utah450
Active Member
- Messages
- 244
I know that not all of you guys agree with everything that sfw has been doing to try and raise money for improved habitat. None of that will matter if we end up with wolves in Utah. Please pay attention to the upcoming racs and the wolf plan. We all need to educate ourselves and become involved on this issue, before we really are screwed. I have pasted an email stating sfw's position.
SFW Email
Subject: SFW Walks Out of Utah Wolf Plan Meeting - the Battle is on.
AT a fundraiser in front of 1200 SFW members Friday night, it was asked to choose one of the following:
1. Moderate position on wolves in Utah, let them in, keep impacts minimal.
2. Hard line keep them out.
people voted for moderate, the rest of the room said keep them out. This is consistent with membership polling.
The wolf working group has morphed into a pro wolf group, in fact today stating that the legislature said prepare a wolf conservation plan. When the statute was reviewed, there is no such statement, and the legislative statue says, Protect private property rights and investments made by sportsmen to protect big game. Just one example of many attempts to morph into a pro wolf position
One PHD from Utah State also said that the predominate NO WOLF statements ? some 783 people, and the early wolf hearings around the state were really not scientific or representative of the publics sentiment.
You can all come to the RACS and make that pitch once again to the RAC members.
SFW asked the wolf working group to include at least three things in the PROPOSED PLAN:
Private landowners and CWMU operators be allowed to shoot wolves on sight on private land
Assure sufficient funding to have sufficient data to know if wolves are having an impact on game populations, thus warrant management actions (don't blame it on the drought, winter, etc)
Ensure full market value and compensation to guides and outfitters, taxidermists, sporting goods stores and other businesses that will loose millions of dollars if game herds decline
The committee would not agree to these issues. The committee members do not appreciate or respect the investment of sportsmen, landowners, or all of those who work in the guiding and hunting industry. There was no need to sit around a table and waste more time. We left the meeting for this reason. You cannot get half way pregnant, you cannot get aids then believe the federal government will save you.
The USFWS has made it very clear: Utah is not part of the wolf recovery effort, and Utah does not have to have wolves if they don't want them.
THE RAC hearings will begin May 17. SFW, the Farm Bureau, Cattleman and Woolgrowers, and I believe Utah FNAWS will develop some alternatives to put in the plan for the RAC and Board. The Mule Deer Foundation, Elk Foundation and others will be asked to join, it will be up to them to make that decision.
It will be up to ALL OF YOU to come out to the RAC and Board meetings.
We will get you a full listing of RAC dates and times.
This is an issue that every hunter in Utah that has invested lots of time and money to restore wildlife herds, and is willing to invest a lot more to try and keep what Utah wildlife herds we have, as Utah human populations grows by 3 million more people. We made it very clear up front to the wolf group that our opinion was to invest what limited time and money there is into habitat protection while there is still a chance, not spending a million a year studying wolves.
Finally, a lot of sportsmen in Wyoming, Idaho, Mt, initially thought a few wolves might be neat or OK. However, after the Feds have totally fumbled the ball on delisting, and the anti-hunters will use the courts in every way possible to stop delisting, sportsmen from those affected states have said,
?Don?t make the big mistake of letting them in.?
This will not be an easy fight to win, but if you all will get out, we can win.
I know there are some folks upset with SFW at this time, they don't agree that conservation permits and the convention will make more habitat and allow greater herds, thus more hunting in the future. The past ten years data argues in favor of the SFW position, not the opponents.
This is a risky political position to take ? it will turn up the heat against SFW even more. This position was taken because this is the position you the members wanted, and the fight is on. It is not fun being in the cross hairs every day, but someone has to have the guts to stand up and call BS on the BS.
Don
SFW Email
Subject: SFW Walks Out of Utah Wolf Plan Meeting - the Battle is on.
AT a fundraiser in front of 1200 SFW members Friday night, it was asked to choose one of the following:
1. Moderate position on wolves in Utah, let them in, keep impacts minimal.
2. Hard line keep them out.
people voted for moderate, the rest of the room said keep them out. This is consistent with membership polling.
The wolf working group has morphed into a pro wolf group, in fact today stating that the legislature said prepare a wolf conservation plan. When the statute was reviewed, there is no such statement, and the legislative statue says, Protect private property rights and investments made by sportsmen to protect big game. Just one example of many attempts to morph into a pro wolf position
One PHD from Utah State also said that the predominate NO WOLF statements ? some 783 people, and the early wolf hearings around the state were really not scientific or representative of the publics sentiment.
You can all come to the RACS and make that pitch once again to the RAC members.
SFW asked the wolf working group to include at least three things in the PROPOSED PLAN:
Private landowners and CWMU operators be allowed to shoot wolves on sight on private land
Assure sufficient funding to have sufficient data to know if wolves are having an impact on game populations, thus warrant management actions (don't blame it on the drought, winter, etc)
Ensure full market value and compensation to guides and outfitters, taxidermists, sporting goods stores and other businesses that will loose millions of dollars if game herds decline
The committee would not agree to these issues. The committee members do not appreciate or respect the investment of sportsmen, landowners, or all of those who work in the guiding and hunting industry. There was no need to sit around a table and waste more time. We left the meeting for this reason. You cannot get half way pregnant, you cannot get aids then believe the federal government will save you.
The USFWS has made it very clear: Utah is not part of the wolf recovery effort, and Utah does not have to have wolves if they don't want them.
THE RAC hearings will begin May 17. SFW, the Farm Bureau, Cattleman and Woolgrowers, and I believe Utah FNAWS will develop some alternatives to put in the plan for the RAC and Board. The Mule Deer Foundation, Elk Foundation and others will be asked to join, it will be up to them to make that decision.
It will be up to ALL OF YOU to come out to the RAC and Board meetings.
We will get you a full listing of RAC dates and times.
This is an issue that every hunter in Utah that has invested lots of time and money to restore wildlife herds, and is willing to invest a lot more to try and keep what Utah wildlife herds we have, as Utah human populations grows by 3 million more people. We made it very clear up front to the wolf group that our opinion was to invest what limited time and money there is into habitat protection while there is still a chance, not spending a million a year studying wolves.
Finally, a lot of sportsmen in Wyoming, Idaho, Mt, initially thought a few wolves might be neat or OK. However, after the Feds have totally fumbled the ball on delisting, and the anti-hunters will use the courts in every way possible to stop delisting, sportsmen from those affected states have said,
?Don?t make the big mistake of letting them in.?
This will not be an easy fight to win, but if you all will get out, we can win.
I know there are some folks upset with SFW at this time, they don't agree that conservation permits and the convention will make more habitat and allow greater herds, thus more hunting in the future. The past ten years data argues in favor of the SFW position, not the opponents.
This is a risky political position to take ? it will turn up the heat against SFW even more. This position was taken because this is the position you the members wanted, and the fight is on. It is not fun being in the cross hairs every day, but someone has to have the guts to stand up and call BS on the BS.
Don