# Utah Waterfowl slam: THIS IS WHERE YOUR DONATION BELONGS



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/compon...4-waterfowl/1250-the-utah-waterfowl-slam.html

With all the non-transparent groups and conservation organizations, this is one sure way that your money will be well spent. No there's no free guns, money, or other prizes at the end, but isn't having a little fun and trying to complete their "slams", worth helping our waterfowl habitat here in Utah? A pat on the back is not always required or a gimmy, your reward is helping the waterfowl and their habitats in the beautiful state we call home.

This to me is not a waste of money, and if taken right by sportsmen, will be a great, successful program, that could be very beneficial to our wildlife. This is an actual license you can buy that goes directly towards the game you are hunting. The money isn't wasted somewhere else.

For all of you true sporstman who care about our hunting privledges, the animals we hunt, and their habitat, and truly want to see hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation have a bright future, $35 is a reasonable fee for a year to help and show that you would like to ensure the future of our waterfowl (and wildlife). Where all here for one cause.... we love the outdoors, and in a world where our outdoors, habitat, and recreation activities are taking a back seat, I commend the Division for having a good way dedicated sportsman can help the waterfowl we hunt. The $5 stamp is a good idea, I would like to see it too, and a $5 for upland game as well, or a $10 combo stamp. Those would be very beneficial as well and a better way to raise money. But for this year this is how you help our waterfowl, I for one won't get caught up in the "slams" so much as it's $35 that I will spend feeling like I did something to give back to such a wonderful opportunity to hunt waterfowl in our state.


----------



## goosefreak (Aug 20, 2009)

OH, H! YEAH!!! i'm in!! puddler slam and mallard slam are in the bag baby!!


----------



## richard rouleau (Apr 12, 2008)

what a joke this waterfowl slam is 35 dollor is way to much just other rip off by the dnr . if they bring back the state duck stamp and know to spend the money or know how to manage wma


----------



## goosefreak (Aug 20, 2009)

richard, do you need me to loan you $35


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Richard.... I have my fair share of complaints on the DWR, but this is a good way all of us sportsman can help put our money where our mouth is and put dollars towards a good cause. This reason this is a great $35 spent is they tell you exactly where the money is going. It's going right to waterfowl and they even mention some of the projects it will be used for. I understand us sportsman feel we just keep getting charged more but at least this money will be well spent. It would be nice to see more of these from the Dividion in the future.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

DWR Quote:
"This year, the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources is launching a new Waterfowl Slam program in partnership with multiple conservation organizations and sponsors. The Slam will help fund waterfowl related projects."

Who are the multiple conservation organizations and sponsors? *List Please.*....

Why does the DWR need a partnership with anyone to do this? What is the conservation organizations and sponsors role in this?


----------



## Jeff Bringhurst (May 20, 2009)

Fowlmouth said:


> DWR Quote:
> "This year, the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources is launching a new Waterfowl Slam program in partnership with multiple conservation organizations and sponsors. The Slam will help fund waterfowl related projects."
> 
> Who are the multiple conservation organizations and sponsors? *List Please.*....
> ...


Utah Ducks Unlimited
Delta Waterfowl
FowlMinded
SFW
Utah DNR

CampChef
Lake Bonneville Layout Boats
Sportsmans Warehouse

These groups and organizations paid for the printing and bands for this project. This allows all the money raised for this to go directly back into the waterfowl projects listed on the page.


----------



## stuckduck (Jan 31, 2008)

I think its a good idea for the state to try fundraising. I'm not a band guy but will donate to help out... seems we like to eat our own still...


----------



## Greenhead_Slayer (Oct 16, 2007)

Overall I like the idea. My only complaint is the $35 is a little steep... That's more than my combo license!


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

But is $35 worth a years worth of just saying to yourself "that's for hunting waterfowl, and helping their habitat in our state"?


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

How was the $35/$15 amount determined?


----------



## Greenhead_Slayer (Oct 16, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> But is $35 worth a years worth of just saying to yourself "that's for hunting waterfowl, and helping their habitat in our state"?


If the focus was truly on helping habitat in our state they'd implement a $5 state duck stamp. It'll be interesting to see how many sign up for it and participate.


----------



## Jeff Bringhurst (May 20, 2009)

Jeff Bringhurst said:


> Utah Ducks Unlimited
> Delta Waterfowl
> FowlMinded
> SFW
> ...


I forgot to mention these groups are also involved:

Utah Waterfowl Association

Kent's Market (Tremonton)

Since these funds are unrestricted funds and put into a separate account, not in the general fund, the DWR will be able to use this money to apply for grants. Sometimes it's a 1:1 match, other times it requires 2:1, 3:1, etc. The biggest challenge in the past has been to come up with money to match, so that is where this money will help the most. Every dollar raised will be leveraged to bring in even more money for the marshes and waterfowl.


----------



## Donttreadonme (Sep 11, 2007)

Jeff Bringhurst said:


> I forgot to mention these groups are also involved:
> 
> Utah Waterfowl Association
> 
> ...


From what I understand, Jeff is spot on here. I think it is a great idea. A little pricey but at least we have a way to get more money for our wetlands not just more money for the DWR to spend on other programs.


----------



## kev (Feb 7, 2008)

Hey, I know I'm late to the party and I've been out of the game for a while, but this seems pretty simple to me. It's a DONATION!! If you don't like it and/or disagree with how it's setup, then simply don't participate. Easy! 
Me personally I'd rather see a voluntary system where the money is used for match money for grants and what not, as opposed to a mandatory system where the money is mired in red tape and beuracracy. Participation will be what it is. The nice thing about the way this is setup, is that it's setup to be changed. It won't have to see a "vote" in legislature to be changed, reversed, removed or bolstered. They can simply make changes as they see fit. So if they see less than stellar participation maybe they can make some changes next year and get the word out, so more people will see what it's all about.
As for concerns with people "cheating" and/or "poaching" in order to recieve the bands?? I won't lie, I've been there. Buy bands on E-bay, wanting to hunt in closed areas, shoot stuff out of season, use more shells than your allowed, hunt after hours. I've been there done that, and for the most part I've paid the price. But I can say this. I've never, ever been proud of any of it, for any length of time. Having said that, if a guy can strut his stuff around knowing that he's done something unethical to gain the prospective that he is an "above average" hunter, then I guess let him do it. I know I would never be able to proudly display a duck I shot out of season, or a deer I poached. The same would go for a couple of "bands". Guys are going to do what they are going to do. If we'll all do what we can do, mind our own manners, and teach our kids to do that, then that's all we can ask.
Sorry for the rant. I'll retreat to my hole.
Later,
Kev


----------



## Spry Yellowdog (Sep 8, 2007)

Why is it the hunting community is always expected to carry the burden?
I would like to see a entrance fee for the WMAs. A single car pass of 1 dollar or a season pass for a few more. Or make one for the waterfowl and wildlife management areas. It could be singled out for use only in those areas. That way the birders,bikers and other users would all help the habitat. When donating time on projects all I ever see is hunters. But when its time to voice opinions on land uses the others are out expressing there needs. Just a thought 5 bucks from thousands is better than 35 from a few. Only down fall is if they put in a nickle they will want to rule in the decision making.
Just a thought.

Spry


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

Spry Yellowdog said:


> Why is it the hunting community is always expected to carry the burden?
> I would like to see a entrance fee for the WMAs. A single car pass of 1 dollar or a season pass for a few more. Or make one for the waterfowl and wildlife management areas. It could be singled out for use only in those areas. That way the birders,bikers and other users would all help the habitat. When donating time on projects all I ever see is hunters. But when its time to voice opinions on land uses the others are out expressing there needs. Just a thought 5 bucks from thousands is better than 35 from a few. Only down fall is if they put in a nickle they will want to rule in the decision making.
> Just a thought.
> 
> Spry


I think when it comes right down to it those people have a voice in the decision making anyway. They are tax payers too. Like I said in another post, and I agree with you $5 from everyone is better than $35 from a few. I do understand though the crap that is involved with trying to pass anything through the legislative process, so I see where this slam program comes into play to avoid all of that mess. It is creative thinking on the DWR's part to raise money this way. 
Just curious, does anyone know if donation boxes have ever been set up at WMA's? If so did it work or not?


----------



## kev (Feb 7, 2008)

> Why is it the hunting community is always expected to carry the burden?


My opinion....

Consumptive use requires a greater share of the financial burden. There will always be enough ducks to look at. Hunting is a game of excess. In order to hunt there is a requist excess of animals. Excess is harder to finance. We are expected to carry the lions share of the financial burden because, in my opinion, we consume the lions share of the resource. Birdwatching, trail riding, hiking, and such don't consume much in the way of resource. Our chosen sport requires by default law enforcement (because lets face it, we all don't play by the rules), wildlife management, biological management, so on and so forth. All of those things cost money. The others, while the arguement could be made, they don't require those things.

I realize this is not a particularly popular opinion, I respect that. But it's just my opinion.

As this applies to the "slam" program. It directly applies to the consumptive user, and directly applied to the consumed resource. On the surface at least, it appears as though it will be well managed, and used to match funds that will be used to fund projects directly related to the resource we use by default.

Off my soap box.

Later,
Kev


----------



## Spry Yellowdog (Sep 8, 2007)

Thank you for your input on this discussion. I can't remember a time a legislator passed on the chance to raise taxes (user fees) when it didn't harm there reelection chances. When is it ever a question of fairness?
Also state parks charge user fees rather consumptive or not. Fishing, waterskiing, picnicking, camping, ect.
US forest service charges user fees to use roads for access rather consumptive or not. Biking hiking access, fishing, hunting access ect.
Sportsman pay fees in licenses, stamps, taxes on all equipment and ammo be it state or fed.
A user fee is the fairest tax and since everyone has a voice everyone should add back to the resource. A 6.00 tag once a year for WMA access isn't a huge burden on everyone. 1 dollar to print the transferable mirror hanger 5.00 to the resource. Well probably more like 5.00 to bureaucracy and 1.00 to the resource.
Just seems far smarter minds than mine could make something like this work.
Thank you for listening.
Spry


----------



## kev (Feb 7, 2008)

I hear what your saying, but.... there are a couple of items that maybe need some clearification.

Raising "taxes" and implementing fees are worlds apart, however along the same vain, if you can spin it in the direction the majority of your constiuency sees as a net gain for them, then they will see you in a positive light (ie: your chances of relection actually go up). The key there is to spin the "tax increase" in a positve light. So it is possible in my opinion.

And to clearify my previous post. I was referring to the lions share of the consumption, paying the lions share of the way. Fishermen (and/or women) pay for a license to cover their share of the resource as it is viewed by the powers that determine such things. Should they choose to use a boat, again they pay for that priviledge, to cover the resources they use there, same goes for us. Hikers, bikers, campers, ATV'ers all pay for the thier consumption in one way or another, as the powers that dertermine such things see fit. It might not be "fair", but what really is? Fairness should not nessecarily be based on "sameness" but rather need, in my opinion. Our sport because of its highly consumptive nature, needs more financial support. Again, hunting is sport of excess. There must be an excess of given animal to allow for it to be hunted. Excess requires management, biology, law enforcement, etc., all of those things are expensive, above and beyond other outdoor activities.

Again, I'm not trying to say anyone is right or wrong, I'm just throwing my opinion out there.

And as long as my opinion is out there, I'll say this. If you really truly love the resource and are devoted heart and soul, $35 is not a deal breaker, or rather maybe it should not be. However going along with the spirit of this thead, this program is perfect. Because if you disagree you simply don't have to participate. And even more so, if you see another more appropriate solution, you live in a country where you can take the nessecary actions to try and implement your solution. In short I just think it's better to ask a little more from some, than to demand a little from everyone. I for one would much rather be asked, than told. And once again, that's just my opinion.

Later,
Kev


----------

