# UWC - Update E-mail sent out



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Got this the other day and kept forgetting to pass it along:



UWC said:


> Dear United Wildlife Cooperative (UWC) members,
> 
> Please know that we as officers and staff really appreciate your membership and recognize that *you are the key to UWC's existence and success! *We hope you realize that as well.
> 
> ...


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Yeah I got that too last week.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

No email from them and I just looked and the web site is still down.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

Critter said:


> No email from them and I just looked and the web site is still down.


I have not got any emails from them for some years. I will say this you can kill that group bye now.


----------



## GeTaGrip (Jun 24, 2014)

Um................. -O,-


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

GeTaGrip said:


> Um................. -O,-


 ????


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I guess that they know who has the money here on the forum and who doesn't.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

Critter said:


> No email from them and I just looked and the web site is still down.


The website worked for me.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

I'm so poor I can't even pay attention....
(somebody had to say it)


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

bowgy said:


> The website worked for me.


For some reason my link had a extra "welcome.html" on the end of it.



LostLouisianian said:


> I'm so poor I can't even pay attention....
> (somebody had to say it)


How about a loan?


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

That whole message has parts that hit me funny.. but maybe they are a good group and I just am reading the message wrong.


" with getting a mandated 30% of the EXPO permit application fees returned to wildlife projects" 

were they responsible for that? Not a huge achievement.. should be 100%!!


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Random 

On the surface, I agree that the figures seem low. It's amazing how much work it takes to move the needle as it is a multi point balance scale hidden in politicking with these kinds of things. 

You'd be amazed how much time has been spent to even accomplish that number


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Sometime early last summer I told Lee to pull his head out of his butt or something like that and I haven't seen an email from UWC since then.:mrgreen:
I just want to let Lee publicly know that was uncalled for, so I apologize.
Now can I be part of the club again?:-?


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Is the UWC still involved in the deer relocations?

.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

wyogoob said:


> Is the UWC still involved in the deer relocations?
> 
> .


Seems like it was last spring that they helped with that? Time blends together in my mind...


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Personally I will hold out donating anything. I have read the "have not been in the public eye as much as we would like" a few too many times now. Having reached out to offer help on more than one occasion and getting no response didn't sit too well with me for some reason. If their efforts are pointed in the right direction and they get more public and show some success I may change my mind at some point.


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> If their efforts are pointed in the right direction and they get more public and show some success I may change my mind at some point.


I'm with Mr. M on that...till then....the UWTCP is getting all my $$.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Same here. I've been too passive in my involvement with the situation here in Utah. I'd really like to be a part of a local organization that generally represents the things I value. I haven't seen enough(any) real organization from UWC. If asking for a monetary commitment(which is fine), I want to evaluate tangible things going on currently before committing or joining any organization. BHA and RMEF seem like good options on a national level. Don't know a whole lot about the local chapters and their positions and involvement in the local public lands issues.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

I think you guys are on the right track. Contributing $ to any organization that you feel will benefit wildlife and sportsmen is fantastic in my eyes.

I used to help out with the UWC and really admire those guys. For the longest time, they operated on a purely volunteer basis which is theoretically sunshine and rainbows, but unfortunately those hopes and dreams only carry you so far. 

My perception (although I am not sure this is true) is that operating with virtually no capital was causing the organization to struggle due to the time commitment that the Board had made in operating the organization. Ultimately this lead to a restructuring which took longer than most of us would have liked, but I am glad to see that they are making the effort once again.

I'd love to hear from Lee to see what their action plan is to better hunting in Utah, specifically focused on the deer population and buck to doe ratios.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

Bax* said:


> I think you guys are on the right track. Contributing $ to any organization that you feel will benefit wildlife and sportsmen is fantastic in my eyes.
> 
> I used to help out with the UWC and really admire those guys. For the longest time, they operated on a purely volunteer basis which is theoretically sunshine and rainbows, but unfortunately those hopes and dreams only carry you so far.
> 
> ...


all you will get from him is they agree with the with everything the dwr wants. I have asked them many question and they have not answered ether one. From what I have seen and heard the are just going with what ever is brought to the table.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

dkhntrdstn said:


> all you will get from him is they agree with the with everything the dwr wants. I have asked them many question and they have not answered ether one. From what I have seen and heard the are just going with what ever is brought to the table.


Dustin,

when you and I were over there, you were our waterfowl guy. Do you know if this is still a piece of the org?


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Let me also say, I don't fault one guy for not being able to be everywhere and do everything. I just haven't seen or heard enough recently to make a decision to pay money to UWC over a few other choices given the information currently available.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

The reason for my initial post, and as an outsider, here is how I feel.

1. I have never been solicited to join UWC - or seen their accomplishments - yet I feel like a fairly active member of the hunting community. This makes me believe they have not been a very involved group. Individual accolades of board members don't speak loud enough for an inactive group.

2. I hadn't seen solicitations for donations, but have seen them brought up in a number of threads were questions are asked with no answer - and help is offered with no reception.

3. They hit Non-profit status, so they begin asking for money. Not just money, but the same amount of money has proven conservation organizations like RMEF (who also gives you a knife, stickers, magazine).... They up the ante by asking for that TIMES the total members in your household. Most houses I know are 5 members, or $175 donation. That is a large request in the first email to members in ages, with no real gameplan. Non profits as we all know certainly get administration fees. So now that they are tax exempt they are ready to pull in the big bucks. I get it, but I perceive it negatively.



This isn't to bash. Hopefully somebody with a voice in the organization and reads this + uses it has an opportunity to know what myself, and I am sure a number of the public, might be feeling. I don't believe I am a complete outlier.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

As part of this forum I have been aware of UWC, but to be honest I haven't paid a lot of attention. 

In my mind, their mandate seems to broad. Do they focus on fish? Big game species? Birds? At the end of the day I believe I'll keep my efforts and funds associated with an org that specifically targets the animals I care about most.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

rather than change the buck to doe ratio and something so broad as to "improve habitat" or "increase hunting opportunity" might I be so bold as to suggest something simple.......start where the rubber meets the road. 

Teach kids how to fish, ice fishing, fishing derbies etc.....
Teach kids and their parents the fun of target shooting. Guns and Bows. Maybe self defense.
Organize some rabbit hunts. The population is going to crash very soon regardless.
Garbage clean up contest at shooting areas.......

You want to protect our heritage by asking for some money???????? Invest it in our future. SFW has a stronghold on the present already. What we need is less people at the table and more people helping getting the kids shoes dirty.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Heck B,

You and I both started doing this with UWC and lots of volunteers came from right here and the BFT forum, I'm sure we could get something like that going again.

The support was overwhelming last time.



Mr Muleskinner said:


> rather than change the buck to doe ratio and something so broad as to "improve habitat" or "increase hunting opportunity" might I be so bold as to suggest something simple.......start where the rubber meets the road.
> 
> Teach kids how to fish, ice fishing, fishing derbies etc.....
> Teach kids and their parents the fun of target shooting. Guns and Bows. Maybe self defense.
> ...


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

RandomElk16 said:


> The reason for my initial post, and as an outsider, here is how I feel.
> 
> 1. I have never been solicited to join UWC - or seen their accomplishments - yet I feel like a fairly active member of the hunting community. This makes me believe they have not been a very involved group. Individual accolades of board members don't speak loud enough for an inactive group.
> 
> ...


It looks like I've got an all-nighter (or a two-dayer) trying to answer all the questions. Most of the founders and board members quit posting on the internet because no matter what they posted, it was never the right answer and they advised me to do the same. But, of course, I tend to think outside the box and was (and still am) under the impression that when I'm asked a question it's because someone wants my honest answer. I realize that's not always the case and I have no delusions that my answers are going to make much difference with the questioners either, but then, I seldom post for the benefit of the questioner. I post to give another perspective to the many viewers who are on the sidelines watching. Whether or not you agree with me (or UWC) then becomes your choice and there isn't much I can do about it other than to apologize for any unintentional mistake or impression I made in the answer.

I'll do my best to answer this post and others, but it would take forever to even mention all the scenerios, let alone explain them, so I'll take the questions one by one. And I'm gonna go backwards just for the trouble it'll cause. You're asking whole lot of questions, most of them unrelated to each other, but like stocking a supermarket, maybe you'll buy something that's sticking out in the aisle.

Let me start by saying that, as I'm finding out, starting and maintaining a nonprofit organization is a whole lot harder, more complicated and time consuming than I ever thought possible. And the challenges we (and I) have experienced have been unbelievable. I'll be the first to admit that others could have done things better and quicker, but the task was offered to me and I took it because I believe in the cause enough to want to keep it alive. For whatever reason, no one else was offered the job and no one else accepted it. I did the best I knew how and the past is what it is and can't be changed. Now let's get started.

1. I have no idea why you haven't been solicited to be a member but the opportunity has existed since we started. In fact, UWC was founded by members of this forum (and Bowhunters of Utah) and we've posted here in some form or another since our founding. Maybe you just haven't noticed .And I suspect you haven't noticed our achievements for the same reason. I've personally kept a thread going for 3 years with 56 updates on the Parowan Deer transplants and later, the Antelope Island deer transplants. There also have been threads on the EXPO tag application fee changes which we initiated. Additionally, we've had some of our events on TV and we've/I've been to almost every Wildlife Board meeting and many RAC meetings. It's true that we've never been a high profile group and maybe that's been one of our downfalls which we'll have to fix.

2. We haven't solicited for donations before now because the founders felt that to ask for dues for an unknown new group would be counterproductive to growing membership, especially since they hadn't yet achieved non-profit status, and once that was decided, it became difficult to change it. Additionally, the process of achieving non-profit status with both the State of Utah and the IRS turned out to be much more cumbersome, complicated and time consuming than they realized and they had to tell members that their donations were not tax deductible while UWC's applications for 501(c)(3) and Utah Consumer Protection no-profit status were supposedly being processed (Utah's was, IRS's was not. It was put on hold for an additional $100 fee amount unknown to UWC that increased after they filled out the application.) That required disclosure took it's toll on memberships and donations. Additionally, they were not legally allowed to solicit outside of the members in ANY way for ANY funds, services, goods, materials or favors. That shut down sponsorships.

Yes, questions were asked, but UWC officers couldn't give answers because they didn't know themselves what the answers were. And by then, most of them quit posting because they were tired of the time spent trying to defend UWC's positions on the internet. They all had young families to raise and full time jobs. (I have neither.)

As for the offers to help, yes, we dropped the ball and we need to do much better. Any suggestions? I don't have much leadership experience, especially delegating. That's one reason I try to do too much. How about a volunteer assignment coordinator. Any takers? For that matter, we're in desperate need of a Website manager and a membership data tech. Any takers there?

One thing I've noticed is that sometimes people don't want to get involved with an organization that is struggling. They want one that's up and running on all 4's. In other words, they want to join one that doesn't really need them anymore. I've got a friend who owns a large business whom I've approached several times for sponsorship, but he always asks two things. Do our members pay dues? And have I already asked someone else to help out? When I tell him no which I have on four occasions then he says to do those things first and then he'll help. I won't ask him a fifth time.

3. Yes, we waited until we hit non-profit status before asking for money because we wanted to keep it legal and more attractive. We already paid the State of Utah a $250 fine for soliciting without a license because I inadvertently asked a member to find some sponsors for a planned activity and he got several commitments but no money, services or goods. I didn't realize until later that our State license had expired and I told him to stop immediately and not to collect anything, which he did. Upon applying for our license renewal, I volunteered that information on the application form and they begin an investigation while holding up our application. I had to provide them the emails I sent to the member and they took their time with the investigation, so we had to cancel the event. Fortunately, they reduced the fine from $1000 to $250 because I volunteered the information and there were no victims. But it has kept us under the microscope ever since and we're not taking any chances.

Also, you apparently didn't read the letter close enough. We are asking for A (one) $30 annual dues for the WHOLE family. For a family of 5 that's $6 each. And if they donate for 2 or 5 years, they get a discount per year ($25/$5 each) and there's a prize offered for each category which is accumulative. In other words, for a $30 donation they get a 1 year FAMILY membership dues/subsciption and 1 prize and for a $50 donation they get a 2 year FAMILY membership dues/subscription and 2 prizes and for a $125 donation they get a 5 year FAMILY membership dues/subscription to our newsletter and all 3 prizes. And, of course, it's now fully tax deductible for both state and Federal taxes.

And FWIW, unlike the other conservation organizations you refer to, NONE of UWC's officers or staff or advisors are salaried, We occasionally get reimbursed for expenses when we travel to represent UWC or for personal expenses we may use for UWC materials, food, or prizes , but otherwise, we're non-paid volunteers, just like you. In fact, in 2014 per my 1040, it *cost* me $1,075.44 to be UWC's President because UWC couldn't afford to reimburse me. Anybody want my job? Lousy pay and not much sleep, but the solitude is great!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Bax* said:


> Heck B,
> 
> You and I both started doing this with UWC and lots of volunteers came from right here and the BFT forum, I'm sure we could get something like that going again.
> 
> The support was overwhelming last time.


 Yes, the support was overwhelming last time, but as you know, Luke, it didn't last, because the same few people ended up financing it and doing most of the work. I know at least one of the founders spent over $5,000 trying to keep it going. When people figured out they could play without much effort or cost, that's what they begin doing. Not only did the money drop off, the volunteering did also because they no longer had a dog in the fight. Hopefully our dues structure will change that. I guess we'll find out soon enough.

Per our official financial record as submitted to the IRS and State of Utah on our non-profit applications:
2011- income- $7,892--- expenses-$6,254 ($5,083 in mission projects)
2012- income-$12,799---expenses-$12,504 ($7,942 in mission projects)
2013- income- $4,434--- expenses-$6,677 ($5,128 in mission projects)
2014- income- $4,983--- expenses-$4,150 ($2,750 in mission projects)

totals- income- $30,108--expenses-$29,585 ($20,903 in mission projects)

Of course we could always do what the other conservation organizations do and steal and market tags from the public and pay their leaders 6 figure incomes AND still continue to charge membership dues! What duya think?:mrgreen:


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> rather than change the buck to doe ratio and something so broad as to "improve habitat" or "increase hunting opportunity" might I be so bold as to suggest something simple.......start where the rubber meets the road.
> 
> Teach kids how to fish, ice fishing, fishing derbies etc.....
> Teach kids and their parents the fun of target shooting. Guns and Bows. Maybe self defense.
> ...


 We're on it already!

We've secured a booth at the Ultimate Outdoor Expo in St George on New Years Day and the day after where we're going to teach youth and adults how to use calls (all kinds of calls). We'll be noisy as H*** and have a great time. Then we'll do it again at the Maverik Center in May. Additionally, Carlyle, our VP is working on a youth ice fishing event on Panguitch Lake. It's hard to find a Saturday that isn't already busy so we may have to team up with the City of Panguitch or the LDS Region of Explorers, but we'll make it happen somehow. Additionally, our Southern Region DWR folks have invited us to join them this spring in the annual youth fishing contest for tagged fish at Woods Ranch, a local Community Pond. They need the manpower and contest prizes. We have other ideas, but most of them are in Southern Utah at this point. Hopefully we'll get enough paying/dedicated members to spread around a lot more.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Kwalk3 said:


> Let me also say, I don't fault one guy for not being able to be everywhere and do everything. I just haven't seen or heard enough recently to make a decision to pay money to UWC over a few other choices given the information currently available.


You were one of the potential volunteers I feel most sad about. Kelly reminded me about your offer when I paid him an old UWC debt and I even asked him for your info which he gave me, but this old forgetful geezer misplaced the paper somehow and just went on my merry way since I had no reminder. And your implication is correct. I obviously can't do it all myself and the older I get the slower I get. Maybe this is the wake up call I needed to dampen my pride and seek more help. Thanks.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Dahlmer said:


> As part of this forum I have been aware of UWC, but to be honest I haven't paid a lot of attention.
> 
> In my mind, their mandate seems to broad. Do they focus on fish? Big game species? Birds? At the end of the day I believe I'll keep my efforts and funds associated with an org that specifically targets the animals I care about most.


And my view is just the opposite. That's what I liked about the UWC name and logo. I can mentally put ANY animal in those tracks even if they do look like big game. That's one thing that makes SFW so successful. They draw in every type of hunter and fisherman. Except for the fact that I now know more about them, even I'd have been tempted to join them a few years back. Additionally, there are way too many commonalities between species to stay exclusively targeted on one of them and way too many average all around outdoorsmen to ignore them.

That's what I loved about archery hunting statewide. I could hunt deer and elk on the same unit and maybe even the same water hole as my pronghorn tag. That's all changed thanks to SFW. And who fought them? UWC among a few others. We obviously lost, but at least we fought back. (And, BTW, it's not over yet. Last year when I proposed a return to Statewide archery deer hunting at the Southern RAC. I was told that it wasn't the time yet.)

And the EXPO tag fiasco which includes 10 species? UWC was the ONLY organization that fought that. We were the ones who petitioned to get the issue on the Aug 16, 2012 Wildlife Board agenda. We were the ones who made the presentation of a 90% wildlife/10% organization split like the Conservation tags. We were the ones who secured a series of closed meetings with DWR, MDF, SFW, Wildlife Board and UWC. We were the ones who got SFW and MDF to commit to a supposedly temporary 30% return until we could make the amount permanent through the RAC and Wildlife Board system. We were the only opposition at those meetings. (I don't know how many meetings were scheduled, but I do know that we weren't invited to some of them and they decided that 30% was enough.) We were the ONLY holdout at a special meeting held Oct 23, 2014 between UWC, DWR, MDF, SFW, RMEF, UBA, WB (and maybe some others, I don't remember) and we were the ONLY wildlife group there not marketing Conservation tags. The official invitation called for ONE rep, but SFW had 4, RMEF had 2, MDF had 2, and DWR had 2 or 3, and each one had their turn at me with most of them assuring me that they weren't ganging up on me or UWC. I simply said that since UWC wasn't privy to some of the meetings, we wouldn't agree to any number until we had a chance to talk it over in a board/staff meeting. I then heard "That sounds like a threat", but I couldn't say who said it. I told them it wasn't meant as a threat, only as a position. Subsequently, we decided to allow the 30%/70% split, but in reverse. With 70% to wildlife and 30% to the organization and this was presented at the first two RAC's. Of course it was shot down. Then on the advice of a Central RAC member (No, not our own Kris Marble), who saw our plight at the Central RAC, we dropped our proposal to 50%/50% for the other 3 RAC's. Of course that was also too much and consequently all 5 RAC's and the Wildlife Board voted with MDF/SFW and we ended up the current 30% wildlife/70% MDF/SFW. We didn't get what we thought was fair, but UWC was the ONLY organization that openly fought for the wildlife increase. I guess that RMEF had other plans to make it right (good for them) and they have the necessary qualifications (showing you know how to market Conservation tags) while UWC does not, nor ever will as long as I'm President.

We are also currently involved to a lesser degree and supportive of the fight to keep public lands out of the hands of the states. While the petition to grab those NFS and BLM lands sounds good to most people on the surface, it would end up being a disaster for the lifestyle of sportsmen and a financial disaster for Utah citizens. And this fight effects ALL wildlife species including non-game.

Well, maybe I haven't changed you mind, but at least you know there are people who have broader views of wildlife issues.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Bax* said:


> Dustin,
> 
> when you and I were over there, you were our waterfowl guy. Do you know if this is still a piece of the org?


 No, not now. We moved our waterfowl guy, Gordy Bell, to the board and the position is open.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

dkhntrdstn said:


> all you will get from him is they agree with the with everything the dwr wants. I have asked them many question and they have not answered ether one. From what I have seen and heard the are just going with what ever is brought to the table.


Yes, we agree with them a lot, for several reasons.

1. They are trained, experienced, dedicated professionals who are as up to date as any biologists in the west. And they have a view of the whole picture, not just the little dingy fix-it-now issues most of us have. They constantly talk with each other about the things they see in the field and the newest developments. Plus they recognize and value the five sides of the pentagon required when making a decision regarding wildlife (Biological, Technological, Legal, Financial, Social). Their decisions come after much consideration.
2. They are as dedicated to hunting and fishing as any of us and they are required to do what we all are required to do to obtain tags and harvest game. They know that what's good for the goose is good for the gander and they can't make a decision that hurts us without it hurting them.
3. Where do you think they get some of their ideas? This year they have decided to allow an archery elk tag to be a qualifying tag to hunt your doe deer tag during the archery elk season via the additional opportunity rule. Since the 30 unit deer nonsense, only your archery buck deer tag was a qualifying tag. In other words, you could only hunt the doe during archery season in the same area as your buck tag. So if your doe tag was for the Parowan Front but your archery buck tag was for Zion, you were SOL. But now you can use your archery elk tag as the qualifying tag and since you can hunt elk in any unit, it's legal to shot the doe during archery elk season. I made this proposal 2 years ago and again last year but was shut down hard both times. Wahlah! Somebody gave it some thought and put it in this year's proposal. I didn't say anything because I didn't want to stir the pot and have it come up to the top, but I thanked them afterward. Of course I'm going to support my own idea.
4. Many times we support the proposal with a disclaimer to visit the issue the following year if it turns out to be a bummer. And we have done just that. I can guarantee, we're not done with the lose of Statewide archery. 
5. In spite of the fact they're accused of being money hungry, I have yet to see evidence that making rules increases their incomes. They want what's best for wildlife just as you and I do.
6. If we see an obvious flaw in the presentation, we say so. I was at the Central RAC with our predator advisor Chad Coburn during the bear plan presentation and Chad had to correct Leslie 3 or 4 times on her statements and even the charts. And he was right. She changed them for the next RAC's. I didn't see anything, but Chad was on the Committee and he knew his stuff.

No, DWR isn't perfect, but I'll trust them any day of the week more than I trust some yahoo who knows how many deer there are on the 10 mile mountain range.

As for answering your questions, I've only seen one and it was a generic question about our view of the waterfowl plan and since we don't currently have an offical waterfowl advisor and I'm clueless about waterfowl issues, it was never discussed. Sorry, but we're not experts in everything and we have to rely on the DWR a lot to get information. Maybe it would be better for you to give us your opinion rather than for us to give you ours. Next time we'll flip the question.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Bax* said:


> I think you guys are on the right track. Contributing $ to any organization that you feel will benefit wildlife and sportsmen is fantastic in my eyes.
> 
> I used to help out with the UWC and really admire those guys. For the longest time, they operated on a purely volunteer basis which is theoretically sunshine and rainbows, but unfortunately those hopes and dreams only carry you so far.
> 
> ...


 I guess it depends on what you consider "better" hunting. Our plan is to create more opportunity, not more trophies at the expense of opportunity. If your goal is to make it easier to find a monster buck, then you have to leave more of them on the hill for a longer period of time. In order to do that you have cut or limit buck tags even more beyond the biological need than they already are. That's fine and even preferable for Limited Entry units and CWMU 's because that's how they are supposed to be managed. But General units aren't supposed to be managed that way. They are supposed to be managed for more opportunity and lower buck to doe ratios and that how we want them managed. Ironically, some of Utah's biggest bucks live and die on general units. Not as many perhaps, but enough to make a worthwhile hunt for most people.

When they increased some population objectives and buck to doe ratios in the Southern Region, at the WB meeting I specifically objected and took the approach of asking a redundant question during the comment period. I told them my comment was in that form and they needn't respond. I asked, "So, are we now just going to increase population objectives and buck to doe ratios instead of issuing tags to bring those units back in line with the objectives stated in the Mule deer plan?" It must of hit a nerve 
because a few months later NONE of the units in the Southeastern Region had increases in populations objectives or buck to doe ratios even though some of them were over objectives. Now, will they issue more tags? I guess we'll see in June.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

elkfromabove said:


> .
> 
> First, I really appreciate you taking the time to respond to me. I believe that responding to questions is great. It really is the only way we can gather an understanding on the UWC
> 
> ...


See red.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Personally I will hold out donating anything. I have read the "have not been in the public eye as much as we would like" a few too many times now. Having reached out to offer help on more than one occasion and getting no response didn't sit too well with me for some reason. If their efforts are pointed in the right direction and they get more public and show some success I may change my mind at some point.


This will answer several posts. While being in the public eye has its advantages, it obviously carries some heavy expectations as well and it's tough to continue meeting those expectations. Nobody is right all the time and sometimes that makes or breaks a person or entity. They even riot in South America when their soccer team loses. If we can make the progress we're hoping to how long will you stay with us if we lose a few, especially at RAC and Wildlife Board meetings. And I'd be curious who you would go to. It's been some time since I've seen MDF or RMEF or DU or BHA or UBA or ? at consecutive Wildlife Board Meetings, but no so long for SFW or UWC.


----------



## nebocreel (Mar 18, 2014)

Its almost inevitable that if you are to grow and succeed UWC will have to have paid / salaried folks to carry their message. Volunteerism only goes so far. Most folks have full time jobs/commitments that make doing what Lee has been trying to do, next to impossible. He's been a champ at carrying UWC's message everywhere in the state. I admire his fortitude


----------



## nebocreel (Mar 18, 2014)

There are currently members from UBA, RMEF, and UWC on the Central RAC. They are very active in our RAC discussions.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

nebocreel said:


> Its almost inevitable that if you are to grow and succeed UWC will have to have paid / salaried folks to carry their message. Volunteerism only goes so far. Most folks have full time jobs/commitments that make doing what Lee has been trying to do, next to impossible. He's been a champ at carrying UWC's message everywhere in the state. I admire his fortitude


I agree 100%. I think it is more than commendable the amount of personal time, money and effort Lee has expended. I just personally have not seen enough at an organizational level recently to push me over the edge to donating money, time, etc. Not saying that is a decision that will not change in the future.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

elkfromabove said:


> This will answer several posts. While being in the public eye has its advantages, it obviously carries some heavy expectations as well and it's tough to continue meeting those expectations. Nobody is right all the time and sometimes that makes or breaks a person or entity. They even riot in South America when their soccer team loses. If we can make the progress we're hoping to how long will you stay with us if we lose a few, especially at RAC and Wildlife Board meetings. And I'd be curious who you would go to. It's been some time since I've seen MDF or RMEF or DU or BHA or UBA or ? at consecutive Wildlife Board Meetings, but no so long for SFW or UWC.


I am not sure if that question is inferring that I may still be with you. I am not. I have not seen anything in the way of a real plan moving forward and have seen nothing at all with regards to plans or activities in the northern part of the state. Aside from a catch all mission statement on a website that was last updated in April of 2012, it is difficult to see where the primary focus will be short and long term.

I appreciate the level of dedication required and the amount of work that you guys have put in on an individual basis. I will keep my eyes and ears open to see how things go in the future. To be honest and this is not intended to be abrasive or ruffle feathers......from the outside looking in, the UWC has had the appearance of a secretive private southern Utah mens club. Right now it comes off as some of the people on Shark Tank that want money but have no plan, vision or structure.

JMO


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Lee, Keep up the good work.

Everyone else. It is well known that I beat up on these guys relentlessly. Not that they are special, that's just what I do. I was one of about 20 people in the "secret" meeting when the UWC got underway.

As for accomplishments, that 30% is monumental when you put it in perspective. RMEF could not even get the Expo. But the UWC, along with someone else I like to pick on, got SFW, MDF, and the DWR to the table and made sure that that 30% was going to wildlife, and not just lining the pockets of the wildlife brokers. That is something that other Utah orgs just simply don't have the cajones to do. 

I'll be making my donation tonight. Maybe that will help get a plan rolling, or buy a backpack and some duct tape, and rope. Lots of rope, just keep reeling it out, as they keep taking more...........


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

Bax* said:


> Dustin,
> 
> when you and I were over there, you were our waterfowl guy. Do you know if this is still a piece of the org?


nope i dont think it is. That why I said that they just go with what the dwr wants. I have asked them about stuff with waterfowl and they wont answer my questions


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> Yes, we agree with them a lot, for several reasons.
> 
> 1. They are trained, experienced, dedicated professionals who are as up to date as any biologists in the west. And they have a view of the whole picture, not just the little dingy fix-it-now issues most of us have. They constantly talk with each other about the things they see in the field and the newest developments. Plus they recognize and value the five sides of the pentagon required when making a decision regarding wildlife (Biological, Technological, Legal, Financial, Social). Their decisions come after much consideration.
> 2. They are as dedicated to hunting and fishing as any of us and they are required to do what we all are required to do to obtain tags and harvest game. They know that what's good for the goose is good for the gander and they can't make a decision that hurts us without it hurting them.
> ...


Then if that the case why did you guys stand up and agree with what they was saying ? I know why So you guys can just try and get your name out there. Sorry but if you are going to stand up and say you agree with them. You better know what you are agreeing with and your members and other waterfowls want that.That was a stupid move on your guys part. Also not answering back to to the question saying. hey we do not have any body in the waterfowl part.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Hang in there, Lee! I'll donate, of course. And I suspect everybody will after all the harumphing and guffawing is done.

Rough seas ahead, folks! We're going to need all hands on deck.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

dkhntrdstn said:


> Then if that the case why did you guys stand up and agree with what they was saying ? I know why So you guys can just try and get your name out there. Sorry but if you are going to stand up and say you agree with them. You better know what you are agreeing with and your members and other waterfowls want that.That was a stupid move on your guys part. Also not answering back to to the question saying. hey we do not have any body in the waterfowl part.


Although we don't have an official waterfowl staff member, we can still rely on Gordy's advice when it comes to waterfowl and he continues to stay on top of the waterfowl issues. The fact that we never had a discussion or even an email from Gordy indicated to me that he had no issues with the waterfowl plan as presented. Besides, waterfowl regulations, both federal and state, are subject to change on a year to year basis, so if it turns out not to be the best move one year, we can review the results and propose changes the next year. And as I said earlier, we're willing to flip the roles, with you giving us your thoughts.

Edit: I'm sorry I used a poor choice of words when I wrote I was "clueless" about waterfowl issues. I didn't mean to imply that I/we don't care (I/we do) or that I didn't read the meeting packet (I did). It's just that nothing stood out as being seriously wrong with it and nobody but you has questioned our support either before or after the meeting. And even now you haven't told us where we made a mistake.

As far as getting our name out there, are you saying that's unethical and we shouldn't be doing it? That's what would be a stupid move. Besides, telling them who I represent gets me 5 minutes instead of only 3.


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

Right now with all of this expo sfw fiasco going on . Right now is the perfect opportunity for the uwc to earn the respect of Utah sportsman. It is by far the biggest problem facing utah sportsman if they took a hard stance and stood up for what is right I am sure the money and donations would follow. If you build it they will come


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

hazmat said:


> Right now with all of this expo sfw fiasco going on . Right now is the perfect opportunity for the uwc to earn the respect of Utah sportsman. It is by far the biggest problem facing utah sportsman if they took a hard stance and stood up for what is right I am sure the money and donations would follow. If you build it they will come


You have individuals that care about this topic sending emails to news affiliates the dwr legislators trying to come up with petitions. Perfect opportunity for an up and coming organization to help with that process and unify it .just saying


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

They want to defer to the DWR biologist for all wildlife management decisions. 

They poo poo coyote bounties and believe the deer herd is act capacity. They think a10/100 bd ratio is sufficient for a general hunt. 

Lastly they believe the 100,000 deer killed by cougar is a non factor. 

Ummm 

No thanks!


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I'm not a member of SFW and have no plans of becoming one either but here's my take on why I feel the UWC will never gain a lot of support until some of its leaders change their attitudes. 

The UWC see's me as a trophy hunter and therefore an enemy to their cause.
As with SFW, they see me as an average joe and therefore welcome me with open arms.
I hope people can see the problem there.
I will never donate a single dime again to UWC until their attitude changes and they stop trying to divide us hunters.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Lonetree said:


> Lee, Keep up the good work.
> 
> Everyone else. It is well known that I beat up on these guys relentlessly. Not that they are special, that's just what I do. I was one of about 20 people in the "secret" meeting when the UWC got underway.
> 
> ...


Thanks Josh,
Your tokens of our appreciation were sent yesterday. I hope you use two of them, but not the other two.

And I never have taken your sometimes raspy comments personally. While I still think your delivery tactics could use some toning down and while I don't agree with all of your solutions, I really appreciate your message that we need to consider more the biological side of wildlife issues and will continue to promote that as I did (or tried to do) on the Mule Deer Committee. In fact, I'd appreciate your take on how a transfer of public lands would or could play out biologically. Everyone seems so focused on access issues they forget about the possible biological effects of changes in spraying, fencing, fragmentation of habitat, mine tailings, oil spills, road dust, etc. I know it's complicated and speculative, but I've mentioned time and time again on this forum that there are ALWAYS unintended consequences of decisions we make regarding wildlife (and life in general, for that matter). You definitely think outside the box and there's no doubt that we've missed some things with this possible land transfer. Let's not highjack this thread, but let's talk about it publically or privately depending on how you choose.

Thanks again and Merry Christmas,
Lee


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

hazmat said:


> You have individuals that care about this topic sending emails to news affiliates the dwr legislators trying to come up with petitions. Perfect opportunity for an up and coming organization to help with that process and unify it .just saying


Thanks for your suggestion and confidence and although you aren't the first one to mention this possibility, it has been on our minds since SFW/MDF refused to raise their mandated contribution to wildlife above 30%.

The concern I have is related to our 60+ page IRS application. I won't disclose our concern, but you need to know there may be legal repercussions that could hamper our conservation efforts or even shut us down.

Now, having said that, I/we will seek legal advice and weigh our legal options for dealing with this EXPO tag/contract fiasco. If we decide to pursue it, you can bet we'll have some heavy (and lighter) opposition, probably from more than one source and we need assurance that we/you have the backing (financial, informational, legal, and social), and our/your supporters have the fortitude and patience necessary to make such a move. It won't be easy nor quick and it won't be just up to us to get it done! IT'S GOTTA BE YOUR FIGHT TOO! We'll let you know our decision some time in the next few weeks and leave it up to you. Regardless of our/your decision, we need to keep afloat to challenge or support the other proposals we'll hear in the coming months. Stuff will continue to happen!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Iron Bear said:


> They want to defer to the DWR biologist for all wildlife management decisions.
> 
> They poo poo coyote bounties and believe the deer herd is act capacity. They think a10/100 bd ratio is sufficient for a general hunt.
> 
> ...


Ya like to stretch things a bit to make your point, don't ya?

We chose to defer to the DWR biologist teams' expertise most of the time for the biological aspect of wildlife management decisions, because they are educated, trained, experienced and dedicated to their work and they constantly consult and work with biologist from the universities, colleges, BLM, NFS, NRCS, etc. in Utah as well as various agencies and entities nationwide. And also because they are hunters and fishermen themselves and they have to live under the same rules as the rest of us do. But the information needed for the other four aspects (legal, financial, social and technological) of all wildlife decisions can come from other sources, including some of our members and staff and even some of you.

We didn't "poo poo" the coyote bounties themselves. We didn't object to the bounties until SFW forced us to pay for them under the false claim that it protects mule deer. Every study I've ever seen, and I've seen most of them, indicates that you have to kill 70% of the coyotes in any area in order to gain any long term ground. You may make a short term difference by shooting more, but the d*mn things just fill in any vacant gaps left by the shootings and have bigger litters to make up for the increase in deer herds. They can survive under so many conditions it's nearly impossible to control them. Let SFW pay the bounties totally on their own if they are so sure it's worth it.

We don't believe *the deer herd* is at capacity. There are *38 deer herds *according to the mule deer plan and some are at or over population objectives (according to the mule deer plan) and some are not. All we're asking for is for the DWR (and hunters) to follow the mule deer plan and keep each deer herd at the population objective in the plan whether that means more tags or fewer.

UWC has NEVER said a 10/100 buck to doe ratio is sufficient. All we've said is that it is biologically sustainable on the low end and that the increases in buck to doe ratio objectives on general units to anything above 18 are socially/trophy motivated and shouldn't be raised. Again, all we're asking is for the DWR to follow the mule deer plan.

100,000 deer killed by cougars is a nonfactor? I beg your pardon, but I'm the one on the mule deer committee that suggested we integrate the members of the mule deer committee with cougar hunters and visa versa. You can't manage either species without direct input from hunters of the other species. That was adopted, but it was too late for the deer committee, but not too late for the cougar committee and our predator rep on the cougar committee, Chad Coburn, asked me what he needed to do and I instructed him (as if he needed it) to make sure the committee delved deeply into the cougar predation on the mule deer and that's what they did. Remember, they now had mule deer committee members on the cougar committee. I don't know the details, but Chad (and Leslie, DWR) assured me they had all the info needed to help the mule deer herds grow without killing too many cougars. If the cougar plan isn't to your liking, I'm sorry, but you're gonna hafta find someone else to blame, not UWC.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Can you elaborate on the cougar issue? What did your group propose as a reduction in the current population of Cougars as well as a target population level?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

ridgetop said:


> I'm not a member of SFW and have no plans of becoming one either but here's my take on why I feel the UWC will never gain a lot of support until some of its leaders change their attitudes.
> 
> The UWC see's me as a trophy hunter and therefore an enemy to their cause.
> As with SFW, they see me as an average joe and therefore welcome me with open arms.
> ...


 Yes, I hope they see the problem as well, the WHOLE problem, not your version of it.

While we may see you as a trophy hunter (I don't know your hunting philosophy), we don't see you as an enemy! What we see as the enemy is the mentality that pushes the trophy hunting philosophy at the expense of the opportunity hunting philosophy. We have some trophy hunters in our group and we welcome them, but they aren't trying to make every unit a trophy unit nor are they calling for reduced tag numbers for social reasons only. They aren't pushing for ever increasing buck to doe ratios, they aren't claiming a unit is nebulously "overcrowded", they don't advocate for more Limited Entry Units, they didn't call for deer unit archery hunting instead of statewide hunting under the guise of "fairness", they aren't calling for shortened seasons, antler point restrictions, and closing units. You're not the enemy unless you try to push your hunting philosophy on others with proposals that change their hunting opportunities in order to make it easier for you to get your trophy. You're not the problem, but your tactics may be, that's up to you!

Tell us again who is dividing hunters? Who's trying to make all the changes that further separate us? (Hunters were divided long before UWC existed! Why do you think we evolved in the first place per Option #2?) When's the last time UWC tried to make a Limited Entry Unit into a General Unit? When's the last time UWC tried to increase tags just for opportunity without considering biology? When's the last time UWC tried to reduce the unit buck to doe ratio below the ratio in the deer plan? When's the last time UWC tried to reduce the unit deer population below the population objective called for in the deer plan? The answer? NEVER! And we never will. We'll insist the DWR follow ALL of the deer ( and other species) plan including plans for General, LE, Premium LE, and CWMU units.

As far as our UWC leaders changing their attitude, I sure hope not! And I'm sure there are others, especially those who have met us.

Bottom line; You're more than welcome to your opinion of UWC, but you'd be more than welcome to join us, but not welcome to try to turn us into a trophy oriented organization. It ain't gonna happen under my watch!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

LostLouisianian said:


> Can you elaborate on the cougar issue? What did your group propose as a reduction in the current population of Cougars as well as a target population level?


I can't answer your specific question and I'll have to get back to you after I talk to Chad. But one thing you need to know about Chad. He was the former president of Utah Houndsmen and is a second or third generation houndsman and still loves to hunt cougars. If anyone loves to kill cougars, it's Chad and he's not about to wrecklessly advocate not increasing cougar tags if he thought it wasn't necessary. And, believe me, he ain't stupid about the issue. And, FWIW, he was originally recommended to me by Leslie McFarlane, DWR to serve on the Bear Committee, which he did, and subsequently requested by her to be on the Cougar Committee, which he also did.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

elkfromabove said:


> Thanks for your suggestion and confidence and although you aren't the first one to mention this possibility, it has been on our minds since SFW/MDF refused to raise their mandated contribution to wildlife above 30%.
> 
> The concern I have is related to our 60+ page IRS application. I won't disclose our concern, but you need to know there may be legal repercussions that could hamper our conservation efforts or even shut us down.
> 
> Now, having said that, I/we will seek legal advice and weigh our legal options for dealing with this EXPO tag/contract fiasco. If we decide to pursue it, you can bet we'll have some heavy (and lighter) opposition, probably from more than one source and we need assurance that we/you have the backing (financial, informational, legal, and social), and our/your supporters have the fortitude and patience necessary to make such a move. It won't be easy nor quick and it won't be just up to us to get it done! IT'S GOTTA BE YOUR FIGHT TOO! We'll let you know our decision some time in the next few weeks and leave it up to you. Regardless of our/your decision, we need to keep afloat to challenge or support the other proposals we'll hear in the coming months. Stuff will continue to happen!


I guess I'll wait to see what your/(our?) decision is here so I/(you?) can make our/we/(your) decision will be.

Make sense? Didn't think so.

There is zero doubt that this will be a fight. A tough, long fight against powerful people and organization's. We'll see if the UWC is up for joining that fight. I'll be watching to see. I'm not interested in joining another organization that isn't going to fight for me. I learned my lesson with DU and TU on that one.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Vanilla, stay tuned. Just understand what you are asking 
In this political arena and climate, breaking through the 
Hand job quorum won't be easy. 

I can absolutely assure you that every avenue is in play.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

I dropped my membership after the UWC announced its support of congressman Bishop's back door land grab attempt he call's the "Utah Public Lands Initiative". 
*As long as the UWC supports ANY form of land transfer from Fed to Utah control I must oppose you. *
*The UWC can not support land transfer from public to private (this is what the Utah land grab would ultimately do) and still claim to represent Utah hunters/anglers/sportsman, etc*
Change this stance and I'll rejoin in a minute.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

BPturkeys said:


> I dropped my membership after the UWC announced its support of congressman Bishop's back door land grab attempt he call's the "Utah Public Lands Initiative".
> *As long as the UWC supports ANY form of land transfer from Fed to Utah control I must oppose you. *
> *The UWC can not support land transfer from public to private (this is what the Utah land grab would ultimately do) and still claim to represent Utah hunters/anglers/sportsman, etc*
> Change this stance and I'll rejoin in a minute.


Really?
Hey Wiley, why don't you share with the fine folks on this forum how your "f-ing done with the DWR", like you did over on Monster Muleys in the last couple days. 
Nice to see a board member of UWC take such a bold stance.
Got to make Lee real proud.
So Lee, it sounds like it's OK to be a trophy hunter, as long as they agree with your line of thought.
You really need to come out and just say that your fight is with the Southern Utah SFW chapter or at least that's what it looks like to me.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

BP, I was the UWC Rep on this committee. 

You have inaccurate information. 

There was no support from UWC for the Bishop PLI. 

If you would care to see my email correspondence to the group
Please send me either your email address or your cell number. I'd be happy
To forward or screen shot and text the data.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Make up your mind Ridge. Either I'm a DWR puppet 
Or I'm done with them. Which line of thought do you wish
Me to pursue??


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Cat got your tongue Ridge??


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Wiley. I really appreciate what y'all are doing but be careful. Those types of folks don't play fair and fight dirty. Make sure you print out any and all electronic correspondence and keep multiple copies in various places. Recorded all phone calls as well. I know how those people operate and they'll do most anything to keep their millions coming in. Just be careful and cya.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

BPturkeys said:


> I dropped my membership after the UWC announced its support of congressman Bishop's back door land grab attempt he call's the "Utah Public Lands Initiative".
> *As long as the UWC supports ANY form of land transfer from Fed to Utah control I must oppose you. *
> *The UWC can not support land transfer from public to private (this is what the Utah land grab would ultimately do) and still claim to represent Utah hunters/anglers/sportsman, etc*
> Change this stance and I'll rejoin in a minute.


 Our stance doesn't need changing! UWC has NEVER supported the public land transfer! I guess the nearest you could ever say we have ever come to doing so was when we were invited to a meeting to talk about it and I tried to get a rep. to go to the meeting to take notes and give us a report 'cause we wanted to know what we were up against. Of the 12 or 13 I contacted (all older men who were of retirement age because the meeting was in the daytime in the middle of the week), only one responded and that was with an angry email accusing us of the very thing you're accusing us of. He was mad and withdrew his membership simply because we wanted to send a rep to the meeting. I'm not sure whether or not this meeting was the same one ww is talking about, but I wasn't able to find a rep. Additionally, I made a special trip to Salt Lake to attend the protest rally at the Capitol where RMEF spoke for sportsmen AND one of our board members, Shawn Spring, (klbzdad) who lives in Cedar City has contacted our local and state politicians with questions about the bill or their support and he hasn't gotten any promises or commitments that the land won't be sold if Utah takes over. One of them said a couple of time "You know I can't promise that!"

I'm sorry you misunderstood, but not too surprised. We're so different from any wildlife group they've known that they can't believe we're for real and they make inaccurate assumptions about our motives and spread those inaccurate assumptions. We're certainly not perfect, but we have and will stick with our mission statement which is our only motive.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

In all fairness I do believe that the UWC is not in favor of a land transfer, but it was my understanding that the meeting was a gathering of "like minded groups" attempting to work out the details on Bishop's back door land grab idea. The UWM's very presence at the meeting will be used as proof(and used against you) by the land grabbers (the enemy) that some sportsman groups support and helped develop the idea. Your actual position on the initiative will never be mentioned. It will just always be said that the UWC was at the planning meeting, "and see, the Utah sportsman are all in favor of a plan to transfer the land"


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

ridgetop said:


> Really?
> Hey Wiley, why don't you share with the fine folks on this forum how your "f-ing done with the DWR", like you did over on Monster Muleys in the last couple days.
> Nice to see a board member of UWC take such a bold stance.
> Got to make Lee real proud.
> ...


You still don't get it. It's ok to be a trophy hunter whether you agree with our line of thought or not! We have no problem with that. What we have a problem with is your attempts to change the rules that impose your line of thought on the rest of us and that includes the Southern Utah SFW Chapter (There are 5 or 6 of them). I don't like black licorice, stop trying to make me eat it!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

BPturkeys said:


> In all fairness I do believe that the UWC is not in favor of a land transfer, but it was my understanding that the meeting was a gathering of "like minded groups" attempting to work out the details on Bishop's back door land grab idea. The UWM's very presence at the meeting will be used as proof(and used against you) by the land grabbers (the enemy) that some sportsman groups support and helped develop the idea. Your actual position on the initiative will never be mentioned. It will just always be said that the UWC was at the planning meeting, "and see, the Utah sportsman are all in favor of a plan to transfer the land"


 I don't think you need to worry that our attendance will be a problem, even if we were there. (It's never been a subject of conversation between ww and myself. I guess I'll have to ask him about it.) In any case, we'll make it well known we're not on board with this nonsense and never have been.

A comical irony is that at one time Shawn (klbzdad) was highly in favor of it and he and Gordy (ww) were exchanging rather spicy emails to the point that I was afraid that we might lose one of them off the UWC Board. But both are adamant about doing their home work and when Shawn actually got into the 500 page (or what ever it is) text of the initiative he discovered many more questions than answers. And when he started asking those questions of some supporting politicians, he didn't like the answers. Whether there was an apology or not I don't know or care. But what there is now is unity for which I am thankful.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Allow me to chime in a moment on the public land transfer issue. I initially supported and was a vocal proponent for the American Lands Council. They packaged their agenda in a pretty ribbon covered box but opening that box brings on the ugly. When the majority of those locally supporting public land transfer were grossly supporting the buddy freeloader in Nevada, I was asking specific questions of Ken Ivory and Jennifer Fielder and others including Bishop. Those specific questions:

1. What legislation is currently being drafted to support your claim of better management, access, and health of the lands?

2. Why is it that the western states, who via each enabling act, sent ELECTED representation to FOREVER DISCLAIM TITLE to these public lands are now supposed to pick up the mess left by the federal land agencies and be able to do any better without auctioning the land, selling it, gifting it away, or reassigning it?

Then, the legislative audit was released. Page 286 rang my bell and so I picked up the phone and asked again, "what guarantee are you willing to give those who enjoy pubic land no net loss of access and that those lands won't be monetized as legislatively mandated by the state of Utah and also as directed in the Nevada Public Lands Transfer legislative report? I was told, "you know that kind of guarantee isn't possible."

I then started my research. My research told a bigger story with a simple outcome. The only way to fund infrastructure to manage the lands would be to sell it. Consumptive extraction didn't talk about lumber anywhere in the audit compared to gas and oil leases. Even the auditors suggested that costs would need to remain high in order for the profits to be large enough to manage the lands. Since the lands would be received as all other ceded land, as state trust lands, the mandate would then be to utilize them or monetize them to maximum profitability. The current mode that SITLA uses to maximize profit of state trust lands? Sale or auction. Land swaps are possible, but that is usually done in Utah with private parties or other government agencies and even with private land swaps, the sale, auction, or swap is pennies on the dollar. Ken Ivory, Rob Bishop, Jennifer Fielder, nor anybody else could guarantee that they would move on any legislation, statement, policy, or stated guarantee that the lands would remain publicly held even if only held by the citizens of Utah. Again, I was told that it wasn't going to happen. Zero guarantee.

Take a look at the eastern states the American Lands Council compares Utah to. Pull up how much public land is still held by the states in those states. They've all sold it except for those lands who produce ongoing profit in the form of extractive resources. Sure, they form state parks or state lands but just as in Utah, how many of us can just pull our trailers up to a state park and camp for a few days for free? How many of us can cut our dogs loose on state lands while camping? How many of you have gone hunting on state trust lands in Utah or any other state where you didn't have to hire a permitted guide or outfitter? 

There are other issues with PLT. So many that I can't even begin to mention them here. Ultimately, it's about the billions of tax revenue selling public lands would generate long term. It's about development favors for special interest or "good ol boy" payback that will result in no trespassing signs because land has been gifted, sold, or leased to those with deep pockets. Ultimately, it's not about the freedom we enjoy today to utilize public lands, it's about profit. 

I can state clearly and openly on the issue and second what Lee has said. The UWC does not support the transfer of public lands to the states. Period. That would contradict our support of the public trust doctrine and the NAMWC. Sorry about any typos, I'm doing this half tired and on my tablet. I am more than willing to share specific information if you want to PM me but in summary, I am the only member of UWC who has ever supported PLT and that was before I opened the box. The box is open........and what is inside stinks to high hell!!!!!!


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Our Public Lands

Utah Legislative Analysis of TPL

Nevada Legislative Analysis of TPL

Idaho Legislative Analysis of TPL

Fortunately, Montana's governor veto'd the idea and Wyoming stalled the bill waiting for the final analysis to be produced. I'll never be a Democrat, but I'll be damned if I'm going to support any of the establishment Republican's who continue down the path of TPL in Utah. I'd rather vote for my ingrown toenail!!!!! And I'm done ranting about this issue.

Back to UWC. I may have disagreements with individuals and not like some of the decisions they have made, but one things is certain, everyone shares a common belief that the state is capable of doing better for wildlife and sportsmen but because of the influences that have once again reared their ugly heads the United Wildlife Cooperative can and will give a voice to those who feel they are otherwise ignored. But that only happens when people are willing to put their money and time where their mouths are.


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

klbzdad said:


> Our Public Lands
> 
> Utah Legislative Analysis of TPL
> 
> ...


I sent emails out to everybody and anybody who would listen the last few days. It didn't cost me a thing financially I won't be giving a penny to uwc unless they came up with a release on the matter and put their feet to the ground. They should think about doing that before they ask for everybody's money


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Bravo Kblzdad and thank you, that was very well said. I am sorry I pushed this issue but aren't you glad I did. We all now know and completely understand the UWC's position on the public lands transfer. 
I believe it to be by far the most serious threat to all forms of outdoor activity today. The UWC can be a big part of the battle by being a vocal opponent representing all wildlife related users. We must be diligent and careful that our actions are clear and firmly against any land transfer in any form. The enemy is just so smart and powerful that any slight miss step can and will be used by them politically to push their greedy agenda forward. 
I am back on board and a donation is forthcoming.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

wileywapati said:


> Vanilla, stay tuned. Just understand what you are asking
> In this political arena and climate, breaking through the
> Hand job quorum won't be easy.
> 
> I can absolutely assure you that every avenue is in play.


Mr Wapiti, you don't have to tell me. I totally understand what I am asking because I have been in one of these before. In fact, if anyone in UWC wants to know what they're really up against, let me know.

Has the UWC reached out to RMEF yet to see if there is interest in collaborating here? Not sure RMEF is willing to take this fight up either. They might be the only group capable, as the solution to this will eventually reside in the courts.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> Although we don't have an official waterfowl staff member, we can still rely on Gordy's advice when it comes to waterfowl and he continues to stay on top of the waterfowl issues. The fact that we never had a discussion or even an email from Gordy indicated to me that he had no issues with the waterfowl plan as presented. Besides, waterfowl regulations, both federal and state, are subject to change on a year to year basis, so if it turns out not to be the best move one year, we can review the results and propose changes the next year. And as I said earlier, we're willing to flip the roles, with you giving us your thoughts.
> 
> Edit: I'm sorry I used a poor choice of words when I wrote I was "clueless" about waterfowl issues. I didn't mean to imply that I/we don't care (I/we do) or that I didn't read the meeting packet (I did). It's just that nothing stood out as being seriously wrong with it and nobody but you has questioned our support either before or after the meeting. And even now you haven't told us where we made a mistake.
> 
> As far as getting our name out there, are you saying that's unethical and we shouldn't be doing it? That's what would be a stupid move. Besides, telling them who I represent gets me 5 minutes instead of only 3.


Im talking about the new goose hunt up north. Of course if Gordy don't care about that hunt because he don't go pass fb to hunt.He dont even talk to any buddy that hunts up there to get there in take on it. I will not give my thoughts on any waterfowl any more. you guys lost that chance way back.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

It's got nothing to do with if I care or not. 
This was a club vs non club issue. There were open houses
On the issue and that's what that area decided. 

Vanilla, I haven't been told directly by RMEF or any of
Their reps, but I am lead to believe that they won't divert
Money from their mission statement for this battle. 

Which brings us to where we are. We are bound by the world we 
Live in here in Utah. All we can do is ask to have the process reviewed.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> Make up your mind Ridge. Either I'm a DWR puppet
> Or I'm done with them. Which line of thought do you wish
> Me to pursue??


Ditto!


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> You still don't get it. It's ok to be a trophy hunter whether you agree with our line of thought or not! We have no problem with that. What we have a problem with is your attempts to change the rules that impose your line of thought on the rest of us and that includes the Southern Utah SFW Chapter (There are 5 or 6 of them). I don't like black licorice, stop trying to make me eat it!


That's funny because your the one that just doesn't get it.
Here you are doing it again, attacking me for unfounded reasons.
Do you understand how much you use I/we interchangeably?
It's not about what you or your 3 or 4 board members feel about issues but should be about all your members as a whole.
Does UWC have a monthly news letter they send out to all members?
Does UWC conduct polls on the issues at hand that you and your board members are pushing to see if UWC members are on board?
I sure haven't seen any.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

As I said, Ridge, I'd be happy to tackle both items. Which one would you
Like first. It's irrelevant to me cause you will continue to badger, whine and
Just generally be a pain in my ass no matter what answer is given.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> As I said, Ridge, I'd be happy to tackle both items. Which one would you
> Like first. It's irrelevant to me cause you will continue to badger, whine and
> Just generally be a pain in my ass no matter what answer is given.


Keep up the good work, I guess.:-?

Even if I don't like your attitude, hope you have a Merry Christmas and happy New Year.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

BPturkeys said:


> Bravo Kblzdad and thank you, that was very well said. I am sorry I pushed this issue but aren't you glad I did. We all now know and completely understand the UWC's position on the public lands transfer.
> I believe it to be by far the most serious threat to all forms of outdoor activity today. The UWC can be a big part of the battle by being a vocal opponent representing all wildlife related users. We must be diligent and careful that our actions are clear and firmly against any land transfer in any form. The enemy is just so smart and powerful that any slight miss step can and will be used by them politically to push their greedy agenda forward.
> I am back on board and a donation is forthcoming.


FWIW, I was one of the organizers of last year's rally at the Capitol opposing the land grab. I sent emails to just about every hunting/fishing organization in the state (28 total) asking for their position statements regarding the land grab and inviting their participation at the rally. Didn't get a statement from anybody, for or against. Leadership from only 6 NGOs showed up. One of those was UWC.

Not much has changed in that regard in the past year. It isn't that the remaining 22 NGOs support the grab. It's more like the situation klbsdad related in which their boards have trouble coming to consensus. Bottom line is that we are seriously outmatched.

That's just one reason why I hope everybody who values Utah's hunting and fishing traditions will support UWC so that the organization can get back to fighting weight.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Personally I believe that most of us average Joes want something to support but there needs to be some transparency:

Who is on the board?
Where are they?
What is the plan of attack?
Who do they support?
How do they support? (polls)
Current emails?
Current website?
Updated FB?

Honestly a guy can do about all of the research they want on the UWC and will find nothing other than outdated stuff. I can appreciate the difficulty getting stuff current but reaching out to members and recruiting them should be priority #1. That requires the above info.

Right now it sound like 3-4 guys that have a fort in the back yard and a username on a forum.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

wileywapati said:


> Vanilla, I haven't been told directly by RMEF or any of
> Their reps, but I am lead to believe that they won't divert
> Money from their mission statement for this battle.
> 
> ...


The Utah Stream Access Coalition (USAC) went out and found attorneys willing to do it pro bono. Of course, they still had to raise funds for experts and other associated costs of a 4 year legal battle with two different law suits (which will be ongoing), but the attorneys weren't paid. I've got to think RMEF has many more connections than our little grass roots start-up had.

You can tell me we are bound by the world we live in here, or you can tell me we are going to create a new one. USAC didn't agree to be bound by the world we lived in here in Utah, and I'm really glad. Last month's court ruling reopened thousands of miles of public water to use by us that were closed off by the legislature. It would have been really easy to roll over and give in to the Farm Bureau, the Utah Association of Realtors, the legislature, the governor, and many very wealthy landowners. But we didn't, and we won, and changed that world.

So again, if any of you UWC guys want to really know what you're up against, I'd be willing to chat. But don't tell me that we are bound by this corrupt world that sticks it to the average public hunter here in Utah. Like I've said multiple times...I've been with others that have fought this fight before.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

I support a lot of sportsmen groups now. RMEF has definetly been the one I'm most impressed with. Pheasants forever seems like a great group, and even with a few bumps in the road it's hard to argue with what Ducks Unlimited has done for Waterfowl. Utah chukar and wildlife foundation is a great group it seems, along BHA, and TRCP. UWC have been at every meeting and from what I've seen your going in the right direction. I'll be happy to support you so long as you stand against the land transfer and if you are able, try to overturn or end this expo corruption that awarded a contract to the wrong applicant for crooked reasons. You have mine and almost every other sportsmen in this states backing on those two issues I believe and we will sign our names to petitions, and contact whoever needs to be contacted to show our support so long as you stand up for the average sportsmen. Bottom line is none of us can agree on every issue, but as long as you take on the important issues (land transfer, expo corruption) we can get by the little things. I'm not going to boycott a sportsmen group just because they do one thing a couple times I don't agree with, when it gets to the point of a group like SFW in this state, then it's time to slam a group like them to the ground and make them go away for good.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Thanks for the offer Vanilla. 

Unfortunately we are bound by the world we live in. 
Including the Utah Constitution that guaranteed stream access. 
If you can find us precedent that guarantees funds from the sale
Of a public resource be used in a certain way in the Constitution awesome. 

i would hope nobody is dissuaded from making their own effort to get
To the bottom of this. Please continue to bring exposure to this fiasco.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

You guys have used the word "public trust." Follow that rabbit down the hole and see where it takes you.

Hey 1-I, before you go patting DU on the back, go do some google searches on recent events regarding DU national and public access.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

E. Donnal Thomas was fired as a d.u. writer for speaking out against a d.u. big donor who has been trying to re - write montana's stream access laws/constitution to favor himself and other private landowners.

Thomas was fired for pointing this out in an article in a local paper I believe. D.u. have proven themselves less supportive of public access than I originally believed them to be.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outd...ized-canned-du-columnist-donated-100k-judges/

And then there is the rest of the story...


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

I did see that they had fired him, I was more talking about what they've done in the past. I don't agree with what they just did, dcks and geese have just been a big success story and in the past they've done a lot of good.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

dkhntrdstn said:


> Im talking about the new goose hunt up north. Of course if Gordy don't care about that hunt because he don't go pass fb to hunt.He dont even talk to any buddy that hunts up there to get there in take on it. I will not give my thoughts on any waterfowl any more. you guys lost that chance way back.


I'm sorry to hear that, but would much rather have had you disclose your concern from the get-go instead of trying to trip us up by hiding it. In fact, it would have better served both of us if you had done that BEFORE the meeting took place. We simply missed the issue because it wasn't pointed out as such, not because we wanted to create a problem for you or other waterfowl hunters. I'm not saying we would have voted differently, but at least we would have had a chance to discuss it.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

This whole thread surprises me! It's almost comical! Who would have thought that an open discussion of an email from a rather simple small conservation organization who is struggling financially asking for a $30 annual family dues (about 1.5 cents per working hour) from members would have generated such clamor. The email wasn't written for the purpose of civic discussion and wasn't even posted on this forum by UWC's leadership. We simply wanted to get enough steady income to fulfill our mission statement. We keep getting asked what our motives are. Read our mission statement! That's our motives. Look closely at our logo. That's our philosophy.

I'm thinking that Luke (Bax) did us a favor at an opportune time. We were the ones that started (and finished, as best we could) the Expo tag application fee mandate to return 30% back to wildlife along with the requirement for an audit. As it turned out, the contract renewal process brought this mandate to light and many, many people now also think it's not enough, including UWC. What happens as a result is yet unknown, but I'm thinking that among other things, the attendance at the Expo will drop noticeably and SFW is squirming more than in the past.

And, who knows, we may have an increase in membership.

I'll respond to some of the other posts tomorrow, but for now, I'm gonna get some sleep. We've had a fun and uplifting Christmas. I hope you had one too!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

BPturkeys said:


> Bravo Kblzdad and thank you, that was very well said. I am sorry I pushed this issue but aren't you glad I did. We all now know and completely understand the UWC's position on the public lands transfer.
> I believe it to be by far the most serious threat to all forms of outdoor activity today. The UWC can be a big part of the battle by being a vocal opponent representing all wildlife related users. We must be diligent and careful that our actions are clear and firmly against any land transfer in any form. The enemy is just so smart and powerful that any slight miss step can and will be used by them politically to push their greedy agenda forward.
> I am back on board and a donation is forthcoming.


 Thanks BP,
Your support and donation are much appreciated and, of course, so is your confidence in our mission.
Lee


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> This whole thread surprises me! It's almost comical! Who would have thought that an open discussion of an email from a rather simple small conservation organization who is struggling financially asking for a $30 annual family dues (about 1.5 cents per working hour) from members would have generated such clamor. The email wasn't written for the purpose of civic discussion and wasn't even posted on this forum by UWC's leadership. We simply wanted to get enough steady income to fulfill our mission statement. We keep getting asked what our motives are. Read our mission statement! That's our motives. Look closely at our logo. That's our philosophy.
> 
> I'm thinking that Luke (Bax) did us a favor at an opportune time. We were the ones that started (and finished, as best we could) the Expo tag application fee mandate to return 30% back to wildlife along with the requirement for an audit. As it turned out, the contract renewal process brought this mandate to light and many, many people now also think it's not enough, including UWC. What happens as a result is yet unknown, but I'm thinking that among other things, the attendance at the Expo will drop noticeably and SFW is squirming more than in the past.
> 
> ...


I don't think most of us want to know what your motives are.
We want to know what UWC's agenda is?
I will not donate any money to fight this expo contract issue.
I feel that would be a waste of my money.

Lee, you or a lot of the members of this forum probably don't even know that I was one of the first to sign up as a member of UWC in the early days.
Even before the option 2 debates, we organized to try come up with ideas how to get more hunters hunting the LE elk units. Most units were far above healthy bull/cow ratios.
I was hoping to see more units lower their age objective, which would allow more hunter opportunity but in the end, the spike hunting units prevailed.
Then there was the fight of losing statewide archery, which I didn't have a dog in the fight either way.
Then there was the option 2 fight.
Which I could see some real benefit for the 5 or 6 struggling units with dangerously low buck/doe ratios.
But I was put down by many for this line of thought.
Believe it or not, I was asked to be the Central Regions rep. for UWC a few years back but because I was working so many hours of over time at work.(300+ that year). I just couldn't put another thing on my plate.
Myself and I believe many others want UWC to succeed.
I want to see balance in the decisions that are made for all hunters.
That's what I want to see happen.
So get more organized, get your members more involved and be more open minded with the many issues at hand.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Ridge I have to disagree a little on the expo, I think is and our wildlife getting screwed out of millions of dollars a year is worth fighting for, that money could accomplish a lot. That being said I'm not saying UWC should get involved in an expensive process where we can't win. I do however want to see UWC show concern at a board meeting and beyond over the issue of this contract and how it was awarded. I think a big issue I have with UWC is there are rarely updates on their website or their Facebook page, updating the public on your organization is important. I'm going to join soon because we absolutely need more than SFW as the powerhouse in this state and most of what you've done in the past I've agreed with.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Ridge I have to disagree a little on the expo, I think is and our wildlife getting screwed out of millions of dollars a year is worth fighting for, that money could accomplish a lot. That being said I'm not saying UWC should get involved in an expensive process where we can't win. I do however want to see UWC show concern at a board meeting and beyond over the issue of this contract and how it was awarded. I think a big issue I have with UWC is there are rarely updates on their website or their Facebook page, updating the public on your organization is important. I'm going to join soon because we absolutely need more than SFW as the powerhouse in this state and most of what you've done in the past I've agreed with.


I have no problem with them asking more questions in a public setting.
I just don't want money wasted like those goons are doing while fighting over our public lands.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

I'm pretty surprised by the direction this thread went. But I'm glad that some clarifications, and misunderstandings were addressed as well. 

My hats off to the UWC for doing what they feel is right. After all the time I've sat with these guys, never once did I feel that there was an alterior motive contrary to bettering the sportsman experience. Everything was directed toward helping the Average Joe hunter that didn't have $10k+ to pay for a private hunt. So my hats off to these guys.

Bottom line, I'm proud to see how passionate, informed, involved, and determined each member of this forum is. You guys are all smart fellas that clearly want to preserve our heritage of hunting and fishing in Utah and although we may not all agree on how we will preserve this right, I'm glad to see that so many care and want to make a difference. 

Keep up the good work everyone.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

ridgetop said:


> I don't think most of us want to know what your motives are.
> We want to know what UWC's agenda is?
> I will not donate any money to fight this expo contract issue.
> I feel that would be a waste of my money.
> ...


 I'd suggest you re-read your own post, maybe from a distance. You just pointed out some of the main reasons we're havin' a rough time getting up to the level we'd love to be.

Case in point! We have secured a booth at the Ultimate Expo in St George on New Years Day and the day after. Sylvia asked us if we could take over for Ducks Unlimited because they hadn't responded with their plan of action. She said they were planning on giving a duck calling demo and she had to work out the timing and booth location per the noise. I told her that there aren't many waterfowlers in the area, but there are a lot of game and varmit callers here and it might be better and more fun to demo some elk, turkey, deer, antelope, chucker, coyote, hoot owl, etc. calls. She thought that was even better. So, I lined up 3 other UWC members for the game calls and one waterfowler who isn't a member for the duck, goose calls. The booth was free, but I gathered up $200 from an old sponsor and a new one to feed the crew and their families. Well, Monday and Tuesday I contacted them all to set up a schedule and low and behold, 2 of them told me they had to work both days and couldn't pass up the holiday pay (a mechanic, I can't remember the other's occupation), the waterfowler had unknown (to him) family plans for New Years and work on Saturday (Loan officer for Mtn Amer CU), the fourth had family plans for New Years, but could go part of the time on Saturday! I immediately went to the DWR office to ask for some Dedicated Hunters, but haven't heard back. Tomorrow I'm going to ask some church members and will send an email to some UWC members. Monday I'll get back to the DWR, but if I can't get some help UWC will be on Sylvia's black list 'cause I can't do this one alone! Any UWN takers? We'll get you and your family in for free and we'll feed you at least one meal and will give you a couple of fishing poles. I'm not complaining, I'll figure something out, but just pointing out that the average hunter/fisherman has a life outside of hunting and fishing just like you.

The other point is not just your's but many others who have posted here. You're asking us to get our stuff together and then you'll support us, but none (or few) are willing to donate money or time so that we can get our stuff together. You've all mentioned that our website and Facebook desperately need updating and you're correct, but I have yet to hear an offer to help us do that and I sure as h**l don't have the skills. Our domain, mass emailing, and website fees are due Jan 9. We'll be able to pay them, but that won't leave much left for projects and programs. We had to cancel our plans for a Youth Turkey hunt and ice fishing events at Hyrum Res and Panguitch Lake. We can't afford to set them up without knowing where the money is coming from. We've been there, done that. That's what got us in this mess in the first place. We spent a lot of money on all 3 Youth Turkey hunts and on the Strawberry on Ice. I don't know specifically whether they were fundraisers or fundlosers, but I do know that we went in the red in 2013. And that was after some of the board members loaned UWC over $2,000.

This email was sent not to just get the money, it also was sent to get the commitment to the cause that paying the dues would bring. People tend to get more involved if they have a dog in the fight, and right now most of them don't. Only 26% of the recipients of this letter have even opened it! And sadly only ONE (yea, 1) has signed up as a member based solely on the email alone. Fortunately, several of you on this forum also _repented_ and came back :grin:, and a couple of our officers have signed up as well, but if this trend continues we're gonna just start over with members, beginning with the booth in St George because this cause is worth saving.

Well, it's real late (again) and I'll finish this tomorrow with a list of our officers and staff. There's more than 3 or 4 of us, but not many more.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

elkfromabove said:


> I'd suggest you re-read your own post, maybe from a distance. You just pointed out some of the main reasons we're havin' a rough time getting up to the level we'd love to be.
> 
> Case in point! We have secured a booth at the Ultimate Expo in St George on New Years Day and the day after. Sylvia asked us if we could take over for Ducks Unlimited because they hadn't responded with their plan of action. She said they were planning on giving a duck calling demo and she had to work out the timing and booth location per the noise. I told her that there aren't many waterfowlers in the area, but there are a lot of game and varmit callers here and it might be better and more fun to demo some elk, turkey, deer, antelope, chucker, coyote, hoot owl, etc. calls. She thought that was even better. So, I lined up 3 other UWC members for the game calls and one waterfowler who isn't a member for the duck, goose calls. The booth was free, but I gathered up $200 from an old sponsor and a new one to feed the crew and their families. Well, Monday and Tuesday I contacted them all to set up a schedule and low and behold, 2 of them told me they had to work both days and couldn't pass up the holiday pay (a mechanic, I can't remember the other's occupation), the waterfowler had unknown (to him) family plans for New Years and work on Saturday (Loan officer for Mtn Amer CU), the fourth had family plans for New Years, but could go part of the time on Saturday! I immediately went to the DWR office to ask for some Dedicated Hunters, but haven't heard back. Tomorrow I'm going to ask some church members and will send an email to some UWC members. Monday I'll get back to the DWR, but if I can't get some help UWC will be on Sylvia's black list 'cause I can't do this one alone! Any UWN takers? We'll get you and your family in for free and we'll feed you at least one meal and will give you a couple of fishing poles. I'm not complaining, I'll figure something out, but just pointing out that the average hunter/fisherman has a life outside of hunting and fishing just like you.
> 
> ...


1. You are condescending and complaining. You may want to step back and re-read your post from a distance.
2. Facebook takes less effort than the effort you have expended on this thread....and it's free. If the website is too difficult shut it down. People want something they can access, is current and can correspond through.
3. I would bet that you have sent a lot of emails to people that have had no way of updating their email addresses with the UWC.
4. !!!! are not near as efffective as they look or feel.
5. While your intent is to provide a service to the public you won't get far without the support of the public.
6. Why wouldn't somebody just give BHA $15.00 instead of $30.00 to the UWC?
7. An overwhelming majority of the Utah population does not reside in southern Utah.

Food for thought. Sleep on it.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Facebook BLOWS, plain and simple. If a company tries to direct me to Facebook, they've lost me as a customer. Many other people feel the same.

-DallanC


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

DallanC said:


> Facebook BLOWS, plain and simple. If a company tries to direct me to Facebook, they've lost me as a customer. Many other people feel the same.
> 
> -DallanC


Our thoughts exactly. Thanks.

And our logo, UWC and personal email addresses, PayPal and SquareUp accounts and business cards are all unitedwildlifecooperative.org and if there is no .org it'll really look bad.

Additionally, I only meant the website was difficult for me, but it may be a piece of cake for most of you, but we've only had one person offer to manage it and he wanted to put it and our mass mailing list on his own private server. I don't know a lot about computers, yet even I saw that red flag. We told him thanks but no thanks. The solutions are never as easy as they may look.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> Our thoughts exactly. Thanks.
> 
> And our logo, UWC and personal email addresses, PayPal and SquareUp accounts and business cards are all unitedwildlifecooperative.org and if there is no .org it'll really look bad.
> 
> Additionally, I only meant the website was difficult for me, but it may be a piece of cake for most of you, but we've only had one person offer to manage it and he wanted to put it and our mass mailing list on his own private server. I don't know a lot about computers, yet even I saw that red flag. We told him thanks but no thanks. The solutions are never as easy as they may look.


Having a Facebook page that is active and up to date is essential to success in this day and age. Acting as though it is not is being stuck in the past. The biggest and most successful companies and organizations use Facebook, to act as though it is not a good avenue makes me question how successful someone wants to be.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Try multiplying the $30 membership by the 668 likes on the page and see what it might do for the UWC. Take even 1/4 of them......

I get the "FB is stupid", "I hate social media" thing but I **** sure wouldn't discount it for raising money, awareness and word of mouth. It's FREE EXPOSURE.

no further comments coming from me on the issue. Adios.


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Try multiplying the $30 membership by the 668 likes on the page and see what it might do for the UWC. Take even 1/4 of them......
> 
> I get the "FB is stupid", "I hate social media" thing but I **** sure wouldn't discount it for raising money, awareness and word of mouth. It's FREE EXPOSURE.
> 
> no further comments coming from me on the issue. Adios.


Yup. I hate FB as well. It just doesnt sit well with me. People sitting around sharing pictures of thier breakfast. This (UWN) is as far as I go on the social media deal. With that said, if I was a start up business that needed to market itself FB would be my first move.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Having a Facebook page that is active and up to date is essential to success in this day and age. Acting as though it is not is being stuck in the past. The biggest and most successful companies and organizations use Facebook, to act as though it is not a good avenue makes me question how successful someone wants to be.


We may not agree on much lately but your spot on with your facebook comment.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

elkfromabove said:


> Additionally, I only meant the website was difficult for me, but it may be a piece of cake for most of you, but we've only had one person offer to manage it and he wanted to put it and our mass mailing list on his own private server. I don't know a lot about computers, yet even I saw that red flag. We told him thanks but no thanks. The solutions are never as easy as they may look.


Are you referring to me? I offered to set one up for UWN long ago. There was a discussion on lack of funds so I mentioned I could host it for free on one of my servers just to get it going. I have several sites / servers. If that was your red flag you should have mentioned it.

-DallanC


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Presence on social media is crucial. Failure to admit that and being altogether dismissive of it is shooting yourself in the foot. 

The potential reach of a cool pic and a conservation message posted on Facebook or instagram blows an 11 page thread on UWN out of the water. 

You don't have to like it, but it's asinine to be so openly dismissive of it. 

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

DallanC said:


> Are you referring to me? I offered to set one up for UWN long ago. There was a discussion on lack of funds so I mentioned I could host it for free on one of my servers just to get it going. I have several sites / servers. If that was your red flag you should have mentioned it.
> 
> -DallanC


No, it was not you. You were probably before my time and I don't know how it was handled or mishandled. The issue we have with private servers has more to do with general security issues and possible transfers if the owner dies or becomes mentally disabled. And since the host would have access to private information per any links, they'd have to pass a simple background check and sign a form (I can't remember what it's called) stating they would keep all private information private and not pass it on to third parties, per our privacy policy. On top of that they would have to clear their statements with UWC leadership before posting. We need to keep those official statements as legal and accurate as possible. The same can be said of Facebook, Twitter, Skype, Instagram representatives.

Maybe we're being too paranoid, but you can bet your bottom dollar there are folks out the that are looking for any flaws they can find as a way to shut UWC down. And we have some opponents on our membership list (I know of at least 2). Whether or not they were purposely placed or are even using or passing on in-house UWC information I couldn't say, but they are there nonetheless.

Admittedly, we as a group, and I personally, have made some errors in judgement and statements (all humans do), but our bottom line is stated in our mission statement. I guess we could go on forever with this thread with you asking me questions about UWC and me trying to answer them to your satisfaction (It'll probably never happen). We'll take your remarks, questions and concerns under advisement, but if we don't meet your expectations or don't move fast enough for you, then I guess you'll have to find someone else who gives you what you want for your $30 per year. Or, on the other hand you could volunteer to help us correct our blunder by being our Facebook rep. And we won't even ask for your $30 annual dues and you don't even have to post your decision online. We'll look for your PM, but meanwhile, we'll just keep showing up at RAC's, Wildlife Board meetings, DWR committee meetings, DWR open houses, Land Transfer protest rallies, DWR projects, etc. and we'll just keep trying to get you folks off the couch and into these same meetings and projects. In spite of what many of you think, YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE if only you will!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Is that enough for you, MS.)

One thing I love about our UWC leadership, I've never heard any of them ask what was in it for them and they always ask what's in it for our wildlife first and the hunters second.

Edit: FWIW, we do actually have a Facebook page, but our VP (Carlyle Bills) who is posting on Facebook just got an new job in St George and the travel time makes it a 10 or 11 hour day and he isn't able to keep it up. Additionally, we have only used it for light social messages because we couldn't possibly respond to all the negatives we'd get from posting our serious stuff on there. It's hard enough just to keep up with this forum and MM, let alone Facebook, Twitter, Skype, Instagram, etc. There are people who do it, but we have lives to live and so do you.


----------



## nebocreel (Mar 18, 2014)

Unfortunately, the truth is that any organization that wants to be effective in promoting its mission and agenda will have to have paid, fulltime folks involved. Volunteerism only goes so far. I'm sure that most of the folks involved with UWC are hardworking people doing their best to take care of themselves and their families and having to commit to additional hours to UWC on a consistent basis can become very problematic at best. Lee has carried the UWC torch and message burden pretty much by himself at RAC and WB meetings. I admire his fortitude but UWC will not long exist if it doesn't get some help and $. UWC will have to hire someone fulltime (at least part-time to begin with) and that will entail more fundraising- donations, conservation permit $ etc. Thanks to Lee for his voice and dedication to wildlife conservation in this state---


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

nebocreel said:


> Unfortunately, the truth is that any organization that wants to be effective in promoting its mission and agenda will have to have paid, fulltime folks involved. Volunteerism only goes so far. I'm sure that most of the folks involved with UWC are hardworking people doing their best to take care of themselves and their families and having to commit to additional hours to UWC on a consistent basis can become very problematic at best. Lee has carried the UWC torch and message burden pretty much by himself at RAC and WB meetings. I admire his fortitude but UWC will not long exist if it doesn't get some help and $. UWC will have to hire someone fulltime (at least part-time to begin with) and that will entail more fundraising- donations, conservation permit $ etc. Thanks to Lee for his voice and dedication to wildlife conservation in this state---


Thanks for the thank you and the message. Although I don't really need a salary to do what I do (We're already eating out of the government trough with Social Security and Utah Retirement System incomes.), it would be helpful to get reimbursed for some of the gas and out-of-pocket expenses for myself and the other officers and staff. I happen to own a home in Magna my daughter and family are living in and have other family members on both sides living in the Salt Lake Valley, so housing and food isn't a problem for me and I just fit UWC stuff into my family schedule, but that won't always be the case and there may come a time that we'll have to hire someone to do what I've been doing, and the fundraisers, cash donations and, now, membership dues would make all the difference in the world. However, we want to avoid taking Conservation (and Expo) Permit money. That's a BIG can of worms that stinks to high heaven and it would play totally against our mission statement. I know that the other groups claim that they are just making the animals pay for those programs, which is true, but guess who else gets screwed along the way on order for them to increase the value of those tags? You're paying those 6 figure salaries with the loss of opportunity, loss of permits, higher buck to doe ratios, $5 increase in permit fees, loss of Statewide archery, loss of Regional deer tags and other rules and regulations designed to keep more of those trophies that generate that income on the hill. And it isn't just you hunters paying for it. Every taxpayer in Utah does also with the BGF wolf money and the Save the Mule Deer money and who knows what else.

At one of the special meetings I went to, one of the salaried leaders said he didn't feel he had to justify his salary because he was just doing what needed to be done and the animals were paying for it. I simply said I didn't feel I had to justify my salary either because I didn't have one. By the stares I got, I could tell they didn't think that remark was as funny as I thought it was. But even though they didn't laugh, nobody said anything.

Salaries and power have a way of tweeking decisions and someone always ends up paying for them.

Well, I have a family matter to attend to. I'll get back to this thread later.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

I find your joke funny, and although you've endured some constructive criticism in this thread Lee, thank you for what you do. I've listened to and watched every board meeting over the last couple years, and you're always there. It's great to have you there, because if you weren't SFW would be the only voice at the microphone. You've got a good organization, as I stated in an earlier post, I don't have to agree with everything ou say or do, but your organization is a good one and that's why I chose to send a membership due your way. I think simplifying your website and keeping up with Facebook and Instagram are the most important things if you want new and sustaining members. The biggest issue with your organization is most hunters don't know you exist. I could ask the anyone I hunt with and they'd have no idea who UWC was, and I wouldn't either if it weren't for this forum and keeping up on wildlife board meetings that most who love to hunt don't care to involve themselves in at all. You have to advertise what you do, or no one will think of you and no one new will learn about you. SFW is great at giving itself credit even when it's not do, but they give the 2 second sound bite and those that don't care to involve themselves in any of these processes know who SFW is and who SFW told them they are so they donate and support them without actually being educated on them. At least let the public know I'm some sort of online media what UWC is accomplishing and what there stance is on issues, it will go farther than you think.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

nebocreel said:


> Unfortunately, the truth is that any organization that wants to be effective in promoting its mission and agenda will have to have paid, fulltime folks involved. Volunteerism only goes so far. I'm sure that most of the folks involved with UWC are hardworking people doing their best to take care of themselves and their families and having to commit to additional hours to UWC on a consistent basis can become very problematic at best. Lee has carried the UWC torch and message burden pretty much by himself at RAC and WB meetings. I admire his fortitude but UWC will not long exist if it doesn't get some help and $. UWC will have to hire someone fulltime (at least part-time to begin with) and that will entail more fundraising- donations, conservation permit $ etc. Thanks to Lee for his voice and dedication to wildlife conservation in this state---


I could not disagree with this statement any more than I do. Go ahead and check out this link for the proof of why my belief is not just an opinion, but a fact: http://utahstreamaccess.org/

You do not need paid leadership, even part-time, to accomplish your mission. You just need leadership and organization that inspires people to get involved. I have seen a lot of legitimate questions asked here answered with a handful of snarky responses. A lot of the same questions and criticisms were leveled at USAC (and the prior ground roots movements) at its inception. (UWN is child's play compared to the crew that used to frequent Utah on the Fly) But there were some guys that took the lead and inspired others to follow. I'm glad they did. They are some of my biggest heroes. Guys I battled hugely online prior to our uniting...great guys.


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

Did uwc get bought out by sfw the timing of this email is odd lol. Like stated before uwc needs to battle sfw in the public eye otherwise you guys will be another sfw in the making in the public eye. SERIOUSLY IT DOES NOT TAKE A TRUCK LOAD OF CASH TO STAND UP FOR THE PUBLIC.i emailed as many people and complained about the expo that I could think of. It literally took an hour and cost me nothing. WHAT IS THE UWC SCARED OF WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO LOSE.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> I'm sorry to hear that, but would much rather have had you disclose your concern from the get-go instead of trying to trip us up by hiding it. In fact, it would have better served both of us if you had done that BEFORE the meeting took place. We simply missed the issue because it wasn't pointed out as such, not because we wanted to create a problem for you or other waterfowl hunters. I'm not saying we would have voted differently, but at least we would have had a chance to discuss it.


least see why i have not brought it up before hand. One I was told UWC was no longer around any more and i never heard anything from them. 2nd UWC never had any thing to do with waterfowl before.So how can i give my input when you have no clue what going on with that group.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

dkhntrdstn said:


> least see why i have not brought it up before hand. One I was told UWC was no longer around any more and i never heard anything from them. 2nd UWC never had any thing to do with waterfowl before.So how can i give my input when you have no clue what going on with that group.


 It's unfortunate that you feel so angry with UWC that you just want us to go away and I don't like making you angrier than you already are, but I can no longer let this post lie unanswered. I don't know if someone actually told you UWC was no longer around or whether you just assumed it, like everyone else, because we went publically silent for some time while we were deciding whether or not to continue and what we needed to do. But we never made an official announcement of closing shop. We simply decided to continue under the UWC name and began to do the necessary processing to become a legal 501(c)(3). We knew it would be tough, but we didn't know how tough. It turned out to be much more difficult, time consuming and expensive than it would have been to shut down and start all over under a new name and organization. But we didn't know that at the time.

But that wasn't the main reason we struggled. In fact, the major challenge we had during that time is the same challenge we're having now, donations of time and money from individuals. I think most of you know it takes money to run a non-profit business even if the leadership isn't salaried. We are a business as much as any other business and we have expenses as well. We try to keep them at a minimum, but they are still an issue.

Most people also know that the IRS monitors a 501(c)(3)'s money to make sure they're using it "substantially" for charity, but what most people don't know is they also monitor the time (manhours) used for charity versus time "influencing legislation". We could never get them to define "substantial" nor "influencing legislation", but we have to put some manhours into our mission just as we have to put some money into our mission and when that doesn't happen, we put ourselves in jeopardy. Unfortunately, as hard as it's been trying to stay afloat financially without membership dues, it's even harder getting people to donate their time. If I accomplish nothing more, I hope I can get you to realize how vital you are individually to this process. It ain't someone like me nor some board nor a bunch of sponsors nor the guy next door. Conservation organizations (including UWC) and wildlife need YOU in whatever capacity your priorities, abilities, circumstances, schedule and finances allow.

Which brings me back to Dustin's post. It shouldn't have to take a personal invitation from some group or another for you to get involved. I'm sorry you felt you couldn't speak up to UWC about waterfowl issues, even though you were once our waterfowl advisor, but I don't accept your attempt to put the blame on us. The lines were (and are) always open.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> Which brings me back to Dustin's post. It shouldn't have to take a personal invitation from some group or another for you to get involved.


Wow! Can't believe you said that to Dustin, of all people.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Finnegan said:


> Wow! Can't believe you said that to Dustin, of all people.


I didn't say that to Dustin, I said that about his post and there's a difference. I never got to know him personally as he was before my time, nor do I know what he's currently up to. All I know is that he was personally offended when things didn't happen as he thought they should during our tough times and he declared publically that he would never return to UWC and wished that we would be gone (As I recall he used the term "die".) I subsequently granted him his first wish by removing him from our membership records, but I'll be damned if I will willingly grant him his second wish. He's more than welcome to return and help promote our cause, but he's not welcome to return and try to sabotage our organization or our mission. We want to move forward, not keep picking at old wounds.

In any case I did what I always try to do with my posts, and that is to reach out to all the sideliners who still think they can't make a positive difference because they can. It may not be immediate nor at the level we would like, but it is a difference nonetheless. In fact, you as individuals are already making a difference by NOT being involved. The trouble is it's a negative difference.

In case no one has noticed, for all the bluster we hear from SFW (and other groups) about all they're doing, the same SFW people show up for all meetings and projects and some of them are paid to do so, while most of the others are reimbursed for their expenses. I (and you) could even name most of them, including those who post on this forum. That's how I was able to be the first to point out that Donnie Hunter, one of the two new Wildlife Board members was also SFW through and through just like Byron. He showed up at every Parowan Front deer transplant, just as I did.

SFW's rank and file are about as apathetic as UWC's and the rest of the organizations. The only difference is that they have more members and more who are willing to stand up and speak up. And, of course, they have the Conservation and Expo tag money. We can't compete with them with the money, but we sure as heck can compete with them with the manhours of service once we catch on to the way the 501(c)(3) system works. And we can compete with them in the meetings with equal or better attendance and voices and that can make up for their money advantage. But we have to show up! And we can compete with them through emails, faxes and phone calls. But we have to do it.

Maybe UWC isn't your favorite organization, but whoever it is, they need you too. DO SOMETHING!

Edited: BTW, There are certain wildlife conservation organizations that are lovin' this gone-toxic thread. You figure out who they are.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

My guess is the UWC hasn't hated this thread. You haven't had this much run in years!


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

UWC is an asset to the average sportsman in this state. Petty differences and a few 2 year old fights that have taken place in the past and on here should not determine support of any group. Successful application of your mission, including keeping members and the public up to date on how your applying your mission are what this should be about. Continue pushing forward, listen to voices of reason, and get support by letting people know you exist and what you stand for and do. Good organization, on the right path, being successful for UWC is not the path it's headed down, it's whether that path is well maintained along the way so people want to be a part of the ride. You've done good, keep doing good, just embrace improvements rather than mock them. You've already got a Facebook page, when you have events, or complete a project, post it. Post wildlife board links, and UWC stance on issues regarding to them on your Facebook page. If you can figure out this forum, Facebook, Instagram, etc. are just as easy. I wish UWC well for sure, keep up the good work you do.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> UWC is an asset to the average sportsman in this state. Petty differences and a few 2 year old fights that have taken place in the past and on here should not determine support of any group. Successful application of your mission, including keeping members and the public up to date on how your applying your mission are what this should be about. Continue pushing forward, listen to voices of reason, and get support by letting people know you exist and what you stand for and do. Good organization, on the right path, being successful for UWC is not the path it's headed down, it's whether that path is well maintained along the way so people want to be a part of the ride. You've done good, keep doing good, just embrace improvements rather than mock them. You've already got a Facebook page, when you have events, or complete a project, post it. Post wildlife board links, and UWC stance on issues regarding to them on your Facebook page. If you can figure out this forum, Facebook, Instagram, etc. are just as easy. I wish UWC well for sure, keep up the good work you do.


 Touche one-eye! My mamma didn't raise no dummy. Stubborn maybe, but not stupid. This thread is a lesson well learned, on all sides we hope. Thanks for posting it Bax.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> Touche one-eye! My mamma didn't raise no dummy. Stubborn maybe, but not stupid. This thread is a lesson well learned, on all sides we hope. Thanks for posting it Bax.


Just curious, What have you personally learned from this thread?
Also, how many new due paying members were signed up at the expo this past weekend?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

ridgetop said:


> Just curious, What have you personally learned from this thread?
> Also, how many new due paying members were signed up at the expo this past weekend?


The answers to your first question:
-Social media is more than this forum and MM.
-There are a lot more people who don't know about us than there are who do. 
-We need to use Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. to reach the general public, especially the younger crowd.
-Of those who know about us, there are a significant number of people who appreciate what we're doing.
-I need to actively seek more help and learn to delegate, rather than try to cover everything myself.
-Don't take negative remarks personally. (I seldom do anyway)
I'm sure there are other things I'll discover later on, but the things above are what come to mind at this time.
-Plan further ahead

The answer to your second question is unknown. I'll have to let you know later. We had to set up our booth unmanned (previously unknown changes in work schedules per holiday overtime for 4 volunteers, unknown family plans for 1 volunteer and my dear sister's funeral for me) and, since I'll be in Magna for the rest of this week, I haven't been able to check the slotted lock box where the public was asked to put in their completed paper membership applications. (no money, checks or cards, just a note printed on the application that we would contact them later about the payment of family dues which they know is $30 per year. We had Sylvia Anderson (the Expo director), Bill Ennis (a UWN member volunteer who called me offering help and who had a booth there, Dig Paddlesports), Red Rock Archers (the booth next door) and Jason Aikens (and the SFW guys across the aisle) keeping tabs on our exhibits and giveaways (sponsors' cards, UWC flyers, DWR Bear Aware camp trash bags, and some hand warmers). And the SFW guys broke down the setup and Jason will deliver the stuff to me when I get back home. I'll contact the people then and let you know.


----------

