Don/SFW vs Randy/RMEF

Muley_73

Muley_73

Very Active Member
Messages
2,781
As I have read the many posts and followed this debate talk I decided to take a little deeper look at real issue at hand. I have come to the conclusion that this debate really does not come down to the North American Model at all. It comes down to a bad blood fight and power struggle between two conservation organizations. Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife and Rockey Mountain Elk Foundation.

As some know in the beging it was the RMEF that helped SFW become established in Utah. In 1993 Bill Christensen (RMEF State Rep) and Don Peay approached the Utah Wildlife Association for support in cutting Utahs deer tags. This united front was never questioned until the SFW and RMEF had differences over the wolf issue and BGF was formed. The RMEF and SFW/BGF have not been very friendly since that time.

So now you may be asking what this has to do with the debate. Well from everything that I can see by googling Randy Newberg it have everything to do with the debate.

On Sept. 7, 2011 RMEF released an artical on its News and Media page. The artical introduced Randy Newberg as being added as a new volunteer position on the conservation issues/government relations committee of the RMEF.

David Allen, RMEF president and CEO had this to say. "We're excited about Randy working with RMEF on this committee. He brings a wealth of knowledge and great prespective on relevant issues facing conservation and hunting. He's a great asset for our organization." The artical also mentioned Randys TV show On Your Own Adventures.

These are all great things and I am 100% sure that Randy is just that, a great conservationist with great prespective.

This is my concern. Prior to his appointment I also found a press release talking about RMEF signing on as a sponsor of Randy's hunting show, On Your Own Adventures. I do not know if sponsoring brings in any money for the show? I just found it intresting. I also notice that several press releases to newspapers mentioned Randys TV show when RMEF released the info about his new postion. I noticed that RMEF's Twitter page sent out a message to all of its followers about Randys TV show. Again not really a big deal. But advertising is expensive and starting a new show can be difficult, especially without big name sponsors like RMEF.

So while I am sure Randy is a stand up guy and may very well be about protecting the rights of the average joe. I believe his really purpose of challenging Don is his loyalty to RMEF and the position he has been appointed to by RMEF concerning conservation issues/government relations. This concerns me because if you read the mission statement of the RMEF is clearly states that they are NOT a hunting organization. So now why are they so concerned with the North American Model? Well I beleive it is only to grind an ax with SFW/BGF. Not because they care about the average joe. But because they have personal issue with Don and how the whole wolf issue is playing out. If they can put SFW/BGF in question they feel it will be a BENEFIT TO THEIR ORGANIZATION.

I guess my question would now be. Why is the debate not with Don Peay and David Allen? Why is the RMEF sending Randy out to challange Don or accept a challenge. I believe the answer is they feel they have a better chance of damaging SFW/BFG with Randy acting as an average joe hunter. Rather than with a challange from a group that has had as equally of shady past as the SFW.

Its all about politics and nothing else folks. The average joe talk is nothing more than to gain the support of the voters. Two powerhouse organzitions fighting to keep membership and dollars flowing in. If RMEF looses membership they lose political power and dollars. If SFW loses membership they lose political power and dollars.

So I'll ask UTAH hunters. What organiztion has done more for your state RMEF or SFW. Even the haters know the answer!

I may be completely wrong on this view, however it did give me a little more to think about. Take a look for yourself its only a google search away.

Im going to go ahead and crawl in my bomb shelter now.
 
Ummm...it was Don that initiated any discussion of a debate, and that was with "Ben Lamb or anyone else". You'll find that in the SFW stabs Teddy in the back thread. I don't see how you came to believe that RMEF sent out anybody to debate against Don. I believe that Randy is a good cantidate for the debate regardless of any organizational affiliation.

It's also a big misunderstanding to think that this is a power struggle between two organizations. There are a lot of people who don't believe in or trust SFW and the primary players. They aren't all members of RMEF. I'm not a member of RMEF, SFW, or any other hunting group and I am very opposed to the direction that SFW has turned things, and very opposed to the lack of transparency, very opposed to the limited opportunity they've brought upon us, and downright pissed at how SFW has screwed and sabotaged fishing interests and public access in Utah. I see SFW and Don Peay as a group that buys their way politically, for the benefit of an elite group. I doubt my opinion is part of any platform of any outdoor group. Good on Randy for taking the time to do the debate, and to get dragged along on the Don & Pony show to Beaver. I'm dissapointed that he agreed to the nondisclosure stuff though.

Nice try at deflecting the issues though.

____________________________

I hunt. I fish. I VOTE.

Get the F out of SFW
 
Yeah I acknowledged that Don made the debate offer in my first post. And like I said I may 100% off, but I did find the info kind of intresting.
 
Muley you say this guy has an ax to grind. You say Tony has an ax to grind, you say everyone who objects to what SFW has done has an ax to grind ect.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that SFW looks a lot like big government to some. It was fine when it was first started but its now grown into a giant tag$$$ sucking machine that sucks our tags away and crams their way of rifle rut hunting to the few down our throat. It would be totally different if they were using their own money and not our tags to advance their agenda but they are using our tags to advance their agenda.
Well guess what I don't agree with 1/2 or even 2/3 of what their doing and in some instances I think it should be illegal with what their doing.

I long for the day when some organization comes in and sues for equal fairness. Meaning they make it so every organization gets a fair split with the tags. I then hope it pisses off everyone and they shut all this crap down. I personally don't think any organization should be able to profit like they are off our tags. I think the division should be doing its job...

But hey why don't you tell me I have an ax to grind because I don't agree with your way or SFW's way of thinking.

avatar_2528.jpg
 
Well it is pretty common knowledge SFW turns fellow hunters against fellow hunters.

So now you are trying to imply SFW is turning Conservation orgs against each other too?

Robb
 
I think the OP is grasping at anything to deflect what this debate is truly about and may just be a little worried that DP is going to fall flat. DP laid the cards on the table for a debate and Randy was gracious enough to accept on behalf of us everyday DIY average Joes, even agreeing to the Beaver trip and nondisclosure statement, both of which I think were ploys to try and squash this debate from the start. Why does any nonprofit organization not open the books without asking for such a ridiculous stipulation. I think we all know why! I'm with the other posters and hope that if this debate takes place that it's the beginning of the end of this tag grabbing debacle that is trying to be spread throughout the western states by SFW!
 
Cody is constantly questioning the motives of anyone that takes issue with SFW. I have never spoken to Cody in my life but he somehow thinks he knows me. He has repeatedly posted that I am an SFW hater, that I hate Don Peay, that I have an ax to grind, that I am trying to topple SFW, etc. The fact of the matter is I am a avid sportsman and former SFW member and I am concerned with the direction we are heading. Like swbuckmaster, I don't agree with a number of the positions advocated by SFW. Does that mean I hate Don Peay or that I refuse to admit that SFW has been involved in some positive things in the State of Utah? No.

Believe it or not Cody there are many sportsmen throughout the state and beyond that concerned with these issues. If you want to understand Randy's motives for agreeing to debate Don Peay then you should simply ask him. Stop playing "Doctor Phil" and pretending that there are some deep seated ulterior motives.

Hawkeye

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

"So I'll ask UTAH hunters. What organiztion has done more for your state RMEF or SFW. Even the haters know the answer!"

It is very obvious which group has done more HARM to our state.....
That is not even close.

Thanks for making that point to everyone.

Tony Abbott
The next buck to have a fawn will be the
1st.
 
I think Randy's personal beliefs, experience and knowledge are what made him a good candidate for the RMEF and they also make him a good candidate for the debate. I'm fairly convinced his affiliation with RMEF has much less to do with him taking on this task than the fact that many SFW actions go against his beliefs of how hunting in this country should be managed. It seems the person who started this post has "an ax to grind" with the RMEF and has made a habbit out of tying it to this debate. I will say one thing for the RMEF. They didn't have representation stand up and voice support in the legislature for the last round of tag grab bills in Idaho. SFW on the other hand did.
 
Guys I'm simply going off of what I found when searching for more information. Randys position with RMEF is politicaly based as stated by the RMEF. Maybe just coincidence? RMEF has been openly been unhappy with SFW/BGF ever since disagreeing on the wolf issue. So the ax to grind has been made public by the RMEF.

I fully expended the responses that have been posted. And they came from exactly who I figured they would. I understand that there is a group of sportsmen out there that will support anything anti SFW. That is fine, it is your right to an opinion. My post is for those that have not yet formed an opinion. I urge them to take a look and get all the information. There is a bigger picture. Make sure you are supporting either side knowing that there is more involvement than what is simply posted on this website.
 
After reading the original post and doing a lot of googling and reading the last few days I would have to say I disagree with the OP assertion that it is "interesting" that RMEF is "sending" Randy out as the average joe hunter.

I think that it is no secret that Randy has his own TV show, is not really a completely average joe because of that, he also has an affiliation with RMEF. He also represents a different way of thinking, potentially, than DP and SFW. Not necessarily the RIGHT way, but a different way, and that is why I am interested in attending this debate.

It seems to me that DP offered to debate anyone who is interested, which I think was a good move on his part.

It seems that MM members rather than RMEF were more responsible for Randy taking part in the debate.

My biggest concerns with SFW have been how much money the guys who are running it are making, what types of expenses they get to write off, what additional benefits they receive by purchasing land with tax payers money, etc.

I think that in order for the SFW to have the ability to run the expo and auction off the tags that Karpowitz (or another member of the DWR not the wildlife board) should be on the Board of SFW so that there is a checks and balances of who is really getting paid what and where the money is all going.

Additionally, I can see why DP offered to take Randy and media on a 3 hour tour to show the good SFW has done. I dont think anyone can debate that they have done a lot of good things. But that tour is really irrelevant in my opinion because it cannot be compared to a 3 hour tour of what I would have done with the money (for instance), or Tony Abbott, or Hawkeye, or TopGun, or anyone else.

Some of us would have done better than SFW if we were in charge and some would have done worse. But a 3 hour tour seems a bit silly and pointless to me and offers an extremely small window into the efficiency of returns created by SFW with our money.

Having said that, I look forward to the debate and I want to personally thank DP, Randy, and all others involved with putting it on.
 
The ones that have truly educated themselves are the ones with the grips with SFW. They see the big picture

It is the uneducated ones that SFW is banking on to keep themselves in business.

So I hope your right and people will educate themselves on the issues. while there at it Fishon posted some stuff about land transactions that looks very interesting, others have posted about SFW big wigs in Alaska poaching, there has been numerous post about about SFW.

Excuse me while I go vomit! This crap always makes me sick!

avatar_2528.jpg
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-09-12 AT 10:59AM (MST)[p]"I fully expended (sic)the responses that have been posted. And they came from exactly who I figured they would. I understand that there is a group of sportsmen out there that will support anything anti SFW."


Glad we all lived up to your expectations, LOL! Cripes,I would imagine that very few don't know that Randy has his own show and website, as well as being very active in the RMEF to the point where he accepted that position recently. It was out on the Forums on both this site and his OYOA website, so it's not like you've come up with a bombshell or something! Besides, it was a lot of us MMers that asked Randy to do this and a lot of the members aren't RMEF members, so your conjecture is a lot of baloney! DP didn't say he would debate with anyone but Randy, so now he's making other requirements to go through with it and maybe is thinking that would cause the deal to fall through. I, for one, appreciate Randy doing whatever it takes to bring this debate forth, including taking that long tour and signing documents that are uncalled for IMHO!
 
Same kind of posts on CWT where the SFW people cast aspersions on anyone who is anti SFW and they also throw up the big scary antis and scold us for not uniting behind their tag baggers. Nice try but SFW will never get out from under the bus you threw yourselves under. I think RMEF will survive even if SFW doesn't like them. How many members of AZSFW were there after 6 years? I doubt it was over 5500 like RMEF. Maybe 55.
 
What a ridiculous premise in the origianl post. Trying to cast the SFW problem as a fued between conservation orgainzations is absurd. Anybody knowledgeable enough to carry on an informed debate on this topic will have some level of affiliation with one conservation group or another.

I am a former SFW member. Became concerned the more I learned, and the final nail in the coffin for me was the recent speech by Don Peay in Alaska on the 'merits" of selling all tags to the highest bidder. Talk about putting your cards on the table!

The issue at hand is SFW's current assault on the North American Conservation model. Trying to deflect that debate with some bogus conspiracy theory is pretty transparent. SFW has recently tried to spread the cancer to AZ and ID, so far without success, thank God. And they were stopped by the "average" sportsmen in each state, not some other conservation group. Let's have the debate about this unprecedented Conservation Model, and let the chips fall where they may. The average sportsmen will be very informed by a debate on this central tennant of wildlife management in North America.

Bill
 
I guess we will see? I am very interested in how the debate proceeds. I'm actually glad to see it will take place. I hope Randy and Don provide some answers.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-09-12 AT 03:12PM (MST)[p]Yep, other than saying they are not directly affiliated with the Utah group, which we agreed with you a long time ago, their game is a carbon copy of all the BS going on in Utah and even telling everyone they agree with the way UtahSFW is going about things and why AZ should do the same. What a crock of baloney!
 
MULEY 73., GET A LIFE. DONS. A BIG BOY HE DOESNT NEED YOUR BS TO SAVE HIM ,,,,YOU GOT FLAT KNEES OR WHAT?
 
Birdman,

Utah SFW doesn't have any affiliates. So yes that is correct SFWAZ is not affiliate. Here is the question you need to get answered. Has SFWAZ ever paid Don Peay for consulting or representation? This will help define if or if not they are like unto SFW Utah.
 
>Gleninaz, to answer your question as
>to how many members that
>AZSFW has after 6 years,
> it is over 25,000
>affiliated members. They also
>state on their web sight
>about them and Utah SFW.
> Just so you know.
> http://arizonasportsmenforwildlife.org/


Anyone here from SFW-AZ? Curious how many of those "25000 affiliated members" are now gone with several affiliated organizations telling SFW to pound sand after the tag grab attempt? SFW has more lobbyists in AZ than members, ha ha.
 
So, they now count every wildlife organization in the state as members of AZSFW? Or does that also include Utah? 25000 is a joke and you know it. Are you counting every member of YVRGC, RMEF, Fishing groups? I want to see how many dues paying members you really have without claiming every member of all the groups you suckered into giving you funds to pay for Gilstrap.
 
Muley_73:

You stated ?I believe his really purpose of challenging Don is his loyalty to RMEF and the position he has been appointed to by RMEF concerning conservation issues/government relations.?

You are entitled to your opinion, an extremely incorrect opinion. RMEF could care less if I debate Don. Don and SFW supporters like you, always seem to find some way to hammer RMEF, no matter what the topic.

I want to do this, and will jump through as many hoops as Don wants to put out there, because of my background as a volunteer for conservation. Not because I have a TV show. Not because I have a relationship with RMEF. My efforts are toward providing the average hunter a voice in these issues.

For all who want to know, my affiliation with RMEF and my background with other groups is provided below. Probably not different from most on this site who volunteer for organizations and causes. But much different than those who view it as a money game for themselves and their friends.

- I have been a member since 1988. I am a life member. I am a committee volunteer, as my time and schedule allows.

- I am a NON-paid volunteer for the policy and governmental affairs committee, since last October.

- As of February, I am a NON-paid volunteer to their finance committee, the place CPAs usually get relegated.

When we started our TV show, I donated two: 30 second slots to conservation groups the first year. These groups got these for free. One went to RMEF; one went to B&C. I have donated billboards to RMEF, B&C, Wild Sheep Foundation, and Mule Deer Foundation. I have donated presenting sponsorships in episodes to all species groups.

It was part of our plan that focused on the average hunter and the groups they belong to; to get our show/audience connected with conservation groups, as their members are the target audience for a show that is all self-guided hunting on public lands.

Not sure what to say in our defense, beyond that. If some don't like our support of conservation groups and our efforts to give voice to the average hunter, they would mistake me for someone who cares that they don't like it.

Last year, RMEF and I both thought the results of our relationship were very beneficial, so we formalized our relationship. That includes me doing appearances for them, writing columns in Bugle Magazine, them getting presenting sponsorships in all our elk episodes, they get a billboard in every show, a :30 second commercial, me doing special conservation messages for them, me giving presentations as Elk Camp, highest level web sponsorship. For all of this, they now pay. Our association is worth more to us than money. They bring the target audience to our show, more than any group. They refer other sponsors who want to reach our audience.

Like all groups, they do marketing to reach their target audience. We are one of the many tools they find is working well for their marketing campaign.

As far as other groups I am, or have been, affiliated with, here is a partail list, relevant to the debate topics. All as a NON-paid volunteer, not a paid consultant.

- I have been a NON-paid volunteer for the last 17 years as a board member of Orion-The Hunters Institute, with seven of those years as President. Orion provides research, commissions studies, holds think tank seminars, etc. on the topics of the North American Model, The Public Trust, and other issues affecting hunting and conservation. We formulate that information and provide it to the bigger conservation groups to use in their messages. My affiliation with this group and those groups with whom Orion interacts is the greatest contributor to my knowledge on the history of public hunting in America.

- I am a NON-paid volunteer board member for the Hunting Heritage Trust. The Trust is charged with raising money to fund projects that further the cause of hunting and promote our hunting heritage. The North American Model being on topic supported and promoted by the Trust.

- I am serving my last year as a NON-paid volunteer for Ducks Unlimited, having served six years as a co-chair to the Bozeman Committee, a committee that is almost always in the Top Twenty of DU's 4,000 chapters. I also have served as a Montana delegate for DU at their national conventions.

- I am a NON-paid volunteer as the legislative liaison for one of the influential hunting groups in Montana, causing me to spend way too much time in hunting politics. It gives me insight about what kind of things SFW is funding/promoting behind the scenes, here in MT, and elsewhere. It shows me what side of the fence SFW is on. Not the side I am on.

- I am a NON-paid volunteer on the sportsman?s advisory panel for Senator Jon Tester, the Senator whose name is on the Simpson-Tester rider that got us wolf delisting in MT and ID. He appointed a few of us Republicans, even though he is a Democrat. I cannot wait until the wolf topic comes up in the debate.

What went down in the wolf delisting process has been spun as fairy tales for a long time. This debate will be a great forum to lay out FACTS for the audience to decide who is full of BS. I have documents, not stories and hearsay. This will be the most colorful portion of the debate, if Don wants to go there. He is not the only one who has access to people in DC, to Congressional staff, to lobbyists. In fact, I suspect he has a very small reach there, given the enemies SFW/BGF has created. On this topic, I say, ?Bring it on!?

None of that really matters, as the folks on this site know that commitment to hunting and volunteering is often two in the same. Whether volunteering for a hunting group, being a school volunteer, a scout leader, you name it, volunteering is far different than being paid staff or the infamous ?consultant.?

We do it out of passion for the cause, not because it pays for our lifestyle. Most here know what I am talking about, as they do the same thing.

Being a volunteer for hunting groups gives me a ton of respect for the other NON-paid volunteers who make up the bulk of most conservation groups; RMEF and their volunteers being a classic example to use. They are the rank and file hunters; the hunters who go to meetings after work; the hunters who put on the fund raisers; the hunters who do habitat improvement projects on weekends; the hunters who teach hunter education or mentor programs; the hunters who go to legislature and testify on bills affecting all of the hunters. They are doing it because they share the passion to make it better, not because they can get paid salaries and consulting fees.

The volunteers I mingle with are not the hunters who buy their way to the front of the line. These are the hunters who stand in line and wait their turn. These are the hunters who if value was placed on the time they contribute, their total contribution would make the small pool of auction tag regulars look like scraps. They are who keeps hunting and conservation going, not some dude who likes to have the pretty girl stand next to him while he makes a big scene at some social event where he buys auction tags.

They are the hunters who are making a difference. The hunters who are getting the pipe laid to them by PAID staff of some groups who would like to see these hunters stand in the line even longer.

I was haggling with the problems presented by the SFW model long before I was involved with a TV show and long before recent RMEF affiliation with my show. My background in hunting and conservation organizations is what has caused me to do that. Go look at the posts from way back.

I have not agreed with RMEF at all turns. Most of us can say about any organization we support.

Show me a group doing more for elk hunters/hunting than RMEF. They have conserved 6 MILLION acres of elk habitat that also supports many other species. They have provided 630,000 acres of new public access. They have provided access to large amounts of previously inaccessible or difficult-to-access public lands. Save the trouble in looking for a group doing more - you won't find one.

To me, RMEF was/is a group I found/find worth supporting. It is a group who came out against the recent tag theft in Arizona, twice, seeing what a joke it was, and how it would affect their members. I didn't see Don?s name on any letters denouncing that abortion of The Public Trust Doctrine. Maybe SFW hunters want more tag theft, not less.

RMEF is a group who gets things done, as are some of the others I supprt. A group with the most down to earth volunteers that I have ever found. A group of volunteers who worry about elk and elk hunting, worrying not about who gets credit.

RMEF is a conservation group funded by hunters. 95%+ of their members are hunters. They realize this and are not shy about it, or walking away from it. Their tagline is "Hunting is Conservation." I happen to agree.

I am unapologetic of my support for RMEF, and other groups I support. Never have apologized for it and don't expect I ever will. RMEF are my kind of people. They reflect the spirit of their volunteers, putting 90% of the money back into projects, rather than into their pockets or pockets of consultants and friends. I feel the same about other good groups I support.

Feel free to take my acceptance of Don's debate offer as shilling for RMEF, if you want. I guess I am also a shill for DU, B&C, Orion, et al, and the average hunter we represent in our show and on our website.

Maybe you have concerns that RMEF has an open book policy on their finances; that RMEF publishes their financial information every year with the charity rating services; that RMEF has their financial statements audited by one of the well-known CPA firms who examines and issues an opinion on the financial statements of RMEF; that RMEF has a full accounting of all proceeds of the few auction/raffle tags they help the states with.

Maybe the fact that RMEF (and others) is so open, worries those who will not let their financial records see the light of day, even when the groups operating in secret are funded primarily with public assets. Maybe SFW doesn't want the world to know what happens with the money they get from public assets like wildlife. Could that be the cause of your worry?

It should be, as I have requested the financial information of many hunting organizations, including SFW. Tomorrow I will find out if SFW plans to share any information when we have a conference call on the debate. Knowing the SFW history of locked down financial records, I offered to sign a non-disclosure agreement, which is laughable when you think that I am asking for information from a charitable organization who is provided tax-free status under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3), the section covering "publicly supported charities." Yet, the public is always denied the right to inspect the records of this "publicly supported" charity.

Given how important I see discussion; how the Utah funding stream is used for creating more messes in other western states, I am willing to spend nine hours with Don and his crew, being driven around Utah, listening to all they are proud of. I am willing to take two days from my schedule, travel to Utah on my own dime, and debate these issues. Not because I am on someone?s payroll who is benefitting from these issues.

To me, this is NOT a debate about preserving and rationalizing some income stream that supports me and groups I might affiliate with. Neither me, nor any of the groups I affiliate with, are promoting the kind of things SFW is promoting as their vision of what is best for the future of hunting.

To me, this debate is about something way more important. To me, it is a debate about the manner in which we go forward, protecting the long-held systems that leave some hope for the average hunter, rather than promoting ideas that would throw the average hunter, and his efforts, to the curb. To talk about topics relevant to the average hunter who is the volunteer for most the groups, who stands in line waiting his turn, who hopes that his work will make hunting better for his kids and grandkids.

If that worries you, then be worried. That should tell everyone my involvement with what you seem to be worried about. ?The bigger picture? as you say.

Maybe you should make a post asking Don what of his work is paid, or is volunteerism. Seems you are not too worried about his involvement and associations; whose skids he is greasing and who is greasing him.

One thing shown in the SFW tax returns is this - someone listed as an SFW "consultant" is making a hell of a lot more money in the hunting world than we do as volunteers for the hunting cause.

Google away all you want. Or, ask the questions here and I will answer them for all to read. I don't have anything to hide. In fact, the more disclosure, the better. Why don't you try to get the same disclosure from the other side?

Carry on ........

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
>So, they now count every wildlife
>organization in the state as
>members of AZSFW? Or does
>that also include Utah? 25000
>is a joke and you
>know it. Are you counting
>every member of YVRGC, RMEF,
>Fishing groups? I want to
>see how many dues paying
>members you really have without
>claiming every member of all
>the groups you suckered into
>giving you funds to pay
>for Gilstrap.


A chunk of the AZ wildlife license plate money goes to SFW, too, to fund this SFW clown car lobbying group wearing the skin of a conservation organization.
 
Muley-73
Your original post make so many inaccurate assumptions that frankly it's kind of offensive.
 
I used to support RMEF. The banquets were fun had a good time. Then the head of the Richfield Chapter, at the time ask for $600.00 for a water trough in Bear valley for cattle and elk. The BIG WIGS said no. I just went to a banquet in Bryce Canyon and SFW donated $2500.00 to a local family who's father died from cancer.

SFW is local, RMEF is national

Just my opinion
 
And.....boom goes the dynamite.

Very well stated, bigfin. Some here have a very hard time understanding that many of us who disagree with SFW's way of business keep raising a fuss because we love wildlife and the western hunting lifestyle, both of which are become more entrenched in a political and monetary free-for-all.

I look forward to this debate. I sure hope it will get the exposure it deserves.

Vi Et Armis Invictus Maneo
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-09-12 AT 05:50PM (MST)[p]OttercreekKid---Have you given any thought to the fact that maybe the RMEF project you mentioned wasn't considered necessary and why the money wasn't allocated? Also, losing a relative to cancer or any other disease is terrible, but this came up before in a thread and I don't believe SFW or these other conservation organizations was set up to donate money to charities, veterans, needy families, etc. They are CONSERVATION organizations that are struggling to save our habitat and game animals, as well as preserve our hunting heritage, not to give money to persons like you mentioned, as worthwhile as those may be. I feel the way to do that would be for the organization to have a raffle, supper, etc. to solicit donations for causes like that, rather than take money from their funds that should be dedicated solely to conservation.
 
BigFin,
Thanks for the clarification. Like I said just information that I found when I took a look. Again take the info for what it is. I'm looking foward to the debate. And like they say any publicity is good publicity. I'm sure this debate with benefit all involved.
 
Muley if all publicity is good publicity then you should relax man. Obviously your worried about your SFW crew and how people are starting to wake up and smell the stink.I know I would be sweatin' right now if I were SFW proud.You boys have picked a fight with the wrong hombre and now your looking for a way out.I have had several people whom have been SFW members for years call me to discuss alot of the stink that has been only started to be unvailed. Tides are changin' Tides are changin'
 
If there was as much time and effort put into people helping there chosen conservation group, as there was people bitchen on the net we all would be better off.
 
Ottercreekkid, My mother died of cancer and my father died from Alzheimer's, do you think I could get some money from SFW too? I'm local. I also have a friend who served 3 years in Iraq and he wants to go hunt and fish in Alaska, will SFW pay for that?, or does his daddy have to sit on the board of directors of SFW for that to happen?


No estas en mexico ahora, entonces escoja tu basura
chancho sucio.
 
>Muley_73:
>
>You stated ?I believe his really
>purpose of challenging Don is
>his loyalty to RMEF and
>the position he has been
>appointed to by RMEF concerning
>conservation issues/government relations.?
>
>You are entitled to your opinion,
>an extremely incorrect opinion.
>RMEF could care less if
>I debate Don. Don
>and SFW supporters like you,
>always seem to find some
>way to hammer RMEF, no
>matter what the topic.
>
>I want to do this, and
>will jump through as many
>hoops as Don wants to
>put out there, because of
>my background as a volunteer
>for conservation. Not because
>I have a TV show.
> Not because I have
>a relationship with RMEF.
>My efforts are toward providing
>the average hunter a voice
>in these issues.
>
>For all who want to know,
>my affiliation with RMEF and
>my background with other groups
>is provided below. Probably
>not different from most on
>this site who volunteer for
>organizations and causes. But
>much different than those who
>view it as a money
>game for themselves and their
>friends.
>
> - I have been a
>member since 1988. I
>am a life member.
>I am a committee volunteer,
>as my time and schedule
>allows.
>
>- I am a NON-paid volunteer
>for the policy and governmental
>affairs committee, since last October.
>
>
> - As of February, I
>am a NON-paid volunteer to
>their finance committee, the place
>CPAs usually get relegated.
>
>When we started our TV show,
>I donated two: 30 second
>slots to conservation groups the
>first year. These groups
>got these for free.
>One went to RMEF; one
>went to B&C. I
>have donated billboards to RMEF,
>B&C, Wild Sheep Foundation, and
>Mule Deer Foundation. I
>have donated presenting sponsorships in
>episodes to all species groups.
>
>
>It was part of our plan
>that focused on the average
>hunter and the groups they
>belong to; to get our
>show/audience connected with conservation groups,
>as their members are the
>target audience for a show
>that is all self-guided hunting
>on public lands.
>
>Not sure what to say in
>our defense, beyond that.
>If some don't like our
>support of conservation groups and
>our efforts to give voice
>to the average hunter, they
>would mistake me for someone
>who cares that they don't
>like it.
>
>Last year, RMEF and I both
>thought the results of our
>relationship were very beneficial, so
>we formalized our relationship.
>That includes me doing appearances
>for them, writing columns in
>Bugle Magazine, them getting presenting
>sponsorships in all our elk
>episodes, they get a billboard
>in every show, a :30
>second commercial, me doing special
>conservation messages for them, me
>giving presentations as Elk Camp,
>highest level web sponsorship.
>For all of this, they
>now pay. Our association
>is worth more to us
>than money. They bring
>the target audience to our
>show, more than any group.
> They refer other sponsors
>who want to reach our
>audience.
>
>Like all groups, they do marketing
>to reach their target audience.
> We are one of
>the many tools they find
>is working well for their
>marketing campaign.
>
>As far as other groups I
>am, or have been, affiliated
>with, here is a partail
>list, relevant to the debate
>topics. All as a
>NON-paid volunteer, not a paid
>consultant.
>
> - I have been a
>NON-paid volunteer for the last
>17 years as a board
>member of Orion-The Hunters Institute,
>with seven of those years
>as President. Orion provides
>research, commissions studies, holds think
>tank seminars, etc. on the
>topics of the North American
>Model, The Public Trust, and
>other issues affecting hunting and
>conservation. We formulate that
>information and provide it to
>the bigger conservation groups to
>use in their messages.
>My affiliation with this group
>and those groups with whom
>Orion interacts is the greatest
>contributor to my knowledge on
>the history of public hunting
>in America.
>
> - I am a NON-paid
>volunteer board member for the
>Hunting Heritage Trust. The
>Trust is charged with raising
>money to fund projects that
>further the cause of hunting
>and promote our hunting heritage.
> The North American Model
>being on topic supported and
>promoted by the Trust.
>
> - I am serving my
>last year as a NON-paid
>volunteer for Ducks Unlimited, having
>served six years as a
>co-chair to the Bozeman Committee,
>a committee that is almost
>always in the Top Twenty
>of DU's 4,000 chapters.
>I also have served as
>a Montana delegate for DU
>at their national conventions.
>
> - I am a NON-paid
>volunteer as the legislative liaison
>for one of the influential
>hunting groups in Montana, causing
>me to spend way too
>much time in hunting politics.
> It gives me insight
>about what kind of things
>SFW is funding/promoting behind the
>scenes, here in MT, and
>elsewhere. It shows me
>what side of the fence
>SFW is on. Not
>the side I am on.
>
>
> - I am a NON-paid
>volunteer on the sportsman?s advisory
>panel for Senator Jon Tester,
>the Senator whose name is
>on the Simpson-Tester rider that
>got us wolf delisting in
>MT and ID. He
>appointed a few of us
>Republicans, even though he is
>a Democrat. I cannot
>wait until the wolf topic
>comes up in the debate.
>
>
>What went down in the wolf
>delisting process has been spun
>as fairy tales for a
>long time. This debate
>will be a great forum
>to lay out FACTS for
>the audience to decide who
>is full of BS.
>I have documents, not stories
>and hearsay. This will
>be the most colorful portion
>of the debate, if Don
>wants to go there.
>He is not the only
>one who has access to
>people in DC, to Congressional
>staff, to lobbyists. In
>fact, I suspect he has
>a very small reach there,
>given the enemies SFW/BGF has
>created. On this topic,
>I say, ?Bring it on!?
>
>
>None of that really matters, as
>the folks on this site
>know that commitment to hunting
>and volunteering is often two
>in the same. Whether
>volunteering for a hunting group,
>being a school volunteer, a
>scout leader, you name it,
>volunteering is far different than
>being paid staff or the
>infamous ?consultant.?
>
>We do it out of passion
>for the cause, not because
>it pays for our lifestyle.
> Most here know what
>I am talking about, as
>they do the same thing.
>
>
>Being a volunteer for hunting groups
>gives me a ton of
>respect for the other NON-paid
>volunteers who make up the
>bulk of most conservation groups;
>RMEF and their volunteers being
>a classic example to use.
> They are the rank
>and file hunters; the hunters
>who go to meetings after
>work; the hunters who put
>on the fund raisers; the
>hunters who do habitat improvement
>projects on weekends; the hunters
>who teach hunter education or
>mentor programs; the hunters who
>go to legislature and testify
>on bills affecting all of
>the hunters. They are
>doing it because they share
>the passion to make it
>better, not because they can
>get paid salaries and consulting
>fees.
>
>The volunteers I mingle with are
>not the hunters who buy
>their way to the front
>of the line. These
>are the hunters who stand
>in line and wait their
>turn. These are the
>hunters who if value was
>placed on the time they
>contribute, their total contribution would
>make the small pool of
>auction tag regulars look like
>scraps. They are who
>keeps hunting and conservation going,
>not some dude who likes
>to have the pretty girl
>stand next to him while
>he makes a big scene
>at some social event where
>he buys auction tags.
>
>They are the hunters who are
>making a difference. The
>hunters who are getting the
>pipe laid to them by
>PAID staff of some groups
>who would like to see
>these hunters stand in the
>line even longer.
>
>I was haggling with the problems
>presented by the SFW model
>long before I was involved
>with a TV show and
>long before recent RMEF affiliation
>with my show. My
>background in hunting and conservation
>organizations is what has caused
>me to do that.
>Go look at the posts
>from way back.
>
>I have not agreed with RMEF
>at all turns. Most
>of us can say about
>any organization we support.
>
>Show me a group doing more
>for elk hunters/hunting than RMEF.
> They have conserved 6
>MILLION acres of elk habitat
>that also supports many other
>species. They have provided
>630,000 acres of new public
>access. They have provided
>access to large amounts of
>previously inaccessible or difficult-to-access public
>lands. Save the trouble
>in looking for a group
>doing more - you won't
>find one.
>
>To me, RMEF was/is a group
>I found/find worth supporting.
>It is a group who
>came out against the recent
>tag theft in Arizona, twice,
>seeing what a joke it
>was, and how it would
>affect their members. I
>didn't see Don?s name on
>any letters denouncing that abortion
>of The Public Trust Doctrine.
> Maybe SFW hunters want
>more tag theft, not less.
>
>
>RMEF is a group who gets
>things done, as are some
>of the others I supprt.
> A group with the
>most down to earth volunteers
>that I have ever found.
> A group of volunteers
>who worry about elk and
>elk hunting, worrying not about
>who gets credit.
>
>RMEF is a conservation group funded
>by hunters. 95%+ of
>their members are hunters.
>They realize this and are
>not shy about it, or
>walking away from it.
>Their tagline is "Hunting is
>Conservation." I happen to
>agree.
>
>I am unapologetic of my support
>for RMEF, and other groups
>I support. Never have
>apologized for it and don't
>expect I ever will.
>RMEF are my kind of
>people. They reflect the
>spirit of their volunteers, putting
>90% of the money back
>into projects, rather than into
>their pockets or pockets of
>consultants and friends. I
>feel the same about other
>good groups I support.
>
>Feel free to take my acceptance
>of Don's debate offer as
>shilling for RMEF, if you
>want. I guess I
>am also a shill for
>DU, B&C, Orion, et al,
>and the average hunter we
>represent in our show and
>on our website.
>
>Maybe you have concerns that RMEF
>has an open book policy
>on their finances; that RMEF
>publishes their financial information every
>year with the charity rating
>services; that RMEF has their
>financial statements audited by one
>of the well-known CPA firms
>who examines and issues an
>opinion on the financial statements
>of RMEF; that RMEF has
>a full accounting of all
>proceeds of the few auction/raffle
>tags they help the states
>with.
>
>Maybe the fact that RMEF (and
>others) is so open, worries
>those who will not let
>their financial records see the
>light of day, even when
>the groups operating in secret
>are funded primarily with public
>assets. Maybe SFW doesn't
>want the world to know
>what happens with the money
>they get from public assets
>like wildlife. Could that
>be the cause of your
>worry?
>
>It should be, as I have
>requested the financial information of
>many hunting organizations, including SFW.
> Tomorrow I will find
>out if SFW plans to
>share any information when we
>have a conference call on
>the debate. Knowing the
>SFW history of locked down
>financial records, I offered to
>sign a non-disclosure agreement, which
>is laughable when you think
>that I am asking for
>information from a charitable organization
>who is provided tax-free status
>under Internal Revenue Code Section
>501(c)(3), the section covering "publicly
>supported charities." Yet, the
>public is always denied the
>right to inspect the records
>of this "publicly supported" charity.
>
>
>Given how important I see discussion;
>how the Utah funding stream
>is used for creating more
>messes in other western states,
>I am willing to spend
>nine hours with Don and
>his crew, being driven around
>Utah, listening to all they
>are proud of. I
>am willing to take two
>days from my schedule, travel
>to Utah on my own
>dime, and debate these issues.
> Not because I am
>on someone?s payroll who is
>benefitting from these issues.
>
>To me, this is NOT a
>debate about preserving and rationalizing
>some income stream that supports
>me and groups I might
>affiliate with. Neither me,
>nor any of the groups
>I affiliate with, are promoting
>the kind of things SFW
>is promoting as their vision
>of what is best for
>the future of hunting.
>
>To me, this debate is about
>something way more important.
>To me, it is a
>debate about the manner in
>which we go forward, protecting
>the long-held systems that leave
>some hope for the average
>hunter, rather than promoting ideas
>that would throw the average
>hunter, and his efforts, to
>the curb. To talk
>about topics relevant to the
>average hunter who is the
>volunteer for most the groups,
>who stands in line waiting
>his turn, who hopes that
>his work will make hunting
>better for his kids and
>grandkids.
>
>If that worries you, then be
>worried. That should tell
>everyone my involvement with what
>you seem to be worried
>about. ?The bigger picture?
>as you say.
>
>Maybe you should make a post
>asking Don what of his
>work is paid, or is
>volunteerism. Seems you are
>not too worried about his
>involvement and associations; whose skids
>he is greasing and who
>is greasing him.
>
>One thing shown in the SFW
>tax returns is this -
>someone listed as an SFW
>"consultant" is making a hell
>of a lot more money
>in the hunting world than
>we do as volunteers for
>the hunting cause.
>
>Google away all you want.
>Or, ask the questions here
>and I will answer them
>for all to read.
>I don't have anything to
>hide. In fact, the
>more disclosure, the better.
>Why don't you try to
>get the same disclosure from
>the other side?
>
>Carry on ........
>
>"Hunt when you can - You're
>gonna' run out of health
>before you run out of
>money!"


WELL SAID
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-09-12 AT 09:07PM (MST)[p]Shotgunjim you just got my vote for the worlds biggest a hole. I help with the Hunts for the Brave program started by SFW. I have witnessed first hand how lives have been changed through a hunt donated to a deserving recipient. If you have a problem with rewarding someone who served our great country then you are a real piece of work.

In sorry to hear about your parents but im sure they would not have been proud of your last comment.
 
POW!! right between the eyes!!

Great post Bigfin, good luck in the so called debate, I sure hope there will be one, but my gut instincts tell me peay day will be dancing around the fire same as he has always done.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-09-12 AT 09:32PM (MST)[p]>I used to support RMEF.
>The banquets were fun had
>a good time. Then
>the head of the Richfield
>Chapter, at the time ask
>for $600.00 for a water
>trough in Bear valley for
>cattle and elk. The BIG
>WIGS said no. I
>just went to a banquet
>in Bryce Canyon and SFW
>donated $2500.00 to a local
>family who's father died from
>cancer.
>
>SFW is local, RMEF is national
>
>
>Just my opinion


1st-Muley you got a big set of wabbles man I commend you for that. You honestly had some good points but thanks Randy you cleared them up.
2nd-Ok your water trough didnt get funded, but whats the deal. Im not sure what projects get funded and which do not. Maybe Randy can clear this up for us. 3 years ago with a ton of snow there was 490 Rocky Mountain Elk that was on the valley floor. When RMEF was contacted about a feeding donation we was denied by RMEF. SFW did pony up cash though.

Im not spinning this one way or another here. But why wouldnt a group that was for Rocky Mountain Elk not want to help out? I am a SFW supporter but yes there are questions that need to be answered I agree. I hope all your thoughts and questions get answered at this debate. I doubt they will though. If they do whats all you arm chair biologists goin bi*ch about next. lol
 
Why is it that so many of the few SFW supporters on here have less than 15 posts?! Maybe Birdman has the answer. :)

***********************************
Member RMEF, UBNM, UWC & the SFW Hate Club
 
open the books sfw what are you scared of,making big fin sign a no disclosure tells me all i need to know.
 
My point is this. There are two sides to every battle. I am personally happy that this debate looks to be taking place. I hope that there are many many answers that come to light. But to act like this is only a Average Joe vs the Evil Empire is just plain silly.

There is too much money and political power at stake and not just for the SFW. It is the world we live in now. Again I'll only ask that everyone look at the ENTIRE big picture.

Im done posting on the SFW subjects now. Regarless of what many think I am nothing more than the voice of one average joe hunter. Hoping that my kids have a better future in everything including hunting experiences.

Respectfully,
Cody Christensen
 
Hey Bigfin,

How could a guy find a way to put $20 in your hand to defray some of the cost of your travel, room & board for this trip?

____________________________

I hunt. I fish. I VOTE.

Get the F out of SFW
 
ZIM
Probably because we're out trying to make a difference. This week I am going with a DWR employee to help count lambs so we can keep track of the bighorns. That will be Thursday evening. Saturday I will be helping take two Marines on a turkey hunt that was bought with funds donated with the specific purpose of showing appreciation for their service. The money did not cone from conservation permits. There are many of us so called "Kool Aide drinkers" that donate a lot of time and money to make this world a better place for all. I don't believe the number of posts one has on this site determines much of anything. I suppose we could make many pointless posts in attempt to make ourselves more relevant in your eyes. I myself choose to speak with my actions as do many others who care about conservation. I wish you could meet the friends I have made volunteering with SFW. We are not mindless followers as you like to portray us. We meet often to discuss the issues that we face as sportsmen and we try to come up with solutions. Some work some don't, but through trial and error great things have, and will be accomplished. Our local committee consists of many people from different walks of life. Our incomes vary some more wealthy then other. Most of us make enough to pay bills and have just enough left over to go on one hunt a year. The one hunt a year is usually a tag that was purchased over the counter some where in the West. I believe we fit the average Joe stipulations.
I hope you draw that deer tag soon in this great state. When you do please let me know there are many of us "SFW Kool AIDE DRINKERS" that would love to help you out. I'm very serious. If you were to meet us maybe then you would choose not to ridicule, an demean us so much on this site.
 
Well said bigfin!!!

I think we need a needle and line to sew up Muley73's arse. He JUST GOT RIPPED A GOOD ONE!!!

Keep digging Muley73 and birdoman. That hole is getting pretty deep. Soon enough, we might have a hole to china!!!
 
JMO,

There are good people inside of bad organizations. If SFW would open it's books, announce it's true intentions and take a position that was consistant then maybe there would be less attacking and less demeaning.

I don't expect the koolaid drinkers for SFW to understand that the way the organization gets the bulk of it's funds is the ultimate example of crony socialism that exists. I would be happy of SFW would just work on Utah and leave us in Montana alone but that isn't their modus operandi.

If SFW was to ever open their books and show all that they are not simply a money gather machine that puts a very small percentage on the ground many would shut up. That fact that all the publish is a form 990 speaks volumes about the truth.

Happy you like Koolaid but for the rest of us I think the feeling is don't pi$$ down my back and tell me it is raining.

Nemont
 
Nemont
I agree with you in regards to opening the books and showing complete transparency. I have no problem with full time employees receiving compensation for there work. Myself and others who volunteer have expressed concerns with their transparency issues. I believe there are efforts being made to correct the issue. I have no problems with those who bring up valid points and do so respectively. They are the voices that are being listened to. There is no doubt that SFW has some issues to be addressed. I joined to make a difference in my area. I believe I have been able to better my children's hunting opportunities through my service with SFW. I will continue to volunteer and express my opinion, if the day comes that I feel my voice is not heard I quit. I'm not alone when I say you are right they need to open their books. I respect RMEF for opening theirs. The problem i have with them is that in Utah they do very little. There is no other organization that even comes close to SFW in Utah when it comes to improving big game hunting.
 
Muley_73, I'm quite sure this is anything but a game to Randy. And to many, many more of us that are following the unfolding events. Thank You Randy. mtmuley
 
Oh it's a game without question. Many big players and many pawns. Many strategies and alliances. It's a complex game but a game none the less.
 
>Why is it that so many
>of the few SFW supporters
>on here have less than
>15 posts?! Maybe Birdman
>has the answer. :)
>
>
>***********************************
>Member RMEF, UBNM, UWC & the
>SFW Hate Club


hey zim

how come every time your proven wrong you shut your mouth and move to a new post? man up and deal with the facts . i'm going down to the pauns this week maybe i'll find a big buck for ya! you get your any weapon tag and will wack a big one on the bow hunt!
 
Aren't there legit sportsman's organizations in Utah? In Montana, there's at least 26 sportsman's orgs from all over the state. Most of us are connected by the main affiliate club.

The first thing SFW did when they showed up here, was bad mouth all the other clubs, and claim to be the savor. Don Peay was standing right there with them.

We don't need PETA to divide us when we have Peay.

I wanted to take a scalp,but the kill was not mine.
 
Don Peay is going to get is ass kicked in the debate and the media will be there to tell the story.

Muley73 your pretty pathetic. I'm sure if I dug I could find some crap about your own life.
 
JMO & corndog,
I haven't visited this thread for a while so I did not see your posts. However, my answers mirror what so many others on here have posted. Transparency with big money made off a public resource. Sorry but this is unacceptable. Period. No exceptions. No immunity. No excuses.

As if that weren't enough, how about tons of scandals and corruption? There was so much I got a TV station KTVK to do an investigation and interviews last month in Phoenix. They don't bother if there is no scandal to expose.

As I have stated before, I was a board member of the largest conservation org in my home state and we got more done than any other group during that time.........with zero scandals, zero corruption, zero TV investigations, zero sale of public resources, zero destruction of the NAMWC.

Simply dismissing the corruption by "everybody does it" or "we are not all bad" just isn't anywhere near good enough.......and in fact is an outrage. It always will be. SFW should be totally ashamed of themselves.





***********************************
Member RMEF, UBNM, UWC & the SFW Hate Club
 
>Don Peay is going to get
>is ass kicked in the
>debate and the media will
>be there to tell the
>story.
>


Bigfin appears to be very well-spoken, but don't assume DP doesn't know what ppl want to hear.
 

Similar threads

Joe2Kool
Colorado's Latest Global Warming Initiative?
Replies
8
Views
945
oldmossback
oldmossback
Betterluckythangood
Biology quiz
Replies
6
Views
571
Betterluckythangood
Betterluckythangood
desperatehills
Cougars on the loose now?
Replies
13
Views
707
coloradoman
coloradoman

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_6232.jpeg
64D03649-AF87-4C85-B25C-D4C76BEAF7D9.jpeg
1EB53673-954F-4B65-989A-0B7D7E60D1F6.jpeg
B5F110A9-DE01-4E21-927A-372E2556CA11.png
P1020508.JPG
utah buck 88.jpg
IMG_5890.MOV
60AB6B1F-ADED-4C82-B634-465DB594C7E3.jpeg
20180923_155317.jpg
IMG_6736.JPG
IMG_1088.JPG
IMG_20220912_204130_504.jpg
Back
Top Bottom