Thanks, Corey
Apparently Nate Helms greased the skids within the Commission. Says he can generate more $$$$.
Cheers,
Mike
Larv
It's just like any other organization. If you don't like thier policies you have a couple of choices. You can try to tear it down or battle every proposal you don't like. In this case it seems the preferred choice is to ineffectively rail against SFW. How's that working out for you?
IMO it's time to consider working within SFW to help direct policy. In fact, it's past time.
My .02, Tom
Not to start an argument, but wasn't that concept/idea tried with the Nazi Party in the 1930s?
Sometimes compromise is good and even necessary. Sometimes it's more like a cop out.
Personally, I think freedom from special interest is the best.
The Old Sarge
Working from within is just that, work. It does not relate to the compromise of values to keep the peace. It doesn't mean sit quietly while others are picked off until it's your turn.
What I am suggesting is quite the opposite. We obviously have people who are passionate enough about policy to watch and complain about SFW (and others). Why not step in and see if you can influence the decisions?
I've never had a problem calling an individual, organization or entity out when I disagree. That includes SFW. When we had issues I went straight to the source and dealt with it. Every time I talked with Nate he was straight with me. He has tried to remain approachable and courteous in every contact I know of. It's hard for me to believe that he is the only one in SFW like that, or that working from within would be impossible.
As for 'special interests'-
Special interest groups used to be called 'stakeholders'. Groups and individuals with higher than average knowledge and experience, or suffering greater effect from a given policy should be heard. Without this concept we wouldn't have a separate archery season.
My .02, Tom
Good luck to us! 'Mains
What is SFW doing for the betterment of game in Idaho that doesn't involve money and that doesn't directly benefit those with the most of it?
The Old Sarge
I will answer your question with a question or two. First off what makes SFW think that they can spend this money more wisely the FNAWS? Will this money that they raise go DIRECTLY towards sheep and sheep habitat?
We all understand how the tag money goes and that F&G get there share and SFW get something for nothing and would have to show that the money went to something good before most will understand and/or appreciate teh efforts. FNAWS has proven that they can do so. So step back and understand the reason behind a lot of peoples concerns.
The whole bit about "what are you doing for wildlife" is just you trying to pass some blame and cloud the conversation. Well at least without examples of what SFW has done that is so great. Being an active member is great but if that is all you do then it isn't that exciting. SHOW people the good that will benifit ALL the hunters in Idaho. Not just the menbers of SFW. sure we can all become one and don't come on here assuming that we are all ignorant schmucks.
I feel safe to venture out and say that most of us have the same concerns when it comes to lands and habitat. It is the methods in which we take that differ.
calling people out is not a good way to get support, you would do well to talk with Nate and see his approach. I may not agree with him all the time but i am happy to hear his opinion as, along with the bionic man, i feel nate has been honest with me.
I think the mistrust of SFW stems from what we think we know SFW has done in other states. It's a perception, whether well-founded in fact or not.
I suspect one thing that would calm the fears of many is if SFW would guarantee that it would not push "conservation tags" or "governor's tags" or any other semblance of a tag that is sold at auction or banquets, thereby taking away opportunity from Joe Schmoe and giving it to someone with lots of dough.
With that said, SFW will move forward and is in the best position to have the ear of the legislature of all groups out there, so as Tom stated above, either we work with them internally to drive policy making, or we continue to complain, sling mud and sit on the sidelines as policy and, ultimately, law is changed.
Either that, or somebody better create a much larger, much wealthier and more politically adept group in a hurry.
And that is the biggest problem with such groups. Money and politics, money and politics. The of the most corrupting and easily corruptable things on earth.
If you have the political clout, you get what you want. If you have The Big Bucks, you can get anyting, including clout.
Just once, I'd like to see an organization reach the top tier with ALL hunters' interests at heart ... what's good for us all ... instead of just their own.
But ... I understand why it will never happen. Those with money and selfish motives will use their money to serve those motives and those that wish to represent all hunters will not stoop so low as to make it about money or political clout/gain. It's no longer a matter of what's right. It's about "What can I get?"
The Old Sarge
Ole Sarge, when I say what are you doing to improve hunting, I am seriously asking what are you doing? We as sportsmen have taken a backseat to those who stand up, organize and accomplish things like introducing woofs and shutting off access to public lands. We all need to move forward to keep the opportunities we hold as important. SFW members who participate in projects do directly benefit from the fact that they know what projects have been done. I am wondering how bitterbrush plantings 2 years ago have benefitted the rich though. I am also wondering how working to make the woofs huntable is another benefit to only the rich. I do know that SFW had some pretty tricky members in the beginning. They, however, have found themselves a new home. I personally can see where a statewide organization can get us as sportsmen. I can see that we are millions of dollars away (gov't and private bucks) from really making a change for sportsmen in Idaho. SFW is taking the lead on introducing fall feed as a building block for Idaho's deer herds. SFW is also working to generally improve hunting opportunity for sportsmen. SFW has been credited with getting an underpass to be installed on Highway 21 outside of Boise where there is huge deer/motorist mortality. We need money from the rich as well as money from the not so rich to accomplish the habitat and highway goals we have. We simply need to come together as sportsmen to fix this deal, and if you don't think it's broken... By the way, if you hunt deer, look at the fall browse as you hunt this year. Look at it with the notion that our deer populations have struggled since about 5 years after CRP was introduced. There is not a good source of fall browse. Before CRP, there was fall wheat that allowed deer to pack on the calories right before the winter. This food source can almost double the fat reserves for the animals right before the winter. Mr. Wapiti, 95% of the sale of the tag (usually 55-70K) goes to the study of disease transmission from domestic to wild sheep. The other 5% is for marketing the tag. This means that best case scenario, SFW will receive around $3500.00 for the sale of the tag. You put those numbers towards the marketing of the tag, thee really isn't that much money for the rich. Mr. Idabow, you need to know your neighbor in order to know how much to mistrust him. If you only stay a stone's throw away from them, you only know what you can see from a stone's throw. I thought I understood in your post, that you weren't all that much against SFW, but there still seems to be a little doubt. We have great problems to fix in our crosshairs, let's buckle down and get em. We really are pretty close to hitting a homer.
I've personally planted bitterbrush on more than a few occasions, gathered seed, built (literally) hundreds of nest boxes, maintained trails, etc ... and never once did I ask for, or accept, anything in return.
What has SFW gotten from the Department of FD&G or the commission for all the organization's hard work and the money it's spent? (When I go to SFW's site and click on Idaho to find out for myself, it crashes my browser and boots me off the Internet. Anyone at SFW aware of that?)
You said yourself ... "... SFW had some pretty tricky members in the beginning." Guess what ... SFW still has some and probably always will. It boils down to trust and reputation. SFW has problems in both departments, by your own admission.
By all means, keep up the good work and the housekeeping. It can't hurt. But SFW is a special interest group, and like most all special interest groups, it caters to and seeks to benefit its own members first. Any benefit to the general public is just secondary, IMO.
When you volunteer to perform a public service, you should do it with no strings attached or return favors in mind.
The Old Sarge
You have done a tremendous amount of good in the Burley area. Your chapter deserved the recognition it was granted. I believe you know these readers, on this blog, have asked where all of the (SFW) money has gone. You also know (because you were the first one to make us aware of this site) that we have answered it many times.
I find it almost ironic that the issues I observe the ISB fighting about are almost identical to those SFW faces (as well as most conservation organizations). You know the crux of the issue and it is all about whether a state-based organization should have a strong central body or direct the "power" to the individual chapters. This is one issue ISB faces from time to time. Ultimately, this is the issue SFW wrestled with. I know you are upset that in the end the Board felt having paid contractors and generating revenue through political means (like Utah's original model) was primary to the organization and giving local chapters "control" was secondary. I hope your minority opinion and the eventual decision against your desires will not motivate an effort to throw stones.
I wish you well in Idaho for Wildlife and hope that your local group of sportsmen will continue to do good things for the wildife in your community. You deserved the "Spirit of Idaho" award from Mike Crapo and the Field and Stream recognition you mentioned in your comment.
However folks want to use this opportunity to castigate SFW the thread is about the Sheep tag the Commission chose to give us. This is a perfect example of how SFW operates here in Idaho. My responsiblity is to generate revenue for the conservation of Idaho's game. We can and will do that through the tag. (I will not go into the story about why we asked for the tag, suffice it to say we were no longer having a fundraiser in Utah with the WSF and as a result we asked for one of the two tags.)
On another similar note, the $250,000 of our money is very real. We have that money set aside and are working with IDFG to create the rubric needed to see these seed dollars become $2-3 million on the ground. Next will come more seed money, generating more on the ground dollars. Yes, SFW-Idaho raised money to pay a contractor. This is what they paid for...
The $100,000+ SFW put into the Timberdome property (including your Mini-Cassia Chapter) is real as well. Not everything went to me:)
While I do not want to spend a bunch of time arguing in a circle on this blog, I felt it necessary to ensure there was a counter to the submission.
Those who called me direct to get answers on the tag, I appreciate your willingness to hear my perspective.
Thanks,
nate
El Capitan, how can you dissociate yourself from doing projects as SFW Idaho? Those projects were done under the structure that the organization provided and you and your membership found a way to get them done. You did them in the name of SFW, which is great. The hard part is you failed to realize that you were also part of a statewide organization that was developing relationships to get great things done, not that the projects that were done in your neck of the woods were of no worth. When your people buy an Idaho hunting and fishing license, however, they can use the whole state of Idaho. This is much larger than just the Mini-Cassia area.
SFW is and has been working on ways (relationships) to relieve some of the burden placed directly on sportsmen. When sportsmen go dollar for dollar (what is raised to what is benefitted) the growth is slow. When sportsmen can go dollar for 10, we move at about 10 times the rate. This, as I see it, is the only way hunting is going to be changed in my lifetime.
For almost 30 years, sporting groups have been working at the dollar for dollar rate of accomplishing goals. As I am sure you can agree, this just isn't fast enough. If we plan to do anything with great affects in the short amount of time, we have to utilize every resource available to enhance the sporting opportunity. This is what SFW is attempting to accomplish. If we can accomplish putting projects together with all of the available resources we have, especially to benefit bighorn sheep (which is what the tag is for) why not allow us to try something different?
I know that it is perceived that SFW's relationships, especially with the Fish and Game Commission are proving to be very effective. Commissioner Powers has talked about bighorn vehicle collisions in his area. He has made the comment that vehicle collisions with bighorn sheep almost keep them at a zero population growth. If SFW, working with the heads of the transportation department can find ways of mitigation for ensuring the safety of the bighorns that are whacked there, we have just worked to increase the bighorn population. If and when that happens, it may well be worth SFW having the tag. This again, though, would one of our "special interests", one that I would hope most sportsmen would see the value in.
I live in the hot zone you mentioned where the sheep are getting "wacked". It start about 5 miles out of Salmon to North Fork (20 miles) and then from there to Corn Creek (another 47 miles or so). Powers is right - there are sheep killed. Some by vehicle collisions and some by Native Americans. Think about it! You got a plan to fix that? I doubt the highway department gives a hoot and treaty rights are hard to break - but have at it!
Now tell me again how your dollar for dollar is better than FNAWS.
I would like to see from your group a dollars in and dollars out for 2008. How much did you raise and how did you raise the money, what was your membership growth (+ or -), what was paid to contractors, what was paid to staff, did any of your loyal members actually donate $$ above and beyond the annual dues. Do you get the drift? Full disclosure!
I have had it up to here with groups that always claim to have my best interests at heart (ie. that anti-wolf group headed by Gillette in Challis that forever collects money and never accounts for it).
Don't take these comments as being necessarily opposed to SFW. In principal I hear you saying the right things. Now convince me!
In your post, you commented that you doubt that the highway department (a.k.a. Idaho Department of Transportation) gives a hoot about the bighorns, you are exactly correct in that statement. However, SFW is putting the spurs to the Governors office, IDFG, IDT, legislators and insurance companies to change that. That is where having a state employee that deals with the leaders of the state comes in handy. When SFW's employee knows the contacts to get things coordinated and changed, you then take your concerns the right direction and get them presented. The relationships that SFW's employee has made makes the road easier to travel.
So SFW initiated a highway project 2 years ago. This project was one to rectify a fence that was poorly engineered and reuse the fence for a project in SE Idaho. Over the course of the project, we found some deficiencies in the way the IDT and IDFG address areas where big game get whacked on Idaho's roadways. We worked a strategy to address the situation and handed it off to the right person. This person that heads up the transportation for the state brought together the heads of the IDT and the IDFG to address the situation.
This happened to be occurring when some stimulus moneys came and had to have a project to be spent. A project outside of Boise on Highway 21 was brought to the front of the line for installing a wildlife underpass for deer to safely cross. That project was collateral benefit of the work that SFW was doing. This project was not specifically of "special interest" to members of SFW in Southeast Idaho, however, it is a statewide project that was accomplished by efforts of SFW taking concerns to the right people. By the way, this will be over a million dollar project.
The work of SFW and the excited efforts of the heads of the government have started to generate projects to get lined up in the state for the IDT and IDFG to address. They have actually got a "hotlist" of 37 road crossings that they have started to look at. This time, they are not just looking at them, they are looking to find structures that can allow animals (big game animals) safe crossings. This has taken SFW's contracted employee hours of research to put together. Simply, it cannot be calculated the amount of dollars in to dollars out because the dollars and the results cannot have a direct relationship unless you know all of the workings and who and what you can take credit for.
Sportsmen have had this idea to work from the ground up to rebuild the sporting in Idaho. SFW's approach is work from the ground up and the top down and fix everything that is broken, and anyone who has paid attention has realized that most of it (top to bottom) is broken in the state.
I am all for conservation and management, I just don't like a "special-interest group" coming in and taking tags that will only be available to the rich. Utah started with a handful, now look at how many of their tags go to the guys with the deepest pockets. I'm also concerned that a small group can gain so much control/influence within our State Fish and Game.
FYI, Myra, name calling wasn't cool when we were in the 5th grade. It's certainly not cool here...try getting your point across with intelligence as Nate does and you're opinion will become much more valuable, whether it is agreed with or not.
Corey
The Old Sarge
TOS, most of the bitterbrush activities are coordinated with the Department. Some of the SFW Chapters additionally provide meals or similar to get additional volunteers. We have no expectations of return from the Department for participating, only returns on wildlife game "productivity".
I believe the answer to your second question has been provided. You may even ask others on this site but we have had success with the Department and Commission. As I am sure you know, it is really all about relationships, and trust (as you noted).
Please feel free to go to our web site as you may. The challenge appears to be that you go to the Utah site and then use their link. We have attempted to get them to get all of their links fixed but it appears some still go to old sites or the electronic black hole. Try us at www.sfwidaho.org and see if you cannot find us.
Corey, I cannot forget the discussion on this subject on this site a few years ago. Rest assured, Idaho SFW has not changed. I think your conclusions about the conversation are not completely accurate, however. The whole discussion back in the day began when I defended the idea that a rich man's contribution for a highly valued tag could contibute more to wildlife conservation than was lost. My assurance to the readers was that we were not Utah and had no plans to get an abundant number of tags like Utah for that purpose. To date we have not asked for additional tags. This request to have one of the sheep tags naturally begs your questions but this tag has been in place, and broadly accepted, for many years.
Corey, I think you need to know that the Department and Commission have been coming to SFW to talk about more of these types of tags. Call Brad or others if you need. Please note, we have not asked for these tags. They asked me specifically about the ten wolf tags for auction and we did put in a proposal in response to their RFP. I think those who oppose these tags and this program ought to catch up with their commissioners because it is a topic of discussion right now.
I have no interest in another 100 comment string on this site so if you wish, call me some time and I can give you more details.
nate
He has created a new "Exclusive Club" called Full Curl where guys like Karl Malone pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for sheep "auction tags" that SFW generates. Don Peay, President of SFW, also owns a hunting consulting business which charges these high dollar "hunters" to advise them on where to go to fill their tag. Ironically, SFW also paid out $475,000 in consulting fees last year...someone is incredibly business-minded and creative.
In the article he states that he created Full Curl to bring all hunters together, but in the very same paragraph mentions they won't be calling the taking of 4 sheep a "Sheep Slam", rather a "Full Curl". I don't see how creating a competing organization to FNAWS and taking their auction tags from Utah, Idaho, and Alaska (for starters) is bringing hunters together.
I like to see money generated for conservation and management as much as anyone. What I don't like to see is a few select individuals profiting to the tune of $100's of thousands of dollars, while pimping OUR tags to rich guys who get on their personal Leer jet, fly into Utah, and shoot a ram a few hours later. If they are truly concerned about conservation, they would donate the cash and not expect a coveted tag in return. Then to add fuel to the fire, Don pats himself on the back during the entire article, taking credit for all the good that has happened in Utah...
The direction they are heading with an emphasis on rich guys getting the tags and access is sickening, and that is what I don't want in Idaho. It started with "We aren't interested in any auction tags" to well, we just happened to get 10 wolf tags and a sheep tag to auction off...
SFW's credibility has gone out the window when you see Don Peay's hand in every pocket of the cash cow. And when he doesn't have his hand in the pockets, he is patting himself on the back. Not the kind of conservation I agree with. It's too bad SFW-Idaho is starting out the exact same way SFW-Utah did...
Corey
Damn. That sounds familiar ...
One thing I don't understand is how someone can take one specific example of what is being done and make a general assumption of how the organization is directed.
Get off your butt and go do it.
Simple really. No money involved, no influence ... or the peddling thereof ... Just do the work within the mechanism already in place ... F&G. If you volunteer, do it in the spirit of volunteerism, not for what you want or think you might gain. DO it for conservation.
Anything else is just another special interest ... and we have far too many of those already ... mostly serving their own selfish ends.
The Old Sarge
I believe I understand (and somewhat agree) with your sentiments regarding conservation. At the same time I recognize the need to put cash into the mix to get certain things done.
When you run an org strictly volunteer, you eventually get what you pay for. I know from personal experience the effort required to stay on top of and influence policy. There is no doubt in my mind that a paid Executive Director takes an organization 'to the next level' in that arena. If nothing else it prevents us from being crippled when leadership turns over or someone has to move on. I personally don't see anything wrong with that fact. Money going into the hands of policy-makers or being spent 'tit for tat' on the other hand is horse crap and should be prosecuted. I don't see any of the latter in this case.
There are other times that money comes in handy. Owners give up conservation easements for various reasons. Some without compensation, but most want something. The money has to come from somewhere. That is where an SCI or SFW can come in real handy.
My .02, Tom
I would love to support another conservation organization, and I think SFW has validity. I just cannot, and will not, support an organization that has a goal of taking tags from sportsmen to sell to the wealthy, and that is exactly what SFW has demonstrated. In Utah, and now here. If they had a limit and were only able to receive a couple tags, I am OK with that. I don't agree with it 100%, but there is value for wildlife, so I could get over it.
But the all-out greedy grab that has been displayed is not something I support. Whether they want to play it off as "hey, they asked us if we wanted them" or whether their members state that they aggressively asked for them, if doesn't matter. The direction of rubbing shoulders with the F&G in the hopes of gaining tags that will eventually benefit themselves in the name of conservation is exactly where Utah started. Looking at all the ways Don Peay is pimping wildlife and padding his own pockets with revenue (whether direct or indirect) from our wildlife makes me sick. The goal is not conservation, it is personal profit in the name of conservation. SFW was just the machine that took him there.
Is it true that SFW-Idaho's membership dropped from 5000 to 600? I truly wish there was a way I could support SFW-Idaho...but as long as they are walking in the shadow of SFW-Utah and following in the same footsteps, I can't. I was hoping the initial conversation 2+ years ago would prove me wrong by now. I think it's doing just the opposite.
If a group is truly concerned about conservation, why can't they help the F&G promote the Super Tags or the Sheep tag and increase the revenue through their channels and contacts that way? Why do they need their hand in the wallet and complete control of the tag? Is it so they will directly benefit from their "contacts" who end up with the tags?
Sorry for the long posts, this is just a topic I obviously feel rather strongly about.
Corey
I'm sure you do, Tom. But if all the people that are allowed to "influence policy" by spending money to get what they want were banned from doing so, wouldn't we all be better off? If you appeal to a person's greed, don't you just get more and more greed?
Instead of playing a losing game, why not go back to the original concept of a representative government? "One MAN, one vote" ... not "One organization, lots of influence" .. or even "Lots of money, lots of influence." Our government is not supposed to be for sale to the highest bidder, but make no mistake ... it bery often is.
We all talk about taking back control from the politicians but we often forget the lobbyists and special interests that feed those greedy sons of cur dogs and in large part enable them and their BS.
As for easements being donated vs purchased ... maybe fair tax credits are in order. How about hunting and fishing for life for one family member for every so many acres donated? How about "charity" returning to the old fashioned concept of ... well, charity ... given freely without expectation, compensation or demand?
Once again, it doesn't make sense to continue to feed the money machine and then bitch about the money machine. :0)
But I preach to the choir ...
The Old Sarge
"But if all the people that are allowed to "influence policy" by spending money to get what they want were banned from doing so, wouldn't we all be better off?"
In the case of true influence peddling yes. When you talk about the average Ex. Dir. or State lobbyist, no.
"If you appeal to a person's greed, don't you just get more and more greed?"
And there is the heart of the issue. Take the average Idaho Lobbyist. There are a handful that rake in big bucks. Most of them are lucky to bring in $850/wk. during the session. Given the hours required they are making around $14/hr. I would consider that rate an insult. We pay anyone with a good work ethic better than that fresh out of high school.
When you start looking at Executive Directors the pay is usually better. It still runs about the same as any professional with a good education and diverse experience. I fail to see how that constitutes greed.
I strongly believe in the "One man, One vote" concept. That is how we select leaders. If we choose properly the lobbyist is nothing more than a researcher and presentor of fact. If we choose poorly you end up with money and favors driving policy. I can see how someone from Idaho would think the latter is the norm:^)
As for the Conservation easements-
If I grant a perpetual easement of any kind I stand to lose future value. In the case of a large tract this can easily amount to millions. I refuse to label the grnator as greedy for not going further into his pocket to pay taxes on the devalued land. I also disagree with tax breaks. It is reasonable to keep the tax rate appropriate for the use. It is not reasonable to force the tax-payers in the same district to give through higher levies by reducing or eliminating the valid tax on the land. They weren't part of the deal.
"Once again, it doesn't make sense to continue to feed the money machine and then bitch about the money machine."
On that we agree. It's just a matter of where to draw the line...
TTYL, Tom
