rac meeting in springville last night
- Thread starter offhuntn
- Start date
hunter1975
Active Member
- Messages
- 191
I felt like it was good until the convention discussion and then it was all about the SFW org. They had it all figured out how they were going to get that rule passed. I personally felt the at large rac member had it right when he said something like "I think there is a conflict of interest within the RAC itself........"
What is it about the Convention Tag issue that you do not like? I have my thoughts about the Convention, and would have liked to have seen the RAC table the mostion to work out some of the unresolve issues that were meantioned. Over all I think that the Convention Tag programe could be a big pluse for the states wildlife habitat.
400bull
400bull
Another fine example of how the rac does what they think and could care less what the people there think. I'm getting tired of people telling us to get involved and go to rac meetings and voice our thought's. You can set there and see that the rac members could care less what you think. I'm getting tired of Don Peay blowing smoke and pulling numbers out of the sky trying to impress us. News flash you look like an idiot to me and I'm getting tired of listening to it. Every time you turn around they are trying to figure out ways to get more tags for people to get around the whole process and hunt where and what they want in this state. It's a sad day for the average sportman in this state!!!!!
Evan
Evan
400bull, I have concerns with the issue. The DWR rep kept talking about the 200 tags. This Convention Idea signs Utah up for a 1,000 tag commitment. 1,000 vs 200 makes a lot of difference. That mean 500 bonus point tags are pulled from the regular pool, lengthening the wait to draw. 1,000 tags going to undermine the current system and lengthening the wait to draw. We need to remember that.
A point was made that there are not limits of tags taken per unit, which to me is a problem. (There is a 20% limit, but that is alot of tags for one unit) Also troubling is the fact that the DWR did not seek internal feedback on the proposal.
I understand how the NonConsumptive Reps vote for it because it dosen't effect them. Also the BLM and Forest Service Reps I can see voting for the proposal. What do they have to loose??
I'd rather give the convention another 25 tags to auction rather than give them 200 dispose of. Don't get me wrong, the convention could be great, but why do Utah's hunters have to give up the tags to increase Utah's Tourism industry?? Is Holiday Inn going to donate money for Habitat? The more I think about it the less I like the overall proposal.
A point was made that there are not limits of tags taken per unit, which to me is a problem. (There is a 20% limit, but that is alot of tags for one unit) Also troubling is the fact that the DWR did not seek internal feedback on the proposal.
I understand how the NonConsumptive Reps vote for it because it dosen't effect them. Also the BLM and Forest Service Reps I can see voting for the proposal. What do they have to loose??
I'd rather give the convention another 25 tags to auction rather than give them 200 dispose of. Don't get me wrong, the convention could be great, but why do Utah's hunters have to give up the tags to increase Utah's Tourism industry?? Is Holiday Inn going to donate money for Habitat? The more I think about it the less I like the overall proposal.
Why 200 tags, seems like a whole hell of a lot of tags to give out, why not one or two of each of the species that are doing well and leave the "once in a lifetime" tags out of it.....everyone on the board was asking great questions but in the end there was only one who really cared about the situation. Seems like the voice of the people was not heard.
LAST EDITED ON Mar-23-05 AT 05:45PM (MST)[p] Now is the time to fight back like never before. You are about to lose total control to one ORG that will be like the mafia of F&G
A lot of you know i have been ranting and raving about this for a while now, and now you are seeing why first hand. I emailed a rac memeber that was against this like most of you but he said that it seemed like everyones mind was made up before the meeting and before hearing any reasoning. Kind of makes you wonder who was behind the curtains working these puppets?
A lot of you know i have been ranting and raving about this for a while now, and now you are seeing why first hand. I emailed a rac memeber that was against this like most of you but he said that it seemed like everyones mind was made up before the meeting and before hearing any reasoning. Kind of makes you wonder who was behind the curtains working these puppets?
B
BlackTimber
Guest
S.S.D.D.
I have never been to a RAC meeting where the board listened to the public. They just went threw the process that they have to and then at then end they just motion ahead what they want (or have been paid to)
It is very frustraiting when the peoples voice is no longer heard and considered.
The RAC's minds are always made up before the sessions even start.
I have never been to a RAC meeting where the board listened to the public. They just went threw the process that they have to and then at then end they just motion ahead what they want (or have been paid to)
It is very frustraiting when the peoples voice is no longer heard and considered.
The RAC's minds are always made up before the sessions even start.
Silentstalker
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,242
I think the RAC's should be renamed the SFW good ole boy's convention. The public once again speaks out and the Good ole boys vote against them. What a joke!
Chad
Chad
30inchbucks
Active Member
- Messages
- 417
LAST EDITED ON Mar-23-05 AT 08:53PM (MST)[p]Everyone should already know my opinion on this crap. They just increased the limited entry elk tags and now next year they'll just be taken away it looks like. The whole thing is turning into one big circus. Put a tent over it and sell the tickets to the highest bidder. Heck, lets just take all the tags and have one big auction and see how much money we can raise for wildlife. With all that money maybe we can buy ourselves a rain making machine that will end all future droughts. Then we can grow all these big horns that will raise even more money. These groups will never be satisfied until they have it all. The RAC meeting is not a public input meeting and never has been. Have any of you ever witnessed comments from the public at one of these RAC meetings that actually were considered? I attended the one when this convention tag proposal was first presented and I can tell you it was a joke. What a waste of time. I'll just stay home and watch bozo the clown on my TV with his high powered rifle blowing a booner over after his 50 guides showed him how and where to shoot it. Now that's a trophy. LOL! It's sad but that is where hunting is going and our DWR, RAC, Wildlife Board members are supporting this nonsense. SFW is running everything and are pulling all of the strings! Enough said.
Packout,
It looks like you and I have a lot of the same concerns about the Convention tag issue. As much as I think that the idea could be a positive for Utah (Not necessarily Utah hunters). I think that there are several issues that really need to be addressed. Like you mentioned the DWR needs to show us were the tags are going to come form and how they are coming up with the numbers. As it currently stands they said nothing to that matter other than no more then 20% of the tags would come off of one unit and no tags would come from units with less then 3 non-resident tags.
I am also concerned that not everyone in the DWR has read the new rule and even more concerned that some of them have not even heard of it yet. If anyone should have heard and read about the new rule it sure as heck should have been everyone in the DWR. It would have also been nice to have heard why some of the DWR reps. did not agree with the new rule. That would have gave everyone a little clear understanding as to what the rule is all about so they could make an educated decision.
I think that it was also very unfair of the DWR to drop a time bomb on the RAC members. Several of them mentioned that they had not seen the new rule until just a couple days before the RAC. How can the DWR expect the RAC to make a decision on something that they have not had the time to study up on?
How ever I do think that the wildlife could benefit from this if the Conservation Groups that are involved in the Convention come together and commit a percentage of there profit to Utah's habitat. Yes we are giving up some tags that would have normally gone to a hunter that has been applying his whole life. I don't like the thought of that. In the long run we could see better habitat, better and longer wintering ranges, and more critters because of it.
One thing that you mentioned in your post that I had not heard off was the 1,000 tag issue. I did not see it any where in the rule that the DWR was committing a 1,000 tags to the convention. It is stated in the rule that up to 200 tags would be allocated to the convention each year for five years. Is this the 1,000 tag issue that you are talking about?
One more thing that I would like to clear up for some of you is that the 200 tags are not just big bag tags. The 200 tags would be a combination of Deer tags, elk tags, OIL tags, turkey tags, Sandhill crane tags, cougar tags, bear tags, EST. The DWR just does not say what percentages of the tags are going to come from what species.
400bull
It looks like you and I have a lot of the same concerns about the Convention tag issue. As much as I think that the idea could be a positive for Utah (Not necessarily Utah hunters). I think that there are several issues that really need to be addressed. Like you mentioned the DWR needs to show us were the tags are going to come form and how they are coming up with the numbers. As it currently stands they said nothing to that matter other than no more then 20% of the tags would come off of one unit and no tags would come from units with less then 3 non-resident tags.
I am also concerned that not everyone in the DWR has read the new rule and even more concerned that some of them have not even heard of it yet. If anyone should have heard and read about the new rule it sure as heck should have been everyone in the DWR. It would have also been nice to have heard why some of the DWR reps. did not agree with the new rule. That would have gave everyone a little clear understanding as to what the rule is all about so they could make an educated decision.
I think that it was also very unfair of the DWR to drop a time bomb on the RAC members. Several of them mentioned that they had not seen the new rule until just a couple days before the RAC. How can the DWR expect the RAC to make a decision on something that they have not had the time to study up on?
How ever I do think that the wildlife could benefit from this if the Conservation Groups that are involved in the Convention come together and commit a percentage of there profit to Utah's habitat. Yes we are giving up some tags that would have normally gone to a hunter that has been applying his whole life. I don't like the thought of that. In the long run we could see better habitat, better and longer wintering ranges, and more critters because of it.
One thing that you mentioned in your post that I had not heard off was the 1,000 tag issue. I did not see it any where in the rule that the DWR was committing a 1,000 tags to the convention. It is stated in the rule that up to 200 tags would be allocated to the convention each year for five years. Is this the 1,000 tag issue that you are talking about?
One more thing that I would like to clear up for some of you is that the 200 tags are not just big bag tags. The 200 tags would be a combination of Deer tags, elk tags, OIL tags, turkey tags, Sandhill crane tags, cougar tags, bear tags, EST. The DWR just does not say what percentages of the tags are going to come from what species.
400bull
LAST EDITED ON Mar-24-05 AT 09:27AM (MST)[p]Offhuntin- The idea will now be presented to the Wildlife Board. You can Email them your comments by going to the DWR WebSite and into the RAC/WILDLIFE BOARD section. This meeting occurs in a week or two.
400bull- Yes, the 1,000 tags is over the 5 year period. The Convention Tag Rule is binding for 5 years. 5 x 200 = a 1,000 tag committment. They said the tags may come out of turkey, bear, cougar, elk, deer, etc. What they didn't say is that the tags may come from just deer and elk. 200 tags per year is the max, but that doesn't mean the tags come from all species.
For example: The possible Convention tag numbers are found by using the current Permit numbers for 2005.
ELK- Diamond mtn- 15 : Bitter crk- 16 : San Juan- 12 : Manti- 46 : Wasatch- 40 : Nebo- 14 : Pahvant- 8 : Beaver- 8 : Monroe- 12 : Dutton- 16 : Fish Lake- 16 : Boulder- 12 = 215 tags.
Deer- Paunsaugunt- 30 : Book Cliffs- 88+ : Vernon- 20 = 138 tags.
These are just a few of the tags the convention could receive. Not included are many units with 3+ nonresident tags. I can see how the convention could get easily 200 elk only tags or over 150 deer tags.
If they did take 46 Manti elk tags that means over 100 (20 x 5) top bonus points holders don't draw and aren't moved out of the draw. Plus the other 100+ bonus point holders who arn't put under waiting periods. This causes an extended wait for all who have played the "Real" draw game.
Everyone wants to see habitat improvement, but there are no certainties with this deal. No language which says the money must be used in Utah.
400bull- Yes, the 1,000 tags is over the 5 year period. The Convention Tag Rule is binding for 5 years. 5 x 200 = a 1,000 tag committment. They said the tags may come out of turkey, bear, cougar, elk, deer, etc. What they didn't say is that the tags may come from just deer and elk. 200 tags per year is the max, but that doesn't mean the tags come from all species.
For example: The possible Convention tag numbers are found by using the current Permit numbers for 2005.
ELK- Diamond mtn- 15 : Bitter crk- 16 : San Juan- 12 : Manti- 46 : Wasatch- 40 : Nebo- 14 : Pahvant- 8 : Beaver- 8 : Monroe- 12 : Dutton- 16 : Fish Lake- 16 : Boulder- 12 = 215 tags.
Deer- Paunsaugunt- 30 : Book Cliffs- 88+ : Vernon- 20 = 138 tags.
These are just a few of the tags the convention could receive. Not included are many units with 3+ nonresident tags. I can see how the convention could get easily 200 elk only tags or over 150 deer tags.
If they did take 46 Manti elk tags that means over 100 (20 x 5) top bonus points holders don't draw and aren't moved out of the draw. Plus the other 100+ bonus point holders who arn't put under waiting periods. This causes an extended wait for all who have played the "Real" draw game.
Everyone wants to see habitat improvement, but there are no certainties with this deal. No language which says the money must be used in Utah.
E
elk_horn
Guest
Write letters to the Head of the DWR and voice your concerns and demand answers to your questions.
Wildlife board member email addresses. Let them know boys.
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
SneakAttack
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,404
LAST EDITED ON Mar-24-05 AT 11:56AM (MST)[p]I can't possibly understand the theory behind these new tags. The number is now 200 hundred additional tags will be allotted for the 'Big Convention'. The tags will come out of the general LE and OIL tags. The money raised is 'supposed' to be for wildlife and habitat restoration. But Alan Clark, DWR acting assistant. director, stated that no where in the proposal rule does it guarantee that the money (application fees) will be kept in Utah, for Utah projects. They (SFW, Wildlife board and others) figure that the potential influx of revenue that will be generated by the convention, revenue that will be added to the local economy mind you, not directly going to wildlife issues, will produce somewhere in the neighbor of $5 millions in tax money. This money will supposedly by funneled into the appropriate places to benefit wildlife. Now, to generate that much revenue, the groups listed above must be banking on the fact that thousands of nonresidents will be pouring into the state for this 3 or 4 day convention. But at the same time we were assured last night that the amount of nonresident tags will not be more than the percentage already given out.???? I can't understand this. They want all these people to pour into our state for an opportunity to draw a convention tag, in turn generating millions of dollars in tax revenue, but the nonresident draw odds will not increase?
As I understand it, the convention draw will allow people that have already drawn a OIL tag to become eligible for another tag. Also if there are 15 different LE deer units, one can put in for all 15, along with every other hunt available at the show! "But our drawing odds will be the same", Alan Clark.
He stated that the only way drawing odds will decrease for resident hunters is if we don't put in for the hunts at the convention. To do so you have to apply in person. Think about the logistics of it all...As previously stated, they plan on thousands upon thousands of people flocking to this show for this opportunity to draw these permits. Oh did I mention that these permits will come out of the general pool of permits? Yeah that right, less tags in the early draw, and as bad of odds as the ID state lottery for the second draw. And this is my favorite part...The money generated by all of these $5 application fees is not guaranteed to stay in UT!!! I asked them that question, and they wouldn't give me an answer. Dennis said I needed to submit a comment card. Then right before the close of the meeting, the RAC members all got on their soap box...Wait let me back-up here. When the proposal was first presented last night, out of the seven RAC, five of them had numerous concerns about the document and the way in was written. Two RAC members, which happen to be Steve Perry, SFW and John Bair, SFW were the only members that didn't have any concerns about the proposal...Funny how that works. Well, in the hour or so that it took to come to a vote, which was after 'The Don' spoke, only one still had concerns! Only one! I haven't witnessed that much waffling since last years presidential election...Ketchup anyone? Now, at this point, it was painfully obvious that the proposal had already been signed sealed and delivered, and I couldn't take it any more! I shouted out "make sure the money stays in Utah first", meaning to keep the $5 application fee from all of these theoretical applicants. At which point I was told and any further out bust would result in my removal from the meeting. So, I opted to save them the time and trouble and I left. Oh, what's that, you guessed it. The proposal passed 5:1. And it wasn't just the theory of the draft that passed, the way it was presented last night is the way it's going to be! No if ands or buts, no revision. Now unless something miraculous happens at the rest of the RAC meetings, I'd say it's a done deal.
I'm not all that concerned about the extra tags being taken out of the general pool. If they are going to appropriate tags for another give-away, I'd rather them be taken from the existing permit numbers. Heaven knows our herds need al the help they can get. But the thing that does bother me is that no where and at no time last night was the sportsmen of Utah guaranteed that the money generated by these tags would directly go to benefit OUR animals. One last thing, I didn't know it was the RAC, SFW, and Wildlife boards responsibility to worry about the local economy of SLC...I know, I know, tax money 'might' be appropriated for wildlife issues...what are the chances of this money being rearrange to fund, say, more education issues???
'It's all about the gut pile'
As I understand it, the convention draw will allow people that have already drawn a OIL tag to become eligible for another tag. Also if there are 15 different LE deer units, one can put in for all 15, along with every other hunt available at the show! "But our drawing odds will be the same", Alan Clark.
He stated that the only way drawing odds will decrease for resident hunters is if we don't put in for the hunts at the convention. To do so you have to apply in person. Think about the logistics of it all...As previously stated, they plan on thousands upon thousands of people flocking to this show for this opportunity to draw these permits. Oh did I mention that these permits will come out of the general pool of permits? Yeah that right, less tags in the early draw, and as bad of odds as the ID state lottery for the second draw. And this is my favorite part...The money generated by all of these $5 application fees is not guaranteed to stay in UT!!! I asked them that question, and they wouldn't give me an answer. Dennis said I needed to submit a comment card. Then right before the close of the meeting, the RAC members all got on their soap box...Wait let me back-up here. When the proposal was first presented last night, out of the seven RAC, five of them had numerous concerns about the document and the way in was written. Two RAC members, which happen to be Steve Perry, SFW and John Bair, SFW were the only members that didn't have any concerns about the proposal...Funny how that works. Well, in the hour or so that it took to come to a vote, which was after 'The Don' spoke, only one still had concerns! Only one! I haven't witnessed that much waffling since last years presidential election...Ketchup anyone? Now, at this point, it was painfully obvious that the proposal had already been signed sealed and delivered, and I couldn't take it any more! I shouted out "make sure the money stays in Utah first", meaning to keep the $5 application fee from all of these theoretical applicants. At which point I was told and any further out bust would result in my removal from the meeting. So, I opted to save them the time and trouble and I left. Oh, what's that, you guessed it. The proposal passed 5:1. And it wasn't just the theory of the draft that passed, the way it was presented last night is the way it's going to be! No if ands or buts, no revision. Now unless something miraculous happens at the rest of the RAC meetings, I'd say it's a done deal.
I'm not all that concerned about the extra tags being taken out of the general pool. If they are going to appropriate tags for another give-away, I'd rather them be taken from the existing permit numbers. Heaven knows our herds need al the help they can get. But the thing that does bother me is that no where and at no time last night was the sportsmen of Utah guaranteed that the money generated by these tags would directly go to benefit OUR animals. One last thing, I didn't know it was the RAC, SFW, and Wildlife boards responsibility to worry about the local economy of SLC...I know, I know, tax money 'might' be appropriated for wildlife issues...what are the chances of this money being rearrange to fund, say, more education issues???
'It's all about the gut pile'
![IMG_1521[1].JPG](/xf/data/xfmg/thumbnail/13/13402-f48f46a5626a1c26736b27a399d54ddb.jpg?1621435739)
