# SFW and HB 187?



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

Anyone know what SFWs stance on HB 187 is? The "F" does stand for fish right? Since SFW is for the average Joe, I would think SFW would be fighting HB 187 with everything they got.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

From an email from SFW:


> Third, many streams have been added to the public access HB 187 bill. This bill is shaping up to protect private property rights, and still allow for public to recreate fishing on public waters.


I agree with their stance 100%, and I say that as a fisherman! And yes, I am an 'average Joe'.


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

Imagine that, SFW sides with the wealthy. Why does there have to be a list of water ways and not just make it all water ways?


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> From an email from SFW:
> 
> 
> > Third, many streams have been added to the public access HB 187 bill. This bill is shaping up to protect private property rights, and still allow for public to recreate fishing on public waters.
> ...


 Pro, I was wondering if this is the official position of your sporting good store (Corp). Also, it was my understanding that the supreme court defined the ground under the stream...(stream bed)... as "public property". If this is the case, is your position in reality in favor of closing "public property" to the fisherman of this state? 
It is my position that the supreme court made the absolute correct decision in granting the pubic access to "pubic" property! The land owners along the streams and rivers do not own the stream beds and any other interpretation can only be defined as greed driven elitism!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

BPturkeys said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > From an email from SFW:
> ...


Why do you have to go there? Am I as a citizen not allowed to have an opinion? Is my desire to uphold property rights going to drive business away? If so, are you going to ask the owners of EVERY business you patronize the very same question? If not, why not? :?


----------



## DBCooper (Jun 17, 2008)

BPturkeys said:


> ...greed driven elitism


Would you please give us your definition of greed? I assume by your position that it's everyone else who is greedy, and never you!

I personally believe private property rights do NOT come from the supreme court, governor, congress, or Mickey Mouse - they come from G-d! If you want peace on earth, respect private property. If you want prosperity, respect private property!

BPturkeys, would you allow me and anyone else who wanted, to walk through your house anytime we please, as long as we don't do any damage? We would just walk in through the front door and make our way out the back, we wouldn't take anything or cause any problems. Come on, just a week and let's see who is "greedy!"


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

For a hi-jacker....DBCooper says what he needs to say, quite well !!


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

DBCooper said:


> I personally believe private property rights do NOT come from the supreme court, governor, congress, or Mickey Mouse - they come from G-d! If you want peace on earth, respect private property. If you want prosperity, respect private property!


I don't go to church, so i must of missed it when God said "private property owners own the stream bed". Your arguement about walking through someones house is week at best. We don't want to walk through anybodies house, we just want to be able to walk through the stream bed. You stay in the water and stream bed, your good to go, just like in Montana and Idaho.


----------



## DBCooper (Jun 17, 2008)

Well tell us, what is private property?

What is your definition of greed?


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Why do you have to go there? Am I as a citizen not allowed to have an opinion? Is my desire to uphold property rights going to drive business away? If so, are you going to ask the owners of EVERY business you patronize the very same question? If not, why not? :?


Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and others can be disappointed by that opinion. The whole "I'm going to walk through your house" deal is a bit lame, poor example at best.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I wouldn't want some dumb ass in my back yard fishing on some stream that runs through my property. Where is my privacy? Is there enough public property to fish on without having to invade peoples private property?


----------



## DBCooper (Jun 17, 2008)

> Guns and Flies I'm going to walk through your house" deal is a bit lame, poor example at best


Then please, give me your definition of private property!


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> I wouldn't want some **** in my back yard fishing on some stream that runs through my property. Where is my privacy? Is there enough public property to fish on without having to invade peoples private property?


Holy S**t!!! :shock: me and CS finally agree on something. :shock: :wink:

Being a property owner who sometimes finds himself having people trying to hunt or fish on MY property back home without permission, I find myself asking the same questions to you guys out here.

Back home on the Langillie if you own both sides you control the river bed (no hunting or fishing is allowed in that area) our rivers are too deep to wade & fish.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

DBCooper said:


> > Guns and Flies I'm going to walk through your house" deal is a bit lame, poor example at best
> 
> 
> Then please, give me your definition of private property!


Easy my friend, lets not make enemies of each other. We are disagreeing whether stream and river beds are private property or not, not necessarily on the definition of private property. Walking through someone house vs. walking through a river that happens to run on their property seem to me like two very different things.


----------



## rukus (Apr 11, 2008)

So back to the original question.........Does anybody know if SFW has taken an official stance on this bill?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Easy my friend, lets not make enemies of each other. We are disagreeing whether stream and river beds are private property or not, not necessarily on the definition of private property. Walking through someone house vs. walking through a river that happens to run on their property seem to me like two very different things.


I don't believe this answered his question, but oh well :lol: :lol: :lol: :roll: :roll:


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

From a few days ago....



> I know SFW has been involved in this bill from the early stages. Good or bad, they are united and fight for what the members push for. FWIW, I support SFW's stance of being IN favor of HB 187.


----------



## DBCooper (Jun 17, 2008)

Sorry for the hijack. After all these years, I still can't resist


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

"Greed is the self-serving desire for the pursuit of money, wealth, power, food, or other possessions, *especially when this denies the same goods to others*. It is generally considered a vice, and is one of the seven deadly sins in Catholicism."

This seems to me to be the perfect word for those property owners that want to expand their interests to include what the supreme court has defined as "public property". Now, if the legislature defines the stream beds as "private property" then I'll shut the hell up providing the supreme court finds the law as not being unconstitutional. You boys need to go back and read again how laws and the rule of law is established and maintained in our great country. Not everybody gets their way and most certainly the laws put forth by our legislators need be failsafe against breach of the constitution.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

BPturkeys said:


> "Greed is the self-serving desire for the pursuit of money, wealth, power, food, or other possessions, *especially when this denies the same goods to others*. It is generally considered a vice, and is one of the seven deadly sins in Catholicism."
> 
> This seems to me to be the perfect word for those property owners that want to expand their interests to include what the supreme court has defined as "public property". Now, if the legislature defines the stream beds as "private property" then I'll shut the hell up providing the supreme court finds the law as not being unconstitutional. You boys need to go back and read again how laws and the rule of law is established and maintained in our great country. Not everybody gets their way and most certainly the laws put forth by our legislators need be failsafe against breach of the constitution.


So, why did/do you feel the need to bring my business into this? :? Also, I do NOT believe every State Supreme Court ruling is right/constitutional. That is why we have checks and balances. I stated when the ruling was made it was a poor ruling and would cause more problems than it solved. I was scoffed at then, but it turns out I was right. I also agree with DBCooper, property rights are NOT given to us by the Government, but are one of the unalienable rights given to us by our Creator. That is why I stand where I do on this issue.


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

Pro, Do you agree with the list of rivers and streams, if HB 187 passes will allow people to access private property through those streams? I guess God does'nt like those property owners. Why does there have to be a list? Why not make it all or none? It seems to be working in Montana and Idaho, why not in Utah?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Pro, Do you agree with the list of rivers and streams, if HB 187 passes will allow people to access private property through those streams? I guess God does'nt like those property owners. Why does there have to be a list? Why not make it all or none? It seems to be working in Montana and Idaho, why not in Utah?


I believe they aren't done yet, but this is only the beginning. Freedom isn't taken away all at once, but it's one step at a time. It's called an "Process" and the people keep compromising until they wake up one day and wonder what in the hell happen.


----------



## rukus (Apr 11, 2008)

> "Greed is the self-serving desire for the pursuit of money, wealth, power, food, or other possessions, especially when this denies the same goods to others. It is generally considered a vice, and is one of the seven deadly sins in Catholicism."


I don't think this quote holds much merit to the subject at hand. I wouldn't label the property owners who are supporting this bill as greedy. They have just as much right to voice their opinion as we do. They obtained their land fair and square through legal processes. If they got that land because they could afford to pay more for it than you or I, then so be it and good for them. If land ownership is greedy, then you live in the wrong country. Being able to purchase something and have it be your very own is a great blessing. It is not right to take away these god given rights just because some of us don't think it is fair that one person has more than us.

No matter what side of this issue we are on, we need to be very careful to not undermine the foundation of our government system. As a wise man once said..."A democracy fails when people realize they can vote themselves money." We need to do what is best for all and the future, not what is best for only a select few.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

blackdog said:


> Pro, Do you agree with the list of rivers and streams, if HB 187 passes will allow people to access private property through those streams? I guess God does'nt like those property owners. Why does there have to be a list? Why not make it all or none? It seems to be working in Montana and Idaho, why not in Utah?


A Government can restrict ones rights justly and unjustly, God has no control over the acts of men acting out of self-interests. Just because a Government and/or a court says one has no such 'right' does not make it so, it only means the Government/court is usurping unrighteous dominion over others. The best test to see if a government has overstepped it's bounds is to ask if what they are doing would be legal for an individual to ask/demand of another individual, thus the reference to walking through someones house to get to the backyard stream.


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> I believe they aren't done yet, but this is only the beginning. Freedom isn't taken away all at once, but it's one step at a time. It's called an "Process" and the people keep compromising until they wake up one day and wonder what in the hell happen.


Thanks Pro. :roll:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Thanks Pro.


De nada Perro ***** :lol: :lol:


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

OK, uncle, I give. Who I am I to stand in the face of a ruling made by God himself! There clearly are only "private property" rights. The very idea of "pubic property" rights is ludicrous and obsurd. The "public", I scuff at such a notion. For the love of God...let them eat cake!


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> A Government can restrict ones rights justly and unjustly, God has no control over the acts of men acting out of self-interests. Just because a Government and/or a court says one has no such 'right' does not make it so, it only means the Government/court is usurping unrighteous dominion over others. The best test to see if a government has overstepped it's bounds is to ask if what they are doing would be legal for an individual to ask/demand of another individual, thus the reference to walking through someones house to get to the backyard stream.


What??????? Never mind. Trying to get you to answer a simple question is like pulling teeth.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

blackdog said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > A Government can restrict ones rights justly and unjustly, God has no control over the acts of men acting out of self-interests. Just because a Government and/or a court says one has no such 'right' does not make it so, it only means the Government/court is usurping unrighteous dominion over others. The best test to see if a government has overstepped it's bounds is to ask if what they are doing would be legal for an individual to ask/demand of another individual, thus the reference to walking through someones house to get to the backyard stream.
> ...


I'm a little lost on that one too. You might have to dumb that one down for me Pro.

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough". 
-Albert Einstein


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

This pot of beans is about done, I am puttin the old spoon away and headin to bed.


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

Pro, you should become a politician, because you sure can dodge questions and spew total bs to make it sound like you know what you're talking about when you really don't with the best of them. HB 187 is BS and you know it. The only reason you're for it is because SFW tells you your for it and like a good little sheep, you just follow along with the rest of the flock and do what your flock leaders tell you to do and don't ask questions.



coyoteslayer said:


> I believe they aren't done yet, but this is only the beginning. Freedom isn't taken away all at once, but it's one step at a time. It's called an "Process" and the people keep compromising until they wake up one day and wonder what in the hell happen.


These are your own words CS, Right now we have the freedom to walk and fish in any stream or river as long as we stay in the stream bed, if HB 187 passes there will be a short list of streams and rivers we can access and before long that list will be taken away too. So go ahead and drink the Kool-Aid and follow the rest of the flock off the cliff.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Guns and Flies said:


> Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and others can be disappointed by that opinion. The whole "I'm going to walk through your house" deal is a bit lame, poor example at best.


Its about as lame as somebody on the fishing forums suggesting that once landowners secure their right to limit access to their property (yes, I say that considering the stream bed to be part of their property, right or wrong) that they'll chase down the closure of public roads through their property as well. Neither one is realistic but both have their place as extreme examples put forth by folks on both sides of the issue. Pro... for what its worth, I was able to follow what you said just fine and it made sense to me. I'm with you on support for the bill.... and I'm not a member of or a real big fan of SFW. I'm just a simple hunter/fisherman who doesn't think things are as catastrophic as they're being made to appear.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

Smarty pants *(u)* I think you make some good points RR77, I respect where you are coming from :wink:


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Guns and Flies said:


> Smarty pants *(u)* I think you make some good points RR77, I respect where you are coming from :wink:


 :wink: Glad you didn't take offense.... I respect those on the other side of the fence as well... just wish there was a little more willingness to compromise on things from both sides but I fear the extremist folks who are only out for themselves and not the rest of us will wind up costing the more moderate folks in the middle dearly with their self indulgent agendas.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

I am sure this has been said somewhere in these discussions. There are reasons why landowners do not want people fishing the rivers, and it has VERY LITTLE to do with greed. I am sure anyone can find an exception however that is a broad brush to be painting with. I understand the want to open up more waters, in theory I think it is a great idea. In a perfect world all the waters should be open to everybody...along with gum drop trees and lollipop flowers!

The reality of the landowners issues are with people who abuse that right. For me it is the same scenerio as the atv debate (I know this might fire some up but don't let this hijack the discussion). Several abusers ruin it for all. I am now for banning all atv's for hunting. We have all seen the fishing trash that pollutes our shorelines. The slamon egg bottles, beer bottles, fishing line, etc, etc. Then comes the destroying of private property, leaving gates open, cutting fences, etc, etc. lastly the problem I have is access, how do you propose access? Walking down a stream (destroying the bed in the process) is one idea, but are fisherman going to walk back up that stream to get out, or do they now have some god given right to walk across the rest of the land. I didn't even touch on privacy issues because that should be common sense for anyone to understand.

These questions are retorical as I know the answers, but want others to realize these are legitimate concerns. To propagate the debate by labeling one side as "greedy landowners" is ridiculas at best.


Also, on another ridiculas thought...Where do the owners of Walmart stand on this issue? Cabelas? Sportsmans Warehouse? Wendy's? :roll: The fact that we as sportsmen have differing opinions is the American way, I would think we would want to support small business with people of the same interests and overall goals. To target Pro's business venture just because you have a different stance is just dumb.


----------



## rukus (Apr 11, 2008)

Very well said bwhntr.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

blackdog said:


> Pro, you should become a politician, because you sure can dodge questions and spew total bs to make it sound like you know what you're talking about when you really don't with the best of them. HB 187 is BS and you know it. The only reason you're for it is because SFW tells you your for it and like a good little sheep, you just follow along with the rest of the flock and do what your flock leaders tell you to do and don't ask questions.


Right, because I always go with the flow and what is popular at the moment. :roll: I don't think a single person who has met me would say I just follow along like a "good little sheep".

The fact that RR77 and I agree on this subject is nothing short of stunning. I don't think we've ever agreed on anything.

Thanks for the kind words Shane! Spot on once again.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> These are your own words CS, Right now we have the freedom to walk and fish in any stream or river as long as we stay in the stream bed, if HB 187 passes there will be a short list of streams and rivers we can access and before long that list will be taken away too.*So go ahead and drink the Kool-Aid and follow the rest of the flock off the cliff.*
> 
> 
> > Sounds like you have done this before. How does the story end?


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

This isn't an issue that has a fence anymore. You can't just be on a fence. The supreme court of Utah clearly defined the public's right...let me say that again...the public's RIGHT...to access/easement for recreational purposes the waterways of Utah. Yes, the public does also have rights. Private property rights do not trump all other human rights. You, mister fisherman and mister hunter have rights as a group, not just personal rights, and one of those rights is access to the waterways of Utah. Why would you hand those rights over to a small, non-elected group of people to define. And don't give that "it's because God said to"...****, that reminds me of the Laferty brothers, or the Tiliban...talk about extremism.

Oh, and Pro..I am sorry about that one issue...it was not right on my part, I apologize


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

The problem as I see it is the fact that we are talking about something that has dual ownership (public water vs private ground). While there has been some good points on both sides brought up, I believe 187 is to far to one side. Like wise we have all seen what people can do for the good and bad. 187 needs to be revised and balanced to the middle. I'm not sure at this time were that middle is, but I believe a little more time is needed to find that spot.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

Good points, I as well want to be aware of everyone and meet somewhere in the middle, I see it leaning way too far to one side as is, IMHO.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Just read this email from Don Peay:


> Over the past several years, the Utah Legislature has been VERY good to Fisherman in Utah. Tens of millions of dollars have been invested to rebuild fish hatcheries, legislation has been passed to allow for acquisition of water rights to allow for instream flow in low times to protect fisheries etc. by all accounts, fishing in cold water and warm water fisheries in Utah is exceptional, in many cases, it has never been better.
> 
> I might remind the "we are radical fly fisherman only" fisherman, that their 300 member groups pale in comparison to the SFW membership statewide, and 95% of SFW members fish. And, when the fishing groups needed to raise $10,000 to put larger rainbows in Strawberry, SFW came up with $7,500 of the 10 grand.
> 
> ...


BPturkeys, it's all good. 8)


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> (*from Don's response*)HB 187 will specifically allow for public access - even through private property if fisherman are in the rivers - on these major rivers: Logan, Bear, Blacksmith Fork, Little Bear, Ogden, Weber, Bear, Jordan, Provo, Duschesne, White, Strawberry, Price, Diamond Fork, Lower Sevier, and Sevier River. I believe 5 other smaller streams will be added to the access list.
> 
> *This will mean, in some total, approximately 95-97% of the FISH in Utah will be accessible to the public.*


Where did the 95%-97% come from? Is this just streams or all fishable waters?

Edit:
My highlight makes it look like it is Pro's. Sorry, was not meant that way.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

This think keep changing by the hour, I feel it needs to be allowed to be reviewed so we can make sure it is something we can live with.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> Where did the 95%-97% come from? Is this just streams or all fishable waters?


I would be curious to know this too...My biggest problem with HB187 is that PUBLIC water and PUBLIC fish are being kept closed to the PUBLIC. To me, that is wrong. The bill is being amended and the amendments have been good and are moving in a positive direction, BUT I have a real problem believing that the 30 waters listed in the latest amendment is enough. I can think of several streams NOT on that list that have public fish stocked in them and portions where the public is not allowed access...

...I find it exceptionally hypocritical that many of us find nothing wrong with allowing public citizens the right to walk down a sidewalk that crosses private property but allowing someone the right to recreate on a public stream/river that crosses private property to be a big no-no. Should we also allow private citizens to fence off the sidewalks where they cross their private property lines?

Also interesting to note is this little tidbit: http://www.sfwsfh.org/documents/2008_Co ... ojects.pdf

How much of those 2008 SFW dollars went to fishing projects? So, 95% of SFW's members fish, yet 0% of the money raised in 2008 improved fish habitat. Doesn't SFW have vested interest in protecting private land as it relates to CWMUs and private land big game tags?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > Where did the 95%-97% come from? Is this just streams or all fishable waters?
> ...


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > Where did the 95%-97% come from? Is this just streams or all fishable waters?
> ...


I too can think of other areas that are similiar to this issue. Below ground minerial rights. Sold and bought as separate rights including how they can be accessed comes to mind.

Also a reminder to the heads of these special groups, clubs and such. While I do respect your involvement, work, and efforts, your group numbers reflect a small portion of our hunting/fishing/outdoor family. While I know we will not make everybody happy, there is a middle road.

There are going to be people on both sides of the fence that *have* problems. There are also going to be people on both sides of the fence that *are* the problems.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

I'm gonna let the evil twin out for a mintue.

If you were a property owner whose land had a stream or river running it would you like it that any Joe blow can come tromping thru your place? 

Where's all the talk about respect for other people now???? 

I'm no fan of SFW but I'd have to agree with their stance on this, it’s reasonable and logical, unlike some of special interest group’s position on this.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

FISH CWMU's????

Sorry I had to Bart!!!
Another loss for opportunity and access


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> FISH CWMU's????
> 
> Sorry I had to Bart!!!
> Another loss for opportunity and access


You lost me my friend. Who is talking about "FISH CWMU's"? :?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Examples?


Salina Creek, Lost Creek, Boulder Creek, Fish Creek, Beaver Creek, mammoth creek, asay creek, ...to name just a few.



proutdoors said:


> ..Apples and oranges. If you buy a house in a subdivision you are required to adhere to city ordinances. The sidewalk, fire hydrant, utility boxes are on your land but they have been given easements by the city. Different cities have different easement codes. Rural areas are even more diverse in what is required of a homeowner. Where I live having curb and gutter, sidewalk, utility boxes are REQUIRED as part of the HOA, where my parents live they are not required to have ANY of them on their property. This is a nonsensical argument.[/color]


No, apples to apples. If you buy a section of private property that has the PUBLIC'S water running through it, the PUBLIC has always had an easement to recreate on that water. The sidewalk, fire hydrant, and utility boxes on my/your land--like the PUBLIC'S water on private land--have been given easements regardless of the different codes. Why should a private landowner be able to fence out the public from recreating on that easement when you can't fence out the public on your home front? It is the SAME concept...


proutdoors said:


> What are you implying? Are you saying because SFW improves habitat on CWMU's/private lands as well as public lands they are somehow 'tainted' in all that they do? that is absurd!


[/quote][/quote]

No, I am saying that SFW has a vested interest in keeping private lands inaccessible to the general public. By allowing the public to access and recreate on private land, SFW loses funds...I am saying that some of the biggest contributors to SFW are the private landowners. Without their support SFW loses big time....

....I am also saying that SFW contributes very little to fisheries, yet--ironically--their title and Peay's own words imply otherwise. The fly-fishermen groups he bashes in his email do much more for fishing and contribute more money towards restoring fisheries habitat than SFW ever dreamed of. His words are very misleading and deceitful...


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Mojo1 said:


> I'm gonna let the evil twin out for a mintue.
> 
> If you were a property owner whose land had a stream or river running it would you like it that any Joe blow can come tromping thru your place?
> 
> ...


I don't like having my neighbors cable boxes in my backyard but I do. What would your property be worth if we removed the water from above ground except for what you owned. Respect goes both ways.

By what I've seen written so far, I don't believe it's reasonable or logical.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> Mojo1 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm gonna let the evil twin out for a mintue.
> ...


????????????? :? 
removed the water except for what I owned????? What point are you trying to make???????


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Examples?
> ...


[/quote]

No, I am saying that SFW has a vested interest in keeping private lands inaccessible to the general public. By allowing the public to access and recreate on private land, SFW loses funds...I am saying that some of the biggest contributors to SFW are the private landowners. Without their support SFW loses big time....What evidence do you have on who the biggest contributors to SFW are? I will quit SFW if they ignore private property rights in a New York minute! 

....I am also saying that SFW contributes very little to fisheries, yet--ironically--their title and Peay's own words imply otherwise. The fly-fishermen groups he bashes in his email do much more for fishing and contribute more money towards restoring fisheries habitat than SFW ever dreamed of. His words are very misleading and deceitful...I would assert your words are at least as misleading and deceitful as you accuse Don of being. You may want to double check your numbers before making such bold claims.  [/quote]


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Mojo1 said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > Mojo1 said:
> ...


Does that water coursing though that private ground benefit the owner? What would the ramification be if the water not owned by the land owner was removed from above ground to below? The point is the land owner does not own all the water or the fish in that water. Why should he be the only one to use it and benefit from it. There needs to be a better balance to 187. This is not a one sided issue.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Are you saying these streams/creeks will be lost to public access under this bill? And, if so, was there public access before the court ruling last July?


I am saying that these waters have public fish stocked in them and portions of them will become inaccessible if HB187 passes. I am saying that waters that have public fish stocked in them should be accessible by the public. I am also saying that our state statute and a supreme court ruling said that we have ALWAYS had access to these streams....even prior to last July!



proutdoors said:


> I have utility boxes in my back yard, you can NOT 'recreate' on them, but the utility companies can access them with MY permission. They may be there due to a public easement, but the public can't open them/dig up the cables. My HOA can tell me what type of trees I can plant in my yard, do you really think that is what should occur on PRIVATE land in the mountains somewhere? :?


Now you are comparing apples to oranges....I cannot "recreate" on your utility box because I don't have that easement; HOWEVER, a state statue exists that gives me the right to "recreate" in public water on private land...that easement does exist! Also, the HOA you live under has created rules by which YOU must play...the same can be said about the public's easement to recreate in the river. The public's easement to "recreate" on public water has nothing to do with planting trees on private land in the mountains...



proutdoors said:


> What are you implying? Are you saying because SFW improves habitat on CWMU's/private lands as well as public lands they are somehow 'tainted' in all that they do? that is absurd!


[/quote][/quote]



proutdoors said:


> What evidence do you have on who the biggest contributors to SFW are? I will quit SFW if they ignore private property rights in a New York minute!


Who is saying that SFW should ignore private property rights? What those of us who are against HB187 are saying is that SFW is ignoring the public's right to use its water and that the private property owner has NEVER had the right to keep us from using OUR water. To back up our claim, we have a state statute that gives us that right and a supreme court ruling that has upheld it...



proutdoors said:


> I would assert your words are at least as misleading and deceitful as you accuse Don of being. You may want to double check your numbers before making such bold claims.


[/quote]

My words are as deceitful as his are? Check the numbers...how much did SFW contribute to fisheries restoration last year? Compare that to the amount of money the local "radical" fly-fishing conservation groups have spent...those same groups that only have "300" members.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> I am saying that these waters have public fish stocked in them and portions of them will become inaccessible if HB187 passes. I am saying that waters that have public fish stocked in them should be accessible by the public. I am also saying that our state statute and a supreme court ruling said that we have ALWAYS had access to these streams....even prior to last July! Nothing short of hyperbole!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hence the writing of a bill to correct a few of the flaws of the court ruling. That is how our government is SUPPOSED to work.  


> My words are as deceitful as his are? Check the numbers...how much did SFW contribute to fisheries restoration last year? Compare that to the amount of money the local "radical" fly-fishing conservation groups have spent...those same groups that only have "300" members. Make sure when you run the numbers you add in ALL monies generated/lobbied for by the different groups. _(O)_


[/quote:27fgqiex]


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Nothing short of hyperbole!


How? State law says that we as the public own the water and that we have the right to recreate on it...the supreme court upheld that right! Those are the facts....



proutdoors said:


> Alas, you ignore the protection afforded private property owners.[/color] :?


What in the sam hell are you talking about? How are they ignoring the protection given to private property owners? The PUBLIC owns the water....



proutdoors said:


> Hence the writing of a bill to correct a few of the flaws of the court ruling. That is how our government is SUPPOSED to work.


Ferry wrote the bill to reverse the ruling of the court...that is NOT how our government is supposed to work. In fact, if you look at our neighbor state Idaho you would see that they have stream access laws that allow the public much more access to their own water than what Utah would under this ridiculous bill. 


proutdoors said:


> Make sure when you run the numbers you add in ALL monies generated/lobbied for by the different groups. _(O)_


[/quote]

Answer my question...how much money did SFW spend on restoring fisheries habitat in 2008? How much money did SFW contributed to improving fisheries in Utah compared to the Stonefly Society or any other fisheries group?


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

One more time...
Public property rights EXIST!
Public property rights are REAL!
Public property rights have as much importance as private property rights!

This bill, HB187 is a blantant attempt to usurp public property rights and hand the control of public property rights over to a small, un-elected group of people...and I might add, a group of people that appear to have a very vested interest in the private property covered by this proposed law. This bill takes nothing from the private property owner, it only takes from the public!

Why Pro (sorry, not sure why you're always the target, maybe cause Pro is easy to spell and people do actually listen when you talk), would you drop SFW in a NY minute for trampling on private property rights but not if you could see them trampling on public property rights? I am not saying SWF is doing this because I really don't know for sure, but you seem to be supporting a group of private property owners ...the backers of HB187... that are making just such a attempt!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

BPturkeys said:


> Why Pro (sorry, not sure why you're always the target, maybe cause Pro is easy to spell and people do actually listen when you talk), would you drop SFW in a NY minute for trampling on private property rights but not if you could see them trampling on public property rights? I am not saying SWF is doing this because I really don't know for sure, but you seem to be supporting a group of private property owners ...the backers of HB187... that are making just such a attempt!


1)If I didn't want to be 'called out' I would keep my opinions to myself, so no worries. :wink: 2)I am NOT a fan of 'public property' in general to begin with. I do NOT believe that 'public property rights' are essential to individual freedoms, but I DO believe 'private property rights' are. 3)I do NOT see HB187 as taking away 'public property rights', but I do see it as supporting 'private public rights', which as I have mentioned before is the NUMBER ONE 'right' we as Americans MUST retain in order to be a free people. 4)I do not think, as many of my fellow fisherman do, that HB187 will have any real impact on 99% of Utah residents looking to access waters they have been able to in the past. I see this as a means to protect the landowners who have had a very small % of fishermen being rude and ignoring the rights of the landowners, whether they be small/poor landowners or 'evil' wealthy ones.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

That's too bad you don't value public land :?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Guns and Flies said:


> That's too bad you don't value public land :?


Why? I would rather see MORE private land and LESS public land. Just the way the Founders planned it.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

Seems to me this law, statue whatever you call is flawed, the water and wildlife/fish may be a public asset but nothing should force a property owner to allow you access to to fish it same as with hunting access for public game on private land. Seems to me things should work just for fisherman just like big game hunters. 

I'm not buying into that whole ****ed up access system the western states seem to have. This law needs to be reworded to level the playing field for all public land/asset recreation enthusiasts’ not just fishermen.

As a landowner I'm all for private property owner rights.

I know it sucks for a lot of guys but there are plenty of public land streams in the mountains, I've fished them some. I've never fished much on those disputed waters; I've never felt the need to go trespass across someone's land to access the fishing areas, and yes, law or no law that's wrong, you are forcing access on some ones property for your own devices without due compensation.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this; I'm not changing my mind no matter how eloquently you state your argument.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> BPturkeys said:
> 
> 
> > Why Pro (sorry, not sure why you're always the target, maybe cause Pro is easy to spell and people do actually listen when you talk), would you drop SFW in a NY minute for trampling on private property rights but not if you could see them trampling on public property rights? I am not saying SWF is doing this because I really don't know for sure, but you seem to be supporting a group of private property owners ...the backers of HB187... that are making just such a attempt!
> ...


Well ya just left me still sitting on the fence. I'm not sure which way to turn. Your number 2 left me scratching (not sure if you meant no public ground, all private). If land was all private, all I see is Europe . For some reason I believe a balance between public and private is still the best. I guess that is what I love about the West. I can go for a hunt a walk without asking permission. That seems to be to be a very important right to me.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> Guns and Flies said:
> 
> 
> > That's too bad you don't value public land :?
> ...


I don't believe the Founding Fathers wanted another Europe.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Here is a question.....Can a person sue a landowner because they got injured on his private property? Like for example if the landowner's dogs attacked the fishermen. Can a landowner get fined for litter that fishermen leaves while fishing?


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

coyoteslayer said:


> Here is a question.....Can a person sue a landowner because they got injured on his private property? Can a landowner get fined for litter that fishermen leaves while fishing?


You can get sued for anything.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Word is it just got defeated..... but I doubt its dead yet.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > 2)I am NOT a fan of 'public property' in general to begin with. I do NOT believe that 'public property rights' are essential to individual freedoms, but I DO believe 'private property rights' are.
> ...


Public land is a 'right' granted to you/me by the government, private property ownership is a God given right that sometimes governments take away. You have no 'right' to access ANY public land unless the government grants you that right, thus making it a privilege not a right, which is why I get confused over the anxiety over this bill. Balance I agree with, but I don't see much balance wanted by many opposing HB187. I simply see those concerned about 'their' supposed rights and not those of others.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> You can get sued for anything.


Then why force a landowner to deal with this kind of crap?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Guns and Flies said:
> ...


Pure hyperbole. :?


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Guns and Flies said:
> 
> 
> > That's too bad you don't value public land :?
> ...


I vaguely recall a scripture where a prophet was encouraged to go to the mountains so he could communicate with The Almighty..... In your world, "sorry God, it's all private." :? You're point of view would only be taken by someone who already has enough private land locked up for personal use.


----------



## Donttreadonme (Sep 11, 2007)

My take on the whole deal.....

The original ruling (Conaster Case):

-Plainly stated that the public has a right to use a public right of way, even if it crosses private property. 
-Made it VERY clear that Stream beds are part of that public easement.
-Never defined where the public easement ends and the private property begins.
-Clearly defines what is deemed an acceptable recreational activity to utilize the public easement.


HB187:

-Clarifies and defines the stream bed
-Explains routes in case of dams or other obstructions that are in-passable while in the stream bed.
-Removes Hunting as an acceptable recreational activity.
-Denies the public access to many of the state waterways that are considered a public easement.
-Places the rights of land owners above those of the public.
-Essentially states that those who have been elected as the authority on laws in Utah (The Utah Supreme Court) didn't know what they were doing when they made the ruling on the Conaster case.

Since this is a SFW thread as well, I guess I will say again what I think of SFW as a whole.

If you are interested in making good hunting opportunities a once in a lifetime or limited to only the rich (Clubs, CWMU, etc.), support SFW. If you are a guide, you clearly want to support this because Peay and SFW are all about guides and guided hunts. Remember big $$ and world records are the goals of SFW. If you want to spur Utah's hunting in that direction, join up now. However if you would like to see a more evenly dispersed hunting opportunity for all sportsmen as well as a management plan focused on raising healthy animal herds, not necessarily the next world record, rather than $$$, stay the hell away from this organization.

The more I learn about Don Peay and SFW the more convinced I am that he would only like hunting and fishing to be accessible to the rich.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > proutdoors said:
> ...


Bear with me on this because this really confuses me. How in the hell is private property a god given right? This is a serious question because that doesn't make any sense. Also it would be a sad day if all land was privately owned IMO.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

jahan said:


> Bear with me on this because this really confuses me. How in the hell is private property a god given right? This is a serious question because that doesn't make any sense. *Also it would be a sad day if all land was privately owned IMO*.


+10000000


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> > I don't believe the Founding Fathers wanted another Europe.
> 
> 
> Pure hyperbole. :?


How so?


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I don't see much balance wanted by many opposing HB187. I simply see those concerned about 'their' supposed rights and not those of others.


I see the same thing Pro which is what made it hard for me to get into the fight against the bill. I am not sure I see private property ownership as my right but I certainly also don't see it as my right to go into property somebody else has paid for, whether I'm in a stream or walking through a pasture.


----------



## Donttreadonme (Sep 11, 2007)

jahan said:


> it would be a sad day if all land was privately owned IMO.


Not if you were a guide (Pro,CS) and owned all the land.

Seriously Pro you just sunk to an all new level in my book with your comment about not wanting any public land....I hope you were just -|\O- I will leave it at that. :shock:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Not if you were a guide (Pro,CS) and owned all the land.
> 
> Seriously Pro you just sunk to an all new level in my book with your comment about not wanting any public land....I hope you were just I will leave it at that.


When this Great Depression hits then people will be selling their property because they cannot pay the taxes or their payments so those who have money will benefit.


----------



## Donttreadonme (Sep 11, 2007)

BTW CS I was mistaken thinking it was you who are in cahoots with Pro. Sorry about that. You are right, if things get much worse those who have been wise with their money and fortunate enough to keep their jobs may have great opportunities to buy land. I hope I am one of those few.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> BTW CS I was mistaken thinking it was you who are in cahoots with Pro.


I must have missed that post.


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

When I read the Bill of Rights, you know the one the discusses the "right to bear arms"; I don't see much about private property rights. I see a hell of a lot about "individual" rights. What folks like Pro somehow fail to realize is our founding fathers HATED England and the English form of government. But there is an old saying that if you live long enough you will turn out just like your parents. Well our country's parents are England. In England they are all about only the rich being able to hunt and fish and only the rich land barons having control of who can and can't fish. Sounds sort of like HB 187 doesn't it?

Todays demolition of HB 187 was a strong statement about America and the power of individuals and the power of a grass roots effort. The defeat of HB 187 reaffirmed that in Utah we aren't ready to cower down to Don Peay and those that want only the rich and affluent to hunt and fish. This was a victory for the rank and file little guy. A victory for America and the democratic system of government.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: Nasty Don Peay and those rich people trying to protect owners private property rights. If ONLY everyone was equal in this world and we all owned the same amount of property.

My Great Great Grandfather owned most of the land around Jackson Hole until the government took it away to make an Elk Refugee. I wish we still had that land, but life isn't fair and it NEVER will be. I would be a millionaire right now


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> My Great Great Grandfather owned most of the land around Jackson Hole until the government took it away to make an Elk Refugee. I wish we still had that land, but life isn't fair and it NEVER will be. I would be a millionaire right now


 :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: Good, because now I can fish Flat Creek without having to worry about some **** in a wheel chair running me off. :lol:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Good, because now I can fish Flat Creek without having to worry about some **** in a wheel chair running me off.


 :mrgreen: Gosh I would have so much fun kicking your arse though. :lol: :lol: Half the time you would probably be running out of the water and trip over your fishing line screaming like a little girl. 
-_O- -_O- -_O- -_O-

Blackdog, I would treat you like any other varmint in Flat Creek.


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Guns and Flies said:
> 
> 
> > That's too bad you don't value public land :?
> ...


Wow... your a dandy!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

TAK said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Guns and Flies said:
> ...


Thank you! I know it is 'un-American' in today's world to be a fan of private ownership instead of public, but that is how I am.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Thank you! I know it is 'un-American' in today's world to be a fan of private ownership instead of public, but that is how I am.


Hummm........... that sounds a lot like Communism!!! :shock:

Where the he*l is this country headed?


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Why? I would rather see MORE private land and LESS public land. Just the way the Founders planned it.





> Wow... your a dandy!





> Thank you! I know it is 'un-American' in today's world to be a fan of private ownership instead of public, but that is how I am.


"Un-American" really was not what I was thinking about ya.....

Best of luck with your new business..... There sure is a lot more public people than private people around......... :idea:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Best of luck with your new business..... There sure is a lot more public people than private people around.........


 :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> > Best of luck with your new business..... There sure is a lot more public people than private people around.........
> 
> 
> :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:


No worries, people are way too tied up with the instant gratification syndrome to boycott anyone that can make it happen for them for very long!


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> > Best of luck with your new business..... There sure is a lot more public people than private people around.........
> 
> 
> :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:


 :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: and raise ya one :roll:

If ya aint got anything to say take your Jr. Conservation badge and leave!!!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

TAK said:


> coyoteslayer said:
> 
> 
> > > Best of luck with your new business..... There sure is a lot more public people than private people around.........
> ...


WOW! :?


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

"WOW" is my word... Kinda Private... Find your own!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

TAK said:


> "WOW" is my word... Kinda Private... Find your own!


WOW! :wink: :mrgreen:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> If ya aint got anything to say take your Jr. Conservation badge and leave!!!


 :lol: :lol: Your a piece of work


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> > If ya aint got anything to say take your Jr. Conservation badge and leave!!!
> 
> 
> :lol: :lol: Your a piece of work


Yup!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

WOW! Sorry, I couldn't refrain myself. I still love you TAK. :mrgreen:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

:lol: :lol:


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> WOW! Sorry, I couldn't refrain myself. I still love you TAK. :mrgreen:


You know, I thought I would give you a chance for just the fact that some of my friends thought you was an alright guy..... Well you know that white spot on top of chicken chit? Well it is chicken chit too!!!!!!


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> ...I find it exceptionally hypocritical that many of us find nothing wrong with allowing public citizens the right to walk down a sidewalk that crosses private property but allowing someone the right to recreate on a public stream/river that crosses private property to be a big no-no. Should we also allow private citizens to fence off the sidewalks where they cross their private property lines?


You clearly don't know much about property lines revelent to city sidewalks...Most property lines in most cities stop at the side walk or in many cases a foot in towards the house. Therefore the sidewalk and parkstrip are on public property. FYI.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

All y'all ****ers settle down. A friendly reminder from the immoderate moderator. :mrgreen:


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

TAK, come on little buddy, don't you have anything intelligent to say about this subject? Partial sentences and insults didn't go too far...I want to hear what you think.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

TAK said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > WOW! Sorry, I couldn't refrain myself. I still love you TAK. :mrgreen:
> ...


WOW!


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> TAK, come on little buddy, don't you have anything intelligent to say about this subject? Partial sentences and insults didn't go too far...I want to hear what you think.


Boy do I have something to say about this... But a Wii bit scared to do so! You know with the mention of Peay, SFW, walking through some dudes house, Pro doing what he does and then you have the guy pulling the Jr. CO Badge out..... It just down right freaks me out! And to boot do you think anyone would happen to listen to logic?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

TAK said:


> And to boot do you think anyone would happen to listen to logic?


Try something new, use logic. You may be surprised by the results. :shock: WOW! :mrgreen:


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

jahan said:


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


I am quoting myself because my question was never answered, plus it is fun to quote yourself. :mrgreen:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: Tak it's to early to be drinking.


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

Just an FYI to you bwhntr, since YOU are so uneducated about the subject. HB 187 was attemp to give landowners the right to post *PUBLIC* stretches of water that were within 500, then later after amendment 6, 150 feet from the streams. So yes it IS the same as making it legal to post a sidewalk private.


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> TAK said:
> 
> 
> > And to boot do you think anyone would happen to listen to logic?
> ...


Your right... If anyone post something you don't agree on you badger or brow beat them into submission...

Sorry, I do not want more PRIVATE as you do....

And the "WOW" thing you just don't say it in the right tone... It is an art, and son you just aint got it!


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> Just an FYI to you bwhntr, since YOU are so uneducated about the subject. HB 187 was attemp to give landowners the right to post *PUBLIC* stretches of water that were within 500, then later after amendment 6, 150 feet from the streams. So yes it IS the same as making it legal to post a sidewalk private.


I think he understands it... But you need to know him. He is all about personal self worth. He would be very much happy to have all of the US private. He is a bit of a control freak, he would love to control any and all access.....


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

jahan said:


> jahan said:
> 
> 
> > proutdoors said:
> ...


I did answer it my friend, it must of just went over your head. :wink: The ability of having/controlling private property is essential to being a free people, and since it is a God given right for every human to be free, having the ability to own/control private property (which entails much more than just land) is a God given right. Now, a government can squash that right through unjust means, but it is still a right. A government cannot issue a single right, they can only grant privileges. On the Creator can issue rights, and a government can imprison a people by ignoring those rights. God gave me the RIGHT to free thought, but in oppressive regimes they try and control ones thoughts. In fact, doing away with private property is one of the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Pro, you forgot several "in my opinions". Just a heads up.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

TAK said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > TAK said:
> ...


WOW! Is this using that 'logic' stuff again? :shock:


Treehugnhuntr said:


> Pro, you forgot several "in my opinions". Just a heads up.


That should be a given, since EVERYTHING I say is "in my opinion". :? :roll: :mrgreen:


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

It was for clarity's sake. Not all are capable of making that assumption. :mrgreen:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> It was for clarity's sake. Not all are capable of making that assumption. :mrgreen:


Your assumption is correct.........in my opinion.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

bwhntr said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > ...I find it exceptionally hypocritical that many of us find nothing wrong with allowing public citizens the right to walk down a sidewalk that crosses private property but allowing someone the right to recreate on a public stream/river that crosses private property to be a big no-no. Should we also allow private citizens to fence off the sidewalks where they cross their private property lines?
> ...


Sorry but you are the one that is wrong. There are many styles of side walks as well as easments. Some sidewalks fall under your description and some do not. If I understood "W2U", there is a dual responsibility for the sidewalk (and park strip). The government has easment title but you are responsible for it.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> bwhntr said:
> 
> 
> > wyoming2utah said:
> ...


You are responsible for it, but in reality you do NOT own/control it. More often than not the park strip area is where the utilities are buried, and if they want to dig them up, you have no say. They also more often than not tell you what you can put in the park strip as far as vegetation, gravel, cement, etc.. Look at your property lines, I'm guessing you do NOT own the land in the park strip, but you are required to maintain it. I do not own the sidewalk, but I am required to keep the snow cleared off of it.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Bingo! You are correct Pro, there are some exceptions but the majority of the time you do not own the sidewalk and parkstrip.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

TAK said:


> flyguy7 said:
> 
> 
> > Just an FYI to you bwhntr, since YOU are so uneducated about the subject. HB 187 was attemp to give landowners the right to post *PUBLIC* stretches of water that were within 500, then later after amendment 6, 150 feet from the streams. So yes it IS the same as making it legal to post a sidewalk private.
> ...


Well, I don't know about "control freak". TAK, why did you just buy 5 acres? Why didn't you just buy a little 1/8 acre lot next to a park or mountain side? Are you greedy? Are you a control freak? If I see a chukar on your land can I just walk on through and shoot it? (actually I probably could because it would be one I gave you!) It is a publically owned chukar after all...Now, when I leave your gate opened and the dogs are running through town, or my empty shell casings and beer cans in your yard, are you still ok with that?


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> Well, I don't know about "control freak". TAK, why did you just buy 5 acres? Why didn't you just buy a little 1/8 acre lot next to a park or mountain side? Are you greedy? Are you a control freak? If I see a chukar on your land can I just walk on through and shoot it? (actually I probably could because it would be one I gave you!) It is a publically owned chukar after all...Now, when I leave your gate opened and the dogs are running through town, or my empty shell casings and beer cans in your yard, are you still ok with that?


 :? _(O)_ I'm guessing that he would not be okay with leaving the gate open.


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Guns and Flies said:
> 
> 
> > That's too bad you don't value public land :?
> ...


You've got to be on a fishing trip Pro. Well, maybe not.

Private property definitely increases opportunity for hunters in general as well as areas to hunt and fish. 
With all the positive changes with hunting and fishing over the past few years, there definitely needs to be more area that is off limits to hunting and fishing for the general public. Make it limited to the very few, it only makes good sense.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I did answer it my friend, it must of just went over your head. :wink: The ability of having/controlling private property is essential to being a free people, and since it is a God given right for every human to be free, having the ability to own/control private property (which entails much more than just land) is a God given right. Now, a government can squash that right through unjust means, but it is still a right. A government cannot issue a single right, they can only grant privileges. On the Creator can issue rights, and a government can imprison a people by ignoring those rights. God gave me the RIGHT to free thought, but in oppressive regimes they try and control ones thoughts. In fact, doing away with private property is one of the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx.


I personally prefer large chunks of public land that can be used, than a whole bunch of tiny pieces of property that the general public can not use unless they have the cash. I still stand by my statement that it would be a sad day if all land was privately owned. I can see some of your points Pro, but it is an opinion based off of what might happen and fear. Do you really think the government would take away the right to access and use public land? I know they can turn it into refuges and Wilderness areas, but you can still access it. Like I said I agree with some of what you say, but I may be naive, but I don't see the issue or fear.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

jahan said:


> I personally prefer large chunks of public land that can be used, than a whole bunch of tiny pieces of property that the general public can not use unless they have the cash. I still stand by my statement that it would be a sad day if all land was privately owned. I can see some of your points Pro, but it is an opinion based off of what might happen and fear. Do you really think the government would take away the right to access and use public land? I know they can turn it into refuges and Wilderness areas, but you can still access it. Like I said I agree with some of what you say, but I may be naive, but I don't see the issue or fear.


They do it all the time now, it's not a matter of when they may do it, it's a matter of when they WILL do it AGAIN. Look at the special interest groups pushing for land status to be changed to LIMIT the public access to the land and its resources. They can/do what they want with land they own/control, including taking away your 'right' to access/use it.


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> jahan said:
> 
> 
> > I personally prefer large chunks of public land that can be used, than a whole bunch of tiny pieces of property that the general public can not use unless they have the cash. I still stand by my statement that it would be a sad day if all land was privately owned. I can see some of your points Pro, but it is an opinion based off of what might happen and fear. Do you really think the government would take away the right to access and use public land? I know they can turn it into refuges and Wilderness areas, but you can still access it. Like I said I agree with some of what you say, but I may be naive, but I don't see the issue or fear.
> ...


What is the difference to "Joe Sportsman" who closes off what if its closed to hunting and fishing eitherway?

The difference to me is that there *IS* public land that I hunt and fish regularly. 
There is *very little* private land that I can hunt and fish due to all the competitiveness and that I dont/won't pay a landowner anything to hunt. I only offer help around the farm, my time, or share what I've harvested.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

PRO..... So you would be cool with a gate and padlock across the road in to the Dutton??
Yellowstone??? Grand Canyon???

I thank the lord that Teddy Roosevelt came so long ago.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> jahan said:
> 
> 
> > I personally prefer large chunks of public land that can be used, than a whole bunch of tiny pieces of property that the general public can not use unless they have the cash. I still stand by my statement that it would be a sad day if all land was privately owned. I can see some of your points Pro, but it is an opinion based off of what might happen and fear. Do you really think the government would take away the right to access and use public land? I know they can turn it into refuges and Wilderness areas, but you can still access it. Like I said I agree with some of what you say, but I may be naive, but I don't see the issue or fear.
> ...


Let me put it this way, I have opportunities right now to hunt on 100,000's of acres in Utah currently. I don't see that going away anytime soon. I will also tell you I don't have access to 100,000's of acres of land that is privately owned and more than likely never will because I don't have the money to play that game. I also don't agree that the founding fathers wanted all land to be privately owned. I wish I had the money to buy a large chunk of land then I would never have to worry about it, but since that will likely never happen I just have to have hope that our public lands stays public.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

Good thoughts by all. Pro is right, public land is taken, look at the otherwise public that that is being included in CWMU's. I like the language on these land tags, You can access this land to recreate in any activity except hunting. Why would anyone recreate on these areas for anything other than hunting? They wouldn't, that's why in my opinion it is such a farce.


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> They do it all the time now, it's not a matter of when they may do it, it's a matter of when they WILL do it AGAIN. Look at the special interest groups pushing for land status to be changed to LIMIT the public access to the land and its resources. They can/do what they want with land they own/control, including taking away your 'right' to access/use it.


 The sky is falling the sky is falling -/|\- -/|\- -/|\- -/|\- -/|\- -/|\- -/|\-

For someone who is always preaching about opportunity, you sure have made a 180. But what else is new, you use to defend Mosspack, then one of your buddies comes on here and trash talks Doyal and thats OK.

Coyoteslayer to the rescue in 3-2-1......


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> TAK said:
> 
> 
> > flyguy7 said:
> ...


How is my land having anything to do with this.... Matter of fact there is a dry creek that runs right through it on the end. I do not own it, because the last owner wants it to stay open for some day if kids want to play around and build a fort or ride a 4 wheeler there is alowed to and some pompis arse is not blocking them. 
Sure everyone is welcome, if you find a bird in the yard, go ahead and hhunt it.... I really am that way, pretty giving for the most part, just follow the laws that are in place. But the same goes don't block me from fishing something I have done for years. This water way was there long before you or I was. The fish in it, the water in it is not yours or mine but all of ours.

Ohh and when you leave could you please go ahead and take your trash and please close the gates. There are laws in place for that already..... Like you say don't make new laws enforce the ones we have....

And I got 5 acres to feed horses, and to have more than 3 animals it is a county zoning thing that you have to have 2.5 acres or more. I could have got 2.5 just across the street but it was the same price and the 5 acres....

Ohh ya my take on private land... I wish I to had lots of it just for hunting. I will never have that kind of money, so I will fight tooth and nail to keep the public land open as much as possible!

By the way Shane this summer I have a super nice place to take ya fishing now that we can fish it again with this being opened up.... Native cuts! You can use a worm if needed, but they hit the Shell Back fly so hard you will need about a dozen of them, the fly falls apart after about 70 or 80 fish! Great for taking kids, you can set them on a beaver pond and they can catch fish from sun up to sun down..... Don't know about you but I hope my kids have an opertunity as I did to enjoy the great outdoors and not only if they have a rich dad or millions to burn.....


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> PRO..... So you would be cool with a gate and padlock across the road in to the Dutton??
> Yellowstone??? Grand Canyon???
> 
> I thank the lord that Teddy Roosevelt came so long ago.





jahan said:


> I also don't agree that the founding fathers wanted all land to be privately owned. I wish I had the money to buy a large chunk of land then I would never have to worry about it, but since that will likely never happen I just have to have hope that our public lands stays public.


Pay attention my little stubborn friends; *I HAVE NEVER SAID I AND/OR THE FOUNDING FATHERS WANT ALL LAND TO BE PRIVATELY OWNED.* And people say I am hardheaded and read too much into things. WTH? :?



blackdog said:


> For someone who is always preaching about opportunity, you sure have made a 180. But what else is new, you use to defend Mosspack, then one of your buddies comes on here and trash talks Doyal and thats OK.


No 180, I am still 100% about opportunity. Me being a fan of private property is NOT being against opportunity, regardless of what you may think. Also, it is Doyle, and Mossback. Get a spellchecker, it will help but not cure your credibility. Also, when I have 'defended' Doyle and/or ALL other real people is because people relay 2nd or 3rd hand RUMORS. What stinkystomper did was relay what happened directly to him, and since I was a 1st hand witness to it, how could I disagree? FWIW, I will neither defend/attack Doyle or another public person w/o having 1st hand knowledge of the situation. I only hope you and others will follow the same ethical standard.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

So when does it cross the line to too much private? Already in the northern region it is hard to go hunting without stepping on someone. Explain if you will, if you like private property, why you wouldn't like everything to be private? If you like something, more is better generally :idea:


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Guns and Flies said:
> 
> 
> > That's too bad you don't value public land :?
> ...


Sorry Pro I must have misunderstood what you meant here.  I see you said "More' and "Less" not "all", my bad. BTW, you are the definition of stubborn you old mule. :mrgreen: :lol: :wink:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

jahan said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Guns and Flies said:
> ...


Why thank you! As the great Toby Keith says, "I'm a man of my convictions, call me wrong call me right, but I bring my better angels to every fight. Hate me if you want to, love me if you can". Words I live by! 8)


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> jahan said:
> 
> 
> > proutdoors said:
> ...


Are you hitting on me? :shock: :mrgreen: :wink: :lol:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

**** straight! *(u)* :wink:


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Tak called me...I talked real slow and now he understands what you meant about private land Pro...apparently he isn't the only one having a hard time understading! :mrgreen: 

btw TAK, I can't wait till that fishing trip, I am not a worm kind of guy, but I would love to pull out the ol fly rod for a fish or two. Maybe we can do that after our bowhunt...you know the one, the private lease I pay for that you enjoy so much BEHIND LOCKED GATES...Can't wait for them fish! :mrgreen:


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

> You are responsible for it, but in reality you do NOT own/control it.* "If I understood "W2U", there is a dual responsibility for the sidewalk (and park strip)". As I indicated in the quote, responsibility. Control, that depends on what part you are talking about. Off the sidewalk on either side I do have some limited control.* More often than not the park strip area is where the utilities are buried, and if they want to dig them up, you have no say. *You are correct, but I still have rights and they have to put back the way it was on anything the tear up.* They also more often than not tell you what you can put in the park strip as far as vegetation, gravel, cement, etc.. *It is call ordinances and that can be said for anything you do on any part of your property.* Look at your property lines, I'm guessing you do NOT own the land in the park strip, but you are required to maintain it. *Nope, don't have one.* :mrgreen: I do not own the sidewalk, but I am required to keep the snow cleared off of it.* You do not own the water and you are required to let me pass.*


The whole point was there is a dual responsibility. I can't totally cut you off and you can't totally cut me off. There are sidewalks (nothing to do with roads or parkstrips) that run through areas with easments. We each have rights concerning that sidewalk. Just because a sidewalk is in front of my house does not give me the right to keep you off. I don't own it and the property owners don't own the water.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Exactly, you can't run people off the sidewalk because you don't own it. Finally.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

bwhntr said:


> Bingo! You are correct Pro, there are some exceptions but the majority of the time you do not own the sidewalk and parkstrip.


And you don't own the water. So like the sidewalk I can't keep you off, you can't keep me off the water.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

We are really moving along now...Bingo again! Never has anyone claimed to own the water, including me. We have only been talking about the land. For future purposes I don't claim to own the deer, elk, buffalo, or any other wildlife...including all species of fish.  

Just so you know where I stand on this issue, because I don't think you do. I like the idea of opening the waters up to the public. I have said for years it would be nice to see Utah implement a high water access law. My argument is with painting all the landowners as greedy, selfish, rich, etc, etc. (Not that being rich is a bad thing). 

There are two sides to this debate, and they are both very valid. Don't dismiss the other just because you can't see past your own nose. I hunt and fish on public land...and I pay a lease to hunt and fish on private as well. I can see both sides of the argument.

There are fellow sportsmen out there that abuse OUR rights and privilages. They are ruining it for everyone, why do you think I absolutly HATE atv's? Because many have ruined my opinion for all of the atv owners. Same concept.


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> Tak called me...I talked real slow and now he understands what you meant about private land Pro...apparently he isn't the only one having a hard time understading! :mrgreen:
> 
> btw TAK, I can't wait till that fishing trip, I am not a worm kind of guy, but I would love to pull out the ol fly rod for a fish or two. Maybe we can do that after our bowhunt...you know the one, the private lease I pay for that you enjoy so much BEHIND LOCKED GATES...Can't wait for them fish! :mrgreen:


WOW!!!! You are as full of chit as the best of them! Misunderstand? Agree? Howly Chit you are on something... Again "China Red"!

Now come again on this "Behind Lock gates bowhunt" It was so short for me last year I had a hard time enjoying it! 1 day is hardly enough! But I am game if I can this year again! Glad you can afford something like that because I sure could not! So case in point without knowing you I would not even know about the place... Fact is, I just wanted to go hunting with you! Sounds like it is my pick this year on location! So save your money this is some public stuff! Matter of fact it is up around were we will go fishing! This year you will be huntin with the common folk!

By the way I think I should be paid up for a couple of years... If you would have got the ticket you would have been into that about 300 plus the insurace over the years! YOUR WELCOME!

And PRO.... I still think "WOW" about you! Keep practicing the WOW call and you'll get it someday.... Or not.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

It wasn't my fault I buy a lease for a whole year and you choose to hunt one freakin day! Idiot! I am not hunting on public land, that is stupid. You however, have another pass for this year!...Behind locked gates! :mrgreen: And you will love everyday of it.


I will go fishing there with you.


I do owe you a big thanks, THE BLUE CURTAIN WORKED IN MY FAVOR!!!!! :mrgreen: I did throw you under the bus in the process of getting out of the ticket though...I think you owe her dinner or something! :mrgreen:


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> We are really moving along now...Bingo again! Never has anyone claimed to own the water, including me. We have only been talking about the land. For future purposes I don't claim to own the deer, elk, buffalo, or any other wildlife...including all species of fish.
> 
> Just so you know where I stand on this issue, because I don't think you do. I like the idea of opening the waters up to the public. I have said for years it would be nice to see Utah implement a high water access law. My argument is with painting all the landowners as greedy, selfish, rich, etc, etc. (Not that being rich is a bad thing).
> 
> ...


IDIOT! We have been talking about water ways! The bill 187 man! Need we slow this down anymore? However I think your kin Pro took it to the land.. Or someone said about having people in your house... I guess if the river runs down your hall way... Wake up I am fishing it!

WOW!


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Hey, if the water is flowing through your hallway then you better put on your robe and answer the door they wanna fish and YOU DON'T OWN THE WATER MAN! :mrgreen:


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> It wasn't my fault I buy a lease for a whole year and you choose to hunt one freakin day! Idiot! I am not hunting on public land, that is stupid. You however, have another pass for this year!...Behind locked gates! :mrgreen: And you will love everyday of it.
> 
> I will go fishing there with you.
> 
> I do owe you a big thanks, THE BLUE CURTAIN WORKED IN MY FAVOR!!!!! :mrgreen: I did throw you under the bus in the process of getting out of the ticket though...I think you owe her dinner or something! :mrgreen:


You better believe it I will! I will have not one 4 wheeler but two of them this year! Might even get me a winch! That way I can winch me up that big ol'hill!!!!! Love that private land you can ride them any place you want! Hell how much are them trax for them things! Might not need the winch with them!!!! ZOOM ZOOM ZOOM!


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Nevermind, I just gave away the last tag...sorry.


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> Nevermind, I just gave away the last tag...sorry.


The other is for you! China Red!


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

:mrgreen: I hate them...I will bring you a horse.


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> :mrgreen: I hate them...I will bring you a horse.


You must mean my horse? Wait I know the check is in the mail.... Like I have not heard that before!


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

bwhntr said:


> We are really moving along now...Bingo again! Never has anyone claimed to own the water, including me. We have only been talking about the land. For future purposes I don't claim to own the deer, elk, buffalo, or any other wildlife...including all species of fish.
> 
> Just so you know where I stand on this issue, because I don't think you do. I like the idea of opening the waters up to the public. I have said for years it would be nice to see Utah implement a high water access law. My argument is with painting all the landowners as greedy, selfish, rich, etc, etc. (Not that being rich is a bad thing).
> 
> ...


We have also been talking about access to a two party envelope (water and ground). While we danced around in a circle I don't think we are that far apart over all.

And just in case we lost something in the translation somewhere along the line, I believe in balance. The old saying of a "win/win" is what our government should be trying to do. Anytime we get to far on either side it will always turn out bad. There is always two sides to a story. Like you talk about bad sportsman, I can show you bad land owners. But we all know their are good people and bad. I do my best to respect private property and the rights of the owner. I ask permission and I make sure that things are better than I found them. I give thanks when leaving and offer to do chores or part of the game.

I don't believe in closing things down because of a few. I believe in punishing the few not the mass. I expect law enforcement, rangers, and the DWR to do their job. We have plenty of laws on the books, but a law does no good if nobody is their to enforce it. As much money is spent on new laws were moved to enforcement, it would probably more than pay for it and we would see a better out come.

I also believe in when you tell me it is public then I as the public should have some benefit from it. I don't believe in land locked public ground. I as the general public may not have rights to a certain piece of ground, but to have a island in the middle of private ground with no offical easement is dumb. Get the easement or sale it (and this of course is the hard part. Somebody has to decide its worth to the public).

Thanks for the go around. :mrgreen:


----------



## DBCooper (Jun 17, 2008)

"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session. "
-- Mark Twain (1866)

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If 'Thou shalt not covet' and 'Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free."
-- John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787

"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

"The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society." 
-- Thomas Jefferson

"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place."
-- Frederic Bastiat

I asked a friend at work today, whose opinion I respect about HB187. He is someone who studies history and is someone who loves liberty and leans that way. He stated he was having a hard time making up his mind. Given his libertarian leanings, I was surprised by his answer that he liked having access. He loves to fish and likes the idea of having access to good fishing and if he doesn’t harm anything in the process, it seems reasonable to allow access. He did mention some of his reservations of access. 

What happens if a 1000 people a month walk across the land owners property, they collectively will do harm, as a trail will appear, even if they each individually leave only one set of footprints. 

And even if he takes care not to do any intentional damage, not everyone who loves the outdoors has the same high standards of conduct and might abuse the “privilege.” So, he could see both sides. I am trying. 

I lean towards always giving to the side of respecting the spirit and the letter of the law with regards to private property. 

If the majority of citizens had a river running through their backyard most would want to restrict access. Including you!

I also believe the poorer you are the more you will benefit from clearly defined and defended laws that protect private property. I know this sounds counter intuitive and runs counter to popular opinion. How is the hunting in Cuba and North Korea for the average comrade? I have no doubt it is quit good for the well connected and rich.

I think blurring the line of private property over time will create conflict down the road. And, a better way might exist without confrontation, courts, and the legislators. I believe courts and legislators are a last resort band-aid that when a society goes to that well to often, it is a sign of a society in decline. 

Notice I didn’t say give up. I believe that people generally want to work with others, especially if they can both benefit. I also believe in being entrepreneur in all facets of life. That’s where all the progress is made. People have a problem and they get creative and they find solutions that not only benefit themselves, but others. Hunting and fishing should be no different.

They don’t put others down; they get out and peacefully solve the problem. That’s what should make America great; the freedom to choose to work and trade with people of our own free will. And what could be confrontational, turns out to be mutual beneficial. It’s hard work! Unfortunately, people today are finding it easier to vote for a living or privilege than working for them. What the people who want access (Who bye the way are not poor, how many poor fly fishermen do you know?) didn’t like the idea of asking other “rich” people for permission and didn’t want to do the hard work of coming up with a solution. Yes, it might have involved money. Oh, no. We never involve money in sacred things like fishing. So they, like any good tyrant would do, sought to impose the will of the majority. You know, “Might makes right.”

If you measure success as, a special interest group convincing a majority of legislators and judges to go your way, your right, private property owners lost and you, the special interest won. If you measure success as people working together in mutually beneficial ways so everyone comes out feeling like they got a good deal, then this was a total failure. 

Contrary to popular belief, politicians and judges are no more noble, good, or smarter than the average Joe/Jane on the street. In fact most people who aspire to rule over other people in my mind are subject to more weaknesses. How many corrupt politicians, who are currently under investigation, will it take to drive this home? Being in their good graces is no sign of moral superiority.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> "Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place."
> -- Frederic Bastiat


Not surprising that he is one of my favorite authors of all time when it comes to 'rights' and economic thought. He wrote The Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Law_(1850_book) He was a student of the John Locke linage and what he believed/taught nearly 200 years ago is spot on today.

His "parable of the broken window" should be read by all, especially in light of the things Obama is advocating for the economy.


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

Forgive me if I am not with it, but doesn't this bill only allow you to travel in the water. You can not cross private property to get to the water. You have to enter the water from a public access correct? And then as long as you stay in the water then you are fine.


----------



## DBCooper (Jun 17, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> Not surprising that he is one of my favorite authors of all time when it comes to 'rights' and economic thought.


Many people, myself included, think he is one of, if not the greatest economist of all time.

In today's collectivists orgy he sounds like an alien. Anyone today who subscribes to his, and many of his peers beliefs on liberty, freedom, individual responsibility, sound economics, and the proper role of government, is in for some serious frustration!


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

utfireman said:


> Forgive me if I am not with it, but doesn't this bill only allow you to travel in the water. You can not cross private property to get to the water. You have to enter the water from a public access correct? And then as long as you stay in the water then you are fine.


Yes your right!


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

I don't know if anyone else noticed this but the bill also gives landowners the option of filing a civil suit for trespassing as well as being cited for a misdemeanor


> 450 "(1) Except as provided by Subsection (2), a person who touches a private bed is
> 451 subject to liability for trespass under:
> 452 (a) Section 23-20-14;
> 453 (b) Section 76-6-206;
> ...


Give me a break


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Someone give flyguy a break...


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

I'll give him a break... I think its a lame cheap shot by rep Ferry as well. I like and dislike things on both sides of this bill but stuff like the civil suit portion need to be totally discarded. Keep it a misdemeanor or just get rid of it, otherwise we have all sorts of frivolous lawsuits that pop up just because somebody had a bad day. :? I can see the "property hurt by recreationist trespassing?" ads on tv now.... One call, thats all. :roll:


----------



## springbowhunt (Sep 15, 2008)

I love how people cloud this issue with long posts and the quoting of famous authors.
I really enjoy the argument that the opening up of these waters will lead to: " Land Abuse, Trespassing, Ruining of Streams, People walking in my house"

Guess what guys? This stuff is already ILLEGAL! If that happens then turn someone in.

This bill is an attempt to do 1 thing.
GRAB PUBLIC WATERS AND LOCK THEM UP. All the time hiding behind the Protection of Private Property that is ALREADY THERE.

I will not vote again for anyone that support this bill, I will NOT support SFW any longer, I am tired of the SFW being swayed by big money people and catering to their buddies.

Please JOIN with me and pull support for your Reps and groups that support this crap.


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

I wouldn't be too concerned about Don Peay's stance on HB 187. If anything he did us a favor by being for HB 187. I was at the Capitol quite a bit during the various debates and votes. The day Don Peay was "honored" by the legislature was well orchestrated by the bill's sponsor. But the whole thing backfired. Most of the legislators could see right through the sham. Peay opening up his pie hole and saying he supported the bill actually worked to our benefit. It was so phony and premeditated most legislators figured it out immediately and obviously weren't swayed. In fact a number of them viewed it as phony window dressing.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

springbowhunt said:


> I will not vote again for anyone that support this bill, I will NOT support SFW any longer, I am tired of the SFW being swayed by big money people and catering to their buddies.
> 
> Please JOIN with me and pull support for your Reps and groups that support this crap.


How mature. :roll: Can you name one other org that is fighting the wolf issue more than SFW? I guess you want hunting done away with, because if the wolf lovers get their way it will be gone with a generation. :evil: Sportsman indeed. -)O(-


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

If Peay could pimp a wolf tag for $100k, there would be no fight from SFW.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

blackdog said:


> If Peay could pimp a wolf tag for $100k, there would be no fight from SFW.


Good call. :? :roll:


----------



## Oak (Mar 10, 2009)

proutdoors said:


> Can you name one other org that is fighting the wolf issue more than SFW?


Pro, can you tell me exactly what SFW is doing about the wolf issue? I looked on their website and couldn't find anything.


----------



## devilsadvocate2 (Mar 10, 2009)

Im dumbfounded that I have been able to keep my mouth shut this long. Howver now that I am breaking the silence I am gonna touch on many very questionable aspects of the various responses to this issue, 

1. Who is god and what gave him or her the right to have the deciding opinion on this issue?

2. When our forefathers came to this country was it not to escape the ruling of the rich and entitled?

3. If we go to the core of the question, human rights, is it not the law of the jungle that the strongest will survive?

4. Prior to humans making "money" valuable was not the land the most valuable asset to a "community"?

5. When deciding community was it not the strongest that led the decisions for the group?

6. When idivuals did not agree with the democracy and or the leadership were they not allowed to rebel?

7. All of these questions can be reiterated based on todays laws and rules/expectations. Openly deciding that you do not want to comply with the leading force just means that you are willing to either surrender or fight the only way you know how.

8. Is there a reasonable answer that will allow all sportsmen to agree on the outcome or resolution? I seriously doubt it, that is why we are all entitled to our opinions. however as we have migrated from the original position of "only the strongest will survive" we have accepted the fact that we will accomodate the general ruling of those we have "allowed" to be in charge. Does that make their decisions right? Or wrong? What it makes us is a group of individuals that whether consciously or unconsciously have agreed to abide by the rule that we have accepted as law.

9. Whether we agree with it or not we have grown into a world that accepts the fact we do what we arfe told is acceptable "legal". Does that make it right for all of us?

I realize that I am just tossing BS to the wind, and now I will state my own position on this and any other issue that involves private property.

As a free american I believe I have the right to come and go as I please. To kill game and or travel when and where I wish. I believe that I should have access to any and every acre of land within the borders of the united states, including your front and back yards.

I do not believe I have the right to enter your domicile. I also do not believe I have the right to destroy the earth by littering and tearing up the countryside.

Is there a god? Who am I to say? If there is and all the things that are happening in this world today are his ultimate plan or acceptance of mankinds self indulgence, then I would also have to accept that he accepts tresspassing as the will of the people. 

Finally, I am quite sure that my post will either bring complete denial or absolute disagreement to this string, however it is meant only as food for thought.

DA


----------



## springbowhunt (Sep 15, 2008)

"How mature can you name one thing any other group has done to fight wolves?"

Wow that has a lot to do with HB 187, thanks for bringing that up Pro. While we are talking about Wolves....can you name one thing that SFW has done about Diabetes? Huh can you? Nice diversion tactic there buddy.

Typical response from a SFW supporter.

Don Peays support of HB 187 was a joke, and recognized by all intelligent people as an attempt to snuggle up to rich landowners that want to take away our streams. PERIOD. Do some reading and see how many people saw through his little parade at the capital. It was a slap in the face of all Sportsmen. 
Thanks goodness for Duck Hunters, Fishermen, and Water Shed Protectors. 

Pro, 
Come on man, wake up! Quit defending, pay attention, and quit trying to change the topic.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

springbowhunt said:


> Pro,
> Come on man, wake up! Quit defending, pay attention, and quit trying to change the topic.


Not changing the subject. I am saying to call for a boycott of SFW over ONE issue when there are MANY issues SFW is the leader in fighting for/against that benefit sportsmen is unwise and short-sighted. That IS the topic that I did NOT bring up, but I DID respond to. :?


----------



## springbowhunt (Sep 15, 2008)

Pro,

My point is this:
Donny made a big deal just to attract the high dollar hunter that he and SFW cater to. If he and SFW really support this bill, then they are NOT for the Sportsmen of this state.

They are squarely in the corner of the people who want to lock us out of OUR land.

Say what you want about Wolves, habitat, etc, but they are not on our side period.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

springbowhunt said:


> Pro,
> 
> My point is this:
> Donny made a big deal just to attract the high dollar hunter that he and SFW cater to. If he and SFW really support this bill, then they are NOT for the Sportsmen of this state.
> ...


And I STRONGLY disagree! They have done a pile of work that is a direct benefit to YOU and me as well as the "high dollar hunter". Just because you don't like SFW or the founder of the org, does NOT make your opinion accurate.


----------



## springbowhunt (Sep 15, 2008)

Hb 187 limits access.
SFW president peay is all for it. I do not care if him and I were best buddies, I would no longer support the SFW. 
I am surprised that you turn a blind eye to it. 
I know you are smart enough to see this for what it is, you just do not have the fortitude to call it out.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

:roll:


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> springbowhunt said:
> 
> 
> > Pro,
> ...


They have done projects for big game and high dollar "hunters". What, they bought up some land and made it "mule deer friendly"? They do NOTHING for fisherman. Find something and prove us wrong Pro. Really, i would like to see what they have done. While your at it, for everything you can find, match it with a project that directly benefits big game and high dollar "hunters". I figure 1,000 to 1 for big game projects. Their name should be SBPH(Sportsman For Big Pocket Hunters). :roll:


----------



## Oak (Mar 10, 2009)

Oak said:


> Pro, can you tell me exactly what SFW is doing about the wolf issue? I looked on their website and couldn't find anything.


Ok Pro, I'm going to let you off the hook. You can stop looking for the answer, because it was a trick question. Don Peay and SFW can't do anything about the wolf problem, because it is a federally listed species with very clear criteria that must be met for delisting to occur. The USFWS attempted to delist wolves last year without providing evidence to prove that all of those criteria had been met and Molley slapped them down, just like any judge should have done.

The definition of wolf population viability and recovery states ''Thirty breeding pairs of wolves (defined as an adult male and an adult female that raise at least 2 pups until December 31 of the year of their birth), comprising some +300 individuals in a metapopulation *with some genetic exchange between subpopulations*, for three successive years.'' The USFWS failed to provide evidence of genetic exchange, even though the evidence existed. They have now included that evidence and the delisting process is moving forward.

Let me say that I think delisting is overdue, and the states need to start managine wolves as soon as possible. Delisting will occur at the snail's pace of the bureaucratic government machine. It doesn't matter how much lobbying, muscle-flexing, or pandering Don Peay does on the issue. Paying for him to "fight" for delisting is a colossal waste of time and conservation money. But I'm sure that when delisting occurs, Peay will be the first to slap his own back for a job well done. And I'm sure that he will have plenty of SFW members who can't think for themselves following in lockstep.

I'm sorry for letting Pro get me off the topic of this thread....which is how Don Peay threw Utah sportsmen under the bus to appease landowners in the state.


----------



## springbowhunt (Sep 15, 2008)

Oak,
Beautiful Post!


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

Oak, impressive! Very!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

TAK said:


> Oak, impressive! Very!


Agreed. It's impressive that someone can be so blind. :shock:


----------



## springbowhunt (Sep 15, 2008)

Pro,
It is impressive that you are so blind, we hope you will get the SFW LOVE BLINDERS off and start seeing the truth.
Nothing worse than someone who refuses to acknowledge the obvious, and Pro that is where you are at, I still believe you know better.

SFW's support of HB 187 has shown us all their true character.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Let's see, SFW has raised MILLIONS that have been used to improve habitat that has benefited ALL wildlife species in Utah. They have helped re-introduce bighorn sheep, desert bighorn sheep, mountain goats, moose, and turkeys into many parts of the state that all sportsmen, both hunters and non-hunters alike, get to enjoy. They have lobbied very successfully for added funding both at the state and federal levels for ALL wildlife species in Utah, INCLUDING fish. They are at the front of the fight against the wolf lovers who want to end ALL hunting, and if you think they will stop there and not go after fishing once that goal is accomplished you're kidding yourself. They have helped fund atty's fighting the anti-hunting crowd to allow wolves to be managed instead of allowed to destroy THOUSANDS of wildlife species. If you think the courts and/or Obama admin has started the process toward allowing wolf populations to be managed you're beyond delusional. It has cost MILLIONS to fight the pro-wolf anti-wildlife crowd. How much have YOU ponied up to for the fight? SFW does more for fish than a lot of you guys care to admit, and ONE **** issue does not make them the enemy! If you want to run them out of town, you'll get the same ill effects you're starting to see with BAD judicial rulings on PRIVATE property access here in Utah.

So, who is being blind and/or short-sighted? :?


----------



## Oak (Mar 10, 2009)

proutdoors said:


> It has cost MILLIONS to fight the pro-wolf anti-wildlife crowd.


So back to my original question: What exactly has this "millions" been spent on? Who spent it, and where did the money come from? I think you're making stuff up again.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Oak said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > It has cost MILLIONS to fight the pro-wolf anti-wildlife crowd.
> ...


Did you not read my previous post? :? Lawyers are not cheap, nor is lobbying politicians to get wildlife friendly legislation introduced passed. The money came from sportsmen groups, SFW being a MAJOR part of that. Do a little research on the subject before calling me a liar! :evil:


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

and you have claimed not to be a hypocrite in the past as well, Pro...
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15070


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> and you have claimed not to be a hypocrite in the past as well, Pro...
> viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15070


Please explain your line of thinking to this slow hillbilly. :? What am I missing?


----------



## Oak (Mar 10, 2009)

proutdoors said:


> Lawyers are not cheap, nor is lobbying politicians to get wildlife friendly legislation introduced passed. The money came from sportsmen groups, SFW being a MAJOR part of that. Do a little research on the subject before calling me a liar! :evil:


You know darn well how many times I and others have asked Don for how much money is being spent on what. He's not forthright with the information. So I asked you for the information for two reasons: 1) you claim to know how much money has been spent and how it was spent, and 2) you show an interest in changing people's opinions about SFW. I have been told that if I want the information then I can submit a GRAMA request with the state. Personally, I don't understand why a non-profit group that would seem to want more members and more support would also be so secretive about how they want to spend the money. Regardless, I've filed the GRAMA request and hope to have some answers in a couple of weeks. I'm not expecting much, because I'm sure that Peay is well-connected enough with the UDWR that the burden of proof regarding how the money is spent is pretty weak.

And by the way, the stuff you metioned in the quote above has nothing to do with wolf delisting. Either you still don't understand how the delisting process works, or you are intentionally steering the subject away from your initial claims about money being spent on delisting. Not calling you a liar, I'm just saying that you seem to have a hard time staying on subject.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Oak , Spring bow and DA2,, 

Glad to see all 3 of you guy's joining the forum with GREAT post's, I like seeing different
opinion's that are well thought out. Good on you guy's and welcome aboard.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Oak , Spring bow and DA2,,
> 
> Glad to see all 3 of you guy's joining the forum with GREAT post's, I like seeing different
> opinion's that are well thought out. Good on you guy's and welcome aboard.


+1


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Oak said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > It has cost MILLIONS to fight the pro-wolf anti-wildlife crowd.
> ...


Last I checked, Pro never claimed to be a SFW accountant.... but you really seem to have a hard on for that wolf issue. Isn't this thread about SFW and their support for HB187? It appears to be you who continue to stray off topic with YOUR well thought out posts, not Pro trying to be misleading. I'd guess he's been a member of SFW long enough that he has a pretty good idea of what money goes where even if he can't account for the tons of money that SFW raises for all sorts of projects. Even I'm willing to admit that they do a lot for wildlife, even if I don't always agree with their position on issues or their distribution of monies donated by their members. I agree with Pro that being on the opposite side of the fence on one issue regarding fishing doesn't make them a bad group, but thats what all the extremist "its our right to wreck your ground" fishing advocates would have us all believe. You think I'm out in left field with that comment? Read Wyogoobs and Garyfish's posts in the General Fishing forum. Honestly.... can you explain how wolf delisting has any application to our fishing access here in Utah? Or explain exactly how much money you've donated to the cause to overturn HB 187? Could it be that rather than discuss SFW and their position on HB187, you're trying to divert attention away from the fact that they do a ton more for wildlife than any one of us will ever do individually, regardless of where they stand on one fishing related bill? Inquiring minds would like to know, since you're holding everyone else to a report of their annual or even gross accounting of their money spent on wildlife. Thanks.... I won't hold my breath waiting for your answer. :roll:


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Oak said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Lawyers are not cheap, nor is lobbying politicians to get wildlife friendly legislation introduced passed. The money came from sportsmen groups, SFW being a MAJOR part of that. Do a little research on the subject before calling me a liar! :evil:
> ...


Does he?? I don't recall him claiming to have that knowledge.



Oak said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Lawyers are not cheap, nor is lobbying politicians to get wildlife friendly legislation introduced passed. The money came from sportsmen groups, SFW being a MAJOR part of that. Do a little research on the subject before calling me a liar! :evil:
> ...


And... he's told you... generally. Again, he never claimed to be the SFW accountant but I'm sure there are newsletters, word of mouth through officers of the organization that give a general accounting of what the groups money is going towards. You've submitted your GRAMA request.... so your point on harping on Pro about exact dollar amounts is what? Now that your request is in the pipeline and everything? Sorry, just trying to follow your motivation here and it seems to be sinking into the sand instead of having a real clear destination. :?



Oak said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > *Lawyers are not cheap, nor is lobbying politicians to get wildlife friendly legislation introduced passed*. The money came from sportsmen groups, SFW being a MAJOR part of that. Do a little research on the subject before calling me a liar! :evil:
> ...


It doesn't have anything to do with wolf delisting? Wouldn't that be "wildlife friendly legislation"? Why are you intentionally steering the topic away from SFW and their support for HB187? Is it because you honestly don't give a rats behind about HB187 but you really think you've got a valid bone to pick with SFW because they might not do other things your way? And on your last statement.... ummm hello pot, this is kettle calling.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

RR77, i find it entertaining that you and a couple select others ALWAYS agree with Pro. Little sheeple. lol
SFW is being bashed on because their true colors have shown in recent events. Their "official" name is not accurate. They do NOTHING for fish like i stated in a previous post but Pro wouldn't reply to me. You are all about taking land(and water) away, helping out the rich wanna be hunters, and raising money for who the hell knows what. I haven't seen a sign anywhere that said "this project was made possible by SFW" They mean nothing to me but money hungry bastages. And, you still can't give me ONE **** bit of evidence they have done anything for fisherman. Where is it Rat and Pro?????? You are loosing ground as fast as you think you are gaining it being sheeple.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

lunkerhunter2 said:


> RR77, i find it entertaining that you and a couple select others ALWAYS agree with Pro. Little sheeple. lol


You just lost what little credibility you had with this inane comment. RR77 and I rarely agree on ANYTHING. Just because we mostly agree on this ONE subject you call him a sheeple? That exposes how blinded you are to what is reality on the subject. Get your emotions in check and then maybe we can have a rational conversation. I am sure I could dig through the numbers and come up with a dollar amount for you, but that would take hours and would not change your opinion in any way, so why go through the effort? The info is there for YOU to glean through if YOU truly want to know specifics. WTH would I do it for you? You hate SFW over ONE issue, and others say that SFW does only harm for wildlife and sportsmen, which is the epitome of cutting off your nose despite your face.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> You just lost what little credibility you had with this inane comment. RR77 and I rarely agree on ANYTHING.


I was thinking the same thing. I even thought that RR77 was not in favor of the bill yet you where. :?


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

lunkerhunter2 said:


> *RR77, i find it entertaining that you and a couple select others ALWAYS agree with Pro. Little sheeple. lol*
> SFW is being bashed on because their true colors have shown in recent events. Their "official" name is not accurate. They do NOTHING for fish like i stated in a previous post but Pro wouldn't reply to me. You are all about taking land(and water) away, helping out the rich wanna be hunters, and raising money for who the hell knows what. I haven't seen a sign anywhere that said "this project was made possible by SFW" They mean nothing to me but money hungry bastages. And, you still can't give me ONE **** bit of evidence they have done anything for fisherman. Where is it Rat and Pro?????? You are loosing ground as fast as you think you are gaining it being sheeple.


I would go back and look at some posts then rethink that statement, boy I am laughing my ass off at that statement. There have been some classic debates between these two. **** you RR77 you can never agree with Pro, EVER! :roll: :lol: BTW good posts by everyone.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

weatherby25 said:


> > You just lost what little credibility you had with this inane comment. RR77 and I rarely agree on ANYTHING.
> 
> 
> I was thinking the same thing. I even thought that RR77 was not in favor of the bill yet you where. :?


I wasn't in favor of the bill in its current state but I wouldn't be entirely against a bill defining access and clarifying the Supreme Court decision. I do think landowners have some inherent rights because they are landowners that are being passed over in favor of giving anglers access to whatever water they want to fish. SFW being on the side of landowners.... well, it appears that might be the case but like Garyfish said in the fishing forums, landowners have some of the most pristine environments for animals to survive.... with SFW in favor of bigger animals and doing whatever they can to better hunting opportunities for those animals, why wouldn't they want to show some sort of support for landowners in this regard? I'm no SFW member so I can't tell you what they have or haven't done for fish or fishermen but there appear to be a lot of projects they do in favor of the public and our access to wildlife so like everyone keeps saying, one issue that you don't agree with them on doesn't make them a bad group. Like everyone else said, Pro and I usually can find something to debate about.... :lol: but in this particular instance, I can see things from his point of view. That is usually the case in other situations too but then we'd have nothing to talk about.


----------



## Oak (Mar 10, 2009)

RR77, I don't recall addressing you in any of my previous posts, but I'll answer your questions. It is kinda cute how you've got Pro's back. I get the mental image of you serenading him with Dionne Warwick's "That's What Friends Are For." 

Yes, Pro does know how many times I and others have asked Don for an accounting. That horse has been flogged many times on other forums, and Pro was involved.

Actually it was Pro that brought up the wolf issue, to divert the topic away from HB 187. Second post, page 17 if you don't believe me. I'll admit that I was the sucker that fell for his scam, and I apologize for continuing the thread on the wrong track. I honestly don't "have a hard on" for the wolf issue. I would say that better describes the SFW membership, as Pro has pointed out. And I'm not asking Pro for a complete accounting of how the money was spent. I would just like to hear ONE SPECIFIC _example_ of what he's talking about when he said:



> Lawyers are not cheap, nor is lobbying politicians to get wildlife friendly legislation introduced passed.


That quote was made in reference to wolf delisting. If you can't follow the conversation and see that we were discussing wolves (because PRO brought it up), then I can't help you. All I was ASKING for was the name of the legislation that was passed with the help of SFW that is helping get wolves delisted. I suspect that it doesn't exist and Pro was just changing the wolf subject because he didn't have a good argument for backing up what he said. That's cool...but admit it when you're called on it, rather than waiting for your cronies to ride to the rescue with more diversions.

You are right, I should just wait for the results of the GRAMA request. I probably should have stayed out of this thread, but it's hard to ignore the BS when you realize that there may be people out there who can't recognize it.

On the original topic of this thread: If Don Peay did not agree that Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife should fight HB 187, the least he should have done is stay out of the fight all together. To support that legislation and give it the backing of the SFW membership was to throw sportsmen and women under the bus. That's a fact.

If I'm not going to get any truthful answers to my questions, I'm done answering your questions. Hopefully there are at least a few readers who can see through the BS screen you guys continually throw up every time somebody asks you the tough questions.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Oak said:


> *RR77, I don't recall addressing you in any of my previous posts, but I'll answer your questions. It is kinda cute how you've got Pro's back. I get the mental image of you serenading him with Dionne Warwick's "That's What Friends Are For."
> *You have had some good posts, but this one paragraph shows you are way off. First of all I don't think these two have ever met. Second it use to be almost a daily occurrence that these two would argue. So how is it that RR77 is Pro best bud, when he agrees with a post on time and in fact they are not even in total agreement. This is almost comical how off you are on this. :lol: _(O)_
> Yes, Pro does know how many times I and others have asked Don for an accounting. That horse has been flogged many times on other forums, and Pro was involved.
> 
> ...


I think SFW has done a lot for wildlife, but I think they also have some selfish agenda's. In my opinion they should be 100% transparent on what they spend their money on that way you shouldn't have anyone accusing you of not using the money towards wildlife. They may disagree with what it is used for, but at least they can say X amount of dollars were used toward wolves and here is the total breakdown. JMO


----------



## Oak (Mar 10, 2009)

Yeah, I got from the other posts that they are not the best of friends...I was just trying to make a joke to lighten the mood. Maybe I should be more serious? :?: :wink:


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Oak said:


> Yeah, I got from the other posts that they are not the best of friends...I was just trying to make a joke to lighten the mood. Maybe I should be more serious? :?: :wink:


Sorry, it went right over my head and no **** midget jokes from anyone either.   :mrgreen:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Oak, first off I have no idea who you are and how many times you've asked for anything. If you're on other sites you are using either a different user name here or I don't recall discussing anything with you. Second, my point of bringing up the wolf issue is because someone said they were anti-SFW because of ONE issue and I was merely pointing out some of the MANY good things SFW does for ALL sportsmen, you/me included. i do NOT sit on the SFW Board of Directors, so I have no better avenue than you for specific info. third, I have NEVER ducked from a good debate, if you know me from other sites you already know that, so stop acting as if I am. :roll: Fourth, I am a sportsman who loves to hunt AND fish as much as I can. Just because you and I disagree on this issue and perhaps many others, does NOT mean there has to be animosity between us. Look at me and RR77, we have good debates all the time, and yet I am confident we would enjoy each others company on a river/stream/mountain. Maybe you and I could as well, but not when I am being called less than honest or a coward or the enemy.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> Look at me and RR77, we have good debates all the time, and yet I am confident we would enjoy each others company on a river/stream/mountain.


 :shock: WOW :shock: _/O I never had any idea. :wink: :lol:


----------



## Oak (Mar 10, 2009)

Pro, I don't disagree with anything you just said.

The problem comes when people state things as facts, and then can't back them up when asked to prove it. Maybe you should have said, "I've heard that SFW is spending a lot of money on the wolf issue, but I really have no idea if it's true or not." That's believable. But when you state it as a fact, and then plead ignorance when questioned about it, because "I don't sit on the board of directors," it makes it sound like you're making stuff up.

If I told you that I spent $1 million on habitat improvements here in Colorado last year, would you believe me? How about if I asked you to donate a guided hunt for me to auction off, so that I could pay for more improvements this year? Would you take me at my word that I've already spent that much money, and have already done great things? Let's say that your donated hunt is just about the best elk hunt out there, and I get $200,000 for it. Would you be happy if my accounting back to you showed that I put $30,000 of that money into habitat work? Sure, that $30,000 of work was good, but wouldn't you be asking me why more didn't hit the ground?

People who are questioning SFW about their expenditures are not necessarily against the organization, and do not necessarily think that they are doing no good. The real question they are asking is, "Am I getting my money's worth?" If you go to the SFW website or listen to Don Peay for five minutes, you hear about millions being spent on wildlife. But when asked for an accounting of exactly how the money is spent, they give the standard answer of "Shut up and trust us." Sorry, that just doesn't cut it for some people. And a non-profit organization should be as transparent as a window. There really should be NO secrets when it comes to the books.

I don't doubt your dedication to the sport, that's for sure. I just question your apparent blind loyalty to SFW.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> lunkerhunter2 said:
> 
> 
> > RR77, i find it entertaining that you and a couple select others ALWAYS agree with Pro. Little sheeple. lol
> ...


My bad, from what i have seen in the small amount of time on here that is what i saw or thought i saw. My apologies to RR77. 
I am genuinely asking for some dollar amounts and projects SFW has done specifically for fish. I have not found anything. By-products of big game improvements are just that. Results of the big game project. Please provide just 1 project for fishing that is legitimate. All i ask.
You know, i agree with you about Obama Bin Laden almost 100% of the time. I hate him and his "people" with a passion and hope he only gets 1 term OR LESS! I just have to argue with you on the access issue. We clearly are on opposite sides of the fence. That will never change. 8)


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

Oak said:


> The problem comes when people state things as facts, and then can't back them up when asked to prove it. *Maybe you should have said, "I've heard that SFW is spending a lot of money on the wolf issue, but I really have no idea if it's true or not."* That's believable. But when you state it as a fact, and then plead ignorance when questioned about it, because "I don't sit on the board of directors," it makes it sound like you're making stuff up..


Ohh... don't get him going on "Word of mouth", or "rumor"... this is a guy of the "I'llbackyoutilImoveanotherdirection" tribe, yes the same guy telling the tales of ranchers " I know a few horse ranchers who make as many mustangs disappear as possible every chance they get." (insert WOW! here) He has more than once said that he would not say anything that he did not see or witness with his own baby blues! Either he knows this as "fact", or he is making this stuff up? HOPE, that he is just making it up... there is Fed. laws against this sort of stuff! :idea:


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

weatherby25 said:


> > Look at me and RR77, we have good debates all the time, and yet I am confident we would enjoy each others company on a river/stream/mountain.
> 
> 
> :shock: WOW :shock: _/O I never had any idea. :wink: :lol:


Oh no you don't..... lets not get this train totally derailed... keep at least one wheel on the tracks. :lol:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Oak said:


> I don't doubt your dedication to the sport, that's for sure. I just question your apparent blind loyalty to SFW.


You don't know me very well at all. First you accuse RR77 as being a PRO supporter, now you accuse me of blind loyalty to SFW. Maybe you should ask them if that is the case. I am vocal when I disagree with them and when I disagree with them. I just take issue when people say they are bad for fishermen and hunters across the board. I have seen first hand MANY projects that were funded by the monies you call into question, I've been there getting my hands dirty helping wildlife. If bashing SFW makes you all feel better go for it. I had a good talk today with a gentleman in the RMEF booth about people being against conservation groups because they disagree about one or two issues and ignore the MANY things the group(s) do that are positive. I admitted I dropped out of RMEF a few years back over their lack of action on the wolf issue. As we sat and talked we admitted we as sportsmen are hurting our own cause(s) when we bash groups/individuals we have a few issues with, when at least those groups/individuals are doing SOMETHING unlike 95+% of the 'sportsmen' out there. It is easy to play arm chair quarterback, it is much more difficult to be in the trenches. I realize many people on this site are doers and not watchers, but it irks the hell out of me when 'sportsmen' try and divide, or widen the divide among different sportsmen groups/interests. It hurts ALL of us.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

TAK said:


> Oak said:
> 
> 
> > The problem comes when people state things as facts, and then can't back them up when asked to prove it. *Maybe you should have said, "I've heard that SFW is spending a lot of money on the wolf issue, but I really have no idea if it's true or not."* That's believable. But when you state it as a fact, and then plead ignorance when questioned about it, because "I don't sit on the board of directors," it makes it sound like you're making stuff up..
> ...


WOW! :roll:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Oak said:


> The problem comes when people state things as facts, and then can't back them up when asked to prove it. Maybe you should have said, "I've heard that SFW is spending a lot of money on the wolf issue, but I really have no idea if it's true or not." That's believable. But when you state it as a fact, and then plead ignorance when questioned about it, because "I don't sit on the board of directors," it makes it sound like you're making stuff up.


Let me repeat, I know SFW spends a lot of money on the wolf issue, but I do NOT know the exact dollar amount. I didn't plead ignorance, I simply stated I am not on the Board and I am not their accountant. Now, I do sit on the Board of Directors for Utah Bowmen Association and I can account for every penny spent on habitat from our conservation tags we sell each year. FWIW, the State of Utah requires that 90% of the funds raised from conservation tags MUST be spent on State approved habitat/conservation projects. If you are so **** concerned where the money is spent from ANY of the MANY conservation groups including SFW, UBA, MDF. RMEF, NWTF, DU you as a Utah resident can inquire the Governors office to conduct an audit. I say go for it! Then maybe once you see there is no swindling of the money raised from these tags we can put this NON-issue to bed.


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> TAK said:
> 
> 
> > Oak said:
> ...


No Bart, this is a OH CHIT! :shock:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

WOW!


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

Wow, I can't believe this is still going......


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

me either...I am still waiting to hear how SFW helps fisheries...I think I will have to wait a long time!


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

Someone wanna drum up some Jeopardy music? This might be a while......


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> me either...I am still waiting to hear how SFW helps fisheries...I think I will have to wait a long time!


It's been done numerous times, you just don't like the answers. :roll: Big surprise there, NOT!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Energizer bunny....still waiting....


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Energizer bunny....still waiting....


 -^|^-


----------



## Oak (Mar 10, 2009)

proutdoors said:


> If you are so **** concerned where the money is spent from ANY of the MANY conservation groups including SFW, UBA, MDF. RMEF, NWTF, DU you as a Utah resident can inquire the Governors office to conduct an audit. I say go for it! Then maybe once you see there is no swindling of the money raised from these tags we can put this NON-issue to bed.


 O|* Man, you are thick-headed, aren't you?  My point was that a person should not HAVE to ask the Governor's office to conduct an audit to see where the money is going. Showing a full accounting to the public should be an extremely simple task with the advent of this crazy thing we call the internet. More amazing to me than the fact that they don't have this info on their website is the fact that when asked for it, they basically say "f* you". Great public relations....

So you've made yourself clear: you know that a lot of money is spent on lawyers, but you don't know what they are doing; you know that some good legislation has been passed, but you can't think of one example; you know that SFW is fighting for wolf delisting, and it has cost millions of dollars, but you can't explain how that could be any benefit under the very strict guidelines for delisting laid out by the ESA.

I don't doubt that you believe what you are saying, therefore I'm not calling you a liar. But I also don't see how you could logically come to the conclusions you have, given all the things you admit to not knowing.

I know we are not going to agree on this issue, so I'll let it go, as long as you don't keep making outrageous claims you can't back up. And I spent $1 million on habitat improvement myself last year. I can't prove it, but I hope you believe me.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> me either...I am still waiting to hear how SFW helps fisheries...I think I will have to wait a long time!


I think a generic answer, which I'm sure won't suit this crowd is that if the SFW crowd is doing something to improve habitat, it doesn't appear to be a huge leap to think that they're also improving fish habitat somewhere along the way. I'm no member but if they're working with landowners to create better habitat for deer, sheep, elk or other big game, it would seem to me that any of that is going to benefit or at least include some sort of water management in the areas which would directly affect any streams containing fish. Fish are still considered wildlife right? Or did I miss a change in qualification somewhere?



Oak said:


> O|* Man, you are thick-headed, aren't you?  I know thats certainly the description that comes to my mind when I think of Pro.... or are the thick headed ones the folks who won't accept his generalized answers that are all he can really give you?My point was that a person should not HAVE to ask the Governor's office to conduct an audit to see where the money is going. Showing a full accounting to the public should be an extremely simple task with the advent of this crazy thing we call the internet. More amazing to me than the fact that they don't have this info on their website is the fact that when asked for it, they basically say "f* you". Great public relations....And you're fully prepared to just give some Joe off the street a full accounting of your personal finances just because they want it? I doubt it..... and impatience and the way you seem to be approaching the situation has nothing to do with why you got the finger the way you did. Sure they're an organization comprised of public individuals but I'm not sure at all that the other organizations out there would just willingly dish out that information without some sort of justification.... let alone the fact that there are probably expenditures that when laid open to the public might hinder any advances SFW is trying to make on behalf of sportsmen if for no other reason than it shows folks opposed to those efforts where to counter this group.
> 
> So you've made yourself clear: Clear as you read it... which is going to be contrary to what might absolutely be the truth just because you have a personal issue with SFW. I say it wouldn't matter what Pro or anyone else would say about SFW, you're so convinced of your own correctness that you would believe they're a bad group regardless of what evidence you had to the contrary.you know that a lot of money is spent on lawyers, but you don't know what they are doing; you know that some good legislation has been passed, but you can't think of one example; you know that SFW is fighting for wolf delisting, and it has cost millions of dollars, but you can't explain how that could be any benefit under the very strict guidelines for delisting laid out by the ESA.
> 
> ...


Pro and I usually don't agree on much but I do respect the fact that he is and will be deeply involved in various activities that benefit wildlife of all sorts and the groups he associates with are made of guys like him who strive to accomplish the same thing. The one problem with today's sportsmen is that we're so concerned with folks doing things OUR way that if one group isn't or won't be held accountable to our way of seeing things that we immediately deem them the enemy, regardless of what they've done in our favor. Doesn't matter whether they're a fish group, big game or bird group or whatever.... if they aren't doing things our way or bending over kissing our feet for support, then we think they're the "bad guys". Here's a thought for you and anyone else that thinks SFW is so terrible.... if you don't like how they do things or what their members say, the projects they work on or what their political leanings are.... Too F'n bad.... become involved and change something or go do it yourself. I know, that would take more effort than just coming on here and bitching about things you dont see being done the right way but your inability to do that with your "million dollars" is what makes bigger groups so favorable. Instead of sitting around bitching about it, they're out doing something.... which is alot more than any of us are going to accomplish by sitting around here questioning each other instead of pulling together to get things done.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> I think a generic answer, which I'm sure won't suit this crowd is that if the SFW crowd is doing something to improve habitat, it doesn't appear to be a huge leap to think that they're also improving fish habitat somewhere along the way. I'm no member but if they're working with landowners to create better habitat for deer, sheep, elk or other big game, it would seem to me that any of that is going to benefit or at least include some sort of water management in the areas which would directly affect any streams containing fish. Fish are still considered wildlife right? Or did I miss a change in qualification somewhere?


That's just it...SFW ISN"T doing anything to improve fisheries habitat. Fish are wildlife, but SFW does very little to benefit fisheries. SFW did contribute over 1 million dollars to wildlife last year, but NONE of that was spent improving fisheries.
http://www.sfwsfh.org/documents/2008_Co ... ojects.pdf

But, on the other hand, the founder--MR. Peay--did, in fact, try to help hurt our ability to utilize our PUBLIC fisheries. Interestingly, many many fishermen DID get together and do something about what Peay tried to do and what SFW didn't try to eliminate. To me, it is quite obvious that SFW is not really about fish, but big game.


----------



## Oak (Mar 10, 2009)

Riverrat77 said:


> And you're fully prepared to just give some Joe off the street a full accounting of your personal finances just because they want it? Sure they're an organization comprised of public individuals but *I'm not sure at all that the other organizations out there would just willingly dish out that information without some sort of justification*


RMEF:
http://www.rmef.org/Footer/Financial/Financial.htm

Ducks Unlimited:
http://www.ducks.org/About_DU/AboutDuck ... ation.html

National Wild Turkey Federation:
http://www.nwtf.org/annual_report/financials.pdf

Trout Unlimited:
http://www.tu.org/site/c.kkLRJ7MSKtH/b. ... mation.htm



Riverrat77 said:


> I say it wouldn't matter what Pro or anyone else would say about SFW, you're so convinced of your own correctness that you would believe they're a bad group regardless of what evidence you had to the contrary.


Wrong. I believe that the tags they take out of the general draw is excessive, and I want to make sure that the public is getting their "money's worth". The general public is very affected by the actions of SFW, and therefore SFW should be held accountable by the general public, not just members of SFW.



Riverrat77 said:


> Oddly enough, this works against you as well. With all the projects that Pro and some of the other members here have been a part of and reported on, I don't see how you came to the conclusion that these folks do nothing to benefit wildlife.


Never said that. In fact, I said:



Oak said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > I was merely pointing out some of the MANY good things SFW does for ALL sportsmen, you/me included.
> ...





Riverrat77 said:


> There is a lot you don't seem to know about SFW either (otherwise you wouldn't be asking all the questions right) so without knowing every single thing about SFW, how do you explain your conclusion that they're a bad group? Is it just because they sided with landowners in favor of HB187 or have you completely forgotten and/or ignored all the other positive things they've done to offset being on the "wrong side" on one issue?


You are right. There is a lot I don't know about SFW. I know about all the habitat projects that they do. Those are GOOD. I don't believe that all the money is being spent on habitat projects, though. When I look at the tax return for SFH and see the following expenditures listed, I'm curious what some of the items really are:


> *Total Revenue - $3,363,380*
> 
> Expenditures:
> 
> ...


For instance, what is the $485k in "consulting fees" spent on? How can they justify spending $885K on fundraising, when all wildlife and habitat related expenditures listed only adds up to a little over $450k? I think these are honest and good questions, especially when the general public is contributing so much to these groups in the form of licenses out of the general draw. Please explain to me why my questions are unreasonable? I didn't make these number up. They are right off of the tax return.



Riverrat77 said:


> if you don't like how they do things or what their members say, the projects they work on or what their political leanings are.... Too F'n bad.... become involved and change something or go do it yourself.


Too F'n bad...great attitude towards the GENERAL PUBLIC, who is sacrificing over 550 tags a year out of the general draw to support them. Guess what. I'm doing EXACTLY what you just told me to do. Getting involved to change something. Why are you giving me a hard time, when I'm just taking your advice?


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

OAK! Now I am IMPRESSED! 

You there get a double WOW! 8) WOW!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> Pro and I usually don't agree on much but I do respect the fact that he is and will be deeply involved in various activities that benefit wildlife of all sorts and the groups he associates with are made of guys like him who strive to accomplish the same thing. The one problem with today's sportsmen is that we're so concerned with folks doing things OUR way that if one group isn't or won't be held accountable to our way of seeing things that we immediately deem them the enemy, regardless of what they've done in our favor. Doesn't matter whether they're a fish group, big game or bird group or whatever.... if they aren't doing things our way or bending over kissing our feet for support, then we think they're the "bad guys". Here's a thought for you and anyone else that thinks SFW is so terrible.... if you don't like how they do things or what their members say, the projects they work on or what their political leanings are.... Too F'n bad.... become involved and change something or go do it yourself. I know, that would take more effort than just coming on here and bitching about things you dont see being done the right way but your inability to do that with your "million dollars" is what makes bigger groups so favorable. Instead of sitting around bitching about it, they're out doing something.... which is alot more than any of us are going to accomplish by sitting around here questioning each other instead of pulling together to get things done.


 Excellent post! You 'get it', sadly way too many people will never "get it" and will miss the wise words you typed here. I used to have the tag line, "The world is ran by those who show up, so show up!" It ticked a lot of people off, and I think it's clear it's because most people don't like hearing the truth. They would rather be humored and told their contempt of those getting it done is justified because those getting it done don't do things exactly as they want. I would have to sit home and do nothing if I waited for a group that does everything exactly as I would. Instead, I get my hands dirty and make a difference as opposed to complaining and running down those who are in the trenches. It is easy to sit on the sidelines and Monday morning quarterback the actions of those getting it done. It is much harder to lace up the cleats and get on the field. Cast off groups such as SFW and tell me who will be there fighting in the trenches? I support any/all conservation groups working to do something about hunting/fishing and not just hoping it gets done.


----------



## Donttreadonme (Sep 11, 2007)

IMO only one persons posts on here are worth reading and that person is Oak.

Oak I commend you for your hard work to find out where the money is really going. Like you I find it very troubling that an organization dedicated to Fish and Wildlife spends only ~15% of their money actually doing that. Now before the SFW kool-aid drinkers get up in arms, I do realize that some money is also used to get things changed through lobbying and the likes. BUT as I see it, there is still too much going to "Consulting" AKA Don Peay's personal account, Banquets, and advertising. I believe those #'s could be greatly trimmed down putting more money on the ground.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

donttreadonme said:


> IMO only one persons posts on here are worth reading and that person is Oak.
> 
> Oak I commend you for your hard work to find out where the money is really going. Like you I find it very troubling that an organization dedicated to Fish and Wildlife spends only ~15% of their money actually doing that. Now before the SFW kool-aid drinkers get up in arms, I do realize that some money is also used to get things changed through lobbying and the likes. BUT as I see it, there is still too much going to "Consulting" AKA Don Peay's personal account, Banquets, and advertising. I believe those #'s could be greatly trimmed down putting more money on the ground.


You read it on the internet so it MUST be true! :roll:

sheeple...


----------



## Oak (Mar 10, 2009)

bwhntr said:


> Don Peay told you, so it must be true.
> 
> sheeple...


Ha! That's what I was thinking about a few people here as well. :wink:

If you don't believe the numbers I put up, here is the link to tax returns for the last 6 years. Don't just take my word for it. Look for yourself.

http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/PubApps/sh ... =870575540


----------



## Donttreadonme (Sep 11, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> donttreadonme said:
> 
> 
> > IMO only one persons posts on here are worth reading and that person is Oak.
> ...


Sheeple has nothing to do with it. Oak makes some great points in his posts. He has asked very valid questions that are yet to be answered.

You mean that just because I read it here is isn't true? Are you kidding me? I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed but I sure as **** know better than that. Just because I don't drink the Kool-aid, doesn't hardly mean I believe everything I read. Give me a call and I will gladly explain why I feel the way I do. Joel 435-512-7227

Can you honestly say that those #'s from SFW's tax returns are well balanced?

I look at organizations like SFW or any others for that matter as to what they do vs what they gain. SFW IMO gains a lot ($$$$) and puts only a small portion of that back into the fish and game IF those #'s from Oak are accurate.

I do not belong to SFW because, though they do a lot of good, I don't like how they go about it and I know that my voice will make zero difference. They have a plan and they will work that plan no matter what I say. They know 99% of the members don't pay attention to where their money is going. Those members go to the banquet every year and only hear the good but never look beyond what they are told. IMO SFW is willing to loose the 1% who actually look deeper because that still keeps 99% for them. There is another sucker born every day. Talk about sheeple.

How much $$$ did SFW put into general areas here in Utah last year? How much did they put into LE, CWMU, etc. ($$$$$)? This is a serious question because I don't know.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Excellent post! You 'get it', sadly way too many people will never "get it" and will miss the wise words you typed here. I used to have the tag line, "The world is ran by those who show up, so show up!" It ticked a lot of people off, and I think it's clear it's because most people don't like hearing the truth. They would rather be humored and told their contempt of those getting it done is justified because those getting it done don't do things exactly as they want. I would have to sit home and do nothing if I waited for a group that does everything exactly as I would. Instead, I get my hands dirty and make a difference as opposed to complaining and running down those who are in the trenches. It is easy to sit on the sidelines and Monday morning quarterback the actions of those getting it done. It is much harder to lace up the cleats and get on the field. Cast off groups such as SFW and tell me who will be there fighting in the trenches? I support any/all conservation groups working to do something about hunting/fishing and not just hoping it gets done.


I shouldn't have put that the way I did I guess... well, at least the too F'n bad...but even though I don't like the appearance that SFW is all about private land and big money hunts, I am realistic enough to know that they're probably doing a lot more than most folks care to or ever will give them credit for and they certainly accomplish more than a few naysayers have or ever will. I think you're spot on about armchair quarterbacks Pro.... lots easier to sit back and question than it is to just go out and do it yourself. At least SFW is willing to take a stance on issues like this, whether you agree with where they stand or not. How many of the supposed angler support groups did it take saying "we have no stance on this issue" before anglers decided to mobilize and do something themselves? It appears that F/V Gulf Ventures concerns on this issue were valid.... Its going to be quite a challenge to keep sportsmen from nitpicking each other and the "way" we do things to death instead of keeping things headed in a positive direction. It seems folks are so eager to finger a "bad guy" or scapegoat in this whole mess that they'd rather we all succumb to infighting and create the same situation that almost let this bill get through the first time.

In answer to one of the only posts worth reading..... here's my take on those numbers.

Big game habitat improvement - Self explanatory

Consulting fee - there are consultants for everything.... could it be that somebody out there has a wild hair that SFW might have a clue about wildlife management and paid them to oversee or advise on projects related to wildlife, including some sort of fish management or habitat improvement? I don't see that as being outside the realm of possibility at all.

Grouse Study - Ummmm this doesn't appear to be big game to me, since grouse were just birds last I checked.... and also depend on water/creeks as a necessary requirement for survival. Absurd to think that perhaps this study is a preamble to some sort of habitat improvement for grouse, including the "fluid resources" that grouse utilize?

Habitat Projects - this doesn't say Big Game anywhere on it..... does that mean that possibly or even probably that SFW is about more than big game? Thats a lot of money to throw towards something they supposedly don't represent.

Program Expenses - this is a huge amount of money, which I'm guessing gets re-funneled into the system. All of this ground work doesn't happen for free, and I'm guessing all of the various conservation groups have some sort of fundraising budget to gain money which they pay various folks with and also redirect into some of their conservation efforts.

Tags - any idea how much of a percentage of this half a million chunk goes back into wildlife management? I'd guess its more than zero.... again, wildlife management is animals of all types, not just earmarked for big game, so birds and fish probably see some of this money as well. Sure the tax return is vague but that also eliminates some of this "they do nothing for anything but big game" BS that is floating around in this discussion because there is no definite "big game only" markings in anything but one of the categories of their spending.

I suppose I shouldn't have even spent this much time on a thought out answer, since it isn't going to be "worth reading". :? I also realize that this isn't going to change anyone's opinion on SFW, particularly if you had it out for them in the first place. Much easier to point a finger than to give credit so point away.


----------



## Donttreadonme (Sep 11, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> I suppose I shouldn't have even spent this much time on a thought out answer, since it isn't going to be "worth reading".


Yet you still keep on posting..... :lol:

You are smart enough to figure out that your posts aren't worth reading. That is step one. Step two is to now stop posting. :wink:

edit to let RR and anyone else know that extreme ammounts of sarcasm are intended in this post.


----------



## Oak (Mar 10, 2009)

I find it amusing that my detractors continue to say that I am "casting SFW aside" or that I don't think they do any good. I've said more than once that I believe they have completed many successful projects in the state. So let's take that argument away.

All I'm asking: "Is the general public getting their money's worth?" RR77 says, "this expenditure *could* be this, or it *could* be that." You are absolutely right. And it could have all been spent on hookers and smack, too. Ok, probably not, but you see my point. I can't figure out why nobody is at all curious where $485,000 (15% of revenue) in consulting fees went, or why nobody is the least bit upset that *40%* of revenue went to fundraising and the expo. If you're spending nearly half of your incoming funds on raising more funds, you are highly inefficient.

I wonder where SFW-Alaska is getting the money to start running their helicopters for their bear snaring program? Guess those 1,000 AK members must have forked over a lot of dough. LMAO! :lol:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Oak said:


> I find it amusing that my detractors continue to say that I am "casting SFW aside" or that I don't think they do any good. I've said more than once that I believe they have completed many successful projects in the state. So let's take that argument away. You jumped in after another poster said he wants to see SFW done in, and I responded to his post. So, let's take that argument away.
> 
> All I'm asking: "Is the general public getting their money's worth?" RR77 says, "this expenditure *could* be this, or it *could* be that." You are absolutely right. And it could have all been spent on hookers and smack, too. Ok, probably not, but you see my point. I can't figure out why nobody is at all curious where $485,000 (15% of revenue) in consulting fees went, or why nobody is the least bit upset that *40%* of revenue went to fundraising and the expo. If you're spending nearly half of your incoming funds on raising more funds, you are highly inefficient. 90% of monies raised from conservation tags MUST be spent on state approved habitat/conservation projects. SFW has been in compliance with this law since day one. The money raised at fund raisers and through donations and membership fees can be spent as the organization deems best. Consulting/lobbying fees are expensive and are NEEDED to function and be effective in today's world.
> 
> I wonder where SFW-Alaska is getting the money to start running their helicopters for their bear snaring program? Guess those 1,000 AK members must have forked over a lot of dough. LMAO! :lol: Are you saying that only Alaskans should be donating time/money to the wolf/bear problems in Alaska? :?


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Oak said:


> If you're spending nearly half of your incoming funds on raising more funds, you are highly inefficient.


I suppose it never crossed your mind that they could be extremely efficient with the money they do divert towards wildlife.... and how else could I state this? I'm not a member.... so I can't give you a definite answer but speaking from the point of view of a person on the outside looking in.... its certainly not a stretch to justify that money they spend on whatever projects or issues they choose, especially since you appear to be acknowledging that they do run a lot of good projects for wildlife. You also don't seem to be able to definitely say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, with 100% certainty that they don't spend their money the way I suggested they might... instead all you've brought to the table is ridicule because I made what I consider to be realistic guesses about where that money could possibly have gone. I believe even the other groups you listed as examples of "good guys" pay for consultation from outside parties.... and probably get paid to consult on projects for others. I also find it interesting that you list "Trout Unlimited" in your group of folks willing to disclose financial issues.... since they're one of the main groups anglers figured to get backing from and they were one of the most noticeable groups to say, "we have no stance on this issue." I actually respect SFW more because they were willing to take a stance and not ride the fence, whether people agreed with their position or not. 8)


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Oak said:


> ...All I'm asking: "Is the general public getting their money's worth?"


???Really, who cares. This isn't a publically owned company, it is not run by our government (thankfully) and you are not a member...so, who cares! If they only donated $1000 a year then great, it is probably $1000 more than you donated. :roll: and it is $1000 more than was there before. If those of us that actually donate to SFW don't see the money is being spent properly then it is OUR choice to pull out.

I don't understand how a non contributing, non member thinks he has any say whatsoever. When you don't donate a freakin dollar to the cause, but reaps any and all rewards that comes from it...unbelievable!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Good call Shane!


----------



## Donttreadonme (Sep 11, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> I don't understand how a non contributing, non member thinks he has any say whatsoever. When you don't donate a freakin dollar to the cause, but reaps any and all rewards that comes from it...unbelievable!


For the record I was a member of SFW for 4 years and attended our local banquet, spending several hundred dollars each year. So I feel like I do have the right to say what I do. I stopped contributing to SFW because I did not like the way things were going and was told, essentially, the members of SFW have no say. The board of directors are the ones who decide what happens with SFW and since I was not on that board and didn't know anyone on that board, my voice did not matter. I was told in so many words, thanks for your money but we don't care to hear your opinion. Again my offer still stands that you, pro or anyone else can call me any time and I will gladly tell you in detail why I do not support SFW.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Great, thank you. Now we know your OPINION. 

Just like I pointed out, you are not a member.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

bwhntr said:


> I don't understand how a non contributing, non member thinks he has any say whatsoever.


Vice versa, I dont understand why SFW members think only their opinion matters.

If the SFW was gaining money entirely from private means (donations, membership dues, whatever), then I agree 100% with your point. Non members should stepup or shutup. BUT! The SFW is getting alot of money by auctioning tags taken from the general public's tag pool. That IMO, gives Joe Public a say in the matter because he is contributing, in the form of tags donated.

It seems both sides have a rather myopic view of the issue though. Personally I'm on the fence, being not anti nor pro SFW.

-DallanC


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Dallan, the bottom line is I like to donate money to organizations I think do great things...I have four organizations I donate to that I don't even think twice about because of the good they do. First, the LDS Church, I can't think of any local charity that does more good for our community and world wide. Second, Primary Children's. Third, SFW. Fourth the UCF.

I may not agree with every single decision made by these fine organizations. But, the over all goals of these groups are inline with what I want to see in my neighborhood, hospitals, and hunting future. You may not agree, and that is fine. You don't need to donate to any of them.

The interesting thing I find about most of the complainers is they are good about complaining and not much else...if you don't like something then get off your butt and do something about it, either go to a meeting, write a check, or pick up a shovel!

You are wrong about something you said, I do think you have a say wether you ar a member of SFW or not, that is what is great about this country. We shouldn't agree on everything, this country wasn't built "bi-partisan". We can have differing views and that is ok.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

DallanC said:


> If the SFW was gaining money entirely from private means (donations, membership dues, whatever), then I agree 100% with your point. Non members should stepup or shutup. BUT! The SFW is getting alot of money by auctioning tags taken from the general public's tag pool. That IMO, gives Joe Public a say in the matter because he is contributing, in the form of tags donated.


The money generated by the conservation tags is heavily regulated and monitored. By law 90% of every dollar brought into a group from conservation tags MUST be spent on state approved projects and be accounted for by the DWR. So, since the groups are following the rules, what's the issue again? :?


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

I would like to add a thought to that as well...Your money is far better spent in a private organization than with the government ANYDAY! Give $1000 to SFW and then give another $1000 to the State of Utah and see how much from each actually hits the ground in the end...huge difference.


----------



## Oak (Mar 10, 2009)

Yes, 90% of money from the 102 conservation tags SFH received this year must go to approved habitat projects. But *0%* of money from the *200 convention tags *is required to go to approved projects. The only thing the UDWR gets out of those tags is the regular fee paid by the successful applicants.

I assume the $5 application fee per convention tag goes to the licensing company? Admission fees to the convention are not required to validate applications. So how does SFH justify spending nearly half a million dollars on the convention? Where is the money coming from to pay for that? Honest question.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Conservation tags and convention tags are two completely separate issues. On the convention tags, I admit I am not fully up to speed on, but I believe the money raised is theirs to do with as they wish per the agreement between the parties involved including the Governor. I do know that the state has allocated MILLIONS of dollars to habitat projects as a direct result of the money brought into Utah from the Western Hunting Expo.


----------



## Oak (Mar 10, 2009)

proutdoors said:


> Conservation tags and convention tags are two completely separate issues. On the convention tags, I admit I am not fully up to speed on, but I believe the money raised is theirs to do with as they wish per the agreement between the parties involved including the Governor. I do know that the *state has allocated MILLIONS of dollars to habitat projects *as a direct result of the money brought into Utah from the Western Hunting Expo.


What avenue does the state use to allocate these millions of dollars to habitat projects? General funds to the UDWR? Deposits to the Wildlife Habitat Account? I can do the research, just looking for the avenue.

Pro, are you saying that it is ok with you if money raised in UT is used to control predators in Alaska? I'm not saying it is happening, but your statement sounds like you approve.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Oak said:


> Pro, are you saying that it is ok with you if money raised in UT is used to control predators in Alaska? I'm not saying it is happening, but your statement sounds like you approve.


Absolutely I approve! The wolf issue is not limited to Alaska/Idaho/Montana/Wyoming. What happens there WILL affect us, and I am willing to help fight for ALL sportsmen, not just the ones residing in Utah. How many non-residents help raise a big portion of the money raised at the WSE? Do we leave a state like Alaska to 'fend for themselves' and then wonder why Utah is taken over by wolves a few years down the road because we sat back and did nothing? I think that is unwise and shortsighted. Just as I see people saying habitat improvements, while they weren't done to directly help fish, still help fish but so what. makes little sense to me. The fight for funds and hands to improve/retain wildlife and the ability to enjoy pursuing them with a firearm/bow/fly rod/down rigger is limited and we should be looking for common ground rather than looking for excuses as to why and run one group or another out of town.


----------



## Oak (Mar 10, 2009)

Fair enough. Since funds from conservation tags are the only funds required to stay in-state, anything raised from the convention tags could go potentially go out of state. I would be interested to know how many people are ok with half a million dollars and 200 tags out of the drawing potentially being spent on problems in Alaska. I guess I may be surprised. :? 

How about my other question regarding how millions of dollars are allocated to habitat improvements by the state?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Oak said:


> How about my other question regarding how millions of dollars are allocated to habitat improvements by the state?


I gave a disclaimer saying I am not fully up to speed on the subject. :wink: 8) But, it/you have peeked my interest on the subject so I intend to educate myself on the matter. If I learn anything I will gladly pass it on to you.


----------



## Oak (Mar 10, 2009)

proutdoors said:


> But, it/you have peeked my interest on the subject so I intend to educate myself on the matter.


Truth be known, that's all I'm really trying to accomplish. No secret agenda.  When I ask questions and people answer by saying "you're stupid," I assume they just don't know the answer. :wink:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Oak said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > But, it/you have peeked my interest on the subject so I intend to educate myself on the matter.
> ...


Grab a mirror my friend, grab a mirror. 8)


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

proutdoors said:


> Absolutely I approve! The wolf issue is not limited to Alaska/Idaho/Montana/Wyoming. What happens there WILL affect us, and I am willing to help fight for ALL sportsmen, not just the ones residing in Utah. How many non-residents help raise a big portion of the money raised at the WSE? Do we leave a state like Alaska to 'fend for themselves' and then wonder why Utah is taken over by wolves a few years down the road because we sat back and did nothing? I think that is unwise and shortsighted. Just as I see people saying habitat improvements, while they weren't done to directly help fish, still help fish but so what. makes little sense to me. The fight for funds and hands to improve/retain wildlife and the ability to enjoy pursuing them with a firearm/bow/fly rod/down rigger is limited and we should be looking for common ground rather than looking for excuses as to why and run one group or another out of town.


I seriously doubt we will have wolf problems as a result of Alaskan wolves migrating down through canada and into Utah. Alaska runs a government surplus each year and even pays out to residents $1200 a year. Why do would they need Utahs money? I can see species swapping instead of money though, lets get some muskox or yukon moose transplanted down here 

I understand your willingness to help other groups, its an admirable quality... but at what expense to ourselves? How far do we take it? Welfare is a touchy subject.

Let me ask something else. Is there a limit to the number of convention tags you would see issued? What if half of the tags in the entire state went to the convention? Is that too much or too little? Think of the amount of money it could generate and the amount of "good" it could do. Why not just make all tags in the state, all of them, auction only? Like an Ebay dutch auction... everyone bids what they feel comfortable with and the top X bidders get the X tags available. It would generate alot more money than the current system... and this whole argument for SWF & Tags is pretty much about getting as much money as they can and getting it on the ground.

Again, I'm not picking a side. I see and hear of "good" done by the SFW, and I also see people unhappy with less tags in the pool.

-DallanC


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

DallanC said:


> I seriously doubt we will have wolf problems as a result of Alaskan wolves migrating down through canada and into Utah. Alaska runs a government surplus each year and even pays out to residents $1200 a year. Why do would they need Utahs money? I can see species swapping instead of money though, lets get some muskox or yukon moose transplanted down here  Who said there was a threat of wolves migrating from Alaska to Utah? :? :roll: My point is, if we don't fight the wolves in other states, what's going to stop them spreading like cancer here?
> 
> I understand your willingness to help other groups, its an admirable quality... but at what expense to ourselves? How far do we take it? Welfare is a touchy subject. Welfare? That would be where the tax payer funds it all instead of wealthy people doing so WILLINGLY.
> 
> ...


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

proutdoors, I absolutely respect your opinion. We've butted heads in the past for sure over various subjects and to be honest, I dont want nor plan to in the future. I'm alot more mellow than I used to be  and to be frank, I dont care as much as I used to about alot of things.



proutdoors said:


> Who said there was a threat of wolves migrating from Alaska to Utah :? :roll: My point is, if we don't fight the wolves in other states, what's going to stop them spreading like cancer here?


Well oak mentioned helping wolves in alaska and you said yes you were for it otherwise they would spread here. That sorta implied wolves migrating here. :wink: I agree with fighting wolves but lets do it in neighboring states, not a state seperated by from us by another country (mainland). _(O)_



> That would be where the tax payer funds it all instead of wealthy people doing so WILLINGLY


Welfare isnt solely defined as a government system, it has alot of definitions... for example "The state of well-being", or "Consideration for the comfort and well being of animals". It is more often used though as aiding financially, someone or entity that is in need. That said, wealthy people are indeed willingly donating alot of money, but all of us are donating tags. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think our mutual lack of understanding is that I feel the "public" while not making a direct monitary contribution, it is making a sacrifice by giving up and putting tags up for auction.



> I get nervous on the number of tags allocated as well. I am of the opinion we shouldn't increase the number of conventions percentage any higher than we increase the 'public' tags percentage wise.


I feel this way as well.



> The question for me is; do the benefits out weight the costs? And for me, it's **** straight!


Great statement. I look forward to reading more facts that people like oaks digs up... I wish I had the time. Its just understandably frustrating that its hard to find these facts in the first place. Any of these conservation groups should be shouting out to every website or periodical that will listen to them, their list of achievements and detailed lists of what they are getting done. It would really pull together sportsmen as a group and eliminate alot of wasted efforts.

-DallanC


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

DallanC said:


> Any of these conservation groups should be shouting out to every website or periodical that will listen to them, their list of achievements and detailed lists of what they are getting done. It would really pull together sportsmen as a group and eliminate alot of wasted efforts.


A-freaking-men! I constantly fight for such openness in the one group I am on the Board of Directors for. We only sell two tags a year, but we make the money go to worthy causes and maximize the effectiveness of every penny.


----------

