# SFW e-mail



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> There was a fairly negative article on the Outdoor Life website about the largest bull taken in the history of North America - this past fall, on public land, in Utah. The Spider Bull.
> 
> Here was my response, and I included a photo of the 2005 state record elk taken by Lloyd Jacobsen - a retired school teacher, and Darrell Sneddeger - a small business owner in rural Utah - who had the all time rifle Utah bull taken in 2007.
> 
> ...


This is why I am a PROUD supporter of SFW!


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

AMEN!!!!!!!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

a link to the article pro is talking about:
http://www.outdoorlife.com/article/Hunt ... elk-part-2

it seems there are a few people out there who agree with me on this....sorry, Pro, I agree 100% with the article!

Don Peay's remarks are why I am not a supporter of SFW!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> a link to the article pro is talking about:
> http://www.outdoorlife.com/article/Hunt ... elk-part-2
> 
> it seems there are a few people out there who agree with me on this....sorry, Pro, I agree 100% with the article!


Like you needed to clarify that. :wink:


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

While I think the OL article is good I also think the e mail is good. Is it ok to agree with both?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

weatherby25 said:


> While I think the OL article is good I also think the e mail is good. Is it ok to agree with both?


+1


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I agree with both. I think most of us only want to see a few more mature bull tags given out. Maybe 1,000 for starters and the quality wouldn't even go down hardly at all.


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

I still do not like or agree with SFW or anyone who affiliates with them.


----------



## Cold Track (Sep 11, 2007)

It is amazing how far this state has come with its wildlife, and it is so great all the oppourtunity we have to hunt so many species. There are a lot of people who complain about the hunting in this state that don't realize what we have, and what sometimes we have to give up to have it. Althought I think there are things that need attention more than our elk now a days, where else can you shoot 350 bulls off of the road? I myself target trophy animals, BUT you can't manage a state to be set up for just a few selfish trophy hunters as I think SFW does. Quantity first, you've got to have oppourtunity to keep families and all hunters wanting to stay involved and taking part of this tradition and sport we all love so much. You can still manage for trophies, but i don't think the whole state needs to be a premium draw unit. It's great fun for now, but what about for the next generation as they may loose interest when it takes twenty years to draw an elk tag. JMO take it or leave it.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Nice post PRO, Don makes it sound like General Season Any Bull hunting (on our curently LE units) reduced the bull/cow ratio to 2-3/100. 

A few questions....

Can any biologist verify this statistic?

Would that still be the case today with how large and established our herds have become?

Are there any current LE units that could be transitioned into GS any bull units and still maintain health bull cow ratios?


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

I'm not saying ALL OF THEM, but can ANY of them support GS anybull hunting if that was ever what the masses wanted.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> This is why I am a PROUD supporter of SFW!


Why don't you two just go get a room? :wink: :lol: I am going to have to agree with both, or somewhere in the middle. I don't know I haven't decided yet. 8) :lol:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

jahan said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > This is why I am a PROUD supporter of SFW!
> ...


Me and SFW? :? :roll:

10000', I believe MOST LE units would be shot out fairly quickly if you made them GS. If you look at the areas that were kept GS they have limited access, either due to lack of roads or because of private property enabling the elk places of refuge. Where on the Wasatch LE unit would elk be able to escape if it were made GS?

I hunted elk back in the early 80's, the number of elk was nowhere near what it is today. See AN elk was a big deal now in 'my' mountains, now it is home to the biggest elk herd in Utah, where NOT seeing MANY elk is a surprise. When the bull:cow ratio went up and there were enough mature bulls to breed the cows the herds flourished. Since then, with MILLIONS raised/spent improving habitat, they have done even better. Right now Utah has the BEST trophy elk hunting on the planet, second place has been lapped. Can things be improved, you bet. But, I do NOT believe issuing spike tags statewide is the answer. I also do NOT believe that doing away with 'money' tags and guide services is the answer either. People seem to forget what it took to build this incredible herd. And, all the other species that have benefited along with hunters/non-hunters alike. Like the email states, back in the 70's/80's there were no bighorns, no turkeys, very few elk, no goats. What do you folks believe funded all those transplants, and who do you think got them started? The DWR with folks like Jim K, and sportsmen pulled together and now Utah has MORE opportunity to hunt several species than ever before in any of our lifetimes. Deer herds have suffered, but according to many/most 'experts' they are closer to the numbers they should be at as opposed to the extremely high populations in the 50's/60's.

Sometimes it's easy to complain about what we don't have and we forget about what we do have and what it took to get what we have. I don't expect to change everyone's opinion on this, but I do hope my fellow sportsmen will at least think about what was done to get what we have, and maybe look at it from that stand point instead of just saying these 'money' tags are going to be the demise of hunting.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

I love SFW and am thankful for the critters that they have established on the mountain for me to hunt. Most of all, I love the size of them critters!


----------



## DBCooper (Jun 17, 2008)

We live in a world of scarcity; we all want more than can be produced. We want more trucks, love, time, service, elk, bows, guns, cabins, beer, and ext…

There are only a few ways to decide what is produced and who gets it; the market mechanism, bribes or gifts, government fiat, chance, or violence. Violence is the most effective. It is so effective most governments want a monopoly on it. 

So where am I going with all this? I think all hunting should be private. That means government doesn’t own land. I know that’s a little, ok a lot too radical for most. The exceptions would be constitutionally enumerated functions like roads, military bases, and courthouses. Very limited.

Why? Imagine if you had to buy your next truck the same way you purchase your next elk. Throughout the state you have car lots, run by the same company; also known as a monopoly. They have some of the best trucks in the world that on the open market go for about 10 times what you will have to pay, if your lucky enough to draw out. 

And by way if more people put in for a truck your odds go down even if you need one now. And if everyone gets their wish of having more participants in driving trucks, especially youth, you will have to wait even longer. In fact the truck dealers think kids deserve the most expensive trucks and want them to have them over their elders. You know to keep them interested in driving. You may die before you get what you need, but hey a 14 year old deserves to be spoiled with a new truck.

If you get lucky and draw out for a truck and go and don’t/can’t find a truck that you like and decide to conserve, to bad. Go to the end of the line. And they still take your money. 

Another thing you may have to contend with is people who don’t like driving might harass you since it’s a public lot. They think it is cruel for a human to drive a truck. They would rather a wolf do the driving. 

And you constantly have to check the “rules” of getting a truck. Some areas you can get 4-wheel drive other areas only 2-wheel. And if you can’t tell it’s a 4-wheel and take that in a 2-wheel only area, you can go to jail even if you could afford to pay the extra money for 4-wheel.

Oh and people in the south don’t like people from the north spending money on trucks in “their” area. 

And money drivers – they are the ones who can afford to do things the sane way and get what they want when they want it – they are to blame for ALL your problems.

No sane human being would want to buy anything the way we purchase wildlife! I believe that’s why you have the dwindling numbers; it engenders conflict and uncertainty, the two things humans (at least humans who like peace and prosperity) always try to avoid. It’s hardly a legacy worth leaving for our children. I say kill it as is.

I think if private individuals owned the land and had to please us, as well as others we would have virtually no conflicts. We would all get what we want and if we didn’t we would have nobody to blame but ourselves. If the landowners did a poor job of managing the land they would go broke and barring a government bailout :evil: someone who could use the resources more wisely would take over. 

If I didn’t like how an area is being run I take my money and go to their competition and get what I want. Nothing feels better than making a business that has poor customer service pay. If I don’t take an animal I don’t pay, that’s right, if we conserve or save for next year it doesn’t cost me anything. I’m not punished for conserving. 

Some might think I’m overly optimistic but I really believe if we treated wildlife like we treated other scare resources, hunting would be better than we can even imagine.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

DBCooper, as scary as it is, I agree 100% with your post. :shock:


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Unlike many on here I have no feelings toward Don Peay, but I must agree with his logic. This idiot writing the editorial is just that, he can't even spell the hunter's name right. I do agree with him about the CWMU's, but this hunt clearly has NOTHING to do with CWMU's. This guy reminds me of the typical fear monger liberal politician-Al Franken-trying to skew the facts, just like he did not make a disclaimer or the major fact that this bull was not taken on a CWMU. Funny how the editorial does not mention anything about it being hunted for about two months before being killed, through two other full seasons. Typical small penis envy of someone else who got all of the lucky breaks and then stole their way into being rich, **** rich bastages ruining the whole environment! Good info, thanks Pro!


----------



## muleymadness (Jan 23, 2008)

I am one that thinks there are good points in both articles.

This line the Outdoor Life article was particularly annoying.



> So as you gasp at the picture of the Spider Bull, remember that you are seeing an animal produced by serial exclusivity, not by the American tradition of equal access for all.


I think that statement is lame and shows a severe ignorance to the issue.

I LIKED Don's Reply and am glad he sent it. I am a member of SFW and DO support them.

No organization is perfect, but they and Utah's DWR has done a lot of good in the state of Utah.

Don't bash the 'top dog' for producing a World Class animal.

By the way, tell me a state that doesn't have some form of 'serial exclusivity'. That's what a draw pool is. Few get to hunt a GREAT unit/hunt each year, and most don't. But you keep hoping you'll get your chance just like every one else.

I like it, only fair thing to do. Not possible to have "equal access for all." in cases like this.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

DBC, that was very funny and made some great points. I'm still chuckling at your creativity.


----------



## Petersen (Sep 7, 2007)

DBCooper said:


> Imagine if you had to buy your next truck the same way you purchase your next elk....
> 
> I think if private individuals owned the land and had to please us, as well as others we would have virtually no conflicts. We would all get what we want and if we didn't we would have nobody to blame but ourselves. If the landowners did a poor job of managing the land they would go broke and barring a government bailout :evil: someone who could use the resources more wisely would take over....
> 
> Some might think I'm overly optimistic but I really believe if we treated wildlife like we treated other scare resources, hunting would be better than we can even imagine.


Of course if the public lands were all in private hands and those landowners could sell all the permits they wanted at whatever price they wanted, the price of those permits would be subject to the laws of supply and demand. In other words, they'd soon cost just about as much as a new truck used to cost.

Landowners might even start bringing in pen-raised elk and turning them loose just before the hunt to maximize profits. Then again, as soon as the landowners figured out that they could make more money building subdivisions and summer home resorts in what used to be our national forests, the big game animals would soon be forgotten.

Of course those people who grew up hunting in places like New Jersey and Texas might not object to it since it would seem just like home.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

As for the spider bull, I'm anxious to see what the tests show. I'm betting this is an animal we shouldn't really be happy about. Not talking about how he was killed, but about how he came to be in the first place.

As for the article, it's just playing to an audience...one of the many reasons I don't subscribe to hunting magazines. What's worse, it's playing to divisiveness...something I've often criticized SFW for doing. If we pit one hunter against another, we're doing the anti-hunter's work for them.

Pro is right about the fact that elk are more numerous. Back in the day, we always took any bull we could find and it usually took 4 or 5 days of hard hunting on horseback to find one. And taking an elk with a bow? Almost unheard of. But at some point, doesn't the population objective for elk conflict with the population objective for mule deer? It's just a thought that came to mind at the last RAC as Anis was talking about building elk populations and 2 minutes later talking about an objective of 350,000 deer. Sorry, but it ain't going to happen.


----------



## DBCooper (Jun 17, 2008)

Petersen said:


> Of course if the public lands were all in private hands and those landowners could sell all the permits they wanted at whatever price they wanted, the price of those permits would be subject to the laws of supply and demand. In other words, they'd soon cost just about as much as a new truck used to cost.


They don't get to sell permits at prices they determine. They sell them at prices we determine!
I'm sure your local gas station would love to sell you gas for $20/gal. What would happen to their gas business if they tried to sell at that price?

Have you ever heard of Moore's Law?

50 years ago the richest man in the world couldn't purchase a computer. And if he could, it wouldn't fit in his house. Since then computers have literally taken over our world. A poor person today has access to computers that even 20 years ago the richest people could only dream of. And a phenomenon know as Moore's Law - which basically states that every 18 months processor speed will double at the same cost - has come into being. It isn't a law like the law of gravity that has always existed. It has come about because of COMPETITION! How many things can you say are getting cheeper by half every 18 months? And if AMD or Intel screw up and don't deliver, what happens? They get punished by the market. That fear keeps them on their toes. And who benefits from this? Me, the consumer. And it doesn't seem to matter how many computer hunters their are, the price keeps dropping.

What would happen if 50 years ago we said, "We want to be egalitarian and give everyone the same chance at a computer, rich and poor alike." And set the price so everyone could afford them. I'll tell you what would happen. The producers would conclude that it's not worth their time and money to produce them, since they can't make a profit at that price. We would still be using computers that couldn't fit into your house and had less processing power than the computer in my watch. We wouldn't have cell phones, ipods, iphones.

Communism/socialism/egalitarianism doesn't spread the wealth, it spreads the poverty!

Your probably asking yourself "So what DB, where talking about low teach elk not computers."

The laws of economics, like the laws of physics don't care if it's elk, cars, or computers. They all fall with the same gravitational constant.

Of course this is all speculative but it's fun to think about.

I think under a total private system, like computers, the cost for most hunting would actually go down.

And since we could actually sell the meet then, we could come out ahead. I read a book by Jeff Cooper(no relation) called "To Ride, Shoot Strait, and Speak the Truth" where he went to Europe to shoot elg(basically an elk) and he said at the time, I guess 20 years ago, the meet was selling for $10 a pound. Do the math.

I think if you take an outfit like Deseret; what would you pay to get a trophy elk there, $10k? What does Joe the plumber pay on public land, $60 - $300. I think the cost would be closer to Desert but still somewhere between the two. I don't think a spike or 3 or 4 point would be much more than $300. And if I don't shoot one I may pay only $20 for the treas pas fee. It would depend on how good the land was managed and how desperate the outfitter would be to make me happy and how many other hunters wanted what I want. Supply and demand. If I want the best elk in the world I should expect to pay the best price.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Communism/*socialism*/egalitarianism doesn't spread the wealth, it spreads the poverty! Truer words have never been typed on this forum. History has proven this time and time again.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

While I don't know SFW, I do know there is a balance in all things. I believe and will give them and other special interest groups credit for some good things. The article made some good general points, but I believe they are wrong about the availability of this animal to other hunters. If all things check out for the good, than I think we as hunters in the state of Utah should be proud. I will be.

This is one reason I feel it is so very important to keep an even balance of hunting areas. The DWR needs to remember who is out there. I will not sacrifice hunting every year to hunt once every 5 - 10 years. I also agree that taking units that are high end now and turning everybody loose on them would be just plain dumb. They can and should issue tags based on the biology to bing things into check.

Special interest groups, I believe, some times have an objective that does not always lend itself to the general hunter. The general hunter gets to ride the coat tails, so to speak, just because we are there. I further believe the DWR gives to big of an ear to these groups.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

DB,
Your theory at first looked ok. But I do see a problem. When there is a limited number of a tag and there is huge number of people trying to get that tag the price will remain inflated. Look at back east and you will see. $4000.00 to hunt geese and that was 15 years ago. Your theory will turn it into a rich mans sport.


----------



## Petersen (Sep 7, 2007)

DBCooper said:


> They don't get to sell permits at prices they determine. They sell them at prices we determine!


Are you you suggesting the "we" to be the state or the laws of supply and demand? If it's the latter, the current demand would greatly outstrip the supply. As a result, the price would climb until enough people were priced out, causing the price to stabilize near the equilibrium point of where the supply equaled the demand from those willing to pay the fee. Prices would, of course, differ depending upon location, but we're likely talking about permits selling for ten times what they're selling for now. And maybe that's okay, but are we prepared for that?



DBCooper said:


> Have you ever heard of Moore's Law?


Yup, but wild animals aren't computer chips. Or are you suggesting that market factors would facilitate better breeding, better survivability, better land management and increased populations of animals that would bring the price back down? Sounds like a cattle ranch. Are you suggesting that we turn big game management into a for-profit, statewide ranching operation?



DBCooper said:


> Communism/socialism/egalitarianism doesn't spread the wealth, it spreads the poverty!


I agree.



DBCooper said:


> Your probably asking yourself "So what DB, where talking about low teach elk not computers."


Yup! :wink:



DBCooper said:


> The laws of economics, like the laws of physics don't care if it's elk, cars, or computers. They all fall with the same gravitational constant.


An economic law always applies, but the results depend on the variables in the equation.

Setting aside the problem of how the public lands would be sold and to whom, why would you assume that the overriding concern of these new landowners would be to make a profit on game management? Even in the best of areas, the fees coming in from license sales would barely make a dent in the property taxes levied on these enormous chunks of land.

Assuming that I bought 100,000 acres of formerly National Forest Service property, I likely wouldn't spend my $50 million on a purchase thinking that I was going to make a killing by selling hunting permits more efficiently than the next guy. Bringing more efficiency and productivity to the herds would involve investing several million dollars into ongoing habitat improvements, selective breeding, winter feeding, vaccinations, etc. Like I said earlier, a commercial ranching operation. Umm, I just wouldn't see huge profits coming out of that business model. Instead, I'd be more inclined to lease the forests to loggers and the mineral rights to mining and drilling operations.

I just don't think it's realistic to assume that selling off public lands to private individuals would result in those new landowners managing those lands primarily with the interests of wildlife and hunters in mind.



DBCooper said:


> I think under a total private system, like computers, the cost for most hunting would actually go down.


It might in some locations if market efficiencies were introduced into game management with the objective of increased productivity rather than ecological health and diversity. Again, this sounds like a giant ranching operation. (I grew up on a cattle and sheep ranch, by the way.)

You've put forth an interesting idea to think about, and I'm in favor of private enterprise and capitalism. I'm just not at all sure that a philosophy of game management based upon the production efficiencies that result from pursuing a profit motive would, in this case, yield very satisfactory results for wildlife, hunters or the long-term health of our forests.


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

There is a living example of what he is suggesting.It is in Europe and I hate to be the bearer of bad news but the common man does not and cannot afford to hunt in Europe.It is an activity that only the very affluent and wealthy are able to participate in.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

luv2fsh&hnt said:


> There is a living example of what he is suggesting.It is in Europe and I hate to be the bearer of bad news but the common man does not and cannot afford to hunt in Europe.It is an activity that only the very affluent and wealthy are able to participate in.


I disagree. In your "European" example, when exactly did they increase the herd populations such as elk and moose, and re-introduce species such as turkeys, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, Desert bighorn sheep, Rocky Mountain goats? There are MORE species to hunt today, and MORE animals of said species to hunt today because of the vision and dedication of sportsmen like DOn and others.


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

I have to agree with L2H. 

Yea Pro, we got The biggest Elk, we got Mtn Goats, Bighorn Sheep, Bison, and Moose. Thats great. But can we hunt them? [email protected]$# no! Maybe once in a lifetime if we're lucky. You and the Don make it sound like we all can go out and hunt these animals every year, when in fact the only people who can hunt them every year are the wealthy.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

blackdog said:


> I have to agree with L2H.
> 
> Yea Pro, we got The biggest Elk, we got Mtn Goats, Bighorn Sheep, Bison, and Moose. Thats great. But can we hunt them? [email protected]$# no! Maybe once in a lifetime if we're lucky. You and the Don make it sound like we all can go out and hunt these animals every year, when in fact the only people who can hunt them every year are the wealthy.


Do you have a better opportunity to hunt these animals today than 30 years ago? Remember, 30 years ago they were NOT here to hunt at all. Turkeys are almost an OTC tag now, 30 years ago there were ZERO turkey tags given out, ZERO big horn tags given out, ZERO mt goat tags given out. There is MORE opportunity to hunt mature bull elk today than 30 years ago in Utah. Just small facts you seem to ignore.


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> luv2fsh&hnt said:
> 
> 
> > There is a living example of what he is suggesting.It is in Europe and I hate to be the bearer of bad news but the common man does not and cannot afford to hunt in Europe.It is an activity that only the very affluent and wealthy are able to participate in.
> ...


Hey Pro I wasn't referring to SFW. I was referring to DBCoopers post about putting all property under private and allowing the law of supply and demand to regulate.Of course the Gov't has their regs there also.I should have been more clear.In Europe most all property is privately owned or controlled. A note of interest to you and something I found interesting were the requirements for becoming a guide. It took several years.First there was a school requirement,then apprenticeship,and so forth.Very similar to what it takes to become a doctor that specialise here. I have no opinion on SFW as what I know about them you fit into a peapod with room to spare.


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

Like always, you're right Pro. I guess 1 in a million chance is better then 0 in a million chance.


----------



## redleg (Dec 5, 2007)

If any current LE units were transitioned into a GS any bull units, the hunting would be great! For one year. Then it would be like the ****ty hunting we had in the 1980s :x


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

WOW I can't believe I am going to do this, but here goes.

I was driving down the road the other day and noticed that gas, in my neighborhood, was down to $1.96 a gallon.I asked myself if the oil was easier to get at in the fall?? Or was it gravity that all of the sudden seemed to bring gas to the pump easier than it did when most Americans liked to travel and paid over 4 bucks a gallon?? Another funny thing I noticed was that the over priced homes in my west Salt Lake County neighborhood seemed to be falling back to what reality would tell anyone with any common sense that a 2100 square foot house should be worth. It ain't 400 grand like they were selling for last year.

If you look at the good book it will list a few of the deadly sins. _*GREED*_ is in the mix last I looked. There are several rules of life that hold true no matter what, Like what goes up will come down, You can't get an apple from an Orange tree and so on.

All of you free market capitolist non regulators can look no further than our 401k accounts to see exactly what happens when GREED runs amok. If you let private interests rule, unregulated you will get exactly what you deserve. Mine is about a 40% loss in the past few months on my 401k. The good news is that we will regain our senses and put _*CHECKS AND*_ _*BALANCES*_ in place to help keep this from happening again.

If you start letting private interests take ownership of our fish and game you will get 
what Texas has now. You will get exactly what SITLA tried a few months back and sportsmen 
shut down.

I can't tell you how pissed off I get when a private land owner _*THAT WILL NOT ALLOW *__*PUBLIC HUNTER ACCESS*_ calls the Fire Dept. that I pay for with my taxes to put out the fire on their land or call the Conservaton Officer that we all pay for by license sales or general fund money to run off a tresspasser. Don't even get me rolling on depredation funding.

Just like in life the free market unregulated system works, as long as the taxpayer is their to bail your private interest asses out you can be as greedy as you would like.

Private ownership of game will never fly with me. Buy your land and do what you wish with it.
If you don't allow the public access to it don't be calling on my tax dollars when you see smoke, or when you have deer losing hair running in circles. Or when all of the trout in your stream start swimming in circles. Afterall you own it and won't let the public have a place on it you take care of it.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> WOW I can't believe I am going to do this, but here goes.
> 
> I was driving down the road the other day and noticed that gas, in my neighborhood, was down to $1.96 a gallon.I asked myself if the oil was easier to get at in the fall?? Or was it gravity that all of the sudden seemed to bring gas to the pump easier than it did when most Americans liked to travel and paid over 4 bucks a gallon?? It's called supply and demand and the value of the American dollar. Another funny thing I noticed was that the over priced homes in my west Salt Lake County neighborhood seemed to be falling back to what reality would tell anyone with any common sense that a 2100 square foot house should be worth. It ain't 400 grand like they were selling for last year. A home/car/TV is 'worth' whatever people are willing to pay for them. Humans place a dollar 'value' on objects. The object doesn't change, only how humans see/value them. A bottle of water is 'worth' more when you are thirsty than when you are not. Same goes for houses/cars/gas.
> 
> ...


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> wileywapati said:
> 
> 
> > WOW I can't believe I am going to do this, but here goes.
> ...


I must agree with Pro on all accounts particularly the open door policy on your house; it seems so odd to blame all of our troubles on the govt. Wiley-2,100 SF homes were not seriously going for $400k, right? That would be $190/SF; I have not seen any go for that much except in really high end homes or really high end avenues type areas; are you really serious or exaggerating for effect-a sincere question?


----------



## DBCooper (Jun 17, 2008)

Some good points have been made about free market, greed, and regulation. Let me clarify what my position on each is.

The type of free market capitalism that I'm talking about does not exist anywhere that I can think of in the world, yet. The free market capitalism that I am talking about is a market free from privilege and protection. I challenge anyone to show me a market in this world that is free from government granted privilege and protection!

Most of the swash buckling "free market" "capitalist" are fakes and frauds. They love government granted privilege and protection. Contrary to their polished image they are cowards and hate the free market. This privilege and protection comes at the expense of all of us and lines their pockets. :evil:

Greed/Self interest is a constant. Since it is a constant it cannot explain why something changes, like the current so called crisis in the financial markets.

Constants cannot cause change!

A truly free market has heavy regulation. If a business messes up and cannot produce a product that the the consumer is willing to pay for, their property is sold off(bankruptcy) to someone who will manage those scarce resources more wisely. Not what we currently have!

I don't blame people being cynical of the "free market" of today. They have never experienced true free enterprise and what we have today is a perverted twisted version of it and creates conflict. I think F. D. Roosevelt said it best,

"A program whose basic thesis is, not that the system of free enterprise for profit has failed in this generation, but that *it has not yet been tried*." [My emphasis]

This was said more than 70 years ago. Do you think we have more or less government intervention in the market today?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Anyone who thinks the private sector should be running and controlling wildife populations is a complete dumbass...sorry, but I ain't mincing words.

Read up on the history of wildlife in Europe first and then move over to the history of wildlife management in the United States/North America...

I don't have the time to read the rest of the BS spewed in this thread, but I will say all of you should read these links:
http://www.bcwf.bc.ca/documents/s=256/bcw1145413546908/
http://www.huntright.org/heritage/Aldri ... Model.aspx

The moment we started putting dollar signs on wild game is the moment our wildlife management started heading downhill...


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Hate to be the one breaking the news ...but....our utah wildlife is "mostly" ran by the 
the "private sector". Beteween the RACs, the wildlife board, and all the major infuence
from the organizations, Yes SFW at the top, It's about 85% of decicsion's are made by 
these group's input.

That leaves about 15% to our very own DWR biology department, kinda flip flopped ins'nt it?


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

elk22hunter said:


> I love SFW and am thankful for the critters that they have established on the mountain for me to hunt. Most of all, I love the size of them critters!


+1 1/8..I agree 100% and like I said before, a check to SFW is an easy one to write!

Great post Pro, I stopped reading Outdoor Life years ago, and this BS article just justifies why I did. This article is the opinion of one small minded (quite ignorant) writer, and I find it to be quite irresponsible. I think Don's reply in the email was spot on, it really puts SFW in persepective when you look at history and how Utah's hunting opportunities are drastically improving.

Again, thanks for shedding the light!


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> elk22hunter said:
> 
> 
> > I love SFW and am thankful for the critters that they have established on the mountain for me to hunt. Most of all, I love the size of them critters!
> ...


Can I get the address to Outdoor life... Sounds like they are writing some good stuff! 
SFW! The rich mans club!


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Anyone who thinks the private sector should be running and controlling wildife populations is a complete dumbass...sorry, but I ain't mincing words...


Lets talk about dumbass...The worst way to spend a dollar is to put it in the hands of a government program...period! Anyone who doesn't understand that has earned the title DA in my book. Thanks for not mincing words as it is important to call a spade a spade and you my friend just proclaimed to the world your true ignorance.

If you want to see some serious waste in spending...completed wasted money then give me a call and I will tell you about government programs that run WAY over value in the industry I work in. I see it happen all the time, I can't believe anyone would recommend a government program over private :roll: _(O)_ . A complete waste of tax payers money...


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

TAK said:


> Can I get the address to Outdoor life... Sounds like they are writing some good stuff!
> SFW! The rich mans club!


Again...another reason to support SFW...TAK is usually 180 degrees off of common sense!

Rich mans club??? Then how did I get in?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone who thinks the private sector should be running and controlling wildife populations is a complete dumbass...sorry, but I ain't mincing words...
> ...


Oh geez...compare Europe and hunting there to hunting in the US...

hmmm, ineffecient spending...I am sure a lot takes place. But, if the private sector were in charge of hunting, I am sure I wouldn't ever get to hunt. If the private sector controlled hunting, only those with land or those with money would be able to...I am thankful our inefficient government is allowed to be the governing agency. I am thankful everyday that the public has a say on how wildlife is managed and that wildlife is considered to be owned by everyone...not just the landowners!

By the way, I don't think our inefficient government is doing so bad...here are some of the successes of our system of wildlife management compared to our European neighbors across the sea...

"*Successes*

In briefly reviewing the major achievements of the North American Wildlife Conservation model I am following primarily two publications6 . Its achievements are, briefly as follows:

1) *The recovery of wildlife and bio-diversity continent-wide*. This includes the recovery of species that were at the brink of extinction a century ago, which means most species of wildlife. Some conservation efforts went so well that in the case of the buffalo, the society, The American Bison Society, dedicated to saving the buffalo voted itself out of existence considering its mandate fulfilled. Between 1974 and 1999 wild sheep in North America increased in number by almost 50 percent. There are again millions of white-tailed deer in North America as well as other big game, but the recovery also included waterfowl, shore birds and song birds. Where the recovery was wanting, concentrated efforts are at work to restore the species, including the much publicized efforts to restore grey wolves and whooping cranes. The plight of a few forms, however, has not been addressed by wildlife conservation groups most notably the woodland caribou .

2)It generated a *novel economic use of wildlife* so that great wealth and employment are created while the resource continues to grow and to prosper. It is not merely sustained! In 1996 some 77 million US citizens spent in excess of 100 billion dollars on wildlife related activities9 . They created about 50,000 jobs per billion dollars (US) in throughput. There are similar trends for Canada10. The following may help visualizing the sheer size of the US wildlife economy: if one divides the total first-time expenditure of 101 billion dollars into the area of the United States then one obtains an annual expenditure of about $27,500 per square mile. Here we can also study the distinction between markets that destroy wildlife, such as markets in dead wildlife, and markets that increase wildlife abundance, such as markets based on encountering living wildlife. An example of the worth of wildlife is documented by the annual auctions for special big game hunting permits such as the "governor's or premier's permits" for mountain sheep, but also elk, moose and deer. These auctions, open to all, are limited to one permit for a trophy species per year. For the less affluent, raffles have been established for a similar permit. In 1998 a record $405,000 was bid to hunt one bighorn ram in Alberta, Canada11 . Hunting also creates public benefits such as the "freedom of the woods" that results from keeping large and potentially dangerous carnivores timid and afraid of humans, as without this we could not use our woods and campgrounds safely. In addition, once wildlife populations expand, hunting keeps in check such wildlife population, which otherwise could expand to cause damage to agriculture, forestry or the environment at large.

3)It led to a new uniquely North American profession: *the university trained wildlife biologist or manager.* The first notable practitioner among these was Aldo Leopold. He rose to be an idol of not only wildlife biologists, but of the environmental movement at large with his inspiring writing. It insured that North America's wildlife received well- qualified, professional attention and care in its conservation and management.

4)One of the greatest achievements of North American wildlife conservation is *public involvement with wildlife*. This includes the whole-hearted participation of the blue-collar segment of society in contrast to a primary involvement of the elite in European societies. This makes for a large volunteer force willing to act on behalf of wildlife. Outwardly, public involvement takes the form of a large number of conservation organizations, formed at the federal, provincial or state, and local levels. Notable among these are sportsmen organizations supporting single species or related groups of wildlife, such as the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Mule Deer Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, Wild Turkey Foundation, etc. There are also effective conservation societies such as the venerable Boone & Crockett Club, the Campfire Club and the Audubon Society. The volunteers have great achievements to their credit. The Rocky Mountain Elk foundation conserved over 3.8 million acres of elk habitat since its inception. A volunteer force of less than 6,000 Americans and Canadians, uniting biologists, managers, hunters, guides, outfitters and interested parties in a common cause under the Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, increased the mountain sheep population by almost 50% in the last 25 years. Yet this is a small foundation! You can read all about it in Return of Royalty, available from the Boone & Crockett Club. These are examples - and there are many others - of what volunteers, irrespective of nationality, in free association, without call for legislation or government funding can achieve under existing legislation. The genius of North America's system of wildlife conservation is that it captured the enthusiasm and support of all strata of society.

5)*Taxing for wildlife.* North Americans generated a secure funding base for wildlife conservation, by adopting the user-pay principle as policy in 1930 by the American Game Conference. Ever since North Americans have taxed themselves on behalf of wildlife (Migratory Bird Stamp Act 1934; Pitman-Robertson, Dingell- Johnson and Fish & Wildlife Conservation Act, Alberta's Buck for Wildlife Fund etc.)

6)*Habitat conservation*. North Americans created an extensive public system of protected areas for wildlife, including great national parks and monuments, wildlife refuges, provincial parks and ecological reserves. Habitat conservation on agricultural land results from initiatives such as the US Conservation Reserve Program. In addition there are significant ongoing private efforts to acquire habitat such as those by the Nature Conservancy or the many foundations dedicated to wildlife. They act continentally, continually acquiring habitat by purchase or gift, or habitat protection through liens on the land. In addition, military reserves, by long tradition, respect wildlife's presence and contain some of the finest wildlife habitats and populations.

7)*International treaties.* North Americans recognised early the need to protect and manage wildlife which crossed national borders in its migrations. They negotiated the first and effective international wildlife treaties, such as the 1911 Fur Seal Treaty, but above all the famous 1916 Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds.

8. *Conservation of large predators*. Despite early and continuing sentiments against large predators, such were nevertheless retained or reintroduced as a functioning entity of ecosystems. They are controlled, or protected or reintroduced, depending on circumstances. Also, predators are better off under hunting regulations, because the kill is very closely controlled, is under constant public scrutiny and persons are held accountable for each kill. Not so in Canada's national parks in which bears have notoriously a very high chance of dying due to concerns for public safety.

9)*Preservation of non-game species.* Since from the very outset the out-of-doors was considered an integrated whole. That is, very early on under the so-called Roosevelt Doctrine conservation was considered broadly. Consequently, the history of bringing non-game species under the same umbrella as game species, has a very long history. However, not all conservation was altruistic, rather, it was usually motivated by utility. This included song birds which were considered early in this century effective allies against various crop insect pests. Moreover, the focus on particularly desirable game species casts a broad halo effect from which non-game species benefit. Although specific legislation to save endangered species has been in effect across the continent, such legislation could not succeed in the absence of a hunting culture which had practiced broadly based habitat conservation which simultaneously conserved bio-diversity.

10)Law enforcement in North America enforcing conservation law is normally a remarkably civil affair, although it can be as dangerous as its European counterparts when commercial poaching is involved. Because wildlife conservation is broad-based and an exercise in participatory democracy, there is much self policing involved. It differs from European models in which wildlife is private property and its protection is pursued accordingly."

Even worse than inefficient spending, though, are some of the dangers of allowing the private sector to manage wildlife. Here are 7 good reasons why the "public sector" should be managing our wildlife:

" 1) Public ownership prevents the inevitable consequence of private ownership, such as the domestication of wildlife as well its genetic alteration to fit market whims. Domestication systematically diminishes the anti-predator adaptations of a species by making it more tractable and easier to control under conditions of captivity. Domestication has led to severely reduced brain-size21 . Domestication is done so as to serve specific markets and therefore leads to genetic alteration of a species to produce desirable products. Gigantic antlers in deer or horns in buffalo are examples as well as the restructuring of bison to assume the carcass confirmation of cattle is another. The latter is done to increase the carcass value as the carcass of domestic cattle compared to those of wild bison has a higher proportion of high-priced cuts. Selecting for antler size in deer selects for social incompetence. Domestication is thus the systematic genetic alteration of innate adaptations. Such altered stock can escape into the public domain and pollute public wildlife irreversibly.

2)Public ownership of wildlife largely prevents the mixing in captivity of many species and thereby prevents what parasitologists have labled as "transporting the zoo" (of pathogens and parasites). Each species carries its contingent of pathogens and parasites which, transferred to another species may mutate into strains dangerous to public health. Transferring wildlife into domestication increases the risk of pathogens escaping into human populations. Private ownership of wildlife generates a disease bride across which may pass diseases affecting livestock and human health on one hand and public health on another. Retaining wildlife in strict public trust prevents wildlife farming and the building of a disease bridge between wildlife, livestock and people. It is good public health policy. The recent SARS epidemic originated in farmed wildlife, namely in farmed palm civet cats in China22 . In any confrontation of private agricultural and public wildlife interests, wildlife is inevitably the loser.

3)Wildlife in public ownership insures the ecological basis for native cultures to continue. One way to diminish native cultures is to make wildlife and their habitat private property.

4)Because wildlife is in the public domain, is it possible to consider national systems of wildlife sanctuaries and wildlife treaties.

5)Because the state is ultimately responsible for wildlife, it is possible to hire professionals to do the conservation and management on behalf of the public. Here lies the origin of the North American profession of wildlife biologists.

6)Wildlife in the public domain is subject to public scrutiny and concern. The public has a say in how wildlife is to be treated. When grizzly bears become private property, de jure - or de facto by virtue of being turned owner to owners of private or leased land, their fate is no longer the public's business.

7)Once wildlife is made private it pits private wildlife against public wildlife, a battle in which public wildlife is the inevitable loser."

http://www.bcwf.bc.ca/documents/s=256/bcw1145413546908/


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Great...now go back to page one, the first post and read what the private sector has done for our wildlife!!!! It is obvious the tag team effort between the two has been a success.


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

This was the point I was trying to make.I think there is room at the table for all interested parties and as much as I hate to say it this is one area where the Gov't needs to be involved.I think it is the only way for all voices to be heard and considered.Excellent post Wyo. DB'S post was basically saying we should go to a eurorean model for wildlife management although he didn't say it in those words that is what I got out of it.I was just pointing out that what he was suggesting is how it is done Europe. Under their management system only the upper crust of society is able to participate in the hunting sports whether it is as a hunter or guide.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> Great...now go back to page one, the first post and read what the private sector has done for our wildlife!!!! It is obvious the tag team effort between the two has been a success.


Don't think for a second that any of those things that Don Peay listed would have ever taken place had the private sector been in charge of running wildlife...as things are now, the public is in charge of wildlife management. All of the things Don listed regarding deer and elk are a direct result of public wildlife management.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

:lol: Too funny Wy2UT...now, be serious...


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Had it all typed and realized that my heads hurts from 
banging it against the wall.

Turn the Hannity, Limbaugh and O'rielly up 
and carry on.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> bwhntr said:
> 
> 
> > Great...now go back to page one, the first post and read what the private sector has done for our wildlife!!!! It is obvious the tag team effort between the two has been a success.
> ...


Public/private means what to you? Who/what was it that got things done? I say it was BOTH, but it would NOT have happened by leaving it all to the DWR, that is a FACT. The DWR isn't out there pushing things on their own. The planting of turkeys happened because PRIVATE sportsmen wanted them, and they found ways to get them here. W/o these sportsmen there would be ZERO turkeys in Utah to hunt. Same goes for mt goats, bighorns, our elk population would still be pathetic, deer would still be declining.

You guys like w2u and ww need to step back and see the whole picture, because it is the PRIVATE sector in ALL fields that makes America great, not the government. Gordy can act silly and make reference to conservative talk radio shows, but facts are facts. Fact is the government is always the worst option.


----------



## Levy (Oct 2, 2007)

> You guys like w2u and ww need to step back and see the whole picture, because it is the PRIVATE sector in ALL fields that makes America great, not the government. Gordy can act silly and make reference to conservative talk radio shows, but facts are facts. Fact is the government is always the worst option.


It isn't just the private sector, you state that in your intial paragraph. Instead of finding the commonality in all of this you all look for differences. I think that SFW has done great things for wildlife along with MDF and others that goes without saying, but as you stated earlier they have worked together with government agencies to accomplish goals. You have to have some regulation on both ends to create a somewhat objective opportunity and even then you will have those that will disagree. These arguments just go in circles and the same people start them or fuel them over and over again. Blah blah blah.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Levy said:


> It isn't just the private sector, you state that in your intial paragraph. Instead of finding the commonality in all of this you all look for differences. *I think that SFW has done great things for wildlife along with MDF and others that goes without saying, but as you stated earlier they have worked together with government agencies to accomplish goals.* You have to have some regulation on both ends to create a somewhat objective opportunity and even then you will have those that will disagree. These arguments just go in circles and the same people start them or fuel them over and over again. Blah blah blah.


I am not the one disputing it takes team work to get things done. It is the anti-SFW crowd that has NOTHING good to say about SFW that are writing IDIOTIC editorials like the one in Outdoor Life that is causing the riff among hunters. Spewing hate, lies, distortions, does NOT help hunting in any way, and that is what the OL editorial did/does. Don's letter points out some of the 'little' details the editor omitted from the article. I have yet to see W2U give SFW or ANY one from the private sector props for their efforts, hard work, and RESULTS. Wonder why. Instead I just see cut and paste writings from like minded socialists. :?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > Don't think for a second that any of those things that Don Peay listed would have ever taken place had the private sector been in charge of running wildlife...as things are now, the public is in charge of wildlife management. All of the things Don listed regarding deer and elk are a direct result of public wildlife management.
> ...


Private means owned by individuals...public means owned by all. Our wildlife is the property of the public not private groups. It is for this reason that all that work Don mentioned has been done. Seriously, why is it these private organizations exist? Why is it these private organizations are trying to restore, conserve, and actively improve wildlife populations? It is because they feel like IT--the wildlife--belongs to them. It is because the wildlife is property of the public. How often does SFW, NWTF, MDF, RMEF, and other groups actively pursue to increase the numbers of animals on private game ranches? Do you really think that Pheasant's Forever is all about improving the number of pheasants that private pheasant farms like Rooster Valley Pheasants in Sevier Valley? Or, are they about improving the populations of wild PUBLIC animals?

Just like the stuff I posted previously states, "One of the greatest achievements of North American wildlife conservation is public involvement with wildlife. This includes the whole-hearted participation of the blue-collar segment of society in contrast to a primary involvement of the elite in European societies. This makes for a large volunteer force willing to act on behalf of wildlife. Outwardly, public involvement takes the form of a large number of conservation organizations, formed at the federal, provincial or state, and local levels. Notable among these are sportsmen organizations supporting single species or related groups of wildlife, such as the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Mule Deer Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, Wild Turkey Foundation, etc. There are also effective conservation societies such as the venerable Boone & Crockett Club, the Campfire Club and the Audubon Society. The volunteers have great achievements to their credit. The Rocky Mountain Elk foundation conserved over 3.8 million acres of elk habitat since its inception. A volunteer force of less than 6,000 Americans and Canadians, uniting biologists, managers, hunters, guides, outfitters and interested parties in a common cause under the Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, increased the mountain sheep population by almost 50% in the last 25 years. Yet this is a small foundation! You can read all about it in Return of Royalty7, available from the Boone & Crockett Club. These are examples - and there are many others - of what volunteers, irrespective of nationality, in free association, without call for legislation or government funding can achieve under existing legislation. The genius of North America's system of wildlife conservation is that it captured the enthusiasm and support of all strata of society."

A lot of time, money, and effort has been given by private individuals and groups, but that is the beauty of the PUBLIC owning and managing of wildlife. The PUBLIC ownership means that everyone has a vested interest not just the private landowner.

I never once claimed that all these great things were done by the DWR nor did I claim it was a result of the DWR's work. I said that all of the things Don mentioned that had occurred are the result of the current management of wildlife according to the North American Wildlife Conservation model which clearly suggests that wildlife is not only the property of the public but should be managed as such.

The only time private groups get involved in wildlife habitat and restoration is when it involves PUBLIC animals...this would not be possible without the North American Conservation Model or private ownership and management of wild game animals...

...the idea that our wildlife would be better off managed by the private sector of society is ludicrous. History has proven that time and again...and the awesome results that our system of managing animals--The North American Wildlife Conservation Model--proves that the public's ownership and management of wildlife is far superior to what the private sector has done.

Again, I am thankful that I don't live in countries like Germany where wildlife is run by the private sector of society...I am glad that I don't have to own land or loads of money to be an avid hunter. I am glad that trained biologists and land managers are responsible for making sound biological decisions and that wildlife management isn't based solely on economic principles and monetary gain at the expense of the wildlife...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Don's letter points out some of the 'little' details the editor omitted from the article. I have yet to see W2U give SFW or ANY one from the private sector props for their efforts, hard work, and RESULTS. Wonder why. Instead I just see cut and paste writings from like minded socialists. :?


I haven't...hmmm, go back and read some of my earlier posts in this thread! I think the private sector has done vast amounts of work...including the countless hours dedicated hunters have put into utah's wildlife. But, did you ever stop and think why they do it? It isn't because they are out to help some private sector of the world become more prosperous, is it?

What bugs me about Don Peay's letter is that he believes the ends justify the means...I don't. What kills me, Pro, is that you jump on the bandwagon of SFW in one thread and then bash on what they have pushed in another. Wasn't it one of the southern chapter's SFW leaders that first called for the ban of statewide archery hunting...?

And my cut and paste jobs...it seems you have no respect for Dr. Valerius Geist. I always looked to him as the leading mule deer biologist in the world and one of the leading experts in the field of wildlife management. Obviously, you don't think so highly of his work.

On a side note, Pro, aren't you LDS? Doesn't D&C 104:1 say that the united order is everlasting and doesn't the "Full implementation of the united order must, according to the revelation, await the redemption of Zion. (See D&C 105:34.) In the meantime-while we are being more perfectly taught and are gaining experience-we should be strictly living the principles of the united order insofar as they are embodied in present Church requirements, such as tithing, fast offerings, welfare projects, storehouses, and other principles and practices. Through these programs we should, as individuals, implement in our own lives the bases of the united order." (Ensign, May 1977, pp. 94-95.) Isn't the United Order a socialistic order? I thought the LDS church was socialistic?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> Nice post PRO, Don makes it sound like General Season Any Bull hunting (on our curently LE units) reduced the bull/cow ratio to 2-3/100.
> 
> A few questions....
> 
> ...


I'm not Pro, but I am going to take the liberty to answer these questions as well:

1) Don's point that General Season Any-bull hunting did reduce the bull/cow ratios to exceptionally low and dismal numbers...that is verifiable through evidence gathered by the DWR.

2) If Utah was opened up to General Season hunting across the board and managed with unlimited tags, yes are herds would be diminished to the point where too few bulls would be around to service cows. However, they could be much closer to general season hunting than what they currently are. The thought process, though, of current management schemes is that Utah offers a balance of several types of hunting--trophy hunting (premium LE and LE), general season meat/opportunity hunting (spike hunts/cow hunts), and high opportunity lower quality any bull hunts.

3) I don't think so....at least in the sense that the Uintas are open bull or Cedar Mountain is open bull. The other units are simply too accessible. Again, though, opportunity could be opened up much more than it currently is. Almost any LE unit could be managed to where the objective is 15-20 bulls/100 cows which would certainly allow for more opportunity but offer less quality.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Don's letter points out some of the 'little' details the editor omitted from the article. I have yet to see W2U give SFW or ANY one from the private sector props for their efforts, hard work, and RESULTS. Wonder why. Instead I just see cut and paste writings from like minded socialists. :?
> ...


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Whew! My head is spinning after reading all of these posts on this thread! It seems like you are all arguing just to be arguing! *It takes both public and private entities/individuals in cooperation to manage wildlife*! Wildlife may belong to the people (excluding game ranches), but it exists on both public and private lands and has habitat in both places. And it needs to be managed in both places. Which means it needs to be hunted in both places.

You seem to be arguing about the prices put on the heads of animals, but the prices are actually put on the permits which only allow the hunter to hunt the animal. Admittedly, the bigger class (trophy) animals are more attractive to some people and many are willing to pay a high price for the opportunity to hunt the property or properties, public or private, where the trophy animals live, and for the longer season they're allowed to hunt, but the money paid is only for the opportunity to hunt and does not entitle that hunter exclusive rights to hunt any one animal. Anyone who draws or buys a permit for that same area can hunt that same animal.

You also seem to be arguing whether it's better to manage wildlife through the public sector or the private sector, yet you agree it takes both! *IN COOPERATION!* Is this a battle about which sector is superior and/or more efficient in managing wildlife? Neither could do it without the other and neither has all the answers. And we have checks and balances so that neither sector supersedes the other. RAC's, CWMU agreements, Wildlife Board, Walk-in Access Program, Landowner Permits, Depredation Permits, numerous cooperative projects between the Division and Conservation groups, Conservation Permits, Governor's Permits, Sportsman Permits, Dedicated Hunter projects, etc. all provide for the public, government, and private sectors to interact and check and balance one another. Though there are problem situations and areas, this system seems to be working quite well per the number of species reintroduced and growing.

All this hypothetical arguing is, IMHO, useless and counterproductive. Just get to the RAC's and Wildlife Board meetings and play your part in improving the system!


----------



## DBCooper (Jun 17, 2008)

> wyoming2utah wrote:On a side note, Pro, aren't you LDS? Doesn't D&C 104:1 say that the united order is everlasting and doesn't the "Full implementation of the united order must, according to the revelation, await the redemption of Zion. (See D&C 105:34.) In the meantime-while we are being more perfectly taught and are gaining experience-we should be strictly living the principles of the united order insofar as they are embodied in present Church requirements, such as tithing, fast offerings, welfare projects, storehouses, and other principles and practices. Through these programs we should, as individuals, implement in our own lives the bases of the united order." (Ensign, May 1977, pp. 94-95.) Isn't the United Order a socialistic order? I thought the LDS church was socialistic?


wyoming2utah while your reading your scriptures tonight you might want to check out the following:

Exodus 20:15, 17 (They settle any question about private property. It applies to governments as well as people)
Deuteronomy 27:17
Deuteronomy 19:14 (don't mess with someones inheritance...even a little)
Mosiah 2:14
D&C 29:35 (&#8230;agent unto himself&#8230; Not you or any other man)
D&C 104:17
D&C 121:37(&#8230;to exercise control or dominion or compulsion&#8230; What else is government?)
Moses 4:3 (He wanted universal coverage and no agency, sound familiar?)
1 Samuel 8:11-20 (Oh that we could have a king that only wanted 10%)



> wyoming2utah wrote:Anyone who thinks the private sector should be running and controlling wildife populations is a complete dumbass...sorry, but I ain't mincing words.


Mathew 5:22

Pres. Ezra Taft Benson "The Proper Role of Government" is great. He also gave some great conference talks about government and the ills of socialism as did David O McKay and many other prophets of the LDS church.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> That is simply NOT true. SFW gets bad mouthed all the time for doing things that help landowners/CWMU's.[/color]
> 
> It's not about what *I* think of Geist, it's about *you * parroting others instead of having/sharing your own opinion.
> 
> You don't get it! The LDS church is NOT the government, and they do NOT force me to be socialistic. It is 100% my choice. When the church ASKS me to give tithing/fast offerings it's MY choice. When the government does it is FORCED. Equating what a religion asks from it's members to what a government TAKES from it's citizens is inane!


1) SFW only helps landowners on CWMUs because the PUBLIC gets the chance to hunt those lands and the animals that live on private lands are PUBLIC. Again, how many times has groups like SFW helped private game ranches? SFW doesn't help the private elk ranches because the animals managed by these ranches are owned privately.

2) Pro, any good argument is supported by evidence, examples, and expert opinion. That is exactly what I have done. I back my opinion up with evidence, examples and expert opinions. You have trouble backing your opinion up with any of these...

3) Much of what the LDS believe and support in their practices is socialistic...is that wrong? Is it wrong that tithing and welfare programs in the church are used evenly and socially? Your use of the term "socialism" seems to say that it is evil, yet the church's past and present "socialistic" practices seems to say otherwise...so, based on what you are saying, if the government says that wildlife are owned by the public and the public should have equitable opportunity to view, enjoy, or even hunt that wildlife, they are acting "socialistically" and that is wrong? Also, you are saying that government is going to take something from you...what in the hell did I ever say was going to be taken from you?

4) Many people keep saying that both private and public are needed to manage wildlife...I don't argue that. However, it was brought up earlier in this thread that the private sector should be in charge of managing our public wildlife...nothing is further from the truth. History has already proven this concept wrong. The reason we have animals and opportunities to hunt is because the public has ownership in those animals and take an active role in their management. None of the special interest groups or hunting organizations or conservation organizations that exist would exist if wildlife were managed by the private sector.


----------

