# Application Process Open for 2 new Wildlife Board Members



## BGD (Mar 23, 2018)

Two wildlife board member's terms are up August 1st. Application process opens next week. I hope we can get 2 good new board members.

https://www.ksl.com/article/5009504...for-2-new-members-of-the-state-wildlife-board


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I’m going to apply.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> I'm going to apply.


I'm sure the positions are taken already. They know who they want, just have to go through the process of posting the "job".


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Probably true. My alternative is to do nothing, and then whine about it on the internet. 

So, I guess I’ll apply.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> I'm going to apply.


Good luck. Really! It looks like quite the political mine field to wade through to get appointed.

Do you know if they publish a list of applicants?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

The nominating committee is where we need people. I don't know how you get on that -- gotta know Spencer, I guess.

any ideas who is even on the nominating committee? I think UWN should have representation.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> I'm going to apply.


Good luck! I wish I was in a situation in my life, time wise, where I could consider applying also.

Let us know how the process goes.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

PBH said:


> The nominating committee is where we need people. I don't know how you get on that -- gotta know Spencer, I guess.
> 
> any ideas who is even on the nominating committee? I think UWN should have representation.


No clue. I don't even know how to apply, but I'll figure it out before the March deadline.

I know some people on here have political connections. Go pull some strings! I could start a campaign thread on here and make all my promises, but I don't think that is how it works. Plus, we all know that campaign promises are hollow and I don't want to be like them.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> No clue. I don't even know how to apply, but I'll figure it out before the March deadline.
> 
> I know some people on here have political connections. Go pull some strings! I could start a campaign thread on here and make all my promises, but I don't think that is how it works. Plus, we all know that campaign promises are hollow and I don't want to be like them.


You could contact Donnie Hunter, he always seemed like a nice guy, he could probably give you some advice on how to apply. I'm sure Wade Heaton would also, they are the only two I know personally.
https://wildlife.utah.gov/board-members.html


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

Here you go Vanilla, you can apply here.
https://boards.utah.gov/Board/Details/272


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

the KSL article has a link that provides a place to register and apply. But without backing from the nomination committee -- I just don't know how it might work.


but if Vanilla never registers and applies, we'll never know. :noidea:


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

https://boards.utah.gov/Board/Details/273

Here is a link to view who the nomination committee is, if you're curious.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

So if I were to apply with a masters in Environmental Science, bachelors in Pubic Administration, would that be enough?


----------



## BGD (Mar 23, 2018)

Glad to hear it. I figure there has to be some pretty qualified people on the forum. Interested to hear how the application process goes.


----------



## BGD (Mar 23, 2018)

Any idea when new board member selections are announced? Just wondering the timing of nominating committee recommendations, and then governors selection, if board members terms aren’t up until August 1.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

taxidermist said:


> So if I were to apply with a masters in Environmental Science, bachelors in Pubic Administration, would that be enough?


No. You still have to be nominated by the committee. I'd imagine that once the applicants make it to the committee and they review, qualifications then go out the window.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

I applied years back and learned that recommendations are essential. I secured 2 recommendations from organizations that I belonged to at the time, but it wasn't enough. Didn't even make the first cut. I don't know for a fact, but I strongly suspect that some organizations carry a lot more weight than others.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Finnegan said:


> I applied years back and learned that recommendations are essential. I secured 2 recommendations from organizations that I belonged to at the time, but it wasn't enough. Didn't even make the first cut. I don't know for a fact, but I strongly suspect that some organizations carry a lot more weight than others.


When we end up with as many as 4 various known members of one organization serving on the board at the same time for several terms in a row, I'd say you were pretty darn close, Finn! And, I suspect there's some we don't know about for sure.

But, having said that, we still have some who have stood up for the 70+% Utah hunters and fishermen who don't belong to ANY conservation organization, and who listen to those who "speak" up at the meetings or in this case, those who email, call, or text during the Covid. They can't ignore all of us!


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

No. You still have to be nominated by the committee. I'd imagine that once the applicants make it to the committee and they review, qualifications then go out the window.

Got it. So...&#8230;.If I show my donations of $100,000 each year to SFW I would be a "SLAM DUNK". :shock: If anyone believes that, then I have some beach front property on the north slope I'll sell you.


----------



## brisket (Mar 3, 2015)

You got this ‘Nilla. I’d also like to nominate Packout to represent.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Oh I have no misgivings about my chances for this, but I’m still going to do it. Packout on the other hand, might have some connections. And he’d be fantastic!


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

Whoever applies, (sure wont be me) I hope they have good head on their shoulder and represent the wildlife and not be swayed by any "groups".


----------



## BGD (Mar 23, 2018)

I think it is great that Vanilla is planning on applying. The whole reason I posted this in the first place is I think it is important for us to learn and know about the process, so we know how to make our voices heard and where to direct our input. Does anyone have any connections to anyone on the nominating committee? Can we email the nominating committee with our input and thoughts? How do we ramp up the input to the Governor to let him know our thoughts and frustrations with the current board? I know many will believe there is no way to influence the decision makers and maybe that is true. But if we don’t try, there is a 100% chance we won’t succeed. I am interested to hear from anyone that knows more about this than I do to share their thoughts.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Historically, an association and recommendation from one organization has been sufficient to get you at least to the governor from the nomination committee. I'm guessing if the committee and the governor received 100 emails expressing displeasure with the perceived bias involved (including the current number of Board members from that one organization) it would have an impact. 

And think about if they got 500 emails? And what about 1,000? That sounds like a lot, but think how small of the hunting (let alone fishing that this board makes rules for as well) population that includes. 

This really isn't about me. I'm applying for my own desire to be involved in issues in my community that I care about. I'm not interesting in running for public office, but being more involved in wildlife issues and regulation is something I could be very excited about. So, go big or go home, right? The message I'm trying to send here is this: Get involved! Posting on this forum is fun, and it can help us influence those on here and get organized, but posting on this forum is not "being involved." We need to all get involved, whatever it is we care about, get involved.


----------



## flyfisher20 (Aug 5, 2011)

Pretty sure I know Vanilla personally (pretty sure I know the man behind "Vanilla", but I could be wrong). I'd be willing to send emails, sign petitions, etc. to see if we could get him some"real" consideration. Anyone with me?

Side note, Vanilla, pretty sure you were a little league football coach of mine. But I could be wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Vanilla has my vote!

Maybe we can jump on the coattails of the Reddit thread and Gamestop - let's push this thread!


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

I only know Vanilla from this forum but it seems to me he would be fantastic for us!


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

I have a degree in Forestry and an MBA. I applied some years ago. Crickets. It's my observation that an affiliation with SFW is gold. If someone petitions the governor that we already have enough SFW representation, I'll be more than happy to sign it. The overt SFW hijack of the UDWR needs to stop.


----------



## Fedup (Jan 31, 2021)

For almost 15 years posters have complained about the DWR and its ties to SFW. But still fail to realize how the system works. Maybe you all should put your money where your mouth is and hire a lobbyist to help get you the “connections” you need to have a chance at having your voice heard. It won’t cost as much as you think it won’t be “back door” it just the way the system works. 

Now having said that. You’re chances of being successful are next to none since 90% of folks here are/were predation deniers and would advocate for a statewide OTC 3 season deer hunt with no cap. And then when we had no deer say it was habitat and weather that did it. Ignoring common sense and deferring to the biologist to manage game. You might also give as much consideration to a skunk or raccoon as you do for a species that hunters pay to hunt. This is idealistic and commendable for a wildlife lover but it’s actually an anti hunter mentality. You might advocate for a different allocation of tags in the CWMU program because you think those are your animals or push for stream access on private lands even though there are 100s of miles of stream one can access already. You may also advocate for only cutthroat trout in Utah’s waters except for lakes deemed warm water. Maybe you think wolves have there place here in Utah. I can go on but you all know what your Utopia looks like. 

The 6 of you are in a bubble and mentalities here are contrary to what the 200,000 hunters want in Utah. But yet you believe you are fighting for the average joe. 

What happens to the UWC anyway? Weren’t they supposed to be the voice of the UWN click? 

Carry on.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

Cody,

Yes, that is how the system has been working in Utah, but other states have rejected SFW when they have seen the result in Utah - thanks in part to social media like this. Lobbyists were not needed. The lobbyist idea is a good one, but they'd need to be really good at getting operatives on the wildlife board and be able to displace SFW from the expo contract. RMEF couldn't do it working for free. Good luck with that. 

Or maybe we can just get a good governor/wildlife board who can see that the exclusive trophy hunting management approach instilled by SFW isn't the only interest that should be addressed. Maybe the governor can just see some benefit from not having SFW operatives in every corner including "non consumptive."


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I've known educated guys with long lists of volunteering, RAC service, degrees in biology, letters from multiple organizations- including SFW- who never made it to the Governor for consideration. They get 50-100 applications each time a position opens up and send 2-3 names on to the Governor's office. (I do wonder where those people who don't make it go during the rest of the public process.....? )

It is a Governor appointed position and as such a person needs some political connections and relationships. That may be good and it may be bad, which in the end is like most things in life. If someone wants to get somewhere then they'd better have worn down the boot leather in the right places. 

And I'd lean to agree with Fedup's advice. Seems like he gave some thoughts that some should think about. 
..


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Fedup said:


> mentalities here are contrary to what the 200,000 hunters want in Utah. But yet you believe you are fighting for the average joe.


Does SFW represent what the 200,000 Utah hunters want or do they rep their biggest patrons and their own economic self interest?

Not sure if there is a consensus mentality here. We disagree quite a bit.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Catherder said:


> We disagree quite a bit.


No we don't!


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

PBH said:


> No we don't!


We don't? You mean all those 20 page threads about big game management is just our way of singing kumbaya? Not to mention the ones about Bears ears and covid. I'm just out of touch, I guess. 

It is true we don't argue much about fishing issues anymore. Maybe the DWR is just doing a good job and Cliff and his pals have moved on.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I think PBH was be facetious. 

And I think we all agree way more than we disagree. I do think that all the basic arguments whittle down to two competing ideas: 1) trophy mindset vs 2) opportunity mindset. I don’t think there is a way to bridge this gap in 2021, particularly for mule deer. We simply don’t have the carrying capacity in Utah to fully appease both crowds, which is why there needs to be biologically sound compromise.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Catherder said:


> We don't?


See what I mean? i can't even say that we don't agree without someone disagreeing with me!


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> I do think that all the basic arguments whittle down to two competing ideas: 1) trophy mindset vs 2) opportunity mindset.


Putting on serious face again, I would submit that there is an even more basic "argument". That is of power or who ultimately calls the shots. The competing camps of whether biologists, DWR brass, outside entities like SFW, the Wildlife Board, the legislature, or the masses (or some combinations) should ultimately wield the most power in making wildlife management decisions is the most basic argument IMO in Utah's wildlife management today.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Catherder said:


> Putting on serious face again, I would submit that there is an even more basic "argument". That is of power or who ultimately calls the shots. The competing camps of whether biologists, DWR brass, outside entities like SFW, the Wildlife Board, the legislature, or the masses (or some combinations) should ultimately wield the most power in making wildlife management decisions is the most basic argument IMO in Utah's wildlife management today.


Agreed. That said, I don't think anyone cares who holds the power so long as the decisions fall into the camp you believe in on opportunity vs trophy. Well, even as type this I think that maybe the opportunity crowd cares far less about that than the trophy crowd. I don't think John Q public hunter that just wants a tag in his pocket every year would spend 1 second thinking about the power dynamic if he was able to have a tag every year.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> Agreed. That said, I don't think anyone cares who holds the power so long as the decisions fall into the camp you believe in on opportunity vs trophy. Well, even as type this I think that maybe the opportunity crowd cares far less about that than the trophy crowd. I don't think John Q public hunter that just wants a tag in his pocket every year would spend 1 second thinking about the power dynamic if he was able to have a tag every year.


If I read that right, I tend to agree. I'd likely be categorized into the opportunity camp, but I'm not anti trophy at all. I think they should have a place. Large mature bucks are very exciting, but that shouldn't be what hunting is all about. To me its pretty simple, its like when SFW pitched more hunting units and said "when a unit is under objective, cut tags; when its over, increase them." That's what they said until units were over objective for multiple years, then it was "lets not be so hasty" or "the counts can't be right." SFW should have 1 seat on the board, not 5.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Iron Bear is alive?!


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

I will email the governor on behalf of my UWN brethren, just let me know who and when. 


I openly dissaprove our board.


----------



## BearLakeFishGuy (Apr 15, 2013)

Vanilla said:


> Probably true. My alternative is to do nothing, and then whine about it on the internet.
> 
> So, I guess I'll apply.


Good for you! It never hurts to apply. Being a bit of an insider, I can honestly say that I've never heard that anyone was pre-selected for the job.


----------



## Bookcliffs07 (Aug 11, 2020)

*Getting on the Wildlife Board*

My observation over the years has been that typically the folks selected for the Wildlife Board have already been involved in the process and served on a regional RAC. Also, because these positions are usually supposed to represent a constituency of some kind it really helps if you are affiliated with and nominated by a group of one of those constituencies. That might be why some folks make the connection to folks who are actively affiliated with large sportsman groups getting RAC and Board positions more so than just random sportsmen. The same is true for the other groups - for example when they select someone to represent agriculture it is usually someone that is nominated by or supported by the Utah Farm Bureau or Cattleman's Association.

My suggestions to those interested in serving in these capacities would be to-

1. Get actively involved in an existing sportsman's organization (or start your own if you see a need or if you can't live with the principles and practices of an existing one). 
2. Start attending RAC meetings and participating and then speak with the DWR regional supervisor of the regional office where you live and let them know you are interested in serving on the Regional Advisory Council.
3. Serve on the RAC, attend the meetings, volunteer to serve on committees or working groups that come up, get to know the players locally and on the statewide scene.
4. After doing 1-3 go ahead and apply to be on the Wildlife Board.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

Book,

"That might be why some folks make the connection to folks who are actively affiliated with large sportsman groups."

I think you accidentally added an "s" to "group". What other sportsmen group besides SFW has multiple affiliates in the RAC's? It seems at least half of the Southern RAC is affiliated with SFW. I walk away thinking they should just give SFW a seat specifically and not allow their members in any other capacity - especially non-consumptive.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I think provider illustrates the current issue with the system, and it’s the lack of trust that comes along with not only someone’s affiliation with “groups,” but the perception that one group controls everything. Fair or not, that is the perception, and it’s not good for anyone. I’d venture to say it’s not even good for that group. 

It’s time for them to do things a little differently. What do they say about the definition of doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results?


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

The way that i see it with SWF is that they are the group the DOES show up at the RAC's in numbers along with other venues where the future is discussed. 

I'm not saying that they are better than any of the others or worse but when you have the majority in the room it is your voice that is going to be heard.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

I surprised anyone thinks this decision is not weighted by politics. How many sportsmen's groups are there in Utah that are not in bed with SFW?

The only one I can think of is RMEF and we have all seen how much the state was willing to work with them.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

middlefork said:


> The only one I can think of is RMEF and we have all seen how much the state was willing to work with them.


Perhaps if the members of RMEF in Utah would band together like SWF has then perhaps their voices will be heard.

It does no good when there are 5 members of SWF who show up at the RAC meetings and only a couple of others that are not affiliated with any.

I have never been to a RAC meeting since I live in Colorado but from what I have heard they are only attended by a few that are concerned with what is going on in the state with wildlife and then there are the others that only attend when they want to gripe about something.

I have been a member of enough groups to see just how SWF gets it's way when it comes right down to it.

And I do hope that Vanilla gets onto the board but it will be a long road for him to get there.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Critter said:


> It does no good when there are 5 members of SWF who show up at the RAC meetings and only a couple of others that are not affiliated with any.
> 
> I have never been to a RAC meeting since I live in Colorado but from what I have heard they are only attended by a few that are concerned with what is going on in the state with wildlife and then there are the others that only attend when they want to gripe about something.
> 
> I have been a member of enough groups to see just how SWF gets it's way when it comes right down to it.


It's a bit of the "chicken vs the egg" argument, though. I know of many that went to a RAC meeting only to see how very little the public input was actually valued, and have vowed to never waste their time and return. Trust me, I do not believe that is the way to get anything done, but it isn't just about only one set of people connected to one organization showing up. Like I've repeated multiple times, fair or not, there is a perception in our state that is not healthy for anything or anyone in the system. We need to institute some change into that if for no other reason than to increase the public trust in what is SUPPOSED to be a public process. That wildlife board meeting when they discussed the elk plan was the absolute biggest train wreck and spit in the face to a public process that I've ever witnessed in a public meeting.



Critter said:


> And I do hope that Vanilla gets onto the board but it will be a long road for him to get there.


I've got a better chance of drawing a Sportsman Permit tag at the end of the year. I'd be okay with either happening.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

Critter said:


> The way that i see it with SWF is that they are the group the DOES show up at the RAC's in numbers along with other venues where the future is discussed.
> 
> I'm not saying that they are better than any of the others or worse but when you have the majority in the room it is your voice that is going to be heard.


They certainly know how to work the system and pack a meeting, but we'd hope that elected officials wouldn't indirectly fund SFW (or any special interest group for that matter) with limited entry tags so they can turn around and squash other interests. The state should just auction those tags off directly and spend it how they see fit.


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

I'll finally weigh in, I suppose I have a philosophical disagreement with those who think the primary function of state wildlife departments is to raise up game animals for human harvest, I'd rather see them focus on promoting a natural balance of native species and figuring out a way we can all get along. I think this mindset is severely underrepresented on the wildlife board as it sits with those without a SFW membership card, a CWMU, or sheep **** on their boots.


----------

