Don Peay: The Man Who Would Be King...Baron
- Thread starter 4100fps
- Start date
D
drawback
Guest
"So you want to know who they give any money to???? It's your belief you should know how much they pay each employee...Just because a public resource is involved does not entitle you to whatever info you desire..."
In the State of Utah, it is required that annual pay and compensations of public employees or contracted private employees are public knowledge. You can get on the internet and see what any state school teacher, state employee, etc makes. If SFW, or any other group has employees or expenditures that are funded by public money, they should be held to the same standard.
____________________________
I hunt. I fish. I VOTE.
Get the F out of SFW
In the State of Utah, it is required that annual pay and compensations of public employees or contracted private employees are public knowledge. You can get on the internet and see what any state school teacher, state employee, etc makes. If SFW, or any other group has employees or expenditures that are funded by public money, they should be held to the same standard.
____________________________
I hunt. I fish. I VOTE.
Get the F out of SFW
K
klbzdad
Guest
>"So you want to know who
>they give any money to????
>It's your belief you should
>know how much they pay
>each employee...Just because a public
>resource is involved does not
>entitle you to whatever info
>you desire..."
>
>In the State of Utah, it
>is required that annual pay
>and compensations of public employees
>or contracted private employees are
>public knowledge. You can get
>on the internet and see
>what any state school teacher,
>state employee, etc makes. If
>SFW, or any other group
>has employees or expenditures that
>are funded by public money,
>they should be held to
>the same standard.
>____________________________
>
>I hunt. I fish. I VOTE.
>
>
>Get the F out of SFW
>
+1 Well said.
"There is no reason why I have to tolerate your stupidity if you are unwilling to tolerate mine." ME
>they give any money to????
>It's your belief you should
>know how much they pay
>each employee...Just because a public
>resource is involved does not
>entitle you to whatever info
>you desire..."
>
>In the State of Utah, it
>is required that annual pay
>and compensations of public employees
>or contracted private employees are
>public knowledge. You can get
>on the internet and see
>what any state school teacher,
>state employee, etc makes. If
>SFW, or any other group
>has employees or expenditures that
>are funded by public money,
>they should be held to
>the same standard.
>____________________________
>
>I hunt. I fish. I VOTE.
>
>
>Get the F out of SFW
>
+1 Well said.
"There is no reason why I have to tolerate your stupidity if you are unwilling to tolerate mine." ME
Tristate
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,890
"Tristate,
I thought you were just a pot stirrer, but now I am convinced you are the most dangerous type of person, somebody who thinks they are smarter than everyone else. Here is the RMEF financial statement. You don't have to have a per employee line to show what Don Peay gets in salaries."
That doesn't show what each individual employee makes at all. I allready have a response from someone else on this thread stating they deserve to know the payroll background by name of each employee of SFW because he considers them Public employee.
"http://www.rmef.org/Portals/0/Documents/FINAL_2012%20Financials.pdf"
Thats funny as hell. There is absolutely NOTHING in these financials that would make anything clearer and answer any of the questions I have seen asked here about SFW finances.
"$16,000 for an organization that supposedly gets and gives millions is a can of tuna fish in $100 bag of groceries. If you are suggesting a CPA will sign his/her name to an audit and not have it reflect the actual state of finances then you have not seen the BS CPA's go through and the Fiduciary responsibility they have when they sign an financial statement."
Really why don't you google a company called Arhtur Andersen.
"I sit on the board of our local Nursing home with an annual budget of a little less thatn $2 million and we have an audited financial statement because we accept medicaid and medicare money. We pay $12,000 a year for an independent auditor to publish a qualified opinion. A not for profit organization should be required to have an audited financial statement available for review."
Why? What good will it do? They aren't a publicly traded company.
http://www.ducks.org/media/About DU/Annual Report/_documents/2009/Financials.pdf
"Here is DU's which make SFW look like an ant at the feet of an elephant, yet DU doesn't just take my money and taxpayer money and say, "Trust us", They have the balls to show the world where the money goes, how efficient they operate etc."
Oooooooh now we are finding out who has "balls". Is that a CPA term?
"So these are the books that SFW should publish as a not for profit organization that takes taxpayer funds, sells publicly provide tags and obviously lobbies lawmakers. The books is fairly generic term of what all the audits contain which is basically a financial review of the organization's activities in it's various accounts."
Accourding to you. Like I said earlier someone else on here thinks "the books" should include all the private information on the payroll. But thanks for being one of the two people who actually answer a question around here.
"SFW doesn't do this because either they think $16,000 is too much to pay, even though they have already gotten $600,000 in Utah taxpayer money to fight the wolf fight. Even though SFW and BGF tried to destroy the Simpson/Tester Amendment."
I am waiting for the "or assumption in this sentence. You said "either" so there must be an "or".
"So the term the books is common throughout the industry is what appears in those audited financial statements. It isn't breaking down salaries down to got paid what."
So the books are a watered down annual profit /loss statement that really doesn't telll anyone anything about the inner workings of a company and doesn't establish any trust from anyone except the masses that think this is how you tell whether a company is legit or not. Yeah this makes since.
I thought you were just a pot stirrer, but now I am convinced you are the most dangerous type of person, somebody who thinks they are smarter than everyone else. Here is the RMEF financial statement. You don't have to have a per employee line to show what Don Peay gets in salaries."
That doesn't show what each individual employee makes at all. I allready have a response from someone else on this thread stating they deserve to know the payroll background by name of each employee of SFW because he considers them Public employee.
"http://www.rmef.org/Portals/0/Documents/FINAL_2012%20Financials.pdf"
Thats funny as hell. There is absolutely NOTHING in these financials that would make anything clearer and answer any of the questions I have seen asked here about SFW finances.
"$16,000 for an organization that supposedly gets and gives millions is a can of tuna fish in $100 bag of groceries. If you are suggesting a CPA will sign his/her name to an audit and not have it reflect the actual state of finances then you have not seen the BS CPA's go through and the Fiduciary responsibility they have when they sign an financial statement."
Really why don't you google a company called Arhtur Andersen.
"I sit on the board of our local Nursing home with an annual budget of a little less thatn $2 million and we have an audited financial statement because we accept medicaid and medicare money. We pay $12,000 a year for an independent auditor to publish a qualified opinion. A not for profit organization should be required to have an audited financial statement available for review."
Why? What good will it do? They aren't a publicly traded company.
http://www.ducks.org/media/About DU/Annual Report/_documents/2009/Financials.pdf
"Here is DU's which make SFW look like an ant at the feet of an elephant, yet DU doesn't just take my money and taxpayer money and say, "Trust us", They have the balls to show the world where the money goes, how efficient they operate etc."
Oooooooh now we are finding out who has "balls". Is that a CPA term?
"So these are the books that SFW should publish as a not for profit organization that takes taxpayer funds, sells publicly provide tags and obviously lobbies lawmakers. The books is fairly generic term of what all the audits contain which is basically a financial review of the organization's activities in it's various accounts."
Accourding to you. Like I said earlier someone else on here thinks "the books" should include all the private information on the payroll. But thanks for being one of the two people who actually answer a question around here.
"SFW doesn't do this because either they think $16,000 is too much to pay, even though they have already gotten $600,000 in Utah taxpayer money to fight the wolf fight. Even though SFW and BGF tried to destroy the Simpson/Tester Amendment."
I am waiting for the "or assumption in this sentence. You said "either" so there must be an "or".
"So the term the books is common throughout the industry is what appears in those audited financial statements. It isn't breaking down salaries down to got paid what."
So the books are a watered down annual profit /loss statement that really doesn't telll anyone anything about the inner workings of a company and doesn't establish any trust from anyone except the masses that think this is how you tell whether a company is legit or not. Yeah this makes since.
Tristate
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,890
"In the State of Utah, it is required that annual pay and compensations of public employees or contracted private employees are public knowledge. You can get on the internet and see what any state school teacher, state employee, etc makes. If SFW, or any other group has employees or expenditures that are funded by public money, they should be held to the same standard."
Has the state of Utah ever written SFW a check?
Has the state of Utah ever written SFW a check?
Over 300 posts,...Really. Anyone who knows these guys, SFW, or has worked with them for any period of time. All know these guys are out for their own interests, or what benefits their goals in some way. I am just shocked the damn Utah DWR goes along with them. I guess money is more important than honesty and values. Please let this post go,....I am sick of it!!!!
Fishon/ Tony,
Nothing new in your post. You posted the same thing last year. Troy called your bluff and nothing happened.
I don't have anything personal against you. I think you are trying to do what "YOU" think is best. To say that you were the only honest guy trying to fix the corrupt, I don't believe.
Bryron Bateman, Troy J, and Ryan Foutz, are and were in charge of the check book. I have know them for 15 plus years and they are men of intergity.
I'm through posting on the topic. SFW is strong, and getting more support. They will continue to do great things for all hunters.
Start you own group, See how well you can fix the deer herd, I'll support it if it does good things for wildlife.
Enough said.
Greg
Nothing new in your post. You posted the same thing last year. Troy called your bluff and nothing happened.
I don't have anything personal against you. I think you are trying to do what "YOU" think is best. To say that you were the only honest guy trying to fix the corrupt, I don't believe.
Bryron Bateman, Troy J, and Ryan Foutz, are and were in charge of the check book. I have know them for 15 plus years and they are men of intergity.
I'm through posting on the topic. SFW is strong, and getting more support. They will continue to do great things for all hunters.
Start you own group, See how well you can fix the deer herd, I'll support it if it does good things for wildlife.
Enough said.
Greg
MulePacker
Active Member
- Messages
- 513
Tristate,
So the books are a watered down annual profit /loss statement that really doesn't telll anyone anything about the inner workings of a company and doesn't establish any trust from anyone except the masses that think this is how you tell whether a company is legit or not. Yeah this makes since.
"Sense" that would be sense. You really are as foolish as your posts paint you.
For someone who confesses to not have an affiliation with SFW you seem to be over confident when it comes to discussing matters with those who have sat in the inner circles.
"For Inquiring Minds"
I suggest if you want to know if SFW is on the up and up a simple question can be asked of the ardent supporters and those who left the fold for some reason.
Have you ever been compensated for your volunteer work under the table?
I am not suggesting that all volunteers have been compensated without knowledge or approval of the general membership or chapter committees. However, I am certain that a few of the most vocal have been.
This will confirm again the MO of SFW. Pay off those who will benefit or defend you to the end, it makes "sense" doesn't it?
So the books are a watered down annual profit /loss statement that really doesn't telll anyone anything about the inner workings of a company and doesn't establish any trust from anyone except the masses that think this is how you tell whether a company is legit or not. Yeah this makes since.
"Sense" that would be sense. You really are as foolish as your posts paint you.
For someone who confesses to not have an affiliation with SFW you seem to be over confident when it comes to discussing matters with those who have sat in the inner circles.
"For Inquiring Minds"
I suggest if you want to know if SFW is on the up and up a simple question can be asked of the ardent supporters and those who left the fold for some reason.
Have you ever been compensated for your volunteer work under the table?
I am not suggesting that all volunteers have been compensated without knowledge or approval of the general membership or chapter committees. However, I am certain that a few of the most vocal have been.
This will confirm again the MO of SFW. Pay off those who will benefit or defend you to the end, it makes "sense" doesn't it?
MulePacker, That is quite a statement saying that a few of the most vocal have been compensated for their works. I guess if you call a hat or a t shirt now and again compensation then I guess I am guilty. As of money, never received a dime. Even go about my SFW work with my own gas. I know if no other that receive anything more than I do unless they are one of the few full time employees. Now I do not miss many board meetings, or other meetings. Still waiting to be compensated. Do not think that it will ever happen.
The statement you made, pay off those who will benefit or defend you to the end, it makes sense doesn't it is really a blind statement and does not happen. Oh yes I guess a hat or tshirt I guess is big pay.
The statement you made, pay off those who will benefit or defend you to the end, it makes sense doesn't it is really a blind statement and does not happen. Oh yes I guess a hat or tshirt I guess is big pay.
Tristate
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,890
"Tristate,
So the books are a watered down annual profit /loss statement that really doesn't telll anyone anything about the inner workings of a company and doesn't establish any trust from anyone except the masses that think this is how you tell whether a company is legit or not. Yeah this makes since.
"Sense" that would be sense. You really are as foolish as your posts paint you.
For someone who confesses to not have an affiliation with SFW you seem to be over confident when it comes to discussing matters with those who have sat in the inner circles.
"For Inquiring Minds"
I suggest if you want to know if SFW is on the up and up a simple question can be asked of the ardent supporters and those who left the fold for some reason.
Have you ever been compensated for your volunteer work under the table?
I am not suggesting that all volunteers have been compensated without knowledge or approval of the general membership or chapter committees. However, I am certain that a few of the most vocal have been.
This will confirm again the MO of SFW. Pay off those who will benefit or defend you to the end, it makes "sense" doesn't it?"
Mule packer,
You claim that an anual proffit loss statement is "the books" everyone is looking for, but by the end of the page you are trying to figure out if any volunteers took payoffs. You won't find that out with any of your accounting in what you call "the books".
Like I said before when I have outlined how this whole deal has gone down, "the books", the business affiliations, the failed projects, AND NOW YOUR ACCUSATION OF UNDER TABLE PAY OFFS, are nothing more than distractions. You are failing to address your real issue here and instead you and others hope character assasination will get you what you want.
So the books are a watered down annual profit /loss statement that really doesn't telll anyone anything about the inner workings of a company and doesn't establish any trust from anyone except the masses that think this is how you tell whether a company is legit or not. Yeah this makes since.
"Sense" that would be sense. You really are as foolish as your posts paint you.
For someone who confesses to not have an affiliation with SFW you seem to be over confident when it comes to discussing matters with those who have sat in the inner circles.
"For Inquiring Minds"
I suggest if you want to know if SFW is on the up and up a simple question can be asked of the ardent supporters and those who left the fold for some reason.
Have you ever been compensated for your volunteer work under the table?
I am not suggesting that all volunteers have been compensated without knowledge or approval of the general membership or chapter committees. However, I am certain that a few of the most vocal have been.
This will confirm again the MO of SFW. Pay off those who will benefit or defend you to the end, it makes "sense" doesn't it?"
Mule packer,
You claim that an anual proffit loss statement is "the books" everyone is looking for, but by the end of the page you are trying to figure out if any volunteers took payoffs. You won't find that out with any of your accounting in what you call "the books".
Like I said before when I have outlined how this whole deal has gone down, "the books", the business affiliations, the failed projects, AND NOW YOUR ACCUSATION OF UNDER TABLE PAY OFFS, are nothing more than distractions. You are failing to address your real issue here and instead you and others hope character assasination will get you what you want.
Mule packer,
I am one of the vocal supporters, served on the SFW board, resigned when I had other important committments, helped with banquets for 15 years, HAVE NOT been paid under any table. I see the results from my volunteering that SFW delivered, that was pay enough. Tony, and anyone could attest to this. I think you know me good enough as well.
It's too bad we need to hash this out every couple years. SFW has strong support with its membership, it is making choices the membership believe is making a better future for wildlife, hunting, helping kids, and the less fortunate.
Greg
I am one of the vocal supporters, served on the SFW board, resigned when I had other important committments, helped with banquets for 15 years, HAVE NOT been paid under any table. I see the results from my volunteering that SFW delivered, that was pay enough. Tony, and anyone could attest to this. I think you know me good enough as well.
It's too bad we need to hash this out every couple years. SFW has strong support with its membership, it is making choices the membership believe is making a better future for wildlife, hunting, helping kids, and the less fortunate.
Greg
K
klbzdad
Guest
>"Bryron Bateman, Troy J, and Ryan
>Foutz, are and were in
>charge of the check book.
> I have know them
>for 15 plus years and
>they are men of intergity."
>
>
>I'm through posting on the topic.
BS....nuff said.
>"SFW is strong, and
>getting more support. They
>will continue to do great
>things for all hunters."
For trophy hunters.....nuff said.
Some really good people who support SFW reside with me on the mountain from the end of May through October. They go to dedicated hunter projects and bring their families. They attend banquets and overpay for things they could buy cheaper themselves to support wildlife. The root of this problem is nothing complicated. We, the people of Utah, give tags we own to many groups. RMEF completely discloses EVERYTHING associated with those tags down to the dime and don't complain one bit if there is a positive change for wildlife management put on the table but their members show up for dedicated hunter projects with their families and do the same thing at banquets that the SFW crowd does and some here locally attend BOTH and more. The divisive issue is opening the book, telling the God honest truth about what the intent of the leadership (including Don) really is without coming across to skeptics like me as a talking point buffoon. I don't think anyone in the leadership of SFW right now can make an intelligible argument for some of the management decisions they make nor can anyone justify Don getting taxpayer funds for a wolf fight that doesn't include Utah and that he and others the others you mentioned have been on the loosing side of nationally since Simpson/Tester.
I'm done on this thread too, but to our friends who so fervently support SFW and the leadership....ask yourself why it is so difficult for them to just shut up all critics and show their financials and then hold an election of officers that genuinely reflects the direction the members want the group to go. I'll join when the leadership they have now is no longer there and I'll join the fervor and fight right along side of you.
Shawn
"There is no reason why I have to tolerate your stupidity if you are unwilling to tolerate mine." ME
>Foutz, are and were in
>charge of the check book.
> I have know them
>for 15 plus years and
>they are men of intergity."
>
>
>I'm through posting on the topic.
BS....nuff said.
>"SFW is strong, and
>getting more support. They
>will continue to do great
>things for all hunters."
For trophy hunters.....nuff said.
Some really good people who support SFW reside with me on the mountain from the end of May through October. They go to dedicated hunter projects and bring their families. They attend banquets and overpay for things they could buy cheaper themselves to support wildlife. The root of this problem is nothing complicated. We, the people of Utah, give tags we own to many groups. RMEF completely discloses EVERYTHING associated with those tags down to the dime and don't complain one bit if there is a positive change for wildlife management put on the table but their members show up for dedicated hunter projects with their families and do the same thing at banquets that the SFW crowd does and some here locally attend BOTH and more. The divisive issue is opening the book, telling the God honest truth about what the intent of the leadership (including Don) really is without coming across to skeptics like me as a talking point buffoon. I don't think anyone in the leadership of SFW right now can make an intelligible argument for some of the management decisions they make nor can anyone justify Don getting taxpayer funds for a wolf fight that doesn't include Utah and that he and others the others you mentioned have been on the loosing side of nationally since Simpson/Tester.
I'm done on this thread too, but to our friends who so fervently support SFW and the leadership....ask yourself why it is so difficult for them to just shut up all critics and show their financials and then hold an election of officers that genuinely reflects the direction the members want the group to go. I'll join when the leadership they have now is no longer there and I'll join the fervor and fight right along side of you.
Shawn
"There is no reason why I have to tolerate your stupidity if you are unwilling to tolerate mine." ME
MulePacker
Active Member
- Messages
- 513
"Mule packer,
You claim that an anual proffit loss statement is "the books" everyone is looking for, but by the end of the page you are trying to figure out if any volunteers took payoffs. You won't find that out with any of your accounting in what you call "the books".
Like I said before when I have outlined how this whole deal has gone down, "the books", the business affiliations, the failed projects, AND NOW YOUR ACCUSATION OF UNDER TABLE PAY OFFS, are nothing more than distractions. You are failing to address your real issue here and instead you and others hope character assasination will get you what you want."
Tristate,
I have made no such claim as you indicate in your statement. Go back and read my post I was simply trying to help you in clarifying your last statement by defining "sense" i.e. "since"
Secondly I am wondering where you gained such an acute knowledge of the inner workings of a group you have no affiliation with. I do see that you spend an extreme amount of time perusing MM threads.
FYI,
Having been a volunteer for SFW I do know that there have been individuals compensated without the knowledge of the general membership, chapter committees or those supporting their banquets. I also know there have been individuals who left the fold due to such offers. I beleive this is a good way to discern if SFW is right for you. Glad to be a former SFW member.
You claim that an anual proffit loss statement is "the books" everyone is looking for, but by the end of the page you are trying to figure out if any volunteers took payoffs. You won't find that out with any of your accounting in what you call "the books".
Like I said before when I have outlined how this whole deal has gone down, "the books", the business affiliations, the failed projects, AND NOW YOUR ACCUSATION OF UNDER TABLE PAY OFFS, are nothing more than distractions. You are failing to address your real issue here and instead you and others hope character assasination will get you what you want."
Tristate,
I have made no such claim as you indicate in your statement. Go back and read my post I was simply trying to help you in clarifying your last statement by defining "sense" i.e. "since"
Secondly I am wondering where you gained such an acute knowledge of the inner workings of a group you have no affiliation with. I do see that you spend an extreme amount of time perusing MM threads.
FYI,
Having been a volunteer for SFW I do know that there have been individuals compensated without the knowledge of the general membership, chapter committees or those supporting their banquets. I also know there have been individuals who left the fold due to such offers. I beleive this is a good way to discern if SFW is right for you. Glad to be a former SFW member.
Will it make 400?
I burnt through this thread pretty fast since I got to skip half the postings since they were made by a member that doesn't count. Wait a minute, does that mean the thread is only to about 162 posts???
Mntman
"Hunting is where you prove yourself"
Let me guess, you drive a 1 ton with oak trees for smoke stacks, 12" lift kit and 40" tires to pull a single place lawn mower trailer?
I burnt through this thread pretty fast since I got to skip half the postings since they were made by a member that doesn't count. Wait a minute, does that mean the thread is only to about 162 posts???
Mntman
"Hunting is where you prove yourself"
Let me guess, you drive a 1 ton with oak trees for smoke stacks, 12" lift kit and 40" tires to pull a single place lawn mower trailer?
MulePacker
Active Member
- Messages
- 513
Greg,
Sorry you took this personal and called me out. However, I believe we both know of instances where compensation was provided without the knowledge of general SFW membership. Maybe it has stopped since I left, but I will admit I see to many similarities to the past not to be skeptical.
Paid insuates an exchange of money.
Compensation refers to any offer" such as Money, Jazz Tickets, Trips, Leftover Banquet Merchandise, Discounts etc.
I am glad to know you have not been paid.
You may also note in my post I simply challenged people to ask if they want to know if it happens from both vocal supporters and anti SFW folks as well. If your view of SFW holds true then they will certainly find out there is not under the table dealings and you have nothing to worry about.
As for your statements that SFW is stronger than ever I believe a look at the books will prove banquet attendance and net revenue is down from the past and not hitting all time highs. I may be wrong as I don't live in those circles and can only rely on what I read here on MM.
Birdman,
I to have a drawer full of SFW attire, some of it would be considered "vintage". I no longer have use for it I would be happy to send it to you. If you would like send me an address.
Sorry you took this personal and called me out. However, I believe we both know of instances where compensation was provided without the knowledge of general SFW membership. Maybe it has stopped since I left, but I will admit I see to many similarities to the past not to be skeptical.
Paid insuates an exchange of money.
Compensation refers to any offer" such as Money, Jazz Tickets, Trips, Leftover Banquet Merchandise, Discounts etc.
I am glad to know you have not been paid.
You may also note in my post I simply challenged people to ask if they want to know if it happens from both vocal supporters and anti SFW folks as well. If your view of SFW holds true then they will certainly find out there is not under the table dealings and you have nothing to worry about.
As for your statements that SFW is stronger than ever I believe a look at the books will prove banquet attendance and net revenue is down from the past and not hitting all time highs. I may be wrong as I don't live in those circles and can only rely on what I read here on MM.
Birdman,
I to have a drawer full of SFW attire, some of it would be considered "vintage". I no longer have use for it I would be happy to send it to you. If you would like send me an address.
Tristate
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,890
"Tristate,
I have made no such claim as you indicate in your statement. Go back and read my post I was simply trying to help you in clarifying your last statement by defining "sense" i.e. "since""
Did you forget this statement?????
"Have you ever been compensated for your volunteer work under the table?
I am not suggesting that all volunteers have been compensated without knowledge or approval of the general membership or chapter committees. However, I am certain that a few of the most vocal have been."
Maybe I am mistaken and the second quote is a quote by you of someone else but I thought it to be your words.
"Having been a volunteer for SFW I do know that there have been individuals compensated without the knowledge of the general membership, chapter committees or those supporting their banquets. I also know there have been individuals who left the fold due to such offers. I beleive this is a good way to discern if SFW is right for you. Glad to be a former SFW member."
Then name names and prices. Quit sniping and hiding. If you claim to have truth run it up a flagpole.
I have made no such claim as you indicate in your statement. Go back and read my post I was simply trying to help you in clarifying your last statement by defining "sense" i.e. "since""
Did you forget this statement?????
"Have you ever been compensated for your volunteer work under the table?
I am not suggesting that all volunteers have been compensated without knowledge or approval of the general membership or chapter committees. However, I am certain that a few of the most vocal have been."
Maybe I am mistaken and the second quote is a quote by you of someone else but I thought it to be your words.
"Having been a volunteer for SFW I do know that there have been individuals compensated without the knowledge of the general membership, chapter committees or those supporting their banquets. I also know there have been individuals who left the fold due to such offers. I beleive this is a good way to discern if SFW is right for you. Glad to be a former SFW member."
Then name names and prices. Quit sniping and hiding. If you claim to have truth run it up a flagpole.
MulePacker
Active Member
- Messages
- 513
Tristate,
"You claim that an anual proffit loss statement is "the books" everyone is looking for, but by the end of the page you are trying to figure out if any volunteers took payoffs."
You may not understand sentence structure. I am no grammatical expert but, the above sentence indicates I (mulepacker) made a claim to the annual profit and loss statement. I did not go back and check your reading comprehension these are words attributed to you by you or others. Even as you said at the end of the page. I was not trying to figure out anything. I already know if compensation has been awarded. I was suggesting others ask a question if they want to know.
As far as running it up the flag pole answer me this question.
WHY?
I already have my answers I no longer affiliate with SFW because of those answers. My thoughts and feelings may not agree with yours or others. Therefore, I do not expect for you or anyone to take my knowledge and make a decision for you or them. I simply was offering advice ask a question find out for yourself, if SFW is for you. We all have levels when it comes to what we find acceptable. I simply do not find SFW business practices acceptable. Contrary to some opinions I believe there is a rising numbers who have like feelings.
Now here is a claim and my final effort at arguing with a fool.
I believe you should try standing on your own ideas and agendas. Quit trying to play a wordsmith by taking snippits from others posts and then twisting or redefining them to your needs and preferences. You are lousy at it! It is no wonder in members signatures you are shunned. You truly can not argue a point except for the sake of arguement itself. I'll stake my claim that you are much less than you see yourself as!
"You claim that an anual proffit loss statement is "the books" everyone is looking for, but by the end of the page you are trying to figure out if any volunteers took payoffs."
You may not understand sentence structure. I am no grammatical expert but, the above sentence indicates I (mulepacker) made a claim to the annual profit and loss statement. I did not go back and check your reading comprehension these are words attributed to you by you or others. Even as you said at the end of the page. I was not trying to figure out anything. I already know if compensation has been awarded. I was suggesting others ask a question if they want to know.
As far as running it up the flag pole answer me this question.
WHY?
I already have my answers I no longer affiliate with SFW because of those answers. My thoughts and feelings may not agree with yours or others. Therefore, I do not expect for you or anyone to take my knowledge and make a decision for you or them. I simply was offering advice ask a question find out for yourself, if SFW is for you. We all have levels when it comes to what we find acceptable. I simply do not find SFW business practices acceptable. Contrary to some opinions I believe there is a rising numbers who have like feelings.
Now here is a claim and my final effort at arguing with a fool.
I believe you should try standing on your own ideas and agendas. Quit trying to play a wordsmith by taking snippits from others posts and then twisting or redefining them to your needs and preferences. You are lousy at it! It is no wonder in members signatures you are shunned. You truly can not argue a point except for the sake of arguement itself. I'll stake my claim that you are much less than you see yourself as!
MulePacker I sent you a PM.
I wasn't calling you out, I was telling the truth, many readers could have gotten the imression that I was being paid under the table by your statement.
I have had some perks for volunteering hundreds of hours over the years. Like any business, hard work is rewarded, discounts on merchandise, a concert ticket, etc. at times. It was done to say thanks. It wasn't under any table. It in no way comes close to paying for expenses occured over the years of volunteering.
I have heard that some chairman in a couple towns got paid for their time and expenses, that is beyond the duties of normal committee members. Don't know if its true, doesn't really matter to me. I'm not offended if they did. I try to be a fair, honest person, that tries to give back to a sport that I love.
Bill Christensen with RMEF has given perks to good supporters and members also. It's a way of saying thanks. I don't think anything is wrong with that.
SFW is stronger according to banquet attendance, net earnings from banquets, and new members signed up from this years Expo attendance is all I know, or have been told.
Greg
I wasn't calling you out, I was telling the truth, many readers could have gotten the imression that I was being paid under the table by your statement.
I have had some perks for volunteering hundreds of hours over the years. Like any business, hard work is rewarded, discounts on merchandise, a concert ticket, etc. at times. It was done to say thanks. It wasn't under any table. It in no way comes close to paying for expenses occured over the years of volunteering.
I have heard that some chairman in a couple towns got paid for their time and expenses, that is beyond the duties of normal committee members. Don't know if its true, doesn't really matter to me. I'm not offended if they did. I try to be a fair, honest person, that tries to give back to a sport that I love.
Bill Christensen with RMEF has given perks to good supporters and members also. It's a way of saying thanks. I don't think anything is wrong with that.
SFW is stronger according to banquet attendance, net earnings from banquets, and new members signed up from this years Expo attendance is all I know, or have been told.
Greg
>As for your statements that SFW
>is stronger than ever I
>believe a look at the
>books will prove banquet attendance
>and net revenue is down
>from the past and not
>hitting all time highs. I
>may be wrong as I
>don't live in those circles
>and can only rely on
>what I read here on
>MM.
>
AGREED, at one time the Davis Banquet was flirting with the 900 person mark, and I think it was mentioned earlier that over 400 people attended this year. So how is that record number attendance?
I would love to see some hard core numbers from banquet attendance to help prove me right or wrong on this number, but I doubt that there is any proof floating around.
>
>Birdman,
>
>I to have a drawer full
>of SFW attire, some of
>it would be considered "vintage".
>I no longer have use
>for it I would be
>happy to send it to
>you. If you would like
>send me an address.
I also have a drawer full of SFW shirts, vests and misc hats that I no longer have a need for that I would be happy to send to you as well.
Tallbuck1
>is stronger than ever I
>believe a look at the
>books will prove banquet attendance
>and net revenue is down
>from the past and not
>hitting all time highs. I
>may be wrong as I
>don't live in those circles
>and can only rely on
>what I read here on
>MM.
>
AGREED, at one time the Davis Banquet was flirting with the 900 person mark, and I think it was mentioned earlier that over 400 people attended this year. So how is that record number attendance?
I would love to see some hard core numbers from banquet attendance to help prove me right or wrong on this number, but I doubt that there is any proof floating around.
>
>Birdman,
>
>I to have a drawer full
>of SFW attire, some of
>it would be considered "vintage".
>I no longer have use
>for it I would be
>happy to send it to
>you. If you would like
>send me an address.
I also have a drawer full of SFW shirts, vests and misc hats that I no longer have a need for that I would be happy to send to you as well.
Tallbuck1
Tristate
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,890
You are right. I had your post confused with a Post by Nemont showing that an anual profit/loss statement is what people refer to as "the books".
As for whether you should validate your claims as to underhanded payoffs, you state "Why?".
Because thats what men do. If you are going to make allegations then you back them up. Just like I made a mistake confusing your post for Nemont's, when it was brought to my attention I did what was right. Why make accusations and then not back them up?
As for whether you should validate your claims as to underhanded payoffs, you state "Why?".
Because thats what men do. If you are going to make allegations then you back them up. Just like I made a mistake confusing your post for Nemont's, when it was brought to my attention I did what was right. Why make accusations and then not back them up?
>MulePacker I sent you a PM.
>
>
>I wasn't calling you out, I
>was telling the truth, many
>readers could have gotten the
>imression that I was being
>paid under the table by
>your statement.
>
>I have had some perks for
>volunteering hundreds of hours over
>the years. Like any
>business, hard work is rewarded,
>discounts on merchandise, a concert
>ticket, etc. at times. It
>was done to say thanks.
> It wasn't under any
>table. It in no way
>comes close to paying for
>expenses occured over the years
>of volunteering.
>
>I have heard that some chairman
>in a couple towns got
>paid for their time and
>expenses, that is beyond the
>duties of normal committee members.
> Don't know if its
>true, doesn't really matter to
>me. I'm not offended
>if they did. I try
>to be a fair, honest
>person, that tries to give
>back to a sport that
>I love.
>
>Bill Christensen with RMEF has given
>perks to good supporters and
>members also. It's a
>way of saying thanks.
>I don't think anything is
>wrong with that.
>
>SFW is stronger according to banquet
>attendance, net earnings from banquets,
>and new members signed up
>from this years Expo attendance
>is all I know, or
>have been told.
>
>Greg
***Your second paragraph stating that you got "perks" is COMPENSATION! In a 501(C)3 operation I believe that would be a violation if you aren't an actual employee on the payroll and showing on the tax returns. Cripes, back in the 70s I volunteered 1000 hours one year out at Fort Custer, MI and didn't get anything but the satisfaction that I was helping a good cause that allowed civilians to deer hunt out there. THAT is a volunteer!
>
>
>I wasn't calling you out, I
>was telling the truth, many
>readers could have gotten the
>imression that I was being
>paid under the table by
>your statement.
>
>I have had some perks for
>volunteering hundreds of hours over
>the years. Like any
>business, hard work is rewarded,
>discounts on merchandise, a concert
>ticket, etc. at times. It
>was done to say thanks.
> It wasn't under any
>table. It in no way
>comes close to paying for
>expenses occured over the years
>of volunteering.
>
>I have heard that some chairman
>in a couple towns got
>paid for their time and
>expenses, that is beyond the
>duties of normal committee members.
> Don't know if its
>true, doesn't really matter to
>me. I'm not offended
>if they did. I try
>to be a fair, honest
>person, that tries to give
>back to a sport that
>I love.
>
>Bill Christensen with RMEF has given
>perks to good supporters and
>members also. It's a
>way of saying thanks.
>I don't think anything is
>wrong with that.
>
>SFW is stronger according to banquet
>attendance, net earnings from banquets,
>and new members signed up
>from this years Expo attendance
>is all I know, or
>have been told.
>
>Greg
***Your second paragraph stating that you got "perks" is COMPENSATION! In a 501(C)3 operation I believe that would be a violation if you aren't an actual employee on the payroll and showing on the tax returns. Cripes, back in the 70s I volunteered 1000 hours one year out at Fort Custer, MI and didn't get anything but the satisfaction that I was helping a good cause that allowed civilians to deer hunt out there. THAT is a volunteer!
>
>>As for your statements that SFW
>>is stronger than ever I
>>believe a look at the
>>books will prove banquet attendance
>>and net revenue is down
>>from the past and not
>>hitting all time highs. I
>>may be wrong as I
>>don't live in those circles
>>and can only rely on
>>what I read here on
>>MM.
>>
>
>AGREED, at one time the Davis
>Banquet was flirting with the
>900 person mark, and I
>think it was mentioned earlier
>that over 400 people attended
>this year. So how
>is that record number attendance?
>
>
>I would love to see some
>hard core numbers from banquet
>attendance to help prove me
>right or wrong on this
>number, but I doubt that
>there is any proof floating
>around.
>
>
>>
>>Birdman,
>>
>>I to have a drawer full
>>of SFW attire, some of
>>it would be considered "vintage".
>>I no longer have use
>>for it I would be
>>happy to send it to
>>you. If you would like
>>send me an address.
>
>
>I also have a drawer full
>of SFW shirts, vests and
>misc hats that I no
>longer have a need for
>that I would be happy
>to send to you as
>well.
>
>
>
>Tallbuck1
FYI We had 680 people attend the Weber/Davis SFW banquet. We had to stop selling tickets because we maxed out the facility.
>>As for your statements that SFW
>>is stronger than ever I
>>believe a look at the
>>books will prove banquet attendance
>>and net revenue is down
>>from the past and not
>>hitting all time highs. I
>>may be wrong as I
>>don't live in those circles
>>and can only rely on
>>what I read here on
>>MM.
>>
>
>AGREED, at one time the Davis
>Banquet was flirting with the
>900 person mark, and I
>think it was mentioned earlier
>that over 400 people attended
>this year. So how
>is that record number attendance?
>
>
>I would love to see some
>hard core numbers from banquet
>attendance to help prove me
>right or wrong on this
>number, but I doubt that
>there is any proof floating
>around.
>
>
>>
>>Birdman,
>>
>>I to have a drawer full
>>of SFW attire, some of
>>it would be considered "vintage".
>>I no longer have use
>>for it I would be
>>happy to send it to
>>you. If you would like
>>send me an address.
>
>
>I also have a drawer full
>of SFW shirts, vests and
>misc hats that I no
>longer have a need for
>that I would be happy
>to send to you as
>well.
>
>
>
>Tallbuck1
FYI We had 680 people attend the Weber/Davis SFW banquet. We had to stop selling tickets because we maxed out the facility.
>Top,
>
>I have gotten perks from the
>NRA and RMEF also.
>I guess I'm a bad
>person.
***Can't speak to the RMEF comment, but the NRA is not a 501(C)3 organization and they can do whatever they want. That is why any dontaions or dues are not tax deductible. What are these perks that you got from both organizations you mentioned?
>
>I have gotten perks from the
>NRA and RMEF also.
>I guess I'm a bad
>person.
***Can't speak to the RMEF comment, but the NRA is not a 501(C)3 organization and they can do whatever they want. That is why any dontaions or dues are not tax deductible. What are these perks that you got from both organizations you mentioned?
>FYI We had 680 people attend
>the Weber/Davis SFW banquet. We
>had to stop selling tickets
> because we maxed out
>the facility.
Awesome Justin glad to hear that things were that good this year. I know that last year was hard due to the economy! But it is not record breaking like Greg was saying...
Tallbuck1
>the Weber/Davis SFW banquet. We
>had to stop selling tickets
> because we maxed out
>the facility.
Awesome Justin glad to hear that things were that good this year. I know that last year was hard due to the economy! But it is not record breaking like Greg was saying...
Tallbuck1
Muley_73
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,788
JMO,
Thanks for the numbers, it sure seemed liked more than 400 to me. Seemed like they had mostly Browning guns. Seemed to me that they didn't raffle any LE tags. Seemed to me the people there where there to support. Seemed to me that there was a lot of positive talk and excited sportsman. Seemed to me that people listened and watched the video. Seemed to me the DWR people there were excited and appreciative of the projects and help being done. It seemed to be a great banquet.
Then again I also enjoyed the punch/kool aid that was been served so I guess that must have been the issue.
Thanks for the numbers, it sure seemed liked more than 400 to me. Seemed like they had mostly Browning guns. Seemed to me that they didn't raffle any LE tags. Seemed to me the people there where there to support. Seemed to me that there was a lot of positive talk and excited sportsman. Seemed to me that people listened and watched the video. Seemed to me the DWR people there were excited and appreciative of the projects and help being done. It seemed to be a great banquet.
Then again I also enjoyed the punch/kool aid that was been served so I guess that must have been the issue.
>JMO,
>
>Thanks for the numbers, it
>sure seemed liked more than
>400 to me. Seemed
>like they had mostly Browning
>guns. Seemed to me
>that they didn't raffle any
>LE tags. Seemed to
>me the people there where
>there to support. Seemed
>to me that there was
>a lot of positive talk
>and excited sportsman. Seemed
>to me that people listened
>and watched the video.
>Seemed to me the DWR
>people there were excited and
>appreciative of the projects and
>help being done. It
>seemed to be a great
>banquet.
>
>Then again I also enjoyed the
>punch/kool aid that was been
>served so I guess that
>must have been the issue.
>
The video was a good ego stroke, to bad all the fishing and pheasant release stuff couldn't have been made possible 8 or so years ago like promised...
but better late then never I guess... glad I dont have to hold my breath for 20+ years on promises but I am happy you all enjoy it.
Keep up the good work!
Tallbuck1
>
>Thanks for the numbers, it
>sure seemed liked more than
>400 to me. Seemed
>like they had mostly Browning
>guns. Seemed to me
>that they didn't raffle any
>LE tags. Seemed to
>me the people there where
>there to support. Seemed
>to me that there was
>a lot of positive talk
>and excited sportsman. Seemed
>to me that people listened
>and watched the video.
>Seemed to me the DWR
>people there were excited and
>appreciative of the projects and
>help being done. It
>seemed to be a great
>banquet.
>
>Then again I also enjoyed the
>punch/kool aid that was been
>served so I guess that
>must have been the issue.
>
The video was a good ego stroke, to bad all the fishing and pheasant release stuff couldn't have been made possible 8 or so years ago like promised...
but better late then never I guess... glad I dont have to hold my breath for 20+ years on promises but I am happy you all enjoy it.
Keep up the good work!
Tallbuck1
K
klbzdad
Guest
>JMO,
>
>Thanks for the numbers, it
>sure seemed liked more than
>400 to me. Seemed
>like they had mostly Browning
>guns. Seemed to me
>that they didn't raffle any
>LE tags. Seemed to
>me the people there where
>there to support. Seemed
>to me that there was
>a lot of positive talk
>and excited sportsman. Seemed
>to me that people listened
>and watched the video.
>Seemed to me the DWR
>people there were excited and
>appreciative of the projects and
>help being done. It
>seemed to be a great
>banquet.
>
>Then again I also enjoyed the
>punch/kool aid that was been
>served so I guess that
>must have been the issue.
>
Let me clarify something.....I personally don't have an issue with the general membership or even SFW except for their association with Don Peay and the current leadership. Time for a change of the guard and even I will jump in with both feet, join, and wear my hat proudly. Why is it so hard for SFW membership to understand the root of the problem people have is NOT with the organization. Those who have worked for SFW and left say the same damned thing....its not the org or the membership, its the head of the snake. Only, you can't just cut the head off this snake, you have to get it to shed its skin (leadership) and many people will change their perspective. I for one am anxious for this to happen because I think less focus would be placed on the shady business practices and a little focus on public perception can be done. That said....you brought up the tags again and no LE tags. Yes and no. Yes, they are auctioning tags in LE units that many folks here and on other forums would LOVE to draw out for or be able to purchse. No, they are landowner tags in these units and NOT conservation tags. I stand half corrected. But in Utah, all tags (except turkey) are Limited Entry now, are they not?
From SFW's website:
Davis/Weber March 2nd
1- Pahvant Elk Hunters Choice (LO)
2- San Juan Elk Ridge Elk Hunter Choice (LO)
3- Plateau Fish Lake Thousand Lake Elk Archery
4- Morgan South Rich Antelope Any Weapon
5- Ogden, Willard Mountain Goat Late
6- Book Cliffs Deer Season Choice
7- Paunsaugunt Deer Management (LO)
8- Paunsaugunt Deer Hunters Choice (LO)
9- Chalk Creek/Kamas/North Slope/ Summit Bear
10- North Slope Daggett/Three Corners Bear
11- Uinta's Cougar
12- Northern Turkey
13- Northern Turkey
I'm glad to see the passion and love for wildlife by members of all groups. However, when other groups contribute, how come we NEVER hear a grateful tip of the hat from SFW leadership? How come their message is always that anyone or any group the opposes the leadership of SFW are those people or groups instantly labeled "anti-hunter"? Why not shut all detractors of their accounting the hell up by allowing an audit by a third party like RMEF does? Money well spent to put to rest such a divisive issue, is it not? Would you rather we were all sharing a campfire talking success stories for wildlife instead of rehashing this all the time? I sure would like for that to happen and it won't until each chapter of SFW asks for an election of officers that represent the mission statement and who's actions are truly in the best interest of SFW and OUR wildlife in Utah. I think these are honest questions. IMHO!
"There is no reason why I have to tolerate your stupidity if you are unwilling to tolerate mine." ME
>
>Thanks for the numbers, it
>sure seemed liked more than
>400 to me. Seemed
>like they had mostly Browning
>guns. Seemed to me
>that they didn't raffle any
>LE tags. Seemed to
>me the people there where
>there to support. Seemed
>to me that there was
>a lot of positive talk
>and excited sportsman. Seemed
>to me that people listened
>and watched the video.
>Seemed to me the DWR
>people there were excited and
>appreciative of the projects and
>help being done. It
>seemed to be a great
>banquet.
>
>Then again I also enjoyed the
>punch/kool aid that was been
>served so I guess that
>must have been the issue.
>
Let me clarify something.....I personally don't have an issue with the general membership or even SFW except for their association with Don Peay and the current leadership. Time for a change of the guard and even I will jump in with both feet, join, and wear my hat proudly. Why is it so hard for SFW membership to understand the root of the problem people have is NOT with the organization. Those who have worked for SFW and left say the same damned thing....its not the org or the membership, its the head of the snake. Only, you can't just cut the head off this snake, you have to get it to shed its skin (leadership) and many people will change their perspective. I for one am anxious for this to happen because I think less focus would be placed on the shady business practices and a little focus on public perception can be done. That said....you brought up the tags again and no LE tags. Yes and no. Yes, they are auctioning tags in LE units that many folks here and on other forums would LOVE to draw out for or be able to purchse. No, they are landowner tags in these units and NOT conservation tags. I stand half corrected. But in Utah, all tags (except turkey) are Limited Entry now, are they not?
From SFW's website:
Davis/Weber March 2nd
1- Pahvant Elk Hunters Choice (LO)
2- San Juan Elk Ridge Elk Hunter Choice (LO)
3- Plateau Fish Lake Thousand Lake Elk Archery
4- Morgan South Rich Antelope Any Weapon
5- Ogden, Willard Mountain Goat Late
6- Book Cliffs Deer Season Choice
7- Paunsaugunt Deer Management (LO)
8- Paunsaugunt Deer Hunters Choice (LO)
9- Chalk Creek/Kamas/North Slope/ Summit Bear
10- North Slope Daggett/Three Corners Bear
11- Uinta's Cougar
12- Northern Turkey
13- Northern Turkey
I'm glad to see the passion and love for wildlife by members of all groups. However, when other groups contribute, how come we NEVER hear a grateful tip of the hat from SFW leadership? How come their message is always that anyone or any group the opposes the leadership of SFW are those people or groups instantly labeled "anti-hunter"? Why not shut all detractors of their accounting the hell up by allowing an audit by a third party like RMEF does? Money well spent to put to rest such a divisive issue, is it not? Would you rather we were all sharing a campfire talking success stories for wildlife instead of rehashing this all the time? I sure would like for that to happen and it won't until each chapter of SFW asks for an election of officers that represent the mission statement and who's actions are truly in the best interest of SFW and OUR wildlife in Utah. I think these are honest questions. IMHO!
"There is no reason why I have to tolerate your stupidity if you are unwilling to tolerate mine." ME
Tallbuck1: Lots of things have been planned to happen. Problem was talking before getting permission. It is against the law to put pheasants or fish out in Utah without permission from the State. That has taken a long time. No matter what the transplant or translocation is, permission is required in some way. The pheasants could only be turned loose in certain areas. The fish could only be put in certain places. Just to raise the fish bigger to plant took a group of people from friends of Strawberry plus to get it started. SFW made up the difference for the money to get the fish raised bigger. One if the biggest obstacles in transplants is the federal government. Permission must be obtained before the transplant of sheep, goats, etc. The division must also be on board. It isn't an easy situation to get accomplished. Even the translocation of the deer this winter was a hassle to get accomplished. The DWR said deer could not survive being transplanted. That was the reason SFW had to fund it without conservation tag monies. It has been a success so far except for the person or persons that are taking the time to shoot them and leave them.
kibzdad: Though there are people that are unhappy with the leadership of SFW, there are many that are happy. I for one know the head people and think that they are doing a great job. Now everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and if the committees wanted to get new leadership, it possibly could be done but on the other side, those people are also the ones that see what is going on and are happy with it. There will always be a few people that do not like leaders of any organization. Why is their question. This I know, if people do not like the leadership of SFW and the direction they are headed and the things that they are doing then it would not be growing as it is. Even with the economy of the country, membership is growing. This year at the expo more people joined that have never been a member than ever before. Lots of people love the direction SFW is headed and what they are doing. There will always be opposition in all things. That is expected, The people have spoken as for now with SFW in a positive way.
kibzdad: Though there are people that are unhappy with the leadership of SFW, there are many that are happy. I for one know the head people and think that they are doing a great job. Now everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and if the committees wanted to get new leadership, it possibly could be done but on the other side, those people are also the ones that see what is going on and are happy with it. There will always be a few people that do not like leaders of any organization. Why is their question. This I know, if people do not like the leadership of SFW and the direction they are headed and the things that they are doing then it would not be growing as it is. Even with the economy of the country, membership is growing. This year at the expo more people joined that have never been a member than ever before. Lots of people love the direction SFW is headed and what they are doing. There will always be opposition in all things. That is expected, The people have spoken as for now with SFW in a positive way.
Muley_73
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,788
klb,
You are misunderstanding my post, tall made the comment that the only reason people attended was for a chance at winning a LE tag. My point was there was not a raffle for any tags. They were all auctioned so I don't buy that theory. That people only attend for a chance to win a tag.
I guess I am ok for a % of those tags being auctioned. The money generated for the DWR is huge. If you put those tags all back in the draw it doesn't really make a difference at all in the draws. But those dollars make a huge difference. I feel it's a fair trade. No I would not like to see more tags add to the auction and truth be told I'd probably even be ok if it was a few less. But I do think they are a good idea overall and benefit all sportsman with the money they bring in.
You are misunderstanding my post, tall made the comment that the only reason people attended was for a chance at winning a LE tag. My point was there was not a raffle for any tags. They were all auctioned so I don't buy that theory. That people only attend for a chance to win a tag.
I guess I am ok for a % of those tags being auctioned. The money generated for the DWR is huge. If you put those tags all back in the draw it doesn't really make a difference at all in the draws. But those dollars make a huge difference. I feel it's a fair trade. No I would not like to see more tags add to the auction and truth be told I'd probably even be ok if it was a few less. But I do think they are a good idea overall and benefit all sportsman with the money they bring in.
The big issue I have with SFW when I was a member for 10 years. I paid my membership every year, worked at banquets, worked at the WHCS Expo. But, when SFW's big 5 would go to the DWR board and make recommendations in the name of SFW and its members. I really dont ever remember the big 5 ever asking me or any of my friends our opinions about wildlife issues they were makeing recommendations on. If SFW is a true conservation group,....should allow members be able to voice their opinion's on matters at hand. I set at more than a few Davis/Weber committee meeting and lisen to long time members being pissed they had no say or in put in wildlife matters. That they had no say in who was running the group. "SERIOUS LACK OF COMMUNICATION INSIDE THE GROUP" It must be nice to self appoint yourself to a 100K a year job. If I pay my money as a member, work and help as often as my life will allow me, I think I should have some input to a certain degree. Yes, some must take the lead, and some must follow!! I have always suggested to the big 5,...to have some way on their SFW website, to post wildlife issues they were going to vote on or make recommendations on.And get a vote from members if they support the recommendations at hand,...before the board votes. None seem to have any interest in this suggestion. I guess no one wants to give up their power,...therefor, Me and many others are not members any longer, dont go to banquets,dont go to the Expo.
8mmMag, I guess the problem was that your committee member was not following through with his responsibility. The committee member on the board is to ask those in the committee their desires. Then at the board meeting the decisions are to be made with board members representing their committee. I would guess that your chair or board member did not do that. Can you imagine thousands trying to communicate there opinion? If there was a problem you should have brought it up to the board member representing your committee. What part of the WHCS expo did you work at.
There was no self appointing of the funds. That is not the way it works. It sounds to me like you have an issue with the board member representing your area at the time. Not the head.
There was no self appointing of the funds. That is not the way it works. It sounds to me like you have an issue with the board member representing your area at the time. Not the head.
Tristate
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,890
Birdman,
You keep trying to challenge these complainers with logic and reason. I understand why you would do that but you must understand this isn't even the real issue for them. They are not being honest about the battle they want. If you think I am wrong go back and look at the article that started this thread. That is who they choose sides with.
You keep trying to challenge these complainers with logic and reason. I understand why you would do that but you must understand this isn't even the real issue for them. They are not being honest about the battle they want. If you think I am wrong go back and look at the article that started this thread. That is who they choose sides with.
K
klbzdad
Guest
>klb,
>You are misunderstanding my post,
>tall made the comment that
>the only reason people attended
>was for a chance at
>winning a LE tag.
>My point was there was
>not a raffle for any
>tags. They were all
>auctioned so I don't buy
>that theory. That people
>only attend for a chance
>to win a tag.
>
>I guess I am ok for
>a % of those tags
>being auctioned. The money
>generated for the DWR is
>huge. If you put
>those tags all back in
>the draw it doesn't really
>make a difference at all
>in the draws. But
>those dollars make a huge
>difference. I feel it's a
>fair trade. No I
>would not like to see
>more tags add to the
>auction and truth be told
>I'd probably even be ok
>if it was a few
>less. But I do
>think they are a good
>idea overall and benefit all
>sportsman with the money they
>bring in.
That is a fair statement. However, I do know many people who only go for the raffles and the auction for the tags. I know people who attend several different ones depending on what tags are offered where. I swear I'm not generalizing my statement that people are lured by this opportunity. Now, is more money raised at a banquet for that tag than it would in the public draw? Oh yeah! But that is what it is intended for and while I don't fault the groups for using that to draw people to their banquets, I have been to SFW and RMEF banquets and the only side of the story shared is the one leadership wants shared. That they will "donate" the money to the division. Its a crossed message like that I think that needs to be changed and I don't have the all the solutions myself. I only suggest a shedding of the skin so that the growth we all hear about becomes genuine and undeniable. So many have been disenchanted with the kudos to the leaders of SFW that they walk away. That is sad and happens with all groups to a degree. But why is SFW the most controversial? And if the leaders of the chapters "see what's going on" then they would see more than what's being spoon fed to them. The solutions to what ails that group aren't rocket science and should be easily attainable if there is nothing to hide. There are some really knowledgeable and dedicated people out there that would join in a heartbeat if the right things were said and done that didn't include praising Don as the savior of wildlife. I was there in 1993 and all but a scant few promises made by the dear leader have come to fruition.
Bird, I hate the arguing that so many of us do here. And to be honest, I don't help smother that fire either but I'm willing. Time for a change of the guard. I honestly believe that local membership are flush with fear and awe of a man who's time has come and they see the benefits it has brought him and want that too. Its easy for people to get drunk with power and in my little lifetime, I've seen it happen to good people and it never turns out good in the end. Envy is dangerous and that is what I see happening with some of the local leadership. On a good note, I had a conversation with a member while cleaning the roof of my travel trailer and he's going to come help me put my new awning on it later next week. He isn't a believer in Don but shares my belief in the organization and the people that make up the majority of its members. We agreed that after our dedicate hours are met that we would do at least two more projects this summer if health holds out. Sometimes its easier to get along face to face than on this or any other forum. I can't stand this thread anymore either......I'm tossing in the towel and moving on. Have a great Easter weekend!
Shawn
"There is no reason why I have to tolerate your stupidity if you are unwilling to tolerate mine." ME
>You are misunderstanding my post,
>tall made the comment that
>the only reason people attended
>was for a chance at
>winning a LE tag.
>My point was there was
>not a raffle for any
>tags. They were all
>auctioned so I don't buy
>that theory. That people
>only attend for a chance
>to win a tag.
>
>I guess I am ok for
>a % of those tags
>being auctioned. The money
>generated for the DWR is
>huge. If you put
>those tags all back in
>the draw it doesn't really
>make a difference at all
>in the draws. But
>those dollars make a huge
>difference. I feel it's a
>fair trade. No I
>would not like to see
>more tags add to the
>auction and truth be told
>I'd probably even be ok
>if it was a few
>less. But I do
>think they are a good
>idea overall and benefit all
>sportsman with the money they
>bring in.
That is a fair statement. However, I do know many people who only go for the raffles and the auction for the tags. I know people who attend several different ones depending on what tags are offered where. I swear I'm not generalizing my statement that people are lured by this opportunity. Now, is more money raised at a banquet for that tag than it would in the public draw? Oh yeah! But that is what it is intended for and while I don't fault the groups for using that to draw people to their banquets, I have been to SFW and RMEF banquets and the only side of the story shared is the one leadership wants shared. That they will "donate" the money to the division. Its a crossed message like that I think that needs to be changed and I don't have the all the solutions myself. I only suggest a shedding of the skin so that the growth we all hear about becomes genuine and undeniable. So many have been disenchanted with the kudos to the leaders of SFW that they walk away. That is sad and happens with all groups to a degree. But why is SFW the most controversial? And if the leaders of the chapters "see what's going on" then they would see more than what's being spoon fed to them. The solutions to what ails that group aren't rocket science and should be easily attainable if there is nothing to hide. There are some really knowledgeable and dedicated people out there that would join in a heartbeat if the right things were said and done that didn't include praising Don as the savior of wildlife. I was there in 1993 and all but a scant few promises made by the dear leader have come to fruition.
Bird, I hate the arguing that so many of us do here. And to be honest, I don't help smother that fire either but I'm willing. Time for a change of the guard. I honestly believe that local membership are flush with fear and awe of a man who's time has come and they see the benefits it has brought him and want that too. Its easy for people to get drunk with power and in my little lifetime, I've seen it happen to good people and it never turns out good in the end. Envy is dangerous and that is what I see happening with some of the local leadership. On a good note, I had a conversation with a member while cleaning the roof of my travel trailer and he's going to come help me put my new awning on it later next week. He isn't a believer in Don but shares my belief in the organization and the people that make up the majority of its members. We agreed that after our dedicate hours are met that we would do at least two more projects this summer if health holds out. Sometimes its easier to get along face to face than on this or any other forum. I can't stand this thread anymore either......I'm tossing in the towel and moving on. Have a great Easter weekend!
Shawn
"There is no reason why I have to tolerate your stupidity if you are unwilling to tolerate mine." ME
grizzly
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,603
Serious question, not starting an argument. It wouldn't change anybodys mind anyway.
The tags sold at the Davis banquet were posted above.
The top 4 tags, 2 Pauns deer tags and a Pahvant and San Juan elk tag were all Landowner Tags. I assume this means they were donated by the landowner and were not Conservation Tags.
Question 1. Does SFW pay the landowner for the tag, then sell it, with the difference being the proceeds; or are they straight donations with the full auction amount being the proceeds?
Question 2. Does the same 90% rule apply to LO tags as it does to Conservation Tags?
Grizzly
PS. Tristate, please be an adult and respect my wishes that you do not respond to any of my posts. I, in turn, will do you the courtesy of not responding to any of yours. I simply do not wish to converse with you.
The tags sold at the Davis banquet were posted above.
The top 4 tags, 2 Pauns deer tags and a Pahvant and San Juan elk tag were all Landowner Tags. I assume this means they were donated by the landowner and were not Conservation Tags.
Question 1. Does SFW pay the landowner for the tag, then sell it, with the difference being the proceeds; or are they straight donations with the full auction amount being the proceeds?
Question 2. Does the same 90% rule apply to LO tags as it does to Conservation Tags?
Grizzly
PS. Tristate, please be an adult and respect my wishes that you do not respond to any of my posts. I, in turn, will do you the courtesy of not responding to any of yours. I simply do not wish to converse with you.
Griz, An answer to your question to what I know. 1. The landowner tag can either be a complete donation or a partial donation depending on the landowner. It is his tag to deal with. Some donate the complete tag. I do not think that he 90% rule goes with the LO tag. Those tags are totally different than the conservation tags.
Now I do wonder if you are looking for something to use against SFW. The reason for land owner tags as well as cwmu is that it does open up some hunting on private property where hunting would not be allowed. Those landowners would probably open up to hunting for a fee as happens in some areas of the state. CWMU's have some tags to the public. It also creates the owners of CWMU's to work on increasing the numbers of animals for hunting and those animals do leave the property going to other areas. There are those that hate cwmus and there are those that like them. In my opinion they are a benefit for both wild game and the hunters. Landowner tags also are just compensation for the animals being on property that is privately owned for the damage those animals might commit. This is better in my opinion than the landowner shooting the animals and then calling the DWR to pick them up. That is happening in some parts of the state.
Now I do wonder if you are looking for something to use against SFW. The reason for land owner tags as well as cwmu is that it does open up some hunting on private property where hunting would not be allowed. Those landowners would probably open up to hunting for a fee as happens in some areas of the state. CWMU's have some tags to the public. It also creates the owners of CWMU's to work on increasing the numbers of animals for hunting and those animals do leave the property going to other areas. There are those that hate cwmus and there are those that like them. In my opinion they are a benefit for both wild game and the hunters. Landowner tags also are just compensation for the animals being on property that is privately owned for the damage those animals might commit. This is better in my opinion than the landowner shooting the animals and then calling the DWR to pick them up. That is happening in some parts of the state.
Abiggerfish2fry
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,463
Someone needs to nuke this! Then you guys can start all over!!! Lol!
Muley_73
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,788
LAST EDITED ON Mar-21-13 AT 01:06PM (MST)[p]griz,
Your numbers are wrong. The two elk tags did go for the most. The 1 Pauns tag was the third highest. The next tag was the Willard Peak Goat tag, followed by the other elk tags and Bookcliffs deer. The second Pauns tag was a managment tag that went for 6000. There were a bunch of them that sold for more than that tag. So only one of the Pauns tags went high.
Your numbers are wrong. The two elk tags did go for the most. The 1 Pauns tag was the third highest. The next tag was the Willard Peak Goat tag, followed by the other elk tags and Bookcliffs deer. The second Pauns tag was a managment tag that went for 6000. There were a bunch of them that sold for more than that tag. So only one of the Pauns tags went high.
grizzly
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,603
Birdman, thanks for the info. I'm not using this against SFW in any way. Landowners can do whatever they want with the tag. They can sell it online, contract to an outfitter, use it themselves, donate it... whatever. It doesn't bother me one bit. Of course, I don't really question the Conservation Tag Program either.
Here is whey I asked... I heard somewhere that you could deduct the Conservation Tag purchases at auction for tax purposes. I guess my only question was whether the purchase of a Landowner Tag at auction was tax-deductible as well, which would imply the proceeds were used for tax-deductible purposes (ie. habitat, predators, etc...).
SFW does some GREAT things with their Conservation Tag money, a lot of good projects have been done with state approval (guzzlers, chaining, restoration, etc...). I just wondered how LO tags fit into that mix, if they were treated the same or entirely different.
Grizzly
PS. Tristate, please be an adult and respect my wishes that you do not respond to any of my posts. I, in turn, will do you the courtesy of not responding to any of yours. I simply do not wish to converse with you.
Here is whey I asked... I heard somewhere that you could deduct the Conservation Tag purchases at auction for tax purposes. I guess my only question was whether the purchase of a Landowner Tag at auction was tax-deductible as well, which would imply the proceeds were used for tax-deductible purposes (ie. habitat, predators, etc...).
SFW does some GREAT things with their Conservation Tag money, a lot of good projects have been done with state approval (guzzlers, chaining, restoration, etc...). I just wondered how LO tags fit into that mix, if they were treated the same or entirely different.
Grizzly
PS. Tristate, please be an adult and respect my wishes that you do not respond to any of my posts. I, in turn, will do you the courtesy of not responding to any of yours. I simply do not wish to converse with you.
Grizz, You are right that money that goes to SFW or most of these groups that are 501C3 are tax deductible. The part that is tax deductible is the donation. For instance, on an elk tag, the value is $280. So that much is not tax deductible. I would guess, and only a guess, that if part of the money went back to the land owner, that would not be tax deductible but I could be wrong. On the other side of things, if SFW buys that tag from the landowner, then it would all be tax deductible but the value of the tag,$280.
LAST EDITED ON Mar-21-13 AT 07:25PM (MST)[p]>The big issue I have with
>SFW when I was a
>member for 10 years. I
>paid my membership every year,
>worked at banquets, worked at
>the WHCS Expo. But, when
>SFW's big 5 would go
>to the DWR board and
>make recommendations in the name
>of SFW and its members.
>I really dont ever remember
>the big 5 ever asking
>me or any of my
>friends our opinions about wildlife
>issues they were makeing recommendations
>on. If SFW is a
>true conservation group,....should allow members
>be able to voice their
>opinion's on matters at hand.
>I set at more than
>a few Davis/Weber committee meeting
>and lisen to long time
>members being pissed they had
>no say or in put
>in wildlife matters. That they
>had no say in who
>was running the group. "SERIOUS
>LACK OF COMMUNICATION INSIDE THE
>GROUP" It must be nice
>to self appoint yourself to
>a 100K a year job.
>If I pay my money
>as a member, work and
>help as often as my
>life will allow me, I
>think I should have some
>input to a certain degree.
>Yes, some must take the
>lead, and some must follow!!
>I have always suggested to
>the big 5,...to have some
>way on their SFW website,
>to post wildlife issues they
>were going to vote on
>or make recommendations on.And get
>a vote from members if
>they support the recommendations at
>hand,...before the board votes. None
>seem to have any interest
>in this suggestion. I guess
>no one wants to give
>up their power,...therefor, Me and
>many others are not members
>any longer, dont go to
>banquets,dont go to the Expo.
>
Dude be a man and own your words!!! Why won't you tell us who you are? Whenever there is a board meeting where all chapter heads are asked to attend all membership is invited. Our Davis/Weber chapter head always invites any who wants to attend to accompany him to the meeting. He also sends out an email if there is a vote to take place inviting all to comment before he represents our chapter. You can be as Involved as you want to be. Each chapter receives one vote at the board meeting. I am not a chair person so when I attend the meetings I do not vote but my voice is heard. The Davis\Weber chapter not only follows protocol it goes above and beyond to make sure voices are heard.
An example of this was when the 29 deer unit proposal was in its early stages. We met as a committee and discussed the idea. The vote was a 60/40 split in favor or the proposal. The meeting was heated and many voices were heard. If my memory is correct our chapter head was against the change , but voted in favor due to the vote. There are other examples as well. The only reason your voice may not have been heard is because you chose not to express it in the appropriate fashion.
What drives me nuts is that there are many former members that claim they were so involved in one breath, and in the next they claim they were not involved enough. You can be as involved as you would like to be. You just can't take offense if you are out voted.
If anyone wants to change how SFW is ran join up and put forth the effort. That effort will serve you much better than hiding behind a screen throwing stones.
Justin Oliver
Weber/Davis committee
Hunts For The Brave panel member
All Volunteer work
>SFW when I was a
>member for 10 years. I
>paid my membership every year,
>worked at banquets, worked at
>the WHCS Expo. But, when
>SFW's big 5 would go
>to the DWR board and
>make recommendations in the name
>of SFW and its members.
>I really dont ever remember
>the big 5 ever asking
>me or any of my
>friends our opinions about wildlife
>issues they were makeing recommendations
>on. If SFW is a
>true conservation group,....should allow members
>be able to voice their
>opinion's on matters at hand.
>I set at more than
>a few Davis/Weber committee meeting
>and lisen to long time
>members being pissed they had
>no say or in put
>in wildlife matters. That they
>had no say in who
>was running the group. "SERIOUS
>LACK OF COMMUNICATION INSIDE THE
>GROUP" It must be nice
>to self appoint yourself to
>a 100K a year job.
>If I pay my money
>as a member, work and
>help as often as my
>life will allow me, I
>think I should have some
>input to a certain degree.
>Yes, some must take the
>lead, and some must follow!!
>I have always suggested to
>the big 5,...to have some
>way on their SFW website,
>to post wildlife issues they
>were going to vote on
>or make recommendations on.And get
>a vote from members if
>they support the recommendations at
>hand,...before the board votes. None
>seem to have any interest
>in this suggestion. I guess
>no one wants to give
>up their power,...therefor, Me and
>many others are not members
>any longer, dont go to
>banquets,dont go to the Expo.
>
Dude be a man and own your words!!! Why won't you tell us who you are? Whenever there is a board meeting where all chapter heads are asked to attend all membership is invited. Our Davis/Weber chapter head always invites any who wants to attend to accompany him to the meeting. He also sends out an email if there is a vote to take place inviting all to comment before he represents our chapter. You can be as Involved as you want to be. Each chapter receives one vote at the board meeting. I am not a chair person so when I attend the meetings I do not vote but my voice is heard. The Davis\Weber chapter not only follows protocol it goes above and beyond to make sure voices are heard.
An example of this was when the 29 deer unit proposal was in its early stages. We met as a committee and discussed the idea. The vote was a 60/40 split in favor or the proposal. The meeting was heated and many voices were heard. If my memory is correct our chapter head was against the change , but voted in favor due to the vote. There are other examples as well. The only reason your voice may not have been heard is because you chose not to express it in the appropriate fashion.
What drives me nuts is that there are many former members that claim they were so involved in one breath, and in the next they claim they were not involved enough. You can be as involved as you would like to be. You just can't take offense if you are out voted.
If anyone wants to change how SFW is ran join up and put forth the effort. That effort will serve you much better than hiding behind a screen throwing stones.
Justin Oliver
Weber/Davis committee
Hunts For The Brave panel member
All Volunteer work
Outdoors
Member
- Messages
- 11
>Justin what was the vote when
>the river fishing access was
> debated? (high water mark
>stream bed) Surley SFW would
>look out after the Joe
>Blow fisherman since F stands
>for fishing.
I am interested, too. That stance seems out of sync with a grass roots group who are mostly DIY hard working hunters. Could it possibly be that the membership actually was against stream access? That does not pass the smell test.
Of course, SFW leadership was against stream access so what does that indicate? Dictatorship calling the shots while the sheep follow along. Bahhhh. Bahhhhh.
>the river fishing access was
> debated? (high water mark
>stream bed) Surley SFW would
>look out after the Joe
>Blow fisherman since F stands
>for fishing.
I am interested, too. That stance seems out of sync with a grass roots group who are mostly DIY hard working hunters. Could it possibly be that the membership actually was against stream access? That does not pass the smell test.
Of course, SFW leadership was against stream access so what does that indicate? Dictatorship calling the shots while the sheep follow along. Bahhhh. Bahhhhh.
>Justin what was the vote when
>the river fishing access was
> debated? (high water mark
>stream bed) Surley SFW would
>look out after the Joe
>Blow fisherman since F stands
>for fishing.
That vote took place before my involvement. My understanding of that debate was that SFW stance was neutral. The vote took place and it was split. Once more I was not involved at the time. I see both sides of the argument. You can't blame a guy for feeling he should be able to fish a river that is not privately owned, you also can't blame a guy for trying to protect his property. Most landowners are not claiming to own the water or the fish that inhabit it. They see this law as a way to protect their property by not allowing people easy access via the water way. It's a crappy deal no matter how you look at it.
I believe Don Peay shared his personal view on the situation, that was his personal opinion and not the membership of SFW. There is my two cents .
I repeat SFW took a neutral stand, that is how they voted .
>the river fishing access was
> debated? (high water mark
>stream bed) Surley SFW would
>look out after the Joe
>Blow fisherman since F stands
>for fishing.
That vote took place before my involvement. My understanding of that debate was that SFW stance was neutral. The vote took place and it was split. Once more I was not involved at the time. I see both sides of the argument. You can't blame a guy for feeling he should be able to fish a river that is not privately owned, you also can't blame a guy for trying to protect his property. Most landowners are not claiming to own the water or the fish that inhabit it. They see this law as a way to protect their property by not allowing people easy access via the water way. It's a crappy deal no matter how you look at it.
I believe Don Peay shared his personal view on the situation, that was his personal opinion and not the membership of SFW. There is my two cents .
I repeat SFW took a neutral stand, that is how they voted .
JMO, then they basically voted against it by not taking a stand. Especially if they are supposed to be supporting the average Joe angler/hunter.
And when someone like the Don shares his opinion, regardless of what he says, it comes across as representing SFW whether he likes it or not.
At least that's my opinion
"The problem with quotes on Internet Forums is that it is often difficult to verify their authenticity." - Abraham Lincoln
And when someone like the Don shares his opinion, regardless of what he says, it comes across as representing SFW whether he likes it or not.
At least that's my opinion
"The problem with quotes on Internet Forums is that it is often difficult to verify their authenticity." - Abraham Lincoln
King...Baron
When ever there is about and equal amount of people on the board that are for and against, instead of a big fight they go with not taking a side. They stay neutral. I myself was split because I fish a lot of private property and there is no way that I can wade even a small creek and not have to get out now and again. weather or not it is because of a log jam or water to deep to wade. Thus it would be hard to wade any stream without getting out somewhere on private property. I would love to see all streams open but know it will not happen. The law enforcement would be against it for the simple reason of all the calls that they would get.
When ever there is about and equal amount of people on the board that are for and against, instead of a big fight they go with not taking a side. They stay neutral. I myself was split because I fish a lot of private property and there is no way that I can wade even a small creek and not have to get out now and again. weather or not it is because of a log jam or water to deep to wade. Thus it would be hard to wade any stream without getting out somewhere on private property. I would love to see all streams open but know it will not happen. The law enforcement would be against it for the simple reason of all the calls that they would get.
Muley_73
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,788
RE: King...Baron
LAST EDITED ON Mar-22-13 AT 03:26PM (MST)[p]Yeah I think Bird stated that the SFW stayed neutral. Don is a consultant, so I'm sure he still maintains his own opinions without speaking for the SFW. The truth be told you have no idea who paid more or if there was pay. But again it's easy to make claims and never validate them...especially while hiding behind screen names.
I guess I could just make statements about individuals without validation too. Spread rumors and never prove a thing. Seems that's what some of you guys choose to do...
tall,
Is that the kinda stuff they do in this relief society that you speak of? Is that the new group you are starting???
LAST EDITED ON Mar-22-13 AT 03:26PM (MST)[p]Yeah I think Bird stated that the SFW stayed neutral. Don is a consultant, so I'm sure he still maintains his own opinions without speaking for the SFW. The truth be told you have no idea who paid more or if there was pay. But again it's easy to make claims and never validate them...especially while hiding behind screen names.
I guess I could just make statements about individuals without validation too. Spread rumors and never prove a thing. Seems that's what some of you guys choose to do...
tall,
Is that the kinda stuff they do in this relief society that you speak of? Is that the new group you are starting???
grizzly
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,603
RE: King...Baron
LAST EDITED ON Mar-22-13 AT 05:29PM (MST)[p]Justin,
"This is a classic case of a handful of greedy fly fishermen getting too greedy. People violated their private property rights." -- Don Peay on TV about Stream Access Bill
So your contention is that though Peay publicly said this on TV, SFW remained "neutral".
Do you believe the Legislature and Governor saw it this way? Who is the powerful lobbyist and "consultant" of SFW? Who is the founder of SFW? Who is the public face of SFW?
Grizzly
PS. Tristate, please be an adult and respect my wishes that you do not respond to any of my posts. I, in turn, will do you the courtesy of not responding to any of yours. I simply do not wish to converse with you.
LAST EDITED ON Mar-22-13 AT 05:29PM (MST)[p]Justin,
"This is a classic case of a handful of greedy fly fishermen getting too greedy. People violated their private property rights." -- Don Peay on TV about Stream Access Bill
So your contention is that though Peay publicly said this on TV, SFW remained "neutral".
Do you believe the Legislature and Governor saw it this way? Who is the powerful lobbyist and "consultant" of SFW? Who is the founder of SFW? Who is the public face of SFW?
Grizzly
PS. Tristate, please be an adult and respect my wishes that you do not respond to any of my posts. I, in turn, will do you the courtesy of not responding to any of yours. I simply do not wish to converse with you.
RE: King...Baron
Peay was definitely against it and since he started SFW isn't it logical that people would link his name with the group, especially if the group doesn't take any kind of a position on something as major as that was? Further, doesn't that tell you guys where your founder stands in regards to us average Joes? Naw, from all the rhetoric that comes out in your posts, I'm sure that was a stupid question to ask!
Peay was definitely against it and since he started SFW isn't it logical that people would link his name with the group, especially if the group doesn't take any kind of a position on something as major as that was? Further, doesn't that tell you guys where your founder stands in regards to us average Joes? Naw, from all the rhetoric that comes out in your posts, I'm sure that was a stupid question to ask!
grizzly
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,603
RE: King...Baron
Claiming that self-serving position is only the opinion of Peay and not SFW, especially when perception is reality in public opinion, is ridiculous.
That would be like watching an interview with Wayne LaPierre where he makes specific statements about a specific bill, then claims he wasn't speaking for the NRA and was only speaking for himself.
Wayne is the face of the NRA in the EXACT SAME way that Don Peay is the face of SFW.
Grizzly
PS. Tristate, please be an adult and respect my wishes that you do not respond to any of my posts. I, in turn, will do you the courtesy of not responding to any of yours. I simply do not wish to converse with you.
Claiming that self-serving position is only the opinion of Peay and not SFW, especially when perception is reality in public opinion, is ridiculous.
That would be like watching an interview with Wayne LaPierre where he makes specific statements about a specific bill, then claims he wasn't speaking for the NRA and was only speaking for himself.
Wayne is the face of the NRA in the EXACT SAME way that Don Peay is the face of SFW.
Grizzly
PS. Tristate, please be an adult and respect my wishes that you do not respond to any of my posts. I, in turn, will do you the courtesy of not responding to any of yours. I simply do not wish to converse with you.
RE: King...Baron
>Claiming that self-serving position is only
>the opinion of Peay and
>not SFW, especially when perception
>is reality in public opinion,
>is ridiculous.
>
>That would be like watching an
>interview with Wayne LaPierre where
>he makes specific statements about
>a specific bill, then claims
>he wasn't speaking for the
>NRA and was only speaking
>for himself.
>
>Wayne is the face of the
>NRA in the EXACT SAME
>way that Don Peay is
>the face of SFW.
>
>Grizzly
>
>PS. Tristate, please be an adult
>and respect my wishes that
>you do not respond to
>any of my posts. I,
>in turn, will do you
>the courtesy of not responding
>to any of yours. I
>simply do not wish to
>converse with you.
I am not familiar with how the NRA handles their stance or position on different topics. I am sure that there have been instances when Wayne's opinion on a topic differed from majority. If Wayne was quoted stating something that did not represent the NRA or its majority, would that quote now represent the majority because he said it? If such an incident took place there would be an uproar asking for a correction. I believe such an incident took place within SFW. Don spoke on his behalf. Don founded SFW but it has evolved to much more than Don Peays thoughts, or ideas. I respect Don and believe it is difficult for him at times to see its evolution. It's much like seeing a child grow up and move on. Don will always be the founder, and should always be proud of what he has accomplished.
My wife hates this site and tells me it's ridiculous. I'm beginning to believe her. I should be spending time with my family and not here. Read all the posts in this thread that all began with an article by a man that despises each one of us. Bob Ferris and his followers are the only winners in this thread. We all our trying to convince one another that you are wrong and I am right. I think we are all wrong when we fight amongst ourselves. We wouldn't waste our time here on this site if we didn't care. There is more than one way to skin a cat. If we could agree on that and not attempt to skin each other alive we would all benefit.
Good night
Justin
>Claiming that self-serving position is only
>the opinion of Peay and
>not SFW, especially when perception
>is reality in public opinion,
>is ridiculous.
>
>That would be like watching an
>interview with Wayne LaPierre where
>he makes specific statements about
>a specific bill, then claims
>he wasn't speaking for the
>NRA and was only speaking
>for himself.
>
>Wayne is the face of the
>NRA in the EXACT SAME
>way that Don Peay is
>the face of SFW.
>
>Grizzly
>
>PS. Tristate, please be an adult
>and respect my wishes that
>you do not respond to
>any of my posts. I,
>in turn, will do you
>the courtesy of not responding
>to any of yours. I
>simply do not wish to
>converse with you.
I am not familiar with how the NRA handles their stance or position on different topics. I am sure that there have been instances when Wayne's opinion on a topic differed from majority. If Wayne was quoted stating something that did not represent the NRA or its majority, would that quote now represent the majority because he said it? If such an incident took place there would be an uproar asking for a correction. I believe such an incident took place within SFW. Don spoke on his behalf. Don founded SFW but it has evolved to much more than Don Peays thoughts, or ideas. I respect Don and believe it is difficult for him at times to see its evolution. It's much like seeing a child grow up and move on. Don will always be the founder, and should always be proud of what he has accomplished.
My wife hates this site and tells me it's ridiculous. I'm beginning to believe her. I should be spending time with my family and not here. Read all the posts in this thread that all began with an article by a man that despises each one of us. Bob Ferris and his followers are the only winners in this thread. We all our trying to convince one another that you are wrong and I am right. I think we are all wrong when we fight amongst ourselves. We wouldn't waste our time here on this site if we didn't care. There is more than one way to skin a cat. If we could agree on that and not attempt to skin each other alive we would all benefit.
Good night
Justin
grizzly
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,603
RE: King...Baron
LAST EDITED ON Mar-22-13 AT 11:02PM (MST)[p]Justin, I edited out most of my post because I feel like pro-SFW guys have been given enough opportunities to directly respond to concerns by hunters that don't align with the SFW leadership's positions. Generally speaking, there hasn't been a specific response, which is what bothers so many of us. You made the claim these boards fragment hunters. I counter that positions such as Peay's on public access is what fragments hunters.
You and I just disagree on the best way to preserve hunting as we know it in Utah. But neither of us are going to convince the other. It may seem vindictive at times, but I can tell by your post that you understand that we are all just fighting for what we love and believe in. You know we are all on the same team, and I appreciate that.
Have a good night and if you ever want to continue this discussion over the phone or in person, feel free to call.
Grizzly
PS. Tristate, please be an adult and respect my wishes that you do not respond to any of my posts. I, in turn, will do you the courtesy of not responding to any of yours. I simply do not wish to converse with you.
LAST EDITED ON Mar-22-13 AT 11:02PM (MST)[p]Justin, I edited out most of my post because I feel like pro-SFW guys have been given enough opportunities to directly respond to concerns by hunters that don't align with the SFW leadership's positions. Generally speaking, there hasn't been a specific response, which is what bothers so many of us. You made the claim these boards fragment hunters. I counter that positions such as Peay's on public access is what fragments hunters.
You and I just disagree on the best way to preserve hunting as we know it in Utah. But neither of us are going to convince the other. It may seem vindictive at times, but I can tell by your post that you understand that we are all just fighting for what we love and believe in. You know we are all on the same team, and I appreciate that.
Have a good night and if you ever want to continue this discussion over the phone or in person, feel free to call.
Grizzly
PS. Tristate, please be an adult and respect my wishes that you do not respond to any of my posts. I, in turn, will do you the courtesy of not responding to any of yours. I simply do not wish to converse with you.
RE: King...Baron
>Justin, you just wrote an entire
>paragraph and didn't answer any
>of the questions posed specifically
>about stream access.
>
>The quote by Peay is legitimate.
> The comparison to LaPierre
>is legitimate. The perceived
>SFW stance against the stream
>access bill is legitimate.
>
>You wrote earlier that the position
>of SFW is voted by
>members, somebody asked how the
>vote went pertaining to stream
>access, you stated it was
>a split vote and hence
>neutral; I then provided evidence
>that the public face of
>SFW still openly opposed public
>access by sportsmen to what
>was Constitutionally and Judicially previously
>recognized as public property.
>These are legitimate concerns that
>ALL hunters should have, whether
>they support SFW or not.
>
>
>I could find NO record of
>LaPierre publicly offering an opinion
>that ran counter to NRA's
>official opinion. NOT ONE!
> I have no doubt
>that if he gave an
>opinion with information contradictory to
>NRA's, there would be a
>swift and official redaction or
>clarification by the NRA.
>Did that happen with SFW?
> It may have, but
>I didn't see it.
>This debate was open and
>heated enough in Utah, it
>certainly would've been warranted.
>
>You claim these boards fragment hunters.
> I counter that positions
>such as Peay's on public
>access is what fragments hunters.
>
>
>Grizzly
>
>PS. Tristate, please be an adult
>and respect my wishes that
>you do not respond to
>any of my posts. I,
>in turn, will do you
>the courtesy of not responding
>to any of yours. I
>simply do not wish to
>converse with you.
Grizzly pm sent
>Justin, you just wrote an entire
>paragraph and didn't answer any
>of the questions posed specifically
>about stream access.
>
>The quote by Peay is legitimate.
> The comparison to LaPierre
>is legitimate. The perceived
>SFW stance against the stream
>access bill is legitimate.
>
>You wrote earlier that the position
>of SFW is voted by
>members, somebody asked how the
>vote went pertaining to stream
>access, you stated it was
>a split vote and hence
>neutral; I then provided evidence
>that the public face of
>SFW still openly opposed public
>access by sportsmen to what
>was Constitutionally and Judicially previously
>recognized as public property.
>These are legitimate concerns that
>ALL hunters should have, whether
>they support SFW or not.
>
>
>I could find NO record of
>LaPierre publicly offering an opinion
>that ran counter to NRA's
>official opinion. NOT ONE!
> I have no doubt
>that if he gave an
>opinion with information contradictory to
>NRA's, there would be a
>swift and official redaction or
>clarification by the NRA.
>Did that happen with SFW?
> It may have, but
>I didn't see it.
>This debate was open and
>heated enough in Utah, it
>certainly would've been warranted.
>
>You claim these boards fragment hunters.
> I counter that positions
>such as Peay's on public
>access is what fragments hunters.
>
>
>Grizzly
>
>PS. Tristate, please be an adult
>and respect my wishes that
>you do not respond to
>any of my posts. I,
>in turn, will do you
>the courtesy of not responding
>to any of yours. I
>simply do not wish to
>converse with you.
Grizzly pm sent
RE: King...Baron
I just a had a very positive conversation with Grizzly. He was very respectful and I believe our conversation was very constructive. I believe most on this forum want the same thing. When I post something on this site it's easy sometimes to be rude or a little more aggressive then I might normally be. When civil conversation takes place much can be accomplished. Thanks again Grey
I just a had a very positive conversation with Grizzly. He was very respectful and I believe our conversation was very constructive. I believe most on this forum want the same thing. When I post something on this site it's easy sometimes to be rude or a little more aggressive then I might normally be. When civil conversation takes place much can be accomplished. Thanks again Grey
grizzly
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,603
RE: King...Baron
Hey guys, just so you know, Justin and I spoke on the phone for a while tonight and it was a really good conversation. We all want the same thing when it comes to hunting and I am confident after talking with Justin, that there are some really good guys on both sides of the aisle.
Justin, and guys like him, are doing everything they can to preserve and promote hunting, and though we don't agree on everything... we do have the same common goal and working together I think we can get there.
Here is my last bit of preaching tonight. Let's all act like men. If you disagree with somebody, pick up the phone. I think we would all be amazed just how much we agree on when we can get on the phone and talk about it. We tend to lose so much of our emotion to internet posts.
I vote we all quit with the in-fighting and focus on what we do agree on. We are much more powerful united than we are apart.
Grizzly
PS. Tristate, please be an adult and respect my wishes that you do not respond to any of my posts. I, in turn, will do you the courtesy of not responding to any of yours. I simply do not wish to converse with you.
Hey guys, just so you know, Justin and I spoke on the phone for a while tonight and it was a really good conversation. We all want the same thing when it comes to hunting and I am confident after talking with Justin, that there are some really good guys on both sides of the aisle.
Justin, and guys like him, are doing everything they can to preserve and promote hunting, and though we don't agree on everything... we do have the same common goal and working together I think we can get there.
Here is my last bit of preaching tonight. Let's all act like men. If you disagree with somebody, pick up the phone. I think we would all be amazed just how much we agree on when we can get on the phone and talk about it. We tend to lose so much of our emotion to internet posts.
I vote we all quit with the in-fighting and focus on what we do agree on. We are much more powerful united than we are apart.
Grizzly
PS. Tristate, please be an adult and respect my wishes that you do not respond to any of my posts. I, in turn, will do you the courtesy of not responding to any of yours. I simply do not wish to converse with you.
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,122
RE: King...Baron
>I just a had a very
>positive conversation with Grizzly. He
>was very respectful and I
>believe our conversation was very
>constructive. I believe most
>on this forum want the
>same thing. When I post
>something on this site it's
>easy sometimes to be rude
>or a little more aggressive
>then I might normally be.
> When civil conversation takes
>place much can be accomplished.
>Thanks again Grey
Hmmm! I wonder if that would work with Tristate and Topgun? Ya think? In fact, maybe we could all just conference call and shut down the forum.
>I just a had a very
>positive conversation with Grizzly. He
>was very respectful and I
>believe our conversation was very
>constructive. I believe most
>on this forum want the
>same thing. When I post
>something on this site it's
>easy sometimes to be rude
>or a little more aggressive
>then I might normally be.
> When civil conversation takes
>place much can be accomplished.
>Thanks again Grey
Hmmm! I wonder if that would work with Tristate and Topgun? Ya think? In fact, maybe we could all just conference call and shut down the forum.
RE: King...Baron
>>I just a had a very
>>positive conversation with Grizzly. He
>>was very respectful and I
>>believe our conversation was very
>>constructive. I believe most
>>on this forum want the
>>same thing. When I post
>>something on this site it's
>>easy sometimes to be rude
>>or a little more aggressive
>>then I might normally be.
>> When civil conversation takes
>>place much can be accomplished.
>>Thanks again Grey
>
>Hmmm! I wonder if that would
>work with Tristate and Topgun?
>Ya think? In fact, maybe
>we could all just conference
>call and shut down the
>forum.
YOU FORGOT THE BUZZARD!!
>>I just a had a very
>>positive conversation with Grizzly. He
>>was very respectful and I
>>believe our conversation was very
>>constructive. I believe most
>>on this forum want the
>>same thing. When I post
>>something on this site it's
>>easy sometimes to be rude
>>or a little more aggressive
>>then I might normally be.
>> When civil conversation takes
>>place much can be accomplished.
>>Thanks again Grey
>
>Hmmm! I wonder if that would
>work with Tristate and Topgun?
>Ya think? In fact, maybe
>we could all just conference
>call and shut down the
>forum.
YOU FORGOT THE BUZZARD!!
