# The REAL threat to hunting's future!



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

After reading all the responses to the 'other' thread claiming 'trophy' hunters and SFW and there ilk are what is 'ruining' hunting I started thinking about what I think is the biggest threat to my kids being able to hunt in 20 years. I believe very strongly it is *APATHY*.

I find it ironic that wyo2ut wrote:


> If these sportsmen were truly interested in the future of their sport, why don't they find alternative ways of raising money instead of eliminating thousands of tags so a few rich guys can kill an animal?


My question is, where the hell is all the so-called opportunity hunters in this? Where is wyo2ut and his ilk in finding "alternative" ways of raising money? Where is the opportunity crowd when the decisions are being made? Where are they when proposals are made? Where are they on coming up with proposals of their own? Where are they on coming up with habitat projects?

Idiotwithabow asked:


> If these volunteers are not going to ever get to hunt these sheep, what's in it for them?


While I can't answer for the others involved, I will say for me it was for MANY reasons. The biggest was the cool experience of being there. The knowledge that I get to now go look at these awesome animals whenever I want is another. They are very visible to the general public, and I will gladly take anyone interested out to look at them anytime it is requested. While it is true few will get to hunt them, and a few dollars will be made on tag sales, money was spent to put them there, and they would NOT be there at at if it weren't for those who put them there. A big reason the DWR went along with this was because they see it as a way to get the public an OPPORTUNITY to view bighorn sheep. The hunting of these animals is a very small aspect of the whole process.

I attend RAC's and see a handful of 'hunters' there, and many are there because they are mandated to be there as DH requirements. That, along with other things, tells me that MOST hunters don't care enough about hunting, and the future of hunting to get off there behinds and do SOMETHING about it! If the claim made by all on this topic is true, that MOST hunters prefer opportunity over trophy management, where are they? I believe the state MUST manage for both types, to manage to only one would make *you* every bit as guilty as what *you* me and SFW to be guilty of doing. And that is, alienating a certain segment of the hunting community. That is why I have the signature at the end of each post that I believe should be the motto of EVERY sportsman in Utah.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

Well I have to agree with what you are saying. I am a meat hunter as we all know. Yet I believe that there is/needs to be a good balance between the two. That is the key to the future of hunting.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Pro,

I agree whole hartedly with your post. The opportunity crowd (me included) does not show up to share there voice. For many hunters over the last 30 years it was not a concern, there intrest in having there yearly opportunities to hunt elk and deer was not being attacked by other types of hunters, businesses.....times have changed. If we don't want to loose any more ground we need to start showing up and talking amongst our selves and our families. I know my siblings are not even aware of the politics, changes that have taken place and changes on the horizon. I need to educate them and get their support.



> I believe the state MUST manage for both types, to manage to only one would make you every bit as guilty as what you me and SFW


Where we differ her PRO is you would continue to persue more Limited hunting trophy opportunity when I think it is already way out of balance in relation to the number of general season hunters v.s. LE hunters.

Now when I say that I realize we all put in for LE hunts, for most that is the only option to hunt the male species near the house or on that mountain range we grew up on but like treehgnhuntr said on another post the elk hunting for sure is way out of balance as far as the number of huntable acres given to LE v.s. general season and I fear the Deer hunting is being pushed to follow suit.

In short we do need to educate other hunters who are of our same mind set, organize and make an effort to go represent the masses.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

I agree to a point. The average joe needs to get involved. They have been sitting around and not keeping in contact with what is happening. They are going to wake up one morning and wonder where all the opportunity went and it will be thier own fault because they didn't do anything. 

The conservation tag concept is a fine concept until you see what it is doing to the sportsmans groups you actually have a sportsmans group that advocates less hunters, not for the health of the herd but for the size of the antlers. Setting a few units aside to be quality units is fine but the push for the wildlife administration should be to get each unit to the maximim population and they shouldn't be managing for antler size or antler configuration. Their are other methods of having a quality unit that still gives plenty of opportunity. I worry about the future not because the average joe isn't coming up with funding but because they aren't voicing there opinions at the rac meetings, getting people appointed to the rac boards that supports thier views, contacting the wildlife board etc.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Ignorance truely is blissful for the ignorant blindeye. Money and political infulence must magically appear for our DWR. I have had a gutfull reading about "poor pitful me" the big bad rich man is ruining and taking away our biggame oppurtunities. Give me a break. I watched a "reality" show I don't normally watch the other day. Celebrities were selling hotdogs for charity. Two teams competed to see who could sell the most for their charity of choice. They were able to sell some to passerbys on the street for $10 to $50 each. The average guys doing what they could to contribute. Then a couple of participants made phone calls to some of their wealthy friends. They showed up and bought hotdogs for $5000 and $10,000 each. Clearly the hotdogs are not worth that kind of money and by them buying a few at high dollars they took oppurtunity away from the average passerbys to buy a hotdog. So what, what a great way to contribute to a charity. Sure the $20 and $50 helped , but the big money is what put them over the top. At what cost? 1 hotdog earned $10,000, at the rate of $20 donations they would have had to sell 500 to make up the difference.

Does anyone see the bigger picture? The **** rich guy is ruining the hotdog/charity business with his big money taking away oppurtunities for the average joe.


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

Just because someone either can't go or chooses not to go to all of the meetings doesn't mean that the general public should be over looked. I agree more people should voice there opinion and get involved. It is funny though who is fighting the hardest for hunting, and that is the big money groups so how can the avg. joe even compete. I have been to a few meetings out here in Vernal and they don't even seem to care what anyone has to say. But, Pro I am not labeling you with any group I know what you get paid for but you seem alright to me. I think you have both interests in mind and that is alright with me since you are very vocal about it and you probably have a bigger voice in what goes on than I do. So just keep remembering us when you go to battle. I think you do though.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

I didn't realize the big money and average joes were in competition.


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> Ignorance truely is blissful for the ignorant blindeye. Money and political infulence must magically appear for our DWR. I have had a gutfull reading about "poor pitful me" the big bad rich man is ruining and taking away our biggame oppurtunities. Give me a break. I watched a "reality" show I don't normally watch the other day. Celebrities were selling hotdogs for charity. Two teams competed to see who could sell the most for their charity of choice. They were able to sell some to passerbys on the street for $10 to $50 each. The average guys doing what they could to contribute. Then a couple of participants made phone calls to some of their wealthy friends. They showed up and bought hotdogs for $5000 and $10,000 each. Clearly the hotdogs are not worth that kind of money and by them buying a few at high dollars they took oppurtunity away from the average passerbys to buy a hotdog. So what, what a great way to contribute to a charity. Sure the $20 and $50 helped , but the big money is what put them over the top. At what cost? 1 hotdog earned $10,000, at the rate of $20 donations they would have had to sell 500 to make up the difference.That is a little different then what is being talked about. Of course you want the most money for charity. You are talking about money being more important than hunting opertunities and that is not right. If they can make as much money by selling 500 more tags as compared to 1 tag, shouldn't they just sell more tags, then more people would have the opertunity to participate in this great sport, and they could then pass it on to the next generation. Money shouldn't be the ultimate goal. Of course they need money to keep it all going, but now I think it is more about greed, but I could be wrong on this, my wife says I am wrong all the time so what ever
> 
> [quote:1s238s4y]


Does anyone see the bigger picture? The **** rich guy is ruining the hotdog/charity business with his big money taking away oppurtunities for the average joe.[/quote:1s238s4y]

I don't


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

Bwhntr.

It isn't the big money that is bad it is when the focus becomes the money and the score of the antlers and getting that score at all costs that becomes bad. Someone donating tens of thousands of dollars isn't bad for the sport but a person who's only focus is on getting a 200" buck at the expense of other hunters is, regardless of how much money that person may donate.


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

NOt to hijack or get off track of pros subject, but does anybody know what the status of the INFORMATION propsed at the Rac's for the deer amnagement plans? Is it being discussed by any of the affluent or influential groups or people that I/we could talk with? I would like to have input on this even if it is just me in a corner of a packed room giving my humble opinion.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

I believe it a group effort that requires all. More participation and input at your local RACs all the way up to the legislator. Sorry to be the one to let you in on a well know secret, it takes money and political pull to balance the oppurtunities of hunting. It is what it is, this wonderful state of oppurtunity and great hunting doesn't come cheap or easy.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Longfeather said:


> Bwhntr.
> 
> It isn't the big money that is bad it is when the focus becomes the money and the score of the antlers and getting that score at all costs that becomes bad. Someone donating tens of thousands of dollars isn't bad for the sport but a person who's only focus is on getting a 200" buck at the expense of other hunters is regardless of how much money that person may donate.


If I am donating $10,000 for a hot dog, I might want the biggest one in the pot with a little extra mustard. I don't see the problem. I understand the big money donations want to hunt a big animal...small price to pay in my opinion. It seems to me there are some pretty stinkin big animals being killed by Sportsman tag holders as well.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I find it ironic


You know what I find ironic? The fact that you are trying to take away opportunity from hunters with your "fixation" on trophies yet you consistently put out this sells-pitch that you are tryihng to assure a future of hunting for your kids. That's ironic.

As far as what I have done for wildife and our future is concerned, well...let me just say that I don't need to pimp my efforts like you and SFW. Every year of my entire life i have spent countless hours volunteering time and money towards improving Utah's habitat. I bet I have doubled the amount of volunteer time I have spent in my lifetime compared to you...just because I wasn't at your sheep transplant doesn't mean jack. I also voice my opinions loudly to RAC members and DWR biologists regularly...I don't need to attend every RAC meeting to do that. Neither does anybody else.

What I find totally ironic and sickening is that whenever work is done, SFW and guys like you are sure serious about getting your face seen by the public. Why? So, you can get some kind of special treatment for "all the work" you do. True sportsmen? I don't think so.

Ironic most of all, though, is that the apathy Pro talks about comes from the inability of many to hunt.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

Balance! :shock:


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

That was uncalled for Wyoming. He wasn't "pimping" but mearly pointing out the fact that he had a great time doing what he loves and thought by chance that someone on a "Wildlife" forum might find it interesting. 

You two just fight each other to fight. I try to find NO enemies on this sight. It makes life a lot more livable. I suggest that we just point out our thoughts and leave the attacks out.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> Longfeather said:
> 
> 
> > Bwhntr.
> ...


That's called selling out. That is fine if you want to be a sell out, but wildlife managers should'nt be sell outs.

Also the problem isn't them wanting the biggest hot dog, it is wanting it at the expense of others that is the problem.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > I find it ironic
> ...


What opportunity have I 'taken' away?

I'll take your BET! What are we betting? Talk is cheap cowboy, you made the bold statement and bet! Bring it on! I had NO intention of talking about the sheep deal, but when *you* felt the need to widen the division among hunters with your STUPID thread, I just wanted to point out the lack of fore sight and lack of action by MOST on your side of the issue. Notice how I said MOST. You may/may not put time in the field. I am saying most 'opportunity' advocates DO NOT!

I haven't posted any of the pictures from the last few days, so don't make the FALSE accusations about me doing this for the publicity. Although, SFW SHOULD show what they are doing, so people like you are 'exposed' for your blatant half-truths/lies about what SFW and others are doing and the OPPORTUNITY they create.

The apathy is NOT from "lost opportunity", the lost opportunity is a result of APATHY. How was the opportunity 'lost'? You look at the outcome and blame those trying to fix it, instead of looking at what caused it in the first place. And guess what, it was NOT SFW. It was lose of habitat and a reduction in animals, it was more demand than supply, it was hunters having an 'out-dated' mentality of just keep things as they were in 1950. Newsflash, we will NEVER have hunting like the 1950's ever again, and that is NOT because of SFW, but because of changed times/environment/lost habitat. I say the APATHY is a result of MOST hunters having no clue about what it takes to put healthy herds on the ground and at huntable numbers. Deer/elk/moose/bighorns don't just SHOW UP in great numbers. It takes work and MONEY, lots of MONEY in todays world. Like it or not, that is reality!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

HOGAN said:


> Balance! :shock:


100% correct. Balance is the key. That is what I have been saying for months now. I only see/hear ONE side wanting only their way, and guess what, it is NOT the trophy hunter side. :?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I'll take your BET! What are we betting? Talk is cheap cowboy, you made the bold statement and bet! Bring it on!
> 
> I haven't posted any of the pictures from the last few days, so don't make the FALSE accusations about me doing this for the publicity. Although, SFW SHOULD show what they are doing, so people like you are 'exposed' for your blatant half-truths/lies about what SFW and others are doing and the OPPORTUNITY they create.
> 
> It was lose of habitat and a reduction in animals, it was more demand than supply, it was hunters having an 'out-dated' mentality of just keep things as they were in 1950. Newsflash, we will NEVER have hunting like the 1950's ever again, and that is NOT because of SFW, but because of changed times/environment/lost habitat. I say the APATHY is a result of MOST hunters having no clue about what it takes to put healthy herds on the ground and at huntable numbers. Deer/elk/moose/bighorns don't just SHOW UP in great numbers. It takes work and MONEY, lots of MONEY in todays world. Like it or not, that is reality!


1) I worked voluntarily for two summers for the USFS...full time. I also have come from a family of biologists where opportunities to help are often...you are going to have a difficult time beating me.

2) the opportunity they "create" is minimal to the opportunity they have taken away!

3) Loss of habitat and a reduction of animals had nothing to do with the restrictions in elk hunting that have eliminated so many tags....loss of habitat nad reduction of animals will have nothing to do with SFW's attempt at further restricting deer hunters with their new attempt at restricting tags to grow bigger deer.

4) Money is important...but we don't need to limit hunters and sell conservation tags to get it.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> HOGAN said:
> 
> 
> > Balance! :shock:
> ...


HMMMM who is it at the RAC meetings that want to make more LE units? and who is complaining about the lack of big bucks? who wants to reduce tags so there are bigger big bucks? who wants to break the state up into 29 units and micromange hunters? Who doesn't want to extend the Southeastern rifle hunt to 10 days even though the managment plan calls for it and the herd can handle the pressure? Who is on the RAC boards calling for less deer tags and more restrictions on hunters?

I will tell you who it isn't, it isn't the average joe hunter.

The opportunity crowd see's opportunity threatened and they are defending that opportunity. There can be opportunity and trophy hunting but if all you focus on is trophy hunting that is just as wrong as only focusing on opportunity. The focus is leaning toward the trophy hunter and that is what has so many traditional hunters upset.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> That is what I have been saying for months now. I only see/hear ONE side wanting only their way, and guess what, it is NOT the trophy hunter side. :?


How ironic...the trophy hunters are asking for balance, yet all they want to do is take away from the general season hunters. Case in point, SFW wants to change the state of utah's deer hunting so that more LE areas exist. Ironically, by changing it they want to take away general season opportunity when trophy hunters can hunt for trophy deer on any general season unit in the state...balance? I call that shafting the general season hunter....I call that serious imbalance!


----------



## FishlakeElkHunter (Sep 11, 2007)

Do you know what I think the *REAL* threat to huntings future is fights like these!!!! :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

I do not understand why we ALL as sportsman continue to fight "in house" and go against each other. There are so many more important battles to be fought out there!!! I agree with PRO that many do not SHOW UP and do their part. 
I just posted this on another sight but after reading this thread I wanted to post it here also. I just got this email from SCI in a weekly email that they send out making sure we know where to fight our battles! Id you want to know where a *REAL THREAT* is coming from then read this.........

*HSUS to Merge All Anti-Hunting Groups?
"The voice of America's anti-hunting forces is trying to become more powerful. The Humane Society of the United States is attempting to consolidate all of the animal rights movement's political power under a single umbrella. Humane Society director Wayne Pacelle reportedly told one publication that his organization may soon merge with at least three unnamed animal rights organizations. The Humane Society previously absorbed the Fund for Animals in 2005 and the Doris Day Animal League in 2006. It has 10.5 million members or supporters -- 3.1 million more than it had just five years ago. The group has an annual budget of $112 million, some of which it used -- for the first time ever last year -- to back or oppose candidates for public office based on their animal-related voting history." SCI will keep an eye on this and keep you posted. (Source: Pittsburgh Tribune Review) * :shock: :shock:

If you dont think that is a threat then I dont know what is. Please lets just stop the constant fighting between us!!!!!!! Lets fight battles that are more important......and there are MANY!!!! :roll: :roll:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Longfeather said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > HOGAN said:
> ...


Hmmmm, who is STOPPING the 'average joe' from SHOWING UP and voicing their concerns/wishes? I went to 2 RAC's and the WB meeting, I must have missed all the 'concerned' hunters wanting more opportunity and ALL three meetings. Hmmmm indeed.

How is the opportunity crowd "defending" opportunity? I mean besides blame SFW and 'trophy' hunters while doing NOTHING/little about it. Blasting those doing SOMETHING is easy, getting off ones collective behind and getting involved in the decision process takes effort. Some one made the inane comment about me being able to go do the sheep transplant because I have 'more' free time, guess what, I MAKE the time. I took 2 days of valued vacation to do it. Others could have done the same, it is a matter of desire and willingness to do it! I don't care that many don't WANT to get involved, just don't bitch about the state of hunting if you aren't! _(O)_


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

BWhntr,

I think that was the worst analogy I have ever read. You completly missed the issues. I think a little less reality T.V. could do you some good.


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

I have heard the opportunity crowd crying for a change. What's funny is they are crying just as loud as the trophy crowd. And both groups want bigger bucks. The only difference is the trophy crowd is more willing to show up. 


Sorry longfeather, but both groups are asking for bigger deer and wanting a change. This is not a onesided battle.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

THE OFF SEASON BATTLES HAVE ARRIVED!!!


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

*



100% correct. Balance is the key. That is what I have been saying for months now. I only see/hear ONE side wanting only their way, and guess what, it is NOT the trophy hunter side.

Click to expand...

*Pro look me in the eyes :shock: and tell me that you honestly think the percentages of huntable anybull elk acres/opportunity is equaly devided between those who want to hunt every year and those who would give up hunting for a number of years to have a better chance at a 380+ bull.

I agree with all you say about opportunists getting off there butts and doing more but do you belive the balance curently exists or needs to give one way or the other?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That was the same question I asked earlier that no one cared to answer.

Take a look at the LE elk map in the proc. I can''t imagine that it's divided to that degree.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

*



by utfireman on Fri Jan 04, 2008 12:20 pm

I have heard the opportunity crowd crying for a change. What's funny is they are crying just as loud as the trophy crowd. And both groups want bigger bucks. The only difference is the trophy crowd is more willing to show up.

Sorry longfeather, but both groups are asking for bigger deer and wanting a change. This is not a onesided battle.

Click to expand...

*Utfireman,

This is a myth that the trophy crowd uses to justify there agendas to those in power, that we *ALL *want bigger deer and elk. Opportunists are not saying "we need bigger deer"! "We need bigger elk"! Yeah everyone likes to hunt mature animals but our want for just opportunity far out weighs the want to see 380 bulls from the truck.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

I am yet to kill a bull elk in Utah. I have 14 elk points which translates into 14 years of "Un Successful's". I find it incredibly funny that you have spike area's all over the state and many anybull units and your the ones complaining. I have a friend that killed a 300 bull in the Uintahs this past fall on the Archery hunt. I have some other friends that have a group of 6. They kill at least 3 to 5 branch antlered bulls every year in Utah on an open area. I have some other friends who killed 2 out of three branch antlered bulls this past fall. I keep waiting for the big tag and get ridculed that i'm being selfish. You make me laugh.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> HMMMM who is it at the RAC meetings that want to make more LE units? and who is complaining about the lack of big bucks? who wants to reduce tags so there are bigger big bucks? who wants to break the state up into 29 units and micromange hunters? Who doesn't want to extend the Southeastern rifle hunt to 10 days even though the managment plan calls for it and the herd can handle the pressure? Who is on the RAC boards calling for less deer tags and more restrictions on hunters?
> 
> I will tell you who it isn't, it isn't the average joe hunter.


People are recognizing that having 5 big regions isnt the best way to manage deer because of parts of the regions are different geographically and many places get hit harder than others whether it be because of easy access or popularity to hunt those areas. Habitat is different in many areas. Micromanage will help the DWR manage the deer in each different part of the state and the right amount of tags will be distributed accordingly to the overall health of the deer herd in that particular area. If the deer numbers are low in areas then we need to pay special attention to habitat and help the struggling deer herds.

We cant just keep hunting deer the way we do now and expect the deer to make a comeback over time.

Hunters need to realize that the deer come first and hunters also need to realize that times are changing and not everyone will get to hunt every year because there is more hunters than tags available. We need to have a balance between trophy hunting and general season units. We cannot have things one sided. Everyone needs to be willing to compromise a little.

When people volunteer they shouldnt be looking at ways that they will personally benefit from the project.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

You are not being selfish Elk22. I put in for the LE Boulder and have 6 points. I don't critisize anyone who puts in for LE hunts. Many do because they can, it is in their back yard, it is were they grew up hunting. The point I'm making here and PRO, yourself, or any other supporter of the trophy movement has yet to answer it, *is really balanced?* I'm not talking spike opportunity, those who hunt spikes do because it is the only opportunity option for them in that area. I am talking anybull elk opportunity.

Does the current number of acres/opportunity for LE anybull elk v.s. the number of acres/opportunitity for general season anybull reflecte balance between the number of hunters who if they had to choose one or the other to be able to hunt the general season every year or go without hunting for many years to hunt in an area where 380+ bulls can be seen from the truck*????????*

Is it really balanced right now*????*

Are those wanting more general season opportunity really being selfish*??*


----------



## mulepacker (Sep 11, 2007)

WOW!
Let me first start with the anology of hot dogs. I believe this is a great example of exactly why wildlife can't and shouldn't be marketed to a priveledeged few. Bowhunter you seemed to miss the part in the show where one group wanted to market there hot dogs on fundamental principles while the other group wanted to exploit their status in life and sell there hotdogs to a few deep pocketed friends. This is a great anology of Utah's current sytem for wildlife management. However, the UDWR and others try to sell "balance" by having a general hot dog (you know the kind found at most c-stores, which we all consume when we have to). While we all lust for the super hotdog and picture with our favorite celebrity (trophy). Patiently paying increased fees during our wait in line hoping to get lucky and get a super dog. Yes it is a great anology. However, there is a huge fault in the comparison and the reason why Utah's management system is pathetic.
In your hot dog analogy the big difference is each team owned the commodity (hot dog) they were selling and therefore free to do as they wished.
With wildlife management the commodity (wildlife) belongs to the people, The UDWR are only custodians hired by and for the people. A lot of time and money are spent developing management plans, strategies to insure the peoples interest is protected not only for today but for the past and future. When we allow skewed marketing plans to override or divert management plans to benefit a specific population segment be it wealthy, trophy hunters, bowhunters, antihunters etc. the system has failed. Now I would challenge you to ask yourself which marketing method from the anology have we employed. Next you don't have to go to RAC's to make a difference. Unfortunately going to RAC's seldom if ever makes a difference I know I have been to a few. Our system of selecting board members is broken and in need of its own revision. How do I know well suffice it to say I was declined a RAC position and a selection member was foolish enough to admit I didn't receive the right endorsement. I understand this to be SFW, as I had just left there fold at the time. So another life lesson is exhibited here, It is not what you know but who you know! So how do you make a difference follow the example set by SFW and elect officials who will protect your interest, write letters of petition with facts of why you oppose or support individuals or proposals. Last but not least hold those folks that you employ to protect your interest accountable for their actions.
I find irony that if Utahs system is so great for wildlife, why haven't other states followed the example. Could it possibly be they are the team managing and marketing the commodity on sound business principles while Utah is exploitng their status and Personalities? 
Last but not least let me pass on some solid advice I received on supporting wildlfe. A couple of years ago a SFW board member told me anyone could afford to purchase these tags, hunts etc. if they wanted they just needed to save . I took that to heart, I quit attending banquets and buying memberships and they were right the money I am saving will buy me a dream hunt, however it will not be a Utah prostituted tag.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Having been part of and watched for over 10 years, nothing positive comes out of these types of posts and arguments. Each side is right, to some extent, and each side is wrong to some extent. Neither want to accept their own problems and always want to shove things in the face of the other to hide their inadequacies. Reminds me of the Democrats and Republicans arguing.

The problem _*can be*_ APATHY, but most of the time it because people are out of the loop and have not been educated as to how they can help. Many are willing, but few are informed.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you had been paying attention, you would see I do NOT believe the 'balance' is where we want it. Hence my involvement with the I400 concept, to INCREASE opportunity while maintaining 'quality'. I believe we should have OTC areas, areas that are somewhat 'limited', and very limited areas. This would be *my
* idea of balance. Yet, it is the 'opportunity crowd' resisting more than the 'trophy crowd', go figure. APATHY is a problem in our society as a whole, but I get tired of those who do little/nothing to improve things do most of the complaining. Get off your butt and fight for what *you* believe needs to happen. Otherwise, your complaints fall on deaf ears!

Oh, Mr wyo2ut, I spent two summers on the Manti LaSal doing volunteer work before you were BORN. Like I said, I'll take your bet. Let me know what your betting so I can plan to enjoy it. 8)

Someone referred to my ego, yet gave wyo2ut a pass. I am guessing because they think alike. Call me arrogant, call me what you will, but you can take it to the bank that I put my money where my mouth is, EVERY TIME.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> Does the current number of acres/opportunity for LE anybull elk v.s. the number of acres/opportunitity for general season anybull reflecte balance between the number of hunters who if they had to choose one or the other to be able to hunt the general season every year or go without hunting for many years to hunt in an area where 380+ bulls can be seen from the truck*????????*
> 
> Is it really balanced right now*????*
> 
> Are those wanting more general season opportunity really being selfish*??*


I answered that question. I know MANY who have killed branch antlered bulls in Utah this past fall. I am still not drawing every year. So in answer to your question, NO it is not balanced. I'm on the short end of the stick, I just choose to not be on the complaining end of the stick.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Packout said:


> Having been part of and watched for over 10 years, nothing positive comes out of these types of posts and arguments. Each side is right, to some extent, and each side is wrong to some extent. Neither want to accept their own problems and always want to shove things in the face of the other to hide their inadequacies. Reminds me of the Democrats and Republicans arguing.
> 
> The problem _*can be*_ APATHY, but most of the time it because people are out of the loop and have not been educated as to how they can help. Many are willing, but few are informed.


Mike, who 'educated' you? I am guessing you made the effort to get educated. Apathy keeps people from becoming 'educated'. IMHO


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

mulepacker said:


> I find irony that if Utahs system is so great for wildlife, why haven't other states followed the example. Could it possibly be they are the team managing and marketing the commodity on sound business principles while Utah is exploitng their status and Personalities?


That is why Wyoming and Idaho have their own chapters of SFW that they came to us for help in setting them up. They will finally get a hold on the wolf problem that they have and mostly by the involvement of SFW.


----------



## mulepacker (Sep 11, 2007)

elk22,

You may want to brush up before you use the wyo/idaho arguement for SFW. You will find not only a totally different SFW vehicle in those states but you will also find one that does not have near the head of steam that USFW has. I have my own opinion as to why but suffice it to say SFW is not accepted or as powerful in either of those states. Could it be because there seeems to not be the apathy or attitutde that is prevalent in Utah's sportsman.
FYI, I am a native Idahoan and spend nearly equal time in Idaho issues as Utah when it comes to wildlife. I believe I have a pretty good understanding of where SFW fits in each state's politcial game.

Let it be said that I agree with Pro that apathy definetly plays a role in huntings future.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

mulepacker said:


> Let it be said that I agree with Pro that apathy definetly plays a role in huntings future.


Glad to hear that Travis, that means a lot to me as I value your opinion on the matter. You make another key point, all those complaining about the 'power' USFW yields, if there was less apathy USFW would have less influence. Simply solution, get of your butts and get INVOLVED! _(O)_


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

First I want to say sorry if I have offended anyone but most of us paticipating in this debate have somewhat an argumentative and political side otherwise we would avoid the thread all together and go look at nature photos in the photo section to pass time. I think alot of this is healthy debate and I know over the years has changed and formed how I think and if nothing else, inspired me to do more.



> 10000ft. wrote:
> Does the current number of acres/opportunity for LE anybull elk v.s. the number of acres/opportunitity for general season anybull reflecte balance between the number of hunters who if they had to choose one or the other to be able to hunt the general season every year or go without hunting for many years to hunt in an area where 380+ bulls can be seen from the truck????????
> 
> Is it really balanced right now????
> ...


How are you on the short end of the stick? That is the trade off for getting a chance at a monster is not drawing in that area for a long long long time. The only way for the trophy crowd to shorten the wait on drawing these LE tags is to continue to anex other general season areas and tags into the trophy system (loss of opportunity for general season hunters).

I think more hunting ground needs to be turned back over to general season and hunters should have to choose between the two types of hunting, do I buy a general season tag or a LE point, not both?


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

> [quote:2wf6z583]


How are you on the short end of the stick? That is the trade off for getting a chance at a monster is not drawing in that area for a long long long time. The only way for the trophy crowd to shorten the wait on drawing these LE tags is to continue to anex other general season areas and tags into the trophy system (loss of opportunity for general season hunters).

I think more hunting ground needs to be turned back over to general season and hunters should have to choose between the two types of hunting, do I buy a general season tag or a LE point, not both?[/quote:2wf6z583][/quote]
good post I agree with you %100


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

utfireman said:


> I have heard the opportunity crowd crying for a change. What's funny is they are crying just as loud as the trophy crowd. And both groups want bigger bucks. The only difference is the trophy crowd is more willing to show up.
> 
> Sorry longfeather, but both groups are asking for bigger deer and wanting a change. This is not a onesided battle.


Everyone wants bigger deer. That is a given when talking about hunting, but classifing what is a bigger deer and should we manage for antler size or herd health is what this discussion is about.

The trophy crowd says they want deer that will score well even if it means you don't get to hunt but every couple of years at double the cost. The opportunity crowd says it isn't worth missing out on those years and we should be managing for herd health not antler length. The trophy crowd wants big bucks at the expense of the average joe hunter. They curse when someone shoots a two point and curse the UDWR for not managing the whole state for antler size. The trophy crowd fights against opportunity and for antler size why'll the average joe is fighting to keep opportunity and increase herd size.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Longfeather said:


> utfireman said:
> 
> 
> > I have heard the opportunity crowd crying for a change. What's funny is they are crying just as loud as the trophy crowd. And both groups want bigger bucks. The only difference is the trophy crowd is more willing to show up.
> ...


I am glad you have 'enlightened' me. All this time I thought I was a 'trophy' hunter, but I am NOT according to you. Take heed wyo2ut, you can no longer call me a trophy hunter. :roll:

I talked with several SFW members the couple of days, one idea being kicked around by the 'group that is anti-opportunity' is to issue more deer tags, but make it a one deer in two years type tag. Before any of you sensitive types get your panties all wadded up, this is only an 'idea' being kicked around. It would be similar to the DH tag, you get a tag and can kill one deer in a 2 year period. This would allow people to 'hunt' because more tags could/would be issued. But the same number of deer would be harvested, and more of the smaller bucks would be harvested the first year. Just one of MANY ideas being kicked around by us 'anti-opportunity' folks to create OPPORTUNITY. :shock:


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

> I talked with several SFW members the couple of days, one idea being kicked around by the 'group that is anti-opportunity' is to issue more deer tags, but make it a one deer in two years type tag. Before any of you sensitive types get your panties all wadded up, this is only an 'idea' being kicked around. It would be similar to the DH tag, you get a tag and can kill one deer in a 2 year period. This would allow people to 'hunt' because more tags could/would be issued. But the same number of deer would be harvested, and more of the smaller bucks would be harvested the first year. Just one of MANY ideas being kicked around by us 'anti-opportunity' folks to create OPPORTUNITY. :shock:


[/quote]

Does this mean all deer hunts or just the rifle. Would it effect the bow hunt? I think that is a terrible idea. You should be able to hunt every year. That isn't opportunity you speak of, that is just taking more away from us. I know a guy out here that owns a oil field company has a ton of cash. He doesn't believe in the LE hunts. He goes out there with the rest of us every year for the general season and has a good time. But, he like the rest of us is fed up with how corrupt the system is. He has already talked to his lawyer and has been building a case to sue the dwr about hunters rights, he believes he is really close to getting the evidence they need and he has all the money in the world to fight it. I sure as hell hope he does fight it. :twisted:


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Pro I remember EPEK dreaming up a similar plan almost two years ago on the old DWR forum with a state wide 2 deer in three years and diffrent start and stop dates to spread out hunters.

I and I think most hunters who hunt the general season would be in favor of doing anything to allow more yearly opportunities just not real excited to create more hunts that start of with a 2-5 year wait and as we all know slowly evolve into a OIL hunt, in trade for currently available tags.

However I don't know how the 2 in 3 years would really affect success rates. Most hunters don't harvest 1 in 3 and those that could don't because they are more selective.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

BH3, slow down and reread what I posted before you do another knee-jerk reaction. I said MORE tags would be issued. I keep hearing/reading how all you 'opportunity hunters' just want to hunt every year. I offer up an idea that would allow for MORE deer tags to be issued and I get an instant rejection of it. Typical 'opportunity hunter' reaction. :roll:


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

mulepacker said:


> elk22,
> 
> You may want to brush up before you use the wyo/idaho arguement for SFW. You will find not only a totally different SFW vehicle in those states but you will also find one that does not have near the head of steam that USFW has. I have my own opinion as to why but suffice it to say SFW is not accepted or as powerful in either of those states. Could it be because there seeems to not be the apathy or attitutde that is prevalent in Utah's sportsman.
> FYI, I am a native Idahoan and spend nearly equal time in Idaho issues as Utah when it comes to wildlife. I believe I have a pretty good understanding of where SFW fits in each state's politcial game.
> ...


All I have to say to that is ENJOY YOUR WOLVES!


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> BH3, slow down and reread what I posted before you do another knee-jerk reaction. I said MORE tags would be issued. I keep hearing/reading how all you 'opportunity hunters' just want to hunt every year. I offer up an idea that would allow for MORE deer tags to be issued and I get an instant rejection of it. Typical 'opportunity hunter' reaction. :roll:


My brain isn't working. Help me wrap my head around this. How does this allow for more permits to be issued? The number of deer taken from the filed probably wouldn't be affected that greatly, right? so where would the extra herd numbers come from to justify extra permits?


----------



## north slope (Sep 8, 2007)

o-|| we are having a great time over at the B&C spike thread, why don't you guys quit killing each other and show us some of those big spikes!


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Longfeather said:
> 
> 
> > utfireman said:
> ...


Your welcome. The post wasn't directed to you but, if it helped you find yourself that is good. A Trophy hunter used to mean someone who only held out for a trophy, it doesn't anymore.

That's interesting about the SFW Members you talked to because at the RAC I was at, and the personal conversations with the SFW Board members I've had, they are pushing for more limited entry units. (which by definition is anti-opportunity). They came right out and said they would like the whole state to be micromanged with more units and lower numbers of tags.

There may well be members of SFW with some great ideas but that isn't what is gettin pushed by SFW at the RAC I attend.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

What is everybodies thoughts on holding out for a trophy wife? Is that ok or just sick and wrong? :mrgreen:


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> BH3, slow down and reread what I posted before you do another knee-jerk reaction. I said MORE tags would be issued. I keep hearing/reading how all you 'opportunity hunters' just want to hunt every year. I offer up an idea that would allow for MORE deer tags to be issued and I get an instant rejection of it. Typical 'opportunity hunter' reaction. :roll:


Can't I have an opinion on that plan. I don't like it that it, I like to hunt every year, keeping it a family tradition. Why are you stereotyping everyone now, has this topic got you all heated up or something. Calm down, most of us aren't throwing insults and singleing you out. I believe you have whats best for everyone in you. I think you are trying to say that, so let me have my own opinion on it. We disagree on this subject, but I think we both just want whats best for the *HUNTER* We all can share the state, just needs to be more balanced. As for the guy out here, he really is serious though, its pretty funny, and would be intersting to see what came out of it and what kind of evidence he has.


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

elk22hunter said:


> What is everybodies thoughts on holding out for a trophy wife? Is that ok or just sick and wrong? :mrgreen:


Its just like holding out for a trophy mule deer it just costs more, only problem is she wont hang on the wall quietly and let me gaze at the best part(s) of her.:twisted:

This is a joke for those of you who cannot detect sarcasm.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

elk22hunter said:


> What is everybodies thoughts on holding out for a trophy wife? Is that ok or just sick and wrong? :mrgreen:


I assumed that was what we were all already doing! This is perfectly fine behavior.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

Trophy wives cost much more than trophy deer. It also costs ALL of us for ONE person to have a trophy wife. Lets say that my doctor wants to show off his new trophy wife at the Jazz games. That means that thousands of people suffering from "issues" have to pay for that trophy. Some of the coments made earlier about the deer are now making sense. :mrgreen:


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

elk22hunter said:


> What is everybodies thoughts on holding out for a trophy wife? Is that ok or just sick and wrong? :mrgreen:


Trophy wifes are good, but be sure to meet her mother before committing. That will tell you what your in for down the road..... :wink:


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

> BH3, slow down and reread what I posted before you do another knee-jerk reaction. I said MORE tags would be issued. I keep hearing/reading how all you 'opportunity hunters' just want to hunt every year. I offer up an idea that would allow for MORE deer tags to be issued and I get an instant rejection of it. Typical 'opportunity hunter' reaction.


PRO, I am not opposed to the idea of 2 deer in three years as I don't feel it really effects how most people would hunt anyway. My question is, what *"pork barrel spending" *would be attached to this? Are we going to close down X% of general season deer areas to make way for more LE units and relocate the general season hunters who hunt in these areas to other already overcrowded general season areas and justify the increase in hunters in these areas with the 2 deer in 3 years? And then say "We did not take away opportunity from the opportunists and have created more trophy hunting".

Just curious, because in a nut shell that is what I-400 is about.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Reguarding trophy wives, I'll tell you what my father-in-law told me

*"Look at her ancles"*

God gives women the foundation they will need someday. His advice served me well.


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

I got my trophy wife during the general archery season  Didn't have to pay any extra for the rack or hold out 10 years  Funny thing is my anniversary is August 18th needless to say my wife gets mad at me every year on our anniversary date. I explain to her that she didn't have to say yes, and it was my way of punishing her for having such a big wedding.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> > BH3, slow down and reread what I posted before you do another knee-jerk reaction. I said MORE tags would be issued. I keep hearing/reading how all you 'opportunity hunters' just want to hunt every year. I offer up an idea that would allow for MORE deer tags to be issued and I get an instant rejection of it. Typical 'opportunity hunter' reaction.
> 
> 
> PRO, I am not opposed to the idea of 2 deer in three years as I don't feel it really effects how most people would hunt anyway. My question is, what *"pork barrel spending" *would be attached to this? Are we going to close down X% of general season deer areas to make way for more LE units and relocate the general season hunters who hunt in these areas to other already overcrowded general season areas and justify the increase in hunters in these areas with the 2 deer in 3 years? And then say "We did not take away opportunity from the opportunists and have created more trophy hunting".
> ...


You are PROVING my point, no matter what is suggested by SFW you and others B&M and look for the negative. So, tell me, why should SFW give a rip what you think since you blast everything they do anyway? And yet, whether you or others believe it, SFW does care what you and others think. But, just because they don't do everything exactly as you want, does NOT mean they only "worry about the rich/trophy" hunters, that is complete nonsense and 100% unfounded. It makes a good bumper sticker though, so keep using it. :roll:


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Pro, I know very little about SFW, infact, almost nothing. My fight is not with them, any richman, Doyle Moss you or any other individual....For you to say because I disagree with a certain management idea that I B&M and look for the negative is a little short sided. I can turn the same coment around and throw it at you about how you see my way of thinking. I just don't see any of these groups giving up anything in trade for reducing, taking away or lessening general season opportunity. In the last 10 years what has the general season hunter gained? What has SFW done to provide more GENERAL SEASON opportunity? Help educate me.

Sorry I'm so stuck on GENERAL SEASON, those seem to be the only tags I can ever draw. :lol: :lol: :lol: :shock:


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

None of you can be average Joes as they are all at work. How does anybody keep up on this like some of you do? 

Mulepacker- right on. Our gov should never have given groups so much power/$$$ with the tags by the bucket. That was a misuse of authority that they only inherit from the people. Pro, when you talk about being there and showing up for rights\balance that should exist anyway - unless the British just sailed and I messed up in American Heritage- you sound a lot like a special interest group or a lobbyist. This isn't the revolution or something, the rights to the same pursuit of happiness as the next guy are already there and the commoddity we are talking about is exclusively reserved for the public when on public land. If you think the great ladder climbers deserve theirs then they should have it - on their land. 

"Silent majority" sound like a familiar phrase? Lobbyists and groups do and say an awful lot while regular folks silently go to work and pay their taxes with some reasonable expectations to boot. Just because you are out screaming doesn't make you right or representative of those around you. Should we have to show up? Well yes, especially now that special interest groups might have the process by the throat. Speaking of interest groups this management by inches business is just as destructive as the Humane Society. It plays right into the hands of those who see hunting in all the worst ways.

Why don't we kill our own rights in the process of a few inches more.


----------



## Double Down (Jan 5, 2008)

I hate to turn this into an Economics discussion, but reality is that economics are at work here.

Basic Economics suggest that special interest groups will always hold more power than the number in their group suggests they should. A common example is a group of farmers who grow a certain fruit, say Mango's. Over time the Philippines starts to grow Mango's much cheaper than anyone in the US can grow them, so several Mango farmers go out of business. A Senator sees the opportunity to pick up the mighty Mango farmer vote so he suggests a bill which will compensate Mango farmers at the rate of $40,000 a year. Say there are 10,000 Mango farmers in the country. This will cost the US Tax payers $400,000,000. That is a lot of money, and most people would agree that we could spend the money in a much better way. If it were put up to a popular vote it would most likely lose. The trouble is, to the individual tax payer the cost is barely over $1. But to the Mango farmer it is worth $40,000. So who is going to fight harder? No matter how fiscally responsible we want our government to be, it's an economic fact that the Mango farmer will lobby, fight, argue and battle to get the vote in their favor, while the general public will never be able to muster the same fight. Is this good for the country? No. But it is good for the Mango Farmer. (By the way, the Mango farmer is not evil for desiring his well being.)

How does this apply to hunting? Outfitters, Guides and the SFW have a HUGE incentive for the state to have trophy hunting. Outfitters will not be hired for the same price if there are not trophies to be sought. The SFW loses it's main source of funding if there are not 400 class bulls walking around our woods. This is their LIVING. They can't feed their families without it. The opportunity hunter certainly cares about his hunting opportunity, and he will argue passionately about it. But if he loses some of it, he can still feed his family. 

I don't care how much we wish things were equal, they aren't. Those whose lives depend on big animals will always carry more influence than those who don't. They are simply more motivated. (Again this does not make the SFW or the Guides bad people, they are doing what they need to for survival, we all do the same every day). However, this does not mean what they want is best for wildlife, or matches the opinion of the majority of hunters. It is reality that they will yield more influence than the average hunter, and it is reality that the more trophies we get, the more economic demands will be placed to produce even more trophies.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Hell of a first post.

This is exactly what promotes apathy amongst hunters. Maybe they should be treated more like government entities.


----------



## elkhide (Nov 24, 2007)

I have got to hand it to all, with their interests and what their opinions are insitefull and fun to read. My concern is all the BLM land that we as tax payers are intitled to use and is ours, but we have no way of getting to it and use it because we have no ACCESS this is the problem. Dont you think that it would be nice to be able to cross a field to get to a piece of land that holds big bulls or big bucks its ours, its only 100 ft away, but it might as well be 100 miles away this is where our interest should be.


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Hell of a first post.
> 
> 
> > I would say so. That was an awsome first post.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

I actually like the first posts that say, "I am new to the forum and was wondering if any one could point me in the right direction for elk. I'm not looking for someones honey hole but just somewhere that I can take my kids so they have a good experience."

I did enjoy the insight on that post and it made me want to eat mango's and buy American!


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

The real threat is us the hunters having to foot the whole bill for wildlife. With more tv's being in people's homes, and the xbox and wii being the items that kids want. Hunter number's are declining more and more. This is costing us the hunters alot of money, and it's driving the price of tags up and up. 

SFW and others come along, they try to help, and also find other way's to provide us with some opportunity. And they get slammed for doing something that they believe in. 

The big problem is the morons on the hill that we elect. Those fool's have wasted 100's of millions of dollars each year. We now are paying for a soccer field, that many didn't want, and now a 200 million dollar capitol remodel. Which they just said on the news that they could have built a new one just like it for 8 million. We need people in office who really care for wildlife and understand what we need in order to offer both quality and quanity of wildlife. 
Pres. Rosevelt, is a great example of what someone can do when they really do care about wildlife. 

As long as we keep electing these morons into office, we will keep seeing our hunting future go down the tube.


----------



## Double Down (Jan 5, 2008)

By the way, I see a real conflict of interest in the SFW position. Their desire is to represent all sportsmen in Utah, and yet their funding comes almost entirely from the hunt for trophies crowd. I don't have any pent up negativity against their leader or their tactics. I commend them for all their efforts to improve hunting in Utah. 

But it is an economic reality that they are funded by those who want more trophies in Utah, more trophies comes at the cost of opportunity. They would be committing suicide if they supported opportunity for all. That's just how it is. Their intentions certainly aren't bad, but their model doesn't support representing the little guy.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> And yet, whether you or others believe it, SFW does care what you and others think. But, just because they don't do everything exactly as you want, does NOT mean they only "worry about the rich/trophy" hunters. :roll:


 I heard the same statements out of a bunch of politicians; right up to the point they got elected. :lol: :wink:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Double Down said:


> By the way, I see a real conflict of interest in the SFW position. Their desire is to represent all sportsmen in Utah, and yet their funding comes almost entirely from the hunt for trophies crowd. I don't have any pent up negativity against their leader or their tactics. I commend them for all their efforts to improve hunting in Utah.
> 
> But it is an economic reality that they are funded by those who want more trophies in Utah, more trophies comes at the cost of opportunity. They would be committing suicide if they supported opportunity for all. That's just how it is. Their intentions certainly aren't bad, but their model doesn't support representing the little guy.


SFW gets a whopping *10%* of the money raised from these tags, that covers the cost to promote them and little else. *90% *goes directly to DWR approved *conservation* projects. So, please tell me where the 'conflict of interest' comes into play. Is it when the millions raised has been put to use improving 300,000 acres of critical winter range on *public land*? Or, was it when several thousand dollars were spent this last fall and will be spent this spring reseeding the Nebo and Milford fire areas?

Here is what I learned talking with people who KNOW what is really going on, instead of re-spewing nonsense. Currently the elk herd objective is 65,000 elk. SFW and others would like to see that boosted to 80,000 elk. Guess who is stopping this from happening? Anybody want to make a guess? I'll give the answer(s) after there has been at least five guesses. 8)


----------



## huntnbum (Nov 8, 2007)

I have to wonder if the real problem is poachers?
I bet that for every big game animal that I take legally, a poacher will take 20!

Thats my 2 cents.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

huntnbum said:


> I have to wonder if the real problem is poachers?
> I bet that for every big game animal that I take legally, a poacher will take 20!
> 
> Thats my 2 cents.


Not the correct answer, good guess though. I have been told poachers reduce the number of tags that can be issued, but I don't see poachers having a toll on the herd numbers being 'ALLOWED' to go from 65,000 up to 80,000. Just think how many more tags could be issued with 15,000 more elk on the LE units. _(O)_


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Double Down said:
> 
> 
> > By the way, I see a real conflict of interest in the SFW position. Their desire is to represent all sportsmen in Utah, and yet their funding comes almost entirely from the hunt for trophies crowd. I don't have any pent up negativity against their leader or their tactics. I commend them for all their efforts to improve hunting in Utah.
> ...


??? 30% of money goes DIRECTLY to the DWR, the other 60% is used BY the conservation group on APPROVED projects. I wonder how hard it is for these guys to get projects APPROVED?

Just so there's no confusion.


The only thing I want to know is, 'How do I become a "consultant" for SFW? :mrgreen:


----------



## Double Down (Jan 5, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> SFW gets a whopping *10%* of the money raised from these tags, that covers the cost to promote them and little else. *90% *goes directly to DWR approved *conservation* projects. So, please tell me where the 'conflict of interest' comes into play. Is it when the millions raised has been put to use improving 300,000 acres of critical winter range on *public land*? Or, was it when several thousand dollars were spent this last fall and will be spent this spring reseeding the Nebo and Milford fire areas?
> 
> Here is what I learned talking with people who KNOW what is really going on, instead of re-spewing nonsense. Currently the elk herd objective is 65,000 elk. SFW and others would like to see that boosted to 80,000 elk. Guess who is stopping this from happening? Anybody want to make a guess? I'll give the answer(s) after there has been at least five guesses. 8)


Please tell me what "nonsense" I am spewing. You are trying to change the argument. You are using a common fallacy called the "strawman argument". Using the fact that SFW wants 80,000 elk as an argument that they are for opportunity is confusing.

I think the SFW does fantastic things, I think they have done wonders for wildlife in Utah, and I think they make an honest effort to do what they feel is best. However, you use the fact that they only get 10% of the tag money to support the fact that there is no conflict of interest. Again, that argument doesn't make sense. Whether what they get is 10% or 50% they are still motivated to sell tags for the maximum amount. So for their own survival they MUST support trophy hunting in Utah. If the Conservation Elk tags sold for $2000 a piece because the bulls were "wimpy" 350's, the SFW would cease to exist. There entire budget depends on huge elk and deer being killed in Utah every year. The best way to accomplish that is manage areas for trophy hunting.

You yourself believe there should be more elk hunting opportunity in Utah. Your I400 seems reasonable and a decent compromise. If the SFW is so concerned for the average hunter, are they backing your proposal?

I'm not attacking them, I'm really not...I admire their desire to improve Utah hunting. Just from an economic standpoint, I can't see how they could possibly survive if their goal was not to make the best trophy hunting possible. And they have succeeded. At a high cost to opportunity in Utah.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

DoubleDown wrote



> You yourself believe there should be more elk hunting opportunity in Utah. Your I400 seems reasonable and a decent compromise. If the SFW is so concerned for the average hunter, are they backing your proposal?


Yes they love the idea, we have met with them. :shock:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Double Down said:


> I think the SFW does fantastic things, I think they have done wonders for wildlife in Utah, and I think they make an honest effort to do what they feel is best. However, you use the fact that they only get 10% of the tag money to support the fact that there is no conflict of interest. Again, that argument doesn't make sense. Whether what they get is 10% or 50% they are still motivated to sell tags for the maximum amount. So for their own survival they MUST support trophy hunting in Utah. If the Conservation Elk tags sold for $2000 a piece because the bulls were "wimpy" 350's, the SFW would cease to exist. *There entire budget depends on huge elk and deer being killed in Utah every year. * The best way to accomplish that is manage areas for trophy hunting.
> 
> You yourself believe there should be more elk hunting opportunity in Utah. Your I400 seems reasonable and a decent compromise. If the SFW is so concerned for the average hunter, are they backing your proposal?
> 
> I'm not attacking them, I'm really not...I admire their desire to improve Utah hunting. Just from an economic standpoint, I can't see how they could possibly survive if their goal was not to make the best trophy hunting possible. And they have succeeded. At a high cost to opportunity in Utah.


"Their entire budget" does NOT "depend on huge elk and deer being killed". That is one of the myths about SFW. They raise hundreds of thousands of dollars with banquets where the bulk of the money they get to keep comes from raffles/auctioning donated items/donations from individuals and so on. The money they keep from selling the tags is a drop in the bucket for the money that keeps these groups afloat. They like these tags because it is a great way to raise money for habitat w/o passing that cost onto the 'average joe'.

We have met with SFW, and yes they like our idea, in fact they have been a great help on it, and have offered to help more if we desire it.

To put the bulk of the blame for lost 'opportunity' at the feet of SFW is to ignore the "economics" of managing/maintain wildlife amid the huge chunks of lost habitat in todays 'real' world. Most of the 'lost opportunity' is due to loss of habitat. Last I checked, the group doing the MOST to restore/preserve habitat is SFW. How many tags would be available today if SFW hadn't stepped up when they did and helped slow/reverse the loss of habitat? That is what I mean about the 'nay-sayers' failing to see the big picture and put it all into perspective.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Hey man, Most in this discussion have agreed that SFW does good things. But at what cost are they doing these things? I don't think anyone wants SFW to just go away, I think most of the so called "nay sayers" are just looking for ways to make things better, and pointing out flaws is a good start. 

Like you said, a lot of the moneys come from other sources, so why would it be such a big thing if they cut the allotted number of tags in half? The DWR is obviously seeing greater revenue from tag prices this year, couldn't that help balance the equation?

Not agreeing with the status quo does not make one a "nay sayer", it makes them more educated to facts and myths, especially if they are open to being wrong.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Hey man, Most in this discussion have agreed that SFW does good things. But at what cost are they doing these things? I don't think anyone wants SFW to just go away, I think most of the so called "nay sayers" are just looking for ways to make things better, and pointing out flaws is a good start.
> 
> Like you said, a lot of the moneys come from other sources, so why would it be such a big thing if they cut the allotted number of tags in half? The DWR is obviously seeing greater revenue from tag prices this year, couldn't that help balance the equation?
> 
> *Not agreeing with the status quo does not make one a "nay sayer", it makes them more educated to facts and myths, especially if they are open to being wrong*.


If that was how I thought this debate was going I would be fine with it. But, it is NOT what many are saying here. They are saying SFW is 'ruining' hunting and is leading to the demise of hunting. THAT is what I take issue with. I don't agree/like everything SFW does or has done, but I sure am grateful they are out there fighting for ALL hunters on MANY critical issues.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > Hey man, Most in this discussion have agreed that SFW does good things. But at what cost are they doing these things? I don't think anyone wants SFW to just go away, I think most of the so called "nay sayers" are just looking for ways to make things better, and pointing out flaws is a good start.
> ...


I think the thing everyone has issue with is the trend of limiting tag numbers, while selling a fairly outrageous number of tags to the wealthy. Now, I know that tag numbers have more to things affecting them besides conservation groups selling them off, I'm not THAT naive. But like double down was saying, they are in the business of raising money, not only for wildlife and habitat, but for themselves as well.

For one specific group to have the clout and pull that they have, in every aspect of the game is dangerous. It's like having republicans across the board in the federal government, not good.

It's like lifetime politicians, a person could be very sincere and have the people in mind when they start out in local government. By the time they climbed the ladder to higher positions in state or federal position, they are crowded with special interest and completely different points of view than they did when they were a local city council member. Just a thought.

There would be a huge outcry among waterfowlers if someone came in and closed off 3/4 of Farmington bay, Bear river bird refuge and Ogden bay and gave out a small number of permits to the public and close to 20% of the permits to people with deep pockets, in the name of more birds.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> There would be a huge outcry among waterfowlers if someone came in and closed off 3/4 of Farmington bay, Bear river bird refuge and Ogden bay and gave out a small number of permits to the public and close to 20% of the permits to people with deep pockets, in the name of more birds.


If you think back, they DID restrict the tag numbers for ducks back when the duck/goose numbers were low and in bad shape. I am not sure what math you are using down there Tye, but you may want to recheck it. :? It is nowhere near 20%. Don't commit a wyo2ut on me. I know it's late but come on now. If EVERY conservation tag for elk was put back in the pool, my odds of drawing a LE elk tag would go up by, get this, *.3% *. How can we afford such a 'rip-off'? That increases my wait for drawing a tag by what exactly? Use better math to answer. _(O)_ :wink: That is .3%, not 3%.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Local Sportsmen's Group Makes
A Major Difference In Utah
By Troy Justensen (aka "X-treme" here at MonsterMuleys.com)










This buck was taken by Dan Smith last year in Utah. It is 37" wide and scores over 243 gross points on the Boone & Crockett scale. He was guided by Troy Justensen (aka "X-treme" here at MonsterMuleys.com), owner of Xtreme Outfitters. 
The buck in the picture to the right is the result of the 2000 Utah Governor's permit hunt last year. This is a tag for sale to the highest bidder. Many sportsmen believe the hunting industry is heading toward programs that only benefit the rich. Comments such as, "If I had money, I could kill a buck like that" are often heard. Do these programs only benefit the wealthy? I don't think so. The proof is in the pudding.

The Utah Conservation Permit Program is now generating about $700,000 a year. In general, the money goes into species specific projects from the species the tag was sold for. However, if both the DWR and conservation group raising the money agree on a major project, the money can be comingled. Also, many projects help multiple species. For example: The Utah Chapter of FNAWS recently put in some water catchment ponds. These will also benefit mule deer, antelope, bighorn, and chukar. No money goes into a "general fund" and sportsmen groups track every dollar, ensuring the funds have been well spent to maintain or increase current hunting opportunities.

So far the program is covering the costs of 120 Bighorn sheep being transplanted, the majority of the costs of turkey transplants, the buffalo transplant, the cost of a mountain goat transplant to the Uintas, guzzler installations, mule deer habitat reseeding projects, securing critical deer winter range, elk migration studies, and much more.

The most recent project took place in the Henry Mountains, just north of Bullfrog Bay at Lake Powell. The area is home to one of the only free ranging wild buffalo herds in North America. Approximately 400 bison roam the rugged 10,000 foot mountains that drop to the desert floor toward Lake Powell.

For several years, the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources believed it was in the best interests of the range and bison herd to acquire additional forage for the buffalo, if the opportunity arose. DWR Biologist, Ron Hodson, developed a close working relationship with one of the long-time ranchers in the area, Mr. Bliss Brinkerhoff. Mr. Brinkerhoff and his family were trying to re-arrange their cattle operation and wanted to sell some of their grazing permits on the Henry Mountains. The Brinkerhoffs were willing sellers, and Sportsmen for Habitat were willing buyers.

On January 3rd, in Richfield, Utah a joint agreement was signed by Mr. Brinkerhoff, Mr. Dave Henderson, area Manager for the BLM, and Don Peay, President of Sportsmen for habitat (the 501C3 Charitable arm of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife). This will allocate an additional 505 AUMs (forage on BLM lands) for the free ranging bison herd on the Henry Mountains. A first right of refusal was also agreed to if the Brinkerhoff Family decides to sell any additional AUMs.

The transaction involved more than $80,000 of private money provided by Sportsmen for Habitat members and their conservation permit buyers. This is yet another example of sportsmen working with ranchers in a win/win fashion, in partnership with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and the BLM to provide habitat and forage for Utah's wildlife species.

A day later, Sportsmen for Habitat provided $3,000 toward a water development "guzzler" that will provide a critical water source for mule deer and other wildlife species on the Pahcoon Flats west of St. George, Utah. The total project cost is $17,500.

Some of the money raised from the sell of last years Governor's tag is going toward acquiring critical mule deer winter range near Beaver, Utah. This area is home to one of the largest deer herds in the state. This is a place where a lot of average hunters can hunt big bucks. Without money from guys like Dan Smith, the Beaver deer herd gets wiped out and thousands of hunters have lost a place to hunt. 
Authors' Note: The Utah Conservation Permit Program was developed by Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife (SFW) and the Utah chapter of FNAWS. Don Peay and Lee Howard worked nearly two months, traveling thousands of miles, and attending lots of meetings to establish this program. SFW is a "state run" organization where all the sportsman dollars stay here, in Utah. For more information on SFH projects, check their website at: http://www.sfwsfh.org. Thanks for all your help and financial support.

http://www.monstermuleys.com/cgi-bin/st ... &tem=artth


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > There would be a huge outcry among waterfowlers if someone came in and closed off 3/4 of Farmington bay, Bear river bird refuge and Ogden bay and gave out a small number of permits to the public and close to 20% of the permits to people with deep pockets, in the name of more birds.
> ...


Yeah, I knew that last one was a stretch.
:mrgreen:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

How's the weather down there? It "blows" here at the moment! 60 mph winds with gusts pushing 100 up here.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I'm at home. I extended my layover period for a couple of days so I wasn't so rushed. It's about 33 degrees with scattered snow showers.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> I'm at home. I extended my layover period for a couple of days so I wasn't so rushed. It's about 33 degrees with scattered snow showers.


Wise a.....


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Love you... *(u)*


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

*PRO* 


> SFW gets a whopping 10% of the money raised from these tags, that covers the cost to promote them and little else. 90% goes directly to DWR approved conservation projects. So, please tell me where the 'conflict of interest' comes into play.





> Currently the elk herd objective is 65,000 elk. SFW and others would like to see that boosted to 80,000 elk.





> Just think how many more tags could be issued with 15,000 more elk on the *LE units. *


And in this lies the conflict. Where are groups like SFW, Outfitters, other special interest groups putting the focus?......"I'll give you five guesses.......... Not on improving the hunts that we all can enjoy year in and year out (general season opportunity) but the hunts that we will only enjoy, *once *maybe, *twice* in our lives (LE)!

Again I ask to any SFW members.....I know nothing about SFW (educate me), what have they done to add tags or hunting ground to *general season *areas???? :|


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Oh and P.S. coyote, not a good *thread* or *time* to be bringing up that some guy (rich or poor) with a goveners tag knocked thousands of hunters OFF THE MOUNTAIN so he could kill his 37 inch buck. :?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I leave again in the morning, the trip report will follow.


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

I am with treehugger, most people know and understand that SFW has done some great things. But like him and many others, we feel like they can raise the money without these tags.

We all know what Wyoming did with their points system. In 2006 alone, they earned $2,139,300 off of deer, elk, and antelope points. All of this was raised off of non-residents. This number does not include moose or sheep points. 

The bottom line is the group's are doing whatever they can to raise money, we need politician's in office who will go to bat for us. And help us raise money without the selling of these tags. SFW does talk to poilitcians, but they need to look at other ways of raising money, rather then selling these tags.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Oh and P.S. coyote, not a good thread or time to be bringing up that some guy (rich or poor) with a goveners tag knocked thousands of hunters OFF THE MOUNTAIN so he could kill his 37 inch buck.


You only read about the part where he bought the tag and killed a 37 inch buck. This is what is wrong with people like you. You totally miss the big picture because you are to busy focusing on some guy killing a 37 inch buck that He paid a lot of money for.

*Here is what you missed 10,000*



> The Utah Conservation Permit Program is now generating about $700,000 a year. In general, the money goes into species specific projects from the species the tag was sold for. However, if both the DWR and conservation group raising the money agree on a major project, the money can be comingled. Also, many projects help multiple species. For example: The Utah Chapter of FNAWS recently put in some water catchment ponds. These will also benefit mule deer, antelope, bighorn, and chukar. No money goes into a "general fund" and sportsmen groups track every dollar, ensuring the funds have been well spent to maintain or increase current hunting opportunities.





> So far the program is covering the costs of 120 Bighorn sheep being transplanted, the majority of the costs of turkey transplants, the buffalo transplant, the cost of a mountain goat transplant to the Uintas, guzzler installations, mule deer habitat reseeding projects, securing critical deer winter range, elk migration studies, and much more.





> For several years, the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources believed it was in the best interests of the range and bison herd to acquire additional forage for the buffalo, if the opportunity arose. DWR Biologist, Ron Hodson, developed a close working relationship with one of the long-time ranchers in the area, Mr. Bliss Brinkerhoff. Mr. Brinkerhoff and his family were trying to re-arrange their cattle operation and wanted to sell some of their grazing permits on the Henry Mountains. The Brinkerhoffs were willing sellers, and Sportsmen for Habitat were willing buyers.
> 
> On January 3rd, in Richfield, Utah a joint agreement was signed by Mr. Brinkerhoff, Mr. Dave Henderson, area Manager for the BLM, and Don Peay, President of Sportsmen for habitat (the 501C3 Charitable arm of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife). This will allocate an additional 505 AUMs (forage on BLM lands) for the free ranging bison herd on the Henry Mountains. A first right of refusal was also agreed to if the Brinkerhoff Family decides to sell any additional AUMs.
> 
> ...


When people pork out the money for these conservation tags then it *BENEFITS EVERYONE*


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

utfireman said:


> I am with treehugger, most people know and understand that SFW has done some great things. But like him and many others, we feel like they can raise the money without these tags.
> 
> We all know what Wyoming did with their points system. In 2006 alone, they earned $2,139,300 off of deer, elk, and antelope points. All of this was raised off of non-residents. This number does not include moose or sheep points.
> 
> The bottom line is the group's are doing whatever they can to raise money, we need politician's in office who will go to bat for us. And help us raise money without the selling of these tags. SFW does talk to poilitcians, but they need to look at other ways of raising money, rather then selling these tags.


Ray, Utah DWR believes the required hunting license implemented for 2008 will bring 2-3 million dollars in, the problem is there is NO mandate that this money will be spent on wildlife, the suits on the hill can 'spend' it however they desire. The money raised by conservation tags is not only a heck of a lot more money, but it is MANDATED to be spent on wildlife conservation. I would much rather see 'private' groups spend the money than the government. Government = waste!


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

> When people pork out the money for these conservation tags then it BENEFITS EVERYONE


Coyote, the part that you and many others continue to miss is at what cost is this benefiting "EVERYONE"?

I will only go along with the notion that giving up *tons* of hunting opportunity on *tons* off hunting groundis all for the greater good.

At a certain point when all we can do is drive somewhere to look at bison or sheep or 500 class bulls from a distance at a designated look-out-point we will all be saying what in the h*** did we give up all that opportunity for?

If you listen to only one thing I have to say remember that hunters strength politicaly is in number and voices, not just $$$. Replace opportunity with LE trophy animal hunts and you will continue to watch hunters numbers go down, and that will be the demise of hunting.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Coyote, the part that you and many others continue to miss is at what cost is this benefiting "EVERYONE"?
> 
> I will only go along with the notion that giving up tons of hunting opportunity on tons off hunting groundis all for the greater good.


10,000, you can't have everything general season because then you are only thinking of those who like general season and YOURSELF. Many hunters like LE units because they know they can shoot a good buck. If they dont draw then they hunt General season. We need to have things balanced. There was a HUGE buck killed on the Wasatch front this year by the Average joe. Big bucks are killed by average joe hunters every year on public land. The rich folks aren't the only ones killing trophies. The average joe hunt can put in for any limited hunt in this state and he can kill just as big of bull or buck as those who are paying top dollar to kill the same type of trophy.

What hunts do you think people are focusing on the most right now? The LE units because almost everyone puts in for these types of hunts. You dont have to be a rich man to draw these tags. These LE units are important to people even if not as many people get to hunt those areas.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I have said it before and I'll say it again, we MUST manage for BALANCE. To forget/neglect one or more different hunting 'styles' is asking for 'lost' hunting numbers. I am fine with looking for ways to increase opportunity, in fact I am right there doing the same, but I do NOT want to see "my" type of preferred hunting eliminated in the process, and it matters not whether you or others 'like' "my" type of hunting. I have NO desire to eliminate yours, I expect/*demand* the same in kind!


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

> I have said it before and I'll say it again, we MUST manage for BALANCE. To forget/neglect one or more different hunting 'styles' is asking for 'lost' hunting numbers. I am fine with looking for ways to increase opportunity, in fact I am right there doing the same, but I do NOT want to see "my" type of preferred hunting eliminated in the process, and it matters not whether you or others 'like' "my" type of hunting. I have NO desire to eliminate yours, I expect/demand the same in kind!


Pro the part that you still do not see eye to eye with me on is this. *"Your"* type of hunting (LE) over the last two decades has knocked THOUSANDS of hunters off of the hill each year and taken away *"there"* type of hunting.

I love it when you and coyote say *"well what about the trophy hunters!", "our style"*! Guess what many of those thousands of hunters displaced by LE hunting were TROPHY HUNTERS who were harvesting trophies the real way in those areas. It really does make me laugh when you say LE hunting is my *"style"* or my *"type"*. How can that be anyones style when they can only do it at best twice in there lives and maybe never.

Coyote, I have never advocated doing away with all LE hunting only turning possibly as much as half (actual #s based on percentages of actual hunters intrest) of it back over to general season and then requireing hunters to choose each year, general season tag or LE point, not both.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I am a firm believer that we should do widespread surveys and find out what it is hunters * really want * , If the numbers come out 90% in favor of LE's over general, then make the state 90% LE and 10% general.

Only then will we know what the REAL desires of the public are.

Coyote, you use the word MANY very often. I think this is a word that can mask a lack of actual knowledge of what the numbers really are.

Many could mean 5%, after all that could be as much as 8,000 people, but it is still a small percentage. Not bagging on you, just pointing that out.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

*10,000 wrote*


> Utahs deer are very different than elk. You can't just go to any corner of the state and find a 400 bull. But you can go to ANY corner of this state and find a 200 buck.
> 
> Limiting hunting opportunity for many to give some an easy chance at a big buck is not worth it (at least not at the scale you are proposing). And I hope you just pulled those numbers out of the air because I think you will find no where near 60% is accurate for hunters who just want a tag every year. I think it would be closer to 95%.
> 
> ...


10,000, you said in this post that you are greedy and if it were possible then you wish you could get a LE tag every year. You stated that you are a trophy hunters so therefore you are no different than any other trophy hunters.

*I love it when you and coyote say "well what about the trophy hunters!", "our style"! * Trophy hunting is your style. You would just love to be able to hunt bucks like those found on the Henry Mtns every year. I mean who wouldnt?

If you had your Greedy way then wouldnt that also affect a lot of hunters?



> Coyote, I have never advocated doing away with all LE hunting only turning possibly as much as half (actual #s based on percentages of actual hunters intrest) of it back over to general season and then requireing hunters to choose each year, general season tag or LE point, not both.





> Pro the part that you still do not see eye to eye with me on is this. *"Your"* type of hunting (LE) over the last two decades has knocked THOUSANDS of hunters off of the hill each year and taken away *"there"* type of hunting.
> 
> I love it when you and coyote say *"well what about the trophy hunters!", "our style"*! Guess what many of those thousands of hunters displaced by LE hunting were TROPHY HUNTERS who were harvesting trophies the real way in those areas. It really does make me laugh when you say LE hunting is my *"style"* or my *"type"*. How can that be anyones style when they can only do it at best twice in there lives and maybe never.





> Coyote, I have never advocated doing away with all LE hunting only turning possibly as much as half (actual #s based on percentages of actual hunters intrest) of it back over to general season and then requireing hunters to choose each year, general season tag or LE point, not both.


You talk about the rich guys taking tags away from the common folks, but then you want people to choose between LE or General and if they dont draw then they don't hunt? You want to take away opportunity that a lot of people enjoy (including yourself). Do we really need more General Season units or do we need to better manage out deer herds?



> Guess what many of those thousands of hunters displaced by LE hunting were TROPHY HUNTERS who were harvesting trophies the real way in those areas.


So are you saying that your style of hunting is far superior because you harvest trophies *"the real way"*. What is the real way?

So basically you are saying that most LE hunters aren't real hunters. You brag about your ability to hunt at 10,000 ft. I bet before my accident then I could have walked circles around you and probably even had to pack you on my back when you got tired. Heck I would have even wore your butt off lion hunting. Heck I know I would have pounded your sorry ass in the snow and dirt. So don't go around saying you do it the "real way."


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I


> am a firm believer that we should do widespread surveys and find out what it is hunters really want , If the numbers come out 90% in favor of LE's over general, then make the state 90% LE and 10% general.
> 
> Only then will we know what the REAL desires of the public are.
> 
> Coyote, you use the word MANY very often. I think this is a word that can mask a lack of actual knowledge of what the numbers really are.


Go ahead and conduct your survey and see what you find. Sorry treehugger maybe I said *many* way to *many* times for to *many* weeks, *many* months and *many *years to come. WOW that is way to *many* *manys*


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> I am a firm believer that we should do widespread surveys and find out what it is hunters * really want * , If the numbers come out 90% in favor of LE's over general, then make the state 90% LE and 10% general.
> 
> Only then will we know what the REAL desires of the public are.
> 
> ...


Thats all fine an dandy. But what happens when those guys who want to reduce there wait for that LE tag say they want more limited entry but when they dont draw or are afraid they won't draw take the 10 or whatever percent they voted against? Not saying that numbers couldn't be adjusted for this type of situation but, I don't want somebody voting for LE and then taking away the tags I wanted because they don't get what they want.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

truemule said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > I am a firm believer that we should do widespread surveys and find out what it is hunters * really want * , If the numbers come out 90% in favor of LE's over general, then make the state 90% LE and 10% general.
> ...


The bottom line is that it wouldn't be 10 vs. 90. I would dare speculate that more than 50% would be in the general season crowd. No problem, just split it up that way.

Justin, I'm just saying that MANY could be misconstrued by listeners/readers, when in fact it may be 12 people that you talked to at a RAC meeting, that's all.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

I agree with the original premise of this post as started by PRO!!! Lack of involvement, apathy, low priority investment of precious time, whatever. right now the very vocal, well organized MINORITY force is running wildlife in Utah. Ya want to do something about it 
get involved, all it takes is an e mail to one of the people that make the rules asking why it is this way ( either a RAC member or a DWR higher up ) 

The bottom line to this whole equation is that a public resource is being managed like it is a private asset!! Since when is a public piece or asset set up to exclude a certain group of people. What if ya had to make a certain amount of money to get a public library card?? What if ya had to drive a certain type of car to drive down I-15?? It is exactly the same thing with conservation tags and the current state of wildlife management in Utah.

Several thousand of Utah's finest citenzens are stationed overseas fighting for opportunists and trophy hunters alike. They ARE EXCLUDED FROM APPLYING FOR 200 OPPORTUNITIES TO HUNT!!! BECAUSE THEY CANT ATTEND THE WESTERN HUNTING AND CONSERVATION EXPO WHILE THEY ARE PUTTING THIER LIVES AT RISK FOR US TO PACK ENERGY SOLUTIONS ARENA!!

All of you that are for excluding either opportunity or trophies why don't we for one freaking second, just one freaking second think about WHAT IS GOOD FOR WILDLIFE!!! Is it good to have 1 to 1 bull to cow ratio's because horn hunters won't allow the division to manage any other way?? Is it right to open EVERY UNIT UP TO SPIKE HUNTING??? 

If the legislature was lobbied and set up the way the RAC Wildlife Board system currently is 
I can guarantee that wildlife would be funded just fine.

Untill we start thinking about what is best for our herds we are all hypocrites.

How was that TREE???


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Dandy.


----------



## grousehunter (Sep 11, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> I am a firm believer that we should do widespread surveys and find out what it is hunters really want , If the numbers come out 90% in favor of LE's over general, then make the state 90% LE and 10% general.


This is a great Idea. If there were successful survey the DWR wouldn't have to wonder what everyone wants! Everyone is complaining about lack of participation, but they fail to realize that more of those opportunity hunters have a fulltime job and have families and/or demanding schedules that keep them from donating money or time. I agree that there should be balance, but if the only people that can spend the time are the trophy crowd then there will never be balance. The opportunity crowd should be represented by their state biologist and government, this is not happening due to several reasons. If the public had true biologist running the show then we would have scientists balancing all aspects of Utah's wildlife instead of bureaucrats and bean counters that try to justify their budgets or their jobs. Just like every government run agency the wrong people are in control and they are rarely held accountable for bad decisions.

As for the large hunting organizations they were started by sportsmen but the majority have been corrupted to the point most people stay away from them. There is too much politics in hunting and not enough biology.


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

Pro, 

If we had people up on the hill that fought for our right's and creating laws that mandate where money is spent we would not need these tags.

I pointed out Wyoming, and the amount of money that they earned off just point sells, it was over 2 million in 06 and in 07 that number reached $3,006,460. Again this is just off of non-residents. There is no reason why Utah could not impose the same deal and make it so that money is used for conservation only. Again we need the politicians to do that. 

To use the tags to achieve conservation money is wrong when there is so many other ways to raise this money. SFH is suppose to be doing that, they say they talk to the politicians and at times it has helped. But they can politic for other things. There were able to help out with the money for the school trust land. They could do more if they wanted to. If they truley did care they would find other ways.

If they raised the money by other means then these tags. I am sure that their membership would grow alot, if not double in size.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

utfireman said:


> Pro,
> 
> If we had people up on the hill that fought for our right's and creating laws that mandate where money is spent we would not need these tags.
> 
> ...


utfireman, I expect better than comments like "They could do more if they wanted to. If they truley did care they would find other ways", from you. Just because they see things a little differently than you, does NOT mean they "truly" care/not care.

Do you believe *I* truly care? Well guess what, I prefer the current system over one that puts the bulk of the burden on 'average joes', over one that gives the government control over the whole process. I doubt membership would grow much, in fact I believe it would shrink, because what a lot of the membership joins for is the 'hands on' aspect. Give all the 'hands on' to the DWR and those who step up and volunteer will decrease. I'll give you an example; in 2007 UBA for the first time sold 2 conservation tags. When we did our first project it was on the Vernon unit where we cut/removed pinion-juniper for reseeding. The DWR employee in charge of the project said the turn out of volunteers was the best he had seen the whole year. UBA members showed up in mass because they 'owned' the project. Another example is last week transplanting sheep. I got there about a 1/2 hour late with two friends, the DWR guys told us they had TOO MANY volunteers and we were not needed, luckily Ryan Foutz, who is the president of FNAWS saw me and 'made room' for us. If these projects where to be turned over to the DWR the red tape would grow, the effectiveness of the money would decrease, volunteers would decrease.

You keep referring to Wyoming, you could added 2006 and 2007 money that Wyoming spent on habitat restoration/recovery/land easements together and it falls way SHORT of the money spent doing the same in Utah in ONE year. The government is NEVER effecient(sp) with money, NEVER. You of all people should know that. I trust the private sector over the government every day of the week,a nd twice on Sunday (pun intended).

grousehunter wrote:


> As for the large hunting organizations they were started by sportsmen but the *majority have been corrupted *to the point most people stay away from them. There is too much politics in hunting and not enough biology.


Before you make such bold claims, you should have some evidence to support it. Do you? Since I personally know the people you ASSUME are corrupted, and I doubt you do, I take exception with your 'CHEAP ATTACK'. These 'corrupt' people put more into helping wildlife in a month than you do all year maybe even years. Let's see your 'evidence' of corruption please. :roll:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

utfireman said:


> Pro,
> 
> If we had people up on the hill that fought for our right's and creating laws that mandate where money is spent we would not need these tags.
> 
> ...


utfireman, I expect better than comments like "They could do more if they wanted to. If they truley did care they would find other ways", from you. Just because they see things a little differently than you, does NOT mean they "truly" care/not care.

Do you believe *I* truly care? Well guess what, I prefer the current system over one that puts the bulk of the burden on 'average joes', over one that gives the government control over the whole process. I doubt membership would grow much, in fact I believe it would shrink, because what a lot of the membership joins for is the 'hands on' aspect. Give all the 'hands on' to the DWR and those who step up and volunteer will decrease. I'll give you an example; in 2007 UBA for the first time sold 2 conservation tags. When we did our first project it was on the Vernon unit where we cut/removed pinion-juniper for reseeding. The DWR employee in charge of the project said the turn out of volunteers was the best he had seen the whole year. UBA members showed up in mass because they 'owned' the project. Another example is last week transplanting sheep. I got there about a 1/2 hour late with two friends, the DWR guys told us they had TOO MANY volunteers and we were not needed, luckily Ryan Foutz, who is the president of FNAWS saw me and 'made room' for us. If these projects where to be turned over to the DWR the red tape would grow, the effectiveness of the money would decrease, volunteers would decrease.

You keep referring to Wyoming, you could added 2006 and 2007 money that Wyoming spent on habitat restoration/recovery/land easements together and it falls way SHORT of the money spent doing the same in Utah in ONE year. The government is NEVER effecient(sp) with money, NEVER. You of all people should know that. I trust the private sector over the government every day of the week, and twice on Sunday (pun intended).

grousehunter wrote:


> As for the large hunting organizations they were started by sportsmen but the *majority have been corrupted *to the point most people stay away from them. There is too much politics in hunting and not enough biology.


Before you make such bold claims, you should have some evidence to support it. Do you? Since I personally know the people you ASSUME are corrupted, and I doubt you do, I take exception with your 'CHEAP ATTACK'. These 'corrupt' people put more into helping wildlife in a month than you do all year maybe even years. Let's see your 'evidence' of corruption please. :roll:


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

Pro, I disagree with the membership comment. I hear time and time again, that people will not join or renew their membership with SFW due to the amount of conservation/convention tags. Granted there are many that will not be happy no matter what happens, but there is alot of people who do away with these groups for this reason.

These groups all do great things, Mule Deer Foundation, FNAWS, SFW, RMEF they all have their place in our state. And we need to continue to support them, but they can raise the money without these tags. These groups need to us pursue other ways to raise money for conservation.

I comment about Wyoming to show a different way that we could raise money, I do not feel that paying for points is sticking it to the average guy. If we were to add $5 or $10 dollars to our points system would could generate the following...

Residents, LE and OIL.. those with points 254,624 times $5 equals $1,273,120
Residents, LE and OIL.. those with points 254,624 times $10 equals $2,546,240
Non-residents.. those with points 66,795 times $5 equals $333,975
Non-residents.. those with points 66,795 times $10 equals $667,950
These number will increase greatly if you add in general season, anterless, turkey, bear, and cougar.

We could generate 3 to 4 million for habitatyearly this route, the problem is the funds have to only be used for conservation. Another item is to tax everyone in the state who has a car, bike, rv, boat 4wheeler. It doesn't need to be much but a couple dollar tax can go along ways. Hunters should not be the ones to foot the bill forever thing. Everyone who partakes in the outdoors should share the burden. The added tax to us for a soccer stadium and capitol remodel, what's another dollar or two?

You said earlier in another post, you would support idea's that will benefit the wildlife, there are alot of OTHER way to raise money for conservation without selling the amount of tags that we do.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

utfireman said:


> You said earlier in another post, you would support idea's that will benefit the wildlife, there are alot of OTHER way to raise money for conservation without selling the amount of tags that we do.


I did say that, and I still feel that way. I just don't like the ones offered up so far. I don't see adding to the cost of hunting to the average joe is a 'better' option than letting a few 'rich' folks pony up while keeping the cost at a minimum for the average joe. I'll support other ideas, but not all 'new' ideas, it has to be something that I believe would be an IMPROVEMENT over the current system. I also see little/no chance of getting legislature passed that would mandate what you suggest anytime soon. Lobbying takes money and effort, I would rather SFW lobby for issues that directly benefit wildlife like the season dates changed for the rifle deer opener, wolf issues, getting more state/fed monies for lands purchases that keep critical winter range from being developed, getting hunter friendly politicians elected and appointed to important committees. That makes more sense to me, but I like how you are looking for 'new' ways to increase wildlife funding. Keep it up.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> We could generate 3 to 4 million for habitatyearly this route, the problem is the funds have to only be used for conservation. Another item is to tax everyone in the state who has a car, bike, rv, boat 4wheeler. It doesn't need to be much but a couple dollar tax can go along ways. Hunters should not be the ones to foot the bill forever thing. Everyone who partakes in the outdoors should share the burden. The added tax to us for a soccer stadium and capitol remodel, what's another dollar or two?


If you started taxing everyone in the state then many animal rights/treehugger/granola cruncher/bunny hugger in this state would objective to the money going towards hunting and habitat. This would open up new doors to these people and they would want a say in the matter.

Utfireman, when you talk about people buying points then are refering to the fact that if you dont draw then you have to pay an extra $10 to gain a point? The DWR doesnt get to keep all the money they raise and you know like Pro said that the government doesnt handle money very well and it wont be used properly.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Several thousand of Utah's finest citenzens are stationed overseas fighting for opportunists and trophy hunters alike. They ARE EXCLUDED FROM APPLYING FOR 200 OPPORTUNITIES TO HUNT!!! BECAUSE THEY CANT ATTEND THE WESTERN HUNTING AND CONSERVATION EXPO WHILE THEY ARE PUTTING THIER LIVES AT RISK FOR US TO PACK ENERGY SOLUTIONS ARENA!!


So if they made it to where you didnt have to show up then you wouldnt objective to it right?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Residents, LE and OIL.. those with points 254,624 times $5 equals $1,273,120
> Residents, LE and OIL.. those with points 254,624 times $10 equals $2,546,240
> Non-residents.. those with points 66,795 times $5 equals $333,975
> Non-residents.. those with points 66,795 times $10 equals $667,950
> These number will increase greatly if you add in general season, anterless, turkey, bear, and cougar


.

Isnt this almost the same as putting in 5 bucks for each of the 200 conservation tags at the Expo??? The average joe can draw these tags so they havent been taken away from the average joe and they can put in for more than one species.


----------



## idiot with a bow (Sep 10, 2007)

I DRIVE A DODGE STRATUS!!!!!!!


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

Coyote, most non residents and even alot of residents are not able to make that expo. Yet they had a change at these tags in the regular draw. Have you ever heard of thinking outside of the box? The sell of these tag's greatly benefit our wildlife. But the conservation money can be raised elsewhere, they do not need the amount of tags that they are currently selling.

The money raised off of points can be sent right to the groups, if the DWR wanted to use the tag money elsewhere, they could do so right now. There is no reason that additional earned money could not be put into the same fund. Its all a matter of will and written law. 

As far as anti's having a say in the funding, sure they might complain some. But like all taxes that we pay, whats done is done. Complain all you want, but you wont change what we get taxed on.


----------



## Renegade (Sep 11, 2007)

Great post Pro! I'm with ya, Ted Nugent is with ya, and many other guys I hunt with are with ya!


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

idiot with a bow said:


> I DRIVE A DODGE STRATUS!!!!!!!


So does Kelsey. You are twinners! 4 door?

You should date Sara. Ren and Chase are and you arent much older than them. She'll graduate from high school this spring. 

Oh sorry.......................I forgot to mention something about huntings future.

bottom line............most of the coments are wack.


----------



## grousehunter (Sep 11, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Before you make such bold claims, you should have some evidence to support it. Do you? Since I personally know the people you ASSUME are corrupted, and I doubt you do, I take exception with your 'CHEAP ATTACK'. These 'corrupt' people put more into helping wildlife in a month than you do all year maybe even years. Let's see your 'evidence' of corruption please.


 Perhaps not all wildlife organizations are corrupt, however if money is ever placed before what is best for wildlife then they are corrupt end of story. It is true and you know it. There are groups that hide behind the phrase: "we are helping wildlife". Just like the CWMU operators that illegally block access to public roads or make it as difficult as possible for their non-paying clients, there are many people and organizations that put their desires before wildlife. It is not all of them but there are enough to give them all a bad name. I will admit that I should not have used such a large brush to paint all wildlife groups as corrupt.

Yes, you are right they do put more into wildlife than I do and I appreciate that, but the more pressure put on us opportunity hunters that work fulltime for none hunting businesses the faster we will be pushed or priced out of hunting all together. If the public at large can no longer hunt and only the "rich or connected" can hunt, we all loose. If the opportunity hunters are pushed out then the anti-hunters will have an easier time getting hunting banned altogether because the only ones hunting will be the fellas that need trophies. Hunting is about more than just a stuffed animal head on wall, it is about spending time in nature, with your family and friends. Hunting is no longer just about survival and there are forces in the hunting community that want to limit "us" evil opportunity hunters. I would love to spend more time volunteering for wildlife but have other, just as important things in my life and must rely on my tax dollars to do the work for me. If I were able to dramatically change my life and spend my time working for a hunting group I too would be able to volunteer, however at this time I cannot so I am terribly sorry.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

grousehunter said:


> I would love to spend more time volunteering for wildlife but have other, just as important things in their life and must rely on my tax dollars to do the work for us. If I were able to dramatically change my life and spend my time working for a hunting group I too would be able to volunteer, however at this time I cannot so I am terribly sorry.


Working for an organization, attending wildlife meetings and all that is good, but don't let anybody get all elitist on you about it. There are a lot of ways to contribute and those contributions shouldn't be devalued. Playing big wheel at wildlife meetings or working on the mountain is easy. Raising healthy kids, now there's a real contribution to the future that deserves some admiration. Being an informed and voting member of the community is important. Being a role model through ethical behavior is important. Teaching, supporting and encouraging others in there outdoor experiences is important. The list goes on for miles... No man needs to justify how he spends his time to anyone but himself.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> [No man needs to justify how he spends his time to anyone but himself.


.............And his wife, I might add! :mrgreen:


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

elk22hunter said:


> .............And his wife, I might add! :mrgreen:


Right...and his wife. Himself and his wife, and that's it.

Well, okay, and my parole officer. But that's it!


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

*Coyote



10,000, you said in this post that you are greedy and if it were possible then you wish you could get a LE tag every year.

Click to expand...

*10000ft.'s actual statement.



> I will be the first greedy SOB to come out and say it, If it is POSSIBLE, I want *a tag *every year!


*Coyote



You talk about the rich guys taking tags away from the common folks,

Click to expand...

*I couldn't even find a statement where I have said anything about "RICH" guys. Coyote you will improve your credability if you take time to be more accurate in quoting others statements

*Coyote



So basically you are saying that most LE hunters aren't real hunters. You brag about your ability to hunt at 10,000 ft. I bet before my accident then I could have walked circles around you and probably even had to pack you on my back when you got tired. Heck I would have even wore your butt off lion hunting. Heck I know I would have pounded your sorry ass in the snow and dirt. So don't go around saying you do it the "real way."

Click to expand...

*Coyote, I'm first very sorry that you have had an accident that has left you in a wheelchair. My comment about the "real way" never made refrence to hiking or walking (both things most hunters do on both LE and general season hunts). I would call you out immediatley on your challenge but where that is not possible I guess I have to just let you talk trash.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Coyote
> 
> 10,000, you said in this post that you are greedy and if it were possible then you wish you could get a LE tag every year.
> 
> ...


[/quote:rorngu3j]

I posted what you actually said, but maybe you mised it

One day that will be possible and I will wear your ass right in the dirt. I use to run up the side of Dry Mountain every day. I use to run to the top of Bald Mountain, Nebo and many other mountains. I have chased male lions 20 plus miles through knee deep snow and I would have to pull you behind in a sled because you would get to many muscle cramps. I once chased a lion that ran so far that I had to spend the night in 0 degree weather because i was so far from the truck and the search and rescue came looking for me, but I was just fine. I could take my coat off and it would stand up straight from being frozen.



> Oh and P.S. coyote, not a good thread or time to be bringing up that some guy (rich or poor) with a goveners tag knocked thousands of hunters OFF THE MOUNTAIN so he could kill his 37 inch buck.


You said this. You said this about rich trophy hunters, but you claim you didnt so who did a little fairy?

You have been flapping your jaw about the rich taking away hunting opportunities from the average joe hunters.


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

trash talking on line makes no since guys. I am sorry but it doesn't. It is easy to do it on a computer do it face to face if you are going to make such claims. Coyote if you have done all of those things, don't go bragging about it and say no one else could do it when you don't know if they can or can't. He is only 25 I could do a lot of things when I was that age.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> trash talking on line makes no since guys. I am sorry but it doesn't. It is easy to do it on a computer do it face to face if you are going to make such claims. Coyote if you have done all of those things, don't go bragging about it and say no one else could do it when you don't know if they can or can't. He is only 25 I could do a lot of things when I was that age.


I have never bragged about it but when 10,000 talks about himself doing it "the real way" then I have to chime in.


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> One day that will be possible and I will wear your ass right in the dirt. I use to run up the side of Dry Mountain every day. I use to run to the top of Bald Mountain, Nebo and many other mountains. I have chased male lions 20 plus miles through knee deep snow and I would have to pull you behind in a sled because you would get to many muscle cramps. I once chased a lion that ran so far that I had to spend the night in 0 degree weather because i was so far from the truck and the search and rescue came looking for me, but I was just fine. I could take my coat off and


this is really funny stuff coyote....I really like this last statement the best..been watching a lot of movies/cartoons lately haven't we?



coyoteslayer said:


> I could take my coat off and it would stand up straight from being frozen.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Aaaaah....The ever diplomatic ways of senor coyote.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

"I'm thirty years younger then you are. Had my back broke once, and my hip twice. And on my worst day I could beat the hell out of you."

*- The Duke*

Just kidding Coyote, You don't need to tell me all the things you have done, I'm sure you are a bigger man now than you even once were having lost the use of your legs. I admire what you still do and I'm sure I don't even know the half of it.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> this is really funny stuff coyote....I really like this last statement the best..been watching a lot of movies/cartoons lately haven't we?
> 
> coyoteslayer wrote:
> I could take my coat off and it would stand up straight from being frozen.


hahaha no I havent been watching cartoons. I chased a lion pretty far that day and my matches go wet so i couldnt light a fire. My dogs had tracker collars on them and I had a tracker collar in my pack. I laid there under a cedar tree and this plane kept flying low back and forth because my dad had them track the signal from the collar in my pack. So then a few hours later then 4 research and rescue guys came along with my dad. I was just fine, but my fingers were a little frost bitten. I guess I just never know when to ever give up. :lol: :lol:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Just kidding Coyote, You don't need to tell me all the things you have done, I'm sure you are a bigger man now than you even once were having lost the use of your legs. I admire what you still do and I'm sure I don't even know the half of it


.

Im just giving you a hard time because you said you do it the "real way" Is there a fake way to hunting besides penned up animals?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

"


> I'm thirty years younger then you are. Had my back broke once, and my hip twice. And on my worst day I could beat the hell out of you."
> 
> - The Duke


The Duke did pretty good even with 40 pounds of poop in his intestines.


----------



## idiot with a bow (Sep 10, 2007)

> You should date Sara.


Please let me date Sara, i want to be your Son in law. Isn't she about a foot taller than Ren?


----------



## idiot with a bow (Sep 10, 2007)

By the way, back in '82, I bet I could throw a football clear over those mountains. If I could go back, I'd win that State championship.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

idiot with a bow said:


> By the way, back in '82, I bet I could throw a football clear over those mountains. If I could go back, I'd win that State championship.


Thats about the gist of it.... :lol:


----------

