Don Peay - Randy Newberg Debate - Postponed

Thanks for the post Don. Mulepacker, all you need to do is go to the DWR. Every year at the Wildlife board there is a posting and audit of the money that was spent from conservation money. It is there for everyone to see. The 90% has been given to the DWR. According to the DWR no assets were bought for SFW with that money. On the other had there has been things bought for the DWR. Now you can continue to believe hearsay as most do or you can go and find out for yourself what is going on. The truth is there.
 
Now for the rest story. Stand by for news!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Newberg
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 9:49 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: FW: Debate

Don,

Here is my reply to Jason's email of yesterday. I sent it from my phone yesterday and now realize it did not have you on the copy list.

I am fine with what you requested. The tour, the topics, etc.

Note my comments on financial information. If some of the debate topics/questions will be specific to work SFW is claiming to have accomplished, financial information is the only way for me to verify or refute claims relayed to accomplishments funded by SFW, etc.

In my CPA life, I sign non-disclosure agreements all the time. I am glad to sign one in this case, prohibiting me from distributing any documents you provide. I hope it is understood that I would never violate an NDA, both for my personal integrity and for my professional credibility as a CPA.

I am on he road, returning home tomorrow, and can then work expeditiously to tie down details.

Thanks for you offer to discuss these topics.

Randy



-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Newberg [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wed 4/4/2012 4:47 PM
To: Jason Hawkins
Subject: Re: Debate

Jason,

I'm on the road today. Let's do the 27th. The tour of not on my list, but if needed to keep the debate moving forward, I will do it.

I would be happy with either Val Geist or Shane Mahoney as mod.

I wil be asking for any audited financial statements, tax returns, or internal financial statements that helps shed some light on concerns that have ben mentioned in the past, and to verify or refute some of what might be claimed in the debate. Especially topics related to projects funded by SFW and what funding they get from raffle/auction tags. How that accounting happens and what transparency exists are important.

Would be nice to know now if Don if open to that idea. If that will not be available, it will change some of the questions/topics I think are relevant, given no financial information would be available to support our refute some issues either of us may claim.


Any info provided will be in confidence and not distributed/shared with anyone else. Willing to sign any NDA or other document needed for their comfort.

I agree to the topics Don mentioned,including states rights, private property rights, the Constitution and the 10th Amendment. Those all fit well within the context of the NA Model and wildlife management problems of today.

I will be checking email again on the morning, and done with this trip by Friday evening.

Thanks for your assistance. Doing this from my Droid, so I hope it comes through OK.

Let me know any other points or questions, so we can keep this rolling along at a good pace.

Best,

Randy

Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
I guess since the agreement to not discuss the debate topic on MM was voided this morning, all the emails should be provide to show the bigger pictures of who "cancelled."

More to follow this.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<



From: Randy Newberg
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 8:45 AM
To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'
Cc: 'Jason Hawkins'
Subject: RE: Conservation Permit Funds

Don:

I had sent the email below on Friday from a remote location on my phone, but I fear it did not go through.

First, WE did agree that this is not about pitting one entity against another, whether SFW, RMEF, MDF, ABC, or XYZ. I don't speak on behalf of any group, so I could not accomplish what you mention, if I tried.

Second, you have required that I join you on a tour of the projects SFW has funded in Utah. I agreed, as it was a condition you imposed on any debate to go forward.

From that, I was of the impression that you wanted to discuss the work SFW has done in Utah and the programs used to fund those accomplishments. In order to do that, the financial information is needed to prove or disprove where the funds came from and how they were used. Was this SFW money, UT DWR money, was the SFW money from the sale/raffle of a public asset or from donations raised outside the sale/raffle of public tags, etc. Seems reasonable to ask for evidence to support what you might be asserting in the debate.

Without that information, it seems we have to take the SFW/Utah projects from the topics or examples, as there is no way to verify what is being stated, or to provide any substantiated points or counterpoints. I don't want this to become another topic that is taken off the agenda, so I am asking for information that in 99% of the charitable groups I work for, volunteer for, and know of, is readily available for public inspection.

At your request, I have already to agreed to sterilize the wolf portion of the debate to nothing more than ?we agree that state control is best.? I don't think the debate or the audience is well served by having more and more topics taken off the table. By refusing to provide SFW financial information, that is what is happening.

I already offered to sign a non-disclosure agreement, which when you think about that in the context of financial information of a publicly supported tax-exempt organization, seems rather strange. But, I am willing to do that.

Rest assured, I have no intent on making this a debate about one organization against another. I want it to be about wildlife management, states? rights, and the many other things outlined in the email Jason crafted last month.

On another note, I did hear from Shane Mahoney. He has an opening in his schedule, where he can make it to be the moderator, but he needs a commitment soon. His travel, meals, lodging, and appearance fee is estimated to be around $X,XXX. I will cover half of that. Will SFW cover the other half?

Shane needs an answer soon. I need an answer on the financial information soon, so we can finalize what topics will be within the scope of our debate and which will be outside that scope.

Thanks,

Randy


Randy Newberg, CPA
On Your Own Adventures, LLC
6341 Johnson Road
Bozeman, MT 59718
Phone (406) 570-4399
www.OnYourOwnAdventures.com
www.HuntTalk.com



From: Don Peay [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 7:08 AM
To: Randy Newberg; [email protected]
Cc: 'Jason Hawkins'
Subject: Conservation Permit Funds

Randy,

Two weeks ago, I asked the state for a five year list of all the Conservation Permit Funded projects in the last five years.

You will have that information as soon as I get it. It has not been received from the state as yet.

The State DWR does an audit each year of each group participating.

The groups who participate in the Conservation Permit program include SFW, SCI, RMEF, DU, NWTF, MDF and Utah FNAWS.

This information will come from the state.

The CP program generates in excess of $2.5 Million a year, and then with this amount of base funds, the Utah DWR and the Conservation groups have attracted tens of millions of additional dollars ? state and federal and other private funds for projects.

Each year, the DWR and the Conservation groups and the DWR have an annual funding meeting, where projects are discussed and funds are allocated.


According to our agreement, on issues of the debate, the subject of Conservation permit funds in Utah ? Wyoming Commissioners Permits ? Governor?s permits, private land permits come into the category of the future funding of conservation.


WE agreed that this is not a debate of RMEF V SFW V MDF etc. And, I am not going to go there with any questions.

We are there representing two private individuals and not any organizations.

Don


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<



"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
And more. Decide for yourself who wanted the debate to happen and who was putting up road blocks and taking key topics off the table.

More to follow.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<



From: Randy Newberg
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 11:45 AM
To: '[email protected]'; 'Jason Hawkins'; '[email protected]'
Subject: RE: Conservation Permit Funds

Don:

For a completely discussion of the examples you mention, the financial information is completely relevant. As it is to all the topics, including the broader topics. The examples you cite are excellent ones to be brought up, but without financial information, I am not willing to have that be part of the discussion.

There are many important issues, in addition to the one you mention as being most important. In order for us to have a discussion on those issues you find most important, the financial sources and uses of such funding needs to be provided. Otherwise it becomes a topic that is off the list.

As Jason stated in his email, for us to go on a tour, without any verification of the sources and uses of funding that of the projects shown as examples, is hardly a complete story.

I need to know by Friday whether or not the financial information will be provided. For me to stick my neck out and secure funding to get Shane here, is not worth it, if the scope of the debate is going to be restricted to such a degree.

I understand when you say the financial information is not in your hands. I have emailed Byron directly and copied you on all my requests. I am sure you and Byron talk about some things. It would be helpful if you could reach out and find what Byron?s answer will be as to providing the financial information I requested.

I want to have a debate with all topics on the table, including the Utah examples you know intimately. I feel I have already went beyond the call of reasonableness by agreeing to the tour and agreeing that we will not talk about the wolf issues that might reflect poorly on SFW. And, I am offering to try fund the costs of a renowned moderator who is well studied on the principles in play, which will improve the exposure and depth of the debate. I am not going to make further concessions that allows for the debate topics to include UT projects and examples, for which the financial evidence or support is not provided by SFW.

Either I get the financial information, or we agree to remove any Utah examples from the debate topics. I leave it to you and Byron to decide where we go on that topic.

Best,

Randy


From: Don Peay [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 10:03 AM
To: Randy Newberg; 'Jason Hawkins'; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Conservation Permit Funds

I am fine with Shayne being the moderator if you can get it funded.

The financial information is not in my hands.

Financial information from just one group is not relevant in my view to the broader topic.

Utah has the largest habitat restoration program in the country ? it is a joint venture between state fish and game, state legislature with general funds, federal matching funds and funds from SFW, RMEF, MDF, SCI and others. The data I will provide from the state will make it interesting to the debate of the future of conservation funding.

But the most important issue Randy and Jason is how it all got started, and what role the private funds ? Conservation Permit funds ? played in turning a 1,000 acre a year project into a 100,000 acre a year project.

Plus the 200 to 500 % increase in game populations, with the vast majority of the transplant funds coming from the Conservation Permit program.

The Assistant Director of the Utah DWR has agreed to join the tour, and be at the debate to validate how all these processes work, and who did what.

The Utah model is an interesting one to the national level ? it is a very large program that has produced tremendous results for habitat restoration, and increasing public game herds.

Don

From: Randy Newberg [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 9:53 AM
To: [email protected]; Jason Hawkins; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Conservation Permit Funds

Don:

I am not too interested in local guys, as this is to be about the bigger topics of the North American Model and the Public Trust Doctrine. The more localized it becomes, the less value it has to a larger audience.

Yes, 7:00 pm is a good starting time.

What of the financial information request I made? If that will not be forthcoming, how much value will even come of this event, given we would cross the Utah examples off the list of topics for discussion. I want those UT examples as part of the event, but without financial information, it becomes impractical to discuss those examples.

I will see if I can find the funding for Shane to come. If I can get it paid for, are you OK with him being the moderator?

I think your idea of three questions for each of us from the audience is a good one. Should provide some pertinent topics and open things up to discussions we may not have considered as important to the audience.

I will let you know what progress is made with funding Shane, by Friday.

Thanks,

Randy



From: Don Peay [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 9:43 AM
To: 'Jason Hawkins'; Randy Newberg; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Conservation Permit Funds

Randy,

I am not interested in putting funds up to bring Shayne Mahoney in. There are some local guys who can do the job.

7:00 p.m. is a great time to start.

I should have some information from the state to pass on today about the Watershed program and the sources of funding ? a key component of the debate the future funding of conservation. I will get that to you as soon as I get it.

One other question is to determine how the audience can ask questions.

Might I suggest three for Randy, three for Don. The questions need to be pertinent to the issues we have agreed to discuss.

don

From: Jason Hawkins [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 8:00 AM
To: [email protected]; Randy Newberg; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Conservation Permit Funds

Don and Randy-

Has there been any progress regarding a moderator for the debate? Last I heard, there was still a chance that Shane Mahoney would be involved. Let me know. We need to get that pinned down.

I am going to post an update on the monstermuleys.com website letting people know that the debate has been moved to Thursday June 28th, and that it will take place at the DNR large conference room in SLC, Utah. What time would you gentlemen like to start the debate? I think 7:00 p.m. would be appropriate. That would allow us to take the tour in the morning and get back to SLC prior to the debate.

With regard to Don?s email below, my understanding of our 4/10/2012 conference call was that both of you would be there representing yourselves?not any particular organization. However, we agreed that issues such as conservation permits, convention permits, governor?s permits, etc., could be discussed under the category of ?Future Funding of Wildlife Management and Conservation.? Don, you mentioned that you are not the President of SFW, and if Randy wanted access to financial information relating to SFW and/or the Expo he would have to direct that request to SFW?s management. With regard to the Expo, however, you noted that you have not been as involved with the Expo recently but you could speak to why it was created, why conservation permits were set aside, etc. Please let me know if you gentlemen had a different understanding.

Thanks.

Jason




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

I will let Randy respond directly to your comments but the fact of the matter is that the debate was not ?canceled? it was ?postponed? by Randy until he was provided access to SFW?s financial statements. Look at my original post on this thread. Perhaps some history of our discussions will provide context as to why the debate was postponed. randy has already psoted some of this correspondence.

During our initial discussions, when Randy requested access to SFW?s financial statements, and you told Randy that you had no control over those records and that Randy needed to contact SFW directly. Randy made it very clear that he needed access to that information in order to prepare for the debate. However, Randy agreed to reach out to Byron Batemen, the President of SFW, and asked you to encourage Byron to make those financial records available. As you know, Randy sent Byron multiple emails requesting copies of SFW?s financial statements in advance of the debate. Both you and I were copied on each of those email inquiries. See emails dated 5/7/2012 and 5/22/2012. In his emails, Randy even offered to would sign a nondisclosure agreement. Byron never even bothered to respond to Randy?s emails.

In late May, there were some additional emails between you and Randy on the issue. In his email dated 5/29/2012 Randy again requested access to SFW?s financial information so that he could adequately respond to your arguments regarding the Utah model for funding conservation. You responded by stating that the financial information was not in your hands. Both Randy and I urged you to speak with Byron and encourage SFW to open its books at least for the limited purposes of allowing Randy to prepare for the debate. Byron Bateman was copied on each of those emails.

On May 31st, you sent your final email stating that you had spoken to Byron and he somehow had not received a single email related to the debate or Randy?s request for access to SFW?s financial statements. This statement was strange given that the email address you provided for Byron in your email was the same email address that Randy had used in each of his prior emails. You also stated that neither SFW nor its Board would be participating in the debate. I believe that Randy rightfully interpreted this to mean that SFW would not be providing him access to its financial information.

In response, Randy sent another email explaining why SFW?s financial information was critical to the debate. He also suggested that we postpone the debate until you could convince Byron to provide the financial information he had requested. He noted that once that information is provided, we are back on with the tour, the debate, etc.

I chimed in with the following email:

Gentlemen-

It would be a shame to postpone or cancel the debate. However, I understand the concerns expressed by Randy. There is no value in a sterilized debate that does not address core topics in any meaningful way.

Don, I understand that you are not the President or Chairman of SFW. However, we all know that you have an awful lot of sway with Byron and that organization. Please reach out to Byron and encourage him to share this information with Randy. Assuming that everything is in order, I cannot imagine why you, Bryon and everyone at SFW would not want publish that information from the rooftops. The information that Randy has requested is critical to understanding and evaluating the ?Utah model for conservation,? which as you admit is currently being explored by other states. You cannot point with one hand to the many wonderful conservation projects that SFW and other groups have spearheaded, while concealing the core information regarding how those projects were funded in the other. It is not fair.

I am hopeful that we can work through this situation and still hold the debate on June 28th. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help resolve this issue.

Jason

Finally, on June 4th, I received an email from Randy notifying me that the debate had been postponed until SFW provided him access to the information he had requested. I made my initial post in the thread the following day, June 5th. I am still willing to help coordinate and facilitate the debate but I doubt that it will occur unless and until SFW opens it books and provides Randy with the information he has requested.

So I guess I am curious as to your purpose in asking why the debate was postponed. You, me, Randy and Byron all know the answer to that question. I would love to see the debate happen in the future but I have a feeling that will not occur unless SFW provides Randy with access to its books. Let's make it happen.


Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
Just remember who decided they wanted to air out the emails on MM to make it look like Randy was bailing on the debate. Let me know if you need more to clear up any confusion on the matter of who bailed out.

When I am done here, I think the time has come to air out all the "wolf delisting" email I am sitting on and agreed not to present at the debate.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

From: Randy Newberg
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 9:55 AM
To: '[email protected]'; 'Jason Hawkins'
Subject: RE: June 28 Debate

Don:

I agree that all of those are worthwhile topics. Many of them we might agree on and it would be interesting in a debate to see two parties agree on many topics, rather than disagree. Some we would disagree and that would be valuable to those watching the debate.

To your point I have copied from your email - The pertinent questions about Utah really should be, ?What role have conservation groups, public/private partnerships, the Conservation Permits and the Expo played in Utah?s success that is bucking the regional trends.?

I agree that is a very pertinent question. Any to that question answer will be an assertion, supported by example from Utah. It cannot be discussed without financial information to verify what is being asserted by those conservation groups (SFW/SFH) and the programs supposedly funding (Conservation and Convention Permits) the asserted progress.

You know the financial information, as you have the inside track. I have none. Hard to have a true debate under such conditions.

As far as Byron not getting those emails, I don't know what to say. I copied you, him, and Jason on everyone of those emails. None of them came back undeliverable, so I know they made it to Byron?s email account. You can look at the emails I sent you, and that address is what was used.

Here is the point I am at. I suggest we postpone the debate until such time as the financial statements of SFW/SFH and the WHCE are made available, as I requested, for the periods requested.

Once that information is provided, we then go forward with the debate, talking about the many topics you listed and the many topics we agreed to previously. To eliminate all the Utah issues, as the result of not having the financial information I requested, seems like little value would come from this process.

I know you are proud of the work that Utah has done with the input of SFW and rightfully so. I would like to be able to have a discussion about Utah and the programs implemented there. There is value to consider all that is being done in Utah, as no one state has a corner on the good ideas when it comes to wildlife management and funding.

That being said, given all the other concessions I have made to restrict the scope of discussion on topics that would be very favorable to positions I would present, specifically wolves, it hardly seems reasonable for me to be asked to go to the debate unarmed on all the positions that you find favorable to the positions you would advocate.

Lacking that financial information leaves me two choices when those Utah/SFW topics come up ? 1. Agree with you and all you present, as I have nothing to counter your points, or 2. Try to counter with information that is incomplete and possibly incorrect.

Option 1 would be foolish and Option 2 would be unprofessional and possibly untruthful. I am neither a fool, nor will I publicly state anything that I cannot verify with documents.

Given that, I suggest we postpone the debate until you can convince Byron to provide the financial information I requested of those groups, for the years in question. Once that is provided, we are back on with the tour, the debate, and whatever else allows us to talk about the many topics we find important.

I will notify Shane that the debate has been postponed until such time the financial information is provided. I look forward to that time, as these topics are not only timely, but extremely important as we go forward.

Let me know if you have any other ideas that can get us across this gap.

Best,

Randy


Randy Newberg, CPA
On Your Own Adventures, LLC
6341 Johnson Road
Bozeman, MT 59718
Phone (406) 570-4399
www.OnYourOwnAdventures.com
www.HuntTalk.com




From: Don Peay [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 7:55 AM
To: Jason Hawkins; Randy Newberg
Subject: June 28 Debate


Randy and Jason,

There are plenty of issues of importance to western states big game hunters in the western US. Just last fall I was in British Columbia where wildlife populations and different strategies were discussed from Germany, to Africa, to Canada to The Utah Model, which I presented. Shayne Mahoney was present, and he and I have had detailed discussions about the Utah Conservation Tags, and he has spoken at the Expo.

Hunters we talk to are very interested in the future of the size of game herds, how to mitigate the human population growth ever expanding in the west, increased energy development, highways construction, and the impacts of increased predators. Those are the frameworks that will determine size of herds, and then how states and agencies determine the number of hunters will determine the quality and quantity of hunting opportunities.

These are the issues hunters really care about. And, how do we get proactively ahead of issues instead of getting behind.

There are several very pertinent issues: Even though Nevada deer populations on average are stable, the Commission just voted to DOUBLE the deer permits. Why would they do that? What impact will this decision have on the buck doe ratios and the quality of the experience the future deer hunting experience in NV? Is this an example of revenue concerns trumping the needs of wildlife?

Just last week the Montana Fish and Game talked of a pending ?Crash? of deer and elk populations and in some places the ungulates are on the verge of ?Extinction?. Wolves were identified as the tipping point.

Idaho has seen its hunter harvest of elk drop nearly 50%, from 28,000 elk in 1994 to 16,000 elk in 2009.

Game and Fish agencies are strapped for cash, state budgets are in big trouble, wildlife budgets are stagnant or declining with cost to do regular maintenance are going up. And not a lot of money is going into forward thinking projects and investments to mitigate future negative impacts.

Utah conversely, has seen a 200 to 500% increases in populations of elk, moose, bison, bighorn sheep, antelope, wild turkey, mountain goats. Several deer herds closed to hunting because of low deer numbers and low buck doe ratios now have abundant herds, and some great public land bucks.

And, Utah has invested more than $70 Million to restore habitats and $50 Million to fence highways and build underpasses in efforts to rebuild deer populations to desired objectives for public land hunters. A major deer survival study is under way, and a large coyote control program is being launched.

Utah also has a very favorable landowner permit system which has reduced conflict between ranchers and sportsmen and resulted in increases in wildlife populations statewide. From what we have heard, Montana just voted to make their landowner permit program more restrictive threatening to increase tensions and reduce support of wildlife by landowners.

The pertinent questions about Utah really should be, ?What role have conservation groups, public/private partnerships, the Conservation Permits and the Expo played in Utah?s success that is bucking the regional trends.?

Despite efforts of some to undermine these win/win programs for wildlife, those who officially hold in Trust of the Utah resources ? the Governor, the Legislature, the Wildlife Board and the Division of Wildlife Resources ? for the people, have after extensive public review, audits, etc looked at and approved with substantial margins the Utah programs because they produce positive results for the whole.

The Utah DWR Assistant Director is planning on being at the debate, and he has lots of data, and knows of how and what gets done, etc.

We agreed we are not going to discuss the effectiveness or specifics of any conservation group. If we are going to do one, we would need to do them all to be fair and balanced. As agreed, this was not the purpose of this exercise and is not an agreed upon topic. I will not go there on any question in the debate.

I am leaving on a family vacation that has been long planned until June 10 and this is my last email on this subject until then.

I did speak with Byron and he said the email used [email protected] is an active email and he has not got any emails on this debate. Furthermore, he said the SFW Board, nor SFW is participating in this debate, and as agreed upon it is between two individuals, Don Peay and Randy Newberg.

Don





>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
Finally a post by DP and everybody is to blame but himself that this debate is not going to happen, LOL! Very typical when a person is trapped in a corner with no way out to blame everything on someone else. This seems to be the way a big segment of our country is leaning towards. "It's not my job" or "It's not my fault". DP says it's just a debate between himself and Randy with nothing to do with SFW & RMEF, but who required that Randy spend a half day on a Gilligans Island Tour to show off the work of SFW before he would even agree to the debate? It was one person and only one person and his initials are DP! DP and all of his "NONPROFIT" organizations need to be flushed down the toilet and all these great, but yet naive followers, need to find some upfront leadership they can be proud of, rather than the stench coming from a big log home in Utah that I can smell all the way here to Michigan! It's amazing how quiet the entire group of SFW supporters have been on this site the last few weeks since this whole debate began unraveling. Just maybe the smell is even getting too strong for a lot of them!
 
This should about do it on the debate topic, as to who caused the debate to be postponed. I guess if the information is never provided, it will be postponed indefinitely, which is the same as being "cancelled. And, cancelled by the guys refusing to provide the information.

At this point, any future debate will have not three-hour tour, wolf delisting will be primary to the discussion, and any topic the audience wants to hear us talk about will be fine with me.

I hope dkpeay will start the wolf delisting debate thread right here on MM. Since it was off topic for the debate, let's just have it right here, right now. Your lead Don.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<



From: Randy Newberg
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 9:45 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Cc: 'Jason Hawkins'; '[email protected]'
Subject: RE: Conservation Permit Funds

Don:

Not having heard from Byron last week, and not expecting to hear from you, since you are on vacation, I sent an email to Shane Mahoney telling him the debate is postponed until receipt of the SFW/Expo financial information I requested. Unfortunate, but it is the professional thing to do, given the unlikely scenario that I will be provided the financial information requested.

Shane is too busy for me to drag him along. So, I felt compelled to clear this tentative engagement from his calendar. Too bad, as I have secured funding to cover Shane?s expenses, along with my own contribution to that effort.

The timeliness and importance of these topics are very relevant to what decisions we make on wildlife management as we go forward, so we should do our best to find a way to get the financial information and see that this debate can happen. I have no influence on Byron. If anyone can exercise such influence, it is probably you. I hope you would see the value in this discussion and try to influence Byron to provide the information.

By copying Jason on this email, I am now notifying Jason, as the facilitator, that the debate is postponed until receipt of the financial information requested. I stand ready to debate any, and all, of these topics, once the financial information is provided.

In my email of last Thursday, I summarized my previous emails that stated why it is paramount that financial information be made available if this debate is to be formatted as a discussion on the Utah Model of Wildlife Conservation. You stated you did not feel the requested information was relevant. I feel otherwise.

I have agreed to many concessions in this debate, just to make it come to fruition; the tour, sanitizing of the wolf topic. Debating the Utah Model without this financial information is one concession I will not make, so the debate will be postponed until such time the SFW/SFH and Expo financial information is available.

Let me know when that financial information will be forth coming, and we can get this debate back on track. Until then, I will wait for your reply.

I hope you are having a good vacation. I leave on June 12th for a week, but will have email during that time.

Best,

Randy


Randy Newberg, CPA
On Your Own Adventures, LLC
6341 Johnson Road
Bozeman, MT 59718
Phone (406) 570-4399
www.OnYourOwnAdventures.com
www.HuntTalk.com


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
Seems as I remember more than one or two SFW followers making statements about DP cutting Randy down to size or something like that in the anticiapated debate. After reading the last few posts by Randy, I think DP is going down along with the SFW ship, LOL!!!
 
What seems interesting to me is that what started out on financial information wanted by Randy was agreed upon by Don and Don was getting all the information from the State who does the auditing on the tags. Then it became wanting more information as to the books and finally also involved the Expo money. Randy keep wanting more and more. It is interesting reading the emails and seeing how it started out the conservation tag monies and where it went to ending up with the open all the books and also include the Expo. What was Randy's final goal. There is no question that Randy kept adding more and more at each email and wanting more financial information. What was originally agreed upon and were it ended makes me wonder if Randy kept pushing because he was nervous about the debate. The debate started out between two people and ended up a debate between Randy and SFW.
 
I am an acting Executive Advisory Board Member of SFW.

I have worked the past 15 years in a capacity to see how Don Peay, Byron Bateman, Troy Justinson, and Ryan Foutz handle themselves and the business of SFW's Membership. I have also worked with many men and women working on the Fulfillment Committee and I am very proud of all of their efforts. None of the above named individuals or any of us are without fault but I have never witnessed these people cheat, steal, or lie.

I have attended several SFW Board Meetings and Don Peay or anyone else doesn't mandate what is going to happen with SFW. Don Peay is not an Officer of the Organization. Don provides ideas and strategic suggestions and helps move SFW forward as the Executive Board directs. Often times there is a very even split on topics but SFW never moves forward on an issue without the greater good of wildlife and all sportsmen in mind. Everyone has the right to speak and any of you can come join us anytime.

I have been present to review the Financial Statements of SFW along with the other Executive Advisory Board Members and I am confident that SFW has nothing to hide. Asking SFW to open up to an audit by whomever for whatever reason is unacceptable to me and our accountant has told us that it is terrorism to ask for it.

I'm not going to attack RMEF but it seems like anytime SFW is brought up on this public format all I hear are attacks. If you want to start hearing how SFW is doing with Habitat, Predator including wolves, Mule Deer Recovery, Elk and other Big Game Rehabilitation Projects, etc. I suggest you start watching because we are done sitting back and swatting at flies while trying to do good for each of you bitching moaning entitlement minded folks.

One thing I have noticed while working along side the SFW Leadership and Membership is that there is a whole lot more doing and less talking. It appears we need to do a better job showing the spectators what is going on so I have proposed we do just that. We are not going to spend a comparable amount of our budget on TV Shows and PR like other organizations do. Nor are we going to spend more time with accountants and PR Firms making pretty graphs and pie charts. What a shame to spend more money talking and less doing. We have been too busy fighting the Wolf War, Habitat Rejuvenation, Mule Deer Recovery, and protecting the sportsmen life we all seem to love.

Yesterday I was blessed to read a letter from The Utah DWR Director to Mr. Allen at RMEF and I believe Mr. Allen will have some apologies coming. You guys want SFW to be accountable, transparent, more vocal then I suggest you first stop throwing gernades and snyping behind alias and in the shadows and step forward and sit down with us. You might just like what you are about to see, hear, and feel.

God Bless America and the 1st Amendment.

R. Todd Abelhouzen
SFW, Dixie Chapter
SFW Executive Advisory Board
 
So typical of Don to pass over his misgivings and point fingers away from himself.

As far as I'm concerned, this whole debate should have been about SFW/BGF and their leaders, (The Don/Ryan Benson), and the underhanded tactics they used for the so called good of wildlife.

I think the money issue is key here, and should have been fully on the table. Randy is way more giving a person than he should have been. I think that his salivating at the prospect of debating Peay, had caused a loss of body fluids, and resulted in temporary insanity. He just wanted to expose Peay on the issues that he would be able to talk about. He was being taken advantage of, which seems to be a pattern by the other side.

To gain power/money, they have used underhanded tactics to undermine good people to gain favor of politicians. In reference I refer to the press release claiming all those other sportsman's groups were against the Simpson/Tester rider too.

Most sportsman don't know why SFW/BGF were trying to stop the delisting. They claimed it was because Wyoming was being left on the side lines, but the real reason to stop the delisting was because a Democratic Senator from Montana was the co-sponsor, and SFW's golden boy from Montana (Denny Rehberg) would be challenging him for the Senate. They didn't care about us, but rather discrediting Tester, and getting Rehberg elected. It backfired in almost every sense. We hope Tester can beat Rehberg this Nov. because it would be stab in the eye of SFW/BGF, and the Don. The loss of influence is deserving of such a group.

Calling themselves "Sportsman For Fish & Wildlife" is a slap in the face, for those that really truly do walk the talk, and belong to true sportsman's organization throughout the US.
Their using of the wolf issue, auction tag grabs, the Rossi debacle, and calls for predator extermination, has contributed to that embarrassment. It seems as if most SFW member call for SSS, and the use of Xylitol as the true means of management for wolves.

True sportsman look to the professionals for advice in game management, where SFW/BGF, work to discredit them, and cause chaos in those agencies in almost every state they move too. I guess I'd like to know how many Wildlife Biologists SFW have at their disposal for advice?

I know that Don doesn't control every state group, but he does have an influence.

Don P, and SFW should have been called out, for their handling of the Stream Access legislation in Utah. Calling true sportsman "Selfish", and "Phony" which would have been hilarious if not for the evil influence Don has mustered.

SFW tried to support wolf legislation in Montana that would have put the wolf back on the list after they were delisted last year. SB414 in Montana was worded so strongly that we would have ended up just like Wyoming. They claimed the legislation was to save wildlife populations, but would have had an opposite effect, by keeping the wolf listed.

The continued support of programs like "Ranching for Wildlife" and attempts to erode the North American Model should tell every sportsman nation wide where these folks sit.

I guess this thing has grown bigger than the Don, and Benson, and maybe their influence created a monster that's out of their control. They started it so I think he needs to answer for it.

SFW/BGF, aren't working for the average DIY sportsman in the West. They should carry the brand, "Sportsman for the Rich & Wealthy" because that's where their true loyalties reside.



I wanted to take a scalp,but the kill was not mine.
 
Birdman, you are an official town clown.

My post is what started this whole thing.

This debate has ALWAYS been about the SFW/BGF because there are countless "regular Joe's" who have come to the conclusion that the SFW is as crooked as a ball of twine.

One of two possible results could have come from this debate.

1. SFW - thru Don is able to explain and document everything they claim via all pertinent financial statements that are relevant to things they have claimed and in doing so they are able to PROVE BEYOND A RESONABLE DOUBT that they in fact are an honorable and trustworthy organization which would shut up all of us doubters and drastically help to further strenthen the SFW.

2. After Randy had the opportunity to review the financial statements Randy would have the necessary knowledge to ask relevant questions which would prove that the SFW are crooks and need to be shut down.

It is CRYSTAL CLEAR to me that Don & the SFW are desperatly trying to weasel their way out of #2.

Your ship is sinking dude and you're too blind to see it. Open your eyes before you drown!!!
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-20-12 AT 07:13PM (MST)[p]After reading his post, I now nominate Birdman for the dumbest post on this website in it's history! I'm sorry, but we've been PMing back and forth lately and I've been trying to politely show him the light on the SFW and thought maybe he was starting to understand things. Now after reading this post of his, I'm really wondering if he can comprehend anything at any level. To lay this all on Randy the way he has after reading all that correspondence where Randy has done everything but kiss DP's azz to keep this debate on track, makes me shake my head and wonder if this guy has lost all his marbles. Sorry man, but you take the cake with that post and are a complete embarrassment to your organization!
 
>LAST EDITED ON Jun-20-12
>AT 07:13?PM (MST)
>
>After reading his post, I now
>nominate Birdman for the dumbest
>post on this website in
>it's history! I'm sorry,
>but we've been PMing back
>and forth lately and I've
>been trying to politely show
>him the light on the
>SFW and thought maybe he
>was starting to understand things.
> Now after reading this
>post of his, I'm really
>wondering if he can comprehend
>anything at any level.
>To lay this all on
>Randy the way he has
>after reading all that correspondence
>where Randy has done everything
>but kiss DP's azz to
>keep this debate on track,
>makes me shake my head
>and wonder if this guy
>has lost all his marbles.
> Sorry man, but you
>take the cake with that
>post and are a complete
>embarrassment to your organization!


Agreed this is sad. Good people tethered to a bad deal. Laughed about how the post by the SFW exec mentions he was told by his accountant that it was terrorism to ask for transparency. Oh my! Sounds like a private club with that attitude that cares not to answer to the public.

Let's try this once again. Filings with the state are minimalistic. Reviewing the books is prudent. Glad to hear SFW is concerned about wisely using funds. Oops...last I heard the review of the books was being DONATED by Randy. Time to get the fiddle. Rome is burning.
 
>I am an acting Executive Advisory
>Board Member of SFW.
>
>I have worked the past 15
>years in a capacity to
>see how Don Peay, Byron
>Bateman, Troy Justinson, and Ryan
>Foutz handle themselves and the
>business of SFW's Membership.
>I have also worked with
>many men and women working
>on the Fulfillment Committee and
>I am very proud of
>all of their efforts.
>None of the above named
>individuals or any of us
>are without fault but I
>have never witnessed these people
>cheat, steal, or lie.
>
>I have attended several SFW Board
>Meetings and Don Peay or
>anyone else doesn't mandate what
>is going to happen with
>SFW. Don Peay is not
>an Officer of the Organization.
> Don provides ideas and
>strategic suggestions and helps move
>SFW forward as the Executive
>Board directs. Often times there
>is a very even split
>on topics but SFW never
>moves forward on an issue
>without the greater good of
>wildlife and all sportsmen in
>mind. Everyone has the
>right to speak and any
>of you can come join
>us anytime.
>
>I have been present to review
>the Financial Statements of SFW
>along with the other Executive
>Advisory Board Members and I
>am confident that SFW has
>nothing to hide. Asking
>SFW to open up to
>an audit by whomever for
>whatever reason is unacceptable to
>me and our accountant has
>told us that it is
>terrorism to ask for it.
>
>
>I'm not going to attack RMEF
>but it seems like anytime
>SFW is brought up on
>this public format all I
>hear are attacks. If
>you want to start hearing
>how SFW is doing with
>Habitat, Predator including wolves, Mule
>Deer Recovery, Elk and other
>Big Game Rehabilitation Projects, etc.
>I suggest you start watching
>because we are done sitting
>back and swatting at flies
>while trying to do good
>for each of you bitching
>moaning entitlement minded folks.
>
>One thing I have noticed while
>working along side the SFW
>Leadership and Membership is that
>there is a whole lot
>more doing and less talking.
> It appears we need
>to do a better job
>showing the spectators what is
>going on so I have
>proposed we do just that.
> We are not going
>to spend a comparable amount
>of our budget on TV
>Shows and PR like other
>organizations do. Nor are we
>going to spend more time
>with accountants and PR Firms
>making pretty graphs and pie
>charts. What a shame
>to spend more money talking
>and less doing. We
>have been too busy fighting
>the Wolf War, Habitat Rejuvenation,
>Mule Deer Recovery, and protecting
>the sportsmen life we all
>seem to love.
>
>Yesterday I was blessed to read
>a letter from The Utah
>DWR Director to Mr. Allen
>at RMEF and I believe
>Mr. Allen will have some
>apologies coming. You guys
>want SFW to be accountable,
>transparent, more vocal then I
>suggest you first stop throwing
>gernades and snyping behind alias
>and in the shadows and
>step forward and sit down
>with us. You might
>just like what you are
>about to see, hear, and
>feel.
>
>God Bless America and the 1st
>Amendment.
>
>R. Todd Abelhouzen
>SFW, Dixie Chapter
>SFW Executive Advisory Board

any person who has donated to SFW should be outraged at the above post. According to Mr. abelhouzen we nobody should dare question the organization because he consider you all flies and entitlement minded. All while using a public resource ie tags issues by th e states that SFW pays zero for.

Appears to me that SFW has no interest in sitting down with anybody who asks any questions.

Nemont.
 
Abe said:

"I suggest you start watching because we are done sitting back and swatting at flies while trying to do good for each of you bitching moaning entitlement minded folks"

I can honestly say that is an ignorant comment. Before you get defensive, and think that I am against all that SFW does, I am not. I have attended a lot of banquets and donated $$$ as well.

I have also seen great SFW projects. I have also seen one that I don't agree with. My point is: that I believe a lot of current SFW members that are "on the fence" are having a lot of doubts. I doubt comments like the one you posted will really help your cause.

The projects are not the main point IMO. What is, is the money being donated by the public. The public should have every right to see where the $$$ are going. That is what I cannot understand; why you would be offended by people asking?

Case in point- my business was audited by one of my customers a year ago. I had to go back three years and explain and invoice, and show records for the billing. I wonder what they would have done if I would have told them to quit "bitching and moaning" about it?

Your group should obviously be willing to prove a point? Just provide the info, and if its legit, I am sure your Org will be better off.
 
Abe said: "Yesterday I was blessed to read a letter from The Utah DWR Director to Mr. Allen at RMEF and I believe Mr. Allen will have some apologies coming. You guys want SFW to be accountable, transparent, more vocal then I suggest you first stop throwing gernades and snyping behind alias and in the shadows and step forward and sit down with us. You might just like what you are about to see, hear, and feel."

I have two comments to your post. First, I am proud that Mr. Allen had the courage to call SFW, MDF and the State of Utah out on this issue. If the Director of the DWR took offense to Mr. Allen's statement then shame on him. I cannot understand for the life of me how the DWR thinks it is appropriate to turn public assets over to a private entity without requiring any accountability or transparency in return. If Mr. Karpowitz truly sent a letter chastising Mr. Allen for his comments then perhaps the DWR needs a reminder from the citizens of the State of Utah as to who he and his agency represent. The DWR and the Wildlife Board should be protecting the interests of the residents of the state not the interests of special interest groups.

Second, everything I have done and said on this issue has been done openly and publicly. My profile is public and I have never attempted to hide who I am. Additionally, I have spoken with SFW's leadership on multiple occasions regarding these issues. I have never met you but Don, John, Byron, Troy and Ryan all know who I am and the basis for my concerns. I told Don and other SFW leaders over two years ago that SFW should voluntarily step forward and provide an accounting of Convention Permit funds because it was the right thing to do. They refused to do so because the State was not requiring it. Now, the public is waking up to what has been occurring and will likely demand accountability.

As I have said before, SFW's rank and file members are for the most part great people that I have much in common with. However, SFW's top leaders are out of touch and have a sense of entitlement. Exhibit No. 1 in support of my argument -- SFW's refusal to embrace transparency and accountability with regard to the Convention Permits.

Don't take the public's concerns regarding SFW personally. You would be much better off spending your energy asking SFW's leadership why it continues to refuse to show how it has been spending money generated from a pubic resource.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
1Fast. Thanks for calling me a clown. Nicest thing anyone has called me in weeks. As Hawkeye was setting this whole thing up all the emails that were there and have been posted so far is that the debate was between Don and Randy. There were certian topics that were set up. It was mentioned that it was not between any organizations but about the NAM. That is what was put up. I do not read between the lines. That was what was posted. I believed Hawkeye. With all the people on MM pushing for different things. The financial information that Randy called for Don was getting from the State. He said so himself. Randy decided he needed more information after the agreement had been made. Now that is what has been said in the emails posted on here.
Topgun, as I have said before. You and I do not see things in the same way. I guess living in Utah and you in Michigan and me seeing things in a closer view. I think I am still on top of what is going on. Not sure that you are. As I said before, having a second change at life I step back and look at things, think things over and do not take others words a being fact. Yes topgun I can comprehend things. I just been finding facts while others jump to conclutions. I wonder sometimes the same about if you really want to understand or just let others tell you what is going on.
 
Don seems to be a great politician. He deflects pointed questions with ease and I honestly believe he sleeps well at night knowing that overall he and SFW do help wildlife and sportsmen in general.

No one is debating that SFW does good things.

All we want is an OPEN BOOK so that I can see where MY money goes, and WHAT it is spent on. It is not MY decision where/what/how it is spent but is my RIGHT to know!

I just cannot believe the circles that one spins in trying to argue why SFW considers it a "terrorist" act to request documents and info that should be public record.

Why go on a tour of SFW projects if the debate involved Don and NOT SFW? Why show the good that SFW has done on tour if you cant show the cost in order to determine an estimated ROI in regards to habitat and herd improvement?

WHAT IS THERE TO HIDE?

If they showed their books and everything looked great then I would join SFW.

As it stands, they come across as elitist, arrogant, assumptive, entitled, and secretive.

Again, I am sure Don is a great guy personally, and does good things. SFW overall does good things. Why be so elusive when it comes to an accounting of specifics?

"You sure you know how to skin grizz,
pilgrim?"
 
Birdman - Honest question - If the debate was not between SFW and RMEF/Randy, then in your opinion why would Don require that Randy take a tour of SFW's projects in the Beaver area? Don didnt personally restore 100k acres of habitat.

Again, I am asking for your honest opinion/answer to that question, I would really like to know what you think on that matter.



>1Fast. Thanks for calling
>me a clown. Nicest
>thing anyone has called me
>in weeks. As Hawkeye
>was setting this whole thing
>up all the emails that
>were there and have been
>posted so far is that
>the debate was between Don
>and Randy. There were
>certian topics that were set
>up. It was mentioned
>that it was not between
>any organizations but about the
>NAM. That is what
>was put up. I
>do not read between the
>lines. That was what
>was posted. I believed
>Hawkeye. With all the
>people on MM pushing for
>different things. The financial
>information that Randy called for
>Don was getting from the
>State. He said so
>himself. Randy decided he
>needed more information after the
>agreement had been made.
>Now that is what has
>been said in the emails
>posted on here.
>Topgun, as I have said
>before. You and I
>do not see things in
>the same way. I
>guess living in Utah and
>you in Michigan and me
>seeing things in a closer
>view. I think I
>am still on top of
>what is going on.
>Not sure that you are.
> As I said before,
>having a second change at
>life I step back and
>look at things, think things
>over and do not take
>others words a being fact.
> Yes topgun I can
>comprehend things. I just
>been finding facts while others
>jump to conclutions. I
>wonder sometimes the same about
>if you really want to
>understand or just let others
>tell you what is going
>on.


"You sure you know how to skin grizz,
pilgrim?"
 
Birdman,

You said "I just been finding facts while others jump to conclutions."

I would love to see these so called "facts" you are talking about.

I think it would be hard to come up with more facts than have been posted here.

Honestly, how can any SFW member not see what is going on here. Especially now that it is finally getting the attention it deserves thanks to folks such as BigFin, Hawkeye and RMEF.

How can this not make any of you guys think twice about what there is to hide? Why would they not be willing to show the books?

Very simple here: Show books and gain a whole bunch of support for the cause (if books are straight), show books and find that there are some issues and loose a bunch of support, or don't show books and still risk loosing some support but hope most will continue to turn a blind eye and eventually "this too shall pass"

Unbelievable!!!

What more facts do you need Birdman???


"The problem with quotes on Internet Forums is that it is often difficult to verify their authenticity." - Abraham Lincoln
 
ABE stated - "I am an acting Executive Advisory Board Member of SFW. ....... Asking SFW to open up to an audit by whomever for whatever reason is unacceptable to me and our accountant has told us that it is terrorism to ask for it. ....... If you want to start hearing how SFW is doing with Habitat, Predator including wolves, Mule Deer Recovery, Elk and other Big Game Rehabilitation Projects, etc. I suggest you start watching because we are done sitting back and swatting at flies while trying to do good for each of you bitching moaning entitlement minded folks."

ABE - You think that a trained CPA, who offers to sign a Non-disclosure agreement, asking to look over the financial statements of a publicly supported tax-exempt entity, is the equivalent of terrorism? Really? I didn't know such a simple request would be such a threatening act. Most publicly supported charities I deal with provide such upon request, gladly, with no NDA requirement.

I don't know if your memory allows you to recall the last time you and your SFW friends decided you were going to school me and the other "bitching entitlement minded folks" about stuff, but here is a link to serve as a reminder. Just over a year ago. Wolf delisting was the topic, in case your have forgotten.

http://www.monstermuleys.info/cgi-b...z=show_thread&om=17620&forum=DCForumID5&omm=0

It was a wolf thread I started, once I had acquired the information necessary to prove beyond any doubt the SFW/BGF tactics to sabotage MT/ID wolf delisting. Information I had hoped Don and I could talk about in a debate.

Go read the posts by you, and your fellow SFW loyalists, some of whom have now come to the other side of the fence, and tell me where any single bit of your words turned out to be truthful. None. And of all the predictions from you and your fellow SFW wolf geniuses, not one was a correct prediction.

If that was not enough for you, why don't you, in your official position with SFW, fire up a new wolf delisting thread to tell us just how SFW was fighting the wolf war on behalf of us "entitlement minded folks?"

We can have the wolf delisting debate right now, right here, and then this site won't be polluted with threads about such as we go forward. It will be your big chance to show the world how SFW/BGF brought us wolf delisting. Deal?

Everyone who can read, knows that you and your SFW/BGF pals were laying the pipe to the average hunters, especially the people who had been involved in the wolf issue for ten to fifteen years prior you guys showing up begging for donations to fund your efforts to screw us over.

Since you seem to think the version you have been spoonfed was the correct version, let's get the proper version of events out there for the record. None of this "he said, she said" stuff. All assertions must be supported by emails, press releases, publicly recorded statements. Fair enough?

Go back and read your comments and predictions on that thread. Look at what came from that bill getting passed, in spite of SFW/BGF efforts to kill it:

> Wolf seasons in MT and ID.

> Delisting in MN, WI, and MI.

> Soon to have delisting in WY.

> The Ninth Circuit Agreeing with the bill as being Constitutional, earlier this year.

> The the wolf hippies being on the run for their lives, failing to even appeal the 9th Circuit to the Supreme Court.

Exactly what us "bitching entitlement minded folks" predicted and just the opposite of what you and the SFW/BGF follower predicted.

Go read your posts, then come and tell us how wrong we all were. After all, we are just a bunch of "bitching entitlement minded folks" who have been working on the wolf issue, for a lot longer, in far great detail, with people way more connected to the solution that your heroes.

Us "bitching entitlement minded folks" have been working on conservation long before your organization ever showed up to grab a teat from the good citizens of Utah. For you to use such condescending terms to describe hard working hunters as such, just because they won't kiss the ground you and your SFW pals walk on, is arrogance to the highest degree.

Please, get that wolf delisting thread started, so we can sort the BS from the buckwheat on the wolf issue. Seems we already know what is going on with the transparency and accountability issues, so let's finish the wolf topic once and for all.

Say when, ABE.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
It is now Clownville..........

Randy is now leading this circus!!

Bird, etc.....how you can look in the mirror anymore makes me shake my head.....in your defense....please say something intelligent that makes all of us think about your statement!


Just don't see that happening!
 
Any bets on whether ABE comes back or not? I'll bet the from the facts that your terrorizing ABE about the wolf issue too. It should terrorize all of the loyalists of SFW/BGF.

I could care less how much "GOOD" SFW has done now, the bad has ruined any legacy Peay had. They all need to go.

I wanted to take a scalp,but the kill was not mine.
 
Oh they'll answer. They always have an answer. Problem is, the answer is never relevant to the question. The ducking and dodging would make Mayweather and Pacquiao proud.
 
"entitlement minded folks"

OMG..........Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.


***********************************
Member RMEF, Pope & Young Club, UBNM, UWC & the SFW Hate Club
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-21-12 AT 06:56AM (MST)[p]After this Peay/Abe/Birdman chit show, ANYONE that remains a member of SFW needs to seek immediate medical attention.

Its a sinking ship.
 
I'm reading this thread and just left shaking my head with the responses from these SFW people! We are now terrorists for asking to see their books and it's all Randy's fault for this debate going down the tubes, LOL! It may take a length of time, but I think the SFW ship has hit the iceberg and now it's just going to be how long it takes for the friggin ship to sink!!! Calling us TERRORISTS, and that came from the mouth of one of their executives for God's sake!!! What is next?
 
I think Randy just handed SFW a batch of

Humble ARS-WHOOPED Pie.

What more can they say?

Like I said before to Bird"brain", back out before you look any worse, if that is possible.

ITS 1912 ALL OVER AGAIN AND THE MIGHTY TITANIC (SFW) IS SINKING!
 
>"entitlement minded folks"
>
>OMG..........Talk about the pot calling the
>kettle black.
>
>
>***********************************
>Member RMEF, Pope & Young Club,
>UBNM, UWC & the SFW
>Hate Club
___________________________________________

Amen to that!

According the the SFW eliteists we're ALL just a bunch of no good "self entitlement minded terrorists" because we KNOW the SFW/BGF are rapists, pillagers, theives, and liars.
 
LOOKS LIKE MY LAST ONE GOT NUKED FOR SOME REASON.

HERE I GO AGAIN!!!

It look like Randy gave Sfw and the gang Humble Arse-whooped Pie handed to them.

It is 1912 again the Titanic (SFW) is sinking.
 
Robiland---It's there with just one post between it and this one of yours. However, you left out your last comment about birdman!
 
I read with much intent as I love hunting. I am sure SFW has done wonderfull things to help Utah wildlife. One question to ABE which I would greatley apreciate a response to my direct question!!!!!

Quote by ABE "I have been present to review the financial statments of SFW along with other executive advisary board members and I am confident that SFW has nothing to hide. Asking SFW to open up to an audit to whomever for whatever reason is unacceptable to me and our accoutant has told us that it is terrorism to ask for it."

I have not membership to SFW RMEF MDF UWC or anyother org. Please awnser one simple question it would solve all problems and let us get back to talking about hunting on here!!!! If they are accountable with the plublic reasources they get and doing what a 501c3 not profit org should be doing then show the money where it comes from on the expo tags and where it goes. That should be your biggest asset if what you claim is true. If everything is on the up and up there is no shame in providing the public the info that they are intitaled to no. I have no bad things to say about U Sfw or their followers but it seems like they have something in there to hide or they would turn it over!!!!

Perfect example is the USA Atturney General and fast and furious shows congress what a tenth of the docs that they requested when they have close to a 100,000 avalible. Then the president has to bail them out with an executive order. That makes me believe they have something to hide no arguement with you or SFW just a simple question if you could please answer or Mr. Peay could if he would desire. please just the answer to the question no other issue need to be responded to for me just that.

Thanks for your hard and much needed work for our land and wildlife. you can PM me if you would like
 
Big Fin needs a face tat.

Just like Tyson in his prime, Fin laid the hammer down.

How can those of you lurking who belong to or have supported SFW not see through this circus?

I have been reading all of this with an open mind and simple common sense easily magnifies which parties are ducking the questions and making this "debate" impossible.
 
You guys need to keep this up so you don't get in the way of actually helping wildlife. I have actually gone thru the financials so many of you want and you will be sorely disappointed at the lack of smoking guns. MP you really think SFW used conservation tag money to buy land? That is accounted for by the state and more than 1 department looks at it. The sad thing about that land is the concerned citizens around that area who got the land removed from green belt those are the ones taking money from wildlife. SFW will continue to be the ones who get the elk herd increased (where was RMEF on that one?)and work on some fencing issues so more trophy elk are not shot and left in the feild for the dwr to pick up this summer and fall. We will let you know when more sheep are coming in this winter.
Who was it that took the bullets and got bison from the Henrys to the book cliffs? If you really are concerned about the conservation tag monies go to the division and get a detailed report and see for yourself. This crap here is for the lazy do nothings who think just cause Bigfin supported getting Utah, Colorado, Nevada, Wyoming, Oregon and other states eliminated from the wolf delisting by going with the rule backed by the wolf lovers so they could stop the bleeding for the delisting that he did something great. I disagree, that rule screwed us here in Utah on the wolf front thanks to his great Senator from Montana. The really sad thing is Montana still has to answer to the feds on the wolf and they are not going to get game herds to recover the way things are today. But I am sure the RMEF is going to step up and make it all better. You guys are worse than a bunch of kids fighting over the last piece of cake rather than make more you will tear each other apart for whats left.
 
$117,671 - Wolf Litigation/ Washington DC Policy
$21,000 - Donation to Cancer Patients
$20,000 - Orem Pritchett/Tatloil Gift
$14,000 - Jessica Clark Scholarship Fund
$14,000 - Edwards-Beaver Property
$11,000 - Kevin Conway Scholarship Fund
$10,000 - Chance Phelps Endowment Fund
$5,450 - Wyoming/Pinedale
$5,000 - SFW Wyoming
$5,000 - St George Livestock
$5,000 - Eye Donation
$5,000 - Deputy Josie Greathouse
$3,000 - Sean Pearson Cancer

This is money spent by SFW. I can only see a few projects here that are wildlife related. You decide.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-21-12 AT 02:06PM (MST)[p]30plus you have NO idea what anyone posting the truth about SFW has/is done/doing for wildlife. Not a friggin clue.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-21-12 AT 02:00PM (MST)[p]This was taken from a Grama conducted by the DWR. I wish there was a better way to post it. I will post more later

expograma.jpg


expograma2.jpg
 
30 plus

From the mouths of SFW leaders I was told the Weeks property was purchased with Conservation Money. Now From an SFW member I am told it was not, who do I believe? This is a simple problem that could be answered by financials. Again I pursued this years ago and ran into the same roadblocks. I honestly don't know what to believe but all of my sources are SFW members, can you see why open books are so important. Even SFW members and leaders are unsure about what is or isn't happening.
I inquired of a former Cache SFW chair just last week about this property as he was serving at the time. I received neither a yes or no answer but that it could have possibly been purchased with Conservation Monies.


I think you may also want to realizze there is two sides to every story and not discount so quickly those who offer the other side.

However, it is not that I am reading on the internet or hearing this at the coffee shop. My information is from SFW and it contradicts itself. I am currently looking for back copies of the SPORTSMAN'S VOICE, I know at one time SFW published conservation dollars spent on projects maybe this will help in my search. Until then I will keep hoping that SFW opens the "books" to answer these type of questions.

By the way I have messages from Birdman (SFW):

"MulePacker, There have been 5
>properties bought with conservation money.
> Fishon brought it up
>and challanged me to contact
>the DWR. I did.
> They were all bought
>before Jim was the head
>guy."

He goes on to state this the way the state wanted it. My issue is it does not matter what we "want" If there is not a provision for conservation money to be spent on a project/asset and titled under a private entity name then these properties need to be returned to the public trust and those acting outside of the law need to be dealt with or trained to what is allowed.
We just had a prime example of the division operating outside of the rule with conservation tags and the cap. DWR employees admitted they weren't familiar with what was happening. "All" (SFW included) agreed upon that and held them accountable to operate inside of the rules that are set. Is there something wrong with this concept?
 
Mulepacker, SFW paid $32,000 on the weeks property. Im sure what is the total amount spent.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-21-12 AT 02:23PM (MST)[p]Birdman, that was in 2007.

In 2009 SFW paid $4,257 fencing Week's property.

Also in 2009 SFW spent $14,000 on the Edwards-Beaver property.
 
I found this interesting statement on the net about the Simpson/Tester bill.

The measure only applied to Idaho and Montana, leaving Wyoming and other states with wolves dangling in the wind. A federal judge reciently upheld Wyomings plan as an adequate science-based plan. Plus, Judge Molloy already ruled against seperating wolf populations along state boundaries, and no one in Congress is willing to guarantee that this provision won't get challenged in court. So how does the Baucus/Tester bill of 2010 solve much of anything? It doesn't. It simply pacifies the same envireonmnetal crowd that has abused this entire process of 16 years.

Sums it up good.
 
From 2007 to 2010 the amount of money raised from the convention tags aka expo tags was $3,415,505.

The amount of money SFW spent from 2007 to 2010 on wildlife and non-related projects was $577,972

The amount of money MDF spent from 2007 to 2010 on wildlife projects was $217,315

GRAND TOTAL: $795,287

So where is the rest of the $2,620,218? Salaries? Hunting?
 
That is true, however they paid much more and over a period of years for the property. It is not hard proving how much they paid. What I am looking for is where the money came from.
 
Well the most I can tell you is $32,000 came from convention tags aka 200 expo tags and a little over $4,000 fencing the property also from the 200 convention tags.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-21-12 AT 05:06PM (MST)[p]2 days ago the final approval went though for the drilling of 1200 new gas wells, on 177,000 acres of BLM land in Uinta and Duchesne countys. It is a done deal and will no doubt bring a much needed boost to the economy.

1/4 of 1% of the yearly money spent on this one project would bring in about $2,000,000 per year for the next 15 years.

There are at least 8 more projects just like this one set for Utah. Some three times bigger than the one mentioned above. Most of them are just a wave of the pen away from approval. And that pen has started to wave for what ever reason.

These tag moneys we are arguing about are peanuts!

There are many so called conservation orgs. that already have there foot in the door and have already taken money and land to the bank. These are for the most part not hunter friendly orgs.

Many on this site work for some of the many hundreds of contractors, service providers and suppliers that will do well on these projects.

In an effort to get some kind of benefit for the Mule Deer herd out of this situation. Please look for ways to partner with some of the good people involved in this development. So as to secure funding to go towards Mule Deer enhancment projects.

PS. Every drop of oil and gas that can be drilled will be drilled sooner or later. Hunters have much to loose and should see some gain as we are the true conservationists.
http://gascoenergy.investorroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=21
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-21-12 AT 09:28PM (MST)[p]Birdman
Jun-21-12, 03:27 PM (MST)
149. "RE: Don Peay - Randy Newberg Debate - Postponed"

I found this interesting statement on the net about the Simpson/Tester bill.
The measure only applied to Idaho and Montana, leaving Wyoming and other states with wolves dangling in the wind. A federal judge reciently upheld Wyomings plan as an adequate science-based plan. Plus, Judge Molloy already ruled against seperating wolf populations along state boundaries, and no one in Congress is willing to guarantee that this provision won't get challenged in court. So how does the Baucus/Tester bill of 2010 solve much of anything? It doesn't. It simply pacifies the same envireonmnetal crowd that has abused this entire process of 16 years.
Sums it up good

***Sums what up good? From that statement it sounds like you agree with the way your organization went under the table behind closed doors trying to kill the Bill. If SFW/BGF had gotten their way there would be no delisting in either of those states and it could have even caused a negative impact on Wyoming and their negotiations. That sums it up real good! Now come back and say there is no proof that happened and Randy can add you to his XXXL azzhat list, LOL!
 
Birdman, you don't have a clue as to what went on. I don't think you every will.

Wyoming's plan, WAS the problem. It wouldn't hold up in court and kept Montana, and Idaho on the list. got it! If you weren't such a Johnny come lately you have the clue's you need to not look like such a dumb ass.

Now, you couldn't include Wyoming in the plan, because of what the court would rule. So the next best thing was to get the states that followed the "DELISTING" per agreed upon criteria and get them off.

There's still no guarantee that Wyoming will get off the list with their plan.

3 of the 16 environmental groups kept the suits going, in court the riders were proven legal, and now the time has passed to challenge that ruling, so no more suits will be filed on the case.

Simpson/Tester Bill got us off the list, and that was great. That rider looks really good if your one of the states that are hunting and trapping wolves right now.

BTW, Montana is still over elk objectives set forth by the livestock/SFW supported crowd here. We have to kill off another 22,000 head. Far from extinct, and wolves are far from the #1 problem. SFW folks are only focused on the wolf, and that's counter productive. A law passed by the livestock lead legislature is the problem, not predators as much. I don't expect you to understand that, and shouldn't confuse you with it. Sorry!

Fact was, your leader was in Washington lobbying against the Simpson/Tester at the same time the rider was being debated. He claim victory for all 3 states before he got the rider killed, in a press release. Real Sportsman's groups caught wind of what he was up too, and reversed his damage. He looked like a complete tool in the process. If the shoe fits.

After all this Ryan Benson (at the Salt Lake Expo) claimed that SFW/BGF in fact did the leg work to get the Simpson/Tester Bill through, and took credit for it. To bad for them the truth was already out.




I wanted to take a scalp,but the kill was not mine.
 
4100, I think I know more than you think. I really think that the rest of the country was thrown under the bus with the passing of the sompson/tester bill. My thoughts. I am glad that you guy in Montana have plenty of elk. I have read articles from the Montana newspapers in Billings and others where the wolves are distroying the elk and in some places like the bitterroot and is it called West canyon were there is only 25 tags issued for elk because they have been wiped out. I guess what I am reading is wrong. Glad that Montana is doing great on their elk. Idaho on the other hand is crying the blues. The wolves have moved into Idaho and doing lots of damage. Now I am just reading this in the papers so I am guessing they must be doing great with the elk also.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-22-12 AT 01:09AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jun-22-12 AT 01:07?AM (MST)

Seriously dude, your embarassing the hell out of yourself:

I live in the Bitterroot, the Hunting district your trying to come up with, is the "West Fork of the Bitterroot". Yes we have went to 25 tags for the entire district, and it does have a healthy wolf population, BUT, that law I told you about was the root of the problem. Hunters killed off the elk, the predators did the rest. That's a whole other topic, though, one of which your not going to get, so lets keep to the simple stuff.

Without the Simpson/Tester rider, we would still be watching the wolf populations grow. Idaho killed over 400, and Montana killed 166.That didn't include WS control efforts Idaho's headed for another trapping season, and Montana's debating one. Montana won't have a wolf quota next year.

You obviously can't understand any issue, so I don't know why I'm trying. I'll continue for those that might have enough fireing brain cells to comprehend this, even though it's not all that tough.

Your claim the bill threw the rest of the county under the bus is a joke. You obviously are drinking more of that proverbial SFW cool-aid. The reason behind SFW's tactics, (they claimed) was that Wyoming deserved to get off the list, even though they were using Montana, and Idaho as hostages. Wyoming was using us as pons in their political rangeling to get predator status.

SFW also claimed they had to kill Testers bill, because they had to save the upper Midwest. They lumped them in the same boat as Wyoming even though each of those states had plans that would meet court mustard.

They were wrong about both, and history has now shown that.

IMO, without the wolf as a rallying cry, membership for SFW will be zero, and they know it. Keeping the wolf listed was as important finacially to them as it was to Earth Justace.

Sorry Bird, I know that's over your head too.

Keep talking your too funny.


I wanted to take a scalp,but the kill was not mine.
 
A question:

The Debate was canceled by Randy himself correct?
Reason provided, ( SFW wopuld not give him a free pass through every recipt, checking account number ext.)

He is what I don't understand.
The topic for debate ( as outlined here on MM)

#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


They both agrred that they would follow this outline.
Just wondering when the SFW books became the main event. When it was agreed that they would seperate themselves from the RMEF and SFW for the debate.


JBP
Tip of The Spear.
Proud Member of the SFW
 
Please see post #95. It was posted by Don Peay and shows under # 4 the agreement between Don and Randy. Don didn't provide the SFW financial information that was agreed upon. Randy simply postponed the debate until Don provides the agreed up information.
 
JBP

ONE thing that Randy asked for from the becoming was the books.
Whyvtake a tour of all Sfw projects and see "all the good" they have done, if we can't see where that $ came from and how much of "our resource " or $ was spent on it. Its a simple request. Why does all sfw people not see that?

Plus he did not cancel. He asked for it to be postponed until books were opened due to the fact Don was not willing to jelpbwith the books.

Don says he has no control over the books, but has control of the tour of Sfw projects. Hmmmmmm, that's weird.

Try again sfw members.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-25-12 AT 07:31PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jun-25-12 AT 06:46?PM (MST)

JBP,

I think if you read what your man Don agreed to then the books of SFW indeed become relevent. I know it is hard for any SFW diehard to believe but out in the real world people don't just give you their trust, it has to be earned or in the case of SFW earned back for some of the crap they pulled in the past.

How any not for profit entity, dependent on donations and the State giving them a tag to raffle cannot be for open books is beyond me. In addition it is beyond me how somebody can stand behind that organization and proclaim that it is the only organization that does any good.

For all we know SFW could be one of best run organizations of it's type, running a very lean and very efficient program. Without transparency nobody is able to know and it become highly suspect when a routine request to review an organizations books is made and the accountant agrees to sign a non-dislosure and that request is called terrorism by the organization. That should set off all kinds of alarm bells with those who are not drinking the koolaid.

If that is all the debate is about why did Don Peay require the tour of SFW projects? That has less to do with the debate than SFW's books do.

Nemont
 
It is not what it was originally agreed upon. according to the Post(s) here and what has been said outside of social media.

I would like full, unrestricted access to the RMEF books. Not what is posted. I would like to see the individual chapter checkbooks and receipts. Fair is fair... right.


JBP
Tip of The Spear.
Proud Member of the SFW
 
JBP,
Are you a CPA? Would you agree to a nondisclosure agreement in order to protect RMEF? Do you have a compeling reason for looking into RMEF's books? Say like you agreed to debate somebody and the other side insist that you have to see where the money was spent and that was the basis for that debate.

Let's just face facts SFW is afraid to have their books opened because there is something in there that will make either SFW look bad, the board look bad or another person look bad or a combination of all of those.

I don't remember ever seeing, in this whole debate scenario, a request from anyone who was not a CPA, did not agree to a NDA, and was involved in a debate where that info could be used to make a cogent arguement.

I know for a fact that RMEF is far more transparent than SFW is and you can take that to the bank. Keep hiding behind the idotic statements made by SFW by guys like ABE who want to call out anyone that dares question a signle thing. I can't understand what everyone in SFW is afraid of. But hey I don't drink the koolaid.

Nemont
 
It must suck when your demigod runs from a fight he picked and you are stuck trying to explain why the person ran away! Don agreed to it and backed away. His own post proves it. That says something about the man. I guess his agreement does not carry any weight. Sounds like a politicain to me, say one thing, do the oposite and claim the person asking the question is not smart enough to understand, It's alot like the Simpson Tester bill. Say your for wolf delisting then fight like hell to kill it. When caught claim the people who discovered what they did just don't understand.
 
Time for JBP to go to the bullpen and bring in a fresh reliever, LOL! Where is Birdman today? He surely can come up with another reason or two why we are all at fault for this debate going down the tubes!
 

Similar threads

Muleman1
Rich man’s game
Replies
57
Views
1k
feddoc
feddoc
Founder
  • Poll
You hunting Turkey's this year? (Poll)
Replies
74
Views
3k
Jeffd
Jeffd
D
Mule deer decline in Utah
Replies
37
Views
1k
ridgetops
ridgetops

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG-20201007-WA0000.jpg
buffalo.jpg
IMG_9868.jpeg
Monster Bull from the San Carlos
IMG_6141.jpeg
IMG-20201006-WA0009.jpg
56FAD3BB-9011-4855-84B8-FAF11CA11303.jpeg
3E3B109D-B43A-407E-A029-483048C497DF.jpeg
IMG_7744.png
D9DB3D99-A63A-44AC-AF77-AB05CF4F42E5.jpeg
043CE2E6-710F-4B9B-8E7C-87E41581110E.jpeg
IMG_5133.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom