# 10:00 pm kutv sfw story



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

For those wanting an insight on what has been going on channel 2 news will be running a story tonight. About sfw and the expo permits in question


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Thanks for the heads up


----------



## bekins24 (Sep 22, 2015)

hazmat I heard about this on the radio this morning and was going to post it! haha you beat me to it. Definitely will be interesting to see what turns up or if KUTV finds that all is well and nothing to be worried about.... :?


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

If I had to guess there will be some silence on SFW's part as far as transperancy.but I will go into it with an open mind. Kudos to channel 2 news for having the fortitude to run the story


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

I know i'll be watching - thanks for the heads up!


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

I wonder if the $FW people sent their wives out to deal with the pesky reporters like Benson did when Foxnews came knocking, asking him what he's doing with the few million $$$ he gets for Sage Grouse lobbying?


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

Sneak peak:



__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=594534754031671


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

I'm out of town in Moab tonight but I'll be watching from my hotel room if I can stay awake that long...been a long day


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

Ya I'm gonna try to stay awake also but my alarm goes off stoooopid early. I set the dvr for when I dont make it.


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

Looks like a great article. I know they've been working on it for over a month and have interviewed a bunch of folks from UWC, RMEF, SFW, and the DWR. Can't wait to see how it turns out, thanks for the heads up.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

For those of us that are out of the viewing area and would like to watch it here is a link to the news cast at 10

http://kutv.com/news/local/tonight-at-10-the-politics-of-hunting


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

Those sfw boys over on mm.com are in panic mode. I read everything from we needed to take Karl Malone on a guided hunt. To every other excuse they can think of


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

After watching the story all I can say is that the seed has been planted now we need to watch and see if it grows.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

The winds of change are coming...


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

Wow that was great hopefully this thing gets fully exposed. What a scam sfw is unbelievable


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

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


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

I thought KUTV did a very good job in this initial story. Kudos to them!

I agree Critter. If SFW doesn't become transparent and actually show where the other 70% is going, they are going to be hounded to no end.

I thought the "interview" with Jon Larson was quite telling. After refusing to do the interview, his next statement was "if is there is a story to be written, it ought to be about the success of the expo". Way to try and deflect it Mr. Larson. No one is buying that garbage anymore though.

Round 1 SFW. Round 2...???


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

SFW - Let's not talk about that and get back to talking about how awesome the expo is.

It reminded me of a scene in the College Humor's Batman Skit with the Penguin


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

The reporter should have brought up the switcher-ooooo when the RMEF submitted their application on time, but the DWR quickly backpedaled with excuses and made them reapply. They DWR should PROVE they had SFW application by the required date... It really seems they didnt.


-DallanC


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

DallanC said:


> The reporter should have brought up the switcher-ooooo when the RMEF submitted their application on time, but the DWR quickly backpedaled with excuses and made them reapply. They DWR should PROVE they had SFW application by the required date... It really seems they didnt.
> 
> -DallanC


Or the fact the RMEF proposed to use the same data security as the Utah big game draw.

Maybe the Utah Draw is hack-able and those hackers are preventing my from drawing OIL and LE Elk


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

MWScott72 said:


> I thought the "interview" with Jon Larson was quite telling. After refusing to do the interview, his next statement was "if is there is a story to be written, it ought to be about the success of the expo". Way to try and deflect it Mr. Larson. No one is buying that garbage anymore though.


This is right out of the SFW/DWR playbook. Remember the form letter that DWR director Sheehan sent out to those that commented when the decision first came out? It was essentially that hunters should not be arguing/talking about the Expo but should instead unite against PETA and environmentalists. Same old attempt at deflection of criticism and trying to talk about something else here too.


----------



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

It might be good to send a thank you to KUTV for investigating and ask them to continue to apply pressure, along with giving them additional information:

[email protected]

This is a real chance to keep pressure on the DWR and SFW and just keep mounting it up on them. It will force this situation to change, at least for better transparency. We as sportsmen owe it to ourselves, our wildlife, and our future to finally break this system of corruption and cover ups.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I guess my thread on a call for an awakening of big game hunters to work for change is actually a "General Fishing and Questions" topic?

Hmmmm...


----------



## Fishracer (Mar 2, 2009)

Great interview! We need to keep the pressure on the DWR and SFW! Thank you KUTV channel 4 for a great job!


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

I especially liked Chris Miller's close to the live report when he mentioned exchanging texts with Senator Debakis and the Senator says that this has his attention and "he's been looking into this... A LOT," that "it's a big can worms." The live shot closed with Miller saying that there was so much more he could have reported and brought to light but just didn't have time for... I hope he makes time for it.


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

Yes the heat is on and for our future generation the heat needs to stay on


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> I guess my thread on a call for an awakening of big game hunters to work for change is actually a "General Fishing and Questions" topic?
> 
> Hmmmm...


 No, Your thread was appreciated very much. It's just that some of us have already been at this for a long time on several levels and couldn't/can't give details.

Lee (UWC)


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

elkfromabove said:


> No, Your thread was appreciated very much. It's just that some of us have already been at this for a long time on several levels and couldn't/can't give details.
> 
> Lee (UWC)


Now that's an interesting statement right there Lee

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## izzydog (Jan 18, 2008)

If David Allen comes out and says that it plainly and simply wasn't on the up and up how the RMEF was handled, I am inclined to believe him. Shame on everyone involved!


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

I too wish they had brought up the whole switch to an RFP after the fact, that to me is the single clearest indicator of a rat


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> It might be good to send a thank you to KUTV for investigating and ask them to continue to apply pressure, along with giving them additional information:
> 
> [email protected]
> 
> This is a real chance to keep pressure on the DWR and SFW and just keep mounting it up on them. It will force this situation to change, at least for better transparency. We as sportsmen owe it to ourselves, our wildlife, and our future to finally break this system of corruption and cover ups.


Great idea 1-Eye!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

elkfromabove said:


> No, Your thread was appreciated very much. It's just that some of us have already been at this for a long time on several levels and couldn't/can't give details.
> 
> Lee (UWC)


So because some of you are already pushing this the thread gets moved by a Mod to the fishing section? That doesn't make sense.

And sorry Lee, doing things in the back door rooms and not getting people involved with information hasn't worked, and it won't work. I've been saying this for months to you guys. Time to step up and lead, not just work. This cause needs a leader to inspire and unite. Saying you can't give details but are working on it is neither.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> No, Your thread was appreciated very much. It's just that some of us have already been at this for a long time on several levels and couldn't/can't give details.
> 
> Lee (UWC)


why cant you Lee ? Is this how you show your group how you are running it now? This is one reason why I have lost faith in you guys.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Vanilla said:


> So because some of you are already pushing this the thread gets moved by a Mod to the fishing section? That doesn't make sense.


The vast majority of your other post is entirely about fishing. You bring it back around to make the point of being involved in these processes, but that wasn't until the end of the post. I can see why some mod moved it... but it also could have remained in Big Game (where I replied to it).

-DallanC


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

The piece was very interesting. All parties interviewed responded about how I would have expected. Disappointed, but not at all surprised after the way this whole thing was handled.

I think it's a good thing that Dabakis is looking into this. Not just from the conservation aspect, but from the perspective of the state and SLC in particular potentially missing out on a substantial chunk of extra revenue from RMEF holding their national event here in the state. 

I noticed that some of the apologists on MM were pointing out that Dabakis was just doing his anti-republican duty by looking into this. However, I think it is a good thing to have a check on a situation that appears to be fishy. This is more than a D vs. R issue.

The expo, while having set records for attendance is still fairly small potatoes as far as the amount of attendees and the economic contribution to the city/state. With a nationwide organization with a huge membership, I would wager there would be quite a few more hotel rooms booked and restaurants filled, ON TOP of RMEF being willing to share large chunks of expo revenue with the state for conservation.


----------



## Trooper (Oct 18, 2007)

You guys... this is a state thing, not a federal thing. Only the dirty federales play favorites and politics. The pristine, dare I say virginal, Utah State government loves you and will never sacrifice your heritage for money. Just go and focus your anger where it belongs... this is all Obama's fault.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

For someone that was willing to read until the end of Vanilla's post, it was clearly about organizing as big game hunters. 

The USAC and fishing example was used as a great example of what can happen when sportsmen unite and face a situation that reeks of corruption. The whole purpose of Vanilla's post(as I read it) was to attempt to inspire a similar movement and organization among big game hunters to fix a problem.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

The entire bunch are as Crooked as an arthritic finger. FOLLOW THE MONEY Land Grabbing Dorks,, Wildlife LOTTERY . Any LOTTERY in Utah pose to be Law Violation?. This is the way it goes. Stick Your Heads in the Sand. It's all going to sneak up on us one day and the States resources will be in the hands of the SELL OUTS! So Don't BLINK.I'am 71 years old and I hate the thoughts of My Sons and my 2 Grandsons getting the Wildlife Shaft. ))------------>


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Good to see several hunting outlets like eastmans, camofire and the utah rmef page posting links to the article.

In the attached screenshot from the eastmans link, is this the same guy that sits on the wildlife board? Doesn't seem too thrilled with the story if so..









Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

Old Fudd said:


> The entire bunch are as Crooked as an arthritic finger. FOLLOW THE MONEY Land Grabbing Dorks,, Wildlife LOTTERY . Any LOTTERY in Utah pose to be Law Violation?. This is the way it goes. Stick Your Heads in the Sand. It's all going to sneak up on us one day and the States resources will be in the hands of the SELL OUTS! So Don't BLINK.I'am 71 years old and I hate the thoughts of My Sons and my 2 Grandsons getting the Wildlife Shaft. ))------------>


Received this..this morning after sending an email. It doesn't just stop at the Expo....

Congressman Jason Chaffetz
2236 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

February 26, 2016 
Mr. Andrew XXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sandy, UT XXXXXX

Dear Andrew:

Thank you for contacting my office regarding federal policy on public lands. I appreciate citizens, like you, who are actively engaged in government affairs. In order to properly represent Utah's Third Congressional District, I need input from constituents. It is my job as a member of Congress to represent Utah to Washington, not Washington to Utah.

The United States government owns roughly one-third of all the land in America and about half of the land in the West. We must reduce the federal estate. Individual states and localities should have far more control over what happens in their own backyard, rather than unelected Washington bureaucrats.

Again, thank you for contacting me. If there's anything I can do for you, please don't hesitate to contact my office.

Sincerely,

Jason Chaffetz 
Member of Congress
Sincerely,

Jason Chaffetz
Member of Congress


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

Kwalk3 said:


> Good to see several hunting outlets like eastmans, camofire and the utah rmef page posting links to the article.
> 
> In the attached screenshot from the eastmans link, is this the same guy that sits on the wildlife board? Doesn't seem too thrilled with the story if so..
> 
> ...


Yeah..Bair was all over different hunting forums/FB and such last night defending SFW and calling the KUTV investigation a joke...

Bair and his position on the UWLB and association with SFW is a....ah..nevermind....-O\\__-


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

gdog said:


> Yeah..Bair was all over different hunting forums/FB and such last night defending SFW and calling the KUTV investigation a joke...
> 
> Bair and his position on the UWLB and association with SFW is a....ah..nevermind....-O\\__-


Good to know we have such clearly unbiased level-headed folks making the decisions for our wildlife...... _Heavy on the sarcasm_.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

My Feelings on the State Getting ahold on Federal Lands. My Father told me when I was A young man.Years and Years ago this would happen in my life time.as a Punk A-- kid I thought he had lost his mind. I believe the State would rather build Resorts>> Sub Divide.
and privatize all the lands they can get there hands on.My Pop's was Right On..After watching last nights debate, no doubt in my mind from the top on down we have lost are freaking minds.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Kwalk3 said:


> Good to know we have such clearly unbiased level-headed folks making the decisions for our wildlife...... _Heavy on the sarcasm_.


Just keep in mind who appoints those unbiased level-headed folks to the Wildlife Board!!

SFW figured this out a long time ago. Too bad the rest of us have been so slow to see how to play the game.

Get out and vote. But stop punching straight party tickets!


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

PBH said:


> Just keep in mind who appoints those unbiased level-headed folks to the Wildlife Board!!
> 
> SFW figured this out a long time ago. Too bad the rest of us have been so slow to see how to play the game.
> 
> Get out and vote. But stop punching straight party tickets!


True, but dont forget that the board was presented options based on some committee we have no idea who they were, or who chose them... and the board HAD to accept their recommendation (all this visible from the DWR Feed of the meeting).

I for one would like to see who these people are that got to rate and choose the SFW over RMEF. THAT is something that should have been made public as soon as the decision was made. THAT is where some shenanigans are going on in this deal...

-DallanC


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

DallanC said:


> True, but dont forget that the board was presented options based on some committee we have no idea who they were, or who chose them... and the board HAD to accept their recommendation (all this visible from the DWR Feed of the meeting).
> 
> I for one would like to see who these people are that got to rate and choose the SFW over RMEF. THAT is something that should have been made public as soon as the decision was made. THAT is where some shenanigans are going on in this deal...
> 
> -DallanC


GRAMA request them. They can't keep that private. I would go as far to say that even handwritten notes from the evaluation process are public records.


----------



## stick&string89 (Jun 21, 2012)

As i have said before i have supported SFW. I have a banquet table reserved for the up coming banquet. Is SFW perfect? Absolutly not. SFW has done alot of good for wildlife in our state. Is RMEF perfect or a save all? I dont think so. I have been privlidged enough to hunt Elk in an area of New Mexco where RMEF has a strong presence and was not overly impressed with thoes representing them that i have come in contact with. 

It is awsome to see " the everyday hunter or general public" voicing there opinion. However "voicing" an opinion or for lack of better terms complaing is not going to be enough for either side. Actions go alot farther than words. 

I do not know who Wes Bennet is that was interviewed. I did like how he put his name with his face and did not hide it on tv. He stood behind his opinion well. Correct me if im wrong the younger gentleman that was interviewed never allowed his name to be shown. That does not sit well with me. 

I apologize for the long rant but the vast majority that are "voicing there opinion" need to turn words into actions if the want the best outcome for our wildlife and great state. 

Sent from my LG-H811 using Tapatalk


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

I'm sure your intentions are good stick, and no one here is saying that sfw doesn't do some very good things for the wildlife in Utah. 

However, there is a relationship that exists between sfw and the dwr that is a little too cozy. That doesn't sit well with me.

There is an overall unwillingness to be truly transparent about the monies that are received from the expo tag app fee. That also does not sit well with me.

There have been several incidences where sfw has come out in support of legislation and policies that do not benefit the average sportsman. That really doesn't sit well with me.

I have zero problem with people like yourself who knowingly and willingly fund an organization. Your prerogative to do so. I do have a problem with the rest of the general public, in many cases unknowingly lining the pockets of a special interest because this special group has been given the incredible opportunity(not a right) to offer tags out of the public draw and build a huge event around it. Where would sfw be without those tags and that expo? I honestly don't know, and they don't plan on telling us either. That doesn't sit well with me either. See the pattern?

Actions go farther than words in many instances. However, at times discussion is necessary to understand what is going on. Words are important as well, and are noticeably absent from SFW any time there is a legitimate question. "Let's not address the problems, but hey wasn't the expo a great success?"...paraphrased of course.

As for boots on the ground, it's a great thing to do our part in any way possible. I know for a fact many guys on here, myself included have spent some substantial time emailing and contacting state Representatives to discuss or voice concern about issues we face as sportsmen. Real things like public land and access to streams to fish. Could I do more? Absolutely. But I still have a right to voice concern about situations facing sportsmen and about issues involving a public resource we all share.

Sfw does some awesome things. That doesn't mean that everything else they do is inherently awesome as well. They could do better. They could return the extra 70% of app fee revenue to conservation. They could show us dollar by dollar what they are doing with the revenues generated from selling this public resource. 

These aren't radical demands. Actually, on the contrary, most organizations that benefit from receiving public resources are required to maintain a certain level of accountability for how those resources are used.

There are a lot of things that don't sit well with a lot of us. And as I said before actions are important, but so is discussion about what's going on. One side prefers to point to the good things they do while being entirely unwilling to have a discussion and be completely accountable for resources received at the expense of the general public.


Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

stick&string89 said:


> As i have said before i have supported SFW. I have a banquet table reserved for the up coming banquet. Is SFW perfect? Absolutly not. SFW has done alot of good for wildlife in our state. Is RMEF perfect or a save all? I dont think so. I have been privlidged enough to hunt Elk in an area of New Mexco where RMEF has a strong presence and was not overly impressed with thoes representing them that i have come in contact with.
> 
> It is awsome to see " the everyday hunter or general public" voicing there opinion. However "voicing" an opinion or for lack of better terms complaing is not going to be enough for either side. Actions go alot farther than words.
> 
> ...


I think one of those misconceptions is that this is a rmef vs sfw issue it's not. It's the average hunter standing up for what's right it's the common outdoorsman who looks at utahs wildlife as a privilege and has a genuine concern about where it's headed.

Not a group like sfw who sees our wildlife as a dollar sign and sees their personal profit through public assets.

As far as walking the walk Hawkeye listed some really good contacts in another thread. All it takes is a simple email voicing your brief concerns forward it to all of them it literally took me 5 minutes to send that to everyone on that list.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

I'm not even a member of rmef... I just think it's important for the public to be involved in a process that does impact us all, whether we like it or not.

Privately, we have a choice of who to support with our dollar. Publicly we should also have input on what happens with OUR public resource.

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk


----------



## king eider (Aug 20, 2009)

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....


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

I hope this opens the can of worms. And I will not be surprised if someone if not many are brought up on charges. 
I believe somewhere in this is a unlawful transaction that has some kind of paper trail
I just hope it is uncovered.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

dkhntrdstn said:


> why cant you Lee ? Is this how you show your group how you are running it now? This is one reason why I have lost faith in you guys.


 It has nothing to do with how I or anyone else is running the group! I can't disclose details because I and other UWC members are simply being contacted by others who are asking for input in order to determine what they are going to do and we don't know many details 'cause they aren't ours. Basically, we've just been a source of information because some of our members have been involved in some form or another since the inception of the Expo program and we're happy to provide whatever information we can. In any case, this issue has been around for quite a while and who is doing what about it I couldn't say because I don't really know.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> So because some of you are already pushing this the thread gets moved by a Mod to the fishing section? That doesn't make sense.
> 
> And sorry Lee, doing things in the back door rooms and not getting people involved with information hasn't worked, and it won't work. I've been saying this for months to you guys. Time to step up and lead, not just work. This cause needs a leader to inspire and unite. Saying you can't give details but are working on it is neither.


 I have absolutely no idea why your thread was moved. It doesn't make sense to me either.

As for back door rooms, nearly every idea, organization, movement, plan or business has to start with a few people in some kind of private setting working out details to present to the public. Our state legislators are making proposals to the committees and bodies that have taken months if not years to develop in some back door rooms. When UWC first begin to publically fight Option #2 it was only after some late night back door room sessions. And so was this issue when we first presented our proposal in 2014.

Also, my reference to work going on wasn't intended to just include UWC. There are other things happening with other individuals and/or groups as evidenced by some of these posts. In fact, I was contacted by Eastmans Publishing several months ago on this and other issues for information on an article they planned on publishing in their magazine, so word had already gotten out. I gave them the info they wanted and what they will do (or have done) with it, I couldn't say, but I know they're not the only ones interested.

This is bigger than most of us think it is and it's not going away without a fight. People in other places besides Utah are also taking action.


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

This seams like the perfect scenerio for uwc to step up to the plate and give utah sportsman what they want for utahs future.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Lee, you've already provided more information. Instead of saying, "I can't talk about it" just write this the first time.

One of the themes in your posts is the lack of peoples' willingness to get involved and help. You won't inspire people to get involved if you don't educate them on what they are involved with and what is happening. 

As I stated in other threads, don't underestimate what power can come from these forums and getting people involved. But they have to know.


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

stick&string89 said:


> I do not know who Wes Bennet is that was interviewed. I did like how he put his name with his face and did not hide it on tv. He stood behind his opinion well. Correct me if im wrong the younger gentleman that was interviewed never allowed his name to be shown. That does not sit well with me.


Ok, I will correct you :mrgreen: I am the "younger gentleman" than was interviewed. My name is Cody Colvin (as stated in the written news article) and I gave Channel 2 my full permission to use that information. I'm not trying to hide anything nor am I ashamed of any opinions I shared with them. I have no idea why Wes Bennett's name was shown on TV and mine was not.

This really is a huge can of worms. It would have been nice if they'd covered the RFP scam, but I'm very impressed with how the story turned out. There are so many facets and angles to this mess, Chris Miller did a great job putting it into a concise little package that the public could understand. I hope that they continue to cover this story and that more of the conspiracy is made known to the masses. Like Lee said, this process has taken years just to get to this point. It will take many more years if the battle is to be won. For now I'm ecstatic about the progress that's being made and would like to thank UWC, RMEF, and all the individuals out there who have voiced opinions and written letters. Keep it up!!!


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

*Missing the Boat*

I have a problem with this article, not that KUTV investigated and not that the question has been raised on accountability of funds collected. My problem arises out of so called sportsmen and hunters sound bites from people who haven't got a clue as to what they are presenting. The older gentleman, (Wes) was clear that his statement was his opinion and I have no problem with that. However the younger gentleman name not given on the video, but alluded to in the transcript as (Cody) said words to the effect that, these special interest groups are taking hunting rights away from the public and hunters. I do have a big problem with his comments and through his arrogance or ignorance; he is not representing the truth.

Nowhere in the Federal or Utah state constitution do we find a right to hunt established as a right given to the individual. Nowhere in either constitution do we find wildlife given as a right to an individual or to the collective. Yes both the federal and state have established owning a firearm as an individual right. Hence wildlife, under the tenth amendment, is give as property of the state in which it resides to use, preserve, or consume as the state see fit.

Utah has established Administrative rules that outline the protection, management and use of wildlife contained within its borders, but even the rules do not establish a right or individual ownership. Utah wildlife code has outlined a temporary means of allowing and selling SPECIAL USE PERMITS to the public. The special use permits are temporary, have no contractual obligations, have no warranty and can be revoked at anytime with or without cause and without hearings or notification. So what in reality do sportsmen and hunters have in this or any other state of the union?

No what gets me is that for decades, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, National Rifle Association, etc have done little to establish hunting as a right or to preserve such as a heritage, especially on a state level. For well over an hundred years mining, timber and grassing interest took control over wildlife issues in Utah and the sportsmen where left to fight over the scraps. It took several thousand hunters and sportsmen showing up on Capitol Hill some thirty years ago, myself included, to finally get the governor's ear and public sentiment to start real change in wildlife policies. What come out of that was a group of sportsmen with almost every splinter hobby hunting club in Utah coming together to form a united front group called Sportsmen For Fish and Wildlife. What did we learn? Small groups and individuals had NO effective say in wildlife policies of the state of Utah and that only as a conglomerate did we make real meaningful change for the better interest of wildlife and to establish a perpetual spirit of hunting heritage. Sportsmen have seen better opportunities at hunting more and better age diversity in wildlife than at any time in my just short of sixty year life. SFW realized that hunters needed lobbyist on both Capitol Hill locations in order to allow and preserve any chance of wildlife conservation now or into the future.

Is SFW perfect? NO! And I have my annoyances with them also and I am a life member. You show my another sacred cow out there that has done more for sportsmen in Utah over the last thirty year and and I will join! in my opinion it has not been the social drinking club of REMF&#8230;&#8230; Now, before we all kill the goose in the room here; I suggest that we take a moment and ask ourselves this one question? Are my actions helping or hurting the cause and who's interest are you most concerned about? 
Big


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

bigbr said:


> I have a problem with this article, not that KUTV investigated and not that the question has been raised on accountability of funds collected. My problem arises out of so called sportsmen and hunters sound bites from people who haven?t got a clue as to what they are presenting. The older gentleman, (Wes) was clear that his statement was his opinion and I have no problem with that. However the younger gentleman name not given on the video, but alluded to in the transcript as (Cody) said words to the effect that, these special interest groups are taking hunting rights away from the public and hunters. I do have a big problem with his comments and through his arrogance or ignorance; he is not representing the truth.
> 
> Nowhere in the Federal or Utah state constitution do we find a right to hunt established as a right given to the individual. Nowhere in either constitution do we find wildlife given as a right to an individual or to the collective. Yes both the federal and state have established owning a firearm as an individual right. Hence wildlife, under the tenth amendment, is give as property of the state in which it resides to use, preserve, or consume as the state see fit.
> 
> ...


Huh?? Good post. Food for thought. Keeping an open mind here......


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

3arabians said:


> Huh?? Good post. Food for thought. Keeping an open mind here......


Typical for SFW leaders and supporters to change the subject when they're being exposed. Just like Jon Larson declined an interview and said they should focus on the success of the expo. The best defense for SFW so far is to criticize the use of a single word in an off-the-cuff interview? Pretty weak.


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

The problem is sfw is not who they are today as when they first started. They have gotten financially greedy and politically to involved in other states their main focus is not utah or the general public anymore. And the average hunter is a peasant in their eyes

The other thing is sfw is the sole party responsible for creating this mess and pinning sportsman of Utah against them .they could have avoided this year's ago by staying true to their roots and being transparent and responsible on where the money was being spent. Instead they got money and power hungry creating the corrupt organization that they are.


THIS WHOLE MESS FALLS ON SFW'S SHOULDERS they could have avoided it but their screw you we will do whatever we want attitude put us where we are pinning hunters vs hunters


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

*Souds to me like you have a mouth full of sour grapes*



El Matador said:


> Typical for SFW leaders and supporters to change the subject when they're being exposed. Just like Jon Larson declined an interview and said they should focus on the success of the expo. The best defense for SFW so far is to criticize the use of a single word in an off-the-cuff interview? Pretty weak.


 Ok Cody, what is it that you are so concerned about? Are you concerned about the health of Utah's wildlife? Are concerned that you are losing hunting opportunities? Or should we get to the root of all evil? Money! And what story did you and KUTV present? WILDLIFE = MONEY!

I have yet to read one argument on this thread that gives one pinch of snuff about the welfare of wildlife, habituate, hunter distribution or future hunting for posterity. What seems to chap most posters cookies is that they are not in on the money. Maybe you should be posting on the Wallstreet Journal, because you just lost all credibility with me!
Bigbr


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

I think the idea of Utah Sportsmen coming together to have a voice is great. However, I think the 1 group speaking doesn't necessarily represent me and many others as well as they suppose to. In fact, the group, while doing a lot of good through projects, has been on the absolute wrong side of several issues that affect us as sportsmen. 

I think most SFW members and volunteers are pretty good people that really want to get boots on the ground for hunting. I think it's great to have organizations willing to work and benefit the wildlife of Utah. 

I have questions about how much of the money received as part of having the ability to offer expo tags is actually going to benefit wildlife in Utah. I keep hearing lobbying on capitol hill brought up, but that's not conservation in the sense that these dollars are supposed to be used. 

SFW has done some good things with the money received from peddling a public resource. Because of this,are we supposed to just sit back and say "OK they've done some good things, there's no reason to ensure that we are maximizing the benefit to wildlife, and in turn, sportsmen?"

The thing that troubles me the most is how codependent the DWR and SFW have become. If you look at the wildlife board it is hard to believe they aren't one and the same. Due to this relationship, no other organization will be given the opportunity to prove what they can do with the same amount of publicly funded conservation dollars. SFW can keep pointing to how much good they do. It is truly hard to draw any kind of inference about what another organization could do in similar circumstances with the amount of benefit that SFW receives.

I truly believe that the DWR and SFW are so codependent currently that in the short run the DWR doesn't think it can function without SFW. That is troubling to me. Without the expo tags and the expo spectacle itself, I'm not so sure that SFW would be accomplishing all these things they are constantly patting themselves on the back for.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

bigbr- One correction: money is not the root of all evil. It is the LOVE of money that is. Which is where SFW and the DWR has gone wrong over the years.



Kwalk3 said:


> The thing that troubles me the most is how codependent the DWR and SFW have become. If you look at the wildlife board it is hard to believe they aren't one and the same. Due to this relationship, no other organization will be given the opportunity to prove what they can do with the same amount of publicly funded conservation dollars. SFW can keep pointing to how much good they do. It is truly hard to draw any kind of inference about what another organization could do in similar circumstances with the amount of benefit that SFW receives.
> 
> I truly believe that the DWR and SFW are so codependent currently that in the short run the DWR doesn't think it can function without SFW. That is troubling to me. Without the expo tags and the expo spectacle itself, I'm not so sure that SFW would be accomplishing all these things they are constantly patting themselves on the back for.


This quote is a pretty good illustration of the problem. I will unequivocally state that I am not against any of the expos. I'm not even against expos getting tags the way they do.

Here is where my problem lies, and it is much more with the state (DWR and Wildlife Board are included) than SFW in this instance. I've said this over on MM, but the reason SFW doesn't open their books is because the state doesn't make them. If the state made it a requirement to publicly account for 100% of the money, then SFW would do that. But because of the virtually unchecked influence that the state has allowed SFW to wield, the state doesn't make them.

SFW is free to lobby for any policy, change, or program they want...even when it is eliminating stream access to public waters and reducing hunting opportunities for the public hunter with public wildlife on public lands. But they are not free to do anything with public money without being accountable to the public.

I don't blame SFW in all this recent fiasco. They submitted a bid and were awarded the expo contract. Even if it was an inferior bid, it is the awarding entity that is to blame. I view this like a bear that comes into a messy campground where no bear protocol is being followed and tears up the place. It's not the bear's fault that the humans were irresponsible. But as is the case in many incidences, to solve this problem you don't only have to clean up the camp, to prevent further issues, you unfortunately have to shoot the bear.

It is not SFW we have to fix. They are a private company free to do what they please within the bounds set by the law. It is the state we have to fix. If after cleaning up the mess, the bear tries to return, then go kill that bear. But it doesn't do any good to hunt the bear if we aren't going to clean up the campground and then enforce the correct rules.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Bigbr, I'm not a member of any of the organizations involved. I don't want the money for me. If you can't find any posts here that are concerned about the welfare of our wildlife and the traditions we share, you haven't delved very deep into the motivations of many of the posters.

I am concerned about the maximum amount of funds going back to wildlife and true conservation. I'm concerned about public land and access preservation so my 3 year old son and I can do the same things my 56 year old father and I did this last year in hunting and fishing exclusively on public land. SFW doesn't represent me as a hunter well enough with respect to these two issues to just sit back and say "It's all good, no need for improvement."

If you are unwilling to admit that these questions being raised have some validity, there is really no conversation to be had. Doing some good for Utah's wildlife is great. Most here are just trying to ensure that benefit is maximized and realized by the wildlife, and in turn, the sportsmen of Utah.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Vanilla said:


> bigbr- One correction: money is not the root of all evil. It is the LOVE of money that is. Which is where SFW and the DWR has gone wrong over the years.
> 
> This quote is a pretty good illustration of the problem. I will unequivocally state that I am not against any of the expos. I'm not even against expos getting tags the way they do.
> 
> ...


Agree with this 100%.


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

bigbr said:


> Ok Cody, what is it that you are so concerned about? Are you concerned about the health of Utah's wildlife? Are concerned that you are losing hunting opportunities? Or should we get to the root of all evil? Money! And what story did you and KUTV present? WILDLIFE = MONEY!
> 
> I have yet to read one argument on this thread that gives one pinch of snuff about the welfare of wildlife, habituate, hunter distribution or future hunting for posterity. What seems to chap most posters cookies is that they are not in on the money. Maybe you should be posting on the Wallstreet Journal, because you just lost all credibility with me!
> Bigbr


The answers to your questions have been posted numerous times in this very thread. If you didn't catch it the first time I see no point in restating what has been said. SFW is a cancer in it's current form, despite their legitimate conservation activities. The bad simply outweighs the good.

My credibility with a corrupt organization and their supporters is of zero importance to me. I'm an average sportsman with an average income, and I side with all the guys like me out there.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

Kwalk3, why do you think that I even waste the time to post? Why? Because we both have similar interests and concerns about wildlife, hunting and future generations and how can I help. I am about the age of your dad and I too want my 18 year old to have the opportunities I have had. However the past has borrowed against the future and greed seems to be the norm

Do you know that the reason we have bighorns here in Utah today is because Sportsmen paid the bill, lobbied the governments for land and policies to protect those sheep. Do you know the countless hours of red tape that it takes to remove one sheep from say, Alberta Canada? Do you know the amount of permitting, agricultural approvals that has to be done? It takes a letter of agreement from each county commissioner, state and country documentation must be completed in every adjudicating district that the sheep crosses over in order to transport and transplant that sheep in Provo Utah.

Do you not see a need for sportsman’s groups to be more involve in land, water and development policies of not only Utah but perhaps our country? In many of the proceeding examples the Division of Wildlife resource hands are tied and I give sheep as one example, because back in the 1920 the same thing happened with elk.

Do you know that almost every dollar brought in from the Pittman Roberts Act to the State of Utah for wildlife is deducted from DWR’s allotted budget and put back into the state coffers for mainly education? Wildlife is not a PUBLIC RESOUCE! And yes the sportsmen are paying the bill.

Which one of you is willing to pick up the torch and run with it and do you have the resources to cover the costs? Is UWC, RMEF, Grannies for drunk driving? Who…. Just asking because government has a terrible track record using money for the intended benefit.
Bigbr


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

bigbr said:


> Wildlife is not a PUBLIC RESOUCE!


Please explain.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> Please explain.


Short answer: Under the tenth amendment "Wildlife" is a right reserved to the state and this right has not been granted as a collective or individual right or property. And to my knowledge there has not been a legal precedent to establish such. Again I am not an attorney, however you will see even on the DWR publications the words public land and public waterways but I have yet to see wildlife referred to as public.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

I believe there is adequate precedent and legal treatment to define wildlife well within the scope of public trust. I may be wrong though.

I'm glad we value the same pastimes and sharing the wildlife and the land with our families. After that, it appears there is an ideological Grand Canyon between how we see the relationship between the government and the wildlife. I hope for both of us that threats to wildlife, hunting, and fishing are met with fervor from all of us. We are agreed on that matter.

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Kwalk3 said:


> I believe there is adequate precedent and legal treatment to define wildlife well within the scope of public trust. I may be wrong though.


Kwalk3---You are not wrong.

Bigbr, check out this case: Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519 (1896)

This public trust doctrine regarding fish and wildlife has been reaffirmed all over the country for 200+ years. The public trust doctrine is also why the public will win the stream access fight.

This is one of my biggest issues on a personal level with SFW and also some of its past leadership. They don't believe in the public trust doctrine. they believe wildlife should be owned privately and used for private gain. There is zero legal basis for this, quite the contrary, actually. It's one area I will always be at odds with them. There is no bridging that gap if they are willingly to just completely disregard 200+ years of legal precedent and also God-given common sense.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

Kwalk3 said:


> I believe there is adequate precedent and legal treatment to define wildlife well within the scope of public trust. I may be wrong though.
> 
> I'm glad we value the same pastimes and sharing the wildlife and the land with our families. After that, it appears there is an ideological Grand Canyon between how we see the relationship between the government and the wildlife. I hope for both of us that threats to wildlife, hunting, and fishing are met with fervor from all of us. We are agreed on that matter.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk


Kawalk3
We are in agreement that wildlife should be conserved and hunting of common people (not the King) should be used as a continued management tool. In my last post I failed to mention the Indian reservations and Alaska subsistence laws do have legal precedence. Big


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

bigbr said:


> Do you know that almost every dollar brought in from the Pittman Roberts Act to the State of Utah for wildlife is deducted from DWR's allotted budget and put back into the state coffers for mainly education? Wildlife is not a PUBLIC RESOUCE! And yes the sportsmen are paying the bill.
> 
> Bigbr


 Disregarding the other misconceptions in your post, I'd be interested in knowing where this one came from; The Pittman-Robertson Act funds pay for education? How so?


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

elkfromabove said:


> Disregarding the other misconceptions in your post, I'd be interested in knowing where this one came from; The Pittman-Robertson Act funds pay for education? How so?


I think he was implying that the state does an end-around with the amount of funds being deducted from the state funded portion of the dwr budget. They still "technically" get the PR funds, but their state funded budget is adjusted accordingly.

Not sure if that can be substantiated, but I wouldn't be altogether surprised either.

Not trying to put words in his mouth, nor am I saying I believe this to be true. That's just how I read what he was putting out there.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Kwalk3 said:


> I think he was implying that the state does an end-around with the amount of funds being deducted from the state funded portion of the dwr budget. They still "technically" get the PR funds, but their state funded budget is adjusted accordingly.
> 
> Not sure if that can be substantiated, but I wouldn't be altogether surprised either.
> 
> Not trying to put words in his mouth, nor am I saying I believe this to be true. That's just how I read what he was putting out there.


 That's the way I took it too, and that's actually why I asked him to explain where he got the info 'cause I sure can't make the connection nor can I see any way for an end-around to happen. I think I'll wait for his response to see if I missed something.


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

bigbr-

It is clear from your posts that you support SFW and that is okay. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I have several friends who are members. I will freely admit that SFW has done some great conservation projects in Utah that have benefitted sportsmen and wildlife. However, that does not give them a free pass on this particular issue. If a conservation group is going to take public tags and sell them in order to "generate revenues for wildlife conservation activities" (R657-55-1) then they better be willing to account for those monies and show the public that they are being used for actual conservation projects. Vanilla is correct that the DWR also bears substantial blame for its failure require the groups to account for these funds.

This issue has been brewing for several years and frankly I am surprised that SFW and MDF have not voluntarily stepped forward and addressed it on their own terms. I know for a fact that their refusal to do so has impacted their business and reputations. I have met many former members who no longer support the groups because of their lack of transparency and accountability. If they continue down this road, which appears to be driven by pride, ego and a refusal to listen to sportsmen, then it is simply of a matter of time before this issue blows up. And if that happens, there will be consequences for these groups.

Therefore, if you are a supporter and member of SFW, then I would suggest that you work from within to gentle nudge them in the direction of increased accountabilty and transparency. Please do not interpret legitimate concerns on this important issue as an attack on everything these groups do and represent.

Jason


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

Jason,
In no way have I tried to defend or represent SFW in this post I am a member of several conservation groups including FNAWS, NRA, PG Sportsman etc. I have let my RMEF membership laps because I felt they have made some policies that are detrimental to Utah. I am for conservation of wildlife and maintaining and improving hunting as a heritage first. I am not rich by any measure of the word and I go through the same draw process that everyone else does. I will not hire a guide to hunt as I spend the time to do my own scouting and research find this to be very rewarding.

As for SFW are they not a 501-c non profit corporation and are they not required to release a full financial disclosure to maintain their non profit status? Can a GRAMA request get the information that you are looking for?

As I pointed out before, my perspective on this KUTV airing is that the story reported just presented to the public that wildlife is a cash cow waiting to be tapped and that hunters are stealing from state coffers and then we have sportsmen with five second blips on TV supporting the narrative which I feel is misleading. If sportman wish to continue to eat their own and air their dirty laundry in public we will become even more irrelevant than we were thirty years ago. My opinion Big


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

> Can a GRAMA request get the information that you are looking for?


I am pretty sure you can only make GRAMA requests of government agencies/actions. You could GRAMA the records of the decision for the recent contract award based on the DWR oversight/involvement/etc, but I don't think anyone outside of the IRS or a judge could force SFW to disclose their financials.


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

bigbr-


Good comments. The reality is that SFW has pushed for a system where wildlife is a cash cow waiting to be tapped. See 330+ conservation permits, 200 expo permits, etc. The commercialization of hunting is a real problem. It is also unfortunate that as sportsmen we have no choice but to air our dirty laundry in public. I wish that we would have been successful many years ago in resolving this issue directly with the DWR and the groups. However, the DWR, SFW and MDF have all the power right now, and just executed a new 5-year contract with a 5-year extention provision. I personally refuse to wait around for another decade to take raise this issue during the RAC and WB process only to have it fall on deaf ears again. As a result, we as sportsmen have been forced into a position where our only choices are to ignore the problem or try shine a light on it. If there is some collateral damage as a result of shining a light on this mess, so be it.

Thanks for the thoughtful discussion.

Jason


----------



## Charina (Aug 16, 2011)

bigbr said:


> My problem arises out of so called sportsmen and hunters sound bites _*from people who haven't got a clue as to what they are presenting.*_


Big, I bit my tongue earlier, preferring the measured and constructive posts replying to you, hoping that would allow reason to prevail. I see not. I'm sorry you don't see how you're shooting down your own position. Perhaps I can enlighten a bit.

"No clue what they are presenting":
- such as claims wildlife are not a public resource, despite it being one of the oldest case law doctrines in our country. 
- such as claiming fraudulent mis-allocation of governmental funds by the legislature in fulfilling the DWR's budget, all baseless reasoning that doesn't apply to fund accounting.
- such as 501(c)3 status of an organization involved in activities (lobbying) contrary to such status, or that 501(c)3's even are required to publicly disclosed financials
- such as citing the 10th as pertaining to wildlife and state issues? Ever wondered why the Feds regulate waterfowl, or other migratory or endangered species?
- such as stating you have no way tried to defend SWF, when you most certainly have, multiple times, in multiple ways.



bigbr said:


> Jason,
> In no way have I tried to defend or represent SFW in this post . . . my perspective on this KUTV airing is that the story reported just presented to the public that wildlife is a cash cow waiting to be tapped and that hunters are stealing from state coffers and then we have sportsmen with five second blips on TV supporting the narrative which I feel is misleading.


Seriously? You aren't seeing the contradiction in taking offense, but stating you are not trying to defend SFW? Not to even begin to mention the opening post and the history of SFW and how it was what brought all the good.

Time to put down the shovel and quit digging deeper.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

bigbr said:


> What come out of that was a group of sportsmen with almost every splinter hobby hunting club in Utah coming together to form a united front group called Sportsmen For Fish and Wildlife. What did we learn? Small groups and individuals had NO effective say in wildlife policies of the state of Utah and that only as a conglomerate did we make real meaningful change for the better interest of wildlife and to establish a perpetual spirit of hunting heritage.


Hmmm....hunting heritage? I can certainly see how SFW has done a lot of good for sportsmen and for wildlife. I can certainly think of numerous examples of good things that have positively impacted me as a hunter. BUT, no single group has also done more to limit my hunting and fishing opportunities in my lifetime as SFW. And, FWIW, I can certainly see how they are limiting my hunting heritage...!


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Wyo2ut is gracious. As a Utah native who has hunted and fished Utah for a half century, I find it just downright stupid that Sheehan would warn us to be worried about PETA when the fact is that PETA has had no influence whatsoever on my life style. SFW, on the other hand, has had a profound effect and none of it welcome at the asking price.


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

Most of these statements are SFW's attempt to muddy the waters up. And get away from the truth.

The truth being they have filled there personal and connected people's pockets for many years off of our public tags. 

THE DWR Has DONE NOTHING To Make THEM transparent. 

Sfw is trying to turn hunting into a rich man's sport they could care less about preserving anything for the future generations .

THEIR LEADERS HAVE Become USE TO A PAMPERED LAVIGE LIFESTYLE THERE IS No Turning BACK FOR them.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I have to believe that there are a couple of things that SFW could do that would quiet everything that is going on about them. 

One is to open up their books and have a accounting to the penny of where the money is being spent. 

Another one is to actually talk to the media and not blame it on something else or brush them off as they have been doing.


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

Critter said:


> I have to believe that there are a couple of things that SFW could do that would quiet everything that is going on about them.
> 
> One is to open up their books and have a accounting to the penny of where the money is being spent.
> 
> Another one is to actually talk to the media and not blame it on something else or brush them off as they have been doing.


No company in the world let alone a non profit organization would let the general public's perception of them get this far.
Unless they were hiding and protecting some very bad stuff.

The fact that they sit back with their tail between their legs should tell everybody everything they need to know


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Hmmm....hunting heritage? I can certainly see how SFW has done a lot of good for sportsmen and for wildlife. I can certainly think of numerous examples of good things that have positively impacted me as a hunter. BUT, no single group has also done more to limit my hunting and fishing opportunities in my lifetime as SFW. And, FWIW, I can certainly see how they are limiting my hunting heritage...!


VERY well put. My thoughts exactly! Great comments also by Vanilla, Hazmat, Hawkeye, Finnegan, and others.

Money should be able to buy you certain things when it comes to hunting: Access to private land, travel to far away hunting destinations, out-of-state tags, guides, outfitters, the finest equipment, and nice lodging. It should not be able to buy you: Cutting to the front of the line for LE hunting permits, hunting out of season (CWMUs), or the ability to change regulations in your own favor at the expense of others. All 3 of these things are currently happening as a direct result of SFW and their bed-mates.

Another thing I have a major problem with is the "conflict of interest" spoken of in the news article. SFW is getting money from the government in the form of Conservation Permits, Expo Permits, and direct cash grants. How on earth are they allowed to lobby for anything that relates to the value of those permits?!! Or the number of permits issued? It's messed up.

Probably the biggest reason I've been making my voice heard over the expo permits is because of this (a comment on the KUTV article): "I kind of wish I could have seen this article sooner, could have spent my money on something worthwhile." I really believe if people knew where their money was going they would not be reaching nearly as deep into their pockets for these tags.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

*Isn't it Ironic, don't you think?*

Mossback average joe hunters?

I am not sure I was using the correct definition of irony, so I looked it up on the Urban Dictionary

1. A situation where the result is a complete reverse (and practical mockery) of what was expected

2. A word heavy misused and abused in conversation today, mostly by people who think that using the word in any way will automatically make them seem intelligent. The word is usually misused to exactly mean "coincidental" or "tragic", when again it doesn't mean this (see #1)

Yeah, I must have listened to this song. 




Just look at the picture and avoid the text above.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> Mossback average joe hunters?
> 
> I am not sure I was using the correct definition of irony, so I looked it up on the Urban Dictionary
> 
> ...


Glad to hear it's just 12 guys that were upset about this. No biggie. Nothing to see here. Let's just move it along.

Hey did you guys hear that the problem is actually Sage Grouse and PETA? How dare you talk bad about the sacred(cash) cow. Sportsmen have no right to complain about the expo tags, or what's going on with SFW because they raise pheasants for everyone.

Pheasants for everyone. Stream access for no one. Now stop asking questions OK?


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

There was a post on another site that stated rmef used the same company in their bid that the dwr does for the general draw.does anybody know of this is true..


That same post mentioned that sfw uses a guy in bountiful utah. Yes one single person.

Now wouldn't it be easy to rig the draws at the expo if it is one single person doing it.

Also if rmef wanted to use the same company from Nevada that the dwr does for their general draw. How was there concerns of info getting out. 

If all of this and the fact sfw still refuses to show where millions of dollars from a public resource went doesn't open your eyes as to what is going on I feel bad for you.

And I also have some ocean front property in Arizona you can buy


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

hazmat said:


> There was a post on another site that stated rmef used the same company in their bid that the dwr does for the general draw.does anybody know of this is true..
> 
> That same post mentioned that sfw uses a guy in bountiful utah. Yes one single person.
> 
> ...


How much for the property?

But on a serious note.....I would also be interested to see the details on what was alleged regarding the pivotal data security part of the RFP that the DWR has doubled down on.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

SFW's SLOGAN === LETS MAKE UTAH GREAT AGAIN!Come on people.we all need to wise up... to whats UP!


----------



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

I believe we may finally be able to break this down. Social media has been sharing the story left and right. I have seen it on several hunting pages, including many who have booths at the expo with concerns. The pressure needs to continue and be unrelenting. Ask your friends and family who care about the issue to email and make phone calls. Share the stories. It's time to make the expo the success it could be for our state and its wildlife.


----------



## stuckduck (Jan 31, 2008)

Critter said:


> Another one is to actually talk to the media and not blame it on something else or brush them off as they have been doing.


I think that's the worst thing they could and did do with the news crew is not talk with them.. They could have said how they followed the bidding rules and what more they had to offer... Instead it's like piss off. Really makes one think they have ALOT to hide. "Oh look at how successful the expo is" the only reason it has attendance is because of the tags. Not what a great show it is. I lost faith in SFW the day they turned on the fishermen.. You could see there true colors. They are not for sportsmen at all... It's a sad deal when all this comes down under the umbrella of conservation. I feel the expo has jumped the shark. Lots of people don't like SFW but they are the first to stand in line to put in for the tags... I find that crazy.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Has anyone found out if SFW actually submitted a bid under the original scheme, before the RFP?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

johnnycake said:


> Has anyone found out if SFW actually submitted a bid under the original scheme, before the RFP?


 And if they did, what did it look like, 'cause the one we see now was definitely written after?


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I have seen it on several hunting pages, *including many who have booths at the expo with concerns.*


This could be key. Calling upon those in the hunting industry to take a stand and not participate in the expo if changes are not made. These companies will listen if their profitability is at risk due to association with the expo. In addition to sending emails/letters to gov. officials, get a list of companies who participated in the expo and contact them as well.


----------

