Toolelk you said,

Obviously, you consider Safari Club International, Mule Deer Foundation, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife, National Wild Turkey Federation, Montana Outfitters & Guides Association, Wild Sheep Foundation, etc. as insignificant. MWF affliates are actually leaving.

I'm going to give you the run down in the first post of the groups I know very little about.

Actually, in that list, I only find a few insignificant, and a couple outright harmful to the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. I know nothing of NWTF, totally neutral toward them.

DU, I've been a member of in the past and think they do great things for wetland/riparian habitat.

The WSF I also have a rather neutral stance on them. They do great things for sheep and put a lot of sheep on the hill. I wasnt overly impressed with the urination competition between them and grandslam/ovis. I think both those groups did a huge amount of damage to the hunting community with their struggle, court case, and childlish behavior. There was a lot of time, effort, and money wasted over the grand slam bullchit that would have been better utilized to put more sheep on the mountain.

SCI I'm not a fan of, I dont agree with shooting animals in pens and then entering them in some sort of record book, they do. IMO, they spend too much time defending some pretty questionable hunting practices. I dont fly under the "we all have to stick together no matter our hunting styles/ethics". Thats a bunch of bullchit...I wont defend some of the legal, but unethical things they defend. Wont do it and they wont get anywhere with me trying to guilt me into taking up their questionable behavior.

Now on to the ones that I do know about.

I think a good place to start is with the RMEF. I was a member in the past, during the early years. The RMEF had a great vision and the idea took off. Along the way, they strayed off course, and the wolf issue really hurt them. Even though they stayed neutral for a long time, many of the uninformed threw them under the bus as being wolf lovers, pro-wolf, etc. That was brought on by the absolute worst group in the history of Wildlife and that is Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife (SFW), which was founded by Don Peay. That group raked the RMEF over the coals over the wolves and other issues...to the point that the RMEF was forced to take a position. They took the same position that most every single hunter in MT, ID, and WY did...delist and manage wolves via state management plans. They gained traction again and got back on course, IMO. I was pretty critical over the RMEF and their position on HR1581 and I didnt hold back. Eventually the RMEF reversed their support of it and got it right. I think the RMEF recognized that they needed to listen to the people who support their group, the average sportsmen. They enlisted the help of Randy Newberg. Through their affiliation with Randy, they've become a better group. They strongly opposed AZSFW on HB2072(IRRC on the bill number) that would have taken around 300 of the best tags in Arizona and put them up for auction/expo drawings (similar to UTSFW). Recently Randy was appointed to the RMEF board of directors, where immediately MOGA/WYOGA threatened the RMEF that they would pull their support of the RMEF if Randy was appointed. Real classy thing for MOGA to do. More about SFW, MDF, and MOGA later. When the RMEF refused to be strong-armed by MOGA/WYOGA over Randy's appointment, I rejoined the RMEF. They are in the process of getting back to the basics of securing elk habitat, and doing whats best for wildlife and the average hunter. I dont think the RMEF is going to be on the wrong side of sportsmen again...at least thats my hope.

...continued.

Now on to Sportsmen for Wildlife.

Why anyone would ever support or allow this group to have anything to do with wildlife is a complete mystery to me. Their founder, Don Peay, is 100% against the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, and he's made that fact known in the press.

His group, and all the state Chapters, should be renamed what they really are...and thats Sportsmen For the Wealthy. Their idea is take public tags and put them up for sale to the highest bidders. Strictly a profit driven entity that has shown ZERO accountability to money raised at the Western Hunting Expo, and any other funds that they touch. In fact, the RMEF released a statement that they would support a requirement that ALL groups that receive a governors tag, auction tag, etc. would have to show full disclosure...of course SFW went on the attack over it.

The Alaska Chapter was another whole fiasco of epic proportions. Don Peay was able to use political favors to oust the sitting Director of the AK Game and Fish, a highly qualified biologist. He was replaced with Corey Rossi, the President of AKSFW and a friend of Peays. Keep in mind that Rossi had ZERO wildlife background, but was beating the kill every predator drum that SFW is known for. Their answer to every problem is kill predators. It wasnt long after his appointment that Rossi was convicted of 12 counts of poaching involving illegal outfitting, killing bears without tags, transfer of tags, and, well...12 counts. He resigned. Another thing that came up with Rossi, involved the taking of some musk-ox under a subsistance registration hunt. He tried to get a biologist to NOT destroy the ox horns, which is required by law. I know this to be fact, not only from the public record, but also because I was 1 of 2 NR's that drew trophy ox tags in the same area that Rossi hunted. The same biologist that wouldnt let him get away with not destroying the horns, was the same guy that I sent my ox information to.

The MT chapter of SFW is also a real crown jewell of the hunting world. They have recently testified in favor of the elk test and slaughter bill in Montana. They're against corner crossing in Montana as well.

Further, they ran static on the Simpson/Tester rider that delisted wolves in MT and ID...which eventually lead to delisting in the great lakes region. They tried unsuccessfully to sabotage the Simpson/Tester language and signed a letter that several other groups were on their side in opposition of S/T. That was a lie, and the groups they signed for, quickly corrected them and released a statement saying that not only do they fully support S/T, but that anything that SFW released that had their name on it in the future should be disregarded.

This is just the tip of the iceberg on the chit that SFW has done...I could type another 5 pages of them being on the wrong side of just about every piece of legislation that is damaging to MT, WY, CO, AZ, and the hunters in each of those states.

The MDF is totally in bed with Don Peay/SFW and the kill every predator band-wagon. I'm suspect of any group that spends the amount of money they do, killing coyotes to "fix" mule deer problems. In particular when study after study after study shows that killing coyotes to increase mule deer populations is largely an excercise in futility. I've nothing against killing coyotes, I like coyote hunting and I've killed my fair share. But, it is simply NOT the answer to recovering mule deer populations.

MOGA/WYOGA, like I already mentioned have lost what little credibility they may have had. Its a POS organization that would threaten the RMEF over an appointment to their board of Directors over a guy like Randy Newberg. Randy is a down-to-earth guy that is looking out for the North American Model and the hunter of average means. I can assure you, the RMEF board is lucky to have him, and that as hunters, we're lucky he is on that board as a voice to the guy of average means. Funny that MOGA/WYOGA view a guy that hunts public land, for public wildlife, as a threat? Its also chickenchit that those in oppostion to his appointment not didnt bother to call and talk to him directly, they also wont even return his phone calls to THEM.

Further, MOGA is also on the wrong side of HB274, HB511, SB151, and SB260 in Montana.

MOGA/WYOGA are losing credibility and really have made themselves insignificant...I had nothing to do with it. Give them enough rope, they hang themselves...same as SFW...same as MDF.

What these groups need to realize is that the average sportsmen are done taking their chit. There is fundamental lack of concern shown to public access, the North American Model, and the guy of average means.

The average hunters have been run over in the past by some of these groups. Now that we're not allowing them to run rough shod over us, they throw their suckers in the dirt and are pouting like children.

I will show no mercy to any of them. I'm done compromising away my rights, my wildlife, and my future as a DIY public land hunter...only to watch the wealthy cut in line over the people that have created the abundant wildlife we have. If not for the NAM and the average hunter...there wouldnt be abundant wildlife and opportunity for guys of average means...and thats just a fact.

They can KMA, I'm looking out for the DIY public land hunter and the NAM long before I lift a finger to watch them destroy what guys like my Father and Grandfather did for Wildlife.

If they expect me to sit back and go along with their bullchit ideas...they couldnt be more wrong.

Great stuff Buzz. mtmuley

I said it in the other thread and I'll say it again here, Don Peay and SFW are bad news for DIY hunters! They've raped and plundered Utah and I hate to see the scourge move into other states!

Buzz, that looks just about right. Great memory.

Nicely put.

Boone and Crockett is no better. How many animals are entered each year that were killed under "questionable" tactics? Pretty much all the governor's bucks from CO should be banned. I think record books in general have put the hurt on ethical hunting.

I am not a fan of the MDF because they really have no opinion on things that matter. Chasing buck/doe ratios is a falicy, and someone should speak out about it. As long as they are getting money from their govenor's tag they are quiet on that issue too. Not to mention the number one predator of mule deer is man.

Good info Buzz, thanks.

Great post Buzz.

Thanks for the education Buzz. I'm planning on doing an elk hunt in near future.I was planning it in MT. My original plan was to hire a guide but i've read to much negativity about MOGA so i think i'm gonna hunt a buddys property near Dillon and do it myself.

Buzz,

I sense that you would like a debate as you referred to my "taking the bait". It appears that your schooling is more of an opinion piece and I give you credit for taking a position. I must be naive as I was hoping for less division among like-minded groups. I did attend one "summit" that was billed as hunting organizations meeting to form a concensus with no political agenda. In the end, it turned out to be the initial formation of a PAC that did support a candidate that I do not believe has hunters' best interests in mind. On that note, it appears that MWF would prefer to use wildlife as a political tool which could be viewed as a wedge. The buffalo issue is one of many examples - the heck with private property rights and raise the flag of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation as a rallying cry. Most of us are not single issue voters and do not agree that wildlife should be a political pawn.

I can't claim to have the inside baseball insight on all of the organizations you listed, but I do admit to being a member of several. I will follow your lead and comment only on those that I know.

1. SCI's mission is protecting the right to hunt. Your characterzation of "shooting animals in pens" is inaccurate. There is not a more influential hunting advocate group in the world. You will undoubtedly call BS on this statement but the facts are there if you care to research. You might find it interesting that in the latest Forest Service plan of approved activities, hunting was mysteriously absent. SCI's DC office caught the error, pressured congress and forced the FS to correct. Take a look at the recent court cases regarding hunting and you will find SCI listed (I have never seen MWF involved in litigation). Every May, hundreds of SCI members converge on the Capitol to lobby their elected officials on behalf of all hunters. I know of no other organization that expends that effort and I am proud to be a member. The benevolent side of SCI (known as Safari Club International Foundation) is involved in the conservation, education and humanitarian side of hunting. Their accomplishments would be a book on how hunters give back.


2. Like you, I was once a member of RMEF and also decided to leave when I disagreed with many of their positions. You also will remember the brouhaha with RMEF and MWF. RMEF relies on outfitters for fundraising - certainly understandable that the outfitters would question a board position that might not be in their best interest (I have no idea where Randy stands on outfitting). Seems much to do about nothing.

3. I am also a member of MDF and involved in one specific chapter that does more for youth hunters than any other group I have been involved with. I think Miles has done a great job of bringing the organization back from the brink and confident this benefits the species and hunters in general.

Since you are obviously engaged in all of this, I have some questions:

1. Who gained by the passing of I-161?
2. Why is there such vitriol for non-residents? Since the western states are comprised of large amounts of Federal land, should they not have an opportunity?
3. With well funded anti-hunting organizations, why are the hunting/species groups so splintered?
4. I am also a DIY hunter and find it incredible that I rarely see anyone hunting on the public land I hunt. There sure seems like more than enough opportunities if one is willing to put in the effort. Why is there not more dialog between the stockgrowers/landowners and the hunting community?
5. When will we wake up and realize that our sport is in the cross hairs of a well funded attack?
6. Do you really think our sport would be better off without outfitters?

One observation that I can't overlook - both NWF and MWF have been heavily involved in lobbying and were very influential in the outcome of the last election. I admit it is difficult to agree with every issue supported by the named organizations, but I am more than sure that the Obama administration has no love for hunters.

This thread was started due to the premise of free ranging buffalo. I sincerely think this is nothing more than the anti-hunting crowd's attack on our beloved sport.

I'm not Buzz but I'll give you my take on your 3 questions.
1. The DIY hunter of MT gained, in that the outfitting industry in MT was shown that they don't get to control hunting here.
2. Not so much vitriol as it is an approach that says they can have what the people of MT say they can have. If they want more, they can always move here and become taxpaying, productive members of a MT community.
3. Becuase many of them have very different goals/supporters and often these goals are counter to the goals of other organizations.
4. Until leasing goes away, there will never be great dialog between hunters and landowners because wildlife has become a means for some landowners to make money. DIY hunters stand in the way of them making money when they demand access to corner crossing, etc.
5. Not until it's too late, if at all. The fact that MOGA, et al was able to deny access to 900,000 acres of public land is a pretty good example of this.
6. YES!!! If there were 6-8 outfitters in the whole state and no leasing, my opinion would probably be different.

Thanks Ranger. I suspect your reference to denying access is concerning the corner crossing bill? I was there and think there is much more to that story.

As a Montana property owner, should I not have the right to lease?

You own the grass and the ground, etc. Lease it out for grazing or farming or whatever else. I just don't like the idea that an individual can basically sell the animals that we all hold in trust. If you took the money made on a public resource (leasing) out of the equation, I think landowners would recieve near 100% support from the hunting public.

As to corner crossing, how much more can there be to a bill that says you can walk from one parcel of public land to another??

Toolelk,

MWF was not involved in the election. To do so would be a violation of their 501(C)3 status. NWF is also a 501(C)3. To claim that these two organizations were involved in the election is a serious charge and one that should not be made unless there is specific information or evidence that proves the statement. If you have that evidence, then post it up.

Ben,

You know the meeting I referred to and the considerable dialog concerning tax status. I will agree that MWF and probably NWF were not directly involved as it would viloate their status. However, we both also know that a NWF staff member was very active in creating a PAC supporting both Obama and Senator Tester. Certainly, their right to do so but I will stand by my statement that neither candidate is hunter friendly. As also stated, wildlife is being used as a political tool and that needs to stop if there is a chance to get the stakeholders to the table.


I was about to comment on the other thread - your post provides hope.

"I don't think using Buffalo as a threat is any more appropriate than closing private ground for payback is. Both sides who think along these extremes just hurt landowner/sportsmen relationships, but here we are."

Toolelk,

Really, you want to stand by your statement that Tester isnt "hunter friendly"?

Head in the sand, or just in denial?

http://www.boone-crockett.org/news/featured_story.asp?area=news&ID=105

http://www.boone-crockett.org/news/featured_story.asp?area=news&ID=111

How about the work he did with Mike Simpson(R) from Idaho that got wolves delisted and in state control?

How about the Sportsmens Act of 2012?

Hardly things you see from a candidate that is not hunter friendly.

Thats in contrast to the loser Rehberg...who has systematically thrown hunters under the bus in Montana.

You know things like opposing and trying to derail the Simpson/Tester Rider for wolf delisting.

Illegally posting State Lands.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpB-ZhmL8Do

Lets not forget the federal land grab by good ol' hunter friendly Rehberg:

Representative Dennis Rehberg
In 2005, Rehberg voted for the notorious public lands sell-off measure authored by Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo and Nevada Congressman Jim Gibbons. The measure, contained in a budget bill, passed the House by a narrow two-vote margin in the dead of night and without debate as part of its Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (H.R. 4241). Though the damaging bill was thwarted in the Senate, the Rehberg-supported proposal to sell-off hundreds of thousands of acres of public lands to the highest bidder flies in the face of Montana�s rich hunting and fishing tradition.

And Rehberg has apparently never met an oilman he didn�t like. In his short career, he�s already accepted $196,851 in career campaign contributions from big oil and gas companies (www.opensecrets.com) and has continually been a champion of industry interests over the public interest.


All great hunter friendly agenda items that Rehberg was known for.

Good grief...theres a reason why Sportsmen sent Denny to the unemployment line.

Buzz,

You have managed to not answer any of my questions but I will respond as you enjoy my taking the bait.

I will admit that Senator Tester played the wolf issue very well, politically speaking. You might be surprised to know that Senator Tester actually enlisted MOGA before taking a stand - yes, those nasty outfitters. Additionally, SCI was very much involved with this legislation and actually countered the evil SFW position. This was all about compromise and in the end, worked out for all parties (including the Great Lakes). Congressman Rehberg did not try to derail the bill, he stood up for removal of wolves from the ESA.

You want to make this political - your choice. I wonder how many times you have sat in Senator Tester's office to discuss hunting issues? Clearly, your agenda and stance is political which would seem counter to the NAM you loudly tout.

I'm not making it political...I'm living in the reality of absolutely what has happened, and who did what to help or slap hunters around.

The proof is in the puddin' I just provided.

I never asked the Legislatures in MT, ID, WY, CO, etc. to poke their nose in the business of sportsmen or carry chickenchit legislation forward that damaged hunting, public lands, and public access to same.

THEY DID.

Plus, on this thread, YOU made the first comments about the politics and politicians involved around your lies about the NWF and MWF campaigning.

Really, he didnt try to derail Simpson/Tester...head in the sand again, or still in denial of the TRUTH:

http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/idaho_montana_wolves_delisted_by_congress/C41/L41/

Although Sen. Max Baucus, D-MT, and Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer both praised Tester�s successful efforts, Denny Rehberg, Montana�s U.S. representative, did not, nor did he vote for the budget bill. Rehberg was one of 59 Republicans in the House to vote against the bill.

Rehberg announced he�s running against Tester in 2012.

The coffee is officially burnt...as some have failed to wake up and smell it.

Toolelk,

If wildlife is being used as a political tool, it's being done by both sides.

As for SCI and their role in Simpson-Tester they did in fact through SFW/BGF under the bus along with the NRA, Boone & Crockett & others due to the erroneous statements attributed to them. Good for SCI.

But SCi has also been a lead proponent for HR 1581 an the "Sportsmen's Heritage Act" which was really nothing of the sort.

Unfortunately, wildlife has become political. What are we going to do to stop that?

As for NWF/MWF and what their employees do, there is nothing wrong with someone utilizing their 1st amendment rights when it comes to elections. There was no coordination with those groups and the employee, and by continuing to say that it was NWF/MWF working on elections, it presents a false image.

As for Tester being hunter friendly, I along with a lot of other folks have sat in Tester's office and spoken with him regarding sportsmens' issues. He received the NSSF Legislator of the Year award as well as being highly awarded by the Boone & Crockett Club. Hardly left wing organizations.

Having served on Tester's Sportsman Advisory Panel with Ranchers, County Commissioners, Outfitters and others, I can say that Tester has been a staunch advocate for hunters and anglers as well as landowners. If anyone can split the baby, Senator Tester can.

Ben,

Thank you very much for your measured and informative response. I have also spent many hours in Senator Tester's office but probably not with the same cozy feeling. Elections do have consequences and SCI did back Congressman Rehberg. I will agree that Jon appears to be open but our positions will often differ. I know that MWF opposes HR1581 and SCI supports this legislation. I also think it has been tabled so not sure where that will end up.

As previously stated, the four Montana chapters of SCI would welcome some type of summit. I sincerely believe that we have more in common than might be obvious from these forums. I surely don't see it getting any better if we don't make a move.

Buzz,

The election is over - your side won! Wolves are off the ESA! Surely you can do better than quoting a bankrupt publication? Maybe when you find your coffee, you will answer my original questions?

Toolelk, to be clear, I am no longer working for MWF. I hope that is clear.

Never a bad thing to have good dialog between hunter-conservationists. It's tough to have these discussions just in the press like has been done in the past. Or through nasty emails.

Next time you are in Helena, the whiskey's on me.

Thanks again Ben. I did note your new position. I will PM you my contact information and offer to bring along a few other friends as they can always be found when whiskey is involved.

I agree on this "who's bigger" dialog - the point seems to be lost in the rhetoric.

Everything you have posted runs contrary to everything I know about Sportsmen For Wildlife.

If it weren't for SFW and it's conservation efforts and methods, Utah's Big Game herds would be pitiful, hunts would be canceled or have low tag numbers and animals taken would be mediocre

Because of what SFW does, Utah is a premier trophy location for in-state and out-of-state hunters. The reason Governor's Tags and Special Hunt Area Tags go for such huge dollars is a direct result of the efforts of SFW Utah; their efforts have revitalized the deer and elk populations and quality to the point that the trophys are WORTH that much to someone willing to pay.

The projects that SFW do cost plenty of money to complete, so they do have a great fund-raising push. The money from many of the tags is used to directly fund habitat improvement projects. Predator control is a HUGE piece of the puzzle to improve deer and elk populations. Why do you think Utah Game and Fish has put a 50$ bounty on coyotes?




If you think any of the above is bad for big game, I'd like to know why.

I've got the beer, who's got the popcorn?

Horseshit, SFW is against the NAM and openly says so..do you agree with them? They are also against public DIY. Open your eyes.

What they are all about is auctioning off every tag they can get their hands on meanwhile telling us peons to be thankful we can get a tag once in our lifetime. Extremely limited hunting grew the elk herds here, and you bet SFW had their hands in it..how is that benefiting you? Have you noticed the BS they are pulling in other states?

We could start with the wolf delisting tidbit that they opposed..having the wolf drum to beat was their biggest money maker, delisting is the last thing they wanted to see..funny you mention coyotes,if there isnt wolves to blame, then there are coyotes, do you not see this is their way to get the uninformed sportsman to fund their madness?

Talk about complete horseshit...

SFW was FIRST on the issue TO delist the wolf. It has been one of the major issues they have fought for. If you think that predator control isn't part if the answer to increase deer and elk populations and increase the number of quality, trophy animals, you're clueless.

Here in NM, SFW was able to sell 2 sheep tags for a total of $360,000.00. That money will be leveraged into well over 1 million dollars with Federal grants and be put right back into improving sheep habitat.

Have any clue whatsoever how many licenses would have to be sold to generate those kind of dollars?

Now Guess what that does. It helps grow the sheep population so that MORE DIY hunters have an opportunity for more tags available for a sheep hunt in the state, not "tags for the rich"

To state that SFW is anti- Do-it-Yourself Hunter is a complete lie. Their entire reason for existence is to improve hunting!

If SFW is for the DIY hunter why did SFWNM Support the current NM tag allocation?

http://www.sfwnm.com/archives/275

http://www.sfwnm.com/archives/238

Yes rc, they see average DIY hunters as useful idiots.Congratulations?

I will admit there was a time when they had my full support.Not anymore.

You know why Utah had to limit hunting to an "extreme"?

Poor game management practices, no habitat improvement, and no predator control lead to decimated big game populations. It wasn't till after SFW got involved did it improve. It takes years to recover.

I have a friend who was lucky and drew the Henry Mountains trophy area for mule deer. He killed a nice buck around 200". As they processed the animal they watched 3 coyotes take down and kill a 190" muley.

If you don't think coyotes are a huge problem, get a [bleep] grip. They kill 80% of deer and elk fawns...

How did they "take down and kill" it?

Be neat to watch! Was there leaping from a tree involved?

Calling dogs sounds like taking your life in your hands down there.

Do you have a citation for that number?

I'm not looking for an argument. Just the data. That is a very large percentage and I would love to see the data and research that shows this to be the case.

Holy Chit I really like you now despite being from PA!!

I always love the coyote debate and probably do believe they lump up a few fawns for the first couple weeks. But to bring down a healthy 190 class buck? Right...........................

I am looking for an argument and he cannot produce the data or study for that %. Fact.

I just want to see the source. Not picking a side. That is a very high number and I have seen something comparable twice before.

rcamuglia,

Sounds to me like you've drank the SFW koolaid.

SFW was FIRST on the issue TO delist the wolf.

Let me fix that...they were the FIRST to try to derail wolf delisting and got caught with their hands in the cookie-jar.

SFW didnt even exist when the sportsmen/citizens of MT, ID, and WY wrote their wolf management plans...HTF could they be the first on the issue when they werent even a group?

You need to find the first clue...if thats possible.

Good place to start:

NRA, SCI, and CSF Disavow Misleading Press Release

Today the National Rifle Association, Safari Club International and the Congressional Sportsmen�s Foundation publicly disavowed a misleading press release distributed on Friday, March 11th to congressional offices and other outlets. The press release blatantly misrepresents the position of these organizations regarding legislation to delist gray wolves under the Endangered Species Act.

The draft release was circulated by an individual representing Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife and Big Game Forever. The individual representing these two groups was immediately advised to remove the aforementioned organizations named in the release. Unfortunately, he did not, and the release was transmitted without correcting the inaccurate information.

The release in question claimed that the NRA, SCI and CSF along with the other organizations listed below are opposed to language relating to the delisting of gray wolves in spending legislation currently pending before the U.S. Congress. In fact, these organizations support that language, as well as every other measure that has been introduced in the U.S. House and Senate to date addressing this important issue.

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..


NRA Federal Affairs
Jeff Freeman
Senior Federal Lobbyist
[email protected]
410 First Street S.E.
2nd Floor
Washington, D.C. 20003
tel: 202.651.2568
fax: 202.651.2577

Yep...real quality group you're siding with.

Be prepared to be sized for the required 4XL asshat thats a recommended requirement for all who support Sportsmen for the Wealthy.

Put it up.

I don't have anything referenceable. That's why I'm interested in this statement. Sonoran pronghorn (endangered) and pronghorn reintroduced into the Flint Hills of Eastern KS have been said to have extremely high rates. But I could never find the actual numbers.

Bears have a similar reputation with regard to moose calf mortality in some areas.

Just for the record, I'm interested in almost any predation rate on just about any age class of just about any ungulate.

rcamuglia,

Do you care to explain how SFW was "taking on the wolf issue" when they were openly not supporting the SIMPSON/TESTER language that actually did delist wolves?

Funny that SFW claimed the passage of Simpson/Tester would be throwing the midwest states and Wyoming under the bus if it passed. Yet...Yet, the midwest states as well as Wyoming all had their first legal hunting seasons AFTER S/T passed.

You're as full of crap as SFW...and thats putting it mildly. You and that bunch of idiots are great at taking credit for wolves being delisted, when its simply untrue.

SFW tried everything they could to derail S/T...and it really proved what kind of an organization they really are.

Should we talk about UTSFW and their stance on trying to take stream access away next?

Or how about the shady chit they did in Alaska with their boy Rossi?

You decide which...I'll provide the details.

Heres the facts for you to choke on...

"The actions of Representative Simpson and Senators Tester and Baucus are beyond troubling, and should be cause for concern for anyone who seeks to protect our wildlife populations, our livestock producers, and our States� rights. Perhaps as significantly (and of grave concern), there are four groups that have endorsed Congressman Simpson�s efforts, and appear to be willing to sacrifice Wyoming� interests:

* National Rifle Association (NRA)
* Safari Club International (SCI)
* Congressional Sportsmen Foundation (CSF)
* Boone and Crockett

By supporting only limited delisting in just a few of the affected States, these four so-called sportsmen groups have essentially sold out everyone else that has been affected by this issue. While these groups also support all of the wolf delisting bills, including some very good legislation (discussed below), their actions in supporting HR 1 (with Congressman Simpson�s amendment) has allowed the Representatives and Senators to �race for the bottom� in order to take the weakest stand possible on the issue.

While these groups publicly claim that they support delisting in all western States, as well as in Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota, their actions are counterproductive. Their support of the amendment described above will likely undermine other pending wolf litigation that will protect all States. Their actions will also have a more dire outcome: the important victory that is represented by Judge Johnson�s decision, and that resulted from years of hard-fought battles and the investment of tens of thousands of dollars, could be lost. This does not hurt only Wyoming, but will hurt every State in the nation that seeks to manage its own wildlife without the federal agencies� unlawful (and often-times destructive) micro-management out of Washington, D.C.

There are two other bills currently pending in Congress - HR509 and S249, both of which would return management of wolves to all of the affected States. The Simpson/Tester/Baucus approach not only undermines our ability to get either one of these bills passed, but will likely make it more difficult to obtain any additional Congressional action into the foreseeable future. In other words, the actions of Simpson/Tester/Baucus, along with the NRA, SCI, CFS, and Boone and Crocket, have enabled those who seek to prevent the passage of any other bill that would actually provide for legitimate and effective delisting of the wolves.

Passage of the Simpson/Tester/Baucus amendment is not an incremental victory as some would claim. This is not an incremental victory for ensuring that States have the right to manage their own wildlife populations, or an incremental victory under the ESA. Judge Johnson�s decision was a victory. The Simpson/Tester/Baucus effort is designed to take that victory away.

By supporting a weak piece of legislation, these groups have allowed several of the Congressional Representatives and Senators to play both sides of the aisle -� to argue that they support delisting when such claims suit their political aspirations, and to argue that they fought against delisting when such a position will garner them votes from the so-called �environmental� groups. In other words, this amounts to nothing more than obtaining only the slightest and short-term moral victory for a limited number of people, and at the same time ensuring a very troubling defeat for the citizens of Wyoming and for the States� right to manage wildlife. While we recognize that political compromises are sometimes necessary, I cannot support legislation that is specifically designed to undo Judge Johnson�s finding that the Wyoming Wolf Management Plan is biologically and scientifically sound. This is simply not good science, good public policy or even good politics. �

We fully and whole-heartedly support delisting in Idaho and Montana (and all of the States where wolves exist). Such delisting, however, cannot be done so that Wyoming is sacrificed at the alter of environmental extremism.

Judge Johnson�s decision must stand. We must fight against this effort to use the promise of delisting in Idaho and Montana (and portions of Oregon, Utah, and Washington) as a ruse to nullify the most important decision that the States have obtained in the last seventeen (17)+ years of wolf battles, as well as the rights of States to control their own destiny in terms of wildlife management.

Please contact the offices of Congressman Simpson, and Senators Tester and Baucus and ask them to support only HR 509 and S249. Please request that they not re-introduce the Wyoming-busting amendment described above.

Please contact Representative Lummis� office and thank her for her strength and continued efforts to fight this battle on your behalf. Please call the offices of Senators Enzi and Barrasso and thank them for their hard work in supporting the right bills on this issue, while fighting against the bad ones. Our Congressional Delegation has stood strong on this issue, and we need to commend them for their efforts on our behalf.

Please contact the NRA, SCI, CFS and Boone and Crocket and ask them to stop their support of an amendment that is specifically designed to undo our important and hard-fought victories. Ask them to instead focus their efforts on passing a solution that protects all of the States that have been plagued by this predator. Ask them to stop throwing Wyoming to the wolves.

Please distribute this letter to anyone you believe could help us to expose what is going on in Congress.

Sincerely,

Harriet M. Hageman"

I've lived here 30 years rc, dont try to feed me BS about how great things are now. yes the elk herds are better. SFW was not their savior, the UTDWR was restructuring the elk area's about the time SFW came along, i will give credit where credit is due, SFW did a great job with habitat projects and such. At the same time they also did a great job lobbying politicians and totally deconstructing the NAM.After basically no hunting pressure we started producing monster bulls, who woulda thunk it. now $FW pretty much has their own private ranch to entertain high paying clients, that ranch is called Utah.If you are lucky, young and got in on the ground floor with bonus points you might draw an elk tag in Utah ONE TIME IN YOUR LIFE..whoohoo, every state should sign on to such management!Just think of how much money they could sell the tags for!

Deer are worse off than ever,SFW keeps throwing money at it and saying "we need more money, give us more tags for auction" NO. what should we do? Let the SFW close down every unit and offer maybe 10k total tags a year to the public like they did for elk? I bet we can grow some monsters and sell some high dollar tags that way!This is a no win situation for the average guy.

the DWR took big steps to help mule deer last year, something we have been trying to do for years. the new micro management units are in their infancy in Utah but we have high hopes.

If your goal is to see how much you can auction a tag for, I guess $FW is the group for you. You can brag that your state has the biggest critters while your sitting on the couch watching the rich guys on TV hunt them..sounds awesome.

Also, $FW did everything they could to BLOCK Simpson/Tester, you know the thingy that got MT/ID and later the great lakes a wolf season.

Coyotes could get a big deer down in snow or out on ice. Or if they were really lucky get a deer bogged in mud. They kill a few cows that way.

Last week some people up north had coyotes chew the face off of a beef calf as it was being born.

No doubt coyotes kill deer, i wont argue that..All i'm saying is predators are SFW's golden goose, and i'm trying to point out to some that its nothing but a smoke and mirrors game they play.

I know they are really lobbying in Alaska now, but thank god they hit a major stumbling block with the Corey Rossi cluster [bleep] and exposed what they really are to the AK residents.

To be honest with you I don't know anything about all these different hunting groups/clubs.

rosco1,

I have the "goods" all set when rcamuglia wants to talk about the Alaska deal. Thats the big one that SFW doesnt want to talk about, crooked as the day is long.

My bet is he goes back into hiding, if he has any smarts at all, he will.

Sam,

Trust me, the one group to avoid is SFW and all the state Chapters. I wasnt kidding when said I could write 5 pages on the chit this group has done to throw hunters under the bus.

Buzz, even if a guy bought in to all the other crap they do with auction tags etc...All they should have to do to see the light is look at what happened in AK first, then look into how they tried to block Simpson/Tester..When they got caught pulling that crap they blew it off with smoke and mirrors..Then when S/T succeeded they claimed victory,claiming they led the charge.. WTF?? Despicable.

If a guy chooses to support them after looking into that there is no reasoning with them.

Another thing i'd like to add about the "40 million dollar weekend"..
rc, are you aware that SFW has no transparency? It was a major ordeal to get them to release their tax info a few years ago, and there was still much unaccounted for..I cant remember it all but the cliff notes were not much went into shovel ready projects,IIRC the majority was spent on "consulting fee's".

Did you also know that UTSFW was purchasing hunting properties in Canada? Canada...

Mule deer and Whitetail

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3783887

I witnessed a coyote running with part of an freshly killed elk leg/hind while on an elk hunt on a friends ranch in northern New Mexico.

https://www.aonmag.com/article.php?id=2452&cid=26

Ever heard of cherry picking?

Just sayin'...

Oh, and still waiting on those coyotes kill 80% of the elk calf articles...peer reviewed of course.

Probably a left-over leg from one shot in the ass by a client?

Pretty big leap there chief...running coyote packing part of an elk leg during elk hunting season...equals...coyotes are killing the chit out of mature elk?

WOW! I'm sold.

Coyote control isnt a real good argument for the existence of SFW..Not if you're looking at the big picture of what they stand for.

This study was of an urban WMA a few miles from downtown Denver. 79% of mortality, not 79% of all fawns born, attributed to death by coyotes. A peer review of this approach to tagging 120 fawns would be to ask did some fawns die from the stress of being captured by people as part of the tagging process or perhaps from accident (leg breaks) or from natural causes (genetic flaw) but then a coyote chews on the dead fawn and is mistakenly attributed to coyote killing a healthy fawn?

In any case, 79% is not of all births but of the deaths of 120 fawns tagged.

My opinion is predation is less of an issue for rebuilding herds than food source carrying capacity of the habitat and needing to reduce winter stress brought on by yahoos harassing the weakened pregnant does as part of shed hunting. how many fawns are never born due to Billy Bob trying to get that set of 200" sheds and bumping deer that are not in peak condition after a long winter?

As pointed out already 79% of fawn deaths is not 79% of fawns. Critical reading is needed. I read the article and in fact, fawn death rates were actually on the low side with 58 of the 120 fawns dying (48%) mortality, including death from coyotes, cars, unknown causes. So, 70% of 48% = 38% of all fawns born or 46 out of the original 120. That's really pretty reasonable mortality for fawns and a FAR CRY from 80% of fawns born.

No doubt coyotes kill a bunch of fawns. A whole bunch. and maybe a number of elk calves too but probably a much smaller percentage of elk calves that deer fawns. And both much less than 80% of fawns born.

But, I like numbers, and I appreciate those.

I should add that the authors pointed out that deer populations during this study were increasing in the face of that level of predation.

Thanks for the links SLM

Anyone reading them who knows what the allocation USED to be can see how reasonable SFW's approach was

Unless you are a DIY non-resident! I have no problem with the 84% going to Rs. However, why should there be a difference between guided and unguided NRs? SFW is very much into generated bidness for guides and private landowners.

Similarly, much of the habitat work paid for by SFW in Utah is done on lands that cater to paying hunters(CWMUs). The projects on public land that they participated on, IME, they were a minor funder. Other groups and usually the land management agency kicked in the bulk of the funds and nearly all the work. Yet, they take full credit for that. Similarly, I've seen where UT SFW and MDF like to take credit for the recovery of the deer herd in the Vernon Unit. Never mind it was shut down for around a decade after a monster wildfire, of which neither paid for the stabilization and rehab on public or private lands...

SFW can GFT.

SFW is for the commercialization and privatization of hunting, even on pubic land. SFW is against the NAM... Those are Don P's stances and he is SFW.

In no way do they represent me or the majority of hunters in this country, yet they wish to control hunting and the hunting community...

There's nothing reasonable about eliteism... except for the elitists.

Kent

I know what they used to be and what they could have been and I don't think it is reasonable at all.

If SFWNM is so proud of their work on this and A-plus, why was it all removed from the web site?

So, I get it. All of you have had nothing but criticism for every conservation group or group supposedly standing for hunters.

These groups actually have accomplished good things in my estimation.

So I now ask all of you what you would do differently than SFW or any other to increase animal populations so that more tags will be available?

What you are doing is easy. Sitting in front of a computer pissing and moaning.

What have any of you done to improve the things you see as problems?

Still no response on the wolf FACTS posted by Buzz?

That Google search engine must be in overdrive looking for some kind of truth SFW sold to all their sheep. I mean, it must be true if that's what they told everyone?

Pull your heads out folks. You can spend 10 minutes at the SLC expo to get a clue how this organization operates. Or, infiltrate their auction dinner if you really want to see how F'd things are. Shocking to see thousands of sportsmen gathered around so clueless.

Love to see someone from SFW make any counter points to the info Buzz posted earlier.

wow..What position do you hold with SFW?

Do you care to address any on the long list of reasons we gave to NOT support SFW, or are you going to continue on like they didnt happen? JFC pull your head out.

It has been pointed out that SFW/BGF has a history of jumping on the coat tails of wildlife agencies/BLM,USFS,USDA (hint,henry mountains,book cliffs,vernon,pilot mountain)the NRA,SCI,B&C,RMEF (wolves) like a rainbow after the storm, and claiming it was their "victory" nothing but propaganda and it seems you buy into all of it..All that money on the ground in Utah was largely spent on private ground, Why?? Because they get to AUCTION THE TAGS OFF THE CWMU's.

What have I done? I'll admit I'm a poor lobbyist but I attend RAC and send lots of emails,letters and phone calls. As well as donate my time, mostly building fence and removing juniper,and re planting the area in wildlife usable plants..You see you dont need SFW to get involved, contact your wildlife division they have plenty of projects that they can use you on.I also run a trap line from december to march.Actually doing something instead of sending SFW 30 bucks a year and claiming you are doing something are two very different things.

I also support several groups, UWC,RMEF,DU,PF,B&C,NRA,GOA.

rc', can you tell me what SFWNM has done besides get some pipe donated. Which was actually Williams that donated the pipe. Robert was just there for the photo-op.

My problem with SFWNM is they stand for nothing..... Anybody that has asked Robert/SFW a very direct question can tell you the same thing. I found it strange that Robert would not tell you where SFW stood on SB196 or the 3 A-plus options until the deals were already done. Then he jumps up and down and writes letters to everyone about how he was so instrumental in brokering them. The proof on 196 is in the link I already posted. Again I ask why did SFWNM pull it all from their site?

Then after all this Robert gets an appointment to the commission, after the Governor said she would not replace any of the commissioners . When AZ made a run at auction tags I asked Robert if he would support auction tags as a commissioner. You guessed it, he was the only commissioner that would not give me a simple yes or no answer.

You mean like 'unaffiliated to any critter org' G&F sponsored type water catchment projects or october and november Jr deer hunt camps...

And when someone in Az wanted to take our tags... we took care of business in spite of the critter orgs that were on board for stealing our resource for special interest gain.

All the critter orgs combined can't touch the amount of predator control that the general hunting populace produces...

They can't come close the youth retention Dad, grandpa and uncle Bob produce...

They can't come close to generating the amount of money sportsmen generate through the pitman/robinson tax for wildlife. You start squeezing the general tags out for special interest tags and budgets will go from millions to thousands...

critter groups can have a place along with everyone else... but once they think they are all that and demand more from the public than the public is willing to volunteer...

[bleep]'m...

You all sound like O' Bummer voters

Pro-Government program (game and fish is a government agency), and anti-private organization.

Ya'll put him over the top this last election, huh?

You ever going to answer a question??

You sound like a pregnant illegal alien, welfare demanding, foodstamp waving, Azlan pimping, liberal.

The public resource owes you nothing.

Kent

So, quick google showed Utah lost 7000 deer tags in 2011 and 13,000 in 2012...

SFW is having a 'huge' impact with all those dollars putting on an Expo.

That's 20,000 folks not spending money on hunting... probably going to Vegas instead.

Is SFW spinning it like Obama... 'we're creating or saving tags, it would be worse'

Kent

I'll take that as a no.

Typical SFW [bleep].

Yeah, Utah sucks for big game and its all because of the evil SFW.

LOL!

But what did SFW do to grow those bucks?

Check their website and see for yourself.

rcamuglia, how many of those bucks like that have you hunted for and taken? And how many times have you hunted the elk units mentioned in your tidbit above? Unless you're dropping more than tens of thousands annually, my guess is you haven't.

I'd rather eat a 5 gallon bucket of $hit than live in UTAH.

I don't want to get a virus from their site.

LOL!

Rick Camuglia?

No clearer sign that you've lost an argument on all accounts by avoiding the question at hand and data put forth.

There's not one thing special about Utah elk. Genetics no better than any other western state and only producing big animals due to almost zero predation especially the two legged variety. It is. A blessing that Utah hunters are close enough to Colorado to at least have an opportunity to hunt elk.

A dodge with a Mossback photo and an article that admits elk size is less than 8-10 years ago...

Life is math and your math has sucked in this conversation.

There's X amount of dollars that people are willing to donate, kinda like an economy. Adding more critter orgs just spreads the money and each get less... the same amount of conservation work gets done... actually less as admin costs for more orgs depletes the kitty...

Unless you 'Tax' 'steal' resources from the public and don't open the books for review... then you're just another socialist handout chit.

Kent

Anyway, we have desert bucks in southern Az that size in units that don't get the love of the Strip.

Kinda why we had to work with G&F on that catchment as none of the orgs were interested.

Kent

All taken in Utah. SFW members DIY

You're right.

Everyone complaining about "no tags" has failed math miserably

There's two choices:

1. Limit tags to allow poorly managed game recovery time thereby increasing population and quality. Improve their habitat and knock down predator numbers to allow recovery...

OR

2. Issue tags in numbers to make short-sighted boneheads happy about being able to hunt and let them fight over who is gonna kill the last sheep, goat, muley and bull in their state.

Amazing

I'm sure Utah would welcome you.

Are those SFW guys hunting on general tags?

Your article above is very telling on how not to manage wildlife based on trophy opportunity instead of biological herd health... Find out 'why' there needs to be more cows in the fish lake unit, probably because the bull to cow ratio is screwed up, which happens in trophy specific units.

As per the SFW release, other units have been over utilized trophy wise and are declining 'Trophy quality'... not because of biology or general harvest.

Seems SFW is always talking about paying the price now for the future gain... the future never comes... equals propaganda and false promises.

There's one decent bull in those pictures... they don't represent anything in this argument pro or con.

Tag numbers should be based on biology balanced with public use of 'their' resource.

I really feel bad for the Utah general hunter.

Kent

I'm sure they would. Unlike most in this conversation, I like Red States.

So what do you think of NMGF brilliant idea to reduce numbers of ibex in the Florida's?

Is Don Peay your grandpa?

Kent

Nope

But he's your Daddy!

rcunnilingus .. again, which one's you?

I hunt that stuff every year, just now applying for elk in Utah, 15th time. Man that would suck not hunting huge bulls every year.

Is that you with that dink ass raghorn? Or are you the handicapped guy?

Well he can't engage a biological debate... or a conservation debate... or a youth retention dialog... or a public resource conversation...

Doubt he has much elk hunting experience.

But he sure the chit knows his SFW...

Kent

Great jab.. Since your county is as blue as they come.

Funny... You asking a question when you have dodged every one.

If this is the best you can come up with to defend SFW I'm really glad your on their team.

FYI--If you are not familiar with it, you might want to look at Marshall White's work on coyotes in south Texas. Unfortunately, I donated my reprint files and lots of books to a couple of libraries and don't have them to consult any more. He found a some pretty high rates of predation by coyotes on white-tailed deer fawns, but predation was not the limiting factor on deer populations, as I recall.

Also, some of Sam Beasom's work on the King Ranch demonstrated that intensive coyote removal could significantly reduce neonatal mortality in white-tailed deer. However, he could not demonstrate that those fawns were successfully recruited into the adult population.

A heck of a lot of predation on young animals of almost any species turns out to be compensatory mortality. So, it is not too surprising.

Hell my computer got a virus just reading a thread about SFW. I didn't even go to their website as told.

Real class there gh

Are you Joe Biden's son?

That's "classier"?

I think this one's him.



Do I win a Paisano's pizza?

rc', I'm sure you won't answer this one either but what is SFWNM's stance on HB579?

Have you wrote/talked to any one in support or against this bill?

I'm sure they will fight that one..Use it to drum up members at least.

No doubt, I have a feeling rc' doesn't even know of the bill.

I worry for you..I didnt ever think it would happen in Colorado, but it did.

You never know with SFW tho, they might see it as a huge opportunity if it passes.Crooked [bleep]

rcunnilingus, watched your pro hunting spotlight clip. My granddad also had the A5 and I really liked it as a youth. Have since discovered the superiority of the Benneli. Once had an Abolt - what a hunk of garbage. The only Browing in my home is my son's .22

Good luck getting that raghorn of yours someday - save up. I took a bull from your state once, on my own, actually with 3 friends. We actually took 4 of them, arrows, Gila Wilderness.

rcamuglia obviously spends his time and gets his information from expos and gun shows... the conservation mecca of the world...

Probably his mentor is that fat dude that uses a powerchair with the elk stickers and ELKMSTER vanity plate, because he can't walk the isles for more than 30 minutes... SOB has killed more, bigger... worked on more conservation projects and has a minor in wildlife biology...

And his side by side has 15,000 in options...

Kent

I really don't know their position on this one. After reading it I would hope it would be opposed. There's a lot of things politically going on that many groups like the NRA, SFW, RMEF, etc. are taking care of. That's one of the reasons to be a member. A collective voice wielding some political power. They accomplish things that otherwise couldn't be done on an individual level.

I'm interested in results. SFW has helped turn around declining big game populations in several states. In turn, more people get to hunt. They will do the same here in NM if enough people get on board.

Recently they received a $250,000 donation from a major energy producer. All of these monies get leveraged into greater sums with Federal grants.

Another reason why so many folks are not interested in the self-serving SFW model:
http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=254134

An NGO lobbies for $300,000 from a State Legislature so they can continue their lobbying efforts on Wolves. Shameful.

Your Claim:




SFW's Response:

rc', are you an active SFWNM member?

Mr. Bateman is not the highest paid among the SFW crowd. Look at what DKP gets paid in consulting fees. It would be higher than any number shown in your post. If they were paid based on performance and results, many would argue that minimum wage would be too much for those results.

No idea that running a non-profit was so lucrative. I wish my high school guidance counselor would have put me onto that path! Those figures are nothing short of criminal.

No.

Hey Fin Guy. Pretty cool avatar you have. Have you thanked SFW for that opportunity that you had? How did you get rid of the Mossback watermark?

"Safari Club International John Eighinger - Executive Director $245,153"

John has been gone for many years so not sure how accurate this number is for the current ED at SCI. Probably best to shoot for the top spot at the NRA (pun intended).

These are no different than giant for profit companies and as far as I'm concern a lot more important. Why wouldn't you want the absolute best talent available for the job? Should college interns in the basement of their parent�s houses run the groups?

Peay makes a lot more than any of them, you can bank on that.

Difference with the other orgs is they are donation based... I have no say in their finances unless I donate. They live or die on their own ability to continue donations.

SFW is publicly funded through the sale of pubic resource. Why the Utah hunters and voters put up will it I don't know.

What happened to all that money over all those years of SFW... 20,000 less deer tags the last 2 years... even in a BGF release last year pushing the coyote bounty they claimed 30 years ago 80.000 plus deer were harvested a year culminating to less than 20,000 now.

What happened to that money as the decline of mule deer... the very reason SFW was based on... is still in the chitter.

I know the biological reasons... but supposedly it was management and money that was the problem.

Kent

SFW is the ACORN, NAACP ect of the 'Conservation' community...

.Gov public tit sucking pregnant wetbacks...

Telling you how you owe them gratitude for [bleep] you...

Kent

Conservation permits are all about reinvesting in Utah�s wildlife to increase huntable wildlife in the state of Utah. Conservation permits provide the funding which is a backbone of Utah�s watershed initiative. Utah�s Watershed Initiative helps restore natural vegetation, improves habitat for wildlife and has been a key tool for restoring and increasing wildlife populations in Utah. The end result is more tags for public hunters. Remember only 5% of tags can be conservation permit tags, with 95% of tags being reserved for the public. When viewed in a particular year, this 95/5 split may be viewed as providing marginally fewer tags to the public. When viewed over the course of several years, the investment of these dollars has substantially increased the number of tags available to the public. In fact, tags for every very major species
of big game has increased as a result of these programs. in total limited tags from 1994-2011.

Here are the increases

1994. 2011
Bull Elk: 784 To 4,094
Buck Deer: 1,925. To 3,547
Pronghorn: 755 To 802
Moose: 137 To 191
Bison: 63 To 100
Wild Sheep: 24 To 86
Mtn Goat: 11 To 140

Director Jim Karpowitz of Utah DWR explains the role of conservation permit funds to Utah�s Watershed Initiative, � Not only did the conservation permit program provide the first money for Utah�s Watershed Initiative, it was the driver to obtain state and federal matching funds and to get this initiative fully off the ground.� To date, this program has treated over 700,000 acres at a cost of $70 Million. Our goal is to continue these investments to continue improvements to Utah�s wildlife. There are clearly areas of focus where much improvement is needed. For example, SFW and DWR are both working diligently on statewide mule deer recovery efforts. Lessons learned in limited entry units where mule deer populations have increased are helping inform techniques to fixing more and more deer units.
SFW is proud to be a part of these programs, not only in what they accomplish for wildlife, but also improving the health of Utah�s watersheds. In the last 11 years, SFW has raised more dollars for the watershed initiative and conservation permit program than any other organization. In the last reporting year, SFW was again at the top of this list. For more information on Utah�s conservation permit program and Utah�s Watershed Initiative visit: http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/?option=com_content&view=article&catid=118:big- game&id=839

Its the Kings deer..

We are going to have to agree to disagree.

Luckily I don't think SFWNM has been able to gain much ground since they pissed everybody off a couple years ago.

I know. These discussions are fun and informative. I definitely learned from y'all as well as from my own research.

Here's your 2010 SFW revenue reporting numbers...

Total raised... 948,400.00

Administrative. 94,840.00

project total.. 569,040.00

DWR payment.... 284,520.00


2011 they spent 463,500 on 56 conservation expenditures.

2012 they scheduled 461,173.00

So less than half goes to conservation and I'm wondering where the difference between 569,040 and 463,500 went...

Kent

$6,615,827 is slated for Utah in 2013 from the pitman robinson excise tax fund with a minimum 25% match from the state.

The state will match regardless... SFW claiming they are responsible for 4X their true DWR payment is a bit disingenuous... and a big fake check is tasteless...

Az generates 1.5 to 2 million on just a few special tags per specie sold... pretty much the three tags each sold for elk, mule deer,sheep and lope... 100% of the money comes back to the HPC fund and if 4Xed it would represent 6 million of the 12 million the state received.

The 370 million national P&R federal fund is payed for solely by sportsmen.

These kind of numbers put SFW in their place as small time effecting a large market negatively.

Kent

In other words, AZ is doing EXACTLY what SFW does and it's working.

rcamuglia,

Since you didnt want to discuss the way that SFW/BGF tried to derail Simpson/Tester and was publically scolded by several respected Conservation Orgs...maybe you'd like to discuss something else.

You know, something like Don Peay begging for a legislative appropriation from the state of Utah, to the tune of $300,000 to lobby Washington D.C. regarding Mexican wolves and the ESA?

http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=254134

Strange thing is, with all the money the Don/SFW/BGF raise via pimping out the publics wildlife resources, that he'd have to get on his knees and "beg" for money from the State of Utah. Its also strange that the Don would publically ridicule the North American Model as being "socialist". Thats amazing considering that the Don/SFW fund themselves via the pimping of the publics wildlife resources, and now, apparently, at the expense of the taxpayers of Utah. I find it hypocritical for the Don/SFW to scream socialism, while the Don/SFW feed heavily from the government trough.

I bet you dont want to discuss this misappropriation of Utah funds any more than you wanted to discuss the way SFW trashed Simpson/Tester and every sportsmen and sporting club that wanted to see wolves delisted.

...also still wondering if you want to discuss the Don, SFW, and the debacle in Alaska as well.

I'll save that for the next installment of "SFW hosing the average hunter and publics wildlife resources".

Nope... azsfw tried to do what SFW does in Utah and we kicked their ass out.

Kent

All I'm hearing is crickets...

Not surprising.

No crickets. Just have better things to do.

It'll take some checking on your charges, but believe me, I will. And I will post.

I'm still shocked that Utah lost 20,000 deer tags in the last two years... rc's propagan... err... bullet points continually say that SFW is creating more opportunity for the 95%ers... except for the cow tags in fish lake... and well deer tags overall... and well...

But things are improving... listen up...

Kent

Fixed it for you.

Whatever there buzz. You need to quit grinding the axe...

Read the thread and the quote.

Looks like your same group of chronies posting there; about 5 guys.

I don't see how you call the Utah legislature appropriating funds to do work in the State's best interest as "socialism".

Its not about the State appropriating the tax payers money. That issue is between the voters in the State and their legislators. I bet a majority of Utahs taxpayers arent too cracked up about giving the don and sfw $300,000 to lobby. The legislators may find that answer at the ballot box next election.

I'm now typing slowly...so you dont miss anything. The don/sfw/bgf have officially declared the North American Model as "socialism". Yet, the don/sfw/bgf are funded largely by the peddling of a PUBLIC RESOURCE (wildlife). Care to explain how profiting from the taxpayers/public resources isnt socialism? Care to explain how, the don begging the legislature, to fund his lobbying efforts off the backs of the taxpayers, isnt socialism?

It isnt the don/sfw/bgf paying the bills in either case...its the taxpayers.

This should explain it for you. Use your finger on the screen to point to the words while you read. After you read a word and sound it out, move to the right (---> this way) and do the same with the next word in line.






To put it simply, in a way you might possibly understand it, Yes, Game Animals belong to the public BUT the public can't hunt these game animals without permission or buying tags on PRIVATE LAND.

rcamuglia,

I see I typed too fast for you again...

Thank you for not answering the questions regarding sfw/bgf/thedon profitting off the backs of the public and the publically owned resources not being socialism.

So, safe to say you're 0-2 in your efforts to "prove" how independent and successful sfw/bgf/the don are when it comes to wolf delisting and socialist practices.

Congratulations?

Yes, "congratulations" on your reading improvement. Now, Point, sound, and move to the right again..,

They don't profit. They are non-profit organizations



"The Board of Trustee of the Sportsmen of Fish & Wildlife received good news regarding the examination of its books and records by the Internal Revenue Service. The organization completed a thorough examination by the IRS, which started in early 2009 and was finalized on November 24, 2010. In the IRS examination closing letter the government confirmed that Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife still holds a valid tax exemption under the Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3). This exemption is only awarded to organizations that have demonstrated to the satisfaction of the IRS that it is organized and operated exclusively for charitable, religious and educational purposes. This exemption goes on further to confirm that any individuals, corporations, trust and other legal entities may rely on this exemption when they claim a charitable contribution tax deduction for making a donation to the Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife."

I can see why SFW won't respond to folks like you. Arguing with thick-headed, anonymous O'bummer voters who have never accomplished a damn thing in their lives who then spew vitriol on the net to make themselves feel important is futile.

Hope your life improves.

You all need to read ALL OF THIS:


Don Peay sent this response to Writers on the Range, and I'm posting it here:

I�m writing in response to Ben Long�s blog post of March 14, 2012 wherein he mistakenly asserts that Mitt Romney can�t remember whether he hunted moose or elk, and follows this mistake with another when asserting that I consider the Roosevelt legacy as �socialism�.

Before we get into that however, I think it�s important to point two things. To my knowledge, Ben Long has never met me, and I�m pretty certain he�s never met Theodore Roosevelt.

When Mr. Long refers to Mitt Romney not remembering whether he hunted moose or elk, he�s referring to a statement Governor Romney made in a debate when referring to a trip he made to the west. He said �moose�, then quickly corrected and said �elk�. Mr. Long, why would you focus on such a small mistake as a basis for your paper? Why not focus on a candidate for the presidency that actually took the time to travel west and hunt with a former head of the NWTF and the president of the NRA, and myself. There he saw the North American Model of Wildlife Management in action, learn more about land use, the effects of development etc? The answer is likely that Mr. Long exploited a simple mistake made by Governor Romney to guide us to the real point he was making, which was about me.

Now, let�s deal with the statement Mr Long made that I called the Roosevelt model, �socialism�.

He actually took this statement from an article by another writer where it wrongly declares, �Group Founder Declares that North American Wildlife Model is Socialism.� Not only is this headline misleading, it is also important to point out that the writer of this article and I have had longstanding disagreements over the role of predator control in the Northern Rockies. In fact, the alleged �quote� is from a separate article that specifically attacks predator control efforts in Alaska. So now that we have set the stage for the conversation, let�s talk about the accusation. I�ve spent much of my life helping to improving public hunting on public land. Those who know me well know of my passion and belief in the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. Years of working to fix difficult challenges in wildlife conservation have allowed me to see first hand the success of this model for abundant wildlife. I�ve seen how economic and other incentives, based on free-market principles embedded within the North American Model, can be combined with significant investment by sportsmen to solve difficult challenges facing wildlife. Regarding my work in wildlife conservation, results do matter. In 2009, after reviewing my record, Outdoor Life honored me as one of the 25 most influential people in hunting and fishing in the field of conservation. Working with other passionate sportsmen, we have been able to help hunt-able populations of elk, moose, rocky mountain bighorn, desert bighorn, mountain goats, antelope, wild turkey and mule deer not only to increase in number, but also to flourish. We started and helped fund the largest habitat restoration projects of public land in the West. We have also been significantly involved to make sure the North American Model works and allow the states, not the courts, to manage predator populations in order to restore healthy wildlife populations for public land hunters. These accomplishments only came as a result of the tireless efforts of many, including thousands of dedicated volunteers of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, state fish and game agencies and others. One of the greatest freedoms that I cherish as an American is our publicly owned wildlife and our great public lands. I have personally enjoyed the public resources throughout Utah and the West, and I intend for that opportunity to continue well into the future.
Finally, in a time of harsh political rhetoric and misleading headlines, I would caution against those whose primary efforts seem to be directed at increasing divisiveness in the sportsmen community. The threats to wildlife are real and growing. The attacks on our outdoor heritage are increasing. Now is the time for unity rather than division among sportsmen. Now is a time to protect what we love through increased sportsmen involvement. We can solve difficult challenges by utilizing the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation to improve incentives for wildlife protection and tireless work of sportsmen. I ask all sportsmen whose dedication is the improvement of our wildlife resources to look past the headlines and focus on the substance of what makes wildlife in America great.


Here's a letter from a reader:


Open letter to Ben Long

I have read, and then re-read, Ben Long�s article, ��Sportsmen� Stab Theodore Roosevelt in the Back.� As I am a life-long hunter, conservationist, and someone who openly brags about living a �hunting lifestyle� and having personal knowledge that directly contradicts some of Mr. Long�s statements, I became quite angry at the article. I immediately sat down and wrote a scathing reply and then realizing I had sunk to Mr. Long�s level, promptly tore it up. I waited a day, then sat down and wrote another scathing response. Once again, I realized that I had fallen into the crafty scheme of anti-hunters, and tore that response up as well.

You see, those that are anti-hunting, anti-trapping, anti-fishing, and anti-gun will never take those rights from us in a fair head-to-head fight. We know it, and most importantly, they know it, too. That is why anti-hunters have infiltrated all aspects of the hunting community from fish and game commissions, to game wardens, to magazine writers. They call themselves hunters but have quite an underlying agenda. The goal is simple: pit hunters against hunters as a fractured group can be divided and conquered. I see it all the time, and it sickens me.

Anything that pits hunters against hunters is distasteful to me. That can be as simple as gun hunters versus bow hunters, rifle hunters versus muzzleloader hunters, recurve bows versus compound bows, crossbows versus other bows, baiting versus no baiting, high fence versus �fair chase,� or assault weapons versus more traditional weapons, and the list goes on and on!

I have gone back and read a few of Mr. Long�s columns, and it is clear that he relishes pitting hunters against hunters. It doesn�t appear to me that thorough investigation or truth matters to Mr. Long before he sets out to write a column. One thing I did note is that in at least three of Mr. Long�s columns, he attacks Don Peay personally and Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife. Obviously, he has an ax to grind, a personal ax to grind, and he doesn�t care if his falsehoods and half-truths end up having a serious adverse effect on hunting so long as it achieves his personal agenda. Disgraceful!

I have absolutely no idea what Mr. Long�s personal agenda is, but it does not take a rocket scientist to recognize there is one. Maybe there is a clue in the very first paragraph of the column where he attacks Mitt Romney for stating he promoted hunting. In fact, Mr. Long pulls a comment made by Mr. Romney out of context and then states �dig deeper, though, and that hunting trip reflects something more sinister than a slip of the tongue.� There you have it; Mr. Long accuses Mitt Romney of something �sinister!� He definitely had my interest peaked, so I carefully read the rest of the article to see what �sinister� plot, plan or action Mitt Romney was up to. But, the �sinister� plot was never revealed. The fact that Mr. Long accused Mitt Romney of something �sinister� and then provided not one shred of evidence to support it speaks loudly with his silence. No honest journalist should do it, and no editor worth his salt would run that kind of garbage.

Another thing I have noticed in Mr. Long�s columns, and particularly in this particular one, is that he is all about �class warfare.� I wouldn�t be surprised if Mr. Long learned his journalistic tactics while working as a community organizer for ACORN or while working on the �re-elect the president� committee. Just as I�m appalled at anti-hunters pitting hunters of all kind against each other, I�m more appalled when small-minded journalists try to pit Americans against other Americans. What a common theme � white versus black, rich versus poor, Christian versus Jew! It�s all part of the divide-and-conquer strategy. Mr. Long obviously adheres to the rich versus the poor mentality.

Okay. By now, I�ve defended Mitt Romney and indicated that I can�t stand the �woe is me, the poor guy getting run over by the rich guy� mentality. So, you figured out that I�m a wealthy Republican. Wrong! I am a lifelong Democrat and come from a family where my father didn�t finish high school! I have become successful and am very proud of the fact that in my day job, I represent most of the blue collar organized labor workers in Kansas City. I�m also proud of the fact that I hunt all over the world and currently co-host a very successful television on the Outdoor Channel with WWE legend Shawn Michaels titled �MacMillan River Adventures.� I�m also proud of the fact that Ted Nugent is a close friend of mine, and I consider him to be my mentor when it comes to what I know about the outdoors and wildlife management. I�m also a very proud family man married 27 years with 3 wonderful children. But, enough about me, as there are other parts of the article I want to take Mr. Long to task for.

Mr. Long specifically states that Don Peay and Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife do not support the North American Model of Wildlife Management. In fact, Mr. Long pulled a quote from an article written by an Alaskan journalist that attributed to Mr. Peay the term �socialism� when discussing the North American Model. Did Mr. Long talk to Mr. Peay about the accuracy of that Alaskan article? The answer is emphatically no! I spoke with Mr. Peay personally, and he is an unequivocally strong supporter of the North American Model of Wildlife Management. Mr. Peay indicated that the quote attributed to him was taken out of context and was blatantly false. So, unlike Mr. Long, I did a little of my own investigation into the author of that Alaskan article, Richard Mauer.

What I found out about Mr. Mauer is that he likes to use the word �socialism� in his writings. On a totally unrelated topic, Mr. Mauer wrote, �For many of these same men and women, steeped in their ideology, the whole concept of public lands is socialism and these lands should be divested or sold off.� I also read where Mr. Mauer wrote, �There is a tremendous move in our country to privatize wildlife and make the quality hunting and fishing available only to those who can afford to buy land and rivers to bring hunting and fishing into line with the other privileges that are the sole province of the wealthy.� This kind of sounds like the class warfare game plan in full force and effect! Obviously, this becomes a perfect source for Mr. Long to cite and support his own divide-and-conquer agenda.

If I needed anymore proof that I would not agree with Mr. Mauer�s beliefs, I found another statement, �No rational person with knowledge of it could, in good conscience, support expanded oil exploration.� That sounds a lot like a tree-hugger to me!

But, Mr. Long just adopted the statement from the Alaskan paper as gospel. No independent research and not the decency to call Mr. Peay to get his own thoughts on the matter. Anything but fair journalism!

Finally, in the end, Mr. Long comes back to Mr. Romney and makes a point that Mr. Romney had actually gone on a hunt with Don Peay and then alludes to something about them �talking about big bucks. All right, but not the ones with antlers.� I feel very comfortable in contending that Mr. Long did not speak with Mr. Romney before making these comments. However, I have! Although I am a Democrat, I was privileged to sit in on a brainstorming meeting with Mr. Romney and a handful of other individuals who are truly concerned with hunting and conservation issues. It was at a time before Mr. Romney had announced his candidacy for this year�s Presidential election, and he was trying to gather as much information as he could about wildlife management issues. So, Mr. Long, where you sit there and throw stones at individuals without any personal knowledge, I�m here to catch those stones and throw them back in your direction with fact and knowledge.

I can unequivocally state that Mr. Romney will be a strong supporter of hunters and of hunters� rights. He will be a supporter of the Second Amendment and gun ownership. He believes that wildlife is best managed by the State and not the Federal Government. He agrees with the delisting of the gray wolf from the Endangered Species Act, in turn allowing states to manage the hunting of wolves just as they do all other animal populations in their state. In short, I�m 100 percent convinced that Mitt Romney will be a strong proponent of all hunters� rights!

Now, don�t think that I completely endorse everything that Mitt Romney stands for. I stand diametrically opposed to most of his positions on organized labor but do believe he is the right man to turn our economy around. I know for a fact that he is the only man in the race that has a genuine concern for hunters and gun owners.

While you were attacking Mitt Romney did you notice that the former head of the United States Department of Fish and Wildlife, Jamie Rapport Clark, is now the president of Defenders of Wildlife? Have you ever written about the �sinister� implications of that? I am betting not!

Have you ever written about the anti-gun agenda of the Obama Administration? Have you ever written of the �sinister� plan of our Department of Justice to push an anti-gun agenda by putting guns in the hands of Mexican criminals that lead to the death of a U.S. Border Patrol Agent? Of course not! Therefore, I challenge your readers to question �your agenda!�

Lastly, I want to end on my personal observations of Don Peay. Are you aware that in 2009 Don Peay was honored as one of the 25 most influential people in hunting and fishing in the field of conservation? Have you ever written in one of your columns that Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife help fund the largest habitat restoration project of public land in the west including more than 750,000 acres at a cost close to $70 million? Have you written in an article that Don Peay has written and spoken consistently to ensure that the North American model be utilized by the states, not the courts to manage predator populations in order restore healthy wildlife populations for public land hunters? Have you ever written about the fencing of the freeways and highways project that Don Peay and Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife promoted and ultimately enacted to preserve the mule deer population in Utah? Have you written about Don Peay�s tireless efforts to aid law enforcement in the stopping of poaching? Have you written about Don Peay and Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife�s tireless efforts to restore various game populations in the western states by transplanting animals at the cost of more than $200 million? Have you ever printed that prior to the founding of Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife most Utah game populations were going down dramatically and since the creation of Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife every species, including moose, bison, elk, big horn, desert big horn, antelope, mountain goats and turkey have increased from 200% to 500%. Have you let your readers know that there used to be less than 1,000 quality tags in Utah and today there is over 5,000 public draw permits for trophy species for all of the animals listed above excluding turkey? Have you touted the efforts of Don Peay, Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife and their counterpart, Big Game Forever for spearheading the effort to delist the grey wolf so that the devastation of game populations by the wolves in the western states can be stopped?

Well, Mr. Long, just as you ended your column with a statement, �but what can sportsman do?� I would like to end my comments with a similar question. But what can sportsman do? Well, I suggest that before they give any credibility to anyone who writes about the sport or lifestyle they cherish, they should do a little research. If the writer has an agenda or an ax to grind, their comments are worthless. If the writer does not do their homework and base their articles on falsehoods and not fact, then their column is worth nothing more than to be used as a fire starter the next time you are sitting around a campfire with other �real� hunters! So, Mr. Long, I should thank you as thanks to your writings, I�m enjoying a huge campfire!

Keith Mark


And this:


This will be my last post regarding Ben Long and his obvious agenda, which is anti-hunting at its core! I have no intentions of ever reading a Ben Long article in the future and I encourage all hunters and true supporters of wildlife and wild places to do the same!

I saw that Mr. Long immediately responded to my earlier post. He did not address my points made about all the good SFW and Don Peay have done for hunting, sportsmen, wildlife and the availability to more big game tags by the general public due to the efforts of SFW. He did not address the corruptness of the far left nor my comments about which presidential candidate would be the strongest supporter of hunter�s rights in this year�s election. His silence and sidestepping most of my points speak volumes as to what Mr. Long�s real agenda is.

However, wanting more closure for my own selfish reasons, as I am one who cannot stand it when truth and right is distorted or denied, I contacted Ryan Benson of Big Game Forever; who, unlike Ben Long, had contacted Rich Mauer, the Alaskan journalist that Mr. Long had relied on to investigate the �socialism� quote. Mr. Mauer had a totally differed spin on Don Peay�s quote. In his own words, this is Mr. Mauer�s response to Ryan Benson�s inquiry:

On Apr 6, 2012, at 10:27 AM, Ryan Benson wrote:Re: Request for Direct "Socialism" Quote

I work with Big Game Forever on wildlife policy issues. SFW is one of quite a few partner groups. I want to make sure I understand exactly what was said by Mr. Peay about �socialism�.

-Ryan
Rich Mauer�s response:
�The reference to socialism came up during the part of the interview where he was explaining his idea that the idea of common ownership of game doesn't provide an incentive for landowners to improve conditions for wildlife, which he described in the context of the difference between socialism and private enterprise. It's almost like the use of that word triggers a lot of emotion that maybe isn't justified in an intellectual sense, which seems to me to be the way he was describing it.�

-Rich

Then, one very last truthful comment from Rich Mauer:

�Hi Ryan -- my experience with bloggers, whether associated with a larger publication or not, is that they pick things up without establishing context or verifying their own assertions through their own reporting.� (Emphasis added by KLM)

Wow! It�s rare that one journalist will bash another but Mr. Mauer did not hesitate to put in writing that Ben Long did NOT establish the context nor verify the comments made by Don Peay, but instead made his own assertions regarding them! Boys and girls, that equals AGENDA! Therefore, Ben Long receives a solid F in journalist 101!

Still, I was perplexed with the open attack against Don Peay and SFW so I called on my friend Ted Nugent for some reasoning. His answer was immediate and simple. �The anti-hunters will always attack those that are doing the most to promote hunting!�
That�s when it hit me! I was looking for a reason or some logic behind Mr. Longs attack, but there isn�t any. He is purely and simply attacking SFW and Don Peay because they are true champions of hunters! Ted then pointed out to me that this is the same tactic that the anti�s have tried to use against him for years. �Without effect!� he added! His final words were to encourage Don Peay, SFW and Big Game Forever to keep up the good work and �Godspeed!� That�s good enough for me! In fact, that should be more than enough for ALL sportsmen and hunters!

So, to Don Peay, SFW and Big Game Forever, Godspeed!

To Ben Long, good riddance!

Keith Mark

The Public Trust Doctrine... 1842 U.S. Supreme Court case Martin v. Waddell

Study up...

Kent

rcamuglia,

First question...do you suck sfw/bgf kool-aid right straight from the dons tap?

Secondly, if you want to argue the semantics of a 501(c)(3) and how they acquire their monies...thats fine. I just wonder if any campaigning goes on with sfw funds? Tough to tell as SFW has never been about transparency, I wonder why?

They still "acquire" their funds from the sale of a publically owned asset (wildlife).

There is no debating a couple facts:

1. the don has openly called the NAM socialism.

2. the don/sfw/bgf feed from the government trough, which is as socialistic as it gets.

I see you also choose to breeze over the dons/sfw/bgf's efforts to derail wolf delisting legislation as if it never happened.

You should also note that, in this thread, like any other started regarding SFW, support of that group is usually by only a lackey or two.

Maybe you should ask yourself why that is? Why is it that SFW is always on the wrong side of state and national legislation when it comes to wildlife. Why do they fail to show transparency? Why did the don refuse a debate with Randy Newberg?

Lots of questions that you refuse to answer...because you cant honestly answer them.

Maybe someday you'll start thinking on your own, come up with an original thought, and maybe even honestly answer the tough questions.

Why do that when its easier to swill kool-aid?

If you can read, your questions about Don Peay's "Socialism" statement are answered in the post above; taken out of context and patently false.

You'll also notice that the "lackeys" who start and support these conservation group bashing threads amount to about 6 people.

The reason not many defend the organizations is because most of them know that arguing with complete idiots with agendas and personality disorders isn't worth the time.

Something I haven't learned yet till now!

This thread is not the only one i've read where SFW always seems to come up with negative publicity. The majority usually isn't wrong.

Another installment regarding the AKSFW chapter and how they conduct "business"...

http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs...or-resigns-charged-12-hunting-violations

Wow, one of SFW's bigwigs would do that?

More here:

http://onyourownadventures.com/hunt...&highlight=alaska+game+fish+director


"Hi all, I wanted to get some info across, I'm "bushrat" from the Alaska forum and I see there has been a cut and paste here from that forum.

Been following and writing about what SFW has been trying to do here in Alaska for a while. Took a lot of flak for some opinion pieces. I felt someone should get the truth out about how things have changed up here once SFW got involved in influencing politics of game mangement.

Some of you may know that Director Rossi's resignation and news of the 12 game violation charges against him came out the day before an important statewide Board of Game meeting up here. That board is like other states' wildlife commissions, the seven members are appointed by the governor and make all decisions on seasons and bag limits and methods and means and allocations. This meeting is ongoing and continues into next week.

One of the proposals before the Board is from ADF&G, actually it's from Rossi but doesn't have his name on it. It is proposal 44 and asks that the Director of the Division of Wildlife Conservation (Rossi as of two days ago) be given the authority to manage the governor's tags hunts (which as Director he has sole authority over in who gets those tags) in ways whereby the Director could allow those hunts to take place outside normal seaons and to allow methods and means (like helo transport) not allowed under normal hunting regs. The rationale given is that the tags would be worth much more money if this was allowed. Alaska law allows for the allocation of two governor's tags per species per year.

Rossi was set to represent the Dept. on this proposal. No telling what will happen now, if the interim Director will still support it or not or if it will pass, but I sure hope what with these charges on Rossi the Board chooses not to even take this up right now. It is a clear conflict of interest with his strong SFW ties.

Some may be aware of the bill in Arizona (HB 2072 - http://phoenix.fanster.com/2012/01/1...ir-in-arizona/) SFW tried to get through secretly that is causing such a big stir right now. SFW was to benefit by getting exclusive rights to a new allocation of tags in AZ. They are trying to do there what they did in Utah, except that bill had no real requirements that the money for auctioned tags go back to the state for conservation work, no limits on what an org (SFW) could keep from sale of those tags.

This is pretty much the known SFW agenda wherever they go even though they claim it isn't, but in Alaska it was going to be hard for them to legislatively get a bill such as that or similar sponsored. All they could do was get "their man" Rossi in a leadership position at ADFG where he was in control of governor's tags. Which is a pretty big feat, gotta hand it to Don Peay <grin>.

So what they've been trying to do up here is to push policy via getting their own people in power for widescale privatized predator control efforts and new methods and means, like helo transport and snaring of black and brown bears. The charges against Rossi stem from the SFW "camps" they set up in one such bear control area. No money was supposed to change hands. SFW said they set up these bait station camps on their own dime, they would fly or boat hunters to these camps at the hunters' minimal expense. This was all supposedly to benefit Alaskans who wanted more moose on the table and a whole bunch of folks bought into it. But all along money has been changing hands, illegal (over limit) hunting was going on, and no way do I believe the 12 listed charges against Rossi (and he has already admitted his guilt according to the charging document) are an isolated incident.

If you think about how much money could be involved in pushing for more predator control of bears and privatizing it, especially grizzly bears which require a guide in Alaska...it's a pretty big deal. One of the weird things with the charges against Rossi is that there was no need for him to lie and falsify hunt records for his nonresident clients. Except for the one guy who took two bears when only allowed one. They all had nonres locking tags, so why then did Rossi make the "conscious decision" to seal those bears under his name and not have them sealed using the proper name and locking tag? (I should explain also that the first black bear control plan that got passed, and where SFW set up these bait station camps, allowed for residents like Rossi to take an unlimited number of black bears, So any resident could claim a whole lot of bears under his or her name.)

That alone right there I think pretty much confirms what was going on...they fly out hunters, many times prominent SFW supporters, they shoot some bears, they fly back and seal them falsely under another name, but the nonres hunters still have their required locking tag. Do you suppose the idea is to simply go home with that? You can't get a refund on them. So why the hell would they do this? The answer seems pretty clear. Again this isn't an isolated incident imo. Rossi and others were complicit as guides and as an org (these were SFW sponsored camps) in purposely helping hunters break our game laws...for money in their pockets.

I firmly believe this is the tip of the iceberg and I hope there is more investigation on this and dots are connected.

Cheers,
Mark "

Start a thread on your perspective of SFW over on monstermuleys or coueswhitetail... your numbers will rise... LOL... 24hour isn't the mecca of UTah, NM or AZ conservation issues.

You have no applicable conservation experience just parroting the SFW propaganda...

Figure you're jonesing for a premium booth at the expo closer to the budlight bikini sugar shack...

Kent

rcamuglia,

This would be a good time for you to throw your sucker in the dirt, take your ball, and go home.

You cant defend the AK and AZ bullchit that SFW pulled.

More about the Alaska SFW and Rossi:

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/spectacular-rise-alaska-wildlife-manager-corey-rossi

Here's an idea that may work for you guys.

Gather together and show up at all SFW fundraising banquets with picket signs and form a picket line chanting, "Hey Hey, Ho Ho, Tags for the Wealthy?, NO NO!". You should go with plenty of printed pamphlets concisely explaining your position.

You can get SLM and the rest of the anti's and show up at the SFW banquet here in NM at the end of March. I'll be there.

I'm sure you'll make a lot of friends and convert a few mislead sheep.

LOL!

Ok, I was going to leave it alone but since you threw my name back in.

Answer the question I have asked of SFWNM and NEVER have got a straight answer.

What are the goals of SFWNM and how are they going to achieve them?

What are YOUR not SFW's position on the following topics.

Jennings Law?
A-Plus?
E-plus including SCR and RO. Vs UW?
Current tag allocation including the outfitter subsidy?
More auction tags?

Looking for specific answers, not the generic what ever increases hunt/trophy opportunity .

Written when politians and judges were intelligent. Very important document for sportsman and non-sports alike

You know the goals of SFW and I'm not going to re-hash them.

As far as your other topics, I'm not aware of any of them. I'm sure my position would be similar to SFW's; they're the experts on the political side and that's why they have members they represent.

So, your name is "SLM"?

You don't like the idea of actually showing up at something you vehemently oppose and voice your concerns? It's a good way for you to raise awareness about the evil SFW. If you make a big enough scene, I'm sure you'll get some media attention to really get the word out. Maybe you can cause the downfall of SFW nationally.

If you actually get organized and decide to show up, let me know. I'll help by letting the sportscasters in town know you will be coming. I'm sure they'll dispatch news crews.

WOW, the biggest issues in NM and you are not aware of them?"........ Really?
So do you follow the Govrnment blindly also? They are the political experts.

With what all you guys think about SFW and others, I'm sure you think George Bush was the mastermind of 911

Forgot, yes I know what the goals of SFW are, but, SFWNM has always claimed they are theire own Org. and do not answer/follow anything that is done nationally .

"Dodge and deflect". You sure you vote R?

Is that what is on my avatar?

Would SFW do what they do if they could not retain a % of the auction fees?

From the "Those of you who don't trap, you might want to" thread...



I'm sure y'all think its the raccoons and possums that were doing the damage to the deer population...

As I've seen before, LAFFIN'

Sound science right there.

...to anyone who isn't brain dead

Would you work if you didn't get paid?

It was hot here yesterday....anthropogenic global warming must be true.

I'd explain why an anecdotal story doesn't provide evidence of a cause and effect relationship but youve already proven yourself as to not having a clue. Only the brain dead or those who must have dropped out of high school before taking a basic science could tell you that.

Only those who can't understand elementary economics would ask:


Originally Posted By: jryoung
Would SFW do what they do if they could not retain a % of the auction fees?

I dont steal from the public and break the principles of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.

Their model is flawed it has nothing to do with economics. Why can't they rely on donations from members or raise funds without selling a public resource. Now in addition to selling a public resource they are just going directly to the public asking for cash. It like Solyndra....how about we just call them Solyndra for Wildlife.

Now we all know why you can't even determine your location.

The economic model of ACORN/NAACP liberal welfare?

And in the same vein these type of crooks don't care if they are proven liars and con men as long as bank keeps coming in... and there are enough fools that believe their propaganda.

Kent

This thread sure reminds me of "discussions" when I was an active member of Quail Unlimited. It only took 20 years until QU imploded but I was eventually proven correct.

I'm sure the youth hunters all make 7 figures

Looks like a lot of upstanding business people have been duped by the evil SFW

The model is still flawed. As flawed as the argument that gun laws reduce gun violence.

rc', what are your thoughts on this? Good? Bad?

http://www.arizonaelksociety.org/PD...tary%20of%20Interior%20Ken%20Salazar.pdf

SFW is not signatory to this letter.

The group who signed who you think is SFW, Sportsmen for Wildlife Conservation, is not SFW (Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife)

Amazing ignorance

You're the one that's ignorant... I know more about azsfw than you ever will... Though I'm not following why you think I posted that to say sfw signed on. We all know they were not supportive of what the other orgs combined are...

That's the point.

Kent

Email straight from Don Peay:

"Issue is one year old, they are wrongly interpreting a year old Issue

15 major groups including MDF and sfw az supported tougher wolf management

How these guys think it is different is beyond me
......
Don Peay"

Which issue? Why won't Don come on here himself and answer some questions? Are you his mouthpiece now?

Reference back to Buzz's evidence that SFW was 'not' cooperative in delisting.

You are in a circle with no exit.

Kent

Yes, I guess you ignorant Bubbas have got me cornered.

I'm a SFW and Don Peay "puppet".

LOL! + P