Big Game Forever & Sportsman For Wildlife

Status
Not open for further replies.

dotman

1
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Messages
8,201
I'm really suprised that there are hunters out there that are not fully aware how crooked these two groups are, i just saw a post where the great people of Rok Slide where directed to checkout BGF and join for the low $10 fee.

I think all member should research out which groups to support, if you do not want to do this then the RMEF is the best bet to give your money to. It really sucks that there are groups out there lying and trying to take away our right by making this a sport we can not afford.

This is a young forum, most others have already discussed these cancers of organizations.

The RMEF, NRA and other groups have made it a point to speakout against these rich guy groups that in the end would like to see our hunting turn into the European model.

Again BGF had nothing to do with supporting the legistlation that delisted wolves and created a hunting season, they threw their support else where but jumped on the band wagon acting and telling lies that they were apart of it. If they had their way the out come today would be different.

Randy Newberg has written some good articles on how crooked SFW & BGF are.
 
Last edited:
OP
D

dotman

1
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Messages
8,201
I agree but people do need to be aware, we can always direct them to other forums but that isn't smart. For one if you decide to ignore these groups then don't complain when you no longer can hunt because it is so expensive. Part of being an outdoorsman is standing up for your rights, not hidding from the issues.
 
OP
D

dotman

1
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Messages
8,201
Oh yeah it isn't just talking about these groups, did anyone know that the budget bill written by rep Ryan and that all but 10 republicans voted for includes the selling off of our public land, where would the majority of us hunt if this happens? This will not pass in the end, this time.

Now is not the time to sit back and not pay attention to what ia going on because in the end it could be too late once you see what rights you just lost.
 

robby denning

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
10,090
Location
SE Idaho
i just saw a post where the great people of Rok Slide where directed to checkout BGF and join for the low $10 fee.

I think all member should research out which groups to support, if you do not want to do this then the RMEF is the best bet to give your money to. It really sucks that there are groups out there lying and trying to take away our right by making this a sport we can not afford.
dotman,
Rokslide is a place for healthy debate, and we welcome you to do just that, as you have been. However, please accurately describe comments made by those you are arguing against.

I did NOT tell anyone to join BGF. I told them to check them out, and mentioned what I paid.

If anyone wants to read my entire post, in context, that dotman is referring to, here it is:

http://www.rokslide.com/forums/showthread.php?984-Idaho-does-a-few-things-right


You said members should research what groups to support, and so did I.
 
OP
D

dotman

1
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Messages
8,201
To me it seems like you inderectly did by say it is a great org and inexpensive plus posting a link to their wbsite, to me that is your endorsement? Didn't mean to hurt your feelings and yes you are correct that you didn't say in exact words that we should join but maybe relook at your last by the way.
 

robby denning

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
10,090
Location
SE Idaho
dotman, nothing to do with my feelings- good debate is never personal.

Also, I did NOT say they are a "great" organization, I said they were "good". Those two words mean completely different things to me. Example:
Prime Rib = great
Hot dog = good.

If it came across as an endorsement, sorry, it wasn't. I said they "seem good" and said "check them out". My thread was posted to stimulate thought/discussion and it has! I welcome your point of view and am learning already from the debate (along with your thread on SFW & BGF).

Thanks
 
Last edited:
OP
D

dotman

1
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Messages
8,201
Sorry, I get pretty worked up inregard to these groups. They have decieved many and do not have your or my best interests in mind. Yes it may seem so at times but in the end they are working to turn hunting into a complete business model that you really have to pay to play.
 

dreamingbig

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
2,809
Location
Washington
I disagree with a lot of motives that BGF has and thus I am not supporting them currently. My biggest beef is a push to the money talks, high roller auction tags that they promote. Just my two cents.
 

robby denning

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
10,090
Location
SE Idaho
dotman,
That's why these debates are important, if people can stay to the facts, as you have, we can all learn something. If they just turn into pissing matches full of opinion only, then they get old real fast.

you all bringing attention to the tag allocations problems is a benefit to all of us.
 
Last edited:
OP
D

dotman

1
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Messages
8,201
I know that i may not have all the fact but i try my best to look out for the best intentions of the DIY guy that cannot fork out the $$$ to enjoy this sport.
 

WyoBob

Junior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2012
Messages
30
Location
Wyoming
There is a lot of misinformation floating around about these Big Game Forever & SFW.

Do your own research. Make sure that you are finding credible information and not falling victim to hearsay or spin.

These two groups have taken on the establishment and some are now trying to vilify BGF & SFW. Why? Because these two groups are fighting the hard fights and WINNING! Not like Charlie Sheen does but actually winning.

Name one other group which is pushing back against predators? Some have alleged that these groups are against the North American Model (NAM) of Wildlife Management. This cannot be further from the truth, in fact, WE are fighting to ensure that the NAM is not undermined by those which seek to give increased protections to predators. The NAM model was developed (in the early 1920's) when predator numbers were at an all time low. The model is what all state wildlife management is based upon; since wildlife populations are a natural, renewable resource, surplus animals from that population can be harvested annually. We, as hunters, established this model. We created state agencies to over see the protection and regulation of hunting to ensure that a surplus population was maintained and available for hunters to hunt. This was based upon the Public Trust Doctrine and is how the saying: "all wildlife belong to the people, but it is held in trust by the states" came to be. What is now taking place; the non-hunting (some of which are anti-hunting) public is attempting to assert greater say in how wildlife populations are managed. The truth is they want to ensure that predators are given a greater share of the available surplus population of wildlife (which we hunt).

In areas where both wolves & grizzly bears are protected we are seeing dramatic reductions in hunting opportunities. In wildlife management circles, it has long been taught that in order to have a hunt able and sustainable population of ungulates that a minimum of 20 calves/fawns per 100 cows/does is required. Once you start falling below those ratio's one of two things must happen; either you reduce (they want to stop it entirely) hunting or you reduce the overall size of the population. Obviously, that will eventually cause others to question whether the population is being sustained since it is being reduced. Therefore, the non-hunters can rally the anti-hunting community to sweep in and save wildlife from those of us which love to hunt. This WILL cause the collapse of the NAM as it cannot be sustained without hunters nor can wildlife management be entrusted to wild predators. That is their end game so I would urge more caution when groups or individuals claim that Big Game Forever &/OR Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife are out to destroy our hunting heritage as that is simply false!
 

robby denning

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
10,090
Location
SE Idaho
WyoBob, thanks for some info on the other side, which is why I supported BGF in the first place. I could see they were standing up in the wolf issue. However, you can see the "tag grab" issue doesn't sit well with a lot of hunters. Can you clarify that issue?
 

sreekers

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2012
Messages
1,254
Location
Wyoming
Bob, based on the 2007 tax statement for SFW can explain why there is only 1 out of every 5 dollars making it to actual agencies?

Can you explain the connections to SFW that has led to the recent dismissal of the Game and Fish director in Alaska? How many bears have they pinned on him now?

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/spectacular-rise-alaska-wildlife-manager-corey-rossi

Organizations like this have no place in the public resource of game animals in North America.
 

WyoBob

Junior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2012
Messages
30
Location
Wyoming
robby:
All I can say is people are talking a lot about things they know little about. I no longer live in Utah but I can tell you that for all the complaining about the "tag grab" I don't see any other groups being criticized; yet, I know that many participate. Why is it that only SFW gets singled out? I believe it is for the reasons I stated earlier. If you want results, SFW & BGF deliver more than just lip service. WE have ruffled feathers but neither organization created the "tag grab" as it is now being called nor are these two groups the only which prosper from them. I do know that the group in Arizona is not under the direction or control of SFW. I have met a few people from the Arizona Sportsmen for Wildlife but have had little interaction with them.

sreekers:
Do you know what the mission statement is for Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife? I can only assume that you are assessing SFW based on your knowledge and understanding of what other conservation groups do and how they tend to be measured. SFW is not simply about conserving habitat for any one particular species. Habitat is one component of the equation. Here is our mission statement: To promote the protection and enhancement of wildlife habitat, assist in providing quality wildlife management programs, educating the public about the role hunters play in wildlife conservation, and perpetuating the family tradition of hunting and fishing (and trapping if you live in Wyoming). As you can see, the mission statement is broad based by design. I am unsure how you are applying the expenditures but I know that SFW is all about getting results. They have little overhead as almost everything they are doing is geared towards mission accomplishment. The question that needs to be asked is why are the National groups attacking SFW? Why were they not concerned about the impacts wolves were having on moose and elk populations?

As far as what happened with regards to Cory Rossi, I will not try him in public as some have done. I don't know Cory well but I have talked with him about these charges. Once the investigation is complete and the facts are known, you may better understand my comments from my first post on this site. Rather than rushing to his judgement, I would urge others to wait until he has had his day in court to convict him. I do not know the author of the Alaskan newspaper but I know that most of the information contained within the article is suspect at best. Go back and read my comments and ask if that isn't what I just described. When I was first presented with this article I said it was a hack job, started to discredit Don Peay & SFW. This is not because of the privatization of hunting but rather SFW pushing so hard against predators. In my opinion, the article simply aims at dividing sportsmen for the sole purpose of distracting SFW from getting more support for pushing back against those which would prefer to see predators managing our wildlife than hunters. I was involved with the development of the Utah Posted Hunting Unit program. I can tell you that the ranch was 100% pay to hunt. When the ranch enrolled in the program 27% of the people paid to hunt while 73% were allowed to hunt for free. I also noticed that landowners went from seeing wildlife as a liability to an asset. In turn they wanted more wildlife, not less. In areas where you have large tracts of private property, the average guy cannot compete with those willing to lease the lands for hunting. Would we rather sit back and see those lands leased and the average guy excluded or should we be looking for state program which ensure the average guy has a place to hunt?

WV Hunter:
Don't know Randy from Adam but I do know Don. He has tackled far greater challenges than anything Randy can throw at him. Just because Don has not answer doesn't mean he won't; he has much bigger fish to fry right now than Randy. While I do not always agree with Don, I can tell you that Randy doesn't know him either or he would not be buying into all of deceit about SFW.
 
Last edited:

WyoBob

Junior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2012
Messages
30
Location
Wyoming
Maybe WY SFW can host the debate as a fundraiser? Once Don gets back I will ask him. I thought it was Don that offered to debate not Randy?
 

sreekers

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2012
Messages
1,254
Location
Wyoming
You are correct, Don did offer the debate. Randy said he would take it up, we will see if Don will do it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top