW is working to add key financial information (tax returns, financial statements, etc.) and detailed expo data (subject to obtaining approval from SFW?s expo partner-MDF) to its website and/or the expo website in the near future. That was a huge concession in my mind. Assuming SFW follows through and provides that information, this will go a long way toward resolving some of the basic concerns I have had for the last couple of years.

The Q&A period involved a host of issues ranging from the lack of a statutory requirement that a certain percentage of the funds raised from the convention tags be used for actual conservation to SFW?s position regarding the recent elk management committee proposal. I will let others chime in regarding the specifics on the various issues.

At the end of the day, I thought the meeting was very productive and I appreciate SFW?s willingness to take the time to meet with us and answer questions. I am anxiously looking forward to the increased transparency, which frankly is long overdue. I do not agree with SFW?s position on all issues but I do believe that SFW has done and is doing many good things. As I promised Don, I still intend to attend the upcoming RAC and Wildlife Board Meetings to push for a statutory requirement that at least 90% of the funds generated from the sale of convention permits be used for actual conservation projects and for stiff audit procedures.

I am now going to bed. Hopefully, others who were in attendance will chime in an share their thoughts and opinions.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
Thanks for the update. Nice to hear there are no broken noses and the meeting was productive.
 
Sounds like it went much better than I expected it would. That's good to hear. I think earmarking the tag money for wildlife projects is an excellent idea.
 
That is very good news Hawkeye. Major kudos to the monster muley guys who put this together and made it happen. Kudos also to SFW for recognizing that they need to change some things.

Scoutdog
 
I must say I am very pleasantly surprised.It sounds like it went very well and I applaud all the participants for their hard work.
 
thanks to those who attended and for all of the input. There was a lot of information provided by acccountants, DWR financial and habitat officers, etc.

SFW has built what we have by listening to sportsmen for the past 16 years and has then worked to find solutions to very complex problems.

A lot of SFW shortfalls in not "doing it all right" is there has never been enough money to hire enough people to get it all done. SFW small staff and great volanteers have focused relentlessly at fixing problems to grow abundant herds and fisheries and flocks.

SFW is committed to fixing the transparency issues, we have never had anything to hide. The really interesting question will be to see when it is all completly transparent if more will get invovled, or will most still just sit on the sidelines and expect the 10% to fight the fights and find the money to fix things for the 90% ?

A big part of the problems in the hunting and fishing industry is the simple economic fact that in general there is not enough money to solve the problems: tens of millions of dollars to fence hihgways, buy critical winter range - expensive foothill prices, restore federal lands, fight the extremeists who want to stop habitat restoration and then spend millions in court and in public relations fantacy's about how unmanged predator populations are good for game herds - they only eat the sick and the weak, etc. A $35 deer tag doesn't cover all teh costs to produce abundant deer herds.

SFW members, officers, volanteers have traveled millions of miles, answered tens of thousands of emials and phone calls working to get sportsmen on the same page so collectively, sportsmen have a strong enough voice to solve the problems that face our industry.

It was a fun and i believe productive meeting, and i was very impressed that the MM folks who came were willing to spend 4 plus hours to really dig into the issues.

In summary, i think everyone at the meeting had a better understanding how complex and expensive the issues sportsmen face really are, and why the answers cannot be solved with a simple post or two on MM.

So thanks to all those who came, thanks for your input, and hope more sportsmen will be willing to get invovled to solve the issues that allow all of us to do what we love - spend time hunting and fishing in teh great public lands of the west with our families and friends.

I think more and more sportsmen are realizing the agenda of the anti hunters is working - no wolf management means an 80% reduction in hunting opportunity, which in the end means the end of hunting for many reassons.

SFW and the RMEF are planning a major counter offensive that will be out to sportsmen in the next few weeks.

SFW will work on our short comings, we invite all sporttsmen to join us in the wolf wars.



don
 
I was there. They answered questions yes - but it still took a meeting to do it and that still doesn't sit too well with me. They are far from out of the woods yet in my mind. I will wait and see, and reserve judgment until after their works cause' talk is only a small part.

30-30
 
Here are some of the things I learned at the meeting:

First, Hawkeye is one of the smartest guys I've sat and listened to. He was very professional, prepared, and seemingly informed. I was impressed with his preparation, it must have taken a lot of personal time and work.

Second, Don is a slick politician. Normally that would be a bad thing, especially now-adays, however he is perfect for what needs to be done for our wildlife. He has the passion and seemingly the know how to get things done. He did come over a little self righteous at times as he and most of the other board members consistently pointed out the long hours of driving and lobbying they do as part of their job functions. I am sure other guys dedicate as much time and work to their respective professions. Don pointed out that he has lost money by championing wildlife as opposed to other professions he could have chosen, I believe that to be true and thank him for choosing to fight for more big game. It certainly takes a politician to sway a politician, oh yeah and a lot of money.

Third, SFW's CPA, in my opinion, is a boob. He was abrasive and challenging. He may be a good accountant for non-charities (believe me we all heard that he was many times, mostly from himself) , however he is not a good choice for public relations.

Lastly, overall I believe I was swayed more to SFW's mission. I'm not quite all in however. I want to see if any concessions are met. One thing that was not pointed out in the summary of the night and of the meeting was another agreement by the SFW to open the expo draw to the public. They warned us that it may be boring, however the program designer did say that the actual draw only takes an hour. Most of the time involves the Fish and Game checking eligibility of the applicant. I did get the feeling that the SFW members held back a lot of stuff. Only sharing the bare minimum, often glancing back and forth before answering. As a business owner,that makes sense to me, don't divulge info I don't have to. That may contribute to the lack of trust and transparency outsiders feel.

Thanks Travis (?) and llamapacker for setting so much up, and again great job Hawkeye. I think if we all followed Hawkeye to some of our RAC meetings and helped support some of his ideas we could effect some changes more in line with what most members here would want.

That's my two cents, Jeremy
 
Thanks for the summary Hawkeye and Don,

I'm glad some issues were resolved. It looks like the transparency issue message was heard.

As someone who has been involved with different conservation groups and past board member of SFW for years. Even though I don't agree with everything SFW does. As mentioned, SFW is doing a lot for wildlife and hunting for all. Rich and Ave Joes. Don and SFW board know whats going on. The political fights. SFW is teaming up with other groups to fight the fights. Thanks Don for offering the meeting. Don is a great guy to have on our team as sportsmen. Thanks for all you do.
 
I also attended the meeting. I was the one sitting up front next to hawkeye.

I also came away satisfied with the outcome. I think SFW and Don did their best to answer our questions and concerns in a forthright manner. I'd like to thank all the guys who came out from SFW to answer our questions and put us on the same page. I'd also like to thank llamapacker and grizzmoose for setting up the venue and the meeting. Deerlover did a great job of asking tough questions and cutting through the BS to get down to brass tacks. Hawkeye used his astute attorney skills to cut to the heart of the questions that we needed the answers to.

As Hawkeye said, probably the biggest thing to come out of this meeting for me was the confession and concession that they'd dropped the ball in regards to transparency and accountability. When asked why it hadn't been done before, the answer was that they'd overlooked it, and didn't have the time or money to "hire three accountants" to do it for them. Although I'm not buying that argument, I'm glad to hear that going forward they are going to make an effort to get this done. Ryan Foutz agreed that financial information should be available on the SFW website in 30-45 days. I look forward to that.

Ryan stood up first and spoke about the expo. He passed out a handout that gave general numbers for the amount of applicants per each species over the last four years. In summary, There were about 9,500 sportsmen that applied for expo tags this year, putting in an average of $80 each, for a total amount of around $850k. We asked to get the individual breakdown of how many applied for each specific unit, and SFW agreed to make this available as well. They had the numbers available but they need the permission of MDF to post them. This was a big step in the right direction and one we should have seen a long time ago. Kudos to SFW for finally bringing it forward.

A gentleman was there from the company SFW contracts with to run the expo draw, and he gave a detailed description of how the draw is conducted and what goes into it. He has no outside affiliation and is hired (and paid very well) just for this purpose. I have never felt the expo was rigged, and I'm assured that this is the case. It's fair. Sometimes people like John Bair get lucky, and that's what happened this year. We discussed why SFW employees were allowed into the draw, and Ryan stated that it's open to all and they weren't budging on that one. I don't blame them for wanting to be part of it, but SFW needs to be ready for the PR hit they'll take in years like this one, where John drew a sheep tag. Can you imagine the backlash if it had been Don?

Don gave a powerpoint presentation about the history of SFW. Included in the presentation was the history he had of working with political big wigs, such as president Bush, to help get funding in place for habitat and watershed restoration projects. The total amount SFW has had a hand in bringing to the table from various organizations in behalf of Utah wildlife has been around 20 million dollars over the last several years. Much of this money has been used to plow down pinion juniper areas to restore the grass and other vegetation necessary for wildlife. They have also bought quite a bit of land for winter range for our deer and elk - I can't remember exactly how many acres.

We also discussed wolves briefly and the threat they posed for the future. This fight will take a lot of money and I'm behind SFW and any other organization that will take on the wolf lovers head on. One thought I had when we were discussing this was to put together a branch of SFW or another organization where somehow we could make donations that we could be assured would go 100% towards that fight. I would be more than willing to help and donate to that very important cause, because if that one's lost, we can kiss the rest goodbye.

There was one thing that we didn't quite see eye to eye on, but I appreciate the explanation. I agree with Hawkeye that a percentage of the expo tag revenues should be agreed upon to spend directly on conservation, or should "hit the ground". SFW's stance on the issue was that the money was being used in other areas, or "mission accomplishment", and it was being used wisely for the betterment of our wildlife, if not directly hitting the ground. SFW's CPA made the statement that taking away this money from SFW would "hamstring them" and make the rest of their mission impossible. I think that there should be a fair compromise here in between somewhere. Don stated that no requirements were put on this money initially because SFW, MDF and FNAWs were taking a risk, and nobody knew if the expo would be successful. Well, now we all know it is. The contract is set to be renewed after the expo next year. The allocation of the expo funds will be discussed in the RACs, and for all of us who care, we can go and voice our opinions. I will be there.

It did get a bit old hearing about how much money they could be making elsewhere and how many hours they put in and how far they drive. I appreciate all they do and the results they get, but that's part of the deal, and they all knew that going in. There's a whole lot of guys that would love to trade places with the top guys in SFW, to earn the great salaries doing what they love to do, so I don't feel too bad for them. If SFW were to announce an opening in it's administrative ranks making $80k+ a year doing fundraising and banquets, I'd bet there would be a line a mile long to apply for the position.

One last thing- I asked how efficient SFW was with donations. Many non-profits make their numbers available so that the public can see what percentage of their donation goes towards the cause. The CPA answered that SFW operates at 83% efficiency. Now, I don't know how they come up with the number or what it entails, but I found that interesting.

Overall, I think SFW did a very good job answering our questions and giving us a better view of what they do and what they are about. Again, I sincerely appreciate the time and effort they put in for Utah and our hunting future, and for making the effort to come to this meeting. Although I think this was long overdue and should have been taken care of a long time ago, the bottom line is that it was good enough for me. I just renewed my SFW membership.

Good job Don and team, and thank you. Now go get those wolves.
 
What I learned from the meeting? Hawkeye is a smart guy, a guy you would want on your team. Thanks for asking the hard questions. I learned that there is NO guarantee that any of the money generated from the convention is going on the ground? Correct me if I'm wrong? I understand the orgs have the risk and were in the 4th year of a 5 year commitment. It will be put in front of the boards again next year.( for renewal) SFW has done some great habitat work, and there in the wolf fight. What I want to see is a LARGE percentage of revenue generated at future convs go directly on the ground. 80 to 90 PERCENT if they renew. Dont tell me about the risk involved, they have had 4 years to figure it out. Involve the NRs in the conv draw they lost some tags lets give back. So you loose a few bucks in motels but you'll earn millions if tag apps. Thanks Russ Sheridan ps I'm joining SFW ,I'll put my $ where my mouth is. Don have someone call me and I'll give them my credit card#. #801-860-9333
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-26-10 AT 09:42AM (MST)[p]I want to thank everyone who attended for the very productive meeting. I think Hawkeye and Dryflyelk have given very good summaries.
I would also point out that two very senior members of the DWR were present, and we all know they weren't being paid to attend. They provided very important, and valuable insight from the state's perspective.
After getting the full technical explanation of the draw procedures, it is very hard to see how any part of this was "rigged". There was an offer for the public to be present during the actual computer draw, and I expect a couple of us will probably attend the draw next year. Not so much to look for any problems, but to verify what we are told is true. The outside computer geek who runs the draw seemed very straight-forward, and left little room for further question on this issue.
I don't want to defend the arrogant accountant too much, but I will add that in my business experience accountants rarely make the best PR guys. That isn't what you hire them to do. It was hard to question the experience of SFW's new accountant. If you heard his client list and group affiliations he clearly has the background to help right SFW's financial accounting records. Although he never explicitly blamed anyone for past failures, he was clear that his recent association with SFW was to provide greater accuracy to their records. It is clearly a step in the right direction.Some changes are being made, and were outlined.

Thanks again to all who attended for their courteous behavior, and for listening to both sides of the argument. I still have some rather strong disagreements with SFW on its wildife policy side (elk plan, LE hunts, etc.) but there are other areas where I am 100% behind them (wolf control, for example).

More details to follow in the days ahead.

Bill
 
I just want to make a point that it is OK for us as sportsmen to base our opinions off of what others have experienced, but before any of us ever make a final decision on an issue we need to make sure we are personally involved enough to make our own decision. The reason I point this out is because there was a comment made last night concerning the negative comments that have been made on MM and the adverse impact that has had on SFW as an organization.

Like it or not guys, there are not too many people out there fighting for what we all love and treasure. We may not all agree with the way some things are done but it is hard to disagree with the fact that SFW has done some very good things for wildlife here in Utah.

I went to the meeting with a very skeptical attitude based on all of the comments I have read here on MM. My reason for going was simple. I wanted to hear what SFW is all about from the Horses mouth and make my own decision. I also wanted to try and figure out what it is about Don that tends to rub some people, including myself, the wrong way.

I share many of the same concerns that others here have posed in the past and I think that many of those issues have been addressed. I am reserving judgement until I see the follow through that was promised, but if they do as they say then I think they are on the right track.

Here are my thoughts, for what it's worth:

I think Don is first and foremost a politician. He is obviously someone that takes what he does very seriously and he is the type of person that needs constant back-patting in order to feel good. Nothing gets me going faster than when Don answers a question with a question. That is definitely the true politician coming out in him. Maybe he can't help it and I am sure those tactics work up on the hill, but we as sportsmen just want straight forward answers. Don?t be a politician with us Don.

Everytime I heard you start talking about the countless hours spent on your JOB my blood would start to boil. I don't get it. If you hate it so much then why do you do what you do? I think I know the answer and that has to be good enough for you or it will always rub you the wrong way. I don't think sportsmen in general want to hear over and over about how much you, Don Peay, are directly responsible for what has happened in Utah with Wildlife Management. Much of it may be true, but we have heard it time and time again. Many of us Sportsmen have jobs that require us to work very long hours. If I went into my boss?s office and cried to him about hours he would look at me and say, ?you are salary and along with that comes the expectation that you will do what it takes to get the job done efficiently and effectively?. My thanks will have to continue to be my paycheck and the satisfaction I get from knowing that I have accomplished something.

Then there are the comments made that come across as entitlement for what has been accomplished. ?There used to be 1,000 tags, now there are 5,000 tags, all because of what I have done, therefore I deserve to have a few tags to do with as I please!? This is not a direct quote but close enough to how it actually comes across. I honestly believe that many of us would be more supportive if we knew exactly what was being done with the money.

Let me give you an example: Last night there was a direct question posed to you by Hawkeye, who I agree was very prepared and seems to be very up on the issues at hand. He asked, not a direct quote, ?Why don't we take 90% of the money from the expo tags and ensure it goes to projects on the ground?? There was never a good answer to that question. It was met with questions to answer the question. In the end the only solution was ?take it to the RACs?. Now, John Bair made a comment that I had never thought about before. He stated something along the lines that there are battles to be fought that can't be accomplished with money from conservation tags. Now that makes a lot of sense to me. But answering with a question so I can think about where the money is being spent doesn't, and quite frankly it comes across as you are trying to hide something. Just tell us where the money goes. If it can be shown that it is going towards fighting for wildlife in Utah, on specific projects, then I don't think any of us would have a problem with that.

The only other thing that I could identify that seems to rub people the wrong way is how defensive you get from time to time. I get it, you are passionate about what you do and that is a pre-requisite for the job you do. But when you start making comments like, you go out and quit your job and start an organization to fight something and we will see how you do, it puts up a brick wall that is hard to knock down.

Bottomline Don is that you have done some great things for Wildlife and I think most sportsmen are appreciative of this fact, but whether you like it or not you represent SFW and if you want memberships to increase then you have got to start thinking about how you approach the average sportsman. You need to be a politician when your up on the hill, but when you address the ?average Joe? sportsman you should use a different approach, maybe one of leadership. You need to be the leader that is trying to get all sportsmen on the same page and directed at the same end goal, saving Wildlife and Hunting. Not one that is constantly defending his position to the ones he is trying to lead. This only comes across as self-righteous entitlement.

My personal opinion probably doesn't mean that much to you Don, nor would I expect that it should so take these comments as you will, but this is truly coming from an outside objective voice that is simply trying to understand what you and SFW are all about.

My opinions about SFW have definitely improved after this meeting and I really wish it would have been recorded for others to see. I am waiting to see if the promises made are adhered to and then I will go from there.

I do appreciate what you have done for Wildlife and we as sportsmen definitely need to bridge the gaps in our opinions, especially when they are potentially self-destructive.

John Bair did state that if we were SFW members we could attend board meetings. Does this mean that we would actually have a counting vote in what SFW is fighting for, or is this just a show we can come and watch?

Thanks to the guys that set up the meeting and to SFW for their time. I was educated and I think it was a very constructive session.
 
SFW is no where near 83 % efficient

In comparing MDF's and SFW's 990s for 2006-2008:

Comparing Total Revenues to Program Expenses -

2006-2008

MDF uses 77% of Revenues for Program Expenses

SFW uses 55% of Revenues for Program Expenses

These numbers come right from the 990.

I would like to see the 83% calculation.

Was the $500,000 loan to a "key member" answered?
 
Excellent post and thanks for the link. I hope people turn out to the racs next year and demand that if we give up another 200 expo tags, these moneys generated need to go on the ground.
 
Sounds like a lot was accomplished.Thanks for you mm'ers that attended wish i could have went to hear what was all said, but you gave great overview of what happened, so thank you! I sure wish it would have been recorded for all us to see.

I would like to join an organization but i don't want my money to go to someone, I want it to go to benefit wildlife. If S.F.W. shows a breakdown where the money generated goes,i would be more willing to sign up.
 
RE: SFW is no where near 83 % efficient

As I understood the $500,000 paid back a member who had invested personal money. They mentioned it a couple of times.
 
RE: SFW is no where near 83 % efficient

I was at the meeting last night and thought it was good.
Am I sold on the SFW now? No im not. I am alot more educated in what and how they do what they do and my opinion of them is not nealy as bad as it once was but I still have a few issues with them.

Im with some of the others that were there the expo tags or convention tags do need to be set up like the conservation tags and a percentage needs to be guaranteed to hit the ground. Hopefully this will be taken care of when the Expo gets renewed this year.

I also have an issue with what they call "Mission Accomplishment" if you werent there this is what they consider money hitting the ground and money spent on conservation and this is the 83% they claim to spend on wildlife. Somebody else could explain it better then me.
 
RE: SFW is no where near 83 % efficient

I believe an off shoot of SFW called "The Wolf Campaign" or something similar would be a great idea. I think even the critics of SFW would be willing to donate to the campaign when they know the money is being used purely to fight wolves. It would instill confidence since there is no question as to how it will be spent since it is not going into the SFW general fund.

The NRA seems to have done well by creating separate campaigns for individual issues.
 
RE: SFW is no where near 83 % efficient

Im glad that those who showed up felt that the meeting was productive. I definitely came out with a different attitude towards SFW. Just a couple of points that I came away with:

1. I have no further concerns that the Expo is rigged, and I have no concerns about eligibility for SFW employees. The software guy bored me, but filled his purpose in explaining how the draw works and resolving concerns about it being rigged. With that in mind, I hope Jon has a great hunt and I will look forward to seeing his trophy.

2. I was very happy to hear that we WILL be getting draw odds on a tag by tag basis, rather than overall odds for each species. I think this is something we need to continue to hold SFW and MDF accountable for if they do not post the specific odds in May.

3. Im very happy to see that SFW is taking on the wolves. We needs more $$ to get this done, and SFW will get some of mine.

4. Im content with the salaries that SFW is reporting. I have no other knowledge about other income that Don makes, and frankly I dont feel its any of my business. Im sure he gets money to consult with other people. Thats his own business. I think we heard enough, perhaps too many times, about the hours he puts in. I see nothing that makes me think he is sitting back and collecting his pay.

5. Jason did a good job of pushing the issue about accountability for Expo related money. I TOTALLY agree that this money needs some extra management and needs to be far more transparent. I dont know if Im on board for the 90% rule as I can see how that would "hamstring" SFW's efforts. To be honest, Id be satisfied with really any percentage, within reason, as long as that number is published and the money is audited. Frankly, if I put myself in the shoes of SFW, I would want the freedom to use it as I see fit as well. Now, if I take the role of the DWR, I would absolutely want to force SFW to put a required % back on the ground. I feel that this lack of oversight is on the shoulders of the DWR more than it is on SFW.

6. No more accountants at these meetings. He took way too much time to cover too little. But, he obviously knows what he is doing and Im glad he has that experience.

7. +1 on Don being a politician. I agree with the other comments about Don answering questions with questions. Don, please, please take this advice seriously. If someone asks how much money is hitting the ground, the answer is $x,xxx,xxx or xx%, not "Well, let me ask you this." Id recommend you take some consideration into hiring a part-time PR guy. I think we could have cut the meeting time in half and doubled the amount of questions answered if our questions were answered directly.

Finally, I wanted to share one other thought with any "haters" or ill-wishers of SFW. If I learned one thing, it is the fact that SFW is doing SOMETHING. They have some more work to do so that their money is spent more efficiently and transparently, but it is something. That is far more than any of you are doing by posting negative and uneducated comments. I dont have any problems with people sharing their opinions on line, but these comments should be done professionally, and should be backed up with hard data or facts. Second, provide solutions for your issues instead of just griping. And finally, tell us what you are going to do about it, and get off your computer and go do it.

Thanks Don and crew for coming.
 
RE: SFW is no where near 83 % efficient

Hillbilly they said there were ONLY two hunting orgainizations fight the wolfs and 27 fighting for them. Correct me if I'm wrong guys? A direct campain would be great.
 
RE: SFW is no where near 83 % efficient

After reading all the posts so far. Some good objective from Dryfly, Hawkeye, hardhorn, Llamapacker, and O.S.O.K.

Some very smart people were at the meeting. Lawyers and business owners. Not one of them said it was a waste of time. It appears that the meeting went quite well over all.

Some changes will be made. Accountability. More people are joining from this meeting. I hope more effort is now made to help us as sportmen to protect what we all love to do. To hunt and fish. Like John Bair said. If you have seen the battles over the past 10 yrs. Many won, a few lost. SFW has and will continue to make a big difference IMO. Let's support a group that will fight for this.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-26-10 AT 01:10PM (MST)[p] I also attended the meeting (I was sitting next to the KSL lady) and feel that I should let my thoughts be known.

To be totally honest,I went there slightly skeptical but willing to give these guys a fair shot at explaining themselves, what they do, and why they do it. The state and SFW were very well-represented and I,like most of the others, came away from the meeting with a very positive attitude toward SFW and the people who run it.

I really like the fact of the the DWR guys being there. They are not just a bunch of stupid paper-pushers with degrees, they know their stuff. It was obvious to me that there was no premeditated answers coordinated by them and SFW. They just talked about the reality and severity of the issues that we are all facing and how they work together to make a difference for the better. I believe they have done that in a very significant way and will continue to do so.

I sensed nothing but sincerity in the motives and intentions of SFW and it's leaders. They seemed like very intelligent men who understand what is going on and what it will take to make things better. I agree that the accountant had a rather large ego, but who cares- he's the accountant.
I commend them for the work they've done and the way passion they have to fight back against the liberal BS to conserve what I love to do.

I heard all the things I wanted to hear, and more importantly, I believe they meant what they said. So they haven't been as transparent as they should have, let's give them a chance to to so. No organization is perfect, but it is clear that these guys have done a great amount of good for us.
As they claimed, I don't believe they have anything to hide.
Yes, Don makes a great politician, and that's EXACTLY what our deer and elk need. I am glad I attended and thank Don and the rest of the guys for being willing to do something like this.

There is my two cents.
 
Sounds like it was a good meeting. The reports were good. However, I have more questions. Regarding the convention tags, did SFW indicate they would support a percentage of the money raised going to conservation projects? The cynical person in me would say of course they don't want to have the percentage requirement because they would have to take a pay cut. Also, there was discussion of the "mission accomplished." What exactly does this mean? What does SFW consider "conservation?" There are the obvious things such as: projects, habitat, herd size, management plans, etc. However, does the 83% mentioned above include salaries, travel expenses, banquests, expo, etc. I guess this would have been the benefit of being there or having it recorded. What did SFW say about the elk management plan? Additionally, did anybody ask about the deer herd?
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-26-10 AT 01:59PM (MST)[p]Trix4me - No AI hunting discussion.

Igottabigone

They didn't say one way or the other on supporting the % on the expo tags. I do know however that this has nothing to do with their salaries. They said we should bring this issue up at the RAC for discussion.

Mission accomplished was the mysterious category that the accountant was helping them work through, but basically it was the cover-all category for anything done in the name of accomplishing their mission statement. It did not include salaries or banquets as far as I could tell.

Elk Management was discussed briefly and basically they want to work with the landowners to trade grazing rights for elk. They are working on how to make this happen with the ranchers. One proposal discussed was the idea of giving them some landowner tags for compensation in the short term so they can grow the elk herd to 80,000. Appears as though it needs to be a trade-off or a win-win in order for the ranchers to even consider it.

The Deer herd was discussed and it appears as though SFW is doing quite a bit in conjunction with the DWR to save winter range and rehabilitate the forage. What they said made sense to me. We are 10 years into trying to dig out of a 30 year hole. The deer decline appears to have halted and now the wait is to see when it will start to climb again.

Hope this helps!

A little clarification. Their comments on the deer issue was habitat conditions, which they have some real success stories on. They showed data that they are coming up on 1,000,000 acres of habitiat that has been restored. The beauty of this is that now this property can support grazing for deer, elk and cattle. The other issue was the predators. Ryan made the comment that yotes seem to be more of a problem with fawn survival than anything else.
 
Thanks OSOK,
Did they say what the 850K in convention tags paid for? Was there any talk about the new elk management plan to increase age objectives as a focus rather than bull to ratio as a focus? Was fishing discussed at all? For example, did they say they were on the rancher/landowner side to prevent people from recreating on waters that cross private ground or did they support the public easement? I know the legislature just passed a bill that was very pro rancher/landowner and bad for fisherman.
 
The only fishing that was talked about was the exact issue you brought up. They offered no opinion, stating they felt both arguments, for or against, seemed too extreme to fully support.
I do remember they also mentioned some of the help offered to hatcheries, mostly financial to help Strawberry, etc.
 
I hope all the naysayers are not to "disappointed" that there was a productive meeting and that SFW is on the up and up! I think many were HOPING that their financials didn't check out so they could say "I told you so." I had to work at the last minute and could not attend but it sounds like the results were much like I expected. I would have liked to hear all the details not so much to question things but just to listen to what has been done. I am a guy that likes the big "boring" slideshows and I was VERY impressed with Don and others at the full curl banquet. Thank you DON and SFW for all your hard work and for being willing to take the time (ONCE AGAIN) to show how much you care about our wildlife. I hope more people will now be supportive of the good things that have been and continue to get done. If we work together on these issues (because we all know it is not a perfect situation yet) we can get alot more done than just getting online and complaining.

Jason Yates
Basin Archery Shop
http://www.basinarcheryshop.com
5% OFF to all MonsterMuleys.com Members!!!
Discount code = monstermuleys
 
Too extreme?! How could they not support the sportsmen. It seems like one of the things that should be included in their "mission accomplishment" should be better access for sportsmen. Stating the easement exists to the high-water mark is not that extreme.

What about the elk management plan?
 
I am glad SFW at least acknowledged they have been lacking in many areas. That's a start, but not near enough for me. Were any questions asked in regards to the loss of opportunity for the average hunter due to the elk being managed around the amount of funds brought in from conservation permits? Were any questions asked about the 100+ permits that will come from the public pool to further bribe landowners who already get landowner permits AND CWMU permits? Were any questions asked about why the public process is commonly circumvented when drafts/proposals/plans are implemented? Until those questions are asked/answered, the rest is irrelevant IMHO. What good does it do to keep wolves from killing elk if we can't kill them either?
 
They stayed out of the fish bill, not siding with anyone. We briefly talked about elk management. They actly like they were NOT pushing for less tags. MY point to them is they get 5 percent of the tags for $, why not issue more tags and mix up the weapons and seasons to get MORE revenue from everybody. Same amount of animals killed but more $.
 
If those really were important questions for you, you should have come to the meeting and asked them. In my opinion, those that didn't show up to voice their concerns have no place to complain.
 
>Too extreme?! How could they
>not support the sportsmen.
>It seems like one of
>the things that should be
>included in their "mission accomplishment"
>should be better access for
>sportsmen. Stating the easement
>exists to the high-water mark
>is not that extreme.
>
>What about the elk management plan?
>

They were worried what would happen to the smaller streams as fishermen walked up and down them to gain access. They used Lost Creek as an example, where a fisherman would be walking miles up the bottom of a rather small stream with hardly any difference in high water mark. They weren't siding with the land owners, rather more worried about damaging some stream beds.
 
First and foremost, I want to thank all of those that actually went to the meeting.

I am glad to see/read that those that didn't attend are not yapping about some goofy complaint/challenge.

I have certainly gone the rounds with with many of the SFW/SFH guys over many-many years......

From 'TJ' going after my 16 year old son Robby for his first ever solo bow elk hunt many years ago, to Don and his many 'charity paychecks' and 'Fishon' during his SFW/BOD days....

I am simply respectful to many for having the time and effort to try and adjust, understand and project our Utah hunting.

Thanks,

Robb
 
>Too extreme?! How could they
>not support the sportsmen.
>It seems like one of
>the things that should be
>included in their "mission accomplishment"
>should be better access for
>sportsmen. Stating the easement
>exists to the high-water mark
>is not that extreme.
>
>What about the elk management plan?


The elk management plan was not discussed. They also did not do a very good job of addressing where the money from the expo was spent. This was one of the big debate items and why I am sure Hawkeye raised the question about a 90% committment of those profits to hit the ground. I think this will continue to be a sticky point until SFW agrees to some type of % committment of profits, or they are willing to show what type fo things the money is being spent on.
 
"If those really were important questions for you, you should have come to the meeting and asked them. In my opinion, those that didn't show up to voice their concerns have no place to complain."

Really? So, only 30 people on the country are 'allowed' to ask questions about SFW ever again? I have talked face to face with these guys, does that count for anything in your eyes? Or, since I didn't go to the dog and pony show last night I must remain silent? This is the mentality that has so many people questioning SFW and their cheerleaders like you dryfly.
 
What favor of koolaid was served last night? Were any hard questions asked?
 
They did not serve koolaid but I did have a large diet coke.:)

Many questions were asked and many answers were provided. People were free to ask whatever they wanted. I personally agreed with some of the answers provided by SFW and I disagreed with others. Overall, we met for 4+ hours and I think it was helpful. Did we solve all of the problems facing Utah?s wildlife? No. But, I found the meeting to be helpful and I appreciated Don and the others for taking the time to meet.

In the past, I have been as critical of SFW as anybody, and rightfully so. I think SFW has done a lousy job of accounting to hunting public as to how it was spending its non-profit funds?some of which are derived from a public resource. However, based upon what I heard last night, I am hopeful this is going to change. SFW committed to become more transparent and agreed to post financial/expo information on the internet in the next 30-45 days. They did not clarify exactly what % of money raised is actually hitting the ground as opposed to going toward the illusive ?mission accomplished? category. However, I am looking forward to reviewing their financial information to find answers for myself. I am hopeful that as a result of the meeting and the recent criticism on this website, SFW will turn over a new leaf of increased transparency, openness and accountability.

I am still frustrated that the State turns over 200 convention tags to SFW and MDF each year without requiring that any of the funds generated therefrom go to conservation. As I stated last night, I plan on personally attending the RAC and Wildlife Board meetings to fight for such a requirement. I would invite others to get involved on issues that they are concerned about.

It is too bad that more people were not able to attend the meeting. I went in with serious concerns and some of those concerns were addressed and resolved. The dialogue was encouraging.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-26-10 AT 05:06PM (MST)[p]>"If those really were important questions
>for you, you should have
>come to the meeting and
>asked them. In my opinion,
>those that didn't show up
>to voice their concerns have
>no place to complain."
>
>Really? So, only 30 people on
>the country are 'allowed' to
>ask questions about SFW ever
>again? I have talked face
>to face with these guys,
>does that count for anything
>in your eyes? Or, since
>I didn't go to the
>dog and pony show last
>night I must remain silent?
>This is the mentality that
>has so many people questioning
>SFW and their cheerleaders like
>you dryfly.

I'm pretty sure I didn't say that we could never ask questions of SFW again. We were talking about the meeting, and you wanted to know if we brought up the questions you have. There were many of us with issues with the way SFW was handling things, and SFW gave us a chance to meet with their top guys, as well as the top guys of the DWR to discuss our concerns. It's easy now that the meeting is over to sit back and criticize. Everyone was invited with whatever questions they wanted to bring to the table, including you. We asked the questions that were important to us and I feel like we got answers that were satisfactory. I didn't agree with all of them, but we at least came to an understanding. By calling me a cheerleader, you show that you have not been following these discussions over the last year, as I have been one of their harshest critics.
 
>By calling me a cheerleader,
>you show that you have
>not been following these discussions
>over the last year, as
>I have been one of
>their harshest critics.

And, if you had been following these discussions you would know I have asked these questions NUMEROUS times to these very people in person. I don't need to go to a 'summit' to ask questions, and I damn sure don't need YOUR permission to express my opinions on the meeting or how it went down.
 
>I damn sure don't need
>YOUR permission to express my
>opinions on the meeting or
>how it went down.

You're right, you don't need my permission. You need stinkystomper's.
 
>
>>I damn sure don't need
>>YOUR permission to express my
>>opinions on the meeting or
>>how it went down.
>
>You're right, you don't need my
>permission. You need stinkystomper's.
>

Says you. I don't need his either. Nice cheap shot though, way to show your true colors.
 
Thanks for the meeting and those that put the time in to organize it. Thanks for Don and the crew showing up and facing their critics. I had the pleasure of a one on one lunch several months back with Don and he absolutely knows how to get things done... That has never been the question. He told me that we can have our pissing matches as long as we remember that without wildlife none of this matters and I agree 100%.

My problem with the whole transparency thing is that we have heard it since they were awarded these tags and we have yet to see it. from what I understand we didn't see it last night either?? Correct me if I'm wrong here please. You can have a plan and a goal but in order to have either you must have accountability. Any way you look at this they still are not accountable. Weather they passed the buck off to MDF or they are just ducking the issue. They don't need the permission of MDF to show us where their portion of the funds went. Have all the good feelings ya want, the end result is that we know exactly the same as we did before the meeting concerning where the funds from 200 public tags are.

These guys don't have 3 million dollar Banquets without talent,
not the question and not the issue. Show me where the money went and you will never here another word out of good old WW. Otherwise it's just another stall.









******************************************************************
Wiley,
I am nominating that for post of the
century on Monster Muleys!

Your are spot on.
 
>>
>>>I damn sure don't need
>>>YOUR permission to express my
>>>opinions on the meeting or
>>>how it went down.
>>
>>You're right, you don't need my
>>permission. You need stinkystomper's.

Now thats funny..
 
"I am glad SFW at least acknowledged they have been lacking in many areas. That's a start, but not near enough for me. Were any questions asked in regards to the loss of opportunity for the average hunter due to the elk being managed around the amount of funds brought in from conservation permits? Were any questions asked about the 100+ permits that will come from the public pool to further bribe landowners who already get landowner permits AND CWMU permits? Were any questions asked about why the public process is commonly circumvented when drafts/proposals/plans are implemented? Until those questions are asked/answered, the rest is irrelevant IMHO. What good does it do to keep wolves from killing elk if we can't kill them either?"

ProOutdoors:

Leave it to you add words of nothing to this thread. Why are you even asking questions? I guarantee that regardless of what anyone could have posted, or how many things could have been resolved, you would be on here bashing it. You do not want answers to your questions, you want arguements.

If you do decide to start a conservation group, please let me know. That would be one organization I would stay far away from.

I find it interesting that you go silent for all of these months and then come back, and you are one pace to hit 10,000000 posts by next month lol....
 
>>>
>>>>I damn sure don't need
>>>>YOUR permission to express my
>>>>opinions on the meeting or
>>>>how it went down.
>>>
>>>You're right, you don't need my
>>>permission. You need stinkystomper's.
>
>Now thats funny..


lmao
 
So hoytme?

In earlier threads(when you were Troy)you said you were going to the SFW meeting?
Why were you not there?
I wasn't there,but never claimed I was gonna be there,everybody knows how I feel on this.
Just wondering why you didn't go?

Not trying to piss you off(cause you know I'm not very good at it)but I don't believe PEAYDAY is interested in your PISSCUTTER plan!
 
what the............ how did i get drug into this; as long as everyone is nice to don u have my permission to express urselves freely lol;
 
"ProOutdoors:

Leave it to you add words of nothing to this thread. Why are you even asking questions? I guarantee that regardless of what anyone could have posted, or how many things could have been resolved, you would be on here bashing it. You do not want answers to your questions, you want arguements.

If you do decide to start a conservation group, please let me know. That would be one organization I would stay far away from.

I find it interesting that you go silent for all of these months and then come back, and you are one pace to hit 10,000000 posts by next month lol.... "

You took the words right out of my mouth Woodruff.

Aside from that, it's been a very long time since I've been annoyed by such a continual barrage of abrasive, know-it-all, condescending, repetitious, contentious, steer waste. In the big scheme of things, if indeed the tops of conservation groups are thieving and dishonest, well then I can see why this particular young sapling seems to be poised and intent to get into the market.
 
I just signed up for SFW based in part on this thread. Here is why.

1. I've come to the conclusion I think they are effective. (notice I did not say they are "perfect" or "always right".) They do get things done.)
2. I want to fight wolves
3. I don't need to be a total idealist when the cost is $35.
4. Whether the figure is 55% or 83% of the money being put on the ground that is in line with traditional charities.
5. If some of my money is going to paying some effective guys salary, that might be worth more than paying for some more habitat improvement. A big part of this fight is political.
 
I believe quite a bit of information was given last night on where SFW spends their funds. Those people GUESSING at what was or wasn't said last night will never understand the depth of information and questions asked.

It is clear that SFW has not segregated the expo application fees from their other revenue sources at the expo. (Admission, auction proceeds, booth rental, etc.). The state imposed no requirement on SFW and as a result they have taken all the proceeds from the expo and put them into the same pot - fighting for their objectives. There was a pretty comprehensive discussion of where all the money is being spent. No you can't say this one five dollar application fee went to pay for X or Y. That is beyond the pale for most similar groups.

I do support the requirement that a minimum fixed percentage of the application fees be used for direct conservation activities (on the ground). As it stands today, there are many activities that compromise "mission accomplishment", including their expenses to attend RAC meetings, expenses incurred (gas, etc.) meeting with landowners, cattleman, or while working on the elk plan. None if this is overhead or salaries. And while paying the gas bill isn't as glamorous as chaining more P/J stands, it is part of their mission, in my opinion, and part of the leg work that needs to be done. I believe it is very hard to get the actual on the ground projects (habitat chaining, game capture/relocate, etc.) without an awful lot of advance work that entails going to meetings, working with state and federal bureaucrats, etc. In my opinion, all of these activities are part of their mission accomplishment, and that is the way the IRS sees it as well.

Before I get accused of drinking the Kool-aid also, read my earlier posts and you'll see I have some major disagreements with SFW on the policy side. Trying to change that disagreement into an argument about whether expo fees should pay for expenses doing the legwork within the state, seems wholly inappropriate.

Some people obviously have a history, and an axe to grind with SFW, for whatever personal reasons. I know Robb personally, and while I don't know the specifics about his past grievances, I can respect his position.

There was never any unrealistic hope that last nights meeting would silence all of their critics. I still plan to be very vocal about the policy differences I feel strongly about. The meeting did go a long way to increase their transparancy, and showed a willingness to listen to Sportsmen's concerns. I'm not quite ready to switch my allegiances to SFW, and for the present I will continue to work and spport RMEF and MDF. In this way, I'll still be fighting the good fight for the sportsmen of Utah, and the western US.

I encourage those of you who can't get over your differences with SFW to find another group you can support.

Bill
 
It sounds like it was a good meeting.The cost of putting on the expo has to be expensive ,does anyone know if The mdf and sfw pay for the use of the saltpalace the rent on the building Im sure there are some writeoffs as well,did they adress that question I also saw on here where they have done a million acres of habitat projects which is great I think thats great if those projects were done on public land and not private land.Like hawkeye says Ill be to that rac meeting about the mdf sfw getting 200 permits that the majority of the money goes to public land projects.If all of the million acres were done on public land then Ill shut up and tip my hat.
 
The 100 tags was brought up, and according to Don that was never proposed to anybody it was an idea that was brought up at a meeting among other ideas including the possibility of giving a percentage of future tags from the increase of Elk numbers. I dont know how much truth there is to that, that is what was said.
 
Bigthree they mentioned several times that they have to pay for the convention center, the booths, the carpet, the trash, the people and pretty much everything else they could possibly list. It wass like they were trying to make it seem extremely exspensive which im sure it is but they were really over doing it.
 
I will agree they weren't shy about listing all of their expenses at the expo. Having helped organize a similar event many years ago, I can verify that all the categories of expenses they were descrbing are accurate. It may seem suprising to those not involved, but the convention centers aren't exactly out to give anybody a deal. It all costs money...

Bill
 
I don't really give a rats ass what their expenses were. Give me a couple tags to help pay my mortgage and I guarantee you that at least 13% will hit the ground. Show me where the funds went or shut the hell up!!!




*******************************************************************
Wiley,
I am nominating that for post of the
century on Monster Muleys!

Your are spot on.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-26-10 AT 11:33PM (MST)[p]I'm not opining on the viability of of SFW. However, selling highly sought after tags out of the public coffers isn't some genious idea. I read a post about SFW on here a few weeks ago that made it sound like selling tags was innovative. Innovative, really?

It is a license to print cash. In my mind, there are two things that will always make a ton of cash when sold: OIL tags and human organs. Anyone want to buy my kidney because I want to buy a OIL sheep tag? LOL.
 
I would have like to have been to the meeting but i have contractual obligations that had conflicts.

If I was there I would have asked when is the tag grab going to stop? Ive had enough. Id say you dont get more pie you have gotten to fat on the pie. To me it is exactly the same as big government. They keep taking and taking taxing and taxing.

Why would you raise 90% of the elk units in Utah to premium status when the majority wanted to hunt more often?

Why isn't any of the money from the expo tags spent on our wildlife?

why does SFW deserve any of the money from the tags at antelope island if antelope island is going under 400,000 every year.
Antelope Island should do its own raffle and get all the $$.

I would also like to know how certain members know how the wildlife board is going to vote before it even happens?

Are the wildlife board being lobbied with possible elk tags "cattle men"? If so then how can you guarantee me they will be non biased when they need to vote on a wildlife decision.

I would like to know why when they wanted to raise the age objective on the Henry mountains why they took the archery deer tags and then gave them to the out of state hunters and expo. To me all that did was guarantee two dead deer.

I used to not have a problem with SFW. If you pull up all my post from years past I have supported them and defended them on MM. I have just had enough. I think they have gotten out of control. Just like in politics when the Democrats have all the power they ram their agenda down our throats I feel SFW is ramming theirs down mine. I like balance. I want equal representation from all parties.

I want to know how many sitting on the wildlife board are actual SFW members? Tainted pool unless the wildlife board has all parties represented.

I don't want to hunt spikes. the point pool base is so large 99% of the Utah hunters will never draw an elk tag especially when they increased the spike tags and cut the big bull tags. I can see that they are going to start to do it to the deer herds in the next few years. I love hunting and I see my opportunity going down the drain. I don't have the time or money to hunt other states and Utah is all I have. this is why I am so opinionated on these forums. I am frustrated in my kids and my hunting future and it looks bleak! It to me looks like we are headed in the direction of England where you have to be rich to hunt!


4a7d1f93337c7fd7.jpg

Nets are for fish!!
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-27-10 AT 07:47AM (MST)[p]This is a train wreck I seen coming from way back. It all goes back to what the primary purpose of the SFW should be. It started out as a political organization to get Proposition 5 onto the ballot and into law. It was a cause that united sportsmen throughout the state.

Over time, however, it has evolved from a political organization promoting the rights of sportsmen into a game management one that pits one group of sportsmen against another. Trophy hunters vs meat hunters, lion hunters vs deer hunters, rifle hunters vs archery hunters, rich guys vs "average Joe's," private land hunters vs public land hunters, this list goes on. There has not been too many sportsmen the SFW hasn't offended......sorry Don, but that's just dumb.

My advise to Don and the SFW is to go back to it's roots. Focus on those issues that bring sportsmen together and resist the temptation to get into micromanaging and tag redistribution, issues that only serve to drive us apart. My biggest fear is that a threat will surface one day where we need a powerful group like the SFW to represent us but sportsmen will be so fractured and alienated that we cannot present a united front. Politically, it's a disaster waiting to happen.

The focus of the SFW should be to act as uniters, not dividers.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Mar-27-10
>AT 07:47?AM (MST)
>
>This is a train wreck I
>seen coming from way back.
>It all goes back to
>what the primary purpose of
>the SFW should be. It
>started out as a political
>organization to get Proposition 5
>onto the ballot and into
>law. It was a cause
>that united sportsmen throughout the
>state.
>
>Over time, however, it has evolved
>from a political organization promoting
>the rights of sportsmen into
>a game management one that
>pits one group of sportsmen
>against another. Trophy hunters vs
>meat hunters, lion hunters vs
>deer hunters, rifle hunters vs
>archery hunters, rich guys vs
>"average Joe's," private land hunters
>vs public land hunters, this
>list goes on. There has
>not been too many sportsmen
>the SFW hasn't offended......sorry Don,
>but that's just dumb.
>
>My advise to Don and the
>SFW is to go back
>to it's roots. Focus on
>those issues that bring sportsmen
>together and resist the temptation
>to get into micromanaging and
>tag redistribution, issues that only
>serve to drive us apart.
>My biggest fear is that
>a threat will surface one
>day where we need a
>powerful group like the SFW
>to represent us but sportsmen
>will be so fractured and
>alienated that we cannot present
>a united front. Politically, it's
>a disaster waiting to happen.
>
>
>The focus of the SFW should
>be to act as uniters,
>not dividers.

+1 SFW needs to go back to their mission statement. They're more money driven. They're getting so greedy that they want elk managed a certain way to benefit their money needs when hunting in Utah isn't about SFW. It's about family hunting together and enjoying the outdoors.

SFW should get out of elk management TODAY. They need to quit their shaddy deals with people Today.
 
RE: You don't "invest" in a non-profit

>You either contribute to the cause
>or don't.

I second that. Maybe we should pose the question to all the anti SFWs how much time and money they have personally invested in wildlife. Not just for dedicated hunter hours and excluding state issued tags or draw fees. It could be a prerequisite to complaining about not getting enough for little to no effort.

Don,
I hope they compensate you for your abilities and you choose to stay fighting for sportsman. I appreciate what you are doing for a sport I love. I would hate to see you lobby for the otherside.
 
>>By calling me a cheerleader,
>>you show that you have
>>not been following these discussions
>>over the last year, as
>>I have been one of
>>their harshest critics.
>
>And, if you had been following
>these discussions you would know
>I have asked these questions
>NUMEROUS times to these very
>people in person. I don't
>need to go to a
>'summit' to ask questions, and
>I damn sure don't need
>YOUR permission to express my
>opinions on the meeting or
>how it went down.

So you want to show your opinion on something you were not a part of, and you want to armchair quarterback? You sound absolutely silly.
 
Excellent posts SWBM and KevinD.

Not that it is any business of my 'critic's', but I didn't attend the SFW 'summit' for the same reason I didn't attend the Central and Northern RAC's. Family health issues are higher on my priority list than attending a RAC where the outcome is predetermined, or to a smoke and mirrors power point pow-wow, so I stayed home with my family.

As others have said, SFW has lost its way and is NOT adhering to its mission statement. When a group has access to huge amounts of public funds, and has the ear of the decision makers, and can circumvent the process, it becomes a liability instead of an asset. SFW does NOT unite hunters, it divides us. They and their supports can blame it on us "whiners", but that is not accurate nor honest. As long as SFW is centered around money tags, they will NOT represent the average hunter, but will instead focus on the money/power/legacy end of things.
 
I am one of those nasty haters. First, IF, and we have heard it before, but IF we get open books on the website I will be the first to come here and apologize even if the books show they spend less than 15% on conservation. Open and transparent operation of SFW IS the major complanint. Don is right, they spend a lot of time and money greasing politicians, and perhaps we all need to get involved with the ethics push to stop our "public servants" from taking any lobbyist "gifts" which would help us keep our money out of their accounts and put it on the ground.

Second, regardless of how wonderful SFW is and claims to be, NO ONE (or two) ORGANIZATIONS SHOULD GET 200 TAGS PERIOD, END OF STORY!!!! If the state wants to raise the fee for LE tags, so be it, but that money goes into conservation directly, we already pay the DWR employees, overhead etc., SFW, MDF, have to pay salaries and overhead out of their money so of course they will spend very little on actual projects.

SFW, same as the state have their eye on the green. They both court the deep pockets, they both want to set up the rules for them. Got enough cash, you can hunt LE, or "trophy" every year, one of those "meat hunters" or "oppurtunists", you might get to draw a tag once every 15 yrs, then you can sit on a waiting period for 5 yrs. For the really high end "hunters" you can hunt game preserves(antelope island) or state wide, season wide(gov tag). Of course when you do hunt the game preserve known as antelope island, there will be massive bad PR for all of us "oppurtunists" and you can jump on a plane and get out of town and let us deal with the negativity, even though most of us are against it as well.

SFW started as the group to get us "everyman" to get active and push through Prop 5, it didn't go get that less than 1% of the extremely wealthy only because it needed the 99% and their votes and voices. They now are almost exclusively the voice of the 1%. Yes they are fighting wolves, and I agree with them, but I can't help but wonder where are their deep pocket allies? Deseret will be one of the first places to see wolves(natural geographic channels), is deseret(aka the Church) in on this? How about Dr. Austad, he seems to be the most coveted "hunter" in this state? Like the others in here what I am saying is, SFW needs to either return to its roots, or be honest and be Sportsman for the Fabulously Wealthy, at least I can respect them being open and honest if that is now their direction. I know transparecy will take some time, but would it be OK if by the elk hunt they are on the website with their finances, otherwise I can go back to being a "HATER"?
 
"probably the biggest thing to come out of this meeting for me was the confession and concession that they'd dropped the ball in regards to transparency and accountability. When asked why it hadn't been done before, the answer was that they'd overlooked it, and didn't have the time or money to "hire three accountants" to do it for them."

I am stunned anyone would give a grain of respect to an outfit that would babble such b______t. How many wealth tags Utah has, like 500+ ??? And this guy comes up with this excuse? What 3 attorneys added up their expenses?

All I can think of is that ESPS NFL pregame feature...............C'Mon Maaaaaaaan!
 
That is a pretty lame excuse. I think the number of tags should be cut off until all the books are open. Then you will see how long SFW will come up with excuses. They will have the books open faster than Don can bend over and tie his shoe.

I think Utah hunters need to request an audit.
 
SFW - thanks for the meeting. Although it seems like everyone gained a better understanding of SFW, it would still be wise to take a wait and see approach. Having a Human Resource background on a corporate level, this is what we called a CYA meeting (Cover Your A$$ meeting). The meetings that really hold merit are the ones to follow. Follow-up will be crucial. I think we all know they have some clout to do some really good things for the average sportsman, if they choose
 
Just a couple thoughts,

Conservation tags are about 5% of the total tags. It appears that a lot of wildlife projects get done including transplants, habitat, water projects,securing winter range, etc. These tags also help keep an organization going to fight political wars ie. wolf hunting fights, sportsmen access to public lands, access to school trust land, and national parks.

Some complain that these tags are robbing the ave Joe hunters. I'm sure the elk and moose populations and herds that have been wiped out by wolves in ID,MT, and WY have been a far greater loss of tags to the ave Joe than Utah's Conservation permits many times over.

The vast majority of expo tags are won by ave Joe's, who are willing to spend a few dollars to help wildlife. These are often the same guys that will go to banquets, and do wildlife projects. Is there something wrong with this? Expo tags are not usually won by the rich guy.

Sportsmen would just like to see where our investment is going.

If SFW just stopped. If Don said enough is enough. We didn't have a group that would fight the hard battles. ALL conservation tags and expo tags were returned to the general pool. HOW MANY TAGS DO YOU THINK THE AVE JOE HUNTER WOULD HAVE IN 10 YEARS FROM NOW? Do you honestly believe sportsmen would be better off?

Remember with tough economic times, and state budgets getting cut. Factor in projected growth in Utah , loss of habitat, more predators, less highway projects, fencing and migration tunnels, little money to compensate ranchers for wildlife conflicts, less money for transplants,etc.

WILL WE REALLY BE BETTER OFF? Think about it for a while.
 
I'll bet if you took of the funding that SFW gains from the auction tags they be just as effective as shady facebook page. We really ought to try it and see were we are in about 10 yrs.

Like true politians we will probably never now everything about SFW. But I am ok with that because they are fighting a battle that can not be won in a public forum! Do you really want to know everything, if it jeopordized the big picture? If you answer yes then you probably should be living on a compound in northern Idaho and not trusting anything anybody tells you! Don is the only one that can mix it up with the big boys and get results and that is a fact! I know that RMEF and MDF do good things but they do not get in the fight when there is chance to get a black eye.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-28-10 AT 00:15AM (MST)[p]huntin100

Your a wise, wise man. This is a horse that all sportsman can and should ride. It's not a perfect horse but "they ain't no perfect horses".

As Ronald Reagon once said: "will we one day face our children, and our children?s children when they ask us where we were and what we were doing on the day that freedom was lost".

I believe that public hunting is fighting for it's very life and would offer this observation, to use Reagan's words: "will we one day face our children, and our children?s children when they ask us where we were and what we were doing on the day that HUNTING was lost"?

I do not believe there is another hunting organization in the Western United States that is trying any harder than SFW to preserve hunting for all off us and I'll be darned if I'll be the one that they point to if they ever decide they have had enough of sportsmen eating there own.

I feel a little dry........... pass that kool-aid, it's ain't perfect but I'll take another shot, if you don't mind.

Thanks again huntin100, you've summed it up right well.

DP/DC ;-)
 
"If SFW just stopped. If Don said enough is enough. We didn't have a group that would fight the hard battles. ALL conservation tags and expo tags were returned to the general pool. HOW MANY TAGS DO YOU THINK THE AVE JOE HUNTER WOULD HAVE IN 10 YEARS FROM NOW? Do you honestly believe sportsmen would be better off?"

Yes Greg, I do! This is the standard justification for 'needing' the conservation permits that is spouted w/o an ounce of evidence to support such a claim. That is the same nonsense the current Admin in the White House spouts about the justification for mandates and government expansion, "because it would be worse w/o doing so". BOTH claims as bogus, and BOTH claims are designed to justify any/all actions done by the "messiah', whether it be Barack or Don. I look at Colorado and I see a pile of great hunting in that state, and SFW isn't 'saving' them. I look at Arizona and I see a pile of great hunting there as well, and once again no SFW 'saving' them. I could go on, but I think that is proof enough that w/o SFW all hunting in the west would NOT dwindle and eventually die. What would happen, IMHO, is permits would be increased because we would start managing the wildlife BY hunters instead of FOR hunters. I also believe people could find other/better ways to raise revenue for the projects you listed, Greg. Look at how our streams/rivers/lakes get a lot of projects funded w/o so much as a single permit from the public auctioned off by a special interest group.

Sorry Greg, but such claims are unfounded and without merit. Funding w/o such programs happens in many states in many different ways without taking from the public in permit numbers and through rationing to make those permits sell at higher amounts. Don is a smart man, very smart, I am sure he and others can be creative enough to find other options to fund their projects and to fight the wolves. All that is lacking is the desire to do so.
 
>Just a couple thoughts,
>
>Conservation tags are about 5% of
>the total tags. It
>appears that a lot of
>wildlife projects get done including
>transplants, habitat, water projects,securing winter
>range, etc. These tags
>also help keep an organization
>going to fight political wars
>ie. wolf hunting fights, sportsmen
>access to public lands, access
>to school trust land, and
>national parks.

This is all fine and dandy but we dont need to think like big government and keep raising taxes/tags. If it were such a good Idea we should donate all the tags to SFW and all our money to the government. there is a point where you just have to say enough is enough!


>Some complain that these tags are
>robbing the ave Joe hunters.

yes some do say this. When our elk herds have increased on every unit in this state to carrying capacity instead of giving out more big bull tags like we were supposed to do we cut them and issued spike tags. So this is in a way robbing the average Joe. This also went against what the general public wanted. Who do you think did this? People don't want to be forced to shoot a spike anymore then they want to shoot a spike deer.

> I'm sure the
> elk and moose populations
>and herds that have been
>wiped out by wolves in
>ID,MT, and WY have been
>a far greater loss of
>tags to the ave Joe
>than Utah's Conservation permits many
>times over.
>
So saying if you don't support SFW you are for wolves is a lame excuse.


>The vast majority of expo tags
>are won by ave Joe's,
>who are willing to spend
>a few dollars to help
>wildlife.

This is again where you are wrong. None of the money for the expo tags goes to habitate improvment!

>These are often
>the same guys that will
>go to banquets, and do
>wildlife projects. Is there
>something wrong with this?

NO


> Expo tags are not
>usually won by the rich
>guy.

dosent matter who wins them. none of the money goes to habitat improvement! So those tags should be thrown back into the general pool helping the bonus point butt plugg out.
>
>Sportsmen would just like to see
>where our investment is going.
>
>
>If SFW just stopped.
>If Don said enough is
>enough. We didn't have
>a group that would fight
>the hard battles. ALL conservation
>tags and expo tags were
>returned to the general pool.
> HOW MANY TAGS DO
>YOU THINK THE AVE JOE
>HUNTER WOULD HAVE IN 10
>YEARS FROM NOW? Do
>you honestly believe sportsmen would
>be better off?


yes all I have to do is look at the point pyrmide scheme. the first guys to ever put into the draw are finaly getting drawn at 17 years. the next tear to draw out will be several years beyond that. then it gets so bad after that that you are not garanteed to draw in your life. It is called point creep. Point creep is real.


>Remember with tough economic times, and
>state budgets getting cut.
>Factor in projected growth in
>Utah , loss of habitat,
>more predators, less highway projects,
>fencing and migration tunnels, little
>money to compensate ranchers for
>wildlife conflicts, less money for
>transplants,etc.
>
>WILL WE REALLY BE BETTER OFF?
> Think about it for
>a while.

I have thought about it for awhile and things can defiantly be run better. History has taught me every time you mix money with politics you get corruption. History has taught me when one political group gets all the power it doesn't benefit all. I want equal representation in hunting groups.


4a7d1f93337c7fd7.jpg

Nets are for fish!!
 
"Conservation tags are about 5% of the total tags. It appears that a lot of wildlife projects get done including transplants, habitat, water projects,securing winter range, etc. These tags also help keep an organization going to fight political wars ie. wolf hunting fights, sportsmen access to public lands, access to school trust land, and national parks."

Not only do they take 5% of the tags, but they also have the Wildlife Board pass laws for their own agenda. I wonder if SFW gives the Wildlife Board member gifts. Maybe that will be found in an audit.

I also think Conservation groups are taking more than 5% of the LE tags. 0.05 X 12,000 tags = 600 tags. Are we giving out 12,000 LE tags for deer and elk? I don't think so. So where can you find this 5% and how it's broken down?
 
"SFW members, officers, volanteers have traveled millions of miles, answered tens of thousands of emials and phone calls working to get sportsmen on the same page so collectively, sportsmen have a strong enough voice to solve the problems that face our industry.

It was a fun and i believe productive meeting, and i was very impressed that the MM folks who came were willing to spend 4 plus hours to really dig into the issues."

Don, but with all the time spent doing things for SFW then transparency was last thing you ever worried about. Why keep things a secret? If your an honest group then there shouldn't be anything to hide, right?

How can you expect to get sportsmen on the same page if you only put 13% of the money you earn into habitat? How can you expect sportsmen to be on the same page when you manage elk for your own personal gain?
 
This 13 % keeps coming up. I am not sure where it came from but if I read it right the State Regulations say that of the money raised off of the tags sold, 10% may be kept for running the organization. 60 % may be kept in a fund that must be used for the habitat of the animal of the tag. It must be used by Sept 1 of the second year and must be appoved by the division or they loose the chance to get the tags again. I think that these non profit orgs go though a yearly audit. I understand form the last audit that the only recomendations were to not use those people as consultants but put them as employees. The money must be getting used right or SFW would not be getting the tags year after year. 60% must be getting used for habitat.
 
Hoytme,

You know I agree with you that more opportunity could and should be done with SOME of our LE elk units. Perhaps 4-5 units. Try a few things.

I have voiced my opinion that management of limited entry elk units by age ALONE is poor management and biology.

We agree on this.

It is my honest opinion that SFW will and has without a doubt saved more tags for the ave Joe in the past and will continue in the future. We can't just do 20 banquets, net 20-40k off each banquet and have enough funds to fight the battles and do the projects that are needed to preserve hunting rights,rehab habitat, transplants,etc.

You can't compare Utah with CO. CO has alot more winter range, a lot more deer and elk. I don't believe housing and roads will be as much as an impact in the next 20 yrs that it will have in Ut.
AZ has much better opportunity and still great quality with Elk management IMO. The success rates are not as good, still good quality. They don't have the winter kill issues.

Ut future problems are more in line with ID and WY. We need to win the battles. SFW is teaming up with others to win the wolf wars.

I dont have the time to debate this topic. Some will disagree.

I do like lumpys post.


Good luck in the draws. Greg
 
So, SFW is the big dog in this state fighting to keep wolves out? Then we are screwed!!! SFW has not the money or membership to fight the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Remember this is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, not the state that is pushing wolve reintroduction, I know SFW has bought off(i mean lobbied) a few state reps(Mike Noel, Kanab) but Orin Hatch and Bob Bennet cost a lot more. My guess is that the cattlemens/sheepmens associations find it interesting that SFW is the great savior. Remember who they are, if their deep pocket sponsors decide they want to hunt wolves, SFW will promote wolves in this state, they are for the highest bidder, don't forget that. How many of their memebers are for a 3-5 day deer hunt? How many are for more tags coming out of the general pool to support SFW, yet where is SFW on these issues. How many of there members are for Antelope Island Hunting? SFW loves it, especially if they can profit. We dont "NEED" SFW to protect us from the big bad whoever, we are capable of doing that ourselves. Look at the Tea party movement, they have no official leader, or even group, yet more and more they are the political force. I don't need Don Peay to save me, I am a big boy. Will I support groups? Sure, but not ones who spend so much time telling me how defensless I am without them, then refusing to show me in simple numbers in black and white what my support(money) went for. I know it takes time and money to by open and transparent, perhaps 20 more tags could help out. Or, DON, maybe spend a little less time hunting"about 40 times" with Karl Malone(he is retired and rich, he can do what he wants) and do your job, afterall, you do work for the people who support SFW, or did you forget that?
 
There is absolutely no check and balance with them, that should be a concern for everyone, supporter or not. Regardless of what value they bring to the table or even if they are squeaky clean, they have grown too large not to have strict regulation and a mandatory system or watch dog to keep things in order and not let their influence dictate public policy.

To me, it is no different than big banks or corporations that have grown so large that their clout and financial contributions add so much weight and influence that they literally control policy, regardless of good or bad intent.

Whether the agenda they are pushing is good, bad or ugly is beside the point. The existence of uncontrolled gorillas is BAD for everyone, except for the gorilla and his beneficiaries.

For several decades big corporations have been dictating legislation to benefit themselves and I guarantee none of you agree that it's fair. So I ask, why is it any different in this instance?
 
Wow, you are now going to claim the right to tell Don he is not working enough hours? Or how he spends his free time?

hoss, who do you hunt with or spend free time with? Lets have some transparency and let us decide if it is acceptable?

I usually hunt with my Dad, two brothers, two sons, one cousin and three brother in laws. If you would like I can give you their names?
 
I would have really loved to be there but I was hanging out down South with all of my Richfield area friends at the Sevier Valley Sportsmans Expo. I'm glad that some questions were answered and I'm not surprised that there are more questions to be answered or questions that were not answered at the meeting. There are many oppinions when it comes to the conservation of wildlife and I respect those oppinions. It is a good thing to be involved and to voice your concerns and to ask questions. I like the idea of many different sportsmans groups out there fighting for my right to hunt and the conservation of wildlife. I am proud to be a part of such groups. Guys like Hoytme, Hawkeye, 2lumpy, dkpeay, and many others are smart and know the numbers and in reality, have some great ideas. What concerns me the most with all of this is the fact that we have groups forming in spite of other groups and to fight against those groups. The last thing our wildlife need are wasting time and resources in a fight against ourselves. We all need to find the middle ground. Too far to one side or the other will not be good for anybodies cause. The only way to get the most out of our resources is to come together. Without personal consideration, we will all have to give up something that we feel strongly about to find a middle ground to get things accomplished. There really is no other way. If a person thinks they can do this on their own, they are sorely mistaken. Even with the smartest people on board and the best agendas, if you don't have the numbers you will fail. 2lumpy and I had this conversation this past weekend and he told me about the passion that the Sevier Valley Sportsman have and how they approached the RAC's with proposals. The RACS basically told them that they were only a certain number of sportsman at that meeting and that they couldn't possibly reflect the oppinions of the rest. 2lumpy's response was "the sportsmen that you see here are the ones that care". They are the ones that put forth the time and effort to come to RAC meetings, SFW meetings, and voice their oppinions. IMO the vast majority of hunters and sportsmen will just go with the flow. They will take what's given them and, though they may not be happy, will make do and move on. My point to this drudgery is that we should all be thankful for sportsmen that are willing to put their names out there and their reputations with the risk of making people mad at them for the betterment of our hunting and fishing resources. It would be nice if the majority of the sportsman groups would come together and do great work to further the hunting cause. JMO


It's always an adventure!!!
www.awholelottabull.com
 
>Wow, you are now going to
>claim the right to tell
>Don he is not working
>enough hours? Or how
>he spends his free time?
>
>
>hoss, who do you hunt with
>or spend free time with?
> Lets have some transparency
>and let us decide if
>it is acceptable?
>
>I usually hunt with my Dad,
>two brothers, two sons, one
>cousin and three brother in
>laws. If you would
>like I can give you
>their names?
>
>

Somewhere between 12 and 20 guys depending on family and work schedules, in the same camp for 3o+ yrs. Yeah I am telling him that. Somehow you and I can find time on this Board expressing our opinions in black and white. I am also married to an accountant, they all love these things called spread sheets, she has them for everything, and so does SFW, they too have a spread sheet, if Don is too busy being the lone voice agaist wolves in this state, I have a scanner sitting next to me, I will run up to his place, grab his spread sheets, tax statements, and profit/loss statements and scan them for him. I believe I heard he lives in Bountiful so it would take me about 2 hours to do this, including drive time. In fact while I am there he can give me his paper that shows how many $5 tickets they sold, the critter it went for, and I will do this really complex calculation and tell you the odds for that critter, I own a calculator so with all the driving and scaning and calculatoring I would be in probably 4 hours. In the time it took Don to conduct this meeting of his he could simply posted this info, on their website giving all of us a chance to see it, then form an educated opinion. This is not what he should do in his free time, this is HIS JOB, he can do it on work time, and quite frankly still have half a day for PR on how valuable he is to all us helpless hunters.
 
I don't believe that anybody has said anything about helpless hunters. What has been correctly stated is that other groups in the past have not been effective in winning battles for sportsmen. That is a fact that could be backed with volumes of examples. No one else is stepping up to fight the wolf threat in Utah, are they? As far as Don's personal time spent hunting with Karl or whomever he chooses I am still not sure how that relates to anything. Other than the fact that Don hunts with another individual that cares deeply about Utah wildlife and has personally given more to this state than probably all of us on MM combined! Like I have said over and over again, I do not agree with everything SFW does. However I will back them until somebody shows me a group that is getting more done. So who is it hoss? Is it MDF? Is it RMEF? I support those groups also. Please please name the group so we can all give them support in maintaining our great love of hunting.
 
Muley 73 all the hunting groups care for hunting. They are however handcuffed because of the backdoor deals of SFW. If you think the elk hunting in Utah is so great because of SFW you are blind and mistaken. our elk herd doesn't need the habitat improvement and they never will. Our elk herd is has grown out of control because they haven't been hunted.

muley 73 you have fallen for one of the biggest socialist plays in history. They give you a demon and say you cant fight it with out their help.

4a7d1f93337c7fd7.jpg

Nets are for fish!!
 
SWB said, "our elk herd doesn't need the habitat improvement and they never will. Our elk herd is has grown out of control because they haven't been hunted."

I really thought you were smarter than that SWB. So correct me if I'm wrong. . . you will only support SFW if they are sponsoring an archery shoot where they are giving stuff away such as a buffalo hunt, etc.?


It's always an adventure!!!
www.awholelottabull.com
 
I'm not sure PAYING to archery shoot in a tourney sponsored by SFW is "supporting" SFW. If he paid a yearly membership and told them he is happy with all that they do and gave them a green light on every/most SFW issues, that would be "supporting" SFW. Big difference.

I agree with swbm, SFW has had very little/no impact on the elk population in Utah. Elk are easy to manage as far as wild game is concerned. Certainly they haven't had near the impact on the elk herd in Utah as they claim.

As for SFW being the "only ones fighting the wolves", that is hyperbole as well. And, it is misdirected. The real issue is NOT wolves, they are merely a tool used by 'animal lovers/anti-hunters' to end the 'need' for human hunters. If we don't stop managing game for 'trophy' status first, and go BACK to using hunters as a way to manage game, it will be another tool to help their cause that WILL come back to bite us in the backside!
 
"I really thought you were smarter than that SWB. So correct me if I'm wrong. . . you will only support SFW if they are sponsoring an archery shoot where they are giving stuff away such as a buffalo hunt, etc.?"

ill take my 1 in 4 chance to win a buff hunt, moose hunt, ect. I have too when am I going to be able to afford one of those hunts and when am I going to draw one.

those tags are also cwmu tags and not coming out of the general draw.

I also have said I have supported SFW in the past but they have grown to large and out of control. When any hunting group has enough power to ram their agenda down our throat we all loose.

When I can see my kids and myself never drawing an elk tag and being forced to hunt spikes for the rest of my life I loose and feel you and everyone else looses.

Like I have said before somewhere in the middle of how the Wasatch Front is managed and the Le rifle elk is managed there is a medium ground. Medium ground where there is more opportunity for all hunters and quality for the trophy hunter. Right now and the way things are going it keeps getting worse for the average guy. All one has to do is look at the draw odds to see we are getting hosed.


4a7d1f93337c7fd7.jpg

Nets are for fish!!
 
"What would happen, IMHO, is permits would be increased because we would start managing the wildlife BY hunters instead of FOR hunters."

That is kind of a scary statement to make. Being a hunter or avid outdoorsman does not qualify you to manage wildlife, just like being an avid fan of a sports team does not qualify you to manage their players.
 
Hossblurr,
just a thought. I personally don't believe the division is capable with the dealing of convservation permits. Half of the division employees are a waste. I know of a biologist that tried to tell the truth about deer numbers in the north and was threatened to change the numbers or be fired. Everyone has to have the money to run organizations. If Don/Sfw can increase total permit numbers by taking 200 permits that are offered to anyone with 5 bucks so be it. I'm an sfw supporter only because I think they do more than any of the other organizations. and by the way SFW was here long before prop 5 even became an issue.
 
You're an idiot. The federal Govt is not the ones that wants wolves. It is the wolf activast groups are responsible for the wolves being put on the endagered list. Lobby hard keep wolves out.
 
>You're an idiot. The federal
>Govt is not the ones
>that wants wolves. It
>is the wolf activast groups
>are responsible for the wolves
>being put on the endagered
>list. Lobby hard keep
>wolves out.

Since I'm an "idiot", I need your help. Did individuals release wolves, or did the FEDERAL government? Is it individuals that decide whether wolves are 'endangered', or is it the FEDERAL government?

Yes, 'activists' are what is driving the wolf issue, and I NEVER said otherwise! But, at the end of the day, it is the GOVERNMENT that decided whether wolves would be released or not, it was the GOVERNMENT that decides whether wolves need to be protected or allow then to be 'managed', and it is the GOVERNMENT that is the ONLY entity that can stop wolves from spreading throughout Utah.

I love it when someone who can't spell, or complete a coherent sentence calls someone else an idiot. Oh the irony.
 

Similar threads

elks96
CPW Presentation on Lion/Bobcats
Replies
0
Views
232
elks96
elks96
elks96
Last one for the wall?
Replies
13
Views
1k
elks96
elks96
woodruffhunter
Altamont Utah??
Replies
9
Views
540
Vanilla
Vanilla

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

20170407_083329.jpg
96E33A3B-F5EA-48C6-987D-636BF00A5460.jpeg
DSC_0201i med.jpg
IMG_0489.jpeg
IMG_3736.JPG
05EEE75C-CEE5-4B30-91FE-5256253FC1CC.jpeg
IMG_20220919_132340263_HDR.jpg
FAEB26CD-DA1F-434A-8A40-439531C2693B.jpeg
20180316_160907-1.jpg
067C83BD-CDEC-40F6-B731-91C32F1A197D.jpeg
72E80DBA-A207-4241-926B-44C8C975E6B9.png
1704335319528.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom