S.F.W.

Well let's assume it was cash to Big Don himself until he posts up. He does a great job of throwing the B.S. and patting himself on the back when it's to his benefit. Maybe him or Smokedink will come on and susplain it...
 
Well let's assume it was cash to Big Don himself until he posts up. He does a great job of throwing the B.S. and patting himself on the back when it's to his benefit. Maybe him or Smokedink will come on and susplain it...
 
Being a tax man who prepares a few 990's for non-profits, consulting fees could be anything. Also interesting to note over $800,000 of program expenses paid for fund raising. Pretty big number for fund raising, and with no description, it is hard to tell what is in that number.

If more than $50,000 is paid to more than one person/firm for wages, professional service, or other consulting, it is to be reported on Schedule A. Don't see anything reported there.

So, for $485K of consulting fees to be paid, and none of them over $50K, there must have been at least nine, and maybe more, consulting firms paid less than $50K each.

Tax returns usually are not detailed enough to give very much information.


"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
Being a tax man who prepares a few 990's for non-profits, consulting fees could be anything. Also interesting to note over $800,000 of program expenses paid for fund raising. Pretty big number for fund raising, and with no description, it is hard to tell what is in that number.

If more than $50,000 is paid to more than one person/firm for wages, professional service, or other consulting, it is to be reported on Schedule A. Don't see anything reported there.

So, for $485K of consulting fees to be paid, and none of them over $50K, there must have been at least nine, and maybe more, consulting firms paid less than $50K each.

Tax returns usually are not detailed enough to give very much information.


"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
Has anyone seen a longer single post in the history of this site than the one 2lumpy wrote? Wow!
 
Has anyone seen a longer single post in the history of this site than the one 2lumpy wrote? Wow!
 
You're right Big Fin. Not much info there. I think it is just a good example of how expensive it can be to run a non-profit org. They were able to do a lot of good things for wildlife, even when only $453,704 (13.5% of total revenue) went directly to projects. And it is also nice to hear that they apparently spread the consulting work around to 9+ different entities.

Total Revenue - $3,363,380

Expenditures:

ADVERTISING - $109,079
ARTISTS PRINT - $4,500
BANK CHARGE - $20,379
BIG GAME CONVENTION - $449,605
BIG GAME HABITAT IMPROV - $83,687
CONSERVATION PERMITS - $64,991
CONSULTING FEE - $485,242
GRAZING PERMITS - $3,738
GROUSE STUDY - $30,000
HABITAT PROJECTS - $334,365
INSURANCE - $2,827
MISC - $148,968
PROGRAM EXPENSES (fundraising) - $885,870
PROPERTY TAX - $2,937
RENT - $9,720
SECURITY - $432
SUBSCRIPTIONS - $50
SUPPLIES - $16
TAGS - $429,955
TURKEY FEEDING - $1,914
UTILITIES - $338
Total - $3,068,613
 
You're right Big Fin. Not much info there. I think it is just a good example of how expensive it can be to run a non-profit org. They were able to do a lot of good things for wildlife, even when only $453,704 (13.5% of total revenue) went directly to projects. And it is also nice to hear that they apparently spread the consulting work around to 9+ different entities.

Total Revenue - $3,363,380

Expenditures:

ADVERTISING - $109,079
ARTISTS PRINT - $4,500
BANK CHARGE - $20,379
BIG GAME CONVENTION - $449,605
BIG GAME HABITAT IMPROV - $83,687
CONSERVATION PERMITS - $64,991
CONSULTING FEE - $485,242
GRAZING PERMITS - $3,738
GROUSE STUDY - $30,000
HABITAT PROJECTS - $334,365
INSURANCE - $2,827
MISC - $148,968
PROGRAM EXPENSES (fundraising) - $885,870
PROPERTY TAX - $2,937
RENT - $9,720
SECURITY - $432
SUBSCRIPTIONS - $50
SUPPLIES - $16
TAGS - $429,955
TURKEY FEEDING - $1,914
UTILITIES - $338
Total - $3,068,613
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-02-09 AT 10:10AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Mar-02-09 AT 10:04?AM (MST)

ColoradoOak-

Please tell me there is more to this story. I certainly hope that more than 13.5% of total revenue actually went toward wildlife. Tax returns are certainly better than nothing but they don't tell the full story. Hopefully, somebody from SFW can hop on here explain what these numbers really mean. I am sure there is a logical, good faith explanation, and I am not going to pass judgment until I hear it.

By the way, where did you track down the 2007 tax returns?

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-02-09 AT 10:10AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Mar-02-09 AT 10:04?AM (MST)

ColoradoOak-

Please tell me there is more to this story. I certainly hope that more than 13.5% of total revenue actually went toward wildlife. Tax returns are certainly better than nothing but they don't tell the full story. Hopefully, somebody from SFW can hop on here explain what these numbers really mean. I am sure there is a logical, good faith explanation, and I am not going to pass judgment until I hear it.

By the way, where did you track down the 2007 tax returns?

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
Thank you ColoradoOak! Finally someone stopped just whining about the "open book" and just got the information.

Remember that SFW keeps only 10% from the tags they sell. If you look at most conservation organizations most only get 25% "on the ground". They may claim that 80% goes "toward the mission" but that includes all expenses. The organizations accomplish more by leveraging money with matching fund sources.
 
Thank you ColoradoOak! Finally someone stopped just whining about the "open book" and just got the information.

Remember that SFW keeps only 10% from the tags they sell. If you look at most conservation organizations most only get 25% "on the ground". They may claim that 80% goes "toward the mission" but that includes all expenses. The organizations accomplish more by leveraging money with matching fund sources.
 
When looking at the numbers. Remember this is part of the picture. Part of the numbers.

What is the amount of money raised through lobbing for wildlife?
How much was legal fees to fight the appeals, from anti hunting groups on Prop 5?

What money was used to pay legal fees to help fight the wolf wars?
How much money was raised with matching money?

How much money was made and went to an endowment fund, to protect hunting rights and help fight future battles with the anti hunters?

How much was it worth to still have public access to hunt on school trust lands and national monuments?

How much money was used to try to help change things in Washington DC to help with hunting, and make significant changes in rehab of habitat to help wildlife and hunting?

I don't have all the answers. I'm just saying this is just part of the picture. SFW has won some critical wars for sportmen and there will be more wars in the future. Who is going to fight your future wars to protect your hunting?

Just a few thoughts.
 
When looking at the numbers. Remember this is part of the picture. Part of the numbers.

What is the amount of money raised through lobbing for wildlife?
How much was legal fees to fight the appeals, from anti hunting groups on Prop 5?

What money was used to pay legal fees to help fight the wolf wars?
How much money was raised with matching money?

How much money was made and went to an endowment fund, to protect hunting rights and help fight future battles with the anti hunters?

How much was it worth to still have public access to hunt on school trust lands and national monuments?

How much money was used to try to help change things in Washington DC to help with hunting, and make significant changes in rehab of habitat to help wildlife and hunting?

I don't have all the answers. I'm just saying this is just part of the picture. SFW has won some critical wars for sportmen and there will be more wars in the future. Who is going to fight your future wars to protect your hunting?

Just a few thoughts.
 
Justin-

Those are all very good questions--questions that deserve an answer from SFW. The purpose in asking these questions is not to attack SFW or uncover some type of hidden scam. Rather, sportsmen like me simply want to know where their money is really going and how it is being used. If it is truly being used carefully and efficiently to benefit wildlife, great! SFW could have resolved this issue long ago if they stepped forward and provided a simple explanation/accounting. Instead, they have chosen to bury ther heads in the sand, attack anyone who asks questions and then wait for someone to track down their tax returns in cyberspace. Even now, nobody is willing to come forward and explain the numbers in the tax return. I still assume there is a logical explanation but I cannot figure out why nobody is willing to share it.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
Justin-

Those are all very good questions--questions that deserve an answer from SFW. The purpose in asking these questions is not to attack SFW or uncover some type of hidden scam. Rather, sportsmen like me simply want to know where their money is really going and how it is being used. If it is truly being used carefully and efficiently to benefit wildlife, great! SFW could have resolved this issue long ago if they stepped forward and provided a simple explanation/accounting. Instead, they have chosen to bury ther heads in the sand, attack anyone who asks questions and then wait for someone to track down their tax returns in cyberspace. Even now, nobody is willing to come forward and explain the numbers in the tax return. I still assume there is a logical explanation but I cannot figure out why nobody is willing to share it.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
huntin100,
Very good questions. The tax return says that $0 was spent on lobbying. It says that legal fees were $1,148. I'm not too up on how to read these non-profit tax returns, so maybe somebody will explain the numbers better.
 
huntin100,
Very good questions. The tax return says that $0 was spent on lobbying. It says that legal fees were $1,148. I'm not too up on how to read these non-profit tax returns, so maybe somebody will explain the numbers better.
 
Muly 62 said: "Thank you ColoradoOak! Finally someone stopped just whining about the "open book" and just got the information."

Response: SFW has had this information at there fingetips the entire time. If they had any interest in making it available, they would have pointed all of us "haters" in that direction a long time ago. Don't make it sound like the information was sitting out there on their website for anyone to read.

Muly 62 said: "If you look at most conservation organizations most only get 25% on the ground. They may claim that 80% goes 'toward the mission' but that includes all expenses."

Response: If it is true that most conservation groups ony get 25% on the ground, that is pretty depressing. Even worse, SFW only got 13.5% on the ground in 2007 (based in the numbers tracked down by ColoradoOak). I am sure that many of the big wigs in these groups believe that 100% of the funds go "toward the mission." I guess "the mission" includes salaries, consultant fees and other miscellaneous expenses. This highlights the need for transparency. Now, I recognize that there may be a logical explanation for the numbers. I just hope that we get to hear it.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
Muly 62 said: "Thank you ColoradoOak! Finally someone stopped just whining about the "open book" and just got the information."

Response: SFW has had this information at there fingetips the entire time. If they had any interest in making it available, they would have pointed all of us "haters" in that direction a long time ago. Don't make it sound like the information was sitting out there on their website for anyone to read.

Muly 62 said: "If you look at most conservation organizations most only get 25% on the ground. They may claim that 80% goes 'toward the mission' but that includes all expenses."

Response: If it is true that most conservation groups ony get 25% on the ground, that is pretty depressing. Even worse, SFW only got 13.5% on the ground in 2007 (based in the numbers tracked down by ColoradoOak). I am sure that many of the big wigs in these groups believe that 100% of the funds go "toward the mission." I guess "the mission" includes salaries, consultant fees and other miscellaneous expenses. This highlights the need for transparency. Now, I recognize that there may be a logical explanation for the numbers. I just hope that we get to hear it.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
I used to be on the SFW board. I resigned last year because of other important commitments. Don Paey is paid as a consultant. He works hard to make things better for hunting. He knows alot of key people. He is good at what he does. The executive committee, In my opinion are honest people, trying to whats best for wildlife and hunting. They have kids and grandkids as well. I believe they want to make things better for their kids and ours. There are some things that the public will not know. I have no idea where most of my tax money goes. I know some of the things that the government does is a waste and a joke. We are having some hard times in the world these days. We will all be held accountable for what we do. Sooner or later. A few random comments.
 
I used to be on the SFW board. I resigned last year because of other important commitments. Don Paey is paid as a consultant. He works hard to make things better for hunting. He knows alot of key people. He is good at what he does. The executive committee, In my opinion are honest people, trying to whats best for wildlife and hunting. They have kids and grandkids as well. I believe they want to make things better for their kids and ours. There are some things that the public will not know. I have no idea where most of my tax money goes. I know some of the things that the government does is a waste and a joke. We are having some hard times in the world these days. We will all be held accountable for what we do. Sooner or later. A few random comments.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-02-09 AT 04:14PM (MST)[p]]

>I used to be on the
>SFW board. I resigned last
>year because of other important
>commitments. Don Paey is paid
>as a consultant. >>random comments.
So since you were part of SFW/SFH did you see the tax returns when you were there? Is this a shock to you?
So, according to you more was spent on "consultants" meaning "Don Peay" than on habitat projects?
See that is why I have a problem with these things. It is like someone getting away with murder just because he did a few good deeds somewhere else. Guys need to know where money is spent on such things when they sign onto an ORG so they know where the money goes. $486K in consulting fees is a lot of money and to see that number as big as it is is staggering. From my earlier post on non-profits, one can be paid a consultant fee for "consulting" another non-profit. I wish there was a way to see the worksheet as to who were all the consultants, and what the consulting was. I read where many times consultants are multiple family members to keep the draw non-taxable for the non-profit. Not saying this is the case, but who knows since there is no open book policy
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-02-09 AT 04:14PM (MST)[p]]

>I used to be on the
>SFW board. I resigned last
>year because of other important
>commitments. Don Paey is paid
>as a consultant. >>random comments.
So since you were part of SFW/SFH did you see the tax returns when you were there? Is this a shock to you?
So, according to you more was spent on "consultants" meaning "Don Peay" than on habitat projects?
See that is why I have a problem with these things. It is like someone getting away with murder just because he did a few good deeds somewhere else. Guys need to know where money is spent on such things when they sign onto an ORG so they know where the money goes. $486K in consulting fees is a lot of money and to see that number as big as it is is staggering. From my earlier post on non-profits, one can be paid a consultant fee for "consulting" another non-profit. I wish there was a way to see the worksheet as to who were all the consultants, and what the consulting was. I read where many times consultants are multiple family members to keep the draw non-taxable for the non-profit. Not saying this is the case, but who knows since there is no open book policy
 
More on Entrepreneur.com
Operating in the nude: Another difference between for-profits and nonprofits is that nonprofits' tax forms are public records. Small, privately held businesses can keep operating details secret, but anyone can read a nonprofit's tax form, known as Form 990, online, learning salaries, revenue, expenditures and more. "Get prepared to get naked because of those 990s," says Mark Grimes, a nonprofits consultant in Portland, Ore. "You better be real comfortable with people knowing how much you make."
Getting paid: Salaries in the nonprofit sector vary widely. But with many nonprofit heads overseeing large and complex organizations, salaries can be quite substantial. A 2005 Chronicle of Philanthropy study of more than 200 large nonprofit groups found the median salary for nonprofit CEOs was nearly $320,000
 
More on Entrepreneur.com
Operating in the nude: Another difference between for-profits and nonprofits is that nonprofits' tax forms are public records. Small, privately held businesses can keep operating details secret, but anyone can read a nonprofit's tax form, known as Form 990, online, learning salaries, revenue, expenditures and more. "Get prepared to get naked because of those 990s," says Mark Grimes, a nonprofits consultant in Portland, Ore. "You better be real comfortable with people knowing how much you make."
Getting paid: Salaries in the nonprofit sector vary widely. But with many nonprofit heads overseeing large and complex organizations, salaries can be quite substantial. A 2005 Chronicle of Philanthropy study of more than 200 large nonprofit groups found the median salary for nonprofit CEOs was nearly $320,000
 
schmalts,
Nobody other than Bateman received more than $50k in compensation, or they would be listed in Part V-A of the Form-990, or in Part I or Part II-A of the Schedule A (I think).

I'll admit I was surprised to learn that Peay did not even get $50k.
 
schmalts,
Nobody other than Bateman received more than $50k in compensation, or they would be listed in Part V-A of the Form-990, or in Part I or Part II-A of the Schedule A (I think).

I'll admit I was surprised to learn that Peay did not even get $50k.
 
Hawkeye,

If you are not currently a member of the SFW. Which I believe you have made more than clear you are not. Why do you feel it is your business to know where every dollar goes? Not trying to be rude but is seems you are just trying to stir the pot.

If you are not happy about where the money is going don't give them anymore. Including money to put in for expo tags. My guess and this would only be a guess. You are not the only one on here beating up the SFW, but more than willing to go to the expo and pay money for a chance at the tags that the SFW makes available. I know the argument that these tags should just be in the general draw and I personally feel they do give to many. But if this were so you personally would not have even been eligable to have a chance at hunting the Pauns, and with draw odds the way they are you would have not drawn for another 10 to 15 years.

I know that they say the SFW pimps tags, but it should also be said we all seem to be willing "JOHNS" when it is in our price range.
 
Hawkeye,

If you are not currently a member of the SFW. Which I believe you have made more than clear you are not. Why do you feel it is your business to know where every dollar goes? Not trying to be rude but is seems you are just trying to stir the pot.

If you are not happy about where the money is going don't give them anymore. Including money to put in for expo tags. My guess and this would only be a guess. You are not the only one on here beating up the SFW, but more than willing to go to the expo and pay money for a chance at the tags that the SFW makes available. I know the argument that these tags should just be in the general draw and I personally feel they do give to many. But if this were so you personally would not have even been eligable to have a chance at hunting the Pauns, and with draw odds the way they are you would have not drawn for another 10 to 15 years.

I know that they say the SFW pimps tags, but it should also be said we all seem to be willing "JOHNS" when it is in our price range.
 
QUOTED:I know that they say the SFW pimps tags, but it should also be said we ALL seem to be willing "JOHNS" when it is in our price range.


I swore off this blog, but here I am again. In the above sentence ALL is a pretty big word. I believe most go to the Expo to validate their draw application. That being said, the further from SLC a person has to travel the more of a burden, and that being said there are a lot from southern utah, as well as other locations, that do not want to spend the money or time to go to the expo. Then there's a lot of sportmen objecting to the whole idea. It's an unfair situation for travelers who are after the elusive permits. I, myself, was a willing JOHN (these last two years), but there are many more sportmen who are not. To me $350,000 to benefit game out of 3 Million is not much bang for our buck. That is if there is a better option.

I have an idea - let us validate over the internet without going to the expo with a $20.00 donation to SFW.
 
QUOTED:I know that they say the SFW pimps tags, but it should also be said we ALL seem to be willing "JOHNS" when it is in our price range.


I swore off this blog, but here I am again. In the above sentence ALL is a pretty big word. I believe most go to the Expo to validate their draw application. That being said, the further from SLC a person has to travel the more of a burden, and that being said there are a lot from southern utah, as well as other locations, that do not want to spend the money or time to go to the expo. Then there's a lot of sportmen objecting to the whole idea. It's an unfair situation for travelers who are after the elusive permits. I, myself, was a willing JOHN (these last two years), but there are many more sportmen who are not. To me $350,000 to benefit game out of 3 Million is not much bang for our buck. That is if there is a better option.

I have an idea - let us validate over the internet without going to the expo with a $20.00 donation to SFW.
 
> To me $350,000
>to benefit game out of
>3 Million is not much
>bang for our buck.
>That is if there is
>a better option.
>
>
Good question. How much did the deer Goverors tag go for alone? over 100K right? How much did the elk gov tag go for, sheep gov tag.. So between those 3 tags alone, how much was raised. Why can't the DOW just get it right? These ORGS take so many tags, and according to the tax papers a little over 300k only gets put into habitat projects by this one?
Just a question for you UT guys, are you happy with that percentage that Oak figured? I am if you are I guess.
 
> To me $350,000
>to benefit game out of
>3 Million is not much
>bang for our buck.
>That is if there is
>a better option.
>
>
Good question. How much did the deer Goverors tag go for alone? over 100K right? How much did the elk gov tag go for, sheep gov tag.. So between those 3 tags alone, how much was raised. Why can't the DOW just get it right? These ORGS take so many tags, and according to the tax papers a little over 300k only gets put into habitat projects by this one?
Just a question for you UT guys, are you happy with that percentage that Oak figured? I am if you are I guess.
 
Muley 73,

You don't have to belong to SFW to worry about where the money goes. The tags are from a state agency that is supported by the tax payers of Utah and from sportsman who pay for licenses just hoping to draw a tag.

There are a bunch of guys out there who are counting every dollar that they donate and want to make sure that the money that goes out is effective in what it is designed for. Just because a person wants some type of accountability from a non profit that receives numerous tags from a public entity doesn't necesarily mean that they are against SFW. If SFW was transparant I think you would see more money going to them for the important things like predator control and habitat projects.

My 2 cents

Rich
 
Muley 73,

You don't have to belong to SFW to worry about where the money goes. The tags are from a state agency that is supported by the tax payers of Utah and from sportsman who pay for licenses just hoping to draw a tag.

There are a bunch of guys out there who are counting every dollar that they donate and want to make sure that the money that goes out is effective in what it is designed for. Just because a person wants some type of accountability from a non profit that receives numerous tags from a public entity doesn't necesarily mean that they are against SFW. If SFW was transparant I think you would see more money going to them for the important things like predator control and habitat projects.

My 2 cents

Rich
 
Muley73-

Those are certainly fair questions. Although I am not currently a member of SFW, I still believe I have a right to know how they are spending their funds. Why? First, SFW raises a large amount of money by selling conservation tags. As a result, I believe SFW has an obligation to demonstrate to the public that it is using those funds wisely and efficiently. Second, despite what you might think, I am a dedicated sportsman that wants to be involved and give back. I have been a member of several of these groups over the years, and I would like to be involved in the future. However, I want to know that my time, effort and money are used to benefit wildlife and not to line somebody's pocket. I would like to get reinvolved with a conservation group. The question is which one.

With regard to your statement that we are all selling out if we put in for the Expo tags, you are absolutely right. As I have explained before, I did not apply for any Expo tags the first year. After I realized that my one-man boycott would have no effect on the system, I applied the second year and drew a tag. Although I personally don't like the idea of Expo tags, that is not the subject of this thread. What is relevant is how the funds raised from the sale of those tags are used.



Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
Muley73-

Those are certainly fair questions. Although I am not currently a member of SFW, I still believe I have a right to know how they are spending their funds. Why? First, SFW raises a large amount of money by selling conservation tags. As a result, I believe SFW has an obligation to demonstrate to the public that it is using those funds wisely and efficiently. Second, despite what you might think, I am a dedicated sportsman that wants to be involved and give back. I have been a member of several of these groups over the years, and I would like to be involved in the future. However, I want to know that my time, effort and money are used to benefit wildlife and not to line somebody's pocket. I would like to get reinvolved with a conservation group. The question is which one.

With regard to your statement that we are all selling out if we put in for the Expo tags, you are absolutely right. As I have explained before, I did not apply for any Expo tags the first year. After I realized that my one-man boycott would have no effect on the system, I applied the second year and drew a tag. Although I personally don't like the idea of Expo tags, that is not the subject of this thread. What is relevant is how the funds raised from the sale of those tags are used.



Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
I don't believe that everyone will ever be completely happy with how any group spends donated money. Don has come on here and told you where the money goes and their are some that want more. If he gives more they want more or they complain about how he has spent it.
If they can do better they should start groups, groups just like the other groups talked about in earlier post, groups that did not get half or even 10% done that the SFW has.
If you do form such a group I would surely join and stand up for you when hecklers and conspiracy theory experts pipe up. But my worry is you will not, you and others will continue to beat up the torch carrier of our cause no matter what group they work for.
When Tony run the MDF we all beat him up, when he tried to make a stand.
Lets face it there are a lot of guys on this site that would rather stand behind a screen name and make jabs than actually do something. Don's willingness to jump in and fight with these individuals is the reason I support him. If he is willing to come on here and get beat up and fight with 15 nobodys I can only imagine how hard he fights when something that really matters is on the line.
How many of these individuals would stand up at a RAC meeting or a debate and call anyone out? The answer is far less, than would on this forum!
 
I don't believe that everyone will ever be completely happy with how any group spends donated money. Don has come on here and told you where the money goes and their are some that want more. If he gives more they want more or they complain about how he has spent it.
If they can do better they should start groups, groups just like the other groups talked about in earlier post, groups that did not get half or even 10% done that the SFW has.
If you do form such a group I would surely join and stand up for you when hecklers and conspiracy theory experts pipe up. But my worry is you will not, you and others will continue to beat up the torch carrier of our cause no matter what group they work for.
When Tony run the MDF we all beat him up, when he tried to make a stand.
Lets face it there are a lot of guys on this site that would rather stand behind a screen name and make jabs than actually do something. Don's willingness to jump in and fight with these individuals is the reason I support him. If he is willing to come on here and get beat up and fight with 15 nobodys I can only imagine how hard he fights when something that really matters is on the line.
How many of these individuals would stand up at a RAC meeting or a debate and call anyone out? The answer is far less, than would on this forum!
 
ALL would refer to all those that apply for those tags. Some are willing to pay more. Be it an auction tag or traveling expenses.

Without the 3 million how much go to benifit the wildlife? Again lots of questions but no better solutions?

Here's an idea, lets throw the 200 tags back the general draw and send our money to DWR! They seem to always get it right and I'll bet they would put that money to good use.

Brine,
All negative and no positive?
 
ALL would refer to all those that apply for those tags. Some are willing to pay more. Be it an auction tag or traveling expenses.

Without the 3 million how much go to benifit the wildlife? Again lots of questions but no better solutions?

Here's an idea, lets throw the 200 tags back the general draw and send our money to DWR! They seem to always get it right and I'll bet they would put that money to good use.

Brine,
All negative and no positive?
 
+ 1 Muley 73!

It seems those that are calling out SFW are never satisified. I feel Don and SFW have much better things to do than sit here on MM and try and Please the 15 people that always want more more more.

Personally I hope don makes alot of money for what he does. Just like a good lawyer, doctor or any other field they get paid to do things that most others cant and wont do. He is in there fighting for utah and wildlife everyday. I would not want his job and if I did you would have to pay me alot of money!

I give credit to Don for showing his face on here when there are alot of wolves in sheeps clothing waiting to pounce.
 
+ 1 Muley 73!

It seems those that are calling out SFW are never satisified. I feel Don and SFW have much better things to do than sit here on MM and try and Please the 15 people that always want more more more.

Personally I hope don makes alot of money for what he does. Just like a good lawyer, doctor or any other field they get paid to do things that most others cant and wont do. He is in there fighting for utah and wildlife everyday. I would not want his job and if I did you would have to pay me alot of money!

I give credit to Don for showing his face on here when there are alot of wolves in sheeps clothing waiting to pounce.
 
Muley73 wrote" Brine all negative and no positive.

Muley73, I wouldn't even respond to that.

The only thing I would say is to again read Hawkeye's #120 Post. It was a good one.
 
Muley73 wrote" Brine all negative and no positive.

Muley73, I wouldn't even respond to that.

The only thing I would say is to again read Hawkeye's #120 Post. It was a good one.
 
It is always difficult to make comparisons based on tax returns and financial statements, but there are some general comparisons that I believe are relevant to this discussion.

First, the four national organizations listed above have placed financial information on their websites. SFW has not, but in there defense, neither have other state organizations I checked such as Oregon Hunters Association and Wyoming Wildlife Federation. I am guessing that national organizations have tremendous pressures to provide that information to the public. In my opinion, state organizations should also do that, and I will be harassing Oregon Hunters Association about that.

According to their statement, SFW paid 493,000 for permits and tags, I assume to Utah Dept of Wildlife. In essence, this is a pass through, so I subtracted that amount from their gross income of 3.3 million in making the calculations.

Now, the comparisons:

All four national organizations report fundraising expenses of 4% to 10% of total income for either 2007 or 2008. SFW was at 31%.

The four national organizations spent 73% to 88% of total income on conservation projects, land aquisition, education, etc. SFW spent 18%.

The four national organizations spent 2% to 25% on administration, member benefits, etc. SFW spent 51%. This is a little misleading, due to the fact that the larger the organization, the smaller percentage of income it should take to run the organization. Ducks Unlimited, with total income of 250 million plus, has far and away the lowest percentage of income going to admin. Having said that, SFW spending only 18% of almost 3,000,000 in income on projects, acquisitions, etc. is a very large red flag, in my view.

I will make this point one final time. Oregon sold 11 conservation tags through non-profit organizations and put over 300,000 dollars in the Access and Habitat fund. SFW had more than 10 times that many tags, and spent 516,000 on projects, plus contributed a smaller amount (around 400,000 as close as I can figure) to the state. They also are responsible for 200 convention tags, with no data for how much of that money went to projects or the state. I don't believe Utah is receiving maximum value for all the tags (more than 300) that flow through SFW.

Finally, I do want to deal with the comments that appear numerous times in this thread about Don Peay being willing to deal with this issue. I am one of the individuals who has been asking for financial information since the first convention was held. I believe I have been respectful and factual in my posts. Not one time has Don addressed the questions that have been posed by myself and others. In every case, he attempts to turn the conversation to all of the things SFW has done, without ever providing any specific details or answers to the financial questions. When that does not work, he disappears. If you go back and review this thread, you will find that is exactly what happened here. It is also interesting to note that the tax returns filed by both of the SFW organizations listed zero involvement with lobbying, either locally or nationally. Given that, any lobbying being done by Don or others cannot be represented as being on behalf of SFW, since all expenses associated with that activity must be reported on the return. Now, I am certainly not saying that Don has not done a great job in that area, just don't think it can be attributed to SFW.

Scoutdog
 
It is always difficult to make comparisons based on tax returns and financial statements, but there are some general comparisons that I believe are relevant to this discussion.

First, the four national organizations listed above have placed financial information on their websites. SFW has not, but in there defense, neither have other state organizations I checked such as Oregon Hunters Association and Wyoming Wildlife Federation. I am guessing that national organizations have tremendous pressures to provide that information to the public. In my opinion, state organizations should also do that, and I will be harassing Oregon Hunters Association about that.

According to their statement, SFW paid 493,000 for permits and tags, I assume to Utah Dept of Wildlife. In essence, this is a pass through, so I subtracted that amount from their gross income of 3.3 million in making the calculations.

Now, the comparisons:

All four national organizations report fundraising expenses of 4% to 10% of total income for either 2007 or 2008. SFW was at 31%.

The four national organizations spent 73% to 88% of total income on conservation projects, land aquisition, education, etc. SFW spent 18%.

The four national organizations spent 2% to 25% on administration, member benefits, etc. SFW spent 51%. This is a little misleading, due to the fact that the larger the organization, the smaller percentage of income it should take to run the organization. Ducks Unlimited, with total income of 250 million plus, has far and away the lowest percentage of income going to admin. Having said that, SFW spending only 18% of almost 3,000,000 in income on projects, acquisitions, etc. is a very large red flag, in my view.

I will make this point one final time. Oregon sold 11 conservation tags through non-profit organizations and put over 300,000 dollars in the Access and Habitat fund. SFW had more than 10 times that many tags, and spent 516,000 on projects, plus contributed a smaller amount (around 400,000 as close as I can figure) to the state. They also are responsible for 200 convention tags, with no data for how much of that money went to projects or the state. I don't believe Utah is receiving maximum value for all the tags (more than 300) that flow through SFW.

Finally, I do want to deal with the comments that appear numerous times in this thread about Don Peay being willing to deal with this issue. I am one of the individuals who has been asking for financial information since the first convention was held. I believe I have been respectful and factual in my posts. Not one time has Don addressed the questions that have been posed by myself and others. In every case, he attempts to turn the conversation to all of the things SFW has done, without ever providing any specific details or answers to the financial questions. When that does not work, he disappears. If you go back and review this thread, you will find that is exactly what happened here. It is also interesting to note that the tax returns filed by both of the SFW organizations listed zero involvement with lobbying, either locally or nationally. Given that, any lobbying being done by Don or others cannot be represented as being on behalf of SFW, since all expenses associated with that activity must be reported on the return. Now, I am certainly not saying that Don has not done a great job in that area, just don't think it can be attributed to SFW.

Scoutdog
 
90% of the money raised from the sale of tags goes to the state of Utah. SFW only keeps 10% as an "administrative fee".

I am on the BOD of a few conservation organizations so let me clear up a comment I made earlier about only "25% goes on the ground". If you pay $40 for a membership in a group they will probably spend $15 on a newsletter, $5 admin cost, and at leat $10 on other cost. This leaves about $10 for "on the ground" if you have a group with more than 5-10K members. This also assumes that the vast majority of the work is done by volunteers.

If you care then get involved! If you don't like what you see in one group then start another one! Look at the numbers, how many gun owners in America and how many belong to the NRA? How many hunters in UT<AZ<CO, etc...and how many are active in any conservation group? My home state of Arizona has some of the finest independent conservation groups in the country and yet less than 5% belong to any group or are active in any way. I keep hearing that it is our fault that these people are not interested in joining and that if they saw the value then they would join. Well after 15 years of trying I am confident in calling BS on that. Look at what the groups have accomplished!
 
90% of the money raised from the sale of tags goes to the state of Utah. SFW only keeps 10% as an "administrative fee".

I am on the BOD of a few conservation organizations so let me clear up a comment I made earlier about only "25% goes on the ground". If you pay $40 for a membership in a group they will probably spend $15 on a newsletter, $5 admin cost, and at leat $10 on other cost. This leaves about $10 for "on the ground" if you have a group with more than 5-10K members. This also assumes that the vast majority of the work is done by volunteers.

If you care then get involved! If you don't like what you see in one group then start another one! Look at the numbers, how many gun owners in America and how many belong to the NRA? How many hunters in UT<AZ<CO, etc...and how many are active in any conservation group? My home state of Arizona has some of the finest independent conservation groups in the country and yet less than 5% belong to any group or are active in any way. I keep hearing that it is our fault that these people are not interested in joining and that if they saw the value then they would join. Well after 15 years of trying I am confident in calling BS on that. Look at what the groups have accomplished!
 
>If you care then get involved!
>If you don't like what
>you see in one group
>then start another one! Look
>at the numbers, how many
>gun owners in America and
>how many belong to the
>NRA? How many hunters in

Now you know why these topics start. Guys want to know if they "like what they see in one group" This tax return will give some idea as to who puts what on the ground and who is blowing smoke. Without posting what actually gets put to the ground guys have a right to ask questions and research the ORG they are considering. They are smart for doing so, can't blame em for wondering what happens to the money. Look at the United way scandal a few years ago. someone did some research there.
 
>If you care then get involved!
>If you don't like what
>you see in one group
>then start another one! Look
>at the numbers, how many
>gun owners in America and
>how many belong to the
>NRA? How many hunters in

Now you know why these topics start. Guys want to know if they "like what they see in one group" This tax return will give some idea as to who puts what on the ground and who is blowing smoke. Without posting what actually gets put to the ground guys have a right to ask questions and research the ORG they are considering. They are smart for doing so, can't blame em for wondering what happens to the money. Look at the United way scandal a few years ago. someone did some research there.
 
Hell yeah, do the research, gather the knowledge, and then do something with it!

I am not picking on any one person here, but it seems to me that these posts are about finding enough reasons not to do something. Based on all this information is anyone going to do anything other than what they are currently doing?
 
Hell yeah, do the research, gather the knowledge, and then do something with it!

I am not picking on any one person here, but it seems to me that these posts are about finding enough reasons not to do something. Based on all this information is anyone going to do anything other than what they are currently doing?
 
Someone mentioned removing the 200 tags from the Expo.

I support putting the 200 tags back in the non-resident pool where non-residents will draw 100% of the tags.
 
Someone mentioned removing the 200 tags from the Expo.

I support putting the 200 tags back in the non-resident pool where non-residents will draw 100% of the tags.
 
Muley62,
Speaking about calling BS, I'll call BS on your following statement.

>90% of the money raised from
>the sale of tags goes
>to the state of Utah.
>SFW only keeps 10% as
>an "administrative fee".


The regulation governing conservation permitssays:

(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...

In addition, the regulations governing convention permits contains no provision for giving any money back to the state of Utah. Here is the link...if I missed it, please let me know:

http://wildlife.utah.gov/rules/R657-55.php

I will admit I'm really surprised that folks in Utah are willing to give up over 10% of their sheep hunting opportunity to the highest bidder, plus another 3% to the expo. That would be the equivilent of Colorado auctioning off 21 ram tags and raffling off another 8!
 
Muley62,
Speaking about calling BS, I'll call BS on your following statement.

>90% of the money raised from
>the sale of tags goes
>to the state of Utah.
>SFW only keeps 10% as
>an "administrative fee".


The regulation governing conservation permitssays:

(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...

In addition, the regulations governing convention permits contains no provision for giving any money back to the state of Utah. Here is the link...if I missed it, please let me know:

http://wildlife.utah.gov/rules/R657-55.php

I will admit I'm really surprised that folks in Utah are willing to give up over 10% of their sheep hunting opportunity to the highest bidder, plus another 3% to the expo. That would be the equivilent of Colorado auctioning off 21 ram tags and raffling off another 8!
 
I'm not surprised at all.

The hunters in Utah are getting exactly what they deserve. If you're not smart enough to know when you're getting taken advantage of...you deserve it.

I've learned long ago to never trust snake oil salesmen.
 
I'm not surprised at all.

The hunters in Utah are getting exactly what they deserve. If you're not smart enough to know when you're getting taken advantage of...you deserve it.

I've learned long ago to never trust snake oil salesmen.
 
ColoradoOak has touched on another important issue. When I read through the relevant Utah Aministrative Code provisions identified by ColoradoOak (http://wildlife.utah.gov/rules/R657-55.php) and I did not see ANY requirement that ANY portion of funds raised from the sale of Convention Permits actually be used to benefit wildlife. Remember, I am talking about Convention Permits, not Conservation Permits, which have such a requirement. I certainly hope there is a requirement located somewhere else that a certain percent of all funds raised by the sale of Convention Permits be used directly to benefit wildlife. I don't know why it would not be included in this section of the code but I certainly hope it exists.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
ColoradoOak has touched on another important issue. When I read through the relevant Utah Aministrative Code provisions identified by ColoradoOak (http://wildlife.utah.gov/rules/R657-55.php) and I did not see ANY requirement that ANY portion of funds raised from the sale of Convention Permits actually be used to benefit wildlife. Remember, I am talking about Convention Permits, not Conservation Permits, which have such a requirement. I certainly hope there is a requirement located somewhere else that a certain percent of all funds raised by the sale of Convention Permits be used directly to benefit wildlife. I don't know why it would not be included in this section of the code but I certainly hope it exists.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
Hawkeye, I found that amusing as well. There is absolutely no requirement in those regulations that any money from the convention (expo) permits be spent on wildlife. Which brings us back to the original question of exactly how much the convention brought in, and how is that money is spent?
 
Hawkeye, I found that amusing as well. There is absolutely no requirement in those regulations that any money from the convention (expo) permits be spent on wildlife. Which brings us back to the original question of exactly how much the convention brought in, and how is that money is spent?
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-03-09 AT 03:55PM (MST)[p] Your beating a horse that is almost dead Oak. The SFW defenders will not change their minds as they see that things like selling off tags from the draw has made things better for hunting and that is all they see and the only way they think it can be done. Heck, look how good it worked in Montana in the breaks! Montana took a bunch of sheep tags, auctioned and raffled them off to the highest bidders and now look, they have so many sheep they are giving them to UT. Oh wait a minute... MT did not sell off a bunch of tags, or raffle a bunch, except for like one or something..... How did they do that!!?? those guys are just redneck sheep lovers and they had a sheep explosion without conventions, raffles, and auctions? Must be magic water in that Missouri river I guess.
Although I must say, it is pretty quite since you posted the actual percentage of funds that met the ground. Makes me wonder what some are thinking.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-03-09 AT 03:55PM (MST)[p] Your beating a horse that is almost dead Oak. The SFW defenders will not change their minds as they see that things like selling off tags from the draw has made things better for hunting and that is all they see and the only way they think it can be done. Heck, look how good it worked in Montana in the breaks! Montana took a bunch of sheep tags, auctioned and raffled them off to the highest bidders and now look, they have so many sheep they are giving them to UT. Oh wait a minute... MT did not sell off a bunch of tags, or raffle a bunch, except for like one or something..... How did they do that!!?? those guys are just redneck sheep lovers and they had a sheep explosion without conventions, raffles, and auctions? Must be magic water in that Missouri river I guess.
Although I must say, it is pretty quite since you posted the actual percentage of funds that met the ground. Makes me wonder what some are thinking.
 
They're thinking the devil is in the details.

"Dear MacGuyver, Enclosed is a rubber band, a paper clip, and a drinking straw. Please save my dog." Peter Griffin aka The Family Guy
 
They're thinking the devil is in the details.

"Dear MacGuyver, Enclosed is a rubber band, a paper clip, and a drinking straw. Please save my dog." Peter Griffin aka The Family Guy
 
SFW has been very good for wildlife in this state. I would hate to see how things would be if SFW had never existed. I don't know the numbers, but I do know Don, John, Byron, Troy, Ryan, and MANY others who make it happen. I was also on the SFW board for several years.
I believe that they all do all possible to make things better for sportsmen in this state. We are better off because of SFW.
That's my 2 cents.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
SFW has been very good for wildlife in this state. I would hate to see how things would be if SFW had never existed. I don't know the numbers, but I do know Don, John, Byron, Troy, Ryan, and MANY others who make it happen. I was also on the SFW board for several years.
I believe that they all do all possible to make things better for sportsmen in this state. We are better off because of SFW.
That's my 2 cents.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
Bryan, most are not saying that Don has not done some good things for Utah's wildlife. He certainly has. That is not the point. Many hunter's want to know the truth about what's going on with the funds derived from THEIR WILDLIFE, and rightfully so.

Why is it wrong for sportsman to ask and demand the hard facts? If they are truly interested in their wildlife, it only makes sense that they would want to know. If you had a sick daughter or son, you as a good parent would be asking the tough questions and demanding the answers from the physician would you not? It's much the same with Utah's wildlife.

SPW has taken a strong hold of Utah's wildlife. We hear that from you, from Don and many of the flock. They have a great base of power and they call many of the shots either directly or indirectly. With that power comes the scrutiny. If they in fact have nothing to hide and in fact are doing a far better job than any other group, then it would be beneficial for them to answer these hard questions. And even more importantly, it would be beneficial to the owners of Utah's wildlife and the wildlife itself.

The truth of the matter is much is being kept from those that deserve to know. The bigger question for SFW might be is it better to remain silent and suffer the hurt that is sure to follow, or tell it like it is and at least have the creditability that they are being transparent. I think the excuses made for not divulging what is being ask, in the long run, will be far more damaging than allowing the truth to be known. (That is unless you have something to hide!)

To answer Hawkeye?s question I don't think there is any requirement in the convention tags to spend one dime on wildlife. As I recall that is the way it was set up and against many concerned sportsman at the time. Don and others made promises that it would be used for wildlife, but as I recall there were simply promises made. I also recall that money can be used or sent to any other state for basically any purpose and there were many that fought and lost that battle too.

In the best interest of Utah?s wildlife, let's hope SFW sees the value and good will in providing the answers to the hard questions. In the long run it is in the best interest of all involved.

Like the old saying goes, if you have nothing to hide, then don't hide it.

Have a good one. BB
 
Bryan, most are not saying that Don has not done some good things for Utah's wildlife. He certainly has. That is not the point. Many hunter's want to know the truth about what's going on with the funds derived from THEIR WILDLIFE, and rightfully so.

Why is it wrong for sportsman to ask and demand the hard facts? If they are truly interested in their wildlife, it only makes sense that they would want to know. If you had a sick daughter or son, you as a good parent would be asking the tough questions and demanding the answers from the physician would you not? It's much the same with Utah's wildlife.

SPW has taken a strong hold of Utah's wildlife. We hear that from you, from Don and many of the flock. They have a great base of power and they call many of the shots either directly or indirectly. With that power comes the scrutiny. If they in fact have nothing to hide and in fact are doing a far better job than any other group, then it would be beneficial for them to answer these hard questions. And even more importantly, it would be beneficial to the owners of Utah's wildlife and the wildlife itself.

The truth of the matter is much is being kept from those that deserve to know. The bigger question for SFW might be is it better to remain silent and suffer the hurt that is sure to follow, or tell it like it is and at least have the creditability that they are being transparent. I think the excuses made for not divulging what is being ask, in the long run, will be far more damaging than allowing the truth to be known. (That is unless you have something to hide!)

To answer Hawkeye?s question I don't think there is any requirement in the convention tags to spend one dime on wildlife. As I recall that is the way it was set up and against many concerned sportsman at the time. Don and others made promises that it would be used for wildlife, but as I recall there were simply promises made. I also recall that money can be used or sent to any other state for basically any purpose and there were many that fought and lost that battle too.

In the best interest of Utah?s wildlife, let's hope SFW sees the value and good will in providing the answers to the hard questions. In the long run it is in the best interest of all involved.

Like the old saying goes, if you have nothing to hide, then don't hide it.

Have a good one. BB
 
BB:

Very good reply.

I wish SFW all the luck in the world. Actually, I am hoping they can pry more tags from UTDWR. They get the 200 Expo tags and the many more for their local banquets, so what is a hundred more for the Expo? If some is good, more is better, right?

First year, I drew a tag at the Expo. Last year, two friends drew. This year, another friend drew.

Hell, our chances as NRs might be better than in the regular draw.

If UT residents are willing to let non-residents make off with many of these tags, who am I to stop them. Give us some more of the OIL tags though. We only had five of them allocated just to us this year. Can't you get a few more than that?

If I was a resident, or a non-resident who couldn't get to the Expo, I would be steamed. But since me and a few buddies can go there for less than a hundred dollars each, what's the worry.

Accountability, as suggested by many here, would not be a bad thing. But, if that stopped the flow of these tags to me and my buddies, I am firmly against accountability.

Really, a lot of good points have been made here, and it seems that no one is asking for anything other than disclosure and transparency.

If this was happening in my state, there would be a march on the Capitol. If UT hunters are OK with it, that is there business.

Until then, me and my buddies will keep coming down and taking advantage of your kindness.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
BB:

Very good reply.

I wish SFW all the luck in the world. Actually, I am hoping they can pry more tags from UTDWR. They get the 200 Expo tags and the many more for their local banquets, so what is a hundred more for the Expo? If some is good, more is better, right?

First year, I drew a tag at the Expo. Last year, two friends drew. This year, another friend drew.

Hell, our chances as NRs might be better than in the regular draw.

If UT residents are willing to let non-residents make off with many of these tags, who am I to stop them. Give us some more of the OIL tags though. We only had five of them allocated just to us this year. Can't you get a few more than that?

If I was a resident, or a non-resident who couldn't get to the Expo, I would be steamed. But since me and a few buddies can go there for less than a hundred dollars each, what's the worry.

Accountability, as suggested by many here, would not be a bad thing. But, if that stopped the flow of these tags to me and my buddies, I am firmly against accountability.

Really, a lot of good points have been made here, and it seems that no one is asking for anything other than disclosure and transparency.

If this was happening in my state, there would be a march on the Capitol. If UT hunters are OK with it, that is there business.

Until then, me and my buddies will keep coming down and taking advantage of your kindness.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
scmalts said "How did they do that!!?? those guys are just redneck sheep lovers and they had a sheep explosion without conventions, raffles, and auctions? Must be magic water in that Missouri river I guess."

Oh, Oh....I know how they did it!

2007 - 65,394 chances sold for Montana super tags.
2008 - 71,319 chances sold for Montana super tags.
2008 - $356,595 (net) raised from the sale of those super tags.
Resident chances - 38,226
N-Resident chances - 33,093

Now I'm not sure how much of those were sheep tags but I'm guessing the odds weren't great if schmalts is right about the number of tags that were up for "RAFFLE". Apparently those "redneck sheep lovers" know a little somethin about somethin ey?


It's always an adventure!!!
www.awholelottabull.com
 
scmalts said "How did they do that!!?? those guys are just redneck sheep lovers and they had a sheep explosion without conventions, raffles, and auctions? Must be magic water in that Missouri river I guess."

Oh, Oh....I know how they did it!

2007 - 65,394 chances sold for Montana super tags.
2008 - 71,319 chances sold for Montana super tags.
2008 - $356,595 (net) raised from the sale of those super tags.
Resident chances - 38,226
N-Resident chances - 33,093

Now I'm not sure how much of those were sheep tags but I'm guessing the odds weren't great if schmalts is right about the number of tags that were up for "RAFFLE". Apparently those "redneck sheep lovers" know a little somethin about somethin ey?


It's always an adventure!!!
www.awholelottabull.com
 
C'mon bull, if you could look up those stats, you could have looked to see how the money is used:

"All the money generated by the super tag lottery goes back into providing access programs for all sportsmen and for wildlife enforcement."

"In 2008, the sale of the super tag lottery generated $356,595."

It's amazing they made THAT much money for the access program with only one tag for each of eight species.

How much did the 200 tags from the expo net? Oh yeah, they won't tell us. What did they use that money for? Oh yeah, they won't tell us that either.

I agree with Big Fin. If accountability means that they take away my cheap chance at the tags you guys don't want, I'm going to stop arguing for accountability.
 
C'mon bull, if you could look up those stats, you could have looked to see how the money is used:

"All the money generated by the super tag lottery goes back into providing access programs for all sportsmen and for wildlife enforcement."

"In 2008, the sale of the super tag lottery generated $356,595."

It's amazing they made THAT much money for the access program with only one tag for each of eight species.

How much did the 200 tags from the expo net? Oh yeah, they won't tell us. What did they use that money for? Oh yeah, they won't tell us that either.

I agree with Big Fin. If accountability means that they take away my cheap chance at the tags you guys don't want, I'm going to stop arguing for accountability.
 
Alright Oak - you got me there. I just read those stats in HI and figured since somebody was stating that they didn't have a "raffle" in Montana I would correct the facts. Bottom line is this; should conservation groups be a little more upfront with the way the money is used? Sure. Should they stop doing what they are doing because several people boycott their organization for lack of public transparency? Probably not. By the way, are you a resident of Utah? I'm guessing by your screen name that you hale from Colorado. IF it is the latter, what in the hell are you so worked up about? I'm pretty sure there were not any Colorado "expo tags" at the Western Hunt Expo.

It's always an adventure!!!
www.awholelottabull.com
 
Alright Oak - you got me there. I just read those stats in HI and figured since somebody was stating that they didn't have a "raffle" in Montana I would correct the facts. Bottom line is this; should conservation groups be a little more upfront with the way the money is used? Sure. Should they stop doing what they are doing because several people boycott their organization for lack of public transparency? Probably not. By the way, are you a resident of Utah? I'm guessing by your screen name that you hale from Colorado. IF it is the latter, what in the hell are you so worked up about? I'm pretty sure there were not any Colorado "expo tags" at the Western Hunt Expo.

It's always an adventure!!!
www.awholelottabull.com
 
>should
>conservation groups be a little
>more upfront with the way
>the money is used?
>Sure.

>Should they stop doing
>what they are doing because
>several people boycott their organization
>for lack of public transparency?
> Probably not.

You do realize that if they did number one, then number two would be irrelevant, right?

Yes, I'm from CO. In fact, like Big Fin mentioned, I drew an expo tag in 2008. But as more and more of these tags are taken out of the general draw and sold to the highest bidder, it increases the commercialization of publicly owned wildlife and takes us further away from the basic principles wildlife management was founded on in this country. Even the expo tags are about who can spend more money (ie, who can travel to the expo to validate their application). It is a slippery slope, and Utah has already picked up enough momentum that they likely can't stop. It's not good for hunters, regardless of what state they live in.

I'm cutting my own throat by opposing these tags in Utah, because they are realistically the best chance I will ever have of hunting in your state. But I will gladly give up the chance at those tags if it means that the basic hunting opportunities available to my kids and grandkids isn't based on the size of their wallets.
 
>should
>conservation groups be a little
>more upfront with the way
>the money is used?
>Sure.

>Should they stop doing
>what they are doing because
>several people boycott their organization
>for lack of public transparency?
> Probably not.

You do realize that if they did number one, then number two would be irrelevant, right?

Yes, I'm from CO. In fact, like Big Fin mentioned, I drew an expo tag in 2008. But as more and more of these tags are taken out of the general draw and sold to the highest bidder, it increases the commercialization of publicly owned wildlife and takes us further away from the basic principles wildlife management was founded on in this country. Even the expo tags are about who can spend more money (ie, who can travel to the expo to validate their application). It is a slippery slope, and Utah has already picked up enough momentum that they likely can't stop. It's not good for hunters, regardless of what state they live in.

I'm cutting my own throat by opposing these tags in Utah, because they are realistically the best chance I will ever have of hunting in your state. But I will gladly give up the chance at those tags if it means that the basic hunting opportunities available to my kids and grandkids isn't based on the size of their wallets.
 
I don't disagree with you last statement. In fact, I believe that most people on this site would agree with keeping opportunities for our kids. 25-30 years ago "game management" was not taken into consideration in Utah. I am totally convinced that without these conservation groups we would not have hunting in Utah. The DWR was clueless then and they seem to be clueless now without these conservation groups helping them make decisions with regards to wildlife. I do think that the conservation permits are a little excessive and I do agree that there should be more public accountability for funding but I would sure hate to think what Utahs wildlife populations would look like without them.



It's always an adventure!!!
www.awholelottabull.com
 
I don't disagree with you last statement. In fact, I believe that most people on this site would agree with keeping opportunities for our kids. 25-30 years ago "game management" was not taken into consideration in Utah. I am totally convinced that without these conservation groups we would not have hunting in Utah. The DWR was clueless then and they seem to be clueless now without these conservation groups helping them make decisions with regards to wildlife. I do think that the conservation permits are a little excessive and I do agree that there should be more public accountability for funding but I would sure hate to think what Utahs wildlife populations would look like without them.



It's always an adventure!!!
www.awholelottabull.com
 
awholelottabull,

In case you were wondering...every herd of sheep that is hunted in Montana right now was established and successfully managed before Montana even had a raffle ticket or an auction tag.

I agree with Fin and Oak...I'm also a NR hunter to Utah and I'm over trying to help the residents of Utah. Its great to have an organization that puts 13% of its profits on the ground. Its great to support an organization that takes a large portion of tags away from the average guy.

Keep putting more tags in the expo, in particular keep giving more to NR's only, I'm liking my chances of drawing more all the time.

I wonder how many more tags will be taken and not accounted for after the initial contract is up???

Any guesses?
 
awholelottabull,

In case you were wondering...every herd of sheep that is hunted in Montana right now was established and successfully managed before Montana even had a raffle ticket or an auction tag.

I agree with Fin and Oak...I'm also a NR hunter to Utah and I'm over trying to help the residents of Utah. Its great to have an organization that puts 13% of its profits on the ground. Its great to support an organization that takes a large portion of tags away from the average guy.

Keep putting more tags in the expo, in particular keep giving more to NR's only, I'm liking my chances of drawing more all the time.

I wonder how many more tags will be taken and not accounted for after the initial contract is up???

Any guesses?
 
Go ahead and tell me how you are "helping out the residents of Utah". You think by coming down to the Expo and taking advantage of the draws that you are helping us out. Exactly how much did you spend? Please tell me how many volunteer hours you put in over the last 10 years, hell for that matter, over the past year! How many banquets did you attend and pay more than face value for an item because you knew it was going to benefit wildlife. I am really interested in how you are "helping out the residents of Utah."

In case you can't read....I agree with Oak and Fin as well on several points they made. I also don't give a crap about Montana's sheep!!!!! Schmalts said that Montana didn't have any raffles so I corrected that. I don't know where their money goes or what they do with it and like I said before....I don't give a crap. I give a crap about what goes on in my back yard.

It's always an adventure!!!
www.awholelottabull.com
 
Go ahead and tell me how you are "helping out the residents of Utah". You think by coming down to the Expo and taking advantage of the draws that you are helping us out. Exactly how much did you spend? Please tell me how many volunteer hours you put in over the last 10 years, hell for that matter, over the past year! How many banquets did you attend and pay more than face value for an item because you knew it was going to benefit wildlife. I am really interested in how you are "helping out the residents of Utah."

In case you can't read....I agree with Oak and Fin as well on several points they made. I also don't give a crap about Montana's sheep!!!!! Schmalts said that Montana didn't have any raffles so I corrected that. I don't know where their money goes or what they do with it and like I said before....I don't give a crap. I give a crap about what goes on in my back yard.

It's always an adventure!!!
www.awholelottabull.com
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-03-09 AT 11:07PM (MST)[p]Swbuckmaster.
Are you serious?
Even if I buy a hunting license?
Jeff
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-03-09 AT 11:07PM (MST)[p]Swbuckmaster.
Are you serious?
Even if I buy a hunting license?
Jeff
 
AW Bull, love to see your passion and thanks for supporting banquets, auction tags, etc. they without question make a HUGE difference in habitat and increaseing herds and flocks.

i hope we all care about what goes on in other states.

for example, when Colorado lost their bear hunt with hounds, the bear hunting in Utah on teh San Juan, Lasals, and Book Cliffs in particular, got way, way crowded.

Because of those damn permits and the money, and some great DWR folks, Utah was able to obtain 60 Rocky Mountain bighorns from Montana the first of Jan., and they were turned loose almost in your back yard - Duchesne area - Lake Canyon and Indian Canyon. Close to $100,000 of permit money, expo money etc went to pay for the helicopter capture costs, blood work required to check for disease and other issues. All of these funds, just like all the Conservation permit funds get audited by teh state every year.

If somehow we as sportsmen don't band together and figure out the silver bullet on wolf delisting, wyoming and idaho and montana get hammered today, Colorado and Utah are next.
 
AW Bull, love to see your passion and thanks for supporting banquets, auction tags, etc. they without question make a HUGE difference in habitat and increaseing herds and flocks.

i hope we all care about what goes on in other states.

for example, when Colorado lost their bear hunt with hounds, the bear hunting in Utah on teh San Juan, Lasals, and Book Cliffs in particular, got way, way crowded.

Because of those damn permits and the money, and some great DWR folks, Utah was able to obtain 60 Rocky Mountain bighorns from Montana the first of Jan., and they were turned loose almost in your back yard - Duchesne area - Lake Canyon and Indian Canyon. Close to $100,000 of permit money, expo money etc went to pay for the helicopter capture costs, blood work required to check for disease and other issues. All of these funds, just like all the Conservation permit funds get audited by teh state every year.

If somehow we as sportsmen don't band together and figure out the silver bullet on wolf delisting, wyoming and idaho and montana get hammered today, Colorado and Utah are next.
 
Hey Peay, What happened to HB 187? Looks like you and all your rich land owner buggies got the shaft. Goog thing you're looking out for average Joe. LMAO!!! See ya, I'm going fishing in some new honey holes.
 
Hey Peay, What happened to HB 187? Looks like you and all your rich land owner buggies got the shaft. Goog thing you're looking out for average Joe. LMAO!!! See ya, I'm going fishing in some new honey holes.
 

Similar threads

punchy
Mule deer potential
Replies
43
Views
3k
DBLung
DBLung
Snoopdogg
Best Eastman's film is not Eastman's
Replies
10
Views
856
Camper_A1
Camper_A1
littlebighorn
Backfire Milk Jug Challenge
Replies
73
Views
2k
elkassassin
elkassassin

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

8EAF8B1C-A785-4323-98D2-31E98928FB90.jpeg
IMG_6383.jpeg
Screenshot_20220312-182218_Gallery.jpg
IMG_5890.jpeg
IMG_8458.jpeg
20220823_210349.jpg
IMG_5888.jpeg
20210609_170850.jpg
Imported Photos 00005.jpg
91488917-F820-4CC3-BC0C-4C20488F1928.png
Big Velvet!
IMG_2024re.JPG
Back
Top Bottom