# SFW official pansy statement



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

https://sfw.net/2017/02/09/sfw-states-position-on-public-lands/

Not far enough for me. There is no pure statement against the transfer, shows just how big of pansies they are. Glad they opposed sale, but they should have opposed transfer. Again, stay away from this ****ty group.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

I am not going to knock them too much for the specific statement. At least they have come out and said they are opposed to anything that takes away public access. 

However, I do agree that the statement was carefully worded to allow for state transfer so long as access remains public. 

You and I both know that public access to state lands has proved to be pretty temporary, at least until the state is in a budget crunch and needs to sell the land. 

But SFW is so busy between the sheets with the State politicians and DWR that they may actually believe what the state reps are feeding everyone about not losing public access if transfer were to occur. This is why I think it's still a good thing they came out against the sale of public land/loss of access.

SFW members need to put the pressure on their organization to show that state transfer is pretty much a guarantee to some lost access. Maybe if they see the light, they'll be willing to firm up this statement a bit.


----------



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

I agree Kwalk, I'm glad they at least came out against the sale of any public land. That is a good thing, but when all other organizations have came out specifically opposed to transfer it is frustrating they can't do the same.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I agree Kwalk, I'm glad they at least came out against the sale of any public land. That is a good thing, but when all other organizations have came out specifically opposed to transfer it is frustrating they can't do the same.


Agreed 100%. However given SFW's wonderful history of being on the wrong side of public access and opportunity issues, I'd say this is at least a marginally positive sign. They are at least straddling the fence here.

I'm not an SFW member, but I think there are probably a lot of decent folks who are, that can apply the right kind of pressure and let the leadership know that they should be opposed to transfer as well as sale. I truly think that the close SFW ties to state officials is the reason that transfer to the states wasn't explicitly mentioned in the statement. Membership can hopefully change that.


----------



## swampfox (Dec 30, 2014)

I agree Kwalk. I actually thought this was encouraging. While I would much rather see them come out strongly opposing the transfer like most other groups, this is a big step in the right direction for them. I wasn't sure I'd even see something this supportive of public land from them after the way they handled the stream access issue. I still can't believe they fought against anglers on that one, which is the very group they are supposed to represent.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Actually, in reading through it, I thought it was a positive statement from them. Far better than I would have expected. Why?

1. When the Southern Utah SFW chapter comes out and clamors for TPL as they did, one cannot expect too much of a statement against TPL from the "mother ship". They don't want to alienate such chapters.

2.


Kwalk3 said:


> But SFW is so busy between the sheets with the State politicians and DWR that they may actually believe what the state reps are feeding everyone about not losing public access if transfer were to occur. This is why I think it's still a good thing they came out against the sale of public land/loss of access.


This is spot on. SFW also doesn't want to alienate the State legislators that they have been in the sack with the last few years. Considering this, I thought this particular statement was quite positive for our side. (FWIW, I'm not sure the "DWR" has come out for or against TPL. I suspect most of the rank and file staff oppose it, the brass, who knows, and all would be afraid to come out publicly one way or another with fears of alienating powerful politicians or the public.)


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Overall, this is a step in the right direction for SFW. Just like with anything else political, including wildlife politics, I am trying to be cautious before heaping either too much praise or condemnation on anyone for a statement. I will continue to be skeptical and when necessary, critical of SFW's dealings. I do believe this is a positive sign.

A good benchmark for SFW's true opposition to loss of public access will be to see how SFW responds to the next sale of prime hunting and fishing acreage currently owned by the state. SFW has the state's ear(and cojones) on a lot of issues, so this could be a positive influence in quelling the desire to transfer and sell public lands.

Now that they've made a statement about sale of public lands, I think this allows the rest of us to hold them to it, and in turn for them to put pressure on the state to reduce or eliminate sale of state tracts that are currently enjoyed by many outdoorsmen. Otherwise this statement will have proven to be all sunshine and hot air blown from behind us.

Other groups, notably BHA, come out against specific instances of public land sales. Let's see if we hear anything out of SFW next time Mr. Ivory wants to put for sale signs on some pristine cabin lots.


----------



## Shep (Sep 21, 2007)

I agree 1 Eye. Glad they came out and stated what needed to be said. In my opinion though it's a bit late in the game or I did not see this post from them earlier. Why did they wait to say anything about the public lands issue after the fact that Chaffetz had dropped HR621? I never saw any emails from them asking us to contact our state representatives (I did receive several emails from other groups which I appreciated). HR622 is still out there, so what are they doing now to be involved in this issue other than putting out a statement? Or are they too busy worrying about the upcoming expo to be involved?


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

The interesting thing about TPL, if you talk to my state legislators, is that they all say "we can do a better job than the Feds", but when asked for specifics on how this would happen, all I get is, "well, I just trust that we can do a better job than the Feds". Not really the answer that I, or anyone else for that matter, should take at face value. It seems eerily similar to a certain statement by Nancy Pelosi that we "should pass bills so that we can then read what's inside them" (paraphrased, of course).


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

This post frustrates me, to be candid. Too many people are buying into the attitude of the day that nothing an opponent does is ever good enough. For anyone paying attention, you know my feelings on SFW. I don't need to re-hash that here. But goodness, this is one of the most unreasonable posts I've seen. 

You know why SFW didn't issue a statement on the public land transfer? Because the transfer of lands to the states was not the issue that was on the table. The issue on the table was the selling off of "excess" federal public lands. 

It's disappointing to see that we have got to a point that even as hunters we can't just support each other on issues we actually agree about. We won't agree on everything, but we should absolutely march ahead on issues we do and fight together for those things instead of furthering this asinine notion that "the other side can do no good." 

SFW just made an absolutely clear and unambiguous statement that they support continued public access to all public lands. This is great news. I applaud them for this, because they have not always been clear about this. Now we can hold their feet to the fire on it, and use their influence to further this important issue. 

Well done, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife. You and I see eye to eye on public access to public lands. Let's work together to make sure we keep these lands this way.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Vanilla said:


> This post frustrates me, to be candid. Too many people are buying into the attitude of the day that nothing an opponent does is ever good enough. For anyone paying attention, you know my feelings on SFW. I don't need to re-hash that here. But goodness, this is one of the most unreasonable posts I've seen.
> 
> You know why SFW didn't issue a statement on the public land transfer? Because the transfer of lands to the states was not the issue that was on the table. The issue on the table was the selling off of "excess" federal public lands.
> 
> ...


I agree with most of this. I think this is an important step for sfw. Also, we now have something to hold them to next time loss of access or land comes up. And as much as I don't like it, they have a large influence at the state level.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## Shep (Sep 21, 2007)

Kwalk3 said:


> I agree with most of this. I think this is an important step for sfw. Also, we now have something to hold them to next time loss of access or land comes up. And as much as I don't like it, they have a large influence at the state level.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


Vanilla didn't mean to come off as disagreeing or upset with SFW's statement and not being supportive in their statements with the land transfer/public lands sell off issues. If they were to email me and ask for my help to put a stop to these issues I would gladly jump at the opportunity and help them out.

As was mentioned above they are now accountable to us as sportsman to step up and really do something about these issues. I was only saying that I was wishing it had been sooner rather than later on in these battles. Now that we know where they stand I would love to hear them reaching out to all of us and informing us what we can do to help. Especially after watching the video of Rep. Chaffetz talk about HR 622 I really feel that we are going to need as much help as possible to get our concerns heard over some of the proposals in this bill and I am so glad that they are on our side in this case.


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

While the SFW statement might be taken as a little limp wristed in their support for the every day joe, it is ( imo ) better than nothing at all. As others have said, its now our responsibility to hold their feet over the proverbial flames to keep them to it.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Kwalk3 said:


> I agree with most of this. I think this is an important step for sfw. Also, we now have something to hold them to next time loss of access or land comes up. And as much as I don't like it, they have a large influence at the state level.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


Excellent observation. SFW has been known to push their agenda one step at a time. So can we!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

TS,
Spot on..:!:..


----------

