Wildlife Board or SFW Board.

W

wileywapati

Very Active Member
Messages
1,808
Word on the street is Byron Bateman will
Be Joining John Bair on the Wildlife Board.





"The State of Utah has not given BGF anything.
They have invested in BGF to protect their
interests."
Birdman 4/15/15
 
The word on the street is true. I asked John and he said its true. So now SFW will run UTAH wildlife. Watch out average JOE!
 
>The word on the street is
>true. I asked John
>and he said its true.
> So now SFW will
>run UTAH wildlife. Watch
>out average JOE!


From everything I've read the last few year don't they already?
 
Topgun, they were, but just behind the scenes. Now its front and center.

I like John and think hes done a great job keeping out of the muck, but everyone else on the board bows down to the SFW people. Now it will be worse!
 
I watched a good share of the Board meeting today on my computer and John was just elected the new Board Chair just before the meeting adjourned a few minutes ago! He seems like a pretty up front likable guy that says what he thinks, but he will be only one vote on there. Good luck to Utah if Bateman is going onboard and will now have an actual vote on wildlife issues! PS: I was not at all impressed with the DWR Director and IMHO just from this one meeting where I watched him it won't take much to tell him how to run the organization he heads.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-04-15 AT 02:41PM (MST)[p]Wiley and others, question for you.

I know there are those like you who have given A LOT of your time and effort into wildlife, wildlife issues and wildlife politics.

What's your take on how people REALLY are selected/appointed to varying RAC, WB, etc positions?

The good old grassroots mentality of getting involved...how far does that get you?

How much of it is from the backroom good old boy model?

Or is it just knowing how to work within the system?

Are these guys being appointed because they really are working more and harder towards their vision of wildlife and others are not? Not saying one person's vision of where they want to see management go is right or wrong.

Are there people out there that are working harder, giving more and are more qualified for these positions that are being passed over? And if so, why?

To clarify, I ask in all sincerity, no agenda, these are not loaded questions, no rhetoric or sarcasm intended. Just understanding.
 
I know 1 thing to be on the RAC, you have to be appointed by an Organization like SFW, MDF, UBA..... and so on. Seems kind of funny, but what ever.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-04-15 AT 05:07PM (MST)[p]>Word on the street is Byron
>Bateman will
>Be Joining John Bair on the
>Wildlife Board.
>
>
>
>
>
>"The State of Utah has not
>given BGF anything.
>They have invested in BGF to
>protect their
>interests."
>Birdman 4/15/15

Gordy, I'm sorry to say you only got it half right! Donny Hunter, the other new Wildlife Board member is also a prominent, active SFW member in Iron county! And, FWIW, John Bair is now the new Chairman, the one who directs the discussions and gets the vote that breaks a tie!

I'll admit I'm personally disappointed, but will reserve any comments and speculations until I see how they perform in the next few months.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Jun-04-15
>AT 02:41?PM (MST)
>
>Wiley and others, question for you.
>
>
>I know there are those like
>you who have given A
>LOT of your time and
>effort into wildlife, wildlife issues
>and wildlife politics.
>
>What's your take on how people
>REALLY are selected/appointed to varying
>RAC, WB, etc positions?
>
>The good old grassroots mentality of
>getting involved...how far does that
>get you?
>
>How much of it is from
>the backroom good old boy
>model?
>
>Or is it just knowing how
>to work within the system?
>
>
>Are these guys being appointed because
>they really are working more
>and harder towards their vision
>of wildlife and others are
>not? Not saying one
>person's vision of where they
>want to see management go
>is right or wrong.
>
>Are there people out there that
>are working harder, giving more
>and are more qualified for
>these positions that are being
>passed over? And if so,
>why?
>
>To clarify, I ask in all
>sincerity, no agenda, these are
>not loaded questions, no rhetoric
>or sarcasm intended. Just understanding.
>

I think John pretty much answered your question when he commented on his intended vote for the Oak Creek boundary changes which includes some private property. He personally sided with the landowners who don't want the changes, but he cited the fact that NOBODY opposed them at the RAC meetings, so he had to vote with the DWR'S proposal. And I've heard this kind of reasoning on other issues in other Board meetings, other RAC meetings and even in the Mule Deer Committee meetings. SFW claims to speak for ALL sportsmen and, from all appearances, according to the number who show up and speak up at the public meetings, they are correct. In other words, we/you are getting what we/you are NOT asking for and we/you can change that by resetting some time and money priorities.
 
Good question FORK.

The way the system usually works is, The Division will come up
with a set of proposals, they'll invite reps from the Sportsman's groups to
a meeting to go over these proposals and tweak and change whatever they
have issues with. From here it goes to the RAC's for the public input.
Most of the time, and for the past decade it's been the same group of a half dozen guys from these sportsman's groups that decide what sees the light of day from the Division. I attended plenty of these as the President of Bowhunters of Utah.

A few years back I went to the central RAC when the statewide bow hunt was under attack, The RAC Chair grabbed me and asked that we "COMBINE" the comments of those audience members opposed to ending the statewide hunt.

I told him he was out of line and that I would get on the phone and round up another couple hundred commentor's if he tried that $hit and we'd be there all damn night. He backed off. That was the first time that anything like had happened.

At that same round of meetings Tony Abbott got up in the Wildlife Board meeting and asked for a change to the deer plan, I don't remember what the change was, but Director Karpowitz dressed him down pretty good in the meeting. As was the case this year when the contract for the Expo permits was renewed. The President of UWC was belittled by Jake Albrecht, The Board Chairman. Asking how many members were in UWC, how much memberships cost and so on.

FORK, I've said it for years, this system is as gerrymandered as every political district in Utah. It's rigged for those that the politicians think matter, and that consists of Don Peay and whoever else is holding a check.

Consider this for one second. The Wildlife Board threw out a Mule Deer plan that was less than 18 months old. This plan was developed by sportsman's groups, land agencies, agricultural interests and biologists. It was dumped in large part due to a long lobbying effort by a very few sportsmen from southern Utah. During the public input process this new plan was opposed by the RMEF, MDF, UBA and BOU. The Northern and Central RAC's also voted against this plan. The only groups that supported this plan were SFW and the rural RAC's.
BTW the rural RAC's represent less than 20% of all licenses sold in the state.

So it's apparent that the system hasn't worked as designed for several years.
It surely doesn't listen to the dude that just wants to be on the mountain with a rifle or bow in hand. It largely ignores biology in favor of what the DWR calls social issues and the Board is apparently free to do whatever the hell it wants even if 4 out of 5 sportsmen's groups and 80% of their customers tell them not to.




"The State of Utah has not given BGF anything.
They have invested in BGF to protect their
interests."
Birdman 4/15/15
 
Come on ww!

Quit F'N around and get on the Board & GIT-R-DONE!

I'm at 20 & Countin wiley!

I Ain't gonna live forever!
We laugh, we cry, we love
Go hard when the going's tough
Push back, come push and shove
Knock us down, we'll get back up again and again
We are Members of the Huntin Crowd!
 
CAT I got the boot out of that circle of love when I started
Asking where expo funds were going.

I sat in as an alternate during the last deer committee,
It was like a whore walking into church. He'll Lumpy wouldn't
Even look at my end of the table.

I'm ass out for big game.




"The State of Utah has not given BGF anything.
They have invested in BGF to protect their
interests."
Birdman 4/15/15
 
If Lumpy wouldn't Look?

How'd the others Treat You?





We laugh, we cry, we love
Go hard when the going's tough
Push back, come push and shove
Knock us down, we'll get back up again and again
We are Members of the Huntin Crowd!
 
Like I was wearing an Obama T-shirt!!



"The State of Utah has not given BGF anything.
They have invested in BGF to protect their
interests."
Birdman 4/15/15
 
>Like I was wearing an Obama
>T-shirt!!
>
Now That There must of been a Bad Feeling!




>
>
>"The State of Utah has not
>given BGF anything.
>They have invested in BGF to
>protect their
>interests."
>Birdman 4/15/15








We laugh, we cry, we love
Go hard when the going's tough
Push back, come push and shove
Knock us down, we'll get back up again and again
We are Members of the Huntin Crowd!
 
20 & Counting wiley!




We laugh, we cry, we love
Go hard when the going's tough
Push back, come push and shove
Knock us down, we'll get back up again and again
We are Members of the Huntin Crowd!
 
"A few years back I went to the central RAC when the statewide bow hunt was under attack, The RAC Chair grabbed me and asked that we "COMBINE" the comments of those audience members opposed to ending the statewide hunt."

Wow what an ahole. You gave him a fine and proper response.

***********************************
Member RMEF, Pope & Young Club, NRA, UWC & DP Hate Club
 
The wildlife board in Utah is a joke; because they lack accountability and have too much authority. The Utah Wildlife Board in Utah answers to no one. That is how it is different from other state Wildlife boards. Think about this for example: the Utah Wildlife Board has the authority to and a history of awarding "administrative Bonus points" Administrative bonus points are generated out of thin air and awarded to whoever the board wants. I was awarded "administrative bonus points" and it was quite pleasurable knowing you could draw any unit is Utah with the points because, I was put in a group ahead of the group for "Max Points" I decided to use the mathematical supremacy I enjoyed with my "administrative bonus points" to draw a San Juan Elk tag..which I did and used the tag to kill a 4oo point Bull Elk. Having friends who answer to no one, like the ones on Utahs Wildlife Board has its benefits. Conversely, I have appeared before other states Wildlife Board and asked them for "administrative Bonus points" to right a wrong and was told by the other state "we dont have the authority to do that"...
 
It is good to know trammer is in so good with the wildlife board. What did you do to have them award you administrative bonus points. Maybe i could get my moose tag and not have to wait 20 more years.
 
JUDAS!

F'N!

PRIEST!

There's how I've been doing it all Wrong for all these Years!

I have No 'Administrative Bonus Points'!

Anybody know Who's Ass You've gotta Kiss to get these?




We laugh, we cry, we love
Go hard when the going's tough
Push back, come push and shove
Knock us down, we'll get back up again and again
We are Members of the Huntin Crowd!
 
Probably how my deer tag was stolen from me this year considering nobody has ever applied for it with more points than me, ever. Absolutely nothing coming out of the scam capital of the United States surprises me. A well earned award.

***********************************
Member RMEF, Pope & Young Club, NRA, UWC & DP Hate Club
 
>The wildlife board in Utah is a joke; because they lack accountability and have too much authority. The Utah Wildlife Board in Utah answers to no one. That is how it is different from other state Wildlife boards.

>Think about this for example: the Utah Wildlife Board has the authority to and a history of awarding "administrative Bonus points" Administrative bonus points are generated out of thin air and awarded to whoever the board wants.

Trammer, you've got to be kidding!

Please enlighten us more.

Can anyone else confirm this?

If "administrative bonus points" are legit, it's an absolute abomination! With everyone else paying their money and patiently waiting their turn, this is so wrong. Most of us really struggle with the idea of auction tag holders paying their way to the front of the line. This is in a league of its own! Political kickback at its worst!
Our state legislatures can't even accept a $50 lower bowl Jazz ticket. And here the WB is handing out tags worth thousands!?

This is worth a closer look. Brett Prettyman/Salt Lake Tribune, here?s a story for you!
 
The Wildlife Board in the past has awarded Bonus Points to compensate applicants. Been a while, but they did it. Mostly before anyone realized how important points would be. All a guy has to do is look through the draw odds of the early 2000s to see people with one more than max.
 
Shotgun1,
No hiding from me, been crazy busy at work and throwing bugs with my boys when I have a free min.

SFW stance on the land grab...hmmmm....do they have one? Which case specifically are you wondering about? Personally I'd lean toward no land transfer at all...for now...depends on how the Feds continue really.

Wolves? Man that's a fight I'm not sure I'm masochist enough to wade into that mess.

How about you shotgun, you still spending your nights in an unfinished basement under a bare light bulb dangling from a wire at an old school desk writing angry letters to the government?
 
Its always good to watch how the MM show follows the same cycle each year.

It always gets real quiet as everyone waits to see if the blessed tag gods sprinkle some tag welfare upon them. Then the guys that don't get drawn again run for the scapegoat and begin sharpening the knives and tying it down for the bloodletting.

Now the cycle begins again and we have to listen for months to babies who cry each year about "stolen tags" and "waiting their turn". The conspiracy theories are starting now about point corruption. Soon someone will start cussing evil rich people and no one will stop and look and realize that your entire wildlife system is based on an outdated model that is no longer viable under current conditions.

In all of your hateful glory did you ever look at yourself and think YOU DON'T DESERVE A DEER TAG AT ALL?
 
"SFW stance on the land grab?hmmmm?.do they have one?"

Exactly!!!! The chicken$hits don't have one and we all know why. If they actually had the balls to take a stance, one way or the other they would alienate themselves even more from the VAST MAJORITY of sportsmen or they would upsets the teets they nurse off and who they really represent, the Utah legislators.

Been throwing bugs myself. The Big bug action was pretty good this year on the HF and the Ranch opens next week. About to head out to float the Slide today and throw some Goldens, so no time for letter writing.
 
Hey big city boy! How have you been? How's that $h!t hole you live in been treating you? Are you still jealous and butthurt of us poor ole ignorant western folk?
 
CAT, I'm going on 20 too. I've been telling you a few things over
The last almost 20 years on this site. Remember what I told
You and Ty 20 years ago about killing cow elk??
Wasatch. Avintiquin.

Deer?? Wait till we have a normal, not even a hard, winter and
Watch what ignoring fecundity does to our herds.

It was about 20 years ago when I went to my first RMEF banquet.
There might have been 20-25 guys in a circle and the bids started.
I told y'all back then where this would lead.

Well here we are.

People like 73 only speed up the process to the inevitable.
Which is Tristate heaven. No public land and privately owned
Wildlife.

The RAC / WB system is dysfunctional at best, my opinion, the motherblank
Is fully corrupt.

At this point the best hope is a several year process to legislatively regulate
Or rewrite this rule. It won't happen under the Herbert Administration or as long
As legislators like Noel and Okerlund is in office.





"The State of Utah has not given BGF anything.
They have invested in BGF to protect their
interests."
Birdman 4/15/15
 
So it seems some people on here are starting to call names and make accusations about what the wildlife board has done or has the power to do. Most everything to do with Utah wildlife has to go before the board. They must approve it before it can happen. So Trammer, correct me if I say this wrong, in 1999 there was about 40 people who put in for permits and somehow they were left out of the draw. A mistake by someone I know not who. Those 40 people being left out of the draw was a sad thing. The DWR in trying to make things better, refunded the money but also awarded them a bonus point for that year. It was not the applicants fault so the DWR was trying to make it right. Now this had to be approved by the board, and the board approved it trying to fix the mistake. To give it a name they called it an Administrative bonus point.
There probably isn't anyone on here that would not want that to happen to them in the same situation.
 
Bridman---Hope this finds you well and thanks for the update on that post by Trammer! That's funny as heck that he was happy to get that bonus point that allowed him to the head of the line in Utah to get a big bull and then he goes out to other Boards asking for the same thing and disses them because they said no way Jose! I wonder if he would tell us what "wrong' happened to him in the other states that he felt qualified him for special treatment.
 
It's hard to know what to believe and what to do anymore as far as wildlife is concerned. I have friends on both side of the fence. Sportsman groups have given the average Joe an opportunity to get out there and help wildlife. Opportunities that I would never be able to accomplish on my own. Has hunting become a political nightmare? You bet it has. It will always be a battle because we don't all want the same thing and nobody is willing to compromise at all. As a sportsman that has been involved with wildlife, both on the outfitter/guide side and the average Joe hunting side, I find myself becoming less and less interested in hunting at all. I never thought I would ever say this but it's true. When and if I ever pick up a bow or a rifle to hunt again it will more than likely be on private land with a tag bought in another state other that where I live. I will stick with camping and hiking with my wife and kids and shooting long distance tournaments as well as all the running races and trialthlons we've been doing. Life is too short to waste on political garbage and supporting causes and individuals that have made a living out of pimping our God given resource. I have known John Bair for a long time and I like the guy. Very honest and upstanding. He has taken his fair share of slander. I also know a lot of guys with the different view points of UBA that are really good guys and caring sportsman. As an outsider, it's frustrating to see and very disheartening. Like I said, It's to the point where I would rather buy a paddle board and go with my kids than a hunting license every 3 years. Just my oppinion.



It's always an adventure!!!
 
Jim, I agree to a point.
Bair has never been anything but a straight shooter
With me as well.

In fact both he and Tony Abbott looked me in the eye and
Told me they were going to end AR-301 and they did.
Which brings me to this question, if PETA or the HSUS
Walked in to that Wildlife Board meeting and asked to take
Away this hunt would the Board have listened??

I talked to Peay at the Central RAC the year we went to the
Lumpy / Option 2 fiasco of deer management and was told
The change was coming, even though the RAC had just voted
Against it. Same question as above, could PETA take several thousand
Deer hunters out of the hills?? Not in Utah, not with Prop 5.

Plain and simple, with historical data to back me up, SFW is
Responsible for taking more hunters out of the field than any
Anti hunting entity in this world. Good guys, straight shooters or
Not doesn't change the result.




"The State of Utah has not given BGF anything.
They have invested in BGF to protect their
interests."
Birdman 4/15/15
 
Like others have stated. I know John and Byron personally. They are both straight shooters in my opinion and are men with integrity.

WW,
In the last wildlife board meeting, John voted to increase general season permits in an area, because buck to doe ratios had increased above objective, to provide more opportunity. Bair was fighting for sportsmen when ranchers wanted SW desert elk herd cut in half, because of drought. Ranchers won out and elk and doe antelope permit numbers will have major increases. Since then we have had record rains. Bair was fighting for more permits for sportsmen, by saying lets wait until August meetings and see what the range looks like.

The population in Utah is supposed to double in 40 years. More people, more roads, more cars, less habitat. The days of having enough deer so every resident who wants to hunt deer every year are sadly over.
 
50, by voting to increase permits, he was following
The Mule Deer Plan as written. Once ratios are met
That's what is supposed to happen.



"The State of Utah has not given BGF anything.
They have invested in BGF to protect their
interests."
Birdman 4/15/15
 
Ranchers.... I have sympathy for the rancher that runs his stock
On his property un subsidized. Public land grazers and
Ranchers that don't follow the administrative rule for compensation
Due to wildlife depredations, IE they must allow public hunter access
To be eligible, F-em.

I wasn't a fan of SFW and the other orgs offering them money to further
Lock out public hunters and further subsidize their AUM's. Like I said F-em.

If you've got a rancher that is losing his ass in feeding deer and elk, a one time
Allocation for a fence wouldn't be out of line AFTER allowing sportsman access
To deal with the wildlife.

If the orgs do push this funding for ranchers through, what percent of the existing
Conservation tag allotment is each org going to give up??



"The State of Utah has not given BGF anything.
They have invested in BGF to protect their
interests."
Birdman 4/15/15
 
I agree with a lot of what you say W. I have family who are ranchers. I was making the point that John and Byron IMO will do a good job making decisions to help hunting for everyone.
 
Jim, I echo your statements verbatim. I have a new son in law that has never hunted before. He shows alot of interest in it, enough that when he was in Jr High he got his hunters safety on his own.

He applied for hunts this year as a first timer and drew nothing. He applied for Archery only. Current Creek as his first choice and Wasatch West as his second.

Took alot of steam out of him. When I see him we talk and it gives him a sick feeling. Very frustrated where things have gone.
 
Broadside,
So why don't you have him buy one of the left over archery tags? Or buy an OTC elk tag? or apply for antlerless? I just do not understand this thought process I guess.
 
>Broadside,
>So why don't you have him
>buy one of the left
>over archery tags? Or
>buy an OTC elk tag?
>or apply for antlerless?
>I just do not understand
>this thought process I guess.
>
No kidding. There are still plenty of tags to be had.

There's always next year
 
Hey wiley!

You're starting to use the F-word Fluently!






We laugh, we cry, we love
Go hard when the going's tough
Push back, come push and shove
Knock us down, we'll get back up again and again
We are Members of the Huntin Crowd!
 
Topgun, I will indulge you: I made the other request for "administrative bonus points" to the Nevada Wildlife board after I was unjustly stripped of all of my bonus points including Max points for California Bighorn Sheep.

What happened was. NDOW made 2 mistakes that resulted in the stripping of my points. The mistakes were; they failed to list a hunting season in their Big Game Seasons Book and they advised me that it was legal and proper to conduct air-born scouting in a specific area on a specific date... So, I had seen UDWR manufacture and award Bonus points for a petty error they had made.Bottom line was that Nevada agreed that what happened to me was unjust and resulted from their error, rather than mine but, they had no legal authority to correct the error or generate bonus points like Utah did.

As I understand it, what gives rise to most of the corruption in Utah is exactly that; too much authority. I understand that UDWR operates on some type of Legislative charter and that this charter is essentially what makes UDWR unaccountable. Recently Marty Bushman (the UDWRs Lawyer) bragged that even the UDWR does not answer to the Courts. There is no judicial review of anything they do. That is why all of the corrupt things happen here in Utah, All the special interest, Politician buying, Conservation permit programs and the like. The corruption simply cannot happen in other states because they do not enjoy Autonomy like Utah DWR does. That is why SFW has not and will not gain traction in other states. Other states keep their Wildlife Managers at bay with checks and balances. They have to answer to somebody. In Utah unelected officials get to make and enforce laws with impunity.
 
CAT, me and the F bomb go way back.

Trammer's description of the Utah situation is as accurate as
Any I've ever seen.

You know what they say about absolute power.



"The State of Utah has not given BGF anything.
They have invested in BGF to protect their
interests."
Birdman 4/15/15
 
Trammer, it is true that the wildlife board has complete control over Utah hunting and fishing and the wildlife in general as long as they stay within the law. Yes they are bound by the laws of the State. When someone receives the award of loosing their hunting and fishing privileges they can go before the board trying to get them back as you well know. They can if they feel there has been an unjust done fix that. The fact that what the DWR has done to you and your daughter has not been overturned by the wildlife board makes you bitter. You can not take them to court to try to get you reinstated for what you have been accused of.
As for the corruption of the conservation permits, they have created movement of wildlife around the state creating new herds that have become huntable creating more permits to come out. It is true other states have not come out with similar programs but it is also true other states come to look at what Utah has accomplished.
It is true that the board is unelected. It is also true that they get to make the laws for wildlife. Some like what they do and others do not. Then again there is opposition in all things. Not all agree on the same issue. If they did life would be simpler.
As for the administration bonus points, that was to correct the error that had happened. It did have to be approved by the wildlife board and those affected got a point for an error that was not their fault. The fact that Nevada did not do that has nothing to do with Utah. Maybe that makes Utah more fair than other states. I don't know. I guess it depends on what you want to believe. I also understand that states work together to stop people they believe break the law. Break the law in one state it affects you in another state.
The fact as you put it to me the other day at the store trammer, you are not a hateful person, but you do hate the DWR for what they have done to you and your daughter. I am sorry for that but then again they have their reasons.
 
Trammer, What did happen to you and your daughter? If you care to share, if not, thats fine too.
 
Make sense why SFW bought the sheep hunting rights in BC. Some of these board member might want to go??
 
Like Birdman said, not sure on the year, around 1999, the DWR made a mistake and instead of awarding 7 permits at 40 dollars it was typed in 40 permits for 7 dollars. This was back when you could apply for multiple species. A cousin drew one of those antelope permits, but he wasn't one of the first 7. So he paid to and applied for other permits, which were not available to him, because of the sequence of the draw. Those 33 people were awarded an extra bonus point for the DWR human error to help try to make thing right.

I think as a whole the big game board try's to do a good job. No one is always happy with their decisions.
 
> As for the
>corruption of the conservation permits,
>they have created movement of
>wildlife around the state creating
>new herds that have become
>huntable creating more permits to
>come out. It is true
>other states have not come
>out with similar programs but
>it is also true other
>states come to look at
>what Utah has accomplished.

The question I have concerning that is if the problem was fixed that led to herd numbers falling off?
 
So Trammer is still mad all these years later? They messed up, they tried to fix it, and appears that they did. So why all the hatred 16 years later?
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-09-15 AT 12:13PM (MST)[p]Birdman-

Other states are accomplishing the same things without auctioning, selling and raffling 500+ premium tags every year. The somehow find a way to fund conservation projects, research studies, transplant projects, highway fencing, etc. If taking tags away from the general public and selling them off to the highest bidder was the answer to all of our wildlife problems then Utah would have significantly better hunting then anywhere in the west -- more animals, more trophies and more opportunity. Ask yourself whether you consider Utah to be the Mecca for western big game hunting? I certainly don't even though we pimp out more tags than all other western states combined. The proof is in the pudding.

-Hawkeye-
 
Cody - I used to look at those kinds of statements and wonder the same thing. The way I look at it now is this; My family and I love to do a variety of things that involve the outdoors. The vast majority of those things we can do year around. I prefer to use my time doing things with them that they love to do that are, what we consider, a good use of time. This may be different in other families but for mine, that's the way it is. I look at it this way, I love steak and I love a good marinated chicken. If I can get the steak by going out in the back field and shooting it vs chase a chicken around the yard, I'm going for the steak because I love them both. Maybe every once in a while I will chase the chicken just for shi+s and giggles and pure enjoyment but when I get really hungry I'm going back to the steak. You know me. There was not a person out the that loved to hunt more than me and that spent more time in the hills than me every summer and fall. It's different now. I'm older. My career choice allows me to see just how short life is and how valuable time is with my kids (I know you know that value too). I don't have a tag this year and frankly, it doesn't bother me. I have other things I can do with my kids. But given a few years like that, it may just never happen again.

>Broadside,
>So why don't you have him
>buy one of the left
>over archery tags? Or
>buy an OTC elk tag?
>or apply for antlerless?
>I just do not understand
>this thought process I guess.
>






It's always an adventure!!!
 
Jim,
It's good to see you out on the forums again and doing well. I agree 100% with you. I happen to have a Cache tag and it will be fun to chase muleys with my son and wife again this year. But to be honest I'm more excited to go back down to NM and hunt Coues with my sons tag this year. That and to follow my 1 year old drath around looking for birds. Throw in a bunch of fly fishing and my year is gonna be and pretty full and fun time with the family. If you ask me one thing I would give up it would be the Cache deer tag. Easy decision. I'm just very tired of people hinging the recruitment and retention of hunters on a Utah general season deer tag. It's not a God given right to have one every single year. And I will never feel bad or guilty about pushing for the proper managment of your deer herds even if it means reduced opportunity.
 
"Proper Management"

Funniest thing I've heard in a long time.





"The State of Utah has not given BGF anything.
They have invested in BGF to protect their
interests."
Birdman 4/15/15
 
Letting anyone affiliated with SFW have a seat at any table dealing with the management of wildlife, tags, or habitat is reason to start asking a lot of serious questions.
 
>Other states are accomplishing the same
>things without auctioning, selling and
>raffling 500+ premium tags every
>year. The somehow find
>a way to fund conservation
>projects, research studies, transplant projects,
>highway fencing, etc. If
>taking tags away from the
>general public and selling them
>off to the highest bidder
>was the answer to all
>of our wildlife problems then
>Utah would have significantly better
>hunting then anywhere in the
>west -- more animals, more
>trophies and more opportunity.
>Ask yourself whether you consider
>Utah to be the Mecca
>for western big game hunting?
> I certainly don't even
>though we pimp out more
>tags than all other western
>states combined. The proof
>is in the pudding.

"Hey hey hey, Don't be hatin. The Tri-way's always worked for me!"

8240tagpimp.jpg


***********************************
Member RMEF, Pope & Young Club, NRA, UWC & DP Hate Club
 
Robiland, I cant really comment specifically about my current gripe with the wildlife board because there will likely be future litigation involving it but, I can comment about how the wildlife board operates or Utah DWR operates.

First you need to remember what SFW is. Former Governor Mike Leavitt said it best in the 1990s when he congratulated Utahs new public sector, private sector partnership and called it "privately funded, government managed"...think about that. What that means. People are going to volunteer to pay extra tax dollars for the Utah DWR to spend. What was that suppose to solve? As near as I can tell Utahs DWR already spends (and wastes most of it) about a million dollars a day. Roughly 300 to 400 million dollars is spent on Wildlife, in Utah every year and we are suppose to believe that an extra couple of million dollars in private money will make all the difference...Have you ever thought about sending extra money in with your property taxes to help solve your countys problems? If you did would you think it would help?

Then you need to remember that Utah DWR because of their legislative charter or state constitutional charter has less accountability than any other state DWR. Then remember that SFW first big initiative (prop 5) was engineered to make DWR even less accountable to the voting public. Not surprising that Utahs conservation permit program (the fuel that SFW operates on) was born before the ashes were cold on prop 5. In one fell swoop Wildlife Conservation in Utah went from Grass roots to special interest. Now that Utah DWR has private sector interests. Now even international interests and every step of the process they become more removed from the concerns of the common honest sportsman.

I know I fully endorsed SFW when they openly identified the Utah DWR as the enemy and the cause of all of the problems with Utahs Wildlife. Now that there is a DWR/SFW partnership. Who is the enemy?
 
Interesting thread. All I know is 20 years ago, a portion of our license fees were used for non-hunting wildlife management. Song birds. Buck to doe ratios were 3-7 on some units. The DWR director said people would always hunt, it is a family tradition. It didn't matter how good the herds were. On the cover of their Utah wildlife magazines their were chipmunks.

The past 10 years we have a DWR director and big game managers that are trying to improve our herds, do wildlife projects, transplants, predator control, we have spring bear hunt back that was taken away. We have state government employees and law makers that realize hunting and wildlife is important.

We have a ways to go. I agree the system has flaws and could be improved, but wildlife management in Utah is much better than what is was in the past, and has funds available to continue to help improve things. IMO.
 
Greg you are correct in your statement, regarding where Utah was 20 years ago. Where we were then and where we are headed now, is not nearly the same place.

SWF set goals to change the "non-game" attitude and mission of the " Dept Utah Wild Resources" BACK to a "Fish and Game type Dept", like it was before the "green eliminate" took over the Department during the 1970s and 1980s.

The Depts. name change alone say's volumes, and should be changed back to Fish and Game again. IMO

SWF has never been bashful about their conservation ambitions regarding preserving hunting and fishing opportunities for the general public, which has involved making sure that the government agencies that manage the resources are committed to abundant hunting and fishing, by increasing the number of animals on the range and expanding hunting and fishing opportunities as the resource will allow. Of course, any suggestion by SFW to manage the number of hunters/fishermen, has been met with an out cry of protects by a few hundred people that have a different agenda or a personal vendetta against individuals or SFW decisions with which they take personal offense, but none the less, progress has been made, many of their goals have been achieved.

As time goes on, individuals and organizations evolve, individuals come, individuals go, as they do with all systems. Opportunities come, opportunities go. The next twenty years will be different than the last twenty. New people, new problems, new solutions. Time will tell how SFW and Utah's hunting and fishing environment do under the coming ever changing dynamic.

I like what SFW has accomplished for the last twenty years, I hope our thirty-some- things will be able to say the same, after the next twenty years.

DC
 
I will also take issue with the statement that SFW has worked to preserve fishing opportunities for the general public. They picked the wrong side on the most important issue that Utah fisherman have faced in the last 100 years--stream access. In other words, SFW sided with wealthy landowners instead of the general public and effectively shut down stream access. That decision alone earns SFW and "F" grade when it comes to protecting and preserving the sport of fishing. Let's hope that decision get's overturned by the courts in the trial scheduled for later this summer.

-Hawkeye-
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-15-15 AT 07:50PM (MST)[p]In the real world there are occasions when you're faced with issues where you're damned if you do and damn if you don't.

No one likes to find themselves in no win situations, whether we are government, industry, community, clubs, organizations, doctors, lawyers or individuals, but it always happens. It happens more often if you our there hacking at the weeds than it does if your concerned but passive.

Most folks understand and appreciate that reality. They accept that it's going to happen, for a natural fact.

As a non-voting member of SFW I haven't been involved in deciding what to do about every issue the SFW leadership has been asked to address, as a hunting/fishing conservation organization. Nor should I. If I wanted that kind of power or influence I could run for an office in the org. I don't. I have preferred to volunteer, recognizing, unlike some non-members or previous disenfranchised members, that there will be, from time to time, issues SFW or any other org. that I belong to, make decisions that I disagree with or out right object to.

If the pros out way the cons, I stay engage, helping do what I can. If the org gets too far from my core values, I move on, and focus my efforts else where.

Others, have done the same, some have taken the fight directly at SFW others simply moved on to other things. Each of us is entitled to judge and take what ever actions we feel appropriate. It's still, by enlarge, a free country.

I see SFW as a positive hunting and fishing conservation org. Positive for the fish and the game and positive for the sportsman. Consequently, I will defend and support SFW's efforts, lock, stock and barrel. At such time as I don't, I will disengage.

I've withdrawn support for numerous organizations, who I could not longer support, in over 50 years of hunting and fishing activism. Wouldn't hesitate for a second in doing it again if or when I believe it is appropriate.

DC
 
Interesting conversation, Thanks to Lumpy for his volunteering and making a such a big difference with the elk on the Monroe. It was great. Hawkeye, as for the fishing part of SFW, there are such leaps and bounds being made in fishing and SFW does have a big part to play. As for the stream access, yes they have been neutral in stream access. The court came up with a decision on the Weber. It did only make it a one mile stretch of river but it would be expanded to an additional 39 miles however the judge knew it was going to be appealed. The upper Provo is in a different court system and has not been reached as far as I know. Both sides have pretty much decided that it is going to go to the Supreme Court before it is settled. As for other fishing, it was SFW that put the money needed for the fish planting in Strawberry giving more rainbows. There were tens of thousands of dollars spent on Salem Pond to help the handicapped fish with safety. There were the tiger muskies added to Joes Valley paid for by SFW. The fishing poles that the division uses with kids groups came mostly from SFW. The Minersville reservoir needed more money than was raised to fix the head gates a the dam. SFW came up with the money then paid for underwater divers to fix the rams under water so that the reservoir would not be drained keeping the big fish in the reservoir. Go pro camera's now being used for fish study bought by SFW. The list goes on and on. Hawkeye, just because they do not stand up and shout that they are doing things doesn't mean it is not happening. Just because they do not agree with the river access issue does not mean that they are not doing anything with fishing.
One more question Hawkeye, One of the questions that has come up and I do not know the legal terms they use, but if the landowners loose, they will have to be repaid for the taxes that they have paid on that property over all the years. That has been a hot topic on the situation.
 
There are some 15 or 16 chapters of SFW, in as many communities across Utah. These chapters are involved in improving hunting and fishing as well as introducing and encouraging youth, women, and first time middle aged people to get into the outdoor hunting and fishing sports and conservation activities. Many, yes many, fishing, hunting and conservation projects are taking place throughout the State on a monthly basis. They aren't known, for the most part, beyond the local communities. At every level of issues, that involve fish, game, habitat, access, and everything that goes with it, SFW is engaged in, working to preserve the hunting, fishing and outdoor life style.

Most of the efforts go unknown to 99% of the sportsmen or to the general public in the State. Not much different than what folks like the Red Cross, Salvation Army, Meals on Wheels, and other such organizations are doing daily. Things just get done, by a lot of really dedicated people. A very few are paid because they work full time, most are like us, we do it for the love of the live-style.

DC
 
Kudos to SFW for the projects they fund and participate in. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how many youth fishing poles SFW purchases or how many rainbows they plant if they turn around and stab sportsmen in the back on stream access. That should have been a black and white issue for a sportsmen's group that claims to represent fishermen. And Birdman, don't try to sell that BS that SFW remained neutral on the stream access issue. Anybody with a brain knows that Don lobbied against sportsmen on that issue. It is kind of like SFW claiming that they are going to remain neutral on the issue of transferring public lands. You can't straddle the fence on key issues. Pick a side, hopefully the right side, and own that position.

-Hawkeye-
 
You know, it would will be so nice when some people can finally figure out how to claim a victory. Fly a helicopter out to aircraft carrier, hold a press conference, declare the war has been won, close the file and go for a bicycle ride.

DC
 
Hawkeye, One thing for sure is that all sportsmen do not think alike. Not all want the stream access even if you believe that they do. As of right now, SFW's view on the stream access is neutral even if you do not believe it. That I do know. You are right, it isn't about the fishing poles for kids, or the fish that are planted to help the fishermen, It is about promoting fishing and that is what they are trying to do. If there wasn't two sides of the issue on stream access then we would not have this discussion. The judge did make a decision on one mile of the Weber river. That will not go into affect until the court battle is over. Weather it is land owners or lawyers that are prolonging this I don't know. It is being delayed. Also the DWR was not for the stream access. Do not know what their reasoning is but they do. You see only one side of the issue. With your knowledge or desire to make things right, why are you not in the battle and why are you not on a RAC or the Wildlife board. You certainly seem to have the knowledge and on monster muley's you have following.
As far as fence sitting, I have been to those meetings where there have been votes held as to what to do both on the land issues and the stream access. I seen the vote. The issue was to remain neutral. They still have meetings inviting both sides of the issue to talk to the group but as of right now, no decision has been made. If you can not accept that so be it. Pick a side, hopefully the right side as you put it. They are looking but what side is right? Your side of the landowners side. That is why we have courts to determine which side is suppose to be right.
 
Birdman-

I am glad to hear that SFW's "current position" on stream access is to remain neutral. I wish that would have been their position five years ago. Or better yet, they could have simply supported stream access for sportsmen. After all, doesn't SFW stand for Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife? If you look at this issue from the perspective of a sportsman, it is black and white. No need to claim neutrality. SFW should have stood with sportsmen. There are plenty of other groups that were formed to look out for the interests of landowners, ranchers, developers and politicians. Help me understand from a sportsman's point of view (someone who actually wants to hunt and fish), how HB141 was a positive change and how its benefits sportsmen? Or as DC stated, how does this help "preserve hunting and fishing opportunities for the general public?"

With regard to your comments regarding the pending litigation regarding HB141, I am well aware of the status of the two lawsuits. I have followed their progress closely and I have donated to the Utah Stream Access Coalition, who is leading this fight. Although there was a very positive ruling in the Weber River lawsuit a few months ago, there is still a long ways to go. As to your question as to who is delaying the process, unfortunately the wheels of justice turn slowly. Once the state legislature passed HB141 (with the support of Don Peay), it forced sportsmen into a long, difficult fight in an effort to get access restored. Only time will tell if sportsmen will win this battle.

Finally, you ask why I am not in the battle and why am I not on a RAC or the Wildlife Board. I will simply state that over the last few years I have spent far too much time working on these issues. This includes researching the issues, attending meetings, speaking with politicians, donating money, and donating my time as a lawyer to worthy causes. Although I often feel like the system is broken and I am banging my head against a wall, I will continue to stay involved in issues that I support and believe in. As a result, I am sure our paths will continue to cross in the future.

-Hawkeye-
 
about 15 years ago there was very little money going for hunting or fishing from the general fund. I have a family member who worked for the DWR for over 30 years. Fish hatcheries were falling apart and needed funds. Don got over 1 million dollars allocated to fix problems and repairs, so the DWR could stock lakes, ponds, and rivers for fishing. Why don't we tell some of the good things, along with the controversial issues that SFW were neutral on. I certainly haven't agreed with all decisions, but I believe SFW, the wildlife board, and the DWR are trying to make a better future for all of us concerning hunting and fishing. Some feel otherwise that is fine.
 
Hawkeye, I am glad to see that you are still active in your opinions and support of the things that you believe in. Some are not but just boast their opinion. Keep fighting for what you believe in. That is what it is all about.
You mention that you wonder why SFW does not just join in with sportsmen and fight for stream access. You say that they are suppose to be representatives of sportsmen. You do know that all sportsmen do not agree with the stream access. Because you and some on monster muley agree with you, not all do. Just like in SFW, some believe one way and some the other. I just hope that it all gets settled in the future. Personally as a person who spends much time fishing, I do not believe that a person has the right to fish where he wants. I believe in a persons right to own property and their right to not have people trespass. As of right now, property owners pay taxes on the stream beds. If they loose the fight, they will have to be reimburse for those taxes. That is one of the big issues of right now. As I sit in the meetings, I listen. I am not a lawyer but I do know that is part of the issue. Again, not all sportsmen believe in the stream access that is being pushed. So tell me, who is right. Your side or the other.
 
Thanks Ken. I will keep plugging away. Your comments and concerns about landowners and the "parade of horribles" involving trespassing and tax consequences highlight the fact that you are viewing this from the perspective of a landowner, not a sportsman.

Prior to the enactment of the HB141, sportsmen merely had an easement to use the stream bed (not the surrounding property) to fish, wade, kayak, etc. You still had to enter the river at an authorized access point. It was already illegal to trespass, litter, vandalize, etc. From a law-biding sportsmen's perspective, there was no need to shut down stream access. If someone was trespassing, littering, vandalizing, or otherwise breaking the law, there were already laws in place to prevent and prosecute such activities. HB141 was really aimed at shutting down stream access and providing landowners with complete, unfettered control of the streams and rivers that cross their property - even though they are stocked and maintained with public funds. Mission accomplished.

As previously stated, I don't know what the courts will ultimately decide. One option would be for the courts to merely reinstate the easement that existed prior to the passage of HB141. I don't think that would have any tax consequences. Another option would for the court to rule that the state owns the stream bed, which may trigger some tax consequences. Frankly, I don't care which option the courts choose. As a sportsman, I just hope they restore access to sportsmen.

I still have not heard a legitimate explanation as to why a sportsmen's group would support shutting down stream access, which had been recognized for decades under Utah law. Don't argue from the perspective of a landowner or rancher, focus on the average joe sportsman that simply wants to fish on the Provo, Weber, or any other river. And while you are at it, help me understand why SFW supported HB141 back in 2010 but now they have apparently changed their position and want to remain "neutral." Why the change?

-Hawkeye-
 
Hawkeye, Like the statement you made, law abiding sportsmen. That has been part of the problem with the landowners was the littering and the vandalism. It seems hat there always have to be some, a small percent, of people who are not sportsmen, have to ruin it for others. The property owners can not watch everything. That was part of the walk in access program where they had to sign in before and the landowner knew who was in there. That was the program that was preferred. Then any vandalism that took place could be tracked. Working with land owners for all things is important for the outdoors.
What was currently in place was not working because of some sportsmen.
As for the change of mind of groups, there is always a chance of new things coming forward, new leadership, a change as to what is going on. I do not know why the change but I do know that right now there is no decision.
With the rule that will be used already in place, most streams will still not be able to be accessed. The six inch diameter log six feet long being able to navigate the waterway without problems will not work on small streams. Don't know what the answer would be on low water years.
Another question, if you were allowed to enter in a river if it did pass, and the river ran for miles through property, I am guessing you would have to enter and exit at the same point. I would guess that there would be a problem We with people saying, it is easier to cut across property than walk back. Now keep in mind, not all fishermen are sportsmen. I see that every time I go fishing. I am sure you are also aware of that. We ruin it for ourselves.
 
Once again, there were already laws in place to address those problems (littering, trespassing, vandalism, etc.). Those problems are red herrings used to justify completely shutting down public access for everyone. So is SFW now focused on protecting and advocating the rights of private landowners? I thought they represented sportsmen? Perhaps you guys should amend your mission statement.

-Hawkeye-
 
Kenny, I'm afraid you may misunderstand the point and the effort being made here.

There is no desire to by these few to address or solve these issues. If and when the stream/river/water rights access gets resolved, if SFW does or did exactly what these folks wanted with this issue, it will change nothing, regarding their attitudes, their support for or against SFW.

They will simply move to something/anything else to attempt to discredit SFW. Transparency, Mission Statement, Deer Management, Elk Management, Sheep Management, Predators, Landowner Hunting Access, Federal vs State Land Management, Wolf Management, Conservation Concepts, Livestock issues, and the list goes on, into infinity.

Kenny, they don't want SFW to change, they want SFW gone. PERIOD. Nothing short of that will satisfy them. As they've state, over and over, I makes no difference what SFW does, for hunters for fishermen, for big game or for fish, they will find and pound SFW for "WHAT EVER" hot issue is being dealt with in the public eye. They want the State, so far as hunting and fishing are concerned, managed they way they want it managed. And......if SFW evaporated from the face of the earth and one them were declared Judge and Jury over hunting and fishing in Utah, within six months, the rest of these gentlemen would be after the "new" Judge and Jury, just like they are after SFW now. They will never be happy if they aren't the Judge and Jury, regardless of the issue. Their faces change, over the years, different faces come and different faces, go but the concept stays the same. Human nature!

My advice, to a good friend. Go catch a Kokanee and think about all the good things you've accomplished for sportsmen, for the afternoon. Let the folks stew in their bitter caldron for a while, they'll be here when you get back, no matter your efforts or SFW's positions on a single issue.

DC
 
RE: Wildlife Board or SFW Board

DeLoss-

Thank you for casting a broad net and speaking to the motives of everyone that has questions or concerns regarding SFW. As I have stated many times, I have many friends who are members of SFW, and I appreciate many of the projects that SFW sponsors. However, that does not get SFW a free pass from questions and criticism when they screw up or take positions that negatively impact sportsmen. In my opinion, HB141 has single-handedly taken away more opportunity from Utah fisherman and than any other law or decision in the last 100 years. Unfortunately, SFW supported that law and is now taking a "neutral" position as many sportsmen are fighting to have it set aside. Go figure.

-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Wildlife Board or SFW Board

DC, your post, as far as it concerns me is out 180.

I would love to have a group as powerful as SFW that
Didn't specifically drive the agenda of low opportunity
High success hunting philosophy.

It's not my opinion or thought that SFW, through its policy and
Agenda, has taken more hunters out of the field than all of
The anti hunting orgs on this planet. It's a fact.

As SFW sits right now, as nothing more than political backscratchers,
You are right, I sure as chit want them gone. They fundraise to create
Donation money to ensure more payola. It's what is called a vicious circle
Of corruption.

The topic of the day is irrelevant, as the SFW stance 90% of the time
Is not representative of my beliefs, or the majority of Utah's hunters.

They have become exactly what they set up prop 5 to guard against.
Wildlife management by politicians, not biologists.

I told y'all 20 years ago this was coming. Well here us go!!


"The State of Utah has not given BGF anything.
They have invested in BGF to protect their
interests."
Birdman 4/15/15
 
2Lumpy,
Its to bad you cant see the point that many people on here are making. SFW is always the 1st in line to beat their chest and pat themselves on the back when ever something good happens. When ever there is controversy, like now, they seem to hide and go "NEUTRAL" on items.

AS a fisherman and an outdoorsman, I look at the tream access that D Peay pushed through and see it as taking away from the average Joe and Bigtime fisherman. That took alot away from many of us. Now you are neutral? HMMM???

I may not be right on this, but if I remember right, SFW was also behind the shutting down of the statewide archery hunt EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO SCIENTIFIC or BIOLOGIC reason to do so. The meetings I went to on this were frustrating. Anis was as frustrated as the rest of us. I know alot was from the SOUTHERN people and the RAC from the south. But also, many of those guys are all SFW guys too.

Now, its not all bad on the homefront. I do support SFW and their efforts to revamp our pheasant hunting here in Utah. I wish more people were behind it.
 
RE: Wildlife Board or SFW Board

If you were around during mid to late 70's early 80's, deer hunting in Utah was not good. I was hunting in the late 60's as a kid and what happened during the next 10 years or so in regards to deer numbers was nothing less than disappointing. Sure your opportunity to hunt was still there but the real expectation of finding a buck-- any buck was dismal at best. The formation of SFW was in response to a general feeling among the hunting public that something had to be done to change the management model and attitude of those in charge of making the decisions. The reasons for the decline are many but the way to adjust to how the resource was managed had to change. No longer did we see hard winters that killed a large percentage of deer but knowing that within a few years the population would increase and recover. Some things had changed that made it more difficult for that increase to occur. Maybe it was partly because cougar hunting was limited and "managed" maybe it was drought etc. Local wildlife organizations were all grumbling and calling for restrictions to help the herds rebound. Signs like "let mama go, let baby grow" were tacked to trees everywhere. Times called for different management tactics. It soon became apparent that it would take organization and political leverage to get the change that would be needed. That's pretty much why we have what we have today-- love it or hate it- its what the hunting public ( with all its different factions) wanted.
Your statement " Wildlife management by politicians, not biologists" has some merit but consider that some DWR biologists knew and ascribed to the fact that it only takes 5 bucks/100 does to successfully breed all the does. In the name of opportunity would you be content with that or would you be content with the elk population being at around 7000 like it was around 1980 and being able to hunt bull elk every 5 years.
In reality, there is more opportunity to hunt different game animals in this state, with the exception of deer, than ever before. Sure some of us will never be able to hunt OIL species but I can go watch them. High country deer, sheep and goats are awesome to watch on those 10,000 ft plus mountains.
We all need to keep working and expressing our opinions but I think its wrong to think individually our opinions are the only one that matter. The DWR is listening and wanting to do the best they can to increase the hunting publics satisfaction with their hunting experience, - not an easy task. The "biologic" model really has a "bottom line" for the survival and propagation of any species and it has a " high end" maximum that the land can support and not eventually ruin if not kept below that population point. The area between the low and the high is governed by social factors-- I think maybe we all need to understand that the way our big game is being managed is to respond to the multiple types of "opportunity" that the hunting public wants. The only way they know what the public wants is through individual letters, phone calls, RAC presentations, WB presentations. It matters what your opinion is---- you may not get exactly what you want-- but then again you might-- at least some of it-- and that is pretty much where we all end up.
 
"The only way they know what the public wants is through individual letters, phone calls, RAC presentations, WB presentations. It matters what your opinion is---- you may not get exactly what you want-- but then again you might-- at least some of it-- and that is pretty much where we all end up."

Nebo thanks for your service on the RAC. Five or six years ago I would have been in total agreement with the above statement.

THEN

The WB was shanghaied by a couple of dudes from the People's Republic Of Southern Utah and one sportsmen so group. They chit canned a brand new mule deer plan and rammed unit management up all of our starfish. Every other sportsmen's group ( MDF RMEF UBA and BOU ) opposed this as did the two RACs that represent over 80% of Utah's hunters. You can try and sell me that
Jake Albrecht had any idea of what he was reading when he produced his pre written proposal at the meeting where he was supposed to be listening to public input. You can try and sell me that Byron Bateman HAD to present a $350k check right before this vote went down and you can try and sell me that Bair and Bateman are going to represent Utah Sportsmen and not be SFW puppets too.

you'd have to be Zig Ziglar to pull that off.

It's a broken corrupt system that needs a gas can and match.




"The State of Utah has not given BGF anything.
They have invested in BGF to protect their
interests."
Birdman 4/15/15
 
I have a part or a start. To be on the RAC or WB, not to have to be appointed by a conservation group. Why not vote? Let people know this is when and where we are voting and on who? I think that its wrong that SFW and others appoint other members. Seems like all thats going to happen is those people will do as who ever appointed them.
 
It takes more than 2 votes to pass a motion. Jake Albrecht was nominated by board members and elected. It ended up to him to break the tie on the 30 unit motion, so yes, he made the difference. Our RAC voted to keep the regions as is. I voted to keep it the way it was. I thought we needed at least a year more to really look at it. Some of the biologists said that they could easily manage the units within the regions the same as if there were 30 "separate" units. The problem I saw was that they had been saying that for several years and they never really addressed the individual units within the region that needed help. My own opinion is that the WB decided to force the issue and put a system in place that would make each unit have a plan in place to work toward population objectives for the individual units and not just on an overall region basis. It seems that most folks at the DWR are ok with the unit by unit management now. I had one tell me that it is much easier to manage them individually now. They honestly do their darndest to achieve the goals they were given by the WB actions. ---- Now if you could help solve the Wasatch elk problem and have the solution for it, they would be more than happy to hear from you. Have a great day.
 
Rich-

I agree that it does take more than 2 votes to pass a motion. However, 3 out of the 7 members of the current Utah Wildlife Board are former high ranking members of SFW. John Bair the new chairman of the board is the former president of SFW. Byron Bateman a new board member is also a former president of SFW. And Donnie Hunter, a new board member is a long-time member of the Iron County Chapter of SFW and a member of SFW's Mission Fulfillment Board. I know two of these gentlemen and they are both good guys that I would enjoy hunting or shooting the bull with. I am sure that Donnie Hunter is also a great guy. However, you can probably see why people are concerned that SFW may have too much influence when it comes to managing Utah's wildlife.

Is Don Peay still one of the members of the Utah Wildlife Board Nominating Committee? I believe he was in prior years.

-Hawkeye-
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-17-15 AT 05:34PM (MST)[p]NEBO Glad you asked.

Simple solution actually, in two parts.

Part 1
When a hunter gets online to apply for a hunt or tag, after they purchase
their license or prove they have one, they are presented with the specific social
questions that are now presented at the RAC's / WB meetings. One license = one chance for input. Ya with me so far??

Once a certain percentage of the hunters say they favor a specific social matter it is taken out of the WB hands. In other words if 66% say leave snipe hunting as is vs going to specific snipe units then the argument is over. It's all social.
This would give you a broad range of actual input from every person that wishes to hunt that species. Think of this as an on the spot survey that is easily weighted.

This is going to keep any special interest group from running the show in a meeting where the RAC's and Board are subject to on the spot pressure to vote immediately and also from stacking either meeting like the ranchers did at the Wildlife Board meeting this last go around.

Could the system be hijacked?? Possibly for the cost of a hunting license if the expense was worth it I suppose.


Part 2
The Wildlife Board is rigged so that the overwhelming majority of Utah's hunters are under represented due to the regional setup. If 80% of all licenses are sold in two regions, then those two regions ( The North and Central ) should have enough voting members so that 6% from Glenwood, 7% from Blanding and 3% from Vernal don't end up driving the bus because these communities don't want us city guys killing "their deer" in "their backyards". This will end North vs South which we both know is the root of all evil anyway. For this scenario, I would add one more rep from North and Central and a non-consumptive rep that would cover both regions, so three additional seats on the board.

Part 2A
The Wildlife Board nominating committee needs to be a thing of the past. Run all nominees through the same input process as described in part 1. I want to know exactly who the nominees are. I'd like to know who Byron beat out this last go around but from what I hear this process is not part of GRAMA and that needs to be changed ASAP.






"The State of Utah has not given BGF anything.
They have invested in BGF to protect their
interests."
Birdman 4/15/15
 
Imagine that!
I saw this coming 15 years ago........;-), five years after SFW was started. It took me five years to evaluate where SFW was going and how. like other's did 20 years ago, it just took me five years longer, cuz I'm not as smart as some folks.

However, with that knowledge, I joined up, wanted to make sure my input was part of SFW's process. Never have shut up since.

There might be a lesson in that for others that are interested in where the outdoor hunting and fishing lifestyle is headed. If there is an effective process and it's going to effect your lifestyle, you may just want to see if there is a horse your saddle will fit in the organization.

SFW needs good folks to help make sure our hunting and fishing futures grow and flourish.

Why not join the org. and make sure your voice gets heard along with Bryon, Donnie and John's.

Or not......but the door's wide open!

DC
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-17-15 AT 06:14PM (MST)[p]Or ya could just insist that the system represents all equally. ?



"The State of Utah has not given BGF anything.
They have invested in BGF to protect their
interests."
Birdman 4/15/15
 
Robi,
SFW responsible for the loss statewide archery? Explain where your memory is coming from. Laughing my butt off. The loss of statwide archery took place at a RAC meeting in Green River......it just took awhile before anybody realized it.
 
The loss of Statewide archery actually took place in
A conference room located in a local projectile manufacturer.

From there it trickled out to Beaver and Dixie chapters
Of $FW.





"The State of Utah has not given BGF anything.
They have invested in BGF to protect their
interests."
Birdman 4/15/15
 
>Robi,
>SFW responsible for the loss statewide
>archery? Explain where your
>memory is coming from.
>Laughing my butt off.
>The loss of statwide archery
>took place at a RAC
>meeting in Green River......it just
>took awhile before anybody realized
>it.


So it only took place in 1 RAC meeting in GREEN RIVER? Interesting, interesting how it took place in 1 RAC meeting, but how many RAC meetings were there? Isnt there a WB to vote on this?

If you go back and read, I was asking a question. I did not come out and SAY YES, this is what happened, I was asking. I should have been more clear and asked differently. Were they the group that was behind it?
I was in a bow hunter meeting when all was started. Anis and others were frustrated on how the Southern people and groups didnt want us "northerners" down there hunting their deer. But this is off the topic of this post. Another time and another day.
 
Robi,
Your right this is just interweb banter. But yes ultimately the shot fired that ended statewide archery happened at the Green River RAC meeting. If you attended the WB meeting when it was voted on the board actually split. The final vote came from the board chairman to break the tie. That vote was a response to the shot fired in Green River. If you ask around you might find out who fired the original shot. The SFW is an easy target to complain about, far far more easy than getting involved in the process and getting things changed to your liking. But hey interweb banter keeps us entertained right??
 
Muley73.5,

You and your banter and interweb are entertaining, especially deflecting shots at $FW and defending all the BS they are involved in. YOU know, they dont actually represent the average Joe Hunter or the majority of the sportsman in Utah. Why are they not MORE involved in Wyoming, Idaho, Arizona and the rest of the WEst? There might be a reason. Just saying!!!

Carry on you interweb affairs and banters.
 
WW,
I sure hope someone listens to this. I usually find something I can agree with on your posts. Not everything, but always some well thought out oppinions. This, however, is something I think everyone could live with. It actually gives sportsman a real voice rather than always feeling like we are bowing to "big government" doing it their way. Great post. Maybe one of the best posts I've seen on MM in a very long time. (I will take my steak medium rare thanks)

I will say this as well, I, like Nebo, know Jon Bair. And he is nobodies puppet. In all my interactions with Jon he's been a genuine concerned person. Not politically concerned, but genuine. He wants medium ground for all sportsmen and women. I'm sure it's a lot tougher than any of us can comprehend.


>NEBO Glad you asked.
>
>Simple solution actually, in two parts.
>
>
>Part 1
>When a hunter gets online to
>apply for a hunt or
>tag, after they purchase
>their license or prove they have
>one, they are presented with
>the specific social
>questions that are now presented at
>the RAC's / WB meetings.
>One license = one chance
>for input. Ya with me
>so far??
>
>Once a certain percentage of the
>hunters say they favor a
>specific social matter it is
>taken out of the WB
>hands. In other words if
>66% say leave snipe hunting
>as is vs going to
>specific snipe units then the
>argument is over. It's all
>social.
>This would give you a broad
>range of actual input from
>every person that wishes to
>hunt that species. Think of
>this as an on the
>spot survey that is easily
>weighted.
>
>This is going to keep any
>special interest group from running
>the show in a meeting
>where the RAC's and Board
>are subject to on the
>spot pressure to vote immediately
>and also from stacking either
>meeting like the ranchers did
>at the Wildlife Board meeting
>this last go around.
>
>Could the system be hijacked?? Possibly
>for the cost of a
>hunting license if the expense
>was worth it I suppose.
>
>
>
>Part 2
>The Wildlife Board is rigged so
>that the overwhelming majority of
>Utah's hunters are under represented
>due to the regional setup.
>If 80% of all licenses
>are sold in two regions,
>then those two regions (
>The North and Central )
>should have enough voting members
>so that 6% from Glenwood,
>7% from Blanding and 3%
>from Vernal don't end up
>driving the bus because these
>communities don't want us city
>guys killing "their deer" in
>"their backyards". This will end
>North vs South which we
>both know is the root
>of all evil anyway. For
>this scenario, I would add
>one more rep from North
>and Central and a non-consumptive
>rep that would cover both
>regions, so three additional seats
>on the board.
>
>Part 2A
>The Wildlife Board nominating committee needs
>to be a thing of
>the past. Run all nominees
>through the same input process
>as described in part 1.
>I want to know exactly
>who the nominees are. I'd
>like to know who Byron
>beat out this last go
>around but from what I
>hear this process is not
>part of GRAMA and that
>needs to be changed ASAP.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>"The State of Utah has not
>given BGF anything.
>They have invested in BGF to
>protect their
>interests."
>Birdman 4/15/15






It's always an adventure!!!
 
DeLoss-

The ?SFW door is wide open? but fortunately it swings both ways. I joined SFW around 10 or 12 years ago and left a few years later due to significant questions and concerns. There are many other former SFW members with similar stories.

I still remember the first SFW meetings and banquets I attended, and the excitement I felt. That feeling, however, was short lived. For me, the turning point was finding out the neither SFW nor MDF were earmarking any of the Expo Tag application fees for actual conservation projects. In my mind, that was not right. My decision to leave was a careful one. I researched the issues. I reviewed the rules and meeting minutes. I spoke with decision makers at the DWR, MDF and SFW. After getting strung along for quite some time, and realizing that none of these groups had any interest in voluntarily doing the right thing, I determined ? to use your words ? that SFW as currently constituted ?was not a horse that my saddle would fit.? My decision to leave has been confirmed by SFW?s positions (or supposed ?lack of position?) on key issues such as expo tags, conservation permits, the North American Conservation Model, stream access, transfer of federal lands, etc. I still have friends that are members of SFW. I also know a number of former SFW members who have left and feel disenfranchised by the positions SFW has taken.

Perhaps someday I will come back into the SFW fold. For that to happen, however, SFW would have to change its position on a number of issues, which I don't expect them to do anytime soon. In the meantime, I continue to get involved with and support groups and issues that are consistent with my beliefs and ideals. Good luck this coming season and thanks for the discussion.

-Hawkeye-
 
Hawk, I think that $FW is too far gone. I don't know that a change
In course is enough to drag the train back on track.

So much baggage and so many tentacles in the wrong places.

Blow it up and get back to the roots.





"The State of Utah has not given BGF anything.
They have invested in BGF to protect their
interests."
Birdman 4/15/15
 
Robi,
Hmmm the average joe.....who exactly is the average joe??? The guy that goes out once a year for the general deer season? The guy that is upset that there is no longer a statewide archery season? The guy that attends the Expo every year? The guy that only hunts solo, or DIY? The guy that hunts in whatever unit he can draw? The guy that enjoys the hunt even if he's just a spotter for a friend or family member? The guy that saves money all year and applies for several states? The guy that only fly fishes and hunts upland game? The guy that only fishes with power bait? The that prefers to see more mature bucks on each unit? The guy that is happy to shoot a 2 point every single year? Who's the average joe???? I take new hunters out almost every single year, youth and older, I help total strangers in LE tags every single year. I hunt with guys that purchase conservation tags every single year. I spend every chance I get hunting and fishing with family and friends, I sacrifice and probably over spend at times to enjoy my passion. Am I an average joe....not a chance because it is my passion. The average joe is a fictional character trumped up by those wanting to give validity to their personal cause. You cause you feel is hurt by the SFW so you bring up the average joe as a means to validate your views and feelings. It's a safe thing to do because the average joe doesn't really exist and have a voice of it's own. Even you are not an average joe or you wouldn't be on here arguing, you're the same as me...a passionate sportsman. You're just not happy with some of the current direction of our big game management in Utah. So you lean on the average joe card to support your displeasure. I lean on the SFW to make my point or I lean on the RACs and the WB. Those are real tangible identifiable things. It's the reason I get things done that I'm happy with and you don't. I know its a weird concept...this whole reality thing.
 

Similar threads

Founder
Colorado DIY Private Land Hunts
Replies
2
Views
2k
Founder
Founder

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

F3A0A21F-359F-4111-82F6-8A6A0DC64F71.jpeg
Sweet Big Bull Score
IMG_1899.png
IMG_1777.jpg
Big Utah Bull
IMG_1768.jpeg
0345B5CC-AFF4-4A56-A9B6-3D074ECB6526.jpeg
5E9EDE34-15C0-4A82-BBCB-C3AE5FDFFE1A.jpeg
3E481D17-B599-4631-9119-FB1624B9E739.jpeg
How big is this bull?
BEDE4CA9-358A-4257-A67D-347093816F9B.jpeg
IMG_5850.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom