Please educate me on SFW

B

BigPig

Very Active Member
Messages
2,768
I may regret asking this, but... I've tried to read though most of the threads on the subject, but with so much he said she said and back and forth banter, I have since given up on trying to make sense of it. Can someone give me an unemotional "Readers Digest Version" summary of the debate?

What I have been able to reason is that people are against SFW because they "grab" tags that would otherwise go into the public draw and then they auction them off to the highest bidder. Right? OK, then that money raised at auction is supposed to go to conservation, right? And some argue that it is not. OK, so where is that money going? It seems to me it would be awful tough for those involved to fraudulently pocket that money. It seems that would be impossible to hide. And lastly, if all this is going down, why isn't there also outrage at state game and fish agencies? Don't the GFD allocate the tags to SFW to auction off in the first place? Dont they share some blame? Are there no checks and balances? If SFW is that shady, why does the state give them the tags? I'd like to think the state would do a little homework to make sure the money was spent properly.

Please don't flame me here. I'm just trying to get a better grasp on the situation. If you cannot post without getting emotionally wrapped up in your comments and posting without facts, please refrain from doing so. Please just answer my questions. I'd like this to be kept on a civil and informational level. Thanks.
 
FWIW... I hope you don't get flamed, but things probably won't be much clearer for you when this thread is finished. Highly emotional subject, highly speculative in it's nature, with most on both sides not knowing the 'full truth' of things. Lot's of side stepping, mis-direction, stratic manuvering, false information, half-truths, and many good intentions based out of pure propaganda. Haha, that could be true for both pro and con sides! Good luck!
 
>Ok I grabbed a six pack
>of KoolAide to hand out!
>any takers?


haha, I'll stick with my fav boys Jack and Daniel!
 
The state gives the tags to SFW to auction off, I believe 90% of that money goes back to the state to do as they "need".
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-31-12 AT 07:25PM (MST)[p]I have heard from several places that the tags that SFW auctions or sells tickets for, came from the non-resident tag pool. Is this a Fact?

If so, seems to me that SFW would be the evil adversary of every regular Joe Non-resi guy out there as we are all nonresidents of several states that SFW is trying to gain a stronger foothold and no doubt, gobble up tags, more non-resident tags, to feed the aristocracy!

Joey


"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"
 
I've been talking to a few guys in SFW, I'm actually a committee member and help out with the local banquet and feeding elk and whatnot, but I've seen all the posts and told some of the higher ups that they needed to get on here and state their position on things, clear up the water. It does absolutely no good for me or any other joe blow to report on what the SFW has done, is doing, or whatever. And to tell the truth, it's discouraging that I haven't seen any rebuttals, other than what Don posted i the other thread.

Until enough of the guys in charge get on here and prove/disprove all the stories/facts/lies/whatever, it's going to be a huge clusterphuck. And it's ultimately going to hurt both sides, whether or not all the bullsh!t is true or not, SFW has done alot of good......it's just too bad nobody will get on here and back it up.
 
Here is the law that gives 200 CONVENTION PERMITS. These are the $5 raffle permits. If someone can find where ONE CENT is required to go back to the agency, UT DWR, please let folks know. So far, no one can find that requirement in this bill. Thus the continuing demand for an accounting of the use of funds from this Expo program.

http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm



Paragraph (5) below will tell you where the tags come from.


R657-55-3. Wildlife Convention Permit Allocation.
(1) The Wildlife Board may allocate wildlife convention permits by May 1 of the year preceding the wildlife convention.

(2) Wildlife convention permits shall be issued as a single series to one conservation organization.

(3) The number of wildlife convention permits authorized by the Wildlife Board shall be based on:

(a) the species population trend, size, and distribution to protect the long-term health of the population;

(b) the hunting and viewing opportunity for the general public, both short and long term; and

(c) a percentage of the permits available to nonresidents in the annual big game drawings matched by a proportionate number of resident permits.

(4) Wildlife convention permits, including special nonresident convention permits, shall not exceed 200 total permits.

(5) Wildlife convention permits designated for the convention each year shall be deducted from the number of public drawing permits.
 
Here is the law authorizing CONSERVATION PERMITS - the auction tags.

http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-041.htm


Below is a copy and past of the section identifying how the money is split.


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

(4)(a) Conservation organizations shall remit to the division by September 1 of each year 30% of the total revenue generated by conservation permit sales in that year.

(b) The permit revenue payable to the division under Subsection (4)(a), excluding accrued interest, is the property of the division and may not be used by conservation organizations for projects or any other purpose.

(c) The permit revenue must be placed in a federally insured account promptly upon receipt and remain in the account until remitted to the division on or before September 1 of each year.

(d) The permit revenue payable to the division under this subsection shall not be used by the conservation organization as collateral or commingled in the same account with the organization's operation and administration funds, so that the separate identity of the permit revenue is not lost.

(e) Failure to remit 30% of the total permit revenue to the Division by the September 1 deadline may result in criminal prosecution under Title 76, Chapter 6, Part 4 of the Utah Code, and may further disqualify the conservation organization from obtaining any future conservation permits.


(5) A conservation organization may retain 70% of the revenue generated from the sale of conservation permits as follows:

(a) 10% of the revenue may be withheld and used by the conservation organization for administrative expenses.

(b) 60% of the revenue may be retained and used by the conservation organization only for eligible projects as provided in subsections (i) through (ix).
 
Ok so a few of the public tags get yanked. That sucks, but if its in the name of conservation then isn't it for the greater good? So 30% back to the state, 10% in admin, and 60% for conservation projects. That seems reasonable. What am I missing? Is the money not being applied in that manner? Fraud?

Again, don't flame me. Im just trying to understand it all.
 
SFW is a fantastic conservation organization that can sway politicians and position themselves to better manage deer herds by raising the value on a portion of tags. In general, to be successful it needs to operate like a business and find that point of supply & demand on tags to auction. Under ideal conditions to better manage herds, the organization would need to control access to a public resource (deer) and generate income from trespass fees to spud water wells, crop fields, etc to add supplemental nutrition and water to herds to carry them through the tough times and ensure adequate fawn recruitment. This, of course, is just what I've heard.
 
>I have heard from several places
>that the tags that SFW
>auctions or sells tickets for,
>came from the non-resident tag
>pool. Is this a Fact?"

Yes sageadvice. Peay stole all 200 from the nonresident pool, and since then you'll often hear Don praised "Yes, the raffle odds suck but Don provided us opportunity at tags we wouldn't have otherwise had".

One word you will hear a lot from SFW supporters is "but".

***********************************
Member RMEF, UBNM, UWC & the SFW Hate Club
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-31-12 AT 09:43PM (MST)[p]BigPig,

I can't give an unemotional reader's digest summation of the debate, but your comments leave me to believe you aren't remotely getting the "against SFW" sentiments.

The animosity is far deeper than where and how they spend the proceeds. I speak for myself alone. SFW is a special interest group. They are largely funded by a public resource (le tags.) They then use their publicly funded resources on limiting general hunts.

Its the kind of politics Americans hate to see. Like if someone sold their food stamps and then used that money to lobby for larger food stamp entitlements.

SFW has largely been at the helm since the early 90's. They said cutting tags and dates and more regions would recover the herd. They got everything they asked for. The general rifle hunt had around 250,000 hunters when SFW started. It will be around 50,000 this year. Their ideas have not worked yet they still steer the ship. They have advocated for more limited entry hunts and against the general hunts. As the le tags increase, SFW gets more tags to auction. It is in SFW's financial interests for the state to turn into a limited entry hunting state.

You don't really need to understand % expenditures, biology, and all the arguments to determine if you want to join SFW. It is a preference issue and basically this: if you are a trophy hunter, hate the general hunt, and would like to see more le opportunities; sfw is for you!!! If you are primarily a general hunter, then you should spend your conservation efforts somewhere else as SFW fights against your type of hunting.
 
Let me make this clear. SFW gets two sets of tags at no cost from the state.CONSERVATION and CONVENTION . each one has it's own entirely different set of rules regarding how the revenue generated from these tags can be allocated. The first set has 10% going to the org that assisted in the sale of theses tags.The second set convention(expo)tags have 100% going to the org and 0% to the state.the convention tags are the ones that causes all the questions.

This is the second thread I've seen someone claiming to have SFW ties state that they only receive 10% of revenue generated from these tags.What about the other tags that you guys receive 100% of all revenue generated.Are you guys trained to bring up the conservation tags rules every time someones bitching about the tags you receive or are you yourselves clueless that there are two separate sets of tags and rules that go with each.You guys have got to know by now what everyones upset about and it surly is not the conservation permits

To the original poster. By the way I'm sure your not as naive as you are trying to sound on this issue but that's ok I'll play along
 
>LAST EDITED ON Mar-31-12
>AT 07:25?PM (MST)
>
>I have heard from several places
>that the tags that SFW
>auctions or sells tickets for,
>came from the non-resident tag
>pool. Is this a Fact?
>
>
>If so, seems to me that
>SFW would be the evil
>adversary of every regular Joe
>Non-resi guy out there as
>we are all nonresidents of
>several states that SFW is
>trying to gain a stronger
>foothold and no doubt, gobble
>up tags, more non-resident tags,
>to feed the aristocracy!
>
>Joey
>
>
>"It's all about knowing what your
>firearms practical limitations are and
>combining that with your own
>personal limitations!"

sage

i have also heard this from several sources but there are still about 10% of the tags going to non-res .maybe the dwr was gonna give non-res 20% but don stepped in and shut that down !then sold those tags to rich non-res and put all that money in his pocket and nobody but zim could figure it out. that makes way more sense than looking at the tag numbers for the last 20 years!
 
>Let me make this clear. SFW
>gets two sets of tags
>at no cost from the
>state.CONSERVATION and CONVENTION . each
>one has it's own entirely
>different set of rules regarding
>how the revenue generated from
>these tags can be allocated.
>The first set has 10%
>going to the org that
>assisted in the sale of
>theses tags.The second set convention(expo)tags
>have 100% going to the
>org and 0% to the
>state.the convention tags are the
>ones that causes all the
>questions.
>
>This is the second thread I've
>seen someone claiming to have
>SFW ties state that they
>only receive 10% of revenue
>generated from these tags.What about
>the other tags that you
>guys receive 100% of all
>revenue generated.Are you guys trained
>to bring up the conservation
>tags rules every time someones
>bitching about the tags you
>receive or are you yourselves
>clueless that there are
>two separate sets of tags
>and rules that go with
>each.You guys have got to
>know by now what everyones
>upset about and it surly
>is not the conservation permits
>
>
>To the original poster. By the
>way I'm sure your not
>as naive as you are
>trying to sound on this
>issue but that's ok I'll
>play along

Actually, I really am that naive. I do not live in UT or AZ where these battles are being fought. But I do hunt in both states and want to understand the issue. Your post was very informative. I did not realize there were two tes of tags with different rules to each. Thanks.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Mar-31-12
>AT 09:43?PM (MST)
>
>BigPig,
>
>I can't give an unemotional reader's
>digest summation of the debate,
>but your comments leave me
>to believe you aren't remotely
>getting the "against SFW" sentiments.
>
>
>The animosity is far deeper than
>where and how they spend
>the proceeds. I speak
>for myself alone. SFW
>is a special interest group.
> They are largely funded
>by a public resource (le
>tags.) They then use
>their publicly funded resources on
>limiting general hunts.
>
>Its the kind of politics Americans
>hate to see. Like
>if someone sold their food
>stamps and then used that
>money to lobby for larger
>food stamp entitlements.
>
>SFW has largely been at the
>helm since the early 90's.
> They said cutting tags
>and dates and more regions
>would recover the herd.
>They got everything they asked
>for. The general rifle
>hunt had around 250,000 hunters
>when SFW started. It
>will be around 50,000 this
>year. Their ideas have
>not worked yet they still
>steer the ship. They
>have advocated for more limited
>entry hunts and against the
>general hunts. As the
>le tags increase, SFW gets
>more tags to auction.
>It is in SFW's financial
>interests for the state to
>turn into a limited entry
>hunting state.
>
>You don't really need to understand
>% expenditures, biology, and all
>the arguments to determine if
>you want to join SFW.
>It is a preference issue
>and basically this: if you
>are a trophy hunter, hate
>the general hunt, and would
>like to see more le
>opportunities; sfw is for you!!!
> If you are primarily
>a general hunter, then you
>should spend your conservation efforts
>somewhere else as SFW fights
>against your type of hunting.
>

Interesting viewpoint. I do know enough to know I have no interest in joining SFW, I was just trying to understand both sides.

What does baffle me is how many claim Peay and other SFW folks have profited from all this. Is this provable, or just heresy? If valid, then I say we need a tall tree and a short rope, but those are some very bold allegations for a person and organization who is very much in the public eye. If there was actual fraud involved here (as in, personal profit under the guise of conservation) it sure seems like it would be pretty tough to hide. Just trying to understand the facts here.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-31-12 AT 11:32PM (MST)[p]For the record, so far, from what I can tell, my position is thus...

SFW takes away public tags for auction to the highest bidder. That alone upsets me. But I always thought that funds from these auctions went right back to the state for things like range management, biological studies, more wardens, etc. And for conservation group efforts that directly benefit wildlife. So I always thought that while I was sad to see the tags go, more overall good was being done with the big dollars that auction tags generate. Maybe I am wrong, but that has been my assumption.

But now if what some are saying is true, and that all this is a ruse, and SFW "people" are only lining their own pocket, well then, that is a whole 'nother level of wrong, an outrage! Can anyone prove this?

So I'm just trying to figure out what is really going on here. I truly have no agenda other than personal knowledge.
 
"Provable" differs person to person. My "unproven" understanding is that Don became visibly wealthy after SFW. Big house on the hill, high dollar hunts beyond the reach of most folks.

I don't know the guy and his assets before and after. I really don't care. If all the restrictions they have pushed for resulted in a bigger deer herd and a better hunt, my feelings would be different. For me it is nothing more than political preference. I have no intentions of taking my hunting much beyond in-state general hunts. SFW fights against my style of hunting; therefore, we are politcal enemies.
 
Just to clear a few things up that a few of the "experts" here are missing about so called "TAG GRABS".....

SFW is NOT the only group getting tags to raffle/sell off......not even close.....and if you really want to talk treason lets find out where the hell money is being spent from the other groups, I don't see them doing a damn thing, all the while SFW is putting money IN!!!!

Maybe the National Wild Turkey Federation is doing a bunch for big game??? DU is doing tons for big game :) .....What about SCI??? Hell lets not forget the Elk Foundation, Utah Bowmen and the Mule Deer Foundation.....ALL of them are selling tags to the highest bidder!!!

Is MDF involved in the expo....oh couldn't be.....I didnt hear that on monstermuleys.com

Where is the outrage guys?????? I dont see the other groups do SHIZZ compared to sfw!!!!!!

Continue to spread the half truths, carry on gents....
 
Rebel:

I'm with you. I think EVERY organization that receives raffle tags or auction tags, should have to provide a full accounting and be completely transparent in everything they do.

If these tags are being taken from the draw where the average Joe could get them, then being auctioned to high dollar guys or raffled to those lucky enough to attend an event, then the groups getting the money need to prove what they did with the money.

Accounting and transparency is hardly an unreasonable request when be provided a public asset for your fundraising.

What is done with the money is expected to be a benefit to all hunters, to conservation, to a degree that justifies giving them these tag proceeds. Again, very reasonable when being handed over a public asset.

EVERY group should be help accountable.

I think the reason SFW is always in crosshairs, is they are the biggest recipient of the welfare, and have the hardest time giving any accountability.

I contacted RMEF about their auction tags. They have a full accounting of every tag. 92% was given back to the state agencies or put into earmarked project accounts.

Good luck getting that from some of the other groups you mention. RMEF will provide it to anyone who asks.

As far as BP's request for education on SFW, the tag issue is only one of many pages of problems people have with them and Big Game Forever. The many other pages stem from how they use the UT tag gold mine to end up on the wrong side of pretty much every other political issues affecting hunters.

Rather than list all those here, BP will just have to read the many past threads and make up his own mind.

Carry on .....

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-01-12 AT 10:28AM (MST)[p]Randy, I couldn't agree with you more. Transparency should be required. I guess I just assumed it was automatically. Im shocked and appalled to learn that it is not. I do think I have a better grasp on things now. Thanks to all who gave genuine replies.
 
90 percent of the Conservation monies does go back to the state. Every organization that gets the tags must put 30% back to the DFG and then 60% into another fund also used for projects to help wildlife. People seem to jump on the 90% but it is really 60%. 30% goes straight to the dept. If the 90% does not go where it is suppose to go, then that organization will not get tags the following year. Therefore any organization that is getting tags are following the rules.
 
Birdman:

Two questions, and given you never answer questions when asked, I am probably wasting my time. Focused on the two different types of permits - CONVENTION permits and CONSERVATION permits.

1. What about the CONVENTION PERMITS, where NONE of the money is required to go back to DWR. What happened with that money?

Seems very relevant, but the SFW crowd likes to pretend that they share some of this revenue with DWR. They do NOT! That is all wildlife welfare to them for operations.

2. Where is the accounting for the 60% of CONSERVATION PERMITS that SFW keeps for "conservation projects?" That 60% is RETAINED BY THE CONSERVATION GROUP.

I suspect that 60% is the money that SFW claims is all their wonderful work on the ground. That is not money SFW went out and raised as is the case with most conservation groups. That is public welfare provided from the state of UT.



FYI, 90% of the Conservation permit monies do NOT go back to the state. Read the law. Either you are spinning more SFW fairy tales, or your reading comprehension is on par with my wife's dog.

Read the rule. I provide this section of the rule regarding CONSERVATION PERMITS:

(b) 60% of the revenue may be retained and used by the conservation organization only for eligible projects as provided in subsections (i) through (ix).

The compliance and transparency of how well subsections (i) through (ix) being in question.



"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
BigFin, You are right with the rule that 60% goes to the fund that is agreed upon by both the division and the group. There is an additional 30% that goes back to the division that is used for other purposes. The organization keeps 10%. The groups also bid on the consevation tags and that comes out of the 10% so in reality less than 10% is kept by the group. If those rules are comprimised, that group is suspended from getting tags till it is taken care of. That has happened to at least one group. That money has nothing to do with what SFW or anyother group wants. In a way that 60% is raised by the group. If it were not for that group then the money would not be there. The conservation tags go to groups and they raise the money by selling the tags to the highest bidder. If these groups did not do this, then the money would not be there.
The expo was set up to raise money. No different than if you were to put on an expo for hunting or any other subject. Just like the SCI does around the country. They raise money to run their organizations. The expo money is not split between two groups. The two hundred tags that were put there at the expo was to draw people both from out of state and inside the state. People coming to the area and into the state draws monies to the state in was like taxes. That money benefits the state. That is why the tags are there. It also gives everyone that puts in for them a second chance to draw a tag. That $5 from the application for those tags goes to the groups that put on the expo. That was the way that it was set up by the State. That money is used often by SFW. For instance the reseeding of some areas and the feeding of turkeys, deer and other things. Also when they have bought lands that they have bought and given to the state to be kept open for the public to hunt and use. Those monies used are not the 60% in most cases as the 60% must be oked by the DFW and the group that raised the money agree upon. It must be used to help wildlife. Property that comes from that money is opened to the public.
 
Good Grief Birdman,

^That has to be one of the most nonsensical, convoluted, and meaningless run-on paragraphs I have ever read anywhere.

So, you're trying to say...WHAT exactly?
 
They came to Arizona, they swore they would never go for the tag grab, they compromised a politician to introduce a bill to take 350 prime tags, no limit to one animal a year and only 10% to G&F. He introduced that bill with no disclosure to the general public. They came, they lied and they tried to steal. If you want to support liars and thieves then join up. We will get rid of them here. In 6 years they have raised quite a bit of money from all of our established groups. They spent it on lobbyists and administrators.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-01-12 AT 03:16PM (MST)[p]corndog,

Hey did you catch the KTVK Phoenix TV interview? Hard to believe I was the one that arranged that isn't it? Yes, all the way from Illinois, 1800 miles away. For whatever reason, my e-mails appealed to them. Of course, SFW makes it REAL easy. I attached a laundry list of corruption links and scathing web news articles SFW is so good at leaving in their wake. Reporters love dirt, and they got plenty from me.

http://www.azfamily.com/video/?id=145022235&sec=998613

Proud to contribute what I can. Makes me laugh when I think of the dopes who come on here, portray me as a whiner, and claim I accomplish nothing biatching on a website! Hahaha. Hahaha. I have been laughing all weekend! Within 24 hours of the 3 TV corrution articles appearing, SFW pulled lobbyist Susan Gilstap from the Arizona statehouse and sent here packing with her tail between her legs! Hahaha!

Rumor also has it Gilstrap hung up on the reporter when called for a rebuttal, and Alan Hamberlin turned down her offer for an interview.

Will never know how much my interview had to do with it, but it sure didn't hurt! Not only that, the reporter is still very interested and is continuing to accumulate dirt for down the road. Sweet!

Thanks to Allen Taylor & the other passionate AZ folks involved for taking the ball and running with it!

Stay the Course!


***********************************
Member RMEF, UBNM, UWC & the SFW Hate Club
 
Sorry that you are not able to see what is there. It was ment for BigFin. He ask the questions and I answered. When ask a question I try to answer. greatwestern and Wuffie I am sorry that you can not understand. Or is it that your whole idea is to slam anyone that does not agree with your thinking.
 
Birdman said: "That $5 from the application for those tags goes to the groups that put on the expo. That was the way that it was set up by the State."

Birdman, SFW and Don Peay lobbied the state not to impose any requirements regarding how the $5 application fees from the convention tags can be used. In other words, SFW convinced the State of Utah to pull 200 tags out of the public draw for the express purpose of "generating revenue to fund wildlife conservation" (Utah Administrative Code R657-55-1) then turned around and fought against the imposition of a statutory requirement that a a fixed percent of those funds be used for actual conservation. As a result, SFW receives a multi-million dollar slush fund every year courtesy of Utah sportsmen with no oversight from the State of Utah.

I get a little tired of SFW blaming the current situation on the State of Utah and the DWR. SFW and Don Peay lobbied for no oversight and they have certainly taken advantage of the lack of transparency. If SFW wanted to, it could voluntarily put that money on the ground in the form of actual conservation projects and then provide a complete accounting for the funds. This situation reminds me of a spoiled teenager demanding no rules or guidelines and then blaming his parents when he finds himself in trouble. Yes, the State of Utah and the DWR have dropped the ball in a number of respects but SFW is the group that lobbied for the current situation and SFW is the group that has been the primary beneficiary of this flawed system.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
Glenaz, Who came to Arizona and tried the tag grab. It was not Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife sometimes called DP's group. They are not in Arizona. Wait a min. SFW, if everything that has the letters in their abbriation as SFW, then DP has really started a hugh operation. Lets see, there is Safe For Work organization. They use SFW, then there is Seattle Film Works, then Accendo company, and others. They all use SFW as their short name. I guess DP started a bigger group than we all know about.
DP's group is not in Arizona, different group. You need to wise up. Speak the truth.
Hawkeye, What ever happened at the State, what ever DP tried to do or not, the State bought it and agreed to it. If you do not like the situation, go get it fixed. Don't sit on your butt, get it fixed.
Zim, Good for you to get what you did accomplished. I really did not look into what Sportsman For Wildlife was doing. I knew it had nothing to do with Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife and I do not hunt in Arizona so it mattered not to me. Course if you attached DP's organizations to the articles you sent to them then you were really sending out false information. It would be interesting to see what they would do if the Arizona group knew. But then again, if you did it would figure that you were just doing it out of ignorance. That is the problem with lots of SFW haters. They do not know what really goes on and they really do not want to know. They just want to open their mouths and try to make people think that they know what they are talking about.
 
How I wish the media in Utah had the balls of
Chrystal Cruz in AZ.




2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
 
You being an SFW board member I already know anything stated to you is a waste, but it's Sunday and I'm vegetating at a diner on wifi. Soooooooo..........

All the links and articles I sent KTVK were public and up to them to interpret using their own judgement.

The entire news broadcast named all the corrupted participants correctly, legally.

The reporter is very hard working and diligent with her questioning of all parties. Just the kind we need. You can rest comfortably.


***********************************
Member RMEF, UBNM, UWC & the SFW Hate Club
 
>How I wish the media in
>Utah had the balls of
>
>Crystal Cruz in AZ.

Yes and let me tell you she is a sharpie. No BS, no loose ends, polite. Amazing how much effort she put to research and put this together so fast.

Have you guys ever made a concerted effort to target a ripe media dirt digger there? Dam if I can do it from Chicago I don't see why a local shouldn't give it a good try there. SFW leaves a reporter's dreamland of corruption & scandal. Just e-mail and attach 3 or 4 links...........or 10 or 20 in SFW's case!


***********************************
Member RMEF, UBNM, UWC & the SFW Hate Club
 
Birdboy wrote: "Hawkeye, What ever happened at the State, what ever DP tried to do or not, the State bought it and agreed to it. If you do not like the situation, go get it fixed. Don't sit on your butt, get it fixed."

Thanks for the suggestion Birdboy. Perhaps, I will make an appearance at the next Wildlife Board meeting and voice my opinion on this issue. Oh wait, I forget that SFW's former Chairman of the Board is a member of the Wildlife Board. I doubt that approach would be very successful. Perhaps I could schedule separate meetings with the leaders of SFW and MDF. Oh wait, I have already tried that with no results.

In all seriousness, public awareness regarding this issue is growing, and I think this issue will come to a head in the near future. My comments in my prior post merely noted that SFW likes to blame the State of Utah for the very system that it lobbied for and successfully put in place. Let's not act like SFW is merely playing a game by the rules. SFW made the rules and now it is exploiting them.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
Like I said Zim there is a huge lack of
Testicular fortitude in the Utah Media as
A whole to take on the Don.

Now you know why Utah is the fraud Capitol
Of the U. S.



2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
 
>Like I said Zim there is
>a huge lack of
>Testicular fortitude in the Utah Media
>as
>A whole to take on the
>Don.

There are always hungry young reporters that are looking for something hot to propel their careers. If I lived there, I'd watch all of them and look for that target. Crystal is new in Phoenix, moved there from Atlanta in the last year. She jumped all over this in 2 days.

Searching and targeting weak game board members and legislators is part of SFW's formula. Try turning it around on them.

Heck maybe I'll try it from here myself. Do you know who some good candidates in SLC willing to be interviewed? Worth a try. Now is the time, given the latest still steaming hot scandals.

Ken
 
ww, BTW - Attaching the link to the KTVK interview would be good fodder to make the sale to a SLC TV station.
 
The whole SFW affair is very deep and very complex. Few really understand the far reaching tentacles of this organization and how it operates. Without being redunant and repeating so much of what has been said, one of the major issues that is so concerning and disappointing to me, is the fact that Don Peay basically owns Utah's Division of Wildlife.

Through his political ties and masterful talents, he basically controls the Division of Wildlife by appointing and controlling the means of which board members and directors are chosen. If for one minute, you don't think he controls the Wildlife Board and most of its decisions and the Director of Wildlife, then you just don't understand how he operates and how far out of control things are in Utah.

Without giving specific names, a number of his friends and cohorts either sit on the Wildlife Board or are past members to that small, but important decision making body. And although some have been sharp but bias people, some have been totally unqualified and sit there only to be sure his agenda is being carried out.

I might ask in what other state could this happen? So far the answer is only in Utah.

If someone could get a national, talented reporter, such as John Stossel to do an investigate report on Mr Peay's influence and how he masterminded the Expo tags, the other 49 states and most of the people in Utah, and especially the politicians, would be flabbergasted at how they have been duked!

There is a rising tide of resentment towards Mr. Peay and SFW and deservedly so.

Had Don not owned the Division and the Board that set aside the 200 Expo tags, it could never have been done without some kind of transparency, let alone not 1 penny being required to go to Utah's wildlife.

Have a good one. BB
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-01-12 AT 08:41PM (MST)[p]BB,

I totally agree DP's owning the wildlife board was key in Utah. I believe AZSFW already bought one and appointed another toadie on the committee that appoints members to their wildlife board. I'm still reading up on it. However, residents are wise to it and working to snuff it out as we speak. Exposing the scam on media last week should aid in their endeavor.

I agree it will likely take a national investigative report to bust UTSFW due to the degree of infestation. Only problem I see is given the low % of folks that hunt, and the high profile anti-hunting influence, there may not be enough viewer interest to warrent production. But it certainly can't hurt putting a pile of evidence together and sending it in to a few media. Won't know if someone doesn't try.


***********************************
Member RMEF, UBNM, UWC & the SFW Hate Club
 
Birdbrain or Don whichever. We have been through this charade before. Don Peay started AZSFW when he hired Pete C and Suzanne. Yes he set it up as a separate organization legally but he certainly started it here. I talked to Pete way back then. Now after Pete swore they were different than Utah and would never try for the tag grab guess what. They orchestrate a tag grab, an expo and used corrupt politicians---JUST LIKE SFW Utah!! What a freakin' coinkydink. Right.
 
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"
 
Great post Troy. Full of facts and truths. Unlike most on this site and others. Which means it will be ignored.

It is amazing to me that the SFW takes even one second to address the internet haters. They felt that their memebership may be slipping this year I believe. So what did they do they refocused and gathered the troops (Average Joes). What happened? Memembership grew and banquets were packed. Town hall meetins were attended all over the state. And for what? To get support for our struggling deer herds! What other group rallies the troops for this effort??? None did!!! Why? Because there is no other group doing a damn thing for the state of UT and our deer herds. The other groups are too worried about the SFW rather then fixing our problems.

Take a look at the posts. The guys supporting the SFW ARE just average joes!!! The guys hating on them have personal agendas. Tony no longer wanted by the SFW or MDF, quit or was let go on unfriendly terms. Wileywapti (Board Member of the Bowhunters of Utah), feels the SFW controls the WB which took away the statewide archery hunt. Hawkeye, countless hours trying to topple the SFW and keeps coming up empty. Zim who lives in IL and feels he is being screwed by the SFW because he can not draw a Paunsy tag. BigFin TV nobody trying to get attention by challenging Don. I would also dare bet that some I have mentioned and others are loyal to RMEF. A good group, but a group that Don has called out and clashed with thus the dislike for SFW. I could go on but hopefully you get the point.

Just to clarify and beat Deerlove to the punch. Yes my brother did get a fishing trip from the SFW when he returned from Iraq. Do I appreciate it, yes I do. Is it the reason I support the SFW. Sure it is one of many reasons I support them. But the main reason is that they are are actually doing something and fighting a fight that no one else will or is even capable of fighting.

Asking to be educated on the SFW on the internet is like trying to earn a PHD from reading Wikipedia.....GOOD LUCK!!!!
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-02-12 AT 01:54AM (MST)[p]"The guys hating on them have personal agendas."
"Zim who lives in IL and feels he is being screwed by the SFW because he can not draw a Paunsy tag."

I have a hell of a lot more reasons than the single one you mention.

1. I hate liars.
2. I hate thieves.
3. I hate bullsheeters.
4. I hate those that destroy the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.
5. I hate folks that get uneducated boobs in high office in exchange for political payback in the form of public resources, at the public's expense.
6. I hate being called a socialist because I like Teddy Roosevelt's conservation model.
7. I hate dopes without any education in wildlife who succeed by buying game & fish departments along with legislators.
8. I hate dopes who criticize the best managed wildlife state in the country as his own state's mule deer herds crash and burn.
9. I hate folks that think it is justifiable to have 20% good/80% bad, 50% good/50% bad, or even 90% good/10% bad.
10. I hate folks who take credit for things they in fact tried to stop.
11. I even hate people who criticize others for the state they happen to live in! WTF up with that???

And the list goes on and on. There's just no end to the list of my problems with the UTSFW model. If it makes you feel better by picking one out and claiming it is personal, go for it. I really don't give a ****. I am going to do all that's in my power to discredit & trash the SFW model until it crashes and burns like........well........the Utah mule deer herd.

Can't tell you how much I enjoyed helping out the good sportsmen of AZ by exposing Gilstrap & Weiers on TV. Much, much more to come. I hope AZSFW blew $500,000 on all that lobbying. Hahaha. Keep that wallet open AZSFW, I believe the sportsmen of AZ have the passion & know how to defend their public resources to the death.
 
Wow, after all these years, and thousands of posts on probably more than 100 threads, Troy finally provides some financial information about what the convention tags raise. Before we get to the math, some facts about the convention.

Of the 200 tags taken out of the public draw, and given to the convention, 50% or 100, came from the non-resident pool. This might seem reasonable at first glance, but if you take a look at the math, you will see the actual impact.

Non-residents are supposed to get 10% of the total tags, but not necessarily on each hunt. I only follow the LE elk stats, but there are some hunts that non-residents get more than 10% others where they get less. There are a lot of hunts where non-residents get zero tags, even in some cases where residents get more than 10.

I am not going to take the time to count, but I believe the elk tags are close to 100 of the total 200. I also beleive residents get approximately 2,500 tags LE elk tags, and non-residents get around 250. Those are ballpark numbers. So, subtract 50 tags from the resident allocation, and they end up with 2,450, a 2% reduction. Subract 50 from the resident allocation, and they get 200 instead of 250, a reduction of 20%.

Even that would have likely been okay, were it not for the fact that you have to be present to win. If the goal was to raise money, which is the only valid reason for taking tags out of the public draw, this is an absolutely STUPID policy. Think about how many $ 5.00 tickets would be sold if anyone in the world could participate online. Hell, raise it to $ 10.00. I guarantee you will likely increase the funds raised by 10 times.

Troy stated that the convention raises around $ 500,000. I assume that is net after convention expenses, but that is immaterial. What matters is a program has been set up to raise money, and the amount it raised was $ 500,000. So divide $ 500,000 by 200 public tags, and each tag brought in 2,500 dollars.

THAT IS TERRIBLE, REGARDLESS OF HOW THE MONEY WAS USED.

Oregon, hardly a leader in managing big game, offers 13 auction tags and 13 raffle tags. The auction tags are sold by organizations such as RMEF,OHA, etc. They keep 10%, 90% goes directly to the department. The raffle is run by the department, and they keep all the money. In 2010, those tags raised almost $ 750,000.

So, 200 tags raise $ 500,000, versus 26 tags raise $ 750,000. It is not a tough call to see that the convention program needs to change.

In my opinion, Utah is killing themselves by offering so many tags, almost 700 if I am counting correctly. What has become increasingly obvious is that there is tremendous value in tags that are difficult/impossible to obtain. I believe by making multiple tags available for some of the best hunts in Utah, the value of each tag is seriously devalued.

Scoutdog
Mike Morris
503-317-7576
[email protected]
 
Thanks for speaking for me Cody!!! You have no idea
what my issues with SFW are..






Thanks for 2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
 
Damn, thanks guys for educating those of us that have stayed on the sidelines. Question?? I wonder if Oregon raffles off any turkey tags? And, does penis envy have anything to do with the size of your junk?
 
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
 
So tree survivability transplants are on the back end of 5%?

Damn they must have had to move 500 head of Kiabab deer 500 plus miles back in the day to Santa Rosa Island on slower roads with piss poor equipment by todays standards. Then had to ferry them from the mainland to the island over open ocean with those odds. Just curious where you came up with that extrapolated survivability rate?

Hell lets just shoot em all the damn doe's The Panguitch Lake Unit is only 400 deer under objective (probably more) whats the point!!!!!!

Hell theres pile of dead ones on the side of the road in between summit and parowan. And another pile of Dead ones from I-15 to HWY 89 on Hwy 20. Absolute joke to keep shooting doe's with the current situation this States in.
 
From everything I have read the SFW action that rubs me worst is that they actively tried to derail the bill that got wolves delisted in montana and idaho. Now after the fact they are lying and trying to take credit for the same bill (Simpson-Tester) and unforunately selling the pile of BS to some folks.
 
Mike

Oregons laws are differnt than Utah's, Raffles are not legal in the State.

Yes there are ways to raise more money but the current system is designed to do more than that. For instance the reason for making people apply in person is too bring people to Utah. In a few months the UofU will release what is called a Berber Report. This report will track the amount of revenue that is generated for the state and local businesses by the Expo.

This is one of the benefits of having the expo in SLC, it drives more business to Utah!

Tye I am not sure off the top of my head what the split is, Yes the DWR keeps a portion of that $10 application fee and no Fallon does not spend any of their portion on Utah Wildlife.

Tye one thing is for sure when you put a bullet in the head of a Doe the rusult is certain. She is going to die!!

It has been argued for years that you cannot transplant deer, One can find study's and arguments that support either side.

But no matter which side you sit on one cannot argue the a doe has a better chance of survival in the back of a horse trailer versus a bullet in her head.

More recent study's have shown a much higher survival rate with new techniques.

Bottom line is this SFW is willing to try and do what ever we can to restore Utah's Mule Deer Herd. If the DWR is not willing to fund it we will!

Cory Rossi

SFW supported his efforts in striving to get control of a massive predator pit.

It is common knowledge that Cory resigned from his position within the agency upon allegation/charges relating to wildlife violations.

SFW mantains that everyone is intitled to the same freedoms that allow us to voice our opinions. We believe those same freedoms entitle a person to a fair trial and to maintain innocents until proven guilty.

Cory is no different. If he is found guilty of the charges he should be punished according to the law and you can blame SFW for being a poor judge of character.

And if he is found innocent I am sure we all will issue the apropriate apology!


X-treme
Troy Justensen
"The first doe to become impregnated with out the aid of a buck will be the first"
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-02-12 AT 09:43AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Apr-02-12 AT 08:55?AM (MST)

Troy,

I don't disagree with the bullet in the head theory. I'm just struggling with the ROI on translocation. It seems like a poor way to spend money in behalf of deer. We had guys go on a tour of the Parowan front along with Rusty the other day. The report I got was that they all agreed that the winter range was getting hammered (I don't think anyone is disputing this) and that 400-600 deer a year needed to be removed for the long term benefit of the range and the deer that use it, otherwise a fire, among other things, could decimate the winter range for the entire herd. It's your choice as an organization and I commend you on spending organizational money on this, but ultimately, what is the goal? As mentioned, it's been tried over and over again with very little, if any success. (Success is definitely subjective)

In regards to the Kiabab and Santa rosa. Any big migrations going on in Santa Rosa? Loss to predation or weather? There are a lot of factors that make it much more difficult to translocate in an area that requires deer to migrate from summer to winter range or face death. There are other obvious reasons and though I stayed at a holiday in last night, I think we'd be better off letting someone more educated on the specifics actually disclose the specifics. Like I said, maybe I'm not seeing the big picture.

Troy, thanks for the response.


http://unitedwildlifecooperative.org
 
m73,

This is one "Average Joe" that had to throw up after your town meeting. I was under the impression that SFW was reaching out to the general hunters. I showed up. Don clearly stated SFW is for the die-hards. He insulted the 65% of hunters that prefer quantity over quality. He also said that no new fees should be implemented for coyotes as the money is already there. Well that tune changed by the time it was submitted for legislation the next month. Once again SFW gets another restriction and/or fee passed. You guys are on a roll!!!

You act like it is some mystery why SFW doesn't get more respect after all the "good" they do. Let me take the mystery away. It is because SFW does more to turn Utah into a limited entry state. They do more to push me out than any other organization. SFW's "good" never translates into more tags and more hunting opportunities. Just more ineffective restrictions and more fees. So I will fight against SFW more than I will fight for conservation projects. SFW is cancer to the future of family hunts.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-02-12 AT 09:20AM (MST)[p]Scoutdog,

I think In Utah non res permits are up to 10% not a guarenteed 10%.

Just like many other states are up to 10%, but not gaurenteed.

They do have 5 once in a lifetime permits for non res only at the expo.

I agree non res get the short end of the stick in most all western states.

Thanks for the info X-treme. I agree a lot of banquets are full of ave Joes and kids getting excited about hunting and fishing.

Thanks
 
Troy,

Does SFW have any intentions of fixing the Conservation rule that allows more than the 5% LE permits to be issued for auction in a Calendar year? SFW designed lobbied for and put the rule in place and then found a flaw which would limit allotted tags (the 5% rule) and added a multi year contract to the rule which guaranteed tags. However, with the current situation of the moose herd and the cutting of LE tags by 79% in the past two years SFW has not stepped up and lobbied to cut Conservation tags. Would this not be in the best interest of wildlife? Afterall we need bull moose ratios just the like we need buck ratios to increase the moose herd. Or do you have some inside information that only public tags affect the herd. The only group that has sacrificed for the Moose herd is the Average Joes.

Here in lies one of my issues with SFW. SFW seems to only want to recognize and play by the rules that meet their agenda or in most cases make rules that meet their agenda. Convince me otherwise.

Travis Sparks
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-02-12 AT 09:41AM (MST)[p]Troy, welcome back! It has been a while. Would you mind asking Don if he is willing to accept Randy?s invitation to a public debate since Don is the one that first issued the challenge?

With regard to the Convention Permits, SFW fought tooth and nail to keep all information regarding the revenue generated from those permits secret. For instance, SFW refused to release the drawing odds and the number of applicants for the convention permits for the first several years of the convention. When we met 2 years ago, SFW leaders (including you, Don, John, Ryan and Byron) told us that SFW would be releasing that information in the near future. Several months after that meeting, I ran into you and John, and when I asked you why that information still had not been released, you told me that SFW wanted to release the information but MDF refused to allow SFW to do so. As a result, SFW could not follow through on its prior commitment.

I smelled a skunk and as a result, I scheduled a personal meeting with the leaders of MDF, including Miles Moretti the President/CEO. When I asked Mr. Moretti if your statement was true, he said it was completely false. MDF was not preventing SFW from following through on it commitment. Rather, Mr. Moretti informed me that following our 2010 meeting, the leaders of SFW and MDF met and made a "joint decision" not to release the information that was previously promised by SFW. In other words, you guys promised one thing then made a joint decision with MDF to backtrack on your prior agreement. Even worse, rather than simply taking responsibility for your change of position, you blamed the inconsistency on your partner MDF and "threw them under the bus." Those are not my words--they are the words of Mr. Miles Moretti.

Then when the public's frustration continued to build on the issue, you guys ultimately released some information just days before the State of Utah was going to release the same information in response to a GRAMA request.

Simply put, the convention permits are a public resource that SFW and MDF have been entrusted with. Yet at every step, SFW has fought against accountability and transparency that would allow the public to determine how that resource is being used. According to your post (and you have access to the information so I assume you know), the 200 convention permits are generating nearly a million dollars a year for SFW and MDF to spend on whatever they want. And that number only represents the revenue generated from the application fees. As a result of having those 200 permits, SFW and MDF draw thousands of people to the Expo and generate revenue from ticket sales, booth rentals, food and beverages, etc. Sure there are expenses, but the revenues obviously exceed the expenses. So yes, I believe that the 200 convention permits result in a multi-million dollar slush fund for SFW and MDF every year, nearly a $1,000,000 of which comes directly from application fees for the 200 convention permits.

Cody, thank you for speaking for on my behalf. My goal has never been to "topple SFW." I've told you that several times but you apparently only hear what you want to hear. I am simply a concerned sportsman and a former SFW member who wants to see some basic level of accountability and transparency with regard to SFW?s use of a public resource. SFW could have voluntarily provided that transparency and accountibility but it has continually refused to do so. Why? Your guess is as good as mine.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-02-12 AT 01:15PM (MST)[p]I see where your coming from now Tree mortality does not occur initially but later on. Perhaps a hundred k might be better spent on sage steppe enhancement.
 
Troy-I never said they were hired or paid for by SFW Utah. Don hired Pete and I am sure got donors for the startup here. AZSFW is doing exactly what SFW Utah did in getting auction and raffle tags for a big deal expo. If you want to continue denying there is any link between the two have at it. The modus operendi is mirror image. Politicians, gaining control of Game and Fish, tags to generate a lot of money and a handful of wealthy supporters. They even pretended they were here to help Average Joe and got all the other critter groups to play along with their scheme. I hope all of the other groups here wake up and work to get rid of this cancer.
 
Guys again my point was that trying to educate yourself on this site is sketchy at best. I draw conclusions off of what everyone posts same as most do. Is it 100% accurate? Nope not even close. Just like a lot of the crap being said about the SFW.

Nothing personal guys just trying to prove the point that everything is not always as it represented by others on the Internet.

Cheers
 
>LAST EDITED ON Apr-01-12
>AT 03:16?PM (MST)
>
>corndog,
>
>Hey did you catch the KTVK
>Phoenix TV interview? Hard
>to believe I was the
>one that arranged that isn't
>it? Yes, all the
>way from Illinois, 1800 miles
>away. For whatever reason,
>my e-mails appealed to them.
> Of course, SFW makes
>it REAL easy. I
>attached a laundry list of
>corruption links and scathing web
>news articles SFW is so
>good at leaving in their
>wake. Reporters love dirt,
>and they got plenty from
>me.
>
>http://www.azfamily.com/video/?id=145022235&sec=998613
>
>Proud to contribute what I can.
> Makes me laugh when
>I think of the dopes
>who come on here, portray
>me as a whiner, and
>claim I accomplish nothing biatching
>on a website! Hahaha.
> Hahaha. I have
>been laughing all weekend!
>Within 24 hours of the
>3 TV corrution articles appearing,
>SFW pulled lobbyist Susan Gilstap
>from the Arizona statehouse and
>sent here packing with her
>tail between her legs!
>Hahaha!
>
>Rumor also has it Gilstrap hung
>up on the reporter when
>called for a rebuttal, and
>Alan Hamberlin turned down her
>offer for an interview.
>
>Will never know how much my
>interview had to do with
>it, but it sure didn't
>hurt! Not only that,
>the reporter is still very
>interested and is continuing to
>accumulate dirt for down the
>road. Sweet!
>
>Thanks to Allen Taylor & the
>other passionate AZ folks involved
>for taking the ball and
>running with it!
>
>Stay the Course!
>
>
>***********************************
>Member RMEF, UBNM, UWC & the
>SFW Hate Club


what does arizona have to do with you not having a clue about the utah draw or tag numbers ? show me where all the expo tags came out of the non-res draw!!! i'll never draw a good tag in az. so i really could care less about a little old whiner being on the news there!!
 
scout

where did you get the info that 50 tags came from res and 50 from non-res? go to the dwr website and look at the tag numbers for the last 10 years non-res get up to 10% some units more, some less nothing has changed since the expo!
 
Travis

I see no reason that the rule could not be amended to address an issue like what is happening with the moose.

Both you and I know the DWR administer this program and they are the ones that set the numbers.

While making this post Byron imfomed me that the DWR and the Consrvation Groups met yesterday to review the rule and make needed changes.
He told me that the Moose issue was addressed and they are working on solutions to address this issue for future years.

I dont know the specific's but when I do I will try and post them.

Hawkeye

I see that your first request has already been answered by Don so I wont address it.

I am not aware of any such meeting or agreement between MDF/SFW. If infact it took place obviously I did not get the memo! Until I am informed otherwise I will stick by my guns!

My goal is one thing, SFW made a commitment in our meeting to post the odds if our partner agreed. If I stepped on toe's during that process so be it. That was not the intent. My intent was to make sure we followed through.
Nothing personal with Mile's, Eric or MDF.

Never even knew a Gramma Request had been filled!It is my understanding that both groups finally came to an agreement to do something that should have been done from the begining! (My Opinion)

Your assumption is not accurate on the Expo & the 200 permits generating a Multi Million Dollar Slush Fund for MDF & SFW.

One only needs to take the number of applicants and X it by $5 to see how much is generated from applications fee's. I dont know the exact number's but I believe this year was just over 1 million.

In years past it has been under a million. Net revenue from the Expo is not even close to a million dollars including everything!

X-treme
Troy Justensen
"The first doe to become impregnated with out the aid of a buck will be the first"
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-03-12 AT 12:13PM (MST)[p]Bigpig,I honestly think you have written the best post yet! Thank you for trying to at least educate yourself before you voice your opinion for all to see. I have tried to keep emotion out of it but still have found i've slipped. It's hard when you are so passionate about something and people just keep spreading negative things about it instead of finding out the truth behind us(SFW)So... that being said, a good place to start fact finding, is to read the Sportsman's Voice. In every issue is a outline of where all of our money is being spent, I will also try and take more time or another member will to give you facts, no emotions or opinions. Thanks so much for asking.
 
corndog, I don't have time to show you anything about expo tags, nr tags, whiners. I'm too busy putting together letters appealing to Utah & Idaho TV stations to run more scandal stories on SFW like AZ did. Found it was a lot more productive to the cause than arguing on web forums.

Stay the Course!


***********************************
Member RMEF, UBNM, UWC & the SFW Hate Club
 
Troy-

Your post highlights my main problem with the Expo. SFW and MDF have been entrusted with 200 premium permits and yet there are accounting, transparency or or disclosure requirements as to how that money should be accounted for or how it should be used. So once again, the general public has absolutely no clue how that public resource is being utilized. All we can do is take your general statements at face value and hope that some good comes from the massive slush fund that was provided courtesy of Utah sportsmen.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-03-12 AT 01:27PM (MST)[p]Troy,

Thanks for the response. Although the DWR may administer the program it is still the brainchild of the Conservation groups and SFW in particular. I hope that the need to raise money never over shadows the welfare of the animals or the general public. I am glad to hear that the issue is being addressed. I will watch and voice my opinion to keeping within the 5% rule. The easy fix seems to base permit numbers on the previous years public allocation. Then each year a conservation group could have advance notice of what they would be marketing. If the permit programs function as stated I don't see losing permits a big issue to the conservation groups as it is a "measley" 10% of the fee. Of course the loss of conservation funds could be significant but I beleive it is the right thing to do if we need to reduce harvest.
I hope that the Conservation Groups have enough integrity to live within the rule and not fight for more change to insure these permits maintain or increase, I guess we will see where the true interest lies.

Do you know what SFW's position is to fixing this?
FYI I have also asked the same questions to other conservation groups I have belonged to.
 
Travis

I am not sure exactly what you mean when you ask what is SFW's position on this issue.

If the intent is to see if SFW supports to amend the rule, Yes we do!

Though people will disagree SFW's position is to put the resouce first. The big picture is to increase/maintain abundant wildlife for all to enjoy.

If you are asking what is SFW's solution to the problem? I dont know that we have formd that conclusion.

The problem lies in the rule its self. As the rule reads it did not give the DWR the ability to adjust on the fly. An amendment of the rule is going to be made to allow the DWR flexability in addressing future issue's like this.

It is my understanding that the DWR is drafting this change.


Getting back to the subject of this proposed translocation of deer.

SFW has been made aware of some recent study's that show a much higher survival rate of Mule Deer transplants with the use of new techniques.

It is refered to a soft release. It intails releasing the deer in a large encloser to allow them time to adjust while being protected from predators and other obsticles.

In time the gates are opened and the deer are allowed to leave. It is SFW's opnion that this may be are last chance to recover our once robust Deer Herds. Our intent is to leave no rock unturned.

This is not just simply a catch and lease. Deer will collard and data will be kept to see if in fact what was succesful in Texas can be sucessful here in Utah.

We have nothing to loose. You ask would not the money be better spent some where else? My question to you is where?

The Conservation Permit Program dumps hundreds of thousand of dollars into habitat yearly. Utah has treated 800,000 acres of habitat. The Governor has signed two Bills that will provide over 1 million dollars yearly to benifit mule deer. This comes in the form of more funds to control predators ie Coyotes!

Steve Kurl (DWR Biologist) who passed away several years ago shared with a friend something that would be benifical to all of the new young guys with in the DWR.

He stated that he does not base his actions soley upon what is read in books and study's. He takes an idea implements it, if it works he repeats the process. If it dosent he moves on!

To many time I think we are not willing to think out of the box because the book says it wont work. In my opinion we put way to much trust in models and books versus getting out there and seeing what is really going on first hand.

I will side with the guys who are out there day in and day out versus a guy who base his decission on what he reads in a book!

X-treme
Troy Justensen
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-04-12 AT 08:51AM (MST)[p]This is not just simply a catch and lease. Deer will collard and data will be kept to see if in fact what was succesful in Texas can be sucessful here in Utah.

Thats awesome...Utah is now modeling their wildlife management after the great management that Texas has.

Unbelieveable on the one hand, but on par with SFW's goal of privatizing the public wildlife resources.

So, is Utah also looking into elevated shooting towers, corn flingers, and cough silencers to see if those will help mule deer?

Oh, and I'll put my order in for Utah to transplant some blackbuck antelope, sika deer, axis deer, and well, throw in some barbary sheep for good measure...those are cool.

What a joke SFW has become.

The good thing is though, all these ideas didnt "come from a book"...they came from Texas. Sure winner there.
 
Troy,

I am not looking for anything more than information. I believe with the peril of the moose herd that some flaws in the conservation permit rule as it is currently written exist. I also believe that a 3 year contract does not override the 5% and we need to recognize it. As it is time to revisit the rule I am trying to gather as much info as I can, I have some feedback from the meeting. I know because of my skepticism of SFW you may wonder if I have a hidden agenda, I don't just trying to see where the groups stand. I do think SFW believes what they are doing is best for wildlife certain issues I don't at times we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

As far as the deer trapping and transplanting I fully support the effort. It is time we disregard some of the old managment techniques and ideas. Techniques have drastically improved in methods to manipulate deer populations. Feeding was a great example that we can feed deer without killing them as once was believed. I believe translocation can also be successful with the right method and tools.
 
Thanks for the clarification, Troy. I agree with trying new theories and gaining knowledge through trial and error. Have you guys come up with the number of deer that you are going to use for the test? The reason I ask is though I wholeheartedly disagree with doe hunts at this juncture, there are a few areas that require removal of does, probably too many too plausibly translocate, due to fiscal restrictions. For example, the Parowan front is sustaining heavy damage due to an overabundance of wintering deer. I recently was told 400-600 does need to be removed annually to avoid problems due to overpopulation and the effect they have on range conditions.

Byron brought this very area up in a recent meeting in regards to translocation. I can't imagine it's in the scope of possibilities to pay for 400-600 deer annually for several years to remedy the problem. What's the solution? Would SFW end up supporting recommended doe hunts? If not, what are the other alternatives?

I sincerely hope that the new translocation methods provide a plausible solution to issues such as this. It could be groundbreaking, especially if it makes fiscal sense in the long term.

Thanks

Tye

http://unitedwildlifecooperative.org
 
>corndog, I don't have time to
>show you anything about expo
>tags, nr tags, whiners.
>I'm too busy putting together
>letters appealing to Utah &
>Idaho TV stations to run
>more scandal stories on SFW
>like AZ did. Found
>it was a lot more
>productive to the cause than
>arguing on web forums.
>
>Stay the Course!
>
>
>***********************************
>Member RMEF, UBNM, UWC & the
>SFW Hate Club

zim

let me get this straight. you are too busy to discuss facts,you let the media fight your battles, you hate liars ,cheats,bullchitters and yet you are all these things . you should run for pres. your from the right state!!
 
>>corndog, I don't have time to
>>show you anything about expo
>>tags, nr tags, whiners.
>>I'm too busy putting together
>>letters appealing to Utah &
>>Idaho TV stations to run
>>more scandal stories on SFW
>>like AZ did. Found
>>it was a lot more
>>productive to the cause than
>>arguing on web forums.
>>
>>Stay the Course!
>>
>>
>>***********************************
>>Member RMEF, UBNM, UWC & the
>>SFW Hate Club

coondog

You hit the nail on the head!!!

They don't call him zimnoccio for nothing!!!!
>
>zim
>
>let me get this straight. you
>are too busy to discuss
>facts,you let the media fight
>your battles, you hate liars
>,cheats,bullchitters and yet you are
>all these things . you
>should run for pres. your
>from the right state!!
 
If in fact this works future releases would not encure the same high cost for the simple fact that I dont think it will be as important to collar and spend the time conducting the study.

Obviously the range is most important and if we cant come up with another solution the deer will have to be removed by hunter's.

I believe they are talking about trapping 150 deer. I am not 100% positive on the number.

X-treme
Troy Justensen
 

Similar threads

callsalot
Best Western Big Game State To Retire In???
2
Replies
118
Views
6k
Wyo_Roadhunter
Wyo_Roadhunter
L
No more governors tags for AZ
2
Replies
145
Views
7k
AZGuy
AZGuy
C
$150 NR tickets for violating Wyoming Wilderness rule (12 tickets in 10 years)
2
Replies
162
Views
5k
jm77
jm77

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

20230818_075651.jpg
dagger-buck.jpg
97FE0628-A8E7-4A09-AAC5-497829A48C3B.jpeg
20221210_103016_resized.jpg
Screenshot_20221106_084724.jpg
IMG_1203.jpeg
03B1D327-E319-436F-A8FA-04891CB2A9E3.jpeg
Sweet Utah Bull
3E166D23-FC32-4A2E-ABEE-D56101032E14.jpeg
20171202_091040.jpg
2F085254-579F-4678-9B0D-9407792F13BF.jpeg
701BB605-7F2B-488F-ABE5-30E5F3EA0F4F.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom