# So what have you or your organization done for wildlife?



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

It only takes a day or two to go by on this site and we have a new thread either started or evolving into the evils of SFW and the corruption of Don Peay and how Don and his organization have depleted Utah of wildlife and hunting opportunities. Oh does the finger pointing get the chickens off the roost and pecking for blood like no other subject discussed on this forum. Someone new to the forum would soon develop an opinion of SFW and the depths of deception that are portrayed about such organization here on the Utah wildlife forum. So let me pose this question to all; What have you and or your organization done to improve wildlife and conservation in the State of Utah? What have you done and how has wildlife benefited from your actions?

I seriously would like to know,

Big


----------



## c3hammer (Nov 1, 2009)

I've bought hunting and fishing licences for almost 40 years! I could list all the organizations I'm a member of and the projects and meetings I've been in on, but they are, when all added up, orders of magnitude less effective than our collective tag purchases for even one year.

For all the pomp and circumstance associated with "wildlife" and "sportsmans" organizations, they do very little to nothing relative to our licence and tag purchases.

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

This forum officially hates ( the majority anyway ) top 10 list ..

1) SFW
2) Option 2
3) Conservation permits
4) The Expo
5) The Utah draw system
6) Cutting permits for ANY reason
7) LE turkey hunting
8 The loss of state wide archery deer
9) Mountain lions ,, The few that are left are TOO MANY ..
10) Don Peay !! Did I mention SFW?  :!:


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

FANTASTIC post Big!

This is a very personal topic for me as I have been in charge of service with the UWC for nearly a year now. We have had some great opportunities to serve in various ways. From lop and scatter projects, food source planting, clean-up projects, CWMU sign postings, youth fishing days, fin clipping, and we are now preparing for a disabled elk hunter this fall. Each of these projects have been beneficial in different ways but the main thing that I enjoy is getting out there and _doing _something. There are so many sportsmen with some amazing knowledge and insight that could really make a difference if we could just get more projects off the ground. But one of the biggest problems that we face is lack of bandwidth for our board to organize all of the projects we have in the works. Thankfully there have been some great members from this forum that have stepped forward and asked to organize their own projects.

If you would like to organize a project, please feel free to reach out to me via PM or e-mail me at [email protected]


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

On a serious note .. here's a link.

2001 - 2011 Conservation Permit Revenue and Number of Permits by Organization

http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggam ... ations.pdf


----------



## Bears Butt (Sep 12, 2007)

Just curious about those dollar figures. Are they the 90% given back to the DWR or total take on the number of tags?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

-I have purchased(my own money) and planted(targeted) around 100 pounds of seed on winter ranges since the early 90s. That might not sound like much, but if you do it right, it does not take allot.

-I'm the first with a shovel to defend those ranges in fire season. I have built a rapport with local, state and FS firefighters, and advise on wildfires in several locations where I know the terrain well. 

-I have worked on ATV abuse issues, those places specifically where they are entering areas that are closed and they are damaging habitat, mostly winter Deer range. This includes snow machines on winter range. Please keep them in designated areas, on designated trails.

-I have hauled around 600 pounds of cement by foot, for who knows how many miles to improve water catchments on remote seeps. 

-I survey, moniter, report, and pull/spray invasive weeds(mostly on deer winter range) The last few years have been really bad in some areas, the enchroachment has been miles not acres. 

-I occupied the real minority, the only logical ground, in the early 90s on wolves. I was pro wolf( I am pro all native wildlife), but anti reintroduction. Wolves were never extripated, all we needed was a few policy changes(they were done along with reintro mess) 

-I have raised and released 100s of pheasants, quail, and chukars, though I dont really count this as conservation in many ways.

-I have worked with wildlife officials and biologists in CA, ID, MT, and WY to reduce human-bear conflict. I was hired by YNP to develop specific technology for hazing and deterring bears in campgrounds, which we were very successful at. 

-I personally funded a 4 year bear deterent study in ID and Canada that was conducted by a qualified biologist. Much of that information is being used now for other research, beyond our origonal scope.

-I have traveled to Cody WY to meet with the FS and F&G on Bighorn sheep issues in the Wind River Range. I continue to advise on both sides of the particular issue.

-I have helped lead groups of Sierra club members, to educate them on range, forest, and stream issues. Most of them knew nothing about the subject matter. Many walked away with an education, and a better view on hunting and hunters.

-I have Supported the United Wildlife Cooperative from day one, with time, money, and advisory positions on issues. Go to the website and facebook to see much of what has been done in a very short period of time. Sign up while you are there.

-I have been a long time supporter(monetary, and time, non-member) of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, especially particular members, advisors, and Co-Chairs. I have recently become a member and taken a role with the Utah Chapter. You can take a look at what we have done through out the west on the website. The Utah chapter is relatively new, sign up!

-I am a long time supporter of the North American Wildlife Conservation model, in its entirety, not just the easy bits and pieces. I have based much of my support or opposition to issues on these tenants. In particular the little piece about science based wildlife management. Rather than political based human management. 

-I shoot coyotes. :|


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

c3hammer said:


> I've bought hunting and fishing licences for almost 40 years! I could list all the organizations I'm a member of and the projects and meetings I've been in on, but they are, when all added up, orders of magnitude less effective than our collective tag purchases for even one year.
> 
> For all the pomp and circumstance associated with "wildlife" and "sportsmans" organizations, they do very little to nothing relative to our licence and tag purchases.
> 
> ...


+1 1/8


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

I'll plead the 5th on the grounds that they might still be looking for me. 8) 

Sure, I could rattle off a personal history of accomplishments in conservation dating back to the early 80's. But I don't need to do that. No citizen needs to earn the right to speak out about the management of public lands and the wildlife that lives on those lands. These are matters of the Public Trust. So I not only have the right but an obligation to speak my mind. The right is a matter of law; the obligation is a matter of principle.

Everybody knows that.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

Fin,
Agreed, however i am interested in the positive aspect of this question and the expertise of our members is an added bonus. 
Big


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

"I'll plead the 5th on the grounds that they might still be looking for me."

They are still looking for me, I did not list those accomplishments.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

TEX-O-BOB said:


> c3hammer said:
> 
> 
> > I've bought hunting and fishing licences for almost 40 years! I could list all the organizations I'm a member of and the projects and meetings I've been in on, but they are, when all added up, orders of magnitude less effective than our collective tag purchases for even one year.
> ...


Buying tags is great, we used to buy tags and stamps just to fund wildlife. But, trying to make the purchase of tags into something bigger than it is, is sort of like trying to make selling tags into something bigger than it really is.

While I agree with Finn on the right of everyone to speak out, the perspective and level of involvement on the issue does matter to a degree. Though it is of course not overriding. If I come in here and have something positive or negative to say about an organization for example, my perspective is relavent. It is most relavent in the example the OP made about new people coming in and reading information posted here. Do we need a bibliography for every thread?, no. But I see no problem in asking people to support their arguements. No arguement, no need for supporting information, easy.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Bigbr

You gonna throw down? only seems fair.


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

bigbr said:


> It only takes a day or two to go by on this site and we have a new thread either started or evolving into the evils of SFW and the corruption of Don Peay and how Don and his organization have depleted Utah of wildlife and hunting opportunities. Oh does the finger pointing get the chickens off the roost and pecking for blood like no other subject discussed on this forum. Someone new to the forum would soon develop an opinion of SFW and the depths of deception that are portrayed about such organization here on the Utah wildlife forum. So let me pose this question to all; What have you and or your organization done to improve wildlife and conservation in the State of Utah? What have you done and how has wildlife benefited from your actions?
> 
> I seriously would like to know,
> 
> Big


 this is a redicoulus post. first off I have donated numerous amounts of dollars to wildlife protection.and I have done many hours of field service. and I have made sure to volunteer to help the youth and hunting. as for sfw they painted their own picture to people who first come on here and read up on them. the vast majority of your average hunter is fed up with them. they dont get a bad reputation for nothing. they have stolen lied and cheated. they are stealing animals LOOK AT THE POACHING CASE THEIR HIGH UP BOARD MEMBER IS FACING) they are lying about the money they profit (wont show their books). and they are cheating the draw system out of tags by getting greetier and greetier every year. and the biggest differance between WHAT I HAVE DONE COMPARED TO SFW IS IIIIIII DONT LOOK AT IT ONLY TO MAKE A PROFIT AND TO SNAG PREMIUM TAGS LIKE THEM.


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

bigbr said:


> It only takes a day or two to go by on this site and we have a new thread either started or evolving into the evils of SFW and the corruption of Don Peay and how Don and his organization have depleted Utah of wildlife and hunting opportunities. Oh does the finger pointing get the chickens off the roost and pecking for blood like no other subject discussed on this forum. Someone new to the forum would soon develop an opinion of SFW and the depths of deception that are portrayed about such organization here on the Utah wildlife forum. So let me pose this question to all; What have you and or your organization done to improve wildlife and conservation in the State of Utah? What have you done and how has wildlife benefited from your actions?
> 
> I seriously would like to know,
> 
> Big


also you dont get labeled a drug dealer unless you are selling drugs. and you dont get a crooked reputation like sfw has unless you are crooked. they are the laughing stock of the non profit wildlife protection organization's and they have well deserved it


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> This forum officially hates ( the majority anyway ) top 10 list ..
> 
> 1) SFW
> 2) Option 2
> ...


Dont forget shed hunting, crappy taxidermy, Wheelers, and Mossback. :mrgreen: :O•-:


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I've done plenty myself. Enough to feel good about, with my limited resources.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Thanks for bringing up Rossi. Does any of this sound similar to other things we've seen played out? In many ways.

"---Removing Larsen and replacing him with Rossi is a violation of agency guidelines and "all commonsense ethics," Alaska Backcountry Hunters & Anglers co-chairman Mark Richards wrote in a letter sent to Lloyd on Friday.

Richards said the Palmer-based Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife lobbied for Larsen's removal so they could get someone sympathetic to them into the position. Rossi is listed as a SFW board member on the group's Web site.

Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife said in a statement this week that Rossi's ascent to the leadership position was due in part to the participation of SFW and other user groups over the past year.

"With Director Rossi at the wheel, we at SFW look forward to some real positive changes within the Department that are long overdue!" SFW Alaska executive director Dane Crowley said in the statement.

But Lloyd said Friday that Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife didn't unduly influence Rossi's appointment.---"

Must have been another one of those mis-quotes. 

Looks like the Nuge should have joined SFW: http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/i ... ted-nugent


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

TEX-O-BOB said:


> [quote="goofy elk":2em9nbnp]This forum officially hates ( the majority anyway ) top 10 list ..
> 
> 1) SFW
> 2) Option 2
> ...


Dont forget shed hunting, crappy taxidermy, Wheelers, and Mossback. :mrgreen: :O•-:[/quote:2em9nbnp]

what no love for Wolves?????????? :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:


----------



## c3hammer (Nov 1, 2009)

Mojo1 said:


> what no love for Wolves?????????? :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:


For sure there's no love lost on either side of that money laundering debacle 

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

The intent of this thread was not to try and one up anyone, because the fact that people are reading on this forum indicates that they share a vested interest in the care and management of our natural resources to include wildlife. I applaud the efforts of every individual and organization that is contributing to improve and enhance wildlife and promote ethical consumptive use of said resources. We have some very interesting and diverse characters who contribute to this forum and I respect their views, even though sometimes I may not agree with their hypothesis.

Having grown up in a home with a father who dedicated his scholastic achievements to range science, college basketball and wrote his thesis on the nature and behavior of the Great Basin Rattlesnake, wildlife was at the forefront of my education from an early age. My father was to me the greatest father and hunter of all time; and that is saying something, because i have been exposed to many great hunters and sportsman with my work and part time hobby in developing a line of archery and hunting products. Hunting and conservation was second nature to our family and was held in reverence almost to the point of religion.

What bothers me most about the issues and remarks that I read on this forum about Don Peay and SFW is that I know a man far different than the one being portrayed on this site. Countless hours and miles and dollars have been sacrificed for decades by this man, from his own pocket, to protect, propagate and promote conservation and hunting throughout Utah and now the Nation.

On numerous occasion I have had the chance to load into the car with Don and travel to parts of the west for just a chance to procure a few bighorn sheep to bring back to Utah or to visit a rancher and discuss how his family practices may be impacting wildlife of the region and see how Don can turn a enemy into a friend of wildlife as the benefits are explained to the many stakeholders.

Not everyone agrees with Don on every issue, but I can tell you that no one cares more about our country and our wildlife than Don Peay and the people that surround him in SFW and FNAWS etc. The majority of the SFW board is made up of the heads of many of the other sportsman's organizations throughout our state and now the West. Those who are bemoaning the efforts of Don and SFW are persecuting the very people that have battled for decades in Utah in order for a few to be jealous over what wildlife Utah now has in surplus to be able to offer the sportsman. By 1993 Utah had hit rock bottom and It took an organized united effort to show the Utah State legislature that wildlife was a valuable resource that needed better management and that resources from the sales of permits must be left in the division and not robbed for other state programs. Don Peay and a broad spectrum of sportsmen and agricultural people banded together to form what we now know as Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife (SFW) and I am proud to be apart of that organization and to call Don Peay my friend.

Big


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Well said, Big, and I understand your point. I've talked with Don on several occasions but I really don't know the man. On the other hand, I know SFW all too well.

In defense of what you're saying, I think most people attribute way too much power to Don. Sure, he's a King Fish here in Utah...but Utah's a wee pond. And the simple truth is that most people concede way too much influence to Don by not being actively involved ourselves. Utah government is very accommodating to public citizens, as it should be. That's great for those who step up but not so great for those who don't. You can ask Gayle Ruzicka about that.

I also have to say that I don't have a lot of sympathy for a man who makes his own share of derogatory comments about people who I respect and consider to be my friends. Can't get in a mud fight and expect not to get dirty.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Bigbr

First off, I love rattle snakes, cool stuff.

"What bothers me most about the issues and remarks that I read on this forum about Don Peay and SFW is that I know a man far different than the one being portrayed on this site. Countless hours and miles and dollars have been sacrificed for decades by this man, from his own pocket, to protect, propagate and promote conservation and hunting throughout Utah and now the Nation."

Don and SFW have been more than fairly reimbursed for anything "out of pocket" some of us are not in it for money. Further more Don and SFW continually spit in the face of the conservation model. Specifically when it comes to sound, science based, wildlife management, and the commercialization of wildlife. Hookers say they have good intentions of feeding their children, or putting themselves through school, but they ussualy spend their ill gotten $$$$ on other things. Many of them are really nice people too. Don might be a nice guy, I dont care, this is not about wether he is a nice guy, its about the policies that he and SFW push, and have pushed, that are bad for hunters, and bad wildlife. Have there been some successes, yes, absolutley, but when the negative out weigh the positive, enough is enough!


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

Lonetree said:


> Bigbr
> 
> First off, I love rattle snakes, cool stuff.
> 
> ...


that is about as well said as it gets


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

Big--

Just a thought here, perhaps the reason for the controversy already with this post (which you asked valid question) is your comment made here... "vested interest in the care and management of our natural resources to include wildlife.”

At least in my mind this kind of things conger up such a broad scale of what is important to one may not be to another. I recently attended a conservation dinner for a group I once belonged to because they cared about dicky birds (which I still do). In that meeting they listed those things they (the group) were opposed to with the recent Utah legislative bills etc. One of them was the coyote bill and funding a bounty on coyotes. Now every red blooded Utah guy (including me) who loves mule deer was likely supportive of that bill but those groups that certainly meet the ‘conservation group’ definition see it as a terrible thing to reward someone for killing a coyote.

The truth is, what each of us see as 'vested' differs greatly. I for one have vested my entire life in one form or another to the conservation and management of wildlife. I chose it as a career so to try and list what I have done personally at my age would take up volumes--all you have to do is look at my 40 plus field books from the past 20 years. To try and figure out what and where all the monies I have spent from the Audubon to SFW and every conservation group in between would be extremely difficult if not impossible. 

Further just what constitutes care and management of wildlife is such a broad subject as well that it leads to much of the debate, argument, and discussion on this and other public forms. For example how we (Utah) manages elk for example, while a form of management clearly could be argued from here to china as to whether or not it is the best management practice available and what is best for our natural resources including our range, mule deer etc..

I think everyone on here has some level of commitment and 'care' of our natural resources including wildlife, that’s why we are all so passionate and argue about it. How this is expressed is often misleading. I don’t think for one second when Don had us all meet on the steps of the capital in 1993 he was sitting there thinking, “look at all those suckers out there, I’m going to get rich of them and retire”. Nor did anyone else who started a ‘conservation organization’. I’m pretty sure they all started doing and had and maybe still have a vision/level of care that in their heart of hearts is what they think is best and really care about just what is their particularly piece of natural resource/wildlife. Just what that level is, and what exactly is ‘cared’ for is for us to decide who and what we want to align with. 

Todd


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Todd

I just want to start by saying I appreciate everything you've done with Sage grouse. But I have to differ with you here on several things.

"I think everyone on here has some level of commitment and 'care' of our natural resources including wildlife, that's why we are all so passionate and argue about it. How this is expressed is often misleading. I don't think for one second when Don had us all meet on the steps of the capital in 1993 he was sitting there thinking, "look at all those suckers out there, I'm going to get rich of them and retire". Nor did anyone else who started a 'conservation organization'. *I'm pretty sure they all started doing and had and maybe still have a vision/level of care that in their heart of hearts is what they think is best and really care about just what is their particularly piece of natural resource/wildlife.* Just what that level is, and what exactly is 'cared' for is for us to decide who and what we want to align with."

Don, and every other SFW member, probably does think in his "heart of hearts", that the direction that he has taken SFW is in the best interest of wildlife. If Don likes to choke puppies, or sniff posies, is completly irrelevant to the arguement about SFW, it does not matter what he feels. The fact remains that Don and SFW have steered clearly away from the North Amercan Wildlife Conservation model. Specifically with regard to sound science based wildlife management. They have preffered hunter management(along with other ill concieved demand side policies) from day one, and steered further that way over the years. Also, and every bit as important, is the blatant course towards European style comercialization and privatization of public resourses. This goes directly against the core of the conservation model. The blurring of lines around what constitutes "conservation", and all the political wrangling on wedge issues that Don and SFW engage in, for nothing more than the maintainence of their power, is proof enough of their current intentions, regardless of what they "think", or feel.


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

"So what have you done for wildlife?" 
A typical response by an SFWer backed in a corner. 

Hey Big, instead of coming out with the same old tired response of "What have you done for wildlife" why don't you SFWers just answer the questions everyone wants to know? 
For starters, since you're so buddy buddy with Don ask him why he won't open SFWs books and why he refused to debate the Wolf Delisting?


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Instead of picking on someone or some organization, I would rather take the high road and say that I think that its admirable that people join organizations based on a principle that they believe in and that they are trying to make a difference in their eyes.

Whether you agree or disagree with one organization or another is not important. What is important is that you *DO SOMETHING* instead of lurking on a forum and complaining about how you have been wronged by Expo Tags or whatever. If you are really passionate about the outdoors and hunting, you will work to make things better. Honestly noting makes me more angry than reading on these forums about how mad someone is about this, that, or the other, and yet the complainant doesnt get off his butt to do more than complain. Im not accusing anyone of doing this, but Big's post does call to attention the need of each sportsman to do his or her part.

If you havent taken the opportunity to do something for wildlife, please do so. Not only will it benefit wildlife, but you will also have the opportunity to meet other sportsmen with the same interests at heart. Here are some great opportunities to share your talents: DWR Dedicate Hunter Projects


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Bax* said:


> Instead of picking on someone or some organization, I would rather take the high road and say that I think that its admirable that people join organizations based on a principle that they believe in and that they are trying to make a difference in their eyes.
> 
> Whether you agree or disagree with one organization or another is not important. What is important is that you *DO SOMETHING* instead of lurking on a forum and complaining about how you have been wronged by Expo Tags or whatever. If you are really passionate about the outdoors and hunting, you will work to make things better. Honestly noting makes me more angry than reading on these forums about how mad someone is about this, that, or the other, and yet the complainant doesnt get off his butt to do more than complain. Im not accusing anyone of doing this, but Big's post does call to attention the need of each sportsman to do his or her part.
> 
> If you havent taken the opportunity to do something for wildlife, please do so. Not only will it benefit wildlife, but you will also have the opportunity to meet other sportsmen with the same interests at heart. Here are some great opportunities to share your talents: DWR Dedicate Hunter Projects


And you don't have to be a dedicated hunter to participate!! There are also other projects available. Just call your regional office for info.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

bigbr said:


> What bothers me most about the issues and remarks that I read on this forum about Don Peay and SFW is that I know a man far different than the one being portrayed on this site. Countless hours and miles and dollars have been sacrificed for decades by this man, from his own pocket, to protect, propagate and promote conservation and hunting throughout Utah and now the Nation.
> 
> On numerous occasion I have had the chance to load into the car with Don and travel to parts of the west for just a chance to procure a few bighorn sheep to bring back to Utah or to visit a rancher and discuss how his family practices may be impacting wildlife of the region and see how Don can turn a enemy into a friend of wildlife as the benefits are explained to the many stakeholders.
> 
> ...


Excellent post, thank you for your thoughts.

I don't feel the need to look back throughout the years and list the things I have done in the name of conservation, nor do I feel the need to try to account for every dollar I have donated. I would like to add that I have been impressed with the few people I have met with from the UWC. I have involved myself with a couple of projects they have spearheaded. I don't know the future of this organization but I like the attitudes some of them have towards providing service and giving back to what we take from.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

"And you don't have to be a dedicated hunter to participate!! There are also other projects available. Just call your regional office for info."

Very good point.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

If we could get the average person just to pack out more than they pack in it would be a pretty good start. Garbage, spent shells, fishing line, etc... People should make sure they are covering their own tracks first and then look for a way to give back and contribute. A good long walk with a garbage bag in hand goes a long way.


----------



## Bears Butt (Sep 12, 2007)

I really thought this post was going to head south really quickly and I'm glad it didn't.
From all the points brought up so far I have to say all who have posted have done a pretty good job at self control. I commend each of you.
It was said to join a group and do something. I have to disagree to a point. You don't have to join any group to contribute. Like Muleskinner said, just pick up some trash the next time you go out, it is everywhere!
Send a letter to one of the airsoft manufacturers and ask them to only make biodegradable pellets. Plant a bush in your yard that deer/elk/antelope like to eat. Make sure the ones you camp with know that pallets are not a good thing to burn and that your camp will leave the area better than you found it.
I'm far from perfect but I make sure all those I camp with know my feelings toward pallets and trash and to me that is doing something for the wildlife as well as the environment.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

barsbutt

Pallets: Thats a good one, allot of folks dont know why though..........


----------



## Bears Butt (Sep 12, 2007)

Pallets?
A few years ago the U.S. Forest Service banned the use of pallets or any wood that contained nails/screws etc from being burned at campsites. It's the nails and screws that get scattered all around and folks like us drive through the places and get flat tires. See older posts from WyoGoob about his findings! Nasty, nasty piles of rubble full of nails and screws!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Bear

Thats one reason, and a good one. A more important reason is that hauling pallets into the forest, spreads invasive insects that are detrimental to the forest. Some of these are from foriegn countries. Pallets are one of the ways that pine beetles are spread from forest to forest also. Allot of pallets are cut from "salvaged" wood from pine beetle infested forests. That is one of the reasons you see pine beetle infestations at higher rates around campgrounds. In the PNW you see allot of signs that say "burn it where you cut it" The Intermountain West needs a better education campaign on the issue. Basically you should not haul wood into the forest.


----------



## jasonwayne191 (Jun 11, 2012)

I've done what I can for wildlife given my young age, but will do much more in the future. Packing out more than you pack in is a good start for most people.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

jasonwayne191 said:


> I've done what I can for wildlife given my young age, but will do much more in the _*future*_. Packing out more than you pack in is a good start for most people.


That is what it is all about.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> This forum officially hates ( the majority anyway ) top 10 list ..
> 
> 1) SFW
> 2) Option 2
> ...


Hate is a strong word, but I do strongly dislike what SFW is doing to wildlife and wildlife management. I do indeed dislike "Option 2", as it will do little/nothing to help the deer herd. I do HATE conservation permits, as I see them as welfare for the select few, and a tax on the rest of us. I have no problem with the Expo, but I do oppose the Expo getting corporate bailouts in the form of permits TAKEN from the public. I LOVE the Utah draw system. I am 100% okay with cutting permits when warranted....which is when the welfare of the animals is at stake......NOT the size of antlers being at stake! I do indeed dislike LE turkey hunting, it is like having LE growing of Morning Glory....nonsensical and selfish! I do indeed HATE the loss of statewide archery, as should any true conservationist. There is NO biological purpose to do away with it, it was done away all in the name of 'fairness', which is a BS term through and through!!!!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I could pony up my resume, but I tend to agree Finn on this subject. I once believed one must join a group in order to make a 'real' impact, but I no longer believe such. I have been doing things that help wildlife ever since I was 13 years old, I am now 45.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Pro

Well said, but dont forget the tax payer bailout the expo gets in the form of "advertising grants". Makes that 10% all the sweeter, when it does not have to go to, what it was intended to go to.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

I was thinking about this thread driving to work today and wondered what else could be done for wildlife and I realized that the most important thing that we as sportsmen can do is to teach ethical behaviors to our children and friends. I watched Wild Justice last night on Nat-Geo and saw them use a robo-deer to catch spotlighting poachers and realized that lots of those goons that use that tactic were likely never taught properly. So take the time to share ethical practices with others, that would be a huge benefit in my eyes.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

I got fooled by one of those deer. :evil: I pulled up, hung my piece out the window, shot three times, and the deer never moved. As I was checking my shot, I could here laughter out the other window. looking back into the view finder, it all clicked. I mean they ussualy run after the flash goes off.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

If my child grows up and does absolutly nothing for wildlife he will still deserve the same chance to draw a tag etc... as does anyone else.

What gets me about SFW is that they think they do so much for wildlife that they deserve special consideration.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I'll preface this by saying I have no strong opinion one way or the other about SFW. 

But let me ask this question. If DWR sells 50 limited entry tags for $200 each, they will have $10,000. 

If SFW sells/auctions/draws 50 limited entry big game tags, they raise $2,000,000 dollars. (I know the number is different but just for discussion sake here)

So say that SFW keeps 75% of that money ($1,500,000) for themselves to buy fancy boats, airplanes, cruises, etc...., but invest $500,000 into habitat work, isn't that still $490,000 more than if the state had the tags? 

I'm just thinking out loud here. But it seems to me, even if the scale is tipped that far, half a million spent in habitat is an exceptional investment for the $10,000 the state is giving up. And BTW - the $2,000,000 is given voluntarily by private citizens - so it doesn't tax the general citizenry, or the rest of us buying tags.

Again, thinking out loud here - but if every government agency could turn a $10,000 investment, or even if you want to call it a subsidy, into $500,000 of direct public benefit, even if someone makes $1.5 million in the process, I for one would be very supportive of that endeavor.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Or, triple your money and sell them via other outlets. Just thinking out loud.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Fair enough Tree. Fair enough. So if an organization - non-profit or not - Say we call it Gary & Tree's Hunting Tag Emporium. We get $10,000 worth of tags from the state. And we turn around and sell them for $2,000,000, keep $100,000 each for our efforts and pump the $1.8 million back into habitat - would that be a good thing?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

GaryFish said:


> I'll preface this by saying I have no strong opinion one way or the other about SFW.
> 
> But let me ask this question. If DWR sells 50 limited entry tags for $200 each, they will have $10,000.
> 
> ...


Completely besides the point, and still flies in the face of the conservation model. But then again, that is how the SFW PR game is played, isnt it? We need some good old fashion back to the basics.

How is it any different, if I sell you an apple, verses if someone else sells you an apple?

Oh wait now...... what if we give everyone a dollar, that they did not have before..........


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

BTW, I grow apples, but the guy you buy your apples from, does not grow apples.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

The government auctions off it's stuff all of the time. There is absolutely no reason the same could not be done for the conservation permits and have all of the money go directly to the cause. The people that run the auction and administrate the program would get there same base salary. There is no need to have a middle man skimming from the top down 75%, or whatever it is, with conservation tags.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Very good point Muleskinner. Very good point. 

On the flip side of that, you can bet that if DWR were getting that extra money, the Legislature would find a way to take it for something else other than wildlife. There are so many laws to pass to challenge the Federal Supremacy Clause and they need money to pay for the courtroom losses. ;-)

In all seriousness here - you make a very good point. If DWR were to pull out the conservation tags and sell them directly through drawing or auction (and assuming the money couldn't be stolen by the Legislature), would there be the same opposition because they would be "just for rich folks?"


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

8)...keep going with it...


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

bigbr said:


> What have you done and how has wildlife benefited from your actions?
> 
> I seriously would like to know,
> 
> Big


Only my peers can answer that, I've never been good at looking inward and worse at tooting my own horn.

I think I understand what is underlying this post and I will try to address it.

First I don't know Don P. and I have no idea what kind of person he is. I don't know most of the folks that run SFW so I know nothing about them personally. For all I know they are great fathers, husbands, conservationists and so on. I just don't know. Any beef I have with the above montioned folks is rooted in what I feel is a threat to the SPORT OF HUNTING, not wildlife and it certainly is not personal.

Second I will acknowledge that many of the above mentioned folks have done and continue to do lots of conservation work.

In conclusion please note that these issues are not rooted in conservation but rather in the threat to the sport of hunting, at least how it relates to the average Joe or the people that actually own the wildlife. To portect the sport from becoming the kings sport. That's what I fight for and what I want to protect in a nutshell in addition to conservation. This is where I do not see eye to eye with some of these folks.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Understood, but at least the cash flow would be of public record. I would think then that if the money were redirected to another cause the common taxpayer, hunter, fisherman, camper, hiker, etc..would be able to see where it went and may possibly be able to do something about it. Vote perhaps?????

I have very little doubt that more money would hit the ground and would better benefit wildlife, the environment and those that enjoy the resources. 

It would be real nice to see those that currently control and auction the tags bidding on them like those that are the pawns of the current system.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> The government auctions off it's stuff all of the time. There is absolutely no reason the same could not be done for the conservation permits and have all of the money go directly to the cause. The people that run the auction and administrate the program would get there same base salary. There is no need to have a middle man skimming from the top down 75%, or whatever it is, with conservation tags.


It kind of makes you think doesn't it. The idea that the DWR needs a conservation organization to raise money for them kind of seems silly in today's technologically advanced world.

Hosting a banquet at several locations and drawing in the right audience was a skill that was needed 15 years ago and one the DWR didn't have. The question is does the auction of tags at physical banquets around the state still the right model to maximize return?

Does anybody remember what happened to Blockbuster video when Redbox and Netflix came out?


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Very good point Bullsnot. Very good point. 

Question for someone smarter than me - If I drop $100,000 at a banquet for a tag, is that $100,000 tax deductible since I receive something in return for my "donation?" Or in other terms, is it a donation, or a purchase?

If it were the State that operated tag auctions, would the "donation/purchase" still be considered tax deductible?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

GaryFish said:


> In all seriousness here - you make a very good point. If DWR were to pull out the conservation tags and sell them directly through drawing or auction (and assuming the money couldn't be stolen by the Legislature), would there be the same opposition because they would be "just for rich folks?"


I think the "just for rich folks" angle really isn't what is at the heart of this issue. Some say that but it's not what motivates people to get off their couch and fight for change.

What is important is the fact that much of the money made in the program never makes it to it's intended purpose and the fact that those that directly benefit from those dollars want us to manage our game with the intention of making those tags more valuable. The conservation dollars should be raised for the benefit of wildlife and hunters, not the other way around.

To me is it's kind of like the University of Utah deciding to take seats out of Rice Eccles stadium to make the remaining seats more valuable to go watch the Utes play football. They can take out some cheap seats and mark up the remaining seats by a greater margin than the loss. Their intention may be to ultimately raise more money for the program but the plan will fail as thier fan base shrinks and have general lack of support. It just seems backasswards.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Yes the "donation" is a tax write off. I highly doubt that it would be otherwise which throws a bit of a wrench in the gear. I can honestly say though that when I have seen guys bidding they aren't doing so thinking in terms of tax deductions. They are thinking of horns and antlers and money spent is still money spent. People don't make purchases based solely upon some tax write off. The smart ones don't anyhow.....


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

True, but if you are going to make the purchase anyway...... To a small business, dropping a huge chunk of change to use as an employee performance award can do wonders to the books come tax time.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

If they work that big of wonders on the tax return, chances are you shouldn't be making the purchase to begin with. The write-offs don't have a dollar for dollar effect on the tax liability in the end.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

bullsnot said:


> GaryFish said:
> 
> 
> > In all seriousness here - you make a very good point. If DWR were to pull out the conservation tags and sell them directly through drawing or auction (and assuming the money couldn't be stolen by the Legislature), would there be the same opposition because they would be "just for rich folks?"
> ...


Isn't it called price fixing in the real world and isn't it a federal crime? And isn't it also is a tactic commonly used (sometimes in reverse) by our foreign suppliers to squash the domestic competition? Unfortunately, the governmental agency involved in this scenerio isn't inclined to shut it down because they know they and their partners can keep doing it with no consequences. Where's our State DA? :?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Bullsnot

"In conclusion please note that these issues are not rooted in conservation but rather in the threat to the sport of hunting, at least how it relates to the average Joe or the people that actually own the wildlife. To portect the sport from becoming the kings sport. That's what I fight for and what I want to protect in a nutshell in addition to conservation. This is where I do not see eye to eye with some of these folks."

Trying to seperate "the sport of hunting" from conservation, is like cutting the heart out of something. They are one in the same, and that is why what SFW does is bad for the "sport of hunting", because it goes directly against the conservation model. Conservation is a very big tent, with allot under it, but its mission is almost singular. This is the back to basics I have reffered to.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

As I have been told many times while at a church Young Women's Camp auction, whether I get a cake or a lawn mowed, the "donation" is not legally a tax write off because I paid the going price of the item or service. The tag winner paid for and directly received something of value (The position at the front of the line) for that money and per the IRS 1040 Instructions, page A-8, Contributions You Cannot Deduct, "Value of benefits received in connection with a contribution to a charitable organization. See Pub 526 for exceptions."

You or they might want to argue that the position at the front of the line isn't worth the donation, but that's what was paid for it so that's what it's worth!


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

Is there a loop hole here? Maybe, if I bid a LE Elk tag up to $10k and win, didnt I just donate $10k? Yes, cause I still have to pay the $280 voucher price for the tag I won. I didnt pay $10k for the tag, I paid $280, the $10k was a donation.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

pheaz said:


> Is there a loop hole here? Maybe, if I bid a LE Elk tag up to $10k and win, didnt I just donate $10k? Yes, cause I still have to pay the $280 voucher price for the tag I won. I didnt pay $10k for the tag, I paid $280, the $10k was a donation.


No you didn't pay $10k for the tag but you did pay $10k for the exclusive right to buy the tag. In other words, you bought the one and only voucher that allows you to buy the tag. No one else can now buy that particular tag. The only way that $10k could be a donation is if you in no way directly benefited from it. If you want to make a donation, it must be done with no personal, direct strings attached. The Conservation Tag Program has strings attached and it's in writing.

Of course there can be loopholes to any program if there's the incentive to find them. Lobbyists and lawyers use them all the time. I suppose the company you own could win the bid and then "give" the voucher to it's owner, you, as some kind of reward or incentive. When the money is there and the tag is available, if there's a will, there's a way!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Everyone knows that. You give the money to the guy at the door, or leave it on the night stand, you never give it directly to her. That way its all legit.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

And if your business buys the tag and gifts it to the owner, then the owner doesn't have to pay taxes (income, FICA, Medicare) on the $100,000 he just spent on the tag. Which just saved him $30,000 over what he would have to pay if the company gave him the money, and then he bought the tag.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Lonetree said:


> Bullsnot
> 
> "In conclusion please note that these issues are not rooted in conservation but rather in the threat to the sport of hunting, at least how it relates to the average Joe or the people that actually own the wildlife. To portect the sport from becoming the kings sport. That's what I fight for and what I want to protect in a nutshell in addition to conservation. This is where I do not see eye to eye with some of these folks."
> 
> Trying to seperate "the sport of hunting" from conservation, is like cutting the heart out of something. They are one in the same, and that is why what SFW does is bad for the "sport of hunting", because it goes directly against the conservation model. Conservation is a very big tent, with allot under it, but its mission is almost singular. This is the back to basics I have reffered to.


We may see it that way but I'm not convinced that is true. There are folks that are conservationists that are also anti-hunters. The lines for us blur because we use hunting as a conservation tool. In fact so far it has proven to be an excellent conservation tool but there is IMHO a line between the two. Let me give a few examples.

Decreasing or eliminating cow elk tags on a specific unit is a conservation move intended to stabilize or increase an elk population. Moving the age objective from 5.5 to 7.5 to the average age of harvest on bulls on that unit has nothing to do with conservation and it is purely a hunting issue and provides absolutely no conservation value to wildlife. You could say the same thing about mule deer buck to doe ratio objectives.

It just so happens that in the second scenario the justification for such a move is to create artificial scarcity so that auction tags have more value and therefore "brings more conservation" dollars.

But at some point the dinstinction becomes clear because once the sport of hunting loses too much support it will get removed from conservation models. Yes the models would be less successful but mark my words, if hunting ever becomes a King's sport in this country it will be outlawed altogether. It is already under attack and the only reason we are still allowed to do it is the great amount of support and that support comes from the legions of folks that work hard all week and can go out and hunt on the weekend. The North American Wildlife Conservation Model will be changed to omit hunting and preserving our hunting and fishing heritage.

The vision on the model was to use perserving hunting and fishing traditions for all as the ultimate motivator for us to take care of the resource.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I would put forth however, that big game hunting in Utah has nothing to do with conservation and everything to do with recreation. There is no biological reason to hunt bighorn sheep, pronghorn, mountain goats, moose, or even deer and elk for that matter in this state. It is ALL about the hunter's recreation at this point. And for that, it is ONLY about recreation - not as a means of gathering food. Costs of hunting are so high that it is not a cost-effective way of getting food stuffs. (don't get me wrong - I love eating wild game for what it is but it is not cost effective compared to the costs to raise your own or purchase from others, domesticated meat sources.)

Hunters back conservation because it is the ONLY way our recreation will continue. If we didn't back conservation efforts, we'd have to find something else to do with our recreation time, and something else to complain about on the interweb.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

GaryFish said:


> I would put forth however, that big game hunting in Utah has nothing to do with conservation and everything to do with recreation. There is no biological reason to hunt bighorn sheep, pronghorn, mountain goats, moose, or even deer and elk for that matter in this state. It is ALL about the hunter's recreation at this point. And for that, it is ONLY about recreation - not as a means of gathering food. Costs of hunting are so high that it is not a cost-effective way of getting food stuffs. (don't get me wrong - I love eating wild game for what it is but it is not cost effective compared to the costs to raise your own or purchase from others, domesticated meat sources.)
> 
> Hunters back conservation because it is the ONLY way our recreation will continue. If we didn't back conservation efforts, we'd have to find something else to do with our recreation time, and something else to complain about on the interweb.


There is certainly a relationship there that benefits both sides. Without recreational hunters nobody cares if there are sheep on the Standbury's or if elk on any given unit thrive. No one would be out trying to address mule deer issues, doing millions of dollars worth of habitat restoration. Maybe from the perspective of the individual the goal is recreation but from the perspective of conservation nothing brings in more dollars or focus to a problem than recreational hunters.

I believe that biologically these species absolutely benefit from recreational hunters because the activity itself requires those species to thrive to maximize the experience.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Fair enough. I think you are correct on that.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

bullsnot said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > Bullsnot
> ...


I seriously disagree, one begets the other. We hunt to conserve, and we conserve to hunt, they are one in the same, they are intrinsic. All of the splitting of hairs, and quasi technical arguements about what constitutes what, carries along SFW and the bad for hunters and wildlife policies they promote in the first place. By all means, cut the heart out of it, just dont wonder why the blood quit moving.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

WE AS HUNTERS devised the model, it is our heritage, it is not something thrust unjustly upon us by a non/anti hunting public.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> We may see it that way but I'm not convinced that is true. There are folks that are conservationists that are also anti-hunters. The lines for us blur because we use hunting as a conservation tool. In fact so far it has proven to be an excellent conservation tool but there is IMHO a line between the two. Let me give a few examples.
> 
> Decreasing or eliminating cow elk tags on a specific unit is a conservation move intended to stabilize or increase an elk population. Moving the age objective from 5.5 to 7.5 to the average age of harvest on bulls on that unit has nothing to do with conservation and it is purely a hunting issue and provides absolutely no conservation value to wildlife. You could say the same thing about mule deer buck to doe ratio objectives.
> 
> It just so happens that in the second scenario the justification for such a move is to create artificial scarcity so that auction tags have more value and therefore "brings more conservation" dollars.


Once upon a time there was a sportsman's group who got to gather and purchased a large chunk of land in Eastern Utah. Along with the purchase of said lands they purchased up a tradable commodities such as grassing and water rights. This property was a Mecca to wildlife and the major reason for this group to purchase the property was to make it a show case of elk habitat and hunting from now and into eternity. The said group established a legally binding code of restrictive covenants to the said property of which was to increase the elk herd and establish age class requirements on the bulls harvested amongst other covenants attached to the deed of the property forever. The property was then covenanted to be held in trust by the Department of natural resources wildlife division.

Should the said group have the right to oversee the covenants established to this property even thought they are restrictive to wildlife?
Just a question&#8230;.Big


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Bigbr, posting information based on facts? I like it!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

bigbr said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> > We may see it that way but I'm not convinced that is true. There are folks that are conservationists that are also anti-hunters. The lines for us blur because we use hunting as a conservation tool. In fact so far it has proven to be an excellent conservation tool but there is IMHO a line between the two. Let me give a few examples.
> ...


 :mrgreen: Thats it? the hat is going to fall off that. Yet another tangent, tell Don to open the books. I believe the requestfor the 9 hour tour was met.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

Lonetree,

I am willing to have constructive blog on the issues about, my limited knowledge and limited involvment with SFW, however, I am not representing SFW or Don Peay in any way nor do I lead onto any implied representation.

SFW is a 501 C corp, hire a lawyer and go the legal means to audit their books if you are so inclined. I personaly feel that the books should be opened, but remember their are more than SFW involved in the tag game and if it is good for one it is good for all.
Use respect...Big


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

:roll: My favorite, the be nice tangent.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

hmmm.......that is the first time I have heard being "nice" or "respectful" referred to as a tangent. Shouldn't it be considered the preferred path or true north so to speak?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> hmmm.......that is the first time I have heard being "nice" or "respectful" referred to as a tangent. Shouldn't it be considered the preferred path or true north so to speak?


Argueing about following golden rules in threads about following golden rules, strikes me as, oh........well, you know.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Lonetree said:


> I seriously disagree, one begets the other. We hunt to conserve, and we conserve to hunt, they are one in the same, they are intrinsic.


I'm not disagreeing that most sportsmen feel this way and I'm not even sure what we are debating anymore. I am only making the argument that one can be a conservationist yet not be a hunter or can be a threat to hunting altogether.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

bullsnot said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > I seriously disagree, one begets the other. We hunt to conserve, and we conserve to hunt, they are one in the same, they are intrinsic.
> ...


Wrong, you cant be an anti hunting conservationist. Even the Sierra club is pro-hunting, because they have to be, to be conservationists. If you are anti-hunting, you are anti-conservationist, and vise versa.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Lonetree said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> > Lonetree said:
> ...


Ok.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Lonetree, would you mind expounding on why it is necessary to be pro hunting to be a conservationist?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Lonetree, would you mind expounding on why it is necessary to be pro hunting to be a conservationist?


Unless we are talking about Antarctica, man is a hunting omnivour, that is a part of the natural history, of the natural world, as a whole, stretching back hundreds of thousands of years. You can look into the natural world from the outside, but there is not many more intimate ways of interacting with that world than through the harvest of what that world can provide. Only in participating in the natural world, on such a level, can you fully bear, and understand, the great responsiblity of taking care of that world and its inhabitants. The consumation of Communion. Its not casual, its not passing or observed, its participated in, in the most serious of manners, traditions, and practices. The yang to Yin's procreation. This is the understanding that hunters brought with them in the creation of the modern conservation movement. It is this weight that requires ALL "conservation" groups, wether they have a primary focus on hunting or not, to bare minimum, even if only begrudingly, embrace a pro-hunting stance. The Sierra club is pro-hunting, the nature conservancy is pro-hunting, save our canyons is pro-hunting, the wilderness scociety is pro-hunting, Why? Because they have to be, both by natural law, and the fact that the realm, domain, and responsibilty of conservation is that of the hunters. Only hunters can give up that responsibilty, it can not be taken away, or used against him, unless he gives the right to do so away. I dont think that many understand, how that responsibility is, and has been given away though. Its not like some would like to believe. Wicayala hwo?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I understand your perspective but I know conservationists that not only choose not to hunt but also don't eat meat. I don't think that they are any less of a conservationists than myself. They just have a different perspective than I do about it. 

Both forms exist in today's world and need to coexist in today's world.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> I understand your perspective but I know conservationists that not only choose not to hunt but also don't eat meat. I don't think that they are any less of a conservationists than myself. They just have a different perspective than I do about it.
> 
> Both forms exist in today's world and need to coexist in today's world.


I know some too, the key being that they are not anti-hunting. A good friend of mine is a strict vegan, and holds hunting and killing ones own food as sacred, even though he no longer participates.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

ok Lonetree.......let me rephrase.......I know people that are against hunting that are full blown, legitimate, and real conservationists. You may think they are not but I know better. 

You will find many, many people that adamantly disagree with you on this one whether they speak up or not. Hunters (me being one of them) like to think that they are higher up on the totem pole when it comes to conservation. Personally I don't think that most hunters truly respect the life of the animal that they took. I also believe that for many it is far more about self preservation of rights that were grown up with than it is about preserving Mother Earth. Hunters would all like to believe that they are a big part of the reason that the critters even exist. Fact is Mother Earth will be spinning and nature will be doing it's thing long after mankind is gone just like it did before man threw his first spear, drew his fist bow string or shot his first bullet. 

I don't think that one must be pro-whale hunting to appreciate their existence and fight for their preservation. I don't think that a person must be pro-war to fully understand and appreciate peace on earth. I **** sure don't think that somebody needs to hunt or be pro-hunting to be a conservationists. I would bet there are thousands of biologists that would agree.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> ok Lonetree.......let me rephrase.......I know people that are against hunting that are full blown, legitimate, and real conservationists. You may think they are not but I know better.
> 
> You will find many, many people that adamantly disagree with you on this one whether they speak up or not. Hunters (me being one of them) like to think that they are higher up on the totem pole when it comes to conservation. Personally I don't think that most hunters truly respect the life of the animal that they took. I also believe that for many it is far more about self preservation of rights that were grown up with than it is about preserving Mother Earth. Hunters would all like to believe that they are a big part of the reason that the critters even exist. Fact is Mother Earth will be spinning and nature will be doing it's thing long after mankind is gone just like it did before man threw his first spear, drew his fist bow string or shot his first bullet.
> 
> I don't think that one must be pro-whale hunting to appreciate their existence and fight for their preservation. I don't think that a person must be pro-war to fully understand and appreciate peace on earth. I **** sure don't think that somebody needs to hunt or be pro-hunting to be a conservationists. I would bet there are thousands of biologists that would agree.


Muleskinner do you think hunting is part of conservation? I personaly think hunters respect the animals they are killing more then most of the anti-hunting conservationists do.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Does anyone have any smaller paintbrushes in their arsenal?

I think it's high time we define the term conservationist, in depth.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Does anyone have any smaller paintbrushes in their arsenal?
> 
> I think it's high time we define the term conservationist, in depth.


How bout a new thread because this thread has changed directions completely. Good insight from both sides of the spectrum, but not necessarily about what an org has done for wildlife.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I've seen many over the years who consider themselves to be "wildlife conservationists", but who only concern themselves with huntable species. Would this be considered a true conservationist?

Along similar lines, if one is pro-wolf does that make them anti-hunter? How many pro hunting people do you think are out there that are also pro Wolf? And, are these people simply uneducated and ignorant?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Bax* said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone have any smaller paintbrushes in their arsenal?
> ...


I disagree. I think defining conservation and the perspectives that are included with "doing things for wildlife", is completely relative to figuring out what exactly one has done and what others have done for wildlife.

If my wife came home after asking me to tend to our garden and asked what I had done and I answered that I had sat and drink beer and peed on all the plants for the last three hours and that I considered that tending to the garden, it is very likely that she would disagree and so would others. Does peeing on the garden make me a botanist? I guess we'd better ask the judges.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> I've seen many over the years who consider themselves to be "wildlife conservationists", but who only concern themselves with huntable species. Would this be considered a true conservationist?
> 
> Along similar lines, if one is pro-wolf does that make them anti-hunter? How many pro hunting people do you think are out there that are also pro Wolf? And, are these people simply uneducated and ignorant?


According to several on the UWN...if you share a different perspective then yes you are "uneducated and ignorant". I guess this is why so many discussions on here are so productive. :roll:


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Bax* said:
> 
> 
> > Treehugnhuntr said:
> ...


it wouldn't make you a botanist but it doesn't take away your right to participate in the garden.

So many of the SFW crowd think they should get to dictate the rules of the garden simply because they are in the garden.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Longfeather said:


> So many of the SFW crowd think they should get to dictate the rules of the garden simply because they are in the garden.


I believe in a system of checks and balance. I would like to see a WB that listened to hunters, SFW, UWC, RMEF, MDF, UDWR, Biologists, etc, etc...Take in ALL the information and make an educated decision. I am a member of SFW, however I don't believe they should have the only say in the WB decisions.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

What would you propose that would curb their influence to create greater balance?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

> Muleskinner do you think hunting is part of conservation?


Let me say this............I think it can be. I don't necessarily think it is by default. I have no problem at all with harvesting any animal in any legal manner. I spend most of my year planning around the hunting season and put in for tags in several different states.

The issues that I have is when the footprint left by the hunter or his party of hunters and/or family that has joined him leaves the area in a condition worse than it was prior to the hunt. Leaving trash, countless fire pit rings, developed ATV trails, undeveloped ATV trails, trucks that leak oil in the campground areas, airsoft guns, pallet burning, man-made treestands and blinds and that don't get removed......I can go on and on. The wasting of game meat is one that gets to me pretty quick.

Conservation and the balance of nature is a complex book that I am not certain mankind will ever fully understand. I am certain that I never will.

I also have issues with the way in which many hunters and the industry of hunting portrays itself to those that do not partake. That is thread in of itself.



> I personaly think hunters respect the animals they are killing more then most of the anti-hunting conservationists do.


That is a blanket statement that I used to think that as well. I really don't keep score on it anymore though. The problem becomes the generalization and having to classify a group of people. I have seen more hunters cross the line of ethics than I care to admit in the name of a kill and it is a kill to many, not a harvest. To me there is a big difference. Not all hunters are conservationists. Many of them are not. I know a man for example that has been hunting his entire life. He considers himself to be a great sportsman. I will be the first to say he real good at killing things but to call him a sportsman is a slap in the face of those that are. He has been doing it his way for years and doesn't much care for changes and does not fully appreciate the impact that a single person can have on the environment. Physically and socially. He is a great guy. I just don't agree with his means and methods.

"Anti-hunting conservationists" can often get misinterpreted or lumped in with the same idiots that run around freeing mink from mink farms or cutting fence for a domesticated elk herd. It can also include a wildlife photographer that is against hunting in every way shape and form. I know one of those as well, she spends ALL of her free time hiking and shooting nature and wildlife. I would put her up against anybody when it comes to respecting the life of an animal and appreciating nature and wildlife. There are MANY people like her. Putting her in the same group as the radicals is no different than lumping the poachers in with sportsman.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> What would you propose that would curb their influence to create greater balance?


Hmmm...good question. The problem with it now is if anything is recommended from the SFW then the WB automatically gets thrown under the bus that they are sellouts. As you know I believe the SFW has LOTS of great ideas and has done unmeasurable amounts of good for Utah wildlife. Perception is not always fact.

I have liked the idea of the WB (representing sportsman, RACs, organizations) having a third vote, UDWR having a third vote, and a biologists "group" having a third vote.

BTW, Are you not going to answer my CWMU question?


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> Longfeather said:
> 
> 
> > So many of the SFW crowd think they should get to dictate the rules of the garden simply because they are in the garden.
> ...


Sounds reasonable to me.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

"Conservation" and "'Conservationist" have been defined for ~100 years. They were defined by hunters. Redefinition is the problem, some hunters, and non-hunters, want to redefine them. They do not need to be redefined, or told what to be, they simple need to be listened to, as they are older and wiser than us, they are our heritage as hunters. There is not a summary definition, but rather lifetimes, and volumes of work that define conservation, and conservatioonists. It is fine to operate outside of the model, that is OK, just dont falsley claim to be operating within, or under the principles of the model. 

Tree, I can put it on the side of a building in Krylon, engrave it in platinum, or put it in another language if that helps. Ultimatly bringing the tangible and the abstract of this together, is impossible, that is what makes it powerful, exceptional, and true.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Interesting thing to consider:



Dictionary.com said:


> *con·ser·va·tion*? ?/?k?ns?r?ve???n/ Show Spelled[kon-ser-vey-shuhn]
> noun
> 1. the act of conserving; prevention of injury, decay, waste, or loss; preservation: conservation of wildlife; conservation of human rights.
> 2. official supervision of rivers, forests, and other natural resources in order to preserve and protect them through prudent management.
> ...


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conservation?s=t


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Longfeather said:


> Muleskinner do you think hunting is part of conservation? I personaly think hunters respect the animals they are killing more then most of the anti-hunting conservationists do.


I would like to weigh in on this one.

I absolutely think hunting is a part of conservation and I'll tell you why. When we think of hunting we think of hunters in the field shooting animals. Now sometimes that has a short term positive or negative effect. But if we look at the bigger long term picture the BIGGEST effect hunting has is the awareness that it brings to a species, the huge dollars that it raises, the management plans that get created, the habitat projects that spawn from it, the population counts, the focus to understand trends, the focus it puts on declining populations, offspring recruitment, fencing, winter feeding, disease research and the list goes on.

In short the hunting is best when a species thrives and so there is a strong motivation from people to help a species thrive and IMHO hunting has the single biggest positive impact on conservation, bar none. Sometimes management plans are flawed and don't work as intended but the pressure from hunters to increase population numbers usually results in long term positive results for a species. There are exceptions to this rule however since hunters typically prefer prey species over predators but that's a different topic.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Wrong, you cant be an anti hunting conservationist. Even the Sierra club is pro-hunting, because they have to be, to be conservationists. If you are anti-hunting, you are anti-conservationist, and vise versa.


You obviously have never sat through a meeting with Dick Carter (Sierra Club) or Ken Raitt (SUWA) to make such broad declarations....
Big


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

bigbr

You should see me rag on the left, been hammering them for 3 days now, all the way to DC. Like I said, even if begrudgingly, they(SC, SUWA, etc.) have to uphold hunting. Their leadership might not personally agree, but as "conservationists" they have to. Hunters hold that ground, unless we choose to deed it over. And in the interest of power and short sighted poltics, some of us have deeded some of it over, all under the guise of "its good for conservation". Even though it does not fit the model, even if the means truly dont justify the ends, and the long term consequences are bad for hunters and wildlife. The debate is not about what conservation is, we should already know that. The debate is about adhearing to it, upholding it, and perpetuating it.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I agree with your points Bullsnot. I just don't think that being a hunter or being pro-hunting is prerequisite to be a conservationist of nature and wildlife as Lonetree claims.

If conserving means to protect, it is done in many forms without hunting. Do I feel that hunting is necessary? Absolutely, but only because man has screwed up the balance to begin with and will screw it up more if gone unchecked. I believe that nature is better suited to take care of itself if left undisturbed and allowed to run it's course in it's purest form. Nature took care of transplanting, protecting and weeding the weak links for many years before man could even spell.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

You dont have to hunt, you dont have to rally around hunters or hunting, but you do have acknowledge its rightful place and role, in the creation of the conservation model and what it has done. The biggest problem with conservation today, the elephant in the room, is the gap and debate between land and animals. There should be no gap, and no debate, they should be one goal, that is the intent of conservation.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> You dont have to hunt, you dont have to rally around hunters or hunting, but you do have acknowledge its rightful place and role, in the creation of the conservation model and what it has done. The biggest problem with conservation today, the elephant in the room, is the gap and debate between land and animals. There should be no gap, and no debate, they should be one goal, that is the intent of conservation.


My view is this is where people are getting hung up.

Acknowledging huntings place in the role of conservation is the key.

Being "pro hunting" or a "hunter" is not what defines a conservationist. BUT, in order to be a _conservationist_ you must honestly acknowledge the role of hunting and necessity and the ultimate good it creates not only in the form of management, but in the form of human beings paying attention to what is important to themselves and the wildlife and land they enjoy and conserving it for their future and for future generations. There is a big responsibility associated with it and as someone mentioned, the cycle of life that we as humans are a part of includes the harvesting and ultimate stewardship of wildlife and lands the ensue.

Now, human nature and cognitive dissonance often get in the way a skew and distort the purity of it all, but being conscious of when this is happening on a personal level is what makes one a better conservationist and stands to bring one closer to the ultimate definition of what a conservationist is.

Does human ego interfere with this at any point? |-O-|


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

If hunting/fishing was suddenly stopped today, what would really change? Would all the ducks fall out of the sky? Would Morning Doves stop reproducing? Forest grouse freeze to branches? Antelope wither and die on the Plateau or cutthroats stop spawning? Would the elk become extinct and coyotes fall over dead? Nope. Sure there would be higher peaks and lower troughs for some species. We hunters maximize the number of game animals by management practices. That may or may not be conservation to one or another. Hunters may have saved species from themselves (other hunters over-hunting), but that has changed somewhat with a change in mindset and need over the past century. So I see it that an anti-hunter and a pro-hunter can both be conservationists, in their own way, for their own end.

Bull- I liked your posts.

And Tree's last post was pretty much right on.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> I agree with your points Bullsnot. I just don't think that being a hunter or being pro-hunting is prerequisite to be a conservationist of nature and wildlife as Lonetree claims.
> 
> If conserving means to protect, it is done in many forms without hunting. Do I feel that hunting is necessary? Absolutely, but only because man has screwed up the balance to begin with and will screw it up more if gone unchecked. I believe that nature is better suited to take care of itself if left undisturbed and allowed to run it's course in it's purest form. Nature took care of transplanting, protecting and weeding the weak links for many years before man could even spell.


I get where you are coming from, I really do, but even Audubon hunted. So many a bird watcher today that chooses not to harvest birds, but rather only to watch and protect them, owes much to a hunter. Some of this can not be detangled, and should not be.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> bigbr
> 
> You should see me rag on the left, been hammering them for 3 days now, all the way to DC. Like I said, even if begrudgingly, they(SC, SUWA, etc.) have to uphold hunting. Their leadership might not personally agree, but as "conservationists" they have to. Hunters hold that ground, unless we choose to deed it over. And in the interest of power and short sighted poltics, some of us have deeded some of it over, all under the guise of "its good for conservation". Even though it does not fit the model, even if the means truly dont justify the ends, and the long term consequences are bad for hunters and wildlife. The debate is not about what conservation is, we should already know that. The debate is about adhearing to it, upholding it, and perpetuating it.


Lonetree,

How can a director who does not support hunting and is assigned the regional director for (SC) be considered as a conservationist or the group in which he directs, be acting as hunter friendly? You are asserting the same bias with Don Peay and SFW on many of the same type of arguments.

Dick Carter and Ken Raitt have for years opposed almost every habitat improvement project that the sportsman's groups and the DWR have tried to implement on and in behalf of wildlife and if big game was the state goal it was fought all that much harder. Installation of guzzlers have been held back several years as a result of objection of these two men and their groups and that is just scratching the surface.

Big


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

The key word here is begrudgingly. Both SFW and the SC are everybit as bad as the other. They both claim to be "conservationist" and only begrudgingly, sort of, stick to the model. I have an ongoing battle with the SC, I know all about it. That is the gap I reffered to else where.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> The key word here is begrudgingly. Both SFW and the SC are everybit as bad as the other. They both claim to be "conservationist" and only begrudgingly, sort of, stick to the model. I have an ongoing battle with the SC, I know all about it. That is the gap I reffered to else where.


That analogy is like grouping Dr. Jack Kevorkian and Charles Manson into a category and calling them pro life.

What part of life defines them? Life in prison or life after death?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Like I said, some only begrudgingly, attampt, to some what, sort of, hold it up.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Like I said, some only begrudgingly, attampt, to some what, sort of, hold it up.





Lonetree said:


> The recent past, or are you making another convoluted arguement for SFW?


No just trying to throw some love out to your two favorite charities; sierra club and southern utah wilderness aliance, best **** hunting orgs a person can belong too... Saving Utah wildlife one lawsuit at a time.


----------

