# More Convention Tags Proposed



## D-Man (Sep 22, 2007)

I don't know about you guys, but I am sick and tired of the number of tags that we allow to be sold, auctioned, raffled, and drawn in special draws. Now the groups that supposedly represent the sportsmen of Utah are proposing to take even more tags from Residents of the state and use them to "generate revenue". Here is the proposal that SFW, RMEF, and MDF will be bringing to the RAC meetings this time around. Sounds like a smart business move on the part of those fund raising orgs, outfitters, guides, video and magazine producers, etc. It doesn't sound like such a good deal for the average sportsmen in the state. First it was just one tag from each species, then up to 5% of tags, then we added all the convention tags, now we want to add some more. When will it end?



CONVENTION PERMIT RULE CHANGE PROPOSAL
The Utah Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, and the Mule Deer Foundation would propose the following for 2009-
Because the way that Utah allocates the Once-in-a- Lifetime permits, often times the desired 10% allocation to non- resident hunters is not accomplished. This is due to the allocation of permits to small units and rounding issues.
In 2008 for example:
•
There were 23 total Rocky Mountain bighorn permits issued, only 1 to a nonresident
•
There were 36 total desert bighorn permits issued, only 2 to nonresidents
•
There were 91 mountain goat permits issued and only 7 to nonresident
•
There were 184 moose permits and only 16 nonresident moose permits
•
There were 172 bison, of which 17 were nonresident – the only OIL species to meet the objective.
The proposal would be to allocate ONE tag of EACH Once-in-a-Lifetime species to NONRESIDENTS (Bighorn, Desert, Moose, Goat, and Bison) and make these permits available to those nonresidents who attend the Western Hunting Expo in 2009. Nonresidents would have to validate in person and purchase the nonresident hunting license, etc. The Wildlife Board would annually decide which units these permits would be valid for.
These five permits would allow the Expo partners to continue to expand the marketing of the Expo to nonresidents in particular, who bring in substantial tourism dollars and conservation dollars to the state.
The groups participating in the Expo have contributed millions of dollars for moose, goat, bison and wild sheep conservation and restoration, and a lot of that money has come from nonresidents. The Expo partners will continue to invest millions of dollars into conservation efforts for these five species as well as Utah’s elk, deer, antelope and wild turkey populations and habitats.
The State of Utah has been a strong supporter of the Expo. There is also strong legislative support for the continued expansion of the Expo to bring people into Utah.
An SFW or Expo partnership representative will be at each RAC meeting to answer questions.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Oh my lord, an increase of FIVE tags to give to non-resident hunters on OIL tags, the end of hunting as we know it is over! :roll: **** evil sportsmen groups/outfitters, it's all their greedy little selves at blame for the demise of hunting. :?


----------



## Doc (Sep 11, 2007)

EVERY tag given to these groups decrease the odds tremendously for the average Utah sportsman, they really aren't once in a lifetime hunts for the average hunter because most hunters will never draw. It isn't just the 5 tags now, it's these 5 combined with the others. The term "nickle and dime" us to death comes to mind. Take five away tags from the groups they already give out and put them toward the convention. It's only 5 tags. Oh Lord, the end of big business hunting in Utah.


----------



## D-Man (Sep 22, 2007)

SFW provides their list of numbers showing how bad non-residents have it, but they don't tell the whole story. They are only showing the tags from the regular big game draw. What about all the other tags (and you know we have a load of them)? How many conservation tags are purchased by non-residents vs. residents? How many CWMU tags are purchased by non-residents vs. residents? How many convention tags are drawn by residents vs. non-residents? Since when is 10% of all draw tag given to non-residents "desired"? In some states (ID, MT for example) non-residents are limited to "up to" 10% of the tags. If they don't draw 10%, too bad, and if they hit the 10% mark then they don't draw any more non-residents. There are also lots of states that set the non-resident quota lower than 10%. UT has set non-resident quotas at 10% for each hunt, so I think non-residents already have it pretty good in UT. This is just another subsidy for the outfitters, guides, and other wildlife profiteers in Utah, and as usual, it comes at the expense of the average hunter.

If a DWR biologist wanted to work as a guide or outfitter it would be deemed a conflict of interest. Yet, if the individuals in the leadership of many of our conservation organizations have a guiding or outfitting business nobody bats an eye. Just whose interests are they looking out for? If we don't make decisions based on biology, and we don't make decisions designed to benefit the majority of hunters in the state, then just what are wildlife management decisions in Utah based on?

This is the straw that broke this camel’s back. I am disgusted!


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

Thanks for the heads up.

I'm against the proposal.

Of course all those who support the expo are for it, but they stand to benefit from the change so that is no surprise.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Longfeather, D-man and Doc, how do you propose they raise the money for habitat? BTW you three also benefit from their habitat projects. 

Don't just bad mouth the group or say you hate the proposal. Maybe you three can brainstorm and come up with ways to raise 6,000,000 plus dollars.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Hey guy's,

Go to the DWR web site, Big game page, Scroll down to :2008 Conservation Permit Summary: And have a look, I guess 361 just wasn't enough, They need MORE????

You've got to be kidding !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

:roll: :evil: :evil: :evil:


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

I think this is called the inverted Robin Hood principle...............i.e. taking from the poor and giving to the rich!


----------



## D-Man (Sep 22, 2007)

Pro said "Oh my lord, an increase of FIVE tags to give to non-resident hunters on OIL tags, the end of hunting as we know it is over! **** evil sportsmen groups/outfitters, it's all their greedy little selves at blame for the demise of hunting."

That is exactly the attitude that had gotten us to 300+ wildlife profiteer subsidy tags. Just keep chipping away, one baby step at a time. "It's for a good cause" can only justify so much. Exxon made $8 Billion last quarter, why would they complain if I just took a measly 5 million dollars. When is the hunting public in Utah going put an end to having these tags stolen from them?

As far as raising money is concerned, I think it is great that the DWR has money to do extra work, but sometimes I wonder how much benefit we are really reaping? We have invested millions and millions of dollars, but what is the return? Has anybody done a real numbers cost benefit analysis? Sure the conservation orgs can give a big list of projects that have been funded, but what has been the response of the huntable wildlife populations in those areas? I don't care how many acres you treat if the herds don't show any response. Stop patting yourselves on the back and show a result that justifies the cost. I would abosuletly love to see an independent economist perform a cost benefit analysis to see if we are really getting the best return on our investment. 

So maybe having conservation tags has enabled us to grow more 10 more big bulls available to hunters on the Wasatch Unit, but we probably had to give up 11 conservation and convention tags to do it, so what was the net gain for the average hunter? Our current system in Utah caters to wildlife profiteers and not to the average hunter.

Having a few tags to raise money is something we can just grin and bear, but when are we going to draw the line? In my opinion it should have been drawn a long time ago.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

D-MAN, Very well thought out post.

Now a few fact's about Utah's conservation permit's.

From 2001 thru 2007 there were 2,463 conservation permit's issued.

Organization's are allowed to retain 10% of the revenue raised from the sale for administrative cost and 60% for eligible project's. A total of 70% of the money to conservation org's. That leave's 30% to the DWR.

These group's include SFH,NWTF,NFAWS,MDF,RMEF,and SCI. ALso the California Deer Association has recived 43 of these permit's.

While I applaud the many great project's that have been accomplished on habitat, There are some places money has gone that make's me wonder. For example, In 2006 there was 83,900.00 spent on research thru the conservation funded project's, Here's the breakdown. 

Black bear research $10,000.00
Cache deer monitoring research project $10,000.00
BYU guzzler study $30,000.00
Effects of guzzler's on wildlife study $5,000.00
Sage grouse study $10,000.00
Potash desert sheep study $3,900.00
BYU stable isotope study $15,000.00
For a total of $83,900.00 put into research during 2006,These's may be well needed study's, I"m not an expert, this is just an observation.

Here's another interesting note.
From 2001 thru 2006 SFH raised $3,356,410.00 from the sale of 771 permit's,
That would be $336,641.00 for administrative cost directly to SFH to operate.

These are just a few item's I thought I would pass along,All of the entire record's are available on the DWR web site, Please don't shoot the messenger.


----------



## nochawk (Oct 26, 2007)

These tags are guaranteed for 3 year periods right? so we would see the increase in 2009?

Im conflicted on these tag's...guess Im just sitting on a fence.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> From 2001 thru 2007 there were 2,463 conservation permit's issued.
> 
> Organization's are allowed to retain 10% of the revenue raised from the sale for administrative cost and 60% for eligible project's. A total of 70% of the money to conservation org's. That leave's 30% to the DWR.
> 
> These group's include SFH,NWTF,NFAWS,MDF,RMEF,and SCI. ALso the California Deer Association has recived 43 of these permit's.


First, you are mixing conservation tags and convention tags up. Convention tags, which is what the proposed five additional tags are, are drawn at the convention where no one person has better odds than another. So, the "taking from the poor and giving to the rich" nonsense is flat out WRONG! Every person who wants to apply for one of these tags has the ability to do so, in fact a 'poor' person has the chance at MORE tags through the convention tags than through the DWR Limited Entry draw process.

Second, intentionally misleading people on where the money goes is intellectually dishonest and pathetic. It is true that the groups that sell the tags 'may' keep up to 10% of the generated money for overhead/recoup of cost to promote the sale of tags/etc. Some groups keep less than 10%, some keep all 10%. The other 90% is CONTROLLED by the DWR, 30% goes directly to the DWR where they are mandated to spend the monies on conservation projects, the other 60% is spent by the conservation groups on projects approved by the DWR. To imply the groups keep 70% is slanting reality!

Third, I am PROUD to say you missed UBA (Utah Bowmen Association) as one of the fine groups that sell conservation tags and spend the raised money on habitat projects that benefit EVERY hunter in Utah. We only get two tags, for now, but we have raised $20,000 in two years.



> Here's another interesting note.
> From 2001 thru 2006 SFH raised $3,356,410.00 from the sale of 771 permit's,
> That would be $336,641.00 for administrative cost directly to SFH to operate.


To be accurate, it would equal $335,641. :? :wink: Which equates to $67,128.20/year. When you consider the numerous banquets that are held throughout the state, that isn't much money when you consider the cost of putting on a banquet.

Again, you folks are mudding up the waters by inter-mixing convention tags with conservation tags. Completely different is their purpose, application, distribution, and use.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Well PRO first of all} I am taking this information strait from the DWR web site on CONSERVATION PERMIT PROGRAM for the 2,463 permit's issued from 2001 thru 2007. If the convention tag's are from a different pool, I was unaware of that.

Second} I did not intend to mislead anyone on the 70%, read my post, I wrote 60% of this go's to eligible project's. I should have stated that different'ly, sorry.

Third} UBA is not mentioned anywere in the DWR Conservation permit program,
You can look it up on the DWR big game page if like.

And finally, I checked my notes,should have been 335,641.00 I miss typed, Again sorry.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> Well PRO first of all} I am taking this information strait from the DWR web site on CONSERVATION PERMIT PROGRAM for the 2,463 permit's issued from 2001 thru 2007. If the convention tag's are from a different pool, I was unaware of that.


I am saying that the 'new' tags are CONVENTION tags, NOT CONSERVATION tags. And they are not connected/related in any way!



> Second} I did not intend to mislead anyone on the 70%, read my post, I wrote 60% of this go's to eligible project's. I should have stated that different'ly, sorry.


I read your post, you said, "A total of 70% of the money to conservation org's. That leave's 30% to the DWR.", which is mis-leading. Only 10% is kept by the conservation groups, the other 90% is *mandated* to be spent on DWR approved conservation projects.



> Third} UBA is not mentioned anywere in the DWR Conservation permit program,
> You can look it up on the DWR big game page if like.


I am NOT disputing what is/isn't listed. I am TELLING you that UBA received two conservation tags in 2007 and the same two in 2008. They are archery Book Cliffs deer and archery Vernon deer tags. 8) We spent every penny in 2007 on a project clearing pinion juniper on the Vernon unit and on reseeding areas burnt on the Nebo unit. We are excited for the projects we will complete in 2008 on the monies raised from the tag sales equaling more than $10,000.00.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

PRO, read this very slowl'y

I am not the one implying oranization's keep 70% of the money.

THE DWR WEB SITE SAY'S THEY DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Read it your self.

And yes, 60% of this go's to aproved project's and 10% is retained.

All I am doing is passing along a little info.

I would recommend everyone interested in how this work's and were the money go's to read these document's and procedure's. There have been many great project's, and hunter's can see first hand were the conservation permit money is spent and what has been done in area's they may visit.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> Organization's are allowed to retain 10% of the revenue raised from the sale for administrative cost and 60% for eligible project's. *A total of 70% of the money to conservation org's. That leave's 30% to the DWR.*


If I weren't familiar with how this works, the above statement would lead me to believe the conservation groups keep 70% to do with as they wish. I call that mis-leading, regardless of how slow you type or think. :shock:


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Once again, I was not trying to mis-lead anyone, I was simply doing the math.
I should have worded it differently.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Can't be. The good folk of Utah all know Lottries are against the LAW!! Thats why we have a 24 cent a gallon gas tax. To stop the evil doers. But as I rember the proclamation lists the word Lottery some where. Are we law breakers??


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

oldfudd said:


> Can't be. The good folk of Utah all know Lottries are against the LAW!! Thats why we have a 24 cent a gallon gas tax. To stop the evil doers. But as I* rember *the proclamation lists the word Lottery some where. Are we law breakers??


No lottery here, it is a drawing just like the general draw you apply for through the DWR. A lotto would mean people could by as many chances for a specific tag as they wish. :?


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Second, intentionally misleading people on where the money goes is intellectually dishonest and pathetic.


Ain't that the truth.



> Third, I am PROUD to say you missed UBA (Utah Bowmen Association) as one of the fine groups that sell conservation tags and spend the raised money on habitat projects that benefit EVERY hunter in Utah. We only get two tags, for now, but we have raised $20,000 in two years.


...and the rest of the story?

Meantime, there are other organizations raising money for habitat without using these tags.



> When you consider the numerous banquets that are held throughout the state, that isn't much money when you consider the cost of putting on a banquet.


Banquets are fundraisers, not overhead. Conservation tag revenue isn't necessary for banquets, nor is it used to hold banquets.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Third, I am PROUD to say you missed UBA (Utah Bowmen Association) as one of the fine groups that sell conservation tags and spend the raised money on habitat projects that benefit EVERY hunter in Utah. We only get two tags, for now, but we have raised $20,000 in two years.
> ...


What "rest of the story" are you talking about? :? And what groups have raised how much money w/o using "these tags"? Careful how you answer, do you really want to go down this road? _(O)_


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

How many people would be willing to pay more for a General season license since you dont like the Convention/Conservation tags?

In order to make 6,000,000 dollars then you would need to charge $64 more dollars. 95,000 x 64 = 6,080,000.

This is just an idea and how many people would be willing to pay $64 more for their GS tag?

Why not let the rich pay for OUR habitat?


----------



## D-Man (Sep 22, 2007)

Adding these new convention tags is just a method to increase the potential client pool for the outfitters and guides that control our conservation orgs in Utah. I keep waiting for SFW to propose a seperate guided draw with a set aside proportion of tags for hunters wanting to use guides, like they did in WY. Maybe they could propose a mandatory guide law for anyone wanting to hunt in wilderness areas too? I am sure these measures would just help "preserve our hunting heritage" in Utah and help "boost Utah's economy". 

How intelectually dishonest and misleading is it to claim that adding 5 new OIL tags available to non-residents through the convention is not a move to help the Utah wildlife profiteers? How many average hunters travel all the way to Utah to enter an application at the Expo? I don't care how you allocate them, taking tags from the regular draw is taking them from the average hunter in the state. It is taking opportunity away from guys that have played the game by the rules and put in for years building points to have a shot at drawing one day. You can try all you want to justify why taking these tags from the public and allocating them through some special method to make more money for certain groups and indivuduals is the "best" thing to do, but it is what it is.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

D-Man said:


> Adding these new convention tags is just a method to increase the potential client pool for the outfitters and guides that control our conservation orgs in Utah. I keep waiting for SFW to propose a *seperate* guided draw with a set aside proportion of tags for hunters wanting to use guides, like they did in WY. Maybe they could propose a mandatory guide law for anyone wanting to hunt in wilderness areas too? I am sure these measures would just help "preserve our hunting heritage" in Utah and help "boost Utah's economy".


Outfitters and guides do NOT 'control' these conservation groups. You may want to get educated and less ignorant on the subject BEFORE spouting such nonsense.

FYI, SFW had nothing to do with the current laws in Wyoming of giving a percentage of tags to outfitters, that was done long BEFORE SFW organized in Wyoming. Also, why would I as a guide/outfitter 'waste my time' guiding in Utah's wilderness areas when the best hunting is NOT in ANY of the wilderness areas? :?



> How* intelectually *dishonest and misleading is it to claim that adding 5 new OIL tags available to non-residents through the convention is not a move to help the Utah wildlife profiteers? How many average hunters travel all the way to Utah to enter an application at the Expo? I don't care how you allocate them, taking tags from the regular draw is taking them from the average hunter in the state. It is taking opportunity away from guys that have played the game by the rules and put in for years building points to have a shot at drawing one day. You can try all you want to justify why taking these tags from the public and allocating them through some special method to make more money for certain groups and* indivuduals* is the "best" thing to do, but it is what it is.


When you talk about "intellect", it may become you to spell the WORD(S) correctly to back up your on "intellect". :shock:

Having worked the last two Hunting Expos, I can attest to the HIGH number of non-residents who travel to Utah for this show.

How is it taking away from the "average hunter" if the "average hunter" can STILL apply for them? In fact, through the convention tag drawing, the "average hunter" can apply/draw for MORE tags than he can through the "regular" draw. How is that taking away from the "average hunter"? It is what is.......a great way to allow "average hunters the chance to draw some great tags, and raise a lot of money for habitat at the same time, so you are right, it is what it is.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I know of 4 average hunters who drew tags this year from the convention so many hunters still have a chance to draw them.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Ya'll know where I stand on the subsidy tag issue. Same stance on the convention tag issue.
My question. Is the rule up for renewal or is this simply a modification of the existing rule???

I would like to see the full public accounting of where every penny went and exactly what percent went to paying overhead for the expo. I want a true accounting of exactly how much money went on the ground because of these tags. Not just a quote of the WHCE put umpteen millions back to habitat.

Is this report and accounting going to be available the same way the data for the public input on the RAC process was supposed to be available?? Or will we actually get to see the numbers.

I notice that the RMEF and NWTF are not part of this request, Is there a reason for this and exactly what happened the first time these 5 groups came together and then had these two groups back out??

I would like a few answers to the validity of the program before I go either yay or nay


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

WILEY, I have checked the agenda for the upcoming RAC meeting happening 5/27 thru 6/4, there is no mention of this rule change. D-MAN if your there I would like to know were this information came from and if these 5 OIAL tag's are for nonresident's only.

Also WILEY, The spending record's are availible on the DWR web site, Go to the big game page, Scroll down to CONSERVATION PERMIT PROGRAM, click on that. 
There is a ton of information, there is also a list of the 2008 conservation and were they go. It would appear they have "Lumped" all the convention and conservation tag's together on these report's. I wish the money spent was in better detail though, Like single guzzler's costing $5K to $7K or equipment for $100K, I would like to know what that equipment was.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> CONVENTION PERMIT RULE CHANGE PROPOSAL
> *The Utah Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, and the Mule Deer Foundation would propose *the following for 2009-
> Because the way that Utah allocates the Once-in-a- Lifetime permits, often times the desired 10% allocation to non- resident hunters is not accomplished. This is due to the allocation of permits to small units and rounding issues.


If you actually read what was posted you see who is proposing it and why it isn't on the *DWR's* list of proposals. This is from an e-mail sent out to all SFW members. In it Don Peay states that there will be a SFW rep at EVERY RAC to answer questions, so I suggest Gordy and all others with questions to show up and ask them.

It is the responsibility of the DWR to account for EVERY penny raised through conservation tag projects. As I have mentioned multiple times, the convention tags are a separate issue with different rules/guidelines. The Governor and MANY legislators are so impressed with the money raised and where it is spent from the convention tags that they are willing to pony up MILLIONS of additional money to help sportsmen out as a direct result of this program. I challenge any/ALL that oppose these tags to show how/where this kind of money is generated/spent to benefit wildlife aside from the debated conservation/convention tag programs. I hear people say there are other/better ways, please share some examples where this kind of money is raised and put on the ground w/o pricing the very people you all claim to worry about, the "average hunter". I can't wait to see the 'better' options.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Pro, 
So, is this a correct statment,there are 360 conservation tag's and 200 tag's that are convention tag's? That would be 560 tag's that are not part of the regualar draw?


----------



## rukus (Apr 11, 2008)

Pro- (or anyone else who knows)
I have never been to one of these wildlife conventions. So I have a couple questions about these "convention" tags:
1) How much does it generally cost to apply for one of these tags at the convention?
2) Can you apply multiple times for the tag?
3) Are these new proposed tags for non-residents only?
4) Do you apply for a specific species and tag, or are they all in one big pool and you just get what you get?

I guess the way I see these things is that we all want to improve wildlife, and hunting opportunities here in Utah. And no matter how you look at both the conservation and convention tags, they generally take tags away from the "average hunter", but it is worthless and pointless to argue this. The question I think we all should ask and find answers for ourselves is this....."Are the results of these tags worth it?"


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Pro,
> So, is this a correct statment,there are 360 conservation tag's and 200 tag's that are convention tag's? That would be 560 tag's that are not part of the regualar draw?


I am not sure what the exact number is, nor am I concerned much about it. For the convention tags you can apply for LESS money than in the 'regular' draw, and you can apply for ALL 200 tags, instead of ONE LE and ONE OIL tag like in the 'regular' draw. So, if you see things as the glass half full instead of half empty the "average hunter" benefits BOTH through being able to apply for MORE tags and a lot of money helping wildlife, instead of "opportunity being taken away from the 'average hunter' and given to the rich/outfitters.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

rukus said:


> Pro- (or anyone else who knows)
> I have never been to one of these wildlife conventions. So I have a couple questions about these "convention" tags:
> 1) How much does it generally cost to apply for one of these tags at the convention?
> 2) Can you apply multiple times for the tag?
> ...


1)$5.00 as opposed to $10.00 for the 'regular' draw.
2)You can only apply for a specific tag ONCE.
3)Yes, the five new proposed tags would go only to non-residents.
4)You can apply for EVERY convention tag, so you can apply for a deer tag for each LE unit and with each weapon, while also applying for an elk tag for each LE unit, same for antelope. You can also apply for each moose tag, while also applying for each bighorn, desert bighorn, mountain goat, and bison tag, as well as several different turkey tags. All of this can NOT be done through the 'regular' draw. Or, you can be like me and only apply for five tags that you really want and hope you get lucky. The waiting period for LE tags doesn't apply, neither does the 'once-in-a-lifetime' rule for the OIL tags.

"Are these tags worth it?" I say absolutely!!!!!


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

PRO I thought that you would be proud of your fat little bald buddy for not flying off the handle once my favorite subject is brought up.

GOOFY I know and understand the conservation tag rule. I have seen the figures. It is a great idea that has gone horribly out of control.

My question concerns the CONVENTION TAGS. We were told that there would be a very transparent accounting of exactly how much money was brought in and how much went to pay for overhead and how much went under our boots back on the ground.

If this program is going to be ammended or re negotiated I would like to see what the use of our public resources were used for before I decide to support this or raise a stink about it.
Lets put this program under the microscope and if it turns out to be good for wildlife I will be all for it.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> PRO I thought that you would be proud of your fat little bald buddy for not flying off the handle once my favorite subject is brought up.
> 
> Lets put this program under the microscope and if it turns out to be good for wildlife I will be all for it.


I am very proud of you, good job. Somehow I have maintained civility as well. :shock: :wink:

So, you are saying you are "all for" the conservation tag program since it has PROVEN to benefit wildlife greatly and provided returns that would make Warren Buffet happy for the amount invested compared to the returns. SWEET!!! -()/>- :mrgreen:


----------



## rukus (Apr 11, 2008)

Thanks Pro. One more question though....Why do they want to make these new additional tags for non-residents only and not for residents as well? :? :?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

This is the explanation in the opening paragraph of the e-mail from Don Peay:


> This is a proposed way to get Non Residents their 10% quota of normal drawing permits. Because of rounding issues with small herd units, Non residents of Utah have not been getting the 10%. The proposal below would make that happen, and the tags would be issued to those Non residents who attend the Expo. This proposal will go through the RAC process, you are free to provide RAC/Board comment, or comments to me.


----------



## D-Man (Sep 22, 2007)

Pro Said "So, you are saying you are "all for" the conservation tag program since it has PROVEN to benefit wildlife greatly and provided returns that would make Warren Buffet happy for the amount invested compared to the returns. SWEET!!! "

Where can a guy learn about the actual return on investment you talk about? Sure lots of money has been made, but has that translated into actual increases in herd numbers? Due to the conservation and convention tag programs we have added ___ tags. How many? More than 200, 500, more than 1000? I think the program is out of hand, we have created another monster in wildlife management in Utah.

You honestly believe that outfitters, guides, and other wildlife profiteers don't control the conservation orgs in Utah? How many guys are there on the SWF board that are involved in making a profit through wildlife? Look throug the list of the officers and members of the SFW board and get back to me on that one.

I am just waiting to see what new tags the convention organizers ask for now that turkey tags aren't as "special" as they used to be in Utah.

Pro, I disagree with you and think you are dead wrong, regardless of what propaganda you spout or how many spelling and grammer errors you find in my posts.

FYI the WY wilderness guide requirement came about long before SFW, but a proposal to allocate a certain number of tags for guided NR's and take that from the existing NR quota is recent, and Bob Warff of SFW WY was a big supporter.


----------



## yak4fish (Nov 16, 2007)

From a non resident point of view this seems like a good idea when you first look at it. However it is against the 5% of tags to the convention rule big time. If the is only 1 non resident bighorn tag and they give 1 more to the convention that would be 50% of the tags AGAINST THE LAW in my book. :evil: There would need to be 20 non resident tags before they could legaly give one to the convention. This make me wonder if this rule hasn't already been broken in past conventions as there are less than 20 non resident tags in most of the DWR drawings. This is something I will have to look into because it pisses me off the more I think about it. :evil: :evil: 
If they want to change the 10% of tags to non residents to round down they should put them in the DWR drawing. This is not a good idea if they are allowed to break the 5% rule/ law what ever it is to make money. :evil: :evil: :evil: 

Allen


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

So, you are saying you are "all for" the conservation tag program since it has PROVEN to benefit wildlife greatly and provided returns that would make Warren Buffet happy for the amount invested compared to the returns. SWEET!!! -()/>-

PRO Warren Buffett??? Are you kidding me?? I'm thinking more along the lines of Jeff Skilling
or a $400.00 hammer. :lol:

Like I said the conservation tag program is a great concept, it's just way out of control.
I would be willing to bet that the same funds could be made if the plan had any sort of efficiency. _*CUT THE TAGS BY AT LEAST 75%, MAKE THEM VALUABLE AGAIN.*_
I would think that at least every few years an independent audit on both of these programs 
would not be to much to ask. Lets make sure that we are making Mr. Buffett proud and not investing $1500.00 in toilet seats.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Yak and Wiley, I agree.
After a little more research into the number of tag's allocated, I do recall them being two "seperate group's" of tag's. Just seem's to be easy to mix them up if you don't pay attention. And so everyone is clear, the number's I posted earlyer are correct for 2008.
200 Convention Tag's and 360 conservation Tag's.

Now, Having to travel to SLC to VALIDATE for convention tag's is an inconvenience for me being a 160 mile round trip. I believe there are many more that feel the same way. Also the fact these 5 additional tag's are for non res only, I vote NO NEW CONVENTION TAG"S.
200 is more than enough. I will be at the springville RAC on 6/3 to voice my opinion.


----------



## 4x4 Bronco (Sep 7, 2007)

Although the odds of drawing at the convention are quite slim I still enjoy the fact that I have a chance, however meager it is, to draw at both a limited entry deer and elk tag, as well as any OIL tags I want. I will likely never draw these tags, but it still is fun to have an opportunity. By the time I draw my LE elk tag I will likely have a very long wait if I ever get to draw my LE deer tag. I don't know that we should be adding to how many tags are already being raffled at the convention, but I like the concept of the tags at the convention. I should also say that I live within 45 miles of Salt Lake City. If I lived in southern Utah I would likely hate the convention tags.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

This discussion seems to be between people who know more than I do about how these convention tags work. So, here are a few more questions to get me (and others) up to speed on this issue.
(I'm asking only about the convention tags, not the conservation tags.)

Which convention or conventions get these tags? I know of two big ones.

Are these tags given free to the convention or do they have to be paid for by the convention organization? If so, at what price?

Is the $5.00 fee paid by the hunter the full fee or just an application fee with the price of the tag as usual? Who gets these fees?

Are these tags transferable, refundable, and/or reallocated if the hunter can't go? What about his/her death?

Other than waiving the waiting periods, are there any special seasons, regulations and/or requirements attached to these tags?

Other than drawing a bigger crowd, are there any direct benefits to the convention from these tags?

What about the one tag/two tags per year rule for the various species. Do these tags count?

Basically, I've asked these questions to determine in my own mind whether these tags are 'taken' from the public or just distributed to the public in a different, though limited, manner. It matters!

Anybody?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> Which convention or conventions get these tags? I know of two big ones.


The Hunting Expo held in February at the Salt Palace is the ONLY convention that offers these tags.



> Are these tags given free to the convention or do they have to be paid for by the convention organization? If so, at what price?


The tags are not 'given' to the convention, they are only sold at the convention, the conservation groups never 'own' the tags.



> Is the $5.00 fee paid by the hunter the full fee or just an application fee with the price of the tag as usual? Who gets these fees?


The $5.00 fee is where the groups make their money. If you get lucky and draw a tag you pay the same price you would for the same tag through the 'regular' draw.



> Are these tags transferable, refundable, and/or reallocated if the hunter can't go? What about his/her death?


Again, the same rules apply for these tags as tags acquired through the 'regular' DWR draw.



> Other than waiving the waiting periods, are there any special seasons, regulations and/or requirements attached to these tags?


See above.



> Other than drawing a bigger crowd, are there any direct benefits to the convention from these tags?


Not sure what you are asking here.



> What about the one tag/two tags per year rule for the various species. Do these tags count?


You can only acquire ONE tag per species. So, if you got lucky and drew a LE elk tag through the convention draw, and then drew a LE elk tag through the DWR draw, you would have to decide which tag you want, the other would be given to another lucky hunter.



> Basically, I've asked these questions to determine in my own mind whether these tags are 'taken' from the public or just distributed to the public in a different, though limited, manner. It matters!


What do you think now?


----------



## rukus (Apr 11, 2008)

Good questions elkfromabove. 

Pro- The $5 application fee goes to the convention, so I am assuming the regular tag fee goes to the DWR, am I correct? Could you give me a rough estimate of how many people come and apply for these convention tags?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

PRO, What do I think now? It appears, other than these convention tags going only to those who attend the Hunting Convention, this is nothing more than distributing tags to the public through a different method. And, instead of paying that outfit in Nevada to conduct the draw, DWR has you conduct the draw for half the price!

Better odds, cheaper application fee, unlimited species choices, no waiting periods, none of my money in PRO's pocket! Seems like I better head out from Enoch (Cedar City) next year to attend that there Hunting Convention!

BTW, I'm in the process of crunching some numbers on those Conservation tags. I'll post again on this thread when I get it done.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

For those interested, the National Trappers Association is having thier western region convention in Nephi on June 27-29. 

Sorry expo tag lovers there won't be any tags. There will be demonstrations for predator calling, trapping and fur grading.

The cost is $10.00 for 12 and over and under 12 are free. 

Again no expo tags though.... so you expo tag lovers will have to find another reason to attend.....


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Sorry longfeather, since you are offering any tags, me and some good friends will drive on by to look for critters on the Dutton that weekend. 8)


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

Thats ok. Just take your rifle and plug any coyotes you see.

Also take pictures and post them up so we can be more jealous the we already are.


----------



## drifter (Feb 19, 2008)

I have always thought that if you want to go to SLC to an expo they need toquit baiting everyone with public tags. If your convention has to take a public resource then your convention is not doing its job. The same for all the public tags being auctioned off at the many DU or RMEF or whatever banquets. If they need to take from the public resource to get enough people to show up then they are not doing their job. If someone wants to be a great contributor to the state by wanting to give thousands of $$$$ for the benefit of wildlife great!! Quit asking for a public tag in return for your contribution. Our state is out of control. These are public tags and should not be handed out for all these private ventures. Your conventions and groups need to learn how to stand on their own without taking these public resources. If a group or convention existence relies on these tags to stay afloat then then should not exist.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Quit asking for a public tag in return for your contribution. Our state is out of control. These are public tags and should not be handed out for all these private ventures. Your conventions and groups need to learn how to stand on their own without taking these public resources. If a group or convention existence relies on these tags to stay afloat then then should not exist.


Then how do you propose these groups earn the money to help restore habitat on Public grounds which all of you benefit from? They arent buying new trucks with the money or houses. They arent throwing beer parties with the money or Fixed Blade would be wasted every day. :lol: :lol:


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

> Although the odds of drawing at the convention are quite slim I still enjoy the fact that I have a chance, however meager it is, to draw at both a limited entry deer and elk tag, as well as any OIL tags I want.


Yet if your name were Doug Degelbeck, you would have drawn an LE bull tag 3 years running. I like putting in on tags at the convention, but I would like to see the normal waiting periods apply to someone after they draw.


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

I'm against the high number of tags as well. I can concede and see that 10-50 tags statewide would be a valuable thing. I could live with that and that's more than I used to think. 300 plus? 

NOPE.

Saying that just throwing them to the wind in the convention isn't giving to the rich is false. It further incentivizes the dealers selling things, the groups benefitting from the convention, and the few who have the time and resources to go there. I don't think those are the poor. 

Pro- I don't think the governor needs further incentive to give the millions he has "promised", and not delivered, which you boiled down with me one day into an embarrassing SITLA deal that went really badly. I'm still looking for the headline - Huntsman gave extra millions like Pro said to make sure kids can hunt.

Conservation: In Utah, this is now defined as creating big game trophy hunting opportunities.

In my uneducated opinion, the fish was dropped from SFW because they just aren't profitable here. Maybe if we had the Kenai and you could catch 2 additional Kings or something. You could certainly sell that. I still wonder why they dropped the fish. No love for the fish?

Not more tags - LESS. Take back the tags! Cut the umbilical cord that got you this far.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

SteepNDeep said:


> Pro- I don't think the governor needs further incentive to give the millions he has "promised", and not delivered, which you boiled down with me one day into an embarrassing SITLA deal that went really badly. I'm still looking for the headline - Huntsman gave extra millions like Pro said to make sure kids can hunt.
> 
> Conservation: In Utah, this is now defined as creating big game trophy hunting opportunities.


I have no idea what "embarrassing" SITLA deal you are referring to.

Your definition of "Utah conservation" is narrow minded and is ignoring many facts, not that the millions of acres improved on PUBLIC land matter to folks who refuse to see good in things they oppose. Name ANY western state that has come anywhere close to Utah in habitat restoration in the last 10 years with/without these hated tags. Fact is, Utah does MORE habitat restoration than the surrounding states COMBINED! The benefits long term will be great, as are the short term results.


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

""embarrassing" SITLA deal"

You give too much credit where little is due. You're the one who touted it out for me and others. Then, after reading your posts and looking into the leads, others basically shot holes in it as any kind of poster child reflecting the "millions Huntsman pledged." 

I'm not asking you or SFW to undo what right you've done or stop doing good things. I'm asking you to find better means of doing it. 

Conservation is kind of more broadly defined than just helping big game for sole purpose of trophy hunting though, isn't it? Even the state guys have a much bigger focus on big game, birds, fish etc. that are available for our consumption. The only thing SFW is conserving is the right to hunt big game. I still want to know what happened to the fish. Is my guess valid that it is not on the list as it just doesn't draw interest and money?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

SteepNDeep said:


> "Conservation is kind of more broadly defined than just helping big game for sole purpose of trophy hunting though, isn't it? Even the state guys have a much bigger focus on big game, birds, fish etc. that are available for our consumption. The only thing SFW is conserving is the right to hunt big game. I still want to know what happened to the fish. Is my guess valid that it is not on the list as it just doesn't draw interest and money?


This comment made by you is pure hyperbole and based on zero facts. The pictures that Coyoteslayer posted are of thousands of acres of general season deer units, that will almost exclusively benefit general season deer, which is the general public and NOT the 'trophy hunters'. I know it sounds great to paint SFW as only looking out for the trophy hunters, but such an assertion is unfounded and has no facts/proof to support such claims. Are you aware that the single biggest contributor for the thousands of turkeys transplanted in Utah was/is SFW? That's right, the reason so many 'average hunters' got a turkey tag is in large part thanks to SFW. They spent more $ time/money then NWTF, which used these conservation tags for many of their local projects as well. Within the nest 2-3 years turkey tags will be OTC, and I am sure SteepNDeep will be first in line to thank SFW. Otherwise, one may accuse him of a hidden agenda. :shock: :wink:


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

I'm just in a bad mood because I missed that everyone has been talking about how the U sucks and Bronco is the man all while liberals are out screwing up our kids over sexual over-education. TMI! 

I just don't have enough time to post here. Fun stuff. Are you on the SFW payroll or something? Man, you come to the rescue a lot. You have to see that, like any group, there can be small or serious cracks in the armor. This whole convention needs a day after pill to stop the growth. Seriously, there is enough and plenty to go around, and the thought of more tags just makes me ill. There are other ways and you're losing my potential support because it just still seems like a good old boys thing. SFW has grown tremendously and I think it is time to leave the nest. When you drop the tags, I'll join for sure. 

Here's a possible definition for you:

Conservation in Utah: lot's of fellas looking at the chapel of horn porn, Foxworthy telling some ******* jokes, some dude twangin a guitar, loads of outfitters and hunting gear on display and for sale, and a few busty women handing out envelopes or working the patrons....errrr...booths. _(O)_ 

I vote to conserve country music and large chested women! 8) Please, do more to ensure my boy's hunting future and our visits to see large two pointed, I mean good mass on that rack, oh crap. Just tell your mother you had a good time, son.


----------



## mulepacker (Sep 11, 2007)

"Name ANY western state that has come anywhere close to Utah in habitat restoration in the last 10 years with/without these hated tags. Fact is, Utah does MORE habitat restoration than the surrounding states COMBINED! The benefits long term will be great, as are the short term results."

Name any western state that needs to do the work Utah needs to. I am sorry but patting yourself on the back for righting previous wrongs is not extremely credible in my book. Especially while you continue to mismanage public resources. This in fact is the MO of Utah's big game management scheme. This includes and is in a big part to the influence of SFW and money. A public process has been set up that has tied the hands of the DWR, who defined the process SFW. A significant number of money permits are taken who defined the process SFW. We have elk herds out of whack, we have failed to make any strides in mule deer recovery, sure we have introduced some previously lacking species but for what? Those who can afford it. These are monies that could have been used for the masses i.e. mule deer recovery.

I am sorry but Utah is not the model for wildlife management. Just because in the last ten years some items are beginning to be rectified. Others are headed down the wrong path look at our elk herd dynamics. What are the long term and short term results of our game management currently??? Some day we will be able to pat ourselves on the back for righting a wrong again.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

SteepNDeep said:


> Are you on the SFW payroll or something? Man, you come to the rescue a lot. You have to see that, like any group, there can be small or serious cracks in the armor. This whole convention needs a day after pill to stop the growth. Seriously, there is enough and plenty to go around, and the thought of more tags just makes me ill. There are other ways and you're losing my potential support because it just still seems like a good old boys thing. SFW has grown tremendously and I think it is time to leave the nest. When you drop the tags, I'll join for sure.
> 
> Here's a possible definition for you:
> 
> ...


No, I am NOT on the SFW payroll, they can't afford me. They would have to double the number of tags they sell just to pay my salary. :shock:

I guess you won't be joining SFW anytime soon, as if that were a surprise, since I do NOT foresee the undoing of these tags anytime in the near future.

All the money raised from Foxworthy telling jokes, and busty women handing out envelopes helps ensure your son, and MY son will have places to hunt when they are our age. My son is 3, and I believe we must be *pro*-active in conservation, which means habitat projects which take MILLIONS of dollars, in order for him to have the hunting opportunities I enjoy 38 years from now.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

mulepacker said:


> I am sorry but Utah is not the model for wildlife management. Jus*t because in the last ten years some items are beginning to be rectified.* Others are headed down the wrong path look at our elk herd dynamics. What are the long term and short term results of our game management currently??? Some day we will be able to pat ourselves on the back for righting a wrong again.


What changed in the last ten years Travis? I am NOT patting myself on the back, I have only been actively involved in this stuff for about 4 years, so I take no credit for the great things that have transpired in the last 10 years.

I agree there are some serious issues still facing Utah's deer/elk herds. But, w/o habitat any/all other issues are irrelevant. Fixing the bull:cow ratios can/will be straightened out, the deer herds are increasing in MOST parts of the state, people are slowly seeing the light on issuing more bull tags on LE units. I see things as being BETTER than 10 years ago, and I believe things will be better 10 years from now than today. Maybe it is my half full instead of half empty view of life. :mrgreen: That 'bonus' deer tag you got is BETTER in 2008 than it was in 1998, I will PROVE that one true. :wink:


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

SFW represents the trophy hunter. They view the non-trophy hunter as a liability to the sport and feel the non-trophy hunter adds nothing and ask for everything.

Do the improvements in the habitat benefit all hunters, yes. But SFW is all about the trophy hunter and the money that the trophy hunter brings. Don will tell you that if you ask him. They want the general public to think they are looking out for your interests but they are looking out for *their * interests and it just happens that sometimes the two parties interests are the same.


----------



## Donttreadonme (Sep 11, 2007)

So how much does Don Peay pay himself? I just wonder.....


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Longfeather said:


> SFW represents the trophy hunter. They view the non-trophy hunter as a liability to the sport and feel the non-trophy hunter adds nothing and ask for everything.
> 
> Do the improvements in the habitat benefit all hunters, yes. But SFW is all about the trophy hunter and the money that the trophy hunter brings. Don will tell you that if you ask him. They want the general public to think they are looking out for your interests but they are looking out for *their * interests and it just happens that sometimes the two parties interests are the same.


Sorry, but you are spewing fiction. Do a poll on what the MAJORITY of SFW members are, and the over-whelming number lays in the 'average hunter' category. Your version of reality is more entertaining however, and is good for riling up the masses to grab torches and drive the ogres from the village. SFW makes policies based on DIRECT feed back from the members, who let their local chapter leadership know what they view as important, who then meet with the other chapter leaderships, who decide what direction to go, who then tell Don Peay where/what to do. That is fact, not a fairy tale like what you just pulled out your backside.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Longfeather wrote:
> SFW represents the trophy hunter. They view the non-trophy hunter as a liability to the sport and feel the non-trophy hunter adds nothing and ask for everything.
> 
> Do the improvements in the habitat benefit all hunters, yes. But SFW is all about the trophy hunter and the money that the trophy hunter brings. Don will tell you that if you ask him. They want the general public to think they are looking out for your interests but they are looking out for their interests and it just happens that sometimes the two parties interests are the same.


Longfeather, you sometimes are as bad as wyo2ut (your brother) :lol: The Majority of SFW members are average hunters just like you and me. Do you actually think these SFW members would be apart of this organization if SFW only cared about the trophy hunters?

You must think that all SFW members are brainwashed by big brother DON. Do you think average hunters would continue to pay their membership if SFW wasn't working for them? Maybe you need to take a huge step back and actually realize what you are saying?

Maybe you can be secret agent Longfeather in tights and investigate SFW from within as a full blown members. Now theres an Idea!!! You could go their meetings and report back on your investigation.

You will actually find in your investigation that Don is a great person and SFW likes the average joe hunters.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

" If ya just want to kill a bull go to Colorado"
" Bowhunters should have to pick a region for the first 9 days of the general archery season"
"All Bowhunters ever do is wound game"
"Bring your bonus points and waiting periods to the table just like everybody else"
"give me 100 guys with thick wallets and I will run the hunting world"
"200 tags thats it"
"just trust us" ( before the RMEF and NWTF left the convention )

I can't remember the exact quotes about doing away with general season spike hunting
and I will not go down the road of the story of a certain person admitting shooting domestic sheep.

Tell me the guy that is all for the general season average joe hunter that spoke these words of wisdom.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> " If ya just want to kill a bull go to Colorado"
> " Bowhunters should have to pick a region for the first 9 days of the general archery season"
> "All Bowhunters ever do is wound game"
> "Bring your bonus points and waiting periods to the table just like everybody else"
> ...


 :lol: :lol: :lol: So why do hunters continue to be members of SFW if the organization isnt helping average joe hunters. The spike issue was brought up by average joe hunters who are tired of just hunting spikes.

Don never said that bowhunters wound all the animals.



> Bowhunters should have to pick a region for the first 9 days of the general archery season"


SFW rifle members must have said this one



> I will not go down the road of the story of a certain person admitting shooting domestic sheep.


Yes keep the **** sheep away from Bighorn sheep because of the millions invested in the animals.



> Bring your bonus points and waiting periods to the table just like everybody else"


Everyone is treated fair.



> If ya just want to kill a bull go to Colorado"


Yes, if you disappointed that you didnt draw and still want to kill a bull that year then by all means pay $500 and hunt bulls in Colorado.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

CS YOU ARE SH!%%$&% ME RIGHT??? Alright COOTER Let me SPLAIN it to ya.

1. You are an average Joe hunter right?? Why are you a member?? Why did the board have a major shake up a few years back?? Why are several people responsible for bringing SFW to certain area's of the state are now " less than supportive" of SFW??

2. BULLSH!*!!! Not only did Don say this to a good friend and mentor of mine but if you do a search on MM.com you will see that James Gilson SFW Board Member and a member of the SE RAC said exactly the same thing.

3. Dixie Wildlife which is basically the southern chapter of SFW and SFW Board member Gregg McGreggor read the proposal at the RACS a few years back to have this proposal passed that would not allow the statewide Bowhunt. Why??? It sure as hell wasn't for Biological reasons it was because and I quote " Everyone else has given up something bowhunters haven't given up anything" Sound like responsible management CS??? Look it up CS It was on the DWR site.

If you need a copy I have it on my computer at work I'd be more than happy to e mail the meeting minutes to you.

4. So because I invested $50.00 in fertilizer for my grass I should put a muzzy through my neighbors dog the first time I see it pinching a loaf on my lawn??? Dude if it's illegal it's illegal!!
I see you and PRO on here all the time pushing private property incentives all the time, is a leased grazing allotment not the same thing??

5. The Bonus Point and waiting period thing wasn't said by Don specifically but was an exact quote from both Tony and John Bair at the time that the best archery elk hunt in the west 
was ended at the hands of SFW. This hunt didn't end because it was the biologically responsible thing to do it was ended because if a hunter choose NOT TO EARN A BONUS POINT
they could hunt elk with a bow more than once in a lifetime. Success was around 13% at this time the EXACT QUOTE FROM DON WAS "WE NEED TO GROW A BIGGER PIE" well how much bigger of an elk pie can we responsibly grow before we start killing a few elk CS??? are we there yet?? Have we been there for a few years??? Have you seen anything more than a token increase in tags CS???

6. So it is up to SFW alone to decide that myself you or any other TAXPAYING Utahn gets to hunt elk in Utah??? And how big of an elk we get to hunt???

CS It's SHEEPEOPLE like you that will make sure that only one line of thought, one philosophy
is represented. If it happens to be your philosophy and pattern of thought good for you.
Bad for Elk, Bad for Tag distribution, Bad for opportunity. Great for the ten percenters and the guys wealthy enough to hunt Utah every year without playing by the rules of the TRUE AVERAGE JOE HUNTER.

CS tell me the exact dollar figure that Mother Nature ask's to end a drought. Tell me how much Mother Nature wants to put that lightning bolt in to the mud instead of cheat grass.
Tell me how much better off Utah's mule deer are versus say Colorado, Wyoming or any other western state that doesn't have 360 conservation tags and 205 convention tags?? Last I looked we just reduced tags and have a whopping 5 day hunt in the southern end of the state.
spout all the spin you want about this SHOW ME THE END RESULT


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Last I looked we just reduced tags and have a whopping 5 day hunt in the southern end of the state.
> spout all the spin you want about this SHOW ME THE END RESULT


Average joe hunters didnt want it turned back to a 9 day hunt.



> Tell me how much better off Utah's mule deer are versus say Colorado, Wyoming or any other western state that doesn't have 360 conservation tags and 205 convention tags??


CO, Wyoming have more and better habitat for mule deer, but their elk herds dont even compare.



> CS tell me the exact dollar figure that Mother Nature ask's to end a drought. Tell me how much Mother Nature wants to put that lightning bolt in to the mud instead of cheat grass.


All she wanted was a bottle of white lightning.



> CS It's SHEEPEOPLE like you that will make sure that only one line of thought, one philosophy
> is represented. If it happens to be your philosophy and pattern of thought good for you.


I dont like sheep



> 6. So it is up to SFW alone to decide that myself you or any other TAXPAYING Utahn gets to hunt elk in Utah??? And how big of an elk we get to hunt???


I'm sad you feel this way.



> 2. BULLSH!*!!! Not only did Don say this to a good friend and mentor of mine but if you do a search on MM.com you will see that James Gilson SFW Board Member and a member of the SE RAC said exactly the same thing.


When they said this then were they speaking as a representative of SFW or their own personal opinion.

.


> The Bonus Point and waiting period thing wasn't said by Don specifically but was an exact quote from both Tony and John Bair at the time that the best archery elk hunt in the west
> was ended at the hands of SFW. This hunt didn't end because it was the biologically responsible thing to do it was ended because if a hunter choose NOT TO EARN A BONUS POINT
> they could hunt elk with a bow more than once in a lifetime. Success was around 13% at this time the EXACT QUOTE FROM DON WAS "WE NEED TO GROW A BIGGER PIE" well how much bigger of an elk pie can we responsibly grow before we start killing a few elk CS??? are we there yet?? Have we been there for a few years??? Have you seen anything more than a token increase in tags CS???


Are you talking about Ar301 and are you sure SFW is responsible for getting it stopped? Yes we need a bigger pie, but SFW isnt the ones behind very few tags and very little mature bull tag increases.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

CS I am wasting my time with you... As PRO said he has only been actively involved in "this" for about 4 years. I'm not going to change your mind no matter what I say or what ever facts and hard evidence I lay in front of you. You are going to believe what you are going to believe untill you have to pull the teeth out of your own A%# and don't kid yourself I WILL BE THERE SAYING I TOLD YOU SO!!! It has happened again and again and it will happen, probably again this fall with the mule deer plan.

CS ask any of these people about these quotes they are honest men they will tell you right to your face that they either said or did this. Ask Tony about AR-301 He's honest he'll tell you straight up SFW ended this hunt. 

What does it matter if these men were acting on their own or as a rep for SFW?? Once they sit as a Board to cast a vote isn't it all the same thing???

CS you proved my point about the habitat. Wyo and Colo doesn't have 360 wealth tag or 205 jump through hoops tags and they still have better habitat than we do. Can you honestly tell me that Utah has better elk opportunity than Colorado??? Maybe bigger bulls that a minor percentage of applicants get to kill every year. But no way more opportunity.

Dude whatever you do don't ask any hard questions. Keep supporting entitlements for the wealthy hunters. Keep supporting 10% for the orgs. and keep up your support of those that will keep opportunity down for those of us that just want to kill a bull in our home state.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Gordy, I don't support SFW 100% I use to think Don was a very bad person until I actually met him several times. I went lion hunting with Tony and have know him for years.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

CS I agree 100%.. I don't believe that any of these men are bad people. I have really enjoyed working with the SFW guys on the ATV committee and have a tremendous amount of respect for them as men. 

I just can't get with or support or stand by while they run their version of responsible 
wildlife management throughout the state.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Sometimes I would think that somewhere along the line then SFW and many groups have lost there real mission to exist. I look at the WB sometimes and think to myself that these people don't know crap about managing wildlife when a lot of times they get all confused when someone makes a motion to pass something.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

Don may or may not represent the majority of the members of SFW, that isn’t what my post was about. 

SFW doesn't represent the majority of hunters. Their focus is on the trophy hunting aspect of the sport. Don will admit that he doesn't represent the majority of hunters. He wants everyone to think he does, but when pressed he will tell you that without the trophy hunters there isn't any money and that is why he represents the trophy hunters. Don feels that the majority of hunters don’t add to the resource and are only users of the resource.

You all can say what you want but that is the truth. The truth may hurt but it is still the truth.....


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

This has turn into a very long thread for " JUST 5 MORE TAG"S"

Well, the way I see it these 5 tag's are nothing more than a way to draw out of state people to SLC for the convention, PERIOD.

And one of these tag's could be the moose tag I've got 13 year's invested in, or some one from UTAH'S sheep tag, or your bison tag, someone from say, Hanksville, has been trying to draw for 15 year's.

Giving them to somone from say, New York.............. (with NO POINT'S), Pure Bull$%%&@!


----------



## mulepacker (Sep 11, 2007)

We are fixing habitat!
We have the best elk herd!

Perception!!!!!!!!! 


Utah has not made any significant strides in elk management. We simply don't kill elk and then publicize we have the best elk herd because we kill big bulls. The size of the bulls has little to do with whether the herd as a whole is the best.

I will agree that Utah is doing some great things without of the box thinking in the world of habitat restoration. Much of that credit goes to Don Peay and SFW. 
However, in digging deeper I find it amusing where habitat restoration takes place and at what cost. Most restoration is happening on severely restricted hunting properties. Although it is touted that millions have been spent again it is interesting to decipher how we get these monies. Most Money comes from the federal government in one-way or another. Somehow the state and private organizations must provide matching monies (usually a small %) to be awarded the grants. In Utah's case we have taken an easy road (IMO) robbing from the tag pool to provide the wealthy with what they want guaranteed tags for trophy animals. No one can argue it has worked as a way of earning needed monies. But again is it best for hunting as a whole or is it the beginning of the "King's Deer"?

I would bet there is not one person on this or any site that has not complained about the loss of access to hunting areas. Why do you think this is happening? Utah's system has made hunting more and more profitable. This fall 4500 acres behind my house will be behind a high fence. I wonder what convinced the folks they could make more money hunting elk than raising cows? Fortunately we cannot high fence public lands or this would be the method used by those wishing to minimize conflict and maximize profit and personal use. However, in Utah it appears that a system has been figured out of how to lock up public lands without a high fence. First buy grazing permits; change from raising cows/sheep to wildlife. Second severely restrict the permits issued for said area, therefore limiting access and conflict. Third skim permits to satisfy those who can provide monetary gain. It is ironic that as an outfitter I must apply for and hopefully receive a special use permit to take someone hunting on public land because I will gain from it monetarily. However if I broker permits for public land and resources there is not much responsibility and the only limitation is the number of permits. In both cases I benefited from public resources. 

Yes I am glad things some things are changing in Utah. However I am not sure the costs out weigh the benefits. We have the lowest youth hunter recruitment in the Intermountain Region, we have the highest resident prices, we have the most restrictive opportunity, and we have the shortest seasons. Are these going to enhance the future or be detrimental? Each of us needs to decide for ourselves and then position ourselves to make a difference.

“The Biggest Loser” provides a great analogy:

Here we have someone who has let themselves get in a state of poor condition usually by lack of discipline and living for the day. A huge financial incentive lures them into making a difference and changing the way things were. Soon everyone is cheering them for all of their great accomplishments, they pat themselves on the back. Proudly exclaim I am the champion. It will take time to see if the money was the incentive or the lifestyle and health change.

Next door we have the trainer, someone who has made wise choices lived a disciplined and restrictive life. Because of the their long term choices and example they now are reaping the rewards of responsible management. They also have developed a system that insures a continued path of success for the long term.

The sad thing is in Utah the DWR is the host who watches the weigh in once a week rather than the loser or trainer.

Who truly is the best?


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

I think there's something to be said for stepping back and looking at the bigger picture. Remember that both convention and conservation tags are also about business and politics. That being the case, it only makes sense to entice non-residents and/or provide opportunity for the non-residents who are already partners in the convention.


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

Well said. The convention is about business and politics. Right.


----------

