Elk Hunter Magazine

[idahonative]

Thank you Randy. I appreciate immensely the path you have taken and the way you help lead it, and I try to do the same. I appreciate even more that you understand my history, beliefs, and motives. <tip of the cap>

 

[MattK]

Idahonative- While I believe you are the real deal, as I have no reason to doubt it. I have yet to understand why you would allow someone to come on board with your magazine that openly goes against your views (and uses your magazine's name in his e-mail). I as an employee would never use my job title in any personal correspondance that would conflict with the ideals of the business I am a part. Also, I have to sign a disclosure of all "conflicts of interest" that may in some way have an affect or effect the job or business I work for. This includes ANY club I'm a member of. Over-all, I am required to fit the ideals of the business I work for because I represent that business both on and off the job. Like it or not your business is a reflection of the people who work for and with you (especially when they use their "title" at the end of the e-mail). By doing that, they are saying the magazine also has the same belief (be it true or not).

 

[idahonative]

Matt,
Thanks for the comments, and for presenting them well. I totally understand what you're saying in some regards. However, there is a lot that people don't understand about the entire situation. For one, I have to be honest here - Chris Denham is taking some heat for some things that happened in AZ. I'm not going to speak for him. What I do want to say is that regardless of what some people feel about one topic, Chris is an amazing individual I have a tremendous amount of respect for. He's flat-out done more for wildlife - putting his time, effort, and serious dollars into wildlife - than any other person either of us could name. I just don't believe in severing ties with someone of such quality as Chris because we disagree on one incident or one topic, or one transgression. Ever hear of giving someone a second chance? I believe in Chris, big time, and am not afraid to say it. The world is a complex place sometimes, and sometimes decisions should be made with time, thought, and information, rather than just constantly falling on the sword...
I hope you'll pick up the magazine, see what we have to offer, how we present it, and judge us then on whether or not to support it. Thank you.

 

[MattK]

Idahonative- I appreciate the position you are in. Chris may be great for wildlife in general but if I were trying to promote my magazine...I would make sure of all my connections. I would also have a sit down with all the people who are involved in my magazine and would make sure of the message I want them to represent. One transgression in the business I work for may cost the business many many current and future customers and possibly my job. People are fickle about "mistakes" and even more fickle about perception. When you have a lot of magazines, groups, committees etc all competing for the same conservation and hunter money...it's even more important to make sure that perception is prestine. People have an odd way of connecting the dots (as you can see in this thread). Again, I believe what you are telling me about yourself...and honestly, you don't have to speak for anyone. Just be aware that what Chris is saying and has said (as I have yet to hear him take anything he said back) speaks volumes to potential buyers of your magazine.

 

[BuzzH]

I'm still struggling with this whole issue...mainly because I know that Ryan is a good guy and I believe that he is as good as his word.

That said, I'm not sold on Chris Denham at all.

Any SOB that will lurk in the shadows while his buddies take the heat for his stance on the Arizona tag theft attempt...is suspect of lacking a spine, IMO.

The fact is that Chris has wrote contradicting letters that were widely circulated...one stating he was dead set against wealth tags...and then within a short time writing another in full support of grabbing over 350 tags in Arizona. There is no doubt in my mind that Denham is drunk on SFW kool-aid and that he's thrown the average guy under the bus. His letter was a condescending pile of shit, period. He did a first class job of dressing down the average hunters in Arizona as a bunch of stupid bastards that dont know whats best for wildlife, hunting, or anything else. His letter, along with letters from Mrs. Gilstrap, Representative Weiers and a few others have exactly the same tone and you can barely distinguish one from the other.

When supposed champions of wildlife, like Denham, offend 99% of the hunting public, they have to expect some push-back. Is Zims reaction over the top? I dont know...is it over the top to want to boycott anything that will funnel money back to Denham? Is Zim any more over the top than Denham is for supporting the grabbing of 350+ of AZ's top tags? I dont think so.

I still maintain its too bad that guys like Denham forget the average guy, that they make claims and write letters in defiance of the average DIY hunter, then disappear as if it never happened and they didnt say it.

Its a joke...and I dont blame anyone for having some major heartburn with Denham and his flip-flopping letters/beliefs.

Its too bad you're caught in the middle Ryan, it truly is and I feel badly for you.

Theres times you just have to cut a man loose that drags the team down...it happens and is totally called for at times.

Chris's lack of responding to this issue makes me believe he still thinks he's right, that the taking of the publics tags is A-OK, and that the rest of us dont know what we're talking about. Further, I think Chris will continue to work to get the 350 tags in Arizona, despite the push-back he's gotten on this.

Until I see some damn convincing evidence to the contrary...I'll have no respect for him or his stance on the AZ issue. He's no different to me than Don Peay.

 

[WapitiBob]

Boycotting the mag because a cpl contributors support SFW is rather extreme in my opinion.
If we boycotted every business that had employees that were part of the HSUS, Defenders of Wildlife, SFW, etc, we wouldn't be using FS maps, send license money to our Game Departments, use Microsoft software, or be buying gas for our rigs.

 

[BuzzH]

If employees of those businesses tried shoving their beliefs in my face via company letter head...we may have a problem.

An individual supporting HSUS, DOW, SFW...is one thing...writing letters telling me how stupid I am for not supporting their BS ideas is another.

Dont you think?

 

[spook12]

Idahonative you mention ONE TOPIC ,ONE INCIDENT a couple times in your response to Matt. Surely you understand that for some it is THE TOPIC. You are correct that not everyone will agree on everything . I dont care if Chris curses to much,wears shorts in the winter, or refuses to use his turn signal. I do however care that he supports something in direct conflict with what is in my opinion of what is best for the average hunter. Why would anyone give a voice to,support someone who is working against them.I truly wish you the best, and i hope you are successful with your stated goals for the mag.

 

[spook12]

BUZZ your right they are asking us to not only give him the Bully Pulpit . But they want us to build it for him too.

 

[cfree]

All Mr. Denham has to do is resign from AZSFW. To see his reputation tarnished so bad after his honorable work at Outdoor Experience 4 All is sad (of course the same could be said for the co-founder of OE4A, Mr. Corona, who just happens to be on the board of AZSFWC). I can't understand why he would take all this heat unless their was some kind of pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

I haven't seen your magazine, but I wish you the best with your venture.

 

[Zim]

Hey Zim, If you care to you can go back and check my reply to idahonative when he made his offer to a few of us .I stated then, and have not changed my mind that i can not support any mag that has Chris Denham on the masthead.I have seen a lot of what you have said about this topic, both here and on MM.I think we are pretty much in agreement on the subject. That said i think you might have more credibility with people, if you didnt make it so personal . How about standing up for whats right, just because its right. why does the conversation seem to always come back to how you got screwed . Maybe just maybe its our system thats under attack and not you personally . Just a thought.

spook,

If I appear to some as over the top, I expect it's because I have worked very, very hard for the last 40 of my 52 years.my life. During that time I have collected a grand total of zero unemployment checks, zero welfare checks and zero workman's comp checks. My ex never paid one family bill in 20 years. I've taken a grand total of 1/2 day off from work, when my boss at the time forced me to go home while we were framing a home in the winter. Hard to believe? I rarely tell anyone because they think that's impossible and I cannot document it. I assure you it is true.

Hunting is one of the few things I am passionate about that I have had time for while working my a$$ off. I don't appreciate hacks like Don Peay taking the phenomenal lazy, selfish short cuts that I don't believe in. As a builder I saw other people in business do the same thing. Some cheat at all costs for personal gain. Others compromise their morals in favor of money. It makes me sick to my stomach. I believe in hard work.

At the pinnacle of that hunting passion sits the North American Model for Wildlife Conservation. In the last 10 years I've watched these cheats steamroll over that model like a Panzer tank, on their way to easy money and power, at my expense and thousands of other regular joe hunters just like me.. Don Peay is the poster child for that movement. But there are others. Read the board of directors of the UTSFW and AZSFW and you will find more. I don't like them.

The points myself and thousands of other hunters have payed for in time and money are being stolen. I have posted several examples of the gross devaluation of my points in an attempt to illustrate the tremendous impact one of these tag thefts have. It's because I know many folks have no clue due to deceptive statements made by people like Chris Denham. "We only want to steal .2 of 1% of your tags." What a freakin joke. Try 50% of the best tags. I am far from the only hunter this is happening to. There are thousands. But it is easiest for me to illustrate by providing a personal perspective so they know what they can expect by the time they are my age with my points. Yes it is our model that is definitely under attack.

 

[Zim]

Ryan,

"Zim, I have to say, of all the people I think I have ever talked to in my life, you have to be the biggest idiot of them all."

1. You have never talked to me. You have never even met me. But a classy statement.


"You get bashed by many contributors to these forums, and for good reason. Your credibility continues to spiral down the drain."

Ryan, Everyone gets bashed on "these" forums. You might want to add up how many concur with my thoughts on this. Don't take it personally.


"Don't EVER put words in my mouth or try to paint a picture of me that isn't true.................If you knew ANYTHING about me, you would know that I have been fairly outspoken against governor's tags and SFW for years! "

It's good to hear you are outspoken against wealth tags. I did take exception with you appealing to joe hunter with your following post C&P from MM:

"I don't have a problem with raffle tag winners in any state. At least anyone with a $5 bill had a legitimate chance in those cases, keeping those animals a possibility to ALL people."

I did not "put these wods in your mouth". You specifically mention the $5 figure. If you are not referring to the 200 controversial SLC Expo raffle tags, what ones are you? Who else sells trophy big game raffle tickets for $5?

Then I replied on MM with the following:
"Problem I have is when those tags are the best of the best, stolen from regular Joe nonresident Hunter who has paid and waited 16 years, via a corrupt political process operating under the ruse of conservation but with zero accountability, peddled to people who didn't wait their turn in line. But hey Joe can still have a snowball's chance in hell for something he's already paid for......for $5......plus travel expenses for a 3,000 mile round trip."

What is not true about my statement?


"My magazine will reflect my values, which are the hard-hunting, ethical, respectful hunter/conservationist values toward wildlife - the same values you supposedly have, yet you continue to try to railroad against this magazine that would help to educate tens of thousands of hunters down a better path. For that alone you are a fool and it shows how tunnel-visioned you have become with your hate rather than think about the big picture."

Ryan, please don't put words in my mouth. In fact, In my posts I have gone out of my way to say absolutely nothing negative about the content of your magazine. Example C&P from MM:

"I'll repeat, I have said absolutely nothing about the quality of this magazine."

I'm definitely not trying to "railroad" your magazine. With this thread I only wanted to get other hunter's input on what to think about this Chris Denham/Floyd Green involvement. That is all.

For the third time, I'm going to say I have no comment with regards to the content nor quality of the magazine. Can I make this more clear for you?

To add to this, I want to open it and check it out. And this I did until I got 4 or 5 pages in and saw Green and Denham's names. After which I chimed in to see what other hunters felt about this. I did not throw it out. I did not boycott it. It's still sitting here.


"I said I didn't have a problem with raffle tags. I don't. As fundraisers, I would much rather support a raffle tag process to raise money for wildlife where every common man has a chance than governor's (auction) tags that go to the wealthy. Raffle tags exist in Oregon, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, etc. etc. I generally put in for most of them, as many do, because it's another chance to hopefully draw a tag. I put in for the New Mexico sheep raffle, but don't know a lot about the organization. It's a few bucks and that's all I need to know. I put in for Oregon mountain goat - same thing. Putting in for a raffle tag somewhere is no more an endorsement for a group than buying a bag of Doritos is a YES vote for Obama. It's a ludicrous leap that no one is buying. Most of us put in for raffle here or there and it means nothing. Just stop with your rhetoric."

How many of these cost $5?
Do you buy raffle tickets at the SLC Expo?
Do you know where that money goes?
Do you know where those tags came from?
Do you believe those that paid and waited their chance in Utah got thrown under the bus?
Do you believe those purchasing those tickets are not supporting SFW?


"Zim, I get that you have an issue with one or two of our people involved with the publication, and that's fine. What I don't get is that you are letting that blind you to the fact that this publication is going to champion a lot of the beliefs you seem to be fighting for. Stop bashing it and let it preach and stand for the issues you seem to be so passionate about. Seriously. Quite misdirecting your anger and direct it directly at SFW since it's them you hate."

OK you got one thing 100% right here! I do hate SFW. They are worse than criminals. I am not bashing your magazine. I'm trying to get other hunters's opinions of these ties.


"Here is my post on MonsterMuleys for some more thoughts on this subject:
My personal opinion is that big game should never be for sale to the highest bidder. Even if the short term is good (or supposedly good) for money infusion, I believe it sends an extremely bad message that our wildlife is for sale. Teddy Roosevelt and our conservation founders believed that the game should always belong to the people - regardless of wealth - and I think governor's tags basically say that for the right price, they are for sale. To me, it's similar to the movie "Indecent Proposal" - no one is sleeping with my wife for $1 million dollars, and I don't believe that our ethics with big game management should be sacrificed for $$$ either. It's dirty money in my book. I respect those who think otherwise, but I steadfastly disagree with them.
While I understand - TO A POINT - the theory of not sending your money to someone who you think might not represent your values, ponder this:"

I commend you for coming online and making your argument for your case. Others are laying extremely low off the radar while all these recent events have transpired. Best we can get is canned statements from people like Rossi, Espinosa, Weiers & Denham. However, these folk's situations are quite different.


"A) Have you given a questionnaire to each and every contributing editor or manager of B&C, RMEF, Petersen's Hunting, and Bow & Arrow asking their position statements on every topic under the sun? Probably not. You get enough people involved in something, and I guarantee you that not everyone agrees on everything. Do you agree with your wife on everything? I bet not, and I bet you don't threaten to divorce her if you only agree on 90% of the issues."

As I stated on MM, I don't subscribe to or read any of these. I've gone pretty green.


"B) Even if a person on our staff did support something you don't believe in, ask yourself this: Are you cutting off your nose to spite your face by "boycotting"? In other words, Ryan Hatfield is the editor, and as such, a lot of my view, ethics, direction, and message is what will be reflected in the magazine. I plan on keeping this magazine (and Western Hunter as well) extremely ethical and representative of the views that I know you will find favorable. There's an old adage that you "don't mess with a guy that buys ink by the barrel". In other words, this magazine has a LOT of reach and influence. If my mission is to send the right message (which it is), keep it extremely classy and ethical, and make it something you'd all be proud of - and that influences 50,000 people in the RIGHT DIRECTION - then why would you boycott it because 1 or 2 people might think differently than you do on one or two topics?
Just some food for thought to any "knee-jerk" boycotters out there. This magazine is quickly on its way to becoming a major player, and I have no intention of having it be anything less than the best, classiest, most visually appealing, informative, and inspiring publication in the West, with a hunter/conservationist message that is ALWAYS respectful of wildlife. Wanna be a part of it? Sign up. If not, throw the magazine away. I appreciate those who took the time to read this and think about the big picture.

To those reading this, I have always at all costs conducted myself professionally at all times when it comes to my magazines, my work, and my visions. I apologize to you for calling Zim an idiot, but I don't apologize to him. I stand by it."


I'm going to repeat for the 4th time, I am not "boycotting" your magazine. I've never subscribed to it, nor any of the other magazines. I'm mostly green. I have no comment about the content nor quality.

As to the issue of taking money out of one's pocket, putting it in Don Peay's hand, then claiming one does not support SFW? IF that is what you truly believe, I guess we will agree to disagree?

 

[6speed]

Zim and Spook I admire your convictions and in a lot of ways I agree. Here is how I see it. Ryan said he was so confident in the message his magazine would send that he would give us a free subscription to it. I accepted his offer because if this publication really is as good as it could be then why miss out. He was willing to give us the subscription so I'm not worried about supporting the SFW guys on the pay roll. If it is as good as he says then I will have no problem buying the next subscription. There are probably more guys on the staff that I would like to support than there are guys I admonish. This is a good way to find out.

As to all the "calling out", name calling, arguing and flat out pissing and moaning that has been going on inside this and every other hunting forum for the last month, it needs to stop. I take part myself from time to time but lately it seems like people would rather argue on the www than actually do something to improve the situation. I can only wonder if groups like PETA and DOW are watching these forums hatching a plan to back SFW in an effort to divide us even further. I started on these sites to see pictures and hear stories. I found out they are also a good place to find out about issues threatening our sport. It's to bad they seem to be turning into a 3Rd grade playground half the time.

 

[Lawnboy]

It's to bad they seem to be turning into a 3Rd grade playground half the time.

This happens every year during the off season. Hunters seem to get real cranky about everything. 6 more weeks and someone will start posting some bear picts.......come on spring.

 

[Zim]

Folks need to understand, the events that have occurred during that last month are what I consider completely outragious and totally unprecedented. The worst attack on the North American Model for Wildlife Conservation that I have witnessed in my lifetime. It's not like this happens every year or something.

And the criminals involved have only enraged honest sportsmen by releasing arrogant, condescending, canned excuses in the aftermath.

If they seriously think everybody is going to forget this in a couple months they are sadly mistaken.

 

[Big Fin]

Folks need to understand, the events that have occurred during that last month are what I consider completely outragious and totally unprecedented. The worst attack on the North American Model for Wildlife Conservation that I have witnessed in my lifetime. It's not like this happens every year or something.

And the criminals involved have only enraged honest sportsmen by releasing arrogant, condescending canned excuses in the aftermath.

Zim - I think folks do understand the situation. They understand it very well.

I also think that there comes a time when an issue can be beat to death, at the risk of losing credibility of the cause to which is being represented.

There are also times when it is best to provide information and let others make up their own minds. If the information is compelling, it will speak for itself and the cause will be served.

That is merely my opinion. There is going to be a lot more SFW activity to deal with in the future. Most of it is going on under the radar. Seems better to save our ammo for those times when they show up on our radar, than to on the offensive wasting ammo on anyone who is connected to someone who is associated with SFW.

I am more interested in hammering the SFW/BGF gopher next time he pokes his head out of the hole than I am continuing to hammer the gopher that has already been blown to smitherines.

As it relates to Ryan and the heat he is taking, my thoughts, what little they are worth, follow.

Attacks on potential allies, such as Ryan, serve no purpose. Attacks on those who have acted in ways counter to the idea, are far better served.

Does attacking any and every person associated with that magazine serve any purpose? I dont' know. Seems like doing so assumes it is OK to kick the hell out of one of your buddies because one of his other buddies did something you don't like. Probably fine to tell your buddy that you aren't pleased with what his other buddy did, but do you want to risk the friendship by beating the hell out of your buddy?

Does anyone know if Ryan has any ownership in the magazine? I don't know. I haven't asked him. I would suspect it is funded by the other people mentioned herein, given they own other magazines. I could be completely wrong.

If Ryan does not have any ownership and is a paid employee, it is pretty hard for him to fire someone who is an owner. I know that if one my employees didn't like what me or a partner said, they still couldn't fire one of us.

Some will say that if he is indeed an employee, he should quit. Easy for us to say. Maybe he should stay and be the dissenting opinion that represents the cause he has historically been part of; the same cause we are promoting.

What situation would be the better outcome for the self-guided hunter; guys like Ryan quiting, or guys like Ryan staying and promoting our cause rather than turning the reins over to an editor more sympathetic to SFW type ideas?

What provides more friction against SFW types as they try to continue sneaking into the gears of the western hunting mechanisms; Ryan types being editors of western hunting magazines, or SFW types being those editors?

My point is that when it comes to firing, editors more often are the ones getting fired than they are the ones who do any firing. Just ask Jim Zumbo.

I, for one, hope that Ryan stays there and continues providing hunting content that historically has been to our benefit. I think the cause of stemming the SFW influence is served by he and others being in charge of these magazines. Which to me, is progress.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Good perspective Randy, and one which I guess I really can't argue with. Now you really have me thinking, God forbid, LOL!!!

 

[Zim]

Just to clarify, I never said anyone should be fired. I never said anything negative about the content or quality of the magazine. I never said I was boycotting anything. I never asked others to do so. My trial issue is sitting right here. I only asked for other hunter's opinions on Green/Denham.

My only issue with Ryan seems to be his attitude regarding the 200 SLC Expo tags. He touched a very sensitive nerve of mine with his supportive statement of those. We all know the history behind them. It would be better to say nothing about them, as I do about EHM, than to tout those as "tags we ALL can have a $5 chance at". Ask any NRs with 15-20 Utah points what they think of their $5 chance.

 

[Oak]

Zim, I don't disagree with your points at all, but you really seem to be hung up on the "$5 raffle ticket" statement. A couple of points:

1. The SFW expo tags are not "raffled". It is a drawing just like any other state license drawing. The only difference is that you can apply for every tag, but only a single time per hunt. You don't get a raffle ticket with a number on it, etc. "Raffle" generally means that you can buy multiple tickets for each opportunity.

2. There are several $5 raffles out there for tags. Montana Super Tags are $5 per chance, with no restriction on the number of tickets bought. California is raffling off a desert sheep tag for $5 per chance, no restriction on tickets. Idaho Super Tags are $6 for the first chance and $4 for each subsequent ticket purchased, no limit on the number of tickets.

Carry on everyone. This horse is almost pulp.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Oak---Thanks for your #1 explanation, as I didn't know it was restricted to only one ticket per person.