# RAC Meetings



## polarbear (Aug 1, 2011)

I just wanted to encourage all of you to attend your RAC Meeting this year if possible. They are coming up in the next couple weeks. Please check your region's schedule and location (http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/hunting/board-rac.html) and plan to attend.

If you've never been before, you'll be amazed at how easy it is for recommendations to change based on the opinions of local hunters. There were probably only about 20 people in attendance at my RAC last year, 12 of which were SFW representatives, a handful of grazers, 2 UWC reps, and only 2 "average joe" hunters representing themselves. Two nonaffiliated hunters. Really? I don't think the average joe hunter is the minority in Utah, but it certainly appears that way at these meetings.

I was impressed with SFW last year for being very united and organized. When a topic came up that they felt strongly about, several would stand up one at a time and voice their concern, making it appear as if the majority of hunters felt the same way. You could tell they were well rehearsed and united in what they wanted. Consequently, the Wildlife Board gave in to a lot of what they wanted. I don't care what your feelings are about SFW, trophy hunting, meat hunting, tag numbers, etc. I would just like to see all sides represented so that we can at least have a healthy debate.

I hear a lot of complaints about how our game is managed, voiced by many who have never been to a RAC meeting. If you want to change something, now is your chance. The agendas are not up yet but will be soon. Get some friends together, see what you feel strongly about, go to your RAC, and voice your opinion.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Great Post polarbear :!: 

Sadly.....your words fall on deaf ears for the most part.....most of these guys will make up excuses and continue to point fingers on the forums and never show up  

Its mind blowing.......the state GIVES opportunity for people to show up and let their voices be heard, and most people dont take advantage of it.....


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Polar, 
Good post....FYI a lot of the support for the SFW comes from average joes. I know thats a tough one to swallow but its true. Not that the average joes dont also support their own views or that of the UWC or UBA. All those groups are made up of mostly average joes.

nbr,
GREAT post!!!!!


----------



## polarbear (Aug 1, 2011)

Good point Muley. I guess by "average joe" I mean guys that tend to lean more towards the opportunity side of hunting. Guys who just like to get out, hunt with their families, and fill the freezer. I'm not saying I fall totally in either category of hunter, but the opportunity guys are vastly under-represented at these things.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Well, I have been involved in the public meeting side of things for going on 20 years. RAC and Board participation has dwindled over that time. There is apathy among hunters toward the system. Fair or not, people just don't have the time to show up at a meeting every 4-6 months and learn what new change is being proposed. 

The apathy started about 8-9 years ago and spread more since that time. I have seen 1,000 people show up to a RAC and the great majority expressed an opinion one way-- only to have the Board at the time go against the public input. The "masses" found that it didn't matter if they showed up. As one "lobbyist" told me when he lost a RAC vote, during well attended RAC-- "It doesn't matter. This is all window dressing. The Board will vote differently." He was right. So people, fed up with inconsistent and blatant ignoring of the public input, stopped wasting their time and stayed home. 

BUT, there are new RAC members and the current Board is much better at weighing public sentiment. I hope to see the trend continue where we see public opinion being taken seriously and not just the "every-time" lobbyists getting their input valued. 

The last RAC I went to there was me, a rep for UTWSF, 2 reps for SFW, and a bunch of UDWR employees. I was the only one there not being reimbursed. So Polarbear is correct- people need to show up. The RACs and Board also need to listen when those people do show.


----------



## wbcougster (Mar 12, 2010)

Question. Do we try to attend the RAC where we live or the RAC where we hunt? Does it make a difference? Same topics?


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Issues region specific are sometimes just brought up at the local RAC, many issues end up being statewide issues as well so I would recommend attending where you hunt..but at least the closest one to ya or that you can make it too..

I went to a central region RAC a few years ago and I don't hunt or live there and felt a little lost on some areas/topic discussions but it was still worth while!


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> Its mind blowing.......the state BEGS for people to show up and let their voices be heard, and most people dont take advantage of it.....


Fixed it for you.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

playing devil's advocate a little here, but 8-9 years ago you had to call somewhere to make an appointment. Now if you want a burrito or a hair cut you can schedule it online on your phone while you are brushing your teeth. The younger generation of hunters are not going to sit anywhere for hours on end to find out what they could have read online in 30 seconds. I've heard people refer to the hunters of Utah as the "customers" of the DWR...well, wouldn't it beg the question "is the DWR doing enough to garner input from a large enough sample of the hunting population in order to make the decisions that will be beneficial to the majority of the hunting population?"
I believe the state as a bare minimum should have a window of time for ordinary citizens to provide their input via email. These inputs could be reviewed by the RAC and WB members before a meeting agenda is even finalized for the standard RAC meetings.
I apologize if there is something similar already in place, but I have never heard of anything like that in Utah.
I have been to RACs and provided input...not saying that doesn't have value, but just playing devil's advocate...


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

This is a great thread and I would like to see more sportsmen get involved but the reality is that many sportsman feel like it is a waste of time and effort to try to get involved. RAC meetings and Wildlife Board Meetings are intended to provide the public with an opportunity to voice their opinions and potentially influence the process. While it may be therapeutic to show up and speak your piece in a public setting, I am not sure that the RACs or the Wildlife Board listen very carefully to those comments. To be fair, the RACs seem to be more interested in the opinions of sportsmen. However, the Wildlife Board does whatever it wants -- even if its decisions run contrary to the recomendations of the RACs or the sentiments of the general public. As a result, many people have given up on the process and checked out. They would rather sit home and watch re-runs of Roseanne.

Hawkeye


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Like PO I was involved for several years.
The trend over those last 8 to 9 years has been towards strict trophy hunting.
Quotes like "if you just want to kill a bull go to Colorado" is the philosophy of many on the board / racs.

I've watched opportunity drop like a rock for no reason, Yep 73 still waiting for the first buck to drop a fawn, I've seen archery hunts ENDED because there were no bonus points or waiting periods while watching a fat wallet live by different rules. I've had conversations with 
some involved in the process that have flat out told me that NOTHING is going to change until unit management has been tried for a few years. 

So I totally agree with PO's middle paragraph. Why waste my time with this system until 
the pendulum centers away from inches and dollars.

Especially when the overwhelming majority ( 70% ) of the Board / Rac's customers continually tell them in survey after survey that they don't care about that B.S. and just want to hunt.

Its a fiasco of a dog and pony show.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

stablebuck said:


> playing devil's advocate a little here, but 8-9 years ago you had to call somewhere to make an appointment. Now if you want a burrito or a hair cut you can schedule it online on your phone while you are brushing your teeth. The younger generation of hunters are not going to sit anywhere for hours on end to find out what they could have read online in 30 seconds.


Im in my mid twenties, and I have been attending RAC/Wildlife Board Meetings since I was 18 driving almost two hours to the nearest one.... :|

My generation for the most part are a worthless bunch of pukes that in the end, really don't give a **** about wildlife, conservation and the legacy of hunting....but the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.... :O•-:

and hell it sure is easy and fun to call don/sfw fun names and cry and complain about something i read on the canadian wildlife network, way easier than taking a night out of my ever so busy city life to spend a night at the dog and pony show RAC Meeting....

*BUT*- The UDWR has had the Wildlife Board and RAC emails available to us all for years......not only do they see plenty of my ugly mug they get plenty of emails from me as well  In fact, in the original post of this thread their is a link.......

Facts-
I prefer BS and reckless allegations, you all know I do, but for just a minute i'm going to be serious......
Within the UDWR webpage, archives of RAC/Wildlife Boad Meeting Minutes can be found. I really, seriously, urge you all to read back through them and tell me who/what is found INVOLVED CONSISTENTLY that is not a government agency :O•-:

Now, back to some reckless allegations  
I have been going to these meetings like I said for quite some time......I *joined* SFW because not only are they at every meeting I have been to, they are *involved*...No one else even comes close!! It seriously is sad!!

RMEF is a joke....hell the Utah Bowmens Association shows up and is involved more than they are!! :O•-:

Now.....could it be possible, that big mean don and friends have it figured out, that if they show up over and over, voice their concerns, stay actively involved, that they just might get to decide the future of hunting in this state :shock:

NO......couldnt be.....

Carry on....


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> stablebuck said:
> 
> 
> > Now.....could it be possible, that big mean don and friends have it figured out, that if they show up over and over, voice their concerns, stay actively involved, that they just might get to decide the future of hunting in this state :shock:
> ...


Yes. That's a good observation. And I stopped going to northern RACs when they were in Brigham cause your mug is so damned ugly.

Seriously, doing nothing will always accomplish nothing. You can't score from the bench.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

+1 Maybe if they served pizza and set an ugly mug objective or age class for hunters?


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Not hunting related, but Wildlife Board and fishing regulations. 

I went to the WB meeting on North Temple in November of 1992. There was a proposal at the time to reduce the trout limit at Strawberry from the then current limit of 8, to 4, but only for ice fishermen. There was, and probably still are some folks who think that ice fishermen don't deserve the same limit. Or that they somehow have a negative effect on numbers of fish. I was one of only a handful of people who bothered to attend the meeting. When they asked for discussion about the reduced limit at Strawberry I stood up. I explained that my license was the same as anyone else's. That I deserved the same opportunities as anyone else. But my job kept me too busy to do any fishing during the summer. Why should I be punished for not being able to fish in the summer months?

Someone else asked what percentage of the harvest was attributed to ice fishermen. The answer was that roughly 15% of the harvest was between November 30th and Memorial Day. That meant that 85% of the harvest was between Memorial Day and the end of November. But the crybabies who were complaining wanted the limit cut in half for ice fishermen. Hardly seemed fair. The Wildlife Board agreed. With one voice. One comment. One person standing up against the proposal, it was rejected. It's 4 fish year round now.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

I agree that outdoorsmen should get involved even if for no other reason than to get educated about how wildlife management really "works" in Utah.

But having completed my own education, I've decided to scrape the sht off my boots and hike a different trail. I've dropped my affiliation with any and all organizations and doubt I'll ever stand before a RAC or the WB again.

My time and energy are much better spent as a mentor/instructor than as a politician. Feels a lot better, too.

Participation in government is important. But the world is full of important things. The way I see it, a good dad spending time with his kids in the outdoors does more for the future of wildlife than any decision the WB will ever make.


----------



## tallbuck (Apr 30, 2009)

wileywapati said:


> Like PO I was involved for several years.
> The trend over those last 8 to 9 years has been towards strict trophy hunting.
> Quotes like "if you just want to kill a bull go to Colorado" is the philosophy of many on the board / racs.
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Finnegan said:


> I agree that outdoorsmen should get involved even if for no other reason than to get educated about how wildlife management really "works" in Utah.
> 
> But having completed my own education, I've decided to scrape the sht off my boots and hike a different trail. I've dropped my affiliation with any and all organizations and doubt I'll ever stand before a RAC or the WB again.
> 
> ...


Does that mean you're also dropping your affiliation with this (and other) wildlife forums?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> stablebuck said:
> 
> 
> > playing devil's advocate a little here, but 8-9 years ago you had to call somewhere to make an appointment. Now if you want a burrito or a hair cut you can schedule it online on your phone while you are brushing your teeth. The younger generation of hunters are not going to sit anywhere for hours on end to find out what they could have read online in 30 seconds.
> ...


Be careful what you wish or hope for!


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

That sportsman become involved EFA?? What should I be careful about??


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Im telling you like it was stated above you cant win if you dont play the game.

willy,
Don't you agree? And on side note I bought a new bow and Im thinking about jumping back in that game. Maybe we'll side on a few things now? 

nbr,
I believe efa is stating that because you support SFW you should hope that others dont decide to get involved. Its kind of trendy on the forums to act like that if you support the SFW you're against other groups or sportman in general.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> That sportsman become involved EFA?? What should I be careful about??


That they (don and friends) just might get to decide the future of hunting in this state.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> Im telling you like it was stated above you cant win if you dont play the game.
> 
> willy,
> Don't you agree? And on side note I bought a new bow and Im thinking about jumping back in that game. Maybe we'll side on a few things now?
> ...


I guess I don't follow trends very well. In fact, I never have. I hope SFW stays involved! I just don't want them running the whole show!

Edited: And, frankly, neither should you! IMHO, of course.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

EFA, 
No worries, I agree that all should have a voice. I've spoke at many RACs never representing any group. Just myself.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Muley73 said:


> EFA,
> No worries, I agree that all should have a voice. I've spoke at many RACs never representing any group. Just myself.


While wearing your "SFW" hat and "I Heart SFW!" t-shirt? I'm sure the RAC looked past any bias on display.

:O•-:


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Never actually joined the SFW until last year. So no I have never actually represented SFW at any RAC or Wildlife meeting. I don't have any shirts but I did pick up a couple hats this year. 

Usually I wear a Browning hat. They do raffle a lot of Brownings at the SFW events. Maybe that is connection?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> EFA,
> No worries, I agree that all should have a voice. I've spoke at many RACs never representing any group. Just myself.


And not just a voice, but an equal voice and voice that's listened to. A good idea is still a good idea no matter who presents it or how many support it. The same goes for a bad idea. Einstein had some great ideas, even though he didn't comb his hair and hated socks and few people even understood (or understand) his ideas, let alone supported them. But Hitler had some bad ideas even though he gave good speeches, combed his hair (I'm not sure about socks) and many, many people supported them (and some still do). Too many times we throw the bathwater out with the baby.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

EFA......could not have been put in a more clear context. NAILED IT! +1000


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Yeah Hitler references on a public forum are usually a good idea.

klb,
Wondering if you had some appropriate apparel suggestions for attending RAC meetings as an independent sportsman?


----------



## Broadside_Shot (Feb 22, 2010)

I spent several years as UBA VP of Bowhunting. I was burned really bad a couple of times that made me realize I did not want any part of the politics.

I made a proposal about Archery Elk hunting that would start the General Archery Elk hunt at the same time as the General Archery deer hunt which would shift the dates to allow Limited Entry Archery Elk Hunters the last week without spike and cow hunters. Also with the switch in dates to allow General Archery Elk Hunts on the Any Bull units to have an extra week to hunt.

I consulted the public and other groups and had alot of support. I presented it to the RAC's and the Board and durning the 5 minute discussion my proposal was changed to keep everything as presented except give the extra week for Any Bull Units. My name was associated with the changed proposal and I had alot of people angry with me for shifting the Archery Elk Dates.

The second burn came when there was a proposal to do away with Statewide Archery. I really rallied to keep Statewide Archery Deer Hunt and had one of the largerst turnouts of bowhunters show up at Jakes Archery to get together an prepare to fight at the RAC's including the DWR's support. 5 minutes before the meeting the DWR representative called me aside and said the were going to change there stance make the recommendation to choose a region. Completly blindsided me at the last minute.

It was at this point that I decided that politics is not for me. I can't play the twisting games that you must when involed.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Muley73 said:


> Yeah Hitler references on a public forum are usually a good idea.
> 
> klb,
> Wondering if you had some appropriate apparel suggestions for attending RAC meetings as an independent sportsman?


I don't wear my UWC shirts to RAC meetings, if that's what you meant. Might as well dress the part you're playing though, so SFW it up buddy! Seems that face to face we all suddenly have the same interests at heart and are friends until Dear Leader speaks his mind to the local chapter leadership and steering committee. Its not hard to determine, by hearing someone who supports one group over the masses, who they associate with. That's a pretty safe assumption there. Sometimes, our very own DWR folks show their group preferences despite their uniform.

I could be wrong but the reference to Hitler was only to make a point that LEADERSHIP can sometimes bring along masses for the wrong reasons.

But you have a great Easter weekend, Cody.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> I agree that outdoorsmen should get involved even if for no other reason than to get educated about how wildlife management really "works" in Utah.
> 
> But having completed my own education, I've decided to scrape the sht off my boots and hike a different trail. I've dropped my affiliation with any and all organizations and doubt I'll ever stand before a RAC or the WB again.
> 
> ...


The better educated I get, the more I find wisdom in the words and deeds of Finnegan! I too, as several who have posted on this thread, once spent considerable time/energy playing the game. And I too, have learned it is a complete WASTE of time. Its about as wise as pulling the lever in Vegas. Sure its fun, and once in a while you might get a few pennies back, but the game is rigged, the House ALWAYS comes out ahead. In the case of wildlife issues, it is every bit as rigged, one might feel good for going and 'getting off the bench', but you just as well keep dreaming someday you'll be a starting pitcher for the Yankees. As will ALL politics, I assert the best way to make a positive impact is through educating others, mentoring others, and standing on your principles. Going to dog and pony shows, at the end of the day, gets little done........BECAUSE THE GAME IS RIGGED!


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Klb,
No not at all, that's my point. Sportsman should all go and speak up. You may think you know me or my motives. But really you have no idea. When I want something done then I go thru the process. Others should most certainly do the same. 

Yeah still not sold on the whole Hitler reference. Got still say not the best analogy. IMHO 

You also have a great Easter. Weather looks to be perfect!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

+100 pro
+100 broadsideshot 

The dog and phony show is rigged!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> Klb,
> No not at all, that's my point. Sportsman should all go and speak up. You may think you know me or my motives. But really you have no idea. When I want something done then I go thru the process. Others should most certainly do the same.
> 
> Yeah still not sold on the whole Hitler reference. Got still say not the best analogy. IMHO
> ...


I'm sorry you didn't like the analogy, but most of the time a person has to go to extremes to make a point quickly and succinctly. Trying to be politically correct just muddies the waters.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

swbuckmaster said:


> +100 pro
> +100 broadsideshot
> 
> The dog and phony show is rigged!


It may be rigged now (or not), but reason will prevail as long as reasonable men also prevail!


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Reb thanks for the reply. 

I'll open the curtain a bit for you and 73.

Basically these big game rules are decided by about 12 people. Most all of them are reps from the hunting groups like SFW MDF UBA and so on. When the Division has a proposal to run through the RACs they'll pull together a meeting of these same guys and have them bless what they are going to propose. Most of the time the groups will want changes made before they offer support and will discuss them at this time. I declined this last invitation via e mail a week or so ago for the permit numbers.

Now 99% of these groups are making money by selling conservation permits and we wonder why the public has no voice?? We wonder why we have built a statewide hunting preserve for the rich and famous?? We wonder why these groups don't want us unwashed pukes to keep or expand ANY opportunity. 

Any illusion of an honest public input process was blasted in the WB meeting for option 2 when Byron Bateman gave the DWR a check for $300K before the vote right in the middle of the meeting. Add to that Jake Albrecht stumbling through the proposal that DC had so eloquently composed for him and it don't take long to see the manure pile.

Carry on with the fantasy that your efforts can trump corrupt individuals, corrupt leaders, all the way to that pr!ck Herbert and a corrupt system..


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

So.....just to be clear....

You guys are recommending that we all sit back, do nothing and watch the ball roll as it is a complete waste of time??

I think your all dead wrong!

*IF* 300 of you naysayers showed up to every RAC Meeting screaming, kicking, and yelling **** would get done...

Lets look at option 2- I attended the Northern RAC and I would guess about sixty "citizens" were there if my memory serves me correctly, IMO the majority of them and groups in attendance that stood up wanted Option 2, not by much, but I would say the majority wanted "change" For sure there was no overwhelming support one way or the other....

I was at the wildlife board meeting as well......same thing, cept I would say it was about 50/50, same thing though no overwhelming support going one way or the other.....and now you all say they went against the majority...I call BS.

The problem is you and most of the public wont show up, most of the members of this forum do not give a ****, and like you think its a waste of time.....you guys dont like that big/powerful sfw shows up and puts its members at the meetings......I get it.....but until other groups step up and "the common" man gets involved....your stuck with what we have now, 15 people at a meeting, half being members of that **** SFW......

In the words of the former ProOutdoors.....Put up or Shut Up......(I think thats how it went) 8)

I honestly WANT to see groups like the UWC blow up the RAC's and Wildlife Board meetings with people......I want opposition, I truly believe without it, things get stuck in a rut!


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Reb, SFW was the ONLY group in favor of 2. 
BOU, UBA and MDF all spoke against 2. 

Go back in to the WB work session
Recordings. 2 was a done deal in 
March I believe. 

The only way this system is going to
Work is when the corruption goes away. 

How bout statewide archery Reb? Ya had 
Beaver and Dixie SFW chapters, with no
Data, no science end this opportunity. 

How about AR-301?? Tony Abbott and John
Bair SFW board members at the time end
This hunt. Ask them they'll admit it. 

Like I said earlier, I've been at this for almost
As long as you've been on this planet. ATV
Committee, SITLA Committee, Elk Committee
Alternate for the Mule Deer Committee 
And the Great Salt Lake Waterfowl Advisory
Group. I have a pretty good handle on how
**** gets done.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Wiley- i respect your service and knowledge, but i still dont think its right for the average hunter to lay down and give up...

And yes, SFW was the only MAJOR group to support option 2...I re-read my post and my applogies, I should have clarified...

There were other groups that did support option 2...small groups I rarely here about..


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> Wiley- i respect your service and knowledge, but i still dont think its right for the average hunter to lay down and give up...
> 
> And yes, SFW was the only MAJOR group to support option 2...I re-read my post and my applogies, I should have clarified...
> 
> There were other groups that did support option 2...small groups I rarely here about..


You mean the outfitters and guides who liked option 2 because they could separate and isolate different clients better? I really want to stir the pot here, but I'm not going to because I think you and everyone on this forum would really be great friends in life or at least could shake hands in person and would sweat blood working together for wildlife in our state. Its not the members of any one group that is the problem and that includes the WB. Happy Easter Weekend!


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Reb it's guys like you that will bring the next
generation in to the fold, keep that energy 
and use it where it will do some good. Get
a kid in the marsh, teach someone how to
shoot a bow or cast a fly. 

Like Finn said, you'll see immediate results
And won't have the headache of battling this
Corrupt B.S. of a public input process we are
Stuck with. 

Good luck and Happy Easter to all.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> So.....just to be clear....
> 
> You guys are recommending that we all sit back, do nothing and watch the ball roll as it is a complete waste of time?? That's not what I advocate, There are many means of making an impact, such as educating people, mentoring new hunters, sharing your views often. Just because I strongly assert the game is rigged, does NOT mean I advocate doing nothing!
> 
> ...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> The only way this system is going to
> Work is when the corruption goes away.


The rub, the system is corrupt, or deeply flawed at best. New people can get elected/selected to the WB or to the RAC's, but it will matter little. The system caters to special interests by the very way it was set up. Until wildlife welfare is given top priority, things will keep going down the crapper.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

The RAC's are NOT corrupt...period! Now it is possible that members of the WL Board could be corrupted simply because they are appointed persons and can actually vote and make decisions. The RAC's can only advise.


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

This might be a little off topic, but not really. The point I want to make is fishermen never bought into the RAC system and frankly gave up. It took the DWR a few years to figure it out. Now the Utah addresses anglers concerns with Open Houses and an on-line survey. My point? Fishermen concluded very early on that the RAC system was a joke. When I read comments made by PRO he is right. It took him awhile, but he is absolutely right the system is corrupt and the average salt of the earth sportsmen doesn't benefit and doesn't have a voice in the current process.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Incorrect BP. I've seen RAC members tie
Up the discussion portion of the process
Until their point was accepted. There is a 
Difference between sharing your opinion
And refusing to proceed with the agenda
Until you have browbeaten the other RAC
Members to vote your way. 

I know specifically of one occasion where
The direction was chosen before one word
Of public input was uttered. 

There are some **** good people that serve
On the RACs but many are there to push their
Own agenda regardless of what the public says
Or how many show up.


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

Packout said:


> The apathy started about 8-9 years ago and spread more since that time. I have seen 1,000 people show up to a RAC and the great majority expressed an opinion one way-- only to have the Board at the time go against the public input. The "masses" found that it didn't matter if they showed up. As one "lobbyist" told me when he lost a RAC vote, during well attended RAC--* "It doesn't matter. This is all window dressing. The Board will vote differently."* He was right. So people, fed up with inconsistent and blatant ignoring of the public input, stopped wasting their time and stayed home.


im not one to be very vocal at the meetings but i have learned alot by just listening to the speakers and later see how the vote went. The above bolded statement *pretty much sums up my current opinion of the RAC's*. Good to hear things may be changing.


----------



## Charina (Aug 16, 2011)

By the time a matter is presented to the RAC and WB, the ball has been rolling and gaining momentum for quite a while. As currently constituted, this process is a final vetting process, not a development process via public input. I think some have developed false expectations/understanding of the RAC/WB process to be an opportunity for public input in policy development. Accordingly, for the public voice to have any reasonable expectation of sway, it needs to be very loud (lots of people), or unusually persuasive. 

A lot of life's disappointments are rooted in expectations. I think it would be helpful for some to have reasonable expectations based on the way the process is designed, and not get bent out of shape when an unpersuasive or ignorable voice does not alter the course of something already in motion. If you want to have a say in policy development, get out in front of the development process (as has been partially highlighted in this topic), not try to stand in its way once it has full momentum.


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

Charina said:


> As currently constituted, this process is a final vetting process, not a development process via public input.


precisley my point of not attending anymore. Its a total waste of time when i can just read it in the guidebook later. If its not a developmental part of the process, then why at all make public input/comments available?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Longgun said:


> Charina said:
> 
> 
> > As currently constituted, this process is a final vetting process, not a development process via public input.
> ...


Thus, you allow the process to continue and that's unfortunate!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> Longgun said:
> 
> 
> > Charina said:
> ...


No, that is facing reality instead of denying it.......

The process will NOT be fixed by taking part in the process. That makes about as much sense as beating cancer by continuing to smoke........


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> > Longgun said:
> ...


And your solution to fixing the process is not to fix it? And if anyone is enabling the process, it's you! You're doing exactly what they hope you will do by not showing up and not calling them out in public. Like I said, that's unfortunate. We could use your help.


----------



## Broadside_Shot (Feb 22, 2010)

Elk, I agree with what you are saying and I am sure PRO does also. But you have to pick your battles. -8/- 

The UFC Flyweight Champion is not going to challenge the UFC Heavyweight champion to a fight. It will end bad for the Flyweight. -oOo- 

I say this analogy because this I what it was like when I tried my hand in politics. I was overmatched and took some black eyes on things that were proven facts. I was told from a former Wildlife Board Member "We are the Wildlife Board and we can do what we want". :^8^: 

Facts did not overrule perception. Right or wrong perception won out. I'm sure there is someone out there that has the fire power to compete but it is not me. It took time away from my family and I dealt with unnecessary stress and decided that it was not worth it to me.

Yes Freedon don't come free!!! but I will not be stupid and challenge the super power with Scud missles. O*--

But when the right person comes around I will be by their side.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> And your solution to fixing the process is not to fix it? And if anyone is enabling the process, it's you! You're doing exactly what they hope you will do by not showing up and not calling them out in public. Like I said, that's unfortunate. We could use your help.


 You know better than that! As Jerry (broadside_shot) stated, it is wasted energy to take on the system head on. One can fix the process without being swallowed up by the process. Educating fellow sportsmen, working behind 'enemy' lines swaying people of the MASSIVELY flawed system needing to be junked, exposing the ****roaches whenever/however possible, etc, etc. And, for the record, I AM calling them out in public, oddly as it may seem, I can do this without attending 'their' meetings. One doesn't need to go to Cuba to expose it for its flawed political system, right........ I have learned to pick my battles, and I choose when and how to fight back, you won't berate me into acting as you wish, of that I assure you! I don't vote for dems or reps either, yet I am fighting the fight in that arena as well. I have taken the deliberate steps to no longer being chattle, I know longer take solace in telling myself....at least I'm doing 'something'. If that floats your boat, I wish you well. Just don't stoop to such low levels as to suggest I am enabling the corruption! I have NEVER disrespected you, mostly because I repsect you, I contend that I have earned a little respect from you in return.......!


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

elk,

lemme put it to you this way. I went to one of SFW's first meetings at Davis High years ago. Don went on and on how the way things have been done, have been so wrong and how we as sportsmen deserved better, more opprutunity, more animals, better wintering area -yadda yadda, and telling us all how he quit his job to start SFW. (THAT was the first red flag, i remember thinking "youre going to quit a decent career?... to do this?") I also distinctly remember at that meeting, him saying he wasn't concerned about upland & waterfowl, as there wasn't any money in it.

Are bird hunters not sportsmen?


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> Longgun said:
> 
> 
> > Charina said:
> ...


if public input is admittedly not being listened to then why bother!? im not that into talking to just listen to my teeth chatter...

listening to all the hype surrounding the coyote bounty being the sure fire way to grow deer populations has me somewhat ill... it does its part, IF we keep at it! it'll last just about as long as the funding to pay the coyote killers does.

now bring on that warm wet spring!


----------

