# Serious Voting Proposal: Disband the Wildlife board



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Serious Voting Proposal: Disband the Wildlife board

I have some serious issues with how our wildlife is managed in Utah. Unfortunately, those who go to college, earn the degrees, put in the field time, make management plan proposals etc etc, are not the same people who get to actually set policies regarding our wildlife management.

The Wildlife board has the power to set wildlife policies according to their own arbitrary desires. They not only have the ability to completely ignore recommendations by the DWR, they are now showing a track record of doing just that! Ignoring policy and plans presented by the wildlife professionals.

I really don't understand how such an arbitrary board of people can wield so much power in this state. IMO, its time to disband it.

*I propose we get a Proposition on the ballet for this next years election cycle, to disband the Utah State Wildlife Board, and return the decision making process to the DWR.*

I would really love to see one of these new "wildlife groups" (UWC?) get this ball rolling. I am not a legal expert but I believe all it takes to get a proposal on the ballet is a certain number of signatures supporting the proposition. It wouldn't be hard to find someone who knows more about this process to help get started (Curtis Oda? state rep & big hunting supporter).

I don't agree with all of the decisions the DWR makes, but I am much more confident in their long term ability to direct our wildlife management than the wildlife board, which seems to be driven by outside influences and comprised of people with no wildlife college education requirements.

I rarely donate to hunting groups as I feel its wasted money, but I would donate $ or time to help this make the ballot next fall. If people are really angry about our current management direction, we have a small window to start getting things changed.

-DallanC


----------



## bowhunt3r4l1f3 (Jan 12, 2011)

This first thing that should be done is setting up social media sites for the cause. Create a blog/website where people can sign the ballet online. Then work on getting the word out. PM me if you want, I'd be happy to setup a site or media page. What other ideas do people have? 

-Adam


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

DallanC said:


> *I propose we get a Proposition on the ballet for this next years election cycle, to disband the Utah State Wildlife Board, and return the decision making process to the DWR.*


I could definately support this.


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

Let's do it!!!!!


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

You have my support.


----------



## angrychair (Jan 19, 2011)

i'm all in...


----------



## Truelife (Feb 6, 2009)

There couldn't be a better time to get this done


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> DallanC said:
> 
> 
> > *I propose we get a Proposition on the ballet for this next years election cycle, to disband the Utah State Wildlife Board, and return the decision making process to the DWR.*
> ...


Me too!


----------



## PaleHorse1 (Jul 11, 2011)

I like the idea too!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I'm down and I know a few people.......


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Count me in.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Funny thing about history.....

http://www.livestockweekly.com/papers/9 ... lprop5.asp

Ironic?


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Some sort of guidance is needed to deal with the Social issues. Most of the ideas we either love or hate deal with the social side of the equation rather than the biological. The UDWR should have a vote on matters which deal with wildlife health and biology. They should not just present the biological side and then sit back and watch. Let them have 2 or 3 votes on the Board. That would take care of many of the issues-- or would it.....


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

I think there needs to be check and balances and no one entity should have all the decision making power. I would suggest either that the board and the division have to agree before changes are made, which would force each of them to make some compromises, or create a 3rd entity and 2 of the 3 must agree. No one entity should have all the power.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

There needs to be a science/biological override, set by peer reviewed science. AND and a checks and balances system over this, also with a Science over ride. It would gurantee, good intentions on behalf of wildlife at least, and address due process issues.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> I think there needs to be check and balances and no one entity should have all the decision making power. I would suggest either that the board and the division have to agree before changes are made, which would force each of them to make some compromises, or create a 3rd entity and 2 of the 3 must agree. No one entity should have all the power.





Lonetree said:


> There needs to be a science/biological override, set by peer reviewed science. AND and a checks and balances system over this, also with a Science over ride. It would gurantee, good intentions on behalf of wildlife at least, and address due process issues.


A combination of these two suggestions is whats in order. A check and balance with 3 enities, 2 of the three agreeing, and one of the enities being backed with biologists.


----------



## kailey29us (May 26, 2011)

i could probably get 5 or 10 signatures in addition to my own, lets do it


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Packout said:


> Some sort of guidance is needed to deal with the Social issues. Most of the ideas we either love or hate deal with the social side of the equation rather than the biological. The UDWR should have a vote on matters which deal with wildlife health and biology. They should not just present the biological side and then sit back and watch. Let them have 2 or 3 votes on the Board. That would take care of many of the issues-- or would it.....


I think that's a good solution. And yes, it would make a great deal of difference!

Per the WB response to the RACs on Statewide Deer Management Plan Ammendment. (Options)

"*Statewide Deer Management Plan Amendment:* *NRO and CRO voted for Option #1 rest of The RACs voted for option #2. Board passed option #2 by a 4 to 2 vote.*

*Statewide Archery:* *SRO was the only RAC that voted to move Archery to unit by unit under Option #2. Board passed Unit by Unit Archery under option @ by a 4 to 3 vote, with the Chair breaking the tie. *

I'm afraid that if we disband the Wildlife Board, we'll also have to disband the RACs and that eliminates our ability to have any input. I don't think we need to turn ALL decisions over to the DWR anymore than we should turn them ALL over to SFW, MDF, UWC, or any other single entity.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

I don't know if disbanding the WB is the way to go, but like Bullsnot said, we need a check on them. I like the idea of having both the WB and Division both having a vote or create the third party. I get nervous of making one more party that could potentially be corrupted also. I also worry about getting rid of the WB and what may replace it. Also I am not sure I like the Governor himself appointing the WB members, but I am not sure I have a better solution at the time.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

If we already have the RACs why do we need a WB? Or why can't the RAC be the third check in the system? Give all three WB/RAC/Division equal voting weight and you need a 2/3 majority. RAC members are voted on by the public. That way the WB is presented by the Gov, RAC is presented by the public, Division by the biologists.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

JuddCT said:


> If we already have the RACs why do we need a WB? Or why can't the RAC be the third check in the system? Give all three WB/RAC/Division equal voting weight and you need a 2/3 majority. RAC members are voted on by the public. That way the WB is presented by the Gov, RAC is presented by the public, Division by the biologists.


Hmmm...Interesting. I like this line of thinking.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> JuddCT said:
> 
> 
> > If we already have the RACs why do we need a WB? Or why can't the RAC be the third check in the system? Give all three WB/RAC/Division equal voting weight and you need a 2/3 majority. RAC members are voted on by the public. That way the WB is presented by the Gov, RAC is presented by the public, Division by the biologists.
> ...


I won't take credit yet for this being a "good" idea as I know myself to well to make that mistake again!

:lol:


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

JuddCT said:


> If we already have the RACs why do we need a WB? Or why can't the RAC be the third check in the system? Give all three WB/RAC/Division equal voting weight and you need a 2/3 majority. RAC members are voted on by the public. That way the WB is presented by the Gov, RAC is presented by the public, Division by the biologists.


In a round about way I guess the RACs represent the public, but RAC members are actually not voted on by the public. They are appointed by the DNR director.

Utah Code 23-14-2.6 (3) "The executive director of the Department of Natural Resources, in consultation with the with the director of the Division of Wildlife Resouces, shall select the members from a list of nominees submitted by the respective interest group or agency."

The respective interest group or agency includes; agriculture, sportsmen, nonconsumptive wildlife, locally elected public officials, federal land agencies and the public at large.

If there were a way to vote for them, I admit it would be more democratic, but I think it would work the way it is because all interests are, or can be, represented in the 12 t0 15 member RACs. And all of them have an equal vote.

I also think it's a good, no GREAT, alternative!


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> In a round about way I guess the RACs represent the public, but RAC members are actually not voted on by the public. They are appointed by the DNR director.
> 
> Utah Code 23-14-2.6 (3) "The executive director of the Department of Natural Resources, in consultation with the with the director of the Division of Wildlife Resouces, shall select the members from a list of nominees submitted by the respective interest group or agency."
> 
> ...


I understand they are not currently "voted" in and that might not even matter. However, shouldn't the hunting/fishing/outdoorsman/public have some way of holding the RAC guys accountable? I still think they should have a seat for each of those "special interest groups" but why can't we sift through their resume's and hear their opinions and make a decision for ourselves? I guess I'd just like to see the WB/RAC/Division be held a little more accountable and this could help without changing the system too much.

I guess another opinion I would have is that if I actually have a say in who is appointed to the RAC I'd have a lot more belief in the current system (especially if the biologists at the division had an equal vote). Just a thought.


----------



## Dannyboy (Oct 27, 2010)

I like where this is going.. I am on board!! I like the wb/dwr/rac idea but i agree that the way the rac members are appointed should be looked at or tweaked.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

I have no problems if the WB was disbanded and would sign your proposal. Another possibility that I think I favor a bit more is very specific reform to the WB composition. If the WB is kept, how I would reform it would be to allow the DWR head to become a full voting member. I would also want the DWR section head, Big game, aquatics, etc.. to be a full voting member on issues related to the section they are in charge of. That would give the DWR a direct voice and vote in any issue under consideration. I believe such a configuration would have resulted in a different outcome in the option 1-3 deer management vote last time.

Pros and cons of each. 

1. Abolition of the WB; As Packout mentioned, the WB does serve as "check" to the DWR. Right now, IMO, it (the WB) has too much power and the DWR cannot call any shots, but the with the WB being gone, the potential exists for the DWR to become too powerful and nonresponsive to the public. (I don't know that the RACs would have to go away.) Positives are that the biologists should be better represented than they are now and I would hope decisions made with more scientific rigor. Also, removal of the WB would remove an entity that has shown to be easily influenced/corrupted by a few special interests. It may also lessen the pull of some politicians in obtaining/approving the political appointments to the WB.

2. A reformed WB; The WB was originally created as an entity that could be a voice of the people and a suitably reformed one could still serve that purpose. It can be a check and balance to the DWR, especially if the DWR is being unresponsive to the public. The cons are that the control of it by the Governor still exists, and the non DWR members still could outvote the DWR in a reformed board (as proposed). Of course, the Guv still has ultimate control over both a WB+DWR and a DWR not being led around by a WB. 

IMO, either choice would be preferable to our current system.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

JuddCT said:


> If we already have the RACs why do we need a WB? Or why can't the RAC be the third check in the system? Give all three WB/RAC/Division equal voting weight and you need a 2/3 majority. RAC members are voted on by the public. That way the WB is presented by the Gov, RAC is presented by the public, Division by the biologists.


Also not a bad idea. It would require making the RAC's much more than an advisory group however. And the question of how they get appointed would probably need to be addressed.


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

I think it will be difficult to abolish the Wildlife Board. However, I do think changes should be made. The simplest way to fix the problem is to change the composition of the WB - don't create new groups. The WB should be composed of members appointed from different organizations who have interest and investment in Utah's Wildlife. We should see some members appointed by Congress, some from the Division of Wildlife, some elected by the general public, some from land management agencies -- to where there is a mix of members serving short terms from each group. 

I don't think adding new groups to the mix will help too much. We need to fix the group we already have.


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

Time to get pro-active!!!! Let's see.... What would Don do?


----------



## NHS (Sep 7, 2007)

It sounds like it is time for a top secret meeting.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Where is the secret meeting to be held, I want to go.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Lonetree said:


> Where is the secret meeting to be held, I want to go.


Me too. Am I cool enough to get invited to the secret meeting? :?: If not, who is?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

I'll invite you, if you invite me, I'll bring cookies.


----------



## Mrad (Mar 25, 2011)

So, are you saying you'd turn over our hunting and game management to a group of nonhunting, (increasingly antihunting), liberally educated individuals? Better be careful what you ask for. o-||


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Take one guess who would HATE is idea the most???

The DWR.....


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Lonetree said:


> I'll invite you, if you invite me, I'll bring cookies.


And the Don will be bringing the Kool-Aid! :lol:


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mrad said:


> So, are you saying you'd turn over our hunting and game management to a group of nonhunting, (increasingly antihunting), liberally educated individuals? Better be careful what you ask for. o-||


Explain? maybe your not understanding what is being proposed. Heck, the current WB appears to be very anti hunting, and anti deer for that matter.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> Take one guess who would HATE is idea the most???
> 
> The DWR.....


You could be right to a very large extent on that.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

elkfromabove said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > I'll invite you, if you invite me, I'll bring cookies.
> ...


Don always has the best kool-aid, so generous with it too.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Lonetree said:


> Mrad said:
> 
> 
> > So, are you saying you'd turn over our hunting and game management to a group of nonhunting, (increasingly antihunting), liberally educated individuals? Better be careful what you ask for. o-||
> ...


Seriously, which proposal would they hate? Disbanding the board or revamping it and giving them a vote or two? Or are you thinking of something else? Have we missed something? Anything along these lines would be a major change and would rattle some heads, but I don't follow your line of thinking that it would be the DWR that would oppose it the most, or even at all! There's always unintended consequences to these kinds of changes, sometimes good and sometimes bad. Let's hear yours, please.


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Take one guess who would HATE is idea the most???
> 
> The DWR.....


I thought that the purpose of the deer management meetings this year was to demonstrate to the public that the regulations perscribed by the wildlife board are not exactly the recommendations of their biologists.. While they did take feedback from the public I am pretty sure that they had a perscribed plan and they did demonstrate a desire to incorporate some of their biological data in order to influence the decisions that were being force upon them by the wildlife board.

I would dare say that the DWR already gets blamed for everything as it is... So this would just legitimately allow people to blame them for things. Which I would assume would be a preference.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

elkfromabove said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > Mrad said:
> ...


I'm not saying that the DWR as a whole would HATE it. but I would not be surprised at all if some within the division would push back on anything along the lines of what has been proposed here. It is a bigger political picture I'm looking at, and commenting on here.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

I say privatize the whole darn mess. Run the thing for profit and let capitalism work it's magic. We don't need no government agency stifling our free will as natural born hunters. :|


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

BPturkeys said:


> I say privatize the whole darn mess. Run the thing for profit and let capitalism work it's magic. We don't need no government agency stifling our free will as natural born hunters. :|


 :mrgreen: Here ye, here ye, long live the queen.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

BPturkeys said:


> I say privatize the whole darn mess. Run the thing for profit and let capitalism work it's magic. We don't need no STINKIN government agency stifling our free will as natural born hunters. :|


There, I fixed it for ya!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

BPturkeys said:


> I say privatize the whole darn mess. Run the thing for profit and let capitalism work it's magic. We don't need no government agency stifling our free will as natural born hunters. :|


A-FREAKING-MEN! Anything short of this is putting lipstick on a muddy pig.


----------



## BradN (Sep 25, 2007)

I thought it was already privatized. Isn't that why everyone has been complaining about SFW?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

You privatize wildlife, and you can kiss your hunting futures completely goodbye! Privatize hunting and unless you are completely loaded, you won't ever hunt...


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

wyoming2utah said:


> You privatize wildlife, and you can kiss your hunting futures completely goodbye! Privatize hunting and unless you are completely loaded, you won't ever hunt...


Finally, some one with a brain.


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

Theoretically, this how the WB system is supposed to work: the DWR provides the science, and the WB/RAC's weighs the science with public will to set policy direction. It is then up to the DWR to implement these management plans. I'm not saying the WB system is without it's flaws, but how exactly is doing away with the WB going to be an improvement??

Leave all decisions up to the DWR?? The problem is that there are philosophical divisions within the DWR itself about wildlife policy. There are the old schoolers who also like to hunt and fish themselves and think that the purpose of the DWR is to raise up wildlife for human harvest. But there is increasingly the neoconservationalists (bunny huggers) within the division who want wildlife managed to maximize diversity and restore ecosystems as close as possible to pre-settlement balances (read big predators) and which will likely limit human take. The question becomes who then decides which school of thought prevails...and can we countinue to assume the traditionalists will always win?? Remember, wildlife in Utah belongs to all the citizens of the state and hunters make up a smaller and smaller percentage.

My suggestion is that we don't rush to judgement and think things through. Let's be careful what we wish for because we just might get it.


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

Kevin D said:


> My suggestion is that we don't rush to judgement and think things through. Let's be careful what we wish for because we just might get it.


+1 I concur. Be careful!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

So, Dis ban the wildlife board.
Privatize Utah hunting.
And give all decision making to the DWR.

This is truly the dumbest thread I've ever seen on this forum!
What you guys are proposing would END hunting in Utah on public ground.
I mean REALY :shock:


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

You idiots privatize hunting in Utah and I'll shoot you myself!!!! :evil:


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

This is great..... :lol: 

Lets give total control of a division of government to a group of government employees with with no political ramifications and total control....I would say careful what you wish for....

Endangered Species Act works well.....a few nut jobs doing whatever "biology"' tells them with free reign....one of the better systems we have in place!  

The good news is i do know a lot of people that I'm sure would get behind you guys and fight tooth and nail....they are probably bored now that SLC won't let them camp in the park. Hell PETA could maybe train a few biologists to help out???

I mean why the hell do we have congress, and a president and the judicial system....


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> You idiots privatize hunting in Utah and I'll shoot you myself!!!! :evil:


 You'll have to stand in line!

Getting rid of the Wildlife Board isn't a bad idea though.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> You privatize wildlife, and you can kiss your hunting futures completely goodbye! Privatize hunting and unless you are completely loaded, you won't ever hunt...


Pure nonsense! 'Unloaded' people hunt back east. In fact, they hunt at the same, or higher, percentages of the population as out here in the 'wide open west'. PA is almost all private, very little public land, and they only issue ONE MILLION deer permits......

Fact is, the federal government has NO RIGHT to own HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF ACRES. The government, through 'environmental' movements, and animal 'rights' movements has squanders resources more than any private entity ever could. Next you're going to assert that the government would be a better steward over farm land. The dumbing down of America has worked perfectly for the Socialists/progressives implementing policies in this nation. When the masses trust the government more than the individual, the masses are SLAVES!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> BPturkeys said:
> 
> 
> > I say privatize the whole darn mess. Run the thing for profit and let capitalism work it's magic. We don't need no government agency stifling our free will as natural born hunters. :|
> ...


Bart, we've had this discussion before, but the thing we need to remember is that we're not talking about who owns the land the animals are on, but who owns the animals and who manages them. It doesn't matter where the animals reside, there has to be some policies made and enforced regarding hunting and/or preserving them. And let's not talk oranges and apples (whitetails and mule deer). Whitetails adapt well to human encroachment, mule deer do not!

No matter who owns it, the only way to make a profit on a pig is to kill it! How about if we just keep the pig, but clean it up and keep it clean and put it in a pen where it can't run off in some direction where it can get lost and/or destroy the whole farm.

We don't need to disband the Wildlife Board, or the RACs, we just need to devise a way to keep a proper balance of science, economics, and social needs in play. We haven't had that for quite some time.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I think we should all campout in one of the Salt Lake City parks. Then picket the Expo. We could call it "Occupy WB".


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

horsesma said:


> Kevin D said:
> 
> 
> > My suggestion is that we don't rush to judgement and think things through. Let's be careful what we wish for because we just might get it.
> ...


+2 I ruconc oot



elkfromabove said:


> We don't need to disband the Wildlife Board, or the RACs, we just need to devise a way to keep a proper balance of science, economics, and social needs in play. We haven't had that for quite some time.


Yep



ridgetop said:


> I think we should all campout in one of the Salt Lake City parks. Then picket the Expo. We could call it "Occupy WB".


 :mrgreen:


----------



## shaun larsen (Aug 5, 2011)

Im in...


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Come on man! Do we need to have a debate about hypothetical privatization on this thread? Start a new one so that can be hashed over for the 80th time and not muddy the issue here. 

Concerns about the DWR becoming "too liberal" or "bunny hugging" are legitimate. (I would say that almost all of the DWR personnel I have met do *not* fit that category however.) That is why there has to be a check and balance in whatever would be decided. Part of the problem now is that the DWR is completely impotent and the Wildlife Board is the entity with *zero* check and balance or *accountability*to it! What would happen if the State went out of character and elected a liberal "bunny hugging" Governor? He/she could pick all PETA and SUWA members to the WB positions and where would we be?

Whatever type of reform is undertaken, the goal should be making sure there are checks and balances. We don't have that now. Having the DWR with as little clout as they have in the current configuration is wrong, IMO.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Catherder said:


> Come on man! Do we need to have a debate about hypothetical privatization on this thread? Start a new one so that can be hashed over for the 80th time and not muddy the issue here.
> 
> Concerns about the DWR becoming "too liberal" or "bunny hugging" are legitimate. (I would say that almost all of the DWR personnel I have met do *not* fit that category however.) That is why there has to be a check and balance in whatever would be decided. Part of the problem now is that the DWR is completely impotent and the Wildlife Board is the entity with *zero* check and balance or *accountability*to it! What would happen if the State went out of character and elected a liberal "bunny hugging" Governor? He/she could pick all PETA and SUWA members to the WB positions and where would we be?
> 
> ...


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > You privatize wildlife, and you can kiss your hunting futures completely goodbye! Privatize hunting and unless you are completely loaded, you won't ever hunt...
> ...


Are you fisting me here PRO??? Judas Priest look at what the private entities ( SFW MDF RMEF UBA NWTF ) are doing to big game management in this state!!! Do ya think we would have more elk permits if there wasn't a monetary value put on 400 inch bulls?? Do ya think more than a handful of people would draw a Henry's deer tag in their life if big game management in Utah wasn't pseudo-private right now???

Believe it or not there are some things in this country that MUST REMAIN PART OF THE PUBLIC TRUST. Talk about nonsense, you disapprove of what SFW A PRIVATE ENTITY has done in one breath and then in the next breath become a huge proponent of turning it all over to them.. WTF Homey???


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Lets add some perspective here. OPTION WTF? was delivered by a privatized wildlife organization, that is indestinguishable from the current goverment, or WB. It eliminates 13,000 deer hunters every year, and in the same breath, does nothing to grow more deer. The WB is worse than any politician, its appointed by one, and not elected. I am all in favor representative goverment, this does not even pretend to be that.

Bunny huggers dont scare me one bit. There need be only one test when it comes to wildlife managment: "Is it good for wildlife". If it is good for wildlife, it is good for us as hunters.

I'm way beyong little girl tea parties on this, if people want to hand our lands and wildlife, that belong to US(*U.S.*A) over to the aristocracy, that works for the king and queen, may the tar and feathering comence, you ****ing traitors!

BTW how is the elk, bear, moose, lion, sheep, goat, antalope, hunting in PA?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> I think we should all campout in one of the Salt Lake City parks. Then picket the Expo. We could call it "Occupy WB".


I dont think Utah hunters have the balls or the moral compass to stand up for Utah hunters or Utah wildlife. Otherwise it could be a good idea.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Kevin D said:


> Theoretically, this how the WB system is supposed to work: the DWR provides the science, and the WB/RAC's weighs the science with public will to set policy direction. It is then up to the DWR to implement these management plans. I'm not saying the WB system is without it's flaws, but how exactly is doing away with the WB going to be an improvement??
> 
> Leave all decisions up to the DWR?? The problem is that there are philosophical divisions within the DWR itself about wildlife policy. There are the old schoolers who also like to hunt and fish themselves and think that the purpose of the DWR is to raise up wildlife for human harvest. *But there is increasingly the neoconservationalists (bunny huggers) within the division who want wildlife managed to maximize diversity and restore ecosystems as close as possible to pre-settlement balances (read big predators) and which will likely limit human take. The question becomes who then decides which school of thought prevails...and can we countinue to assume the traditionalists will always win??* Remember, wildlife in Utah belongs to all the citizens of the state and hunters make up a smaller and smaller percentage.
> 
> My suggestion is that we don't rush to judgement and think things through. Let's be careful what we wish for because we just might get it.


There was an article in Field and Stream a couple years ago that touched on this very subject, it was quite an interesting read. Can't find it online, so I'll quote a few of the highlights here: Field Sports U an article by: Bob Marshall

"If you owned a car dealership, would you hire a manager who had never purchased a car, had never been a passenger in one-and didn't even have a driver's license?

Of course not.

So why, then, are natural resource agencies hiring young men and woman to manage fish and wildlife when many of them have never hunted or fished-and are completely ignorant of the roles those traditions have played in conservation?

For almost 20 years, that question has been a cloud of worry quietly growing in the minds of the nation's fish and wildlife managers. No longer were the applicants for jobs at state fish and game agencies almost universally avid hunters and anglers. Instead, many now had no background in the field sports. How will these new leaders preserve the North American wildlife conservation model-a core management philosophy asserting that all game and fish belong to the public, and that every citizen has a right to hunt and fish-if they do not understand the engine that drives it?"

Hmmmm.

"The Wildlife Management Institute researched the demographic profile of students on academic tracks toward agency work and recent hires by state and federal agencies. It also reviewed the content of the curricula that universities off to students interested in fish and wildlife management.

According to the results, fewer than half of the students had ever hunted. More troubling, perhaps, were the findings at the universities. In a WMI survey, most department heads and faculty chairs responsible for administering wildlife programs did not think it was important that the role and history of huniting in conservation be part of the curriculum, or that the students be exposed to that tradition&#8230;"

There are a lot of things to worry about that directly relate to our hunting heritage. This is one that doesn't see the light of day too often&#8230;.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Only personal analogy, but I know a wildlife biologist in Wyoming, that grew up in New Hampshire, and had never hunted or fished growing up. Thats right, staight up bunny buggar. He got his paper work, and came out west to work as a biologist. Guess what? he lives almost exclusively on antelope that he shoots, that his hippy wife butchers. Yes a convert. I know of a couple more just like that, and have never met an anti hunting division employee in NV, UT, WY, MT, or ID. From what I've seen they come over, or go elsewhere.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

He is still working on his conversion, he cant seem to wear that cowboy hat quite right.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

It just dawned on me! We should get more bunny buggars to go to liberal colleges to work in wildlife. When they become hunters, and raise there kids to become hunters, they will help replace all those kids who lost their hunting heritage because Option WTF? denied their fathers the oppurtunity to pass on that heritage. We just need hunter recuitment at an older age.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Rushing into an un-thought out plan, with a poor agenda backing it up, could have some serious consequences. A year from now, we might all have to act like we never supported the plan, change the subject everytime it comes up, AND we would need to find someone to blame the failure on too. I've seen worse plans.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Frankly I am tired of the government subsidizing unemployed, out of work hunters with cheap tags and licenses when there are hard working successful people out there willing to pay plenty for the chance to hunt very year and anywhere they want. There's profit to be made, what are we thinking to allow this out-dated system of Wildlife boards, Rac's and a government run DWR to control our destiny. Are we free men or not!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

BPturkeys said:


> Frankly I am tired of the government subsidizing unemployed, out of work hunters with cheap tags and licenses when there are hard working successful people out there willing to pay plenty for the chance to hunt very year and anywhere they want. There's profit to be made, what are we thinking to allow this out-dated system of Wildlife boards, Rac's and a government run DWR to control our destiny. Are we free men or not!


Well of course you can hunt the kings deer for a fee.

That is one of the saddest attempts I have ever seen at twisting the word free. The wildlife belongs to us all, and for the benefit of us all. Not for the few, not just for the nobility, we destroyed that system a long time ago. And yet some still harken back to their roots aiding an insurgency, too scared to really be anything else.

As a share holder in Utah's wildlife I say BS. You want to create, build, and capitalize on what YOU own, and hold title to, please do. I make my living in a similar fashion, with my own hands, with my own ideas, and with my own property, in this very great free country. I don't try to sell other peoples property, and sell it as freedom. What is being proposed here is a path to THE PEOPLE exercising their rights as FREE citizens, and controlling there own destiny. Not selling it off to the highest bidder. What a ****ing bull**** fraud.

---Edited for spelling


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

I would agree that I'd like to see some tweaks to the current system. I believe that over the past 20 years the WB has voted with the DWR way to often. If you look at past history the WB has believed in the recommendations of the DWR and we all see the results. I would like to see independent biologists have some input.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

As far as "the system" goes, who is recommending what, to who?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> I'm way beyong little girl tea parties on this, if people want to hand our lands and wildlife, that belong to US(*U.S.*A) over to the aristocracy, that works for the king and queen, may the tar and feathering comence, you **** traitors!
> 
> BTW how is the elk, bear, moose, lion, sheep, goat, antalope, hunting in PA?


All this time I took you as an educated person, not someone steeped in ignorance. For the 1st 100+ years of this nation the federal government held MINIMAL land, and there were specific qualifications for the federal government to be ALLOWED to retain land. Per the US Constitution, a document that long ago actually mattered in this country....Article I, Section 8: "To establish post offices and post roads; To exercise legislation....over such District [of Columbia] (not exceeding 10 miles square)....and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislation of the State....for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings." Thomas Jefferson, maybe you have heard of him, insisted that *all* federal land should be sold as quickly as possible, and "shall *never* after, in any case, revert to the United States." The irony is, the system in play today more closely resembles the feudalism/manorialism the Pilgrims left and the Founders fought against than privatized land. Good hell, it was the NEW concept of private property that led to unprecedented prosperity under the Principles of the Constitution. It wasn't until 1891 with the Forest Reserve Act of 1891, that the federal government began HORDING land. Before that, the federal government owned very little land, today it owns more than 190 MILLION acres. Before that, the Equal Footing Doctrine was followed. Incidentally, Equal Footing was codified in 1787, perhaps that year is of significance to you.... The Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the National Forest Management Act, both enacted in 1976, were created under heavy pressure from environmentalists. I suggest you educate yourself on these Acts and the fallout from them.

While the elk hunting in PA sadly resembles UT elk hunting, the bear hunting is better, the deer hunting is waaaay better, the turkey hunting is not even comparable....yes it is that much BETTER in PA. I doubt there would be 'antalope' in PA even with the 'protection' of the federal government, but why worry about such minor details, eh?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Lonetree and wiley are confusing/blurring PRIVATE ownership and pseudo-private ownership. This is as foolish as confusing/blurrin capitalism with crony-capitalism, a mistake wiley makes on a daily basis!!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

proutdoors said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > I'm way beyong little girl tea parties on this, if people want to hand our lands and wildlife, that belong to US(*U.S.*A) over to the aristocracy, that works for the king and queen, may the tar and feathering comence, you **** traitors!
> ...


We are talking about the state of Utah, not the federal goverment. :roll: Did it take all day to come up with that?

How about the mule deer in PA?, maybe you should move there.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Oh right, SFW does not actually, privately own(psuedo ownership) my wildlife they auction off.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> We are talking about the state of Utah, not the federal goverment. :roll: Did it take all day to come up with that?


****, nothing gets past you.....How much of the land in Utah is owned by the individual, by the state, and by the federal gover*n*ment? It was YOU that said turning things over to private ownership would lead us to a return to the days of feudalism, NOT me. The truth is, with the way things are run today, we have a feudalism type system in play, most are just unaware of it.



Lonetree said:


> How about the mule deer in PA?, maybe you should move there.


Okay, so not only are there no 'antalope' in PA, there are no mule deer, and that is apparently because of the high percentage of private land there. Is that your point? -Ov-


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Oh right, SFW does not actually, privately own(psuedo ownership) my wildlife they auction off.


Correct, and to be clear, I am *NOT* a fan of SFW.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

My point, besides I cant spell, is that we are talking about Utah mule deer, not PA, not the feds, not mexico, not mars. 

Glad to hear you are not a fan of SFW, many of your ideas and theirs..........?


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

I believe the UT deer herd would be far better off if most of the land was privately owned, like PA or TX or on and on and on. Private landowners would take better care of the deer and make better decisions regarding the herds future. I'd also bet the overall number of tags sold would be less than current levels??? Please name a government program or system that out performs it's privately owned counterpart??? Why would the UDWR be any different???


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

"Please name a government program or system that out performs it's privately owned counterpart??? Why would the UDWR be any different???"

73 you are not speaking German or Japanese because of the U.S. military and the greatest
generation. You don't have anarchy because of police, you know when you call fire or ambulance they will come without concern for profit. It's GOVT PROGRAMS and PROTECTIONS that insure that brain dead Libertarian simpletons like you and PRO can talk
and share these views. Ironic or just sad??

Great lets turn the whole state in to one big CWMU!! I expect this crap from CC, that was his and DC's goal long ago. PRO I still can't believe your view on this... WOW


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> My point, besides I cant spell, is that we are talking about Utah mule deer, not PA, not the feds, not mexico, not mars.
> 
> Glad to hear you are not a fan of SFW, many of your ideas and theirs..........?


Name ONE idea of mine that is aligned with SFW? One!! Me being a fan of the CONSTITUTION does not make me aligned with SFW thinking in any way, IMHO SFW is an example of socialism/crony-capitalism. My political views are libertarian, thus I trust the individual far more than I trust ANY government entity. SFW is where it is today because it uses the government to regulate/manipulate policies for their personal gain, not exactly libertarian....

My point is, whether we are talking about mule deer, PA, Mexico, or Mars, the role of government IS a major factor that can't be simply dismissed. Government by its very existence is at a disadvantage, it can't be pro-active, it isn't driven by profit, etc., etc..


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> "Please name a government program or system that out performs it's privately owned counterpart??? Why would the UDWR be any different???"
> 
> 73 you are not speaking German or Japanese because of the U.S. military and the greatest
> generation. You don't have anarchy because of police, you know when you call fire or ambulance they will come without concern for profit. It's GOVT PROGRAMS and PROTECTIONS that insure that brain dead Libertarian simpletons like you and PRO can talk
> ...


Pure hyperbole! First, we wouldn't be speaking German/Japanese. Second, one of the LIMITED and SPECIFIED roles of the federal government is the military. Is there a private counterpart to compare to for efficiency? Third, ask the OWS crowd if the police are so wonderful in all situations.......last I checked you are a big supporter of their movement....
Fourth, is it the "GOVT PROGRAMS" like the EPA/ESA that 'protect' my GOD given right to share my views? Is it "GOVT PROGRAMS" like Federal Land Policy and Management Act, National Forest Management Act, Taylor Grazing Act, Transfer Act of 1905, and the 'Sustainable' Communities policy adapted in the mid-1900's (guess who was President..) that were written by environmental groups to 'regulate' and manage 'eco-spiritual sustainable' policies that were adapted from the UN's Agenda 21?


----------



## BradN (Sep 25, 2007)

And the chances of millions of acres of government land being turned over to private owners? Not good, Lloyd.

I'm seeing a little hypocrisy. On one hand call for a privatization of hunting, but in the mean time have the state pay for damage caused by wildlife to private lands. On one hand assert that the land and the animals belong to "us", but collect funds for damages caused by "their" animals.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> I believe the UT deer herd would be far better off if most of the land was privately owned, like PA or TX or on and on and on. Private landowners would take better care of the deer and make better decisions regarding the herds future. I'd also bet the overall number of tags sold would be less than current levels??? Please name a government program or system that out performs it's privately owned counterpart??? Why would the UDWR be any different???


I agree and disagree with you here. I agree that private landowners would be better managers over wildlife. I see the horrible regulations placed on the beef/pork/poultry industries by the government, I shudder to think how things would be if the government had full control over how/where/when we get our food. I strongly disagree with you on the number of permits being lower if things were ran by private landowners. The REAL market would dictate this more than personal wants of the landowners, at least if the landowners actually want to make a profit, both short-term and long-term. The more quality steers I can raise, the more I make. And guess what, I have ONE bull per 30 cows. I would go broke in short order if I had 15-25 bulls per 100 cows. It is the offspring that makes/breaks a livestock operation. I agree that the government is not efficient, it has no reason to be.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

BradN said:


> And the chances of millions of acres of government land being turned over to private owners? Not good, Lloyd.
> 
> I'm seeing a little hypocrisy. On one hand call for a privatization of hunting, but in the mean time have the state pay for damage caused by wildlife to private lands. On one hand assert that the land and the animals belong to "us", but collect funds for damages caused by "their" animals.


You must have poor reading skills! I have NEVER asked to be compensated for damage from wildlife. In fact, I have repeatedly turned it down! What I want is the 'state's wildlife' off MY land! If I have them on MY land, and I can profit from this resource, then I have no beef. But, having a parasite on MY land, and you and others telling me too **** bad, eat the costs, then its a whole other ball game! If you can't wrap your brain around that.......

As for the odds of 'turning over' millions of acres, I don't know, the government is going broke and managing 190+ million acres is expensive. The federal government did it for more than 100 years, have we 'progressed' so far that common sense is out of the question?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Whoa!!! All these never-ending woulda, shoulda, coulda's, belong on another forum. We're just trying to sort out a problem specific to Utah's CURRENT wildlife regulating system and we don't need to change or throw out the whole federal (or world) governmental system to do that. Let's get back on task, please.

I'd like to see an actual proposal addressing this issue before I would commit to it and/or sign it. As always, the devil is in the details. Anybody willing to make a stab at it?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Keep dancing in circles my friend. Its all for show, and no real change will occur as long as the same captain is steering the ship. As long as government is steering, it will keep going in circles, going nowhere. So, come up with some 'new' way to manage wildlife, and when the same results occur, do it again, and again, and again. Its like taking water out of the deep end of the pool and putting it in the shallow end, actually expecting the depth at the shallow end to rise.....regardless of what color the lipstick is, it is still lipstick. Carry on with your ride on the merry-go-round....


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> Keep dancing in circles my friend. Its all for show, and no real change will occur as long as the same captain is steering the ship. As long as government is steering, it will keep going in circles, going nowhere. So, come up with some 'new' way to manage wildlife, and when the same results occur, do it again, and again, and again. Its like taking water out of the deep end of the pool and putting it in the shallow end, actually expecting the depth at the shallow end to rise.....regardless of what color the lipstick is, it is still lipstick. Carry on with your ride on the merry-go-round....


One bite at a time, my friend, I can only take one bite at a time!


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Public hunting is socialism at its finest.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Wiley,
First and most importantly...don't ever question my views on military. They do a great job and I am in debt to them for all I enjoy daily!!! That being said politics gets in the way of their decisions way to often!!!! 

I would not support all private land or one big CWMU!!! I have never ever pushed for that and never will. I think the current CWMU has failed at what was the original plan and reasoning behind it. I support the current system I would just like to see some tweaks. I love how you know sooo much about me and my agenda or personal thoughts or beliefs. You crack me up with your anger and confusion.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Public hunting is socialism at its worst.


I edited it for you. 8)


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

10 pages and counting! I'll vote on it if it's presented at the ballot boxes.


----------



## FishlakeElkHunter (Sep 11, 2007)

This is truly the STUPIDEST thread that I have ever seen on ANY forum!!! It makes me believe that most of you have TOTALLY lost your Freaking minds!!!! If the people here are the future of hunting.....we are all screwed!!!!


----------



## bowhunt3r4l1f3 (Jan 12, 2011)

FishlakeElkHunter said:


> This is truly the STUPIDEST thread that I have ever seen on ANY forum!!! It makes me believe that most of you have TOTALLY lost your Freaking minds!!!! If the people here are the future of hunting.....we are all screwed!!!!


I've seen much more stupid threads...there have been some decent points made, but now it's a stick measuring party.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

If your for this,, Stick your Heads Between Your Legs. And Kiss Your Happy Public Hunting Arse GOODBY>>TEXAS.. YA Got to Be KIDDING? TEXAS And THE Money GRUBBING RANCHERS.. COST COST... Take a few House Payments. And make sure the fence is atleast 12 foot High..YA GOT TO BE KIDDIN!!!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> I believe the UT deer herd would be far better off if most of the land was privately owned, like PA or TX or on and on and on. Private landowners would take better care of the deer and make better decisions regarding the herds future. I'd also bet the overall number of tags sold would be less than current levels??? Please name a government program or system that out performs it's privately owned counterpart??? Why would the UDWR be any different???


You and Pro, among others, keep comparing oranges with apples (mule deer with whitetails) Whitetails adapt well to human encroachment, mule deer do not, That's why whitetails are thriving in the east and are naturally moving west, and why mule deer are struggling in the west and are not naturally moving east. By privatizing western lands and continuing to chop up mule deer habitat with homes, farms, businesses, mining, roads, fences, etc. mule deer hunting will become a rare event. We may, in fact, end up with better deer hunting, It just won't be for mule deer!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Pure nonsense! 'Unloaded' people hunt back east. In fact, they hunt at the same, or higher, percentages of the population as out here in the 'wide open west'. PA is almost all private, very little public land, and they only issue ONE MILLION deer permits......


PA? You used Pennsylvania to back up your point? Come on, Pro, you could have done better than that...

...Pennsylvania also has very extensive GOVERNMENT programs to help mitigate increasing problems with private land access. In fact, Pennsylvania has a Cooperative Farm-Game program, a Cooperative Forest-Game Program, a Private Landowner Assistance Program, and a Cooperative Safety Zone Program to help not only enhance the public's wildlife and to give public hunters opportunity to hunt private lands but also to help private landowners finance habitat improvement on their own land.... (ironic, huh? Here, in Utah the private landowners want the animals off their land...in PA they are trying to improve their land so that they will have more animals)programs that would NOT exist if hunting were completely private.

...I guarantee you that if the hunting in Pennsylvania were completely private, that hunting would be a small fraction of what it is today. IN fact, tag sales in PA have been on the decline now for over a decade and hunters are listing access as the key reason...privatizing he hunting would only exacerbate this problem.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Pure nonsense! 'Unloaded' people hunt back east. In fact, they hunt at the same, or higher, percentages of the population as out here in the 'wide open west'. PA is almost all private, very little public land, and they only issue ONE MILLION deer permits......


Hmmm...according to this 2003 paper, "Pennsylvania has over 800,000 deer hunters (about 6 percent of the state's population)." So, for Utah to exceed the percentage of hunters per population of Pennsylvania, we would need about 170,000 deer hunters. I think we exceed that number by a long shot. Also, there is a growing market for hunting leases. "In Pennsylvania they range from a dollar per acre to over ten dollars per acre. The average is between four and five dollars per acre....to provide adequate wildlife habitat and safety, most hunting leases are for properties over 50 acres." That kills me...people are leasing hunting rights to lands of 50 acres! To lease the land I hunt at those costs, I would have to be rich! Thank god I don't have to lease hunting rights and have good access to PUBLIC land!

http://pubs.cas.psu.edu/freepubs/pdfs/uh163.pdf


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Spoken like a true socialist......


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> You and Pro, among others, keep comparing oranges with apples (mule deer with whitetails) Whitetails adapt well to human encroachment, mule deer do not, That's why whitetails are thriving in the east and are naturally moving west, and why mule deer are struggling in the west and are not naturally moving east. By privatizing western lands and continuing to chop up mule deer habitat with homes, farms, businesses, mining, roads, fences, etc. mule deer hunting will become a rare event. We may, in fact, end up with better deer hunting, It just won't be for mule deer!


Look, mule deer are going to continue to struggle, regardless if there is mostly private or mostly public land. That will NOT change, but what can change is the ability to HUNT mule deer. You guys whine about lost opportunities to hunt, but you are not serious about fixing that end of the equation. Be like wy2ut and think the government is a better steward over land/resources if you like, just be honest about it! Why stop with wildlife, why not turn over ALL land/resources to the government? After all, they apparently run things cheaper, more efficiently, and create better opportunity for the average Joe......just think how cheap food/energy/clothing/housing/autos would be in this Utopia. I can only imagine how wonderful the hunting in North Korea is.........since the government has full control over the wildlife in that nation. :?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Hmmm...according to this 2003 paper, "Pennsylvania has over 800,000 deer hunters (about 6 percent of the state's population)." So, for Utah to exceed the percentage of hunters per population of Pennsylvania, we would need about 170,000 deer hunters. I think we exceed that number by a long shot. Also, there is a growing market for hunting leases. "In Pennsylvania they range from a dollar per acre to over ten dollars per acre. The average is between four and five dollars per acre....to provide adequate wildlife habitat and safety, most hunting leases are for properties over 50 acres." That kills me...people are leasing hunting rights to lands of 50 acres! To lease the land I hunt at those costs, I would have to be rich! Thank god I don't have to lease hunting rights and have good access to PUBLIC land!
> 
> http://pubs.cas.psu.edu/freepubs/pdfs/uh163.pdf


Omitting facts, and blurring lines.....is that 'scientific'? Hidden costs MUST be included in order for any valid comparison. What are some of the hidden costs here in Utah? How about lost opportunity, what value does one put on that? How about being told by bureaucrats where to hunt, is that really better than being given permission from a landowner? How about landowners getting tired of bearing a high cost so you/others can hunt deer/elk so 'cheaply'? How long do you expect landowners who are barely making a living to bear this burden? What will the costs be when they say enough is enough, and DEMAND the 'free wintering' of wildlife cease on PRIVATE land? You mention subsidies for landowners in PA, but you ignore the subsidies here in UT, it's as if you think you have the 'right' to have wildlife fed by farmers/ranchers so you can keep YOUR costs down......


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> What will the costs be when they say enough is enough, and DEMAND the 'free wintering' of wildlife cease on PRIVATE land?


Too funny....demand it, and let's see where that gets you! I still don't understand why you think the government should be responsible to protect your property...?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Omitting facts, and blurring lines.....is that 'scientific'?


Huh? You are the one that made the bad comparison...and put PA on a pedestal as to what should be done. Hidden costs abound if you privatize hunting...I just mentioned one. The big one is lost opportunity....


----------



## Skullanchor (Jul 29, 2008)

Those that want to enjoy privatised hunting can all ready do so with any number of outfitters. Just shell out the 3k+ you must have laying around and your guide can show you right where to get your nice farm raised trophy. 

I'm not sure where the info on PA comes from but I've been all over Western PA having grown up and spent 20 years there and I hadn't seen the state with more public hunting areas a.k.a "State Game lands" since. Not to mention Allegehny National Forest. My uncle was the guide for the first Elk harvested in PA after the 70 year ban in 2001...he did it for a case of beer; not a paycheck. 

Public hunting grounds exist so that people of any walk of life have an opportunity to enjoy hunting. Its all paid for by way of hunting licenses, timber/mineral leases. I'd rather my hunting dollars go towards ensuring that those resources be around for years to come through making sure areas aren't being over hunted . The folks employed by those agencies aren't joe-schmoes that were in the right place at the right times...they are wildlife biologists and environmental scientists who's studies make sure humans aren't decimating the populations . Unlike Privatised where you have some guy that knows how to plant a plot of cloves to keep the herd around and your hunting permit is paying for his new F-350.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > What will the costs be when they say enough is enough, and DEMAND the 'free wintering' of wildlife cease on PRIVATE land?
> ...


So, you are for getting rid of the police.......got it. :roll: DOH!!

Actually, it is within my rights to permanently take care of the chronic deer/elk on my property. I am surprised you are ignorant of that........ If YOU think the deer/elk have a 'right' to be supplemented at my expense, then you MUST be prepared for the fallout.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Omitting facts, and blurring lines.....is that 'scientific'?
> ...


Wrong, on MANY levels. I NEVER put PA on a pedestal, I merely mentioned ONE example of how making a FAR LESS percentage of A state does NOT equate to the 'end of hunting', for the general population and/or the poor population. I could have used WI, but their deer numbers are in decline, many 'experts' blame the decline on the GOVERNMENT sponsored wolf program..... I could have used a number of eastern states, ALL of which have very little public land, certainly when compared to Utah. Anyone that asserts otherwise is either a liar or clueless! I am NOT trying to put any state on a 'pedestal', but merely pointing out the fear people have of private land ownership is unfounded and is based on ignorance. Trusting pinheads in DC to look out for the interests of Utah's wildlife is beyond nonsensical.

As for lost opportunity, since Utah has seen opportunity dwindle by leaps and bounds over the last 2 decades, you have little. if any credibility on this. I haven't done a recent check, but I guided a hunter from AL a few years back, and he could KILL THIRTY DEER *every* year, what state made up mostly of public land has EVER offered that kind of opportunity?

Go ahead and ignore US history, what this nation was founded on, and the actual costs of the west being MOSTLY owned by the federal government. They say ignorance is bliss, there must be some **** happy people on this site.......


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Pure nonsense! 'Unloaded' people hunt back east. In fact, they hunt at the same, or higher, percentages of the population as out here in the 'wide open west'. PA is almost all private, very little public land, and they only issue ONE MILLION deer permits......


Remember Pro, that even the states back east are managed by the same principles we have in the West--public trust doctrine, the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, etc. So, even though some of these states have high amounts of private land versus public land, and even though some of these same principles are eroding, the animals are still managed by the states. And, the white tail deer are considered one of the greatest success stories of our wildlife conservation model. Millions of people are able to hunt whitetail deer across this country and across the midwestern and eastern states because they are managed by the states and not the private sectors. If the private sector were controlling tag prices and tag numbers, we would definitely have an entirely different set of circumstances...


----------



## BradN (Sep 25, 2007)

So Pro ... under your plan to free Americans from the tyranny of government ownership of land and the attendant resources such as game animals, who is going to buy the land? Well, that wouldn't be right because the government can't or shouldn't own the land. Hmmm... or on a date certain do we just go stake our claims to the land we want? And under this libertarian plan corporations would be permitted to do what they wanted with the land because at the end of the day, competition rules, right? Would you view any oil drilling, strip mining, road builing etc regulations as unlawful intrusions into corporate and economic affairs? How does the concept of stewardship fit into your scheme?


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

One of my all time favorites

"Above all, we should realize that the effort toward this end is essentially a democratic movement. It is entirely in our power as a nation to preserve large tracts of wilderness, which are valueless for agricultural purposes and unfit for settlement, as playgrounds for rich and poor alike, and to preserve the game so that it shall continue to exist for the benefit of all lovers of nature, and to give reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the skill of the hunter, whether he is or is not a man of means. But this end can only be achieved by wise laws and by a resolute enforcement of the laws. Lack of such legislation and administration will result in harm to all of us, but most of all in harm to the nature lover who does not possess vast wealth"


----------



## HunterDavid (Sep 10, 2007)

Looks like this post has been hijacked.....it is about Getting rid of the Wildlife Board, not the petty arguments that are going on now.


----------



## BradN (Sep 25, 2007)

HunterDavid,

I think there is a clear consensus that the Wildlife Board should be disbanded. There is also a poll regarding it. I wouldn't call the arguments going on now as petty. To the contrary, they are discussions that are central to what type of society and government people desire.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

BradN said:


> HunterDavid,
> 
> I think there is a clear consensus that the Wildlife Board should be disbanded. There is also a poll regarding it. I wouldn't call the arguments going on now as petty. To the contrary, they are discussions that are central to what type of society and government people desire.


You're absolutely correct! So move it to a political forum or at least another thread and let's get on with the subject of the title and solve the specific problem at hand, and stop trying to change the federal government!!!!


----------



## BradN (Sep 25, 2007)

I'm not trying to change the federal government, just trying to respond to what I perceive as idiotic attempts to read something into the constitution that was never there. If someone wants to start a new political thread that's fine with me. So when PRO calls me a socialist I won't respond because I don't want to hijack this thread.


----------



## BradN (Sep 25, 2007)

Let's get rid of the Wildlife Board! They do nothing for the common joe hunter.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

What part of my above post, with the blue font, does not directly pertain to the charge given to Utah's Wildlife Board. If you think that what the Wildlife Board does and how they rule isn't dictated by politics you've got another think coming.

Ask an angler if losing stream access wasn't politically driven. Same stuff different species.


----------



## ROI (Jul 13, 2009)

If you do away with the wildlife board (WB), what do you replace it with? An elected board is what I'm hearing. With an elected board, why do we think that the sportsman groups that are reported to have hijacked the WB, would not just influence the election of the board members and take more control. What about anti hunters altering the election?

Elections are also very expensive. Who pays? I might not like some of what my license money goes toward, but I don't want it going for an election.

I can remember when sportsman were crying about no voice because the WB was controlled by the cattle and sheep industry. I can also remember the sportsman crying about not being able to take a day off and travel to SLC to meet with the WB. For that reason and many others the RAC's were formed. To get a voice the sportsman groups were born. Now the claim is that the sportsman groups have to much influence and what have they done for "me" lately.

We have had a bad WB for the last eight years. Gov. Leavitt appointed two representatives that were very bad for Utah's wildlife. Neither should have been appointed but they were, but they are gone now. I think the new wildlife board is better, we all heard the Director of the DWR tell the board that they needed to be listening to sportsman and the RAC's, or the system will fail. Time will tell on that issue.

All in all I like the system we now have in place better than when I started going to the meetings in the late 1980's. We as sportsman are still crying about representation and a non-responsive WB. I don't think changing the WB format and how they are selected will resolve that issue. 

I think that I can approach any member of the RAC's and WB and be heard. The board members are being pulled in many directions so I don't always agree with them, but that will happen no matter how the members are selected.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

ROI said:


> If you do away with the wildlife board (WB), what do you replace it with? An elected board is what I'm hearing.


Not necessarily. Have you participated in the poll yet? The results are interesting IMO.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

What a bunch of BABIES. I see this is the kindergarten class....if you want to have a grown up discussion on issues that DO affect hunting/fishing/outdoors let me know. You all have your little nap time and get back with me. BradN, if it walks like a ducks, quacks like a duck.......

The amount of ignorance as to what/why/how this nation was founded upon astounds me. The amount of ignorance as to what is going on TODAY is even more astounding. No wonder this nation is on the fast track to 3rd world status.

Carry on my blissful 'sportsmen'.....carry on.


----------



## BradN (Sep 25, 2007)

I still think the WB should go. But, I think there will be enough lack of interest generally that it will be difficult to get such an initiative on the ballot. I also think revisionist history and name-calling should go.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> What a bunch of BABIES. I see this is the kindergarten class....if you want to have a grown up discussion on issues that DO affect hunting/fishing/outdoors let me know. You all have your little nap time and get back with me. BradN, if it walks like a ducks, quacks like a duck.......
> 
> The amount of ignorance as to what/why/how this nation was founded upon astounds me. The amount of ignorance as to what is going on TODAY is even more astounding. No wonder this nation is on the fast track to 3rd world status.
> 
> Carry on my blissful 'sportsmen'.....carry on.


Don't mistake opposition for ignorance! Nor insults and name-calling for persuasion! And thanks for giving us permission to carry on without you!

Perhaps there may not be enough interest to disband the WB, but surely there is enough to revamp it's authority. And I'm not sure it would require a public ballot vote to get it changed, maybe just a vote by the state legislature. Do we have a lawyer amongst us that could check?


----------



## ROI (Jul 13, 2009)

Catherder,

Looked at the polls. Some of us gray hairs have been there and done that.

Be careful what you wish for. Like most decisions, take a good hard look with a non-emotional eye before you jump. There are some very subtle and unseen dangerous lurking in those waters.

Worked though varies decision making systems for many years. The current system isn't great, but it is the best one so far. Looking backwards isn't the answer.

I compare the current WB system to the federal government. Our form of governement is a terrible way to run a country, but it is the best way out there and I wouldn't want it any other way.

Enjoyed the interaction, thanks


----------



## BradN (Sep 25, 2007)

If I type something in CAPITAL LETTERS does that signify that it must be TRUE?


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

I am joining the game late so here is my 2Cents all at once.....



Iron Bear said:


> Public hunting is socialism at its finest.


It is not socialism if the people exploiting the resource are actually paying for it. Most of us hunters pay dearly for our beloved sport. Socialism is taking from the ones who have to distribute to the ones who have not - FOOD STAMPS!



proutdoors said:


> Iron Bear said:
> 
> 
> > Public hunting is socialism at its worst.
> ...


with all due respect amigo... I think your are just also wrong.



FishlakeElkHunter said:


> This is truly the STUPIDEST thread that I have ever seen on ANY forum!!! It makes me believe that most of you have TOTALLY lost your Freaking minds!!!! If the people here are the future of hunting.....we are all screwed!!!!


I think the thread is actually a step in the right direction. The inability to put personal differences aside coupled with the spouting of crazy and ill-founded ideas is what makes it sound stupid. We need to stay on topic.



proutdoors said:


> The amount of ignorance as to what/why/how this nation was founded upon astounds me. The amount of ignorance as to what is going on TODAY is even more astounding. No wonder this nation is on the fast track to 3rd world status.


I admire your passion and conviction. I am a firm believer in the constitution. However, I also believe that the constitution never provided for many of the situations we now face as a nation. I think it is up to us as citizens to solve these problems in a manner that adheres to our founding principles as closely as possible.

Getting back to topic.....

Hunting available to the public and managed by a government entity does not make it socialism by any stretch of the imagination. Socialism is based on principle of redistribution of wealth. We cannot call socialist a system in which we as sportsmen pay for the service provided to us by such government entity. What is socialist is the fact that our taxes are used to support and perpetuate the entitlements that our government has allowed to occur. Welfare, food stamps, project housing, medicaid, social security etc. are prime examples of socialism.

I believe that what we should have is accountability and broad representation. The WB does not necessarily have to be disbanded. What it needs is to be brought back into balance. Its member selection should adhere to very specific guidelines that include qualifications, volunteer time and effort, and maybe a few other criteria. Its seats should be balanced between the different groups directly affected by wildlife issues including the DWR, Cattlemen, Farmers, Forrest Service, and Sportsmen Orgs. Lobbying and schmoozing should be completely banned. Any attempt by special interest groups to solicit a policy change or any subject matter should be prosecuted as corruption.

I believe its members should at some point be ratified not only by the legislature but by the RACS and the public at large. This will bring the subject of accountability to the forefront. It is a complicated issue but it does not need a complicated solution it just needs some common sense.

There's my 5cents worth..... take what you find to be good and leave what you don't like. Perhaps by taking the good ideas from many of us here we can come to an amazing solution.


----------



## rdoggsilva (Apr 6, 2011)

I would be willing to help out and support this.


----------

