Utah Wildlife Forum banner
101 - 116 of 116 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
469 Posts
Interesting thread here. We've gone from backdoor secret meetings to a way too early discussion of hunter ethics in less than 5 pages. Much faster than that actually. That's some high level ADHD happening there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,085 Posts
I received the same response along with the list of members on the committee.
I sent a GRAMA request to the DWR office for the list of committee members and their contact info.,but was informed that it may take 19 days to process. If you have that info, please post it for the rest of us and I'll cancel my GRAMA. Thanks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,568 Posts
I sent a GRAMA request to the DWR office for the list of committee members and their contact info.,but was informed that it may take 19 days to process. If you have that info, please post it for the rest of us and I'll cancel my GRAMA. Thanks!
Here is a contact for one of the co-chairs.
NamePhoneDepartmentE-mail
Ewell, Derrick435 781-9453Dept of Natural Resources[email protected]

The list I was sent was names only. No contact information. At this point I don't see a need for everyone's contact information. They are not accepting input from the public.

If you want the names PM me and I'll get them to you.

On the subject of committees in general I guess it would be too much to ask that the meetings are streamed so it would be easier to listen in. Maybe that is not how the committees are set up to operate?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
469 Posts

The list I was sent was names only. No contact information. At this point I don't see a need for everyone's contact information. They are not accepting input from the public.

If you want the names PM me and I'll get them to you.

On the subject of committees in general I guess it would be too much to ask that the meetings are streamed so it would be easier to listen in. Maybe that is not how the committees are set up to operate?
I think you can feel free to post their names here as it's not a secret who they are. If not PM them to me. I would be interested in seeing who is on the committee.

If it's not, I hope they eventually make them more transparent to the public. If for nothing else, even the appearance of secrecy undermines public trust.
I doubt they will be streaming their meeting. It's a working group like the mule deer and elk working groups which are not streamed. Nothing they discuss, propose, consider etc. is binding. Most of it will be throwing ideas at the wall to see what gets traction and then it can be addressed through the division to see if it's viable or to see if data exists to clarify potential impacts or determine if data needs to be gathered. I suspect it will be a while before anything concrete comes out of this committee.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,840 Posts
Discussion Starter · #109 ·
So here is the best intel I have at this point:

The committee hasn't nailed down much so far. They have been looking at what definitions of "fair chase" are out there and trying to figure out what all that means. Ultimately it appears they are settling on a mission statement surrounding limiting technology to increase opportunity and also maintain quality. The definitions of "fair chase" and "ethics" are likely impossible to attain a consensus, so it's probably wise to narrow the focus of the mission statement to something most everyone can agree upon, and then let that mission guide the recommendations moving forward. If we are going to legislative what we each subjectively believe is ethical or fair chase, we are in trouble!

I'm not sure if that narrowing the vision resulted in specific technology being discussed yet or not. It sounds like everyone is skeptical of any technology that has yet to come out, but will undoubtedly come out in the future. If I was a betting man, someone that was in that meeting room last night is reading my post and I'd love for them to post up if they are specifically discussing any technology in particular yet, and how that is going. Nothing discussed in these committees is secret, so I'd love to get more information about specifics from the committee.

The public may attend the meetings but not participate. I wonder if that goes for EVERYONE or just the public they don't want to speak?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,840 Posts
Discussion Starter · #110 ·
PS- here is your committee.

The co-chairs are Derrick Ewell and Gabe Patterson. The members of the committee are as follows:

StakeholderName
SFWKevin Norman
MDFDoug Peterson
ManufacturerMark Thompson
UAARandy Walk
Guide/RACAustin Atkinson
FS OfficerTawny Meyer
Wild Arrow OwnerThylissa Plyer
Social MediaBen Dentamonte
WBBryce Thurgood
GuideRusty Farnsworth
Public at LargeKaden Roberts
CWMUDave Freiss
UniversityRandy Larsen
Younger Generation HunterHadlee Sulivan


It is important to remember that this committee only makes recommendations to the DWR, who then takes all that through the public process, which could include surveys, and then the RACs and Wildlife Board. That said, it's useless to have a committee meeting to not follow what they are recommending at least to some extent. There is also a Wildlife Board member on the committee, so this committee will be influential, for sure. This committee will have a large sway in how things are presented to the public. From there, it's up to us if we like it and how much we want to be involved. But the time for sitting on your duff complaining about things in online forums is over! Yes, if you're reading this, I'm talking to you!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,630 Posts
So here is the best intel I have at this point:

The committee hasn't nailed down much so far. They have been looking at what definitions of "fair chase" are out there and trying to figure out what all that means. Ultimately it appears they are settling on a mission statement surrounding limiting technology to increase opportunity and also maintain quality. The definitions of "fair chase" and "ethics" are likely impossible to attain a consensus, so it's probably wise to narrow the focus of the mission statement to something most everyone can agree upon, and then let that mission guide the recommendations moving forward. If we are going to legislative what we each subjectively believe is ethical or fair chase, we are in trouble!

I'm not sure if that narrowing the vision resulted in specific technology being discussed yet or not. It sounds like everyone is skeptical of any technology that has yet to come out, but will undoubtedly come out in the future. If I was a betting man, someone that was in that meeting room last night is reading my post and I'd love for them to post up if they are specifically discussing any technology in particular yet, and how that is going. Nothing discussed in these committees is secret, so I'd love to get more information about specifics from the committee.

The public may attend the meetings but not participate. I wonder if that goes for EVERYONE or just the public they don't want to speak?
I bet if Mr. $FW himself showed up to these meetings and had something to say, they would certainly allow him to speak. You or I, wouldn’t have a chance in hell at speaking.

i asked Austin Atkinson on a Facebook discussion what was being discussed over a month ago and was completely ignored.

thanks for the update. I tried to make my schedule work to where I could go last night, but I just couldn’t swing it with work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
417 Posts
PS- here is your committee.

The co-chairs are Derrick Ewell and Gabe Patterson. The members of the committee are as follows:

StakeholderName
SFWKevin Norman
MDFDoug Peterson
ManufacturerMark Thompson
UAARandy Walk
Guide/RACAustin Atkinson
FS OfficerTawny Meyer
Wild Arrow OwnerThylissa Plyer
Social MediaBen Dentamonte
WBBryce Thurgood
GuideRusty Farnsworth
Public at LargeKaden Roberts
CWMUDave Freiss
UniversityRandy Larsen
Younger Generation HunterHadlee Sulivan


It is important to remember that this committee only makes recommendations to the DWR, who then takes all that through the public process, which could include surveys, and then the RACs and Wildlife Board. That said, it's useless to have a committee meeting to not follow what they are recommending at least to some extent. There is also a Wildlife Board member on the committee, so this committee will be influential, for sure. This committee will have a large sway in how things are presented to the public. From there, it's up to us if we like it and how much we want to be involved. But the time for sitting on your duff complaining about things in online forums is over! Yes, if you're reading this, I'm talking to you!!!
Stakeholder categories are laughable. Social Media, University, Younger Generation Hunter.

Better option randomly invite hunters from Dedicated Sportsman, Hunters Who've Had License 10+ Years, Disabled Hunters.
 
101 - 116 of 116 Posts
Top