UT DWR takes on RMEF

[Ben Lamb]

I believe Big Fin has been called a ''Terrorist'' for asking to see their financials.So you are probably correct Ben anti hunter would be the next logical slur.

It's what cowards do. They attack people rather than the facts or issues. Toby Bridges, their surrogate in MT, does the same thing.

it reminds me of the Big Lebowski when Donny, the Dude and Walter are standing outside watching the Nihilist's try to intimidate them.

Walter turns to Dude and says: "Eight year olds Dude, eight year olds."

Sad that they've dragged a director of a state agency down to their level.

 

[spook12]

Sad indeed,Mr. Karpowitz is probably a decent man who thinks he is doing the right thing for wildlife in his state. It appears that the wrong folks have had his ear for too long. I think it is very evident in his letter that he has lost his way,and forgotten where his loyalties should lie.

 

[Oak]

I didn't realize that everyone was only concerned with convention permits??

As a result of these discussions it became clear to me that their concerns were focused on convention permits not conservation permits. Both Jason and David agreed that this is not about conservation permits, a point that was not clear in the RMEF news release. We all agreed that the Conservation Permit Program has done great things for wildlife in Utah and doesn't need much change. My comments in my letter to RMEF was focused on both conservation and convention permits since the RMEF news release did not distinguish between the two. RMEF referred to them only as “state special big game permits” so it was not clear to me that they were not talking about conservation permits.

 

[Big Fin]

I didn't realize that everyone was only concerned with convention permits??

Maybe the Director hears what he wants to hear. I read those releases to understand that RMEF was concerned about a few things.

1. Transparency and accountability of non-profit groups receiving benefit via public assets, auction or raffle tags.

2. Non-profit groups becoming financially dependent upon public assets, such as auction and raffle tags.

3. Proliferation of auction and raffle tags in places they currently exist and establishment of such programs where they currently do not exist.​

I am still at a loss as to why the Director felt inclined to respond to this release to start with. And, why he felt he had to run his letter by the SFW crowd so they could feel "blessed" (SFW's terminology) to read it.

The principles above still stand, regardless of what the Director thinks.

Another thing that is hard to measure, but is an unfavorable by-product of increased popularity of the auction system, is the damage it does to the NA Model tenet of democratic allocation of wildlife opportunity.

No one can deny that when these programs grow as they have in some states, there becomes a feeling of unfairness among the rank and file hunters, as they donate their time to conservation, but lacking the funds to play the auction game, they have to stand on the sidelines and watch as the same small group of well-healed hunters and their outfitters buy their way to the front of the line. Year after year, this same small group of auction buyers go hunt the best the west has to offer, while the volunteers who put time and energy into the conservation projects, the fund raisers, the politics, have to wait ten years, twenty years, a lifetime to draw the same tag.

Though some may have done so, I suspect a small percentage of the auction tag buyers have been a committee volunteer, probably few have spent much time on habitat projects, most are probably too busy to attend a legislative or wildlife hearing. Yet, the hunter who has done all of those things, gets nothing for it, other than satisfaction. Is that hunter's time, labor, and activism not as valuable as the money some of pay for auction tags?

That is the sticky point of expanding auction tag numbers that the Director, and a few of the tag selling groups, completely miss. Is it OK to increase those auction tags to the point where hardly anyone can objectively say we are in compliance with the NA Model of fair allocation of our hunting opportunity?

Amazing how some states and some groups can complete their conservation work without the need for stacks and stacks of auction tags. Amazing how some groups have no problem providing complete accountability for their use of publicly-derived funds.

Personally, I have a problem with lots of auction tags, whether there is transparency, or not. Fewer is better. And yes, I can easily make a case for a few auction tags of each species in each state. Maybe I am just old school. Maybe I am too hung up on the principles that brought about this conservation recovery we enjoy today.

Not everyone, whose time and commitment has done a ton of benefit for hunting and conservation, is financially as blessed as some of us who are able to hunt anywhere and everywhere. Yet, that person might have done more for our cause; for the future or youth hunters; or to change a political tide against us, than a check coming from those of us fortunate enough to have resources to write it.

All the money in the west is not going to improve public land hunting if we continue toward a point where the conservation volunteer and the hunter-activist feel like some piece of cold left-overs from the King's dinner. Hopefully we never arrive at a destination where the volunteers and activists feel that way.

 

[sweetnectar]

I am very concerned to see conservation groups at odds with each other and trying to pull each other down.

This is the statement I find the most interesting. I've watched various "conservation" organizations compete for some time. There is only so much of the pie to go around. Each wants the most they can get for their cause. Should more pie go to trout? Should more pie go to elk? Should more pie go to ducks? I don't know that these organizations care where the pie comes from but it seems that transparency will get an organization more pie. (In other words people are more likely to give to an organization that they have a feel for how the funds are used)

As I read through this thread my best guess to why the Director felt he had to respond to RMEF's letter is that the Director felt threatened....that threat being the publics perception that Utah's DWS in hiding shady deals which he repeatably debunks stating how transparent and audited his programs are. I suppose someone should ask the Director why he felt he had to respond.

On a side note concerning conservation non profits: I was thinking that grasshoppers aren't very well represented in the ecosystem. So I'm starting a group to help grasshoppers. Grasshoppers Unlimited is a great organization. Anyone concerned for and wanting to help the earth should donate to Grasshoppers Unlimited. Please personal message me if you are interested in donating. For every dollar donated a portion of that will go toward providing grasshopper habitat(or watering my lawn...same difference). Remember only you can help save the earth by preserving sound healthy habitat that will help maintain grass hopper genitic diversity and ultimatly save the planet. Donate now. And I'll even be transparent with my funds if it will make you want to give me more pie.

There is only so much pie.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

I. for one. posted on the MM site that the Director made a big booboo using his position under the Utah State letterhead, to write Mr. Allen and make any comments when the RMEF letter was not addressed to his Utah or any other governmental agencies. No matter how many people come on the sites and say how great a guy he is and how many wonderful things he has done for wildlife over his career, that letter will haunt him for the rest of his life. It's like McGuire, Palmero, and Clemens being some of the best BB players of all time, but with their booboos they will never make the Hall of Fame and neither will Pete "Charlie Hustle" Rose. It's just the way it works!

 

[Ben Long]

Another SFW ploy ...

It's interesting to see SFW repeat this ploy: 'hunters are all in it together and should not criticize each other... ' Orwell called it "groupthink."
Uh. Sorry. I never put my brain on a shelf for any tribe, team or nation. And I get real suspicious of someone who tells me I should.

 

[shoots-straight]

It's interesting to see SFW repeat this ploy: 'hunters are all in it together and should not criticize each other... ' Orwell called it "groupthink."
Uh. Sorry. I never put my brain on a shelf for any tribe, team or nation. And I get real suspicious of someone who tells me I should.

I find that amusing that they make those statements, because the first thing SFW did when they came to the Root (with Don Peay) was throw all the local sportsman's organizations under the bus. I'm a board member of Ravalli County Fish & Wildlife Ass. and they blasted us.

Their big talk was how ineffective we were in controlling the wolf populations, even though the wolf wasn't off the list yet. They appealed to those less informed individuals, and did well in recruitment here.

I've heard repeatedly how we're anti gun, environmentalists, wolf lovers etc. Now they want us to all join hands and sing "Kumbaya. I don't think so.

 

[WT_in_MT]

There are still too many MT hunters blind to them and what they are about, and falling into their, "join us cause we're gonna kill all the wuffs" talk.

There's a two-page centerfold Big Game Forever ad in the Billings Gazette today hoping for just that. My guess is they'll be successful.

 

[WT_in_MT]

Maybe I am just old school. Maybe I am too hung up on the principles that brought about this conservation recovery we enjoy today.

You've touched on a growing mantra heard from those who dismiss the NA model as no longer needed post-restoration. IOW, that pesky democracy of hunting thing is getting in the way of their exclusivity.

 

[drahthaar]

There's a two-page centerfold Big Game Forever ad in the Billings Gazette today hoping for just that. My guess is they'll be successful.

Yeah, I saw a link that said they were going to do that. I wish I had the cash to run an ad in the same papers explaining what SFW/BGF are really about. I can see BGF try to distance themselves from SFW following all this with the RMEF. But they are what they are, IMO, just another bunch of dirty-butt wolf profiteers, who will stab the average Joe sportsmen in the back, most likely legislatively, as soon as they get the chance.

I have made it known in my circle of friends what these jack-offs are all about, but I don't have that big of a platform.

 

[MTbowhunter84]

I feel bad for the State of UT, and very blessed to live in MT, although SFW/BGF are showing their presence more and more everywhere in the west. It is amazing how far and quick SFW has grown and who they are reaching out to. There are chapters popping up all over the place. From the response from the director SFW had dug in deep with the state. I find it amazing how a state agency can cling to a group, in my mind the state should stay away from that and if it is someones personal opinion to be with a group that's fine. I'm surprised a director would take what appears to be a very strong stand.

On another note it's great to see the stand RMEF is taking with being transparent. Makes me very happy to be a member of RMEF.

 

[Big Fin]

...... SFW/BGF are showing their presence more and more everywhere in the west. .......

All accomplished courtesy of the multi-million dollar subsidy they get from selling/raffling Utah tags.

And the UT guys wonder why hunters in other states are watching what goes on there. That is why. The UT money funds the franchises in all the other states.

 

[shoots-straight]

Yeah, I saw a link that said they were going to do that. I wish I had the cash to run an ad in the same papers explaining what SFW/BGF are really about. I can see BGF try to distance themselves from SFW following all this with the RMEF. But they are what they are, IMO, just another bunch of dirty-butt wolf profiteers, who will stab the average Joe sportsmen in the back, most likely legislatively, as soon as they get the chance.

I have made it known in my circle of friends what these jack-offs are all about, but I don't have that big of a platform.

That can be combated by LTE's to the same paper, letting the readers know who they are, and what they tried to do, when the Simpson/Tester rider legislation was been considered.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Bozeman Chonicle also had the big biggameforever spread today.

 

[DougFir]

accoutability

Here is what is being done right now in Utah, to bring some transparency and accountability to the convention tag system, that some "conservation organizations" are all too dependant on. This will put more of the money raised from these tags, back on the ground, working for wildlife. Not in the pockets of "conservation orgs" to expand their franchises, and promote their poorly derived agendas.

This is why Jim Karpowitz is loosing his religion.

http://uwcnewsletter.wordpress.com/uwc-convention-tag-proposal/

If you live in Utah, or hunt in Utah, contact the the fish and game and tell them to support this. They can be contacted here: [email protected]

Contact the Wildlife board here: http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/board-members.html

And contact the Regional Advisors here: http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/rac-members.html

Thanks!

 

[Big Fin]

Bozeman Chonicle also had the big biggameforever spread today.

I saw that. Notice that Big Game Forever did not tell the world who their officers and directors are? You suppose one of those officers might have too much baggage here in Montana?

For anyone who wants to know who is behind Big Game Forever, here they are:






Also very peculiar that they go by the name Big Game Forever, LLC on their website, but they like to use the website address biggameforever.org.

Here is a cut and paste from their website footer.

©2012 Big Game Forever, LLC | 314 West Broadway #200, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
[email protected]

Almost would make one think they were a qualifed charity, which they are not. Disclosure and transparency is not the strong suit for either Big Game Forever or SFW. Not a pattern that anyone probably finds too surprising.

Wonder who those LLC members are? LLCs are for-profit entities.

I do a lot of incorporation work and have never seen a charity or non-profit organized under the LLC statutes. To be a charity, every state I know requires that you incorporate under that state's non-profit statutes, not the LLC statutes. LLC statutes are for profit-oriented businesses.

Either BGF is using the term "LLC" incorrectly on their website, or they are a for-profit entity using the ".org" URL suffix normally reserved for qualified charities.

Once again, we have carpet baggers coming to Montana trying to influence our daily lives. Given how both BGF and their close ally SFW tried to kill the legislation that got us wolf seasons in MT and ID, I hope guys will get the facts out about this group. None of the facts of how they played their cards in the wolf delisting issue were in that newpaper ad.

I feel bad for anyone who might feel compelled to send them money, thinking this is a 501(c)(3) organization here to help us. Would be easy for a person to think that, without taking the time to do more research and investigation.

If they do sign up, I guess that is up to them. All we can do is bring forward facts and let each person make their own decision.

 

[drahthaar]

Awesome Fin, thanks. That is great info. I am sending it to everyone I know.

 

[Big Fin]

And for those not informed of Big Game Forever, I would suggest you follow the advice of the NRA in the press release I have copied and pasted below.

This release was issued when BGF and SFW sent an email to every member of Congress stating that NRA and some other groups were on the same side as BGF/SFW in wanting to kill the legislation that got us wolf delisting in MT and ID. The NRA, SCI, CSF all supported the bill that got us delisting, so when BGF/SFW took liberty to send an email mistating the position of the NRA, the NRA was not pleased.

If they would blatantly misrepresent the position of other groups and go so far as lying to Congress as to the position of those other groups, one has to question the honesty and integrity of those involved.

This was the worst public beatdown I have ever seen the NRA give any person or any group. A well deserved beat dwown, for sure.

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.

Congressional offices and members of the media should exercise caution in accepting as fact, or repeating, any claims made by Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, Big Game Forever or any person claiming to represent them. Due to the blatant misrepresentation contained in the press release circulated by these two groups, any claims they make in the future should be thoroughly investigated and independently confirmed.


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

Make sure your buddies all know which side of the fight Big Game Forever was on when it came to Montana and Idaho getting our wolf seasons. Let them know that Big Game Forever was standing right there, shoulder to shoulder with the wolf hippies, trying to get the Simpson-Tester bill killed, the bill that got us our season, thanks to Congressman Simpson from Idaho and Senator Tester from Montana.

I think I can quickly paste some more facts that would help people form a more objective opinion of Big Game Forever.

Suffice to say, if Big Game Foverer and SFW had their way, Montana and Idaho would not have had wolf seasons last year and we would not have gotten state management control when we did.

 

[DougFir]

The SFW vs BGF issue is at the root of the SFW problem. One is an org, one is an LLC, but they are for all intents and purposes, one and the same. The reason they have both, is so one hand can wash the other. Dirty money is hard to get off. The things that orgs are not allowed to do, the LLC does, and the things that LLCs are not allowed to do, the org does. This is key to the SFW model, and allows them to do things with money, that they should not be doing. They channel their non-profit org $$$ into their for profit LLC, and vice versa. When they spend money on conservation projects, no bids are put out, their friends get the work, and it always costs more than it should. So even the money going back on the ground is not being utilized as efficiently as it could be. It is all driven by $$$$ and is not in the best interest of conservation or hunters.