never thought it would come to light

DOING MY HAPPY DANCE, because IT"S ABOUT TIME someone not on the legislature payroll is demanding answers.

Curious to see what rabbit comes out of the hat this time.




Tallbuck1
 
The handouts from the state and DWR to BGF and SFW have GOT to stop. Lawmakers are not happy with their books and neither is the "average joe hunter". Sickens me that the state would give up 300K but even worse they took money directly from the division we all support and buy our license's from.

How about the comment from the Division, "We think BGF's reporting on the fund spending is right". I can't believe how "in bed" the Division is with these two (SFW, BGF) money suckers.

Maybe lawmakers will put an end to this. I can only cross my fingers!!!!!
 
Yall do realize how silly this is right?????


An organization is given money in hopes of achieving a goal. Delist wolves from the ESA. The goal is actually achieved. And yall are all pissed??????????????????


Now yall want accountability of group that is apparently succeeding in doing what yall paid them to do???????????? Why would anyone ever fight for yall again after you set this example?

After reading this all I can say is maybe the state if they wanted to could look at hiring that lobbyist directly instead of going through BGF. But why would a lobbyist work for a state that he knows if he does his job well the legislators will be crawling up his ass and demanding accounting????

Yall wanted a result and yall knew the price to get the result. The result was achieved and now a bunch of little kids are crying about the price that was agreed to?????????? Behavior such as this will have far reaching results outside of Fish and Game when your state is in need and has to contract help. Good help will learn to stay away from yall and rightfully so.
 
>Yall do realize how silly this
>is right?????
>
>
>An organization is given money in
>hopes of achieving a goal.
> Delist wolves from the
>ESA. The goal is
>actually achieved. And yall
>are all pissed??????????????????
>
>
>Now yall want accountability of group
>that is apparently succeeding in
>doing what yall paid them
>to do???????????? Why would
>anyone ever fight for yall
>again after you set this
>example?
>
>After reading this all I can
>say is maybe the state
>if they wanted to could
>look at hiring that lobbyist
>directly instead of going through
>BGF. But why would
>a lobbyist work for a
>state that he knows if
>he does his job well
>the legislators will be crawling
>up his ass and demanding
>accounting????
>
>Yall wanted a result and yall
>knew the price to get
>the result. The result
>was achieved and now a
>bunch of little kids are
>crying about the price that
>was agreed to?????????? Behavior
>such as this will have
>far reaching results outside of
>Fish and Game when your
>state is in need and
>has to contract help.
>Good help will learn to
>stay away from yall and
>rightfully so.

It's true that the goal was achieved, but this question remains; Was it because of the $300,000 and BGF or in spite of it? The report doesn't give the answer.

As far as "good help" staying away from contracts with Utah, if they aren't willing to give an accounting, then they aren't the "good help" we need.
 
The same basic principal rears its head over and over again -- when you are dealing with public assets and resources you must account for and deal transparently with those assets and resources. It is really quite simple.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Bowtech Destroyer
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
 
So.......Just give them an open checkbook and do not ask questions as to just how much was spent? I think some accountability is in order, only because of taxpayer questions and the division it came out of. Other than that, I agree with your statements.
 
"It's true that the goal was achieved, but this question remains; Was it because of the $300,000 and BGF or in spite of it? The report doesn't give the answer."

That is something you will never be able to find out nor is it possible to prove so why dig there. Unsolvable argument that will waist more public time and public resources you claim you want to protect.

"As far as "good help" staying away from contracts with Utah, if they aren't willing to give an accounting, then they aren't the "good help" we need."

They did give an accounting. You just don't like the spending labels they gave.
 
"The same basic principal rears its head over and over again -- when you are dealing with public assets and resources you must account for and deal transparently with those assets and resources. It is really quite simple."


Go back and read the article. It states they gave an accounting.

Here's an idea. Make the organization present a spending bid and then an accounting after the dollars are spent to see if they match. That way when yall agree to give someone money and they do a job there can't be a bunch of crybaby antics afterwards.
 
"That is something you will never be able to find out nor is it possible to prove so why dig there."

And yet you seem more than ready to infer full credit to SFW..... Terry
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-03-13 AT 09:19AM (MST)[p]It is surprising that some hate SFW more than trying to win the wolf war. I realize there sould be accountabilty as well. Often times these wolf lover groups will do what ever they need to do to push there agenda, they are not accountable with everything they do. They will stab you in the back any chance they get. THey just want to do away with guns and hunting. Glad we are making progress with the wolf war.
 
"And yet you seem more than ready to infer full credit to SFW..... Terry"


Terry,

First I do not give "full credit" to anyone. That is a battle that has been and will be fought on many fronts by many groups.

Second your hate for SFW is shining through. I am not talking about SFW. I am talking about BGF. I know there is a relationship between SFW but I am trying to keep the hateful mud out of the waters and just stick with the issue at hand.
 
Time for some accountability. While I doubt BGF had any (positive) impact on wolf delisting, their accounting for the public funds is laughable. Looks like something a school kid came up with in study hall, with no supporting documentation.
I'm glad to see the legislature looking in to this more closely. When the public sees where their money is going, there will be additional pressure on these groups to behave responsibly and be accountable.
I have no problem with private companies keeping closed books. But when you accept public money, you also accept accountability to the same public. Except in Utah, of course, at least until recently. Shine the light of truth on these organizations. If they really used the money wisely and accomplished the stated goals, then good for them. It seems like they would WANT to show how effectively they used this money if it really went to the cause. Hiding and obfuscating the details makes everyone wonder.

And SFW's official lapdog, Tristate, can continue to try to confuse the issue as always. If this was any other non-wildlife group in Utah that was given $300K per year of public funds they would be expected to account for the funds down to the penny. Apply the same standards to SFW and BGF and let the chips fall where they may.
While I doubt their will be a positive outcome, I'd be happy to sing the praises of a transparent, publicly funded, successful conservation group. Trying to make everyone believe you can only be successful as a conservation group if you are secretive and disparaging of the public is a losing hand. Other groups have proven it can be done.

Thank you, legislators, for looking into this more closely.
Bill
 
"Time for some accountability. While I doubt BGF had any (positive) impact on wolf delisting, their accounting for the public funds is laughable. Looks like something a school kid came up with in study hall, with no supporting documentation."

No different than the RMEF accounting they post on their website that everyone here claims to be satisfactory. I told yall if yall ever got accounting yall would claim it to be inadequate. I was right.


"I'm glad to see the legislature looking in to this more closely. When the public sees where their money is going, there will be additional pressure on these groups to behave responsibly and be accountable."

I bet the legislature farts away more than 300k looking into this. Where is the logic in that? People spending more money than they gave away trying to figure out why they gave it away in the first place. Brilliant.


"I have no problem with private companies keeping closed books. But when you accept public money, you also accept accountability to the same public. Except in Utah, of course, at least until recently. Shine the light of truth on these organizations. If they really used the money wisely and accomplished the stated goals, then good for them. It seems like they would WANT to show how effectively they used this money if it really went to the cause. Hiding and obfuscating the details makes everyone wonder."

Yalls hate makes yall wonder. It has nothing to do with accounting this has everything to do with deer tags. Yall know it, now start dealing with issues head on instead of thinking you are using stealth.

"And SFW's official lapdog, Tristate, can continue to try to confuse the issue as always."

I don't need to confuse the issue. You think this is a battle against SFW. YOU ARE ALLREADY CONFUSED!.

" If this was any other non-wildlife group in Utah that was given $300K per year of public funds they would be expected to account for the funds down to the penny. Apply the same standards to SFW and BGF and let the chips fall where they may."

Lets see you do the same with RMEF then.

"While I doubt their will be a positive outcome, I'd be happy to sing the praises of a transparent, publicly funded, successful conservation group. Trying to make everyone believe you can only be successful as a conservation group if you are secretive and disparaging of the public is a losing hand. Other groups have proven it can be done."

Quit lying. If they let you see every single trail for every dollar you would still hate them.

"Thank you, legislators, for looking into this more closely."

Thankyou for pissing away more of other peoples money that you didn't have to earn or sacrifice for, just tax and spend.
 
I wonder if the BGF report explaining how they spent the money included this press release from the NRA when BGF and its partner, SFW, tried to railroad NRA, SCI, B&C, and CSF.

Here is background to the press release issued by NRA and quoted verbatim, below.

NRA, B&C, CSF, SCI, and every other hunting group was supporting the Simpson-Tester bill as a solution, except BGF/SFW. BGF/SFW issued a press release falsely stating the four above-mentioned groups agreed with BGF/SFW to oppose the Simpson-Tester Amendment, the legislation that actually got the job done on wolf delisting. BGF/SFW had the gall to send that email to all in Congress, even when told to take the names of those four groups off the email.

A real good use of UT DWR license money and UT taxpayer money.

In spite of the efforts of BGF to kill the process, delisting still happened, with the USFWS recently announcing delisting for the entire Lower 48.

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


NRA, SCI, and CSF Disavow Misleading Press Release

Today the National Rifle Association, Safari Club International and the Congressional Sportsmen?s Foundation publicly disavowed a misleading press release distributed on Friday, March 11th to congressional offices and other outlets. The press release blatantly misrepresents the position of these organizations regarding legislation to delist gray wolves under the Endangered Species Act.

The draft release was circulated by an individual representing Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife and Big Game Forever. The individual representing these two groups was immediately advised to remove the aforementioned organizations named in the release. Unfortunately, he did not, and the release was transmitted without correcting the inaccurate information.

The release in question claimed that the NRA, SCI and CSF along with the other organizations listed below are opposed to language relating to the delisting of gray wolves in spending legislation currently pending before the U.S. Congress. In fact, these organizations support that language, as well as every other measure that has been introduced in the U.S. House and Senate to date addressing this important issue.

Congressional offices and members of the media should exercise caution in accepting as fact, or repeating, any claims made by Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, Big Game Forever or any person claiming to represent them. Due to the blatant misrepresentation contained in the press release circulated by these two groups, any claims they make in the future should be thoroughly investigated and independently confirmed.


NRA Federal Affairs
Jeff Freeman
Senior Federal Lobbyist
[email protected]
410 First Street S.E.
2nd Floor
Washington, D.C. 20003
tel: 202.651.2568
fax: 202.651.2577

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

And, for those who might have missed it, a thread from two years ago, when BGF was doing their "lobbying" and laying the pipe to hunters in the name of "lobbying" for wolf delisting.


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


Nothing BGF did, or said, came to reality in the wolf issue. In spite of BGF's efforts to kill the bill that started this process, the Simpson-Tester Amendment, we now have the USFWS issuing a gray wolf delisting ruling for the entire Lower 48 states. No thanks to BGF, in spite of what they might try to claim.

Anyone who looks at the facts, the positions BGF took (and lost), and the efforts by BGF to thwart/undermine/oppose the heavy lifting being done by other groups, and still thinks BGF was beneficial to the wolf delisting process is delusional.

The fact that they got $300K from the good folks of Utah, then got approved for another $300K is a sad commentary on the due diligence, or lack thereof, performed by those in the Utah legislature who make these funding decisions.

Obviously, NRA and/or the others were not asked their opinion of how useful BGF was in this process.

Carry on .......

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
They should add NMWF to that list too.

"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/]
 
Well said Randy!


"The problem with quotes on Internet Forums is that it is often difficult to verify their authenticity." - Abraham Lincoln
 
Just because BGF did not state NRA or SCI's position on the amendment correctly does not translate to them having nothing to do with wolf delisting.

Bigfin, have you asked BGF or is there an official position memo you can post that states why they opposed the amendment?

Frankly while I value your knowledge about wolves in the lower 48 and the pathway to delisting I also feel that you have a very direct conflict of interest with BGF. If I am not mistaken do you not sit on a board of a business that is in direct competition for funds with both BGF and SFW?
 
I read the article in the SLT before I saw this post. My initial reaction was that the powers that be at BGF, SFW etc. are either incredibly na?ve or incredibly arrogant. Taking money from membership with no financial accountability is one thing. To take it from the taxpayers is something all together different.

I have shared numerous emails with Randy over the last few years. Those emails started with the wolf issue. He is very knowledgeable on the subject. We agree for the most part on the subject. Our only disagreements involve the motives of Baucus and Tester to push the Simpson-Tester Amendment. I believed they did this after being pressured to do so by the legislation being pushed by BGF. They didn't want to be caught on the outside politically on the wolf issue. I also think that irreparable damage was done to the relationship between sportsman in Wyoming and Montana when Wyoming was not part of the grand bargain that resulted in the Simpson-Tester Amendment.

I used to post on the OYOA Hunt Talk and stopped doing so awhile back. There were some very political and obnoxious people on that website and one threatened me physically. Their antics got old. That being said, I don't think for one minute that Big Fin has a conflict of interest involving funding conflicts between competing sportsman groups. Unless I am a poor judge of character, Randy is a man of integrity. He has never done anything to suggest otherwise. He is concerned about the issues involving sportsman and I don't believe this comes from a financial motive.

I can tell everyone that the continued back and forth between competing sportsman's groups is getting old. I no longer belong to any such group. I have friends that have adopted the same view on the subject. There is too much drama and not enough action. The money seems to cloud the judgment of many and pushes people away from compromise. That goes for sportsman's groups and for the numerous organizations supported by the eco-elites.

I am off to the 4th of July parade in Cody. May God Bless America!

mh
 
"I used to post on the OYOA Hunt Talk and stopped doing so awhile back. There were some very political and obnoxious people on that website and one threatened me physically. Their antics got old. That being said, I don't think for one minute that Big Fin has a conflict of interest involving funding conflicts between competing sportsman groups."

There is no doubt that there is a conflict of interest there. These are two competitive businesses in which Randy sits on the board of one.

" Unless I am a poor judge of character, Randy is a man of integrity. He has never done anything to suggest otherwise. He is concerned about the issues involving sportsman and I don't believe this comes from a financial motive."

I have not and am not questioning Randy's integrity. A conflict of interest in business does not necessarily mean that someone's character is in question. It simply means that because of plausible bias and normal motive one can not make judgements off of his opinions here, if one is choosing to use logic.

"I can tell everyone that the continued back and forth between competing sportsman's groups is getting old."

My point exactly for posting on most of these threads.

" I no longer belong to any such group. I have friends that have adopted the same view on the subject. There is too much drama and not enough action. The money seems to cloud the judgment of many and pushes people away from compromise. That goes for sportsman's groups and for the numerous organizations supported by the eco-elites."

I understand your opinion here completely.

"I am off to the 4th of July parade in Cody. May God Bless America!"

Good luck and have fun. I still have to get a elk mounted and two pintails. I feel it is a great day indeed.
 
BigFin,
Was that the best you could come up with? Pretty old news. I did enjoy listening to Mr NRA himself speak at the Expo this past Feb. Seemed ok with SFW on that night?

Thanks to all those in the wolf fight. I including Randy. I agree that it all political. Some just wont admitt it.
 
Why is it that some people are so blind, that they cannot see the issue here is about transparency?
Wolf delist this wolf delist that, who gives a shiite? I want to know how my tax money is being used.
Trollstate,STFU.
 
Really Topgun???? Your the first person here to comment on anything off topic at all. I guess its easier to try and make this about "trollstate" instead of having to use that head Playdough you think is a brain.
 
I read the article, no accounting at all, just pictures and copied media articles. Any 6th grader knows how to use a copy machine.
Now , tell us where the money went and
what it paid for.
Trollstate,STFU if you want to ##### about Texas money being misused, feel free.This has nothing to do with waste and fraud in your republic.
 
"I read the article, no accounting at all, just pictures and copied media articles. Any 6th grader knows how to use a copy machine.
Now , tell us where the money went and
what it paid for.
Trollstate,STFU if you want to ##### about Texas money being misused, feel free.This has nothing to do with waste and fraud in your republic."

Is this English? DO you actually think people do as you command? Obviously you did not read the article. The accounting is not in the article but the article clearly states that an accounting has been presented to the legislature and they stated what the largest portion of the funds went to. If you are too stupid to comprehend these things then you are helpless.

Buttshot,

Have you contacted BGF and asked for what you call "accounting"? This is a real question that I want you to answer.

Do you consider RMEF posted "books" as accounting? This is also a real question I expect you to answer.
 
So I thought I read a statement that said there are conservation organizations being discussed here that are competitive businesses. So why, if the end result of wolf de-listing is the same goal of both (several), is it a competition? I have my opinions and have followed the wolf issue very closely as I live in the middle of "ground zero". My feeling is there has been $600,000 wasted somewhere. mtmuley
 
Mtmuley,
They compete with each other for money. Sometimes they compete against each other for the same result for control of funds or future chances at control of funds.

How did $600k get wasted when the goal set for the $600k was achieved. DO you think all those other organizations that fought for wolf delisting did it with no money at all?

I am going to go way out on a limb and ask you a really crazy hypothetical that is going to throw this whole conversation for a loop. What if delisting the wolf only cost getting someone in USFWS set up with a couple of hookers and an 8 ball of cocaine? How do you show that on your "accounting". Would you be willing to pay that? Welcome to Washington.
 
The report mentions that BGF has hired Washington lobbyist Tim Rupli this year and devoted $134,000 to "legislative and legal" efforts.

According to a contract breakdown explaining generally where the state money went, "education and science" consumed another $65,000; "public outreach" took nearly $40,000; "direct action" took $43,000; supporting services took $17,000.



Here's one way they spent the money:

"State Sen. Ralph Okerlund, R-Monroe, who received $6,500 in campaign contributions from Peay and Ryan Benson, co-founder of Big Game Forever. Okerlund, the Senate majority leader, recommended spending $300,000 this year on Big Game Forever?s anti-wolf lobbying campaign." SLT, 5/22/13

That's $165,000.00 plus Okerlunds $6,500.00
My math say's $171,000.00 plus $134,000.00

Comes to $305,000.00
Damn , Why do I care?
 
"Comes to $305,000.00
Damn , Why do I care?"


I don't know why you would. Anyone that can take $300k, turn it into $305k, and still help achieve what the money was appropriated for is kicking wholesale butt by Washington standards.

By the way buttshot, you dodged the questions.
 
I understand the competition aspect, wrong as it may be. It's not good for wildlife in my humble opinion. So you think the control of funds is more important than the end result? Seems a couple organizations may. De-listing wolves isn't a competitive sport. I might be crazy here, but I bet there aren't a lot of SFW/BGF guys that are RMEF members or vica/versa. What do the hookers look like? mtmuley
 
I wasn't aware that there was a wolf issue in Texas. Damn, that's weird.

BFG's "accounting" is little more than fluff and since I've read it (I'm certain one particular dumba$$ responding to the OP here has NOT read it) I call horse crap! There is NOT a registered lobbyist in Washington representing BFG or SFW, neither are a party to any successful action in the wolf fight EVER! And have merely been a fringe pain in the a$$ of those who are actually putting resources, money, and personnel into the successful delisting. Their attempts trying to get a return favor from Orrin Hatch failed, they were on the wrong side of Simpson / Tester and they don't belong to the Sportsmen's Caucus which are the ones who did fight the good fight. The only filings they ever have been a part of were briefs in support of court actions that were all but guaranteed.

What was presented by Don and Ryan, as well as that idiot legislator Okerland to the state legislature had certain guarantees along with the money including accounting and if you listen to the minutes at the appropriations committee where Don asks for more, one legislator asked the hard questions that a certain someone hymned and hawed about. That lackluster accounting is as weak the convention tag fee accounting they provided. Bottom line, they took money from taxpayers that they didn't earn and despite what good SFW has in fact done in Utah, that money should be paid back by BGF and Ryan Benson. What a joke.


"There is no reason why I have to tolerate your stupidity if you are unwilling to tolerate mine." ME
 
Blah blah blah blah.

I told yall if yall ever got accounting yall would proclaim it to be inadequate and I was right. None of yall know how to deal with your real issue which is deer tags. That is why yall hate these people and you think if you scream about accounting yall will somehow get more deer tags in the draw.

As for this being a Texas issue or a Utah issue, THIS IS A NATIONAL ISSUE! You think you and you alone have to deal with this????? But then you have to go fight it in FEDERAL courts against FEDERAL LAW, against USFWS and department of the interior.

KLBZDAD, what do you do for a living? Please answer this question.
 
"They compete with each other for money. Sometimes they compete against each other for the same result for control of funds or future chances at control of funds"

Wow, if that is what it has come to, we are in a sad state. If I were the head of an organization that was viewed that way: competing for dollars rather than having my stated goal in the forefront, I would be embarrased. Yes, money makes the world go round but if you build a better mousetrap the world will come to you.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-05-13 AT 08:11AM (MST)[p]"A political action group fighting federal wolf management with Utah taxpayers? money filed a report of its accomplishments this week, but it sheds little light on how Big Game Forever (BGF) spent a $300,000 state appropriation.

The 120-page report, liberally padded with magazine articles and government-produced statistics, describes these efforts in general terms and most of the work described actually occurred before the year covered in the contract, renewing questions about exactly how the money was spent."

I guess he writer of the article is just another anti BGF hack. Prob on a board for a competing "business"

Whatever you think about them, they are certainly not doing things in a way to grow and promonte their "business".

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
"I guess he writer of the article is just another anti BGF hack. Prob on a board for a competing "business""

Your words and assumptions. Not mine.

"Whatever you think about them, they are certainly not doing things in a way to grow and promonte their "business"."

You don't know that and neither do I. For all we know their business model may be succeeding perfectly. After all the state renews contracts with them annualy and they have learned how to get free press and advertising from newspapers and websites.

Let me give you an example. A close friend of mine owns a small business. One of the local news channels did a report on how mean the person is to his employees. Plastered his name and business all over their face book page and then gave nightly updates on whether he was reforming up to their standards. The friend was truly scared of the PR problem that was occurring. The next month they had one of the best months they have ever had and all of his employees were still with him. They are on track to having one of their best years ever. The simple fact is he got tons of free advertising and no one remembered the BS that the news channel said and the people that were doing business with him already new it to be BS anyway. The people who were angry didn't matter anyway. Much like the people on this thread.
 
I see no reason to not be critical of a group that gets taxpayer money... On our side or not, I'd want to know my money was used well. My guess is this money was used the same as so many other funds are used in regards to "Lobbying". The only difference here is you have a liberal paper, with a liberal columnist who is pointing the spotlight on BGF because they wanna hug and kiss wolves...

"Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!" 2 Ne. 28: 24
 
>
>"Whatever you think about them, they
>are certainly not doing things
>in a way to grow
>and promonte their "business"."
>
>You don't know that and neither
>do I. For all
>we know their business model
>may be succeeding perfectly.
>After all the state
>renews contracts with them annualy
>and they have learned how
>to get free press and
>advertising from newspapers and websites.
>
>
>Let me give you an example.
> A close friend of
>mine owns a small business.
> One of the local
>news channels did a report
>on how mean the person
>is to his employees.
>Plastered his name and business
>all over their face book
>page and then gave nightly
>updates on whether he was
>reforming up to their standards.
> The friend was truly
>scared of the PR problem
>that was occurring. The
>next month they had one
>of the best months they
>have ever had and all
>of his employees were still
>with him. They are
>on track to having one
>of their best years ever.
> The simple fact is
>he got tons of free
>advertising and no one remembered
>the BS that the news
>channel said and the people
>that were doing business with
>him already new it to
>be BS anyway. The
>people who were angry didn't
>matter anyway. Much like
>the people on this thread.
>

Excellent example! So now we know why you post such controversial opinions and ideas on this forum! Hollywood style advertising using the "yall's" who don't matter. Yes, you better get back to the elk and the birds, so you'll have time for the new business this thread generates. :)
 
Ever since BGF came out in support of, and lobbied for H.R. 509 and S.249 they've had a target on their back. Those were the only two bills I supported, and wolf lovers every where trash them every chance they get. It's all water under the bridge now.

Eel
 
why does anyone really try to reason with tristate, he resembles 440, just wants to be in an argument with nothing substantial to put out
 
>why does anyone really try to
>reason with tristate, he resembles
>440, just wants to be
>in an argument with nothing
>substantial to put out

While neither I nor anyone else are not likely to change tristate's mind about anything, we do have fellow "yall" readers whom we'd like to educate/influence and we use tristate's off-the-wall positions to do that because he makes it so easy. However, even for me, there's a limit!

Anytime ANYONE receives public money or assets, they need to (and should expect to) give a detailed accounting of those funds/assets. When I pay my income taxes and claim deductions, I am prepared to be audited down to the last dollar/mile/lunch.

As to this being water under the bridge, they will get another $300,000 next year. Are we to let that also flow under the bridge?
 
Really buttshott??? You think this is an argument????? All you do is come on here and command people to "STFU". You think that is an argument? You can't even answer the questions I posted to you. Your too scared that the answers will show you don't have a clue. How old are you boy?
 
elkfromabove, if you don't think States should have full control over their own wildlife, and you don't think that wolves should be exempt from the ESA, then by all means defund BGF.

I admit that their position is unlikely to succeed at this time, but I will support their effort because it's what I feel is right.

We've spent a bunch of money to re-introduce wolves and spent even more money to guarantee that wolves will continue to thrive and spread. To me that's a huge waste of sportsman's dollars.

Eel
 
>Elkfromabove,
>
>Do you believe RMEF provides a
>detailed accounting of their business?
>

That question is irrelevant to this issue. RMEF aren't the ones getting the public's $300,000.

And as far as I know, RMEF only receives Utah public assets in the form of Conservation Permits which have a mandatory 30% automatic return from the sales to the DWR and a 60% retained fund for use only on DWR approved projects. And yes, they give a detailed accounting of that public money. It's written into the agreement.

Per that agreement with the State of Utah, they don't give and are not required to give to the State of Utah a detailed accounting of the remaining 10% of the Conservation Permit sales nor the other funds they receive from private entities via membership dues, fundraisers, dinners, donations, etc. The IRS may require it for non-profit status, but that isn't Utah's concern because they aren't public assets.

If RMEF (or anyone else) were to receive that $300,000, then, yes, we should hold them accountable for it, regardless of their past accountability on other issues. Like any other consumer, the State of Utah wants to make sure the service they paid for is the service they are getting.
 
>elkfromabove, if you don't think States
>should have full control over
>their own wildlife, and you
>don't think that wolves should
>be exempt from the ESA,
>then by all means defund
>BGF.
>
>I admit that their position is
>unlikely to succeed at this
>time, but I will support
>their effort because it's what
>I feel is right.
>
>We've spent a bunch of money
>to re-introduce wolves and spent
>even more money to guarantee
>that wolves will continue to
>thrive and spread. To me
>that's a huge waste of
>sportsman's dollars.
>
>Eel

Please don't make assumptions! I want the states to have full control over their wildlife, and I want the wolves delisted, and I'm not asking to defund BGF! In fact, those are the very reasons I want accountability.

If BGF is the best organization to spend the money on, great! But if not, let's put the money to better use. But without more details, we can't make that decision. If timing is a factor or the political climate or the stiffness of the competition, then we want to know what we need to change, but not knowing what works or doesn't work isn't helpful. And spending a bunch of money on an organization or on methods that are counterproductive is also a huge waste of sportsmen's dollars.
 
"That question is irrelevant to this issue. RMEF aren't the ones getting the public's $300,000."

Bull! Every time accounting has been brought up on these forums RMEF has been held as the standard in which all other conservation organizations should be held.

"And as far as I know, RMEF only receives Utah public assets in the form of Conservation Permits which have a mandatory 30% automatic return from the sales to the DWR and a 60% retained fund for use only on DWR approved projects. And yes, they give a detailed accounting of that public money. It's written into the agreement."

It is no more detailed than what BGF has given.

"Per that agreement with the State of Utah, they don't give and are not required to give to the State of Utah a detailed accounting of the remaining 10% of the Conservation Permit sales nor the other funds they receive from private entities via membership dues, fundraisers, dinners, donations, etc. The IRS may require it for non-profit status, but that isn't Utah's concern because they aren't public assets."

SO they must be crooks by most peoples standards right????? If you can't tell I am being facetious.

"If RMEF (or anyone else) were to receive that $300,000, then, yes, we should hold them accountable for it, regardless of their past accountability on other issues. Like any other consumer, the State of Utah wants to make sure the service they paid for is the service they are getting."

SO what did the state pay for? You may want to go back and read the article. Was the states goal achieved? Sounds like the state GOT EXXACTLY WHAT THEY PAID FOR.
 
"Please don't make assumptions! I want the states to have full control over their wildlife, and I want the wolves delisted, and I'm not asking to defund BGF! In fact, those are the very reasons I want accountability.

If BGF is the best organization to spend the money on, great! But if not, let's put the money to better use. But without more details, we can't make that decision. If timing is a factor or the political climate or the stiffness of the competition, then we want to know what we need to change, but not knowing what works or doesn't work isn't helpful. And spending a bunch of money on an organization or on methods that are counterproductive is also a huge waste of sportsmen's dollars."


You will spend more money investigating and auditing BGF than you gave them! Is there any bigger "waste of sportsmen's dollars" than that? You want to audit success?????? You want to have them be more accountable that's fine. But like I stated before that has to happen on the front end, not now. You want to have a say in how groups spend money to do work for you, then you ask for a spending breakdown before the money is allocated, not after they completed the assignment. That's how everyone knows this isn't about accounting or holding people responsible. Its a bunch of little kids who think this is how they fight over deer tags and you know it.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-07-13 AT 12:53PM (MST)[p]>"Please don't make assumptions! I want
>the states to have full
>control over their wildlife, and
>I want the wolves delisted,
>and I'm not asking to
>defund BGF! In fact, those
>are the very reasons I
>want accountability.
>
>If BGF is the best organization
>to spend the money on,
>great! But if not, let's
>put the money to better
>use. But without more details,
>we can't make that decision.
>If timing is a factor
>or the political climate or
>the stiffness of the competition,
>then we want to know
>what we need to change,
>but not knowing what works
>or doesn't work isn't helpful.
>And spending a bunch of
>money on an organization or
>on methods that are counterproductive
>is also a huge waste
>of sportsmen's dollars."
>
>
>You will spend more money investigating
>and auditing BGF than you
>gave them! Is there
>any bigger "waste of sportsmen's
>dollars" than that? You
>want to audit success??????
>You want to have them
>be more accountable that's fine.
> But like I stated
>before that has to happen
>on the front end, not
>now. You want to
>have a say in how
>groups spend money to do
>work for you, then you
>ask for a spending breakdown
>before the money is allocated,
>not after they completed the
>assignment. That's how everyone
>knows this isn't about accounting
>or holding people responsible.
>Its a bunch of little
>kids who think this is
>how they fight over deer
>tags and you know it.
>

This response should be right down your alley!

On August 22, 2000 I took a P&Y pronghorn west of town (Enoch UT), 74 6/8", heart shaped horns, 3/8" gap between tips. On Nov 6, I took the frozen cape and skull to a local taxidermist that was recommended by a friend. As it turns out, I already knew the man but didn't know he did taxi work. I paid him $100 up front. I knew it would take a while, so I waited about 6 months before contacting him again. When I did, he apologized and told me his tanner in Oregon had ruined my cape, along with several others. (Something about a vat full of different capes with a timer that malfunctioned.) In any case, he promised to replace it. I agreed, but after a year and still no phone call, I called him back. He told me he still hadn't received a cape from his tanner. In 2001, my daughter took a nice old buck with her rifle, but didn't want to mount it, so I asked if I could have the cape which I took to the taxidermist. On January 1, 2003 I paid the remaining $150 to the taxidermist and picked up the mount. He did a great job, but charged me full price and never replaced the ruined cape.

However, when I took my P&Y bull elk on September 17, 2004, I took the cape and skull to another taxidermist and picked it up on May 25, 2005.

Did I eventually get what I originally paid for from the 1st taxidermist. Yes I did, in spite of all the screw-ups, and I can't deny that. But he didn't volunteer any information, he didn't correct his errors, he didn't compensate me for either of my capes, and he placed the blame on another person. He got my money once, he won't get it again!

BGF got our money once (actually 3 times). Should we give it to them again? They'll have to do a better job of convincing us!

As for the up[front stipulations, we (Utah) has that, but apparently BGF hasn't complied, thus the inquiry.
 
That might be the worst comparative example in history. Everything you just stated in in no way shape or form has anything to do with the topic at hand.

Let me explain what would have maybe been in the same ballpark, and even this will be a stretch. Imagine you killed a buck you want mounted. You take it to a taxidermist. You have an agreed to price with an estimated turnaround time. The due date arrives and the taxidermist completed your mount. You go to pick up and it is exactly as advertised. You ask how much and all you have to pay was the agreed to price on the invoice you were given when you dropped it off. You take it home and hang it up proudly. The next deer season your friend kills a great buck and asks for a taxidermy recommendation. You tell him to use someone else besides your last taxidermist because you don't know what he spent your money on. It's ok though because your friend understands you have a tendency for bat crap crazy paranoia and takes it to the same taxidermist you used but don't know how to thank.
 
>That might be the worst comparative
>example in history. Everything
>you just stated in in
>no way shape or form
>has anything to do with
>the topic at hand.
>
>Let me explain what would have
>maybe been in the same
>ballpark, and even this will
>be a stretch. Imagine
>you killed a buck you
>want mounted. You take
>it to a taxidermist.
>You have an agreed to
>price with an estimated turnaround
>time. The due date
>arrives and the taxidermist completed
>your mount. You go
>to pick up and it
>is exactly as advertised.
>You ask how much and
>all you have to pay
>was the agreed to price
>on the invoice you were
>given when you dropped it
>off. You take it
>home and hang it up
>proudly. The next deer
>season your friend kills a
>great buck and asks for
>a taxidermy recommendation. You
>tell him to use someone
>else besides your last taxidermist
>because you don't know what
>he spent your money on.
> It's ok though
>because your friend understands you
>have a tendency for bat
>crap crazy paranoia and takes
>it to the same taxidermist
>you used but don't know
>how to thank.

Great! No problem! Let BGF keep the $300,000 we've already given them and thank them for their work. But on the second round let someone else (like my friend) pay BGF $300,000 for what appears to be trying to take major credit for the work of others who are doing it on their own. Then we'll either save our $300,000 or pay someone else who is better at it and willing to verify their work. Nothing personal (or paranoic) you understand, it's just business pure and simple. It doesn't make business sense to pay a middle man when you can get the same service for less or nothing! And if BGF is so great at what they do, they can get private funding like the rest of the groups who are fighting for or against wolf delisting.

PS, I'm sorry about the ending of the last post. I was interupted with a small chore before taking care of some Sabbath Day business which put me past the edit time. I'll address that idea later if I feel the need.
 
Finally some reason! Yes! Go give that money to another organization this year if you want to. That's probably the most constructive idea yet for the BGF haters. I don't have one single problem with the state deciding someone else might do it better so give the money to them. I was never here to argue that BGF should get this money every year. All I have been trying to say is the argument for "accounting" from them was ridiculous.
 
>Finally some reason! Yes! Go
>give that money to another
>organization this year if you
>want to. That's probably
>the most constructive idea yet
>for the BGF haters.
>I don't have one single
>problem with the state deciding
>someone else might do it
>better so give the money
>to them. I was
>never here to argue that
>BGF should get this money
>every year. All I
>have been trying to say
>is the argument for "accounting"
>from them was ridiculous.

Great! Time to take this solution to the Utah legislators!
 
Despite Trollstate's attempt to divert the issue with attempts to smear RMEF, a simple search finds RMEF's official position on conservation tags and funding. They return 100% of the proceeds from the sale of every tag to the state. While they are allowed to keep 10% for admin costs, they choose not to do so in an attempt at even great clarity. While SFW-WY keeps 30% of the proceeds,and most others keep 10%, RMEF returns every penny to the state. It makes the "accounting" for people like Trollstate even that much easier. Every penny returned to the state.

Not a lot of conflict of interest in this type of policy, and no attempt to hide where the money is used.
Let's get back to a full accounting of the BGF legislative funding. No other group in the state is allowed to provide such a general and vague accounting for taxpayer dollars.
Bill
 
"Despite Trollstate's attempt to divert the issue with attempts to smear RMEF, a simple search finds RMEF's official position on conservation tags and funding."

I'm not smearing anyone. I am a donor and member of RMEF. Why would I smear them. Learn how to read.

"They return 100% of the proceeds from the sale of every tag to the state. While they are allowed to keep 10% for admin costs, they choose not to do so in an attempt at even great clarity. While SFW-WY keeps 30% of the proceeds,and most others keep 10%, RMEF returns every penny to the state. It makes the "accounting" for people like Trollstate even that much easier. Every penny returned to the state."

Irrelevant! Why are you comparing numbers of money given to numbers of money taken? Are you fighting SFW-WY or BGF????? Like most people that make decisions on hate you can't even keep facts or logic straight.

"Not a lot of conflict of interest in this type of policy, and no attempt to hide where the money is used.
Let's get back to a full accounting of the BGF legislative funding. No other group in the state is allowed to provide such a general and vague accounting for taxpayer dollars."

The accounting that has been posted here for RMEF is just as vague. Why don't you post the BGF accounting and the RMEF accounting side by side?
 
>>
>The accounting that has been posted
>here for RMEF is just
>as vague. Why don't
>you post the BGF accounting
>and the RMEF accounting side
>by side?


He can't (at least it wouldn't make sense) because they don't participate in the same program.

BGF only receives grants ($100,000 or $300,000) directly from the state specifically for predator/wolf control and uses all of that money at their own discretion (with some accountability for the results per their contract), while RMEF only receives Conservation Permits to auction off and gets to keep only 10% of that money to use at their own discretion, with no accountability, if they choose to keep it at all (which they claim not to keep). The third program available to conservation groups is the Convention Permit program which neither BGF nor RMEF participate in.

I haven't seen BGF's contract with the state and don't have any idea what's expected of them, but apparently they didn't meet the state's/legislator's expectations at this point, thus the concern. Even the most prominent proponant of the grant, Senate Majority Leader, Ralph Okerlund expects more details when they meet later this month. BGF needs to step up to get the second yearly grant of $300,000.

On the other hand, RMEF is in a program the forces accountability as it proceeds. Thirty percent of the funds from the auction sales of Conservation Permits are returned directly to the DWR, so if the use of those funds needs accounting, it's the DWR's job to give it. Then, 60% is retained by RMEF to use only for DWR pre-approved or DWR initiated conservation projects with an accounting by RMEF of each seperate project as it's finished. The timeline and details of the accounting may be off per the length and type of project, but ALL projects are accounted for seperately including costs, materials, man hours, equipment used and results.

It may be that BGF has that type of information and will present it later on, but we haven't seen it so far and that's a concern.

As far as spending more money than was given to investigate the accounting, I don't see that happening unless criminal actions were involved, which isn't likely. The only thing the legislators want to know is, Did we spend the money wisely? And is it prudent to do it again with this group? Only BGF can answer those questions. We'll see how they do!
 
So, if the wolves are delisted and finally under the control of the states, does that mean BGF is no longer Utah State-funded and out of business? Or will they turn their attention to coyotes? Mexican wolves? cougars? Or will they continue to stay involved by trying to "help" manage the wolves and/or their prey via the RAC's and Wildlife Board meetings? Hmmmm! I guess time will tell.
 
Now where is that fence post. ARE you getting the message.

"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/]
 
"He can't (at least it wouldn't make sense) because they don't participate in the same program."

I don't care about the numbers. I care about the terminology and verbage used. Yall said that the BGF descriptions are vague. I just wanted to show that RMEF terminology is vague also.

"BGF only receives grants ($100,000 or $300,000) directly from the state specifically for predator/wolf control and uses all of that money at their own discretion (with some accountability for the results per their contract), while RMEF only receives Conservation Permits to auction off and gets to keep only 10% of that money to use at their own discretion, with no accountability, if they choose to keep it at all (which they claim not to keep). The third program available to conservation groups is the Convention Permit program which neither BGF nor RMEF participate in."

You are hoping if you throw out a bunch of numbers tangent to the argument that people will forget what the argument is.

"I haven't seen BGF's contract with the state and don't have any idea what's expected of them, but apparently they didn't meet the state's/legislator's expectations at this point, thus the concern. Even the most prominent proponant of the grant, Senate Majority Leader, Ralph Okerlund expects more details when they meet later this month. BGF needs to step up to get the second yearly grant of $300,000."

You did just admit to that in the first sentence! SO what the heck are you even questioning????

"On the other hand, RMEF is in a program the forces accountability as it proceeds. Thirty percent of the funds from the auction sales of Conservation Permits are returned directly to the DWR, so if the use of those funds needs accounting, it's the DWR's job to give it. Then, 60% is retained by RMEF to use only for DWR pre-approved or DWR initiated conservation projects with an accounting by RMEF of each seperate project as it's finished. The timeline and details of the accounting may be off per the length and type of project, but ALL projects are accounted for seperately including costs, materials, man hours, equipment used and results."

Still arguing irrelevant tangents hoping no one notices that your argument here drown a long time ago.

"It may be that BGF has that type of information and will present it later on, but we haven't seen it so far and that's a concern."

You already admitted you haven't even seen or know what the states expectations were. Why do you care so much now????

"As far as spending more money than was given to investigate the accounting, I don't see that happening unless criminal actions were involved, which isn't likely. The only thing the legislators want to know is, Did we spend the money wisely? And is it prudent to do it again with this group? Only BGF can answer those questions. We'll see how they do!"

Do you have any clue at all of how governments work. If a legislator farts it will cost you money. Do you really think an audit is free????? Who do you think actually does the audit? Do you actually think the figure head sitting at the desk does it? Are you really that naive?
 
I have to ask yall something. I know none of yall will answer because yall don't actually answer questions but I have to ask anyway.

What would be "bad" to find in this audit?

What would be "satisfactory"?

Do yall even know?
 
>It looks like the legislature is
>going to audit the payments
>made to Big Game Forever.
>
>
>http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/56567083-219/audit-forever-game-group.html.csp
>
>Hawkeye
>
>Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
>Bowtech Destroyer
>Winchester Apex .50 Cal


This will be interesting. Since the word "vague" is being thrown around. I had requested information from RMEF in the past concerning the 2010 and 2011 tax numbers. I also asked if I needed to file a GRAMA to see specifically where the money on a particular project was spent. Although I was told it would take some doing, there was no reason to file a GRAMA request, that they'd be happy to just provide it. At that point, there was no need to waste anyone's time so I withdrew my request. When I asked the same of SFW, I was told it was posted on their website and hung up on. Hmmmmmmm.......who's 100% accountable to not only their contractual obligations but also to their membership and the public trust? Accountability apparently isn't in the business model envisioned by either DP or RB. Also, the state auditor's office isn't stupid and auditing is what they do. If the cost of an audit is going to save that $300,000.00 or even better, require it all be paid back, then nobody should have a problem with the audit. There's nothing in any of the articles, sorry, I meant ACCOUNTING showing a "success" for BGF except they wrote a couple of short briefs and submitted them AFTER those actions were all but guaranteed to move forward. Then, while they griped about how the government was to blame they use government numbers to try and paint a picture? I'm with EFA, if I'm audited, I can provide receipts to the dime. Looking forward to seeing the results of the audit, which will be public record (FINALLY). By the way, Don's assertion about the Mexican Grey being "reintroduced" into Southern Utah is even more absurd as all his other claims and promises have turned out. SFW needs new leadership and should disassociate with those who continue to widen the disparity gap between sportsmen in the west. I personally have nothing more on this topic until the audit is complete and published.



"There is no reason why I have to tolerate your stupidity if you are unwilling to tolerate mine." ME
 
Catching up on MM after a week or two off I find this gem.

My three takeaways:

1. This surprises nobody.
2. Tristate is a troll. If you feed the troll, he will keep coming back for more. Don't feed the trolls.
3. Those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it. Give DP a $100 bill, tell him to spend it wisely, and he'll bring back a $20 trinket and tell you it's worth $500. And don't you dare ask where the other $80 went, you wildlife hater.

Vi Et Armis Invictus Maneo
 
"This will be interesting. Since the word "vague" is being thrown around. I had requested information from RMEF in the past concerning the 2010 and 2011 tax numbers. I also asked if I needed to file a GRAMA to see specifically where the money on a particular project was spent. Although I was told it would take some doing, there was no reason to file a GRAMA request, that they'd be happy to just provide it. At that point, there was no need to waste anyone's time so I withdrew my request."

So you still don't know what their books look like but because they said they would give it to you, you decided there was no need to look anymore??????? Your kidding right? What if the legislature decided that was how they were going to handle this audit of BGF now. Would you be satisfied? Did you draw a unicorn tag this year also?

"When I asked the same of SFW, I was told it was posted on their website and hung up on. Hmmmmmmm.......who's 100% accountable to not only their contractual obligations but also to their membership and the public trust?"

Was it posted on their website? Did you go look?

" Accountability apparently isn't in the business model envisioned by either DP or RB. Also, the state auditor's office isn't stupid and auditing is what they do."

I don't think anyone argued that. The only argument is whether its free and doesn't cost money.

"If the cost of an audit is going to save that $300,000.00 or even better, require it all be paid back, then nobody should have a problem with the audit."

Why don't you demand the cost of the audit????? Isn't that money important? Aren't the auditors beholden to "the public trust". Why don't you find out how much money it takes to look at BGF? What is the annual budget of the auditors?

" There's nothing in any of the articles, sorry, I meant ACCOUNTING showing a "success" for BGF except they wrote a couple of short briefs and submitted them AFTER those actions were all but guaranteed to move forward. Then, while they griped about how the government was to blame they use government numbers to try and paint a picture? I'm with EFA, if I'm audited, I can provide receipts to the dime."

An audit isn't about showing dimes. What if BGF shows every single receipt to a dime? That will prove nothing. AN audit is to prove legality. Nobody gives a flip about the number on a receipt. They care about who's name was on it.

" Looking forward to seeing the results of the audit, which will be public record (FINALLY). By the way, Don's assertion about the Mexican Grey being "reintroduced" into Southern Utah is even more absurd as all his other claims and promises have turned out. SFW needs new leadership and should disassociate with those who continue to widen the disparity gap between sportsmen in the west. I personally have nothing more on this topic until the audit is complete and published."

You still haven't answered one single question I have asked you. I guess accountability is only good when its you asking for it.
 
"Catching up on MM after a week or two off I find this gem.

My three takeaways:

1. This surprises nobody.
2. Tristate is a troll. If you feed the troll, he will keep coming back for more. Don't feed the trolls.
3. Those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it. Give DP a $100 bill, tell him to spend it wisely, and he'll bring back a $20 trinket and tell you it's worth $500. And don't you dare ask where the other $80 went, you wildlife hater."


This is by far the best explanation of DP's business model ever!!! Outstanding, dryflyelk!!! But hey, $20.00 out of $100.00 is a great "success" isn't it? Especially if DP tells you its worth $500.00! At least that is some kind of accounting. Who said it had to be accurate? ***eye roll***


"There is no reason why I have to tolerate your stupidity if you are unwilling to tolerate mine." ME
 
"This is by far the best explanation of DP's business model ever!!! Outstanding, dryflyelk!!! But hey, $20.00 out of $100.00 is a great "success" isn't it? Especially if DP tells you its worth $500.00! At least that is some kind of accounting. Who said it had to be accurate? ***eye roll***"


This is obviously your best quote for showing you really have no idea whatsoever of what accounting is.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-09-13 AT 10:38AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jul-09-13 AT 10:36?AM (MST)

For the purposely retarded troll:


ac?count?ing [uh-koun-ting]

noun

1.
the theory and system of setting up, maintaining, and auditing the books of a firm; art of analyzing the financial position and operating results of a business house from a study of its sales, purchases, overhead, etc. (distinguished from bookkeeping ).

2.
a detailed report of the financial state or transactions of a person or entity: an accounting of the estate.

3.
the rendering or submission of such a report.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/accounting




au?dit

noun
1.
an official examination and verification of accounts and records, especially of financial accounts.

2.
a report or statement reflecting an audit; a final statement of account.

3.
the inspection or examination of a building or other facility to evaluate or improve its appropriateness, safety, efficiency, or the like: An energy audit can suggest ways to reduce home fuel bills.

4.
Archaic. a judicial hearing.

5.
Obsolete . an audience.

verb (used with object)
6.
to make an audit of; examine (accounts, records, etc.) for purposes of verification: The accountants audited the company's books at the end of the fiscal year.

7.
to attend (classes, lectures, etc.) as an auditor.

8.
to make an audit of (a building or other facility) to evaluate or improve its safety, efficiency, or the like.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/audit's=t


"There is no reason why I have to tolerate your stupidity if you are unwilling to tolerate mine." ME
 
Klbzdad,

I never accused you of not knowing how to cut and paste. I accused you of not knowing what accounting really is. That's why I cut and pasted your quote. When you tried to put something into your words you failed. You also don't know how to answer a question.
 
Damn, here I have been running a business for over 15 years and wish the hell I would have done that.
Feed the troll a definition and watch it eat crow! HAHAHAA
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-09-13 AT 11:25PM (MST)[p]buttshot,

Thought maybe some enlightenment was required. And to feed the troll some more valuable information, remember when this happened at the Utah WWG when a certain someone didn't get their way? Here's the summary.....I particularly like the third paragraph. Its precious.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/wolf/meeting_reports/apr_12_05.pdf



"There is no reason why I have to tolerate your stupidity if you are unwilling to tolerate mine." ME
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-10-13 AT 05:56AM (MST)[p]What is my standard and why do I use RMEF as my standard? Because independent watchdog organizations rate them well and say that they return 89-90 cents out of every dollar to "on the ground" projects. That means that only 11 cents out of every dollar goes the "administrative costs" like salaries, etc. It would be a good start to find out that info on an organization like BGF. I want to know that my money is going to fund the issues I am passionate about, not line someone's pocket.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4406

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
"I want to know that my money is going to fund the issues I am passionate about, not line someone's pocket."


You have a problem with paying for services????? What if people decided that they want to make sure you just fix what they need done but you don't get to enrich yourself or your family with the labor you do? What if people didn't think your time should be paid for. Are you a communist txhunter58?

Maybe government employees shouldn't be paid. After all they have been screwing up wildlife for decades and still "lining their pockets". That was your money you kept on paying them, and it was a lot more than $300k. You haven't seemed to care until BGF got funded.

By the way I am glad you support RMEF.
 
Yes, I am a communist, I learned those values at TAMU. Course what do I know, I only made a 3.9 GPA for the 5 years I was there.

Again you go to name calling when someone arguably makes a valid point. Get your kicks somewhere else because I am through with you.

BTW, I am glad you support RMEF

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
What if, what if, what if............

Douchstate, my 4 year old ask "what if" all the time, you sound like her. Why don't you stop posting on things you have no clue about and is none of your business and post up some pics of some of your high fence Texas shoots.
 
"What if, what if, what if............

Douchstate, my 4 year old ask "what if""

Where did I ask "What if"?

" all the time, you sound like her. Why don't you stop posting on things you have no clue about and is none of your business and post up some pics of some of your high fence Texas shoots."


I mounted two animals that came from Utah last week. I mount many animals every year that come from Utah. IT IS EXACTLY MY BUSINESS! When you bunch of fools screw this into the ground for everyone you are just out of a hobby. I will be out of business. Trust me the guys that you can count on to have a "clue" in this business are the professionals.
 
"Yes, I am a communist,"

Thank you. You are the first person on this thread to actually answer a question.

" I learned those values at TAMU. Course what do I know, I only made a 3.9 GPA for the 5 years I was there."

That is irrelevant.

"Again you go to name calling when someone arguably makes a valid point."

I didn't call you a name so get your panties out of a twist. I asked you a question. If you want to call a communist agenda a "valid point" then that's just a matter of opinion.

"Get your kicks somewhere else because I am through with you."

By the way this isn't about "kicks". This is about the future of my industry. That's one of my points here. Yall like fighting amongst each other and bickering and if yall screw up wildlife here in North America its just a bummer for your hobby. For some people its livelihood. Don't be upset that those people take this a little more seriously than you do.

BTW, I am glad you support RMEF
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-11-13 AT 12:03PM (MST)[p]Tristate,

What if your business and your business future are bad for more hunters and their chance to hunt? The people of Utah shouldn't consider for a single second whether your business prospers or doesn't when it comes to managing their wildlife. Whether you flourish and grow in any business endeavor or go bankrupt should not figure into a single wildlife management decision.

No hunter should lose an opportunity for a chance at a tag based on whether or not an out of state Taxidermist gets a chance to mount animals.

I get what you are saying but the resource should never be held hostage based on business models people have developed and risked capital on. Otherwise we will be hostage only to those who want only to monetize wildlife without regard to what is best for the wildlife.

Your business decisions and the decisions of the people of Utah on how they manage their wildlife should never intersect.

Nemont
 
Well said.


http://unitedwildlifecooperative.org

"We do not intend that our natural resources shall be
exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural resources
for the public as a whole, for the average man and the
average woman who make up the body of the
American people."
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-11-13 AT 03:29PM (MST)[p]"Your business decisions and the decisions of the people of Utah on how they manage their wildlife should never intersect."


One of the cornerstones of my business model is a sustainable harvest plan. If that does not "intersect" with the management of Utah's wildlife then then all of us are screwed.

What do you think you are typing on Nemont???? A website that magically appears on your screen and takes no money to run????? You aren't that na?ve are you? There are hunting companies, and camo companies, gun companies, and yes TAXIDERMISTS advertising on here. AND YES they are all praying and hoping that people will make the right decisions that will benefit wildlife because that will benefit THEIR BUSINESS. None of them want their best year of business to be their first year and each consecutive year to be a little worse than that. So you think about that Nemont. Think about how those people should just think about themselves and never care about business while you preach on a website paid for by business. Like I stated before. When yall screw up this whole thing you will only have to find a new hobby. Maybe you will take up golf. There are people who will have to try and find a new way to feed kids. Its good that the state of Utah and you feel yall shouldn't care about families.

Ignoring the business side of wildlife is exactly why many western states have a very bleak future for their wildlife. Your proclamation is like stating Alcohol and bars should never intersect.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-11-13 AT 03:58PM (MST)[p]It isn't even close to alcohol and bars. They can always make more alcohol to meet the demand, tough to produce more animals to meet the demand from taxidermist. I am not preaching to anybody. The people of the State of Utah should NEVER make a decision on how to manage their wildlife based upon your business model. It is cut and dried.

Your business model is based people wanting to preserve the memories of their hunts, especially if they took what amounts to a trophy in their eyes. That has nothing to do with what is best for any big game herd or for that matter what is best for hunters as a whole.

I am not against people making money on wildlife. What I stated is that the people of Utah don't owe you a single opportunity to mount an animal from their state. What is best for your business should not even enter into the conversation in regards to what is best for the big game herds in any state.

If the managers do it right and trophy quality animals are a result then good for you and guys in your line of work, but if the people demand more tags and less quality in order to have more hunting opportunities then the people of those states decided what they value. The ability of you and your business to thrive or go bust shouldn't enter into the equation ever.

Explain why the citizens of State of Utah owe you a chance to make a living mounting animals, why should they care about your business success when they are deciding how they want to manage their game animals.

I have nothing against families or kids or business but your idea that people should care that you stay in business sounds like you think you are owed something.

Nemont
 
>LAST EDITED ON Jul-11-13
>AT 03:58?PM (MST)
>
>It isn't even close to alcohol
>and bars.

Your foolishness here is exactly like that.

They can
>always make more alcohol to
>meet the demand, tough to
>produce more animals to meet
>the demand from taxidermist.
>I am not preaching to
>anybody.

You are preaching your butt off.

The people of
>the State of Utah should
>NEVER make a decision on
>how to manage their wildlife
>based upon your business model.
> It is cut and
>dried.

So the people of Utah should never make a wildlife decision based on sustainable harvest????? That's what you are saying.

>
>Your business model is based people
>wanting to preserve the memories
>of their hunts, especially if
>they took what amounts to
>a trophy in their eyes.


Actually that isn't my business model at all. Quit making assumptions for something you know absolutely nothing about.


> That has nothing to
>do with what is best
>for any big game herd
>or for that matter what
>is best for hunters as
>a whole.

What are you smoking boy?
>
>I am not against people making
>money on wildlife. What
>I stated is that the
>people of Utah don't owe
>you a single opportunity to
>mount an animal from their
>state.

You didn't state that. And know one here has said anything whatsoever about anyone owing anybody else anything. Quit craw fishing.


What is
>best for your business should
>not even enter into the
>conversation in regards to what
>is best for the big
>game herds in any state.

What is best for all business better be in the forefront of those citizens minds or the wildlife will suffer. Guaranteed. Get off your butt and go see what wildlife is like In the rest of the world where business has been removed from wildlife. It most places it doesn't exist anymore or it is hanging by a thread.
>
>
>If the managers do it right
>and trophy quality animals are
>a result then good for
>you and guys in your
>line of work, but
>if the people demand more
>tags and less quality in
>order to have more hunting
>opportunities then the people of
>those states decided what they
>value. The ability
>of you and your business
>to thrive or go bust
>shouldn't enter into the equation
>ever.

Like a said some people like you think an awful lot about how no one else should enter into their equations. Personally I'm just not that self centered.

>
>Explain why the citizens of State
>of Utah owe you a
>chance to make a living
>mounting animals, why should they
>care about your business success
>when they are deciding how
>they want to manage their
>game animals.

They don't and I never said they did. Care to quote me where I said that. Quit making up garbage to keep people from noticing your issues

>
>I have nothing against families or
>kids or business but your
>idea that people should care
>that you stay in business
>sounds like you think you
>are owed something.
>
>Nemont

My business and the other businesses on these forums hold a symbiotic relationship with wildlife. I understand you can't comprehend that. The animals bring demand for our products and we in turn promote value within the wildlife. Without value, worthless wildlife loses. As you stated, THAT IS CUT AND DRIED! I never claimed to be owed anything, those are your words not mine. BUT ALL OF US OWE WILDLIFE TO HAVE VALUE. You do that and I will take care of my business just fine.
 
I care about wildlife every day, I could care less if you are a millionaire taxidermist or if you are starving to death in a back ally of San Antonio. Your well being doesn't enter into any equations when it comes to wild life.

You are the biggest self centered prick on this board when your only concern is whether or not you can cash checks from hunters. These posts just prove my point.

You have zero interest in the kid that just wants to kill his first two point buck and get hook on hunting all you care about is your bottom line and how much money you can make off of wild life, that is all.

Wild life has no value to you except what you can mount on the wall. That is why you fight so hard and argue idiotic ideas, it isn't because you really care about wildlife it is because you only care about your wallet.

I have asked you on other threads to outline you ideas and you have never came up with a single workable idea in regards to wildlife management that leads to sustainable harvest and increased opportunity to recruit more hunters into our "hobby" as you call it.

I am done here, but it is nice to know that your ideas will never fly in most western states because the vast majority of people who value wildlife work on the issue for the love of hunting and wanting to pass it on to the next generation and out of wanting to line their wallets. You made clear exactly what your values are.

Post away because you cannot ever leave without having the last word but you are claiming you are owed a living by big game managers and other government employees. We have name for that here: Welfare Queen.


Nemont
 
I see tri is making more friends. The whole concept of the North American Model of Wildlife management, and the Public trust have sailed right over his head.

Although a value is certain, wildlife should never be managed for their commercial values.




I wanted to take a scalp,but the kill was not mine.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-11-13 AT 07:02PM (MST)[p]There is absolutely nothing at all in the NACM that says wildlife must be valueless and value is NEVER certain.
 
Absolutely nothing in that post pansy post had anything to do with anything I have ever said. You are living in a fairy land Nemont. Your argument held no water and your last tantrum post was like listening to a psychotic ex girlfriend.
 
This quote came to mind while reading this entire thread.

"If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet." Proverbs 29:9
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-11-13 AT 09:15PM (MST)[p]^heh, exactly...the only thing more foolish than than the frikken Tardstate is responding to his nonsense

"Don't talk to it, Merry! Don't encourage it!" :)

His other endearing attributes notwithstanding, the poor dude is plainly much too stupid to recognize when its time to shut his flapping idiot yapper

**edit---Doh! my fat little fingers made a typo...which I'm sure would have been used against me ;)
 
Well I guess you guys ran out of arguments. Buttshot, please keep us informed on how much money the audit costs, how much money the state of Utah gets back from BGF, and how many BGF members go to jail. I know you can't answer questions but at least do that to give this thread some value.
 
Nemont: "You are the biggest self centered prick on this board when your only concern is whether or not you can cash checks from hunters. These posts just prove my point."


***At last someone has called Trollstate out for what he really is on this website!!! If nobody responds to his BS he'll come back on and post to himself, LOL!
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-12-13 AT 08:42AM (MST)[p]These posts absolutley crack me up.

"We are right because we say so. A small handful of internet posters agree with me. We must all be right. Lets all pat each other on the back for making a difference."

Good good stuff. LMAO.

Remember guys sometimes reality is not what we would like it to be. Troll or no troll, sometimes things just are not what would like to believe they are. Many of Tristates points are valid whether you like them or not. You may hate them and comepletly disagee, but that alone doesn't change the facts, that's how reality works sometimes.
 
I do not fight these fights because they are easy I do them because they are hard. If the battles you choose are easy and your comrades that fight with you do so because they believe affirmation is provided through numbers then you will be lemmings and your greatest victory will be the first one to plunge into the sea.

Children and politicians worry most about how many people are on their side. I make it a point not to expect extraordinary behavior out of either.
 
>I do not fight these fights
>because they are easy I
>do them because they are
>hard. If the battles
>you choose are easy and
>your comrades that fight with
>you do so because they
>believe affirmation is provided through
>numbers then you will be
>lemmings and your greatest victory
>will be the first one
>to plunge into the sea.
>
>
>Children and politicians worry most about
>how many people are on
>their side. I make
>it a point not to
>expect extraordinary behavior out of
>either.

***You sure need not worry about how many are on your side because I only see one, LOL!!!
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-12-13 AT 06:45PM (MST)[p]Hey tristate,

How are you "fighting the fight"???

You're a Texan with NO flesh in the game rambling on about issues that you have nothing to do with.

If the citizens and State Legislature want to run an audit on the $300K they spent...its their business, not yours. What gives you even a remote hint that you have to right to question how Utah chooses to conduct their State business?

Why are you so worried about the money involved when not one cent of it is yours?

I dont think you could fight your way out of a wet paper sack...all talk.
 
Dang Buzz Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel. LMAO

"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/]
 

Similar threads

money
26 year dream comes to a close!
Replies
42
Views
3k
joesikora
joesikora
Tristate
A great hunting tale
Replies
17
Views
1k
4Weight
4Weight
gr8fuldoug
For Sale Heads Up On Some Great Optics
Replies
0
Views
132
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

img-5756.jpeg
2.jpg
Screenshot_20221106_084752.jpg
Mega Bull
7.jpg
98760681-F676-412B-B45A-9F6AB7C86B94.png
7.jpg
3FD8D7A2-5D76-408B-ADBA-DF8925173BF4.png
IMG_3710 (1)J.jpg
Big Wyoming Buck 4.JPG
91526134-F909-4C14-804D-5DFCD7C1C18F.png
IMG_0517.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom