Western Hunt Expo Transparency?

Birdman, I know you mentioned it but I'll try and clarify for those that will miss the detail.

Your figures are only for funds directly gained by selling Conservation Tags.

Obviously, the more tags given, the more money spent.

PS. SFW gets 440% more Conservation Tags than RMEF, even though RMEF offered to return 100% of funds to DWR instead of the 90% minimum from other groups.

There's a little context for your post.

Grizzly
 
Once again Birdman types a lot but actually says nothing at all and thanks Birdman for the clarification of the issue stance. LMAO!!!!


No estas en mexico ahora, entonces escoja tu basura chancho sucio.
 
Well unfortunately I have not seen much from RMEF in the state. They do pitch in though. When there's a million dollar project they will pitch in 10k then do a giant, amazing well written marketing press release about the work they are doing in Utah and how giant the project is they are helping fund. I've seen a little money thrown here or there but have not seen any projects. Does the RMEF chapter in Utah Do any projects? If so would love to know and even show up. But have never heard of any being done.
 
Thankyou birdman. You actually had some numbers when none of these other tough guys did. For them it was easier to personally attack people than it was to admit RMEF DOES DIDDLY FOR UTAH.


That's the facts boys. SFW spent LOTS more than RMEF. Local governments are always going to choose local companies that spend more money locally than the national gorilla they probably won't be able to get on the phone. IT'S GOOD BUSINESS.


So now I want one of you kids to answer another question. WHY DOESN'T RMEF LOBBY WITH ANOTHER STATE TO GET 200 AUCTION TAGS THERE TO SELL????????


Lastly NVB, anything I say on these forums I would say right in your face and you would take it. Quit being internet tough and just deal with the issues sweetheart.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-31-17 AT 10:32AM (MST)[p]Tristate, the "numbers" that birdman provided for you are the same rough numbers that I summarized in Post #69 relating to conservation permits. As I explained in that prior post, these numbers only relate to projects funded with conservation permits for which there is a statutory requirement that 90% of the proceeds be spent on approved projects. As I also explained in that prior post, SFW receives 4-5 times as many conservation permits from the State of Utah and, therefore, SFW's conservation permit project spending is significantly higher than RMEF. In simple terms, if you take more permits then you are statutorily required to give more back for approved projects. As I further explained in that Post #77, RMEF and every other group that participates in the conservation permit program provides an annual report to the State of Utah showing how the 90% of the funds is spent. I also told you that you could easily find that report on the internet but you never bothered to look. See https://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/conservation_permit_report_2016.pdf I also told you that you could contact RMEF leadership and they would be happy to answer your questions but you never bother to put any effort into finding actual answers. And finally, I explained that this information still would not answer your question because it is limited to conservation permit spending and groups likely fund additional projects from other sources of money.

But at the end of the day, that information has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread which is Expo Tag transparency and the millions of dollars that SFW and MDF have received from the Expo Tags with absolutely no transparency or accountability. But don't worry, SFW and MDF have now promised to spend 70% of the roughly million dollars a year generated from our Expo Tags on "policies, programs, projects and personnel." In layman's terms that means SFW will spend that money on salaries, bonuses, campaign donations, lobbying, overhead and anything else they please.

-Hawkeye-
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-31-17 AT 09:43AM (MST)[p]Griz,

Just a little info for you.
Travis Hobbs is a get R done sportsman, who is on our Logan SFW Chapture committee. He is one that gets things done and doesn't spend all his time complaining in the internet.

Clint Kerl had been a SFW sponsor member and donor for at least 15 years. He has bought the Meadowville tag at our banquet at least the past 10 years.

In years past RMEF said the couldn't help with feeding deer, because it was against their mission.

SFW is coordination the feeding in Cache, with sportsmen who are not members as well. We are also feeding turkeys.

So RMEF finally bought some feed. Good for them. We like it when they pitch in.

If you click on the picture on the RMEF blogspot you will see a picture with feed.

Travis Hobbs,Jason Lundahl (SFW chapture chairman who is coordinating Cache feeding) Miles M MDF President, Clint Kearl SFW sponsor member. It's OK if RMEF wants to have a little credit.
 
Hawkeye,

Blahblah frickin' blah. That's a ton more money than RMEF is spending in Utah and they ain't very transparent about it.
 
It's Kearl, not Kerl. I've done business with some of their family. They were good people.

A more accurate statement considering size of organizations is that SFW pitches in occasionally to help their much bigger, more successful, brother, RMEF.

Of course, this is the very least SFW could do considering the amount of public property they take in the process.

Virtually the same thing would be me taking your truck, selling your truck, keeping an unknown of amount of proceeds and then coming back to plant a tree in your front yard.

When people ask where all the money is, just point to the tree and tell them their kids will love playing under that tree for years to come, but never actually provide the numbers on how much was earned from the truck or how much the tree cost (nevermind that the on-the-ground guys probably donated the tree out of their own pockets and donated the time to plant it).

But one year another guy calls you and shows that he has a much greater ability to sell trucks and get potential buyers from the whole country, but the government replies that they only care about people who use KSL.com so they want to stick to Utah-based organizations only. This is regardless of the fact that capitalizing on income is their sole directive, not to finance local individuals.

Oh yeah, the most important part is always the end. I have to run get a shiny press release showing a house with a new tree and pray that nobody realizes there are unanswered financial questions so I can keep all the rest of the money for "personnel" (myself).

That scenario is so stupid its laughable, but it's true. I bet none of you would trade your truck for a tree, but you expect us to agree to it just because you were the guy that dug the hole and you don't want to feel like it was in vain.

I've never criticized the in-the-trenches guys that are just trying to help wildlife, but there is a significant problem that is finally being noticed by average hunters, the media, State Legislatures, concerned lawyers, Auditor's General office, and others. Frankly, anybody with two eyes has seen that SFW is feeling the pressure too.

And it's going to keep coming. Because maximizing funds is what's best for Utah wildlife and that's not happening under the current system. SFW can do what they want with private donations, but when they're selling public property they better take the heat or get out of the kitchen.

Grizzly
 
Griz,

Like I said. Look at the picture in the RMEF blog.
Miles M MDF was there.
Jason L SFW chapture Chair was there.
Travis Hobbs, the guy getting it done SFW Committee member
Clint K SFW sponsor member and donor,

I don't know all of the other sportsmen besides Billy C.

RMEF seems to be taking all the credit on there RMEF blog.

Funny how a picture is worth a 1,000 words.
 
Tri, I know that math and percentages never were your strength but let's make this into a simple 3rd grade story problem:

If you give one group 145 Conservation Tags to auction and you give another group 31 Conservation Tags, with the requirement that both groups return 90% (or as you like say %90) of the proceeds for approved conservation projects, which group will return more money?

Now, what about the Expo Tag accounting?

-Hawkeye-
 
A simple 6th grader would tell you that can't be answered because the sale price of the tags is variable.

Regardless of whatever made up excuse you keep barfing up here it speaks volumes to the state governments when they realize RMEF spends a tiny fraction of what SFW does in this state. AND THERE IS NO GUARANTEE RMEF CAN PULL THE SAME OR MORE AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR THE TAGS. Rule #122 in business: If it ain't broke don't fix it.


Now that Birdman answered one question maybe YOU can take a stab at answering a question. Why isn't RMEF lobbying a different state for 200 tags that they can auction and give %100 of the proceeds back to that state?
 
There is no evidence that RMEF would do a better job with conservation money and projects.
They maybe a good national organization. They have done some good projects in Utah.

Just wondering why on the RMEF blog that Griz posted RMEF took all the credit for feeding deer at Bear Lake, When MDF President, and SFW Chapture chair, and other SFW members and committee members who were the main guys in the trenches doing most of the work?

Do you have an answer Grizz?

Grizz,

If you say SFW is going down the tube, and you and a few others are educating the sportsmen how bad SFW and the Expo is? You said the same thing two years ago.

Let's have a friendly $1,000 wager. I bet SFW still sells out banquets and have a successful expo during the next 3 years.
Now you have a chance to put your money where your mouth is, if you really believe were are going down the tubes?

I know you are just trying to help things out. Your opinion is not shared by most.

How about it?
 
Greg your missing the point, the gov handout. Sell out the banquets, and expo just do it without the tags. Let your merits stand on there own.
 
Ahhh pigboys seething obsessive hated for Hawkeye is going full steam ahead.

Hey pigboy, does Hawkeye keep you up at night?

Pigboy your question has already been answered. Keep asking the same question over and over again isn't going to change the answer. That's usually what 3 year olds do.

I like how pigboy demands answers but never answers any himself. The trait of a true coward.

Here's one for you pigboy. WHY DID YOU TAKE DOWN YOUR WLH IS A SHEEP POACHER THREAD?????
 
huntin50, I will happily take your $1,000 bet on the condition that you'll take my $2,000 bet that RMEF will still be a larger organization with more paying members in three years than SFW will be.

Since we're coming up with arbitrary criteria to support our positions, how about it? Here's your chance to put your money where your mouth is.

(Because I like you and consider you a friend, even though we disagree, I'll point out that RMEF has set membership records for 8 consecutive years and now totals over 222,000 members of January 1st, 2017. RMEF has also spent over $1,000,000,000 on wildlife. How much has SFW spent?)

Grizzly
 
Puffy,
Why you calling out Tri? Isn't he a little old for you. Let's pick our convo. When we getting together to talk face to face? Why you not backing up running your mouth???
 
So why won't RMEF go to another state and lobby for 200 permits there for them to auction at their convention????


Grizzly,

that was the dumbest comeback bet I have ever seen, But I will take you up on your $2000 RMEF bet if you take my $10,000 bet that tomorrow my business will still be solvent. :D When in Rome.
 
Griz,
I believe you have a lot of passion, and love to hunt like myself and most who frequent this site.

I wasn't the one who said SFW is going down. I didn't say that RMEF isn't a national group. I'm glad they have a big membership. See I love to hunt, and support organizations who I believe are trying to protect and help what I, my family, and a lot of my friends love.

Good luck in your crusade.

The expo has a waiting list of over 100 businesses that would like a spot. I haven't made it down to the expo for two years. It will continue to be successful.

SFW had sold out banquets all over Utah. Why? It must be because sportsmen see things being done to improve hunting and wildlife populations.

I have no problem with RMEF having over 200,000 members. I wish they had more.

When you tear down conservation groups which are getting things done, it is also a blow to those who volunteer many hours to try to make hunting better.

Again, Why didn't RMEF give credit for MDF and SFW in their blog picture. All were represented in Bear Lake deer feeding?
I have lot's of friends who are members of both groups.

Utah is a different state than WY,ID,and CO.
We are loosing more winter range and have more people and are projected to have a lot more the next 20-30 years. Hopefully the money generated will continue to make a big difference.

Personally, I think Utah has too many conservation tags and expo tags. I hope that other states don't follow suit. Expo tags still go for the most part ave Joes that get lucky.

In Utah I have more confidence in SFW leadership than RMEF leadership to get things done for all sportsmen.

Your statement that SFW is going down the tubes and sportsmen are getting educated how bad it is, is not true. I know it's not true. Banquet and expo attendance say it is not true. I talk with a lot of hunters as well.

Greg
 
RMEF was not looking to create hundreds of additional high dollar tags in other states. Rather, they responded to an invitation from UDWR to any interested conservation group to submit a proposal for the upcoming contract covering the 200 Expo Tags. As part of their proposal, RMEF offered to commit 100% of the proceeds from the Expo Tags to approved conservation projects, along with an independent audit of all revenues relating to the RMEF convention. In short, they were offering complete transparency and accountability in an effort to address what they saw as a problem. See, e.g., http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/Pr...EFCallsforTransparencyonStateSpecialBigG.aspx

I hope that no other state is dumb enough to take hundreds of permits out of the public draw in an effort to prop one or more "conservation organizations". Unfortunately, the cancer that started in Utah is slowly spreading to other states. There have already been efforts in Arizona and Idaho follow the Utah model. Let's hope that sportsmen in other states can squash those efforts before they take root.

-Hawkeye-
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-31-17 AT 02:37PM (MST)[p]
>Again, Why didn't RMEF give credit
>for MDF and SFW in
>their blog picture. All
>were represented in Bear Lake
>deer feeding?

You'll have to ask the person who wrote the blog. But maybe you know why SFW did not give RMEF credit in their blog post? (https://sfw.net/2017/01/26/sfw-volunteers-get-out-for-northern-utah-mule-deer/)

--------------

We'll see how all this continues to play out, but I think we can both shake hands and know we're each passionate about hunting and protecting Utah's wildlife and public lands... we just see different ways of getting there.

PS. I have no personal vendetta against SFW, I wish them all the success in the world and hope to some day become their biggest supporter. Because if that happens, it means they're transparent and doing a lot of wonderful things for Utah's wildlife. I think we can all agree with that.

Grizzly
 
Griz,

I guess each group try's to do some PR on their blogs/website.

We would do better as sportsmen helping each other out.

No hard feelings. I really doubt things will change the next couple years as far as expo and conservation groups in Utah.

I'm glad they are closing the Cache and other counties to shed hunting. It is a hard winter. We are feeding a lot of deer. I doubt more than 10% of fawns will survive. I hope does don't abort, or that will be two generations gone.

Turkeys and Pheasants are struggling as well.

A little global warming please.

Greg
 
Why you so butthurt m73? I thought you had thick skin, guess not. I guess it's not all just entertainment after all.

I have no idea what you're so butthurt about. I'm guessing this is just a dodge dive deflect tactic to not answering questions. Pigboy's taught you well.

If you still want to meet, the next time I make the 4 1/2 hour drive to tardville I'll let you know. We can meet by the jungle gyms.
 
Wait a minute you think a company is going to completely alter it's convention model just because a state invited them but they really don't want tags????????

That's why those RMEF heads were talking trash about getting screwed after SFW won the bid???? They really didn't care they were doing Utah a favor, but man they were bitter.

Don't pee down my collar and tell me its rain Hawkeye. I don't think RMEF is stupid. These are business moves.

HOW CAN UTAH EXPECT RMEF TO PROMOTE THE TAGS TO THEIR FULL POTENTIAL IF RMEF REALLY DOESN'T CARE IF THEY GET TAGS???

So since they didn't get 200 tags what is their next move to keep their convention out of the tank?
 
Oh I'm plenty thick skinned just don't pull my kids into it. Laugh it off bud and let me know, I'm happy to travel. Jungle gym, front yard I''m game where ever. I'll be serious about that. So I'm waiting to see if you'll actually step up or just keep being an internet mouth.
 
Here is the absolute truth about conservation permits and the money they generate. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHICH GROUP AUCTIONS THOSE they will generate almost the exact amount of money.

In fact if you put all those tags for auction online you would probably generate even more money for wildlife.

Proof is when I went from SFW to MDF. The tags MDF received kept increasing in price even though SFW did not have them. IF RMEF had all of SFW tags and SFW had all of RMEF tags the amount of money generated would be nearly identical.

These tags sell themselves. I know I did it for 10 years. The group that has them or the venue they are at plays very little into the equation. In fact I would bet if you gave me all the tags to sell I could make phone calls to the players and sell them without an auction and they would generate an all time high amount.

Stop with the "this group generates more and puts more into Utah and wildlife than the other group". The conservation permit money would be the same regardless who markets the tags.

I know this for a fact because I was in it and did it for 10 years.

Lots of good comes from the money generated by these tags, but that money is not CONSERVATION groups money, it is state money generated off of state assets that is filtered through conservation groups.

And before any of you KNOW IT ALLS start whining and name calling on me, just go back and look at the revenue of the MDF when they were awarded a lot of tags that use to be awarded to SFW and RMEF. The tags continued to increase in revenue and SFW or RMEF were not the ones marketing them.

This money generated never was and never will be the group that markets the permits. This is a handout to the groups that they than return to the state.

Which one of you would not gladly take $100,000 even if you had to spend or give back 90% and get to brag about your donation to wildlife? OH and in the meantime keep 10% to do whatever you wanted with.

I support the Utah Conservation permit program. But call it what it is. It is a handout to the groups who get to claim it was their money that they put into wildlife.

You want real numbers? Lets see all of these groups post how much money they put into Utah's wildlife that does not come from Conservation permits or expo permits. That my friends would be real telling.

Money spent that was not generated by state tags is minuscule by comparison I would bet.

Again I support the conservation permit program and I appreciate the good that does come from the money generated. But don't pat the groups on the back to much, after all they were GIVEN the permits to sell that generate the money in the first place.

Tony Abbott
www.thebigoutdoors.com
801-885-1274
 
>So M73, you're ok with your
>public lands being sold off?
>
>
>Is that a real issue?
>
>Btw, Herbert won in a landslide
>because Utards are like dumb
>lemmings. They don't vote on
>or for real issues thay
>vote rather who has an
>R next to their name.
>
>PERIOD.


I take it you haven't read up on the current mayor of the capitol city.

4abc76ff29b26fc1.jpg
 
Deerlove,

Its just another opinion. That's it. Just because he did work for MDF doesn't make his opinion fact. I don't care if Tony wants to come on here and spout his opinion like the rest of us. Doesn't bother me if he wants to see dollars spent in Utah without tag money.

I did work for RMEF. That doesn't make my opinion fact. Get a whole room full of Tony's together and let them talk on the internet for an hour and at the end of it you'll have a whole room full of Tony's. Oh and one Deerlove waiting to kiss them all.
 
Tony is 100% correct. These are government handouts, especially when combined with millions in wolf/grouse funds and Expo Welfare Tags.

The problem is that SFW receives 440% more tags than RMEF and then when they're required to return a portion to wildlife, they run take a picture with an oversized check and issue a press release as though they raised the money themselves. Sadly, there are those that are too drunk on the kool-aid to see the minutiae of it.

It's just like my post 113 says, if I sell your truck and give you a portion of the money, but keep the rest as a commission, did I "donate" that money to you? Of course not, it was yours to begin with. I just took your property and made a living off of selling it. It's hardly philanthropic.

(I thought Tri would say that SFW should learn to stand on their own and that this was communism. At least then his arguments would be intellectually honest).

Grizzly
 
Tri

I ran the MDF, that is just a little different than working for the MDF.

This is the only time I will address you. I dont know you or anything about you other than you state a lot of "opinions"

Remember TRI, opinions are like butt holes, everyone has them and they all stink..

I did not state an opinion. I stated facts that are backed up by numbers that would all stand up in a court of law. I am not just an eye witness to how the system operates. I helped create the system and administer the system and am a an EXPERT witness to how it worked.

How I said the tags generate money and where it goes and who generated what is FACTUAL. The only OPINION I gave was that regardless who promoted the tags they would generate the same amount of money.

Now This opinion is based 100% on the fact that I left SFW and went to MDF an the tags continued to generate the same amount of money and in many cases even more. RMEF sell tags that increase as well. The group that has the tags is irrelevant. The faces have changed but the tags continue to raise millions because the tags sell themselves.

Again this is not an opinion, this is a mathematical and statistical fact and historical. Do your homework young fella. You have lots of passion and plenty of opinions but you lack in experience and knowledge on this matter.

I ran the books, the tags, the auctions, the meetings and EVERYTHING else that had to do with the administration of these tags, the awarding of these tags, the money generated by these tags and the projects completed by these tags.

My comments on this matter are not opinions, they are facts and that is hard for someone like you to accept.

There are many people smarter and more knowledgeable then I am on many many things. Tri there are many things I am sure you are more knowledgable and smarter on then I am. But rest assured, conservation and expo permit generated money is not one of them.

I don't have opinions on them I have knowledge. Knowledge is power and knowledge is truth. This truth and knowledge supersede any opinion you or anyone else has that did not create and facilitate these programs and dollars like I did.

Now if a handful of people that have the same knowledge and experience as I do on this wants to chime in then I welcome that. There is only a handful of them. You and I know who they are and I respect everyone of them. I sat in meetings with all of them and had this very discussion.

Tri you are trying to play way out of your pay grade on this one my friend. But hey, don't let the facts stand in the way of your opinions. The truth is always the truth. And the truth is just how I stated it.

You don't have to admit it or even give it credence, you can claim it is an opinion just like yours but that does not change the fact that is is the absolute truth and not an opinion.

Expert. Look up that word Tri. That is what I and a handful of other people are on the Utah Conservation permit program and revenue. Call Bill or Troy or Don or Byron or Greg or John or a few others. Some of them and I may differ on some fundamental ways to manage wildlife but we are 100% on the same page as to the knowledge and benefit and process and results of the permit money.

You Tri are ignorant to this program and money. But thats ok. We live in a country where you can be ignorant and still have a voice.

Go ahead and have the last word Tri as we know you NEED it. I will bow out and look forward to seeing many of you at the the upcoming Hunt Expo and at my Expo in March.

The floor is now yours TRI.



Tony Abbott
www.thebigoutdoors.com
801-885-1274
 
Alright Tony you stepped in it.

First you say this.

"I did not state an opinion."

Then you state this.

"The only OPINION I gave was that regardless who promoted the tags they would generate the same amount of money."

See the FACT is you can't keep track of the stuff you are spewing and you contradict yourself.

Then you say this which is opinion.

"The faces have changed but the tags continue to raise millions because the tags sell themselves."

The reality is it is increasingly limited supply and ever increasing demand, in symbiosis with inflation which keeps driving these prices up and not the Conservation orgs.

Then you get tough and say this.

"I don't have opinions on them I have knowledge. Knowledge is power and knowledge is truth. This truth and knowledge supersede any opinion you or anyone else has that did not create and facilitate these programs and dollars like I did."

Actually you have opinions and knowledge and you can't divide your opinions from fact because knowledge made your ego too big.

Lastly you had the opinion that these tags are a handout. THAT IS AN OPINION. My opinion is its a distribution strategy. If you think that's a handout maybe we can just start calling road contractors, cops, and teachers a bunch of welfare recipients.

My opinion is that if the government puts you in charge of distributing a public asset YOU SHOULD BE FISCALLY COMPENSATED. Just like me, or you, if we do a good job its OK to get compensated AND NOT GET TOLD ITS A HANDOUT. You earn it. But that's my opinion and you have one that makes you feel so superior you call it "fact" to make yourself feel better.

My opinion is YOU INSULT PEOPLE'S HARD WORK BY CALLING THIS A "HANDOUT".
 
Thanks for chiming in Tony! What are your thoughts on the money generated from the expo tags where only 30% is required to be used for conservation?
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-01-17 AT 12:40PM (MST)[p]>Hey that's me!

Really?



"Tri you are trying to play way out of your pay grade on this one... "

Tri, meet the other kid on the playground here to figuratively kick the wannabe bully's ass


5390322-9292906886-star-.gif
 
When the so called big dogs come out it tells me I am actually cutting to the bone instead of dealing with the monkeys. Cheers, sweetheart.
 
>When the so called big dogs
>come out it tells me
>I am actually cutting to
>the bone instead of dealing
>with the monkeys. Cheers,
>sweetheart.


Or maybe they are just tired of seeing your BS
 
Since this thread has wandered a bit off the original subject, I thought I'd add some numbers to illustrate what kind of dollars are generated by the 200 tags. This is likely shown somewhere else but not on this particular thread. So I looked up the odds table for 2016 and added all the purchases for the 106 different categories and came up with 233,210 purchases, multiplied by $5 = $1,166,050. (someone can check my math as I only added them up once)
30% = $349,815 and 70% = $816,235
So, I believe the original subject pertains to how is the $816,235 being spent? Seems like a reasonable request to me considering the relatively significant $. From internet articles I've read, the contract with SFW and MDF did not REQUIRE them to account for the 70%. So it doesn't appear they legally have to do this. It just seems like most reputable conservation organizations or charities would be more cooperative considering the large group of people questioning where the 70% is going. Had they come out with some kind of description of where they spent the money, I'd probably be more inclined to participate in the Expo this year (I've attended the last 5 years). As it is, I choose to not support it this year and will surely miss a great show and meet up with several friends. I suspect the show will be well attended again as it seems most people don't pay a lot of attention to where the revenues go which is a bit disheartening to me but to each his own. Perhaps the thought that they could draw a great tag for $5 (with pretty remote odds) overrides any consideration of how their contributions are spent I guess.
 
I hope they are tired of it. I hope you get tired of it. I hope the rest of you cry babies who every January start posting this butt hurt garbage finally decide being a crybaby isn't how you get what you want. I hope this time next year you and these other guys finally figure out the internet has no credibility so crying on it isn't how to increase my kids "opportunities".

I hope at some point yall realize people ain't buying your twisted self serving half truths. Year after year at the same time yall start whining like the babies you are about these stupid tags thinking somehow they would make you happy. It's idolatry for Pete's sake. Meanwhile the deer herds get worse and the chances our kids will be hunters instead of poachers dwindles.

YOU WATCH. NEXT JANUARY YOU'LL BE RIGHT BACK HERE LIKE A TRAINED MONKEY CRYING OVER SFW AND DEER TAGS.
 
There's that "yall" thing again.

We should all be bowing to you and all your knowledge. You're arguing for the sake of the kids afterall. Again, I don't have a dog in the fight about the tags or who markets them. One day I might even go to the Expo. I just like to chap your ass. Seems to be working.

Give it up Tri. You only have one or two fans here besides yourself. See you next January, Sweetheart.
 
Good post Coloelkman. Since tristate believes that actual numbers speak louder than words, I thought I would share this summary of Expo Tag Revenues again. I have posted this information before but I thought it would be helpful to update the summary with the reported numbers for 2016. Please keep in mind that the requirements regarding what portion of the application fees must be used for approved conservation projects have changed over the years from 0% in the early years to 30% today. Please also keep in mind that the conservation groups contend that they are spending the remaining 70% today on "policies, programs, projects and personnel" that benefit wildlife. See Section 7 of Contract (https://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/expo_permit_contract.pdf) However, given the vague language in the contract and the fact that the UDWR requires no accounting or reporting on the remaining 70% of the proceeds, I continue to lump the remaining 70% under the latest contract in the "pocketed by SFW/MDF" category.

Now I will step aside and wait for tristate to jump on here and tell us all why this doesn't matter.

273785applicationfeerevenuepage001.jpg


-Hawkeye-
 
In my simple mind "conservation" means the money is used for actual projects approved by the DWR similar to what the 30% must be spent on under Section 7.b of the current Expo Tag Contract with an actual report to the DWR and the public of the project funded consistent with Section 7.e if the current contract. See https://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/expo_permit_contract.pdf

I do not consider it to be benefitting "conservation" when the DWR gives millions of dollars to a conservation group with no requirement that it be spent on actual conservation projects or that any accounting be provided to the DWR or the public. I doubt most other sportsmen would either.

-Hawkeye-
 
So the definition is your definition. But not necessarily the definition set by the DWR or the State itself???
 
When it was left to the state, the DWR and the groups there was absolutely no requirement that any of the money be spent on approved conservation projects for the first six years. That is why sportsmen had to step in.

Can you tell me with a straight face that the $8+ million dollars in Expo Tag proceeds that has gone unaccounted for by the groups has been spent on actual conservation projects? If not, what was it spent on? Oh yes, "policies, programs and personnel."

-Hawkeye-
 
So Hawkeye let's pretend %100 of the tag money goes back to DWR. What percentage of that if anyone is spent ON YOUR DEFINITION OF CONSERVATION?
 
Hawkeye,
It was spent on building a group that had a voice for sportsman in Utah. One that they did not have. A group that took that voice and did more for Utah wildlife than any other group...projects, planning, staffing completing and maintaining included.

It comes down to the same argument Jason, do you want to look at the entire big picture or just continue to focus in on toppling an organization not help our wildlife.
 
How about the definition of "conservation" regarding Expo tags be the same threshold required of the 60% of retained funds raised by the sell of Conservation (Auction) Tags.

The state has set a threshold for those tags, let's just apply it to Expo funds too.

Grizzly
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-01-17 AT 06:33PM (MST)[p]Ok, I think I see the big picture. So $8+ million from our public tags was spent to help "build" SFW and MDF? Plus, another $7-800K a year moving forward? And sportsmen are not entitled to any report or accounting of those funds were spent?

Sorry but I don't think that the State of Utah should be taking hundreds of tags from the public draw in an effort to help "build" any group. Conservation groups should survive based upon membership fees and donations. Money from conservation tags should be used for actual conservation projects.

-Hawkeye-
 
And have no real voice? Hmmm that worked so well in the beginning. You weren't involved early enough to understand that Jason. I get that so I'll give you a little bit of a pass. But to continue to fight without full knowledge or a real future plan is foolish. Round and round we go. You'll spin your wheels occasionally but we both know you've pushed in the real world as hard as you possiblily could and were left to lead the internet hate club and that's about it.
 
SFW's 2013 990 tax form shows $5.5 million in land on its balance sheet. I'd say SFW is using the money from public sources to buy land.
 
So SFW and MDF needed an $8 million public handout in order to have a "real voice?" What about other groups that also want to have a real voice? Is the state going to hand out millions to those groups too?

-Hawkeye-
 
Hey Cody, I sent you a PM and I text you about a week or soon ago, did you receive them?

Thanks Joe

"Sometimes you do things wrong for so long you
think their right" - 2001
"I can't argue with honesty" - 2005
-Joe E Sikora
 
Hawkeye,

If %100 of the tag money went back to DWR, what percent of that would end up being used for your definition of real conservation?

Why can't you answer that? If the DWR having the money is better for conservation why can't you say why?
 
Hawkeye,
And that's why your voice only holds weight with a handful of angry minions on an Internet forum.
 
Tri, your questions are always off base but I will answer for the sake educating other folks who follow these threads. I am not advocating for requiring the groups to return 100% of the Expo tag proceeds to the DWR, although that would be preferable than allowing them to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars a year with no accountability or transparency. Rather, I believe that something more than 30% of the proceeds should be earmarked for approved conservation projects and that the groups should account to the DWR and the public for those funds. Pretty simple.

-Hawkeye-
 
You are dodging the question Hawkeye. But I will make the question simpler for you.

NO MATTER WHAT PERCENTAGE THE DWR GETS FROM THE TAGS, what percent of that lump sum should be spent on what YOU consider "conservation"?

Basically I want you to tell all of us how the DWR is going to spend that money WITHOUT having to pay for personnel, in field and office, administrative expenses like computers, paper, telephones, map services, petrol, surveyor fees, etc......

Why is it the DWR can have these expenses when they do "conservation" but a conservation group isn't allowed to???

Don't dodge these questions.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-02-17 AT 03:10PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Feb-02-17 AT 03:08?PM (MST)

>You are dodging the question Hawkeye.
> But I will make
>the question simpler for you.
>
>
>NO MATTER WHAT PERCENTAGE THE DWR
>GETS FROM THE TAGS, what
>percent of that lump sum
>should be spent on what
>YOU consider "conservation"?
>
>Basically I want you to tell
>all of us how the
>DWR is going to spend
>that money WITHOUT having to
>pay for personnel, in field
>and office, administrative expenses like
>computers, paper, telephones, map services,
>petrol, surveyor fees, etc......
>
>Why is it the DWR can
>have these expenses when they
>do "conservation" but a conservation
>group isn't allowed to???
>
>Don't dodge these questions.

Both the DWR and the Conservation Organization have been given provisions for office and administrative expenses.

Per Utah Code R657-41-9. Conservation Permit Funds and Reporting.

"(4)(a) Conservation organizations shall remit to the division by September 1 of each year 30% of the total revenue generated by conservation permit sales in that year.
(b) The permit revenue payable to the division may not be used by conservation organizations for projects or any other purpose."

"(5) A conservation organization may retain 70% of the revenue generated from the sale of conservation permits as follows:
(a) 10% of the revenue may be withheld and used by the conservation organization for administrative expenses.
(b) 60% of the revenue may be retained and used by the conservation organization only for eligible projects as provided in subsections (i) through (ix).
(i) eligible projects include habitat improvement, habitat acquisition, transplants, targeted education efforts, and other projects providing a substantial benefit to species of wildlife for which conservation permits are issued, unless the division and the organization mutually agree in writing that there is a higher priority use for other species of protected wildlife.
(ii) retained revenue shall not be committed to or expended on any eligible project without first obtaining the division director's written concurrence.
(iii) retained revenue shall not be used on any project that does not provide a substantial and direct benefit to conservation permit species or other protected wildlife located in Utah."

In other words, the division has the option of using the 30% remitted directly to them for any purpose they chose and the conservation organization can use the 10% (and the interest on ALL the accounts they retain) for any purpose they chose. But the remaining 60% (minus the interest) is used ONLY for projects that DIRECTLY provide a SUBSTANTIAL benefit to protected wildlife and both the DWR and the conservation organization fall under those provisions.
 
I understand what is written. Hawkeye seems to have a problem with ANY of it being used for support services, materials, etc.... I am trying to get a solid response out of him what the exact percentage of he is happy with.


SOunds like when money goes to the state they can pi55 it away on anything they want to and Hawkeye is more than OK with that, but if SFW bought a pencil he feels he got screwed.
 
Tri, you would not know a solid answer it it bit you in the butt. As I have said many times in multiple threads, you could apply the same statutory requirements that already apply to conservation permits or you could simply increase the percentage earmarked for actual projects under the expo tag contract from 30% to 90%. Is 10% of $1,000,000+ dollars a year enough for SFW to buy pencils?

-Hawkeye-
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-02-17 AT 04:53PM (MST)[p]Bessy I'm digging your Logo! Get it!

Joe

Remember Bessy its your year "San Juan or bust"

"Sometimes you do things wrong for so long you
think their right" - 2001
"I can't argue with honesty" - 2005
-Joe E Sikora
 
Hi Hawkeye! Guess what I'm not going to do?
Post my two cents in here! Haha Haha!
I hope all is well with you and yours

Joe
"Sometimes you do things wrong for so long you
think their right" - 2001
"I can't argue with honesty" - 2005
-Joe E Sikora
 
It may not be Hawkeye. See that's the deal. Your a Laaaaawyerrrrrr. Not a biologist or DWR employee. You get to make vague accusations using big fancy words like "accountability" and "conservation". Then you get to apply double standards and try and shame people because they get paid for doing a service.

By the way you haven't given a straight answer yet so here is one that only takes "yes or no".

Would you be happier if the state auctioned or raffles these tags on line?
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-02-17 AT 05:59PM (MST)[p]Well the state would save at least 70 percent! It's a start. Do you think they would blow the other that sfw and mdf are keeping?
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-02-17 AT 06:18PM (MST)[p]"Accountability" and "conservation" may be "big words" in Texas but any third-grader here in Utah knows what we're talking about. It is a simple issue in spite of your never-ending questions.

-Hawkeye-
 
>It is a simple issue
>in spite of your never-ending
>questions.
>
>-Hawkeye-


Which you dodge without answering. You couldn't even answer a yes or no question. You don't have a leg to stand on. All you have is an internet hate club. No substance.
 
"Which you dodge without answering. You couldn't even answer a yes or no question. You don't have a leg to stand on. All you have is an internet hate club. No substance."

Says the guy who's too much a coward to answer any questions himself.
 
Puffy,
Who's the coward??? What a hypocrite, the mouthy biitch himself is calling someone else a coward? When do we get to be big boys and talk about accountability and such things, you and I???
 
Joe, feel free to post your two cents anytime. We are all fre to express our opinions and the dialogue is important even when we disagree. I hope all is well for you and yours.

-Hawkeye-
 
Cody-

You are correct that there are some real loudmouths on both sides of this issue. I generally just tune them out and ignore them. I am not interested in name calling, chest pounding, etc.

In contrast, you and I have butted heads on this issue for several years but I have appreciated the discussion. I think I understand where you are coming from and why you support SFW -- because they have a loud voice and they get things done here in Utah that you generally support.

So help me understand this issue. If, as you said above, the State of Utah has allowed SFW and MDF to keep several million dollars in Expo Tag proceeds with no accountability or transparency in an effort to help those groups develop a "real voice" so that they have the finances, relationships, influence and power to actually accomplish things here in Utah instead of simply griping on the internet like the rest of us. And I agree with you that SFW certainly has developed a strong voice on wildlife issues here in Utah, perhaps the strongest and loudest voice of any conservation group. So that being said, is this the reason why SFW initially sided with the state on the stream access issue? And is that also why SFW seems to be the only sportsmen's group that refuses to speak out against the transfer of public lands? Are SFW, BGF and Don Peay so indebted to the State of Utah and the State Legislature that they refuse to run the risk of getting cross-wise with the same folks who hand them conservation permits, expo permits and millions of dollars in wolf/sage grouse lobbying money?

I have never understood how or why SFW picked the wrong side on the stream access issue but now it makes sense. I have also been shocked that SFW has sat silently (except for its Dixie Chapter who actually picked the wrong side) on public lands transfer issue. But I guess SFW knows who butters their bread and provides the $$$ to allow them to have a "real voice" of wildlife issues. Money is great and every organization needs $$$ to get things done (and buy pencils, Tri) but when you become so dependent on a source of revenue that you have to turn you back on your core consituents -- hunters and fisherman -- then you have a problem.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

-Hawkeye-
 
Hawkeye,

Has it ever occurred to you that you aren't one of their core constituents and many hunters and fishermen do back SFW positions on these issues. You know hunters and fishermen aren't the gay pride parade. We have all different sorts of values and ideas on what will benefit the outdoors. That's one thing I have been trying to get you and others in the internet hate club to understand. Sportsmen are a wide spectrum of individuals. Many races, economic classes, and religions. We aren't all going to think just like Hawkeye. And when we don't agree that suddenly doesn't mean we are no longer "the public"
 
Tri, did you ever think that many of us do agree with him? Why do you constantly fight him? I know he laughs at your lack of understanding and common sense on these issues, Helk, we laugh at your lack of common sense. The government did not hand the gay pride club millions of dollars in tags either, so that was kind of a lame comparison. BUT IF they did, I would hope that they would hold them accountable with that public money, unlike they have done with $FW.
 
>
>Has it ever occurred to you
>that you aren't one of
>their core constituents

Ditto



>We have all
>different sorts of values and
>ideas on what will benefit
>the outdoors.

Ditto



> Sportsmen are
>a wide spectrum of individuals.
> Many races, economic classes,
>and religions. We aren't
>all going to think just
>like Hawkeye [Tristate].



Aaaannddd DITTO
 
Trist, that drivel you just posted is nothing more then an opinion based only on illogical emotion.

Go ask Jason Chaffetz how us westerners feel about the pimping of public lands. He just pulled his bill to sell off 3.3 million acres only 2 days after introducing it because the us REAL sportsmen spoke up.

Where were you and all the people who want to sell it off?

Chaffetz is holding a town hall meeting in Utah next week to discuss the pimping of public lands. Come on out and let your voice be heard that you are all for it. You'll be the only one.
 
Tri, my question was for M73. Stay out of adult conversations.

I am not sure what the gay pride parade has to do with Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife supporting a bill that shut down thousands of miles of rivers and streams to public fishing? Or wringing their hands for years trying to decide whether to publicly support the transfer and sale of our federal public lands? I think it goes back to M73's comment that the State of Utah has provided SFW with tremendous financial suppport and SFW is worried about rocking that boat even if it means alienating their core consituents (hunters and fisherman).

-Hawkeye-
 
Just happened to be hauling some trash to the landfill today. Haven't laugh my a&$ off like this for awhile, these old sfw newsletters are comic gold. This train got derailed long ago. Sadly a lot of good people have put in a lot of effort/sacrifice and time in the early days.
http://www.monstermuleys.info/photos/user_photos_2017/788image.jpeg
http://www.monstermuleys.info/photos/user_photos_2017/64685image.jpeg
Not sure what's heavier that bucks bases or Dons wallet these days. What a GDMFin crooked utard shytt Storm come from what seemed to be at one time pure and good hearted intentions.
Sfw Member since 1994
Proud Ex member since 2001
 
Smokepole-

Thanks for sharing that blast from the bast. I really like Point #3 from the "Vision of SFW" which states "Create a make a difference money (MDM) that hits the ground to benefit wildlife." That really is all we are asking for with regard to the Expo Tags. We believe that more than 30% of those funds should actually "hit the ground". When M73 asked what I meant when I say I want to make sure that the monies are used for "actual conservation," I guess that I can answer that question with SFW's own words from 1994. The $1,000,000+ dollars a year generated from the Expo Tags should "hit the ground" in the form form of approved conservation projects rather than be used for policies, programs, personnel and pencils (that one's for you, Tri). Based upon that vision statement, SFW and I used to share the same vision on this issue. Which one of us changed our positions?

Hawkeye-
 
Actually SHotgunjim its an opinion based on facts.

However calling yourself "the us real sportsmen" is an illogically based opinion, and poor English. You don't even know why he pulled it in all truth. You don't even know if you were in the majority on that.

Obviously you aren't good at math. If I show up that means at least two people showed up in favor of it.

These ideas and bills aren't sprouting up because no one wants them.
 
Maybe SFW realized there is no conservation without policies, programs, and most importantly personnel.

What I find funny Hawkeye is if all this money just went to the DWR it would get spent on all sorts of things including policies, programs and PERSONNEL. Lots of personnel. But if they are doing it your OK. Sounds like a double standard you produced to push an agenda if you ask me.
 
Sounds like they think their core constituents are hunters and fisherman. Just not the same brainwashed hate minions that troll the internet between hunting and fishing trips.
 
Could you imagine if the tags were given to the gay pride parade to organize the auction? For one, the food and decor would be WAAAY better!
 
Tri:

What you are forgetting and not understanding is that SFW asked for the tags in the name of conservation and in return would give back to wildlife. For the 1st 6 years they didnt, now just a whopping 30%. The dwr has the tags. They can do as they wish with the money, even if it is personnel. IN FACT, I wish they, the dwr, would keep the tags and put proceeds to personnel. Why you ask? I know you will, so here it is. That would be to help stop poachers, and that is conservation in my mind. ONCE AGAIN MY THOUGHTS, there are alot of things to do with that money. But that could be one of the things THE DWR could do. But TRI, spin it as you will.

By the way, do you know Rumple? Hes a man that spins straw into gold, maybe you should look into it.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-03-17 AT 01:52PM (MST)[p]Tri, you forgot to mention pencils. You can buy an awful lot of pencils with 8+ million dollars.

Yes, there is a different standard that applies to government agencies. I would not be asking the same questions if the DWR was still giving these tags out in the public draw. But when they took 200 premium tags out of public draw and gave them to a private company to raffle off in the name of "conservation," it is fair to ask where has the money gone.

Since we are on the topic of historical statements from SFW, remember the DP told the public during the wildlife board meeting where these tags were created that the public has a right to ask how much of the $5 application fees actually "hits the ground." My how times have changed.

-Hawkeye-
 
Jason,
Like I have said way too many times in the past, show me another group actually doing more for Utah wildlife and I will give them my support. That's pretty simple....right??? I'd especially like a group that has the teeth that the SFW use to have. The bigger any group gets the more memembers it tries to appease. I'm not at all about appeasing, I'm about results and getting things done I support. If SFW has the ability to help push my agendas then I will support them. When another group pops up that does it better than SFW then I'll support that group.
 
SFW also get 2X the handouts than any other group. Thats why they do more, and they should, right???
 
Actually you should go back and read the article. The word they use is "seemingly". That means even they aren't sure why he pulled it.

Don't be so anxious to call people fool because it could bight you like this article did.
 
I don't know Robiland. I guess that's one opinion.

Hawkeye,

SO if the state makes the 200 tags almost worthless again you will be happy with the state pi55ing away what little money they draw in with the tags.

Like I said, you promote a double standard to push a hateful agenda.
 
"I hear you," the congressman vowed to withdraw the bill Wednesday evening on Instagram."

What part of that direct quote from Chaffetz don't you understand, Fool.

Keep squirming, lying and telling half truths you dumb F'N Texan. Everyone sees right thru your pathetic BS.
 
Jason at times you have to step back and really realize the type of quality individuals you champion.
 
Lots of good quality folks have asked where has all the money gone. I'm not looking to be anyone's champion. I am simply asking legitimate questions as a concerned sportsman. And I am plenty comfortable associating with average sportsmen who share my concerns.

By the way Cody, what exactly was said in this thread that got you so riled up at another poster? I must have missed it. As I explained before, there are knuckleheads on both sides of the issue.

-Hawkeye-
 
>Jason at times you have to
>step back and really realize
>the type of quality individuals
>you champion.

Thanks! As one of Jason's friends, I'm happy he doesn't champion someone who would sip whiskey all night with the Devil in order to get his way, nor someone who would wish the worst for anyone who happens to disagree with him. I guess, like trophies, quality is in the eye of the beholder.
 

Similar threads

Simpleton
Mule Deer Proposal
2 3
Replies
207
Views
4k
Vanilla
Vanilla

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

392.jpeg
524470_10200477809523577_86876633_n.jpg
A3E515A4-1827-42D0-B4C0-F39AE196A6CC.jpeg
Lucky Find for Me
IMG_0557.jpeg
2F085254-579F-4678-9B0D-9407792F13BF.jpeg
F22EDE90-BD94-47A1-87B5-BB7A927B4965.jpeg
791644B1-007D-4715-AD8C-E6131624B7CE.png
Big Buck
Forkie2.png
Beautiful Archery Score for BIGOLMULEY
F0A685C6-71AB-4C9D-83E4-821787B80A34.png
Back
Top Bottom