LAST EDITED ON Feb-20-18 AT 12:53PM (MST)[p]I have purposefully tried to stay out of this discussion because I don't have any first-hand knowledge or information about the the drawing process used by SFW-MDF other than what is publicly available. That being said, I understand the questions and concerns raised by some sportsmen based upon the apparent anomalies that have occurred in past drawings. Are these anomalies the result of a random drawing process? Or are they the result of a problem or defect in the software being used or perhaps even some type of collusion? I don't know, and I will not jump to any conclusions or make any accusations unless I have some proof to back it up. As a result, I don't really have anything to add to that discussion.
I will, however, point out that SFW, MDF and the DWR are responsible for the questions and suspicion that constantly plague the expo and the expo tags. Had they handled this situation correctly and transparently from the beginning, sportsmen would not be questioning them at every turn. Unfortunately, that did not occur. Just to remind some of the newcomers of the time and effort that these groups have put into opposing the push for accountability and transparency, I will list some of their past actions: (1) There was no statutory or contractual requirement that any of the expo tag revenues be used for actual conservation for the first 6 years of the expo despite raising nearly $5.5 million off of our public tags; (2) In 2011-2012, SFW, MDF and the DWR opposed the efforts by sportsmen to modify the administrative rule and impose strict accountability and reporting requirments on the expo tags similar to what exists on conservation tags; (3) After substantial public outcry, in 2012 the DWR amended the adminstrative rule governing expo tags to require the groups to spend a whopping $1.50 from each $5 application fee on actual conservation projects, stating that "the conservation organization may retain up to $3.50 of each $5.00 application fee for administrative expenses" (R657-55-10(2)); (4) SFW and MDF refused to provide the public with the number of applicants and the drawing odds for the first several years of the Expo; (5) The DWR ignored its own administrative rule (R657-55-4) that spells out how the Expo contract is to be awarded and moved to a formal RFP process after receiving a proposal from RMEF that complied with the DWR's own administrative rule; (6) The DWR amended the administrative rule in 2015 to provide the groups with a 5-year option once the initial 5-year contract expires -- effectively locking the contract up for a decade at a time; (7) The DWR claims that it conducts "annual audits" of the Expo but no audit was performed in 2007, 2008 or 2009; (8) Moreover, the DWR "annual audits" from 2010-2012 only looked at the drawing process, the number of applicants and the amount of money generated from the Expo Tags -- they did not look at how any of the application fees were spent by the groups; (9) Since 2013, the DWR performed an annual audit to verify that the groups spend the $1.50 (30%) on approved conservation projects but the DWR's administrative rule requires no audit of the remaining 70% of the proceeds; (10) After additional public outcry, the DWR, SFW and MDF added language to the 2017-2021 expo contract stating that the groups will spend the reamining 70% on "policies, programs, projects and personnel that support wildlife conservation initiatives in Utah" -- however, there still is no audit or reporting requirement in the adminsitrative rule or the contract that applies to this 70% retained by the groups.
I could go on and on but I think you get the idea. These facts that illustrate that the DWR, SFW and MDF have a terrible track record when it comes to accountability and transparency relating to the expo tags and the monies generated from those tags. As a result, I am not surprised that some sprotsment assume the worst when they see anomalies in the drawing results. The lack of public trust is a direct result of these groups' past actions.
-Hawkeye-
