BGF Getting $2 Million More?

grizzly

grizzly

Long Time Member
Messages
5,717
SFW's offshoot, BGF, is seeking another $2,000,000 in taxpayer funds for... well, we don't know why because they won't tell us.

But what we do know is that it is being sponsored by Mike Noel, the literal author of the land grab.

Hmmm. I wonder why SFW is the only Conservation Group (term used loosely here) to not oppose the land grab.

The jig is up, guys. Come clean. YOU ARE NOT A CONSERVATION GROUP!!!

Your credibility is shot and even the upper level of your organization knows you should have opposed the land grab long ago.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/4936797-155/utah-groups-pushing-greater-local-control

Grizzly
 
I can not trust this group at all! I would like too, but the one big representative here in Colorado is.... Well let's just say I do not agree with him. In a recent meeting Denny Claimed that if Colorado was smart they would raise the tag cost on all trophy level licenses to over $2000 each to make more money! After all we know there are people willing to bay much more as evident by the governor tags, etc.

He also said Colorado should explore creating more trophy units as we could sell all tags for more money!
 
And I thought the money I made on a chain letter was easy. A cpl million to pay his bills, go on hunts, and give you guys the finger when you ask what he's doing with it. ha
 
Hey Fishon Got subsidised $150,000 so he could play internet tough guy and have plenty of money to try to pay people to come to his show?

None of yall had an issue with that money and it went to a straight for profit LLC.

Face it guys it ain't about the money for yall. If someone is on your side of the class warfare you'll roll right over for them. If it looks like some other class making out then you hate it. Simple as that.
 
BGF wants more government coin? So the sun is coming up today? Sad thing is, they will get it. I mean, have YOU seen a wolf TODAY? Not yesterday, not in any pics, I mean, look outside your door, see a wolf? If not, you can thank BGF. $2million is an investment in the future of hunting in Utah. You guys with your conspiracy theories. You saw a deer this fall right, then $fw obviously saved it, they need a little cash too. Seriously, you saw a deer, you didn't see a wolf today, the voice of the sportsman has been heard, well worth the $4-5 million we gave these "conservation" groups.



"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
You know tri, you are a complete lie and a complete a$$ hat. Your 1st remark is 100% false and slander. Get a life.
 
As the OP on this thread, I'm kindly asking that nobody reply to Tri. Let's focus on the corruption of taxpayer dollars and the groups that are more worried about their welfare checks than protecting sportsmen.

I hope to one day publicly thank SFW for fervently opposing the land grab while sending in my membership fee, but I think I can count at least a few million reasons that won't happen.

Grizzly
 
As the OP on this thread, I'm kindly asking that nobody reply to Tri. He can spread his invective elsewhere.

Grizzly
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-14-17 AT 08:46AM (MST)[p]I am glad this issue is getting some attention from the media. According to the article, "Benson has been awarded $5 million since 2011, but he has yet to divulge any details about how BGF spends this money in its reports to the Legislature." In fact, when legislators have asked for reports and transparency, certain legislators have opposed those requests. In the past it has been Okerland, McKell and others. This time it is Mike Noel: "Some of these matters are sensitive. This is not something to be discussed in public. I think we got our money's worth. I really do," Noel told colleagues. Go back and look over the last 5 to 10 years and check for campaign donations from Don Peay and Ryan Benson (and their entities) to these individuals. Where do they get the money to fund those campaign donations? Do those donations come from their personal funds or is this some of the "policy" that they have been funding with the Expo Tag revenues.

Do you see the pattern here? The groups lobby for 200 premium permits to raffle away to fund "conservation activities in the State of Utah". The DWR and the state require no accountability or transparency on how the money is spent. The groups use the proceeds to, among other things, lobby policiticians and purchase influence and political power. After sportsmen throw a fit, the groups eventually agree to earmark 30% to conservation projects but keep the remaining 70% to fund "programs, policies and personnel." The groups then use their influence to resist and quash calls for transparency and acountability. They also use their influence and power to lobby for multi-million dollar contracts with related entities that also require no accountability or transparency. In addition, SFW is afraid to come out publicly against the state's efforts to shut down stream access and take over public lands because that may rock the boat and jeopardize their cash cow with the State of Utah.

Well there you have it. And this was all done in the name of "conservation."

-Hawkeye-
 
A Review of Appropriated Wolf Management Funds
---
Office of the LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR GENERAL
---
State of Utah

---------------
"This comingling of state and private funds
could be an issue if BGF, using state funds appropriated to a state
agency for a purpose delineated in state statute, is viewed as an
extension of a state agency. Utah Code 63J-1-210 does not allow state
funds to be used by a state agency to lobby the State Legislature. With
comingling, we cannot ensure that state funds were used
appropriately."

---
We already know that a legislative audit found they were comingling funds and that those funds could be used to lobby State officials which is a violation of statute.

Grizzly
 
Tri plays some of the smartest guys on these forums like fools. Do y'all think he'd continue if you just ignored him? He'd go away and feed himself somewhere else if y'all would just have the self control to stop throwing meat on his plate. He does a better job at playing puppeteer than Muley73, which is really saying something.
 
2_point, this is why I've asked people to ignore him on this thread. Everybody, please keep comments on point.

SFW & BGF give us plenty to be ticked at. No reason to let a kid from Texas detract from the real issues like the land grab and the "sportsmen groups" that won't actually stand up for sportsmen, but instead take millions from the actual legislators pushing for the very land grab that all real sportsman groups oppose.

Grizzly
 
One other important comment from the article is the fact that Mike Noel has requested to "expand the current BGF contracts to include 'other endangered species, national monuments and other items identified by the state.'" In other words, in addition to being paid millions to lobby (without any accountability) on the issues of wolves and sagegrouse, BGF may now also be paid to lobby on issues involving other endangered species, national monuments and other items identified by the state.

So you tell me -- is BGF looking out for the interests of sportsmen and wildlife? Or is BGF focused on pushing whatever issues make our politicians happy and, in turn, line their pockets. Once again, don't waste your time wondering how SFW (and its sister company BGF) ended up on the wrong side of the stream access issue and or why they have wasted the last four years attempting to straddle the fence on the land grab issue. These decisions are all about $$$ and political power.

-Hawkeye-
 
Grizzly you ask people to ignore me because I force feed them truth. I show them this little hate club can't be trusted to give anyone answers. Yall sling mud at one group while giving another private company a pass.

Here's what's funny is I don't care about Fishon getting $150,000 from the gubmint to subsidise a private company. I care that you bunch of haters decided to give him a pass because he bashes SFW like you do. It shows that the money ain't the issue.

Yall don't get it. As long as your agenda is founded in dishonesty NO ONE, but other haters, WILL TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY.
 
Hey UT sportsmen, it is not all bad news. Your sell-big-game-trophies-and-public-land gov't clusterfork is very instructive to neighboring states, as a beyond-bad example. Surprised that some in ID now are trying to sip that Koolaid. To your east we are doing all we can to save you some public places to hunt and OTC tags. Some of us are corresponding w your errant legislators as well. Hang tough, many have your backs.
 
Elkduds-

I hope our neighboring states see "the Utah Model" for wildlife management for what it is and resist it at all costs. Unfortunately, there will always be those who are enticed by the allure of money, power and politics, and will try to transplant "the Utah Model" to other western states. Hence the recent efforts in Arizona and Idaho. Stop it while you can. Once it gets hold, it will be all but impossible to turn the tide.

-Hawkeye-
 
Odd question, but have any of yall actually tried to figure out who does like this political/economic relationship instead of just writing it off to greedy rich politicians????
 
I'm getting tired of my tax dollars being spent recklessly. I think we need to drain the swamp at the special interest level. Since they can't and wont' show how anything is benefiting me and you guys "the less fortunate with a $35.00 deer tag." Every damn one of these groups need to open their books. We as sportsman deserve to know how they are spending the money. And what percentages are going back on the ground. It's our wildlife just as much as SFW's, BGF and all these other jack ass special interest organizations.
 
Call your Reps and tell them to vote against the BGF welfare money.

Maybe if they stopped getting money from these politicians, they could actually represent sportsmen instead of their sugar daddies.

Grizzly
 
Very true. And maybe if they stopped getting money from our public tags they would not be in a position to lobby and make campaign contributions to their sugar daddies. It is a vicious cycle.

-Hawkeye-
 
It's like watching everybody gather round the cooler in Jonestown. Sipping their coolaid and talking about how righteous they are.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-14-17 AT 06:44PM (MST)[p]
2_point, maybe you're right and I shouldn't even respond with a "yawn". I'm simply reminding people to not engage him.

------

>All I want to know at
>this point is did Tony
>really receive 150K?

Luckily there is a whole thread dedicated to that. :)

Grizzly
 
I've emailed my Congressmen with a link to the Trib article, a link to the Legislative Audit and other pertinent information. I also requested they scrutinize the BGF request for taxpayer funds and the lack of transparency and accountability.

I've already received replies saying they'll look into it.

It was very easy to do. Here's the link to finding your elected officials... https://le.utah.gov/GIS/findDistrict.jsp

Grizzly
 
I love watching your efforts. HSUS takes in $150,000,000 in a year secures it in offshore accounts spends less than %1 on actual animal welfare projects. Spends millions annual suing government entities in order to control YOUR food, and shut down hunting. But you are focused on a group that received 466k and actually lobbies on your behalf against the HSUS????????

You have your priorities mixed up grizzly.
 
I also contacted my congressman.
Expressing my concern, and hope that this would not be funded again.
 
I love people finally not responding to that Tristate Troll dude. If nobody responded to his nonsense he will eventually go away. I met a few people like him in my day. Nobody ever liked them and they never had any friends. I have never read any more nonsense get posted by anyone like him. A few other forums I check out he would have been banned a long time ago from posting.
 
Herbert says it is "worth exploring" selling public land to pay off Federal deficit.

He says, "I would argue we could privatize this public land and have it developed commercially."

Obviously, even if that worked it is a temporary fix because in a few short years the deficit would start climbing again but now we would be out of public land to sell.

He says it is "unfortunate" that the Federal government is allowed to run a deficit and selling public land is a way to pay it off.

The problem for hunters is that Utah is Constitutionally-forbidden from running a deficit and thus would be required to take drastic steps, such as selling public land, in years of economic downturn.

How on earth SFW can stand by this guy at the expense of hunters is disgusting. They should be ashamed of themselves.


Grizzly
 
>Herbert says it is "worth exploring"
>selling public land to pay
>off Federal deficit.
>
>He says, "I would argue we
>could privatize this public land
>and have it developed commercially."
>
>
>Obviously, even if that worked it
>is a temporary fix because
>in a few short years
>the deficit would start climbing
>again but now we would
>be out of public land
>to sell.
>
>He says it is "unfortunate" that
>the Federal government is allowed
>to run a deficit and
>selling public land is a
>way to pay it off.
>
>
>The problem for hunters is that
>Utah is Constitutionally-forbidden from running
>a deficit and thus would
>be required to take drastic
>steps, such as selling public
>land, in years of economic
>downturn.
>
>How on earth SFW can stand
>by this guy at the
>expense of hunters is disgusting.
>They should be ashamed of
>themselves.
>
>
>
>Grizzly

$fw hasnt stood with hunters since prop 5 years ago. Who do you think is gonna buy up all this land Herby wants to sell? $fw has a log book full of dudes ready to pounce on it, same dudes that will be flying in for the big schlong contest at the expo. If you can drop 6 figures for a deer tag, imagine what you would drop for the land that deer lives on. $fw to their credit, really hasn't been sneaky about their beliefs in public land, we know where they were on the riverbed issue, and they have been pretty consistent since then. BUT, they do have 200 tags, so go hand them so more money so they can support guys like Herby and Noel.


"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
Does anybody know where this bill stands or what the bill is called so I can track it?

We all know SFW/BGF doesn't stand with hunters, but I'd like to see which Legislators stand with hunters and which stand with big money special interests like SFW/BGF.

Grizzly

Fight For Public Land and Join BHA & RMEF Today!
 
Sorry I can't help you Griz, I was out until late this evening helping SFW put a few hundred hen pheasants out tonight. It's breeding season and we like to get them out so they start nesting and raising chicks, so there are some pheasants for you folks to hunt this fall.

We could have used your help.

DC
 
I choose to donate my time and money to groups whose offshoot-organization wasn't found to spend 2/3 of state funding by paying their own businesses "consulting fees".

---"For the fiscal year 2013 contract, BGF reported that about two-thirds of the state funding was paid to the BGF director?s private business and reported as his consulting fees. Expense breakdowns of this consulting business were not supplied."-- SOURCE... https://le.utah.gov/audit/13_11rpt.pdf

I am working on scheduling a meeting for public-land-focused sportsmen at my office in Logan towards the end of April. You are welcome to join if you'd like to voice your opposition to the land grab and work to keep public land in public hands.

------------------

PS. You may want to read up on current studies regarding pheasant transplants.

--" Fifty-nine percent of pen-reared hens died within 7 days of release compared to 6% of wild hens. By October 1, 96% of pen-reared hens and 100 % of pen-reared roosters had died..."-- SOURCE... http://fwpiis.mt.gov/content/getItem.aspx?id=40610

--"Stocking of pen-raised birds is not an efficient means to increase wild bird populations, as shown by numerous studies over the past 25 years."-- SOURCE... https://www.pheasantsforever.org/Habitat/Pheasant-Facts/Pheasant-Stocking.aspx

Grizzly
 
I don't post very much and definitely don't want to get into the middle of the underlying "disagreement" here but specific to the stocking of pheasants....it is like throwing money into the trash. I've read studies and seen first hand results of individuals and game agencies releasing birds (both pheasants and quail) from the deep south to Dakotas, and it is widely known/accepted that the outcome is very bleak. Maybe Utah has something figured out, as I'm not familiar with the details there but in banded bird studies (with actual scientific data), releasing pen raised birds into the wild is worthless.
 
From SLTrib today in an article blasting pet projects and pork spending...

--"This is the worst session since I've been here," said Arent, who is in her 17th year in the Legislature.

That's not to say budgetmakers are neglecting the great outdoors. They are, for example, paying $2 million to Big Game Forever, a contract that started to lobby Congress and the federal government to keep wolves off the Endangered Species List and advocate for predator-control programs.

Big Game Forever was the subject of a scathing audit at the end of 2013 that said nobody could track how the money had been spent. Since then the funds flowing to Big Game Forever have steadily grown and this year legislators are making it a recurring $2 million appropriation to the private group.-- SOURCE... http://www.sltrib.com/news/5027554-155/gehrke-in-utah-legislature-its-pet

Grizzly
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-08-17 AT 12:18PM (MST)[p]Grizz-

Thanks for reposting the link to the 2013 legislative audit of BGF. See https://le.utah.gov/audit/13_11rpt.pdf All sportsmen should read that audit because it highlights the ongoing problems with the DWR and SFW/BGF. The same lack of transparecy and accountability that plagued the $$$ paid to BGF for woldf lobbying also undermined the Expo Tag process.

As I was reading the 2013 audit, I was reminded that when the DWR sent the wolf lobbying contract out to RFP in 2013 in an attempt to move toward "greater transparency," it issued an RFP that was drafted for and tailored to BGF. In other words, the DWR issued an RFP that purposefuly steered the wolf lobbying contract to BGF, who was the only applicant that submitted a proposal. According to the legislative auditor:

"BGF, the sole applicant, was awarded the contract. In our opinion, this language specifically describes BGF and gives the appearance that it was tailored to meet their experience and expertise. DWR management said they did this because of their desire to maintain BGF?s expertise and continue the work they had started two years prior. Because BGF brought wolf management specific expertise (earned through work funded by the two prior years? grants) and extra funding from private sources, we believe a sole-source contract would have been a more appropriate method for procuring the contract."

Does that sound familiar to anyone? The DWR drafting an RFP so as to steer a contract to a particular group?

-Hawkeye-
 
Griz and Hawkeye,

Continue the crusade. Lot's of groups lobby for more wolves and ways to get ride of hunting. PETA, earth justice,etc. BGF is one sportsmen group to counter these groups.

Crush that evil SFW and BGF, and lets convert sportsmen over to the beloved RMEF. (Don't you know RMEF is a bigger group and promised to give back more money?) They should have got the expo contract.

Shame on that SFW group for trying to improve things for pheasant hunting and pheasant populations. Transplanting deer don't work either. Feeding deer don't work either. Feeding turkeys don't work either. Predator control don't work either. Getting money for water projects, and transplants don't work. Save all those not informed sportsmen from doom and gloom. They must be stupid, not informed, or have a different opinion.
 
Greg-

If you are spending the public's money on actual conservation projects then just account for it. Pretty simple. I'm not going to spending my time debating the effectiveness of pheasant transplants, etc. My issue is that I do not believe that enough of the public's money actually hits the ground -- and if it is being properly used then account for it. Concerned sportsmen and the state legislative auditor should not have continually make this basic point to SFW, BGF and the DWR.

-Hawkeye-
 
I called out BGF on Facebook and they deleted my comment/questions.
Go figure




"Wildlife and its habitat cannot speak. So
we must and we will."
Theadore Roosevelt
 
The good thing about pheasant transplants, or deer transplants is you can get Fstop to roll out and film it. You really can't film 2/3 of your money coming in, then going into politicians hands. or $fw wallets. They make for mighty nice PR though, then when ever the questions come out, the pic of a couple kids transplanting a pheasant is the answer. For what those pheasants cost, just from the expo welfare this year, would have been cheaper to hunt the pheasant farms. But, there is that priceless PR.


"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
Some questions for all of us-- What is the appropriate amount or percentage of money that should "hit " the ground ? Who is or what is the most efficient way to lobby against anti-hunting type groups ? What kind of model should we follow so that we can protect our hunting heritage and would be most effective. What would be your solutions going forward ? I believe most if not all conservation groups in the state receive money from the tags they are given to raffle or auction. Should all raffle or auction tags be eliminated ?
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-09-17 AT 10:30AM (MST)[p]Nebo12000, with respect, I think you're confusing three completely different items.

1) Conservation (Auction) Tags - these have a requirement that 90% go towards conservation

2) Convention (Raffle or Expo) Tags - these only require 30% of funds go towards conservation

3) Welfare Money - this is about $5,000,000 straight to Big Game Forever with no accountability and a scathing audit that found comingling of funds, alluded to the potential for taxpayer funds to be used to lobby state legislators which is unlawful, and found 2/3 of the funds went to a consulting business owned by the managers of Big Game Forever with no breakdown of how that money was spent.

As to your question regarding what percentage of money going towards conservation is appropriate... How about we go with the threshold set by the highest-available bid in a free-market system? That would be 100% of proceeds from the Convention Tags and Conservation Tags and a fully audited accounting of all other funds. That seems fair.

We won't expect SFW to give more than their competition, but they should at least match it. This is taxpayer money, after all, and it should be held in public trust for the benefit of the public. Not funneled to a few individuals that coincidentally happen to remain silent as the only hunting group to support the land grab.

Grizzly
 
I would bet u the vast majority of u work for buisnesses running on less than 3% profit margin. So 97% should go to projects and payroll. According to their warchest, tgey aint close.


"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
For years sportsmen have been kicked in the nuts, from anti-hunting groups, lobbyist,liberal people who have lots of money and liberal politicians. 2 million is peanuts, compared to the money generated against hunters, anti-gun laws,etc. Most of the time there are deals, and not very good accounting and transparency with these groups. They ban predator control, hounding, trapping, use the ESA, to stop access and wildlife projects to improve habitat, transplants etc. If sportsmen, and sportsmen groups, and those who have political influence, don't play on a level playing field, we are going to be kicked in the nuts until we are done.

Personally I have no problem with BGF and SFW being involved with these issues. I don't need to see where every dollar goes. I trust the leadership. I know many who help make decisions.

Some critics think they have all the answers, but only have half of the pieces of the puzzle. I don't blame them. They make statements on what they know, and what pieces of the puzzle they have. Some seem to be mad and almost obsessed, it shows in their post. It is almost funny reading at times.

Just because RMEF is mostly a habitat group, (which is fine and good),they don't really engage in political fights and battles.

I believe we need sportsmen groups that work in different areas, so we don't keep getting kicked in the nuts. We would be better off working together when able.
 
Greg-

You are obviously passionate about these issues and willing to engage in a dialogue. I respect you for that even though I disagree with your conclusions.

Many sportsmen feel like they have been "kicked in the nuts" (to borrow your term) by SFW, MDF and the DWR. When the Expo Tags were created, sportsmen were told that the money from the Expo Tags would be used to fund conservation projects. During public meetings, sportsmen were promised that the process would be transparent and that sportsmen would be able to ask and see how much of the money actually hits the grounds in the form of conservation projects. That never happened and instead millions of dollars has gone unaccounted for. You are apparently comfortable with the lack of transparency because you know the folks involved and you "trust the leadership." That may be fine for you. For many sportsmen, including me, that is not accceptable when dealing with our public assets.

You also claim that some of the critics only have "half of the puzzle pieces." To the extent this is true it is because SFW has chosen to hide the remaining pieces of the puzzle. Why has SFW chosen to hide information from the public? You tell me? I am not mad or angry about the situation but I am passionate about what I see as a real problem. And I do look for opportunities to shine a light on the problem and educate others as to what has happened here. Thanks for posting.

-Hawkeye-
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-09-17 AT 02:43PM (MST)[p]I agree with every word you said huntin50. I would add one more comment.

It breaks my heart to so see such good people, that participate in the MM forum, who have a great desire to support wildlife hunting and fishing conservation, ie: sportsmen who are 100% committed to hunting and fishing, and not just habitat and viewable wildlife, express such mistrust and dislike for SFW and BGF, who I believe, like you seem to believe, are doing everything they can to preserve and propagate the hunting/fishing lifestyle for all sportsmen and their families.

I know there is no way any individual, organization, or group can keep 100% of the public satisfied and supportive of how they do business and how they work to achieve their objectives, but the degree to which many good folks have attacked SFW and BGF is very unfortunate, in my opinion.

While I have very little interaction with SFW or SFW leadership anymore, it still bothers me a lot, to read the comments made here by those who see the world from a different perspective.

Thank you for continuing to share SFW and BGF's positive efforts.

DC
 
Lumpy-

Perhaps you should ask yourself why otherwise likeminded sportsmen would express such skepticism and mistrust for SFW and BGF. I would submit that not all of us are bitter, jealous haters looking to torpedo great conservation organizations. Perhaps there are some real issues that should be addressed? Perhaps SFW and BGF bear some responsibility for the controversy and questions that constantly surround them? Are there simple changes that could be made that would address the legitimate concerns of sportsmen without compromising their core missions? Just a few thoughts.

-Hawkeye-
 
Grizz-- I know very well the difference in Conservation tags and Expo tags-- just asking if all those tags should be just included in the LE tag allotments.
 
Nebo-

That is a good question. However, the more pertinent question is if the DWR is going to take hundreds of premium tags out of the public draw and allow private groups to sell them off to fund conservation activities then why shouldn't the public be able to see how those conservation funds are spent?

If the only options are to either: (1) allow the conservation groups to raffle the Expo Tags and keep 70% of the funds with no accounting or transparency; or (2) to return the Expo Tags to the public draw, then I would vote for option #2. However, I believe that is a false dillema. Why can't there be some middle ground whereby the groups can follow through on their promises and account for the monies generated from our public tags?

-Hawkeye-
 
Nebo12000, gotcha.

My point was that though all groups receive Conservation (Auction) Tags, they are required to commit 90% of funds to conservation.

Only one conglomerate receives Expo Tags and direct Welfare Money, SFW/BGF, and those have either no requirement of actual conservation spending or a very small financial requirement that is so vague as to be wide open to interpretation (ie. projects, policies and personnel).

To compare the Conservation Tags that RMEF receives (and thus donates 90% of funding to wildlife) to the Expo Tags and millions in welfare dollars given to SFW/BGF is flawed at best and dishonest at worst.

I know you weren't making that comparison, but there are others that have tried. I misunderstood you post. My bad.

Grizzly
 
I guess that you will have to convince the DWR that the money that the groups earn from the different tags (expo or conservation) does not yield important benefits for wildlife conservation. My question then is, has the money that is kept by the different groups to help fund their activities really helping wildlife conservation?-- If not then I think the money should be directed to a group that would use the money more efficiently. I'm not sure that creating another government agency to do that would work well. I personally have no problem with the need for transparency. Why would you want to hide the use of the money even if it is used to pay fulltime salaries for folks that are working for wildlife conservation. I am a little bothered by the fact that a little of the money that is to be used for approved conservation projects is paid to employees of the conservation group to monitor/oversee certain projects. I suppose that I/we have to accept the fact that if takes money to get projects done and the most efficient way is to have someone organize/oversee these projects and recruit the volunteers necessary to get them done. Without volunteer effort, some projects would yield minimal results or not even get off the ground. I'm not sure that hiring a few more government employees to do that is very efficient use of the money either.
 
Nebo-

I like some of your questions but I don't think that the answer is more governement employees or new government agencies. How about simple and clear rules that earmark the money for approved conservation projects and require an annual accounting?

Is it too much to ask these private groups to fundraise, seek private donations, sell memberships, sell banquet tickets, etc. in order to cover their salaries, personnel costs and overhead? That would then allow 100% of the proceeds from our public tags to be earmarked for actual conservation projects and accounted for? What is the purpose of conservation and expo tags? To fund actual conservation projects or to fund conservation groups?

-Hawkeye-
 
Does anybody think the numbers below represent the "highest and best use" of taxpayer funds intended for conservation (taken directly from 2013 Legislative Audit called "A Review of Appropriated Wolf Management Funds")...

------------------------------------

Consulting Fees ------------$194,337------------------65%
Federal Lobbyist---------------40,000------------------13%
Video Production--------------30,227------------------10%
Software-----------------------15,538-------------------5%
Travel and Trade Shows------11,405-------------------4%
Other---------------------------8,543-------------------3%

Total------------------------$300,050-----------------100%



For the fiscal year 2013 contract, BGF reported that about two-thirds of the state funding was paid to the BGF director?s private business and reported as his consulting fees. Expense breakdowns of this consulting business were not supplied.

Also...

"This comingling of state and private funds could be an issue if BGF, using state funds appropriated to a state agency for a purpose delineated in state statute, is viewed as an extension of a state agency. Utah Code 63J-1-210 does not allow state funds to be used by a state agency to lobby the State Legislature. With comingling, we cannot ensure that state funds were used appropriately."

-----------------------------------

You can understand why we look at the transferring of taxpayer-money by BGF to its Director's private business without a breakdown of those expenses, or how it could possibly have benefited wildlife, with a little trepidation.

Combine that with around $8,000,000 in Expo Tag proceeds given to BGF-parent-organization, SFW, that had no requirement of conservation spending and any open-minded individual can see the justification for concern.

SFW & BGF could end this conversation forever if they'd open up their books to audited financials as their larger and more successful peer, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, does. We're not asking for anything that their competition doesn't do, which proves our request is reasonable.

SFW/BGF could also cease contributing to the widely-held perception that they are supporting the land grab to maintain their welfare checks by fervently opposing the land grab. Seems easy enough.

Grizzly
 
By comparison does Utah provide more opportunity than all of the other western states combined? It's a BS question but it's based on the worn out old line we continually hear about expenditures.

Does Utah provide more or less opportunity by ratio of huntable species than other states is the question that needs to be asked.

My opinion, is that some of this funding is used to lobby, buy and flat out push a trophy hunting only mentality that caters to a well connected minority that knew how to work the system and now has flat out dominated it.

Let's be honest here, Utah manages game for the two smallest demographics in the hunting community. Max point holders and wealth tag buyers. Trophy hunters are getting their sails filled by the draft from the first two.

Let me ask all of you one question.

We all know what self promoters these groups are. If this money was truly doing us all good why would a guy like Peay's banker, Mike Noel refuse to discuss where a portion of the BGF appropriation was going? He said in committee that it didn't need to be discussed in public. Why?? I have my theory but no proof.

It's my money and unlike D.C. And Greg I sure as hell don't trust Peay or Benson.
I want to know where every cent is going and for what purpose.
I've said repeatedly the world would be a better place if SFW wasn't a part of it. They can take their hush hush deals, ponzi point schemes and low opportunity high success philosophy with them.




"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 
My name is Luke. I read the forum often but this is my first time posting. I am educated on this issue and have my own opinions. My point on posting here is I have more desire to get involved as a passionate hunter when I read threads like this one (without Tri) that are civil and share a common denominator - passionate about hunting and wanting it to improve. I have my own opinions. SFW should be more transparent, I did attend the expo, I felt like I needed a shower after. Giving BGF/SFW more taxpayer $ makes me throw up in my mouth a little. If SFW/MDF/BGF listened to opposition and made a few small changes, they could achieve their objectives and get more volunteers.


The mission of SFW is to promote the protection and enhancement of wildlife habitat, assist in providing quality wildlife management programs, educating the public about the role hunters play in wildlife conservation, and perpetuating the family tradition of hunting and fishing"


IF this is their objective.

Thanks for keeping it civil and educational. I believe there a lot like me -educated viewers who don't post - that will have a greater desire to get involved when comments and opinions share this common denominator.
 
huntin50, you wrote earlier, "Just because RMEF is mostly a habitat group, (which is fine and good),they don't really engage in political fights and battles."

RMEF has been one of the leaders against the land grab while SFW/BGF is the only hunting group to not oppose the attempted takeover of federal lands. SFW/BGF sits silently by, even with full knowledge that public land will be sold. They sit on their hands with full knowledge that there is nothing in the bill preventing the disposal of public lands. (And even if there was, it could be changed by a future Legislature with a simple majority vote, which would certainly happen when the State needed to balance the budget during the next recession or natural disaster or bad fire season.)

If SFW/BGF is the political arm of the conservation movement, where are they on Land Grab and why were they on the wrong side of the Stream Grab?

We all know the on-the-ground guys overwhelmingly oppose the land grab, but the leadership won't support their membership by fighting the land grab crooks. I'd love to hear your thoughts on why that is.

Grizzly
 
Griz,

I have debated for years. It is obvious, you love RMEF and hate SFW.

RMEF does not get involved much with the political fights to protect hunting. I still have my bugle magazine from years ago. The director said he loved to hear wolves howl. This was before wolves became the problem they are now. RMEF wanted to be neutral, some of their membership were not hunters, but nature lovers. The RMEF didn't want to offend these members and fight for hunters.

SFW was neutral on stream access. It was a debate between property rights and sportsmen access. If SFW was neutral on a cause, that you thought they should not have been that was a problem.
SFW also got 3 million to rebuild hatcheries for DWR so they could stock rivers and lakes, and continue to provide for fisherman. We hear the criticism, but never the thanks from some.

SFW have said publicly,they are against selling public lands period. Managed by state or federal. Period.

We had another very successful SFW banquet Saturday. All the banquets so far this year have been sold out and have been very successful. We had about 100 youth. A lot of kids were happy, and will hopefully continue the hunting and fishing tradition.

I didn't make it to the Expo, but was told the expo was very successful, with a long waiting list of people who want a booth.

Continue your mission and crusade. You said SFW was going out of business a couple years ago, and the word was getting out how bad things are, because of them. It's not worth debating the issues. I have done it many times. Nothing has changed.

There are many who see things differently than you and Hawkeye. Some believe in your agenda. That is fine. I still don't believe you have enough puzzle pieces and trust is an issue. I believe you are good guy's, that like to hunt,but look at things differently.

Best wishes.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-13-17 AT 10:10AM (MST)[p]"SFW was neutral on stream access. It was a debate between property rights and sportsmen access. If SFW was neutral on a cause, that you thought they should not have been that was a problem." -huntin50

SFW was NOT neutral on stream access. That statement is 100% false. I was there almost every day. SFW reps were there many days lobbying against public access. I personally saw their lobbying efforts. I personally discussed the issues with them, with legislators present, and heard from their own reps mouths what their position was. This is not something I was told about. It was something I witnessed with my own eyes and ears. SFW was absolutely in favor of taking away public access to public water.

In fact, one of my favorite memories of fallacy and straight up lies by those that worked to take away public access came from Don Peay himself. We were talking to a legislator outside the House of Representatives. For some reason she wanted to talk to both of us at the same time. I was asking her to support the compromise bill, HB 80. He, on behalf of SFW (his words, not mine), asked her to vote against it. He then proceeded to tell her that if we got our way, trespassing would be nullified. That because people water their gardens with "public water" or because rain is "public water," that any time it rained or someone watered anyone in the public could just walk across the legislator's yard and go into their vegetable garden and take anything they wanted. He seriously argued to her that this bill would do that. He used his standing with SFW to represent sportsmen that did not support this bill. He was not the only one.

Sorry, I know that isn't the topic here, but I'm not going to allow SFW to claim they were "neutral" on that bill. I was there. I know they weren't.
 
Vanilla,
I was told SFW was neutral. Too bad if that is what happened. I believe you are a straight shooter. I doubt that stance or situation would repeat.
I don't agree with everything and every issue that SFW or Don has done. However, They have done a lot for sportsmen.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-13-17 AT 12:45PM (MST)[p]Greg-

I have spoken with many SFW members who are either completely surprised or simply refuse to believe that SFW supported limiting public stream access. However, that is a fact. And now SFW has moved to a neutral position on the issue because they have taken so much heat. I have never heard a good explanation from SFW leadership as to why they initially supported eliminating public stream access or why they are now claiming they have no position on the issue? How does that benefit sportsmen? I can see how it benefits landowners, developers, ranchers and politicians but SFW's position hurts sportsmen. And now they are trying stay "neutral" on the transfer of public lands? Why? It makes no sense - unless they are more interested in pleasing politicians than pleasing sportsman.

-Hawkeye-
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-13-17 AT 04:50PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Mar-13-17 AT 04:47?PM (MST)

>Griz,
>
>I have debated for years.
>It is obvious, you love
>RMEF and hate SFW.
>
>RMEF does not get involved much
>with the political fights to
>protect hunting. I still
>have my bugle magazine from
>years ago. The director
>said he loved to hear
>wolves howl. This was
>before wolves became the problem
>they are now. RMEF
>wanted to be neutral, some
>of their membership were not
>hunters, but nature lovers.
>The RMEF didn't want to
>offend these members and fight
>for hunters.
>
>SFW was neutral on stream access.
>It was a debate between
>property rights and sportsmen access.
>If SFW was neutral on
>a cause, that you thought
>they should not have been
>that was a problem.
>SFW also got 3 million to
>rebuild hatcheries for DWR so
>they could stock rivers and
>lakes, and continue to provide
>for fisherman. We hear
>the criticism, but never the
>thanks from some.
>
>SFW have said publicly,they are against
>selling public lands period.
>Managed by state or federal.
> Period.
>
>We had another very successful SFW
>banquet Saturday. All the
>banquets so far this year
>have been sold out and
>have been very successful.
>We had about 100 youth.
> A lot of kids
>were happy, and will hopefully
>continue the hunting and fishing
>tradition.
>
>I didn't make it to the
>Expo, but was told the
>expo was very successful, with
>a long waiting list of
>people who want a booth.
>
>
>Continue your mission and crusade.
>You said SFW was going
>out of business a couple
>years ago, and the word
>was getting out how bad
>things are, because of them.
> It's not worth debating
>the issues. I have done
>it many times. Nothing
>has changed.
>
> There are many who
>see things differently than you
>and Hawkeye. Some believe in
>your agenda. That is
>fine. I still don't believe
>you have enough puzzle pieces
>and trust is an issue.
>I believe you are good
>guy's, that like to hunt,but
>look at things differently.
>
>Best wishes.
>
>
Yes, many sportsmen do look at things differently, and therein lies the debate/problem. WW's post #67 sums it up quite well. And, in spite of their mission statement as posted by Luke, I believe SFW's view of who are worthwhile, authentic, valuable sportsmen ("Hard core" as Don Peay has put it), and what constitutes our family hunting and fishing heritage certainly differ from mine and most of the sportsmen I associate with and most of their actions, proposals and decisions over the last 5 years show that. We don't speak the same language, we don't share the same overall agenda and we don't view our outdoor future the same way, and as long as SFW and it's affiliates dismiss and disregard any other definitions of "sportsmen" and "family hunting and fishing heritage" than the ones they currently have, this debate will likely continue.

I wish you well in all your personal endeavors!
 
huntin50, I'm really not trying to pick a fight on that. Just correcting the information. Again, I watched all this unfold with my own two eyes and heard it with my own two ears.

I have no idea what the organization says about it today, but when the political fight was taking place, they absolutely openly lobbied against public access to public water and public fish. Don is on the record saying all wildlife should be privatized, so I'm not sure why trying to screw the public out of thousands of miles of public streams and rivers in Utah would be surprising to anyone.
 
HB0407 - 2017 Utah Public Lands Management Act, signed by Governor Herbert just last week, seeks to transfer Federal Land to SITLA, where it will no longer be considered "public land" according to the definition section of the same law...

----------------------

63L-8-204. Exchanges and sales.
(1) (a)It is the policy of this state that exchanges of public land are preferred to any sale of public land, and that when pursuing an exchange, an exchange with the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration is preferred to an exchange with any other party.

"Public land" means any land or land interest:
(a) acquired by the state from the federal government pursuant to Section 63L-6-103, except:
(i) areas subsequently designated as a protected wilderness area, as described in Title 63L, Chapter 7, Utah Wilderness Act; and
(ii) lands managed by the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration

------------------------

SITLA also openly seeks to convert their land to a CWMU, which certainly does not help the public land hunter.

And the funny thing about this law is that it was actually emailed to me by an SFW-supporter as proof that the land grab won't hurt hunters and an excuse as to why SFW won't oppose the land grab and the attempted transfer of public lands to the State.

This bill was sponsored by Mike Noel, who also happened to be the person named in this article (http://www.sltrib.com/news/4936797-1...-local-control) as giving $2,000,000 to SFW-offshoot Big Game Forever.

...hmmm...

Grizzly
 
And the funny thing is that School trust lands SITLA wanted to block off public access for school trust lands in the book cliffs for years. And Don Peay and SFW with the DWR made it possible so SITLA could be paid for access for sportsmen. So the average hunter wouldn't be blocked out from hunting these large areas on the book cliffs, which could have been a large CWMU for mostly the rich.
 
I agree, Greg, that SFW has helped keep SITLA land open for hunting.

So why is SFW now the only hunting group to not oppose Mike Noel's wet dream of privatization when the results are much more dire?

In fact, they are supporting a law they obviously must know is bad for hunters because they've opposed similar laws in the past. SFW has previously fought to keep SITLA land from becoming a CWMU, to their credit, but they now support a land grab that has never been shown to have any chance of financial success, has many clear paths to privatization including bank accounts to hold funds from the selling of land, has a stated goal of promoting SITLA land, and no verbiage barring the selling of land.

Instead of fighting the land grab, SFW sits on their hands, except of course when they need to sign the back of the $2,000,000 welfare check that was publicly backed by the same person that wrote the very land grab bill that SFW should be opposing.

SFW already claimed neutrality while secretly supporting the Stream Grab. They're doing it again with the Land Grab.

There are dozens of studies and reports that show how the land grab cannot be financially sustained, and not one that shows a clear path to financial viability. There are many signed bills relating to the land grab, and not one writes a perpetual Public Access Easement into the law. Not one forbids the state from selling land. And we've seen example after example of how the land grab will lead to privatization.

You and I know many of the same people in SFW's local leadership that have practically pleaded for SFW to oppose the land grab. We both know people have threatened to leave SFW if it don't oppose the land grab.

SFW is an extremely powerful political organization in Utah. The fact that they do nothing but accept government handouts while politicians work to sell and privatize our public land is despicable.

SFW can prove me wrong any time they want. As soon as they start their campaign to stop the land grab, send the "Contact your Rep" emails, schedule the rally at the Capitol, put on press conferences opposing the land grab, etc... we'll know they are doing what they are supposed to be doing and working to protect hunters. It's that easy and the ball is in their court.

I truly hope they do prove me wrong and I'll be here to thank them for doing it.

Grizzly
 
Grey why will you not except the invitation to the State capitol and let members of our state legislature who drafted the bill explain it to you line upon line. They have offered to have a attorney present to explain its legality.
I'm not asking you to change your mind on the public land transfer, or your opinion of SFW. We both have been invited to hear it straight from the horses mouth. How about it are you in, or would you rather just ##### about it on the internet?

63L-8-204. Exchanges and sales.
(1) (a)It is the policy of this state that exchanges of public land are preferred to any sale of public land, and that when pursuing an exchange, an exchange with the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration is preferred to an exchange with any other party.

I believe you're smart enough to understand what is meant by exchanges between state owned property, and SITLA owned property. Why you choose to distort it baffles me. Could it be to falsely lead people into believing the State of Utah wants to sell off all public lands ? If that is the case why did our state legislature also approve to to pay an additional $1 million to SITLA making it $1.8 million to lease the hunting rights so that it would remain public. Don Peay himself was instrumental in brokering that deal. Of course he won't be given any credit for it. SITLA has threatened to lease its property for hunting to the highest bidder in order to fund schools. That could mean more CWMUs. I personally would hate to see that. I also know that the DNR and the state legislature would hate to see that.

SITLA owns a lot of prime hunting, and recreational property. The day will come when it may become necessary for SITLA to sale a prime piece of property that the public has access to at this time. (SITLA is under obligation by the state constitution ). If the State could exchange property with SITLA that has gone through the proper public process (written in this same piece of legislation that we are debating) and been deemed sellable would that not be beneficial to all ? SITLA could then sell that property deemed sellable to fund our schools, and the state would now own the prime piece of property leaving it public with no chance of being sold.
I hate to hear of any property that the public has access to being sold. The truth is that there is state owned property at this time that really is of little use to the general public. If this ground could be exchanged for prime SITLA property that would be in everyone's best interest. SITLA could obtain a landlocked piece of property inaccessible to the general public. They could then sale it to the highest bidder. That money would go to fund schools, and the state of Utah would now own a prime piece of property that is accessible to the general public and not under obligation to be sold.

I hope you will accept the invitation to hear an explanation of the entire bill by those actually helped draft it. You can then express to them what pieces of s*#t you think they are. You can also prove to them how smart you are.
 
JMO
Paul Simon, many years ago, sang the answer to your 'Why" question.....

All lies and jest....
Still..... :a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest......

DC
 
>JMO
>Paul Simon, many years ago, sang
>the answer to your 'Why"
>question.....
>
>All lies and jest....
>Still..... :a man hears what he
>wants to hear
>And disregards the rest......
>
>DC


Sounds about right Lumpy. How else would all the lemmings support $FW if they didn't hear what that wanted to hear and disregard the rest.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-05-17 AT 05:56PM (MST)[p]Boy, Justin, you sure had to come up with a very specific and convoluted scenario that could possibly result in the selling/transfer of public lands being good for hunters. Its almost as bad as when you emailed me, "Please read the section concerning SITLA ground again. I don't believe you're reading it correctly. I believe it states that after a property has been properly classified as eligible to sale, the proceeds of that sale would be "preferred" to be used in order to purchase SITLA ground. That is entirely different than what you stated."

That emailed scenario that you proffered means after public lands are sold, then those proceeds are used to buy land for SITLA, which is not even considered public land.

Even your defense of the land grab would result in the selling of public lands and now you have a specific situation that may or may not ever happen. You're really grasping at straws here looking for ways to justify SFW supporting a bill that EVERY SINGLE other hunting organization has publicly opposed.

Do you think SFW is right and everybody else is wrong?

Another part of the law reads:

63L-8-104 Declaration of policy -- Sales and exchanges
(1) The Legislature declares that it is the policy of the state that:
(a) public land be retained in state ownership consistent with the provisions of this chapter for the enjoyment and betterment of the public and the state;
(b) public land may not be sold, except:
(i) as consistent with Section 63L-8-204 and the other provisions of this chapter;
(ii) as consistent with local land use plans;
(iii) with the approval of the director and the board;
(iv) after sufficient opportunity for public comment; and
(v) for an important public interest;

63L-8-204 Exchanges and sales
(2) The DLM may execute a sale of a parcel of public land if:
(a) the requirements of Subsection 63L-8-104(1)(b) have been met;
(b) the following information is made available on the DLM's website for 30 days before the day on which the director executes the sale:
(i) the legal description of the parcel;
(ii) the local land use plan governing the parcel;
(iii) the proposed purchaser of the parcel;
(iv) the DLM's findings that the sale will further an important public objective, including expansion of a local community;
(v) the minutes or a recording of a meeting in which the public comment was taken on the proposed sale; and
(vi) the purchase price, which may not be less than fair market value;

In plain English, that means that the State can sell land after a public comment period, if the Director declares it serves a "public interest", is posted online for 30 days and that it is for "fair market value".

The law also declares that a "public objective" could include "expansion of a local community". Think of all the wealthy businessmen (political donors) that would claim National Forests or BLM land should be sold for commercial development or logged, drilled, and mined to create jobs for the "expansion of a local community".

The politicians have written all this verbiage into the law when they could have simply declared a perpetual Public Access Easement that is irreversible and would guarantee public access forever. Even these 'Swiss Cheese' protections could be changed by a majority vote of a future legislature to make it even easier to sell public land. Also, notice how much is dependent on the decision of the Director. Do you want the future of all our public land resting on his/her shoulders?

When we hit our next recession and the State needs money to balance the budget, a future Governor could certainly sell land and claim it meets the "public objective" threshold required by the law. Heck, they could even declare an Emergency session and sell an entire forest overnight by removing the small protections that exist. Any court would allow it because the legislature is granted wide latitude in amending/altering existing law that was passed by a previous legislature.

The attorney's for the land grabbers tell us to ignore all these negative scenarios and to trust them. The attorneys for RMEF, BHA, B&C, TRCP all point to the many ways that public land could be sold or transferred to SITLA as reasons we can't support the land grab. The three people that trust SFW implicitly without reading the law word-for-word and without reading the UofU study word-for-word just cross their fingers and hope for the best.

As to your scenario about a hypothetical piece of landlocked ground... SITLA could sell/exchange that land right now anyway. We don't need to risk the rest of our public land for a scenario that is untouched by this legislation anyway.

I've met with my own local legislators who voted for the land grab bill mentioned above to ask them how they thought we could possibly keep the land public. None of them could offer a plan other than, "We'll have to figure that out later, but it doesn't matter right now because its still a few years away."

You also mention that the State currently owns land that "is of little use to the general public" and could be exchanged with SITLA for better hunting ground. This is another example of you not understanding the land grab law. This bill specifically only references land "acquired by the state from the federal government pursuant to Section 63L-6-103". That referenced Section is the Transfer of Public Lands Act that demands the Federal government "(a) extinguish title to public lands; and (b) transfer title to public lands to the state.

That hypothetical State land you referenced wouldn't even be covered under this law because it isn't land gained by the Transfer of Public Lands Act and nothing prevents the State and SITLA from working an exchange at this very moment. They could make it happen by this hunting season if they wanted to. This law only applies to currently Federal land that is gained via a land grab.

Even your defense of the law is provably incorrect (the "proceeds" email), completely hypothetical (landlocked SITLA land), or not related to the land grab law at all (currently-owned State land). I have backed up everything I've said with actual law. You can hope that my interpretation (and that of every other hunting organization) won't actually happen, but it is certainly a plausible scenario and is within the boundaries of the land grab legislation. Your justification of the law isn't even defensible.

Its time you put the future of our children and all those after them ahead of your allegiance to a group. The essence of public land is greater than any single organization.

Let me know when Troy wants to meet. I could meet with him personally or I could get some public lands experts from other conservation organizations there as well.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-05-17 AT 06:56PM (MST)[p]
Justin, I forgot to mention that your post implied I cancelled the scheduled meeting with Schultz while hiding behind my computer. May I remind you of what actually transpired.

Here's the actual text from you... "I just spoke with Rep Mike Schultz. He needs to postpone our meeting that was to take place this Thursday. I'll get in touch with you before we reschedule. I remember you said you were going out of town."

Schultz cancelled that meeting two days before it was to happen. Not me.

As you know, I've been out of the country and will be again next week, but I never said I wouldn't meet and we have not discussed a date to reschedule.

Grizzly
 
>LAST EDITED ON Apr-05-17
>AT 06:32?PM (MST)
>
>Justin, you act like I cancelled
>the scheduled meeting with Schultz
>while I hide behind my
>computer. May I remind you
>of what actually transpired.
>
>Here's the actual text from you...
>"I just spoke with Rep
>Mike Schultz. He needs to
>postpone our meeting that was
>to take place this Thursday.
>I'll get in touch with
>you before we reschedule. I
>remember you said you were
>going out of town."
>


>Schultz cancelled that meeting two days
>before it was to happen.
>Not me.
>
>As you know, I've been out
>of the country and will
>be again next week, but
>I never said I wouldn't
>meet and we have not
>discussed a date to reschedule.
>
>
>Grizzly

You are correct he did cancel the meeting. He also asked to reschedule. On 3/20 I invited you to look at your schedule and call or email me to set it up. Let's make it happen. Call me, text me, email me whatever you want. I want to witness the discussion, and educate myself as much as possible. I can be taught, and I'm man enough to say I was wrong. If after this meeting I feel you are right I will admit it. I truly do want what is best for my posterity when it comes to public lands. I hope you attend with an open mind as well.
 
Fair enough. Give me a couple of weeks to get stuff settled down and we can get together.

Grizzly
 
I just have to say that I have a ton of respect for both Grizzly and JMO. They are both good guys who see things very differently on this issue. But, they are willing to get together to talk about the issues. My hat is off to both of you guys. We need more of this type of discussion to help bring us together as sportsmen. Report back as to what you find out.

-Hawkeye-
 
Why can't a law be written that would cover any transfer of federal land- SITLA,federal etc- to the state be protected from any sale, transfer, trade etc to any private entity- corp., company, etc. The land would be open for public use- including all traditional activities ( I suppose this would have to be more exactly defined ) the only way that any of these lands could be sold or used for private use would require a statewide public vote, that would require 2/3 of the voters to approve it.
Too bad we just can't "trust" politicians or lawyers to do whats best for the majority of the public. It seems too often laws are crafted by the legal profession and done in a way that they already know how to circumvent the very purpose of the law. Trust is an uncommon trait in todays world.
 
>Why can't a law be written
>that would cover any transfer
>of federal land- SITLA,federal etc-
>to the state be protected
>from any sale, transfer, trade
>etc to any private entity-
>corp., company, etc.

It could be written that way. I've personally requested, and know others have as well, that any selling of land be forbidden, but the drafters of the legislation refuse to write that into the law. What does that tell you?

There is also legal precedent for a Perpetual Public Access Easement that would guarantee public access forever, even if the land were sold. I've even seen easements written that if they were ever violated, the land would revert to the original owner (in this case, the Federal Government). The only reason to not write a Public Access Easement into the law is because it would devalue the land for when they try and sell it in the future. The politicians say they don't want to sell land and they want to guarantee public access, but they absolutely refuse to write those guarantees into the law.

Instead, the law says this... All proceeds of a sale under Subsection (2) shall be deposited in the Public Land Management Fund created in Section 63L-8-308. So, bottom line is that there are no guarantees land won't be sold but there is already a fund set up to collect money from land that is sold. Combine those facts with Gary Herbert saying, "I would argue we could privatize this public land and have it developed commercially" and it reminds me of Reagan's quote, "Trust, but verify." In this case, I don't trust and we can't verify that land won't be sold.

Randy Newberg emailed me on the subject, "The only thing that could protect sportsmen would be a deed restriction that if the land is sold, the buyer takes it subject to a public access easement. In your business, you know how much that would devalue the land. If they refuse, that is rather indicative that they place a higher priority on resale value than they place on public access."

This is part of my problem with SFW's support of the land grab. If they are as powerful as they proclaim, why have they not gotten these public land protections written into the law? And why are they supporting the law without them?

Grizzly
 
Hawkeye, I hope you know you are invited to that meeting. Its already going to be me against everybody else, it wouldn't hurt to have some backup ;-)

Grizzly
 
I will work on getting Hawkeye the invite. I can't imagine that being a problem.

Grizzly
SFW has not supported the transfer. You read their stance.

"Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife (SFW) is opposed to the sale of any public land. SFW believes there is room for improved correlation and joint efforts between state and federal agencies in the management of public land but that the sale of these public lands is not in the best interests of wildlife, sportsmen or local communities. SFW believes that the public lands of the Western U.S. are the lifeblood of our way of life, and that public access and the multiple use of these lands must be maintained. Our way of life depends on these lands remaining open and accessible. Our public lands are the very center of our outdoor and hunting heritage. SFW believes that without our public lands, we would have little hope for a future of hunting and wildlife conservation. SFW is committed to fight to keep public lands open with abundant wildlife for all to enjoy."

I was there when the vote took place. SFW agreed to work with our State legislature to help come up with a plan that would be most beneficial to wildlife and Utahns. I also want to be clear that my comments on this site and in our conversations are mine and not SFWs. SFW is not one person, it is not Don Peay, or Troy Justensen. Whenever a stance or decision is made regarding these type of issues it is done by a vote of the Chapter chairman from all over the state of Utah.

Every time you state that SFW supports the transfer you are not telling the truth.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-06-17 AT 01:32PM (MST)[p]
When, it comes to undermining SFW, has the truth ever mattered?

As I understand it, deed or otherwise you can never write out the governments ability to change a law/rule that an earlier government wrote in or agreed to. Hell the government can seize private land now, if a judge agrees to support them. Anything could happen in the future.

Leave it Federal, then fix the Federal mess that caused us to be at each other's thoats over it. SUCH AS, ever American anti-up, to the Western States, the funds to keep it public. It's our land now, if we are not now paying enough to keep it ours, then pay up or give it up! That's what you have to do with your house and yard, in order to continue to own it.

Wake up America!

DC
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-06-17 AT 02:00PM (MST)[p]SFW has NOT opposed the land grab. They say they want to keep public lands open, which I believe. However, the land grab is not only about the privatization of land, it is specifically an attempt to transfer Federal lands to the State, which SFW has NOT opposed.

SFW claimed to be neutral on the Stream Grab and that has been proven to be false by those who were there (and those who can read quotes from the time). It appears SFW is trying to play the same fence-sitting position on the Land Grab as well. They say they oppose the privatization of public land, but have offered tacit support of the land grab which has absolutely no viable way of success without the disposal of public land. SFW has not achieved any written guarantees in the law protecting public land, yet they still have not opposed the land grab or publicly demanded those protections be put into place.

Every other hunting group and most major hunting companies have opposed the entire land grab because they can see a clear path to disposal of public property. SFW is the only group to stand with Utah politicians, many of which have openly said all land should be privatized. SFW can change that today if they want to.

Grizzly
 
Grizzly and JMO-

I was going to ask if I could tag along but I didn't want to invite myself to the party. I would like to participate and hear what they have to say. I am out of the country right now but I will touch basis with you next week.

-Hawkeye-
 
SFW's "stance" simply states they're opposed to the sale of public land.
SFW knows State Land isn't public, and State Land access can be rescinded without a sale.
 

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

utah buck 88.jpg
Couple Bucks Shared in the Scouting Photo Contest
IMG_9792 copy.jpg
A Few Good Bucks on First Scouting Trip
08631876-2AD8-43C8-AA14-2F8C53367689.jpeg
IMG_9109.jpeg
84A54D6D-010E-4902-A8FC-4A9D08B75A25.jpeg
ADAA9964-E4B3-42D0-BB0B-5D0E1157EA82.jpeg
A55D2024-EF87-4673-BD05-710EDE4DCD7D.jpeg
IMG_6652.jpeg
IMG_4626.jpg
8B1FD21E-14F9-41E3-A9FE-F59D9E729C56.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom