# Top Secret SFW Meeting Held in Logan on 12/05/2011



## indyrxl (Aug 22, 2008)

So I have caught wind that the Cache Chapter of the SFW held a meeting this past Monday night and the great Don Peay was there (he even shook everyone's hand all 30 to 40 of you). Ok SFW members spill the beans I understand that you have figured out how to save the utah deer herd.....AGAIN. 

Ntrl..Brn.Rbl... I herd you got into it with even Orin Hatches staffer that was there how about you fill us in! o-||


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

HAHAHA :rotfl:










Top Secret....hardly.........and yes......I did get into it with staffers haha

I will let this conspiracy theory develop on its own........I would hate to ruin all of the fun 

I will add to it......I herd that they are actually taking place all over the state :shock: These "top secret" Meetings


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

hear em?

....

.... .....


The black helicopters! 


....


.... 

They're up there again!!!


----------



## indyrxl (Aug 22, 2008)

I was realy hoping you could fill us all in since you saw it and participated first hand! I mean if SFW has figured out how to save the deer herd again then spill it...please! I will be discounted as telling the whole meeting minuets since I would be trying to tell what happend as it was told to me by ShedmanDan.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

I wasn't there, but lets just say the revisionism and spin has already begun. Like I said in another post, hard to shoulder.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Seriously the topic was predator control for the most part....a bunch of concerned sportsman meeting to come up with ideas specific to the cache.....not really a big deal IMO but Im sure people will speculate....im still laughing about the secret meeting..

Let's here your version you two o-||


----------



## indyrxl (Aug 22, 2008)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> HAHAHA :rotfl:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I found your conspiracy! :O•-: 
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39318&p=403818#p403818


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

No conspiracy I will tell you what I know and think.... :O•-:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> Seriously the topic was predator control for the most part....a bunch of concerned sportsman meeting to come up with ideas specific to the cache.....not really a big deal IMO but Im sure people will speculate....im still laughing about the secret meeting..
> 
> Let's here your version you two o-||


During the meeting then were you ever unconscious because they were injecting you full of the deer managing stupidity drug? Maybe you don't remember since you were unconscious.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

Ntrl, I hadn't heard of the meeting, and I am in cohoots with a lot of huntin' folks up here in Logan... please, pm me and share what I missed. I'd have loved to quietly attend in the back of the room and get a feel for what the future of hunting in Utah holds for us...


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

If Don taking Byrons place was on the agenda we might want to consider taking up another past time that we can actually afford.


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

Oh c-mon, Im sure the $FW has our best interests in mind.


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

I was invited but was unable to attend. I was told the purpose of the meeting was to gather ideas to regain grassroot support for the organization. I don't know what was actually discussed.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Topofutah.....sorry you were not invited...I will keep you in the loop if you would like...at least what I know! No pm necessary 

Kevin is right...the meeting was to throw around ideas for serious predator control (coyotes) especially and to share ideas about problems specific to the cache area regarding mule deer. There were few wolf updates, even a few unnamed biologists attended and shared a few great ideas on items I really have not put a lot of thought into.....


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Hmmm! SFW pushes Option #2 with unit by unit hunting and raised buck to doe ratios and 13,000 lost tags, and then holds an unadvertised, invitation-only meeting for "sportsmen" specific to the Cache unit. 29 more to go, huh?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Why would they possibly need to gather grass roots support for the organization? With the great ideas they come up with, they should have people flocking to their ranks, and showering them in money. More like with all the loss of support and membership over Option 2, and the fact that it wont work anyway, its time for the "distraction". This is what you do in politics when you bring forth a big steaming pile of BS that fails, or is failing. Oops, time to change the subject, lets talk about predators, yeah, yeah, predators.....Option what? Anyway, predators, predators, predators, what do you guys think? Oh sorry were not taking questions on Option what?

Just me, but I would have gone for something else for the distraction. Sure the predator distraction is going to deliver well, and get gobbled up. But going to the lowest common denominator, telegraphs your level of desperation. Gotta love it  As we have seen in the past few days here, always consider the source, and intentions.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

_Just can't imagine such an evil organization wanting to get in touch with "average joe" hunters. Why would they want to get back to a grassroots organization? There must be a hidden agenda. This must be a secret way of taking money and giving it to Don_.

Could it be they are trying to get another perspective? Could it be they are listening to this warped view many of you have of them and they want to change it? Why is that a problem? The absolute biggest waste of money is to give it to the government. What if a big, powerful organization (like SFW) wanted to listen to our "internet biologists" ideas and help implement the ones that make sense? What if?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

bwhntr said:


> _Just can't imagine such an evil organization wanting to get in touch with "average joe" hunters. Why would they want to get back to a grassroots organization? There must be a hidden agenda. This must be a secret way of taking money and giving it to Don_.
> 
> Could it be they are trying to get another perspective? Could it be they are listening to this warped view many of you have of them and they want to change it? Why is that a problem? The absolute biggest waste of money is to give it to the government. What if a big, powerful organization (like SFW) wanted to listen to our "internet biologists" ideas and help implement the ones that make sense? What if?


We can always dream, but you know what they say about utopia building. Just to be clear, you are not actually proposing the privatization of the DWR? Maybe we do need that sarcasm font, I'm suddenly unsure.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

bwhntr said:


> _Just can't imagine such an evil organization wanting to get in touch with "average joe" hunters. Why would they want to get back to a grassroots organization? There must be a hidden agenda. This must be a secret way of taking money and giving it to Don_.
> 
> Could it be they are trying to get another perspective? Could it be they are listening to this warped view many of you have of them and they want to change it? Why is that a problem? The absolute biggest waste of money is to give it to the government. What if a big, powerful organization (like SFW) wanted to listen to our "internet biologists" ideas and help implement the ones that make sense? What if?


Yeh, what if? That's a scary thought! A big, powerful organization like SFW running the show by listening to the ideas of internet biologists instead of the ones who are trained, hired and experienced, and helping implement the ones that make sense _to them_. Ohh! They're already doing that, they're just not being paid for it, _yet_!!! Ohh! They get to auction off conservation tags for $1 (or$2) million!!! My bad!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

elkfromabove said:


> bwhntr said:
> 
> 
> > _Just can't imagine such an evil organization wanting to get in touch with "average joe" hunters. Why would they want to get back to a grassroots organization? There must be a hidden agenda. This must be a secret way of taking money and giving it to Don_.
> ...


Must be a distaction then.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

How about an organization that listens to the needs of the public, ensures the future of hunting to our youth, and actually listen to the REAL biologists. Then take this organization who have the knowledge and political pull to influence our corrupt government (after all the treehuggers do) and compare dollar for dollar how much really gets done. Sure there are salaries, but money spent in the private sector is MUCH, MUCH better spent than in ANY government program.

Do I think the DWR needs to be privatized? Listening to some on here it already has been. The problem with the conversations on here it is hard to filter throught the conspiracy/roadblocking/helicopter herding BS to get to the actual facts. Do I think this is a perfect company? No. Apparently they don't think they are either. Which is the reasons to get together and discuss grassroot efforts to better the organization.

_Of course, you can always strap on the tin foil hat and hang on tight to your wallets because the real agenda is to get your money._...btw, I like to italicize my sarcasm.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

bwhntr said:


> How about an organization that listens to the needs of the public, ensures the future of hunting to our youth, and actually listen to the REAL biologists. Then take this organization who have the knowledge and political pull to influence our corrupt government (after all the treehuggers do) and compare dollar for dollar how much really gets done. Sure there are salaries, but money spent in the private sector is MUCH, MUCH better spent than in ANY government program.
> 
> Do I think the DWR needs to be privatized? Listening to some on here it already has been. The problem with the conversations on here it is hard to filter throught the conspiracy/roadblocking/helicopter herding BS to get to the actual facts. Do I think this is a perfect company? No. Apparently they don't think they are either. Which is the reasons to get together and discuss grassroot efforts to better the organization.
> 
> _Of course, you can always strap on the tin foil hat and hang on tight to your wallets because the real agenda is to get your money._...btw, I like to italicize my sarcasm.


And with their current record, we should all get behind this great powerhouse that provides for greater herds and increased opurtunity. :roll: Eminent front!

Money is only a small part of it, selling broke back, long disproven ideaology is clearly the bigger goal. Well and of course, trying to sell it, while trying to distance yourself from it.....Fire over there, there are predators on fire over there, look guys, the gubment and predators are on fire over there, nothing to see here folks, please look over there.

Reading italisized sarcasm is like "listening" to books.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Ok...Like I just told my good friend on another topic. Get to a meeting (not a dinner) and actually listen to whats going on. I'm not just talking about SFW. It is interesting to me to listen to all the complaining and very few actually know anything about the subject. (Im not calling anyone out specifically, just generally) We take and take from our resources but hardly anybody actually wants to participate and help. This goes for a SFW meeting, WB, RAC, UWC, UCF, etc... How many are actually getting involved and participating? I know I'm not doing enough, I will be the first to call myself out. _Getting on a forum and regurgitating a bunch of conspiracy BS about SFW sure is helping._

I don't agree with alot of what PBH says on here, I don't always agree with Tree either. However, I have to respect the way these two (and others) have pushed to up the awareness and involvement of fellow outdoorsman.

I have just sat back and read the posts lately and haven't said much. I really don't want to be in the argument, they never go anywhere and I don't think anybody ever changes opinions. Something I have read that is somewhat inspiring are the posts that keep trying to get people involved. I don't have to agree with the opinions, but I can respect the actions of people who are actually trying to make a difference.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

:mrgreen: Some loads are just hard to shoulder, no matter what pack you put them it.


----------



## bigdaddyx4 (Jan 11, 2008)

I too was invited to go to the "secret meeting" and was unable to go. I wish I would have though.

In my opinion, if there is a group, organization or just individuals that are out there and are working on improving the wildlife situation (mainly deer herds) around here, my hat goes off to them. I agree with bwhntr, there are way too many people out there that are content to sit by and voice their opinions on the internet, and they don't actually do something about any of it. I guess if that helps you sleep better at night, then more power to you! I for one, would like to see the herds come back to what they used to be/should be. I have young kids, and at the rate things have been going, I am not sure they will be afforded the same opportunities that I have been given. If there is a group out there that is working on giving me (and my kids someday) the opportunity to hunt, then I say good for them!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

bigdaddyx4 said:


> I too was invited to go to the "secret meeting" and was unable to go. I wish I would have though.
> 
> In my opinion, if there is a group, organization or just individuals that are out there and are working on improving the wildlife situation (mainly deer herds) around here, my hat goes off to them. I agree with bwhntr, there are way too many people out there that are content to sit by and voice their opinions on the internet, and they don't actually do something about any of it. I guess if that helps you sleep better at night, then more power to you! I for one, would like to see the herds come back to what they used to be/should be. I have young kids, and at the rate things have been going, I am not sure they will be afforded the same opportunities that I have been given. If there is a group out there that is working on giving me (and my kids someday) the opportunity to hunt, then I say good for them!


So SFW and Option 2 will bring back the deer herds?

I fall a sleep, just fine at nite, and donated more dollars and days of service to wildlife this year than I spent hunting for myself. That included three days of lost wages spent in Wy.....on wildlife, and I dont even hunt there. What plays out here, and on other boards, is a reflection of, and a fleshing out, of policy, opinion, and fact. Some of those just dont hold up to the debate.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

bwhntr said:


> How about an organization that listens to the needs of the public, ensures the future of hunting to our youth, and actually listen to the REAL biologists. Then take this organization who have the knowledge and political pull to influence our corrupt government (after all the treehuggers do) and compare dollar for dollar how much really gets done. Sure there are salaries, but money spent in the private sector is MUCH, MUCH better spent than in ANY government program.


The whole premise of this type of thinking is that the DWR doesn't use it's (our) money wisely for the purposes it's intended, and that a private entity can do better.

Let's look at the data;

DWR's budget for fiscal 2010 ending June 30, 2011 was $68,014,266
They are responsible for ALL wildlife in the state of Utah under their jurisdiction, which includes non-game animals and fish as well as the ones we're interested in. (No coyotes, raccoons, muskrats, Eurasian Collared doves, starlings, etc.)(No wildlife on the Tribal lands.) That's hundreds of species, maybe thousands. And there are about 450 of them doing it depending on the number of seasonal employees. Now, here's the kicker. There are approximately 76,083 square miles of land and surface water in the state of Utah with several million animals in one form or another living in every one of those square miles. Or to put it into perspective, that's $68,014,266 per year to cover 76,083 square miles of wildlife habitat. Translated into dollars per acreage that's $68,014,266 to cover 48,693,120 acres, or about *$1.40 per acre*. Too much? SFW (or anyone else) could do better? Let's have a bid!!

Personally, I think I'll go with DWR.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

That $1.40 is going to be even lower, with reductions in tags, which equates into an efficiency gain, right? So if they get it done for $1.25 an acre, then maybe people will see what they do, and appreciate it? 

Maybe the DWR could get some easy money, by selling special tags? They could have some sort of big event and have bidding and raffling for them? That could make up the lost revenue, and get them back up to that fat $1.40 per acre. What do you guys think?


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Debating how much per acre is spent within the the DWR is ridiculas. This is the exact BS I am talking about in these internet discussions. Apparently you have no experience dealing with government spending/contracts. Well I do. I can tell you from first hand experience that your government is the biggest waste of money to walk the earth. If you don't understand that basic concept then the rest of this conversation is pointless.

Also, I'm not recommending private companies start policing our wildlife and hunting grounds. :roll: 

Here is a truely interesting idea...track your money and figure out how much of it actually hits the ground. Donate a dollar to the dwr and find out how much of that dollar actually goes to where it was intended...even better, track the value of that dollar. A dollar spent in the private sector has much more vlaue than one given to the government. Then compare the two. If the DWR is such a great place to spend money and have all the answers, then why are they listening to people like SFW? Why? Why are they not coming up with wolf plans, better predator control, buying up habitat, etc, etc...why even rely on the help of a evil group like SFW?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Predators on fire over there, no really gubment sponsored predators on fire over there, Option what?


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

The honest truth is I don't care if you like or dislike SFW. I really don't. I made a point earlier that I am just tired of people complaining, taking from our resources, blaming EVERYONE (trophy hunters, meat hunters, dike skybusters, SFW, RMEF, DWR, treehuggers, wolves, mountain lions, developers, sheep, cattle, freeways, coyotes, racoons, Antelope Island, Doyle Moss, blah blah blah)...and not doing a F-ing thing. That was my whole point.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

The DWR has been politically hijacked and taken hostage by SFW by way of a corrupt political system, they are FORCED to listen to SFW because they are the loudest whiners. If you dont understand the balance of power in this state you need to take a civics class.

Option 2, was promoted and pushed though the DWR largely by SFW, a PRIVATE entity. That same private entity is funded by the sale of publicly held resources. Your ideaology wont hold a drop of water. 

Option 2 was brought to us by the private sector, it will not build deer herds back to the levels of the good old days, and its bad for deer overall. 

Go figure, you have personal experience with goverment waste.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

I don't know if Option 2 is the right answer, I know I don't like it either. I also know whatever current system we have now isn't working either. Go figure.

Poitically Hijacked? :roll: Forced to listen to one group and nobody else? :roll: If you truely believe that then our DWR is even more incompetent than I could even imagine. Civics class? Lmao.

Also, selling public resources for private sale then putting the money back onto the ground... I do agree with this. There is a time and place for this. I would love for the DWR to be able to auction a few tags and manage the money accordingly, but as we all (or most) know that would be a huge waste. We have lots of public resources that are managed and sold privately.

You too have personal experience with government waste...look at where your tax dollars are being spent...do you even know?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

bwhntr said:


> I don't know if Option 2 is the right answer, I know I don't like it either. I also know whatever current system we have now isn't working either. Go figure.
> 
> Above is the distance myself from what I'm selling part
> 
> ...


I know where mine goes, do you really understand how it works?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Why should I support a group that promotes, and helps to enact BAD wildlife policy? If the gubment is bad because they waste my taxes, how is SFW any better? They sell portions of my shares of wildlife, and I have no say in it. At least with the gubment there is the illusion of reresentation. 

Tell me more about that great private(non goverment) solution for the deer herds, Option what?


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> bwhntr said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know if Option 2 is the right answer, I know I don't like it either. I also know whatever current system we have now isn't working either. Go figure.
> ...


Apparently this discussion is about as productive as most of the others I have been reading this past several months. Unproductive, personal sarcasm. When you want to have a real discussion PM me I would love to come to the table with an open mind. Or even better yet, lets discuss at the next meeting (any wildlife meeting) or wildlife/habitat project. You pick one.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Why should I support a group that promotes, and helps to enact BAD wildlife policy? If the gubment is bad because they waste my taxes, how is SFW any better? They sell portions of my shares of wildlife, and I have no say in it. At least with the gubment there is the illusion of reresentation.
> 
> Tell me more about that great private(non goverment) solution for the deer herds, Option what?


The reality is nobody knows how to turn the herds around. Lots of theory. Do you truely believe EVERY policy SFW has been behind is bad? Do you not believe there is any good that has come from this organization?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Lonetree said:


> Why should I support a group that promotes, and helps to enact BAD wildlife policy? If the gubment is bad because they waste my taxes, how is SFW any better? They sell portions of my shares of wildlife, and I have no say in it. At least with the gubment there is the illusion of reresentation.
> 
> Tell me more about that great private(non goverment) solution for the deer herds, Option what?


This is the arguement I'm bringing, right here, right now. These are simply ideas to be debated. I did not ask you to come here. Having this debate at a meeting changes the arguement how?

Its a distraction.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Option What?


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Speaking of distractions...interesting quote from Don Peay:



> A friend shared with me a conversation last week, where some organizations were complaining about SFW. He said, The reason you guys don't like them, is while you are talking about it - for years on end sometimes - SFW gets it done.


I know this topic has digressed but this is the point. Most people on here aren't doing a **** thing, they just complain. Do something. I don't know you personally Lonetree. I have no idea who you are or what you do. I know I don't do enough, and I hate that. Reading the endless dribble in the forums isn't doing anything either. People need to get involved.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

bwhntr said:


> The honest truth is I don't care if you like or dislike SFW. I really don't. I made a point earlier that I am just tired of people complaining, taking from our resources, blaming EVERYONE (trophy hunters, meat hunters, dike skybusters, SFW, RMEF, DWR, treehuggers, wolves, mountain lions, developers, sheep, cattle, freeways, coyotes, racoons, Antelope Island, Doyle Moss, blah blah blah)...and not doing a F-ing thing. That was my whole point.


Yes, it's frustrating when this happens, not only with hunting and fishing, but with every other aspect of our lives as well. In real life, I'm afraid, it's the ol' 80/20 rule. 80% of the work is done by 20% of the people and visa-versa. But I think you are making a mistake by assuming that many or most of the members of this forum are in the 80% simply because we can't agree with the work that needs to be done, what the results are or can be or should be, who is best qualified to do it, the best way to go about it, and it's priority. And I think you'll find that most of us are more involved than we appear to be. Maybe that's why we get so excited with our posts sometimes. All of those things you mentioned including blah, blah, blah, are in the mix in some form or another and need to be, should be, addressed, but not to the exclusion of any others. But, in order to do that, we all need to spend more time and energy looking for the answers instead of looking for the villain. And we need to be realistic about what we want and willing to accept the most logical answers even if they aren't ours.

So, with that in mind, I'm more than willing to give up my view of the DWR if you can show data that backs up your view. Are we on?


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

I hope your right that the people on this forum are more involved than I think...For some reason I doubt that is true though. It would be nice to know that 80% on here are doing the work. Like I said, I will call myself out and admit I'm not doing enough.

What kind of "data" are you looking for? I can point you to sites (done this many times in the past) that post up where SFW/SFH is spending money. I can point you to charitable donations to individuals, cancer patients, less fortunates...or money spent on winter feed, acquiring land from being developed, fighting treehuggers on many issues like wolves. Is this the data your looking for? 

I know there has been so much good done by our DWR, I don't think they are 100% to blame. Do you believe there is any good from organizations like SFW?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> Reading the endless dribble in the forums isn't doing anything either. People need to get involved.


I agree 100% BUT, sometimes one must find inspiration to act, and believe it or not, sometimes this very forum can be inspiring and enlightening.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> bwhntr said:
> 
> 
> > Reading the endless dribble in the forums isn't doing anything either. People need to get involved.
> ...


I absolutely agree Tree. Good point.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

I am in the middle of a meeting and this is extremely distracting.  Talk amongst yourselves...


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Prior to Option What? we did not have a villain, Option What? did at least attempt to do something. But just "doing something" can be futile, if not completely counter productive, as this will be. You can hike for days in the Hogups hunting, and you'll be doing something, but what are you hunting for?(I got a hot tip about some ptarmies out there;-) ) 

If you want bigger deer, you have to grow more deer. Option What? wont do that. Understanding why deer numbers are flat is where the solution is. SFW and Option What? take away from that goal. 

I'm calling BS here, especially as Option What? proponents move to the next dumb ideas, and attempt to distance themselves from the mess they have already made. Its time for some accountablity here.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)




----------



## indyrxl (Aug 22, 2008)

So here is what I understand happened at the meeting (remember I was not there I was told what happened by an attendee that is not a member of the forum). I hope an attendee can confirm or deny.
* 30-40 people were present :roll: 
* Don Peay and members of Utah Senator Orin Hatches office were in attendance :shock: 
* Main agenda SAVE UTAH'S DEER HERD since the state isn't doing anything. 
> Get governor on board
? He is up for re-election, and will be in Wellsville in a few weeks 
or months to start campaigning. We will meet with him then with 
200-300 people and show him we mean business with votes and 
money
> We need more SFW member support
? Once he is on board he can steer the Wildlife Board to fix the deer 
herd
> Get more member support for above
> Predator control
> Encourage members and hunters to use http://www.biggameforever.org and sign 
up for the petitions.

I asked the attendee what SFW planned to do to fix the deer herd and he told me that SFW was going after the governor. As soon as he they get him on board (with votes and money) they would direct him to get with the wildlife board and fix the deer herd (I believe they will just buy all the WB seats and put SFW member in to manage Utah's wildlife). Along with that and predator control it would be solved. Deer Herd saved. But they need support so everyone at the meeting was told to tell all of their friends about the meeting and to join SFW and be to the rally in Wellsville to show Governor Herbert what's up.

I continued to ask what else SFW was going to do to fix the deer herd once if the above was put in place and all I kept getting was "you need to support them it will fix it" I just don't see it happening the problem is more complex, but then again I am just an internet biologist haha.


----------



## indyrxl (Aug 22, 2008)

Here is another question if why is the SFW so upset that the state isn’t doing anything with the deer herd? I believe the WB just voted in January to put the state into a 30 unit hunting boundary system (which was pushed by the SFW) Now I might be mistaken but this goes into effect next hunting season so the results of the impact on the deer have not been seen or recorded yet….so lets fix something that isn’t broken or put into effect yet??? makes perfect sense SFW. Does the SFW now think that the plan they paid the state for is not going to work and blame the State for the failure that the State didn’t truly want? Help me out here folks..


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

You summed it up. What was that Lonetree said about fires?

DWR, are you reading this? You ok with being vilified by a sportsman's group to serve an agenda?


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> You summed it up. What was that Lonetree said about fires?
> 
> DWR, are you reading this? You ok with being vilified by a sportsman's group to serve an agenda?


+1000

Funny...Top Secret Meeting.....the WWW is amazing! 8)


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I chuckled at the title as well, Perry. If it was top secret, they must not be very crafty........


----------



## leviwin (Dec 7, 2011)

This whole thing reminds me of a group called hunters alert in Nevada. The bought the governors vote in Nevada and got there members on the wildlife board so they could push their agenda. Too bad people didn't attend the RAC meeting like they do meeting like this. Maybe all the ideas could be put to use. I know the government was money, but so does private groups. I also find it funny when groups or people have one solution for everything and never look at other factors or opinions. I know there are not as many deer as there used to be, but there are also a lot of who aren't willing to look for them like they used to. Everyone wants the deer to jump in front of them while they are driving or be able to walk a hundred yards off the road and see them.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

OK...So...I thought I had this all figured out, but now I'm a little confused. So the gubment(DWR) is bad, But I should support the gubment(Herbert)? So he can appoint a WB that supports SFW, So they can get the WB to dictate stupid ideas to the DWR, so we can say "Look the gubment is bad". Is this right? I just want to make sure I'm on the same page. Or is Option What? a good thing I'm supposed to stand by? I mean I got the predator thing they are bad, right? and the governer is the head of the state gubment so he is bad, right? But I'm still confused on where we are suposed to stand on Option What? A little help would be nice.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

:mrgreen: o-||


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Somebody brought up predator control and questioned what the division is doing when you give them a dollar. How many of you donated to the coyote fund when you applied for a tag? Read the attached and let me know how many privatized companys have a fleet of helicopters, fixed wing aircraft and experience doing this:[attachment=2:14rn1hnm]Predator control 1.png[/attachment:14rn1hnm]

[attachment=1:14rn1hnm]Predator control 2.png[/attachment:14rn1hnm]

[attachment=0:14rn1hnm]Predator control 3.png[/attachment:14rn1hnm]


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

More..(I left out a page or two but you get the point)

[attachment=2:2k8fur2w]Predator control 4.png[/attachment:2k8fur2w]

[attachment=0:2k8fur2w]Predator control 5.png[/attachment:2k8fur2w]

[attachment=1:2k8fur2w]Predator control 6.png[/attachment:2k8fur2w]


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Dang bull, got my nose right up against the monitor and can't read a thing! I need to find my bifocals!  But thanks for posting the info!


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

stillhunterman said:


> Dang bull, got my nose right up against the monitor and can't read a thing! I need to find my bifocals!  But thanks for posting the info!


If you click on it it should open up to a bigger window. Oh and you can zoom.... :mrgreen:


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

"Read the attached and let me know how many privatized companys have a fleet of helicopters, fixed wing aircraft and experience doing this:"

Ok so I read the attachments, and they did not say anything about private companies that do this. So then I did a Gizoogle search, that was confusing, and I still could not find anything about private companies that do that level of predator control. Is this a trick question? 

Now I'm even more confused though. Predators are bad, but the DWR kills them, so the DWR is good? Yet that cant be, because the governor(it even sounds like goverment, huh!, see) he appoints the WB, and they direct the DWR, so they have to be bad, right? This is just so confusing. This is like when Susie, dumped Billy, and went out with Jim, but then we found out Jim was really Jane, and........I just dont know where to stand on any of this, its soo confusing.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

bullsnot said:


> stillhunterman said:
> 
> 
> > Dang bull, got my nose right up against the monitor and can't read a thing! I need to find my bifocals!  But thanks for posting the info!
> ...


Hahahaha! I suck at this internet thing! Thanks Kris, now I'm happy I can see! *OOO* -/O\-


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Lonetree said:


> "Read the attached and let me know how many privatized companys have a fleet of helicopters, fixed wing aircraft and experience doing this:"
> 
> Ok so I read the attachments, and they did not say anything about private companies that do this. So then I did a Gizoogle search, that was confusing, and I still could not find anything about private companies that do that level of predator control. Is this a trick question?
> 
> Now I'm even more confused though. Predators are bad, but the DWR kills them, so the DWR is good? Yet that cant be, because the governor(it even sounds like goverment, huh!, see) he appoints the WB, and they direct the DWR, so they have to be bad, right? This is just so confusing. This is like when Susie, dumped Billy, and went out with Jim, but then we found out Jim was really Jane, and........I just dont know where to stand on any of this, its soo confusing.


Dang Lt....you are making me dizzy trying to keep up with the confusing stuff! O|* *\-\* -Ov-


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Well, its just that I was told that Option What? was going to save the deer. The DWR implemented it, and now the people that came up with Option What? are saying the DWR in not doing enough to help the deer. Was there an Option HUH? That I missed maybe? If only there were some sort of litmus test for wildlife policy, like: "Is it good for wildlife?" Then maybe this would not be so confusing.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

bwhntr said:


> I hope your right that the people on this forum are more involved than I think...For some reason I doubt that is true though. It would be nice to know that 80% on here are doing the work. Like I said, I will call myself out and admit I'm not doing enough.
> 
> What kind of "data" are you looking for? I can point you to sites (done this many times in the past) that post up where SFW/SFH is spending money. I can point you to charitable donations to individuals, cancer patients, less fortunates...or money spent on winter feed, acquiring land from being developed, fighting treehuggers on many issues like wolves. Is this the data your looking for?
> 
> I know there has been so much good done by our DWR, I don't think they are 100% to blame. Do you believe there is any good from organizations like SFW?


The issue was whether or not the DWR is using our money wisely for it's intended purposes and you don't believe they are, so that's the data I'm looking for. Show me the waste! It has nothing to do with SFW. I've read their tax forms and already know how they spend their money, And yes, they do some good things for game animals and fish. I question their motives and agenda, and their tactics, but those are not the issues I'm looking for data on. Just asking you to back up your view of the DWR with verifiable info., that's all.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I used to be an ardent SFW supporter, I attended dozens of 'top secret meetings', I helped with banquets, helped sell permits, helped do conservation projects, attended dozens upon dozens of RAC, WB, committee meetings, listened to the Don bloviate about how while others are whining he is getting things done, sat on the Board of Directors for the largest bowhunter group in the state of Utah, etc., etc.. Then I woke up, saw how mislead this group, SFW, is. I hate to say it, because I truly wish it were NOT the truth, but Lonetree is spot on! This is NOTHING more than a distraction, a creation of an enemy. The parallels with the Federal Government is beyond scary. Look at my left hand, not my right hand. Look at the big bad wolf/coyote/mountain lion/opportunists/2 point killers, that is why there are 'no deer' in Utah. The DWR is incompetent, they 'need' SFW to show them what real wildlife management looks like! Micro-managing MUST be implemented, we MUST control the masses and tell them where they MUST hunt, cuz they is two stupeed to figr it out on there owne.....we must pertekt them from themshelves.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Micro-managing MUST be implemented, we MUST control the masses and tell them where they MUST hunt, cuz they is two stupeed to figr it out on there owne.....we must pertekt them from themshelves.


I don't entirely understand the reasoning behind the "options" and what the good and bad were about each thing... but this made my morning. I can definitely tell there is a lot of this line of thinking going around.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Riverrat77 said:


> I don't entirely understand the reasoning behind the "options" and what the good and bad were about each thing... but this made my morning. I can definitely tell there is a lot of this line of thinking going around.


The Board told the DWR to present several "options" to help our struggling herds. There were 3 options presented... the DWR themselves btw wanted option 1. Central and Northern RACs voted for option 1 (70% of the hunters in the state fall into those two regions btw). Yet the board chose to go with Option 2, the one proposed and supported by the SFW.

Here's a food for though question: Which single group in the state of Utah makes the most money off hunting permits in this state? SFW. It seems like a gross contradiction that anyone profiting so much off resources should have any say in policies that benefit themselves directly.

-DallanC


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

sounds kind of like the NBA....


----------



## indyrxl (Aug 22, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> I used to be an ardent SFW supporter, I attended dozens of 'top secret meetings', I helped with banquets, helped sell permits, helped do conservation projects, attended dozens upon dozens of RAC, WB, committee meetings, listened to the Don bloviate about how while others are whining he is getting things done, sat on the Board of Directors for the largest bowhunter group in the state of Utah, etc., etc.. Then I woke up, saw how mislead this group, SFW, is. I hate to say it, because I truly wish it were NOT the truth, but Lonetree is spot on! This is NOTHING more than a distraction, a creation of an enemy. The parallels with the Federal Government is beyond scary. Look at my left hand, not my right hand. Look at the big bad wolf/coyote/mountain lion/opportunists/2 point killers, that is why there are 'no deer' in Utah. The DWR is incompetent, they 'need' SFW to show them what real wildlife management looks like! Micro-managing MUST be implemented, we MUST control the masses and tell them where they MUST hunt, cuz they is two stupeed to figr it out on there owne.....we must pertekt them from themshelves.


+10000000 O-|-O :shock:


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Lonetree said:


> "Read the attached and let me know how many privatized companys have a fleet of helicopters, fixed wing aircraft and experience doing this:"
> 
> Ok so I read the attachments, and they did not say anything about private companies that do this. So then I did a Gizoogle search, that was confusing, and I still could not find anything about private companies that do that level of predator control. Is this a trick question?


I think you got my point but just to clarify......the argument was made on this thread that government is bad (UDWR in this case) and if you give them money it goes into some bottomless pit and does not go towards the intended purposes (coyote control in this case). It seemed as though the inference is being put out there (between this thread and others) that they are bungling everything from collaring deer to not doing anything about coyotes to help deer and in turn bungling managing our deer. This argument was being used to state that we should privatize game management to make it better and in turn growing more deer than what than we have under the UDWR regime.

My point was in reading the report I attached it appears as though they are doing a lot for coyote control and it seems as though the only limiting factor for them is funding. The division gives us the option to donate to the coyote control program yet how many people donate during the draws? Bueller? Bueller?

I also wanted to point out the level of expertise and equipment they are using to accomplish it. I can't help but wonder if SFW, or anyone else for that matter, has the level of expertise that the UDWR has in doing in this in Utah. Not only do they seem to know what they are doing in taking coyotes with coordinated ground and air attacks but they are also undoubtedly very familiar with the topography and places coyotes frequent cross referenced with fawning grounds. They know what coyotes to take out and which ones make little difference. Who else could have that level of knowledge and equipment to pull this off? Sheesh reading the report reminded me of a well coordinated military operation. If SFW and other orgs really wanted to do more for predator control it seems to me they should give the UDWR more money earmarked for coyote control since they've got a pretty top notch operation ALREADY in place.

Conservation orgs are great at raising money, but I wonder how well they would actually be able to execute some of these programs if they were in charge. What would the learning curve be for them? 20 years?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

The Distraction: You can watch this in any facet of politics, left or right(Personally I'm an extremist: Moderate Independent Centrist) Washington is full of it right now, along with the false distraction also. The reason for creating a distraction is to create chaos, chaos is the breeding ground of opportunity. If you control the chaos, you control the opportunity. Unless someone saw your distraction coming. This is why good optics are so important, you don’t want to just walk into something, you want to have a grasp on the variables as you walk into your quarry, or make sure its not just someone’s decoy. 

The coyotes circling the deer are actually just the distraction, its the ones laying in the grass that are the real threat.

So why create distractions? As stated before, in a broad sense, it creates opportunity. You have to look closer beyond the opportunity created, to see why it was created, this is the litmus test for conspiracy theories. An analogy would be a magician that creates a cloud of smoke. The smoke is the distraction, and creates an opportunity. An opportunity for what? Well to make something appear from nothing, or to make something disappear. While you are focused on the smoke, things appear and disappear seemingly from nowhere. Yet everything comes from some where, and for some reason.

So SFW sold us Option What?. They told us that this is what is "needed" to fix the deer herds. But now they, SFW and most every SFW/Option What? supporter, don’t even want to talk about Option What? Lets say you are the President of the greatest country on earth, and you signed in land mark legislation that you hang the biggest hat you own on. What does it say when you wont hang your hat on it anymore, and wont even mention that huge "achievement". :O•-: What would it mean if you tried to blame congress for it? So anytime anyone brings up Option What? suddenly we are supposed to talk about government waste, predators vs aliens, the DWR, etc. Come on, what happened to "look how great this or that place is, Option What? will get us there too." 

SFW/Option What? guys: I get it, believe me I do. We have all been sold the latest and greatest whatever, only to be disappointed by the hype and claims. And some of us when confronted with this, just get quiet and don’t say anything. Because we don’t want to be "wrong", we've all been there, it sucks. So do you go back to the same store, and buy more over hyped BS, when there is still steam rising from the pile they just sold you last week? You know the big pile they act like they cant find the SKU# for. "I'm sorry sir, we cant seem to find that in our system, are you sure you purchased the warranty with that? May I direct you to our perfume isle, we are having a half off special" 

The last paragraph is an example of another form of political maneuvering, keep it in mind for the future.

I want to come out here publicly and say that I too was wrong. I am now fully in support of Option What? and its implementers’ and supporters. If fact I don’t think that SFW has got the full credit that they deserve for Option What? Lets all give them a big shout out and atta boy. And lets not forget that Option What? is long term, and so should be the praise for it. Any group that puts in that kind of effort, should absolutely be acknowledged, for what they have achieved. Good job boys!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Bullsnot

SSSOOOOO.........The DWR is actually killing lots and lots of coyotes, so they ARE! good. I got it. So just talking about doing it on the interent and in meetings just does not have the same results, does it? Its like a gocart company pointing at ferrari and saying "those guys dont do enough to make cars go fast".


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Bullsnot
> 
> SSSOOOOO.........The DWR is actually killing lots and lots of coyotes, so they ARE! good. I got it. So just talking about doing it on the interent and in meetings just does not have the same results, does it? Its like a gocart company pointing at ferrari and saying "those guys dont do enough to make cars go fast".


 :roll:


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Is your meeting over, I still wanted to have you tell me more about Option What?


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Is your meeting over, I still wanted to have you tell me more about Option What?


Meeting has been over since 6 pm yesterday. Unfortunately your not interested in a discussion but more of sarcastic insults that are uninteresting. I doubt you are really interested in my opinion but would rather use me as your sfw target. The sad part is you probably have even less of an understanding of my standpoint with the constant digression of the subject.

Not a problem, as I don't take it too personal. The fact of the matter is I really don't like the proposal. I am sure you never gathered that in any of our posts yesterday.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Thanks!


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Thanks!


lol...Your welcome? :mrgreen:


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Deflection: This can sometimes be confused for a distraction. The reason being is that it is many times substituted for. But is usually more of knee jerk type reaction to something similar, or related. It presents in a sort of "Ouch! that did not hurt." sort of scenario. Look carefully for the point of reaction. The spot just below the knee that gets the leg to rise is very speciific. Sometimes an accidental indirect bump, will trigger a small rise in the leg. This can be subtle and sometimes missed. If caught you will at least know you are close, and can make adjustments, for more direct hits.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Thanks!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

See, this can be fun too. Its all just science to me ;-) see my leg move......no look.....right there.....no the other leg.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

bwhntr said:


> _Just can't imagine such an evil organization wanting to get in touch with "average joe" hunters. Why would they want to get back to a grassroots organization? There must be a hidden agenda. This must be a secret way of taking money and giving it to Don_.
> 
> Could it be they are trying to get another perspective? Could it be they are listening to this warped view many of you have of them and they want to change it? Why is that a problem? The absolute biggest waste of money is to give it to the government. What if a big, powerful organization (like SFW) wanted to listen to our "internet biologists" ideas and help implement the ones that make sense? What if?


bwhntr...I think I understand your point. They may want to show folks they care by going back to a grassroots approach. I get that and they may really be genuine.

My point is simply that there are orgs that may be REALLY good at conservation activities like raising money, building guzzlers, doing habitat work, etc. and I commend them for that and that stuff needs to continue but where they are getting off track is that they are NOT experts at game management. They are good at criticizing (who of us isn't?) but I doubt very seriously any of them have the expertise to actually pull it off any better if they were in charge and would likely do a much worse job. For that it seems that taking their criticisms with a grain of salt makes more sense.

The reason that some don't like them is the preception, whether real or not, is that they meddle in game management (not their area of expertise)to improve thier fundraising abilities. It really is a conflict of interest and it would be really hard to intellegently say it isn't. Even if their intentions are genuine you always have to question their agenda.

If they really cared about their mission statement they would be more focused on conservation (their area of expertise) efforts and working with the division to improve things rather than fight with them on HUNTER issues.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Bullsnot I can't disagree...for the most part. I have been a supporter of this group for many years. I have not always agreed with them on many different issues. I think for the most part I like alot of what they do, and I do think money is well spent with groups like this. 

I also don't think the DWR is the evil group here either. I think that government groups can be a huge waste of money and you have to be careful how easy it is to devalue a dollar when contributing here.

What I am looking for is a balance. I don't like alot of steps the WB has taken, and if they are truely in bed with SFW then I have a problem with that too. The evidence is certainately there. Since I am a supporter of SFW, yet I don't always agree with their proposals, I would hope someone like the WB would look at all the options from ALL contributors and go with the best. SFW isn't always going to be that group. I respect that. This is why I have such a problem with the WB, I think they have failed us in this aspect.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> See, this can be fun too. Its all just science to me ;-) see my leg move......no look.....right there.....no the other leg.


I think we even agreed in the other thread! :shock: :mrgreen:


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

bwhntr said:


> What I am looking for is a balance. I don't like alot of steps the WB has taken......


I don't disagree one bit and I omitted the SFW part because it really doesn't matter, this could apply to any group trying to influence them. The flaw is the system is just that WB has too much power. The reason the WB exists is so that the division has a check and balance in place. The WB needs the same thing. As long any one entity has all the decision making power there will never be balance and special interests will have a hay day.

I would rather see a situation where the WB and the division have to agree or there be a 3rd entity that comes into the mix and 2 of the 3 have to agree.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

bwhntr said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > See, this can be fun too. Its all just science to me ;-) see my leg move......no look.....right there.....no the other leg.
> ...


Stanger things shave happened. :mrgreen:


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> bwhntr said:
> 
> 
> > What I am looking for is a balance. I don't like alot of steps the WB has taken......
> ...


I completely agree. I want groups like SFW/SFH, RMEF, UCF, UWC, etc etc to be involved. But I don't want one to make all the decisions either. I might agree with 80% of one group but I would hope there would be a system out there that filter out the BS and looked out for our best interests. I don't blame one group or the other, I blame a broke system. IMO most of the blame lies on the WB.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

JUST a distraction? It looks more like a setup to me! Like, Let's grow our membership/financial/political base so we can get more of OUR agenda done now and later by using the system to OUR advantage. And focusing on predator control (at least in the Cache unit) gets everyone on board, 'cause everyone knows those nasty coyotes kill lots of deer.

I suspect this is 1 meeting down, 29 more to go, though the subject may change depending on the perceived "problem" in each unit.


----------

