# What Utah SHOULD do with expo tags...



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

I have a problem. I have learned when it comes to the Wildlife Boards stupidity with a number of things, I can't seem to get over it.

I sure wish RMEF was rightfully awarded the expo. Utah could use the funds for so much more than attorney fees for wolves and sage grouse.

Maybe RMEF and OnX aren't perfect, but projects like this are refreshing to see. I know this one is a look-back, but they have been doing this for decades:






OnX mapping of landlocked areas is insane. RMEF is constantly converting private lands to public, while also unlocking public lands. Maybe SFW high dollar attorney could instead fight the stupid attempt to let the state monetize lands.

Anyways- I thought this was another cool project and wanted to share, while also ranting about the millions of dollars we donate that seems to go to absolutely nothing.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

SFW would have to change their position on public lands and public wildlife for them to do what you want them to do. 

Heck, they tried to get an entire hunt removed (late Dutton) because mere commoners were killing "The King's" big bulls on that hunt. We couldn't have a regular dude kill a giant bull, now...could we? That would be an atrocity! 

Yes, RMEF has done some great things with access and lands. This project is really cool.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Vanilla said:


> SFW would have to change their position on public lands and public wildlife for them to do what you want them to do.
> 
> Heck, they tried to get an entire hunt removed (late Dutton) because mere commoners were killing "The King's" big bulls on that hunt. We couldn't have a regular dude kill a giant bull, now...could we? That would be an atrocity!


I hate that a few board members, who aren't elected by the public, decided that THEY should have access to the largest source of Utah conservation funds (outside of the DWR's budget).


----------



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

RandomElk16 said:


> I hate that a few board members, who aren't elected by the public, decided that THEY should have access to the largest source of Utah conservation funds (outside of the DWR's budget).


Until Utah sportsman, who rely heavily on public lands, can realize they are shooting themselves in the foot by not holding those they vote for more accountable, or better yet vote against them, it won't change. Real public pressure could change things, but not enough people are interested in actually applying that pressure. The wildlife board has had so many SFW cronies over the years its ridiculous. RMEF deserved the last expo, but the good old boy system continues to go along because people in Utah go along with the crap. The public hunter will continue to take the back seat, and Utah will continue looking like the fool and laughing stock in regards to public wildlife/land so long as the public doesn't force change. I do have some hope you might could see some change if Spencer Cox is elected Governor. I hope to see him elected and from what I've seen and after meeting him he is fully willing to listen especially if you and enough people speak loud enough on something. Politics is where this battle is going to have to be won. Utah sportsmen need to start/continue pushing back on the land transfer/sale idea. We need to start pushing back on the money being wasted to fight wolf/sage grouse habitat plans. It's a huge waste of funds simply being funneled to peoples buddies to do basically nothing for all of us. I do have some hope with Spencer Cox if he's elected Governor that he will listen, so long as sportsmen get involved enough to make him aware of these issues. So continue to stay involved, Utah needs a major change of heart in regards to public wildlife and public lands. The thing is, I don't think people realize most of it, they just have scare tactics used to sway their opinion that all this garbage is okay. People here love their public land and wildlife and access they have to it, it's time Utah started acting like it.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

I'm a Life Member of RMEF for a reason and not that other club.

They did the same thing fairly recently in NM unlocking thousands of acres of prime elk and mule deer public dirt that has probably not been hunted much, ever.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Nobody deserves free gifts from the state. Show me one other business in the world that gives inventory(hunting tags) away, inventory that they have exclusives rights to, inventory that is in great demand and easily marketed and sold by themselves to the exact same customers? The whole concept is absolutely ridiculous. Not only that, it(the inventory) isn't even private, it belongs to the public.
The DWR should be selling those tags directly...through either out right sales, or auctions or raffle...don't matter how, and keeping ALL the money for the purposes of the DWR.
Give me one example of how giving these private, for profit Expos, these tags helps wildlife or the operation of the PUBLIC DWR in one way!
Shameful!


----------



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

BPturkeys said:


> Nobody deserves free gifts from the state. Show me one other business in the world that gives inventory(hunting tags) away, inventory that they have exclusives rights to, inventory that is in great demand and easily marketed and sold by themselves to the exact same customers? The whole concept is absolutely ridiculous. Not only that, it(the inventory) isn't even private, it belongs to the public.
> The DWR should be selling those tags directly...through either out right sales, or auctions or raffle...don't matter how, and keeping ALL the money for the purposes of the DWR.
> Give me one example of how giving these private, for profit Expos, these tags helps wildlife or the operation of the PUBLIC DWR in one way!
> Shameful!


Why doesn't the DWR directly put this on?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Because the DWR isn't able to do anything like this of their own accord. It is all governed by the Wildlife Board. And the Wildlife Board historically has not been (and arguably still not) concerned with what is best or right. They are catering to the needs of a specific organization. What would SFW be without the welfare tags they receive?


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

OK, as an "Ol Union Boy" I see it this way-- Solidarity, Solidarity, Solidarity!!!! When a Union shop deems a strike vote and the workers walk out the gate, they are letting the Company know they are not happy with what they have offered to the Union body. 


It's all good in a way, until that one person crosses the line and heads back in to go to work. 


So, until everyone that feels the Expo and who runs it is a joke, and makes a "STRIKE" and stands with signs in hand in front of the Palace, and doesn't attend the event, nothing will be done. If this was to happen the Media would be all over it. Maybe a State Rep, Congressmen, someone that can "do something" would find interest and help legally or change the way things are done at the State level. 


I see/hear complaining, bitching, every year when the Expo is close to showing up. (I've been in that group) 

I guess I'll just come out and say it, and then hear the fall-out. 


STAND UP AND PUT UP, OR SIT, AND SHUT UP!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I respectfully disagree. Standing outside the expo with a sign protesting it will do nothing but make you look like a whacko. Nobody listens to someone standing with a sign. 

When was the last time you watched a news story about any topic in the world, and seeing the people screaming with signs made you say, "Wow, they have a sign. I better pay attention to that!" 

For me, that was never. I'm not saying that a good old fashion protest isn't worthwhile, but it isn't going to facilitate change. That would be more about building the solidarity you talked about than actually getting anyone outside of the shouting group to pay attention. 

The media ran stories about the corruption in how the expo was awarded to SFW on this last go-round. They detailed very clearly how rules were broken for this to happen. Did anyone care about that? 

There is one way to change this, and it's change the dynamic of the Wildlife Board. As long as SFW board members continue to fill the Wildlife Board slots, nothing is going to change for the expo or the hundreds of tags handed out in our wildlife welfare state.


----------



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

taxidermist said:


> OK, as an "Ol Union Boy" I see it this way-- Solidarity, Solidarity, Solidarity!!!! When a Union shop deems a strike vote and the workers walk out the gate, they are letting the Company know they are not happy with what they have offered to the Union body.
> 
> It's all good in a way, until that one person crosses the line and heads back in to go to work.
> 
> ...


Here's the issue.....the blind votes by too many sportsmen are an issue. Vote for someone else. Right now the only ones willing to clean up the expo/public land issues are the ones with a D next to their name. If you want change you have to pressure the R's to change their ways. Standing outside with a sign isn't going to do a thing.


----------



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

Vanilla said:


> I respectfully disagree. Standing outside the expo with a sign protesting it will do nothing but make you look like a whacko. Nobody listens to someone standing with a sign.
> 
> When was the last time you watched a news story about any topic in the world, and seeing the people screaming with signs made you say, "Wow, they have a sign. I better pay attention to that!"
> 
> ...


I would encourage many of us upset with this issue to reach out to Spencer Cox. I really have felt like he's willing to listen to concerns. There's plenty to be concerned about here. The wildlife board is appointed by the Governor. While Cox has been Herberts Lieutenant Governor I do think he has a much more open ear to concerns such as this. Sportsmen who value public land, value public wildlife, and want to see change would do good to let him hear you and these concerns while he's a candidate. He does have an open ear. When you do contact him, make sure your concerns are there with well laid out evidence and thoughts.

Here is a contact form on his campaign page, my advice is to make sure you take the time to let your concerns be heard now, so we aren't playing catch up later. I believe Cox has a very good shot at winning Governor and I do have more hope that he will listen than most R's in this state on this issue. I think the Expo and Utah's stance on public lands are two areas sportsmen need to make sure their voice is heard. If there's a loud voice that sticks out during his candidacy there's a much bigger chance it gets thought about if he does win Governor. Unfortunately politics in this state is what has to change and where change will come.

Contact form
https://www.votecox.com/contact


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

Signs do work. It's to get attention. Your not going to "fix" the problem with a sign that a fact. 


Your wanting to gain the Media groups to interview the "Spokesperson". Once that's obtained you better have a plan to pressure the legislature into elected positions on the big game board. This can also backfire! Money can be tossed into a campaign from "those groups" so their person gets elected. 


I think it will never change how the Expo or board is set up. Who knows until it's tested.


----------



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

taxidermist said:


> Signs do work. It's to get attention. Your not going to "fix" the problem with a sign that a fact.
> 
> Your wanting to gain the Media groups to interview the "Spokesperson". Once that's obtained you better have a plan to pressure the legislature into elected positions on the big game board. This can also backfire! Money can be tossed into a campaign from "those groups" so their person gets elected.
> 
> I think it will never change how the Expo or board is set up. Who knows until it's tested.


Signs can grab attention, but most hunters aren't going to protest with signs out front, it's just not who hunters are so much. I would be fine seeing it happen, I just don't see it happening. Applying pressure to your elected representatives and maybe voting differently on one or two elections, is a good way to pressure positive change.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

taxidermist said:


> It's all good in a way, until that one person crosses the line and heads back in to go to work.


Ah, yes. The good 'ol "Prisoner's Dilema". Kind of tough when there are tens of thousands flocking in to validate their lottery tickets to thief away my SJ LE bull tag.



Vanilla said:


> The media ran stories about the corruption in how the expo was awarded to SFW on this last go-round. They detailed very clearly how rules were broken for this to happen. Did anyone care about that?
> 
> There is one way to change this, and it's change the dynamic of the Wildlife Board. As long as SFW board members continue to fill the Wildlife Board slots, nothing is going to change for the expo or the hundreds of tags handed out in our wildlife welfare state.


Exactly. Until the "collusion" is ended, good luck with that...


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Here's the issue.....the blind votes by too many sportsmen are an issue. Vote for someone else.


This is easy to say, but I think it's a lazy take, to be honest. Yes, vote for Misty Snow. She represents Utah values entirely and would surely stand up for hunters on the issues important us, right?

Vote for the Ds. They clearly will have hunter's priorities set at the top of their agenda.

I know this is going to get very political, so I'll leave it at that connected to the hunting world. The world is not as black and white for voting hunters as you make it out to be.


----------



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

Vanilla said:


> This is easy to say, but I think it's a lazy take, to be honest. Yes, vote for Misty Snow. She represents Utah values entirely and would surely stand up for hunters on the issues important us, right?
> 
> Vote for the Ds. They clearly will have hunter's priorities set at the top of their agenda.
> 
> I know this is going to get very political, so I'll leave it at that connected to the hunting world. The world is not as black and white for voting hunters as you make it out to be.


I never said you had to vote for D candidate....but if you're voting for Mike Lee you're voting for someone who stands completely opposite of hunters on most issues and would gladly sell every public tag and acre of public land to the highest bidder in the name of free market if he was king for a day. There are more than 2 candidates in basically every single election. Voting for the D candidate for a few election cycles also isn't going to dramatically change Utah, but it might get a point across better than voting for R candidate who stands in opposition of everything having to do with publicly held and shared items. Again, I'm not saying vote D, I'm saying don't vote for someone like Mike Lee and push for a better R candidate if that's where you'd rather be. I will vote for Cox who is also Republican and has been Herberts Lieutenant governor, but I feel has a much more open ear to things like this. You can't continue to endorse guys like Mike Lee with your vote if you want any sort of meaningful change. By blind voting I mean more than just punching the R, once someone gets elected here they end up like Hatch and don't have to answer to the public because the public blindly votes for them and makes them a career politician. Vote for better candidates within the party or vote for someone else in the general. This is why I'm saying get involved now and start voicing these concerns to those running. Cox is the only R candidate I can see I trust to listen some if we are vocal enough. Whereas if Rob Bishop ends up the R candidate, no way I can vote for him and no way he's going to have an open mind to listen. Let's choose better candidates and make sure we continue to let o he voice be heard to those candidates whether face to face, email, or phone calls.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

A couple of comments.

1.


RandomElk16 said:


> I sure wish RMEF was rightfully awarded the expo. Utah could use the funds for so much more than attorney fees for wolves and sage grouse.


Actually, the lobbying fees "plan" was foisted upon the legislature and Utah's taxpayers are the ones footing the bill for that one. (This isn't good news for the discussion because it shows the overall influence of $fw.)

2. I have long favored elimination of or at least reform of the Wildlife board. In the current political climate, I am not optimistic that it is possible. That said, real change with how our wildlife is managed is dependent on it. Starters for reform would be to give uniformed DWR personnel voting power on the WB.

3. I won't argue that RMEF doesn't do great things, however, IMO, they are at least partly culpable in the current EXPO mess. Why? As the sole aggrieved party after the EXPO bids were railroaded through as they were, only they were capable of challenging what happened in court. Some opinion held that they had a good case. However, they declined to do so. That basically sealed our fate for the duration of the contract.

4. Voting for more "D"'s statewide could help, but I have to agree with "V" that the answer is far more nuanced. Not that I have the magic answer either, but anything that reduces the arrogance of our local and statewide political reps and increases local responsiveness can help.

I will concede that voting out a few of these "good Ole boys" out of office would help. Almost all of them in Utah do happen to be "R"'s.


----------



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

Catherder said:


> A couple of comments.
> 
> 1.
> 
> ...


This. Voting for a few D's is not going to change the state dramatically. When one party holds too much weight and doesn't have to answer because they get automatic votes don't ever expect them to change what they're doing. If you want change you have to force it. There are things D's push that I do agree with, just like there are things R's push that I agree with. You don't have to punch the same ticket every election cycle or every election. Voting for so D's and some R's holds each part accountable.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

It's hard for me to sacrifice a bunch of things that impact me daily, to vote for a Dem to impact one subject. 

Isn't the governor the only one that impacts the wildlife board? I don't think the dems care much about the hunting aspect, but they do public lands. However, maintaining them and unlocking them are different things as well. I want the wildlife board to change, and I want an organization that fights the matter up front... That's different than voting a different party that might help with one instance. That's not real change, it's temporary appointment. We need a long standing change forced. 

Who is to say Cox wouldn't have the same wildlife board (likely would, who is gonna tell him different?). So while he may fight for the lands... that may or may not benefit hunters at the cost of what? 

Just be sure when you vote blue as you alluded to doing, you understand the state could change for the long haul- so do it for more than one reason.


----------



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

RandomElk16 said:


> It's hard for me to sacrifice a bunch of things that impact me daily, to vote for a Dem to impact one subject.
> 
> Isn't the governor the only one that impacts the wildlife board? I don't think the dems care much about the hunting aspect, but they do public lands. However, maintaining them and unlocking them are different things as well. I want the wildlife board to change, and I want an organization that fights the matter up front... That's different than voting a different party that might help with one instance. That's not real change, it's temporary appointment. We need a long standing change forced.
> 
> Who is to say Cox wouldn't have the same wildlife board (likely would, who is gonna tell him different?). So while he may fight for the lands... that may or may not benefit hunters at the cost of what? Just be sure when you vote blue you understand the state could change for the long haul- so do it for more than one reason.


As for Cox, he's someone I know is willing to listen. I will vote for him, because I know he's legitimately a good person with an open ear. That's not something I believe of hardly any politicians. That's also why I said make sure our voice is heard now. We are who need to tell him different, now while he's a candidate by voicing these concerns. That way when these issues come across his desk he our concerns might pop into his mind. I actually think you could sway him more on the wildlife board/expo issues than you think if enough hunters get involved to say it's not right. I think the public land thing is another thing he's willing to listen to, but the time to speak up is now and then persist it if he's elected. We're a year out from the election, the time is now to tell him otherwise. I'm sure it's not something the Governor thinks too much about, but I know he listens and notices people's concerns, and if he gets flooded with concerned hunters on this issue it will catch his ear.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> As for Cox, he's someone I know is willing to listen. I will vote for him, because I know he's legitimately a good person with an open ear. That's not something I believe of hardly any politicians. That's also why I said make sure our voice is heard now. We are who need to tell him different, now while he's a candidate by voicing these concerns. That way when these issues come across his desk he our concerns might pop into his mind. I actually think you could sway him more on the wildlife board/expo issues than you think if enough hunters get involved to say it's not right. I think the public land thing is another thing he's willing to listen to, but the time to speak up is now and then persist it if he's elected. We're a year out from the election, the time is now to tell him otherwise. I'm sure it's not something the Governor thinks too much about, but I know he listens and notices people's concerns, and if he gets flooded with concerned hunters on this issue it will catch his ear.


I wish his page had a policy belief section.


----------



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

RandomElk16 said:


> I wish his page had a policy belief section.


I'm sure as the election gets closer the site will say more. As I said I've met Spencer many times, he's even readily available on twitter for interaction or will 100% read your comments if you contact him on there. I have several times, I've spoke to him several times, not just on this issue but others. He has an open ear, I've seen so many instances where he has a much more open ear to those voicing concerns on issues he doesn't understand or wouldn't have thought of as an issue. It's rare that I truly like a candidate but Cox is a good person. He grew up in Fairview.

Here's his campaign twitter

https://twitter.com/coxforgovernor

Here's his personal twitter
https://twitter.com/SpencerJCox

These are also very good places to reach out. Or send in a comment asking his stance on a subject and voice your concerns. The one thing I've truly noticed about him is you may not agree with everything, but he's there to hear what you have to say. I do think if our voice is heard loud, early, and often it will make a difference with Cox. The other rumored R candidates I could never vote for, nor do I believe they are ever going to actually listen. Bishop is as anti-public land as there has ever been and he's a pompous *******. The polls are pretty early but he is also very favored to win, which is another reason I'm so adamant about getting his ear now on these issues, it's much easier to put this in someones mind as they're running than when they are actually dealing with being Governor. I can also say that it's become pretty obvious this issue is not at the for-front of any of the people who matters minds. It's our job to put it there.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

A few more random comments.

1.


RandomElk16 said:


> It's hard for me to sacrifice a bunch of things that impact me daily, to vote for a Dem to impact one subject.


I understand the sentiment of multiple issues affecting ones vote and the difficulty of voting for "the other guys". However, refusing to at least consider voting for a "D" eliminates one of the likeliest ways we are going to get change. It isn't just that "D"'s might be better, it also is that if the "R"s are worried about getting re-elected, they will be more responsive to things the electorate are concerned about, like this stuff. As it stands now, that isn't really the case.

2. It is good to hear that Cox may at least be responsive. I'd be cautious at this point in a glowing endorsement however. His background is in rural politics and the bulk of this "caucus" tends to be most pro TPL and pro $FW.

Huntsman (if he runs) has historically been more of a moderate politically, and has sufficient political capital that he'd be able to challenge the "Good Ole Boys", if he saw the need.


----------



## olibooger (Feb 13, 2019)

Maayyybe people should stop drinking the tap water. It has fluoride. Fluoride is a main ingredient in Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Celexa, and Lexapro. Ehh, drink tap water but dont take anti depressants? Think again.
Stop drinking the tap water, get up off our butts and make a move on local politicians to stay true to what matters. 
Not as easy when the people are going duhhhhhhh 🤤🤤🤤🤤🤤🤤🤤🤤🤤🤤 by design.
😥😥😥

I like threads like this. I want to get involved in these kinds of things. Re-homed in Utah and want to make an impact somewhere, somehow.

right now!


----------



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

Catherder said:


> A few more random comments.
> 
> 1.
> 
> ...


I could vote for Huntsman. I do get what you're saying in regards to Cox. I've followed him for quite a while now on twitter. He's held to being fiscally conservative, while also not shying away from saying a certain someone needs to act better given the office he holds, while also being pretty moderate on all other issues. I've seen several things he's done that are beyond what most in his party are willing to do. Democrats within the state legislature have expressed that they don't agree with him on everything, but respect him because he's willing to actually work to find compromise. Huntsman certainly has a chance but hasn't jumped into the race yet (I do expect him to run). Once he has a contact line we should let him hear it as well. Cox has led in every early poll by a pretty decent margin (Chaffetz was 2nd thank goodness he's not running) so I feel like it is a good idea to get this out there and in his mind now.

As for your top point, agree completely. Look at someone like McAdams. It's not as though he's a fringe D, and I think you can hold him much more accountable than you ever will Mike Lee. Voting an election style or two for this specific issue is doing nothing but trying to hold those you normally support accountable on this issue.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

O-boog, Been listening to Jesse Ventura speeches lately?


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> As for your top point, agree completely. Look at someone like McAdams. It's not as though he's a fringe D, and I think you can hold him much more accountable than you ever will Mike Lee. Voting an election style or two for this specific issue is doing nothing but trying to hold those you normally support accountable on this issue.


Time will tell with McAdams, but I did find this very interesting.

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2019/10/21/20925222/what-do-utahns-think-of-mitt-romney-and-mike-lee

McAdams has better approval ratings right now than Lee, Pierre Delecto, and his 3 Republican House colleagues. It shows to me that if the "D"s run moderate candidates that are in touch with what most Utahns are concerned about, they can have a snowballs chance of being successful.

Far too often the "D"s think they are in California and trot out Misty Snows. :-?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Personally, I think Cox is now what you want him to be. I think he is a guy with an agenda--getting elected. So, right now, he is doing all kinds of "listening" and playing the part of the "people's" governor. But, from my own past experience and connection to politics in this area...no way in hell that crook is getting my vote.

Find me a better candidate.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

wyoming2utah said:


> But, from my own past experience and connection to politics in this area...no way in hell that crook is getting my vote.


I would like to be more educated on this statement. I have liked what I've seen out of Lt Gov Cox for a while and had hoped he'd run for governor long before he ever announced his intentions. That said, I am open to changing my mind on that and would love to hear your thoughts.


----------



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

wyoming2utah said:


> Personally, I think Cox is now what you want him to be. I think he is a guy with an agenda--getting elected. So, right now, he is doing all kinds of "listening" and playing the part of the "people's" governor. But, from my own past experience and connection to politics in this area...no way in hell that crook is getting my vote.
> 
> Find me a better candidate.


I mean could you elaborate a little? Having an educated vote is important, but from all interactions I've had with him, and everything I've seen from him he's been a pretty good dude, and that goes farther back than the last year or so. I could vote for Huntsman for sure, but he has yet to announce his candidacy. Within the next couple weeks Hunstman will be making his decision and I'm sure he will give him a run for his money.

In fact I'll PM you.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Herb's hand picked replacement should be enough to give pause.


----------



## rtockstein (Mar 17, 2019)

I'd love to sit outside the expo with a sign. Why not organize a large group of people to do so? Yes, I plan on contacting candidates to voice concerns regarding these issues, but if there were a large group of informed voters there to spread the word to attendees and any media that will be there, it can only help, right?


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

...and dont buy schit from the companies who attend the expo. MNT OPs...HUSHIN Flat Brimmers are US...and the likes. Make it not profitable for those groups to show up. Screw them if they don't see the problem with the Expo. Preaching to the public land hunters (their customers) through their youtube shows and then turn around and profit from a show exploiting public hunting.


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

Us boycotting the expo will have zero effect. The majority of expo attendees don’t have a clue of what is going on and don’t seem to care. I have talked to tons of people that have never heard of the corruption and really don’t give a crap. 

As long as they can get into the expo and rub up next to the Hushin guys while giving the Mtn ops guys some over the pants handys they are not going to listen. 
The people that benifit from the expo are going to far out weight the people that want things changed. And the rest don’t care.


----------



## rtockstein (Mar 17, 2019)

Hoopermat said:


> Us boycotting the expo will have zero effect. The majority of expo attendees don't have a clue of what is going on and don't seem to care. I have talked to tons of people that have never heard of the corruption and really don't give a crap.
> 
> As long as they can get into the expo and rub up next to the Hushin guys while giving the Mtn ops guys some over the pants handys they are not going to listen.
> The people that benifit from the expo are going to far out weight the people that want things changed. And the rest don't care.


No it won't change anything just sitting outside with signs or us refusing to go. I'm talking about putting all this good information on paper and giving to people that attend. Inform them of the injustice that's happening with the public land they hunt on and spend money on for lottery tags. More people than just forum members need to know what's happening and why it's wrong.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Just gonna bump this with all that's been learned the last 6-7 months. 


Cox isn't the guy.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Not to get political, but who you got? 

Because I can tell you, for wildlife issues, Hughes would be the absolute worst choice of them all. He is the epitome of the "good old boys club." That is his personality and how he uses his entire existence. 

Huntsman? Wright? (with Bishop as his Lt gov???)


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> Not to get political, but who you got?
> 
> Because I can tell you, for wildlife issues, Hughes would be the absolute worst choice of them all. He is the epitome of the "good old boys club." That is his personality and how he uses his entire existence.
> 
> Huntsman? Wright? (with Bishop as his Lt gov???)


I'm leaning Huntsman personally, as he is the most moderate, and has enough gravitas to possibly be able to fight the "Good Ole Boys". Cox (I think) would be better than Hughes or Wright, as we know what those two would bring to the table, but relating to wildlife, Cox is a bit of an unknown to me.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> Not to get political, but who you got?
> Because I can tell you, for wildlife issues, Hughes would be the absolute worst choice of them all. He is the epitome of the "good old boys club." That is his personality and how he uses his entire existence.
> Huntsman? Wright? (with Bishop as his Lt gov???)


It is hard when discussing politics on a hunting and fishing forum, but we have to get political sometimes or the politics over run our pastime/passion.

Hughes- Vanilla hit it on the head. I'd only add that people should look at his UTA issues.
Wright- Tied to Bishop who is in favor of selling public lands. It seems this pair would be the rough for public lands.
Huntsman- Didn't he get his go at the job already? And for those wondering- since this is an "expo" thread- the expo was started during Huntsman's administration. I just have no idea where he stands on any issues anymore. I get the feeling he doesn't know where he stands either. 
Cox- He is my choice. Seems to stand for what he believes in and is sincere the few times I have dealt with him. Also have friends who vouch for his character. He is the only choice out of the four, in my opinion.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Packout said:


> Cox- He is my choice. Seems to stand for what he believes in and is sincere the few times I have dealt with him. Also have friends who vouch for his character. He is the only choice out of the four, in my opinion.


OK, I will bite. Do we have any idea on where he stands on outdoor related issues other than some boilerplate and vague "pro sportsman" answer that all the candidates will give? (Sincere question, not an argument from me)

It may be unfair on my part, but the thing that makes me nervous about Cox is his rural background. Typically, our rural Utah legislators have been the most ardent TPL advocates, the staunchest opponents of stream access and have been most blatantly "in the sack" with SFW in the sweetheart deals Peay and Co have finagled from the legislature. (See Sen. Okerlund and the wolf and sage grouse lobbying deals)


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

Everything in Utah elections is a moot point until we limit campaign contributions. The lack of any kind of oversight gives us a governor who is fully in the pocket of land developers and energy companies. It's a complete farce of democracy.

https://ballotpedia.org/Campaign_finance_requirements_in_Utah


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Catherder said:


> OK, I will bite. Do we have any idea on where he stands on outdoor related issues other than some boilerplate and vague "pro sportsman" answer that all the candidates will give? (Sincere question, not an argument from me)
> It may be unfair on my part, but the thing that makes me nervous about Cox is his rural background. Typically, our rural Utah legislators have been the most ardent TPL advocates, the staunchest opponents of stream access and have been most blatantly "in the sack" with SFW in the sweetheart deals Peay and Co have finagled from the legislature. (See Sen. Okerlund and the wolf and sage grouse lobbying deals)


Well, I am not 100% sure on all those issues. I have read his stance that he would like to see policy changes to the management of Federal Lands to include more State input. He has been pro-outdoors, hunting, fishing in the past. I also feel that he isn't as "rural" as the homegrown local reps you refer to- Cox has been out and lived in different circumstances. And for me, I like that he has a rural feel, while being involved with urban issues. I like that he has worked to get where he is.

May I ask how Huntsman dealt with the concerns you expressed? Huntsman was Gov from 2005-2009. During his time as Governor we saw the expo approved to use State tags and also received State funding for advertising. (I am not giving an opinion on the expo, just stating that it started under Huntsman's Administration). How did then Gov Huntsman handle the Conatser v Johnson decision in 2008? I don't think he was fighting for a fisherman's right to wade a river.

I guess some of it might come down to the fact that I know too much negative about the other 3, so that leaves 1. I'm certain Cox isn't perfect (we are talking about politicians). But I'll roll the dice with him based on the positives I know about him.

Good luck to everyone coming to their own conclusions.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Packout said:


> May I ask how Huntsman dealt with the concerns you expressed? Huntsman was Gov from 2005-2009. During his time as Governor we saw the expo approved to use State tags and also received State funding for advertising. (I am not giving an opinion on the expo, just stating that it started under Huntsman's Administration). How did then Gov Huntsman handle the Conatser v Johnson decision in 2008? I don't think he was fighting for a fisherman's right to wade a river.


Thanks for the reply.

To further the discussion, I will be happy to answer the above to the best of my recollection. They are a factor in my leaning Huntsman at this time.

1. It is true that the Expo was initiated during the Huntsman administration. I wasn't personally involved with wildlife issues much at the time as I had just moved back to the state. I do recall an internet discussion I read later where a former RAC member was talking about the process how the Expo plan passed and said he regretted that vote more than any other vote he cast as a RAC member. The way proponents explained things made it sound like the Expo was a benign action that would bring in a ton of conservation dollars. There wasn't apparently a lot of entrenched opposition either at the time. Huntsman probably just figured that the action passed the RAC/WB system without much fuss and there would be no reason to overrrule it. It was only later that the grimy details came out.

It can also be said that little has been improved regarding the Expo during the Herbert administration and with Cox as Herberts handpicked successor, it is not reasonable to think that a Cox administration would be different.

2. The Conatser decision came out at the end of Huntsmans tenure. It should be remembered that we defeated the first legislative attempt to limit the decision results. (HB 187) By the time HB141 was pushed through the legislature a year later, Herbert was Governor. When 141 passed, we tried to advocate for a veto from Herbert but knew there was no chance it would happen. However, in talking to fellow access advocates at the time, many felt that we would have had a stronger chance of a veto if Huntsman was still in office.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Huntsman's own words from February regarding your point #1:
https://www.facebook.com/JonHuntsma...29766/?__so__=permalink&__rv__=related_videos
I was heavily involved with the public process when this issue made the rounds. Huge turnouts of sportsmen against the idea. You can listen to the former Gov's own words concerning of how it came to be and who he holds in high regard concerning the future of hunting/fishing in Utah.

#2- The Conatser decision came during Huntsman's tenure and was fought during Huntsman's tenure. He had the power to do something if he wanted to do something.

Thanks for the conversation. You always are civil in discussions. I'm willing to listen to positives and/or negatives about Cox or Huntsman.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

To be fair, While Huntsman was Governor, all waters of the state were open to public use. You say he could have done something, but by him doing nothing, the public won. It wasn’t until the 2010 legislative session when the tides changed, and Hebert was in office by that time. 

Huntsman dabbling proudly with Peay is not super encouraging to me, however. There is no single bigger threat to the Utah hunter than Don Peay.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

That is a fair point about the ruling. I might be wrong, but no trespassing signs were obeyed and enforced before the Conatser ruling- not open to trespass (the understanding at the time, until overruled by the court). I don't recall all waters in the State being open to public use, but maybe I am wrong.

At any rate, I hope whomever we elect will be balanced in their governance.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Cox has done a lot of sketchy stuff (starting with trying to shut out others getting voter signatures), and to keep it wildlife I think he will push the state control of public lands. Herbert started strong but I don't love what him and Cox have ended with. It goes back to what W2U said originally - he is trying to be who you want him to be. 

My dad pointed out that Hughes sounds like Trump has his arm... well like he is a Trump puppet. I listened more and agree. 

Wright says some great things but the idea of Rob Bishop being the next man up again is a no go. 

So right now Huntsman is the choice. Yes he had a run before - and he went and did some things that I think help his growth and experience. 


This very much relates to wildlife. In Utah I believe that is one of the biggest political issues we will be facing for a while.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Good discussion, all.

A couple of supplemental points.

1. It is indeed disquieting to me to see the Huntsman/Peay picture. Out of curiosity, I checked to see if there were any endorsements by $FW or DP for any of the candidates. I couldn't find any. As the election gets closer, that could be something to watch.

2. 


Packout said:


> That is a fair point about the ruling. I might be wrong, but no trespassing signs were obeyed and enforced before the Conatser ruling- not open to trespass (the understanding at the time, until overruled by the court). I don't recall all waters in the State being open to public use, but maybe I am wrong.


Prior to the Conatser decision, the understanding of the law and, of course, enforcement was that access granted in the decision was restricted. There wouldn't be a reason for Huntsman to advocate for a change, especially with a court case working through the system. Once the Conatser decision came out, Vanilla accurately explained the situation. It should also be noted that he didn't publicly push for HB187 to pass, and grassroots efforts won the day. Once HB 141 was created, he was gone.

It should also be noted that Conatser did not take away the No trespassing signs or legalize most forms of what is considered trespassing, but did allow access to waters if one entered the water from a public access point and stay in the water.


----------

