Bowsite.com

None of these bills have wildlife as a beneficiary...they all scream more money for organizations like SFW, more tags for the wealthy, and leave all of us regular guys fighting mad (and the future of our hunting in question)!

Time to let our legislators know how we feel...

Corey

"There sure seems to be a lot of bills being introduced into several states right now that weren't initiated by the state's wildlife agencies.

Well, for starters, it's ILLEGAL for state's wildlife agencies to introduce laws. By law, state agencies are required to be apolitical.

Geeze!

Big difference there. One action, "introduction" is prohibited in most states. In most states, only a legislator can "introduce" legislation.

The other, "initiated" is encouraged by most states.

Easy examples of items initiated by state agencies would be public access programs established by legislation, wolf management legislation, expansion of hunting seasons, changing of hunting ages, and other legislation that might stem from scoping meetings or hearings a state wildlife agency holds with the hunting public. These are items often initiated by state wildlife agencies as a result of the feedback they get from their constituents.

Many very good programs result from legislation that is "initiated" by state game agencies based on feedback they get from constituents, though "introduced" by legislators.

Many of the bad programs come from legislation that is "initiated" and "introduced" by groups wanting their hands on resources managed by state agencies.

He said "introduced." Go back and read what he posted. I simply did a cut-n-paste from his post.

Either way, state employees and the state departments cannot, by law, do either.

You are correct, you did a simple cut-n-paste from my post. And then in the very next line, you did a simple twist-of-words...seems to be very common with many money-grabbing groups nowadays.

I said, "There sure seems to be a lot of bills being introduced into several states right now that weren't initiated by the state's wildlife agencies."

The sentence points out that there are a lot of bills being introduced in several states. The second part of the sentence states that those bills were not "initiated" by those in charge of managing the wildlife. Nowhere does it insinuate, or state, that the state has been, or should be, introducing bills. It does insinuate that groups who are not in charge of managing the big game herds are "initiating" the bills.

Kyle stated "Well, for starters, it's ILLEGAL for state's wildlife agencies to introduce laws." That fact was not disputed anywhere previously...

I am sickened that our legislature would consider approving bills that do nothing for wildlife or the real core of sportsmen within the state. These bills would take tags from everyday hunters and make them available only to the wealthy. That caters to a minority and takes away from the majority, and has no beneficial impact on the wildlife.

I am also sickened that organizations would go behind the backs of sportsmen in the hopes of getting bills passed that would benefit only that particular organization. If these bills were truly benefiting sportsmen and wildlife, why not get sportsmen on board so they would sail through Legislature? When something has to be slipped in the backdoor, it's probably not the right thing...

Corey Jacobsen Elk101.com - "Extreme Elk" Magazine

SFW is a cancer

I have absolutely no connection nor affiliation with SFW nor any other 'money grabbing group.' Nor do I have any desire to.

I remember it well because I brought the fact out that of the 11 sheep tags at the time 8 were being used for either "Convention tags" or "Conservation Tags" at the Northern Regional RAC in Utah and received all kinds of Crap from SFW for doing so. I got phone calls at home, and all kinds of crap from SFW members that attended that meeting saying how I was selfish and yota yota yota-- For those not informed about Utah this is the Name game SFW played to confuse the silent majority. Convention tags are the ones used at the convention only and have no strings attached. There are 200 of them. The other tool that they use here in Utah are Conservation tags which do carry the responsibility of habitat work. Get the rules on these though- Keep the 10% for administrative expense. you get to keep the money in your account for up to 5 years before you do the project and you keep any interest accrued during that time. Projects must be approved by the Utah DWR but a large % of those are done on Private lands (for a possible under the table favor of course- like a landowner tag, to be used for auction at the next SFW banquet)Also they can contract with their own people as to who actually does the habitat work. I wonder how many projects have been done by "uncle joe" and his construction company? Do you think that "uncle joe" could be involved in the ranks of the SFW membership? Do you smell a possible pay-off for political gain? As stated earlier most of the projects have matching funds from Pittman Roberts and of course the organization making claim on the efforts exaggerates its own participation. Finally, I stopped counting a couple of years ago but at that time there were over 400 of these conservation tags for the various "conservation partners" to use to sell at their respective banquets. I'm sure the number has gone up now.

With the millions of dollars reported to have been spent on wildlife in Utah you would think that we would have deer and elk crawling all over the place but ... I see that my hunting opportunities have decreased. This year it is likely that many bowhunters will not even be able to get a deer tag. We currently wait 7-10 years for a LE deer tag and 10-15 years for a LE elk tag. Deer numbers are at an all time low and the Bull/Cow ratios on most of the LE units in the state are one to one or worse. Sound conservation practices?? Ha ha ha. It's nothing more than an attempt to control supply and demand and by so doing continuing to get the highest $$ amount at auction. To manage for 400 bulls you have to be willing to let a lot of bulls go unhunted and oh yeah the Land owners association can sell their allotted tags at a higher price also because the quality is better. Follow the money trail and you will see that it is own own greed that has brought us to this. We have turned hunting into a business and the business model will move away from the "non-paying" public. I could go on and on.

Excuse the rant while I puke about all that I have seen happen. I feel like I have been shouting about this forever so It is refreshing to see people finally opening their eyes. I just wish it would have been 5 years sooner. I couldn't even bring myself to go walk in the lobby of the convention this year. Why throw $5 chances at tags for 1 in 1200 odds and continue to fund SFW. I just couldn't do it.

Woah! Shaun beat me to it!

This is the exact reason I was totally against all those governor's sheep tags going to auction. Ya it was 3 or 4 years ago. I tried to pull up the archives but the new system isn't so kind.

Those auction sheep tags raise a few bucks, but not one conforms to the North Amercian Model for Wildlife Conservation, and they directly opened the door to exploitation across the board. Now look what we have. It was inevitable. That is why I was always against them. If it weren't SFW it would be some other scammers buying their piece of the pie via politicians. Where will it end?

This year I am finally going to draw the one "last of the mohican" preference archery deer tags for the Paunsagunt in Utah. Of the 13 tags available to nonresidents there, 11 of them were peddled on the auction block (incl. 2 taken from NR's and raffled off to pro-SFWers) That means if I meet another NR while there, the odds are 8% it will be another DIY NR regular Joe who waited their turn in line like me.

Was it really worth it?

Both are one in the same if you ask me. Sportsman CANCER!

C&P from another forum. Latest message from AZSFWC (AZSFW is one in the same):

Some of our members recently expressed concern with some proposed legislation, HB 2072. However, AZSFWC did not sponsor HB 2072, nor introduce HB 2072. We did hear an overview of the bill at our December Board meeting, and the Board voted to support the concept. We viewed the benefits as presented for sportsmen and women, youth, access and wildlife, not to mention Arizona's economy, as very positive.

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact....8nQLV90A%3D%3D

Technically he is right. They did not sponsor or introduce HB2072 because none of them are legislators! They did, however, undoubtedly draft the bill in question, and paid Rep. Weiers $6187 during their December 16th meeting to sponsor/introduce it for them. They are not fooling anyone.

AZSFWC Council President/Chairman - Jim Unmacht Secretary/Treasurer - Alan Hamberlin Director - Eddy Corona Director - Joe Del Re Director - Floyd Green Director - Charlie Kelly Director - John Koleszar Director - Jerry Nelson Director - Mark Nuessle Director - Art Pearce Director - Brian Pinney Director - Shane Stewart Director - Gary Stinson Director - Robert Thomas

AZSFW council CHAIRMAN: Alan Hamberlin Chris Denham Brian Dolan Randy Gaskill Hays Gilstrap Floyd Green Todd Hulm Nick Heatwole Mark Nuessle Art Pearce Trent Swanson LOBBYIST: Suzanne Gilstrap

The AZ Secretary of State keeps records on all political contributions. This is from the Jerry Weiers 2012 political committee. The same Jerry Weiers who sponsored HB2072. These contributions totalling over $6000 were all made on December 16, 2011. 3 weeks before this emergency bill was created/made public. Coincidence? Maybe some of these names look familiar?

CORONA, EDWARD 12/16/2011 $100.00 DENHAM, CHRISTOPHER 12/16/2011 $250.00 Evenson, Jared 12/16/2011 $424.00 GILSTRAP, HAYS 12/16/2011 $200.00 GREEN, FLOYD 12/16/2011 $400.00 HAMBERLIN, ALAN 12/16/2011 $174.00 HAMBERLIN, DEBORAH 12/16/2011 $424.00 Hamberlin, Ryan 12/16/2011 $424.00 HICKMAN, BILL 12/16/2011 $200.00 HICKMAN, CLINTON 12/16/2011 $200.00 HICKMAN, GLENN 12/16/2011 $200.00 HICKMAN, LISA 12/16/2011 $200.00 HICKMAN SILVA, SHARMAN 12/16/2011 $200.00 HULM, TODD 12/16/2011 $50.00 Katz, Andy 12/16/2011 $424.00 KELLY, CHARLES 12/16/2011 $150.00 KING, RHONDA 12/16/2011 $35.00 KINNEY, DONNA 12/16/2011 $424.00 KOLESZAR, JOHN 12/16/2011 $100.00 MAGURA, JACK 12/16/2011 $410.00 MARVIN, J.W. 12/16/2011 $100.00 Mings, Brian 12/16/2011 $424.00 NELSON, KAREN 12/16/2011 $50.00 Pearce, Arthur 12/16/2011 $424.00 Stinson, L Gary 12/16/2011 $50.00 Thomas, Bob 12/16/2011 $50.00 UNMACHT, JAMES 12/16/2011 $100.00

Verifiable here ( 2012 - January 31st Report) http://www.azsos.gov/cfs/FilerSearch.aspx?id=200693346#

Its time these clowns just go away...

Other than saying hello to him when I see him at a convention I have not had any contact with Mr. Peay since the Sheep Show was last in SLC, which was 2009. Nor have I kept up on whatever he or SFW have been doing since then.

And hey I didn't claim anything about what tags were going where. I just made a true statement about auction/wealth tags in general which is an undeniable fact.

Something nobody ever mentions about him is for a mule deer savior, he picked a hypocritical place to live. His custom home in Bountiful sits dead center in the middle of former prime mule deer winter range! Go figure.

What up with your wheels? Are you running again?

I finally listened to the doctors and stopped running so as to keep the athritis I inherited from my mother's side of the family from getting worse. So for the past six months I've been doing really fast, long walks, mostly on trails. It's not as exhilarating as running, but it's keeping me in very good shape.

I can't speak for UT, but since I founded CA WSF and we held our first fundraiser in 2003, the number of sheep tags in the state have soared from twelve to twenty-seven. The quality of the rams taken this season in CA was incredible as well. 48% were B&C rams, four were over 179" and a new state record 187" ram was taken! The auction buyers took only one of the four best rams. The 187" was taken by a guy who drew the tag and hired an outfitter. The next best ram, new #2 in the world as of now, was also taken by a guy who drew the tag then took his ram DIY, with a BOW!

The auction tags aren't solely responsible for that increase, but they are an important part of it. CA's government is so screwed up that several years they wouldn't have even been able to do surveys if it wasn't for the money raised by the auction tags.

I saw where someone had dug up their #s from 2007;They took in approx $3.6 million, spent $3mill and out of that 14% went to wildlife programs with the rest going to "Expenses"

14% sounds a bit light to me.

My primary charity [kids shelter in Concord, ca] has 70% going to the kids. Their expenses are low due to the many free volunteers.

For all we know, "wildlife programs" could be what they spend on their own projects or it could be money they give to various state agencies or stuff like the sheep disease research at WSU. I don't know. At the same time, "expenses" could include projects they do themselves. Or not. I don't know that either. But until I do I'll neither praise nor condemn.

I posted the 2010 expenses from the 990 form on another post it's about 90% down the thread. '

I am posting it here but not sure how well the image resolution will be since I deleted the other jpg. They got a little better, but it seems they spend a lot on tags and conventions.

Stringgunner gave me the following website where you can look up 2008 & 2009. http://www2.guidestar.org

Good find. Thanks.

They spent $1.6M on wildlife projects of on kind or another.

As for spend money on 'conventions,' conventions are the sole source of fundraising for many wildlife organizations and it costs money to put on a convention. That's where they get their money to fund projects.

In looking this over, does anyone besides me see the irony and the humor in Mt. Man's comments, given that SFW spent $235,000 on wolf control?:

"SFW + WOLVES = Less elk for you and me, period. Both are one in the same if you ask me."

LOL!

1.6M out of 5M (less than 33%) does not seem like a very efficient non-profit organization. Although they have improved since 2007, the numbers still lend credence to the naysayers. It seems to be that sportsmen would be better off joining other organizations.

If there are local/State SFW affiliates that are more efficient, it seems to me they should consider switching over to other more reputable organizations.

BTW congrats on that Ram.

A lot of that $235K may have been what they spent trying to kill wolf hunting in MT and ID. Thankfully they lost that battle and we are hunting wolves in MT and ID.

A big waste of money, considering they have contributed not one single thing that got us wolf delisting, except for trying to kill the process.

Very ironic indeed. Ironic that they would list that as an item on their 990 to prove to the world how much they threw away with nothing to show for it.

If the state of UT was the recipient of those Expo proceeds, I wonder what they might have used the $235K for, or the huge amount reported as fundraising, or the large number for ........

I look at what WSF and the state of MT have done in MT for bighorn sheep, with two tags, and it is amazing. One raffle tag operated by the state and one auction tag by WSF. Full transparency, full accountability. Lots more sheep, as it results in money on the ground.

If done properly, and not turned into a tag selling circus act, a couple tags can make a great difference for wildlife, and can be done in an equitable manner to all citizens.

If this is what UT wants with their wildlife and hunting opportunity, fine with me. States rights. Do what they want.

When the UT model is used as the funding source to create havoc in other states, such as Corey mentioned here or when SFW/BGF tried to kill wolf seasons in MT and ID, then it becomes an important issue for hunters outside of UT.

If done properly, and not turned into a tag selling circus act, a couple tags can make a great difference for wildlife, and can be done in an equitable manner to all citizens."

I completely agree, and you can add CA to that list of successes. 10 years ago we had 11 public tags and 2 auction tags (NvA, correct my if I am wrong on the 2. Fast forward to 2012 and we have 25 draw tags with a third non-draw tag added for this year, which is going in a public raffle.

Some people still complain about the 2 auction tags, suggesting that all the tags for such a limited resource should be put in the public draw. We could have done that 10 years ago....and have 13 public draw tags today rather than the 25 we will have. That is the power of the auction tag when used appropriately.

This is no defense of SFW, my point here is that auction tags - when managed properly and used in the right situation - can greatly benefit the draw hunter. Folks should not consider them to be synonymous.

100% agreed. Auction tags can be a tremendous tool. In my opinion, SFW is also a tremendous "tool"! LOL

Like BigFin said, "States rights. Do what they want."

As for NM, the sooner SFW vacates, the sooner NM sportsmen will be better off.

As a former chapter chair of a conservation organization, we raised over $200K net the old fashion way. 3 banquets, 3 years. Raffling prizes, getting donations from outfitters and businesses, promoting, etc.

Other contributions have been made with sweat and shovel, by numberous volunteers, with very little money transacted. I think those contributions receive so little recognition, while some guy buying a product (tag) gets thanked profusely, wined and dined by the organizations and outfitters, and thrown in the spotlight for doing so, overshadowing the fine work of the every day hunter/conservationist/volunteer. Meanwhile, his contribution of cash was done to circumvent the draw process the rest of us are placed in, NOT because of his good will. Most of these individuals could have written a big fat check to any of the growing numbers conservation organizations at any time, but have elected not to.

Naturally left alone, many populations have and will multiply on their own. While we can re-populate, create guzzlers, do some small scale habitat improvements and more, we can not stop predation, habitat loss, droughts, disease. Those factors have a significant impact on all specie, and money can only help in certain controllable circumstances. I believe many of the population changes that have been attributed to money, have occured naturally.

Some species will grow, some (mule deer) will decline regardless of how much money we throw at it. Please don't take this that we should not do as much as we can to avoid declines, but many are natural or unnatural events that are not easily controlled.

I see selling auction tags as a shortcut to fundraising. A few here a few there turns into the fiasco that is the easy money of the SFW model. Meanwhile the specie (mule deer) that the organization was founded partially to improve continue to decline regardless of record numbers of tags auctioned. While I have no problem with a tag auctioned off at certain very special marquis events, I think as a whole we should try to avoid this as the only marketable promotion. At one time stating "the AZ governors tag will be auctioned" was a promotional tool, now it almost seems as though every event has a tag for sale, and their is no "governors tag" just auction TAGS (plural).

ALL of the guys on this site have their hearts in the right place. This is just my opinion and I do appreciate and enjoy hearing the opinions of my other friends on this site.

While I do not see where anyone has done what you are suggesting, I will elaborate on the history and process behind CA's sheep tag increase. It has *very* little to do with population increases as intimated, and was mostly driven by opening new hunt units. To get new units opened, scientific survey work needed to be completed. That took money - money the CA DF&G did not have in its budget. That money that was raised by fundraising, both privately (CA WSF banquet proceeds/private donations) and publicly (the sale of auction tags via a public/private partnership, with all the proceeds going to the state).

If the ability of the state to fundraise via selling auction tags was taken off the table, it would have substantially reduced the inflow of funds needed to expand public opportunity.

If one had an idea of the amount of fundraising work it would take to generate a net of $160K+- annually (implying if folks just worked harder at private fundraising, they could generate that $160K elsewhere), I can guaranty you that position would be rethought.

The auctioning of a CA sheep tag at the CA WSF banquet creates substantial buzz, a synergy that the private fundraising activities more successful.

The bottom line is there are states such as MT and CA where auction tags have been shown to work very, very well, and that generalizing about such tags because there are other states where it is perceived they have been abused is short-sighted.

"Thankfully they lost that battle and we are hunting wolves in MT and ID."

I don't see much humor in that attack on us there Kyle. $235K wasted in my opinion.

"If one had an idea of the amount of fundraising work it would take to generate a net of $160K+- annually (implying if folks just worked harder at private fundraising, they could generate that $160K elsewhere), I can guaranty you that position would be rethought."

No rethinking necessary here, I have put on banquets and know exactly how much work it takes to make that kind of money, and it takes a LOT of work for sure. Our best year was a $110k+ banquet with about 350 attendees. We raffled guns, atv, jumping jack trailer, etc. I did an interview at a radio station, ads, booth at a sportsman show. It was a lot of work for sure. Heck we were the first to get a certain indian reservation to donate a tag for our banquet!

While working on a CDA (Cal. deer association) committee, we brought together backhoes and volunteers for guzzlers (I am not taking credit for this but my buddy did send out his backhoe).

While there are some new areas, many of the sheep herds have expanded in existing areas. Heck, where did those transplanted sheep come from originally? From existing areas that have robust, and increasing populations.

Not trying to pick a fight with you there Matt, we are both on the same side here. As stated governors tags have been very useful in the past for promoting marquis convention attendance, but when everyone has got one, it just doesn't have the same effect. Keep up the good work.

In some cases yes, in some no. The AZ governors elk tag has a 365 day season to kill his/her elk.

Where and when did they spent money fighting wolf hunting? Show your work!

I can only wish that was my ram! It's not. What it is is the new CA state record ram, taken by a CA WSF member who drew the tag in the state draw. Without the use of auction tag money, there would have been far fewer tags in the draw and his odds of drawing that tag would have cut by half!

You are wrong. ;^)

Ten years ago CA had only one auction tag. Sold for ~$50-$60K. Last year we had three that raised almost $200,000, all of which goes to CA DFG for bighorn sheep.

This year there will only be two auction tags, but that's because I appeared before the CA DFG Commission three years ago on behalf of CA WSF and recommended that the third fundraising tag become a raffle tag that would be available for everyone. Now that's become reality.

Guys, you can buy chances for one of these disgustingly evil fundraising tags at the link shown here. Click the 'Customer Log In/Register' button to proceed.

Good luck!

How much proof you want? I am more than glad to provide however much you need.

Go to the link and see what it says. It was the easiest piece I could link in the five seconds I tried.

Here is the background to that release by the NRA.

SFW/BGF sent out a misleading press release, stating the NRA, SCI, B&C, and CSF wanted to kill the Simpson-Tester rider that got us wolf seasons in MT and ID.

Simpson-Tester was the bill that got us our wolf seasons and SFW/BGF hated it. They fought very hard to kill it.

In this instance, they made a big mistake. SFW/BGF crafted an email they intended to send to every member of Congress. It stated NRA, et al agreed with SFW/BGF to kill the S-T rider.

NRA, et al told SFW/BGF to take their name off any email, as they were supporting the Simpson-Tester rider and the progress it represented.

SFW/BGF sent it out anyhow, with the NRA and others incorrectly listed. Every member of Congress was intentionally lied to by SFW/BGF even after being told by NRA, et al to not include their name on that email.

Just one of many pieces of proof that they were trying to kill the wolf delisting legislation that got us our seasons in MT and ID.

Everyone involved in MT and ID wolf delisting knew what SFW/BGF was up to. SFW/BGF never denied their efforts, merely went on the attack, sending their hatchet squads out to hammer NRA, SCI, B&C, CSF and any other group.

How much more you want? Guys involved in this battle could run this up to 200 posts with data showing what they were up to.

The link here is the easiest and most obvious.

So nice to have the facts though there could be some slop in a-f.

I have no problem with giving the tags to quality outdoor groups as long as it isn't a pennies on the dollar return for wildlife.

Congrats, on getting the tags switched from Auction to raffle. I much prefer a raffle system since it give more hunters a chance although I realize there is a limit to how much multiple raffles can raise.

I am skeptical to credit any one thing for a success story. Example.

When I was a kid the G&F here in NM had a 1/2 hour TV show Sunday mornings (I started watching that show in the 70s). Every few weeks a significant portion of that show would deal with Desert Bighorns and the problems they had increasing the # of sheep. I don't have info on how much was spent, but it was obvious a significant portion of G&F budget went to disease control and habitat improvement. It was not until Cougars in the area were "properly" managed did the numbers start to increase. This year the amount of tags for Desert Bighorns went from 1 to 14 (Not sure why the G&F has not increased the number gradually over the last few years).

I will put in for the "lottery" for the Henry Mountains in Utah this year(1/1000). The number of NR tags has not increased but the number of auction tags has. The Henry is a premium unit and it would not be wise to allow too many hunter in, if your objective is to maintain trophy quality. The SFW claims their auctions will increase the number of tags in the long run. All it really does is take premium tags with the promise of more tags in other units. It is my understanding they have had auction tags in Utah for some time and the number of tags they get have been increasing. This year Utah will decrease deer tags by a total of 3000. Where is the habitat improvement they are promising? All that is happening is that people who have waited 15+ years to draw have to wait even longer while people who spend big $ get to jump the line.

I have always thought of the WSF as a creditable organization. Looking at the CA chapters 990 form from 2010 I see you are VP of operations and neither you or any of the other officers draw a salary. Expenses seem to be overhead only and there is no buying of LO tags or cash spent on conventions. I assume you allow the G&F in CA to spend the $ raised on habitat improvement.

This in not what people are criticizing here.

"and recommended that the third fundraising tag become a raffle tag that would be available for everyone. Now that's become reality.

Guys, you can buy chances for one of these disgustingly evil fundraising tags at the link shown here. Click the 'Customer Log In/Register' button to proceed.

Good luck!"

I'm pretty sure the tags that are being met with such opposition in this thread are AUCTION tags. A RAFFLE tag that affords a much wider diversity of people the opportunity to participate is a different discussion altogether.

With that said, thank you for your work(self-proclaimed, but I'm sure it's fact) in helping raise funds for wildlife while also increasing opportunity (no matter how slim the chances) for the average American hunter.

Auction tags in and of themselves aren't bad, and, as shown here and in several other places, can be a great source of revenue for state's to use to manage game. The evil part of the auction tag equation is the money-hungry groups who are driven by greed and ego, not a true desire to do what's best for wildlife and sportsmen.

Idaho has an auction tag for sheep and it goes a long way in assisting the sheep herds in Idaho. California, as you pointed out, has benefited from a couple auction tags. These cases are excellent examples of a solid balance between sportsmen giving up a little and gaining a lot, while wildlife benefits.

SFW takes that equation and throws sportsmen under the bus, while pimping our wildlife to benefit their organization and the select few within the ranks. I would completely support one or two tags being used for auction to raise money for the state of Idaho. Looking to our friends to the south as an example, it is clear that SFW isn't happy with just a couple tags. Once that floodgate is open here, there would be no way to stop them or manage them. We've already fought that battle with the wolves and seen the destruction they have caused...we don't need another predator in our state.

Corey