# sfw good or bad poll



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

feel free to fire away


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

You should of made it so we could choose more than one. I think 2 and 4 fit the bill.


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

i meant to do that i guess i can not edit it though


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I fixed it. You can now vote twice.


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> I fixed it. You can now vote twice.


thanks tree

i want to add that i am not a board member for uwc,rmef or the mdf.i am a regular member for all three but i am in no shape or form anyone with higher up in any of them.i used to be a 3 year sfw member untill they started pulling there behind the scenes crap.i am just a regular hunter that is fed up with all of the political crap that comes with utah's hunting.i am very worried about the future hunting for my kids


----------



## BERG (Dec 4, 2007)

I really like this poll. Will one of the mods. please open it up to a three time vote? We should allow SFW three strikes before we conclude that they actually suck...don't you think?


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

Thanx Tree, so I could vote for both of the mostly positives. Anyone in question, read up on the wolf fight and battle before posting your two votes in the wrong place. Uneducated votes got us our current President so maybe a better look into the issues might help.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

elk22hunter said:


> Thanx Tree, so I could vote for both of the mostly positives. Anyone in question, read up on the wolf fight and battle before posting your two votes in the wrong place. Uneducated votes got us our current President so maybe a better look into the issues might help.


Call me arrogant, but I contend I HAVE looked into the issues, and I do NOT like what I see from SFW. One issue, the wolf issue, does NOT erase the NUMEROUS issues where SFW is the biggest enemy hunters have. As for the wolf issue, I think SFW is going about it wrong as well. Their all or nothing, the wolf needs to be alienated attitude creates more friction and makes coming up with a solution that is reasonable extremely difficult. As for the rest, ALL the anti-hunting groups combined haven't been able to reduce hunting, but the Don has managed to cut GENERAL season deer permits, cut elk tags, and pit hunter against hunter. Its like he has stolen the current presidents play book, which makes the reference to Obama so bitterly ironic. Hunters are more divided than at any time since I have been alive, 'quality' hunters (since they have taken another tactic from Obama and changed the word from trophy to quality, as if we are that **** dumb) versus opportunity hunters......wait it's now those who "TAKE, TAKE, TAKE, my bad. It's those who are 'hard core' versus those just happy to be in the hills with a tag in their possession. This does NOT bode well for the future of hunting. ALL hunters lose when we have one segment FORCING their 'way' on all the others, when we have one segment thinking they are 'better' than the rest, or that they are the 'real' hunters, when we have a select few INTENTIONALLY causing division among the masses so they can retain their power status. Sadly, I see people I like/respect being snookered into buying the hype, even though the evidence is overwhelming on the harm this group is causing on not so much our critters, but on fellow hunters.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

Always looking to fill the cup half full for those who are satisfied with a sip, eh Elk? I'm not sorry to disagree with you, it isn't just SFW fighting that fight bud. I don't believe I've seen the names of any of the ID or MT senators, Governors or Congressmen in your party-line voting organization.

Agreed Tye, I Dont like it for the sake of more than just my own kids hunting opportunities...


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Personally, I think SFW has done plenty of good, but anymore, it's for a small segment that they represent. I simply disagree with them on many issues and am not philosophically aligned with them. Are there specific things I see that they are over the line on? Sure, but again, the bigger issue for e is they simply don't represent my views and wield a mighty big sword to push their agenda with.

While they continue to represent who they represent, how they see fit, which is their right and prerogative and they do a great job at it, I will continue to align myself with people and organizations that more closely represent my ideals.

If your values and pocket books fit SFW ideologies, there is no reason not to support them.

As far as wolves go, I thought they had a good thing going, but as of late they've been stepping on their schlongs and alienating many people and organizations along the way.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

elk22hunter said:


> Thanx Tree, so I could vote for both of the mostly positives. Anyone in question, read up on the wolf fight and battle before posting your two votes in the wrong place. Uneducated votes got us our current President so maybe a better look into the issues might help.


No worries. Standing up for which you believe is a great measure of character. Scott, we disagree on a number of things, but I respect you no less for it.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

elk22hunter said:


> Anyone in question, read up on the wolf fight and battle before posting your two votes in the wrong place. Uneducated votes got us our current President so maybe a better look into the issues might help.


Having read and having been there for some of it... :rotfl:

Don Peay or Don Trump in 2012? Hmmmmm -_O-


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

The SFW has just lost focus IMO. They need to stay out of bean counting tags because those are divisive among their sportsman's base and focus more on causes in the political arena and game management issues that unite us.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

No other state tag whores like sfw does in ours. Im against this
Im against how sfw is pitting hunters against hunters.
Im against sfw dirty back door deals when it comes to political issues.
I think sfw has simply gotten to big. They look like big government to me by the way they take and tax.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

The exchange of tags for dollars is getting carried away IMO. Sure some conservation programs bring in dollars for wildlife and I'm good with that.

BUT the problem is that the "quality" mentality that is making these conservation tags so valuable is perverting our sport. If we aren't careful ladies and gentlemen, 20 years from now you will have to be a high bidder to recieve ANY tag. All deer units in Utah will be managed to a 50:100 buck to doe ratio and 3000 people a year will get to hunt mule deer in Utah. All spike elk tags will be gone and an "any bull" unit will be nothing but a "trophy hunters" punch line. You can forget about cow tags too.

We've done nothing but cut tags for 20 years folks. Look around...you can't look at the package of a hunting product, a hunting commerical, a hunting show or mag without seeing a "trophy". I'm all for chasing big bucks and bulls but if we forget what hunting is really about 99% of us will lose the privilege. The European model will show up here.

Be careful what you wish for!!


----------



## BERG (Dec 4, 2007)

I just don't really understand why everyone hates SFW so much. They have contributed greatly to hunting in Utah, and is it possible that they are simply taking a bad rap based on false information. And, just exactly what bone, if any, does The UWC have to pick with SFW? Just asking.


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

BERG said:


> I just don't really understand why everyone hates SFW so much. They have contributed greatly to hunting in Utah, and is it possible that they are simply taking a bad rap based on false information. And, just exactly what bone, if any, does The UWC have to pick with SFW? Just asking.


Dude you better have alot of time to want to read all the comments your about to receive. If any I would like to see the comments backed with facts and proof. Great question BERG :mrgreen:


----------



## BERG (Dec 4, 2007)

Oh I have the time; I got nothin but time.


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

I would also like to see the responces and proof. Being I am part of the SFW.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

BERG said:


> And, just exactly what bone, if any, does The UWC have to pick with SFW? Just asking.


The UWC has no bone to pick with SFW. The UWC does not base it's identity on what SFW is or is not. The UWC advocates for its members and in some cases that may be contratry to SFW and in others side by side with SFW. SFW has done a lot of good things for wildlife in our state.

As for why I personally take issue with SFW is that there is WAYYYY too much importance placed on trophy's and WAYYY too much money being made on tags. Read my above post. Both of these things are having a negative influence on the state of hunting in Utah. If we keep going it will become a rich mans sport and the general public will have VERY little hunting opportunity left.

Again...be careful what you wish for.


----------



## ut1031 (Sep 13, 2007)

Contrary to what some on here have said, the UWC has not been created to attack SFW. We are merely a group of guys that wants what is best for the Wildlife of Utah. The amount of cuts in tags WILL affect what the DWR can do with the manpower they have. The amount of $$$$ brought in from the Expo alone tags would go a LONG ways in helping to improve the wildlife. I challenge all of you that come on here and [email protected]#$%!^ to attend the RAC meetings and let your voice be heard. The tag cuts(deer) and the increases(elk) will begin a trend that none of us wants.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

BERG said:


> I just don't really understand why everyone hates SFW so much. They have contributed greatly to hunting in Utah, and is it possible that they are simply taking a bad rap based on false information. And, just exactly what bone, if any, does The UWC have to pick with SFW? Just asking.


Since I'm not a member, I can't speak for UWC, but I think we're on the same page on this issue.

IMHO, it's the "quality" (read "trophy") mindset driving the decisions of DP and the SFW Board that seems to be the bone. Every proposal they present promotes that aspect of hunting mostly to the exclusion of any other.

Case in point; At the Southern RAC meeting the SFW spokesman recommended we cut cow elk tags on the SW Desert unit to _lower _the bull to cow ratio and build up the herd. Sounds reasonable and acceptable, doesn't it? But look at their motive! The spokesman said that SW Desert LE elk hunters were having difficulty finding mature bulls without broken antlers, and they figured the bulls were fighting too aggressively over the limited cows on the unit, and they said the "quality" of the unit had declined. In other words, we need
more cows primarily to have more trophies with the herd increase as a byproduct. In all cases, quality first, opportunity second!

Ironically, the spokesman made it clear that the above was the current recommendation of the SFW Board and was a reversal of their previous position, and was not his personal position nor that of Don Peay. Hmmm, Could it be that Don Peay has created a monster even he can no longer fully control? o-||


----------



## BERG (Dec 4, 2007)

Thanks, your comments are helping me piece all of this together. So, it would appear that trophy hunts are more pleasing to the SFW group than an opportunity for all to hunt. Am I starting to get the gist? Honestly, I think we need more opportunity or we're going to lose an entire generation of young hunters. Just how did a group like SFW gain so much power and control over this board and RAC that you speak of? Did the citizens of Utah help them or was it simply a bunch of rich folks promoting their own agenda for monetary gain at the expense of poor old average Joe?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

BERG said:


> Thanks, your comments are helping me piece all of this together. So, it would appear that trophy hunts are more pleasing to the SFW group than an opportunity for all to hunt. Am I starting to get the gist? Honestly, I think we need more opportunity or we're going to lose an entire generation of young hunters. Just how did a group like SFW gain so much power and control over this board and RAC that you speak of? Did the citizens of Utah help them or was it simply a bunch of rich folks promoting their own agenda for monetary gain at the expense of poor old average Joe?


The control SFW has really is as simple as money. They hire lobbyists and other folks that do nothing else other than lobby the legislature to make laws in their favor and attend meetings to speak their mind. That's their day job. It's very difficult to compete with unless you've got lots of time and money yourself. A lot of that money comes from auctioning off our tags and through the expo draw. That's why a lot of people are upset.

I think that the trophy crowd needs to be represented. There are trophy units like the Henry's for those people and there should be those units for trophy hunters. The problem is we shouldn't want EVERYTHING to be a trophy hunt and we shouldn't want such LARGE trophys that it takes 30 years to draw an LE tag. The average guy (and youth) just want to get out and hunt. We should never forget that. The survival of our sport depends on it.

Raising money through tags sales should be about giving back to wildlife. Not sending someone to the legislature to stack the deck for one interest group that respresents only one small segment of Utah hunters.


----------



## BERG (Dec 4, 2007)

Thanks again that makes perfect sense! Holy crap, are you suggesting that private persons are in fact making money off of public tags!!!??? If so, how long has this been going on. Why isn't The State putting a stop to this sort of thing. If you are saying what I thing you are, then the citizens of Utah are being fleased! WTH? Every hunter in Utah should be marching on Capitol Hill. /**|**\


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Like you, I think most people are simply unaware. Check out this thread and letter from the UWC. We are just starting to raise awareness on this very issue.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=33636


----------



## BERG (Dec 4, 2007)

****, it's nice to know that this Tyd Boulton, and the UWC, are trying to do something about this sort of thing.
What can I do to help? I have to agree with what you just said. You are correct, most people don't have a clue that this is taking place. So, how do we know that the UWC isn't simply going to turn into another SFW? I checked out their web site, and I would make a donation, yet how do we actually know where our donations are going?
I'm all for a group that supports the average guy; nevertheless, these days a dude can never be sure if his money is actually going toward the cause, or if the donations are simply making a group of guys with a righteous agenda rich at the publics' expense. I noticed the UWC at the bottom of your post. Please make a satisfactory explanation regarding the use, and public disclosure of your funds, and I will donate tomorrow.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

pheaz said:


> BERG said:
> 
> 
> > I just don't really understand why everyone hates SFW so much. They have contributed greatly to hunting in Utah, and is it possible that they are simply taking a bad rap based on false information. And, just exactly what bone, if any, does The UWC have to pick with SFW? Just asking.
> ...


I certainly do NOT speak for UWC, so what I say is 100% MHO, and nothing else. My opinions are based on many years of direct interaction with SFW and the power players withing the organization, on a concentrated effort on my part to become better educated on specific biological FACTS so as to be better informed on what policies are likely to be successful in making the animals healthier and more abundant, on personal experience being directly involved in the the Conservation Permit Program and the pitfalls that are impossible to avoid once a group has started down the road of participating in the CPP.

Once a group starts auctioning PUBLIC permits their priorities inevitably start to focus on how to increase the amount of funds they garner from the PUBLIC permits. I was on the Board of Directors for the biggest archery group in the state, and I helped get this group their first Conservation Permits. I was proud of it, as many on here know. I was a stanch supporter/defender of the CPP. Then I was exposed to the underbelly of both the CPP and the power players within the current special interest groups that get a huge portion of their funding from the CPP. It becomes a conflict of interest, how does a group that is getting a significant percentage of their funding from the CPP recommend/support policies that could possibly reduce the amount of revenue generated from the CPP? When faced with the choice of choosing opportunity or 'quality', where opportunity means less revenue and 'quality' means increased revenue, which do you think the Board of Directors is going to support? This does NOT mean the Board members are bad people, I truly believe the vast majority of them care deeply about hunting, but they are looking through glasses tinted with money and power. IMHO, I think groups that profit from PUBLIC permits should NOT be allowed to help set policies that have a direct impact on the number and the value of the PUBLIC permits. This is a HUGE conflict of interest, one so big that the Governor and the State Legislature should step in and put checks and balances in place that will prevent, in essence, crony-capitalism type game management.

Pheaz, you asked for proof. I give you the policies SFW and other special interest groups that profit from the selling of PUBLIC permits as all the evidence one should need. When was the last time they recommended increasing opportunity at the expense of 'quality'?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> Case in point; At the Southern RAC meeting the SFW spokesman recommended we cut cow elk tags on the SW Desert unit to _lower _the bull to cow ratio and build up the herd. Sounds reasonable and acceptable, doesn't it? But look at their motive! The spokesman said that SW Desert LE elk hunters were having difficulty finding mature bulls without broken antlers, and they figured the bulls were fighting too aggressively over the limited cows on the unit, and they said the "quality" of the unit had declined. In other words, we need more cows primarily to have more trophies with the herd increase as a byproduct. In all cases, quality first, opportunity second!
> 
> Ironically, the spokesman made it clear that the above was the current recommendation of the SFW Board and was a reversal of their previous position, and was not his personal position nor that of Don Peay. Hmmm, Could it be that Don Peay has created a monster even he can no longer fully control? o-||


So, people are actually advocating managing elk to reduce the number of bulls with broken antlers......freaking brilliant! And to do so they want to kill fewer cows, even though there is a state mandate on keeping elk at/under population objectives?

Don has been merely a 'consultant' for several years, and supposedly he advises but in the end is required to do the bidding of the Executive Board of Directors and the Board of Directors.


----------



## BERG (Dec 4, 2007)

Great Posts from both. I'm starting to see the bigger picture.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I certainly do NOT speak for UWC, so what I say is 100% MHO, and nothing else. My opinions are based on many years of direct interaction with SFW and the power players withing the organization, on a concentrated effort on my part to become better educated on specific biological FACTS so as to be better informed on what policies are likely to be successful in making the animals healthier and more abundant, on personal experience being directly involved in the the Conservation Permit Program and the pitfalls that are impossible to avoid once a group has started down the road of participating in the CPP.
> 
> Once a group starts auctioning PUBLIC permits their priorities inevitably start to focus on how to increase the amount of funds they garner from the PUBLIC permits. I was on the Board of Directors for the biggest archery group in the state, and I helped get this group their first Conservation Permits. I was proud of it, as many on here know. I was a stanch supporter/defender of the CPP. Then I was exposed to the underbelly of both the CPP and the power players within the current special interest groups that get a huge portion of their funding from the CPP. It becomes a conflict of interest, how does a group that is getting a significant percentage of their funding from the CPP recommend/support policies that could possibly reduce the amount of revenue generated from the CPP? When faced with the choice of choosing opportunity or 'quality', where opportunity means less revenue and 'quality' means increased revenue, which do you think the Board of Directors is going to support? This does NOT mean the Board members are bad people, I truly believe the vast majority of them care deeply about hunting, but they are looking through glasses tinted with money and power. IMHO, I think groups that profit from PUBLIC permits should NOT be allowed to help set policies that have a direct impact on the number and the value of the PUBLIC permits. This is a HUGE conflict of interest, one so big that the Governor and the State Legislature should step in and put checks and balances in place that will prevent, in essence, crony-capitalism type game management.
> 
> Pheaz, you asked for proof. I give you the policies SFW and other special interest groups that profit from the selling of PUBLIC permits as all the evidence one should need. When was the last time they recommended increasing opportunity at the expense of 'quality'?


Now let me take it one step further and input the acronym CWMU permits as well in the mix and add it to CC permits. This gives a fuller picture of the pay to play mentality that has over taken wildlife decisions in our state. I do not think that we have all the leaches yet identified in this witch hunt. Every person on this forum is a special interest and is vying for their piece of the pie. To portray your selves otherwise is a bold face lie.

I remember back thirty years ago when sportsmen's groups had NO, zero, not even a second glance at policy decisions of wildlife in this state, the board did not even have a sportsman's representative. Now we are all bitching because a group of sportsmen have taken too much control! Wow how times have changed. I guess my standing on the steps of the capitol all those years ago, just created a more corruptible monster. Instead of cattle and sheep men controlling wildlife now we have another super predator Alfa wolf ; the quality trophy hunter who wants everything dead and the small guy pushed out&#8230;

Sounds like Obama and the libs to me&#8230;..Big


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Call me arrogant, but I contend I HAVE looked into the issues, and I do NOT like what I see from SFW. One issue, the wolf issue, does NOT erase the NUMEROUS issues where SFW is the biggest enemy hunters have. As for the wolf issue, I think SFW is going about it wrong as well. Their all or nothing, the wolf needs to be alienated attitude creates more friction and makes coming up with a solution that is reasonable extremely difficult.


"Today, President Obama will sign a bill to Delist Wolves in all of ID, MT and small parts 
of UT, OR, and WA.

This article (below) goes across the whole world via the British Broadcast News.

The Author of the article contacted Byron Bateman and Don Peay because "Defenders of 
Wildlife" said you guys were the "SOBs" who got this done. Thank you !

Thanks to all the members of BGF and SFW who were the Army Rangers and Navy Seals of this 
epic wolf war.

A victory in a major battle, a hard fought battle, but we now must go finish the fight 
for all states and all sportsmen.

We are on a conference call right now, with sportsmen groups around the country - 
additional Army Rangers and Navy Seal Units - planning the next strategy to finish the 
fight for all states.

The link to the BBC article below"

** Wolves off US endangered species list **
Hunters' groups cheer a provision in a US budget bill that removes grey wolf packs 
in the West from the endangered species list.
< http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/news/wo ... a-13086459 >

Pro, I am not attacking you just pointing out that the wolf issue is one of the best projects that SFW has undertaken. It is nice sometimes to have a big brother on the block....Big


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

bigbr said:


> I remember back thirty years ago when sportsmen's groups had NO, zero, not even a second glance at policy decisions of wildlife in this state, the board did not even have a sportsman's representative. Now we are all bitching because a group of sportsmen have taken too much control! Wow how times have changed. I guess my standing on the steps of the capitol all those years ago, just created a more corruptible monster. Instead of cattle and sheep men controlling wildlife now we have another super predator Alfa wolf ; the quality trophy hunter who wants everything dead and the small guy pushed out&#8230;


Since we are relating this to politics and politicians; I ask you, is the state of wildlife and hunting in Utah better today, or was it better 30 years ago? Just to clarify, that was a rhetorical question.....

And, you are very good at acting like many in Washington, creating a scenario that isn't even on the radar so as to play the victim and to change the subject. I ask you point blank: Who is asserting that SFW wants everything dead? Its like you read the first four words and the last four words of my post and skipped the rest.

Another question; Is replacing one 'dictator' with another 'dictator' really an improvement? Maybe we should ask the people of Egypt, what do you think? :O•-:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

bigbr said:


> Every person on this forum is a special interest and is vying for their piece of the pie. To portray your selves otherwise is a bold face lie.


 I never pictured you as one who bought into moral equivalency. Trying to say people looking out for the animals first with those who wish to kill a 'quality', ah forget it and let's call it what it is, TROPHY animal with minimal effort is inane!


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Hey bigbr, you probably should check your facts on Simpson / Tester and figure why Wyoming ain't on that list!!! :O•-:

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


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

bigbr said:


> Pro, I am not attacking you just pointing out that the wolf issue is one of the best projects that SFW has undertaken. It is nice sometimes to have a big brother on the block....Big


 If you think the war is over I have some real estate west of Delle for you to purchase.....

Also, when you dance with the 'devil', whose fault will it be when you get torched? Also, just because SFW is the loudest on 'your' side, doesn't mean they are the only or even the best special ops unit behind enemy lines.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> Hey bigbr, you probably should check your facts on Simpson / Tester and figure why Wyoming ain't on that list!!! :O•-:
> 
> http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/story/130 ... jzrfxykqtu


Good call.


----------



## BERG (Dec 4, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> Hey bigbr, you probably should check your facts on Simpson / Tester and figure why Wyoming ain't on that list!!! :O•-:
> 
> http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/story/130 ... jzrfxykqtu


This link says it all. Has this information been posted in The Salt Lake Tribune?
Quite frankly, I just don't see how anyone would want to be a member an organization willing to make false statements on such a grand scale. Plus, I'm really pissed off if our public tag money has been lining this guy's pockets. I wonder if he actually has nards enough to get on this forum and explain himself? So what say ye? You actually got a sack full of nuts Don? Just about every average sportsman in Utah is waiting for you to set the record straight. And please don't forget to tell us what you've spent our tag money on...oh I just found it in another thread on this informative forum. Apparently, you gave some of our money away as campaign contributions to The Progressive, pseudo-Mo, Harry The Fairy Reid. No thanks for supporting a Socialist Dillweed. I don't know if the posted information regarding this gift is true or not, but the guy who posted it certainly believes it to be accurate.


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

The goal is not to kill SFW and obliterate it from existence, But we do need to corner this stray alley cat and reduce the size of its swollen testosterone filled oysters. I'm sure Bax can relate. 

SFW can still do some good. They are pros at raising money and they scratch at anything having to do with protection for wolves. But I must agree with Proutdoors which is something I never have done in the past and I am finding myself doing more and more these days. SFW has taken more away from my outdoor experience to a larger extent than any animal rights rights group. For the sake of their "quality management" and their "entitlement hunting" I deem them to be selfish, arrogant, and officially "the opposition" until somebody collects their marbles.


----------



## BERG (Dec 4, 2007)

Nambaster said:


> The goal is not to kill SFW and obliterate it from existence, But we do need to corner this stray alley cat and reduce the size of its swollen testosterone filled oysters. I'm sure Bax can relate.
> 
> SFW can still do some good. They are pros at raising money and they scratch at anything having to do with protection for wolves. But I must agree with Proutdoors which is something I never have done in the past and I am finding myself doing more and more these days. SFW has taken more away from my outdoor experience to a larger extent than any animal rights rights group. For the sake of their "quality management" and their "entitlement hunting" I deem them to be selfish, arrogant, and officially "the opposition" until somebody collects their marbles.


Excuse me Mr. self-imposed Authoritarian, but just who the heck are you to suggest that everyone should fall in line with what YOU believe the goal should be in this matter? Furthermore, who are you to tell anyone what WE need to do? WE have not done anything to SFW; their organization would appear to be suffering the consequences of their own selfish greed. So, please do tell us why you are playing both ends to the middle Nambaster, as I don't think too many folks will cry buckets of tears when SFW moves on to scooping up elk turds in their next venture as purveyors of fine fertilizer. Capitalism really is a wonderful thing you know. Bad companies eventually go bust, because their product either stinks or their management sucked. Furthermore, their marbles should be taken. The word collect is so passive, although potentially fitting for an organization lacking the nards to visit this forum and explain their misguided agenda in making exorbitant amounts of money from public tags. If in fact this is actually true...if not, then what is there to hide?


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

Wow Bart, sometimes I feel that you read far too much into a post and fire from the hip. Although my post in question was written in hast, the jist of the first paragraph was to merely insert CUWCD permits in with your post and agree with most of what you had already so eloquently posted. However, I also went on to say that there are other leaches in the pot that have caused the train to go off the tracks and that each sportsman is a CONSUMPTIVE user of wildlife with a responsibility and has a vested interest in how the public trust is administered and protected.

I too have sit for years in a few meetings with Don, John, Randy, Connie, Lee, Troy, Kenny, Tony, Jim etc and have voiced similar concerns about the direction of sportsmen and wildlife in our state. When Tony parted ways, I felt that Tony had some legitimate concerns and that his concerns should be addressed. You too have stood shoulder to shoulder with these same people and it was only the last year or so that you have parted ways from the thinking of SFW. Has SFW made mistakes? Yes! Most diffidently and without question, but with the bad has come some very positive results.

You asked the question if things are better now in Utah for sportsmen and wildlife. And I would say yes and no! As for wildlife, I feel that sheep, mountain goat, elk, turkey, moose and pronghorn are much better off numerically now than they were ten, twenty or even thirty years ago. However with that being said mule deer are in my opinion and observation are at an all time low in numbers and even the quality of bucks existing in the field are shameful. I am of the opinion that any hunter who harvests a four point buck can consider him or herself a trophy hunter, because mature bucks are few and far between and mature bucks should be present in a health herd. As for hunting opportunity, I feel that we as sportsmen have lost a lot of ground that we will most likely never regain again. The plain and simple fact of the matter here is that Utah has grown in population for 500k to 2.3 million and we ain’t getting any smaller in the near future. 

I am not as involved with SFW as I once was, because I have been dealing with far more important issues and a wife who has been battling cancer. Hunting as I have come to realize has consumed far too much of my efforts, time and family resources. If it was not for my thirteen year old boy, I would most likely just travel and pursue photography. I too would like my son and his sons to experience the great outdoors as a respectful hunter and sportsman that is willing to give far more than they shall ever take from the wilds of Utah.

I encourage any and all to get involved as conservationist and think that UWC may in the end have a positive outcome, however, I do not see SFW as Lucifer and the end of hunting in Utah as this post has berated too in my opinion.

One last suggestion; 
BERG, for world peace, layoff the caffeine and testosterone for a day or two.
Big


----------



## BERG (Dec 4, 2007)

So berg, if you know whats good for you please STFU. Is that what you are saying? This response is typical of folks who think that rules shouldn't apply in their world. World peace? Only when The King Returns, and then each of us will answer for every deed we've done in this life be it good or bad. The very thought is a little unsettling don't you think? It is for me.

Caffeine, and testosterone, both play a strong role in keeping the world peace man. We would live in pure Anarchy without both. So, thanks just the same, but like you, I will speak my mind. Now, you claim that SFW has made some mistakes. Why isn't the group addressing these mistakes with the general public and taking the necessary steps to right any potential wrongs? We all make mistakes, and I will be glad to forgive anyone who speaks publicly about their wrongs, with a little humility, and then takes real action to change. Nevertheless, I get the impression that the group feels that they are beyond reproach. Why do I think this? The answer is simply because I have not seen Don Peay, or anyone else involved in the organization, come forward and address the concerns of the general public. Now, as far as positve results are concerned....quite often the ends do not justify the means. Particulary if mistakes being made behind the scenes are not being addressed in an open forum. The status quo just doesn't hold any water. As a result, I believe this is why so many people are angry about alleged abuse of public funds. But hey, maybe I'm just off my rocker. Why does SFW remain silent? Please just show us The Birth Certificate already!


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

this issue was simple for me when I listened on the radio about SFW. they are given expo tags to raise money and a large majority of that money is suppose to go back towards wildlife. however the SFW hasn't made public what money has been given back to wildlife. utah tags given to an organization with zero transparency, red flag right there. unless they come up with the numbers and records, than these tags should be given to another organization that will actually give money back and show proof of it or these tags should just simply be put back into the regular draw system.


----------



## BERG (Dec 4, 2007)

Now that's some common sense right there!!! Thanks utahgolf.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

BERG said:


> Excuse me Mr. self-imposed Authoritarian, but just who the heck are you to suggest that everyone should fall in line with what YOU believe the goal should be in this matter? Furthermore, who are you to tell anyone what WE need to do? WE have not done anything to SFW; their organization would appear to be suffering the consequences of their own selfish greed. So, please do tell us why you are playing both ends to the middle Nambaster, as I don't think too many folks will cry buckets of tears when SFW moves on to scooping up elk turds in their next venture as purveyors of fine fertilizer. Capitalism really is a wonderful thing you know. Bad companies eventually go bust, because their product either stinks or their management sucked. Furthermore, their marbles should be taken. The word collect is so passive, although potentially fitting for an organization lacking the nards to visit this forum and explain their misguided agenda in making exorbitant amounts of money from public tags. If in fact this is actually true...if not, then what is there to hide?





BERG said:


> So berg, if you know whats good for you please STFU. Is that what you are saying? This response is typical of folks who think that rules shouldn't apply in their world. World peace?


It is one thing to have a positive dialogue with constructive comments, but being rude is most obvious in the above post. Not calling you out, just a settle hint, because I to have fallen below the belt on occasion, and I to have my faults, but I call a spade a spade and am willing to say that I am sorry. 
Big


----------



## BERG (Dec 4, 2007)

I’m a spade. So what? I have my faults. Are you trying to shame me into an apology? Well, you’re not going to get one, as I don’t share your same sentiment. Nevertheless, I accept your apology and harbor no animosity whatsoever toward your person. I simply took exception to your implication that I should not post what I truly think in order to keep the peace, as it looks in your mind, simply because you assume that I may have a caffeine and raging testosterone issue. In either case, my personal issues are certainly a moot point in this discussion. Although, I wouldn’t feel any shame in admitting that I do in fact have both. I have the right to speak, and you are most certainly welcome to tell me that I’m over the top if you disagree with my comments. On the other hand, that doesn’t mean that I have to agree with you attempting to call a spade a spade. Good grief, you can even tell me to go to heck if you want. I’d still go fishing with you next week. Maybe this discussion is simply too sensitive a topic for you to participate in? I don’t know.

Constructive dialogue isn’t always positive. I’m curious, whatever gave you the impression that it was? In fact, how can positive/negative dialogue ever be entirely constructive, when the party in question isn’t willing to show up to the meeting? I give it as my opinion that the only thing anyone really wants is for SFW to stand up and say something about the appropriation of tag money rightly belonging to the people of Utah. Their silence on the matter is not becoming. Now, let me make it clear that I’m not entirely certain that SFW is hiding something, yet I believe that there is a substantial amount of evidence alleging that money from public tags has not been accounted for due to a lack of transparency in the accounting process, as has already been suggested by someone else, regarding the appropriation of said funds. As far as I know, we have not heard from SFW to counter any of the arguments made on this forum or any other public forum. Do you not understand that this is highly suspect in the minds of many Utahans’?


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

Berg,
Have you ever thought of going right to the horse's mouth and talking directly to the source and asking them the question? I am not the authority on this I do not know and I did not attend the expo this year. Have you or anyone else tried calling John Bair, Byron Bateman, Ryan Foutz or Don Peay?

My understanding is that Ryan Foutz was and is the expo coordinator; maybe he could answer your questions? The link bellow will get you the contact information for the men in the know. Who knows you might just get a solid plausible answer.
http://www.sfwsfh.org/index.cfm?pID=5
Big


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

bigbr said:


> I too have sit for years in a few meetings with Don, John, Randy, Connie, Lee, Troy, Kenny, Tony, Jim etc and have voiced similar concerns about the direction of sportsmen and wildlife in our state. When Tony parted ways, I felt that Tony had some legitimate concerns and that his concerns should be addressed. You too have stood shoulder to shoulder with these same people and it was only the last year or so that you have parted ways from the thinking of SFW. Has SFW made mistakes? Yes! Most diffidently and without question, but with the bad has come some very positive results. That's the rub, I don't think SFW makes many mistakes, but rather they are very good at getting what they want. It isn't a mistake, in their view, for harvest ages to keep going up for elk, thus reducing opportunity. It isn't a mistake, in their view, for buck:doe ratios to be raised under the BOGUS assertion its mostly to help increase the deer population.
> 
> You asked the question if things are better now in Utah for sportsmen and wildlife. And I would say yes and no! As for wildlife, I feel that sheep, mountain goat, elk, turkey, moose and pronghorn are much better off numerically now than they were ten, twenty or even thirty years ago. However with that being said mule deer are in my opinion and observation are at an all time low in numbers and even the quality of bucks existing in the field are shameful. I am of the opinion that any hunter who harvests a four point buck can consider him or herself a trophy hunter, because mature bucks are few and far between and mature bucks should be present in a health herd. As for hunting opportunity, I feel that we as sportsmen have lost a lot of ground that we will most likely never regain again. The plain and simple fact of the matter here is that Utah has grown in population for 500k to 2.3 million and we ain't getting any smaller in the near future. Alas, you only think SFW, for some unexplainable reason, is the cause of increased sheep/mountain goat/elk/turkey/moose/pronghorn population increases. I assert that SFW is, at best, a VERY small part of the increase in populations for said species. In regard to the hunter aspect, how many elk/deer permits were reduced to fund the above critter populations? What I mean is: how many more elk permits could have been issued if the primary focus of game management was actually on managing wildlife WITH hunters as opposed to FOR hunters? How many people when actually get to hunt sheep/mountain goats/moose even once? From an investor standpoint, the ROI is HORRIBLE! If permit reductions were due to biological reasons, rather than for 'quality' reasons, I and many others would be content....
> 
> ...


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

Sorry berg maybe a simple IMO would have extinguished a little bit of your forum rage. I will keep in mind that I don't necessarily have a following from individuals with a wolf as an icon on this forum. 

IMO opinion I dont agree with SFW s current game plan. in the past during their inception I did... In keeping with the thread I consider them a reckless threat to the future of big game hunting in Utah.


----------



## BERG (Dec 4, 2007)

Thanks for the clarification.  Forum rage? I didn't figure you as the ultra-sensitive type.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Seems to me that the poll question misses the point. If SFW closed their doors tomorrow, the fundamental issue would still exist: Is public wildlife a commodity for commercial profit to the exclusion of any and all other values? A growing number of sportsmen entrepreneurs will answer that question with a resounding "Yes!", and failure to speak out in opposition is de facto consent because that's the current trend of wildlife management politics in Utah.

Bigbr asks if any of us have talked with the SFW movers and shakers. I have, on many occasions. So I've heard them refer to hunters as "customers", I've heard them denounce the DWR for attending to wildlife species that have no commercial value and I've heard their contention that it's better to have one hunter on the mountain who pays $10,000 for his tag than it is to have 100 hunters who only paid general season rates. And since ranch management is best for business, I've watched them aggressively promote such management at every opportunity.

Some want to paint the UWC as being anti-SFW. But again, SFW isn't the point. So it seems to me that UWC is simply refusing to be customers.


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

it seams to me that this poll has not missed the point.because like i stated earlier this poll was not uwc,rmef or mdf driven.and as of right now the poll has shown people have had enough of sfw.the sfw is a very greedy organazation that started off with good intentions but is now blinded buy the light of money and they will do whatever it takes to make that money.they are creating less hunting oppurtunity for our future i,e our children.getting rich off of our public heards. and nestling themselves in on capital hill and the utah wildlife board so they dont have to deal with the average hunter or the dwr .and the anti hunter organazations like PETA are loving what they are doing because they are pinning hunters against hunters.like i said i used to be a member of sfw and a very proud member at that.i use to defend them on forums like these. untill i seen what was really going on.and you can bank on it that they think they are untouchable. and they could care less about your 30$ membership at this point. for those of you who are still a member believe me your input means jack crap to them and your membership fees does no more than pay for their groceries and their high cost of living


----------



## BERG (Dec 4, 2007)

Great posts guys! There isn't much more to add; however, I know that Finn is a man of his word! As for SFW, it's time for this group to stand and answer to the citizens of Utah on their own accord. Until they do, I will assume that they are just too cowardly to face a large group in a public setting. What are any of us left to conclude at this point? I hope that I'm wrong in making this assumption. Therefore, I will gladly pay for a convention room for a public meeting, if Don Peay and his board, are willing to show up and field questions from average hunters. What say ye SFW? Will you allow your continued silence too create even more questions and suspicion? Post up, and I will help coordinate the meeting. Thanks, berg - just an average guy

PS. I hope you don't mind if I invite a reporter from The Salt Lake Tribune.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> Bigbr asks if any of us have talked with the SFW movers and shakers. I have, on many occasions. So I've heard them refer to hunters as "customers", I've heard them denounce the DWR for attending to wildlife species that have no commercial value and I've heard their contention that it's better to have one hunter on the mountain who pays $10,000 for his tag than it is to have 100 hunters who only paid general season rates. And since ranch management is best for business, I've watched them aggressively promote such management at every opportunity.


No!

I think that my original question was more closely related to the below excerpts from the UWC letter which has brought a fire storm to the forum and implicated that Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife has kept and misused these expo permit funds.

"The board of directors of the UWC, hereby request the reallocation of funds from the proceeds generated by the 200 convention tags of the Western Hunting and Conservation expo. *Under existing guidelines and statutes, the funds generated by these tags are currently unaccounted for."*

And further more has UWC receive a reply back from anyone of the several people that it addressed this letter too? And if they have are they going to reveal the responce that they got on this board?

Big


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

The cattleman assoc has more to thank for SFW's habitat restoration and wildlife conservation fund raising. Than does the Utah hunter. 

Habitat restoration has historically been the biggest fleecing of the Utah hunter. When for a fraction of the dollars put into better cattle graze. Utah's could have gotten a lot better bang for their buck in comprehensive predator management with the goal of improving hunter outlook.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

bigbr said:


> No!
> 
> I think that my original question was more closely related to the below excerpts from the UWC letter which has brought a fire storm to the forum and implicated that Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife has kept and misused these expo permit funds.


I got that. But I apologize for striking off of your tee. Of course, the letter clearly states the funds are "currently unaccounted for" and says nothing at all about the use of those funds. But whatever.

None the less, I still maintain that SFW is neither good nor bad. They're just doing their thing. I'd even work with them if it was possible, but experience has shown that they don't want to work with me. That's cool...I'm nobody and I understand that we don't share the same principles.

As for the expo tags, I'm not nearly as concerned about the money as I am about the tags themselves and the huge risk they pose to all of us. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

bigbr said:


> I think that my original question was more closely related to the below excerpts from the UWC letter which has brought a fire storm to the forum and implicated that Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife has kept and misused these expo permit funds.


bigbr the UWC is NOT questioning whether SFW is acting ethically with regards to expo tag application funds. The law in this case is clear. We are calling for reform at the legislative level. We are asking that the law be changed. By law the funds to do not need to be accounted for.....that's what we have a problem with. Referencing your quote above if SFW has not "kept" the funds we ask they show what they have done with them. To date they have not.


----------



## BERG (Dec 4, 2007)

"To date they have not." - Bsnot  :O||:

The poll numbers in this thread are certainly interesting. I wonder how Dan Jones and Associates would interpret this information? :shock:


----------



## BERG (Dec 4, 2007)

This is a bit long, but I think it's worth watching. I'll let you draw your own conclusions as to how it could relate to any of the issues we've been discussing.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id= ... photovideo


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I see the parallels.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Can anyone say... SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!!


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

Are we only questioning one group here? H ell while your at it go ahead and question RMEF, MDF, NWTF etc etc.


----------



## Dannyboy (Oct 27, 2010)

I think everyone is questions them all, just this post is about sfw.


----------



## BERG (Dec 4, 2007)

Dannyboy nails it again!


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

I don't think we have to question them all. I for one could care less what they do with "THEIR" money. Dues, fundraisers, donations and other money avenues they can snort up their nose and spend it on hookers for all I care. They will have to answer to their members for that money.

RMEF, MDF, NWTF, and all other ??Fs have an abligation to pay back 90% of "CONSERAVTION TAG" money.

What is being questioned here is what SFW does with the money from EXPO TAGS and EXPO TAGS only. They are a public resource that they are not accounting for. Plain and simple. Let them drink snort and screw their money away. Expo tag money is all I care about.


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

So how much money do you all figure is not being accounted for, from EXPO tags?


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

I do not know. If I knew it would be because they opened their books and everyone else would know as well. Some places I have read it could be upwards of 2 million.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

MadHunter said:


> I don't think we have to question them all. I for one could care less what they do with "THEIR" money. Dues, fundraisers, donations and other money avenues they can snort up their nose and spend it on hookers for all I care. They will have to answer to their members for that money.
> 
> RMEF, MDF, NWTF, and all other ??Fs have an abligation to pay back 90% of "CONSERAVTION TAG" money.
> 
> What is being questioned here is what SFW does with the money from EXPO TAGS and EXPO TAGS only. They are a public resource that they are not accounting for. Plain and simple. Let them drink snort and screw their money away. Expo tag money is all I care about.


For clarity, MDF is a part of the expo as well.


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

pheaz said:


> So how much money do you all figure is not being accounted for, from EXPO tags?


do not have a clue.i know if i were a board member and if it was my organization that was being accused of such acts that sfw is. and they were untrue .i would have put out a press release along time ago and opened the books up for all to see . the fact that they have not throws up a huge red flag. where there is smoke there is fire.the funny thing is that most people don't expect don and the other board members NOT to be paid for their time they put into the organization i dont anyway.but i am curious to what is going to the actual wildlife compared to what is going towards their pockets.


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

We are referring to the $5 hunts right? Or are we referring to the auction tags? I beleive I fell behind so dont jump my shiz.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

I need to say ONE thing........Today, I had two friend requests on Face Book. Both of them had profile pics of them holding big bull elk. I knew one of the guys somewhat as I have done a job or so for him over the years. The other guy not at all. As I looked at these two great bulls and thought of the many other guys who I am associated with that have photo's of great bulls on thier FB page, It hit me square between the eyes. This is something that I NEVER saw or heard of 15 years ago and in the pre SFW days. The vision Don had, the hours worked in the field by the thousands of supporters, The dedicated hunter program hours, and yes, the money earned and spent in the name of wildlife has made this possible. I am simply old enough to have seen the difference and can appreciate having many friends with great bulls instead of an occasional rag bull bringing home the prize. Nearly 15 years ago on the steps of the Capitol building, History was made and "Opportunities" created. I am proud to be a part of that movement.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

It's funny, I was thinking along the exact same lines today, though my conclusion was a different one. What exactly do you see as the #1 contributor to having a relatively large population of elk in Utah compared to say, 30 years ago?

Also, are you suggesting that if it is due to SFW, that people just turn their heads when they think they are taking advantage of their lot and doing things that they feel are unjust?

I've asked you before, Scott. If you had a church leader that was always going out of his way to volunteer his time and resources for children, was looked up to by many and was considered an exceptional person by most, but you found out he liked to take kids to the closet every now and again, would you only choose to focus on the good things he had done, or would you question him and possibly consider him a pedophile?

I guess it's all about perspective.


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

Limited Entry no question


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> It's funny, I was thinking along the exact same lines today, though my conclusion was a different one. What exactly do you see as the #1 contributor to having a relatively large population of elk in Utah compared to say, 30 years ago?
> 
> Also, are you suggesting that if it is due to SFW, that people just turn their heads when they think they are taking advantage of their lot and doing things that they feel are unjust?
> 
> ...


That is a bit extreme............but yes there are Elk in Utah because of SFW. BOTTOM LINE!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I get that you think that. My question is: What exactly do you see as the #1 contributor to having a relatively large population of elk in Utah compared to say, 30 years ago?

Not who, but what? So if it was SFW, what is the the one thing, in your opinion, that put 60k more elk on the ground? 

Extreme? Absolutely. Analytically correct? Absolutely.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

I said that I wanted to say "ONE" thing. I really don't want to get into this Little Red Hen story where everyone wants to reap the benefits but not do the work and complain about those who do. I will bite off on this ONE more time.

The BIGGEST reason that there are Elk on the mountain is because the sportsmans voice was heard. The sportsman was tired of hunting a non existant animal or poor quality at best. Don headed this movement up and gave the sportsman a voice by being involved in the place that nobody wants to go and that is at the political end of the spectrum. He went to the people who make the laws and presented agenda's that made sense. He gave them what they wanted just like anyone who plays in politics does. He explained that the general fund was not supporting the wildlife in this state and that other moneys were needed to fund the animals. Since that day, LE hunts became more widespread. Animal age objectives became important. Male to female numbers became a thing of reality. This worked so well with some animals that he teamed up with FNAWS and other groups in helping fund their dreams in creating many more huntable herds. This has snowballed to where there are many people who want to hunt these critters that they feel are out of reach because they don't have money to buy a Governers tag. Governers tags, 20 years ago wouldn't have sold for piddily squat. The difference is now we have MANY more hunters that want "in" on this amount of animals and never saw the crappy days. They want it all and want it now. Opportunity gets spoken of without thought of what it took to create it. There are a bunch of snot nosed kids that don't have a clue of what it was like when nobody hunted Elk in Utah because there weren't any. None of these other things that I mentioned were the Big Main reason that we have Elk now but are all contributers since the "Sportsmans Voice" was heard and heard loud and clear. Every one always complained then like they do now but about different issues. One person gathered them together and made ONE loud voice instead of a bunch of muttering in a croud. You fight the 800 lb gorrilla now and destroy it, you have a bunch of croud muttering again. You join up and let them know that you feel they have not spoken for you and get involved, you get your voice to come out of that 800 lb Gorrilla. The momentum is moving. Either try and stop it, which i feel is unwise or get on board and try to steer it along some of the paths that you would like. Makes much more sense to me. Enough said from me.


----------



## deerlove (Oct 20, 2010)

Looks like someones on the payroll, keep drinking the coolaid. Do you actually believe they care about my average voice?? HA


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

I think we're getting stuck on differences rather than common ground.

In my personal opinion there should be BOTH quality units and opportunity units. The creation of trophy units was not a bad thing IMO and they should exist. There are folks that deserve credit for those programs and to those folks I say give credit where credit is due. For me I am not demonizing trophy hunting or trophy units.

The point of view that I would like to add to this conversation is that it seems that now that we have a solid trophy program now we are moving on to making the whole state a trophy unit and that's where I take issue. Kudos to those that spoke up and created units but to make those units what they are opportunity is limited so much now those folks want more units so they can hunt more often. This is the clash, the source of friction. The TRUTH, undeniable TRUTH is that if we make the whole state nothing but LE elk and LE deer units you are going to hand out what 5,000 to 10,000 tags a year...maybe? This is not the right direction folks. This mentailty will destroy our sport, our traditions, our heritage. The exchange of wildlife for dollars must be kept in check. Be careful what you wish for....you just might get it.

So kudos to those that created the LE programs and giving trophy hunters trophy units to hunt. I know some will disagree with me on that, even from my own flock, but now it seems they want it all. I don't agree with that. Maybe we won't admit on open forums but I think all of us can understand this to some degree even if we don't agree with where the line is. Why do we want to push our own values on everyone? Before someone accuses me of that please read my post again.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Elk22 I think you better get your facts straight


----------



## BERG (Dec 4, 2007)

I've been hunting for many years, and I've never had a crappy day of hunting in my life. In fact, even though the marketing gurus' of the world would want me to believe that I must shoot a 400 bull to be any kind of real man, I have found my nards never grow any larger after shooting a really big bull instead of a nice little spike; either way I'm just as happy, because I'm satisfied with my nards as they currently exist; therefore, I will choose more hunting opportunity over cutting tags and more giant bucks or bulls. You see, for me it's not about making money off of public resources. For wealthy folks who make their living by exploiting resources it is about large racks. So, you go ahead and keep pounding the SFW drum elk22hunter. The people of Utah have awakened to the real truth of the matter. Having opportunity with family, and friends, to hunt is what really matters. We will lose an entire generation of young hunters if we keep taking opportunity away in the name of creating big racks that are sold to the highest bidder. Call me crazy, but if we continue to make a practice of selling our tags to the highest bidder it will most likely lead to the privatization of nearly all big game hunting in Utah. How did our priorities get so screwed up!? I just don't give a **** about big racks unless they're on a nice looking human female. And I ask again, Why the Hell does SFW, and MDF, remain silent in the midst of so damned much controversy? Instead of tackling the concerns head on, they send pawns in their game of big game chess. Indeed, yesterdays home run does not count in today's game nor do the ends always justify the means. I think Tree's analogy, however extreme you sensitive folks may conclude, is valid. Our current system of big game management is not based on sound biology. Quite simply, politics and big money are behind the wheel as the driving force of big game management in Utah, and it reeks to anyone with even half a brain. _(O)_ -O\__-


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

limited entry is the reason for the elk herds today not sfw.give the credit to the dwr and the biologist.back when what they actually reccomended for the state actually was heard upon.the le units were created way before sfw


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I think the CPP is eerily similar to Social Security. They both started with good, even honorable, intentions. In the beginning the costs, ALL the costs not just the ones out in the sunlight, were low and the burden was minimal, even to the point where one didn't even notice the price they were paying to supplement a few with entitlements. But, like most good intentions fraught with flaws, soon the burdens increased, and the entitlements outpaced the ability to supply. In the case of Social Security, the retirement age has been raised numerous times, yet the account is drying up fast. In the case of CPP, the harvest age objectives have been raised numerous times, yet the 'quality' is supposedly slipping. At some point the well will run dry, how high can the retirement age/harvest age objectives go? 

That still leaves us with the Convention tags, which I have heard from a few 'connected' sources is between $800,000-$1,000,000 EVERY year. SFW and MDF have failed to specify where so much as one red cent has gone from these permits. The mandate called for a "significant portion" to go to wildlife related projects. I would expect a group that LOVES to brag about its 'good deeds' that is spending a "significant portion" would gladly and repeatedly point such 'deeds' out. That they have remained stone cold silent leads me to have more than just doubts.


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

pheaz said:


> We are referring to the $5 hunts right? Or are we referring to the auction tags? I beleive I fell behind so dont jump my shiz.


 :?: :?:


----------



## BERG (Dec 4, 2007)

Not a problem. Everyone can see that you don't have an agenda.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

pheaz said:


> pheaz said:
> 
> 
> > We are referring to the $5 hunts right? Or are we referring to the auction tags? I beleive I fell behind so dont jump my shiz.
> ...


You are correct.

Auction tags (Conservation tags) are earmarked and fall under scrutiny and approval from the habitat council. 90% goes back to wildlife.

Convention/expo/5$ app tags are not earmarked far anything.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

WOW!!! I am in shock and awe from the voting record on this topic!!



NOT!!!


----------



## BERG (Dec 4, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> That still leaves us with the Convention tags, which I have heard from a few 'connected' sources is between $800,000-$1,000,000 EVERY year. SFW and MDF have failed to specify where so much as one red cent has gone from these permits. The mandate called for a "significant portion" to go to wildlife related projects. I would expect a group that LOVES to brag about its 'good deeds' that is spending a "significant portion" would gladly and repeatedly point such 'deeds' out. That they have remained stone cold silent leads me to have more than just doubts.


I was going to leave this topic alone for now, but Pro's words deserve a second look! I love to argue with the Pro, because we don't always see eye to eye, yet I will gladly admit when we share common ground!


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

http://www.sfwsfh.org/documents/SFW_Con ... ummary.pdf


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

pheaz said:


> http://www.sfwsfh.org/documents/SFW_Conservation_Projects_Summary.pdf


I know it is probably pointless, but I would like to point out that those are for conservation projects, that is money that is made off of a sale of public tags that are given to SFW and others. 60% is required to go back to conservation projects. This also doesn't account for expo tags. Don't get me wrong, it is great work being done, but lets not forget the facts of how they get most of that money.


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

I was just stating that for PRO and Berg-that would expect a group that LOVES to brag about its 'good deeds' that is spending a "significant portion" would gladly and repeatedly point such 'deeds' out.


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

bottom line they dont care what we think anyways.they are pocketing a bunch of money and hiding their paper trails.they do the bare minumum to coax some people. but they have to be getting the hint that people are getting fed up with them. dont believe me sfw look at the poll


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

hazmat said:


> bottom line they dont care what we think anyways.they are pocketing a bunch of money and hiding their paper trails.they do the bare minumum to coax some people. but they have to be getting the hint that people are getting fed up with them. dont believe me sfw look at the poll


Look at the poll on a anti-SFW website? :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol: OK.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

And a Pro-SFW website would be...?


----------



## deerlove (Oct 20, 2010)

mossback.com lol


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Pheaz..... You still don't get it do you?

This is not an anti SFW site. This is not an anti or pro any organization site. This is a site where the majority of people are wondering what SFW does with the money they generate using public resources. That's it! Is that simple enough? Their other revenue streams we could care less about.


----------



## BERG (Dec 4, 2007)

Pheaz, I can only conclude that you didn't read this entire thread. If you did read it, then you seem to be throwing a straw man before our eyes in a misguided effort to draw attention away from the real issue. What? You didn't think anyone would notice? :lol: 

Jahan, MadHunter, and Hazmat make some great points. Pro nailed it in his last post.


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

Berg you should know by now that if you throw a STRAW MAN into a fire you will get burnt everytime. :lol: :lol: The post was to show you and pro that a ORG. that talks about the shizz they do actually do it. Yes there is cash being profitted no doubt. It would appear to me that if the state was that blinded by the SFW actions something would have been done. right? The letter sent out by the UWC has brought it to all there attentions and what has become???


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Change never happens in a day. Believe me when I say there are some important folks that are looking very hard as some of the things the UWC has brought up.


----------



## BERG (Dec 4, 2007)

pheaz said:


> Berg you should know by now that if you throw a STRAW MAN into a fire you will get burnt everytime. :lol: :lol: The post was to show you and pro that a ORG. that talks about the shizz they do actually do it. Yes there is cash being profitted no doubt. It would appear to me that if the state was that blinded by the SFW actions something would have been done. right? The letter sent out by the UWC has brought it to all there attentions and what has become???


So, let me see if I understand...are you actually suggesting that you've burned me in some way? If so, please see a doctor. Your severe dain bramage is flaring up again.  Furthermore, you didn't show either me or Pro anything we didn't already know. :roll: Please go back, read this thread SLOWLY, and think a little harder about what you have read.

And I'm quite certain that you will be hearing something about the money derived from the sale of expo tags, and the accounting regarding these funds, in the near future.

Please allow me to educate you a little son:

" straw man argument is a rhetorical device that is meant to easily prove that one's position or argument is superior to an opposing argument. However, the straw man argument is regarded as a logical fallacy, because at its core, the person using the device misrepresents the other person's argument. The person does this because it then becomes easier to knock down the weaker version of the opposing argument with one's more substantial counter argument. The term straw man derives from the use of scarecrows for military practice, such as charges. In reality, a scarecrow is far easier to defeat than an actual person.

The straw man argument, also called straw dog or scarecrow, deliberately misrepresents and weakens the argument of the opposing side. This can be done by leaving out key points of an opposing argument, quoting a person's words out of context, or presenting a particular person's poor defense as the entire defense of an opposing side. In the worst case, a straw man is literally an imagined person who weakly defends an argument and can be easily defeated." - wisegeek.com


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

BERG said:


> pheaz said:
> 
> 
> > Berg you should know by now that if you throw a STRAW MAN into a fire you will get burnt everytime. :lol: :lol: The post was to show you and pro that a ORG. that talks about the shizz they do actually do it. Yes there is cash being profitted no doubt. It would appear to me that if the state was that blinded by the SFW actions something would have been done. right? The letter sent out by the UWC has brought it to all there attentions and what has become???
> ...


I'm referring if one was to throw this "strawman" into this fire one would get burnt. :idea: Burn you BERG no not at all. But hey thanks for education.  BTW I need to get to the doctor to check my dain bramage. SHOW ME THE MONEY BUD.


----------



## BERG (Dec 4, 2007)

Glad I could be of assistance. As for the money, we are all waiting for SFW to show us where the money went. Nevertheless, they remain silent on the issue. 

Did you go back and read this thread again or not? Plus, if you need some extra cash to visit the doctor, then please send me a pm. I want to see your dain bramage gets treatment.


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

pheaz said:


> hazmat said:
> 
> 
> > bottom line they dont care what we think anyways.they are pocketing a bunch of money and hiding their paper trails.they do the bare minumum to coax some people. but they have to be getting the hint that people are getting fed up with them. dont believe me sfw look at the poll
> ...


i do not know how you think this is an anti sfw website.it is a wildlife forum and the topic may not be to your liking but it is the truth. people are fed up with this organization go to monster muleys or any other site and you wll get the same result people sick of sfw.let me ask you pheaz i take it you are a proud sfw member. how many times has the non profit organization asked any input from you a paying customer or anyone you know for that matter.


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

Thanks for the offer BERG I think I can afford this one but maybe you can get the next. I have not yet my dain bramage is sore. Hazmat yes I am a SFW member PROUD well lets not cross that line yet. I and others have sat down with The Don and company and discused different items. Yes option 2 was one we all voted yes. But, did are voices get heard MAYBE, MAYBE NOT.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

pheaz said:


> Thanks for the offer BERG I think I can afford this one but maybe you can get the next. I have not yet my dain bramage is sore. Hazmat yes I am a SFW member PROUD well lets not cross that line yet. I and others have sat down with The Don and company and discused different items. Yes option 2 was one we all voted yes. But, did are voices get heard MAYBE, MAYBE NOT.


Can yo elaborate on "all voted yes"? According to Byron 40% of the reps voted against it.


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

Wasatch/Summit County Chapter Board Members voted for option 2. Apparently if Byron said 40% of reps voted against it then I guess our voice was over ruled by other chapters across the state.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

Funny that the results haven't changed in ... how long ago was this thread submitted? Not surprising from my point of view. Working in the hunting retail industry I'd say people are being hornswaggled about the "popular vote" that came about last December.


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

_*So for anyone that does not beleive what the money has gone towards. SFW is giving whomever and whatever an invite to view the books. So whoever is in doubt heres your chance so we can all move forward.*_

Troy (SFW wrote)
We have already completed a sucessful IRS Audit just last year. The IRS already beat you to the punch!

_*SFW has extended an offer to anyone that is willing to call and make an appointment to come view our financials. To date we have not had the pleasure of sitting down with any of you!*_

It was brought up at the meeting that individuals wanted our finacials posted on our website simular to other Orgizations. We have made un effort to do so.

SFW stands by this. We will post the Draw Odd's as soon as MDF grants their approval. It will not happen until then. You can beat us up on this all you want but until they say okay it is not going to happen. WSF would be shown the same respect if they were still apart of the EXPO. I would suggest turning your time and energy's to the group that has not agreed to your request!


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

MadHunter said:


> Can anyone say... SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!!


Who do you want to show you the money?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Maybe you could ask Troy why this hasn't been made public, open to ALL, from DAY ONE.....You know, like they promised. As for which group ones energy should be directed at, SFW brings this on themselves. They are quick to toot their horn when they feel they have done something good, even taking credit for the actions of others......but they are very slow to admitting their shortfalls, or when they completely ignore the promises they have made. I do NOT care about the draw odds, but I DO care about why SFW and the others have been less than transparent in regards to where the funds from these tags has been spent. The arrogance of this response by SFW is why they are the target of so many.....


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

I hate to say but this battle has turned into more than I would like to handle right now. Way to many strawmen are being tossed around at this point. Thanks all for the p.ms they have keep me on track. I beleive for now I am leaving the subject alone. BTW I will ask Troy Saturday night at the banquet about what we have talked about Bulls thanks for painting the picture its pretty clear now.


----------



## BERG (Dec 4, 2007)

Is it any surprise that I agree with PRO on this one!

What pheaz, was this supposed to shut everyone up? SFW knows full well that it wouldn't be very difficult to hoodwink an average dude who doesn't know much about accounting!! Good grief, just take a look at how they are using your unwavering blind allegiance Pheaz. It would take a large accounting firm, and a well educated CPA, too thoroughly analyze SFW's accounting records and search for any irregularities regarding expo tag funds. In fact, this would require full disclosure of all of their accounting and tax records. So, their offer certainly isn't all that impressive unless they are willing to turn everything over to an unbiased accounting firm for a full audit, and there's no way in hell that they are ever going to go down that road without being compelled to do so! Therefore, it is my sincere desire that The State of Utah calls for a full audit of every SFW tax and accounting records for the last ten years. Only then can we conclude that SFW is truly in the clear. Make no mistake; they probably would have done this by now if they really wanted to put an end to all of the questions regarding their use of PUBLIC monies. I give it as my opinion that any private entity, who willingly accepts public money, should be prepared to disclose where every penny of public funds were spent by way of a complete State Audit. I’ve been told that The State is currently being challenged as to why this isn’t being done.

PRO is right about this, they should have come forth much sooner; however, instead they send a minion pawn, in their game of big game chess, to get this absurd message out to the dumbed down masses who are allowing a private entity to control big game management and hunting in Utah. We should all be happy to take SFW up on their offer, if they will allow us to have a top notch CPA review ALL of their records. In conclusion, isn’t it odd that one of our newest Wildlife Board appointees is ex-chairman of The SFW board!

Wake up Utahans! Something smells like mink poop around here!


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

Berg- i hate to admitt it but you are 100% correct. You have any highly trained CPA friends?


----------



## BERG (Dec 4, 2007)

As a matter of fact I do pheaz, and I'm certain that he would be MORE than HAPPY to help out! :lol:


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

The big issue I see is where the current law does not state that SFW has to have a Convention Tag account. With the money being put in there general expense account it may be pretty hard to track back.right? Accourding to Bullsnot the SFW is in compliance with the current State Law. And with that said that is the reason of why the letter was not adressed to SFW it was addressed to the state to get the law changed. But YES I agree they found the loop hole and it is BULLLSHIZZ


----------



## BERG (Dec 4, 2007)

:idea: Bing! I'm being blinded by the Mega-lumens flowing from your brain! You are correct.
SFW should have stepped up to the plate on this issue a long time ago. We may never know for certain where they have spent those public funds. 

Now, if only we can get Congress to take the Mercury out of those new light bulbs we will all be better off; however, I will need to have that discussion over at Political Necrosis. Wyogoob has LIBERAL sized seizures when I talk politics on this forum.


----------

