LAST EDITED ON Apr-02-12 AT 07:01AM (MST)[p]>Glen I dont know who you
>have talked to or have
>gotten your facts from but
>apparently you have been given
>some miss information. Susan &
>Pete have never been paid
>by SFW Utah nor have
>they ever been hired by
>SFW Utah!
>
>You are welcome to come and
>check the books to see
>for yourself. SFW Utah also
>had no part in what
>Susan and others tried to
>get passed in AZ! Plain
>& simple.
>
>It is pretty clear if one
>examines the facts you can
>see some major differences.
>
>Utah Conservation Permit Program
>
>1- The program was ran through
>the RAC process to gather
>Public Opinion
>
>2- All Conservation Groups were able
>to participate
>
>3- 90% of the funds were
>returned to the DWR for
>Projects
>
>The list goes on. As it
>was written SFW Utah would
>not have supported AZ's bill
>either.
>If states want to model a
>program simular to Utah's Conservation
>Permit Program and go through
>the proper channels to get
>it passed more power to
>them.
>
>SFW Utah does not dictate to
>those states what they need
>to do. It is up
>to them and they can
>decide for themselves!
>
>I will try and clear up
>a few other inaccurate and
>false statements
>
>1- Conservation Permits
>90% of moneys raised through this
>program go on the ground.
>Each group is audited on
>a regular basis and 100%
>of the money can be
>accounted for.
>This program just went through a
>legislative Audit as well.
>
>The way the splits work is
>a 60%-30%-10%.
>
>1- (60%) Each group is allowed
>to keep 60% of the
>money and spend it on
>approved projects provided by the
>DWR. If the group does
>not spend all of the
>money in a given time
>frame the money has to
>be returned to the DWR.
>Remember the group has to
>spend the money on approved
>projects from the DWR. They
>cannot go spend it on
>anything they want and they
>have to account to the
>DWR for all of the
>proceeds.
>
>2- (30%) This portion is returned
>to the DWR to fund
>projects from the same list
>other than the DWR picks
>the projects
>
>3- (10%) The groups are allowed
>to keep this money as
>a form of marketing fee.
>It can be spent for
>anything the group chooses.
>
>To date 800,000 acres have been
>treated in Utah. This is
>more than all of the
>other states combined! Has it
>brought our deer back? No!
>Is it an important step
>in getting our deer back?
>Yes
>
>The problem with habitat is it
>takes along time. In some
>cases 10 to 15 years.
>
>
>At our local banquets the program
>usually contains a list of
>projects funded by SFW through
>the conservation permit program. To
>my knowledge no one has
>ever requested a spread sheet
>showing which projects SFW has
>funded.
>
>If asked I would be surprised
>if most groups involved could
>not provide a list of
>projects showing where the money
>was spent.
>
>Convention Tags
>
>Unlike the Conservation Permits the permits
>are given away through a
>drawing. The $5 dollar application
>fee is kept by the
>groups that participate in the
>Expo.
>
>License fee's are keep by the
>DWR. This is no different
>than the application fee that
>is charged by Fallon Nevada.
>Once again this was ran
>through the public rac process
>and it has passed twice.
>
>
>The application fee's can be spent
>at the discretion of the
>group that recieves them. No
>different than Fallon Nevada!
>Hawkeye is incorrect in his statement
>that this provides SFW with
>a Multi Million Dollar Slush
>Fund Yearly!
>
>The fact of the matter is
>it generates under $500,000 (each)
>a year for both groups
>still involved!
>
>Even though it is not mandated
>by rule tens of thousands
>of these dollars are spent
>on improving Utah's wildlife ie
>Coyote Bounty, Winter Feed, Water
>Projects, Fencing etc.
>
>Some things that are in the
>works as we speak is
>Signage to help the deer
>slaughter between Monticello and Blanding.
>Over 1150 documented kills in
>two years on a 20
>mile stretch, SFW is working
>on a long term solution
>but until then several signs
>are being erected in an
>effort to get motorist to
>slow down.
>
>Also a proposed Mule deer translocation
>in Southern Utah versus just
>shooting them. SFW has offered
>to foot the bill to
>move them.
>An Upland Game project that hopefully
>will be announced soon.
>
>I can safely say that more
>of the application fee's charged
>at the expo are going
>on the ground in Utah
>than the ones collected in
>Fallon Nevada!!!!
>
>It does not bother me when
>people post question and even
>disagree on issue's. We are
>all pasionate about what we
>do its a freedom we
>enjoy because of where we
>live America!
> What does bother me is
>when personal shots are taken
>based on hearsy and false
>truth's.
>You will not find 3 more
>stand up guys who run
>SFW than Byron Bateman, Ryan
>Foutz and Bryce Pilling. To
>imply,accuse or insinuate that these
>guys are dishonest or cheats
>does not sit well with
>me!
>
>All of these guys are well
>respected through out the state
>from Government officails, Business Owners
>and Avergage Joe's
>
>These guys are the ones that
>run SFW. Don Peay is
>a Consultant, He cannot sign
>a check and does not
>have the authority to make
> any decisions without the
>permission of the board.
>He is good at what he
>does and we appreciate what
>he has helped us accomplish!
>
>
>SFW really has no staff to
>speak of compared to other
>non-profits. The only time really
>any of us get on
>here is when it is
>brought to our attention by
>our members. We are imperfect
>and make mistakes and durring
>banquet season time is short.
>So dont expect a daily
>presence.
>
>The conception that SFW is for
>the rich could not be
>any further from the truth.
>One only needs to attend
>one of our banquets to
>see the type of people
>that make up SFW!
>It's average guys that are committed
>to making a difference. Not
>only in Utah's Wildlife but
>in peoples lives as well!
>
>
>X-treme
>Troy Justensen
>"The first doe to be impregnated
>with out the aid of
>a Buck will be the
>First"
For clarity, The UDWR retains the majority of the application money that's paid to Fallon, Nevada.
Question; Why are you guys funding the deer translocation on the Parawan front? Aren't the survivability rates on the back end around 5%? So, if you translocated 100 deer at roughly $1000 each and one extrapolated the per deer cost, it'd be $20,000 per deer. Isn't that a little outrageous? Just trying to make sense of $100,000.00 being spent on, ultimately, 5 deer and why SFW would push so hard to do this. It seems to me if it was in any way a viable solution the division would have no problem letting it be funded with habitat money. In this case they have expressed that they are adamantly against it.
Just trying to make sense of the motivation behind it and I'm open to the possibility that I may not be seeing the big picture concerning translocating them.
http://unitedwildlifecooperative.org