EXPO Auction Results???

Just think of all that money raised for wildlife enhancement (eyeroll)
Biggest scam in history. No accounting for their monies raised is criminal.
I was there listening to you Utah guys complain and wonder if you'll ever draw a tag and couldn't help but wonder if you really have no idea what is taking place around you. You have private organizations controlling public tags and auctioning them off to the same select few every year while you have to wait in line. Unbelievable! I can't believe you haven't stormed the capitol by now.
 
Bozeman---I basically said the same thing on the OYOA website and that if all the Utah people alone would get together and either boycott or picket the Expo the SFW would lose it's azz in one year and would be gone to not cause them further problems. I really think it would be that easy to eliminate that travesty before it spreads to other states like they just tried to do under the table in AZ!
 
>Biggest scam in history. No
>accounting for their monies raised
>is criminal.
>I was there listening to you
>Utah guys complain and wonder
>if you'll ever draw a
>tag and couldn't help but
>wonder if you really have
>no idea what is taking
>place around you. You
>have private organizations controlling public
>tags and auctioning them off
>to the same select few
>every year while you have
>to wait in line.
>Unbelievable! I can't believe
>you haven't stormed the capitol
>by now.

Ok....I should not even put this out there...but I am gonna anyway! I have been watching all the yelling and screaming and bitching about these tags for years. I DO AGREE that there should be MORE accountability of where the money goes, but to say that if they throw them back in the general draw that all of a sudden our odds will go up is just CRAP!!!!!!

For example...the Henry Mountain tag sold for $100,000. SOME of that money is going to be used for good. It shows that they have done good things with the money from these tags(we just dont know where ALL of it is going)...BUT....lets take away that $100,000 from the pool...put it back into the general draw....and WOW!!! Your odds just went up .002 percent!!!!!!!!!! YIPPEEEEE!!!!! So we take $100,000 out of the benefit of doing good things...and your odds are got HUGE!!!

I think some people just like to complain!!!
 
I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. I will however say I'm getting weary of the horse and pony show of certain names in the lime light year after year after year after year after year. I'm sure the money no doubt does some good but the personal hunting buffet it has turned into for at least one is borderline comical at this stage.
4abc76ff29b26fc1.jpg
 
FLEH,

Not arguing with you, however the expo tags do not dictate that there is a Henry's Deer tag. The Henries tag existed long before the expo tags and would still exist with out the expo. There may be an arguement that it would not raise as much money away from the expo, but it would still be sold with or without the expo and convention tags.
 
Never been to the Expo and probably never will. Saying that what I have to say is worth little. I have read everything you guys from Utah have written about for years and have come to several conclusions, that would bother me if I was to hunt Utah. I'll stick with most of the other western states.

1. All of the Expo tag money collected should be under public scrutiny every penny should be accountable. I really don't like this, "I'm sure it helps wildlife" to me that wouldn't be acceptable.

2. You are heading down a dangerous path like Europe, where the Kings game or SFW will control your hunting opportunities.

3. I'm shocked somebody hasn't been able to organize the sportsmen of your state to have more input in your state DWR. It seems to me several of members on this site are bright enough and motivated enough to do that.

4. I'm also surprised that you public input meetings which I'm sure you have don't seem to change much. I have things I don't think are managed well by my states DWR, but we seem to see results from public input meetings which I always try to attend.

Like I said I have little to add I'm just surprised that nothing seems to change. The complaints from 8 years ago are the same as today. I live in a much smaller state population wise, so I'm probably looking at it from a biased perspective.
 
Fishlake?

.002% Really???

You OD on SFW kool-ade ?

Try 85 freakin percent!!!

http://www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/DCForumID33/1820.html

Over the last 10 years SFW did nothing but steal Paunsagunt tags that added at least 6 years to my wait. Absolutely nothing has improved there. The last theft included 2 of the last 4 NR archery tags there to be raffled to residents. Now at least 85% (11/13) of the Pauns tags that are available to nonresidents are auction (or the 2 raffle).

Oh but hey, it's all good. Just read this exerpt from a letter written by SFW cronnie Chris Denham in reference to the last Arizona midnight gang rape bill:

"3. These tags are being taken away from the average hunter. True, in the short run. OF COURSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 0.2 OF 1 PERCENT OF THE TAGS, the change in drawing odds is so small that it cannot be calculated. Besides, how difficult will it be to increase our big game herds by 0.2 of one percent with a serious cash infusion? These tags will improve the average hunter?s odds of drawing a tag within a very short period of time."

Who ya crappin, Chris??? Talk about grossly twisting the truth! You folks skim the cream of the crop tags but then compare them to ALL the tags in your calculation, including 100% of the crap tags. You don't touch any dogs, just leave those for Joe Lunchbox and tell us to shut up and be happy as we count our raped & devalued bonus points.

Slight difference between .002% or .2 of 1%.........and 85% !!!

Pound sand, SFW.
 
S.F.W. got 7.4 million whatever it was last year 500,000 went back into wildlife!

Fishlake your high as a kite or put down too much koolaide.



hornkiller.jpg
 
>
>Ok....I should not even put this
>out there...but I am gonna
>anyway! I have been watching
>all the yelling and screaming
>and bitching about these tags
>for years. I DO AGREE
>that there should be MORE
>accountability of where the money
>goes, but to say that
>if they throw them back
>in the general draw that
>all of a sudden our
>odds will go up is
>just CRAP!!!!!!
>
>For example...the Henry Mountain tag sold
>for $100,000. SOME of that
>money is going to be
>used for good. It shows
>that they have done good
>things with the money from
>these tags(we just dont know
>where ALL of it is
>going)...BUT....lets take away that $100,000
>from the pool...put it back
>into the general draw....and WOW!!!
>Your odds just went up
>.002 percent!!!!!!!!!! YIPPEEEEE!!!!! So we
>take $100,000 out of the
>benefit of doing good things...and
>your odds are got HUGE!!!
>
>
>I think some people just like
>to complain!!!


It's fraud! To have an organization outside the state Fish & Game control tags is fraud. This is what happens when the legislature gets involved and they push the State agency aside because someone is greasing their campaign cofers and or slipping them an extra hunting treat somewhere. Prime example of what SFW is doing. If you weren't at the expo dinners too hear the blatant lies then you can't comment.
I'll tell you where all this money is going and it isn't to improve much for wildlife. Sure they dabble a little in but the shear amount being brought in and the amount used for their supposed mission statement is a joke. The money is going to lobby the "bought" seats in the legislature. The money is going to have big time entertainment for those who are dropping thousands on the tags. This whole thing is against the wildlife model that historically set in place. If you are so blind to see it then I feel bad for you.
It doesn't effect my odds in Montana but sometimes it's good to take advice from people that can see clearly while being on the outside no matter what it is in life. This is a train to destruction for the average hunter.
Unfortunately this happens eventually with most Non profit organizations. They start out with good intentions but money eventually spoils the whole thing.
They (SFW,BGF) are to the point that they are decieving the membership by taking credit for things that didn't happen all in the name of keeping the cash coming in. All this happened at the expo dinner.
 
Boy you guys that come on here and complain and say anything about how and where the money goes have no clue how it works. it is very easy to investigate.

For one most of the deer tags are MDF tags. Each and every "Conservation Group" whether it is MDF, RMEF, SCI or the SFW. Has to bid to the various state agencies to have the tags at there function. Some of the time it is actually 100%, Some of the times it is 90% of the money goes directly back to the DWR, AZ game and fish or whatever state the tag came from. MDF and SFW holds a great event that attracks the big money guys to come in. Bid and auction the tags. The money goes to the state agencies. Like I said it is easy research to find the info.

The guys that continue to throw the SFW under the bus all I can think are just ignorant to the actually facts and have read the BS on the forums and are just not informed of the actually facts of the current events.

I would challenge you to call the DWR to check the FACTS!

The main reason the MDF and SFW get to auction these tags is that there venue brings the most money to the table for the states.

SFW has put more money of the ground in Utah than any other "conservation group" has even put on the ground in CO, NM, AZ, NV combined.

Also if not for the SFW and BGF the wolf vs sportsman would be won by the wolf advocates. SFW and BGF have been in the trenches and on the front line of this WAR. And yes they have the wounds to prove this.

So in closing the next time you post something bashing the SFW that you really do know the FACTS on, get them right otherwise I think you could label yourself as PROWOLF and anti sportsman. If I was a Utah resident I would be very proud of the good on the ground stuff the SFW has done for my state.


AZ deer tag = $225K
UT deer tag = $225K

Oh by the way flag flown in memory of Chase in Afgan = 18K which directly goes to the NASP program.

Foxworth's Rolex = 28K directly benifit to wounded warroirs.





Outside of a horse is good for the inside of a man.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-13-12 AT 07:18PM (MST)[p]Wow 30inch I could not figure out why you where defending SFW until I read your profile! Go Figure


dusty
Lastname perry
ICQ
AOL-IM
Gender Male
City Aztec
State NM
Country
Homepage www.sfw-nm.com
Hobby Hunting, Archery, 3D, Bass Fishing, Texas Holdem
Comment SFW-NM - State Board
Northwest Chapter Chair
FCBA - Secretary / Treasurer
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-13-12 AT 06:44PM (MST)[p]Also if not for the SFW and BGF the wolf vs sportsman would be won by the wolf advocates. SFW and BGF have been in the trenches and on the front line of this WAR.

Someone is drunk on the $FW/BGF kool-aid.

Laffin'...
 
Someone is drunk on the $FW/BGF kool-aid.


Well say what you want, however being that I am involved with SFW seen the results, see where the $s go, seen the results on the ground. I volunteer my time, donate my money to where I have researched, and that will produce the most "bang for my buck" for what I believe in.


By the way WHAT HAVE YOU DONE!


I am by far not a rich guy but just like most of you a DIY type that enjoys the passion. That works a 50hr week so that I can go and enjoy the many riches that god has entrusted us with.




Outside of a horse is good for the inside of a man.
 
None of the other tags went over 200. That I witnessed.

If I remember right Elk = 80K. I was not present during the sheep statewide tag. There was some that was around 80K.





Outside of a horse is good for the inside of a man.
 
Profile information of username Abiggerfish2fry

You can't view Abiggerfish2fry's profile because his/her profile has been disabled.





I am not ashamed and do not hide from anyone.





Outside of a horse is good for the inside of a man.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-13-12 AT 07:54PM (MST)[p]Profile information of username BuzzH

Firstname Buzz
Lastname Hettick
ICQ
AOL-IM
Gender
City
State
Country
Homepage
Hobby







HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM



Outside of a horse is good for the inside of a man.
 
any go for $100.

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-13-12 AT 08:23PM (MST)[p] SFW/BGF tried to derail the Tester ammendment that directly enabled MT and ID to hunt wolves.

Supporting sportmen in that way, they deserve to be in the trenches and probably ought to stay there and get the hell out of the way.
 
30inchbuck,

Starting in 1986 I was actively involved in the very first scoping meetings on what was going to happen with wolves in Montana. There were confirmed packs in Montana, one within 30 miles of where I was born, and wolves were listed with full federal protection.

Starting in the early 90's I was actively involved in the scoping meetings regarding reintroduction. I attended a boat-load of meetings, and my comments are part of the public record. I commented on the draft EIS as well as the Final EIS.

I also attended meetings and commented on Montanas Wolf Management Plan in its initial stages. You know, the plan that was accepted by the Feds.

In 2001 I moved to Wyoming and became active in trying to get the State to come up with an accepted plan.

I also commented and supported all efforts to get wolves off the list and on to State Management.

What I didnt do is try to derail wolf delisting and State control like SFW/BGF and their founders Don Peay and Ryan Benson did. I didnt use Sportsmen dollars to attempt to throw MT, ID, WI, MN, and MI hunters under the bus regarding the wolf delisting bill that was endorsed by nearly every other hunting group in the United States besides BGF and SFW.

I hear the BS that both groups constantly trumpet..."we all need to stick together"...yeah sure. They showed a complete lack of solidarity by their attempt to stick it to hunters in both MT and ID.

Not hardly a group I care to associate with.

I am a member of many good sportsmens group that actually care about the average DIY public land hunters. I've no use for a group that divides hunters, cater to the wealthy, and steal from the average sportsmen. I also dont care for groups that act in defiance of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, which SFW and BGF definitely do.

You can save your, "what have you done" for people that havent been there and done that, for longer than either SFW or BGF existed.

You and your group are johnie come latelys, blowing your own horns as if you've actually done something and take credit for things you've never been involved with.

Congratulations?
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-13-12 AT 09:08PM (MST)[p]Hey 30"! If you're so in the know with how great the SFW is and where all the money SFW takes in from the Expo goes, how about posting a nice breakdown of where it all went from just say last year's (2011) function! We will see what your response is and if the SFW is so transparent you better come up with some damn good information in the next day or two seeing as you're a Chapter Chair!!!
 
So BuzzH, you should know the FACTS and whom threw whom under the bus when WY court actions was threw out.

If you where directly involved with the WY court actions congratulations are in order. That was an outstanding accomplishment.

If you do some real fact finding you will find that the so called press releases are not even worthy of using as toliet paper. Hint - backroom deals are not easy to find out whom was behind the deal. Hint Hint had nothing to do with BGF or SFW.

As far as the "wealthy tags" go when at the least 90% of the funds go directly back to the state they came from, which inside the states it goes directly on the ground. Where else can you get that much accomplished? Even the Sikes Act cant compete with what those tags have done.

I will be the first to admit, when i first seen those tags I was totally against the fundamentals of it. However the results speak for themselves.


Outside of a horse is good for the inside of a man.
 
>
>As far as the "wealthy tags"
>go when at the least
>90% of the funds go
>directly back to the state
>they came from, which inside
>the states it goes directly
>on the ground.


Can you provide a link from the state of Utah showing this fact?
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-13-12 AT 10:27PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Feb-13-12 AT 10:25?PM (MST)

30inchbuck,

Its a sad state of affairs when SFW has to be represented by someone like you.

That last post of yours lacks anything to do with a structured sentence or correct grammar...let alone a structured or coherent thought.

Its more than apparent to everyone that SFW and BGF were both responsible for throwing MT and ID under the bus. The proof has been posted on this board, including letters from Peay and Benson stating that they intended to derail Tester/Simpson.

Of course, the latest and greatest from SFW is a sure winner. Surely, since you're so "in the know" about SFW, you know the story of Corey Rossi and his poaching allegations with ties back to Utah? You remember when Peay was spouting off about how great Rossi was...and how he had a plan to place "key members" of SFW in the various G&F agencies so SFW could carry on its great work. What work is that? Placing untrained numbnuts in a position of power without the foggiest idea about wildlife management, wildlife conservation, or land ethics? People that while in powerful positions show no regard for the laws and wildlife they are entrusted to protect? What a joke!

Then within days of that, AZSFW made a run at the average DIY hunters in Arizona in a failed back-door state house bill to grab 350+ of Arizonas top trophy tags. Of course in that legislation, that was endorsed and written by SFW, the only group that would be eligable to control those tags was...big surprise...AZSFW.

Of course I'm sure you were also aware of how NMSFW also threw the DIY NR hunters under the bus as well. Mr. Espenoza, whom I talked with on the phone prior, assured me that NR DIY hunters would not see tag reductions. I knew that was a joke from the second I heard it. NMSFW, staying true to its roots, didnt take a single tag from the landowners or outfitters though. Tag grabs via SFW are focused squarely on the pool of tags that us DIY average joes can afford.

Yeah, tell me again why I should support this crap.

SFW/BGF have no idea what the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is...they never have.

Sadly, there are people dumb enough to stand there and allow it to happen...I'm not one of them.
 
I know NM topgun. Since each state is its own entity. I have no need to search out what UT does with its money. If your an UT resident then you do it.

I can tell you about auction tags however. In every states "laws" - those tags are allocated to the best bid. At the very minimum 90% of the money is returned to the states that they come from. Some of the tags 100% was returned to states game and fish depts. It does state this in the expos auction item list. The money goes directly back to the various state tags that is up for auction.

I also know that the raffle tags go under the same guildlines, for example the NM sheep tag - FNAWS gets both the raffle tag and the auction tag. 90% of the auction tag goes directly to the NMGF. 90% of the raffle tag is also returned to the NMGF. In NM it has to be a Non-Profit to get those tags. Without going to the UT state website and looking at the "bills/laws" I would believe that it would be similar to NM. Because NM adopted it from others.

So want to know where the auction/raffle tags money goes? At minimum 90% back to state G&F it came from. Want to know where that money goes to? Ask your G&F dept. All you need to do is to look at the various state legislature bills that allocates those tags to find the truth.

So gong to ask about the 10%? To put on that type of event with that venue is not cheap. To continue to fight the wolf war is not cheap. To continue to put money on the ground "over a million acres habitat restoration" is not cheap.

SFW has accomplished more with less. However when SFW creates a venue that generates $$$$ of tourism dollars that creates jobs in your state, that generates tax income to your state. That promotes continued tourism to your state. You guys B?????. You continue to follow the anti-SFW crowd without doing facts search on your own.

Even If I was inclinded to post numbers, you would not believe anyways. So go on a fact search yourself. Dont take numbers and such from no one other than your state goverment agencies. That way you know the facts and not some BS.


Outside of a horse is good for the inside of a man.
 
Buzz I do know the facts. I do hope that someday whom threw whom under the buss comes to the public eye.

Is it not fact that wolf hunts occured in MT and ID this year?

No I am not an english major. No I am not a eloquent writer. I am however someone that gets involved and does to best of my abilty, as poor as it is, to do the best I can for future generations of sportsman, try and leave it a better place. Yes I am a redneck and sometimes my brain goes faster than my fingers.

There is much more behind the scenes that I am not going to get into on a public forum. At this time and state of things.

All I can say is backroom deals. And political mis-truths and vendetas.

Like I said the press release is not even worth the paper printed on.


As with the NM tag allocation, there is more than meets the public eye. I was directly involved with that. I agree it is not what some wanted, It is not excatly what I wanted. I will take a token wager with you Buzz. PM me your NM units applied for last year. If they are Q/HD hunts then your odds will not change by more that 1%.




Outside of a horse is good for the inside of a man.
 
I keep hearing that SFW has accomplished so much. Please tell me what they have accomplished? I mean real results, not the process. Success is measured in results. SFW seams to have a bigger presence in Utah than any other state. So please tell me what SFW has accomplished in Utah? The tags that SFW takes from hunters do little more than fund an organization that has accomplished very little?

One thing that I see SFW has accomplished is it has successfully removed hunting opportunities from hunters and placed them in the hands of a very small number of hired guns. For the vast majority of hunters, a Utah LE hunt is a once in a lifetime tag. However, for a small percentage of hired guns it is a yearly event. I agree that returning the tags SFW gets to the draw would not result in significantly higher draw odds for anyone. However, this issue is not about draw odds, it is about results. What are the results?

I beleive the rank and file members of SFW honestly want to help wildlife so that future generations can enjoy it. I do not believe the leadership of SFW has this same concern. The leadership of SFW is running a business. They have mastered the concept of Supply and Demand. They have accomplished reducing the Supply of Utah deer hunting opportunities, therefore increasing the demand. If Utah had strong, stable and thriving deer herds with solid trophy opportunities then how would they get people to give them $250,000 for a tag?
 
30"---I live in Michigan and take conservation seriously, regardless of what state it's in and that's why I'm involved in this battle. You evidently had to pass a BS exam to get into your position as Chair of a SFW Chapter because you've made countless posts about all the good they are doing and 90% of the money goes back to the state. To that I say BS because whenever you or anyone else from SFW is asked to be transparent and show us the numbers we get exactly what you posted---nothing, nada, zilch! You tell me to do it myself when you should easily have all the information to show all of us. That, Sir, is not being transparent or how you run a clean operation! It's too bad there seems to be a bunch of good people trying to do good things within SFW and BGF, but to be lead by those who are in key positions, namely D Peay and R. Benson, that are liars and crooks is a shame. Look on that one link and count up how many thousands of dollars were donated to politicians by DP and his wife, as well as RB and his wife. Now come back here and tell us that was all their private money and not money that was misappropriated from funds raised by those two at the Expo and I'll call BS again!!!
 
Isn't the internet a great place for sportsmen to reach out to each other for the common good of wildlife? LMAO
Zeke
 
the horse has been dead for months and months now......

the fact of the matter is this, the people who have the ability to initiate change in utah, don't care.....they haven't cared for years and years and won't care for years and years unless they start getting fired.......

move on and hunt elsewhere....thats what i'm doing now i will not hunt utah's general seasons anymore and when i draw my elk and moose tags i'm out for good.....

littlebeaver.jpg
 
Here is NM laws.

I did say of the auction / raffle tags. 90%.




Sheep went to FNAWS this year
Elk - RMEF
Deer - RMEF
Turkey - NWTF




SECTION 65. Section 17-3-16.1 NMSA 1978 (being Laws 1989,
Chapter 384, Section 1, as amended) is amended to read:
"17-3-16.1. BIGHORN SHEEP ENHANCEMENT PERMITS--ISSUANCE--
USE.--
A. The [state game commission shall direct the
department of] game and fish [to] division of the energy,
minerals and natural resources department shall authorize not
more than two of the permits available for issuance in the
license year for the taking of two bighorn rams for the purpose
of raising funds for programs and projects to benefit bighorn
sheep.
B. The [state game commission] game and fish division
shall prescribe by [regulation] rule the form, design and
manner of issuance of the bighorn sheep enhancement permits.
The issuance of one permit shall be subject to auction by the
[department] division or by an incorporated nonprofit
organization dedicated to conservation of wildlife, as
determined by the [commission] division and shall be sold to
the highest bidder. The issuance of the other permit shall be

.184141.1
- 85 -

subject to a lottery by the [department] division, or by an
incorporated nonprofit organization dedicated to conservation
of wildlife, as determined by the [commission] division.
C. All money collected from the issuance and sale of
the bighorn sheep enhancement permits shall be credited to the
game protection fund to be used exclusively for bighorn sheep
preservation, restoration and management."
SECTION 66. Section 17-3-16.2 NMSA 1978 (being Laws 1999,
Chapter 69, Section 1) is amended to read:
"17-3-16.2. ELK ENHANCEMENT PERMIT--ISSUANCE--USE.--
A. The [state game commission shall direct the
department of] game and fish [to] division of the energy,
minerals and natural resources department shall authorize two
elk enhancement permits each license year for the taking of two
elk bulls to raise funds for programs and projects to better
manage elk.
B. The [state game commission] game and fish division
shall prescribe by rule the form, design and manner of issuance
of the two elk enhancement permits. The issuance of one permit
shall be subject to auction by the [department] division or by
an incorporated nonprofit organization dedicated to
conservation of wildlife, as determined by the [commission]
division, and shall be sold to the highest bidder. The
issuance of the other permit shall be subject to a lottery by
the [department] division or by an incorporated nonprofit
.184141.1
- 86 -

organization dedicated to conservation of wildlife, as
determined by the [commission] division.
C. All money collected from the issuance and sale of
the elk enhancement permits shall be credited to the game
protection fund to be used exclusively for elk restoration and
management."
SECTION 67. Section 17-3-16.3 NMSA 1978 (being Laws 2003,
Chapter 69, Section 1) is amended to read:
"17-3-16.3. LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR'S DEER ENHANCEMENT
PERMITS--ISSUANCE--USE.--
A. The [state game commission shall direct the
department of] game and fish [to] division of the energy,
minerals and natural resources department shall authorize two
deer enhancement permits each license year for the taking of
two deer to raise funds for programs and projects to better
manage deer.
B. The [state game commission] game and fish division
shall prescribe by rule the form, design and manner of issuance
of the two deer enhancement permits. The issuance of one
permit shall be subject to auction by the [department] division
or by an incorporated nonprofit organization dedicated to
conservation of wildlife, as determined by the [commission]
division, and shall be sold to the highest bidder. The
issuance of the other permit shall be subject to a lottery by
the [department] division or by an incorporated nonprofit
.184141.1
- 87 -
underscored material = new
[bracketed material] = delete
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
organization dedicated to conservation of wildlife, as
determined by the [commission] division.
C. All money collected from the issuance and sale
of the lieutenant governor's deer enhancement permits shall
be credited to the game protection fund to be used
exclusively for deer restoration and management."
SECTION 68. Section 17-3-16.4 NMSA 1978 (being Laws
2005, Chapter 149, Section 1) is amended to read:
"17-3-16.4. GOULD'S TURKEY ENHANCEMENT PERMITS--
ISSUANCE--USE.--
A. The [state game commission may direct the
department of] game and fish [to] division of the energy,
minerals and natural resources department may authorize
Gould's turkey enhancement permits for the taking of Gould's
turkeys, Meleagris gallopavo mexicana, to raise funds for
programs and projects to better manage the Gould's turkey
population in New Mexico.
B. The [state game commission] game and fish
division shall prescribe by rule the form, design and manner
of issuance of the Gould's turkey enhancement permits. The
issuance of the permits shall be subject to a lottery or
auction. Such allotment of the permits may be conducted by
an incorporated nonprofit organization dedicated to
conservation of wildlife, in cooperation with and overseen by
the [commission and the department of game and fish]
.184141.1
- 88 -
division.
C. The [state game commission] game and fish
division shall [direct the department of game and fish to]
authorize Gould's turkey enhancement permits only after the
[department] division has documented that the issuance of
each enhancement permit will not jeopardize the prospects for
the survival and recruitment of the Gould's turkey within New
Mexico.
D. Gould's turkey enhancement permits shall be
authorized only when doing so does not conflict with the
Wildlife Conservation Act or any rules implementing that act.
E. Money collected from the issuance and sale of
the Gould's turkey enhancement permits shall be credited to
the game protection fund to be used exclusively for the
restoration and management of Gould's turkeys and Gould's
turkey habitats, which support a variety of other unique and
rare wildlife of southwestern New Mexico."















Outside of a horse is good for the inside of a man.
 
BuzzH

"Starting in 1986 I was actively involved in the very first scoping meetings on what was going to happen with wolves in Montana. There were confirmed packs in Montana, one within 30 miles of where I was born, and wolves were listed with full federal protection.

Starting in the early 90's I was actively involved in the scoping meetings regarding reintroduction. I attended a boat-load of meetings, and my comments are part of the public record. I commented on the draft EIS as well as the Final EIS.

I also attended meetings and commented on Montanas Wolf Management Plan in its initial stages. You know, the plan that was accepted by the Feds.

In 2001 I moved to Wyoming and became active in trying to get the State to come up with an accepted plan."



"I also attended meetings and commented on Montanas Wolf Management Plan in its initial stages. You know, the plan that was accepted by the Feds." Same plan that was overturned by the court system because of blatant inaccurate points inserted by USFWS.


So BuzzH just what year was you born? A little bird said you where in still in High School in 86.

The North American Wildlife model is Pro-Wolf. So what is it BuzzH? Are you Pro-Wolf?

NWF with ties with Sierra Club, Wild Earth Guardians and the likes say the same thing North American Wildlife Model. Well for one I try and disassociate myself with those groups.



Outside of a horse is good for the inside of a man.
 
This is BGF position.


"Wolf Poll on BGF

Thank you, we have already counted your vote.
Removals only for livestock kills. 0.99%


Public wolf hunts in Montana and Idaho under federal restrictions is good enough. 0.96%


It's time to return full STATE Management authority to the Northern Rockies. 1.77%


It's time to return full STATE Management authority to Western and Midwestern States. 8.8%


Fight the hard fight, Return STATE Management Authority to all states. 87.48%


Return To PollShare This


As many are aware, there are an increasing number of delisting proposals that have been proposed both in Congress and in the courts. The results of these proposals are quite different from one another. For example, one proposal would allow for a wolf hunt in Montana and Idaho under federally approved restrictions but would do nothing for other states with wolf concerns. H.R. 509 and S.249 which has been the focus of BGF would return state management to all states. Some efforts are underway to push compromise bills that would return full authority State Management in some states but not others. We would love to hear your opinion"



Outside of a horse is good for the inside of a man.
 
30inchbuck stated:

"The North American Wildlife model is Pro-Wolf. So what is it BuzzH? Are you Pro-Wolf?

NWF with ties with Sierra Club, Wild Earth Guardians and the likes say the same thing North American Wildlife Model. Well for one I try and disassociate myself with those groups."


We always wondered where SFW and BGF stood on the North American Model of Wildlife Management. You confirm those suspicions.

For you to even make a statement such as that does enough to validate why you are a supporter of SFW.

Any person affiliated with a hunting organization, such as you are with SFW, and who makes that kind of statement about the North American Model, needs to be called out.

So, are you saying, as someone who represents SFW, that you do not agree with the North American Model? Seems RMEF, B&C, P&Y, and every other alphabet soup of the hunting world thinks it has works pretty damn well.

Now, along comes SFW and their state leaders who claim otherwise. The Donny Come Lately group of wildlife conservation arrives on the scene to tell us that the 80 year wildlife recovery that is the envy of the world, was all a bad idea. The Model that got us here is a bad idea.

No need to dwell on that. Anyone who has read your post knows the ignorance of that comment.

What you just posted about the wolf issue in MT and ID shows total and complete ignorance of that topic. It is the verbatim drivel from the BGF website.

Do you know where H.R 509 is at this time? Do you know that the bill you just quoted as getting us delisting in MT and ID has yet to even be heard on the House Floor? It is a dead bill. It was dead before the ink dried.

Yet, your BGF/SFW friends continue to make it sound like that is the bill that got wolf seasons in MT and ID. That bill you quoted is sitting on some clerk's desk in DC, waiting for a janitor to use it as TP.

Amazing that you would even post that to prove how disconnected you are from the wolf issue and how blindly people will swallow what is put on the plate by BGF/SFW.

So, how about adressing a few of the questions that have been asked of you.

You have yet to list one accomplishment of SFW. Could it be that there are none, other than trying to screw MT and ID hunters out of a wolf season?

You have yet to answer one single issue related to the AK F&G plant, Corey Rossi, who Babistew pointed out to you as a peer in your admired SFW club, who is now facing many counts of illegal hunting and outfitting. Got any details to counter what facts are coming out about his actions and how SFW bragged of planting him as the AK Director, the same as they brag about planting one of their own in your home state?

You have yet to provide one fact to counter the crooked back room dealing SFW was pulling off to try kill the wolf hunts in MT and ID, only to get caught by the NRA. Got any facts to refute that, other than the standard SFW mantra that everyone else is unaware of the facts?

You don't even realize that the discussion of Expo tags in not under the rules you have in NM, but the rules of UT. Thanks for posting your NM rules, but they are moot to the topic of the thread and the original post.

You seem to miss the fact that each state has different rules for auction tags, some of which are so generous as to allow huge administrative fees to the selling organization, besides the 10% standard commission.

You are ignorant of the facts that the 200 Expo drawing tags have zero accountability standard. Care to tell us how much of the money from those 200 Expo tags goes to the UT DWR? Maybe your boys can get that info for you.

Guess I really didn't expect an SFW person to do their homework before flapping their soup coolers. Such is always the case, which is why school is always in session when they send one of their poor misguided souls as fodder to defend their honor in these discussions.

If you had read any previous threads here, or on other sites, where SFW loyalists tried to defend your glorious band of theives, you would realize the outcome is always the same. It usually goes something like this.

A SFW schill shows up, to argue with very informed people. The SFW lackey tries to pawn off as fact, the banter they heard at the local SFW meeting. The more educated and informed people on the thread school the SFW plant, and size him with a 3XL asshat. Continue with your baseless party line fairy tales, and someone will be asking, "What size do you wear?"

Your ignorance of facts, as well-intended as you may be, is a classic example of the people SFW puts in their leadership positions. Your comment about the NA Model probably puts you in the running for a seat on the SFW/BGF Board of Directors. Congratulations.

Please, spare us the continued fabels. In case you haven't realized, the rest of the world knows what is really going on, inspite of your belief to the contrary.

Your ardent belief of what you are being spoon fed by the leaders of your fine organizations is not helpful to improve the long-term respect that could be earned if you employed your volunteerism to a group that was working for the average hunter, rather than against the average hunter. I almost feel sorry for people being lead astray by the stuff BGF/SFW puts out there. Almost.

Best of luck dragging this huge piece baggage called BGF/SFW around with you in the community outside of your little camp of kool-aid drinkers.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
BigFin, always enjoyed your show and always thought you came off as a good guy. After reading your posts about this issue on this site as well as what was shared on your site, I have to say I am even more of a fan.

I think if one of these orgs had you running the show, we would all be better off.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-14-12 AT 12:25PM (MST)[p]Amen Big_DD!!! This is what happens every time when SFW sends one of their shills onto a website with a knife, and a dull one at that, when it's a gunfight, LOL! All these posts by 30" are so pathetic, including his last couple about the North American Model and NM stats when this thread is about the Utah Expo debacle that I ALMOST feel sorry for him---NOT!!!
 
I was there for the whole entire show...went to all the Banquets along with the auctions!.....Felt the same way as "Big Fin"....who has a much better way of describing and putting his feeling in words than I do....I felt like I was the only one in the room that was shaking my head in total dismay!...I too, needed to go back to my room and bush my teeth twice...

"Bigfin" I'm a Fan!

KP
 
I find that a good argument with a PETA member results in similar 'FACTS' being posted directly from their website. :)

Exactly how is the Sierra Club bad for hunters? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure there are about 5x as many hunter/anglers in the Sierra club than BGF/SFW combined? Last I checked the Sierra Club has conserved more wild lands than all other hunting/fishing organizations combined. The vast majority of these lands are open to hunting and fishing by the way.

So not only is your stance against the NA wildlife model, you're against conservation as well?

Its all coming together... Seems the only people who would be associated with BGF/SFW are selfish individuals who are looking out for their own self interests.
 
Guys I think you all have been a little hard on 30inchbuck. It's clear he wants to see positive things happen for wildlife in the west. Unfortunately, he has been sucked in by SFW like so many other outdoorsmen that continue to support Don Peay and his cronies. Someone should start an intervention program for the SFW groupies to get them deprogrammed and back into productive roles in society. 30inchbuck=useful idiot, and he is not alone.

I applaude the efforts of Randy and Buzz to keep countering the SFW/BGF propaganda. Seems like that job is getting bigger each day as the front spreads from state to state. Randy, my gut told me you were alright when I started reading your posts at the other site. When your TV program came out, I thought "I always did like that guy". The stand you have taken on SFW & BGF has confirmed what my gut told me all along. It takes real character to put your position in the industry on the line and buck the big dollar interests. I, for one, appreciate it. Please don't let up and keep us all informed.
 
You should not be surprised that SFW leaders are not for conservation. They have been and still are about making money for their business. The best way to do this is limit the supply of tags and therefore increase the demand. At that point they can get high dollar bids for the tags they sell. They are wildly sucessful at doing this in Utah and therefore have branched out to other states. This should be no surprise either as Utah is the top state for Ponzi Schemes and scam artists. They have a very good business plan and are doing well at executing it in Utah.
 
30 inch-you are missing the biggest problem with your organization putting money back on the ground. The entire premise is to allow wealthy hunters to buy coveted tags that were never available for sale prior to SFW. Until your group discloses every dollar raised and every dollar spent no one is going to believe the things you claim. If what I say is false it is obvious that Peay would be more than happy to open the books. He has not done that. Here in AZ we have the lobbyist named Gilstrap that gets most of the money raised to date. How is that helping the average hunter here? If you think Suzanne writing a bill to get 350 tags for SFW to whore out was good for the average hunter you might get a big surprise here. Keep doing your job and pushing Don's talking points and the rest of us will work to eliminate SFW from the landscape.
 
The 200 tags drawn at the expo money goes two ways. The $5 goes to the expo while the Dept of Fish and Game get the cost of the tag. The expo gives them a voucher that they take to the DWR and purchase the tag.

As far as those on this sight who continue to talk about SFW Arizona and the tag grab, they are the ones who do not know what they are talking about and have no desire to find out. Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife, so called Don Peays group has no chapter in Arizona. NONE. Sportsmen for Wildlife have a chapter in Arizona. They have nothing to do with Don Peay. Different name and set up differently. THAT IS A FACT. Course there are those of you who will argue and say that is not true without taking the time to go and look things up and see how things are set up and run. They know that because it says SFW it has to be Don Peay. These are they that think that they know everything without ever looking up the facts.
 
Utah Rules....Pay special attention to: R657-41-9. Conservation Permit Funds and Reporting.






R657-41. Conservation and Sportsman Permits
R657-41-1. Purpose and Authority.
(1) Under the authority of Section 23-14-18 and 23-14-19, this rule provides the standards and procedures for issuing:
(a) conservation permits to conservation organizations for sale at an auction, or for use as an aid to wildlife related fund raising activities; and
(b) sportsman permits.
(2) The division and conservation organizations shall use all revenue derived from conservation permits under Subsections R657-41-9(4) and R657-41-9(5)(b) for the benefit of the species for which the permit is issued, unless the division and conservation organization mutually agree in writing that there is a higher priority use for other species of protected wildlife.

R657-41-2. Definitions.
(1) Terms used in this rule are defined in Section 23-13-2.
(2) In addition:
(a) "Area Conservation Permit" means a permit issued for a specific unit or hunt area for a conservation permit species, and may include an extended season, or legal weapon choice, or both, beyond the season except turkey permits are valid during any season option.
(i) Area Conservation permits issued for limited entry units are not valid on cooperative wildlife management units.
(b) "Conservation Organization" means a nonprofit chartered institution, foundation, or association founded for the purpose of promoting wildlife conservation and has established tax exempt status under Internal Revenue Code, Section 501C-3 as amended.
(c) "Conservation Permit" means any harvest permit authorized by the Wildlife Board and issued by the division for purposes identified in Section R657-41-1.
(d) "Conservation Permit Species" means the species for which conservation permits may be issued and includes deer, elk, pronghorn, moose, bison, Rocky Mountain goat, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, desert bighorn sheep, wild turkey, cougar, and black bear.
(e) "Multi-Year Conservation Permit" means a conservation permit awarded to an eligible conservation organization pursuant to R657-41-7 for three consecutive years to sell, market or otherwise use as an aid in wildlife related fund raising activities.
(f) "Retained Revenue" means 60% of the revenue raised by a conservation organizations from the sale of conservation permits that the organization retains for eligible projects, excluding interest earned thereon.
(g) "Special Antelope Island State Park Conservation Permit" means a permit authorized by the Wildlife Board to hunt bighorn sheep or mule deer on Antelope Island State Park.
(h) "Sportsman Permit" means a permit which allows a permittee to hunt during the applicable season dates specified in Subsection (j), and which is authorized by the Wildlife Board and issued by the division in a general drawing, requiring all applicants to pay an application fee and the successful applicant the cost of the permit.
(i) "Single Year Conservation Permit" means a conservation permit awarded to an eligible conservation organization pursuant to R657-41-6 for one year to sell, market or otherwise use as an aid in wildlife related fund raising activities.
(j) "Statewide Conservation Permit" means a permit issued for a conservation permit species that allows a permittee to hunt:
(i) big game species on any open unit with archery equipment during the general archery season published in the big game proclamation for the unit beginning before September 1, and with any weapon from September 1 through December 31, except pronghorn and moose from September 1 through November 15 and deer and elk from September 1 through January 15;
(ii) two turkeys on any open unit from April 1 through May 31;
(iii) bear on any open unit during the season authorized by the Wildlife Board for that unit;
(iv) cougar on any open unit during the season authorized by the Wildlife Board for that unit and during the season dates authorized by the Wildlife Board on any harvest objective unit that has been closed by meeting its objective; and
(v) Antelope Island is not an open unit for hunting any species of wildlife authorized by a conservation or sportsman permit, except for the Special Antelope Island State Park Conservation Permit.

R657-41-3. Determining the Number of Conservation and Sportsman Permits.
(1) The number of conservation permits authorized by the Wildlife Board shall be based on:
(a) the species population trend, size, and distribution to protect the long-term health of the population;
(b) the hunting and viewing opportunity for the general public, both short and long term; and
(c) the potential revenue that will support protection and enhancement of the species.
(2) One statewide conservation permit may be authorized for each conservation permit species.
(3) A limited number of area conservation permits may be authorized as follows:
(a) a maximum of 10% of the total permits, assigned to a hunt area or combination of hunt areas, for Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep and desert bighorn sheep;
(b) a maximum of 5% of the permits or eight permits, whichever is less, for any unit or hunt area for the remaining conservation permit species.
(4) The number of conservation and sportsman permits available for use will be determined by the Wildlife Board.
(5) Area conservation permits shall be deducted from the number of public drawing permits.
(6) One sportsman permit shall be authorized for each statewide conservation permit authorized.
(7) All area conservation permits are eligible as multi-year permits except that the division may designate some area conservation permits as single year permits based on the applications received for single year permits.
(8) All statewide permits will be multi-year permits except for a second statewide permit issued for a special event.

R657-41-4. Eligibility for Conservation Permits.
(1) Statewide and area conservation permits may be awarded to eligible conservation organizations to market and sell, or to use as an aid in wildlife related fund raising activities.
(2) To be eligible for multi-year conservation permits, a conservation organization must have generated in conservation permit sales during the previous three year period at least one percent of the total revenue generated by all conservation organizations in conservation permit sales during the same period. Conservation organizations eligible for multi-year permits may not apply for single year permits, and conservation organizations ineligible for multi-year permits may only apply for single year permits.
(3) Conservation organizations applying for single year permits may not:
(a) bid for or obtain conservation permits if any employee, officer, or board of director member of the conservation organization is an employee, officer, or board of director member of any other conservation organization that is submitting a bid for single year conservation permits; or
(b) enter into any pre-bidding discussions, understandings or agreements with any other conservation organization submitting a bid for conservation permits regarding:
(i) which permits will be sought by a bidder;
(ii) what amounts will be bid for any permits; or
(iii) trading, exchanging, or transferring any permits after permits are awarded.

R657-41-5. Applying for Conservation Permits.
(1)(a) Conservation organizations may apply for conservation permits by sending an application to the division.
(b) Only one application per conservation organization may be submitted. Multiple chapters of the same conservation organization may not apply individually.
(c) Conservation organizations may apply for single year conservation permits or multi-year conservation permits. They may not apply for both types of conservation permits.
(2) The application must be submitted to the division by September 1 to be considered for the following year's conservation permits. Each application must include:
(a) the name, address and telephone number of the conservation organization;
(b) a copy of the conservation organization's mission statement;
(c) verification of the conservation organization's tax exempt status under Internal Revenue Code, Section 501C-3 as amended; and
(d) the name of the president or other individual responsible for the administrative operations of the conservation organization;
(3) If applying for single year conservation permits, a conservation organization must also include in its application:
(a) the proposed bid amount for each permit requested. The proposed bid amount is the revenue the organization anticipates to be raised from a permit through auction or other lawful fund raising activity.
(b) certification that there are no conflicts of interest or collusion in submitting bids as prohibited in R657-41-4(3);
(c) acknowledgement that the conservation organization recognizes that falsely certifying the absence of collusion may result in cancellation of permits, disqualification from bidding for five years or more, and the filing of criminal charges;
(d) evidence that the application and bid has been reviewed and approved by the board of directors of the bidding conservation.
(e) the type of permit, and the species for which the permit is requested; and
(f) any requested variances for an extended season or legal weapon choice for area conservation permits.
(4) An application that is incomplete or completed incorrectly may be rejected.
(5) The application of a conservation organization for conservation permits may be denied for:
(a) failing to fully report on the preceding year's conservation permits;
(b) violating any provision of this rule, Title 23 of the Utah Code, Title R657 of the Utah Administrative Code, a division proclamation, or an order of the Wildlife Board; or
(c) violating any other law that bears a reasonable relationship to the applicant's ability to responsibly and lawfully handle conservation permits pursuant to this rule.

R657-41-6. Awarding Single Year Conservation Permits.
(1) The division shall recommend the conservation organization to receive each single year conservation permit based on:
(a) the bid amount pledged to the species, adjusted by:
(i) the performance of the organization over the previous two years in meeting proposed bids;
(ii) 90% of the bid amount;
(iii) the organizations maintaining a minimum two-year average performance of 70% to be eligible for consideration of permits. Performance of the organization is the proportion of the total revenue generated from permit sales, divided by 90% of the bid amount for all permits, calculated annually and averaged for the last two years.
(b) if two or more conservation organizations are tied using the criteria in Subsection (a), the closeness of the organization's purpose to the species of the permit; and
(c) if two or more conservation organizations are tied using the criteria in Subsection (a) and (b), the geographic closeness of the organization to the location of the permit.
(2)(a) Between the time the division recommends that a conservation permit be awarded to a conservation organization and the time the Wildlife Board approves that recommendation, a conservation organization may withdraw its application for any given permit or exchange its application with another conservation organization without penalty, provided the bid amount upon which the permit application was evaluated is not changed.
(b) If a conservation organization withdraws it's bid and the bid is awarded to another organization at a lower amount, then the difference between the two bids will be subtracted from the organization making the higher bid for purposes of evaluating organization performance.
(3) The Wildlife Board shall make the final assignment of conservation permits at a meeting prior to December 1 annually.
(4) The Wildlife Board may authorize a conservation permit to a conservation organization, other than the conservation organization recommended by the division, after considering the:
(a) division recommendation;
(b) benefit to the species;
(c) historical contribution of the organization to the conservation of wildlife in Utah;
(d) previous performance of the conservation organization; and
(e) overall viability and integrity of the conservation permit program.
(5) The total of all bids for permits awarded to any one organization shall not exceed $20,000 the first year an organization receives permits.
(6) The number of permits awarded to any one organization shall not increase by more than 100% from the previous year.
(7) If the Wildlife Board authorizes a second statewide conservation permit for a species, the conservation organization receiving the permit must meet the division designated bid for that permit.

R657-41-7. Awarding Multi-Year Conservation Permits.
(1) Distribution of multi-year conservation permits will be based on a sequential selection process where each eligible conservation organization is assigned a position or positions in the selection order among the other participating organizations and awarded credits with which to purchase multi-year permits at an assigned value. The selection process and other associated details are as follows.
(2) Multi-year permits will be awarded to eligible conservation organizations for no more than three years.
(3) The division will determine the number of permits available as multi-year permits after subtracting the proposed number of single year permits.
(a) Season types for multi-year area conservation permits for elk on any given hunt unit will be designated and assigned in the following order:
(i) first permit -- #8212; premium;
(ii) second permit -- #8212; any-weapon;
(iii) third permit -- #8212; any-weapon;
(iv) fourth permit -- #8212; archery;
(v) fifth permit -- #8212; muzzleloader;
(vi) sixth permit -- #8212; premium;
(vii) seventh permit -- #8212; any-weapon; and
(viii) eighth permit -- #8212; any-weapon.
(b) Season types for multi-year area conservation permits for deer on any given hunt unit will be designated and assigned in the following order:
(i) first permit -- #8212; hunter choice of season;
(ii) second permit -- #8212; hunter choice of season;
(iii) third permit -- #8212; muzzleloader;
(iv) fourth permit -- #8212; archery;
(v) fifth permit -- #8212; any-weapon;
(vi) sixth permit -- #8212; any-weapon;
(vii) seventh permit -- #8212; muzzleloader; and
(viii) eighth permit -- #8212; archery.
(4) The division will assign a monetary value to each multi-year permit based on the average return for the permit during the previous three year period. If a history is not available, the value will be estimated.
(5) The division will determine the total annual value of all multi-year permits.
(6)(a) The division will calculate a market share for each eligible conservation organization applying for multi-year permits.
(b) Market share will be calculated and determined based on:
(i) the conservation organization's previous three years performance;
(ii) all conservation permits (single and multi-year) issued to a conservation organization except for special permits allocated by the Wildlife Board outside the normal allocation process.
(iii) the percent of conservation permit revenue raised by a conservation organization during the three year period relative to all conservation permit revenue raised during the same period by all conservation organizations applying for multi-year permits.
(7) The division will determine the credits available to spend by each group in the selection process based on their market share multiplied by the total annual value of all multi-year permits.
(8) The division will establish a selection order for the participating conservation organizations based on the relative value of each groups market share as follows:
(a) groups will be ordered based on their percent of market share;
(b) each selection position will cost a group 10% of the total market share except the last selection by a group will cost whatever percent a group has remaining;
(c) no group can have more than three positions in the selection order; and
(d) the selection order will be established as follows:
(i) the group with the highest market share will be assigned the first position and ten percent will be subtracted from their total market share;
(ii) the group with the highest remaining market share will be assigned the second position and ten percent will be subtracted from their market share; and
(iii) this procedure will continue until all groups have three positions or their market share is exhausted.
(9) At least two weeks prior to the multi-year permit selection meeting, the division will provide each conservation organization applying for multi-year permits the following items:
(a) a list of multi-year permits available with assigned value;
(b) documentation of the calculation of market share;
(c) credits available to each conservation group to use in the selection process;
(d) the selection order; and
(e) date, time and location of the selection meeting.
(10) Between the establishing of the selection order and the selection meeting, groups may trade or assign draw positions, but once the selection meeting begins draw order cannot be changed.
(11) At the selection meeting, conservation organizations will select permits from the available pool according to their respective positions in the selection order. For each permit selected, the value of that permit will be deducted from the conservation organization's available credits. The selection order will repeat itself until all available credits are used or all available permits are selected.
(12) Conservation organizations may continue to select a single permit each time their turn comes up in the selection order until all available credits are used or all available permits are selected.
(13) A conservation organization may not exceed its available credits except a group may select their last permit for up to 10% of the permit value above their remaining credits.
(14) Upon completion of the selection process, but prior to the Wildlife Board meeting where final assignment of permits are made, conservation organizations may trade or assign permits to other conservation organizations eligible to receive multi-year permits. The group receiving a permit retains the permit for the purposes of marketing and determination of market share for the entire multi-year period.
(15) Variances for an extended season or legal weapon choice may be obtained only on area conservation permits and must be presented to the Wildlife Board prior to the final assignment of the permit to the conservation organization.
(16) Conservation organizations may not trade or transfer multi-year permits to other organizations once assigned by the Wildlife Board.
(17) Conservation organizations failing to comply with the reporting requirements in any given year during the multi-year period shall lose the multi-year conservation permits for the balance of the multi-year award period.
(18) If a conservation organization is unable to complete the terms of marketing the assigned permits, the permits will be returned to the regular public drawing process for the duration of the multi-year allocation period.

R657-41-8. Distributing Conservation Permits.
(1) The division and conservation organization receiving permits shall enter into a contract.
(2)(a) The conservation organization receiving permits must insure that the permits are marketed and distributed by lawful means. Conservation permits may not be distributed in a raffle except where the following conditions are met:
(i) the conservation organization obtains and provides the division with a written opinion from a licensed attorney or a written confirmation by the local district or county attorney that the raffle scheme is in compliance with state and local gambling laws;
(ii) except as otherwise provided in R657-41-8(5), the conservation organization does not repurchase, directly or indirectly, the right to any permit it distributes through the raffle;
(iii) the conservation organization prominently discloses in any advertisement for the raffle and at the location of the raffle that no purchase is necessary to participate; and
(iv) the conservation organization provides the division with a full accounting of any funds raised in the conservation permit raffle, and otherwise accounts for and handles the funds consistent with the requirement in Utah Admin. Code R657-41-9.
(3) The conservation organization must:
(i) obtain the name of the proposed permit recipient at the event where the permit recipient is selected; and
(ii) notify the division of the proposed permit recipient within 30 days of the recipient selection or the permit may be forfeited.
(4) If a person is selected by a qualified organization to receive a conservation permit and is also successful in obtaining a permit for the same species in the same year through the a division drawing, that person may designate another person to receive the conservation permit, provided the conservation permit has not been issued by the division to the first selected person.
(5) If a person is selected by a qualified organization to receive a conservation permit, but is unable to use the permit, the conservation organization may designate another person to receive the permit provided:
(a) the conservation organization selects the new recipient of the permit;
(b) the amount of money received by the division for the permit is not decreased;
(c) the conservation organization relinquishes to the division and otherwise uses all proceeds generated from the re-designated permit, pursuant to the requirements provided in Section R657-41-9;
(d) the conservation organization and the initial designated recipient of the permit, sign an affidavit indicating the initial designated recipient is not profiting from transferring the right to the permit; and
(e) the permit has not been issued by the division to the first designated person.
(6) Except as otherwise provided under Subsections (4) and (5), a person designated by a conservation organization as a recipient of a conservation permit, may not sell or transfer the rights to that designation to any other person. This does not preclude a person from bidding or otherwise lawfully acquiring a permit from a conservation organization on behalf of another person who will be identified as the original designated recipient.
(7) A person cannot obtain more than one conservation permit for a single conservation permit species per year, except for:
(a) elk, provided no more than two permits are obtained where one or both are antlerless permits; and
(b) turkey.
(8) the person designated on a conservation permit voucher must possess or obtain a current Utah hunting or combination license to redeem the voucher for the corresponding conservation permit.

R657-41-9. Conservation Permit Funds and Reporting.
(1) All permits must be marketed by September 1, annually.
(2) Within 30 days of the last event, but no later than September 1 annually, the conservation organization must submit to the division:
(a) a final report on the distribution of permits;
(b) the total funds raised on each permit;
(c) the funds due to the division; and
(d) a report on the status of each project funded in whole or in part with retained conservation permit revenue.
(3)(a) Permits shall not be issued until the permit fees are paid to the division.
(b) If the conservation organization is paying the permit fees for the permit recipient, the fees must be paid from the 10% retained by the conservation organization as provided in Subsection (5)(a).
(4)(a) Conservation organizations shall remit to the division by September 1 of each year 30% of the total revenue generated by conservation permit sales in that year.
(b) The permit revenue payable to the division under Subsection (4)(a), excluding accrued interest, is the property of the division and may not be used by conservation organizations for projects or any other purpose.
(c) The permit revenue must be placed in a federally insured account promptly upon receipt and remain in the account until remitted to the division on or before September 1 of each year.
(d) The permit revenue payable to the division under this subsection shall not be used by the conservation organization as collateral or commingled in the same account with the organization's operation and administration funds, so that the separate identity of the permit revenue is not lost.
(e) Failure to remit 30% of the total permit revenue to the Division by the September 1 deadline may result in criminal prosecution under Title 76, Chapter 6, Part 4 of the Utah Code, and may further disqualify the conservation organization from obtaining any future conservation permits.
(5) A conservation organization may retain 70% of the revenue generated from the sale of conservation permits as follows:
(a) 10% of the revenue may be withheld and used by the conservation organization for administrative expenses.
(b) 60% of the revenue may be retained and used by the conservation organization only for eligible projects as provided in subsections (i) through (ix).
(i) eligible projects include habitat improvement, habitat acquisition, transplants, targeted education efforts and other projects providing a substantial benefit to species of wildlife for which conservation permits are issued.
(ii) retained revenue shall not be committed to or expended on any eligible project without first obtaining the division director's written concurrence.
(iii) retained revenue shall not be used on any project that does not provide a substantial and direct benefit to conservation permit species located in Utah.
(iv) cash donations to the Wildlife Habitat Account created under Section 23-19-43, Division Species Enhancement Funds, or the Conservation Permit Fund shall be considered an eligible project and do not require the division director's approval, provided the donation is made with instructions that it be used for species of wildlife for which conservation permits are issued.
(v) retained revenue shall not be used on any project that is inconsistent with division policy, including feeding programs, depredation management, or predator control.
(vi) retained revenue under this subsection must be placed in a federally insured account. All interest revenue earned thereon may be retained and used by the conservation organization for administrative expenses.
(vii) retained revenue shall not be used by the conservation organization as collateral or commingled in the same account with the organization's operation and administration funds, so that the separate identity of the retained revenue is not lost.
(viii) retained revenue must be completely expended on or committed to approved eligible projects by September 1, two years following the year in which the relevant conservation permits are awarded to the conservation organization by the Wildlife Board. Failure to commit or expend the retained revenue by the September 1 deadline will disqualify the conservation organization from obtaining any future conservation permits until the unspent retained revenue is committed to an approved eligible project.
(ix) all records and receipts for projects under this subsection must be retained by the conservation organization for a period not less than five years, and shall be produced to the division for inspection upon request.
(6)(a) Conservation organizations accepting permits shall be subject to annual audits on project expenditures and conservation permit accounts.
(b) The division shall perform annual audits on project expenditures and conservation permit accounts.

R657-41-10. Obtaining Sportsman Permits.
(1) One sportsman permit is offered to residents through a drawing for each of the following species:
(a) desert bighorn (ram);
(b) bison (hunter's choice);
(c) buck deer;
(d) bull elk;
(e) Rocky Mountain bighorn (ram)
(f) Rocky Mountain goat (hunter's choice)
(g) bull moose;
(h) buck pronghorn;
(i) black bear;
(j) cougar; and
(k) wild turkey.
(2) The following information on sportsman permits is provided in the proclamations of the Wildlife Board for taking protected wildlife:
(a) hunt dates;
(b) open units or hunt areas;
(c) application procedures;
(d) fees; and
(e) deadlines.
(3) a person must possess or obtain a current Utah hunting or combination license to apply for or obtain a sportsman permit.

R657-41-11. Using a Conservation or Sportsman Permit.
(1)(a) A conservation or sportsman permit allows the recipient to take only one individual of the species for which the permit is issued, except a statewide turkey conservation or sportsman permit allows the holder to take two turkeys.
(b) The species that may be taken shall be printed on the permit.
(c) The species may be taken in the area and during the season specified on the permit.
(d) The species may be taken only with the weapon specified on the permit.
(2) The recipient of a conservation or sportsman permit is subject to all of the provisions of Title 23, Wildlife Resources Code, and the rules and proclamations of the Wildlife Board for taking and pursuing wildlife.
(3) Bonus points shall not be awarded or utilized:
(a) when applying for conservation or sportsman permits; or
(b) in obtaining conservation or sportsman permits.
(4) Any person who has obtained a conservation or sportsman permit is subject to all waiting periods as provided in Rules R657-5, R657-6, R657-10 and R657-33.

R657-41-12. Special Antelope Island State Park Conservation Permit.
(1) If the Wildlife Board authorizes a hunt for bighorn sheep or mule deer on Antelope Island State Park, one permit for each species will be made available as a Special Antelope Island State Park Conservation Permit.
(2) Special Antelope Island State Park Conservation Permits will be issued for one year.
(3) Special Antelope Island State Park Conservation Permits will be issued under this section and will not be limited by the requirements of R657-41-3 through R657-41-8.
(4) Special Antelope Island State Park Conservation Permits will be provided to the conservation group awarded the wildlife convention permit series as provided in R657-55 for marketing at the wildlife convention where the wildlife convention permits are awarded.
(5) The division and conservation organization receiving Special Antelope Island State Park Conservation Permits shall enter into a contract
(6) The conservation organization receiving Special Antelope Island State Park Conservation Permits must insure that the permits are marketed and distributed by lawful means.
(7) The conservation organization must:
(a) obtain the name of the proposed permit recipient at the event where the permit recipient is selected; and
(b) notify the division of the proposed permit recipient within 10 days of the recipient selection or the permit may be forfeited.
(8) If a person is selected by a qualified organization to receive a Special Antelope Island State Park Conservation Permit and is also successful in obtaining a permit for the same species in the same year through a division drawing, that person may designate another person to receive the Special Antelope Island State Park Conservation Permit, provided the permit has not been issued by the division to the first selected person.
(9) If a person is selected by a qualified organization to receive a Special Antelope Island State Park Conservation Permit, but is unable to use the permit, the conservation organization may designate another person to receive the permit provided:
(a) the conservation organization selects the new recipient of the permit;
(b) the amount of money received by the division for the permit is not decreased;
(c) the conservation organization relinquishes to the division and otherwise uses all proceeds generated from the re-designated permit, pursuant to the requirements provided below:
(i) the conservation organization and the initial designated recipient of the permit, sign an affidavit indicating the initial designated recipient is not profiting from transferring the right to the permit; and
(ii) the permit has not been issued by the division to the first designated person.
(10) Except as otherwise provided under Subsections (8) and (9), a person designated by a conservation organization as a recipient of a Special Antelope Island State Park Conservation Permit, may not sell or transfer the rights to that designation to any other person. This does not preclude a person from bidding or otherwise lawfully acquiring a permit from a conservation organization on behalf of another person who will be identified as the original designated recipient.
(11) A person cannot obtain a Special Antelope Island State Park Conservation Permit for a bighorn sheep or mule deer and any other permit for a male animal of the same species in the same year.
(12) The person designated to receive a Special Antelope Island State Park Conservation Permit must possess or obtain a current Utah hunting or combination license before being issued the permit.
(13) Within 30 days of the convention, but no later than May 1 annually, the conservation organization must submit to the division:
(a) a final report on the distribution of the Special Antelope Island State Park Conservation Permits;
(b) the total funds raised on each permit; and
(c) the funds due to the division.
(14) (a) Permits shall not be issued until the permit fees are paid to the division.
(b) If the conservation organization is paying the permit fees for the permit recipient, the fees must be paid from the 10% retained by the conservation organization as provided in R657-41-9(5)(a).
(15)(a) Conservation organizations shall remit to the division 90% of the total revenue generated by the Special Antelope Island State Park Conservation Permit sales in that year.
(b) Failure to remit 90% of the total permit revenue to the division by the September 1 deadline may result in criminal prosecution under Title 76, Chapter 6, Part 4 of the Utah Code.
(16) A conservation organization may retain 10% of the revenue generated by the permits for administrative expenses.
(17) Upon receipt of the permit revenue from the conservation organization, the division will transfer the revenue in its entirety to the Division of Parks and Recreation as provided in a cooperative agreement between the two divisions.

R657-41-13. Failure to Comply.
Any conservation organization administratively or criminally found in violation of this rule or the Wildlife Resources Code may be suspended from participation in the conservation permit program and required to surrender all conservation permit vouchers







"We can have no "50-50" allegiance in this country. Either a man is an American and nothing else, or he is not an American at all".
Theodore Roosevelt
 
It's facinating to watch some of you guys stroke each other!
Oh Gawd, the egos are killing me! Pot? Kettle? Which one is a darker shade of black?
Zeke

Oh please carry on, don't let me distract you from your mission to prove your arrogance.

Zeke

PS: Not directed at any one person but rather my take on the was we try to "educate" and "sway" others. Or is it all just puffing?
 
Must be a politician to think people are stupid enough to not associate SFW with AZSFW! I remember after the USO mess when Don Peay was here hiring Pete Cimarillo to start AZSFW. After 40 years in the corporate world I understand clearly why a corporation would file under a name with a minimal difference and staff it to be independent. I am sure Peay also disavows any connection to Rossi and AlaskaSFW now that the crap hit the fan there.
 
So...the A.I. tag for example...

$16,000.00 to the "Conservation Group" for whatever they feel appropriate.

$96,000.00 to the "Conservation Group" for whatever they can convince the DWR is a worthy project or purpose.

$48,000.00 directly to the DWR.

So I guess the big question, what is that $96,000.00 being used for, since that is the money that is allowed for "projects"?

"We can have no "50-50" allegiance in this country. Either a man is an American and nothing else, or he is not an American at all".
Theodore Roosevelt
 
Don Peay was in on the ground floor discussions for the formation of AZ SFW. That is a fact. To link AZ SFW does not take long. The founders of AZ SFW have publicly stated they received help and guidance from Don Peay. They are different organization but Don Peay was instrumental in the founding of AZ SFW. That is a fact!
 
Chris Denham was involved with the Arizona tag grab - FACT
Chris Denham is listed as a board member for the Arizona Sportsmen for wildlife on their web site located at this address http://www.arizonasportsmenforwildlife.org/ - FACT
The home page listed above for the organization that you claim has no ties to Peay lists his name specifically as well as Benson and lists BGF and SFW no less than 3 times each - FACT
Go to the bottom of the AZSFW home page and click read more you will see the following
"The Facts:

SFW/Big Game Forever repeatedly asked other national organizations to join the wolf delisting effort beginning in early 2010.
These groups and many other "experts" repeatedly said it couldn't be done; some even were worried "that we would upset the environmentalists" and that "the wrong party controlled the White House and the Senate."
SFW/BGF set about getting support from Congress; in 2010 HR 6028 and S 3919 were introduced to provide for delisting of the gray wolf. Working with Western and Midwestern state organizations, an incredible amount of pressure was brought to bear. Congress responded by making this a hotly debated issue, particularly among western Senators and Congressmen. As a result, wolves were debated on the very last days of Congress in 2010. It appeared that an initial delisting would occur in Congress in 2010, however wolf-delisting negotiations broke down in the final hours of the last two days in which Congress was in session.
SFW/BGF built on the 2010 momentum in Congress with HR 509 and S 249 in 2011 once again calling for National Delisting. The bills, co-sponsored by more than 60 Representatives and Senators and representing 32 states, continued to increase the momentum necessary for action on wolf delisting.
Wolf Delisting was hitting a high pitch in DC when SFW/BGF convened a meeting in Washington in February 16, 2011, bringing together representatives from a cross-section of wildlife and sportsmen groups, the Farm Bureau, Cattlemen. It appeared that a multi-state deal was very close and efforts were commenced to include Arizona in the deal as well.
These efforts were largely halted when Idaho Representative Mike Simpson, amended the first Continuing Resolution Bill to obtain delisting in Idaho and Montana. While portions of Oregon, Washington and a sliver of Utah were included as part of the delisted Distinct Population Segment, the Simpson language amounted to a deal for Idaho and Montana. In particular, the bill required "approved management plans" to manage wolf populations to protect other wildlife which clearly was targeted to just Idaho and Montana.
National wildlife organizations endorsed Congressman Simpson's amendment (which later became known as the Simpson/Tester amendment) in addition to S 249 and HR 509. This action immediately switched the focus from national delisting as Congress turned it's attention to the bill which is now included as part of the continuing resolution to fund the government.
SFW/BGF worked for the last several weeks to improve upon the two state delisting and was able to provide some safe harbor language for Wyoming due primarily to perceived inequities of reversing a favorable court ruling for Wyoming's plan. No additional improvements were provided.
End Result: The Simpson amendment prevailed - not because of the work done by national organizations- rather because of the extensive support for Congressional delisting built over the last year. It is apparent that key Senators in the Democratic majority passed the Simpson/Tester amendment in response to the groundwork that had been laid for national wolf delisting by SFW/BGF. When well known national organizations capitulated to political pressure and supported all options, these members of Congress felt they had sufficient political support from the sportsmen community to pass a watered-down bill.
While Congressional intervention to provide for lasting wolf delisting is an important symbolic step in the right direction, it is clear that the bill did not solve the issue for 48 states. We are grateful SFW/BGF was not afraid to take on the fight and build the firestorm to ensure some level of wolf delisting. I am proud to have been a part of their effort and know from where I speak because I was in the belly of the beast as things were unfolding and witnessed this incredible happening."

I know some people view FACTS differently but anyone who says these two groups are not connected needs a reality check.
 
Almost forgot the best part. A direct cut and paste from the AZSFW site listing Chris Denham at the top of the board member list (I wouldn't want it to get confused with another AZ sportsman organization)

"Thank you Ryan and Don. Arizona Sportsmen for Wildlife is proud to be a supporting member of BGF"
 
Thank you for proving a point Mr. gleninaz. Did you take the time to look up the two and see what they stand for? Did you take the time to see how they are organized? I am not a politician and never will be. I do thou go to the facts. Something that you did not do. To bad people that hate someone so bad have to throw out things that are not true. At the expo I went though the SFW book and seen the chapters in each state. No Arizona. Seems SFW doesn't want anything to do with the Arizona Sportsmen for Wildlife. Which by the way is a group of different organizations from Turkey to bass fishing. Big horn sheep organizations to deer organizations which have joined together to form an organization for clout to try to make a difference in Arizona. Now look for yourself.
 
Thanks 338 for proving my orginal point.


However on the AI tag - reread R657-41-12






Outside of a horse is good for the inside of a man.
 
So, Don starts AZSFW and they just tried to pull off the Utah SFW model of tag grab and there is zero influence whatsoever. Got it and thanks for the clarification.
 
Gotcha.....I should've used the Henry's tag as an example.


"We can have no "50-50" allegiance in this country. Either a man is an American and nothing else, or he is not an American at all".
Theodore Roosevelt
 
I think you are a bit confused. Go to the link I provided above and take a look. There should be no doubt that AZSFW and SFW are connected. Regardless of what you may have seen in a book at a convention. I believe the organization you are attempting to defend is the AZ Sportsmen for Wildlife Conservation. They are in fact a group made up of several other conservation organizations and do not seem to be connected to the attempted AZ tag grab or the SFW/BGF organizations.
 
See gleninaz, That is where you are wrong. This is where you are showing your ignorance. Don Peay DID NOT start Sportsmen for Wildlife in Arizona. did you notice a different name? Did you take time to look at things. Course not. You are a follower who when someone says something about someone you decide that it must be true so you believe it. You do not check things out for yourself. If you can not take the time to find out the facts on something then you are doing yourself no favors. Is this what you do in your business world. If someone says something it must be true. My thirty years in business showed me I better be on top of things or I will fall behind. That is why I researched SFW Arizona. I do wish you success in your business affairs. You may need it.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-14-12 AT 02:16PM (MST)[p]AZSFW dumping kool-ade on SFW/BGF:

"For those of you who have been following the wolf wars in Congress, I am pleased to report the first battle for wolf delisting has been won, primarily due to the efforts of Ryan Benson, Executive Director of Big Game Forever (SFW) and Don Peay, founder of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife (SFW). I have been working with both of these men for months.

While some of the big national groups are out claiming credit for the win, having been deeply engaged in the effort myself there is no question that most of the heavy lifting to create the firestorm that demanded action was done by Big Game Forever. Please let Ryan Benson and Don Peay know how much you appreciate their tireless efforts to ignite the wolf delisting fire in Congress."

What a complete joke. Benson & Peay tried to stop this rider to preserve their steady steam of donations! There is wolf hunting today IN SPITE OF THEM!!!
 
Just checked your link. Again it showed that SFW Arizona is made up of a bunch of groups that got together to get clout. It also shows that they are in the wolf war working to fight the introduction of wolves. Yes they transplant sheep as the page showed. There names are different and they are a different organization. If they were the same do you not think that Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife would have them on there lists for the numbers and inpact that another state would add? According to Don Peays organization there is not Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife in Arizona but I am sure they would like to have one there. It looks like they may put money into BGF. Other organizations do the same thing. Lots work together.
 
Birdman, if you put my handle in the search engine and look at the post from 4/29/05 it says our leaders met with someone who was starting a new SFW branch in Arizona. That someone was Don Peay. Now tell me there was no connection between SFW and AZSFW. You are either terribly misinformed or you are trying to make people believe a lie.
 
Yeah!! c'mon 30 inch'' lets see your response to big fin, I want to see him grind you up some more!!
 
Here is a quote directly from Don (dkpeay):
[blockquote]"SfFW believes in local control
Each state sfw organization is:

1. a complete separate legal entity
2. Has a totally independent board of directors electEd by sportsmen in their specific state
3. Each state keeps 100 percent of the money they raise in their state


So to try and link any state is not true in any sense of the word."[/blockquote]

This was his response to the Arizona HB2072 (tag grab). If AZ-SFW had no connection whatsoever to SFW, wouldn't Don have said that? Why then did he refer to AZ-SFW as a "state sfw organization"? Birdman must be flyin' pretty high on this one. When people are believing the lies, SFW is one big happy group. When someone gets caught in a lie, each chapter is "a complete separate legal entity". I heard a detective on TV say, "In any good investigation, the clean get cleaner and the dirty get dirtier."
 
Hey 30 inch still waiting for your response to big fin, i guess it is taking a while for you and Don to come up with some political spin.
 
>Birdman
>do yourself a favor. Read the
>replies to your comments above
>and check out these two
>links.
>SFW related
>http://www.arizonasportsmenforwildlife.org/
>Not SFW related
>http://www.arizonasportsmenforwildlifeconservation.org/index.html
>
>Check your own facts.


Actually...these two groups are one in the same! Check out the address of both:
Arizona Sportsmen for Wildlife
P. O. Box 13116
Phoenix, AZ 85002-3116

Arizona Sportsmen For Wildlife Conservation
PO Box 13116
Phoenix, AZ 85002-3116
 
Birdman, or is it Birdbrain, and 30" ought to get married since it looks like they're already in bed together with all this BS, LOL!
 
AZB---This is really weird in that the addresses are identical. Then when you look at the top brass in each link the SFW shows Alan Hamberlin as the Chairman and when you go to the AZSFWC he is listed as Sec./Trea.
 
You can say what you want but this I can tell you. They are not the same organization as Utah. SFW started by Don peay is in Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Colorado, Utah and New Mexico. That is it. In 2005 or there abouts the Indian reservation in southern Arizona was trying to start a chapter in Arizona. It did not happen. Nevada is also trying as is Washington. But this I do know as a fact. The SFW that you are talking about in Arizona is not the same organization as the other states. THAT IS A FACT. That I know. They are totally seperate as a group of smaller hunting organizations that got together and formed it so that they had more clout. That is a fact. Don Peay did not play a part in starting that organization. Byron Bateman is the President of all the SFW's but the Arizona one that you people keep trying to tye to them is not one of them. Make phone calls do what you want but I KNOW FOR A FACT. Keep trying. You are doing good at spreading the lies to benefit yourselves and make you feel good.
 
>[blockquote]"SfFW believes in local control
>Each state sfw organization is:
>
>1. a complete separate legal entity
>
>2. Has a totally independent board
>of directors electEd by sportsmen
>in their specific state
>3. Each state keeps 100 percent
>of the money they raise
>in their state
>
>

Hmm, So how come the documents I have for the Utah expo funds, generated from Utah tags show that some of the proceeds went to SFW Wyoming? That doesn't seem conducive to the statements you listed above.

http://unitedwildlifecooperative.org
 
You know it really does not matter what you think. The facts are what they are. The Arizona organization is Sportsmen for Wildlife and the Don Peay org is Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife. Simular. Back in around 2005 Don did try to get an organization going in Arizona. The Indian tribe in Arizona was trying to start a branch of the Don Peay organization. It did not go. Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife is in Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Colorado, Utah and New Mexico. There are groups trying to get it going in Washington and Nevada. Dons group is not in Arizona. Where do you come up with Don trying to get the tag grab. There is lots of small organizations in Arizona, their sheep foundation, bass, trout, fly fishing, etc that got together to organize Sportsmen For Wildlife. They formed a group to that they could have clout. They may have patterned their organization after what was created in Utah and other states but have nothing to do with Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife. The President of Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife is president of all the organizations. Arizona is not one if them. You can believe what you want. The truth exists but there are some on the sight that want to continue to talk out their butts instead of checking things out and learning the truth. I guess they are afraid of having to eat their own words. The facts are facts and SFW Arizona has nothing to do with Don Peay or any of the other groups. They are a totally different organization. Not set up by Don Peay. But then there are those that think that they need to do what they can to distroy SFW Utah. That will never happen. There are those on this sight that say they have enough information to distroy SFW but then they never seem to do anything about it. If that is the case and SFW is so bad then instead of talking about it they should step up and distroy it. But then they must be all talk or they would do it. Same BS as always. Lots of talk but no action. Arizona sends their tag to the expo because of the money that it gets for them. It can not get the money in Arizona. Part of that money this year will be used to fence a hwy by the Arizona Strip to stop deer deaths. If this is so evil and there are those that can prove it, do it. Don't just talk about it. Do it. You can't and that is why it continues to work.
 
> "There is lots of
>small organizations in Arizona, their
>sheep foundation, bass, trout, fly
>fishing, etc that got together
>to organize Sportsmen For Wildlife.
> They formed a group
>to that they could have
>clout. They may have
>patterned their organization after what
>was created in Utah and
>other states"

There is the problem. Trying to pattern your organization after them. That is the last organization you would want to pattern.
 
WOW.
Alot of cut and paste cowboys here. saying the same crap. I'll check back next year
 
Do you think they will put the fence on the wrong side of the road like the dumb a$$e$ did in springlake?

They have got more animals killed by putting the fence were they did than as if it had never even been put up!

Thats S.F.W. for ya.




hornkiller.jpg
 
Anyone know how to STOP a subscription to a thread 67 emails to a dumb thread is dumb.
 
See post 59, then 53, and then see 58.

As far as Rossi I think the truth will come out, however the anti-sfw crowd like some of you might as well sign up to PETA. Oh nevermind probably already are. LOL

I am done with this thread.




Outside of a horse is good for the inside of a man.
 
Mr. Madsen. They might. Depends on what the Arizona Fish and Game want to do. Just like what the State did in your area. It is not up to the organizations where things go but up to the State on the fences and the forest service on other things. The State must give their appoval on the state and fed hwys. They can not just put them up where they want. Sorry that the State did not put the fence where you wanted it.
 
Any state that is stupid enough to set aside more than 2 tags per species from the draw process deserves to be abused like Utah has been at the hands of these folks. Two tags. One to auction. One to put in raffle. That is two per species. Max.

Any state that actually hands over a single tag for someone else to control is double stupid. If a state lacks the ability to sell, collect and spend money from tags then they have bigger issues. Maybe Utah government is full of morons so should have SFW sell off surplus state equipment, buildings and land, too. That would explain why they hand over big game tags to SFW.
 
You are an idiot birdman!

You think your dons best buddy when he probley wouldnt even come to pull you out of a mud hole!

Why do you keep making up lies for him?

They didnt put the fence up for me dip ##### they put it up for whinny farmers!

It just proves my piont that $.F.W. doesnt care about the regular guy, cause the issue were they put the fence wasent a special area from the get go! Thus they couldnt make any money off pimping tags out for that area. They could care less!

When are you going to wake up old man?




hornkiller.jpg
 
Husker makes some good points and has made some sad observations about our state of affairs.

Its the same in Utah politics. We only have one party. We let that party do what ever they want behind closed doors. We let them do it because we hate the other party.
It makes no difference that the other party actually represents the working people better. We have these prejudices that get in our way. The dominant party hides behind closed doors just like the SFW. They live in gated communities. They want to create their own little Utopia. We blindly let them do it. Don't get in their way or their money will run ya over. They say they're for the working man but the SFW says the same thing. Well ya the know the result....it just doesn't pan out. We are only angry now because we let destroy the general hunts. They could care less about the general deer hunt. The trophy is what these guys are all about. Big racks, big privilage.... and they had us hook, line and sinker until they (panic) neglected the bread and butter ranges. They'll throw us a bone or two then go right back to Utopia again .....untill we rattle the gates.

The big game board...what state put cattlemen & sheepmen in there to make wildlife decisions? You ever heard of multiple use on public lands. In Utah, its cattle crap on public lands and to heck with wildlife and hunters. Go check out Cove Mountain's million dollar range rehab project. Kill the deer feed and plant grass and thistle. Sure helps with that amazing deer population.

Not too hopeful we'll wake up some day. It's the legislature boys. That's where changes get made. But we just keep on drinkin the same Kool-aid. I've personally
tried to bring about change but got swatted down. Kind of lost hope.
 
Husker makes some good points and has made some sad observations about our state of affairs.
Its the same in Utah politics. We only have one party. We let that party do what ever they want behind closed doors. We let them do it because we hate the other party.
It makes no difference that the other party actually represents the working people better. We have these prejudices that get in our way. The dominant party hides behind closed doors just like the SFW. They live in gated communities. They want to create their own little Utopia. We blindly let them do it. Don't get in their way or their money will run ya over. They say they're for the working man but the SFW says the same thing. Well ya the know the result....it just doesn't pan out. We are only angry now because we let destroy the general hunts. They could care less about the general deer hunt. The trophy is what these guys are all about. Big racks, big privilage.... and they had us hook, line and sinker until they (panic) neglected the bread and butter ranges. They'll throw us a bone or two then go right back to Utopia again .....untill we rattle the gates.

The big game board...what state put cattlemen & sheepmen in there to make wildlife decisions? You ever heard of multiple use on public lands. In Utah, its cattle crap on public lands and to heck with wildlife and hunters. Go check out Cove Mountain's million dollar range rehab project. Kill the deer feed and plant grass and thistle. Sure helps with that amazing deer population.

Not too hopeful we'll wake up some day. It's the legislature boys. That's where changes get made. But we just keep on drinkin the same Kool-aid. I've personally
tried to bring about change but got swatted down. Kind of lost hope.
 
This went from an expo question to cursing at a guy for his opinions.

Thanks for proving my point.

As for the Fence. With your obvious expert fence location skills, Why didn't you offer to help? I know they would have welcomed any inside fence location ideas.
 
I swear Birdman you have got to be Don Peay. Where did you get the Indian involvement in the first SFW?? Go back and read all the posts from late 2004 on the USO mess and you will find Don's fingerprints on that one then the talk shifts to him coming to Arizona to meet with the different wildlife groups to start and AZSFW. You act like all of us just moved here in the last year so we could not possibly know what really happened. And your Arizona tags got to the Utah expo how? The AZSFW does have the other wildlife groups as members and they kick in some cash to help cut their own throats. I believe that very few of them knew about the Gilstrap tag grab until someone blew the whistle in the nick of time. You are correct about the legal structure of AZSFW. I am sure Don figured out during the USO rape attempt that he could get hung from a tree by hunters here so he better disguise the rapist as a separate group. Nice try but your group is dead meat here and I hope the rest of the states wake up and start pounding the politicians with facts and emails. You are a joke if you think we don't have wealthy people that hunt here in AZ that would pay just as much for the tags.
 
rifle666 the beef between me and birdman is alot more than just about a fence.

If you dont like the comments on here you can leave promise go back to TU its fine with me.



hornkiller.jpg
 

Similar threads

L
No more governors tags for AZ
2
Replies
145
Views
6k
AZGuy
AZGuy
SDBugler
Super Tag Results
Replies
9
Views
688
SDBugler
SDBugler
O
Antelope Island
Replies
86
Views
5k
Vanilla
Vanilla

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_0355.jpeg
20170923_121244.jpg
77A8CECC-88B3-4F3A-B371-B04F3590598E.jpeg
IMG_1266 copy.jpg
IMG_7562 copy.jpg
Desert Mule Deer in Sonora Mexico
IMG_8587.jpeg
IMG_20201114_150644_182.jpg
7A956DF6-782D-4B27-920F-B9628E001E25.jpeg
IMG_2397.png
Image from iOS (1).jpg
IMG_20201114_150644_172.jpg
Back
Top Bottom