Big Game Forever & Sportsman For Wildlife

[dotman]

Also lets clear up the differwnt state SFW's, it is all the same org but for operational reasons a sepreate legal entity is created in each state. This is very commonthe business world but in the end the org is ran by a few key members. There are probably regional directors that then have state chairs. In the end SFW in all states flows back up to the top, Don Peay who I'm sure has a rather large consulting fee.

There is no way you can believe that the creation of SFW wasn't to make money, just it is paid out in consulting fees. The few auction tags prior to SFW was just the op someone saw to get the rich behind easier tags and money for their pocket. The brilliant part was selling it to the general public that didn't fully understand what was going on but hey why would a sportsmans group mot have their interets so many supported it. I'm sure you have many members that goto the expos cheering on the bidders knowing they could never afford to join in. when it comes down to the core of the group it is a rich mans country club that plays the avg hunter like a fiddle.


Really it was brilliant but I don't support this avenue to wildlife conservation. If you truly are worried about wolves in WY why don't you lobby to remove the nonresident clause for big game hunting in the wilderness areas of WY? That would open it up to more people that could then afford to play the game.

 

[dotman]

I wish my perception was wrong but actions speak more then words and I see more negative then I do positive in the lobbying done and how the org has supported issues. It is easy to say one thing but another to follow through, just look at our politicians. Why do you think most Americans are disgusted with all politicans? So yes you have done everything in a legal manner but just because you can do it doesn't mean you should.

Also you never did answer why SFW will not give back more then the minimum, why can't you match the RMEF and give back 90% or more of auction proceeds even if you are not required to. I'm thinking because member dueswould not cover Peays consulting fees.

SFW will continue to receive bad press as long as Peay is part of it and that it doesn't give more back then required to conservation for auction tag proceeds. Yes you have done some but you could have done more if your expenses were lower. So again why can RMEF give back more then the minimum but SFW cannot?

 

[dotman]

So yes you are correct auction tags really are something I'm not fond of and all I keep seeing is how SFW is push for more states to follow the UT model. It also sounds like you might be in a position to prove me wrong, maybe you can get the org to use member donations for lobbying and give back the proceeds from the tags you receive. On the wolf topic my few extra bucks that I can afford went to RMEF which from the start supported the tester-simpson rider, wish I could afford to give more.

In the end your friends probably get to hunt all kinds of great animals that the rest of us have to hope to draw before we are to old to go after them.

 

[HvyBeams]

I will say SFW has a huge problem with public relations. The recent AZ tag grab didn't help, but I keep reading AZ is not associated with SFW. I don't know one way or the other if they are or aren't. It appears they did try to model the tag grab after Utah's Expo, which MDF is also part of. However, I think a huge perception problem is caused by the same 20-30 guys repeatedly bashing SFW on internet forums. I don't frequent another hunting forum as often because of the SFW posts on every other subject.

I think the Utah Expo is supported by legislators in the state for many reasons. One would be the huge economic boost in Salt Lake City during the Expo. I am sure it is in the millions for hotels, gas stations, air travel, restaurants, etc. I have personally driven 6 hours to attend from Wyoming, and spent well over $500 during my trip. This economic boost can't be ignored by politicians. I agree Utah SFW should be more transparent regarding their money. If I was in charge, I would have a copy of financials to show people attending banquets and the Expo. This would cause all problems to go away or shut them down. I don't know why they can't grasp this concept. I think all non profit hunting related organizations should do this. If they are doing everything correctly just word of mouth would get new members.

I do have have some concerns with RMEF in my home State of Wyoming. Why doesn't RMEF give 90% of the money raised via banquets and auction tags in Wyoming back to Wyoming? I guess 10% isn't enough to cover their huge buildings in Montana. Over the years, millions and millions of dollars have been raised in Wyoming, but when people in Casper asked for RMEF to assist in buying the Boston Ranch they pledged little, if nothing. The Boston Ranch is in some of the most pristine elk country in Wyoming, and in an area that has little public access. It sold to a wealthy rancher and it will be interesting to see if he allows access. The same rancher owns an adjoining ranch and allows no public hunting, so chances are slim. It would have opened approximately 7500 acres to the public. I will admit the seller was asking a huge sum of money, but the deal could have got done with all organizations and the state getting involved.

RMEF gets large amounts of Commissioner Licenses in Wyoming. RMEF is second to the Wildlife Heritage Foundation of Wyoming (WHFW) in the amount of Commissioner Tags allocated. RMEF are partners with WHFW in the Governor Big Game Coalition, which means they get to sell Governor Tags for 10% of the profit (80% to the WY G&F and 10% to WHFW). Commissioner Tags don't require 90% to go back to state. I believe the selected organization gets to keep 100% of the money. I would venture to say RMEF is not given 90% of Commissioner Tags back to Wyoming. SFW isn't in the top 3 in Commissioner Tags given out, and probably aren't even in the top 5. SFW is not part of the "partners", so they don't get an allotted amount of Governor Tags. I believe they have one this year, as a result of the Moose Foundation giving them one to sale.

I have been a member of RMEF and MDF for 10+ years, and SFW for the last three. However, I have let all three memberships expire, and probably will not be re-joining. The one thing I liked about WYSFW was the money raised in WY stayed in WY, but they can't get off of their wolf agenda. I think WYSFW's biggest problem is three letters, "SFW". They are guilty by association. It appears they are trying to move on to the mule deer problem. The reason I will not rejoin RMEF is because they don't care about Wyoming as illustrated in their non-involvement with the Boston Ranch. They take our money and send it elsewhere.

I will support, somehow, someway, the newly formed "Muley Fanatic" Organization. They aim to keep 100% of money raised in Wyoming in Wyoming for habitat, and I heard they had a great banquet in the Rock Springs/Green River area. I only hope they come to Casper soon!

 

[ScottR_EHJ]

Bob,
Here are some quotes from this thread in regard to using predators from what you said in post 12:

"Name one other group which is pushing back against predators? Some have alleged that these groups are against the North American Model (NAM) of Wildlife Management. This cannot be further from the truth, in fact, WE are fighting to ensure that the NAM is not undermined by those which seek to give increased protections to predators."

"In areas where both wolves & grizzly bears are protected we are seeing dramatic reductions in hunting opportunities. In wildlife management circles, it has long been taught that in order to have a hunt able and sustainable population of ungulates that a minimum of 20 calves/fawns per 100 cows/does is required. Once you start falling below those ratio's one of two things must happen; either you reduce (they want to stop it entirely) hunting or you reduce the overall size of the population. Obviously, that will eventually cause others to question whether the population is being sustained since it is being reduced. Therefore, the non-hunters can rally the anti-hunting community to sweep in and save wildlife from those of us which love to hunt. This WILL cause the collapse of the NAM as it cannot be sustained without hunters nor can wildlife management be entrusted to wild predators. That is their end game so I would urge more caution when groups or individuals claim that Big Game Forever &/OR Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife are out to destroy our hunting heritage as that is simply false!"

Does saying that SFW is the only group taking hardline agenda in regards to predators not count for what I was saying in regards to pushing the predator agenda?

 

[ScottR_EHJ]

Bob,

"As far as what happened with regards to Cory Rossi, I will not try him in public as some have done. I don't know Cory well but I have talked with him about these charges. Once the investigation is complete and the facts are known, you may better understand my comments from my first post on this site."

This from post 17.

So you have talked with Rossi about the incident? You are pretty adamant that nothing is going to come from the incident with Rossi. But you were denying connections to the other organizations, but in earlier posts you are saying you are in communication with him?

 

[wapitibob]

The Don at work:
http://www.goabc.org/pdfs/pres/don-peay-12-08-pres.pdf

starting on page 28 Peayday lays out his vision.
We'll just "tweak" that north American Model a little bit...

 

[Topgun 30-06]

That was from Mr. Peay's presentation in Canada recently where all the top "experts" from around the continent got together. A number of those slides are pure hogwash and it would have been very interesting to hear the spin Don gave them as they were viewed up on the screen. The guy is a chemical engineer by trade, a smooth talker that could sell a popsickle to an Eskimo, and a guy who's an absolute master at deception and the perfect Con man. I'm really suprised none of you have asked WYOBOB who he is and who he works for. The initials are "WYSFW" and he's the one who started the Wyoming Chapter for Don Peay after he moved from Utah to Wyoming. It would seem that just maybe a person who had nothing to hide and who works pretty much full time for WYSFW and is also a lobbyist for the group would have stated that right up front wouldn't it Mr. Bob Wharff? I'm sure he will now come on this thread and tell you how nasty I am with him on the other website he frequents and is also taken to task when he presents the same "merry-go-round" like he's doing here!

 

[T43]

I personally feel these threads and this debate are going to do more harm than good for all hunters. I didn't support the RMEF when they failed to support the effort to control wolves. I do support them now. I do not support SFW and BGF based on the following:
1. The stance they took against the Simpson Tester rider in support of their own ill conceived legislation. Although there has been a lot of information about how these organizations did support Simpson Tester there is too much evidence to the contrary. I read the legislation that has been explained as "These two groups began working on obtaining Congressional action that would remove protection of wolves throughout the entire U.S." The legislation is simple, it would remove wolves from the ESA. The thought of removing wolves from the ESA is crazy to say the least. After the millions spent getting them here why would any logical person think there would be enough support to turn around and get rid of them all. Removing any species from the ESA is a dead end poorly thought out idea.

2. During the 2012 Idaho legislative session a bill, S1282, was introduced that would allow private land owners to sell their Landowner Appreciation (LAP) Tags for personal profit. the bill would have turned sever controlled hunt tags into private party auction tags at the expense of every day sportsmen and would have impacted the current LAP tag funding by allowing people who would normally put in for the super hunt drawing (a major source of LAP funding) to buy a tag from a landowner instead. The bill was supported by many landowner based organizations as well as SFW. Below is a direct cut and paste from the Idaho Senate Resources and Environment Committee minutes from Monday March 5, 2012.

The following people testified in support of S1282: Wyatt Prescott, Idaho
Cattleman's Association; Dar Oberding, Idaho Grain Producers and former Fish
and Game Advisory Committee Chairman; Wally Butler, specialist for the Idaho
Farm Bureau; and Jack Oyler, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife Board of Directors.

I will not say that SFW BGF will never get my support, after RMEF took a stand against wolves I joined the local committee and will be heading out in a few hours to start setting up for the local banquet, organizations just like people can change. I will say that as long as SFW BGF promote the privatization of tags held in the public trust I will not support them and will speak out against them.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

T43---Good post! To the point and right on the button as to the wolf situation and the attempted Idaho tag deal supported by SFW. If people are not aware of it, BGF was also formed by Don Peay along with Ryan Benson as a money raising organization. Guess where the money raised goes!

 

[dotman]

Wyobob, is this true that this is who you are and what position you hold with SFW?

 

[Topgun 30-06]

dotman---I was just in the profile for WYOBOB and it shows he has been on the website in the last 4 hours. I wonder why he hasn't posted back on here after I informed people who he is, LOL! He'll have some real lame excuse for sure and it will be awhile before he responds because "he had to get some work done", but who else would have all the information he's been posting unless he is who I mentioned? Cripes, I just found this thread around lunch time and as soon as I read a few of his posts I knew right away who it was and the more I read until the end of the thread the more I knew for sure. He always gives me this answer when I ask tough questions and get no answers, just like you are finding out on this thread. It's always: "I just work for the WYSFW Board of Directors and do what they want!" I even went so far as to tell him I would join and send him my membership dues if all he would do is come on the site and tell me the WYSFW would never go for a tag grab like we just witnessed in AZ. His answer was he didn't want my money and "I just work for...."

 

[wapitibob]

troublemaker

 

[wapitibob]

http://tinyurl.com/6orpjps

from another "hater":

"Recently there has been an onslaught of misleading information brought forth by the Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife and their sister organization, Big Game Forever. The Montana chapter of this Utah-based organization seems to be taking marching orders from Utah. They are here in Montana, endorsing and supporting legislative candidates to carry their radical positions.

First, a little history. We have a wolf season in Montana due to the Simpson-Tester rider that was approved by Congress last year. Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife tried to kill that legislation in Washington, D.C. It went so far as to issue a news release blatantly misrepresenting that the National Rifle Association, Safari Club International and the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation also opposed the Simpson-Tester rider, when in fact NRA, et al., supported the Simpson-Tester rider. About as low down and underhanded as it gets, but no surprise from the Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife.

Subsequent to the group lying about the NRA position, the NRA issued a news release that gives the best advice you can find related to anything presented by the sportsman group. I quote from that release: “Congressional offices and members of the media should exercise caution in accepting as fact, or repeating, any claims made by Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, Big Game Forever or any person claiming to represent them. Due to the blatant misrepresentation contained in the press release circulated by these two groups, any claims they make in the future should be thoroughly investigated and independently confirmed.“ The complete press release can be viewed at www.montanasportsmenalliance.com. I encourage all voters to follow the advice of the NRA and not accept anything from the Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife as fact.

On the Montana Sportsmen Alliance website listed above is an article from the Anchorage Daily News regarding the founder of the Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife’s Alaska and Alaska Wildlife Division Director Corey Rossi. Rossi got his job via this organization’s political connection, then resigned in haste this January, in the face of 12 illegal hunting and outfitting violations. The article also discusses Rossi’s plan to give “landowners special hunting permits to use or sell, perhaps with special authorizations such as the ability to hunt outside normal hunting seasons on their land.” Further evidence of the damage this group has been inflicting on the western states.

Don Peay, founder, is quoted in that same article saying, “it’s time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource” and further described “that egalitarian doctrine, found in Alaska’s state constitution and laws throughout the West, as ‘socialism’.” Make no mistake how Peay and the Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife feel about public wildlife and public hunting – not the way most in Montana feel about it.

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

Please talk to your candidates and ask about their involvement with the Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife. Ask them if they share the same radical views. If so, take the advice given by the NRA “exercise caution in accepting as fact, or repeating, any claims made by Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife.”

Vito Quatraro of Bozeman is a co-founder of Montana Sportsmen Alliance and current president of Headwaters Sportsmen Association.

Read more: http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/...570-11e1-99d1-0019bb2963f4.html#ixzz1rxdB4uYs


Anybody draw any good tags yet? An internet friend won the super lotto and drew an AZ early archery tag in unit 9 with zero points.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Hey Bob! You know as well as I do that they make their own trouble! Thanks for that last post showing some of the BS that they can come up with.

 

[wapitibob]

For those that took the time to look at the PowerPoint presentation I linked above and noticed Dons mention of 80 MILLION spent in Utah ....

Scoutdog's analysis:

"Getting back to Don's post, these seem to me to be the relevant points that should be discussed.

1. Since 2002, Utah has spent 80 million dollars on habitat improvement projects.

2. Since 2002, Utah has spent 45,000,000 dollars on road improvements designed to reduce deer by mortality by autos.

Those are huge number numbers in todays world. As a comparison, 80,000,000 equals four years funding for Oregon's Wildlife Division, salaries, benefits, exenses, trend counts, research, overhead, management, everything.

So, the only question that really matters, from what I can see as a non-resident who has not yet hunted in Utah, what did you get for the money?

Here are the mule deer population stats since 2002:

2002.........280,350 deer
2003.........267,780 deer
2004.........287,905 deer
2005.........297,425 deer
2006.........318,451 deer
2007.........302,430 deer
2008.........273,700 deer
2009.........301,700 deer
2010.........293,700 deer
2011.........286,100 deer

Utah's management objective used to be 425,000, but I see it has been lowered to 411,000.

So, after 9 years and 125 million dollars, population is about the same as when this all started, and is on a downward trend.

Don also stated that he expected they would spend another 10 million, I assume on habitat improvement projects in 2012. Given the numbers above, WHY? Isn't this a prime example of continuing to do the same thing, and expecting a different result?"

That's what your "money on the ground" has done for you Utah.

http://www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/DCForumID5/19254.html#100

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Her's another good article C/Pd from the Missoulian newspaper in Montana:

Recently there has been an onslaught of misleading information brought forth by the Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife and their sister organization, Big Game Forever. The Montana chapter of this Utah-based organization seems to be taking marching orders from Utah. They are here in Montana, endorsing and supporting legislative candidates to carry their radical positions.

First, a little history. We have a wolf season in Montana due to the Simpson-Tester rider that was approved by Congress last year. Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife tried to kill that legislation in Washington, D.C. It went so far as to issue a news release blatantly misrepresenting that the National Rifle Association, Safari Club International and the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation also opposed the Simpson-Tester rider, when in fact NRA, et al., supported the Simpson-Tester rider. About as low down and underhanded as it gets, but no surprise from the Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife.

Subsequent to the group lying about the NRA position, the NRA issued a news release that gives the best advice you can find related to anything presented by the sportsman group. I quote from that release: “Congressional offices and members of the media should exercise caution in accepting as fact, or repeating, any claims made by Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, Big Game Forever or any person claiming to represent them. Due to the blatant misrepresentation contained in the press release circulated by these two groups, any claims they make in the future should be thoroughly investigated and independently confirmed.“ The complete press release can be viewed at www.montanasportsmenalliance.com. I encourage all voters to follow the advice of the NRA and not accept anything from the Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife as fact.

On the Montana Sportsmen Alliance website listed above is an article from the Anchorage Daily News regarding the founder of the Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife’s Alaska and Alaska Wildlife Division Director Corey Rossi. Rossi got his job via this organization’s political connection, then resigned in haste this January, in the face of 12 illegal hunting and outfitting violations. The article also discusses Rossi’s plan to give “landowners special hunting permits to use or sell, perhaps with special authorizations such as the ability to hunt outside normal hunting seasons on their land.” Further evidence of the damage this group has been inflicting on the western states.

Don Peay, founder, is quoted in that same article saying, “it’s time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource” and further described “that egalitarian doctrine, found in Alaska’s state constitution and laws throughout the West, as ‘socialism’.” Make no mistake how Peay and the Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife feel about public wildlife and public hunting – not the way most in Montana feel about it.

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

Please talk to your candidates and ask about their involvement with the Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife. Ask them if they share the same radical views. If so, take the advice given by the NRA “exercise caution in accepting as fact, or repeating, any claims made by Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife.”

 

[wapitibob]

For those that don't understand why many are so vocal about SFW/BGF, Randy Newberg explains it very well in this response to a post asking why he wants to get rid of SFW.

"No luck:

I will try my best to answer in the short time I have in between tax returns. I think you asked an honest question. Lots more to write than what I have here, but hopefully it clarifies much of what you asked.

First, I have no agenda to abolish SFW. The core of the contention is about how groups should be funded with public resources that are owned by the citizens, how that funding might be used to the detriment of hunters, the level of transparency/accounting, and the amount of self-enrichment that may occur.

I represent a perspective that is different than what is promoted by SFW in many instances. My perspective is that wildlife is held in trust for the citizens of the state. Wildlife is not to be allocated to any specific group for the gain of them or their constituency, to the detriment of the other citizens. That is not only my perspective, but the perspective of the many courts who have ruled on the topic. It is what the courts call the Public Trust Doctrine.

The Public Trust Doctrine is rooted in the 10th Amendment that was part of the Constitution written when we won freedom from England. When the colonists decided they would hold on to the rights of wildlife as collective citizens, that was a conscious decision. They had seen the abuses and exclusion when wildlife was held by the King and the landed nobility. In America, it would be the people’s wildlife.

That set forth a series of court cases, every one of which has sided with the notion that wildlife is held in trust by the states, for the benefit of their citizens. The citizens are the beneficiaries, with the state authorities being the trustees of that wildlife asset. With no benefit to one group of beneficiaries at the detriment of other beneficiaries. With fiduciary duties being placed on the trustees to act in good faith, open and complete actions, with the primary purpose of managing the trust assets (wildlife) for the greatest good of the beneficiaries (citizens).

If SFW is dependent upon, or promotes, the kind of wildlife management that violates the Public Trust Doctrine, then we will obviously have a disagreement. SFW policy will be in disagreement with lots of people who understand and believe this Doctrine to be one of most important principles of wildlife management and allocation.

For those who support the SFW model that allocates trust assets (tags and hunting opportunity) to a specific group of people to the detriment of the other beneficiaries, they will probably see my efforts as an attempt to abolish SFW. It is not. It is an attempt to show how the Public Trust is being violated, and to promote the principles to those who want to change what they don’t like in UT.

I don’t have a problem with conservation tags, themselves. In many instances, when managed properly, they have done much good. The problem most have is how they become abused, with zero accountability or transparency. And, when they are used for a funding source that is then taken to other states to try implement the UT/SFW model there.

We have them in most every state. But, in most every state they are handled way different than in UT. In most states, they are limited in number, usually only a few per species. In most states you get to hunt only the open seasons. In most states, the proceeds go directly to the state agency for habitat work. In most states, they are not used as the primary funding vehicle for conservation groups; rather those groups go out and do their own fundraising from their own sources.

I can look at the sheep tags for my home state of MT. There is ONE auction and ONE raffle tag. Scarcity keeps prices very high, and does not allow a small pool of guys to buy their way to the front of the line for this very scarce resource, thereby retaining public acceptance of how it works. The money goes to an earmarked account within the agency. It is used for some amazing work. Wild Sheep Foundation keeps 10% for selling, and given the increased value they can get at their convention, is probably a good deal for the state of MT. The state holds the raffle, keeping all proceeds from that, using it for access programs.

Point being, conservation tags have their place in the minds of many. In my mind, they have a place, so long as they do not violate the tenets of the North American Model of wildlife conservation. So long as they do not become the primary business model of a non-profit group, especially a group who refuses to provide any accounting of the proceeds and funds operations in many other states that have a different idea of the way wildlife should be allocated.

Under the principle of the Public Trust Doctrine, I have no say in what you guys decide to do in UT, given I am not a citizen of UT. All citizens of UT are the beneficiaries of the public trust that is recognized for purposes of managing your wildlife. As non-residents, any opportunity that you share with us is gravy. You are not required or compelled to share with us, unless you find it a good deal for your citizens to share with non-residents.

What does become my business, and the business of every person outside of UT, is when the UT model is used for funding SFW activities in other states. If you look at the history of this discussion, not too much was spoken by outsiders regarding SFW, until a few years ago. Most disagreement was among UT guys. When SFW showed up in surrounding states using the UT revenue stream, you saw an increase in interest from hunters in other states.

I try to put myself in the shoes of a UT hunter to see the appeal to the SFW model in UT. Though I struggle to understand it, I am sure there are UT perspectives I don’t see, but that does not necessarily make my perspective the only perspective. So long as it stays in UT and that is what the majority of UT hunters want, fine with me.

I would ask you to put yourself in my shoes as someone in MT. We spent 17 years fighting the wolf issue, working toward delisting, implementing our own plan, getting delisted and relisted as the courts used MT/ID as the ping pong ball. We were patient as WY and the USFWS fought their battle. All the while, we are asked to stand on the sidelines while wolves grow like crazy, impacting our wildlife herds.

Finally, in 2011, ID and MT delegations came forward with a solution to get us delisting; that protected all that WY had won in their battles with USFWS; laying the ground work for delisting in other states. It does so in a manner that has a chance of actually passing, rather than the Dead-on-arrival bills SFW was promoting; bills still not head by a committee to this day. Finally some light at the end of tunnel, allowing us to get on with our wolf management plans.

Then, we start getting copies of emails that SFW is trying to kill the deal. A UT group who is a recent arrival to the wolf issue, with very little skin in the game compared to us who have fought for years. We sit in on phone calls with Congressional staff. We visit with lobbyists in DC. We learn what SFW is doing. Almost in disbelief at first we kind of shrug it off as too insane to be true. Eventually, the email piles grow to the point where there is no denial that SFW is using the UT income stream to sink the best chance we have had in years.

It finally comes out that SFW is officially against the bill and is trying to gain favor of other groups to try kill it. None of the other groups join, putting SFW on an island. Seeing the likelihood they will lose, they go on a full court press, hacking on all the other groups, sending out their hatchet squads, etc. making the job of getting this passed much harder than it otherwise would have been. We expected to fight the pro-wolf crowd, but would have never imagined having to fight SFW/BGF.

Fortunately, SFW gets their butts handed to them on this one; MT and ID get delisting; the path is set for the Great Lake States who get delisting in December; WY is protected to continue fighting with the USFWS to the point that it looks like they will get delisting this year.

If left to SFW, none of this would have happened. Because of SFW, it was a lot harder to gain the victory than it could have been. If not for SFW fighting it, resources and political capital could have been combined to gain even more ground on wolves and ESA issues."

 

[wapitibob]

continued...

"Hopefully that gives you perspective of why it is hard for out of state guys to find much appreciation for the efforts of SFW. And, why MT and ID hunters have taken an interest in what SFW is doing in UT, as that is their funding source for work in other states. Why someone like me, who has been involved in wolf politics since 1994, takes serious issue with SFW trying to kill our best delisting option in fifteen years. Why it causes me, and others to spend more time finding out how SFW is funded and how we can communicate with more people as to what went down.

Put yourself in the shoes of an AZ hunter who has spent the last three months fighting the AZSFW proposal that is a copy of the UT model, except it asks for 100+ more raffle tags. AZ hunters have worked tirelessly to create some amazing habitat in marginal country, building an elk herd that is cherished. They wait years for a tag.

Now, along comes the derivative of the UT model, with the same cast of characters advising and starting the group. It is done in backroom deals in the cloak of darkness. Though UT SFW tries to disassociate when it starts going south, their finger prints are on it from the beginning. If you were an AZ hunter, you would suddenly be very interested in what happens in UT

Put yourself in the shoes of the AK hunters who thought things were going pretty well for the most part. Along comes SFW, bragging that they planted one of their own as the Director of AK G&F, causing the existing director to be relegated to some outpost, for nothing more than being outside the political friends of SFW.

The person who is now the AK Director has no qualifications, no experience, and lots of friends in UT. He eventually resigns under charges of illegal hunting and outfitting, but not before dismantling many years of work in AK G&F. As his last parting gift, he sends 4 of the 11 Governor’s tags to UT for his friends at SFW to auction, collecting their 10% commission, plus reasonable administrative fees. Do you now see why the AK guys are keeping an eye on UT?

Do you see why the WY guys are keeping and eye on SFW, when SFW came forward with a proposal to give the WY outfitting industry a special tag allocation?

Do you see why out of state hunters are concerned about the UT model and its funding source, a funding source, unique to the entire country, and by most all perspectives, a complete wipe out of the Public Trust Doctrine.

That is an honest answer to what I think you asked as an honest question.

I am sure to some, it seems biased, as they are vested in SFW and inclined to agree with their leaders in times of dispute about what really went down. Everything in that answer above is fully supported by documents. Everything there has already been proven on this forum, our forum, or other forums. None of that has been denied by SFW, just rationalized or swept under the rug.

You ask how I can support RMEF or MDF. Pretty easy. I look at the people involved and the work they are doing. They are people who have demonstrated trust and commitment to the cause. They are working toward a goal that is shared by the common hunter who makes up most of their membership.

I also look at what they are NOT doing. What a group is NOT doing, is sometimes is more telling about the leadership and the organization.

RMEF and MDF are NOT going to other states, trying to replicate the UT model. They are NOT going to other states and trying to get their own people planted as Directors and Commissioners. They are NOT going to Washington DC, trying to kill the only feasible progress that could come in the wolf issue. They are NOT ……

Point is, some groups earn your trust by their actions. Other groups earn your distrust by their actions.

Personally, I watched the UT deal from afar for a few years, kind of curious as to how it would work and eventually shake out. Though we would burn down the Capitol building in MT if ever we went to a UT-type tag deal, I was curious as to what the UT hunters saw in it.

Once the UT model started easing across the western landscape, I started paying a lot more attention. When UT hunters could get no accounting it was concerning that a classic public resource takeover might be underway. As the large numbers of UT hunters made demands on SFW for accounting, yet none was provided, it became obvious that some fire existed among all the smoke.

I am not vested in abolishing SFW, as you claim. I do understand why you feel that way.

I am interested seeing the influence of the UT model not make it to my home state, or to the states of hunters who believe in the NA Model.

I am interested in giving information and voice to UT hunters who want to see some balance restored to the way their trustees allocate wildlife opportunity in UT.

I am interested in speaking up on behalf of the thousands of self-guided hunters who we have targeted as the audience for our TV show and our talk forum.

I suspect most the volunteers of SFW are like volunteers of most group – committed to betterment of the species or the state of hunting. That is a commonality among the volunteers of all groups. When I look at the direction or means by which the SFW leaders want to accomplish their objectives, I don’t see much commonality with other groups.

If the majority of UT hunters want to continue with the dark secret model of no accounting or transparency, then fine. Knock yourselves out. I sure see a lot of UT hunters who do not like it, and given how the skids are greased within the political system and the Wildlife Board, change will be difficult. My effort in a debate is to show there is information and historical principles that support those wanting change in UT, or change in other states where SFW ideas are popping up.

Hopefully that gives you an honest answer of why others from outside UT are watching the UT/SFW model; how we can support other groups who are not engaging in the same antics as SFW; and why it is not hypocrisy to support those groups.

As far as RMEF and MDF involved in auction/raffle tags, I know what little RMEF makes on auction tags - Almost nothing. RMEF is complete and open with their accounting on these tags. I am not familiar with the MDF accounting, but will be making an inquiry as we near the debate. I have asked for the SFW accounting and will see if I get it. I see no hypocrisy in supporting those groups with a different history of how they use their funds than does SFW. I have confirmed what little RMEF makes on them and the RMEF policy applied when agreeing to auction a tag.

Gotta go. Need to disinherit the Federal Treasury a little more. Will be glad to answer any other questions directed at me, as I find time between now and the filing deadline of the 17th.

Thanks for being forthright about your perspective and where your question comes from.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!" "


http://www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/DCForumID5/19344.html#40

 

[Topgun 30-06]

I wonder what happened to WYOBOB, LOL! If he does happen to come back on this thread, it will probably start with a post saying how busy he is and he can't be on these threads all the time, LOL! SFW/BGF followers may be a bunch of great guys trying to do as much "on-the-ground" work with the money they are given as possible. I have no bones to pick with those "average Joes"! However, IMHO their leadership is shaky at best and crooks at the worst!