Debate topics

[BigFin]

Now that a debate has been offered and accepted, it seems we would all benefit from a debate of topics that reflect people?s ideas of what they think would provide useful information as we take these discussions forward. The more input you have on the topics, the more value the debate has for you.

Having read many of the threads on this site, and other sites, the main topics can be framed within the universially agreed upon standards covered in the North American Model of Wildlife Management. That Model is how wildlife is managed in North America.

There are seven tenants to the Model, all listed below. The tenants usually germane to debates I see on forums or read in blogs would be #1, #3, #4, and #7.

Here is a link to a page that has more detail of the North American Model, followed by the seven tenants of that Model.

http://www.rmef.org/Hunting/HuntersConservation/

#1: The Public Trust

#2: Prohibition on Commerce of Dead Wildlife

#3: Democratic Rule of Law

#4: Hunting Opportunity for All

#5: Non-frivolous Use

#6: International Resources

#7: Scientific Management

The Model is the topic that started the thread where the debate was first offered. This Model is looked to as the prominent policy for management of wildlife and used as the measuring tool for most policy, laws, and rules related to how we manage, use, fund, and share wildlife resources.

Example #1:

People want to discuss the appropriate role of auction tags. That can be framed by discussion how those tags might be looked at according to the accepted rules of tenants #1 and #4.

Once you frame the context of the question, the discussion is then about the details of the issue. Using auction tags, we would have to talk about:

- Has it resulted in more hunting opportunity for citizens than without the program? If so, what evidence supports that assertion?
- Has the program been abused and therefore violates the Public Trust. If so, examples of how? If not, support for why not.
- Does the public benefit from the system more/less than they would in some other system?
- Does wildlife benefit from the system more/less than it would in some other system?

Example #2:

If we discuss wolf management and reintroduction, that could fall under tenant #3 and #7.

- Has the public been involved in the process?
- Has politics altered scientific management?
- Has the bigger scope of wildlife management been improved/reduced by the issue, or the manner in which we got here?

Example #3:

Providing state held tags to conservation groups for their funding could be discussed under #1, #3, #4.

- Is that an appropriate use of public resources? If so, support as to why? If not, why not?
- What standards should be used for transparency and oversight when public resources fund conservation groups?
- What accounting should be provided and what level of independence in reporting will allow for transparency that provides public confidence?

If we are to get any value from this exercise, it needs to reflect the issues you feel are relevant. Once those are identified, they are matched to one of the tenants listed above, and a series of questions are developed that all the debate of the issue to occur.

Let's hear the topics most popular among all of you. Once the topics are identified, it is easy to see which of the sevent tenants affect policies governing the topic you identified. You name the topic and we can easily put it into the proper context of these tenants.

So, please list your topics here.




"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"

 

[Elitehoghunter]

#7 scientific management.
If you look at this process every other year there is another study that comes out to refute a different study and some choose one and others choose the other one. It seems nobody within the DWR takes common sense and/or hunter/guide information into consideration when making desisions and herd management goals and objectives. Its either College educated or you are ignorant.
I,m not sure if reading and studying how a mule deer herd should be ran in a class room should replace thousands of hours in the field by people who have been through the booms and busts of mule deer populations across the west. Just my 2 cents

 

[Hawkeye]

I would be interested in a discussion regarding Utah's convention permits. If one of the statutory purposes for these permits is to generate revenue for wildlife conservation, then why isn't there a requirement that the funds generated from those tags be used for actual wildlife conservation? Does the general public receive any benefit from these permits? This issue could be addressed under tenants #1 (The Public Trust), #4 (Hunting Opportunity for All), and #5 (Non-frivolous Use).

I would also be interested in a general discussion of the North American Model. Is it working? Is is outdated? Is it time to move away from that model and try something else? If so, what?

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD

 

[wuffie]

>#7 scientific management.
>If you look at this process
>every other year there is
>another study that comes out
>to refute a different study
>and some choose one and
>others choose the other one.
>It seems nobody within the
>DWR takes common sense and/or
>hunter/guide information into consideration when
>making desisions and herd management
>goals and objectives. Its either
>College educated or you are
>ignorant.
>I,m not sure if reading and
>studying how a mule deer
>herd should be ran in
>a class room should replace
>thousands of hours in the
>field by people who have
>been through the booms and
>busts of mule deer populations
>across the west. Just my
>2 cents


Good point. Can you cite conflicting studies as a point of reference?

 

[sagebrush]

I think we need to hold the North American Model of Wildlife Management sacrosanct. Any discussion of modifying or replacing this model would open the door to too many influences that could destroy what we have today. Once you agree to replace it, a new model must be developed with input from all "stakeholders". Do you really want a model based on the concept of wildlife as private property appurtenant to real estate or the concept that all sentient beings deserve equal protection under the law?

In my opinion, the debate should focus on what we have now and how we can alter and improve it by considering change. Then a plan can be developed to implement the change, measure the deviation from the staus quo and evaluate the results. The real question is who are the participants in wildlife management and what are their roles.

Right now, everyone expresses their opinion and tries to get others to change their course of action. Its like a giant tug-o-war tournament with everyone pulling in different directions. Most of the time plans are developed and actions taken without regard to the overall situation by people with the least actual knowledge (ie, wolf "re-introduction").

I doubt anyone could ever gain enough influence to exercise the control necessary for the best possible wildlife management. But maybe we could change some things to do a better job of it than today.

 

[chewyman55]

He chimes in EVERY time his name comes up. Not surprisingly, he was silent with this one:

"Peay, who stressed that the Utah chapter isn't trying to push its view in Alaska or even with the Alaska chapter, said it's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource. Peay described that egalitarian doctrine, found in Alaska's state constitution and laws throughout the West, as "socialism." It offers no economic incentive for landowners to kill predators, improve big game habitat and even provide food and water for target species."

Get the Don to explain this.

 

[1FastGambler]

Those are all good topics and the bottom line is the fact that I have complete faith in you Randy to do your best to help resolve all of the issues that plague SFW.

This debate, if it really happens will go one of three ways.

1. Don & his troops will be able to dispel the myths creating all of the distrust and the SFW will win over thousands of new members.

2. The myths and so called bashing lies posted about the SFW will be proven as fact and the SFW will be forced to come clean and begin walking a new path in order to survive in the new "educated" hunting world of the west.

3. Don & his troops will not be able to provide answers that are good enough to turn those in opposition into supporters and he will have to live with the repercussions.

The number one thing I want answers to is this:

On any of the habitat projects done with auction type tag proceeds were there any SFW members who were awarded the contract and paid for anything other than actual fuel and material costs inquired to complete these projects?

I have the impression that the SFW is a business that gets gov't handouts to procure funds so that they can pay their cousins, brothers, buddies, etc. very high wages for what actually gets done.

Basically, my question is, if the individual states were to put these projects out for bid and hire the most qualified of the lowest bidders, what would the cost of completing all of these SFW habitat projects have been in comparison to the SFW managing these projects?

 

[Igottabigone]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-05-12 AT 08:19PM (MST)[p]I would like to add my vote to Hawkeye's question. I would also like to know if and how much revenue generated by the convention tags and the convention in general goes back into UTAH wildlife projects. I firmly believe that the revenue generated by the convention tags should be used solely in Utah. I would also like to know Don's definition of wildlife conservation. Does it include lobbying, habitat restoration, predator control, taking Mitt Romney on a hunting trip, etc.

 

[6speed]

I would like to know more about their organizational structure. If each state operates independently then does Peay disagree with SFW Idaho supporting the tag grab by landowners that thankfully didn't pass? What exactly is there stance on awarding tags to private citizens to sell for personal profit?

 

[BPKHunter]

Randy,

First I want to thank you for your efforts, you are obviously one really busy dude so to take all the time and effort because you know this is the right thing to do says a lot about you.

Second, this whole subject has opened my eyes. I have read bits and pieces about Don and SFW, but being from Idaho I didn't really see how it affected me, since I don't really put in all over the west like some and Utah certainly has seemed a waste of money since it would take a life time to draw anyway.

Just recently two bills tried to go through our legislature to 1) Allow landowners to "sell" their LO tags. The fact is they already do by selling access and then allocating their tag to whomever they want. 2) Offer more, you guessed it, auction tags to be sold through conservation groups to raise more revenue for habitat, etc. This series of threads drove me to Google: SFW Idaho. Well as you can imagine one of the first hits is a series of questions about some guy linked to SFW that pushed the LO legislation. Luckily both bills failed, as I assume many here did as I, calling and emailing their state legislator's offering to vote for ANYONE else but them if they support the legislation.

Now I don't have all the facts, but it seems obvious this group, SFW, is using a good thing, doing habitat projects, as a excuse to do bad things, like take the resources away from the common man and give it to the landowner and rich man. Sounds very European to me.

This is why I think Randy's focus on the NORTH AMERICAN MODEL is critical after reading it. This lays the 10 COMMANDMENTS of decision making for game management. This doesn't say how to fund or what limits to set, but sets the framework for keeping game for "THE PEOPLE". This seems to clearly be the issue here, so I say we keep the DEBATE to these topics.

Thanks again Randy.

 

[sticksender]

Myself I'd be curious to learn what is especially unique about Utah that requires massive-scale private-org raffling and auctioning of tags? How are the publicly-owned game herds in other western states (Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, etc) thriving without this type of private intervention?

A listing that details the volume of private-org auction/raffle programs in various other western states, contrasted with Utah's private org raffles/auctions, along with some bullets outlining the health of the big-game herds in these other states, could be useful.

BTW, it's "tenets" not "tenants" ;-)

 

[MTQuivers]

First off I want to say that I am excited about the debate and hope it will be productive. I was very pleased to discover that BigFin is Randy from the TV show On Your Own Adventures. I have watched it many times and it is a great show. I think it shows hunting the way it should be shown and so to Randy and his crew I would say great job and keep up the good work.

Those that know me know that my love for hunting borders on obsession. I hunted 8 states myself last year and helped my 9 year old son take his 5th whitetail deer with a bow in Kansas in Nov. All of these hunts were DIY and most were general tags on public land like the ones shown on Randy's TV show. On My OWN Adventures if you will.

I STRONGLY agree with the statements above about wildlife officials needing to rely more on the average hunter for insight and wisdom. WE are the ones on the ground in the field more than ANYONE else. WE ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE THE MOST TO GAIN OR LOSE! Many of our TOP wildlife officials are like the so called hunting "experts" behind the counter at Cabelas, they like to talk about hunting but truth be known MANY OF THEM DON'T EVEN HUNT AT ALL!

If wildlife is a PUBLIC resource then we should debate and talk about what the GENERAL PUBLIC wants!!! That will take a lot more input from the average hunter. Not what a wildlife scholar wants, Not what an elite hunting group wants, or what what a rifle hunter, or archery hunter, or houndhunter, or whatever but what is best for the average hunter! To often in hunting every group is selfish and only want what is best for them!

All this being said I think both sides of this debate will have some great points. I go to the Full Curl Meeting every year and there is no denying that SFW has done some good things over the years and I think the Full Curl Society is one of them. To see AVERAGE guys and girls winning sheep tags and literally crying for the once in a lifetime opportunity is worth it to me even though I will probably never win one myself.

We all know things need improvement! We all know SFW is not perfect and has made and will continue to make mistakes, but hopefully this debate will help people see some of the good things they have done and help SFW see some of the things that they can do better. I think that both Randy and Don are very passionate about this lifestyle we all love, and although they do not agree on all points, (maybe very few points) it is hard to deny that they share the same passion for hunting and wildlife.

I think the books should be open, the air should be cleared on all points above, and we should have a good PRODUCTIVE debate where people can be face to face and not hiding behind their computers. I vote that all attendees must wear a sticker with their MM screen names on their shirts so we can put a face to all the names and so all of these people with their STRONG opinions one way or the other can come out of their hiding places and be counted.

Jason Yates
http://www.BasinArcheryShop.com
5% OFF to all MonsterMuleys.com Members!
Discount code = monstermuleys

 

[SMELLYBUCK]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-08-12 AT 03:54PM (MST)[p]#'s 3, & 4 in regards to SFW interest me the most. 7 would interest me, but there will never be a strong consensus on biology. People disregard data that conflicts with their preference - on both sides. A lot of this is just a preference issue. Do you want one big piece of pie or more smaller pieces of pie.

#3) Democratic rule of law. SFW can't get around the DWR survey that showed the majority of hunters want more smaller pieces of pie instead of fewer big pieces. Where has SFW stood on general hunting opportunities over the years? Dates, longer or shorter / Tag #'s - more or less / Region size - larger smaller / Limited Entry units - more or less? Buck numbers - higher or lower %? Anterless oportunities - more or less? What have they stood for in regards to policy that indicates they are interested in the democratic rule of law? They have hijacked the democratic process and used it to decrease general opportunity in exchange for more limited hunts.

#4) Hunting opportunity for all. What has SFW done to help overall opportunity? What have they done for a guy that cares more about pounds than inches? Meat hunting should be at the core of hunting, yet they always push a trophy agenda. Throwing out a few trophy hunting bones to the poor saps is hardly a step in the right direction. Trophy hunting is cool until you have to eat it. Cattlemen and pig owners only let a few males get big for future breeding as they know an old male isn't very good for food. SFW only pushes for the killing of old males. This results in less opportunity, particularly for meat hunters. They are also granted numerous limited tags what opportunities do they provide in return?

 

[MTQuivers]

Harvesting older males is generally accepted as the best biological practice out there. It was not invented by SFW and I would assume that Randy and 80-90% of those people on this site would support that theory. Not that harvesting anterless should be banned but only used when necessary for management. After all one doe/cow can produce MANY more for the future so harvesting them for management purposes is silly unless there is an over abundance.

Like I said above not one particular group needs to push their agenda. If you are a meat hunter or trophy hunter or somewhere in between (Like most people) the decisions need to be made on what is best for the general public and the average hunter. History has proven that harvesting mature bucks is biologically the best for everyone. Arguing that with SFW would be useless as the majority of Sportsman and Sportsman's groups would agree with that practice.

P.S. An old ruttin buck tastes the same as a young one when cut into strips and covered with teriyaki on my smoker.

Jason Yates
http://www.BasinArcheryShop.com
5% OFF to all MonsterMuleys.com Members!
Discount code = monstermuleys

 

[tx_packmule]

#1 I live in a state 96/4 privateublic, hunting is about as good as you can find.

#2 I'm not sure there is a valid argument for that one

#3 Holds true, no denying it, although it can be counterproductive.

#4 you do have the right to hunt and fish, but it comes at a price; most things do.

#5 should be the Gospel; although I will admit I've left more hogs lying than I even care to remember. (I have a personal hatred and most die when normal folks are asleep)

#6 Shortstopping birds has become the norm in states North of us. I'd do it to if given the opportunity.

#7 good scientific research helps, BUT there are other ways to get it funded considering the complaints of gov agencies being strapped for funds.

 

[SMELLYBUCK]

Jason,

Some very good points. If you really believe all of them, you should join SFW as they will represent your preference of maximizing trophy hunting pursuits.

 

[MTQuivers]

Just to be clear... I support ALL kinds of hunting. I do enjoy trophy hunting and 9 out of 10 of my hunts are archery hunts but that doesn't mean I am going to bash on rifle hunting or non trophy hunting. I do both. I hunt and harvest non trophy animals every year and those hunts are just as fun as my trophy hunts. Watching my boy shoot does and small whitetail bucks in Kansas with his bow is about as good as it gets. He also killed a Tom turkey with his bow at age 8. THAT WAS AWESOME. I am not a member of SFW but I am smart enough to know they have done some good things over the years, but I am also smart enough to know we still have many problems that need to be fixed and they alone cant be the solution. Hunters all need to come together and put our own interests aside and come up with solutions that will benefit the general public not just one group.

Jason Yates
http://www.BasinArcheryShop.com
5% OFF to all MonsterMuleys.com Members!
Discount code = monstermuleys

 

[6speed]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-09-12 AT 09:05AM (MST)[p]Double post see below.

 

[6speed]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-09-12 AT 01:38PM (MST)[p]BPKhunter The tag auction bill passed. Luckily both bills to allow private profits from LAP tags failed. All of them were supported by SFW and all would / will take tags from regular hunters and sell them to high rollers.

 

[SMELLYBUCK]

Does SFW put their own interests aside? Hardly. I don't fault them for that. We should never put our "interests" aside. I'm all about finding ways to compromise and give and take, but we shouldn't forsake our interests.

I went to a SFW town meeting this year. I thought they were ready to include hunters like me. Nope, they sure aren't. Don made several comments that indicate he clearly is not interested in anything but trophy management. I've typed the quotes before and won't take the time to do it again. I was ready to volunteer time and money, forget it.

SFW is not interested in your Kansas type hunts occuring in Utah. They will fight against those types of hunts here so that trophy hunting can abound. I completely understand the need for restrictions from time to time, but SFW has never fought to reduce hunter restritions. They never let a crisis go to waste. They always use a crisis to restrict general hunters. Why would they? General hunters don't pay SFW's bills and it is far easier to manage for a few rich guys.

 

[Smokepole]

Did SFW use their public money to buy into an outfitting business in Canada? I think it was Arctic Red River Outfitters, might have been a different Outfitting business. Is that appropriate for a non-profit organization?

This may just be a rummor and if it is, please disregard and help clear it up for me.

Smokepole