# Mule deer committee members



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

*Recommended participants for *
*Deer Planning Advisory Committee *
*Summer 2014 *


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I had a feeling Kris Marble was on the Committee. 
So, UWC does have at least two members on committee.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Im glad to see Lee is on there too. He has some really great insight.

I look forward to hearing how this goes


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Bax* said:


> Im glad to see Lee is on there too. He has some really great insight.
> 
> I look forward to hearing how this goes


Agreed


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Bax* said:


> Im glad to see Lee is on there too. He has some really great insight.
> 
> I look forward to hearing how this goes


 Thanks! I'll do all I can to get my points across, but with 17 other voting insightful members, we're not likely to win them all, though I'm confident we'll make more of an impact than some folks might expect.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

elkfromabove said:


> Thanks! I'll do all I can to get my points across, but with 17 other voting insightful members, we're not likely to win them all, though I'm confident we'll make more of an impact than some folks might expect.


Lee, I like you, I really do. You would be towards the top of that list, if I had to choose. But here is the problem. It took a GRAMA request, as you suggested, to get the list of people, that are on the "secret" committee, that are in some capacity, by affiliation, "representing" the public.

Now it is pretty easy to ascertain what some of the members are advocating, and lobbying for. Yet there are many others, that claim to be "representing" people besides themselves, while the very people they are representing, do not know who is representing them, let alone how?

Who represents me?

This is a very bad way to start this process, and will probably just be Par for the course.

I won't even talk about the science part.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

wait a second….Deloss Christensen is listed as public at large? That's BS….he is most definitely a rep for SFW. He shouldn't be listed as someone who represents the public!

So, basically, Deloss is the only "public at large" representative, yet he is an SFW big wig here in the Richfield area….


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Lonetree said:


> Lee, I like you, I really do. You would be towards the top of that list, if I had to choose. But here is the problem. It took a GRAMA request, as you suggested, to get the list of people, that are on the "secret" committee, that are in some capacity, by affiliation, "representing" the public.
> 
> Now it is pretty easy to ascertain what some of the members are advocating, and lobbying for. Yet there are many others, that claim to be "representing" people besides themselves, while the very people they are representing, do not know who is representing them, let alone how?
> 
> ...


 Other than some blushing, per the posts above, I personally had no problem with everyone knowing I am on the committee, but there are others who felt they would rather not be swamped by crank phone calls/emails/media blogs/etc. from people who take differences in opinions personally (Thankfully, it hasn't happened to me, knock on wood, even though I am prepared for it.) and by mutual agreement we were cautioned to be careful about posting info on the internet lest it affect our relationships on the committee. We have to work together and we must keep our conversations civil in order to do that.

As far as I'm able to observe, all those who represent the listed entities are representing those entities and not their own personal affiliations (I'm also a member of MDF). I suppose we can't totally dismiss those other affiliations, but when that becomes obvious we are reminded by the chair and others to remember who we represent.

I don't suppose there are any of us who could represent all of your views, but the science part will, indeed, come into play. It's already been part of the discussion and will become part of the plan. Maybe not to the extent it needs to on the statewide plan, but when the individual unit management plans are drawn up, it will become a major part. Whether or not we (or others) get that right according to your assessment remains to be determined, but the science won't be ignored.

Also, I have been working on some plans of attack /persuasion on the individual issues I feel we're going to have differences on and I'd rather not give the others a heads up beforehand, but I'm certainly open for some suggestions per your (and others) emails at [email protected].

I'm only one person on the committee of 18 voting members, but since this is the first time UWC has been represented, I want to make a difference in the right direction per our mission statement.

Finally, as far as a blow by blow description of the proceedings, I don't take good enough notes to do it justice, but I can give you some results as they become finalized.

Thanks, Lee Tracy (UWC)


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> wait a second&#8230;.Deloss Christensen is listed as public at large? That's BS&#8230;.he is most definitely a rep for SFW. He shouldn't be listed as someone who represents the public!
> 
> So, basically, Deloss is the only "public at large" representative, yet he is an SFW big wig here in the Richfield area&#8230;.


Do you know if Michael Christensen is related?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

nope….I don't know.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> nope&#8230;.I don't know.


Thanks


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

elkfromabove said:


> Other than some blushing, per the posts above, I personally had no problem with everyone knowing I am on the committee, but there are others who felt they would rather not be swamped by crank phone calls/emails/media blogs/etc. from people who take differences in opinions personally (Thankfully, it hasn't happened to me, knock on wood, even though I am prepared for it.) and by mutual agreement we were cautioned to be careful about posting info on the internet lest it affect our relationships on the committee. We have to work together and we must keep our conversations civil in order to do that.
> 
> As far as I'm able to observe, all those who represent the listed entities are representing those entities and not their own personal affiliations (I'm also a member of MDF). I suppose we can't totally dismiss those other affiliations, but when that becomes obvious we are reminded by the chair and others to remember who we represent.
> 
> ...


Lee, I know you have good intentions, but the science has been ignored and suppressed for 30 years. You do not have access to the complete picture of that scientific reality. But there are many people on that committee attempting to steer the science a particular way. It is unfounded, incomplete, and utter BS.

Your explanation of why our unelected "representatives" did not want to be known publicly, explains exactly the way in which you would usurp a democratically based representative governing system. I will go so far as to say that is the intention. "Representatives" do not hide. Maybe we should have our legislative representatives appointed, and shuttered from the public. And then only their lobbyists will know who they are, by their own choosing. That is not how a representative system works.

I will be unequivocal in my statement that these situations are bred from corruption, and breed corruption!


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Mike Christensen is one of the smartest, unbiased
People I know. He'll do a great job. 

I don't believe he's related to DeLoss. 

That being said, could the ramrod of opt 2
Being the only public at large rep be a preview
Of things to come??


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

GBell said:


> Mike Christensen is one of the smartest, unbiased
> People I know. He'll do a great job.
> 
> I don't believe he's related to DeLoss.
> ...


Yeah, Mike was born and raised in the United States.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Everyone get ready...I'm about to agree with Lonetree!

This is a public committee, dealing entirely with public resources. I'm sorry if some people didn't want to be contacted. They shouldn't have agreed to be on the public committee, making public policy about our public resources if that was the case. These things should not be done in secret.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I dont think they are done in secret ive been to a deer comity meeting. You can go listen if you want to. You just cant add your input.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> I dont think they are done in secret ive been to a deer comity meeting. You can go listen if you want to. You just cant add your input.


You don't think so huh? Can you show me when and where they happen, and what is on the agenda? And can you show me where it says who is on the committee. Can you tell me everyone on the committee?


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Lonetree said:


> You don't think so huh? Can you show me when and where they happen, and what is on the agenda? And can you show me where it says who is on the committee. Can you tell me everyone on the committee?


So how come your deleted the names?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Huntoholic said:


> So how come your deleted the names?


So SW can supply them. He doesn't think any of this stuff is being conducted in a secret manner. If that is the case, he should be able to supply those names. All I hear is crickets.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I haven't even looked for the info. Maybe you are correct. I have been to a comity at the dwr office though


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

GBell said:


> Mike Christensen is one of the smartest, unbiased
> People I know. He'll do a great job.
> 
> I don't believe he's related to DeLoss.
> ...


I'll second that Gordy. And Lee is one of the most honest and well prepared feller's I know. Some of the others I don't know, and of the others I do know, I won't say anything cuz it wouldn't be very nice...

I also agree with LT's assessment of the way the committee was formed and the secret way it's being conducted. You bet your arse the members would be contacted and hounded if the public knew what they were pushing, both pro and con. Bunch of chicken feather pluckers if you ask me...-O,-


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Who is it that you won't say anything about? I mean you don't have to name names, just maybe point me to the UDWR link that shows the committee members, and the committee agenda, I can probably figure it out from there. 

Can anyone show me that information? I mean I checked the UDWR front page, and looked through the wildlife board and RAC pages. I checked the big game page, but still nothing. I thought maybe some of the wildlife groups have links to it? Maybe a page that's got what the agenda of their committee members is? something about how they are representing their members. I checked sfw.net, nothing there but a very short update on the moose study. I checked unitedwildlifecooperative.org there was nothing there. So I headed over to muledeer.org, but there was nothing there either, not a whisper to be heard anywhere. 

Now I am sure I am just missing something, or I have over looked it. I have been told that I am being represented, I was just wondering how?


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Hmmm...

Try as I may, there is NO link, number or address to be found. Gonna try some latent esp abilities and see what I come up with LT.8)


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

I found my Senators, congressmen, legislators, and an ex-girlfriend, but still no luck on the mule deer planning advisory committee or its members. I'll keep looking, I am sure I am just overlooking it.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Have you checked that cafe in southern utah where one eye gets his eggs and toast for breakfast. Im sure there is an napkin with notes on it laying arround somewhere


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Don't make too much of this committee. Remember that the committee has no regulatory power at all. They're just making recommendations to the DWR who in turn makes recommendations to the Board. So what does it matter how much secrecy is involved?

My limited experience working with DWR committees has been that they typically have little influence on the final outcome. In some cases, the outcome has been decided (behind closed doors) before a committee even has its first meeting.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

well nothing to worry about then. SFW has never influenced anything in Utah with regards to wildlife and how it is managed..........


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Finnegan said:


> So what does it matter how much secrecy is involved?


I will answer this question with your own quote...



Finnegan said:


> In some cases, the outcome has been decided (behind closed doors) before a committee even has its first meeting.


This is EXACTLY why I'm worried about how much secrecy is involved. These aren't private resources being managed by private entities. These are PUBLIC resources, entirely. Decisions, meetings, and everything else should be public and transparent. Always.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Finnegan said:


> Don't make too much of this committee. Remember that the committee has no regulatory power at all. They're just making recommendations to the DWR who in turn makes recommendations to the Board. So what does it matter how much secrecy is involved?
> 
> My limited experience working with DWR committees has been that they typically have little influence on the final outcome. In some cases, the outcome has been decided (behind closed doors) before a committee even has its first meeting.


Good point, so it is probably more just a show for many of the participants, where a few bones get offered up, so that some think they are doing something, or getting something done. Cutting the public out would certainly make that prospect easier.

Get any opposition to the table early, keep it quiet, hand out consolation gifts to everyone, makes sense to me.

I found my aunt myrtles tuna casserole recipe, but I still can't seem to find any information about the deer committee or process. So yeah it probably doesn't matter, especially if the agenda has already been decided.

And of course with a survey of the public, where you ask particular questions, you can slide that through as evidence of what the public "wants". Of course a survey done by survey monkey that only requires a number from 0-10,000 to access, that can be hacked with cheap VPN software, could be pretty easily influenced as well. Not that anyone would do that.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

There are lots of meetings in judges' chambers, generals' tents, oval offices, cabinet chambers, governors' offices, war rooms, and offices of department heads where the public isn't invited because that would hinder the process. So, while the public isn't barred from the committee meetings, there isn't a general open invitation either.

Having said that, our next meeting is June 17th, 5:30 pm at the Springville DWR facility (not the hatchery). There aren't accommodations nor security for even a small crowd so if you're late or there are too many of you, you won't get in! And if you're early, bring your own dinner 'cause you won't be fed! Also, you probably should leave your electronic devices in the car (I don't know about those things), and you likely won't even be allowed to interact with the members before the meeting, let alone have any input. You'll have your chance for those things at the RAC's and Wildlife Board meetings (except for the food, of course).

Our agenda on the 17th is to establish some preliminary general directives in the management plan that will allow us to accommodate the survey results into the plan. 

And the following meeting is currently scheduled for July 8th, which is after the survey results are finalized, but that date could change!

As has been stated by several people (including me), this is only one part of the process and the final outcome could be far different than what we intended (although I suspect we'll be the scapegoats if things don't work out quite like you'd like them to).


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Lee, you folks are none of those things, not even close. Regardless of the explanation, the committee members are listed as "representatives". They are tasked with "advising" the UDWR on matters that concern public resources. Those resources are Utah's mule deer, held in trust, and owned by the people of Utah. As TS30 has been so very accurately and rightly stating. 

So, do they represent the public, or do they represent organizations that they are affiliated with, and in doing so, then represent the public? 

If the committee members are representatives, then I ask again who represents me and my stake in Utah's mule deer? It is funny that I hear the things I do from UWC guys now, because it was a very different story not so long ago. 

Yes we have the RAC and the WB, but the mule deer management plan starts behind closed doors, with wildlife organizations, that claim to “represent” the public. Yet while that is going on, none of the parties including the UDWR, actually work in any capacity that even resembles “representation”. 

I will state it again so that I can be as clear as possible. Representative process is not conducted without input, or behind closed doors. At least not in a free and open society. 

I found a news story about Swallow and Shurtleff's house being searched, but I still can't find any information on the mule deer committee.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

I am beginning to think that I need my own seat at the table, and probably some convention tags as well. I mean there is plenty to go around, we can increase the tags to like 300, and raise the application fees to $10. Make sure everyone is "represented".


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Lonetree said:


> Lee, you folks are none of those things, not even close. Regardless of the explanation, the committee members are listed as "representatives". They are tasked with "advising" the UDWR on matters that concern public resources. Those resources are Utah's mule deer, held in trust, and owned by the people of Utah. As TS30 has been so very accurately and rightly stating.
> 
> So, do they represent the public, or do they represent organizations that they are affiliated with, and in doing so, then represent the public?
> 
> ...


I guess I should have included the Senate and House Committee meetings or even the limited public seating in the Houses of Congress. In any case, you, yourself, found out who's on the committee and who they are representing and I've just told you when and where the next meeting is and I've told you the upcoming agenda. Get there on time and you'll be IN the room when the doors are closed. The survey itself tells you what we've done thus far and the management plan itself will tell you what we did. (I'll post some updates as I can, but like the deer transplant updates, they'll be pretty much statistical and after the facts.) If you need any more information on the committee members themselves, then google their names and ask them yourself.

And I've given you my email address and openly offered to hear/read your (and others) viewpoint (even if you're not a UWC member) and I've given you the information you need to speak your piece at the RAC's and Wildlife Board meetings, and, if I read your post right, you even got a survey, so you have plenty of opportunities for input. The only thing I can't do is get you (and the other 182,000+ deer hunters and who knows how many anti-hunters) a seat at the table (Wouldn't that be fun and efficient!). (The Convention tag issues will come up next year before the current contract expires!)

I don't know exactly how or by what process all the members were chosen, but I do know that UWC was asked to be represented and allowed to make their own decision and I was nominated and approved by our leadership. I also know that I'm to represent our values per our mission statement, even at the expense of putting my personal views aside if need be (it hasn't happened yet, but it might).

Now, I can't speak for the other members of the committee, but rest assured I'll do all I can to keep up my end of the bargain, even to the point of challenging some of the policies that are counter to our values. Any more than that is out of my hands and into yours! You do what you want with it!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

elkfromabove,

I've never met you, but you seem like a very stand up guy. My statements that these things should not be done "in secret" is not intended as an indictment on you at all. It is more of an indictment of the system in general. I appreciate you posting about the next meeting and what will be discussed. Honestly, for a simple guy like me, transparency is what matters. Ultimately I understand this committee won't be setting policy, and I know the Wildlife Board has disregarded recommendations by this and similar committees in the past and simply done what they (or other organizations) wanted anyway. 

Thanks for your willingness to take your personal time and try to make things better for all of us. I really do mean that. I look forward to seeing what comes of this.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

You read a few posts and it is no surprise why some want to be anonymous...


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Lee, I am arrogant, everyone here can attest to that. But I can guarantee you I have never put myself in the same class as generals, or people in the oval office, sure on the level of a few gods, but never the senate or congress. And not above the process.

This is not a matter of national security. It is specifically about people that are representing the public, on issues that pertain to public trust. You know, public trust doctrine, like in the NAMWC, supposedly the center piece of the UWC. 

You can keep explaining it three ways South of Sunday, it does not change the facts of the matter. The UWC was founded in response to Option 2, and the way it was implemented. With a big focus on transparency of both the process of public trust and the fiduciary responsibility associated with that trust. I guess that changes when you get on the other side of the fence, doesn't it?

Could you please provide everyone else with the names of the committee members, seeing as how you know them, and their affiliations. And while you are at it, when I was looking for the UWC's position about how they are representing their members, I could not find a financial statement. Maybe you could help out with that too. 

CSPAN


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

RandomElk16 said:


> You read a few posts and it is no surprise why some want to be anonymous...


Then they should not be representing the public, or their respective organizations that claim to represent the public. And if they are not representing the public interest, and their stake in the publicly held wildlife, then who are they representing?


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Lonetree said:


> Then they should not be representing the public, or their respective organizations that claim to represent the public. And if they are not representing the public interest, and their stake in the publicly held wildlife, then who are they representing?


A better question; Who exactly is the public and how in the hell is someone supposed to represent them? Good luck to whoever attempts this endeavor. I know one of the committee members and I know he will do what he thinks is right. That will NOT represent many of the views expressed on this forum.--------SS


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

The public? It is not a question, it is a fact. When it comes to the question of Utah's mule deer, the public are the citizens of Utah.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Representing the mule deer first with no hidden agenda may be a novel idea.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Representing the mule deer first with no hidden agenda may be a novel idea.


The most significant point made on this entire post. This committee is called "The Mule Deer Committee". One would think that the critter and its health and future would be the focus of the discussions, but I suppose that's too much to ask. The Mule Deer has always taken a back seat to social issues, the science be damned. Put the animal first, sink some time, effort and money into some real, inovative and forward thinking science that can benefit the species; let the conservation orgs, rac's and wildlife board deal with the freaking social issues. The poor mulie has NO representation, not even from the DWR...-O,-


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Lonetree said:


> Then they should not be representing the public, or their respective organizations that claim to represent the public. And if they are not representing the public interest, and their stake in the publicly held wildlife, then who are they representing?


They are making a decision, well, having a discussion on behalf of the public. How many groups would you like the public representation to be broken down into?

White
Black
Orange
Purple
Green
Yellow
Hillbillys
********
Mormons
Catholics
Indians
Trappers
Bearded Folk
Non Bearded Folk
Short
Tall
Trophy Hunter
Meat Hunter
Forget people who trophy or meat Hunters
Archery Hunters
Muzzy Hunters
Rifle Hunters
Private land hunters
road kill hunters
spot and stalk only hunters
Houndsmen
Female
Youth
Male
Scientist group A
Scientist Group B that disagrees with A
Scientist Group C,D,E,F,G,H...................................

I mean, every stupid title I just put up could be someone with a different view. In some matter, yes, they are representing the public. If you want to cloud the waters and make it more political, we could hold elections? In which many who complain wouldn't make the vote (like they don't go to the RAC), then would complain about who was elected and call it rigged. Plus, find someone to volunteer their time, and deal with people who have different views.

They do represent the public. They represent Utah Wildlife. Find the one you most agree with and back them. Or email some with your propositions. Don't just argue with the ones you disagree with, without actually presenting something. I feel it is a diverse group. We can keep being keyboard jockeys though!

Then again, you are lonetree. You disagree with all of them.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

RandomElk16 said:


> They are making a decision, well, having a discussion on behalf of the public. How many groups would you like the public representation to be broken down into?
> 
> White
> Black
> ...


So you are saying that a whole bunch of opinions are ridiculous, and we need to manage based on what is best for deer? That sounds a lot like the NAMWC, as envisioned by Roosevelt, and later refined and reaffirmed by Leopold. That works for me. I wonder if the UDWR supports the NAMWC?

If the committee members represent the public, can you please show me, and everyone else, who they are and how to contact them so I can do as you suggested? How do you know who they are? How do you know their positions, and that they represent "Utah wildlife" where does it say that. How can someone listed as representing "the public at large" be representing wildlife? How are they qualified to represent wildlife?

I disagree in some way shape or form with about 75% of them. And that is what I know about, maybe you can tell me more about them and who they are?

I am glad you used the term "we" in your reference to keyboard jockeys. If you are pointing it this way, you really have no clue.

How about that list of committee members? You know the ones that "represent" the public. Where do we the public, find that list of our "representatives"?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

stillhunterman said:


> The most significant point made on this entire post. This committee is called "The Mule Deer Committee". One would think that the critter and its health and future would be the focus of the discussions, but I suppose that's too much to ask. The Mule Deer has always taken a back seat to social issues, the science be damned. Put the animal first, sink some time, effort and money into some real, inovative and forward thinking science that can benefit the species; let the conservation orgs, rac's and wildlife board deal with the freaking social issues. The poor mulie has NO representation, not even from the DWR...-O,-


 "In recognition of our civic duty to take an active interest in wildlife conservation, the mission of the United Wildlife Cooperative is to promote responsible and informed participation in the creation of sustainable and *biologically sound management regulations*, and *to lobby for the welfare of wildlife* and our proud fishing and hunting traditions."


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

I always liked that statement. :grin:

And what is the UWCs position on mule deer that they are representing for their members? And what is the biological basis for it?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Like I have said before, the ONLY thing I have seen or heard out of the UWC is the updates by Lee on this forum regarding the transplants. While I appreciate the updates and what Lee does, he is the only voice I have heard. There hasn't been any other correspondence or activity that I am aware of. Just as well be a member of the Sabre Tooth Tiger Conservation Cooperative.

The notification of the Gear Swap that was held July 27th, 2013 doesn't do much for me anymore. Nor does this:

*United Wildlife Cooperative *

February 24

Hello UWC faithful. We just wanted to let you know that UWC is currently under going a reorganization as the tenure of many officers and board members has ended. We want to thank them for their generous service to the organization. Without them we wouldn't be where we are today. Please continue to follow us for lots of exciting changes coming in the near future.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Lonetree said:


> So you are saying that a whole bunch of opinions are ridiculous, and we need to manage based on what is best for deer? That sounds a lot like the NAMWC, as envisioned by Roosevelt, and later refined and reaffirmed by Leopold. That works for me. I wonder if the UDWR supports the NAMWC?
> 
> If the committee members represent the public, can you please show me, and everyone else, who they are and how to contact them so I can do as you suggested? How do you know who they are? How do you know their positions, and that they represent "Utah wildlife" where does it say that. How can someone listed as representing "the public at large" be representing wildlife? How are they qualified to represent wildlife?
> 
> ...


The board is made up of different people from different orgs, meaning their are different opinions. I never called that ridiculous. I asked you a question on how you would build up the committee. Again, you take the largest freaking detours you can find.

How would you do it lonetree? If you were on the committee, could anyone reach you with their opinion? Would you listen to anything anyone ever said or suggested? Could you even vote on an issue, because I don't think you like either side of the fence. You would represent YOUR views and what YOU believe to be true. I just find it funny how you undermine people when you would be a terrible representative of the public. Secret or Not.

As I pointed out before, a lot of these people don't even go to the RAC. They wouldn't make a public election. The ones who do go to the RAC seem to be spitting money to one of the organizations that is on the board, so I am not sure if you call that representation.


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

I agree with the comments in this thread that the DWR should post the names and contact information for the members of the mule deer committee on the its website. Just like members of the RACs and Wildlife Board, this is a public issue and that should be public information. That being said, several weeks ago I was wondering who would be participating on the committee and so I sent an email to Greg Sheehan and asked him that very question. Greg responded immediately with a complete list of names, groups and contact information. He certainly did not seem to be hiding anything in response to my request. Yes, the DWR should be proactive and provide that information on its website but I would imagine that anyone could get that information by simply asking the question.

Hawkeye


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Recommended participants for 
Deer Planning Advisory Committee
Summer 2014

Organization Representative	

MDF Mike Laughter 

Unaffiliated/Landowner	Michael Christensen	

CWMU Assoc. Dave Freiss	

SFW Byron Batemen	

Farm Bureau Spencer Gibbons	

Forest Service Danielle Chi	

BLM Robin Naeve	

UBA Ben Lowder 

UWC Lee Tracy 

Public at Large DeLoss Christensen 

University Randy Larsen 

Range Science Eric Thacker 

SRAC Rusty Aiken 

NERAC Randy Dearth 

CRAC Kris Marble 

NRAC Robert Byrnes 

SERAC Kevin Albrecht 

Wildlife Board Steve Dalton 

DWR Region Dax Mangus 

DWR SL Kent Hersey 

DWR Chair Justin Shannon 

Facilitator Ashley Green


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Randomelk16

You missed more than one.

The issue is one of transparency, and of proper public process. I am not the one taking a detour.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

hawkeye said:


> I agree with the comments in this thread that the DWR should post the names and contact information for the members of the mule deer committee on the its website. Just like members of the RACs and Wildlife Board, this is a public issue and that should be public information. That being said, several weeks ago I was wondering who would be participating on the committee and so I sent an email to Greg Sheehan and asked him that very question. Greg responded immediately with a complete list of names, groups and contact information. He certainly did not seem to be hiding anything in response to my request. Yes, the DWR should be proactive and provide that information on its website but I would imagine that anyone could get that information by simply asking the question.
> 
> Hawkeye


The issue is that these omissions are intentional, this is not oversight. Many people would not even know that they may need to ask for this information.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Lonetree said:


> Lee, I am arrogant, everyone here can attest to that. But I can guarantee you I have never put myself in the same class as generals, or people in the oval office, sure on the level of a few gods, but never the senate or congress. And not above the process.
> 
> *Ok, let's try some "closed door" Cedar City High School Faculty meetings where, we, the custodians weren't invited let alone the public, or the Washington County Sheriff's Department briefings one of our members attends, or the 2 closed door jury rooms I've been in (one Federal and one local) or the MANY city, county and state agency meetings that happen on a daily basis. Are they humble enough for you? The doors are "closed" for purposes of getting the job done efficiently and timely and not for "secrecy".*
> *Besides, I've posted the upcoming schedule, time, place and agenda for the next meeting (I won't delete them BTW). Don't be late!*
> ...


 In the meanwhile, all of you have a pleasant and safe summer, enjoy the fishing, and start getting ready for the upcoming hunts, if you haven't already!

Lee Tracy [email protected]


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Lee

I have not accepted a penny from anyone, only spent one other persons and my own money. So at this point in time that is an apples to oranges comparison. I have on the other hand signed up as a member of the UWC very early on, are those annual memberships? I have also donated money, and thousands of dollars worth of gear to the UWC, that was used for the purpose of fund raising. I never received a receipt for the all the gear. I thought maybe that would entitle me to a look at the financials of the organization that hounded everyone else for theirs.

I'll be short and reiterate. If the committee is representing the public on public resources, that process also needs to be public. Kind of like your explanation about the disclosure of finances with regard to public resources. You are the one equating the committee with other processes that are not equivalent.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Lonetree said:


> Randomelk16
> 
> You missed more than one.
> 
> The issue is one of transparency, and of proper public process. I am not the one taking a detour.


Your right, I missed 2.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

RandomElk16 said:


> Your right, I missed 2.


Is that 2 of 18? I thought my list had 21 people on it. Where did I put that?

Maybe some one can file a GRAMA request for all the _public_ information. The _public_ information about the committee that is representing the _public_, while advising a _public_ regulatory body, on the plan to manage _public_ resources. Seeing as how this information is not available _publicly_.

I feel like maybe I left something out?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Like I have said before, the ONLY thing I have seen or heard out of the UWC is the updates by Lee on this forum regarding the transplants. While I appreciate the updates and what Lee does, he is the only voice I have heard. There hasn't been any other correspondence or activity that I am aware of. Just as well be a member of the Sabre Tooth Tiger Conservation Cooperative.
> 
> The notification of the Gear Swap that was held July 27th, 2013 doesn't do much for me anymore. Nor does this:
> 
> ...


I'm sorry for the delay in the reorganization and I guess you could credit/blame me for that! I was asked to spearhead the procedure and I have done/am doing my best to get this organization up and going, but some personal/family events have taken place since the first of the year and we've struggled for time, energy and money. Besides, I'm not a very good people organizer, but I have found most replacements for the departing officers. The biggest problem we've had is finding members who have the time, ability and willingness to fill those positions. (I've even had to recruit some new members to fill them.)

It would be great if we had more aggressively willing volunteers, but our members, by nature, are those outdoorsmen and women who have hunting and fishing further down their priority list than the usual alphabet organization and hunting to most of them is a family camp a weekend or 2 in October, nothing more. As such, they don't normally volunteer during the rest of the year unless they are personally asked and even then, it's difficult getting firm timely commitments. I can't tell you how many times I've heard, even for one time projects, let alone a 2 or 3 year leadership position, "Ask me in 3 (or 6) months." or "Now's not a good time, ask me later." or "I can't right now, but if you still need help later on, don't forget to call me." In fact, I'm sorry to say that I've only received ONE initial email from an unknown member on this forum offering to help. And that was from a current program officer who agreed to stay on and to further help with surveys. I really appreciated that and it made a great deal of difference. We have a strong core of 6 willing hands in Southern Utah with several in the wings who are willing the help in a lesser capacity and we have a strongly committed corporate sponsor with another we're working out details and another who's watching to see some membership increases. As indicated by this post, we need some help in several (actually many) areas so if any of you members are willing to help feel free to email me and we'll find a place for you. I'm not a people organizer, but we have someone who is a business/charity advisor who would love to see us succeed.

But, ultimately, if I end up being the last UWC man standing or if UWC melts in the heat of battle, our mission statement will still drive my positions and actions. And, even with the frustrations, I'll still enjoy doing it :grin:


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

elkfromabove said:


> I'm sorry for the delay in the reorganization and I guess you could credit/blame me for that! I was asked to spearhead the procedure and I have done/am doing my best to get this organization up and going, but some personal/family events have taken place since the first of the year and we've struggled for time, energy and money. Besides, I'm not a very good people organizer, but I have found most replacements for the departing officers. The biggest problem we've had is finding members who have the time, ability and willingness to fill those positions. (I've even had to recruit some new members to fill them.)
> 
> It would be great if we had more aggressively willing volunteers, but our members, by nature, are those outdoorsmen and women who have hunting and fishing further down their priority list than the usual alphabet organization and hunting to most of them is a family camp a weekend or 2 in October, nothing more. As such, they don't normally volunteer during the rest of the year unless they are personally asked and even then, it's difficult getting firm timely commitments. I can't tell you how many times I've heard, even for one time projects, let alone a 2 or 3 year leadership position, "Ask me in 3 (or 6) months." or "Now's not a good time, ask me later." or "I can't right now, but if you still need help later on, don't forget to call me." In fact, I'm sorry to say that I've only received ONE initial email from an unknown member on this forum offering to help. And that was from a current program officer who agreed to stay on and to further help with surveys. I really appreciated that and it made a great deal of difference. We have a strong core of 6 willing hands in Southern Utah with several in the wings who are willing the help in a lesser capacity and we have a strongly committed corporate sponsor with another we're working out details and another who's watching to see some membership increases. As indicated by this post, we need some help in several (actually many) areas so if any of you members are willing to help feel free to email me and we'll find a place for you. I'm not a people organizer, but we have someone who is a business/charity advisor who would love to see us succeed.
> 
> But, ultimately, if I end up being the last UWC man standing or if UWC melts in the heat of battle, our mission statement will still drive my positions and actions. And, even with the frustrations, I'll still enjoy doing it :grin:


Is there any activity going on in the northern part of the state? Did people up here bag it for the most part? It appeared that things just kind of fell apart and disappeared. People not knowing how things went down and what happened could be part of the reason that recruiting is difficult. I would think that others may be willing to help if the web page were updated or there were some activity requesting specific types of help on Facebook and the like. I could very well be one of them.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Lee hang in there, you are doing fine.

Here's the thing with these committee's. The Wildlife Board has the power to throw all of this work out as it did when this Committee's ONLY "public at large rep" got a wild hair with OPT 2. Every survey I've seen shows one thing, surprisingly, HUNTERS WANT TO HUNT. I'm not saying that those that wish to hunt every 15 years for a "quality" buck are less important than those that just want to hunt, but there must be balance. For the last 20 years there has not been. Once the restrictions started, they snowballed to get us where we are today. Science out the window and pure social hunter management based on what Keele Johnson saw driving home from work, or what Del Brady happened to hear at a SFW banquet, or fantasies drawn up on a napkin in a Loa diner by a "public at large rep".

So what I'm saying is if we are going to manage for a social outcome, why not listen to what those in society say over and over. They want to be able to hunt with friends and family, size of a deer is low on the scale and more regulations and Limited hunting is strongly opposed.

I can tell ya there are two guys on the Committee that I trust completely, and more than a handful I wouldn't trust to watch a soggy ham sammich.

It's too bad we spend all this time with how to kill deer, rather than how to grow deer.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

GBell said:


> Lee hang in there, you are doing fine.
> 
> Here's the thing with these committee's. The Wildlife Board has the power to throw all of this work out as it did when this Committee's ONLY "public at large rep" got a wild hair with OPT 2. Every survey I've seen shows one thing, surprisingly, HUNTERS WANT TO HUNT. I'm not saying that those that wish to hunt every 15 years for a "quality" buck are less important than those that just want to hunt, but there must be balance. For the last 20 years there has not been. Once the restrictions started, they snowballed to get us where we are today. Science out the window and pure social hunter management based on what Keele Johnson saw driving home from work, or what Del Brady happened to hear at a SFW banquet, or fantasies drawn up on a napkin in a Loa diner by a "public at large rep".
> 
> ...


Here we go again.-O\\__-


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

GBell said:


> Lee hang in there, you are doing fine.
> 
> Here's the thing with these committee's. The Wildlife Board has the power to throw all of this work out as it did when this Committee's ONLY "public at large rep" got a wild hair with OPT 2. Every survey I've seen shows one thing, surprisingly, HUNTERS WANT TO HUNT. I'm not saying that those that wish to hunt every 15 years for a "quality" buck are less important than those that just want to hunt, but there must be balance. For the last 20 years there has not been. Once the restrictions started, they snowballed to get us where we are today. Science out the window and pure social hunter management based on what Keele Johnson saw driving home from work, or what Del Brady happened to hear at a SFW banquet, or fantasies drawn up on a napkin in a Loa diner by a "public at large rep".
> 
> ...


 Thanks, Gordy! As I've mentioned several times, I've already anticipated the differences and am preparing for them, but there are no guarantees we'll prevail anymore than we prevailed with OPTION 2 which we opposed, maybe too gingerly, but things are looking better!

And, FWIW, there's already been off-the-cuff statements made by committee members other than myself or Kris during the discussions regarding going back to region or statewide archery hunting. In fact, if we could again separate the hunting units from the management units (they're not the same in a lot of cases), we could begin concentrating more on the deer and not the hunters, but as it is now, the number and/or antler size of bucks is what drives the management, both socially and financially (but not biologically, of course.) Others are now beginning to realize the unintended (or intended) consequences of Option 2 and is isn't setting well with many of them.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Outstanding Lee. 

Ridge, and I'll keep beating that **** horse until
Hunters are not taken out of the field to cater
To the well funded vocal minority.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Lonetree said:


> Is that 2 of 18? I thought my list had 21 people on it. Where did I put that?
> 
> Maybe some one can file a GRAMA request for all the _public_ information. The _public_ information about the committee that is representing the _public_, while advising a _public_ regulatory body, on the plan to manage _public_ resources. Seeing as how this information is not available _publicly_.
> 
> I feel like maybe I left something out?


PLEASE SEE UPDATED LIST ON PAGE 5 (with 22 names  )

All it takes is a pleasant email to the DWR and they are more than willing to provide the information. The names I provided earlier were through my own search, without contacting anyone. Once I contacted them, I recieved a reply in a reasonable amount of time with all the info I asked for and then some... Also was given contact information in case I have further questions. Very friendly and helpful.

Judging by lonetree's format of the first post, he probably did the same thing then came here acting all Mel Gibson conspiracy theory about it.

If any of you are TRULY interested in this committee, PM me and I will happily provide the information for the next meeting. This isn't to keep stuff behind doors, but is to avoid farting on lonetree's fire, furthering the blue dart spread on our forum.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

My name is Mike Christensen and I am a member of the Mule Deer Committee. You can PM me with any ideas and I can also give you my email through PM. I welcome any input you might have. I will communicate with anyone through PM, email, visits or phone calls. Some issues will be within my control and some will be outside of it.

Some random thoughts after skimming through this thread--
I am not related to Deloss. (At least not that I know of) 
I have no control over how little or how much info is given to the public. 
I am not even sure if the meetings are open to the public.
There is a broad scope of "reps" on the Committee, actually a very good cross section of representation. 
The Committee has NO regulatory authority and anything we recommend to the UDWR may or may not be placed into the Mule Deer Management Plan. 
The public- every single citizen and even non-residents- will have the opportunity to express their opinions and lobby as they see fit through the RAC and Board process when the Plan is presented. The Committee is appointed, not elected, to recommend in an advisory role. That is it. 

If anyone out there has a silver bullet to grow more deer, I am all ears. Not more bucks. Not more inches. More deer. More doe. More doe having fawns. More fawns living to adulthood. That is what the goal of the Mule Deer Management Plan should be. There are social issues to deal with and a struggling species too limited for the demand. So there will be "Buck Management" issues to consider. I like to hunt mule deer and so do my kids. That should let you know where I stand on the issue of buck hunting.

I look forward to your input. PM me.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Random

My intent was to demonstrate that the information was not easily available. Just because they will give it to you if you ask, does not mean the process is public by any means. Now if people don't know about the committee, or its members, or how to contact them, how do they even know that they need to ask the UDWR for that information? How did you know? Seriously, how did you know?


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Thanks to those involved. I would love to see a sticky thread somewhere on here where we get updates from Packout and elkfromabove (plus any other members of the committee) without all the whining. Is that possible? Mods, is there a way to allow only those guys to post that way we don't have to sift through "other stuff"? Is it just me or do others think that would be nice?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

JuddCT said:


> Thanks to those involved. I would love to see a sticky thread somewhere on here where we get updates from Packout and elkfromabove (plus any other members of the committee) without all the whining. Is that possible? Mods, is there a way to allow only those guys to post that way we don't have to sift through "other stuff"? Is it just me or do others think that would be nice?


I think that is a great idea


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

I think it would be nice so they could give their opinions without thinking they need to fight with anyone. Then we could PM or email then to convey our thoughts.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Lonetree said:


> Random
> 
> My intent was to demonstrate that the information was not easily available. Just because they will give it to you if you ask, does not mean the process is public by any means. Now if people don't know about the committee, or its members, or how to contact them, how do they even know that they need to ask the UDWR for that information? How did you know? Seriously, how did you know?


Well, those who have been involved use to vote for some committee members at the RAC.

For everyone else, honestly, if you aren't on this forum or know someone who is, then you may not know much. If you follow things, the "committee" is mentioned often.

I apreciate you starting the thread, honestly. It is how you do it that bothers me. I would argue the information is hard to get. You read up on mule deer, say "where do they get his plan?" Email the DWR and ask some questions. Can't always expect information to slap you in the face. Takes a little thought.

Be proactive. But yes, I agree, it isn't on a billboard. Most people honestly do not care, which is wrong.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

most people don't even know there is a problem. It doesn't make it wrong necessarily. Many are uninformed. Some are misinformed. Some think they can learn it all from Uncle Ted because he has always hunted and must know more. I can assure you, with regards to wildlife management, I have learned more from this forum in the past two years than I had learned in the previous 30 years being a hunter. I never felt like I was wrong before and I always cared.

One thing I can tell you though, if a guy wearing a hat with SFW on it hands a kid a fishing pole at a city pond and helps him learn to fish for a few hours, that kid and his parents are going to brag up the SFW and blindly support anything and everything they do for a long time. If somebody wins a tag at the Expo they are pretty much fans for life.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

As I stated earlier, some you wouldn't trust with
The soggy ham sammich, and then there's Mike C. 

Judd respectful debate has it's place. I'm opportunist
And what's best for wildlife 100% and like I said before
My opinion carries no more weight that the guy that
Is for 50 to 100 buck to doe ratio and is happy pulling
A tag every ten years does. 

Packout taught me a valuable lesson years ago about
Getting past my petty squabbles concerning weapon types and
Dividing hunters. Does nobody any good especially wildlife. 
Without that healthy respectful debate I'd still be chasing that idiocy. 

I did file the GRAMA request as promised and
Have received the first round of data. 
Once meeting minutes and other pertinent data 
Start coming in I will post every bit of it. 

I've always had the philosophy that hunter apathy
Will be the downfall of hunting and wildlife as we 
Know it. I proposed an idea years back to the wildlife
Board that forced hunter input is better than no, or one sided
Hunter input is. Basically the idea was after, or if you provide
A combo or hunting license number, before you were allowed
To make hunt selections for bucks and bulls you had to answer
10 pertinent questions. This would be hunter opinion from all. 
Statistically once a certain number of returns are done
The amount after that would just be contributing to trends. This would
Bring in input from hunters that have no idea what a RAC meeting is
Or who is on the wildlife board. Right now this ain't happening. 

I say keep the debate open and stay respectful. At least the committee
Knows some people are watching.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> most people don't even know there is a problem. It doesn't make it wrong necessarily. Many are uninformed. Some are misinformed. Some think they can learn it all from Uncle Ted because he has always hunted and must know more. I can assure you, with regards to wildlife management, I have learned more from this forum in the past two years than I had learned in the previous 30 years being a hunter. I never felt like I was wrong before and I always cared.
> 
> One thing I can tell you though, if a guy wearing a hat with SFW on it hands a kid a fishing pole at a city pond and helps him learn to fish for a few hours, that kid and his parents are going to brag up the SFW and blindly support anything and everything they do for a long time. If somebody wins a tag at the Expo they are pretty much fans for life.


 Thanks for the subtle fishing pole advice. We need to be much more visible. (We'll pass on the EXPO tags, however.)


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Mule, I didn't mean being misinformed was wrong. I mean most people that whine on here don't actually attend meetings or get involved. That's what I mean by most people don't care.... Wasn't sure if you were replying to my post...


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

RandomElk16 said:


> Mule, I didn't mean being misinformed was wrong. I mean *most people that whine on here don't actually attend meetings or get involved*. That's what I mean by most people don't care.... Wasn't sure if you were replying to my post...


Really? And you know this because? I find just the opposite is true. Many, many folks I've spoken with who are 'whining' on the forums are the ones who ARE inolved most. The ones who don't go to racs, or wildlife board meetings and such are the folks who don't live and breathe hunting like many of us who frequent the forums do, and that is unfortunate. Don Peay is said to have called those hunters the 'Occupy' hunters who don't deserve a say so in how are wildlife is managed a few short years ago at one of SFW's town hall meetings. I have a hunch that motivated a few to step up to the plate.

Mike,

Thanks for the info and your offer to speak to those who have thoughts on how to help grow our mule deer. You'll be hearing from me, as will some of the other committee members.

Like Gordy said, debate is healthy, and doing so over and over, regardless if some folks think "here we go again", is also healthy and keeps the information and debate at the fore front.

I like your idea as well Judd. It will be interesting to see what transpires with this MD committee, and how things work through the system. I will not, however, hold my breath in hope that more than the status quo will be accomplished: this is Utah afterall, and we have an ingrained way of doing things that is repeated over, and over, and over, and over, and over...


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

I am okay with debate, but start your own thread. It isn't that hard.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

elkfromabove said:


> Thanks for the subtle fishing pole advice. We need to be much more visible. (We'll pass on the EXPO tags, however.)


I wasn't suggesting to acquire the tags but if they are given then out and one came out the SFW pocket and went into that of UWC, why not raffle one off that goes towards the hunt of something like a wounded warrior or something similar? I have a hard time believing that they are going to go away at this point. Fighting the good fight may not be fruitful for very long. It may come to the point that going along and doing something better with it will win more allies.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Good point stillhunter. I do not know, but on RAC recaps or meeting postings I see a large number of very vocal members post things saying they can't make it, etc... So assumptions start with... 

I guess I just was surprised at my first rac, still am, that i pass more people on the highways headed up fr opening day then I see at the RAC. And thats one season and one small area.


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> most people don't even know there is a problem. It doesn't make it wrong necessarily. Many are uninformed. Some are misinformed. Some think they can learn it all from Uncle Ted because he has always hunted and must know more. I can assure you, with regards to wildlife management, I have learned more from this forum in the past two years than I had learned in the previous 30 years being a hunter. I never felt like I was wrong before and I always cared.
> 
> One thing I can tell you though, if a guy wearing a hat with SFW on it hands a kid a fishing pole at a city pond and helps him learn to fish for a few hours, that kid and his parents are going to brag up the SFW and blindly support anything and everything they do for a long time. If somebody wins a tag at the Expo they are pretty much fans for life.


I won a tag at the expo one year and I don't think that I qualify as a SFW fan for life.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

hawkeye said:


> I won a tag at the expo one year and I don't think that I qualify as a SFW fan for life.


I know it is a slippery slope and even commenting on any of it has brought on angry PM's and arguments with friends. In my mind though if people pay into the convention tags trying to win one, any arguments they have against the system is going to fall on deaf ears to me.

If a person can't muster the fortitude to back their own beliefs by their actions their beliefs are for conversation only.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Does anybody else find this to be a bit over the top?

http://www.huntexpo.com/permitResults.html

http://www.sfw.net/permits.asp


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> I wasn't suggesting to acquire the tags but if they are given then out and one came out the SFW pocket and went into that of UWC, why not raffle one off that goes towards the hunt of something like a wounded warrior or something similar? I have a hard time believing that they are going to go away at this point. Fighting the good fight may not be fruitful for very long. It may come to the point that going along and doing something better with it will win more allies.


Problem is, they won't come out of the SFW pool. The more organizations that go in for tags, the more Don and other swill just lobby for more tags, or increased fees, or both.

So big props to the UWC for sticking to this. I honestly can't say that I would found an org, and restrict myself in that way. It deserves commendation.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

elkfromabove said:


> Other than some blushing, per the posts above, I personally had no problem with everyone knowing I am on the committee, but there are others who felt they would rather not be swamped by crank phone calls/emails/media blogs/etc. from people who take differences in opinions personally (Thankfully, it hasn't happened to me, knock on wood, even though I am prepared for it.) and by mutual agreement we were cautioned to be careful about posting info on the internet lest it affect our relationships on the committee. We have to work together and we must keep our conversations civil in order to do that.
> 
> As far as I'm able to observe, all those who represent the listed entities are representing those entities and not their own personal affiliations (I'm also a member of MDF). I suppose we can't totally dismiss those other affiliations, but when that becomes obvious we are reminded by the chair and others to remember who we represent.
> 
> ...


 Since I have yet to receive an email, let me make my offer clear. Whatever your positions regarding mule deer management, the issues you're concerned about will likely come up sometime in the discussions and I can pretty much guarantee you that a stack of printed emails will carry more weight (pardon the pun), than a bunch of anonymous posts on an internet forum. Help me make our cases per our mission statement (below) or convince me that we're wrong (either way, keep it civil, logical, and most of all, scientific). You can still make a difference even if you didn't get the survey.

Thanks, Lee ([email protected])

"In recognition of our civic duty to take an active interest in wildlife conservation, the mission of the United Wildlife Cooperative is to promote responsible and informed participation in the creation of sustainable and biologically sound management regulations, and to lobby for the welfare of wildlife and our proud fishing and hunting traditions."

PS: The other members of the committee would welcome your input as well, as would the RAC's and Wildlife Board. Please get involved more than on this forum.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

FYI, as part of Utah GRAMA Law, the upcoming
Mule deer plan will remain in a "Draft" status until
November. Meaning this document will not be released
Until it is considered "Final" at that time. 

This being said, I would hope that some of the Sportsmen's 
Groups we all belong to would seek member input.


----------

