UT DWR Mission Statement???

SWAGshootn · Mar 2, 2016

So I logged into the UT DWR website to look at a few of the draw odds and make my final decision on where to apply in the biggame lottery. I never have really been one to read the main page of DWR due to quickly clicking on what I was looking for. But today gave me pause....

At the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, We believe wildlife is valuable to everyone. We serve the people of Utah by managing and protecting the state's wildlife and conserving wildlife habitat.

I have to admit, I laughed out loud. I couldn't decide if I was laughing at the "wildlife is valuable to everyone" part or "we serve the people of Utah"?

Two current situations come to mind. The EXPO tags and the
Stream Access issue. If the UT DWR is really about "EVERYONE" and they are here to serve "THE PEOPLE", then why are they selling the value to a select few and serving the minority rather than the majority??

I think it might be more fitting to say
UTAH DIVISION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES
"We do what the F we want"

or

"We serve those with deep pockets"

So in the spirit of creativity, What would you change UT DWR mission statement to?

sageadvice · Mar 2, 2016

The Utah NRB, Natural Resource Broker!

Joey

"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"

akah2o · Mar 2, 2016

Couldn't agree more...

The thought that crossed my mind is that i know the UDWR is monitoring this site and others about all the drama and issues coming up.

Wonder if they will black eye those of us so we wont draw a tag... can really see it happening but sure makes me wonder.

Founder · Mar 2, 2016

Yep, they're making a list of all you guys complaining and pulling your names out of the draw. I think they're even trying to get the IRS to audit your taxes, just to cause you misery. ha ha

Seriously, I'm sure most of the UDWR folks are doing what they believe is best for wildlife in the state.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com on Facebook!

akah2o · Mar 2, 2016

>Yep, they're making a list of
>all you guys complaining and
>pulling your names out of
>the draw. I think they're
>even trying to get the
>IRS to audit your taxes,
>just to cause you misery.
>ha ha

>Seriously, I'm sure most of the
>UDWR folks are doing what
>they believe is best for
>wildlife in the state.
>
>Brian Latturner

TOO FUNNY BRIAN!!!!! I believe you are right in your comment! Most are!

Utah400Elk · Mar 2, 2016

Founder,

I agree with you! I think most people involved are doing what they feel is best for wildlife. I have been very vocal about SFW in the past. It is safe to say...I am not a big fan. I do however believe they are doing what they feel is best for wildlife. For the most part, the same goes for Utah DWR, RMEF, MDF, US Fish and Wildlife, etc. I will give the caveat that just because they think what they are doing what is best for wildlife does not mean that I have to support them.

If it were up to me, I think all the tags should be given to me. Seriously, I can't shoot very well anymore, can't hike as much, and can be more than a little grumpy. Just think of the wildlife that would be helped if I had all the tags. I would kill a few animals a year and the rest would be saved for me for the next year

(JK)

In all seriousness though, I think it is important to remember that most of the people involved in wildlife management are doing what they feel is best for the wildlife.

Hawkeye · Mar 2, 2016

There are lots of good folks out there who work for the DWR and do a great job. That being said, the DWR has made a complete mess out of this issue and have failed to follow their own administrative rules. I propose the following slogan or mission statement:

"The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Our rules are made to be broken."

-Hawkeye-

nebo12000 · Mar 2, 2016

LAST EDITED ON Mar-02-16 AT 10:33AM (MST)[p]Hawkeye-- I think it is safe to say that for the most part-- The DWR did what they did, on advise of counsel- surely you can understand that. I don't necessarily agree with how it was done either, but I am pretty sure it was done in accordance with legal advise. Wouldn't you think so ? I do believe that it was done to probably put the process on a more solid legal footing as they went forward. Just too bad it probably blurred some "legal" lines in the process. Hopefully it will do that going forward now. What do you think the remedy should be if they did go outside the "legal" lines ?
By the way, I truly believe that the DWR generally does its honest best to protect and preserve our wildlife heritage in this state. There are some great dedicated folks that work for them.

Deerlove · Mar 2, 2016

Too bad they walked away from millions of $ for wildlife because there in bed with little brother.

Hawkeye · Mar 2, 2016

Rich-

I agree that there are lots of good folks working at the DWR. But that does not get them a free pass when they make mistakes or violate their own rules.

I have spent a fair amount of time discussing this very issue with the folks with the DWR, including their lawyer. My point is that when you are a state agency you act and inform the public of your business through the rule making process. Under the law, an agency is bound by its own administrative rules. That means that a state agency should follow its own rules. It can't pick and choose which rules it wants to follow. Can you imagine if the public did that? And if an agency wants to take some action that is inconsistent with its own rules (even if the proposed action is a wonderful idea), then the agency should go through the public process and amend its rule to authorize that action. And that rule amendment should take place before the agency acts - not after the fact. Take a minute and read this link on the State of Utah's own website. Focus on the "Dual Purpose of Administrative Rules": http://www.rules.utah.gov/abtrules.htm

The DWR did not "blur legal lines." It knowing violated its own administrative rule (R657-55-5) because it was too sloppy to include the proper langauge in its January 2015 rule amendment and did not want to take time to go back and fix the problem in the fall of 2015. What is the remedy? You tell me. It is possible to put the genie back in the bottle?

-Hawkeye-

BillyBoB · Mar 2, 2016

I was thinking about this very thing last night. I'm sure many are doing a good job and they have some great folks who care and want to make a positive change. But it doesn't excuse when rules are broken.

I thought of this while going over so many documents and minutes. Obviously someone wants accountability or expects accountability, or they wouldn't keep SO MANY RECORDS. I was exhausted and got to bed WAY too late.

But I feel like I'm getting some traction.

PM sent Hawkeye

Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning
conservation...
"The movement for the conservation of wildlife,
and the conservation of all our natural resources,
are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
method."

"We do not intend that our natural resources shall
be exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural
resources for the public as a whole, for the
average man and the average woman who make
up the body of the American people."

"It is in our power...to preserve game..and to give
reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the
skill of the hunter,whether he is or is not a man of
means."

nebo12000 · Mar 2, 2016

So Hawkeye- in regards to "administrative rules" I need to understand what kind of legal weight in regards to this situation they would be under. I don't know if there is a difference between administrative rules and any other rules or statutes in these types of things. I do know that the DWR can change what the WB decides to do IF there is a serious biological consequence etc. Just wondering how "set in stone" administrative rules" are. Not trying to find excuse for the process they implemented, rather trying to figure out if they might somehow be legally culpable because they didn't follow the rules. Thanks for your help---

Zim · Mar 2, 2016

"Seriously, I'm sure most of the UDWR folks are doing what they believe is best for wildlife in the state."

There's no doubt about this. SFW only buys out the important ones that make a difference, like the 7 on the wildlife board. Not the numerous "low life hillbilly" stiffs (SFW official's terminology used at an Expo table, quoted from another thread). There's no need to bother with these folks. Same as average Joe Hunter.

Hawkeye · Mar 2, 2016

LAST EDITED ON Mar-02-16 AT 12:58PM (MST)[p]Rich-

Good questions. I can tell that you have been doing your homework.

First, I have already addressed this issue. Please read post #173 in this thread: http://www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/DCForumID5/23099.html And

Second, show me another state statute that explicitly required the DWR to move to a formal RFP and violate R657-55-5.

Thanks.

-Hawkeye-

SWAGshootn · Mar 2, 2016

FOUNDER,

I will admit I am frustrated by the whole situation. And yes I flock shot a whole group rather than pointing out individuals. I agree that most individuals in these various organizations are good people who do have the public and wildlife at the center of their efforts. I have met several people who belong to DWR, SFW, and MDF who are upstanding people and are incredible sportsman.

But mistakes have been made. And where is the accountability? And why are we so hesitant to change? I think it is funny all of the people who have responded with such kind words for the majority of the people of these organizations. I guess I will need to do a follow up post draw to see if such kind words gets us tags in our pockets.

I have to agree with Hawkeye when he explains why the state needs to abide by the rules. Why did they keep a process and a deadline for submittal for the expo but then changes the process when they were out played by RMEF? Why does UTDWR support an organization that is lobbying to take away my access to public streams? Why does the public and UTDWR support RAC and Wildlife Board members who by their own admission (recusing themselves for the vote) to be members at all? Don't you think they continue to push the agenda of their organization on a daily basis?

Again, your local conservation officer or local members of SFW or MDF or DWR or RMEF or any organization for that matter generally has the publics interest at heart. They work tirelessly at improving the experience we all have and Im sure I have benefited from their efforts. But at what point do we stop agreeing with the (Majority of them are good) and start identifying who and where the problems lie.

It all goes to show we all love the outdoors and are passionate about the future of wildlife.

(Prof reading this post makes me feel like I need a.... in the name of JC amen)lol

Zim · Mar 2, 2016

On a side note, in case anyone remembers AZ HB2072 when AZSFW tried to do the same tag scam in Arizona in 2012..........they had the exact same formula there. AZSFW was set up 5 years prior to the theft attempt. During those 5 years they completed just enough specific targeted projects so as to be the only organization within the state that qualified to be awarded the 200 trophy tags, according to the wording their bought and paid for Rep. Weiers stipulated in the legislation. Same as this RFP BS. Unbelievable. Does anyone remember this stuff? I really wonder if it all just gets swept under a rug, like the Corey Rossi scandal.