Caribou Gear Tarp

Watch out for Sportsmen For Fish & Wildlife!!

Ithaca 37

New member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
5,427
Location
Home of the free, Land of the brave
Here's an editorial I received today. I don't know anything about this new group.

The Star - Tribune

Here's one 'tradition' Wyoming can do without

Dick Sadler PERSPECTIVE

As a sportsman and former legislator, I have often said that the
Wyoming hunters and fishermen are a fickle lot. When our ox is being
gored by the rural community, we can rise to the occasion and strike
down those who would restrict our outdoor recreational heritage. We
joined together to strike down game farms, various schemes to give out
transferable licenses, legislative control of Game and Fish funds, etc.
After each of these victories, we withdrew back into our shells and let
others chip away at our rights, privileges and Game and Fish funds.

Thirty years ago, the Game and Fish Department paid ranchers through
landowner coupons for antelope harvested on their private lands. Damage
to growing and stored crops were also paid for when caused by elk,
antelope and deer. We now issue redeemable coupons for elk and deer. We
also pay for damage caused by bears, cougars and game birds. We also pay
for damage done to bee hives, bee colonies and honey. We will soon be
paying for wolf damage and in all probability will pay for grass that
wildlife eats.

For years our Game and Fish ranch-oriented commission has paid damage
claims with no documentation in violation of damage laws. The attorney
general recently put a stop to these illegal payments.

Everyone likes to bitch about federal mandates using up Game and Fish
funds, but mandates created by a ranch-oriented Legislature cost a lot
of bucks also. With all the above benefits paid for from Game and Fish
funds, one might think public access might improve, but it gets worse
with each passing year.

I tell you all of this because a new wildlife group is being organized
in Wyoming promising to protect hunting and fishing heritage and
traditions in Wyoming. This group is called Sportsmen for Fish and
Wildlife (SFW), and to hear their pitch to new members, one thinks only
of motherhood and apple pie. What you don't hear or know about SFW might
turn your stomach. It sure has mine churning, and has me wondering if
the group is up-front on their entire agenda or if they are in fact an
insidious group with a secret agenda?

Because of this and other comments listed below, I would ask SFW to
openly publish where they stand on issues such as transferable licenses
for landowners, outfitters and, yes, themselves. They say 90 percent of
their income stays in the state. Where does the other 10 percent go?
Does it go to Dan Peay, SWF's Utah organizer? Peay and several Wyoming
members mention the huge influence you have on Game and Fish issues in
Utah. If that is the case, why is Utah a state where the wealthy have
the best access to not only licenses through a voucher system, but most
of the bull and buck permits in given areas? (More on this to follow).

Bob Wharff, an SFW organizer from Evanston, is a Utah transplant. He
speaks highly of the Utah Cooperative Wildlife Management units. These
units received 2,086 client licenses in 1998 while the general public
hunting the same area got 298. In 1999, ranch clients got 2,534 permits
and the public received 343. The locals hunt free, but the ranchers
decide when and where. The ranch clients get 90 percent of all bull elk
permits in most areas and 10 percent of the cows. The public gets 90
percent of the cows and 10 percent of the bulls. Most of the moose
bulls, buck deer and antelope also go to the clients, i.e., the wealthy.
When living in Utah, Wharff says he was an officer in the Utah SFW, and
understand he was also an employee of the Deseret Ranch, the Utah ranch
that is the largest recipient of client licenses.

A Riverton SFW member says local conservation groups don't "step up to
the plate on Wyoming issues when the going gets tough." Horse pucky.
Without the Wildlife Federation, Conservation Voters, John Jolly, the
Outdoor Council and others, sportsmen would be in a world of hurt. That
guy from Riverton ought to get off his butt and go to Cheyenne and see
who looks out for him at the Legislature.

At a recent legislative meeting in Cody, Joe Tilden, the Park County
president of SFW, extolled the virtue of not only the New Mexico system
but also the Colorado Ranching for Wildlife program. The Colorado
program is similar to the one in Utah where clients of ranchers in the
program get up to 90 percent of licenses. Some heritage! Joe went on to
say that not only he but the SFW program would support five to 10 or 15
transferable licenses for elk-deer-antelope to ranchers who have those
animals on their land. Joe never mentioned where these licenses would
come from. For Joe's information, ranchers can presently receive two elk
licenses at cost if standard qualifications are met. If all ranchers
qualified, exercised their option on "two" elk, there are many
limited-quota areas where they would take up all the licenses with none
for the general public. Almost forgot, Joe mentioned on the tape I have
that he was an outfitter for 21 years.

Instead of protecting our hunting heritage and traditions, the above
three gentlemen sound more likely to give the ranchers more welfare
(oops, subsidies) and make Wyoming one big game farm for the wealthy.
One ranch in Utah last year had 50 bull elk vouchers and 85-plus buck
deer tags to sell. I'm told they went for $11,500 and $4,500
respectively. This ranch also had vouchers for other species.

Check out the Utah SFW Web site (www.sfwsfh.org) and you can see where
hundreds of other wealthy client vouchers go. SFW has almost 100
vouchers (for licenses) that they sell to raise funds. Ninety percent of
the income goes back to the Game and Fish and SFW keeps 10 percent. Many
clubs in Utah have access to these vouchers. SFW gets vouchers for elk,
deer and moose (mostly bulls and bucks) as well as bison, swans (yep),
cranes, cougars and turkeys. The whole Utah program sounds like a turkey
to me and is certainly not a Wyoming tradition that needs Utah
protection.

One more reason to be skeptical about SFW is their support from present
and past Game and Fish commissioners, some of whom are probably SFW
members. Former Commissioner Henderson has expressed support for SFW and
may be a member. As a six-year commissioner from Rock Springs, I can't
recall a thing he ever did for the department or Wyoming wildlife, but
at one time a client of his was a large southwest ranch conglomerate.

The SFW may be a well-intentioned group or as I suggested they may be
fronting for others. Before you write a check, check them out. I hope
the three Game and Fish commissioners who gave them a license checked
them out.

In closing, I would say to Mr. Peay, Mr. Tilden, Mr. Wharff and the guy
from Riverton: If they are so great and powerful, show us by changing
the Utah law from one that favors the wealthy to one that favors the
average hunter and fisherman walking the streets of Utah all year, not
just during hunting seasons.

Dick Sadler has been a sportsmen's advocate for over 30 years, 17 of
those in the Wyoming Legislature as a state representative and state
senator.
>>>
 
I think it should be against the "law" to alow land owners to charge for specific animals and species... They should be able to charge a tresspass fee, but to charge someone x amount for a bull and y amount for a cow is bull shit.

The state (people) own the animals not the land owners.
 
I agree it's a crock that landowners can charge that much .
The rich man's sport is where it's going.
But on the other hand ,we hear all the time on this board people saying they dont give a rats ass about what a rancher does on his private land.
Dont take me wrong Im against land owners getting such tag's and charging large fee's leaving out the average hunter.
But what do we think will be happening to many of the rancher's when they are run off of public land ?
How many of them will turn there land's into pay only?
If these org. keep going after the land owner to break them down (Western Watershed Project) how are they going to survive?
Sell it off? Go to a large trespass fee?
We hear about how they need to learn to do something else with the land? That the time's are changing and we better get used to it.
I see alot of this as a back lash to the assult on the rancher.
I dont like it either, but if you were a land owner how would you regroup during this assult on the rancher's to help keep your land and bring in money?
 
MD,
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But what do we think will be happening to many of the rancher's when they are run off of public land ?
How many of them will turn there land's into pay only? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>How many of them let the general public in now without a fee. Damn few...

Quail,
These aren't depredation tags they're talking about. It's something totally different. In CO, the landowner isn't allowed to charge a fee for depredation hunts. This article is referring to programs where the G&F gives the landowner X amount of tags to sell with pay hunts on his property. The tags are usually good for most of the fall (in CO, the landowner's season is Sept-Nov.), including rifle hunts during the elk rut and deer ruts. In return, the landowner has to allow a minimum # of general public hunters hunt...tags are issued through a drawing. Generally, the public gets 10% of male tags and 100% of female tags. Crop damage has nothing to do with the program, so the landowner can charge whatever the market will allow.

MD and Quail,
Yes, the landowner should be able to do what he wants on his land in regards to wildlife, but only within the bounds of the rules the general public plays by. These programs are more welfare, and it's usually given to rich landowners that are not going to starve without the program. I encourage you to read up on these programs and then defend them.

Link to Colorado's Ranching for Wildlife program

Oak
*edited stupid spelling error

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 06-13-2003 15:19: Message edited by: Colorado Oak ]</font>
 
Thanks for the info, I had never heard of that program, but I can see where its a magnet for taking advantage of a try to do good idea. sheesh....
 
MD4ME, you're not using your noggin.

Why is it that ranchers who dont have federal leases are able to run profitable businesses? I believe less than 2-3 percent of the cattle produced are ever grazed on Federal lands leases.

The reason ranchers charge people to hunt, is the same reason why they take advantage of every subsidized program that comes their way. Why let people on for free when you can charge? I can tell you from first hand experience, a few hundred bucks can be a deal breaker. I used to hunt on a big spread just east of Missoula for elk and deer. I took the time to help the landowner out branding, fix fences, etc. I visited all times of the year, respected their property, etc. An outfitter approached them and offered to lease it (in about 1985) for $300 a year. Take a guess who didnt get to hunt there anymore? I havent talked to that family much since then...the way I feel is if $300 can cut all ties and a friendship, it aint worth my time to associate with them.

I dont blame them for doing it, but the point is that I believe most landowners are charging because they can, not because Western Watersheds, Jon Marvel, or anyone else if "forcing" them into it. Landowners are seeing dollar signs, thats why they charge.

If you honestly believe that making the welfare ranchers adhere to the laws and rules of a federal lease is forcing them to charge for hunting or sell their land, you are the biggest fricking moron I've ever heard of.
 
Here's an analogy for you. How many of you would say "no", if someone said they'd give you $10,000 a summer to pull worms from your yard without damage?

In South Dakota if ranchers are getting damage from deer they can shoot all they like, as long as they leave them lay or throw them in a boneyard. I've known some to shoot 100 plus in a night, perfectly legal. I've almost been able to walk from deer carcas to deer carcas in a creek bottom due to EHD. They do get thinned out one way or another. I don't like to see either, but that is the way it is.
 
Huh???? That is not an analogy...

And the only reason landowners get landowner tags is because somebody on the Commission wanted to slop some pork over to their buddies. If you don't like Landowners getting Landowner tags, tell all these "not connected to livestock industry commissoners" to quit giving the tags away.
 
Use Promo Code Randy for 20% off OutdoorClass

Forum statistics

Threads
110,816
Messages
1,935,406
Members
34,888
Latest member
Jack the bear
Back
Top