# Wildlife Board....WTF?



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

So, the wildlife board makes up the rules...right? Or that is how it seems. It appears they are the ones that hold the power and make the critical decisions that effect hunting and in turn each and every one of us. I just have a few questions.......

Who is on the wildlife board? Are they average hunters that have everyone's (including animals and habitat) best interest in mind? It doesn't seem like it.

Do we really need the WLB? I don't think so...it seems that we have taken the power from "the people" and given it to a select few. Government was supposed to be protected with checks and balances...well, who "checks and balances" the wildlife board? In my opinion it should be "the people" but from what I see "the people's" voice is ignored and trampled on. Something about "casting pearls before swine" comes to mind.

PRO said this in a previous post: _*I am interested to see what special interest groups have been pushing to end general season deer hunting, and what Anis and his group has done to resist the open attack on sound game management based on science. *_ Well, in my mind, from what I've seen, ANIS is part of the problem. Is he even a hunter? All he is is a liason that always sides with the board and DWR. He may act sometimes like he is on our side but he knows who pays his salary.

What this all boils down to is.....GET RID OF THE BOARD AND PEOPLE THAT DON'T SPEAK FOR "THE PEOPLE".

Just my 2 cents. o-|| o-|| o-||


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/board-members.html
Utah Wildlife Board members

Jake Albrecht
Southern Region
P.O. Box 300477, Glenwood, UT 84730
Phone: (435) 896-9277
E-mail: [email protected] e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Del Brady
Northeastern Region
1937 W 2500 N, Vernal, UT 84078
Phone: (435) 789-4944
E-mail: [email protected] e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Bill Fenimore
Northern Region
1292 W Sweetwater Lane, Farmington, UT 84025
Phone: (801) 525-8400
E-mail: [email protected] e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Tom Hatch
Southern Region
2222 N River Lane, Panguitch, UT 84759
E-mail: [email protected] e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Keele Johnson
Southeastern Region
255 W 600 N, Blanding, UT 84511
Phone: (435) 678-2201
E-mail: [email protected] e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Jim Karpowitz, Executive Secretary
Division Director
1594 W North Temple, Box 146301, Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Work: (801) 538-4703
E-mail: [email protected] e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Ernie Perkins, Vice Chair
Northern Region
3087 Maxine Dr, Layton, UT 84040-7659
E-mail: [email protected] e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Rick Woodard, Chair
Central Region
937 W 1700 N, Provo, UT 84604
Phone: (801) 785-3001
E-mail: [email protected]


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I wrote this in another thread, but I will post it again:
The thing that bugs me is that this whole political direction started taking a major turn for the worse when the good Gov. Michael Leavitt was in office. He brought it upon Utah, and we're still paying for it. It goes back to the merit system.

The merit system is the process of promoting and hiring government employees based on their ability to perform a job, rather than on their political connections.

In Utah, state professionals (biologists, etc.) cannot be fired for political reasons. This is to protect our state professionals from political bozos -- and to assure that our professionals are able to do their job without fear from political repercussions.

So, when Whirling Disease was found, and the state went after the Leavitt family about 2 decades ago, and Mike Leavitt was voted in, what happened? He tried to fire a bunch of people. He didn't even know he couldn't do it -- he didn't know anything about the merit system. So he took another step in the wrong direction and he reassigned people to new positions (vs. firing, because he couldn't fire them). 

It was that moment that Utah went downhill. It was at that time that "professionals" were no longer running departments. It was at that time that the heads of UDOT, DNR, etc. became political positions vs. professional positions. And it was with him that the Wildlife Board and Regional Advisory Councils were created. The idea was to give all interest groups and all people a say in how our wildlife is managed...but, it was then that wildlife management became political and special interest groups gained the advantage. In my opinion, wildlife management should be left up to the professionals...sadly, now, the professionals can only make suggestions.

Now look at where we are today. We have a mess with Herbert and UDOT because the head of UDOT was paying too much attention to campaign contributions, and too little attention to his "real" job. And, we have political savvy sportsmen groups and WB members who wish to push certain agendas that may or may not be good for wildlife.


----------



## Stellarmike (Mar 12, 2009)

Agreed, I think biologists and hunters should have more of a say.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

Anis is a biologist...unfortunately he is also a puppet. So I think he finds himself twisting biology around to justify the political motivations behind a lot of the decisions.
SFW is pushing this...it's the same M.O. as increasing the age objectives across the board with the elk plan.


----------



## Stellarmike (Mar 12, 2009)

What about the mule deer foundation and places like that? Do they lobby for the average hunters?


----------



## ramrod (Apr 15, 2008)

From what I understand Utah has on laws from preventing our wildlife board members from accepting gifts. If this is true then this leaves the door wide open for corruption between the board members and the special interest groups. :evil:


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

I harped on this in another thread, but I suppose it bears repeating. All of the WB members are appointed by the Governor. If you don't like who is on the WB, and who is influencing the appointments, change Governors! While it is a longshot, you get a chance to do this next month.

just sayin,


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

Stellarmike said:


> What about the mule deer foundation and places like that? Do they lobby for the average hunters?


He!! no*!!!!!!* I don't think that any sportsman group supports and lobbys for the "average hunter". If they do....it doesn't do a bit of good, so get rid of them. It just leaves room to breed more and new corruption.


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

ramrod said:


> From what I understand Utah has on laws from preventing our wildlife board members from accepting gifts. If this is true then this leaves the door wide open for corruption between the board members and the special interest groups. :evil:


Ramrod is right...who is protecting us from this bribery and corruption?


----------



## duckhunter1096 (Sep 25, 2007)

I am unsure who this Anis person is...but his name is awfully close to ANUS...


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

The wildlife board makes general policy decisions about wildlife management in Utah. They are political appointees, and a little research doesn't turn up any biology or wildlife management backgrounds. In principle, these board members should be chosen because of qualifications, but in practice it's mostly political. In other words, they're largely unqualified except in terms of good ol' boy network connections. They all seem to have an interest in wildlife or hunting and fishing, but they're mostly just amateurs and older retired or partially retired guys with big egos and connections to those special interest groups that exert behind-the-scenes influence.

I've been paying some attention over the past several years, and lots of reading between the lines has told me that the current board is often at odds with the UDWR on politically charged issues. The wildlife board's push for managing the deer herds for trophy hunters being the latest disagreement. But state law says that the UDWR has to implement what the Wildlife Board decides.

As for Anis, I don't know the guy, but he's the big game manager at the UDWR. I've been at some meetings where he's made presentations and answered questions, and he seems like a very knowledgeable, level-headed and down-to-earth sort of guy. But his job is really to make recommendations, then implement the decisions that are passed down to him. If Anis and other fish and game biologists (the pros) were calling the shots instead of the wildlife board (the amateurs), I think we'd be in good shape.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

Bowdacious said:


> ramrod said:
> 
> 
> > From what I understand Utah has on laws from preventing our wildlife board members from accepting gifts. If this is true then this leaves the door wide open for corruption between the board members and the special interest groups. :evil:
> ...


"corruption" is Gary Herbert's middle name...*Coroon for governor *if you wanna know what I think.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Anis is a good feller, IMO, but his hands are often tied between special interest and the wildlife board. I do not envy his position, he's in charge of making everyone happy while 'everyone' is looking for reasons to be angry and unhappy.

There are a few wildlife board members who I'd like to see rolled down the river, I won't say who they are, but their names rhyme with deel momson and dick moogard. :mrgreen: 

Bill Fennimore and Ernie Perkins seem to have public interest at heart, but again, their hands are typically tied as well, even when they speak out against the direction the good ol' boys of the board are preaching.

Really, the only way to oust any of these guys is to write the governor directly and in volumes. If the governor (or candidate) thinks that enough votes might change because of ties and support to the WB, it may have a big enough impact.

YES, nothing exists that says they cannot accept gifts, geisha girls, hunts, etc. It's a total swing and a miss for political management in our state. I can't buy a cheeseburger for my local rep without getting them in trouble, but these guys are limitless in their terms and ability to extort anything they want from lobbyists and the like?

A good smear campaign is in order, for the governor and the good ol' boys.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

stablebuck said:


> Bowdacious said:
> 
> 
> > ramrod said:
> ...


If it's "Coroon for governor" you'd better tell him why he's getting your vote, otherwise it's all for not.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> stablebuck said:
> 
> 
> > Bowdacious said:
> ...


Very true.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

People have forgotten I think, that no-one voted for Herbert as Governor.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

why do you always have to add something meaningful and thought provoking to every comment Tye?!?!


----------



## ut1031 (Sep 13, 2007)

The way the game is played today, we have to band together.............Bowhunters of Utah is just the place! WE have represenatives at every RAC and Board meeting, but we NEED a stronger voice(as in more hunters) all speaking the same song. 
K


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Bowdacious said:


> Stellarmike said:
> 
> 
> > What about the mule deer foundation and places like that? Do they lobby for the average hunters?
> ...


Your post is quite ridiculous, not meant in an inflammatory way in the least, but just think of the numerous projects that RMEF, MDF and SWF do--mind you I have zero affiliation with any of them--do you think the underpass on I-15 (allowing deer to pass/migrate safely) around Beaver has a sensor that only allows bucks >180 to pass. Or, would it be more reasonable to assume that every single deer, elk, chupacabra, sasquatch, etc. in that area benefit and therefore every single average and non average hunter benefits? Likewise, to the guzzlers placed all over and nearly every other project, I don't know that any of those projects has a trophy only 
policy for the deer.


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> Bowdacious said:
> 
> 
> > Stellarmike said:
> ...


When I posted that I didn't think about "Wildlife Projects". I think what I was meaning to say hinges more on the latter part about if there is lobbying going on by these groups then it isn't getting regular, average sportsman what they want. It isn't helping make laws or making the voice of the people and average hunters be heard. It's not being effective and therefore what is the point except to have the potential for new corruption.


----------



## ramrod (Apr 15, 2008)

Has everyone joined the Utah wildlife co op?
This group has the average hunter’s best interest at heart all sportsmen and ladies need to ban together. I believe UWC is on the right track and needs as much support as we can give them


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Isn't the whole purpose of the UWC to speak for the numbers of hunters that are not heard individually?

I am really interested in meeting with the UWC and willing to be a loud voice and help in anything that I can.


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

Bill Fennimore is really down to Earth.....he runs the Wild Bird Center in Layton. If you ever want to talk about hunting...particularly bird hunting, or just birding in general, he is the Man.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

DallanC said:


> People have forgotten I think, that no-one voted for Herbert as Governor.


People should also know that Herbert has NOT appointed anyone to the Wildlife Board.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> DallanC said:
> 
> 
> > People have forgotten I think, that no-one voted for Herbert as Governor.
> ...


Nor has he removed anyone.......


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> Bowdacious said:
> 
> 
> > Stellarmike said:
> ...


While it is true some good has been done by the likes of RMEF/MDF/SFW, it is my opinion they have done far too many negatives to overlook the positives. In the past I have belonged to all three groups as well as sitting in the Board of Directors for UBA. I can NOT support any of them at this point, as I believe their addiction to conservation projects and catering to the 'trophy hunters' at the expense of the average hunters is leading game management in Utah down a path that is bad for the game and bad for the future of hunting. The projects you mention are good things, but what is gained by putting in underpasses if only a select few get to hunt the deer that benefit from them? As for guzzlers, I have helped put dozens of them in, and most where funded by the bird groups. While we are on the subject, there are other/better ways to fund such projects than limiting permits to artificially drive up the price of conservation permits.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > DallanC said:
> ...


Has there been a loud clamor asking for him to do so? WB members are appointed for 4 year terms, it would take more than 1-2 emails to get the governor to make such a move.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

I don't think anyone read W2U's post. The problem relies with each and every single Utahn that voted for Mike Leavitt. He created this political problem with Utah wildlife. We're simply reaping what we sow'd. We created this problem by making poor decisions at the voting booth. We've put people in offices that have made political appointees to positions that should have been filled by working professionals. 

All of you can complain all you want about the problems with today's system -- but we did it to ourselves.

Get out and vote next month. The way you vote makes a difference.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Bowdacious said:


> Huge29 said:
> 
> 
> > He!! no*!!!!!!* I don't think that any sportsman group supports and lobbys for the "average hunter". If they do....it doesn't do a bit of good, so get rid of them. It just leaves room to breed more and new corruption.
> ...


When I posted that I didn't think about "Wildlife Projects". I think what I was meaning to say hinges more on the latter part about if there is lobbying going on by these groups then it isn't getting regular, average sportsman what they want. It isn't helping make laws or making the voice of the people and average hunters be heard. It's not being effective and therefore what is the point except to have the potential for new corruption.[/quote]
I apologize, I worded that a little strongly, but I get your point! I certainly do think that a lot of good can come from these private groups to form a great alliance with the DWR, but I certainly am not nearly as familiar with them as the likes of Pro. with what he said and that of many others, it does seem that the scales have been tipped a bit too far in favor of these groups.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

PBH said:


> I don't think anyone read W2U's post. The problem relies with each and every single Utahn that voted for Mike Leavitt. He created this political problem with Utah wildlife. We're simply reaping what we sow'd. We created this problem by making poor decisions at the voting booth. We've put people in offices that have made political appointees to positions that should have been filled by working professionals.
> 
> All of you can complain all you want about the problems with today's system -- but we did it to ourselves.
> 
> Get out and vote next month. The way you vote makes a difference.


A tad bit oversimplified! While I have never been a fan of Mike Leavitt, he did NOT create the Wildlife Board all on his own. In fact, to place it all at his feet in either done in ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. As for the upcoming election, can anyone know for sure what either Herbert or Caroon would/will do in regards to the Wildlife Board? Blaming Herbert for what happened when he was a Utah County Commissioner is beyond inane. The 'system' has many flaws, voting based on the letter after ones name is NOT how it gets purged.


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

SOOOOOOO does the WLB do any good for us as sportsmen? Can we do without it?


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> As for the upcoming election, can anyone know for sure what either Herbert or Caroon would/will do in regards to the Wildlife Board?


We can get some idea by what we have seen by their track record. While I don't believe that Sherbert is an overtly dishonest Blajoevich type character, he has shown in his tenure that he has been a status quo politician that has basically rubber stamped everything that the "R" leadership has pushed through, however good or bad. He also seems not to be too involved in particular agency details and lets underlings run amok (hence the UDOT mess). Finally, his past leadership positions with the realtors and relationships with some of the "Good ol boy" power players in Utah politics would make him unlikely go against these people to challenge the status quo with the Wildlife board. Much of his core supporters would wish for no changes in the WB and for business as usual.

Contrast that to Corroon. If he has a snowballs chance of winning, he will need to form a coalition of "D"s, independents, and dispossessed "R"s to carry the vote. If he was made aware that dissatisfied sportsmen were a key subset that carried him to office, I am certain he would be very responsive to us. It is quite clear to me that he would be more responsive than his opponent.



Bowdacious said:


> SOOOOOOO does the WLB do any good for us as sportsmen? Can we do without it?


Of course we could do without it. But it seems to serve certain powerful people very well and they will not be eager to lose it. I suppose if run properly, it could also be a positive entity, if all was on the up and up.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> A tad bit oversimplified! While I have never been a fan of Mike Leavitt, he did NOT create the Wildlife Board all on his own.


Never claimed he did. However, as pointed out by W2U, it was Leavitt who started things in motion -- like appointing politicians to positions that _should have been_ filled by *professionals*.

Pro -- go back and read W2U's post.

Why in the world would you put a politician in charge of the DNR? Now, fast forward to the present, and look at all the "political" issues we have with wildlife management.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

PBH said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > A tad bit oversimplified! While I have never been a fan of Mike Leavitt, he did NOT create the Wildlife Board all on his own.
> ...


Go back and read my post, I stated, and I repeat, it was NOT just Leavitt! The Governor cannot do such a thing on his own. In fact, it was the Utah Legislature that discussed and passed the current setup in the 1995 session. While Leavitt did indeed sign it into law, he did NOT act alone as you and your brother imply. Also, a quick scan of Utah fish and game history shows that as early as 1927 supervisory committees appointed by the Utah Legislature were in play. The State Game Refuge Committee and Board of Elk Control were charged with: "to supervise the establishing, adjusting, opening, and closing of elk refuges: designating seasons and localities in which elk hunting could be done, and determining the sex and the number of animals that could be killed. Regulation of the kill was accomplished by the sale of nontransferable permits to hunt elk to sportsmen selected by public drawing." If I am not mistaken, this committee was put in motion a few years before Leavitt was in office. Now, one can argue whether this committee back in 1927 did good things or not, but IMHO that is NOT the point. Such a committee was given the SAME power to do what the current Wildlife Board has.

And then: "The Board of Elk Control effectively managed the elk herds for six years. In March, 1933, the Legislature amended the law, changed its name and extended its powers to include all big game.

The new committee was designated the State Game Refuge Committee and Board of Big Game Control. It had five members -representatives of cattle and horse breeders, wool growers, sportsmen, the Forest Service, and the State Fish and Game Director, who was chairman. Their acts were to have the full force and effect of law." Sounds an awful lot like the current Board.

Bottom line for me: who is governor has less impact on what the Wildlife Board does than we, the sportsmen of Utah, do. If we were to ever get serious and hold these seven people to the fire and demand that common sense be used, it matters not who is living in the Governors Mansion. As long as special interest groups have the ability to sway decisions, because they *SHOW UP* to meetings, we get what we deserve. Until we have a Tea Party like movement where THOUSANDS of sportsmen show up at the Wildlife Board meeting, we are merely spitting into the wind.


----------



## ktowncamo (Aug 27, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> As long as special interest groups have the ability to sway decisions, because they *SHOW UP* to meetings, we get what we deserve. Until we have a Tea Party like movement where THOUSANDS of sportsmen show up at the Wildlife Board meeting, we are merely spitting into the wind.


AMEN! :O||:


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

ktowncamo said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > As long as special interest groups have the ability to sway decisions, because they *SHOW UP* to meetings, we get what we deserve. Until we have a Tea Party like movement where THOUSANDS of sportsmen show up at the Wildlife Board meeting, we are merely spitting into the wind.
> ...


But look how far that got us with the Statewide archery hunt. Sure we got it back (miracle) but I showed up to several RAC meeting to "fight" taking away the state archery. It was obvious what the sportmen wanted......This is my point to this post. The WLB does what it wants REGARDLESS of what the common voice says.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

On the statewide archery deal, there were fewer than 20 who SHOWED UP to the Wildlife Board meeting to voice opposition. I contend the outcome would have been much different if THOUSANDS had shown up that day. The RAC's, IMHO, are a waste of time. It is the Wildlife Board that has final say, and they often ignore the input from the RAC's.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

what ever happened with the news about the wild life board member "Kelee Johonson" being investigated for embezzlement? is he going to have a trial? 

also is this the same guy on the moss back video that killed the sci world record typical? If so I know for a fact that this *** **** hates archery and cut the archery tags on the Henry mountains for several years for what now looks like personal gain because he gave them back when he drew his tag. He cut the tags because he said the quality or buck to doe ratios weren't in order. NO he cut the tags so he wouldn't have to compete with any archers or have the risk of an archer taking his deer out from under him. If it is the same guy then why do we put up with this we should ask for his head!

also the wild life board is all about getting paid/lobbied. the cattle men just got paid in full with years worth of coveted OIL elk tags.

We need to flush the wildlife board and flush the whole corrupt SFW system that is creating this corrupt system.


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> We need to flush the wildlife board and flush the whole corrupt SFW system that is creating this corrupt system.


I agree...and kinda the point to this thread. HOW do we get rid of them or "flush them out" and get a new board? If it is getting people to show up...how do we ephasize the importance of such a thing a getting a lot of sportsmen to show?


----------



## Stellarmike (Mar 12, 2009)

It sounds to me like the politics won't change to much anytime soon here in Utah. Why not create our own special interest group for the average hunters? People that want the best for all hunters? Not just trophy hunters?


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

Wasn't there some kind of group that was made off of this forum?


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Bowdacious said:


> Wasn't there some kind of group that was made off of this forum?


Yeah, the UWC: The Utah Wildlife Cooperative
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wal ... 0110936606

It's been a little slow in the off season, but things will heat up pretty soon. It's NOT another SFW or the like, it is FOR and BY the average hunters in Utah. I had hoped many more would have joined up by now, but its hard getting the masses to make a move other than complaining :shock:

Stop by and check it out, we need all hunter's support (we meaning HUNTERS!) :mrgreen:


----------



## ramrod (Apr 15, 2008)

they need to hold the meetings when the average hunters can attend. many people have jobs and the meetings are held during work days when most people would need to take a day off work to attend. 

it would be great if you could go to any of the DWR offices during any one of the meetings and view the meetings on live video, so more hunters could make the meeting and voice our opinions.

this would also be a green thing, as many hunters wont have to drive so far to attend the meetings.


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

stillhunterman said:


> Bowdacious said:
> 
> 
> > Wasn't there some kind of group that was made off of this forum?
> ...


I've signed up to be a "friend" to that...but to me it is just a bunch of concerned people on facebook. It has to be more than just a facebook page.


----------



## Stellarmike (Mar 12, 2009)

I have joined as well.


----------



## wapati (Nov 29, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> On the statewide archery deal, there were fewer than 20 who SHOWED UP to the Wildlife Board meeting to voice opposition. I contend the outcome would have been much different if THOUSANDS had shown up that day. The RAC's, IMHO, are a waste of time. It is the Wildlife Board that has final say, and they often ignore the input from the RAC's.


A lot of the problem I see with getting a good strong single voice is that there is too much argument and splintering due to individual specific interests even before an overall common interest of general game management plans are agreed upon. For example, instead of a common voice against what the majority concerns are with special interest voices etc, arguments bog down the focus and quickly fragment between archery/primitive interests vs rifle, when hunts are, how many days, how many tags issued to each, etc.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Bowdacious said:


> stillhunterman said:
> 
> 
> > Bowdacious said:
> ...


I agree with you wholeheartedly. It's a daunting task to get a huge group of hunters together as one voice. It will take a personal sacrifice on everyone's part, to some extent or another. The UWC is a place where we can voice our opinions and get up to date information on various wildlife goings on. It's a beginning. Can you imagine the looks on the faces of the Wildlife Board if 2,000 hunters showed up on the doorstep for the meeting???


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

wapati said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > On the statewide archery deal, there were fewer than 20 who SHOWED UP to the Wildlife Board meeting to voice opposition. I contend the outcome would have been much different if THOUSANDS had shown up that day. The RAC's, IMHO, are a waste of time. It is the Wildlife Board that has final say, and they often ignore the input from the RAC's.
> ...


Yeah wapiti, that is a problem, and one not easily solved. But, if we as a group of hunters wish to have our voices heard in unity, it will have to be overcome. Any ideas?


----------



## wapati (Nov 29, 2007)

stillhunterman said:


> wapati said:
> 
> 
> > proutdoors said:
> ...


I am not a facebook person nor will likely be anytime soon, but if the Utah Wildlife Cooperative is taking this approach to bring ideas together, keep everyone focused, and keep everyone informed I think it is a GREAT start. Expanding that networking idea to something like the NRA does with emails so everyone is up-to-date with the latest fights would be good too, and maybe get more involved.

I think the only way it could work though, is if everyone joining clearly understands the objective or fight may not always be for each individual's specific interest (i.e.: archery or rifle-specific), but is for the greater good of Utah hunters in general. The specifics could maybe hammered out in the RAC meetings, or whatever, year-by-year.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Facebook? WTF are we all 14 or something? Facebook blows. If you want to be taken seriously then put up a dedicated webpage. The cost is negligable with the relatively low amount of traffic it would get... $5 month or so for hosting.

I'd even set it up if people want

-DallanC


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

What an organization needs for lack of a better example is a Don Peay. One guy that is the voice for many. 

And when he needs it we should back him up. Even if that means dedicating 2 hrs of our time to show up in force to show unity for the cause. Also he needs some cash to buy lunches and what not. To get a conversation off record on whats to happen. The RAC and anything that goes on in public is pure pacification and theatrics.

On the other hand that is just about how every single conservation group got started. Primarily with good intentions but for some reason members don't hold there heads accountable. If I were a SFW member I would have been calling for Don to step down yrs ago. I told MDF to get bent 20yrs ago What a sham organization that is.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Iron Bear said:


> What an organization needs for lack of a better example is a Don Peay. One guy that is the voice for many.
> 
> And when he needs it we should back him up. Even if that means dedicating 2 hrs of our time to show up in force to show unity for the cause. Also he needs some cash to buy lunches and what not. To get a conversation off record on whats to happen. The RAC and anything that goes on in public is pure pacification and theatrics.
> 
> On the other hand that is just about how every single conservation group got started. Primarily with good intentions but for some reason members don't hold there heads accountable. If I were a SFW member I would have been calling for Don to step down yrs ago. I told MDF to get bent 20yrs ago What a sham organization that is.


Your points are well taken Iron Bear, but the UWC is NOT a conservation organization, and thier is no Head Honcho. At this point it was started as a way for the average hunter to have some place to voice their opinions, and hopefully to gain enough numbers to show up at the WB meetings with some decent numbers. There are some pretty smart hunters sharing what they know, but its not enough. Guys like you, and DallanC and many others who are willing to speak up need to continue to do so, loud and clear. Hopefully we can form a following large enough it HAS to be heard. And like wapiti said, we cannot afford to become fragmented over our own personal quibbles and pit ourselves against each other!

Bow hunters, muzzy hunters, rifle hunters, hell we are all in this together. There are a **** site more than 100,000 of us in the state, of that I am sure. And a whole lot more that would join the club under the right conditions. What say ye?


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

DallanC said:


> Facebook? WTF are we all 14 or something? Facebook blows. If you want to be taken seriously then put up a dedicated webpage. The cost is negligable with the relatively low amount of traffic it would get... $5 month or so for hosting.
> 
> I'd even set it up if people want
> 
> -DallanC


 :mrgreen: Thanks Dallan, I needed a laugh tonight! 14.....yep! You are exactly right with what you say. The Facebook page was created by some nice guys with great hunting hearts on a spur of the moment thing. It is a good start. Since you seem familiar with web hosting and such, I'm sure you know what kind of commitment will be required to keep one going the way it should. I for one would be willing to help in any way I can. It's a **** fine gesture for you to volunteer this way. Maybe it's time to move it up a notch in this direction. Would you be willing to go over to the coop and get on there with your ideas? Lets see where it goes... _(O)_ :idea: o-||


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

stillhunterman said:


> :mrgreen: Thanks Dallan, I needed a laugh tonight! 14.....yep! You are exactly right with what you say. The Facebook page was created by some nice guys with great hunting hearts on a spur of the moment thing. It is a good start. Since you seem familiar with web hosting and such, I'm sure you know what kind of commitment will be required to keep one going the way it should. I for one would be willing to help in any way I can. It's a **** fine gesture for you to volunteer this way. Maybe it's time to move it up a notch in this direction. Would you be willing to go over to the coop and get on there with your ideas? Lets see where it goes... _(O)_ :idea: o-||


Haha let me rephrase, I believe the idea of the Co-op is a good one and I salute it. The idea of telling people to join via facebook is what I hate 8)

As for websites, I own and run several as a hobby. HuntingNut.com is the oldest at 12 years old now with just shy of 10k members and averaging 3.5 million views a year. I also write and maintain free Ballistics software (found on HuntingNut)... so yea I know a bit about this stuff :O•-:

I'm willing to help run things but I have to ask the question: Why not make it a Utah Wildlife group and run things here? I certainly applaud Peterson and the UWN website, and would like to give the owners here the chance to do something before forming yet another group elsewhere.

-DallanC


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

UWN already declined.

Dallan, If you would help it really would be a huge step in the right direction. Here is your chance to try and make a difference. To show my support for the cause PM me if you decide to help and I can send you some funds to start.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Iron Bear said:


> UWN already declined.
> 
> Dallan, If you would help it really would be a huge step in the right direction. Here is your chance to try and make a difference. To show my support for the cause PM me if you decide to help and I can send you some funds to start.


Same here Dallan, let me know and I will offer up what I can, and any other help needed.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

You know, I have read this entire thread and I'll be damned if I can make heads or tails out of what any of you want. All I am hearing is a bunch of bitching and complaining about a process that many of you clearly don't understand and probably haven't given ten minutes though to before you read this post. 
I know you are all a bit frustrated with the "results" of what the WB has done and based upon some fantasized idea of how the world should be, clamber for change. I would like to hear some substantive suggestions as to (1) HOW WOULD YOU CHANGE THE SYSTEM, i.e., replace the board with a Wildlife CZAR or maybe hold a general election or proposition to finalize all suggestions, etc and (2) GIVE ME SOME PRECISE EXAMPLES OF HOW YOU WOULD HAVE THE GAME LAWS TO READ, i.e, eliminate all game laws and let the "average hunter" make up the rules as he sees fit, (you tea party boys ought to love that one), or how about maybe start by even defining an "average hunter"!

If I was a WB member and read this post I would just have to throw my hands in the air and say WTF do these guys want? 
P.S. you never know, there might just be a board member prowling around on this forum.


----------



## Stellarmike (Mar 12, 2009)

Email Is a great idea, maybe a newsletter monthly?


----------



## Stellarmike (Mar 12, 2009)

I also think a mission statement should be made, something people can read and know exactly what we are trying to accomplish and that our goals are printed and easy to see. I think it would help maintain the groups focus.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

BPturkeys said:


> If I was a WB member and read this post I would just have to throw my hands in the air and say WTF do these guys want?


You are right. That's why I believe a Spokesman or Representative is needed.

And as far as deer management is concerned. Unless we address the the current predator population. And adopt a long term management plan for them that allows some room for the hunter harvest, roadkill, human activity and most all the other named causes for deer herd decline. We are just spinning our wheels and the hunter will continue to be the one that gets the short end of the stick.

Again I rant. Predators in Utah are managed *at or near capacity*. The simple fact of the matter is no matter how good the habitat. Or lack of human activity. Lack of winter kill and over hunting you name it. *The deer herd will not increase substantially*.

I'm not calling for all out war on predators. I understand the dynamics of an ecosystem. I realize there importance and do believe they are a primary tool in a proper deer management plan. We couldn't do it with out them. We found that out in the 40s thru the 60s.

What we have today actually is very counterproductive for hunters. Its been sighted that the way we manage our cougar and bear. Encourages a larger population of predators than what the prey base can withstand. And resulting in a decrease of prey while the predator population continues to maintain or even increase. Which actually defies natural laws of nature.

Say a mtn is at capacity of cougar. When we hunt them we mostly shoot the biggest tom we can find. When you take that tom out of that territory it makes room for as many as 3 smaller cats to carve out territories. This can happen because females are largely not killed providing plenty of young cats.

Do you know I can go on for days about this. But I will spare you for now. :roll: :lol:


----------



## Stellarmike (Mar 12, 2009)

Bpturkeys is right, that is why I think a mission statement is needed. So people know what we are trying to accomplish, without those defined goals, a spokesperson does no good. I am no good at computers, but have a bit of a business background, and am willing to help where I can!


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

There is/was a mission statement and there has been one meeting that I am aware of. Groups don't blow up and make an instant impact, it takes time. Last time there were hundreds of people bitching about the new elk proposal and when it came down to a meeting a handful showed up out of the hundreds and from there only a couple of people showed up to the RAC meetings. Most of the people that did go to the RAC meetings were already part of other groups and representing them. The reality is most people bitch, but that is as far as it goes. I hope UWC starts picking up steam again, the group we had at the one meeting we had was a diverse group and it was nice to see so many different points of views.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Also, a quick scan of Utah fish and game history shows that as early as 1927 supervisory committees appointed by the Utah Legislature were in play. The State Game Refuge Committee and Board of Elk Control were charged with: "to supervise the establishing, adjusting, opening, and closing of elk refuges: designating seasons and localities in which elk hunting could be done, and determining the sex and the number of animals that could be killed. Regulation of the kill was accomplished by the sale of nontransferable permits to hunt elk to sportsmen selected by public drawing." If I am not mistaken, this committee was put in motion a few years before Leavitt was in office. Now, one can argue whether this committee back in 1927 did good things or not, but IMHO that is NOT the point. Such a committee was given the SAME power to do what the current Wildlife Board has. Not true, the Board was an advisory committee much like the current RACs only the Commisioner had full power.
> 
> And then: "The Board of Elk Control effectively managed the elk herds for six years. In March, 1933, the Legislature amended the law, changed its name and extended its powers to include all big game.
> 
> The new committee was designated the State Game Refuge Committee and Board of Big Game Control. It had five members -representatives of cattle and horse breeders, wool growers, sportsmen, the Forest Service, and the State Fish and Game Director, who was chairman. Their acts were to have the full force and effect of law." Sounds an awful lot like the current Board. You left this quote out: "The exercise of this authority, however was another matter...A radical change in the administration of the Utah State Fish and Game Department came in 1941. Whereas, before a commissioner had had full power, the authority was given to a three-man commission in 1941."


While the above information is mostly true, it is only part of the story....and, despite the fact that the Board of Big Game Control and State Game Refuge Committee were eerily similar to the current WB and RACs, even at that time the Commissioner of the Board of Big Game Control still had final say and all of the power. And, the commissioner was a professional wildlife manager.

The point of my earlier post was simple: we voted Mike Leavitt into a position where HE dramatically and drastically changed the way our wildlife had been managed. Prior to the Leavitt family's hatchery being the source of WD in Utah and the Governor's attempt at firing the DWR employees who sought to bring the Leavitts to justice, our wildlife was managed by professionals. But, the good Governor Leavitt--through the legislature--created the WB and RACs...


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

proutdoors said:


> On the statewide archery deal, there were fewer than 20 who SHOWED UP to the Wildlife Board meeting to voice opposition. I contend the outcome would have been much different if THOUSANDS had shown up that day. The RAC's, IMHO, are a waste of time. It is the Wildlife Board that has final say, and they often ignore the input from the RAC's.


I get your point and agree. I should note however that I did email and call several RAC members before that meeting to make my desires known. The two RAC members that I was actually able to reach by phone stated they had been contacted by quite a few people and the support was overwhelmingly for restoring the statewide archery hunt. That support came from Joe Hunter, not a special interest group. At least according to the two gentlemen that I spoke with. Just a thought that I believed noteworthy.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > On the statewide archery deal, there were fewer than 20 who SHOWED UP to the Wildlife Board meeting to voice opposition. I contend the outcome would have been much different if THOUSANDS had shown up that day. The RAC's, IMHO, are a waste of time. It is the Wildlife Board that has final say, and they often ignore the input from the RAC's.
> ...


You were mislead then, because statewide archery was returned because the data showed the FEAR of over-crowding in the Southern Region were unfounded, and per the agreement made at the previous years Wildlife Board meeting, it was restored. That, and the archery SPECIAL INTEREST groups put the pressure on the WB. :O•-:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> The point of my earlier post was simple: we voted Mike Leavitt into a position where HE dramatically and drastically changed the way our wildlife had been managed. Prior to the Leavitt family's hatchery being the source of WD in Utah and the Governor's attempt at firing the DWR employees who sought to bring the Leavitts to justice, our wildlife was managed by professionals. But, the good Governor Leavitt--through the legislature--created the WB and RACs...


And my point was/is that is was NOT Leavitt acting alone. To place on the blame on the Governor, and not the Legislature AND the likes of Jim K for being complicit with it from Day One, is intellectually dishonest. I understand your disdain for Leavitt and his family, but facts are facts, and the facts say this was NOT just Leavitt's monster, many people in front/behind the scenes have dirt on their hands from this.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Pro -- nobody is blaming Leavitt 100%. Prior to Leavitt, the merit system was upheld by the majority of the political powers of Utah. However, Leavitt took a step that no previous governor had ever taken -- he spit in the face of the merit system. Since that time, wildlife management in Utah has never bee the same.

Was it all Leavitt's fault? No. Did Leavitt set the wheel in motion? Certainly. Are we continuing to see the negative affects of that wheel today? Absolutely.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

proutdoors said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> > proutdoors said:
> ...


Yeah I know why they went to region choice for statewide archery. I also understand that there may have been "agreements" in place to set it back. But that doesn't change the fact that Joe Hunter by majority supported the change back to statewide archery.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > bullsnot said:
> ...


Joe Hunter was against the proposal in the first place and it didn't do a **** bit of good, the WB is going to do what they want or what benefits them the most. I think they feel a little to secure in their position, I shouldn't say all of them, but most of them.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Here is an idea of how to get the WB to feel some heat from us. It will involve the UWC and a few willing and able bodies to do the leg work.

We need a to come up with a detailed plan of what it is we want changed. Since it will require an act of the the legislature and the governor we will need to be very clear in our goal and not deviate from it. Sheer numbers are going to do the trick so the UWC needs to go on a member recruiting mission.


We need to get a person from each legislative district to represent the UWC
We need to show the legislature canditates what we want changed
We need to sho them the numbers of members we have behind us supporting the changes
It is up to them to do something about it and risk losing x number of votes

It's really a simple task that involves a lot of door knocking a bit of speaking to people in the right places. We will have rejection but we will have to keep at it to be taken seriously. Our numbers will have to be serious as well. We have a lot of groundwork to do. It will require some time and effort from us and a bit of sacrifice in many aspects but I for one am willing to be a voice.

This is just a high level idea of what we can do and how we can get started. I guess it's just a matter of getting the group together and really putting a solid plan together. When polititians votes are threatened they have a tendency to listen.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

jahan said:


> Joe Hunter was against the proposal in the first place and it didn't do a **** bit of good, the WB is going to do what they want or what benefits them the most. I think they feel a little to secure in their position, I shouldn't say all of them, but most of them.


Well it depends. If you asked Joe Hunter that hunted the southern region with any weapon you might not come to the same conclusion. They were the ones crying foul complaining that the pressure was higher in that region during the archery hunt than any other in the state. The muzzy and rifle guys complained because they felt all the deer were being taken before they got their chance. That was proven to not be the case. In any instance it was reset dispelling the idea that once special interests get involved it's changed forever. At any rate the intital change and the change back was for Joe Hunter IMO.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

MadHunter said:


> Here is an idea of how to get the WB to feel some heat from us. It will involve the UWC and a few willing and able bodies to do the leg work.
> 
> We need a to come up with a detailed plan of what it is we want changed. Since it will require an act of the the legislature and the governor we will need to be very clear in our goal and not deviate from it. Sheer numbers are going to do the trick so the UWC needs to go on a member recruiting mission.
> 
> ...


Good idea but how long do you think it will take the masses to generally agree on an idea to pitch in the first place?


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Not too hard I suppose. The way to get many people to agree on somethign is to keep it simple. Which is the from what I understand the goal of the UWC, keep it simple. If we focus on changing the way game is managed, getting the politics out of the DWR, getting it back into the hands of profesionals. We should be ok. We should not try to overcomplicate things and loose sight of the original objective. That is what has happened with many of the larg organizations.


----------

