World class outfitters SEC info...

[Oak]

How about this scenario: SFW goes to AK and starts up a state chapter. They get residents on board and signed up by waving the predator control flag and vowing to make the state do something about wolves and bears. There is no mention of taking tags away from residents (or non-residents). See, you have to add lots of butter before you start divulging your real plan. While this is all going on, behind the scenes you begin to fundamentally change the way guide areas are assigned and tags are allocated. Before the unsuspecting residents (and non-residents) know it, the premium tag areas like Tok and Chugach sheep are made into exclusive hunting concessions for the big outfitters. These outfitters are given a guaranteed number of tags for their clients out of the general license pool. And guess how these outfitters market their hunts? Well, how about through this consulting agency that helped them get the whole system set up? Seems like a good trade. So now the outfitters are guaranteed the non-resident quota of tags. What do you think will happen to the price of that limited area Dall hunt now? Available to the highest bidder. Sorry if you can't afford it. Hopefully you got your chance before SFW showed up, but if not, just buy the magazine and look at the pretty pictures. Oh yeah, don't forget to send in your $25 membership fee. We're fighting for predator control! You know those predators are the biggest threat to our hunting! And while we're at it, we're going to skim a few of the premium resident tags off the top to auction to the highest bidder. Gotta fund that habitat enhancement and wolf control! You high rollers that can afford the auction tags can go ahead and book with the outfitter that has exclusive rights in the area.


Let me guess...you see no problem with this scenario? Just a guy who cares about wildlife trying to make a living doing what he loves.

 

[Big Fin]

BHR:

The problem as I see it, even if you disregard the UT/SFW conservation tags, is for WTO and the AK chapter of SFW to be pushing legislation to effectively privatizes three large hunting areas in Alaska by awarding the non-resident hunting concessions to outfitters.

Will they do this in a fair manner? Is there a fair manner in which it can be done? I don't think so, unless you call forcing NRs to use the outfitter award the concessions, "fair."

The fact that WTO, and its incestuous connections, or entangled ties to Don Peay and SFW, is helping pushing the AK legislation/regulations, should be concern for anyone.

So they do it with 3 regions now, which in my mind is BS, what about the rest of the state? What about species for which guides are currently not required in AK? What about those of us who hunt with relatives?

Regardless of what AK does, the big issue that has Schmalts, Buzz, Oak, and myself concerned is that a states would actually do this, and effectively contract out management of its non-resident hunting. And who will be awarded the contract? If it is like most government regulation, it will be awarded to the entities that helped the government "see the light" and be awarded to the folks who developed the legislation.

Further more, it is amazing that so many would turn a blind eye to the fact that it is being pushed along by a group, or entities, that so many "rank and file" hunters are supporting. Would they support them, if they understood the bigger games being played?

For the record, my conservation group affiliations are:

Ducks Unlimited - Life Member, Committee Chairman, State Delegate
RMEF - Life Member
B&C - Life Associate
Orion The Hunters Institute - Member and Board Member
Pheasants Forever - member
Mule Deer Foundation - member
And a few others whom I get magazines from, but can't remember them all at this time.

No, SFW and SFH are not, and will not be on that list. I have spoken to the guys trying to get such started in MT (with no sucess so far). They are outfitters.

As much as I am fortunate to be able to play the conservation tag game, if I wanted, it is a bunch of bullchit. If you read the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, as adopted by the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, one of the seven cornerstones of the model is a democratic allocation of opportunity. That does not imply giving the well healed guys a method to jump to the front of the line every year, just by throwing down some big change.

Letting rich dudes, or guys like me with wives who place no budget on hunting expenses, avoid the draw process completely undermines this tennant. What we will eventually see is a loss of trust in the process by the common hunter. A loss of participation by average hunters, and an end to hunting as we know it.

It is heading down the fast track where "he with money is allowed a different set of rules than he who is without money." And, the guys driving the train are the ones who have their hands in the cookie jar, while we are smiling at the scenery as they take us for a ride. If we allow it to happen, is guess that is what we deserve.

Don't misread my thoughts on capitalism. I make my living helping people get filthy rich and avoiding taxes to the greatest extent legally possible. I have no problem with folks getting rich.

What I have a problem with is when folks work on implementing systems that benefit them, by making something such as access to hunting tags, a function of wealth.

Not all rich guys who hunt are into the conservation tag game, but all those I know in the conservation tag game are rich.

Utah and SFW is a prime example. If the UT residents think they are getting a good deal, well, that is their perogative. I, for one, do not want to see it spread, and am willing to speak up and try point out the "wreck" that I think awaits us as we head down that hill.

Happy Hunting!

 

[Oak]

Big Fin, I should just let you post for me on these topics in the future.

 

[schmalts]

BHR, you may find this as a smart ass comment but here is my donations as fast as I can name them (actual amounts not accurate as it is off my head) You can say what you want, but it is a donation.
AZ $151 a year, hunted there once in 10 years.
CO, not much
UT donated $65 bucks this year, never set foot in the state.
WY, last few years I bought points for sheep, moose (not sheep this year) elk lope and deer. Total cost for that donation (never hunted WY in my life so yes it is a donation) Shit i am not going to add it up but it is a donation is it not?
ID, 140$ last couple years? Never been in the state, but donate every year.
Fugg man, i live in the midwest, i am not going to donate to the state F&G and also the ORGS of a state I never set foot in. But if you don't see my list of money as donations, what is?
Here at home, Ruffed grouse ORG (cant spell society.. did i do it right?) Pheasants forever. NRA in the past but they are on my shit list for this year because they refuse to stop calling me when i asked them 3 times.
I given donation money to UT and other states in the past during applications before they made it mandatory and so i stopped because they get it now from me anyway.

BHR, I hate more than anything more in the hunting world, outfitter preference. I don't care it it is WY and the wilderness law, NM and the NR with outfitter only pool, MT and the outfitter sponsored tags, and the list goes on.
Trust me,at this point in my life I may not be considered the average blue collar Joe and can afford more than most of those dudes but my fight is still for them. Can I afford to get into the outfitted pool in NM? fugg yea. can I afford the outfitter sponsored tag in MT? yep. But i have morels... it isn't right. My kid may not ever afford to do the things i am doing, god i hope he can but the future look bleak if you see through the crap going on.

Like I said. a few predictions, If i do not hunt Moose in AK real soon I never will because it will be outfitter only like sheep. Another prediction, MT will be asked by outfitters for an outfitter sponsored lope tag.

You really need to read the SEC statement, learn about who Don Peay is, see what is going down in AK and UT and then get back to us. UT started with 5% wealth tags look where they are now. AK will start with a few outfitter areas and see where it leads.

 

[BigHornRam]

Appreciate your post BF and your list of conservation affiliations. Looking forward to et al posting theirs too. I don't log onto MM, so don't have knowledge of the pissfights that go over there between Schmalts and his pal Don. Your concerns have merit, human nature usually amounts to what's best for ME. Appreciate your honest opinions here. Facts and honest opinion beat exageration and hyperbole everytime, IMO.

 

[Nemont]

Schmalts,

Ole Don responded to you on MM.

nemont

 

[Oak]

So what is your opinion now, BHR? Is this just a simple case of a guy trying to make a living doing what he enjoys?

Not sure why you care what organizations I belong to, but if it makes you feel better:

RMEF
WSF (FNAWS)
B&C
Colorado Wildlife Federation
Rocky Mountain Bighorn Society

I'm also a member of three professional societies which are geared more towards general conservation and research rather than being hunting-specific.

I used to be a member of the Mule Deer Foundation, but they insisted on spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on coyote control, so I dropped them for blatently wasting funds.

Since you're making this a pecker-measuring contest, why don't you list your memberships.

 

[smalls]

Since you're making this a pecker-measuring contest, why don't you list your memberships.

Are we measuring peckers w/ the B&C or SCI ruler?

 

[Oak]

SCI of course. No deductions.

 

[schmalts]

Oak, buzz, I gotta ask, I never noticed any bad feelings against SFW from you before these last couple days, you guys always seen it this way? Something new?

 

[Big Fin]

Schmalts:

Your thread just got nuked over at MM.

I was in the middle of posting, and it was toasted.

Bastards!

 

[Oak]

I think if you go back and look, Buzz and I have made negative posts many, many times against SFW (at the risk of getting sued, apparently ). I never liked the way they took more and more of the common man's opportunity in the name of conservation. I don't mind a couple of tags, but they've taken it to excess in UT. I also don't like how they put all the blame on predators, and ignore other important issues like resource extraction, ATV misuse, etc. Now, despite what Don says, it appears he had a much larger stake in the outcome of work done by SFW. Whether he has profitted from it yet or not, the potential conflict is there.

 

[MNHunter]

Schmalts,

Ole Don responded to you on MM.

nemont

Damn trigger happy mods on MM nuked it.... what did he say???

 

[Oak]

Schmalts:

Your thread just got nuked over at MM.

I was in the middle of posting, and it was toasted.

Bastards!

Good grief. I guess the truth hurts....

 

[ringer]

Anytime someone makes money off the same thing he invents a public interest group around there will eventually be a conflict of interest. Remember USO? That was when Peay started the Arizona chapter of SFW and we all told them to go F themselves. After the Arizona rulings and changes which prevent landowner tags and more tags for NR hunters they kind of disappeared. Never hear a word about them and Peay was paying the local mouth a hundred grand. You all need to start a grass roots movement to outlaw the privatization of hunting and watch the big dollars flow in to fight that one. Good luck.

 

[MNHunter]

Schmalts, I've seen many a post by Oak & Buzz disparaging SFW on MM..

 

[ringer]

I think they locked down the general hunting section to posting because of Schmalts.

 

[schmalts]

Schmalts, I've seen many a post by Oak & Buzz disparaging SFW on MM..

I guess i missed them, i get in a frenzy and get tunnel vision at times.
The post was nuked for a good reason. It was looking like a threat was brewing about accusations so it getting nuked was fine. I made damn sure on that topic i never accused anyone of anything, and worded everything as speculation and was most interested in other opinions on a public document. I did that so it would not get nuked in a hurry. As usual it turned ugly and it getting nuked was probably a good thing in the end. No problem.
Damn, now i know why i have been off the SWF topic for so long, it gets me too wound up and my stomach in a knot. I guess I am too passionate about this shit

 

[ringer]

No your not. The guy wrote a huge ego bullshit post and threatened litigation. I have been through the lawsuit threat deal over postings and you can always post the truth without fear.

 

[Big Fin]

For those of you who missed Mr. Peay's post that got nuked on the MM forum, he responded to "Schmalz" (Mr. Peay's terminology) about all he had done for the wildlife and those less fortunate, the benefits of success in a capitalist society, and really did nothing to disuade concerns that the WTO and SFW relationship is a legitimate question for the public to ask.

He stated that WTO only does business in Canada, Asia, and I think he said Mexico. He said SFW and WTO will never be doing business in the same place.

I was starting to reply that I will take him for his word, but I quote the following from his SB-2 filing with the SEC. CPA's are usually the ones who complete these filings in conjunction with securities attorneys, so I am forced to look at these kind of filings more often than most, including Mr. Peay. Nothing is overlooked in these filings, without making sure everything is accurate and complete, and the client reveiws prior to filing. I am confident that what is in that SB-2 filing is what was correct and intended at the time.

These quotes in the SB-2 are either incorrect, or I am interpreting them wrong, or Mr. Peay's comment as he posted today, is incorrect.

Here are the quotes:

From Form SB-2


“Our business model centers our past experiences of Mr. Peay's hunting with several outfitters in Alaska, British Columbia, the Yukon, Northwest Territories, and the western United States. Mr. Peay is also a well know figure internationally in the hunting and conservation industry from his efforts with several wildlife conservation organizations.

We intend to accomplish our business objectives primarily through the establishment of strategic alliances with guides and outfitters and our past experiences arranging for hunts. In particular, we will initially target hunters desiring to hunt Dall Sheep, Stone Sheep, Elk, Mule Deer, and Grizzly Bears.”

“We must keep pace with changing conditions in wildlife populations and guiding and hunting regulations throughout the US, Canada, Mexico and Africa in order to provide our customers the best possible packages.”


“Additionally, we believe that some outfitters will be willing to provide hunts at a discount to WTO because of Mr. Peay's high profile position in the hunting industry.”

I read a lot of these documents. From the SB-2 filing for WTO, I was left with the impression that WTO would be operating in Alaska and the western US, places where SFW does operate. Not as Mr. Peay replied. He states they will never operate in the same states.

I was also left with the impression that WTO would benefit from Mr. Peay's connections in the hunting industry, which the filing goes on to later include SFW, SFH, and UTFNAWS. These are the high-profile positions referred to in the SB-2 filing.

For him to call Schmalts an "idiot" and imply that a lawsuit might be in order, seems to be a "I am make the rules and don't challenge them" response. The information Schmalts posted was links to public information. I find Mr. Peay's response very disappointing and seems to do nothing to dispell the legitimate concerns raised.

I guess the fact that I was left with the impression the Mr. Peay's company, WTO, would be operating in AK and the Western US, and that the company would benefit from his connections as a high profile figure in the hunting industry, make me an "idiot," also. Which, given my behavior and circle of friends, I probably am.

Schmalts, you did good. You brought to light some stuff that needs to be discussed. What are the internal workings of SFW/SFH? Where's the money? Any organization relying on tax-deductible donations and revenue from the sale of public wildlife opportunities, can benefit from more open discussion and full disclosure.

Mr. Peay is not the only guy who has ever helped those less fortunate. The fact that he did/does is good. Many others do the same. Doing so, does not remove one from the glass bubble of public questioning, especially when the questioning involves millions of dollars raised from public assets, and for which complaints of lack of public disclosure and accountability, are commonly heard.

Maybe all is on the "up and up" with SFW, SFH, WTO, and its activities in AK and other western states. If so, more disclosure is better than less disclosure.

Anyhow, that was the sum of my post on MM, until it got nuked. Sleep well Schmalts. You knew that at MM, you were entering the home turf of those to whom you were asking for explanations. I think many are now wondering themselves.

Happy Hunting!