# Anyone Ever heard of this new group BGF



## Hoopermat

http://www.sltrib.com/news/4936797-155/utah-groups-pushing-greater-local-control

From what I have read it is a spin off of the SFW group. 
For some reasons our state has and is givimg them quite a bit of money.


----------



## middlefork

o-||


----------



## DallanC

Its been around for quite a while now. According to this quote they formed in 2010.



> *Big Game Forever*, a Utah-based nonprofit that spun off Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife in 2010, has secured hundreds of thousands of dollars in state money during the past four years to evict the gray wolf from the endangered species list. But the group's founders Don Peay and Ryan Benson* have not disclosed *where the money goes in their reports to the Legislature and to the Utah *Division of Wildlife Resources *(DWR).


-DallanC


----------



## paddler

Yep, BGF has received taxpayer dollars for several years now, and nobody knows what they have done with the money. Government funded slush fund for Benson and Peay. The legislature gives them lots of money for nothing, they probably get chicks for free, too. Another sterling example of local politicians playing favorites, lack of oversight, and likely malfeasance. The Trib has covered this pretty well.


----------



## Stimmy

"Some of these matters are sensitive. This is not something to be discussed in public. I think we got our money's worth. I really do," Noel told colleagues. 

my favorite quote. pathetic.


----------



## paddler

Stimmy said:


> "Some of these matters are sensitive. This is not something to be discussed in public. I think we got our money's worth. I really do," Noel told colleagues.
> 
> my favorite quote. pathetic.


Yep. I don't understand how the legislature gets away with this crap year after year. One would think an audit is in order.


----------



## BPturkeys

Stimmy said:


> "Some of these matters are sensitive. This is not something to be discussed in public. I think we got our money's worth. I really do," Noel told colleagues.
> 
> my favorite quote. pathetic.


Maybe we did and maybe we didn't. This group, who ever the He** they are, don't need to tell anybody, especially the nosy *amn public, how they spent the millions of tax dollars we give 'em every year. It's none yo **** concern, so shut up, pay up and be content. Look, if the beloved friend of everything outdoors, Mike Noel says "it's all good, then by God it's all good"! So, pipe down and stay the *%%##** out of it!


----------



## wyogoob

I remember when they got funded for the Utah wolf "problem" It was when I started the "Wolves on Trailcam" thread. Remember those days? Wolves everywhere in Utah, even behind the U of U.

Ridiculous....uh..not the "Wolves on Trailcam" thread, but the "problem".

see: http://utahwildlife.net/forum/29-other-kinds-animals/36764-wolves-trail-cam-29.html

Makes one wonder who was starting many of the Utah wolf sighting stories, with few, if any, pictures or videos of Utah wolves.

.


----------



## Vanilla

BGF is a fraud on Utah tax dollars. It's absolutely unconscionable to me that our elected officials continue to give them money. It started out to keep the wolf out of Utah. When that well dried up, now it has gone to all about the sage grouse listing. 

We continue to pump money to them, and they have zero accountability to the public, yet are very well-funded by public tax dollars. (Sound familiar? Don has figured this crap out!) 

If there is any saving grace, more legislators are starting to ask about this. Maybe enough will get contacted by their constituents demanding action and accountability on this so that the legislators will start to care.

Have you reached out to your elected officials and asked for an answer and an accounting on this topic?


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> BGF is a fraud on Utah tax dollars. It's absolutely unconscionable to me that our elected officials continue to give them money. It started out to keep the wolf out of Utah. When that well dried up, now it has gone to all about the sage grouse listing.
> 
> We continue to pump money to them, and they have zero accountability to the public, yet are very well-funded by public tax dollars. (Sound familiar? Don has figured this crap out!)
> 
> If there is any saving grace, more legislators are starting to ask about this. Maybe enough will get contacted by their constituents demanding action and accountability on this so that the legislators will start to care.
> 
> *Have you reached out to your elected officials and asked for an answer and an accounting on this topic?*


Good idea. I'll do that. Here's an article about how our legislature spends our money:

http://www.sltrib.com/home/5027554-155/gehrke-in-utah-legislature-its-pet

I don't know if that was a separate bill or a line item added to the budget at the last minute. I think it was the latter, but will check it out.


----------



## Vanilla

Gehrke is a hack.


----------



## rjefre

I thought that article was a great read, and it called out a bunch of pet projects that legislators miraculously find money for, while claiming poverty when confronted with a bunch of good programs that could help people, or wildlife, or habitat, or waterways, or air quality, or water quality, or...
R


----------



## paddler

Someday we may see SFW or BGF offering money to other wildlife groups for habitat improvement, etc. Not sure how I feel about that, but it seems any such monies would be tainted. I wouldn't put it past those guys trying to buy influence with what were originally taxpayer dollars.


----------



## Catherder

If there is a silver lining to stories such as this is that *finally(!)* there was pushback from other legislators with respect to the largesse doled out to BGF and all that so-called lobbying they were supposed to do.

The first linked article was written in February, when the legislature was in session, and they are now done. I never did hear about another huge check doled out to Benson/BGF this session. (It could have occurred and I didn't hear about it though) Maybe/hopefully the letters to the legislators have gotten through to a few of them.


----------



## Vanilla

rjefre said:


> I thought that article was a great read, and it called out a bunch of pet projects that legislators miraculously find money for, while claiming poverty when confronted with a bunch of good programs that could help people, or wildlife, or habitat, or waterways, or air quality, or water quality, or...
> R


Regardless...he's still a hack. No better than the selfishly motivated people he's criticizing.


----------



## paddler

Catherder said:


> If there is a silver lining to stories such as this is that *finally(!)* there was pushback from other legislators with respect to the largesse doled out to BGF and all that so-called lobbying they were supposed to do.
> 
> The first linked article was written in February, when the legislature was in session, and they are now done. I never did hear about another huge check doled out to Benson/BGF this session. (It could have occurred and I didn't hear about it though) Maybe/hopefully the letters to the legislators has gotten through to a few of them.


It would be interesting to hear the final details. This kind of last minute dispersal of taxpayer dollars without public debate is reprehensible and must stop. Audits are in order for past years, also.



Vanilla said:


> Regardless...he's still a hack. No better than the selfishly motivated people he's criticizing.


I've always thought he's done a thorough job. Actually, I'm very impressed with the reporting in the Trib, especially given the ridiculous JOA. They even won the Pulitzer Prize this year, announced Sunday. Do you have specific articles you can cite for us that support your opinion?

BTW, everybody should subscribe to the Trib. My GSP fetches it every morning. She'll go to any required effort to get the paper, or find a chukar or grouse, by won't touch waterfowl. "You want me to put that in my mouth? No way."


----------



## grizzly

paddler said:


> One would think an audit is in order.


Already done. Found lots of problems...

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...ggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNGED0OQxgIq2lw5Xua6eMJePRbphQ


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> I've always thought he's done a thorough job. Actually, I'm very impressed with the reporting in the Trib...


Of course you do! I would expect nothing less.

And yes, audits have been done, have recommended changes, and nothing has happened. Hence, why I suggested we turn up the public pressure on our own elected officials.


----------



## Kwalk3

paddler said:


> ............
> 
> BTW, everybody should subscribe to the Trib. My GSP fetches it every morning. She'll go to any required effort to get the paper, or find a chukar or grouse, by won't touch waterfowl. "You want me to put that in my mouth? No way."


I can assure you that the last thing I'm going to do is get a physical paper dropped at my house every day SLTrib or otherwise. Seems exceedingly unnecessary in the world we live in. I also don't have a dog to retrieve it for me.

I like the trib's sports writers. I like Maffly and think he has done some good work shedding light on some of the issues affecting us as sportsmen. I'll probably just continue to selectively peruse the articles on the web from all sources. It's probably better to hear from more than one side on the issues anyways.


----------



## paddler

grizzly said:


> Already done. Found lots of problems...
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...ggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNGED0OQxgIq2lw5Xua6eMJePRbphQ


Yes, that was the 2013 audit which was widely covered.



Vanilla said:


> Of course you do! I would expect nothing less.
> 
> And yes, audits have been done, have recommended changes, and nothing has happened. Hence, why I suggested we turn up the public pressure on our own elected officials.


V, I was asking for specifics. Do you have any specific examples of his work that led to your conclusion? I have read his stuff and spoken with him and he appears very solid.

I made some calls this morning to the State Auditor, the Legislative Auditor, and members of the legislative audit subcommittee. The subcommittee consists of 6 members, the president of the senate, the house speaker, plus the majority and minority leaders of both chambers. So, 4 Republicans and 2 Democrats. One of the Democrats will raise the issue of auditing BGF after our conversation this morning. He's also concerned that the Antelope Island trophy deer tag goes to SFW, who then auctions it off at a profit. Don't know why the state doesn't do that instead, so the money would benefit all of Utah's outdoorsmen rather than Peay and Benson.

This is a very interesting topic. The allocation to BGF is now a line item in the budget. In the Democrats alternative budget, the $2 million allocation to BGF was eliminated and that money was instead designated for State Parks. The Republicans reportedly laughed at the idea. There also may be kickbacks going on, in that BGF and/or SFW may be sponsoring junkets for members of the legislature. Auditing this will be difficult, as there appears to be co-mingling of the public dollars with private money. In any case, there's a lot of fishiness up on the hill. The legislator I talked to said if he had a few more Democrats up there they could raise some cain about this, and that if he had the majority, this wouldn't be happening at all. It's not clear to me that trying to "raise the heat" on the legislature will do much good, as they have clearly demonstrated an amazing degree of arrogance over the years. But it's certainly worth the effort.

I think the Trib may do followup stories on this. Right now, the reporter who wrote after the recent session is otherwise occupied.


----------



## Catherder

paddler said:


> The allocation to BGF is now a line item in the budget.


Did the source you talked to say how much $ they got?

As for the papers, my wife gets the weekend editions of the D news and enjoys that. There are a couple of opinion columns I like too in the Sunday edition. I can't stand the D news sports section though (all and only BYU sports, all the time, sorry cougarfans) and hit the Trib sports online on a daily basis. When there for that, I usually will check out other articles online that catch my eye as well.


----------



## paddler

I think they got about $2 million. Enough for one guy to move from a modest house in Bountiful to a custom home on the Farmington bench.


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> V, I was asking for specifics. Do you have any specific examples of his work that led to your conclusion? I have read his stuff and spoken with him and he appears very solid.


Many, including this very article if you read it closely with some of the comparisons he makes and criticisms he lays out. But those are all different topics for a different day, on a different forum.



paddler said:


> He's also concerned that the Antelope Island trophy deer tag goes to SFW, who then auctions it off at a profit. Don't know why the state doesn't do that instead, so the money would benefit all of Utah's outdoorsmen rather than Peay and Benson.


90% of the proceeds from the Antelope Island auctions go directly to Antelope Island State Park for conservation projects. Not to the general fund, or state parks in general, but directly to Antelope Island. This was part of the negotiation to allow the tags in the first place. Yes, SFW gets to make money still off the other 10%, and I would be in favor of stripping ALL auction tags away from conservation organizations. (not just SFW) But this one is not as bad as much of the other stuff surrounding SFW and the shadiness in the relationship with the state. And just to be fully correct, Benson and Peay are with BGF, and it is a separate organization from SFW.



paddler said:


> This is a very interesting topic. The allocation to BGF is now a line item in the budget. In the Democrats alternative budget, the $2 million allocation to BGF was eliminated and that money was instead designated for State Parks. The Republicans reportedly laughed at the idea. There also may be kickbacks going on, in that BGF and/or SFW may be sponsoring junkets for members of the legislature. Auditing this will be difficult, as there appears to be co-mingling of the public dollars with private money. In any case, there's a lot of fishiness up on the hill. The legislator I talked to said if he had a few more Democrats up there they could raise some cain about this, and that if he had the majority, this wouldn't be happening at all. It's not clear to me that trying to "raise the heat" on the legislature will do much good, as they have clearly demonstrated an amazing degree of arrogance over the years. But it's certainly worth the effort.


I have zero doubt that there are kickbacks of some sort. Whether they are illegal or not, I do not know and won't make that allegation. But you don't get $5+ million dollars in public funds with no accountability whatsoever without some back scratching of some sort. It reminds me of the day that the legislature was voting on two different competing stream access bills, and they honored Don Peay on the House floor for all his work with wildlife. He was also up there that day lobbying *AGAINST* public access to publicly owned water. Coincidence? I think not...


----------



## Vanilla

Kwalk3 said:


> I can assure you that the last thing I'm going to do is get a physical paper dropped at my house every day SLTrib or otherwise. Seems exceedingly unnecessary in the world we live in. I also don't have a dog to retrieve it for me.


Some people are just more environmentally conscious than others... :grin:


----------



## Hoopermat

Antelope island generates around 1 million dollars per year in fees and other way but it is not allowed to spend this money on the state park. It goes to the general fund. Is this deer tag money included in this?


----------



## Vanilla

Hoopermat said:


> Antelope island generates around 1 million dollars per year in fees and other way but it is not allowed to spend this money on the state park. It goes to the general fund. Is this deer tag money included in this?


No. The way it was explained to me was that this money from the 90% of the auction price is specifically reserved only for conservation projects in the Antelope Island State Park.


----------



## paddler

Interesting. I was told that SFW or BGF paid the DWR for the tags, then auctioned them off to the highest bidder and kept the profit. I'm with you though, no need for any outside organization to get a cut. The wildlife belongs to the state and the state should be the sole beneficiary. 

I thought SFW was started by and run by Peay, BGF was an offshoot run by Benson? Whatever, it stinks. I spoke to Patrice Arent today, she is also in agreement that the current state of affairs is ridiculous. I put a call in to another state senator, waiting to hear back. I think if everybody made calls to their legislators, maybe we could make them nervous. There seems to be a rising tide against the status quo, which is a good thing.


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> Some people are just more environmentally conscious than others... :grin:


Hey, we recycle. And, I paddle.


----------



## Catherder

paddler said:


> I think they got about $2 million. Enough for one guy to move from a modest house in Bountiful to a custom home on the Farmington bench.


As I recall, the original "wolf lobbying" contract was for $500000, so there may not have been any progress with this issue. It may not be be an apples to apples comparison however, as Benson/BGF was also going to "protect" the state from sage grouse and other activists as well as the wolves.


----------



## paddler

Catherder said:


> As I recall, the original "wolf lobbying" contract was for $500000, so there may not have been any progress with this issue. It may not be be an apples to apples comparison however, as Benson/BGF was also going to "protect" the state from sage grouse and other activists as well as the wolves.


No, the first "contract", if you can call dispersing money without any contractual obligations a contract, I think was for ~$100,000. It's grown each year.


----------



## Catherder

The first 2 contracts were for $300000, then next, $500000 in 2015.

http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php...5960783-90/300000-anti-contract-game.html.csp

http://www.sltrib.com/home/2298978-155/utah-sends-500k-more-to-unexplained

I would like to see more detail ( a breakdown of wolf, sage grouse lobbying etc) on what they got this year. Or on second thought, maybe I wouldn't. :sad:


----------



## BPturkeys

All this bitchin and moaning and yet, come November, not one of the good old boys will get voted out of office, not one! 
Sure, contacting your representative is important, but these guys are the ones passing, and have passed, these laws, and are giving the money to special interests. There is not a chance in He** you're going to change their minds. You must stop blindly voting the same people(or other similar stooges) into office and expecting things to change.
You have given a small group of avowed hardcore, right wing conservatives a monopoly with our government, over YOU! Like my old daddy useta say, dummy up or shut up!


----------



## wyogoob

Catherder said:


> As I recall, the original "wolf lobbying" contract was for $500000, so there may not have been any progress with this issue. It may not be be an apples to apples comparison however, as Benson/BGF was also going to "protect" the state from sage grouse and other activists as well as the wolves.


I thought the first payout was like $1.2 mil and it was quite some time ago, like right after Option 2 was passed. And the money might have gone to SFW, not BGF, although there kinda one in the same. I'm not sure BGF was out there when the first wolf study $s were let out.

My memory could be better, I'll look it up. It's in the "Wolves on Trail Cam" thread.

.


----------



## Vanilla

Catherder said:


> I would like to see more detail ( a breakdown of wolf, sage grouse lobbying etc) on what they got this year.


Join the club! And good luck...


----------



## middlefork

One of the few resolutions the ruling party could not pass was the Ethics resolution.
I wonder why.


----------



## paddler

Kwalk3 said:


> *I can assure you that the last thing I'm going to do is get a physical paper dropped at my house every day SLTrib or otherwise.* Seems exceedingly unnecessary in the world we live in. I also don't have a dog to retrieve it for me.
> 
> I like the trib's sports writers. I like Maffly and think he has done some good work shedding light on some of the issues affecting us as sportsmen. I'll probably just continue to selectively peruse the articles on the web from all sources. It's probably better to hear from more than one side on the issues anyways.


We subscribe to the Trib in part to support it. You can hunt ducks without belonging to DU, you can get your news for free. But, without revenue, our press would and has suffered. And, in the end, so does society. Especially now, a free press is critical.


----------



## Kwalk3

I was talking about the physical paper, which I have no need for. A stack of newspapers in the garage seem a little outdated to me. I'm assuming we're not of the same generation though, and that's ok.

If I felt it was necessary(which I currently do not), I could pay the monthly subscription for the ad-free site just as I do for the NY Times and the Economist. Ad revenue for the online articles will have to suffice for now.

The trib has some great content, but it's not all good, or as fair and unbiased as you purport. They have done a great job delineating some of the battles that are important to hunters and bringing to light some of the corruption on the hill that has been discussed in this thread.

They are not some shining beacon on the hill for all hunters and fishermen though.


----------



## paddler

Kwalk3 said:


> I was talking about the physical paper, which I have no need for. A stack of newspapers in the garage seem a little outdated to me. I'm assuming we're not of the same generation though, and that's ok.
> 
> If I felt it was necessary(which I currently do not), I could pay the monthly subscription for the ad-free site just as I do for the NY Times and the Economist. Ad revenue for the online articles will have to suffice for now.
> 
> The trib has some great content, but it's not all good, or as fair and unbiased as you purport. They have done a great job delineating some of the battles that are important to hunters and bringing to light some of the corruption on the hill that has been discussed in this thread.
> 
> They are not some shining beacon on the hill for all hunters and fishermen though.


All things considered (get it?) its by far our best local newspaper, and I think supporting it is important. I think the job they do is amazing considering the ridiculous JOA perpetrated by the hedge fund and the Deseret News. The revenue is now split 60/40, with 40% going to the Trib. It was 70/30 previously, which is ridiculous when you consider the quality of the two papers.

And yes, I think it's safe to assume we're a generation or two apart. No stacks of newspapers in the garage, they get recycled each week. I read actual books, too.


----------



## Catherder

paddler said:


> All things considered (get it?)


Where does NPR stand on Utah shelling out all this $$$ for (supposed) anti wolf and grouse lobbying?


----------



## paddler

Catherder said:


> Where does NPR stand on Utah shelling out all this $$$ for (supposed) anti wolf and grouse lobbying?


I haven't heard a segment on that. Very interesting discussion on tax policy a couple of weeks ago.


----------



## wyogoob

wyogoob said:


> I thought the first payout was like $1.2 mil and it was quite some time ago, like right after Option 2 was passed. And the money might have gone to SFW, not BGF, although there kinda one in the same. I'm not sure BGF was out there when the first wolf study $s were let out.
> 
> My memory could be better, I'll look it up. It's in the "Wolves on Trail Cam" thread.
> 
> .


I made 3 attempts to find info on the payouts in the "Wolves on Trail Cam" thread but couldn't stay focused enough to get through all of it....uh...watchin' all the Utah wolf videos takes like forever. :smile:

I did find proof of a payout of $300,000 in 2012 and and another payout proposal of $300,00 2013 that was on the Utah House floor; total $600,000. see: http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/politics/55960783-90/wolf-utah-wolves-gray.html.csp

Then Catherder says there was another $500,000 in 2015; total of $1.2 million, but I'm still looking.

Cooky said he'd do it for $300,000.  http://utahwildlife.net/forum/29-other-kinds-animals/40613-another-300k-anti-wolf-group-utah.html


----------



## Catherder

wyogoob said:


> I made 3 attempts to find info on the payouts in the "Wolves on Trail Cam" thread but couldn't stay focused enough to get through all of it....uh...watchin' all the Utah wolf videos takes like forever. :smile:
> 
> I did find proof of a payout of $300,000 in 2012 and and another payout proposal of $300,00 2013 that was on the Utah House floor; total $600,000. see: http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/politics/55960783-90/wolf-utah-wolves-gray.html.csp
> 
> Then Catherder says there was another $500,000 in 2015; total of $1.2 million, but I'm still looking.
> 
> Cooky said he'd do it for $300,000.  http://utahwildlife.net/forum/29-other-kinds-animals/40613-another-300k-anti-wolf-group-utah.html


I posted the exact same link one page back, top of page no less. ;-) The link to the article discussing the $500000 allocation is in the same post.

No matter though, we know that nobody reads the links anyways. 8)

I would be thrilled to let Cooky do it. Would he protect us from the grouse too?


----------



## paddler

Catherder said:


> I posted the exact same link one page back, top of page no less. ;-) The link to the article discussing the $500000 allocation is in the same post.
> 
> No matter though, we know that nobody reads the links anyways. 8)
> 
> I would be thrilled to let Cooky do it. Would he protect us from the grouse too?


Funny, the original article from 2013 says that the Democrats tried to strip the funding, but it passed without public debate on a party line vote. It continues to do so each year. So, who best represents our interests, and who acts perpetually and arrogantly against us without even a pretense of transparency? And perhaps more importantly, will it ever change and what can we do to bring about change?

Oh, from a letter to the editor in the Trib today that helps explain why I'm a long time subscriber:

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/5166745-155/letter-tribune-has-serious-talent-and

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/5166352-155/letter-all-of-the-tribune-is

If you don't like the print version for whatever reason, at least subscribe online. Disclaimer- I have no financial or personal relationship to the Trib in any way. I just appreciate their work.


----------



## wyogoob

*Does anyone on the UWN read the Trib?*



Catherder said:


> I posted the exact same link one page back, top of page no less. ;-) The link to the article discussing the $500000 allocation is in the same post.
> 
> No matter though, we know that nobody reads the links anyways. 8) Yeah, yeah, I know. I figure the more times we post the link the better the chances that someone will click on it.
> 
> I would be thrilled to let Cooky do it. Would he protect us from the grouse too?


see red


----------



## grizzly

I've been trying to find what bill had the $2,000,000 this year so I could see how my reps voted. Anybody know the bill number?


----------



## Vanilla

grizzly said:


> I've been trying to find what bill had the $2,000,000 this year so I could see how my reps voted. Anybody know the bill number?


It's likely just stuffed in one of the appropriation bills. That is how they have slipped it through before. I don't know which one, though.


----------



## rjefre

I think Vanilla is right, it was an appropriation from the Natural Resources Appropriations Committee. I think I read in the Trib that they reduced the appropriation from the suggested $2 mil (by Noel) to 1.5 million. Either way, it's a lot of our money.
FYI--While searching for the appropriation, I noticed that SB-105 (the bill that urged the state to have a preference for leasing over *selling* of state lands) FAILED. 
R


----------



## Longgun

The one time I met Benson while he was handing out T shirts and shaking hands was great, such a nice personable guy... the look on his face while I wadded up the shirt he handed me and threw it in the trash was priceless.

Interesting read from Hunttalk.com from back in the day:
https://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?256613-Audit-SFW-BGF-run-a-shady-game


----------



## paddler

rjefre said:


> I think Vanilla is right, it was an appropriation from the Natural Resources Appropriations Committee. I think I read in the Trib that they reduced the appropriation from the suggested $2 mil (by Noel) to 1.5 million. Either way, it's a lot of our money.
> FYI--While searching for the appropriation, I noticed that SB-105 (the bill that urged the state to have a preference for leasing over *selling* of state lands) FAILED.
> R


I don't think it was a separate bill, but rather just a line item slipped into the budget without debate. Not really sure how it works, except that it's sneaky and done solely by the Republicans.


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> I don't think it was a separate bill, but rather just a line item slipped into the budget without debate. Not really sure how it works, except that it's sneaky and done solely by the Republicans.


Yep, you're right. Democrats, libertarians, and independents (or anyone else) have NEVER slipped a line item into a bill that did not get debated. Do you actually read the crap you post before you hit "submit reply?"

FYI- the appropriation bills, there are many each year, are all basically line items that get very little, if any debate. Most of them are worked out in committees well before the full house and/or senate vote on them.


----------



## Kwalk3

Vanilla said:


> Yep, you're right. Democrats, libertarians, and independents (or anyone else) have NEVER slipped a line item into a bill that did not get debated. Do you actually read the crap you post before you hit "submit reply?"
> 
> FYI- the appropriation bills, there are many each year, are all basically line items that get very little, if any debate. Most of them are worked out in committees well before the full house and/or senate vote on them.


I really think we are all in agreement about the core issue here. BGF shouldn't have ever received money, and it's a joke they still continue to receive money that would be much better served doing any number of different things.

In my opinion, it really detracts from that issue when a certain individual can't get past the team sport politics of it all and keeps lobbing partisan grenades instead of focusing on how to work with those who can do something about it now.

I refuse to believe that all republican lawmakers in Utah are our enemies when it comes to hunting/fishing/public lands and there's nothing we can do about changing their minds. Some of them need a wake-up call, certainly. (FWIW I didn't vote for Herbert, Bishop, Lee, et. al. since I know paddler is going to ask.)

I similarly refuse to believe that all democratic lawmakers are our bffs and want nothing more than for us to be able to hunt and fish everywhere in the state where it's currently allowed.

The republicans are on the wrong side of the public land issue and the BGF appropriations. I've posted many times how I'm disappointed/angered by their actions on a number of different topics. However, their influence in Utah is unlikely to diminish much if we are going to speak honestly. So, how do we best focus on working with what we have to stop the insanity? How do we do something constructive that could help the legislators see that they are making a mistake.

Pressure from the trib is good, but the reality is that most who are reading the tribune in Utah are already in agreement that something needs to change. Pressure from the left is probably falling on deaf ears for a variety of reasons.

It sounds like some Republicans are already speaking of concerns about the money going to BGF. How do we help them convince their colleagues? How do we put an end to Mike Noel's shenanigans?

We all have biases, and that's ok. How can we set those aside to discuss an issue objectively and actually come to a conclusion that is both feasible and beneficial for all?


----------



## paddler

Just giving credit where due. That's the first step in holding people accountable. V's post is, as usual, a smokescreen and total crap. In all my years in Utah and on UWN, I've never seen local Democrats push through or support anything that is against our best interests as outdoorsmen, put corporate extractive interests before conservation, clean air or clean water. Every single time, whether it's public lands, or stream access, the environment, or BGF and SFW, or whatever, the Republicans are ramming things through along party lines. When they stop pulling crap, I'll stop holding them accountable. Bury your heads in the sand if you like, but that does absolutely nothing to change behavior.


----------



## Daisy

paddler said:


> Just giving credit where due. That's the first step in holding people accountable. V's post is, as usual, a smokescreen and total crap. In all my years in Utah and on UWN, I've never seen local Democrats push through or support anything that is against our best interests as outdoorsmen, put corporate extractive interests before conservation, clean air or clean water. Every single time, whether it's public lands, or stream access, the environment, or BGF and SFW, or whatever, the Republicans are ramming things through along party lines. When they stop pulling crap, I'll stop holding them accountable. Bury your heads in the sand if you like, but that does absolutely nothing to change behavior.


I just want to point out that there were at least 4 Democrats in the House that voted in favor of HB141 as memory serves. Your paintbrush may be a bit too large.


----------



## paddler

Daisy said:


> I just want to point out that there were at least 4 Democrats in the House that voted in favor of HB141 as memory serves. Your paintbrush may be a bit too large.


I hope you're kidding. The vote in the House was 50-25, the vote in the Senate was 19-10. So you're saying 4 of the 50 "Yeas" were Democrats, while 46 were Republican. The vast majority of "Neas" were Democrats. That's commonly called a party line vote. If you like, you can post up the exact results by party affiliation, which would put a finer point on it.

I really don't see your point, except that maybe you want to absolve Republicans of responsibility for denying Utah's fishermen access to our streams. But that argument doesn't hold water. It was proposed by McIff, passed along party lines, and signed by our Republican governor. This would never have happened with a Democratic legislature and governor. That is a very important point, as none of the issues we are discussing would have happened with Democrats in power.

Kwalk, I think, illustrates very well misplaced wishful thinking. He said above that some Republicans are beginning to think that maybe we shouldn't be giving our tax dollars to BGF. History provides objective evidence to the contrary. It began in 2013 with a gift of $300000(?). The Dems tried to block it the first year and every year since. Republicans have now pulled this abuse of power five years straight, and the gift has increased to $2,000,000. I just can't understand why people don't wake up, stand up, and put an end to these abuses. It's crystal clear the Democrats align closely with our values, and I won't wait around for Republicans to throw us a crumb or two.


----------



## Kwalk3

paddler said:


> I hope you're kidding. The vote in the House was 50-25, the vote in the Senate was 19-10. So you're saying 4 of the 50 "Yeas" were Democrats, while 46 were Republican. The vast majority of "Neas" were Democrats. That's commonly called a party line vote. If you like, you can post up the exact results by party affiliation, which would put a finer point on it.
> 
> I really don't see your point, except that maybe you want to absolve Republicans of responsibility for denying Utah's fishermen access to our streams. But that argument doesn't hold water. It was proposed by McIff, passed along party lines, and signed by our Republican governor. This would never have happened with a Democratic legislature and governor. That is a very important point, as none of the issues we are discussing would have happened with Democrats in power.
> 
> Kwalk, I think, illustrates very well misplaced wishful thinking. He said above that some Republicans are beginning to think that maybe we shouldn't be giving our tax dollars to BGF. History provides objective evidence to the contrary. It began in 2013 with a gift of $300000(?). The Dems tried to block it the first year and every year since. Republicans have now pulled this abuse of power five years straight, and the gift has increased to $2,000,000. I just can't understand why people don't wake up, stand up, and put an end to these abuses. It's crystal clear the Democrats align closely with our values, and I won't wait around for Republicans to throw us a crumb or two.


I think having a discussion about a nuanced issue actually requires having a nuanced point of view rather than being strictly partisan.

None of us are disagreeing that the Republicans are on the wrong side of this one. They are a direct threat to our pastimes on the public lands issue, and they are wasting valuable resources by squandering them to BGF with little to no accountability.

Instead of condescendingly accusing people of burying their heads in the sand, try to put partisan politics aside and figure out a way to get through to those who actually do have control. My head is far from in the sand, and I am well informed on the issues that affect me as a hunter/fisherman.

Yeah, I know, vote. But there's not an election this month. I also already said I didn't vote for any of the local yahoos pushing the agenda that harms us.

Also, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that there is going to be a Democratic majority in Utah in the senate and house in the near future. I would like to see more balance and accountability in Utah politics, but let's not kid ourselves that if the pendulum were to swing the opposite way that it would be all roses for us as sportsmen. It's not exactly "crystal clear", as you say.

You're making people who actually may agree with you on this issue out to be ignorant simply because they don't ascribe to the same partisan rhetoric you do.

But hey, keep abandoning nuance and yelling at a wall and we'll continue to see asinine appropriations and ideas. I'm going to go to the BHA meeting in Logan tomorrow and see how I can help fight against the state's push for public land transfer.


----------



## Daisy

Paddler, your recent posts remind me of a line from Catcher in the Rye:

“It's partly true, too, but it isn't all true. People always think something's all true.” 

There were some serious shenanigans that happened on the final vote of HB 141 in the House (BTW 43-28 ) where some of the Dem's and Rep's alike flipped their stance the final day. There are very sympathetic R's at the capitol to sportsman's issues. It is not fair to paint either party in absolutes. My only point is to illustrate that.

I think we probably agree on more than we disagree.


----------



## paddler

Kwalk3 said:


> I think having a discussion about a nuanced issue actually requires having a nuanced point of view rather than being strictly partisan.
> 
> None of us are disagreeing that the Republicans are on the wrong side of this one. They are a direct threat to our pastimes on the public lands issue, and they are wasting valuable resources by squandering them to BGF with little to no accountability.
> 
> Instead of condescendingly accusing people of burying their heads in the sand, try to put partisan politics aside and figure out a way to get through to those who actually do have control. My head is far from in the sand, and I am well informed on the issues that affect me as a hunter/fisherman.
> 
> Yeah, I know, vote. But there's not an election this month. I also already said I didn't vote for any of the local yahoos pushing the agenda that harms us.
> 
> Also, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that there is going to be a Democratic majority in Utah in the senate and house in the near future. I would like to see more balance and accountability in Utah politics, but let's not kid ourselves that if the pendulum were to swing the opposite way that it would be all roses for us as sportsmen. It's not exactly "crystal clear", as you say.
> 
> You're making people who actually may agree with you on this issue out to be ignorant simply because they don't ascribe to the same partisan rhetoric you do.
> 
> But hey, keep abandoning nuance and yelling at a wall and we'll continue to see asinine appropriations and ideas. I'm going to go to the BHA meeting in Logan tomorrow and see how I can help fight against the state's push for public land transfer.


There's another on this site who thinks like you do. Democrat in all but name but simply cannot switch party affiliation for whatever reason. He told me many years ago he wanted to work within the party for change. What I'm saying is there is no reason at all to think it will help. It hasn't so far, to think it will in the future is just denial. I've seen this movie before and know how it ends. Nothing personal, K, I just don't think your approach will work.

I was talking to Patrice Arent the other day, her position is that you change people's minds or you change people. You won't change their minds unless they feel threatened that they will be changed out for someone who supports us. Mark my words, you will not change anything on the hill until you change a few people. Only then will the rest start paying attention.

It's starting to happen on a national level and can happen here. Vote your beliefs, speak your beliefs, change minds or change people. Chaffetz said today that he will not run again. I have emailed him multiple times, called his office, etc, as have many others. His Democratic opponent outraised him by a ton. Changed can happen. Don't tell me your values on these issues. Tell me how you vote and spend your money, I'll tell you your values.


----------



## Kwalk3

paddler said:


> There's another on this site who thinks like you do. Democrat in all but name but simply cannot switch party affiliation for whatever reason. He told me many years ago he wanted to work within the party for change. What I'm saying is there is no reason at all to think it will help. It hasn't so far, to think it will in the future is just denial. I've seen this movie before and know how it ends. Nothing personal, K, I just don't think your approach will work.
> 
> I was talking to Patrice Arent the other day, her position is that you change people's minds or you change people. You won't change their minds unless they feel threatened that they will be changed out for someone who supports us. Mark my words, you will not change anything on the hill until you change a few people. Only then will the rest start paying attention.
> 
> It's starting to happen on a national level and can happen here. Vote your beliefs, speak your beliefs, change minds or change people. Chaffetz said today that he will not run again. I have emailed him multiple times, called his office, etc, as have many others. His Democratic opponent outraised him by a ton. Changed can happen. Don't tell me your values on these issues. Tell me how you vote and spend your money, I'll tell you your values.


Here's where you've assumed too much. I'm not a democrat in all but name. Nor am I a republican. I choose to approach an issue individually without making a pre-judgement based on who/what party supports it.

I have no issue with those who belong to a party or ascribe to one's platform, but I don't find that either party is able to adequately represent my nuanced point of view in an increasingly black/white world, especially regarding my interests as a sportsman. I'm also not in denial.

I'm willing to call out B.S. on either side if it is something that affects me as a sportsman. I'm equally willing to try and find those who are sympathetic to our plight as sportsmen regardless of the letter attached to their name.

Daisy mentioned that there are members of both parties sympathetic to our cause up on the hill. I vote against those who are against me as a sportsman.

There are groups who work hand in hand with senators on both sides of the aisle at a national level to try and effect change about the public lands issue. That seems like the most realistic way forward to me in regards to PLT and the BGF appropriations. You obviously disagree, but that doesn't necessarily mean either one of us is wrong.

Also, I don't need anyone to tell me my values. I know my values and they correspond exactly with how I vote and spend my money. I'm not being intellectually dishonest here.

I believe that the more you push the partisanship of this issue, you will alienate more people than you will garner their support. I've mentioned this a few times, but we agree on the core issue here. However, the way you've approached this discussion makes me less willing to further discuss this with you as I think it's more about party than the actual issue for you.


----------



## paddler

I wasn't talking about you, K. 

I think the time for nuance is long over. Take BGF, for instance. Nuance has resulted in our legislature giving them money with absolutely no oversight or accountability five years running, while the amount has increased 700%. What's your end point? When is enough too much? I think we need to send a message. Get organised, form a group that speaks for all of Utah's outdoorsmen, and pay each and every legislator a visit. To paraphrase, "I know who you are, I know you voted against our interests. We have a very particular set of skills, skills that will be a nightmare for people like you. If you listen to us now, we will not look for you, we will not single you out. If you do not, we will agitate against you, we will campaign against you, we will vote against you, and we will defeat you."

I see nothing but upside for demanding transparency, accountability, and ensuring folks on the hill work for us.


----------

