# Government at its finest - not.



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

While some of you have probably read the entire Waterfowl Proclamation, I'm sure most who did probably read past this paragraph without comprehending its significance. Here is the paragraph I'm referring to from the "Closed Areas" section:


> Salt Lake International Airport Hunting and shooting is prohibited. Hunting or shooting on the airport or its related or controlled properties is not allowed without the express, prior written approval of the airport director (Salt Lake City, UT, ORD. Sec. 16.12.325).


Of particular interest to me is the 'airport controlled properties' referred to by the South Shore club members as the 'Mitigation property.' This property is located between 2 and 3 ½ miles west northwest of the airport proper. It is NOT in the flight path for the airport which is restricted to north and south headings only. It's true that most aircraft departing the airport on a north heading will turn west almost immediately and pass directly over most of the south shore clubs. It's been that way forever. This is an important point because of what the response was when I requested written permission to gain access to that property. Here is the response from Maureen Riley, Director of Salt Lake City Airports:


> Mr. Hicks,
> Unfortunately, we are unable to accommodate your request, because of security issues. Airport staff is working to revise the ordinance to eliminate the ability to request waivers in this matter.
> Sincerely,
> Maureen Riley


Now since the South Shore clubs all have commercial aircraft passing directly over their property on a daily basis, I has a bit put off by this explanation and requested further clarification. I asked her, respectfully, in 3 emails so far, just how waterfowl hunting in a duck marsh that is located between 2 and 3 ½ miles west of the Salt Lake City International Airport can pose a security risk. I also asked if she or someone on her staff could please explain that to me. I also reiterated that I wasn't actually asking for permission to hunt within the boundaries of the actual airport. I'm still waiting for a response.

So what's my point in bringing this to your attention you might ask. Well, number one, there's the question about the mental capacity of the imbecile(s) who actually came up with the ordinance to begin with. And more importantly, I'd like to get as many of you as possible to request permission to hunt this property. According to the Waterfowl Proclamation, it would appear that you have a right to hunt this property after getting written permission to do so from the Airport Director, Maureen Riley.

Do I plan to hunt this property if given permission to do so? Do I expect any of you to hunt this property? Would it be a good thing to open up this property to hunting? The answer to all these questions is the same answer: NO!

But somebody messed up big time (IMHO) when they wrote that ordinance and the State put that information in the Proclamation. And the only way I know of to get errors of this nature changed is to publicize it and get others to recognize the error so they might get involved in changing it as well.

No, the World will not end tomorrow if you don't. And no, this isn't of major importance in the greater scheme of life. And I doubt seriously that it will affect your total season bag this year or next. But if you have a couple of spare minutes in the next couple of weeks, drop Ms. Riley a line and ask her for permission to hunt this property as indicated you can in the Proclamation. Her email address is [email protected]

Hey, the duck hunting sucks right now, and I'm bored. I had to do something today to keep from going stir crazy. And in keeping with the season, Merry Christmas to one and all.


----------



## Markthehunter88 (Nov 5, 2010)

I sent an email... hey why not?

Mark


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

Markthehunter88 said:


> I sent an email... hey why not?
> 
> Mark


Thank you.


----------



## goosegambler (Mar 31, 2009)

dubob said:


> Do I plan to hunt this property if given permission to do so? Do I expect any of you to hunt this property? Would it be a good thing to open up this property to hunting? The answer to all these questions is the same answer: NO!


I already know the answer of why you wouldn't hunt it, and why I wouldn't hunt it, but tell everyone else why they shouldn't hunt it!


----------



## Dweeker10 (Dec 10, 2012)

Those ponds hold some serious birds that serves as the rest pond for all the clubs out there


----------



## Dweeker10 (Dec 10, 2012)

They are super anal about those ponds they don't even want you stopping and lookin at the ducks and geese


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

goosegambler said:


> I already know the answer of why you wouldn't hunt it, and why I wouldn't hunt it, but tell everyone else why they shouldn't hunt it!


I'd be happy to GG. The area is a rest area supplying birds to the dozen or so clubs in the area. It is an area that duplicates policies in both Federal (Bear River Unit 1, 3, and most of 5) and local (Salt Creek Rest Lake) marshes that maintain separate rest areas that the birds can use. This rest area policy keeps at least most of the birds around until weather drives them south.

The South Shore clubs would be producing much smaller bags for the members were it not for this rest area as it now stands. Most guides I've used in Canada for goose hunting will NOT hunt their geese over water for the same reason. If they did, the area would be devoid of geese for their clients to shoot.

So my reason for not hunting this area and not wanting anybody else to hunt it is a selfish one. I want to be able to shoot more birds at my club and giving them a place to rest will go a long way towards producing that result. There is nothing in my motive against anybody personally you understand. It's just that overhunting 100% of any area will ultimately, and in short order, drive the birds out of that area.


----------



## goosegambler (Mar 31, 2009)

dubob said:


> goosegambler said:
> 
> 
> > I already know the answer of why you wouldn't hunt it, and why I wouldn't hunt it, but tell everyone else why they shouldn't hunt it!
> ...


Amen!!!! Thank god there are still some savy hunter's left!!


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

And now someone who never knew that area existed before now is furiously trying to locate it. :shock: 

I'll send them an email in the interest of ruining this Christmas vacation because u know I like to mess with people. :mrgreen:


----------



## Chaser (Sep 28, 2007)

Mojo1 said:


> And now someone who never knew that area existed before now is furiously trying to locate it. :shock:


I knew there were ponds out there, but had no idea they were used as a rest area. Even if I could somehow get permission to hunt it, I wouldn't, now knowing how the birds use this place. I appreciate the education, as I am sure other new (or relatively new at least) hunters do. I wish more of these things were discussed so that people could learn what drives the success or lack thereof in the marshes of the GSL.


----------



## wingmanck (Sep 7, 2007)

dubob said:


> > Mr. Hicks,
> > Unfortunately, we are unable to accommodate your request, because of security issues. *Airport staff is working to revise the ordinance to eliminate the ability to request waivers in this matter*.
> > Sincerely,
> > Maureen Riley


"Security issues" was definitely a poor excuse. Why not just state it's a great rest area that benefits the surrounding clubs (although the mitigation does sit on what used to be some of my old clubs best spots  )? While I'm in complete agreement with what you've said, I'm going to refrain from sending the poor lady an email. Sounds to me like she is already trying to get the permission statement removed (see *bold* in her quote).


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

wingmanck said:


> "Security issues" was definitely a poor excuse. Why not just state it's a great rest area that benefits the surrounding clubs (although the mitigation does sit on what used to be some of my old clubs best spots)? While I'm in complete agreement with what you've said, I'm going to refrain from sending the poor lady an email. Sounds to me like she is already trying to get the permission statement removed (see *bold* in her quote).


I did notice the part about getting it removed when I first received the email. However, it took me three email requests to her to get that response and I'm in no way letting her off the hook. If she is as casual in her efforts to get the SLC Ordinance changed and paragraph removed from the Proclamation, then the confusion is likely to remain in place for several years.

I'd just as soon have you and others send her an email now requesting the permission such that it floats to the top of her pile of irritations and she takes an active, aggressive action to get it changed. And of course, I would also ask that all requests be civil and respectful. You would be asking for a privilege, not a right.


----------



## shaner (Nov 30, 2007)

I'll bite and be the devils advocate on this thread.
Since the Salt Lake Airport Authority owns this land and the Airport Authority is owned by 'We the People', it makes these ponds public property.
Shouldn't the South Shore Duck Club Association be funding the purchase of their own rest ponds since they directly benefit from said ponds, and the rest of us be allowed to hunt public property that we own?
Now that being said, I am extremely jealous of your club membership. I also don't blame you one bit in your effort to keep those ponds, which were built with public funds to mitigate destruction of wetlands from the Airport expansion, to yourselves.
I understand some things in life not being 'fair', I just like the truth being told about them.
I also hope to meet you one day and have a 'small bore' only duck hunt with you.
Party on.


----------



## wingmanck (Sep 7, 2007)

dubob said:


> ...such that it floats to the top of her pile of irritations and she takes an active, aggressive action to get it changed. And of course, I would also ask that all requests be civil and respectful.


Fair enough - I see your point that a little friendly persuasion might indeed speed up the glacial pace of government action.


----------



## duct tape (Mar 5, 2008)

Email sent. I love a good letter-writing opportunity.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

I kept after the issue until I did finally get a response from the folks having the authority to answer. It only took 10 emails sent by me to get the answers I needed to close this out. Two of the emails had to be sent to the SLC Mayors Office asking Mayor Becker to intercede on my behalf to get his employees to respond to me. That did work by the way.

The Director of Airports told me that under no circumstances would her office issue permission to anybody to hunt this property at any time - now or in the future. She also said that her staff was working to get the ordinance changed and working with the DWR to get it removed from the proclamation.

I even got a response from her legal staff, but am prevented from divulging any information from them without their express permission in writing and they will not grant me that permission. Trust me, I asked them for permission. It took two emails to the Mayor's Office (their boss) to even get them to say no, I couldn't pass on their comments.

So the bottom line on all this is this: NOBODY is going to get permission to hunt this property as long as it is under the control of the airport. If somebody has hunted it recently, they have done so illegally and would be subject to trespass violations and the fines/jail time associated with them. I was told by the Director that the property is patrolled on an irregular basis and violators would be prosecuted to the fullest measure if caught.

This whole process has been entertaining to say the least. I never cease to be amazed at the arrogance of some public servants and their disdain for John Q Public. The bright side of all this was the SLC Mayor's Office; I don't think I'd have my answers yet if it hadn't been for their intervention on my behalf.

Well, that's all folks. With the shotguns, boats, and decoys safely put away for the season, its hard deck time and lots of fishing to enjoy. Life is good.


----------



## huntingbuddy (Sep 10, 2007)

Thanks for keeping us updated. This is a little irritating that there is public land that the public can't hunt.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

I like your tenacity dubob. Even if some of us may slightly disagree with the idea of private lands being purchased with public money and then being closed--I'm sure that most of us could agree that your posts and your information are highly valued! Thanks for your efforts!
R


----------

