# Don Peay - Randy Newberg Debate won't happen



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

This is from Hawkeye. I was checking to see when the debate between Don Peay and Randy Newberg was going to happen, but it appears Don Peay won't produce SFW 's financial statements after multiple attempts.

This has me thinking that SFW is trying to hide something otherwise they would have no problem showing Randy the financial transactions.



> I regret to announce that the much anticipated debate between Don Peay and Randy Newberg has been postponed indefinitely. Although the parties have successfulyl negotiated and resolved several issues relating to the format of the debate, there has been a disagreement for some time as to whether SFW would produce its financial statements. Despite multiple requests to Don and Bryron Bateman, SFW remains unwilling to do so. Don's position is that this is a debate between him and Randy, and he has no control over whether or not SFW will produce its financials. SFW has not formally responded to Randy's requests.
> 
> Randy sent both Don and me an email yesterday stating in part: "By copying Jason on this email, I am now notifying Jason, as the facilitator, that the debate is postponed until receipt of the financial information requested. I stand ready to debate any, and all, of these topics, once the financial information is provided." As a result of Randy's email, I felt obligated to post this on monstermuleys.com so the public would be aware and could clear their calendars.
> 
> ...


I think this really speaks volumes about Don Peay and SFW.



> Don's position is that this is a debate between him and Randy, and he has no control over whether or not SFW will produce its financials. SFW has not formally responded to Randy's requests


This is pure BS on Don Peays part.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

:roll:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Bwhnter that is what I thought too when I read it because Don won't open up his financial books and Randy even agreed to sign a disclosure that he couldn't talk about what he found out from reading the books.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Bwhnter that is what I thought too when I read it because Don won't open up his financial books and Randy even agreed to sign a disclosure that he couldn't talk about what he found out from reading the books.


 :roll: Clearly, once again you only know (or think you know) one side of the story....Like it matters anyways. :roll:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

-_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- Clearly you're once again avoiding reality. This will be really good to hear. So what is the other side of the story?

Don's favorite goat ate the financial statements and this is why Randy can't view them? You have drank so much koolaid that it wouldn't matter what Don or SFW did or said because you will still follow them to the end. Don tells you what to think and say. You have already proved this to me before on another thread.

As long as you pay for membership fees and kiss his behind then everything is good for you. Maybe someday you will get the taste out of your mouth.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Although SFW's failure to contact Randy with regards to financials is very dissapointing, there is no reason to blame that directly on Mr. Peay. He represents SFW only as a paid spokesperson and has no power to make SFW reveal anything. Personally, I disagree with a many things SFW and Mr. Peay stand for and have done, but I don't think it does sportsmen any good to come on the internet and sling mud and rocks. Speak with facts and information to prove a point, and that will be enough for folks to listen and pay attention. Sometimes you just go too far yote.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

I don't know who this stillhunterman guy is, but I sure do like him. :mrgreen: :lol: 

I am also disappointed to see this fall through, but I never thought it would happen in the first place.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

stillhunterman said:


> Although SFW's failure to contact Randy with regards to financials is very dissapointing, there is no reason to blame that directly on Mr. Peay. He represents SFW only as a paid spokesperson and has no power to make SFW reveal anything. Personally, I disagree with a many things SFW and Mr. Peay stand for and have done, but I don't think it does sportsmen any good to come on the internet and sling mud and rocks. Speak with facts and information to prove a point, and that will be enough for folks to listen and pay attention. Sometimes you just go too far yote.


I go to far by posting that the debate won't happen and I question SFW motives because of their constant tag grabs or looking at ways to reduce hunter opportunity to make more money for themselves. I think you're a little to soft. I speak my mind and say things as I see them regardless if it makes someone upset.

I was curious if this debate would happen but when Don required Randy to go on a tour so Don could tell show him how great he is so I figured it wouldn't happen.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

My Pastor gave a sermon once on porno... It made sense when he would describe the lengths people would go to cover, lie and hide their addictions. In this case it happened to be porno. He also compared this to humanities need to be recognized for the positive things in their lives. Short translation. Dark things usually are done in the dark where the positive 
can see the light of day.

Hey lets call it the way it is here... If these books are all great and fill what we are constantly being told about the millions and millions of dollars being spent, then whats 
the freaking problem??


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> My Pastor gave a sermon once on porno... It made sense when he would describe the lengths people would go to cover, lie and hide their addictions. In this case it happened to be porno. He also compared this to humanities need to be recognized for the positive things in their lives. Short translation. Dark things usually are done in the dark where the positive
> can see the light of day.
> 
> Hey lets call it the way it is here... If these books are all great and fill what we are constantly being told about the millions and millions of dollars being spent, then whats
> the freaking problem??


Easy Wiley you're going a little bit to far


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

And this is one of the CLOWNS! that had a vote on State Wide Archery? Follow the money and lets get some answers on what this fools agenda really isMAD AS HE--! NO ARCHERY TAG O for 6!! ain"t shuttin up!!


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

sfw is getting slammed on the mm website. where are all of the sfw supporters where do you guys come out on this. there is no way you guys can try to spin this one. sfw is as crooked and as money hungrey as it gets


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

SFW is government funded - without a doubt. Public funded - with no question. How in the world can they get away with not being transparent on everything they do? It isn't like they generate 1 or 5 or 10% of their money from tags. It has to be 80 to 90 percent.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

SteepNDeep said:


> SFW is government funded - without a doubt. Public funded - with no question. How in the world can they get away with not being transparent on everything they do? It isn't like they generate 1 or 5 or 10% of their money from tags. It has to be 80 to 90 percent.


80-90% is a little steep, but considering the expo tags, there's a fair portion of their revenue generated from public tags. Not to mention the allure and subsequent revenue of having these tags present at banquets etc. They are very important to the grand scheme, don't let anyone fool ya'.

*mer·it? ?[mer-it]* Show IPA
noun
1.
claim to respect and praise; excellence; worth.
2.
something that deserves or justifies a reward or commendation; a commendable quality, act, etc.: The book's only merit is its sincerity.
3.
merits, the inherent rights and wrongs of a matter, as a lawsuit, unobscured by procedural details, technicalities, personal feelings, etc.: The case will be decided on its merits alone.
4.
Often, merits. the state or fact of deserving; desert: to treat people according to their merits.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

What is Don Peays role in SFW? I read that he is President and that Byron Bateman is VP. If this is the case how is it that they have no control over the financials of SFW? As a former president of a company... I would have to be a puppet not to be able to authorize the release of financial information. Granted.. there might be an issue with board members and it would have to be put up to a vote. BUT COME ON!!!! With all the bad PR you are getting your are still tightening the sphincter?


----------



## cacherinthewry (Dec 20, 2007)

Peay/SFW = The Once-ler?


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

How does this surprise anyone? Like they were going to let Big P, Captain Big Toof, and BFG's Iron Jaw "golden ticket" out for scrutiny? Riiiiight.....We all knew he wouldn't man up and "debate" Randy. And we all already know the business model and where their money comes and goes. There are no secrets really so why do we even care? Could it be that because for the last 18 years every single **** promise that has been made to the benefit of mule deer has fallen flat? Must be those incompetent bios at DWR, or is it the morons who continue to sell good intentioned people a bill of goods about something they know good and well isn't going to amount to a hill of beans in the way of benefit for anyone but the pocketbooks of the leadership of SFW and a few political hacks? Wow....where'd that come from?


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

klbzdad said:


> How does this surprise anyone? Like they were going to let Big P, Captain Big Toof, and BFG's Iron Jaw "golden ticket" out for scrutiny? Riiiiight.....We all knew he wouldn't man up and "debate" Randy. And we all already know the business model and where their money comes and goes. There are no secrets really so why do we even care? Could it be that because for the last 18 years every single **** promise that has been made to the benefit of mule deer has fallen flat? Must be those incompetent bios at DWR, or is it the morons who continue to sell good intentioned people a bill of goods about something they know good and well isn't going to amount to a hill of beans in the way of benefit for anyone but the pocketbooks of the leadership of SFW and a few political hacks? Wow....where'd that come from?


i dont think it suprises many people. i also think the why should we even care is a bad way to look at it (lazy). i do care for my kids future hunting privilages and my privliages. sfw started out a good organization but within the last 5 years maybe more. they have gotten money hungry and flat out greedy. they are taking tags from the public and pimping them out . they are also taking money out of the conserevation pool and having their way with it. total bs


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

There's no lazy about it. I have researched this to death and have spoken with many members of SFW. I haven't spoken to a single one I didn't like EXCEPT for those in leadership PAID positions. Any politician, public figure, religious leader, or organization that uses apathy and fear to increase its rolls and membership is pathetic to me. So you're right, it was a noble cause once upon a time, but that fairy tale is long over and something smells of a revolt concerning their ability to profit from the public's tags the way their business model has allowed them to for so long....I dunno, maybe its time for people who care so much about their family traditions and privileges to actually DO SOMETHING. There is a ground swell and when it exposes itself, don't be idle and hope someone else does the all the work to change things. It'll take an army........wait


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

klbzdad said:


> There's no lazy about it. I have researched this to death and have spoken with many members of SFW. I haven't spoken to a single one I didn't like EXCEPT for those in leadership PAID positions. Any politician, public figure, religious leader, or organization that uses apathy and fear to increase its rolls and membership is pathetic to me. So you're right, it was a noble cause once upon a time, but that fairy tale is long over and something smells of a revolt concerning their ability to profit from the public's tags the way their business model has allowed them to for so long....I dunno, maybe its time for people who care so much about their family traditions and privileges to actually DO SOMETHING. There is a ground swell and when it exposes itself, don't be idle and hope someone else does the all the work to change things. It'll take an army........wait


let me ask this where does the uwc stand on this subject. i noticed your signature at the bottom of the page. i for one would back them 100%


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

I can't speak for the UWC as a whole but I can say that of all the orgs (I belong to the majority of them except for SFW) UWC is the one that most closely represents my ideals, is most willing to support its members and educate them, is the fastest growing in Utah, and will NEVER become a tag grab organization that depends on a public resource in order to exist. It relies on its members and its leadership listens to its membership which is something SFW lacks miserably. Instead, DP, BB, or RB do their best to TELL you what to think and I don't know about any of you but I'd rather think for myself and then be represented by people who can cumulatively represent the whole with a common core. In the case of UWC, that core is the North American Wildlife Conservation Model. I'm not sure what the core of SFW is......does anyone, really?

I was hoping that a "debate" would provide some kind of insight into what DP really saw in the way of a future for SFW because the members I've spoken with would like to see some changes and they aren't the kind of changes that include paying a "consultant" $250,000.00+ a year to continue to be divisive to sportsmen and women of all walks of life.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

From everything that I have seen and everybody that I have spoken with, the UWC stands on the side of the fence with the common man. Believe me when I say I have done my research to find an organization that I feel comfortable aligning myself with. I am a relative newbie with a lot of this and had very little knowledge of any of the organizations other than the RMEF. I am not going to bad mouth the SFW. There are things that they do that definitely benefit wildlife, hunting and other outdoor activities. That said, I am of the opinion that there are far more efficient ways to get the rubber to the road. If a not for profit organization can not afford transparency to the public and its donating members, I have very little interests in donating to their cause.

http://www.unitedwildlifecooperative.org/_WELCOME.html

http://www.huntright.org/north-american ... tion-model


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> From everything that I have seen and everybody that I have spoken with, the UWC stands on the side of the fence with the common man. Believe me when I say I have done my research to find an organization that I feel comfortable aligning myself with. I am a relative newbie with a lot of this and had very little knowledge of any of the organizations other than the RMEF. I am not going to bad mouth the SFW. There are things that they do that definitely benefit wildlife, hunting and other outdoor activities. That said, I am of the opinion that there are far more efficient ways to get the rubber to the road. If a not for profit organization can not afford transparency to the public and its donating members, I have very little interests in donating to their cause.
> 
> http://www.unitedwildlifecooperative.org/_WELCOME.html
> 
> http://www.huntright.org/north-american ... tion-model


sfw is supposed to be a non profit orginazation. the way this looks is that they are absolutly scared to show their financial records because they know they have received millions of dollars through tags and etc. and have done the absolute bare minimum to give back to wildlife. they may do a project here and there but per capita on what they recieve we are all being screwed.


----------



## quakeycrazy (Sep 18, 2007)

I hope all the anti SFW folks on this site also are not attending the annual Hunting Expo, if so that would be totally hypocrital considering they are feeding the pocketbooks of Donny. For the record I have not attended one and nor will I ever as long as SFW has any say in our wildlife decisions.....


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

hazmat said:


> Mr Muleskinner said:
> 
> 
> > From everything that I have seen and everybody that I have spoken with, the UWC stands on the side of the fence with the common man. Believe me when I say I have done my research to find an organization that I feel comfortable aligning myself with. I am a relative newbie with a lot of this and had very little knowledge of any of the organizations other than the RMEF. I am not going to bad mouth the SFW. There are things that they do that definitely benefit wildlife, hunting and other outdoor activities. That said, I am of the opinion that there are far more efficient ways to get the rubber to the road. If a not for profit organization can not afford transparency to the public and its donating members, I have very little interests in donating to their cause.
> ...


You need to learn more about UWC.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

quakeycrazy said:


> I hope all the anti SFW folks on this site also are not attending the annual Hunting Expo, if so that would be totally hypocrital considering they are feeding the pocketbooks of Donny. For the record I have not attended one and nor will I ever as long as SFW has any say in our wildlife decisions.....


What if you are there with a booth, signing up hunters to groups that are opposed to SFW? I have never attended, for just the reason you stated.


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

dkhntrdstn said:


> hazmat said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Muleskinner said:
> ...


my bad i edited the post i was talking about sfw not uwc.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> What if you are there with a booth, signing up hunters to groups that are opposed to SFW?


That is what I would call ironic. :mrgreen:


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

The SFW core is simple. Don Peay says that general season hunting on public lands is "socialism", and hunting should be privatized, yet he funds himself and SFW with public resources. Lets see how well he does 100% private.

Here is some info on folks that drink from the same cup as Don Peay http://savewideerhunting.info/


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Isn't Dr. Kroll the genius behind all the "studies" that SFW claims their "DATA" comes from?(_make sure you read "DATA" in a super deep sexy voice like that guy on the WB would say it_) Wow......he's super, uh....super scary!!!!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I'm still waiting to hear the other side of the story from bwhnter. Maybe he's waiting for permission or doesn't have permission from his master to post the other side of the story.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :roll: :roll:


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > What if you are there with a booth, signing up hunters to groups that are opposed to SFW?
> ...


It was ironic! :O•-:


----------



## Charina (Aug 16, 2011)

Lonetree said:


> . . .Don Peay says that general season hunting on public lands is "socialism", and hunting should be privatized. . .


Can you provide any sources/references that verify that is his posotion? I simply am attempting to be sure my opinions are founded on facts, not internet hyperbole.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I also wonder why Don said the wolf issue was off limits to discuss. Maybe it's because of what I posted in another thread that SFW fought against the only billed that passed that made it legal to kill wolves.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> I'm still waiting to hear the other side of the story from bwhnter. Maybe he's waiting for permission or doesn't have permission from his master to post the other side of the story.
> 
> :lol: :lol: :lol: :roll: :roll:





> I have always strenuously supported the right of every man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies another this right makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it. -- Thomas Paine, 1783


What was the one about mud wresting with pigs?...


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> bwhntr said:
> 
> 
> > Lonetree said:
> ...


I knew you were anti! 8) :mrgreen:


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Charina said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > . . .Don Peay says that general season hunting on public lands is "socialism", and hunting should be privatized. . .
> ...


Based on FACTS? No, the answer is no.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> coyoteslayer said:
> 
> 
> > I'm still waiting to hear the other side of the story from bwhnter. Maybe he's waiting for permission or doesn't have permission from his master to post the other side of the story.
> ...


This is the best you can come up with???? :lol:


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/con ... m%E2%80%9D


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/conservationist/2012/03/group-founder-declares-north-american-hunting-model-%E2%80%9Csocialism%E2%80%9D


So...you have no facts? It would be silly for you to post up mis-quoted hearsay. I don't think you are the silly type.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

bwhntr said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/conservationist/2012/03/group-founder-declares-north-american-hunting-model-%E2%80%9Csocialism%E2%80%9D
> ...


Would you like it reported from MSNBC?


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Yes CS...in fact I'm already feeling dirty. 





CS...that's funny. Sorry, inside joke.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Here's an article where DP to the model as socialist....of course he is the King of generalization so he can spin it any way he can later. To his credit, he's good at manipulating people into buying back their own rear ends.

http://www.adn.com/2012/03/03/2350508/p ... rylink=cpy#storylink=cpy


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Yep, the socialism thing must be a mis-quote, just like the MT wolf thing was a mis-quote, right?  Maybe his support of conservation tags for SFW is a mis-quote?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/conservationist/2012/03/group-founder-declares-north-american-hunting-model-%E2%80%9Csocialism%E2%80%9D
> ...


 -_O- -_O- -_O- Bowhunter you state that he has no facts. You haven't even posted one fact in favor of SFW and Don Peay and you claim to know the other part of the story, but you can't even post that.

Bwhnter Don't call someone out about not having facts when you don't post any of your own.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> bwhntr said:
> 
> 
> > Lonetree said:
> ...


Lol...Why would it be any different? They all go back to the same "author" with a personal beef with Peay who has never had a conversation with Peay, who took a quote out of context then turned around and mis-quoted the quote.

How about one where you actually talked to Peay. Oh wait, how about one where ANYONE actually talked to Peay???

Sheesh, talk about manipulating.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Oh god...do your own search of the forum and find the REAL info yourself. I have posted it, go find it.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Let me know when you have something new and substantial to bitch about


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

If someone "misquoted" me in this kind of a manor, LAWSUIT!!!! The problem is, you can't detract or retract something on the record if you actually said it. I wonder what his shoe laces tasted like. What with making that kind of money, they must be made of licorice!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> Oh god...do your own search of the forum and find the REAL info yourself. I have posted it, go find it.


All I have ever read is your man love for Don peay and SFW. How can you possiblity defend SFW or Don Peay not wanting to open their financial books? If everything is on the up and up then SFW wouldn't have any problem showing their financial transactions to anyone.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

bwhntr

These are not mis-quotes, these are not out of context, these are the actual words from the mouth(and written) by Don Peay. Whats next, you're gonna tell us its a different Don Peay?


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

CS has nothing better to do, go search my posts and repost my conversation with Don. I know you can do it.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> CS has nothing better to do, go search my posts and repost my conversation with Don. I know you can do it.


Are you sure it was with Don Peay or did you mis-qoute him?


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

bwhntr said:


> Oh god...do your own search of the forum and find the REAL info yourself. I have posted it, go find it.


back to the original post if don is such a great person and sfw has nothing to hide why wont they open the books


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> bwhntr said:
> 
> 
> > CS has nothing better to do, go search my posts and repost my conversation with Don. I know you can do it.
> ...


Of course I didn't...you can ask him yourself.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Bwhnter, what you posted means nothing because that is Don Peay talking with his forked tongue.If he was an honest man then he would show his financial books because he has nothing to hide. His SFW membership would go up and a lot of sportsmen would stand behind him. A few years ago Don Peay promised that SFW would be more transparent. He held a meeting that was basically a waste of time for the sportsman that attended.

Now, here we are a few year later and Don has the chance to fulfill his promise, but Don Peay/SFW refuse to open the books. This is a huge red flag.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

bwhntr said:


> coyoteslayer said:
> 
> 
> > bwhntr said:
> ...


Ask him? Sure, maybe we could debate the issues. Seeing as how you are koolaid drinking buddies, PM me his # and I will give him a call and ask.


----------



## Charina (Aug 16, 2011)

Ok kids, the personal peeing matches are making this thread stink worse that a rutting bull! How about taking that type of stuff off the public form so the real matters can be discussed without offputting those interested in discussing the matter, but not intersted in getting splashed on.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

hazmat said:


> klbzdad said:
> 
> 
> > There's no lazy about it. I have researched this to death and have spoken with many members of SFW. I haven't spoken to a single one I didn't like EXCEPT for those in leadership PAID positions. Any politician, public figure, religious leader, or organization that uses apathy and fear to increase its rolls and membership is pathetic to me. So you're right, it was a noble cause once upon a time, but that fairy tale is long over and something smells of a revolt concerning their ability to profit from the public's tags the way their business model has allowed them to for so long....I dunno, maybe its time for people who care so much about their family traditions and privileges to actually DO SOMETHING. There is a ground swell and when it exposes itself, don't be idle and hope someone else does the all the work to change things. It'll take an army........wait
> ...


I think you need to clarify what "subject" you're referring to. The debate itself? The purpose of the debate? The cancellation? The closed books? Other? Although neither I nor klbzdad can officially speak for the UWC, I think the organization and the workings of the UWC might answer your question.

UWC was organized by several members of this forum as a response to the way the RAC's and Wildlife Board were moving the hunting community (primarily) and public assets (wildlife) toward the wealthy/"die-hard"/"real" hunters through social mandates and away from the science and biology that would sustain wildlife and allow the majority of Utahns (Utards, if you insist) the most opportunity to hunt and fish without hurting the wildlife. Our desire is to represent the vast majority of residents (and nonresidents) who aren't able to attend RAC and WB meetings and who may not even know how the system works. We endorse the North American Wildlife Model.

The workings? We gather input for the RAC's and Wildlife Board from members primarily through online contact. We try to activate members (and others) to help with various habitat projects as well as projects involving youth. We are all volunteers who spend our own time and money doing what we can to promote the organization. We rely on donations and have no dues! We never auction public assets (tags) to the highest bidders. While we may (I'm not sure) use tags as incentives to bring the public to fund raising events, those tags will be door prizes that go to the lucky ticket holders and not to the wealthiest in the room. The wealthiest in the room can bid on the hunting/fishing/camping equipment donated by the local businesses.

And while we don't always agree with the other wildlife organizations, including the DWR, we are a cooperative and are always willing to work with others on common grounds.

I personally hope that SFW survives this nonsense, but that it's a wake up call to the the membership!


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Bwhnter, what you posted means nothing because that is Don Peay talking with his forked tongue.If he was an honest man then he would show his financial books because he has nothing to hide. His SFW membership would go up and a lot of sportsmen would stand behind him. A few years ago Don Peay promised that SFW would be more transparent. He held a meeting that was basically a waste of time for the sportsman that attended.
> 
> Now, here we are a few year later and Don has the chance to fulfill his promise, but Don Peay/SFW refuse to open the books. This is a huge red flag.


Oh, so I should trust a bias, unsubstantiated, with an agenda author over the actual source??? Ok. So, where do I read up on your Mormon religan? Sould I go to the LDS.org website (the source) or do I go to exmormon.org?

Typically I prefer going to the source. I guess I could be wrong.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Charina said:


> Ok kids, the personal peeing matches are making this thread stink worse that a rutting bull! How about taking that type of stuff off the public form so the real matters can be discussed without offputting those interested in discussing the matter, but not intersted in getting splashed on.


Don's stance on the "issues" is at the core of the discussion, and is a "real matter". Too many facts? Not enough hyperbole?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Bwhntr

I'll make the call and report back here, I wont even ask that he open the books.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> coyoteslayer said:
> 
> 
> > Bwhnter, what you posted means nothing because that is Don Peay talking with his forked tongue.If he was an honest man then he would show his financial books because he has nothing to hide. His SFW membership would go up and a lot of sportsmen would stand behind him. A few years ago Don Peay promised that SFW would be more transparent. He held a meeting that was basically a waste of time for the sportsman that attended.
> ...


Actually you're only going to Don's side of the story when you need to look at the other side. I'm sure Don lefted out a lot of important information in his email. Of course he isn't going to tell you everything otherwise you would throw up in your mouth or maybe you've had to much koolaid. Everything starts to add up when you look at the big picture about SFW. If they can't open their financial books to show where money that they are receiving from a public source then something is very wrong.

How can you support SFW?


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Lonetree, I do have his cell number. Of course I won't be sharing it. I already posted up his position.

CS, actually it wasn't kool-aid. It was fish tacos and they were delicious. 8)


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

3 way call? then I dont have to dial.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> CS, actually it wasn't kool-aid. It was fish tacos and they were delicious.


 8) I'm glad to see that you having something good instead of SFW koolaid.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)




----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

For those welfare hunters still educating themselves: http://nwsportsmanmag.com/2012/03/09/sp ... socialism/ Also, you can google "don peay socialism"


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Somebody should sell tickets to this forum at times.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Somebody should sell tickets to this forum at times.


I think selling things is kinda what got us in some of this trouble


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

bwhntr said:


> Lonetree, I do have his cell number. Of course I won't be sharing it. I already posted up his position.
> 
> CS, actually it wasn't kool-aid. It was fish tacos and they were delicious. 8)


sounds like you had something other than fish tacos. where did you post his position at. would like to know if you do not mind.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

hazmat said:


> sounds like you had something other than fish tacos. where did you post his position at. would like to know if you do not mind.


I was really hoping CS would go searching through the piles and piles of BS and offer a link. Here is a link to the emails I posted, enjoy:

http://utahwildlife.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=41531


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Read ALL of the articles, in their entirety, and Don's rebuttal, it does NOT add up. Just like his stance on the MT wolf issue, does not add up. Just like reducing buck tags does not get us more deer, it only creates the opportunity to increase the monetary value of a deer tag. The "socialism" comment was NOT about predator control, it WAS about the North American wildlife model, period.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

IF CS feels like seaching, I addressed the MT wolf issue as well. Same BS as usual. 

We can disagree, it's ok.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

"We can disagree, it's ok." Oh, we do. I dont see how you can support folks, and groups that are against American exceptualism. The North American Wildlife Conservation model is one of the finest examples of American exceptualism in the world. Why would you want to take up the European model?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

A lot of things don't add up for Don Peay on a lot of issues. Here is on the MT wolf fiasco. Search this out and you will find it to be correct. 

The SFW had a bill that was known as the Hatch-Rehberg bill. This bill had no chance whatsoever. SFW introduced this bill one month before the Montana, Idaho wolf delisting bill. The bill that SFW introduced never even got a committee hearing during the month it was introduced. Even as of today, this bill that SFW introduced has never even made it out of committee.

Everyone that was involved in this whole process knew that the SFW bill didn't even have a chance, including SFW. The SFW bill never even got a committee vote.

SFW had 60 supporters and not even the sponsors of this bill tried to fight to get the bill out of committee. SFW needed 269 votes in Congress. They were 209 votes short in Congress and only 1 vote short in the Oval Office. No one in their right mind would even try to fight those kinds of odds so naturally they just let the bill sit in committee.

So for whatever reason SFW and BGF chose to fight against the one bill that had a chance which was the Montana/Idaho bill. This bill has proven to be the real answer to the wolf problem.

When SFW was fighting against this bill then SFW said the MT/ID bill would get shot down in court, They said it wouldn't solve any problems. SFW believed it would also screw WY in the future.

Like always SFW is wrong on a lot of issues and the bill has stood up in the Federal District Courts process and also the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. This bill also created a for the December delisting that happened in the Great Lakes states. The MT/ID bill also allowed the good old state of WY to continue their fight with USFWS and WY will likely get their wolf hunting season sometime this fall.

Bowhunter you will have to ask DON face to face why SFW/BGF why they wanted to kill the Montana/Idaho delisting bill. Let me know if Don can answer you with a straight face. SFW was wrong on all accounts. I haven't even read one article stating that SFW denies trying to kill this bill. If there is one then post it.

Of course you will hear a different version from DON himself. BUT the facts are out there. I admit I don't know all the answers since the whole thing is a big mess, but it's funny that SFW tries to take credit for the wolf delisting when they were the ones fighting against it.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

This is from Randy Newberg



> I know many of you visit that site in addition to our Hunt Talk site, so I thought I would provide an explanation of what Hawkeye posted. I had hoped we could have a true debate about the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation and the Utah Model. Pretty hard to have that debate and discussion when the group holding all the info relevant to a major debate topic will not release the info.
> 
> Sorry, guys. I promise you, I did everything possible to make this work out. I agreed to all of the following, with my only request being the right to see the financial information.
> 
> ...


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> The North American Wildlife Conservation model is one of the finest examples of American exceptualism in the world. Why would you want to take up the European model?


I guess there are somethings we agree on. I have never said I disagree with the NAWCM....I have NEVER heard ANYONE from SFW disagree with it either.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> A lot of things don't add up for Don Peay on a lot of issues. Here is on the MT wolf fiasco. Search this out and you will find it to be correct.
> 
> The SFW had a bill that was known as the Hatch-Rehberg bill. This bill had no chance whatsoever. SFW introduced this bill one month before the Montana, Idaho wolf delisting bill. The bill that SFW introduced never even got a committee hearing during the month it was introduced. Even as of today, this bill that SFW introduced has never even made it out of committee.
> 
> ...


Senator Hatch and Reisch had a four state deal that inluded all of Utah and Wyoming. Why take a two state deal when you have a four state deal? ...insert more details here...in the end: We didn't want the anti's saying they killed a wolf delisting legislation giving them momentum. We wanted to start killing wolves...500+ have been killed since then. It was still a step in the right direction.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> coyoteslayer said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of things don't add up for Don Peay on a lot of issues. Here is on the MT wolf fiasco. Search this out and you will find it to be correct.
> ...


BUT the bill never even got a vote or made it out of commitee. Sometimes you have to fight each battle one at a time.

BTW Bowhunter, why did Don Peay not want to debate the wolf issue. Is it because the real truth would come out?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

bwhntr said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > The North American Wildlife Conservation model is one of the finest examples of American exceptualism in the world. Why would you want to take up the European model?
> ...


Don's socialism comments are at the heart of his and SFW's undermining of the North American Wildile Conservation Model. A majority of what SFW has proposed in the last few years, flies in the face of the North American Wildlife Conservation Model.

Randy Newberg has consistently stood by the North American Wildlife Conservation Model for years, no waivering, no astriks, no mis-quotes, just the core principals. It is that simple.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> BTW Bowhunter, why did Don Peay not want to debate the wolf issue. Is it because the real truth would come out?


Yes, that is why. I had no idea you knew the truth, but it is obvious by your comment you know Don's little unknown secret. He loves wolves. He was secretly behind getting them introduced into Yellowstone in the first place. Keep this under your hat. This is a BIG secret. _(O)_ :mrgreen:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> coyoteslayer said:
> 
> 
> > BTW Bowhunter, why did Don Peay not want to debate the wolf issue. Is it because the real truth would come out?
> ...


No, I don't believe Don loves the wolf, but he loved the money coming in to help fight the wolf issue. Therefore maybe a lot of articles were correct when you read between the lines about BFG/SFW



> This organization is making a concerted effort to make inroads into Montana using the wolf as their rallying cry. The group has advocated wolf management positions that could result in wolf RELISTING. The wolf is the group's "cash cow," helping fund their efforts to privatize wildlife for the benefit of the few. All to the detriment of the average Montana hunter


http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/colu ... z1sGP9H3nS


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I'm just not sure how something like that would take off in Montana. Montana has no shortage of game, and the state is about 65-70% private lands. There is no CWMU program for big game, so a land owner has total control of who hunts his land. And big game seasons are several months long - the rifle season itself is 6 weeks! There is no waiting to draw a tag for deer or elk, except for a few LE areas. It is such a completely different set of circumstances in Montana than other places SFW has seemed to work, I don't know how well it will be received. Its just such a completely different situation than Utah. And for high dollar hunts - Montana doubled the fees for non-residents last year for deer and elk, where you have to draw to get a tag. Well, the fee increase was enough that non-resident deer and elk tags went under-subscribed. As it stands, a non-resident can already get a land-owner sponsored tag and if you hire a guide, you are guaranteed a tag. So again - it is such a different set of circumstances up there that I don't see the SFW approaching at all.


----------



## Charina (Aug 16, 2011)

bwhntr said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > The North American Wildlife Conservation model is one of the finest examples of American exceptualism in the world. Why would you want to take up the European model?
> ...


Are you then saying, that Randy Newberg is being disingenous in his (copied) post that the core issue in the debate was regarding the "North American Model of Wildlife Conservation"?

I took a look at the SFW website to find out what they stood for, or what the group's 'beliefs' are. I was surprised by the dearth of information. Why would I ever align myself with a group that does not publicly state their positions, motivations, and core principals?


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

bwhntr said:


> coyoteslayer said:
> 
> 
> > BTW Bowhunter, why did Don Peay not want to debate the wolf issue. Is it because the real truth would come out?
> ...


the truth is the truth no hiding from it don is a scared little girl


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Charina said:


> bwhntr said:
> 
> 
> > Lonetree said:
> ...


Their motivations are simple. Members really do want great things for wildlife and if you talk to any one of them, including bwhntr, I'm sure you'd discover they are all great folks with exceptional intentions. Therein lies the problem. The leadership of a great organization has gotten greedy and drunk with power. We all know how it works and we are all aware of how DP, BB, and RB are now wealthy gratus the taxpayers of Utah. They're just smart enough to know the moment we all see the truth the gig will officially be up. Its interesting that any member can get full disclosure from MDF or RMEF with simple instruction from them on an annual mailing but it will take an act of congress or a lawsuit to get those books that Randy wanted a peak at to see the light of day.

I don't think its the org anyone takes an issue with, its certain individuals. But that's just me......wait:/


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Charina said:


> bwhntr said:
> 
> 
> > Lonetree said:
> ...


Their motivations are simple. Members really do want great things for wildlife and if you talk to any one of them, including bwhntr, I'm sure you'd discover they are all great folks with exceptional intentions. Therein lies the problem. The leadership of a great organization has gotten greedy and drunk with power. We all know how it works and we are all aware of how DP, BB, and RB are now wealthy gratus the taxpayers of Utah. They're just smart enough to know the moment we all see the truth the gig will officially be up. Its interesting that any member can get full disclosure from MDF or RMEF with simple instruction from them on an annual mailing but it will take an act of congress or a lawsuit to get those books that Randy wanted a peak at to see the light of day.

I don't think its the org anyone takes an issue with, its certain individuals. But that's just me......wait:/


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Charina said:


> bwhntr said:
> 
> 
> > Lonetree said:
> ...


Their motivations are simple. Members really do want great things for wildlife and if you talk to any one of them, including bwhntr, I'm sure you'd discover they are all great folks with exceptional intentions. Therein lies the problem. The leadership of a great organization has gotten greedy and drunk with power. We all know how it works and we are all aware of how DP, BB, and RB are now wealthy gratus the taxpayers of Utah. They're just smart enough to know the moment we all see the truth the gig will officially be up. Its interesting that any member can get full disclosure from MDF or RMEF with simple instruction from them on an annual mailing but it will take an act of congress or a lawsuit to get those books that Randy wanted a peak at to see the light of day.

I don't think its the org anyone takes an issue with, its certain individuals. But that's just me......wait:/


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

klbzdad said:


> Charina said:
> 
> 
> > bwhntr said:
> ...


well said


----------



## Charina (Aug 16, 2011)

klbzdad said:


> Charina said:
> 
> 
> > bwhntr said:
> ...


Thanks for that thought klzbdad. Understood. However, I was hoping for an explanation from bowhntr that clarified his ambigious position.


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> coyoteslayer said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of things don't add up for Don Peay on a lot of issues. Here is on the MT wolf fiasco. Search this out and you will find it to be correct.
> ...


What a f-ing joke. Yea so let SFW/BGF kill the delisting instead of the "anti's", makes sense to me. 500+ wolves have been killed since then, no thanks to SFW/BGF, but if you were one of the lucky ones who got e-mails from BGF claiming they were the ones responsible for the wolf delisting when in FACT they had nothing to do with it. Keep posting smart a$$ answers bwhntr, you're gaining supporters with every one.

I can't wait for Nat Rebel to get all drunk and post some of his BS as well.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Way to keep it civil Blackdog.......impressive. You lost all support in one sentence.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Here is how I see it.

I look at companies financials ALL the time and tax returns don't show a thing. I'm assuming the financials that they want to see are internal and show everything (good or bad). Without seeing the REAL books no one will know the truth and the truth either sets you free or can be very condemning.

I wish their was more... No, COMPLETE transparency when it comes to the selling/auctioning of public tags. That is the way it should be. I thought the debate would be very interesting to hear, but would be like any political debate where nothing would really be said and accusations would roam free.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

So disappointing!!!


I was expecting a lot more than 10 pages!!!! :mrgreen: 

As for SFW and the $ they make off those tags, I wish they were required to give an open detailed accounting of every $ that comes from that.


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

kind of funny only one person came on here to defend sfw's actions. kind of tells you the reputation they have


----------



## captain (Nov 18, 2007)

Let me first say that I have never been a memeber of any of the organizations mentioned in this post, not have I ever had a bone to pick with any of them. I guess you could say that I have always just sat and watched from the bleachers, but this whole thing has gotten me confused.

I work for the state and have to manage several million dollars to implement the program I am over. I can tell you that I have to account for every penny that my program puts on the ground. I am always told that the funding my program uses was given to me by the tax payers and they have a right to know where it goes. I have to write a large annual report every year and post it on various public websites to show the public what their funds are paying for. I personally don't see why this should be any different. The tags that are given to SFW are the property of the state, and when I say the state I don't mean the the Governor or the DNR I mean that wildlife belongs to the people of the State of Utah. We simply hire people to manage that resource for us (the DWR). As I see it, it is nothing less than unconstitutional and dishonest that an organization can make money off of property that belongs to the good people of the State of Utah and not have to tell us where that money is being spent. I keep waiting to hear about riots in the streets. If SFW will not give us a full accounting of where these funds are being spent I think we need to find another delivery system, and yes, you as the people of the State of Utah, should have a say in what the delivery system should be.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Charina said:


> I was hoping for an explanation from bowhntr that clarified his ambigious position.


??? I guess I didn't understand the question. I thought it was rhetorical. How is my position ambigious? What didn't you like about what you read on the SFW website?


----------



## Charina (Aug 16, 2011)

bwhntr said:


> Charina said:
> 
> 
> > I was hoping for an explanation from bowhntr that clarified his ambigious position.
> ...


This reply tells me all I need to know. Thanks.


----------



## Charina (Aug 16, 2011)

JuddCT said:


> I look at companies financials ALL the time and tax returns don't show a thing. I'm assuming the financials that they want to see are internal and show everything (good or bad). Without seeing the REAL books no one will know the truth and the truth either sets you free or can be very condemning.


As a CPA, I'll add a third voice within this thread that the tax returns are wholly insufficient for the needs of the constituents. Anyone that tries to tell the unknowing public otherwise is either ignorant or deceitful (or both).

Anyone here know Randy Newberg? Is he in a position to push the issue and force disclosure, or is he needing to play the political game to keep the possibilities of a debate open, and someone else needs to run with the baton and force disclosure?


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Charina said:


> bwhntr said:
> 
> 
> > Charina said:
> ...


Lol...talk about ambigious.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Don Peay wanted the media to cover the debate so now they can write about how SFW won't open their books to show where public money is going? :lol: :lol:


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

he wanted the media there so bad he backed out of the debate


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

hazmat said:


> he wanted the media there so bad he backed out of the debate


You guys keep bashing on Don Peay but I thought it was Randy that backed out of the debate. Am I wrong about this?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Because Don Peay didn't fulfill his part of the agreement. Here is from Randy.

I know many of you visit that site in addition to our Hunt Talk site, so I thought I would provide an explanation of what Hawkeye posted. I had hoped we could have a true debate about the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation and the Utah Model. Pretty hard to have that debate and discussion when the group holding all the info relevant to a major debate topic will not release the info.

Sorry, guys. I promise you, I did everything possible to make this work out. I agreed to all of the following, with my only request being the right to see the financial information.

I agreed to the 3-hour tour, which I later found out would be a 9-hour tour.

As much as I did not want to give up on the wolf topic, Don required that for a debate to occur, we must agree to NOT talk about the details of wolf delisting.

Why didn't DON Peay want to talk about it. Was it because of the facts from my original post?v

To have a moderator who knows the North American Model better than anyone, I obligated myself to cover the $8,000 cost of that persons, travel, lodging, meals, and appearance fee.

I agreed to have any of the Utah examples be a major part of the discussion, though I am more interested in the biggest scope of what is best for outside of Utah.

I offered to sign a non-disclosure agreement, with respect to the financial statements I was requesting. When you think about a non-disclosure agreement in that context, it is rather funny, given I was asking for the financial statements of a publicly supported non-profit charitable organization.

I agreed to every demand that was made.


My one requirement is that for the Utah examples to be used, I be allowed to have access to the books and records of the organization who is the primary beneficiary of the Utah Model; Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, Sportsment for Habitat, and the Western Hunting and Conservation Expo.

Some are under the assumption that the publicly issued tax returns of SFW, which I downloaded myself from the IRS website, are adequate financial informaiton. Not the case. Here is why.

Being a CPA of 23 years I know what information will support or refute assertions made. That is what I do for a living. Tax returns are a sad substitute for financial statements, as multiple accounts get lumped into large categories on tax returns, making it hard to decipher what is in those tax returns categories, or omitted from those categories. Tax returns use vague categories and lack any detail to support the cash inflow and outflows of an organization.

Tax returns do not give you the detail of who is paid what, what liabilities exist, what assets are held, and a host of other information normally provided by financial statements, especially financial statements that have been subject to a "Yellow Book" audit by an external CPA firm.

In the event these records are made available, I will debate all of these topics, any time that fits my schedule, at any place that is requested. But, I do not know if under a future scenario that I would be so accommodating as to take the wolf topic off the table or go on a tour as was required.

Anyhow, that is where it stands right now. It is in the hands of SFW/SFH to determine if the debate goes forward, or if it is postponed indefinitely.

I was really looking forward to this debate. Hopefully Don will agree to lean on SFW for release of the information and we can go forward. "


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Randy was more than accomodating, Don has not wanted to do this from minute one.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Randy was more than accomodating, Don has not wanted to do this from minute one.


That may be true but the fact is, this Randy guy is the one that took his ball and went home.
It sure seems he's more interested about the monies involved with the expo tags than talking about the NAMWC, which I thought the debate was supposed to be about. That's the way it's coming across to me.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

ridgetop said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > Randy was more than accomodating, Don has not wanted to do this from minute one.
> ...


But this Don guy is the one that brought the issue up in the first place by insisting on the pre-debate 9 hour media habitat tour to show where the expo monies are going! Randy just responded to that set up. That's the way it's coming across to me. Maybe if we drop the tour we could get back on track, ya think?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Expo tags are core to the conservation model arguement. All of SFWs "conservation" claims are tied directly to the expo tags, it is THE issue, you can not seperate the two. Randy had very few requirements to participate, and opening the books was one. Don had many requirements, and kept adding them, Randy agreed to ALL of them. If your big claim to conservation fame is middle manning hunting permits, to hunt public animals, but you cant account for how you turn that public resourse into the private conservation that you hang your hat, and everything else on, you dont really have an arguement. It is kind of convenient when only SFW can verify their own claims, isnt it? What is it that used car salesmen like to say, "trust me"?, no, show me the car fax. Why not, if the car is so great and worth as much as is being asked for it? Thats partly why we beat up SFW members for "drinking koolaid", Its not so much that its koolaid, its that there is no label verifying what is in SFW koolaid.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Expo tags are core to the conservation model arguement. All of SFWs "conservation" claims are tied directly to the expo tags, it is THE issue, you can not seperate the two. Randy had very few requirements to participate, and opening the books was one. Don had many requirements, and kept adding them, Randy agreed to ALL of them. If your big claim to conservation fame is middle manning hunting permits, to hunt public animals, but you cant account for how you turn that public resourse into the private conservation that you hang your hat, and everything else on, you dont really have an arguement. It is kind of convenient when only SFW can verify their own claims, isnt it? What is it that used car salesmen like to say, "trust me"?, no, show me the car fax. Why not, if the car is so great and worth as much as is being asked for it? Thats partly why we beat up SFW members for "drinking koolaid", Its not so much that its koolaid, its that there is no label verifying what is in SFW koolaid.


Bingo!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> How about one where you actually talked to Peay. Oh wait, how about one where ANYONE actually talked to Peay???


I'll be your Huckleberry! I HAVE actually talked with the Don, MANY times. Now what?


----------



## Duckholla (Sep 24, 2007)

I see two options in front SFW:

1. Fail to release your financial statements, and confirm all suspicions, and accusations about their organization...but you may be able to offer more Kool-Aid to those who are still hungover from the last partaking...and salvage a few followers.
2. Provide your financial statements, and clear the air of rumors and assumptions. In the words of Ghandi: "When you know the truth, the truth makes you a soldier." If their financials were in order, this has potential to strengthen their membership following immensly. 

I think it's clear what's going on. Even if you fell off a pumpkin truck, this is too transparent to miss. Bottom line is, if you have nothing to hide then why hide it?


----------

