# SFW Donates $1M+ to DWR



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Earlier this morning I heard on a local radio station that SFW just donated more than $1 million to the DWR. Mr. Sheehan was pleased!

http://www.ksub590.com/


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

If true, we all know the fight ahead of us to keep hunting alive in Utah for the general sportsman.


----------



## josh12ga (Nov 23, 2011)

Yes this could be an issue for the average sportsman....


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Last week, There were two stories I saw on how pleased the DWR and it's new director
are with the conservation permit program. Saying basically how important it is to ALL sportsmen.

Last Thursday, Rod Decker did a KUTV2 news report on this issue, Then again on 1160 ksl am radio had a story saying that the article in the New York times was ' misleading'...

And that the majority of Utah hunters are not against conservation permits because of the amount of money going back into wildlife and habitat benefiting ALL Utah hunters.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

SFW didn't "Donate" $1 million. MDF, UBA, SCI, DU, RMEF, and WSF also don't "donate" their conservation tag money. They are simply paying their obligation back to the UDWR for public assets given to them. The groups receive the tags to auction and are paid to perform the service. Just a pet peeve of mine to see the Groups claim these monies as some kind donation. They are just meeting their legal obligation as dictated by statute.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> Earlier this morning I heard on a local radio station that SFW just donated more than $1 million to the DWR. Mr. Sheehan was pleased!
> 
> http://www.ksub590.com/


You don't say...those dirty, rotten, SOB's! :twisted: Who do they think they are giving back $1 million??? Must be some evil conspiracy in the works. :roll:


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Packout said:


> SFW didn't "Donate" $1 million. MDF, UBA, SCI, DU, RMEF, and WSF also don't "donate" their conservation tag money. They are simply paying their obligation back to the UDWR for public assets given to them. The groups receive the tags to auction and are paid to perform the service. Just a pet peeve of mine to see the Groups claim these monies as some kind donation. They are just meeting their legal obligation as dictated by statute.


This was my understanding as well. Are we mistaken?

I am thinking they said _"donate"_ to put a positive spin on this so that they dont look like the bad guys?


----------



## Elkoholic8 (Jan 15, 2008)

I think Packout hit the nail on the head. They didn't donate anything, just paying their obligation and making it appear they are going above and beyond. There is more positive PR that way.

Saying "here is the million+ that we owe you" doesn't sound as good as "here is a donation of a million+"

Just like the way they use the disabled hunts to "appear" like a generous, concearned group. Unfortunately, it's just a PR stunt for the news.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Elkoholic8 said:


> Just like the way they use the disabled hunts to "appear" like a generous, concearned group. Unfortunately, it's just a PR stunt for the news.


I have to disagree with you on this one. Last September I had the privilege of taking a gentleman out for a hunt with his 5 boys. Due to his condition, he had to shoot from his vehicle and this was likely one of the only opportunities that his boys will have to hunt with their dad.

Why did I do this? Was it to toot my own horn and get praise from everyone? ABSOLUTELY NOT! However, I did share my experience on the forum in hopes that a couple of things would happen: 1) people would see this as an opportunity for them to help others in need, 2) for people to take others that are less fortunate out hunting and fishing, 3) in hopes that if someone cant do the other two items, they would consider donating so that I can take another deserving individual out. But I never, ever, did this for publicity.

That being said, there are some shady pieces of crap out there that are doing this for their own personal interests and I am ashamed to call them sportsmen.

I think coyoteslayer would agree 100% with this position.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

I spoke with the program director of KSUB which happens to be in the group of stations that I work for, Cherry Creek Radio. Tim Nesmith is his name just in case anyone wants to talk to him about it. The story was written by Becky Bronson who is the wife of famed Adam Bronson (formerly of Huntin' Fool). I don't know specifics and its quite irritating to me that my own group is doing stories written, clearly, as a PR stunt in favor of SFW, HOWEVER. Its 1 million toward wildlife in Utah and I hardly think that they, any of the participating conservation groups, are going to continue to be maliciously hiding money or projects anymore. Its clear to me that the microscope is well focused and that money had better do some good. I'm glad they're filtering out that stupid promise of 400,000 mule deer in Utah garbage too. Isn't what we all argued for is transparency and accountability by SFW? Yes, I'm playing devil's advocate but only because my spidey hairs aren't tingling on this one. The only thing from this story I don't like is Greg's willingness to call it, "this donation from Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife." Its not a donation and I'd like for him to clarify that it is in fact the mandated return of money from the sale or auction of a public trust. Other than that, some good projects will be funded yet again!


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Here's the body of the story: 

(Salt Lake City, UT) -- The Utah Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife group, or SFW, gave the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources a one million dollar donation. SFW President Byron Bateman says the hope in the donation is to “help increase the wildlife in the state of Utah and bring us up to over 1 million acres of habitat that has been rehabilitated in the state of Utah to date." Newly appointed Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Director Greg Sheehan says this donation from Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife will greatly help the division in their ability to continue to increase and improve habitat work and research in Utah.

I don't see this entirely as a bad thing given recent events concerning the expo and the tags.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Well it looks like my trepidation about Sheehan was, unfortunately, well founded.

Speaking of "donations" I am currently accepting.


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

It's like when a manager or a peer picks up the check on the company card - same account that I use- and says - hey let me pick up lunch today. Wow. It's always impressive that someone is willing to throw down the money that isn't really theirs. Now, if they donated all the money raised from tags and then possibly took from their for profit side and donated money from advertisers and private donors - that might be something worthy of press. They ought not to be lauded or praised for returning money raised from the resources they were given not only for free but for payment. They receive clear benefits in addition to being able to raise and return funds.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Then to realize the millions spent on habitat doesn't actually "increase" wildlife is really disheartening. Is there a single unit that has more deer post treatment? Is it a gamble? Are there any proofs of concept to draw knowledge from? I am willing to bet a vast majority of big game hunters and even big money donors believe their money is going to ultimately result in more deer. So is it a bait and switch? I can tell you habitat restoration efforts on Monroe have so far served to reduce deer capacity, both summer and winter. I believe the efforts have served to increase graze. So whether direct or indirect, elk capacity has increased. Now I don't think the general hunting public (especially on Monroe) was ever concerned about increasing the number of elk on Monroe. Considering it came at the expense of deer capacity. 

But the man was smart to say "increase wildlife" so what does that really mean? -Ov- 

"Millions for wildlife habitat"? WTH does that mean? Tack that one up as my vote for insane things both treehuggars and hunters say.


----------



## Elkoholic8 (Jan 15, 2008)

Bax, I am in no way digging on the the handicapped or less fortunate hunters. I would like to see more of them getting a chance to get out. If I had the means I would take a few of them out personally.

What I am against are the groups that make sure their name is written all over the T.V. shows when they do take these people out just for the publicity. If SFW or any of the other "conseravtion" groups really did this out of the kindness of their hearts, they would have a couple hunts lined up each year, not just when they need a little PR. How do they pick a deserving hunter? Do you see or hear of any sign up sheets for guys to help a dissabled hunter get on a hunt? I have never heard of such a program or seen such a list. Unfortunately, the only time you seem to hear about these hunts are when said groups need a little positive light on their group. Since all the recent public interest in SFW and their records keeping, it only makes sence to "donate" some cash.

I would like to see the DWR actually set up some kind of dissabled or less fortunate program and take a few hunters out each year for various species. I would volunteer my time to help haul gear or game.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Sorry, I read into your initial post too deeply.

Its a real double edged sword with volunteering to take others out to hunt and fish. You dont want to have everyone praise you for being such a compassionate person, but at the same time these things are crazy expensive and you need people to donate time, money, and supplies to make these things possible. So in a way, you need people to know what you are doing to be able to get the word out that you need some donations.

This has been really hard on me as a member of UWC. I want to get the word out, but dont want people to think that I am trying to inflate my ego either.... Tricky stuff I tell you


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

So these tags are given to sfw from the dwr with the understanding that most of the money generated from those tags is suppose to be returned to the divison. So when that obligation is filled, it's considered a donation? So let me guess, sfw is getting a pretty big tax break as well from that "donation?"


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Bax* said:


> Sorry, I read into your initial post too deeply.
> 
> Its a real double edged sword with volunteering to take others out to hunt and fish. You dont want to have everyone praise you for being such a compassionate person, but at the same time these things are crazy expensive and you need people to donate time, money, and supplies to make these things possible. So in a way, you need people to know what you are doing to be able to get the word out that you need some donations.
> 
> This has been really hard on me as a member of UWC. I want to get the word out, but dont want people to think that I am trying to inflate my ego either.... Tricky stuff I tell you


But you don't call a press conference or issue a press release, nor do you do it in front of a recorded public meeting and you don't make sure it's being recorded for later general public release, nor do you have UWC logos on all the hats and clothing of every participant.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> Then to realize the millions spent on habitat doesn't actually "increase" wildlife is really disheartening. Is there a single unit that has more deer post treatment? Is it a gamble? Are there any proofs of concept to draw knowledge from? I am willing to bet a vast majority of big game hunters and even big money donors believe their money is going to ultimately result in more deer. So is it a bait and switch? I can tell you habitat restoration efforts on Monroe have so far served to reduce deer capacity, both summer and winter. I believe the efforts have served to increase graze. So whether direct or indirect, elk capacity has increased. Now I don't think the general hunting public (especially on Monroe) was ever concerned about increasing the number of elk on Monroe. Considering it came at the expense of deer capacity.
> 
> But the man was smart to say "increase wildlife" so what does that really mean? -Ov-
> 
> "Millions for wildlife habitat"? WTH does that mean? Tack that one up as my vote for insane things both treehuggars and hunters say.


Given the way I have seen bitterbrush planted in this state, I am going to have to agree with you to an extent. Transplanting seedlings is ineffective, expensive, and can spread invasive unwanted weeds. Drilling, or seed caching, is cheaper, and more effective. Though it requires a lot of boots on the ground to cache seed.

http://www.muledeerworkinggroup.com/Doc ... nities.pdf

"When we compare the direct seeding with the widely used rangeland drill, and the success we reported previously at the Doyle site, the success we achieved cost
$54.00/acre plus labor. Transplanting would cost $1,000 - $7,00O/acre to achieve a significantly lower density of antelope bitterbrush plants and over $15,000/acre to achieve similar results."


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

utahgolf said:


> So these tags are given to sfw from the dwr with the understanding that most of the money generated from those tags is suppose to be returned to the divison. So when that obligation is filled, it's considered a donation? So let me guess, sfw is getting a pretty big tax break as well from that "donation?"


Since SFW is a non-profit organization, they get a big tax break on ALL of their "donations" (and income), 0% tax bracket. I have no issue with the tax thing, though I question some of the things they use that money for which allows them to remain a wildlife related non-profit, but I'll leave that up to the IRS.

On the other hand, I donate money to various non-profits, so should I call the press each time I do it? Maybe you guys and gals will send more money my way if I do! Yippee-ki-yi-yah!


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> utahgolf said:
> 
> 
> > So these tags are given to sfw from the dwr with the understanding that most of the money generated from those tags is suppose to be returned to the divison. So when that obligation is filled, it's considered a donation? So let me guess, sfw is getting a pretty big tax break as well from that "donation?"
> ...


That's why I was thinking they weren't non profit because of their unwillingness to be transparent. You'd think in order to get that nice tax break/bracket that there would have to be mandatory transparency in order to keep that non-profit association/perk. Just makes ya shrug your shoulders at the way the system works. or those working the system.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

utahgolf said:


> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> > utahgolf said:
> ...


Depends, are we talking about Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, or Big Game Forever?


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

I thought Big Game Forever took a dump and is irrelevant now. I think EFA is talking about SFW.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

The problem that I see is in all the wording. 

The DOW donated X amount of tags to SFW to raffle off
Then SFW donated 1m back to the DOW

Now without going back and checking just what the number of tags and for what animals were "donated" by the DOW it would be interesting to know what the "investment" that the DOW made in tag dollar amounts that was returned by SFW


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Elkoholic8 said:


> Just like the way they use the disabled hunts to "appear" like a generous, concearned group. Unfortunately, it's just a PR stunt for the news.
> 
> If I had the means I would take a few of them out personally.


You are 100% correct. It is all a PR stunt. How can we make sure that these behaviors go unrewarded?


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

Taking folks out with needs, or who otherwise wouldn't get out without the access, money, tags, and guidance is great. It would go unquestioned if it wasn't tied to a bigger picture. 

Most people in Utah are not fans of redistribution or doing any more to foster a handout. You can argue that if the democrats wanted to run things in the Utah hunting world they would charge the rich more for hunting - especially the top 2% as they can afford it. Then, the money will go to an organization and they will use that money for special projects with the big focus on improving the system from which the funding was taken. 

Obviously this doesn't all connect or even come close. Still, it's true that resources are pulled from the people and redistributed for the "best interests of all". Yeah right. The helping disabled hunters is just another really familiar aspect of that. It isn't the role of SFW to lift up and watch over the disabled hunter, they just assume that role to help people, help themselves feel better about the resources they steal, and generate PR opportunities.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

SFW has given a few hunts for disabled hunters which very great of them, but when asked to donate to a non-profit group called Chairbounds Hunters of Utah then you can't even get a reply back or not even one red cent donated from them.

Sometimes SFW has donated hunts to disabled hunters for business reasons. A few years ago Mark Hogan drew the Utah Sportsmans deer tag in 2007 (I believe) and he hunted the Henry Mountains. Mossback tried to pay him 10,000 dollars not to shoot the buck since they wanted it for a client, Doc Meyers. I'm sure you heard the story.

Anyways SFW wanted to display Mark Hogan's buck at several of their booths to help get more support from fellow sportmens that SFW wants more money to improve more habitat to grow big bucks like Mark Hogan's buck. Mark accepted on one condition.....SFW needs to purchase a Bookcliffs deer tag for his son who is in a wheelchair. So in 2007 Kyle Hogan (Mark's son) got a tag and shot a nice buck.

Business is business.


----------



## c3hammer (Nov 1, 2009)

Donation, my ASS !!! What a joke that someone would even have the nerve to say such a thing, yet here we are.

What has our world come to that such complete BS comes to be printed?

Do you guys not understand that SFW has never auctioned off a single conservation permit in Utah? The "FOR PROFIT" SFW runs the banquets while their alter ego "we're holier than thou" SFH does the bidding with the DWR for the conservation permits.

It's just another complete lie that the SFW ever gave a dime to the DWR. All that money is technically generated by SFH, a separate entity entirely and it surely isn't a donation. By keeping the books of the two separate, one can milk the system while the other looks like the patron saint under the letter of the law.

Donation.... bwwaaaaaaaaahahahaahahahahahahahhaha


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Well, right on cue, the DWR, WB , make it official for 2013... 315 conservation permits.
http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggam ... ermits.pdf

And for the record C3, The SFW portion of 124 permits, went to SFW ... NOT SFH.

And an updated news letter from the DWR...
http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/?option=co ... mitprogram

A couple quotes:
"You'll find diverse hunting opportunities in Utah, including bear, bighorn sheep, bison, cougar, elk, mule deer, Rocky Mountain goats and turkeys. The Conservation Permit Program has funded transplants of 561 bighorn sheep, 350 pronghorn and 80 bison to provide some of these additional opportunities."

"Utah leads the West in habitat work, restoring more than 778,000 acres of wildlife habitat since 2005. The Conservation Permit Program contributed to 309 different habitat projects from 2006-2011. Learn more about habitat-restoration efforts."

And my favorite, just for you UWC guys:
"Program audits
The Utah Legislature recently performed an audit of the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. The auditors specifically reviewed the Conservation Permit Program (pages 27-30) and released their final report in November 2011. They reached the following conclusion:

The sale of conservation permits promotes habitat improvement on public lands with no expense to the taxpayer, while negligibly reducing the public's opportunity to draw a permit for a limited-entry hunting area. We would encourage the division to continue to support this program.

The DWR annually audits the Conservation Permit Program and presents the results to the Utah Wildlife Board."


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

goofy elk said:


> Well, right on cue, the DWR, WB , make it official for 2013... 315 conservation permits.
> http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggam ... ermits.pdf
> 
> And for the record C3, The SFW portion of 124 permits, went to SFW ... NOT SFH.
> ...


Yep, same BS, just a different year. Oh times....they will be a changin'.....


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

stillhunterman said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > Well, right on cue, the DWR, WB , make it official for 2013... 315 conservation permits.
> ...


Are you referring to the WB or goofy?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Mcfly, you just cant handle the truth.

I'll just keep post'en up the facts, 
and you just keep gett'in you panties in a tighter wad -_O-


----------



## c3hammer (Nov 1, 2009)

goofy elk said:


> ...And for the record C3, The SFW portion of 124 permits, went to SFW ... NOT SFH...


Why do you have to be dishonest goofy? SFW does the auction, SFH does the money. If it's right and proper why do you have to lie about it?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Look at the link C3, It's NOT me, being "dishonest ' saying 124 permits went TO SFW,NOT SFH,,That's a DWR link there my friend................

I'm NOT a member of SFW , But I do see the good thing these conservation
permits are funding. Watched it yesterday, first hand, helicopter and all!!
Fawn survival study in action! Would not be happening without those $$$$$.

Had a long conversation with DWR personnel yesterday, disgusted issues on
Nebo ( tag cuts coming there ) , issues about Wasatch elk ( being watched close),
And the wolf issues in the immediate areas, Wolf sign recorded yesterday on
the Manti.....Say tuned, on my way back up on the mountain right now 8)


----------



## c3hammer (Nov 1, 2009)

Come on Goofy, either you're thick as a brick, which I don't believe for a second or you're further perpetrating their lie. SFH collects and divies out all the checks as the "clean" side of the money laudering scheme while SFW does all the dirty work and lines all the pockets along the way to get it done.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

c3, I honestly don't know all the 'In's and outs' of the money situation...

BUT, I do know this much, if the state of Utah is doing the audit, AND
the Utah legislation is encouraging the DWR to continue, and posting these comments,,

,, "The Utah Legislature recently performed an audit of the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. The auditors specifically reviewed the Conservation Permit Program (pages 27-30) and released their final report in November 2011. They reached the following conclusion:

The sale of conservation permits promotes habitat improvement on public lands with no expense to the taxpayer, while negligibly reducing the public's opportunity to draw a permit for a limited-entry hunting area. We would encourage the division to continue to support this program."

If I were you, I'd be careful of accusations like these "money laundering scheme" ...OR, " being dishonest"..
Because I assure you, no laws are being broken..

Gotta run,,, Mountain bound!


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Common sense is far and few in these parts. 8)


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The real thing that scares me a bit, is this. The SFW/DWR partnership generated $1 million with 124 tags. That is $8,000 per tag. No matter how you slice it, that is more money than would come from regular sale of those tags. So my thought, knowing our great and wise legislature, is that they will see this as an opportunity to cut the regular DWR budget because hey, they are getting $1 million from the SFW tag deal. History shows that is how our legislature works. And considering they are facing about a $200 million shortfall for this year, they are going to be looking for any cuts they can find. So my fear is that this $1 million, when coupled with legislative cuts that are sure to come, will result in a break even at best, and a net loss at worse. And that is a legislature issue - not a DWR or SFW issue.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Oh, times WILL be a changin'! So while the information is put out there as a distraction, I believe we can all agree that there will be some good projects coming in the near future. 

Concerning the audit, for us UWC guys. That audit preformed by the state legislature? Yeah, its the equivalent of a smoking hot nurse cupping your junk and asking you to turn and cough. 2016 will bring about changes in how the money is handled and I for one intend to watch these just released tag numbers to make sure there aren't ANY changes (increases) in the numbers at all. Good things, and CHANGES are coming!

And you're exactly right Gary!!!!!!!! THAT is the only real thing that scares me too. However, it would take a vote by the people to change how division money is dispersed and because the division is self funded, they won't be touching those funds any time soon. Instead, some jackwagon has suggested increasing our food and fuel taxes in Utah. Brilliant.......


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> Elkoholic8 said:
> 
> 
> > Just like the way they use the disabled hunts to "appear" like a generous, concearned group. Unfortunately, it's just a PR stunt for the news.
> ...


A mod, editing my post.......hmmmm :O•-:

What I said was- Elkoholic is a JACKWAGON that obviously doesnt know SHIZ about SFW programs for disabled hunters.....


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

"Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin' or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'

Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
_The chance won't come again_
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who that it's namin'
For the loser now will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
_Will be he who has stalled_
There's a battle outside and it is ragin'
It'll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is rapidly agin'
Please get out of the new one if you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is rapidly fadin'
And the first one now will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'"

---Robert Allen Zimmerman


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

One of my favorite Dylan songs :V|:AKA Robert Allen Zimmerman


----------



## hossblur (Jun 15, 2011)

I just donated to Smiths a hefty sum to help with their continued share holder retention program(i bought groceries and that helps Smiths profits), I then donated to the 7-11 company for their continued excellence(bought gas). Holy crap I am getting good at this SFW speak.

Hey goofy, where on the manti are they seeing wolves?


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> Common sense is far and few in these parts. 8)


It's unbelievable! I keep hoping that these guys will get smarter and the opposite keeps on a happening!
LE, and OIL hunts are happening all over the state that are world class. Those would NOT have happened pre SFW. If that wasn't enough, SFW donates 1 million bucks and everyone feels like its the Pie from the movie "The Help" and it's just gotta have some turds in it. UNBELIEVABLE!


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I see where people are freaking out over the upcoming price increases in Idaho and Wyoming. It will almost double in the next two years but hey, they don't have the convention tags to deal with. Maybe Utah can get rid of our convention tags and double or triple tag fees too. I personally think we have it pretty good right now in this state.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

hossblur said:


> Hey goofy, where on the manti are they seeing wolves?


On the NW end, I took a bunch of pictures yesterday of big 'canine' tracks..
This is comparing size next to an -06 shell..
[attachment=0:lqsbfbhr]100_3708b.jpg[/attachment:lqsbfbhr]

And this is VERY relevant to this topic, as SFW-big game forever are the largest
opposition to the growing wolf issues....

Seeing first hand what is happening to the elk herds on the north side of Hwy6,
And now hearing its happening on the Manti side, wont take long to stir things up :!:


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

elk22hunter said:


> bwhntr said:
> 
> 
> > Common sense is far and few in these parts. 8)
> ...


Couldn't agree more, About a dozen of them, clue-less


----------



## Elkoholic8 (Jan 15, 2008)

NBR- "What I said was- Elkoholic is a JACKWAGON that obviously doesnt know SHIZ about SFW programs for disabled hunters....."

Ok, I'll admit I don't know all the tricks and creative ways of the SFW disabled hunter program. I'm not in the loop, or should I say involved in the back room shady deals. 

Since you are the expert, please enlighten us on how they pick their hunters. How many of these hunts do they do a year? Do they only do it after there is some negative press about them? o-|| o-|| 

I know that SFW does do some good for wildlife, there is no disputing that. But they do an awfull lot to restrict or take away from the average hunters. They like to pretend they are helping out everyone, but in reality they are cutting off the legs of the average hunter. The ones who just want to hunt, and don't care about how big the antlers are.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> It's unbelievable! I keep hoping that these guys will get smarter and the opposite keeps on a happening!
> LE, and OIL hunts are happening all over the state that are world class. Those would NOT have happened pre SFW. If that wasn't enough, SFW donates 1 million bucks and everyone feels like its the Pie from the movie "The Help" and it's just gotta have some turds in it. UNBELIEVABLE!


Scott what is UNBELIEVABLE is the fact that you put so much trust in dishonest people. I know you're better than this. I always have to laugh when people make claims that if it wasn't for SFW then we wouldn't have world class hunting meanwhile our deer herds continue to struggle. It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that if you severely reduce the number of permits then you will grow big bucks and bulls.

Scott you are also smart enough to know that the 1 million dollars that SFW gave to the DWR wasn't a DONATION. They were fulfilling their side of the contract.

If the DWR didn't give public permits for SFW to sell then SFW wouldn't be donating one red cent nor accomplish anything remotely close to what they have done in the past. SFW wouldn't exist without the public permits that they sell at their auctions. SFW isn't smart enough or dedicated enough to raise the money doing fundraisers.

AGAIN SFW DIDN'T DONATION 1 MILLION DOLLARS BECAUSE THAT MONEY BELONGED TO THE DWR ALREADY. Now if SFW donated MORE than what was required of them then we have something to talk about.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

elk22hunter said:


> bwhntr said:
> 
> 
> > Common sense is far and few in these parts. 8)
> ...


I just read a post on another thread about people being "narrow minded"...made me think about the propoganda that many on here have bought into and then propogate themselves. Most have no clue of any facts. When you get to that point it doesn't matter how much SFW or anyone does, they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Impossible to give credit where credit is due.

I have no problem calling SFW out when I see an issue. That has happened a handful of times. You should see the file of emails between Don and I. I also believe in giving praise when it is deserved...which more times than they deserve.

BTW Scott...that was the funniest (and most disturbing) part of the movie.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> > AGAIN SFW DIDN'T DONATION 1 MILLION DOLLARS BECAUSE THAT MONEY BELONGED TO THE DWR ALREADY. Now if SFW donated MORE than what was required of them then we have something to talk about.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ #1 of the dozen^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

If the DWR sold these permits in the draw, it would amount to ,less than, 70K.

So , by that logic, SFW only donated $930,000.00 :lol:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> coyoteslayer said:
> 
> 
> > > AGAIN SFW DIDN'T DONATION 1 MILLION DOLLARS BECAUSE THAT MONEY BELONGED TO THE DWR ALREADY. Now if SFW donated MORE than what was required of them then we have something to talk about.
> ...


Goofy you missed the point like always......


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> coyoteslayer said:
> 
> 
> > > AGAIN SFW DIDN'T DONATION 1 MILLION DOLLARS BECAUSE THAT MONEY BELONGED TO THE DWR ALREADY. Now if SFW donated MORE than what was required of them then we have something to talk about.
> ...


Con orgs. auctioning the tags or DWR putting them in the draw aren't the only two options to raise money.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> elk22hunter said:
> 
> 
> > bwhntr said:
> ...


Goof, yourself included...


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

^^^^^^^^^ There's that #2 guy on the 'dozen' list :lol: :!: ^^^^^^^^


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> ^^^^^^^^^ There's that #2 guy on the 'dozen' list :lol: :!: ^^^^^^^^


Thanks buddy, I was hoping for #1.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

This is pretty darn fun 

From the DWR's web site, How conservation permit program works.
http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/?option=co ... mitprogram

A qoute :

How the program works
Although the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) distributes conservation permits, the Utah Wildlife Board has authority over the number and type of permits issued. Board members have adopted a detailed administrative rule that determines how many conservation permits are available and how they are distributed.

The conservation groups that partner with the DWR in this program can then auction the permits to members of the public who attend their annual banquets and fundraising events. Conservation permits are available for the following species: bear, bighorn sheep (desert and Rocky Mountain), bison, cougar, deer, elk, moose, pronghorn, Rocky Mountain goats and turkey.

After the permits are auctioned, the funds are allocated as follows:

The group that sold the permits retains 10 percent of the proceeds to cover administrative costs. The group can keep that money for its own use, but groups sometimes donate it back to the DWR.The DWR receives 30 percent to benefit the species for which the permits were sold.
The remaining 60 percent may be kept by the group that sold the permits. Those funds must be spent on DWR-approved wildlife projects or activities. Groups must follow the administrative rule to continue participating in the Conservation Permit Program.

^^^Hey Yote,, That ones for you buddy!^^^


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

RE:


goofy elk said:


> The group that sold the permits retains 10 percent of the proceeds to cover administrative costs. The group can keep that money for its own use, but groups sometimes donate it back to the DWR.The DWR receives 30 percent to benefit the species for which the permits were sold.
> The remaining 60 percent may be kept by the group that sold the permits. Those funds must be spent on DWR-approved wildlife projects or activities. Groups must follow the administrative rule to continue participating in the Conservation Permit Program.


Sorry to interrupt the fun, frivolity and name calling, but does anyone here know *for sure *what category the money discussed here falls under? If it is part of the 10 % or from proceeds from other sources, then yes, "donation" is an appropriate term and SFW deserves an "atta boy/girl". However, if it from the part that they are obligated to give back to the DWR (as I suspect), then it is SFW grandstanding as several have pointed out.

One more point. Most of us don't want the program to go away, we just want real transparency and oversight. I fail to see how that desire can be criticized. I would think that SFW and others would also be comfortable with that as well in order to continue their program, but maybe I'm wrong there.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> This is pretty darn fun
> 
> From the DWR's web site, How conservation permit program works.
> http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/?option=co ... mitprogram
> ...


Sorry goofy but clearly don't understand.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Fun? I think it is scary that grown men don't know the difference between a DONATION and an OBLIGATION. 

So the Groups are paid to sell the tags - 10%. If they give the UDWR this 10% then it is a donation. The Groups make around $250,000 per year from their 10%. 

The Groups must pay the UDWR- 30%. This is an OBLIGATION and they go to jail if they do not return these funds.

The Groups then use the remaining 60% on approved projects. This is an OBLIGATION.

I don't question the program, just how the program and semantics can influence the management decisions.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Packout said:


> Fun? I think it is scary that grown men don't know the difference between a DONATION and an OBLIGATION.
> 
> So the Groups are paid to sell the tags - 10%. If they give the UDWR this 10% then it is a donation. The Groups make around $250,000 per year from their 10%.
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Packout said:


> Fun? I think it is scary that grown men don't know the difference between a DONATION and an OBLIGATION.
> 
> So the Groups are paid to sell the tags - 10%. If they give the UDWR this 10% then it is a donation. The Groups make around $250,000 per year from their 10%.
> 
> ...


Best post on this thread! !


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Packout said:


> Fun? I think it is scary that grown men don't know the difference between a DONATION and an OBLIGATION.
> 
> So the Groups are paid to sell the tags - 10%. If they give the UDWR this 10% then it is a donation. The Groups make around $250,000 per year from their 10%.
> 
> ...


Exactly, what they are doing is **** near fraudulent IMO, they are straight up lying and most people are eating it up. Very frustrating.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

So if I stole $2million from the bank and donated $1million back to the bank, does that make me a saint?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> hossblur said:
> 
> 
> > Hey goofy, where on the manti are they seeing wolves?
> ...


Goofy, you forget that SFW/BGF did NOT get wolves delisted, they ****ed that effort. Rather than sensible legislation that gets things done, they would rather use the wolf as a fund raising and propaganda tool like the posie sniffers do. That is what you are attempting to do right here with your tangent away from the issue at hand. You are wrong about both though. It is NOT a donation.

Here are some casts of an average wolf track, and a large lab track. Both were cast in Utah, the wolf is from 2004. You can find domestic dog tracks larger than anything posted here. Those are 6mm cartridges, I dont have any '06 handy. Your print looks a little round, but without seeing a full set and stride, it does not tell anything. Until you follow them for a few miles, away from any people, roads, cabins etc. and then attach them to wolf, it is pretty hard to say from pictures, or even 20 tracks in many cases. I am not saying its not a wolf, but there is nothing to say that it is. If there are elk declines in the area, you need a pack of no less than 3 wolves to even begin to see an impact. You will then find kills, and tracks are a no brainer when its a pack.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)




----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

goofy elk said:


> hossblur said:
> 
> 
> > Hey goofy, where on the manti are they seeing wolves?
> ...


You are so wrong on so many fronts and in so many ways with this statement I can't begin to address them here. If you would like to prove your statement, would love to see your data, so a new thread about BGF/SFW being the largest opposition to the wolf issues would be greatly appreciated. Just one tidbit as food for thought when it comes to SFW/BGF on the wolf issues. Feel free to give Jeff a call, I'm sure he will help you out:

NRA, SCI, and CSF Disavow Misleading Press Release

Today the National Rifle Association, Safari Club International and the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation publicly disavowed a misleading press release distributed on Friday, March 11th to congressional offices and other outlets. The press release blatantly misrepresents the position of these organizations regarding legislation to delist gray wolves under the Endangered Species Act.

The draft release was circulated by an individual representing Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife and Big Game Forever. The individual representing these two groups was immediately advised to remove the aforementioned organizations named in the release. Unfortunately, he did not, and the release was transmitted without correcting the inaccurate information.

The release in question claimed that the NRA, SCI and CSF along with the other organizations listed below are opposed to language relating to the delisting of gray wolves in spending legislation currently pending before the U.S. Congress. In fact, these organizations support that language, as well as every other measure that has been introduced in the U.S. House and Senate to date addressing this important issue.

Congressional offices and members of the media should exercise caution in accepting as fact, or repeating, any claims made by Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, Big Game Forever or any person claiming to represent them. Due to the blatant misrepresentation contained in the press release circulated by these two groups, any claims they make in the future should be thoroughly investigated and independently confirmed.

NRA Federal Affairs
Jeff Freeman
Senior Federal Lobbyist
[email protected]
410 First Street S.E.
2nd Floor
Washington, D.C. 20003
tel: 202.651.2568
fax: 202.651.2577


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

jahan said:


> So if I stole $2million from the bank and donated $1million back to the bank, does that make me a saint?
> 
> No. Stealing is wrong. If on the other hand, a person borrowed 70,000 from the bank and returned 1,000,000 that would seem smart.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

The money is obviously part of the 90% of funds raised from auctioning conservation tags, that was never theirs in the first place. They feel they need to keep 62% of the funds generated from convention tags, what makes anyone think they would "donate" part or all of the 10% they collect on conservation tags?

And I guess I should clarify, they actually feel they need to keep 100% of convention tag money, but thanks to the UWC, they will now have to return(that is the appropriate word) 38% of the funds generated. Which means they will probably raise the price of a convention tag application to $10, so they can keep stuffing their pockets. Hell they will probablyask for more permits too.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Tracks-

Lets see.......

Goofy- Hunts probably more than any guy on this forum, looks at thousands and thousands of tracks a season, even made a LIVING lookin at tracks......

Lonetree- A self proclaimed expert about everything that has a cute little mold he built in boy scouts :mrgreen: 


Maybe Lonetrees "sources" didn't tell him wolves are here


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Hey REB and 22 I listed both your homes. Some people are headed over to have a look. I promise to give you back 30% and you get to pick exactly what kind of beer I buy with 60% and the other 10% we'll just consider a small commission for my marketing of your properties.

What do you mean you aren't interested in allowing me to make a killing on property I don't own??? Seems to be ok for SFW to do it though right??


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Goofy, you forget that SFW/BGF did NOT get wolves delisted, they **** that effort. Rather than sensible legislation that gets things done, they would rather use the wolf as a fund raising and propaganda tool like the posie sniffers do.


You off your meds lonetree?????? You seriously think they **** that effort?????

BGF got more people involved than ANYONE!!! Ryan Benson/Don Peay put the WOLF problem in front of almost every sportsman......the petitions signed by sportsman don't lie!!

I know your liberal weirdness is hard to understand, but seriously, how you don't think the wolf is a SERIOUS problem for our neighbors to the north i will never know :?


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> Hey REB and 22 I listed both your homes. Some people are headed over to have a look. I promise to give you back 30% and you get to pick exactly what kind of beer I buy with 60% and the other 10% we'll just consider a small commission for my marketing of your properties.
> 
> What do you mean you aren't interested in allowing me to make a killing on property I don't own??? Seems to be ok for SFW to do it though right??


Wiley-

You should be a big fan of re-distribution of wealth :lol: Obama/SFW wheres the difference for you???? o-||


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> Tracks-
> 
> Lets see.......
> 
> ...


brn

There have been wolf sightings in Utah long before '95. Since '95 there have been some very reliable sightings, including my own. My brother has seen two. I'm not saying there are not wolves, I am saying there is no definitive evidence that is a wolf track in the picture. That cast was made in 2004 in Cache valley, I watched the wolf that left it myself. There were at least two other wolves in the area as well, from 2003-2005. I have followed miles of wolf tracks, in UT, WY, ID, and MT. I can tell you from experience, it is amazing the domestic dog tracks you will find, and where you will find them, when you are looking for wolf tracks.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

wileywapati said:


> Hey REB and 22 I listed both your homes. Some people are headed over to have a look. I promise to give you back 30% and you get to pick exactly what kind of beer I buy with 60% and the other 10% we'll just consider a small commission for my marketing of your properties.
> 
> What do you mean you aren't interested in allowing me to make a killing on property I don't own??? Seems to be ok for SFW to do it though right??


I'll pass, you said they were double wides.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > Goofy, you forget that SFW/BGF did NOT get wolves delisted, they **** that effort. Rather than sensible legislation that gets things done, they would rather use the wolf as a fund raising and propaganda tool like the posie sniffers do.
> ...


Here is Jeffs number at the NRA 202.651.2568, like stillhunter posted, call and tell him that. SFW/BGF put up legislation that could not pass, and never got out of committee. And then they tried to say that the NRA, SCI, SCF were against wolf delisting. Those are the facts, plain and simple. Wolves were delisted by everyone but SFW/BGF. And it is obvious why SFW/BGF did not want them delisted. It is a cash cow for them, just like defenders of wildlife, the humane scociety, PETA, etc. You are probably against SB 2535 too? Too much Hatch, Sherbert, Peay Koolaid for you.

Yep you heard it here first, SFW/BGF is bigger, badder, better than the NRA, SCI, and the SCF


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

What were we talking about? Oh yeah, how SFW gave $1M of OUR money BACK to the DWR. And how the term "donate" had been so badly applied to the situation, obviously as a tool of propaganda. How did we get on wolves? Oh yeah, thats right, not only is it a great fundraising tool, just ask the Sierra club they poised to raise $300,000 this month on the wolf issue. It is also a great distraction, and sleight of hand to what is really going on.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

NRA really rallied their members..... :lol: ......they had the biggest threat to hunters in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming EVER at the top of there priority list......my phone really rang off the hook :lol: -BaHa!- 

I seriously am falling out of my chair at laughter....

Thank god the NRA and SCI rallied their members and won the fight :lol:


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Are you really sure you want to play the brain dead "redistribution / Obama" card here... For the love of God please do it... Please just for me!!!


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> Are you really sure you want to play the brain dead "redistribution / Obama" card here... For the love of God please do it... Please just for me!!!


Your probably right.....I can only take so much of your liberal psycho-babble....... 

Not to mention your buddy Huge doesn't like the discussion of politics in his forum...... :mrgreen:


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> NRA really rallied their members..... :lol: ......they had the biggest threat to hunters in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming EVER at the top of there priority list......my phone really rang off the hook :lol: -BaHa!-
> 
> I seriously am falling out of my chair at laughter....
> 
> Thank god the NRA and SCI rallied their members and won the fight :lol:


Show me the legislation that SFW/BGF got passed to delist wolves. It does not exist, because they did not get it done, everyone else did. So they called you, that does not say much. Lets say the NRA did not rally their members, but SFW did. It does not matter, because SFW did not get the job done. All they did was cheer, and rally against real efforts, and everyone that did get the job done.

And here you go, like all good toadies, dodging the issue at hand.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Show me the legislation! I was trying to say it like "show me the money" did it work?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

elk22hunter said:


> jahan said:
> 
> 
> > So if I stole $2million from the bank and donated $1million back to the bank, does that make me a saint?
> ...


So, if the Utah Department of Transportation built an alternate shorter route with a toll bridge that could only handle 93,000 vehicles per day and then contracted with a private company, allowing them to make a 10% profit by auctioning off a few annual passes, would it be ok for the private company to then lobby UDOT for an 8% reduction in the number of vehicles that crossed the bridge in order to increase the "quality" of the trip (less traffic, faster, less hassle) and thus increase the price of each auctioned annual pass due to the scarcity? We certainly would bring in more money to the state and that's a good thing, right? But what about those 7,400 displaced people who paid the taxes to build it, but now can't cross it because they either can't afford the auctioned pass or weren't lucky enough to get a regular pass? Life isn't fair, right? And now it's even less fair! Of course, there's always the old route!

Oh, and since UDOT is now making more money on the annual passes, the legislature can reduce their "donation" to UDOT and save the taxpayers some money and insure their re-election! See, it all works out for everybody. Well, almost everybody!


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

C'mon now Reb, I'm sure HUGE wouldn't mind finding out who the bigger sycophant / welfare queen is. The crack ho or a certain group living off the public teat??


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)




----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)




----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> Hey REB and 22 I listed both your homes. Some people are headed over to have a look. I promise to give you back 30% and you get to pick exactly what kind of beer I buy with 60% and the other 10% we'll just consider a small commission for my marketing of your properties.
> 
> What do you mean you aren't interested in allowing me to make a killing on property I don't own??? Seems to be ok for SFW to do it though right??


That sounds great but you are missing two key points. First of all, I don't drink beer. Second and main point is Once you come over and do enough service and put in enough money to make it worth 10 times what it was previously worth, we may have a true comparison. Then after I move into my new home, stay in touch and continue to beautify my property so we can do it all over again. That is a sweet deal for all of us.
Thanx for creating that scenario. It makes sense to me.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

martymcfly73 said:


> Packout said:
> 
> 
> > Fun? I think it is scary that grown men don't know the difference between a DONATION and an OBLIGATION.
> ...


+1


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

jahan said:


> So if I stole $2million from the bank and donated $1million back to the bank, does that make me a saint?


You would have to take that $2 million and then make $200,000.00 and then return the $2,000.000.00 and call it a donation but because the FDIC had already paid the bank for the loss. Then you get a say in where that extra money is donated. Or something like that.... :O•-: :O•-: :O•-: :O•-:


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Done deal 22... I'll do all of that. BUT there are only a few catches. I'm going to subdivide and build apartments in the front and rear. Also you'll have the chance to use all of the cool stuff I upgraded only one time in your life if you are willing to wait in line. Or you can scratch me a check, a pretty big check, and use your own property every year. Sound like a good deal? By the way I have the right to change any of these plans on whatever whim strikes me at the moment.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> elk22hunter said:
> 
> 
> > jahan said:
> ...


So you mean like our car pool lanes that we currently have and there are limited numbers of people who can BUY a pass for a single commuter? It must make you furious that you see others use a lane that you cant and you purchased it with your tax dollars? Personally it doesn't bother me. I could have purchased a permit or taken someone along with me. I guess the same could be said that I have invested many weekends building fences, Goat studies, Excavation work, and transplanting sheep that were funded by SFW and will NEVER get to hunt them. Some people and organizations simply do things to make things better for eeryone. Others only think of how it directly benefits themselves and can't make sense of it all.............I think that I know where I stand. Do you?


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Oh and by the way 22, if you are just looking for a roof over your head, move to Colorado, I hear they have plenty of "homes".


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I've said it twice today now, This thread is pretty darn funny :lol: 
I sat down to watch the football game, AND BAM :!: 2 more pages.

BOTTOM LINE:
The DWR and conservation permit program are connected SO TIGHT at
the hip it's NOT ever going to change  :!: 

And that's OK with me as long as the wildlife and hunters benefit from 
the proceeds......Including 'average Joe', even though, he doesn't realize it :shock:

Just amazing how bad you guys that don't like it, actually hate it SOOOO bad.

Well, suck it up boys, cuz it's not changing soon, not even in 2016, any bets :?:


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> Oh and by the way 22, if you are just looking for a roof over your head, move to Colorado, I hear they have plenty of "homes".


It's not all about ME! I am fine to stay in a very nice home every once in a while as me being the person who's name it's in. I am also VERY fine about staying in the very nice home under someone else's name and I can even help haul in the firewood. I would rather stay in that nice home several times with others and SHARE a quality experience than stay in a little trailer home everyday of the year. 
Thanx for these little scenarios. They make better sense to me than they do you.

BTW if any of you would like to hunt Giraffe, Zebra or Elephant, I can line up some hunts in the desert for you. I will collect your tag fees and they will be very well priced compared to the world average for those same tags. This will NOT be a "Rich Mans Hunt". Success rates aren't good. They are about the same rate as a branch antlered bull Elk was 20 years ago in Utah before SFW. The seasons are long. In fact I will let you hunt them EVERY day of the year. Some of you guys are all about quantity instead of quality. If you take me up on the hunts I am offering, you will have much more time to hunt the a fore mentioned critters than I ever got to hunt an Elk that didn't exist. You snot nosed kids who don't know what it was like in the "Good ole days", take me up on my offer and you will get a very good taste of it.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> I've said it twice today now, This thread is pretty darn funny :lol:
> I sat down to watch the football game, AND BAM :!: 2 more pages.
> 
> BOTTOM LINE:
> ...


That comment in bold is flirting with some of my comments as BEST COMMENT OF THE YEAR! haha


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> I've said it twice today now, This thread is pretty darn funny :lol:
> I sat down to watch the football game, AND BAM :!: 2 more pages.
> 
> BOTTOM LINE:
> ...


No one is trying to change conservation permits, now or in 2016. The discourse is about the inaccuracies portrayed about the conservation program money, in a news release. This revolves around the word "donate"'', remember?

Everyone understands how conservation permits benefit wildlife and hunters, its a non issue.

Now convention tags on the other hand, that is a whole seperate issue. Those should be handled just like the conservation tag program, to maximize the benefit to wildlife and hunters, even those that don't realize it. Are you following any of this?

Bets: Games of chance are illegal in Utah, especially games of chance where the chance can be increased, with additional purchases. Well.....except in the case of hunting permits :?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Oh, don't bring up games of chance. That'll make some butts pucker. Hmmmm., on second thought, maybe bringing it up isn't such a bad idea......


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Maybe its like alcohol, its only ok if the state is selling it? If I tried to hold a "draw" in a similar fashion, I would be told by the Utah attorney general, that it was an illegal game of chance. Well, that is not entirely true either. He would probably clarify that if "applications" were offered for free also, then it would be legal.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/51941 ... e.html.csp


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Talk about a good promotion to bring people to the expo.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Here's a couple more thoughts:

SFW only receives 124 conservation permits, how about these orgs?

FNAWS 23 permits
DU 4 permits
MDF 84 permits
NWTF 21 permits
RMEF 26 permits
SCI 21 permits
UBFH 13 permit

All of these do THE EXACT SAME thing as SFW....What gives?

And the second thought, why don't all you conservation permit haters show how
dedicated you REALLY are , And refrain from applying for any OIAL permits in this 
years draw!!!!!

That's right, All you anti-conservation complainers can just stay out of draws this program has created for EVERYONE....Sounds fair enough to me  :shock: 8)


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> Here's a couple more thoughts:
> 
> SFW only receives 124 conservation permits, how about these orgs?
> 
> ...


Goofy

Once again, you are having a seperate conversation, out of context. No one is anti-"conservation" permit. people do take issue when the funds generated from these permits are LIED about, there was no "donation". As for people having issues with permit programs, that would be convention permits, where the money generated is not leveraged to its fullest potential for wildlife and hunters, because there is not a 90/10 split like with conservation permits. You are either stupid, or a DWR/SFW propagantist.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

The other groups delisted wolves with the money they raised goofy!! They are all on the cutting edge with the hunters of Utah first on their mind!! SFW on the other hand..........


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

brn

Show me the legislation. Not the bill they proposed that could never pass, but the bill that actually delisted wolves. You dont know what you are talking about, as usual.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Here's a couple more thoughts:
> 
> SFW only receives 124 conservation permits, how about these orgs?
> 
> ...


I didn't see any of these groups get the media involved to show that they "donated" $1million dollars to the new director.

22, are you telling me that SFW is the only organization or group out there that can raise that kind of money off of these tags? I would venture to bet that there are private groups out there that could make more money off of these tags and not request to keep 35% of the profits to make it work (convention tags).


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Lonetree, go back, look through all the posts, this thread is discusing BOTH,
concervation AND covention permits.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> Lonetree, go back, look through all the posts, this thread is discusing BOTH,
> concervation AND covention permits.


Yes, and like many others here, you cant keep them straight, while claiming to know what yoiu are talking about. This is evidenced by your 2016 comment, and others.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > Lonetree, go back, look through all the posts, this thread is discusing BOTH,
> ...


LT, your so full of BS.......

Go back 4 years ago and see who was explaining the difference between the two.

And 2016, It's the UWC guys CLAIMING there will be changes,
I'm simply saying there WILL NOT.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > [quote="goofy elk":s3yztmjl]Lonetree, go back, look through all the posts, this thread is discusing BOTH,
> ...


LT, your so full of BS.......

Go back 4 years ago and see who was explaining the difference between the two.

And 2016, *It's the UWC guys CLAIMING there will be changes*,
I'm simply saying there WILL NOT.[/quote:s3yztmjl]

Thats them talking about convention permits. You reffered to 2016 and conservation permits. This is me explaining that.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

It strikes me as simple PR. 

Gratuitous? Yes! Worth 10 pages of patty cake. I'm not so sure. 

And the UWC is guilty of it too. Maybe not with dollars.

So I can give a shlt, how will this effect the cougar population in Utah? :mrgreen:

Demagoguery for sure.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> brn
> 
> Show me the legislation. Not the bill they proposed that could never pass, but the bill that actually delisted wolves. You dont know what you are talking about, as usual.


The reason you have no credibility is due to the fact you take partial truths and twist them for your own agenda. If you can't prove your point on 100% facts then don't post anything at all. :roll:

The original bill that Hatch and Risch was pushing had a 4 state deal that would include all of Utah and Wyoming. It made sense to go after a 4 state deal over a 2 state deal. Several groups said it couldn't be done. Knowing that it was a far right bill it was pushed forward anyways, gaining traction with 61 house and senate cosponsers, which forced the action.

When it looked like we wouldn't get the 4 state deal the decision was made to pull back and push efforts for the 2 state deal. Take what we can get was a far better deal than killing the delisting goal. We needed to start killing wolves. If the original bill would have went through Utah would be miles ahead than we are now with the wolf issues. However, the Simpson bill was still a huge step forward and started the path to success.

To say SFW hasn't been a huge instrument in rallying the troops and helping delist the wolves is an ignorant, silly statement.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

bwhntr said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > brn
> ...


Yeah, and thats why their bill worked so well? It went no where, and never could. And I have no credibility? I dont know what I'm talking about? :lol: :lol: Talk about twisting half truths, someone just showed their hand.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

I have the bill in front of me...I know the whole history, including all the "back room" BS that went on to get to the point we are now. The FACT is we took a more "liberal" bill to get the ball rolling.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

The most educated people usualy have the least amount of common sense.....

Just say'in :lol:


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

SFW did not propose nor pass legislation...never have I said THEY did...this country works a little different than that...as smart as you think you are, I would think you would have known that  

Let's talk about the NRA...WTF did they do??? Jack Shiz!! They could give two ****s less about it! 

John Tester, Mike Simpson, Harry Reid, Orrin Hatch, Max Baucus got the bill done...with A LOT of pressure from none other than Don Peay and Ryan Benson, (a full time attorney representing Sportsman!!) and millions of hunters rallied by SFW and BGF...


Ask all your colleagues on the wolf humper side of the battle who is the org to blame for delisting wolves...


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

bwhntr said:


> I have the bill in front of me...I know the whole history, including all the "back room" BS that went on to get to the point we are now. The FACT is we took a more "liberal" bill to get the ball rolling.


Oh thats right Tester is a "liberal", so anything he does or proposes is bad, kind of like SB 2535. The 4 state bill never went anywhere, and never would have. Your not argueing against my "uncredible" statements. You are saying the NRA, SCI, and a lot of others were wrong in the course they took. You know, the one that actually worked. Falling back on these secondary retreat arguements, does your position no good. Especially when the arguement is that SFW were better cheer leaders, WTF!

Donnie, Donnie, he's our man.
While SFW rallied, everyone else had a real plan.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> The most educated people usualy have the least amount of common sense.....
> 
> Just say'in :lol:


I think their are laws that prevent me from responding to this.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> SFW did not propose nor pass legislation...never have I said THEY did...this country works a little different than that...as smart as you think you are, I would think you would have known that
> 
> Let's talk about the NRA...WTF did they do??? Jack Shiz!! They could give two **** less about it!
> 
> ...


jst_brn

Took you long enough to Bing all that. You should have read all of this thread, because it was already explained how SFW dropped the ball on this effort. And as Bwhntr explained, their were two seperate proposals, the one that SFW ran with, did not, and could not work. They then tried to smear the very groups and sportsmen that had a plan that could pass, and would work. See SFW did not want it to pass. They make good money bending folks like you over the wolf issue, rather than actually doing something about it. You are proof that this strategy works, and is a great distraction, for every SFW issue that comes up, that its supporters cant support.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Get back with me when you're done with the hyperbole.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Just for clarity, my wolf positions. I was anti-reintroduction, not because I was anti-wolf, but because evidence showed they could be recovered without bringing in packs. This was cheaper, and far more biologically sound. So when I say I'm "pro-wolf", it means I regard wolves no differently than deer, elk, bears, lions, woodland caribouu(real endagered species). They are not the devil, nor are they disney characters. People telling you this, are looking to game you, and gain something for themselves. The Sierra club, much like BGF, is making a ton of money on wolves right now. Conatct them, I did, and remind them that they support biologically based hunting practices. Now I am also pro science, science is the discovery and understanding of the natural world. Belief is that which lies outside of that realm. So being pro science, I subscribe to the facts, these facts say wolves are a part of the ecosystem, and have been for tens of thousands of years, and have a role in it. The science also says that they are recovered, and hunting(per the NAMWC) is the way to manage them. Much of the politics on either side of this issue, is about self interest and finincial and political gain. Some of these interests will, and have attacked real, practical efforts that are actually in the best interest of biology and sportsmen. If you cant wade through this, and think for yourself, justkeep letting others think for you while playing on your emotions, and see how far that will get you.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

bwhntr said:


> Get back with me when you're done with the hyperbole.


Hyperbole? Its called history, its been said and done, and recorded. It exists as fact, regardless of how you _feel_ about it.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

edit: I need to get back on a real computer, at a desk.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

goofy elk said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > [quote="goofy elk":24nhw9oe]Lonetree, go back, look through all the posts, this thread is discusing BOTH,
> ...


LT, your so full of BS.......

Go back 4 years ago and see who was explaining the difference between the two.

And 2016, It's the UWC guys CLAIMING there will be changes,
I'm simply saying there WILL NOT.[/quote:24nhw9oe]

That is when the contract is up. There WILL be changes.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > [quote="goofy elk":3h6i54w2]Lonetree, go back, look through all the posts, this thread is discusing BOTH,
> ...


LT, your so full of BS.......

Go back 4 years ago and see who was explaining the difference between the two.

And 2016, It's the UWC guys CLAIMING there will be changes,
I'm simply saying there WILL NOT.[/quote:3h6i54w2]

Goof can I borrow your crystal ball? I want to know if I should send my daughter to the U of U in 2014.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> The most educated people usualy have the least amount of common sense.....
> 
> Just say'in :lol:


The people who think they have the most common sense and think they know everything are usually the most uneducated.

Just sayin':grin:


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

^^^^^^ Mcfly, do you ever post anything other than smart azz remarks?^^^^^^

Just curious, 
I dont ever recall you posting anything of solid substance, or any type informitive matter...


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

As in most cases, whenever a thread involves SFW, it morphs into a twisting, sidestepping, emotional snake that slithers its way past anything substantial and factual; and that's too bad. This thread was speaking to the "donation" SFW made, nothing more nothing less. If they made a million dollar donation from funds not accumulated through conservation tags, awesome! If on the other hand the monies referred to in this thread were derived from conservation tags, then it was NOT a donation, but simply a mandatory return of money raised via SFW's efforts from auctioning public tags, that's it, and perfectly summed up by Packout:



Packout said:


> SFW didn't "Donate" $1 million. MDF, UBA, SCI, DU, RMEF, and WSF also don't "donate" their conservation tag money. They are simply paying their obligation back to the UDWR for public assets given to them. The groups receive the tags to auction and are paid to perform the service. Just a pet peeve of mine to see the Groups claim these monies as some kind donation. They are just meeting their legal obligation as dictated by statute.


As to what goofy has posted about conservation tag haters, well that's just goofy being goofy, most of us know that. I don't know of anyone who doesn't agree that conservation tag funds do good things, and the UWC certainly isn't saying anything different, nor is the UWC talking about changing or eliminating such. The only post I saw here was from Tree, simply saying these tags were not the only way to raise funds, pretty simple statement.

Bwhntr and 22:

I understand your strong ties/relationships with SFW, and I applaud your dedication to an organization that represents your ideals, wants and desires, good for you. However, for you to accuse those who disagree with your own ideals/beliefs of "buying into the propaganda and then propogating the same", and not admitting the same can be said of 'the other side of the issue' speaks to your own narrow mindedness. That being said, I do agree with some of the things you say about SFW and the inability of some to refuse to acknowledge what good has come from them. They are indeed responsible for the world class hunting of which you speak, that a few trophy sportsmen can partake of. They have also done some things good for blue collar hunters as well, via the monies they put back into the state obtained from the sales of public permits, even though that was a mandatory requirement, good for them.

And although it doesn't happen often, SFW even puts out some monies not gained from public tag auctions, such as the current project down south with the mule deer translocation efforts, even though the division told them the project would not happen with conservation funds. Good for them. But don't pizz down my leg and tell me it's rainin', and that is exactly what SFW/BGF does so often that they now have a PR nightmare on their hands that stretches across the mountain states, that can be blamed on no one but themselves. If an organization claims to represent a constituency, then do it; don't talk and act out of both sides of your mouth. I know both of you are intelligent enough to know what I'm talking about.

This same philosophy of SFW/BGF has also carried over into the wolf issue, whereby they have made claims that are nothing more than smoke and mirror gamesmanship. The wolf issues that have occurred are out there. The facts of what transpired and when are there for all to see. The groups that were instrumental in the progress thus attained are out there for all to see. The groups that "claim" said progress yet had little to do with that success, and even hindered that success, are also out there for all to see. There is a ton of rhetoric, falsehoods, innuendoes, and back room deals (such as you referred to in one of your posts) that cloud things to a great degree when wading through the wolf "war". But the facts are also there.

As I told goofy, this thread isn't about the wolf issue or SFW/BGF and their efforts, but should you wish to start a wolf thread and state the "truth" and "facts" to which you refer, and the "back room deals" as well, by all means do so. I would love to put this behind us so we as sportsmen and women can concentrate on the heritage that has been held up for decades by the blue collar hunter.

Notice any groups missing from this article? I do.

http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/story/130 ... hwz5b80heu


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

elk22hunter said:


> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> > elk22hunter said:
> ...


You missed the part about a private company making a profit from publicly funded assets while being allowed to manipulate the system to increase their profits by reducing opportunities for the public to use those assets.

And, no, I'm not furious about car pool lanes because I think they are necessary and beneficial to the public, even if I don't use them (or care to). And because none of the income from the passes goes through the hands of a private company who skims off 10% prior to "donating" it to the State of Utah. And because there is no private company trying to make more car pool lanes out of the regular lanes in order to increase their income and influence.

And yes, I know where I stand! 3 days next to the troughs at the Glenwood Hatchery clipping fins off of Bear Lake Cutthroats which I will probably never catch AND on the steep hillside of the burn east of Swains Creek deep-planting bitterbrush AND on the flats of the Parowan Front beside DWR, BLM, SFW, and others assessing the winter range damage AND on Jan 7th & 8th, (and sometime in again in March) I'll be standing on those same flats with many of those same people helping to translocate some mule deer does to the Pahvant (which I never hunt) AND this coming spring I'll be standing alongside the DWR and Forest Service putting in and/or repairing guzzlers (As soon as they can decide where). Maybe I haven't done all I should do, but I'm not as young and healthy as I once was. And, FWIW, some of the those things won't show results in my lifetime, so it's not just about me. And neither is my desire to ask other wildlife groups to be honest in their dealings. It's about my kids and grandkids (and yours) and the future of opportunities for hunting and fishing for them.


----------

