# BRBR - Option E (new option). Need your help!!!



## king eider

*Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge Proposed Hunt Plan - Option E*

Many different groups came together to help formulate this Option. We at the UWA are proud to announce that Option E is being considered. We worked with a number of conservation groups to come up with a better we balanced approach. We had to keep in mind the requirements of the Feds when it comes to dry/wet grounds. We ask that those in the hunting community consider this new proposal and voice their support of it.

Please email, call, or write the Feds and voice your support for Option E

Feds email:

[email protected]

Highlights of Options E:


7 of the 11 units in Option E are for walk-in access only.
4 of the 11 units in Option E are accessible in some form to boats (both mudmotors and airboats).
Option E opens up an additional 9700 acres to hunting (both waterfowl and upland).
Option E proposes that 35% of the BRBR will be open to hunting and 65% will remain closed as rest areas.
Option E provides additional opportunity to upland bird hunters, diver duck hunters, puddle duck hunters, and goose hunters.
7 of the 11 units in Option E were previously open to hunting whether through hunting club or by landowner permission.
Option E provides a probable "once-in-a-lifetime" opportunity to affect change in our publically owned federal refuge!


----------



## king eider

For some reason I cant attach the Doc file. So here is the Official letter that was sent to the Feds back in DC.


I would hope that this will find favor with fellow waterfowl hunters and we can count on your support if it does.


Thank you,


Darin



*Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge Proposed Hunt Plan - Option E*

June 21, 2018

Email: [email protected]

Ryan Zinke, Secretary, United States Department of the Interior
Greg Sheehan, Principal Deputy Director, United States Fish and Wildlife Service

In response to hunt plan Options A through D released by the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge (BRMBR) proposed under Secretarial Order 3356, the Utah Waterfowl Association, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, Utah Airboat Association and Wasatch Wigeon submit the following alternative (Option E) as the preferred alternative. For the reasons stated below, Options A through D should be rejected as failing to achieve the objectives of the proposed action and the purposes of the BRMBR.

*Reasons for Proposing Option E*

We appreciate the intent of the Secretarial Order to expand recreational opportunities on the BRMBR and other refuges. Specifically, we appreciate the effort to bring BRMBR hunting opportunities more in line with the original intent of the refuge's creation, an intent that has never been fully realized. Notwithstanding our appreciation for the effort to correct this deficiency by opening more of the refuge to hunting, we have concluded, after intense review and consultation with affected stakeholders, that none of the options proposed by the BRMBR are acceptable. The options currently proposed are not sufficiently beneficial to wildlife and are also unfair to the many user groups from around the nation that enjoy this refuge. Moreover, the proposed options are not fully consistent with the original intent of BRMBR.

Each of the Bear River Refuge's proposed options are heavily weighted with land that is unsuitable for hunting migratory birds or upland game birds. We feel that, in keeping with the intent of the refuge's creation, any options should include meaningful opportunities for a wide range of waterfowl hunters on foot or in watercraft (where existing regulations allow). Option E includes a variety of habitats while protecting important waterfowl rest areas, maintaining migratory bird travel corridors and providing a larger buffer along a significant part of the auto tour route. Many of the proposed Option E units were once hunting clubs that the refuge purchased but immediately posted as "no trespassing". Option E re-opens these closed units to the historical use of hunting for the short duration of the approved hunting season. It would be a bitter irony to see these historic hunting areas transferred to a federal refuge (conceived in part as a public shooting area) that then expels waterfowlers whose longstanding dedication nurtured and preserved this waterfowl habitat for over 100 years

*The History and Purpose of the BRMBR Support Option E*

By the 1920's, Bear River Bay already had long established its reputation as one of the nation's premier waterfowling destinations and as essential to the health of duck populations and duck hunting throughout the western United States. By this time, duck hunting was considered Utah's "national sport" according to papers of the day, and Bear River Bay hosted vast numbers of waterfowl - and waterfowlers. This prompted Utah to lead the nation in acquiring "public shooting grounds" in the area.

"Duck sickness" (what we now know is botulism) in Bear River Bay seemed to threaten this treasured heritage both in Utah and throughout the West. As a result, in the 1920's, Utah began a long campaign that pushed for the refuge's creation with the understanding that it would provide both a remedy for the "duck sickness" that plagued waterfowl in Bear River Bay as well as an expansive "public shooting ground" to complement the public hunting area that Utah was creating around the same time. At a conference in New York in 1921, Utah Governor Charles Mabey declared "It is the plan for the fish and game department of Utah to cooperate with the federal government to cause to be set aside and maintained as a public shooting ground and nesting ground for wild fowl all the lands in the Bear River Bay not now owned by private citizens . . .."SLTel, December 22, 1921.At the urging of sporting groups and others, the federal government eventually agreed to establish BRMBR. Section 5 of the BRMBR enabling legislation explicitly acknowledges this dual intent: "That at no time shall less than 60 per centum of the total acreage of the said refuge be maintained as an inviolate sanctuary for such migratory birds." Despite this declaration, nearly 80% of the much expanded refuge is now closed to hunting even though a 1995 Environmental Assessment reaffirmed that hunting is compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was created.

*Option E Strikes a Reasonable Balance of Opportunity, Varied Uses and Conservation*

Under this Option, 35% (26,972 acres) of BRMBR will be open to hunting while 65% (50,084 acres) will be managed as "inviolate sanctuary for migratory birds". The closed areas provide key resting, transit and feeding habitat for migratory birds. Approximately 9,707 acres of additional acreage would be open to hunting under this proposal, which is significantly less than the approximately 13,000 acres of additional land proposed by USFWS. (See attached map and unit description.) Less than half of the "new" acres under Option E would be inundated in most years.

Under Option E, portions of the refuge would be open to duck, goose, coot, tundra swan (with a special state permit) and ring-necked pheasant hunting. Hunting activities in compliance with State and Federal regulations would be allowed in Units 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 3B, 3F, 3G, 3H, 3I, 3J, 3K, 9, Pintail/Lucky 7, Yates, Canadian Goose Club, and Block C (i.e., the portions of Units 7 and 8 protruding south of the east-west refuge boundary line as posted, also known as "Willard Spur" or "Dog Ears"). Portions of Units 10, 8, 7, and 6 would also be open to hunting as shown and described in the attachments. Additional grassland and wet meadow acres would be open to hunting including Unit 5D, and portions of tracts purchased from White, Nichols, Christianson, and 3-Bar, along the eastern boundary of the refuge. (See attached map and unit description.)

Special consideration should be given by the refuge to maintain access to the existing hunting blind for people with disabilities. Adding additional special hunting blinds designed for the use of disabled veterans and other disabled citizens is also recommended.

Option E offers increased opportunities for public hunting and fulfills the Service's mandate under the NWRSIA of 1997. The Service has determined that waterfowl and pheasant hunting are compatible with the purposes of the Bear River MBR and the mission of the NWRS.

*Proposed Action*

As part of the 2018-2019 Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations process, the proposed Option E seeks to participate in the Secretarial Order 3356. The expansion of hunting access and opportunities on the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge (the Refuge) as provided in Option E supports objectives outlined in *Secretarial Order 3356*, which focuses on "efforts to enhance conservation stewardship; increase outdoor recreation opportunities for all Americans, including opportunities to hunt and fish; and improve the management of game species and their habitats for this generation and beyond." Secretarial Order 3356 also emphasizes recruiting and retaining hunters and engaging non-traditional audiences in America's hunting tradition. As it fulfills all of the described criteria and objectives, Option E should be adopted.

*Mitigation Measures and Conditions *

The refuge will take the following measures to avoid conflicts with other biological resources on the refuge; threatened and endangered species; and other refuge uses. These measures will be implemented under all of the alternatives. 
• No hunting is allowed from, or within 100 yards of the tour route dike. This policy has been in effect since 1932, and no public safety issues related to this regulation have been recorded. 
• Occasionally conditions occur that drastically alter habitat and jeopardize the health of wildlife. Flooding by the Great Salt Lake or severe drought may necessitate changes to hunt area boundaries to accommodate the needs of wildlife. Managers will give priority to the needs of wildlife and impacts to the refuge hunt program will be a secondary consideration. The refuge manager has the authority to change boundaries or close open hunt areas if conditions become detrimental to the health or well-being of wildlife populations. 
• Use of toxic shot is prohibited on the refuge, ensuring that other wildlife on the refuge is not impacted by exposure. 
• Notification of hunting activities on the refuge will be posted in key areas and at the visitor center to inform visitors that may want to participate in other activities such as fishing, wildlife observation, or wildlife photography that hunting is occurring within designated areas on the refuge.

Option E poses no identified significant adverse cumulative impacts to non-hunted migratory and resident wildlife from the proposed hunting plan. Cumulative impacts of hunting or fishing on the refuge, including impacts which might accumulate over time, will not negatively impact non-hunted migratory wildlife populations or discrete populations of resident wildlife on the refuge.

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the process of modifying our public land hunting and fishing opportunities on the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge.

Sincerely,

Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife
Utah Waterfowl Association
Utah Airboat Association 
Wasatch Widgeons
Widow Maker Boats


----------



## Stimmy

Email sent! This is by far the best option for all parties involved.

Please email them and ask them to support this option. thanks to all who worked on this.

E


----------



## Longgun

Email sent... 

Option E Please!


----------



## goosefreak

Email sent...


----------



## MooseMeat

king eider said:


> ...In response to hunt plan Options A through D released by the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge (BRMBR) proposed under Secretarial Order 3356, the Utah Waterfowl Association, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife....
> 
> ... Sincerely,
> 
> Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife
> Utah Waterfowl Association
> Utah Airboat Association
> Wasatch Widgeons
> Widow Maker Boats


Ah, there's that $FW name again, right above the UWA name... like I said several months ago, that you denied adamantly, once you let them in, they will take more than you can imagine. It's the beginning of the end, of the last best public hunting opportunity this state has


----------



## CPAjeff

Email sent! Thanks to all those individuals and groups who put this proposal together!


----------



## king eider

MooseMeat said:


> Ah, there's that $FW name again, right above the UWA name... like I said several months ago, that you denied adamantly, once you let them in, they will take more than you can imagine. It's the beginning of the end, of the last best public hunting opportunity this state has


A hater is gonna hate! Good thing happening here. But then why support a good thing....


----------



## MooseMeat

king eider said:


> A hater is gonna hate! Good thing happening here. But then why support a good thing....


I suppose being a hater is better than being a shady liar....

$FW being involved in anything, isn't good as far as the common average hunter is concerned. But when you primarily hunt private ground, I guess one could see their involvement as a positive thing


----------



## king eider

MooseMeat said:


> I suppose being a hater is better than being a shady liar....
> 
> $FW being involved in anything, isn't good as far as the common average hunter is concerned. But when you primarily hunt private ground, I guess one could see their involvement as a positive thing


My phone number 435-452-1388. Let's talk. Don't appreciate being called a shady liar. Man up. Let's talk. I hunt public ground as much as the next guy. 
Darin


----------



## MooseMeat

king eider said:


> My phone number 435-452-1388. Let's talk. Don't appreciate being called a shady liar. Man up. Let's talk. I hunt public ground as much as the next guy.
> Darin


And you think I appreciate being called a hater? Only 1 side can call names? Hmmm...

3 months ago I commented on a post and you very clearly said SFW had 0 involvement with UWA and you were opposed to their involvement in the waterfowl community. You also stated you turned down donation offers from them, after I made a comment about the two organizations being "bed buddies"... well, time always tells the true story. Your email that you posted was written on the behalf of every organization you listed at the bottom, which the first one named was $FW.

And your public ground statement isn't true either. Maybe 5 or 6 years ago it was. But definitely not now.


----------



## rjefre

Many people and groups came together to come up with a compromise plan (Option E). This is a plan that gives opportunity to the widest variety of hunters. I am proud of the groups and individuals that helped craft this alternate plan. 
Name calling really has no place in these types of things, and we, as waterfowlers, really do need each other to try and protect what is left of our waterfowling heritage. I'm sure there will be many things that we can disagree about, but in the end, we need to work together and refrain from personal attacks.
R


----------



## Fowlmouth

MooseMeat said:


> 3 months ago I commented on a post and you very clearly said SFW had 0 involvement with UWA and you were opposed to their involvement in the waterfowl community. You also stated you turned down donation offers from them, after I made a comment about the two organizations being "bed buddies"... well, time always tells the true story. Your email that you posted was written on the behalf of every organization you listed at the bottom, which the first one named was $FW.


This is a valid point. I remember that discussion, and king eider later deleted all of his posts.


----------



## king eider

Fowlmouth said:


> MooseMeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3 months ago I commented on a post and you very clearly said SFW had 0 involvement with UWA and you were opposed to their involvement in the waterfowl community. You also stated you turned down donation offers from them, after I made a comment about the two organizations being "bed buddies"... well, time always tells the true story. Your email that you posted was written on the behalf of every organization you listed at the bottom, which the first one named was $FW.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a valid point. I remember that discussion, and king eider later deleted all of his posts.
Click to expand...

No! No! No! You have perceived what I typed wrong. As I stated before all the hate came my way and I deleted the posts. The UWA will partner with other groups on issues of concern. We are NOT opposed to other conservation groups involvement in the waterfowl community. SFW has no influence on our decision making process. Twist it to all you want to satisfy your desire, but that is the facts.

You want to be informed then my number is there to be called. I welcome phone calls.


----------



## king eider

MooseMeat said:


> king eider said:
> 
> 
> 
> My phone number 435-452-1388. Let's talk. Don't appreciate being called a shady liar. Man up. Let's talk. I hunt public ground as much as the next guy.
> Darin
> 
> 
> 
> And your public ground statement isn't true either. Maybe 5 or 6 years ago it was. But definitely not now.
Click to expand...

Ok, please enlighten me on where I hunt?


----------



## MooseMeat

king eider said:


> No! No! No! You have perceived what I typed wrong. As I stated before all the hate came my way and I deleted the posts. The UWA will partner with other groups on issues of concern. We are NOT opposed to other conservation groups involvement in the waterfowl community. SFW has no influence on our decision making process. Twist it to all you want to satisfy your desire, but that is the facts.
> 
> You want to be informed then my number is there to be called. I welcome phone calls.


Now here comes the back peddling, right on time! Too bad all those posts were erased so you could disprove all these "false" claims... because that's not how I remember the conversation going. The "Hillary" tactic of deleting information sure is a great way to play both sides of the argument, when convenient of course. Just remember "it's never just one lie..."

If you knew what was good for all these people you represent, you would 100% oppose $FW involvement with any kind of waterfowl hunting in Utah. It's a slipper slope, that I'm afraid have already stepped foot on. And you're dragging the rest of us for the ride.


----------



## king eider

MooseMeat said:


> king eider said:
> 
> 
> 
> No! No! No! You have perceived what I typed wrong. As I stated before all the hate came my way and I deleted the posts. The UWA will partner with other groups on issues of concern. We are NOT opposed to other conservation groups involvement in the waterfowl community. SFW has no influence on our decision making process. Twist it to all you want to satisfy your desire, but that is the facts.
> 
> You want to be informed then my number is there to be called. I welcome phone calls.
> 
> 
> 
> Now here comes the back peddling, right on time! Too bad all those posts were erased so you could disprove all these "false" claims... because that's not how I remember the conversation going. The "Hillary" tactic of deleting information sure is a great way to play both sides of the argument, when convenient of course. Just remember "it's never just one lie..."
> 
> If you knew what was good for all these people you represent, you would 100% oppose $FW involvement with any kind of waterfowl hunting in Utah. It's a slipper slope, that I'm afraid have already stepped foot on. And you're dragging the rest of us for the ride.
Click to expand...

SFW has helped benefit our local marsh habitat with $100k+. I see that as a positive. Call rich Hansen out at ogden bay he can give all the details. I see SFW as a net positive. Perfect - no. Beneficial- yes. We can agree to disagree and that's fine with me.

Still waiting to have you tell me where I do my waterfowl hunting..


----------



## Fowlmouth

king eider said:


> No! No! No! You have perceived what I typed wrong. As I stated before all the hate came my way and I deleted the posts. The UWA will partner with other groups on issues of concern. We are NOT opposed to other conservation groups involvement in the waterfowl community. SFW has no influence on our decision making process. Twist it to all you want to satisfy your desire, but that is the facts.
> 
> You want to be informed then my number is there to be called. I welcome phone calls.


I appreciated your comment until the last statement in red. 
You say SFW has no influence on your decision, but you also stated that the Feds wouldn't even look at your proposal without the help of SFW. Looks like you deleted that statement as well though.


----------



## king eider

Fowlmouth said:


> king eider said:
> 
> 
> 
> No! No! No! You have perceived what I typed wrong. As I stated before all the hate came my way and I deleted the posts. The UWA will partner with other groups on issues of concern. We are NOT opposed to other conservation groups involvement in the waterfowl community. SFW has no influence on our decision making process. Twist it to all you want to satisfy your desire, but that is the facts.
> 
> You want to be informed then my number is there to be called. I welcome phone calls.
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciated your comment until the last statement in red.
> You say SFW has no influence on your decision, but you also stated that the Feds wouldn't even look at your proposal without the help of SFW. Looks like you deleted that statement as well though.
Click to expand...

SFW has political influence in Wash DC. How else did this get to the director of the dept of the interior?? They have the political influence that others do not. The UWA's decision was to work out a better option. We conversed other groups and compromised on a better option. Stop twisting this up!!!!!! The Feds locally told us to pound sand. They would not accept any other proposals other then what they put out. So we utilized a way to get our proposal into the hands of those who can influence the Feds to accept our proposal.


----------



## Fowlmouth

So, YES the SFW does influence your decision making process, because without them your proposal was dead meat. Just admit it already....I guess you already did. What am I trying to twist here? These are your own statements. You needed SFW to help push your agenda, so they do influence your decision, because without them the UWA was told to pound sand. 

BTW, I support this option E. Anytime more land is opened for hunting is a good thing. Don't think I'm arguing with you on the proposal itself.


----------



## king eider

MooseMeat said:


> And your public ground statement isn't true either. Maybe 5 or 6 years ago it was. But definitely not now.


Still waiting moose for you to tell me where I hunt! Where was I hunting 5 or 6 yrs ago that I don't hunt now? Tell me about all the private ground I hunt on!

Seeings how you declined my invitation 
for a phone co conversation to clear the air. You have no use to talk to me other than to troll me and insult me.

I'll wait for you to tell me about my hunting locations....


----------



## king eider

Fowlmouth said:


> So, YES the SFW does influence your decision making process, because without them your proposal was dead meat. Just admit it already....I guess you already did. What am I trying to twist here? These are your own statements. You needed SFW to help push your agenda, so they do influence your decision, because without them the UWA was told to pound sand.
> 
> BTW, I support this option E. Anytime more land is opened for hunting is a good thing. Don't think I'm arguing with you on the proposal itself.


Splitting hairs... the decision was made to get a better proposal to the table.


----------



## MooseMeat

Darin, how exactly do you think they got as much pull in the big game world of Utah, as they do now? They didn’t just start off asking for 200+ tags out of the public big game draw for them to put into their own special draw at their own organized expo. They started off very small. Doing favors. Donating time, money, resources. They showed up at RAC meetings, got on their knees and told the WB what they wanted to hear. They proposed having an expo, where the proceeds will go back to “conservation”.... it didn’t just happen over night. Now they are dumping money into OB. Making friends with the manager. Getting involved with the waterfowl and marshes of Utah.... are you really stupid enough to not see where this is all headed? You just explained to all of us, that $FW has pull with you, and many others. All in the name of conservation. But in the same breath, also told us they aren’t the UWA “bed buddy”. Well I got news for you.... either you believe your own lies or you believe theirs. But it can’t go both ways.

As far as your private ground you hunt? I know you have plenty of hook ups that lock out the general public and I know you “farm” for geese with a very private pond and pit blind... just to name a few. 

Like I said many times before. $FW doesn’t have any negative impacts on the guys with exclusive access to hunting ground. It only impacts the guys who rely on public lands and public opportunities


----------



## king eider

MooseMeat said:


> Darin, how exactly do you think they got as much pull in the big game world of Utah, as they do now? They didn't just start off asking for 200+ tags out of the public big game draw for them to put into their own special draw at their own organized expo. They started off very small. Doing favors. Donating time, money, resources. They showed up at RAC meetings, got on their knees and told the WB what they wanted to hear. They proposed having an expo, where the proceeds will go back to "conservation".... it didn't just happen over night. Now they are dumping money into OB. Making friends with the manager. Getting involved with the waterfowl and marshes of Utah.... are you really stupid enough to not see where this is all headed? You just explained to all of us, that $FW has pull with you, and many others. All in the name of conservation. But in the same breath, also told us they aren't the UWA "bed buddy". Well I got news for you.... either you believe your own lies or you believe theirs. But it can't go both ways.
> 
> As far as your private ground you hunt? I know you have plenty of hook ups that lock out the general public and I know you "farm" for geese with a very private pond and pit blind... just to name a few.
> 
> Like I said many times before. $FW doesn't have any negative impacts on the guys with exclusive access to hunting ground. It only impacts the guys who rely on public lands and public opportunities


Welcome to how the world works! Sad it's that way. But many of us try to do good for what the situation is. I care less about your SFW drivel. So say what you want.

Never killed a "farmed" goose out of a very private pond or pit blind. I do have control of a pond and pit blind. But todate I have shot zero geese and one spoonie over this very private pond. But please keep going. What are my "plenty of hook ups?" How many times do I take my jon or fan boat out a year? What species do I target? What species do I pass on? Come on, tell me how well you know my hunting habits if your going to make these outlandish claims....


----------



## MooseMeat

I’ve called you out on enough of your “outlandish claims” already. Plus, you’ll either keep denying the fact or you’ll try to skirt the subject... just like you have so many times in the past and present. You know you’re caught in your lie. And you can’t get out of it. I’m just waiting for the posts to start getting deleted, Hillary.


----------



## king eider

MooseMeat said:


> I've called you out on enough of your "outlandish claims" already. Plus, you'll either keep denying the fact or you'll try to skirt the subject... just like you have so many times in the past and present. You know you're caught in your lie. And you can't get out of it. I'm just waiting for the posts to start getting deleted, Hillary.


Ha! Keep on trolling.... 
I don't care, do you?


----------



## goosefreak

I agree with “Option E” that is why I sent my email.

I was hesitant at first because of $FW.
I disagree with $FW but, then I thought if this purposal is our only option for opening up more public land access then I can support it and we can fight the $FW on a different battle front. (Because they will want something out of it)

My other concern is that this has been the plan for some time. Meaning getting $FW involved because I doubt it was an overnight conversation. My fear is that UWA and friends knew about that ahead of time but, chose not to put it too much in fear of loosing momentum or fallowers.

Darin, if your as passionate about this purposal, you better be **** good and ready to fight the next battle with the voices of the average conservationists of this great state. Meaning if $FW bends us all over the counter, you better choose which side you want to sit on because my guess would be at that point there will be a lot of people grabbing their pitch forks and lighting up their torches.

My other concern is, why isn’t the Utah chapter of DU on the list? Or Mudbuddy? or pheasants forever? 

I’m leaping with faith here, I hope I don’t regret it but, time will tell.

But, nothing portrays being shady as deleting previous conversation.

Maybe it’s just me but, if I was fighting a true and righteous cause, I wouldn’t hide it regardless of who disagree’s


----------



## Fowlmouth

goosefreak said:


> My other concern is, why isn't the Utah chapter of DU on the list? Or Mudbuddy? or pheasants forever?


Or Delta Waterfowl. The organizations listed on the proposal are small, with the exception of SFW. I'm not discrediting them by any means, but I would think some of the bigger organizations would have been reached out to as well.


----------



## MooseMeat

king eider said:


> Ha! Keep on trolling....
> I don't care, do you?


It's very apparent you care much more than you try to lead others to believe... I'm guessing that's because there's much truth in what I've been suspecting.

And I 100% agree, deleting posts and conversations screams shady dealings


----------



## MooseMeat

Fowlmouth said:


> Or Delta Waterfowl. The organizations listed on the proposal are small, with the exception of SFW. I'm not discrediting them by any means, but I would think some of the bigger organizations would have been reached out to as well.


Utah DU, mudbuddy, BPS, fowlminded... and more should all be supporting this. And their name is no where to be found


----------



## king eider

goosefreak said:


> I agree with "Option E" that is why I sent my email.
> 
> I was hesitant at first because of $FW.
> I disagree with $FW but, then I thought if this purposal is our only option for opening up more public land access then I can support it and we can fight the $FW on a different battle front. (Because they will want something out of it)
> 
> My other concern is that this has been the plan for some time. Meaning getting $FW involved because I doubt it was an overnight conversation. My fear is that UWA and friends knew about that ahead of time but, chose not to put it too much in fear of loosing momentum or fallowers.
> 
> Darin, if your as passionate about this purposal, you better be **** good and ready to fight the next battle with the voices of the average conservationists of this great state. Meaning if $FW bends us all over the counter, you better choose which side you want to sit on because my guess would be at that point there will be a lot of people grabbing their pitch forks and lighting up their torches.
> 
> My other concern is, why isn't the Utah chapter of DU on the list? Or Mudbuddy? or pheasants forever?
> 
> I'm leaping with faith here, I hope I don't regret it but, time will tell.
> 
> But, nothing portrays being shady as deleting previous conversation.
> 
> Maybe it's just me but, if I was fighting a true and righteous cause, I wouldn't hide it regardless of who disagree's


You're welcome to call me anytime. Internet forums are a weak place to have in depth conversation. What is typed and how its perceived are easily mixed up.

DU, Delta and others were most certainly at the table. They have great input to help this process. Things happened fast because no one knew what the Feds were going to do. Then they blindsided everyone when they put out their 4 options with no input to that point. We acted fast. Very fast as the comment period is only open until July 8. DU, Delta were unable to secure their endorsement from their higher ups in the time frame needed. Plus with the political nature of things that worked against us as well. We had to get our proposal off to the powers to be back east. It's just how it went. It was great to have Jeff and Rob represent DW and DU at the meetings. Their are lots of people involved all offering solutions and avenues to see good things done. Then their are those who want things done, but yet complain when good people try to get something going. Nate here in the other thread about the BRBR you gripped that we needed a voice and outcry. Yet here we are, and nothing but pushback. Sad...

You want more insight. I've posted my phone number and invite you to call me. Or you can be like this moose guy and decline my invitation to "learn" more. Sometimes ignorance is bliss I guess.


----------



## utahbigbull

Well this has turned into quite the MM type of thread. Whatever the circumstances are, I believe option E is the best option. Email sent.


----------



## Stimmy

How does one "farm" for geese?


----------



## Shadow Man

Stimmy said:


> How does one "farm" for geese?


You go to the golf courses and gather all the goose droppings, mix in some miracle grow and voila! Geese! &#128578;


----------



## MooseMeat

king eider said:


> You're welcome to call me anytime. Internet forums are a weak place to have in depth conversation. What is typed and how its perceived are easily mixed up.
> 
> You want more insight. I've posted my phone number and invite you to call me. Or you can be like this moose guy and decline my invitation to "learn" more. Sometimes ignorance is bliss I guess.


Funny that this forum is the only place as far as social media goes, is Where things perceived are easily mixed up. Everywhere else you seems to
Take fairly seriously

The only one who needs to "learn" how things are inevitably going to end up, is you Darin. Or perhaps you already know and don't care because you are already bought and paid for. From the sounds of it, that's already the case. Either way, when this all back fires and guys start getting the $FW shaft in the waterfowl world in this state, you're gonna be public enemy #1.

I'll leave you alone for now, so you can go back through the post and edit or delete the info you've been willing to share. You've confirmed plenty of my previous suspicions. Won't be long until you post more facts about your new friends and the great plans they have in store for us. Can't wait.

For the record, the whole BRBR new option E deal, I'm in favor of. It's awesome we get more ground to use as hunters. How our fearless leader decided to get it there on the other hand, is absolutely disappointing. There are always better deals and ways to get to the same results. It might take more time, but there will always be less sacrifices along the way. We traded something big by getting $FW to stand and fight for us as duck hunters. How big and exactly what that is, I'm sure will be made known before too long


----------



## goosefreak

king eider said:


> goosefreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with "Option E" that is why I sent my email.
> 
> I was hesitant at first because of $FW.
> I disagree with $FW but, then I thought if this purposal is our only option for opening up more public land access then I can support it and we can fight the $FW on a different battle front. (Because they will want something out of it)
> 
> My other concern is that this has been the plan for some time. Meaning getting $FW involved because I doubt it was an overnight conversation. My fear is that UWA and friends knew about that ahead of time but, chose not to put it too much in fear of loosing momentum or fallowers.
> 
> Darin, if your as passionate about this purposal, you better be **** good and ready to fight the next battle with the voices of the average conservationists of this great state. Meaning if $FW bends us all over the counter, you better choose which side you want to sit on because my guess would be at that point there will be a lot of people grabbing their pitch forks and lighting up their torches.
> 
> My other concern is, why isn't the Utah chapter of DU on the list? Or Mudbuddy? or pheasants forever?
> 
> I'm leaping with faith here, I hope I don't regret it but, time will tell.
> 
> But, nothing portrays being shady as deleting previous conversation.
> 
> Maybe it's just me but, if I was fighting a true and righteous cause, I wouldn't hide it regardless of who disagree's
> 
> 
> 
> You're welcome to call me anytime. Internet forums are a weak place to have in depth conversation. What is typed and how its perceived are easily mixed up.
> 
> DU, Delta and others were most certainly at the table. They have great input to help this process. Things happened fast because no one knew what the Feds were going to do. Then they blindsided everyone when they put out their 4 options with no input to that point. We acted fast. Very fast as the comment period is only open until July 8. DU, Delta were unable to secure their endorsement from their higher ups in the time frame needed. Plus with the political nature of things that worked against us as well. We had to get our proposal off to the powers to be back east. It's just how it went. It was great to have Jeff and Rob represent DW and DU at the meetings. Their are lots of people involved all offering solutions and avenues to see good things done. Then their are those who want things done, but yet complain when good people try to get something going. Nate here in the other thread about the BRBR you gripped that we needed a voice and outcry. Yet here we are, and nothing but pushback. Sad...
> 
> You want more insight. I've posted my phone number and invite you to call me. Or you can be like this moose guy and decline my invitation to "learn" more. Sometimes ignorance is bliss I guess.
Click to expand...

 I am not going to call you because this conversation needs to be publicized.

I don't know how you come off and chastise us because we don't agree with your politics, But you sir are well miss informed of our feelings and intentions on this subject.

It's the same reason why I pulled myself out of the Utah waterfowlers association, because if you don't agree with Darin then it is "to hell with us" right? That's how it works, you can defend it all you want. But that's how it works with you.

I support this option, I do what I can which may be very little. That doesn't mean I support your point of view or your politics or who you sleep with. But, discrediting others passion for waterfowling and the preservation there of is downright childish foolish and ignorant. I hope this works out.

Maybe you just can't help yourself But, you don't get to choose how people represent the sport they love, you don't get to choose how people display their passion, and it is not you alone who writes the gospel of waterfowl conservation

I disagree with you and your politics, I disagree with sports Mr. Fish and wildlife, But I do agree with this cause, that's why I sent my email.


----------



## Raptor1

Love option E. Thanks for those who helped put it together! I can understand why other groups didn't get there name on it, bigger orgs take time to move and time was important. I will say one thing though, $FW will never get another $ out of me.


----------



## king eider

goosefreak said:


> I am not going to call you because this conversation needs to be publicized.
> 
> I don't know how you come off and chastise us because we don't agree with your politics, But you sir are well miss informed of our feelings and intentions on this subject.
> 
> It's the same reason why I pulled myself out of the Utah waterfowlers association, because if you don't agree with Darin then it is "to hell with us" right? That's how it works, you can defend it all you want. But that's how it works with you.
> 
> I support this option, I do what I can which may be very little. That doesn't mean I support your point of view or your politics or who you sleep with. But, discrediting others passion for waterfowling and the preservation there of is downright childish foolish and ignorant. I hope this works out.
> 
> Maybe you just can't help yourself But, you don't get to choose how people represent the sport they love, you don't get to choose how people display their passion, and it is not you alone who writes the gospel of waterfowl conservation


Then by all means continue to stay misinformed and jump to speculative conclusions. And no, facts don't care about your feelings. Just let be know I have offered an extended hand to be open and explain in detail. You have chosen to turn away. Keep believing that I write the gospel of waterfowl conservation. You couldn't be further from the truth as to what's going on. I am a schmuck in the grand scheme, but just a schmuck who's trying to be a positive good for hunters and our beloved GSL.
To those who offer support for the UWA efforts thank you very much. It's great to see!! Surprised by the tremendous favorable response.


----------



## RemingtonCountry

king eider said:


> Then by all means continue to stay misinformed and jump to speculative conclusions. And no, facts don't care about your feelings. Just let be know I have offered an extended hand to be open and explain in detail. You have chosen to turn away. Keep believing that I write the gospel of waterfowl conservation. You couldn't be further from the truth as to what's going on. I am a schmuck in the grand scheme, but just a schmuck who's trying to be a positive good for hunter access and our beloved GSL.
> To those who offer support for the UWA efforts thank you very much. It's great to see!! Surprised by the tremendous favorable response.


But what if others are interested in your responses also? Why does it have to be a private cell phone conversation?


----------



## king eider

RemingtonCountry said:


> But what if others are interested in your responses also? Why does it have to be a private cell phone conversation?


I have posted my phone number for ANYONE to call. Private phone conversation = easy. Group set up phone call = hard logistics. Call me, I'll answer. So far all people want to do is speculate and jump to conclusions.


----------



## MooseMeat

RemingtonCountry said:


> But what if others are interested in your responses also? Why does it have to be a private cell phone conversation?


Because he gets much less opposition when these shady conversations are done in private. It's much easier to speak for everyone, when you don't have everyone voicing their opinions.


----------



## MooseMeat

king eider said:


> Then by all means continue to stay misinformed and jump to speculative conclusions. And no, facts don't care about your feelings. Just let be know I have offered an extended hand to be open and explain in detail. You have chosen to turn away. Keep believing that I write the gospel of waterfowl conservation. You couldn't be further from the truth as to what's going on. I am a schmuck in the grand scheme, but just a schmuck who's trying to be a positive good for hunter access and our beloved GSL.
> To those who offer support for the UWA efforts thank you very much. It's great to see!! Surprised by the tremendous favorable response.


Misinformed and jumping to speculative conclusions?? My how you have a short memory. It really is too bad you've deleted those old posts from several months ago, but seeing how your story changes with ever post you make, I can understand why. Most of us reading this thread, read the previous one that I'm talking about as well, so they know what all started this, but I'll give you a refresher since you seem to have conveniently forgotten. I called you out on being in bed with $FW and you completely, 100% denied anything to do with them and their conservation strategies. You assured me that you had refused generous offers from them and did not want their "bribes" that they were offering. You were very adamant that they were not in any way supported by the UWA and you had nothing to do with them. Fast forward 3 months and here you are writing a letter in their behalf! You listed them first when you signed it. Then proceeded to deny that you were still not involved with them, that is until you realized you were caught in one of your many lies, then you started to try and talk you way out of it, etc.... and what was it all for? You basically sold your soul to the devil to access ground that, in all honesty, most guys will never get a chance to use. Some guys will and that's great! But your average foot soldier can't access these places on foot and they can't afford a $20,000 airboat or a $7,000 mudboat which is what they would need to get in these areas.

Mark my words because this is the last time I'll say it. This is the beginning of the end to duck hunting in Utah as we all know it. When it all goes to hell, we can thank you for it. And it's not IF, it's WHEN. Just like it did for the big game hunters 10+ years ago. There's a lot going on right now. Most of which I'm sure I don't know about. Yet. But you'd be standing in a little better position if you were more upfront about your secret shady dealings. And not hiding anything in the first place.

But no biggie to you. You'll just keep hitting up your buddies at the duck clubs, leasing ground or hunting ground you already own.

I can't wait to tackle the topic of "blind draws" with you some day on our WMAs. That'll be a fun one


----------



## goosefreak

king eider said:


> Then by all means continue to stay misinformed and jump to speculative conclusions. How many times are you going to refer to phrases like these? its like I keep hearing a skipping record.
> Please inform me. I'm still waiting..
> 
> Just let be know I have offered an extended hand to be open and explain in detail. You have chosen to turn away. HA! good one, how about you share with the entire class, last time I checked, public access on the refuge belonged to the public so, everyone has the right to know what explanation you can give us. Are you implying that this is a private matter? shouldn't be since the last time I checked the refuge is open to everyone
> 
> Keep believing that I write the gospel of waterfowl conservation. Oh, trust me, I Don't
> 
> You couldn't be further from the truth as to what's going on. I am a schmuck in the grand scheme,


 Still waiting on you to enlighten us. 
please, tell me, what is the "grand scheme and what is the role of the pawn also known as Mr. eider in this grand scheme.

Still, I wait on you to enlighten us on the matter. If it is beneficial to all then there should be no problem sharing, now is there?


----------



## king eider

goosefreak said:


> king eider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then by all means continue to stay misinformed and jump to speculative conclusions. How many times are you going to refer to phrases like these? its like I keep hearing a skipping record.
> Please inform me. I'm still waiting..
> 
> Just let be know I have offered an extended hand to be open and explain in detail. You have chosen to turn away. HA! good one, how about you share with the entire class, last time I checked, public access on the refuge belonged to the public so, everyone has the right to know what explanation you can give us. Are you implying that this is a private matter? shouldn't be since the last time I checked the refuge is open to everyone
> 
> Keep believing that I write the gospel of waterfowl conservation. Oh, trust me, I Don't
> 
> You couldn't be further from the truth as to what's going on. I am a schmuck in the grand scheme,
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting on you to enlighten us.
> please, tell me, what is the "grand scheme and what is the role of the pawn also known as Mr. eider in this grand scheme.
> 
> Still, I wait on you to enlighten us on the matter. If it is beneficial to all then there should be no problem sharing, now is there? Im not going to type it all out (way to long and to dynamic)so you can skewer me with your perception of how you read it. If you want facts and want to know more about the process then please call me. But as it is a few of you guys just want to have at me and anything I put up here. I offer a great gesture and still nothing but a bunch of childish BS pushback. You want to know, man up and call. I'd love to share the process...
Click to expand...


----------



## goosefreak

Im not going to type it all out (way to long and to dynamic)so you can skewer me with your perception of how you read it. If you want facts and want to know more about the process then please call me. But as it is a few of you guys just want to have at me and anything I put up here. I offer a great gesture and still nothing but a bunch of childish BS pushback. You want to know said:


> give me a break dude.. here we go again, skip repeat, skip repeat, skip repeat.
> Childish? talk about the pot calling the kettle black hu..


----------



## king eider

goosefreak said:


> give me a break dude.. here we go again, skip repeat, skip repeat, skip repeat.
> Childish? talk about the pot calling the kettle black hu..


Its only a phone call....


----------



## Fowlmouth

king eider, do you have any idea or insight yet of the chance that option E will be accepted and passed? Are the odds looking favorable at this point?


----------



## stuckduck

Let it go Darin........ you have gave them a source for answers and they continue to act like the childish kids they are.... I know many people have put in lots of hours to move this along I personally know some of them.... my hats off to them that take this issue serious and sacrifice much time!!!! Let's hope that the powers that be will reason with those that are proposing there ideas and some good bird areas are opened up.... 

Many years ago I sat with a great group of people trying to gain more area to hunt. After many attempts I came to the conclusion that it will NEVER happen... nice to see the Department of interior hold the government accountable for what is truly the people's resources!! 

Good to see a good group of very bright minds and reasonable people take on this issue.


----------



## Bax*

A couple things:

1- forum rules, please read them again. No name calling. 

2- I spent a bunch of time working with the UWC (great guys BTW), but I learned one thing: clout and capital are the name of the game and I can see why SFW became a necessary partner. Although I don’t support their positions, I sincerely appreciate some things they have done. If the UWA chose to collaborate, I’m sure it was in hopes to accomplish something beneficial to wildlife and sportsmen as my observations with their org is that they are trying to improve opportunities rather than take them away.


----------



## Longgun

Can we please keep this thread on topic and take the finger pointing to messaging or said phone call? Hell ill buy y'all lunch somewhere to air this crap out...

The LAST thing I want to do in trying to stay informed about this is wade through a bunch of baloney to cherry pick the core subject matter at hand.

Thank you-


----------



## goosefreak

I think what we are getting at here is, a couple months ago, Darin assured us that $FW had no involvement and that the UWA turned down donations and such. Fast forward to present day, now Option E is on the table with $FW as the spear tip of this purposal. I think we feel a little bit lied to, and it seems to happen all to commonly.

I support Option E, and I can see the urgency to include $FW, although I do not support $FW. 

That’s why I say that if we need to deal with that on a different battle front then so be it. 

Lots of us are fed up with the sneaking around and claiming voices that aren’t theirs.

AND longgun, let’s meet at Texas Roadhouse!


----------



## Longgun

Don't care for the place myself. Let me know what day y'all plan to be there, the first appetizer of my choice is on me. (I said ill buy, just didn't say what exactly.;-))


----------



## MooseMeat

The biggest issue is first we were lied to. Plain and simple. The 2nd issue is they are speaking for all of us on this, but are choosing to keep a lot of what they are doing, a big secret until it’s all said and done. By at which point, we are stuck with whatever the select few decided was the best “option” for all of us. And when we voice our opinion about it, we are “misinformed” on the situation or deal, that we were never included in, in the first place.

It’s funny that whenever $FW gets involved in our management or hunter access plans, we are always given a predetermined “option”. For GS deer we were given options 1-3, which ultimately ended with “option 2”, that left a lot of people pretty unhappy. Now with the waterfowl it sounds like “option E” is the direction we are headed. And the fact most of us were in the dark while deals were being made, has left some people unhappy as well.


----------



## Bax*

I think that’s the damned if you do and damned if you don’t conundrum of life Moosemeat. 

In the end, options have to be presented. Some are good, some are bad, some are in between and someone gets mad.


----------



## Longgun

MooseMeat-

Larsen is this you?


----------



## JerryH

king eider said:


> Still waiting moose for you to tell me where I hunt! Where was I hunting 5 or 6 yrs ago that I don't hunt now? Tell me about all the private ground I hunt on!
> 
> Seeings how you declined my invitation
> for a phone co conversation to clear the air. You have no use to talk to me other than to troll me and insult me.
> 
> I'll wait for you to tell me about my hunting locations....


I remember a few years back you asking how to build a sinkbox? I think it was your uncle's property. You posted pics of it


----------



## paddler

It looks like option E may be the best, as all the others included the dust bowl off to the west which, AFAIK, had no signs of life. Also, the areas on the east side don't make you take the one-way road all the way around the auto tour. That seems like a good thing. Don't care much for SFW, though.


----------



## rjefre

In hindsight, the Option E probably should have been signed with only the UWA on it (because of the lack of time to get the other big organizations to go through their long processes) and that way it may have alleviated the skepticism of only having a few orgs sign on. 
Just to be clear, anyone can comment on the Bear River options and can certainly choose any one of the 3 fed options or cherry pick a few things out of each of them and make their comment. Option E was put together to put forth a rational proposal that covers most of the Fed's concerns as well as opening a very wide variety of lands to public hunters.
7 of the 11 proposed units in Option E are walk-in only lands and most of them are going to benefit upland hunters.
Option E maintains huge waterfowl resting areas and protects flight corridors, while still allowing access to uplands, wetlands, seasonal wetlands, and open waters.
*I hope that folks can get behind it, but if you can't, that's OK too. We will have many, many marshy battles to fight in the future, and we will have the opportunity to come together on the things we CAN agree on.* Example: There are some very scary things happening with the Bear River water rights situation and that may dwarf any silly disagreements over the Bear River Refuge we may be experiencing right now. 
R


----------



## Gordon

> Example: There are some very scary things happening with the Bear River water rights situation and that may dwarf any silly disagreements over the Bear River Refuge we may be experiencing right now.
> R


Do tell???


----------



## dkhntrdstn

Raptor1 said:


> Love option E. Thanks for those who helped put it together! I can understand why other groups didn't get there name on it, bigger orgs take time to move and time was important. I will say one thing though, $FW will never get another $ out of me.


As long as you duck hunt in utah they will. it just the start


----------



## Fowlmouth

rjefre said:


> *I hope that folks can get behind it, but if you can't, that's OK too. We will have many, many marshy battles to fight in the future, and we will have the opportunity to come together on the things we CAN agree on.* Example: There are some very scary things happening with the Bear River water rights situation and that may dwarf any silly disagreements over the Bear River Refuge we may be experiencing right now.
> R


rjefre, 
First of all, thank you for everything you do, and for your involvement with the GSL issues. Most of us would be in the dark and have no clue what is going on most of the time. It's always appreciated when you post concerns about the GSL and things that potentially threaten it.

With respect to option E, I believe everyone is in favor of that option. Everyone on this post has said they support it. Option E is not what some of us have concerns about.


----------



## 7summits

King Eider is the very reason I sacrifice heavily to hunt private.


----------



## king eider

7summits said:


> King Eider is the very reason I sacrifice heavily to hunt private.


I am the reason you hunt private? Please explain how I have taken opportunity and quality from you? A few of these jokers have it out for me. But given the opportunity to understand each other over these petty issues they choose not to. So please, I want to know how I personally have made it so you have to sacrifice heavily to hunt private.


----------



## king eider

Fowlmouth said:


> rjefre,
> First of all, thank you for everything you do, and for your involvement with the GSL issues. Most of us would be in the dark and have no clue what is going on most of the time. It's always appreciated when you post concerns about the GSL and things that potentially threaten it.
> 
> With respect to option E, I believe everyone is in favor of that option. Everyone on this post has said they support it. Option E is not what some of us have concerns about.


So why rip me when all i have done is be the mouth piece (coordinate outreach) for the great work that R Jefre and many others work on? I dont get it?


----------



## Fowlmouth

king eider said:


> So why rip me when all i have done is be the mouth piece (coordinate outreach) for the great work that R Jefre and many others work on? I dont get it?


My comments were all very civil, and no where did I rip on you. Go back through this post and read all of my comments.


----------



## king eider

Fowlmouth said:


> king eider said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why rip me when all i have done is be the mouth piece (coordinate outreach) for the great work that R Jefre and many others work on? I dont get it?
> 
> 
> 
> My comments were all very civil, and no where did I rip on you. Go back through this post and read all of my comments.
Click to expand...

Then why badger me when I outreach with the work that these good guys do? Just seems a bit hypocritical...


----------



## Fowlmouth

king eider said:


> Then why badger me when I outreach with the work that these good guys do? Just seems a bit hypocritical...


Badger you? Hypocritical? Let's talk hypocritical... At one point you didn't have anything good to say about SFW, but now you (UWA) are bedfellows.


----------



## king eider

Fowlmouth said:


> king eider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why badger me when I outreach with the work that these good guys do? Just seems a bit hypocritical...
> 
> 
> 
> Badger you? Hypocritical? Let's talk hypocritical... At one point you didn't have anything good to say about SFW, but now you (UWA) are bedfellows.
Click to expand...

We worked on an issue to expand hunter opportunities together. Sorry that doesnt sit well with you. I guess it's better to be a keyboard warrior. R was at all the meetings and is a board member of the UWA.


----------



## Fowlmouth

I guess being a keyboard warrior is better than being a hypocrit like you.

king eider, from reading your past posts it doesn't look like you cared much for SFW.

Here are your own words..

king eider quote 02-26-16

"I for the life of me can't understand why the state needs a private special interest party to manage a public tag draw. The state is capable of running the whole deal. We have a government entity that runs government/public affairs for public resources. Why do we have this group in their in the middle of it all?! Our public resource is pumping money into the hands of a handful of guys all under the guise of conservation. While it is true that dollars do hit the ground from them, they also get their cut out of it. We have a state agency that is set up to handle conservation and dollars that flow from a public resource.

But sadly our state DWR has decided to be bed fellows with a private interest group. Wildlife being a public resource needs to be managed for the public by our state governing body that represents us the people! If any private group wants to honor conservation then go at it without abusing the public resource/hunting tags. Raise the money by other means and have at it!"

My two cents. Carry on....

Now who's bed fellows with the private interest group? You should be asking yourself these same questions you asked in this statement. Flip Flop Flip Flop. You gotta pick a side brotha!


----------



## king eider

Fowlmouth said:


> I guess being a keyboard warrior is better than being a hypocrit like you.
> 
> king eider, from reading your past posts it doesn't look like you cared much for SFW.
> 
> Here are your own words..
> 
> king eider quote 02-26-16
> 
> "I for the life of me can't understand why the state needs a private special interest party to manage a public tag draw. The state is capable of running the whole deal. We have a government entity that runs government/public affairs for public resources. Why do we have this group in their in the middle of it all?! Our public resource is pumping money into the hands of a handful of guys all under the guise of conservation. While it is true that dollars do hit the ground from them, they also get their cut out of it. We have a state agency that is set up to handle conservation and dollars that flow from a public resource.
> 
> But sadly our state DWR has decided to be bed fellows with a private interest group. Wildlife being a public resource needs to be managed for the public by our state governing body that represents us the people! If any private group wants to honor conservation then go at it without abusing the public resource/hunting tags. Raise the money by other means and have at it!"
> 
> My two cents. Carry on....
> 
> Now who's bed fellows with the private interest group? You should be asking yourself these same questions you asked in this statement. Flip Flop Flip Flop. You gotta pick a side brotha!


Nope. I sure did not care for SFW back a few years ago. Even posted a Hitler parody youtube video about it. I wont deny that. I'm not a member of SFW. But a huge concern and issue was upon us as waterfowlers. So I set personal issues aside and helped work to see a solution come about.

I will say this. My prejudices have changed after visiting with Troy and others from SFW. The more I came to understand a few things it has changed my perspective. My personal opinion about SFW is not the issue. If you want to make that a concern of yours then fine. But working towards a solution that was better for us waterfowlers with the BRBR was the goal.


----------



## stuckduck

You really think it was Darins decision alone to bring In SFW?.... your shooting the messanger.... call him as hypocrite.... there is a board of 10+ people trying to better it for all..... and your hung up on ONE guys words...... yes Darin is my brother.... yes we had and still do hold a Ill feelings of SFW... but it was the BOARDS dession to bring them on to get the push to open more ground.... your acting so small minded on this issue... I know alot of you guys dont like the Noorda name.... not sure as to why but this truly confirms to me that a Duck hunters worst enemy is another duck hunter... in the grand scheme of thing all we are doing is rearranging the seats on the titanic.... the ship will sink we are going to lose the lake.... let's shoot the messenger... not one person has called Darin to ask any questions... or has anybody call any board member for that reason?... I'm sure they all can awnser questions.... but no let's sit back arm chair quarterback this and argue over past comments.... so childish....


----------



## goosefreak

I'm going to be very disappointed if we dont take this thread to 100 commentso-||:O_D:


----------



## ZEKESMAN

:smile:73


----------



## Fowlmouth

Fowlmouth said:


> king eider, do you have any idea or insight yet of the chance that option E will be accepted and passed? Are the odds looking favorable at this point?


I asked this question a couple of pages back. Can you answer this? Or is it anyone's guess at this point. Like I said before, I support it and I do hope option E is accepted by the Feds.


----------



## king eider

Fowlmouth said:


> Fowlmouth said:
> 
> 
> 
> king eider, do you have any idea or insight yet of the chance that option E will be accepted and passed? Are the odds looking favorable at this point?
> 
> 
> 
> I asked this question a couple of pages back. Can you answer this? Or is it anyone's guess at this point. Like I said before, I support it and I do hope option E is accepted by the Feds.
Click to expand...

Option E is being considered. Public input is being gathered until July 8. That is the status at this point. Follow our Facebook group for updates.


----------



## MooseMeat

goosefreak said:


> I'm going to be very disappointed if we dont take this thread to 100 commentso-||:O_D:


I can make it hit 100 easy....


----------



## MooseMeat

Stuckduck1 said:


> You really think it was Darins decision alone to bring In SFW?.... your shooting the messanger.... call him as hypocrite.... there is a board of 10+ people trying to better it for all..... and your hung up on ONE guys words...... yes Darin is my brother.... yes we had and still do hold a Ill feelings of SFW... but it was the BOARDS dession to bring them on to get the push to open more ground.... your acting so small minded on this issue... I know alot of you guys dont like the Noorda name.... not sure as to why but this truly confirms to me that a Duck hunters worst enemy is another duck hunter... in the grand scheme of thing all we are doing is rearranging the seats on the titanic.... the ship will sink we are going to lose the lake.... let's shoot the messenger... not one person has called Darin to ask any questions... or has anybody call any board member for that reason?... I'm sure they all can awnser questions.... but no let's sit back arm chair quarterback this and argue over past comments.... so childish....


That ONE guy is the person who swore up and down the UWA would not and will not jump in bed with $FW. It wasn't any of the other 9 board members saying that. It was your brother. Yet here we are 3 months later with emails being sent out by him in their behalf. It's just very interesting...but don't be pointing fingers at everyone else. It's not their lie, it's his.

I just wanna know how much kick back he gets from selling us all out? Everyone has a price... looks like it didn't take him too long to sell out.

Like I've said many times before, this little "favor" they just did for you trying to get option E approved, isn't a freebie. They always want something in return. And it will come at a cost to a lot of people. It won't be over night, it might not even be this year. But at some point down the road, the debt will be repaid. It's sad that you guys are so blinded by this great new opportunity we MIGHT get, to see what the real bigger picture is.


----------



## paddler

Googling SFW and Big Game Forever isn't pretty.


----------



## goosefreak

paddler said:


> Googling SFW and Big Game Forever isn't pretty.


What.. You mean, like this??

http://kutv.com/news/local/allegations-of-corruption-surround-utah-hungtin-and-conservation-expo


----------



## CPAjeff

goosefreak said:


> What.. You mean, like this??
> 
> http://kutv.com/news/local/allegations-of-corruption-surround-utah-hungtin-and-conservation-expo


The best part of the article came at the end;

"CEO Jon Larsen declined an interview request for this story, but left a voicemail message saying, "if there's a story to be written it ought to be on the success of the expo."

Smoke and mirrors....

Shaun and Darin - I'll chip in on the lunch bill and take care of the entrees. When and where?


----------



## goosefreak

CPAjeff said:


> The best part of the article came at the end;
> 
> "CEO Jon Larsen declined an interview request for this story, but left a voicemail message saying, "if there's a story to be written it ought to be on the success of the expo."
> 
> Smoke and mirrors....
> 
> Shaun and Darin - I'll chip in on the lunch bill and take care of the entrees. When and where?


Exactly what I thought. It's like him admitting guilt without actually admitting guilt.

I see it 2 ways, the DWR is really that dumb or they are really that corrupt.
for the sake of this particular article what agency wouldn't want 100% of the proceeds go directly back into the very thing they are in-charge of maintaining/making better?

of which amount exceeded $1million +

SFW bribery at its finest!!


----------



## paddler

goosefreak said:


> What.. You mean, like this??
> 
> http://kutv.com/news/local/allegations-of-corruption-surround-utah-hungtin-and-conservation-expo


That's one example. They've been sketchy for many years. Don't know why the state gave $300,000 to BGF every year with zero oversight, or why SFW administers hunting permits while skimming money off the top.

https://westernvaluesproject.org/ta...hunting-energy-industry-over-hunters-anglers/


----------



## middlefork

Glad this thread finally got away from what might be best for hunters at BRBR and became a SFW bash fest. Carry on! Never gets old.


----------



## ZEKESMAN

#84


----------



## MooseMeat

middlefork said:


> Glad this thread finally got away from what might be best for hunters at BRBR and became a SFW bash fest. Carry on! Never gets old.


With $FW involved, option E is no where near what's best for hunters at BRBR or anywhere else in Utah... maybe even the western United States. No one knows how big this new cancer to waterfowl hunters could possibly grow


----------



## Fowlmouth

I support option E, just wish it could have been presented without SFW's involvement.

E-mail sent in support of option E


----------



## Longgun

MooseMeat said:


> With $FW involved, option E is no where near what's best for hunters at BRBR or anywhere else in Utah... maybe even the western United States. No one knows how big this new cancer to waterfowl hunters could possibly grow


Far beit from me to see the forest for the tree's but the single biggest Cancer to our beloved waterfowl sport will be the continued growth of our immediate area's through water needs an deficits. It will be one **** big obstacle to counter without the support of that 800lb Gorilla in the room.

Shaun, you speak of option E like you have something to present in its place. Enlighten us...


----------



## Longgun

ZEKESMAN said:


> #84


88.


----------



## goosefreak

Longgun said:


> ZEKESMAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> #84
> 
> 
> 
> 88.
Click to expand...

I've got an 88.. 
88...88.... now I've got an 89..we've got an 89..89..... going on 90, do I hear a 90... 89 going on 90, can I get a 90, do I hear a 90?... 90...90....90......


----------



## Goshawk

90... And I don't care how or who got option E to be considered, although not perfect, it is a whole lot better than the crap sandwich the feds were trying to feed us with options A B C and D.


----------



## CPAjeff

I’ll see your #90 and raise you to #91.


----------



## Shadow Man

King Eider, with the public input period closed now, any idea when we will hear from the feds on which option is going to be implemented?


----------



## rjefre

The Fed's preferred option is B. If they choose to ignore the hunter's input, they will bestow upon us their preferred option. If they choose to consider input, we may end up with a hybrid version of Option-E. I'm guessing that it will be announced in 5-6 weeks or so. Hopefully, it will go to Denver before then, and then to D.C. for approval before it is officially announced, and MAYBE that could avert any truly terrible decisions. I hope for the best, but I also realize that they are not required to consider our input when making this decision.
R


----------



## Longgun

Im not counting my ducklings at all on this... although in considering past action (or lack thereof) im sure we'll get exactly what they want us to in typical Fed fashion. I hope they prove me wrong this time...


----------

