Board Meeting
- Thread starter Muley_73
- Start date
Hawkeye
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,014
Cody-
I wish you would have made the trip to attended the meeting. I had the pleasure of meeting your father yesterday. His comments to the board were interesting to say the least. Our conversation in the hall was even better. Despite which side of the issue you agree with, it is always good to meet people in person.
Hawkeye
Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
I wish you would have made the trip to attended the meeting. I had the pleasure of meeting your father yesterday. His comments to the board were interesting to say the least. Our conversation in the hall was even better. Despite which side of the issue you agree with, it is always good to meet people in person.
Hawkeye
Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
T
tinenut
Guest
I have an idea, may be it has been brought up before? Why does putting on the convention tag draw, have any thing to do with who puts on the Expo? Obviously it is not part of it now, or it would be behind the doors not out in the hall. I would think who ever puts on the Expo make?s a lot of $$$ with out the convention tag draw. Then the DWR could do the tag draw on their own, how ever they wanted to do it. Then if it cost less than five dollars they can keep the extra, just like they do on the normal draw. Like it has been mentioned several times, you should be able to hire a contractor to draw 200 tags for less than a million bucks..
Muley_73
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,783
Hawkeye,
Sorry I missed ya. Truth be told I got fired up and back involved because I care about our deer herds. That was the ONLY reason I got involved. I believed and still beleive that the SFW is the only group doing ANYTHING to help our herds. That being said they have done a piss poor job of it. But still they are the only group ACTUALY doing anything about it.
So the rest of this buullshiiit I really could careless about. Regarless of who wins or loses Im still concerned about losing our deer herds. When the fight turns back to solving problems that hurt our deer I will be right there with an opinion and as passionate as ever. As for all this I'll let the egos way bigger than mine battle it out.
I firmly beleive BOTH sides are very very wrong in how they are approaching this and so I chose to just watch from afar.
Sorry I missed ya. Truth be told I got fired up and back involved because I care about our deer herds. That was the ONLY reason I got involved. I believed and still beleive that the SFW is the only group doing ANYTHING to help our herds. That being said they have done a piss poor job of it. But still they are the only group ACTUALY doing anything about it.
So the rest of this buullshiiit I really could careless about. Regarless of who wins or loses Im still concerned about losing our deer herds. When the fight turns back to solving problems that hurt our deer I will be right there with an opinion and as passionate as ever. As for all this I'll let the egos way bigger than mine battle it out.
I firmly beleive BOTH sides are very very wrong in how they are approaching this and so I chose to just watch from afar.
LAST EDITED ON Aug-17-12 AT 08:39AM (MST)[p]tinenut---Your premise is off in that it IS a big part of the Expo, even though the validation is done without having to pay the Expo entrance fee and the drawing is held some time after the Expo is over. The two organizations are obviously making a lot of money putting on the Expo or they wouldn't have renewed the contract recently. How much and where it goes is the big question that they will not answer. You are correct in that a simple raffle ticket situation done only for a few days at that one location and then drawn in a simple random draw by computer would cost nowhere near one million dollars. However, it's almost always cheaper for an independent contractor that does that as a full time business because they are better equipped to do it and at a lot less cost. Someone from Utah really needs to contact that Nevada company that does the DWR drawings for them to see what the approximate cost would be to run that 200 Convention tag simple draw compared to the tons of stuff they have to input to do the state draws.
Hawkeye
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,014
LAST EDITED ON Aug-17-12 AT 08:59AM (MST)[p]It has been a crazy 24 hours but I wanted to take a minute and share my thoughts regarding the Wildlife Board Meeting yesterday. First of all, I would like to thank the many people that showed up to express support for the UWC proposal that sought to impose transparency and accountability into the handling of the Convention Permits. Having attended a few Board Meetings in the past, there were a lot of people at yesteray's meeting. I would also like to note that the majority of those who commented were in favor of the UWC proposed rule amendment. However, at the end of the day, it was pretty clear that the Board does not want to make any changes to the current program at this time. Despite the lack of transparency and accountability, they are apparently okay with the status quo at least until the current Convention Permit Contract expires.
One positive development that came out of yesterday's meeting was the fact that SFW and MDF met with the DWR in advance of the meeting and made a proposal to have the groups prepare an "annual report" that contains the total amount oif revenue generated from application fees for the Convention Permits and a list of projects funded with that money. However, during the public question period, the Director of the DWR acknowledged that this will not be an audit or an actual accounting of those specific funds. Rather, it would be a list of projects funded by those group with monies "other than Conservation Permit monies." It was pretty clear to me that the DWR and the groups put this proposal together and placed it on the agenda as item #10 in an effort to undermine the UWC proposal, which was scheduled as item #12. We have been asking for an accounting for years and have been repeatedly told no. Now, just minutes before the UWC proposal was to be heard, the groups suddenly saw the need to provide an annual report. I guess time will tell whether that report provides real, accurate and complete information or whether it will be a smokescreen used to silence the critics.
I also felt like while the Board wanted to provide the public with "an opportunity to be heard," they were not very interested in the UWC proposal or in imposing any real accounting requirements. You could tell by the board members' body language that they did not agree with the comments from the public but they were receptive to the representatives of the two groups. It was also interesting to note that representatives of the groups generally were often given the last word. I was also bothered by the fact that the attorney for the Wildlife Board told the Board that if they amended the Convention Permit Rule it would likely consitute a breach of contract, despite that fact that there is a provision in the contract that allowed the Board impose "any stipulation" it saw fit. As a lawyer, I recognize that issues are not typically black and white--there is usualy a great deal of gray. However, I had the distinct impression that the Board wanted to punt on this issue and the Mr. Bushman gave them the out they were looking for.
I would also troubled by the fact that nobody explained why the DWR failed to include an "annual audit" provision in the contract with the conservation groups similar to what existed in Conservation Permit Rule. The Wildlife Board instructed the DWR to do just that during the 3/31/2005 Wildlife Board Meeting. Jim Karpowitz, Miles Moretti, Greg Sheehan, Don Peay and Byron Bateman were all present at the meeting. For some reason that provision never made it into the DWR's contract with the groups. Nobody from the DWR or the groups explained why that directive was not followed. Mr. Karpowitz stated during his provision that perhaps the DWR did not understand what the Board intended by its resolution. If that was the case, then somebody from the DWR should have followed up with the Board and requested clarification. If an annual audit provision would have been included in that original contract, we likely would not be where we are today. Plus, the fact that the DWR and the groups knew clear back in 2005 that there was supposed to be some type of annual audit provision in their contract undermines their current argument that it would be prejudicial to include such a provision now given their current contract. Simply put, they all knew there was supposed to be some type of "annual audit" from the very begginning.
The Board did invite the parties to get together and engage in an ongoing dialogue in and effort to resolve some of these issues. I hope that happens. Time will tell if the groups are truly interested in increasing transparencty and showing the public that the majority of the monies generated from the Convention Permits is being used for actal conservation.
In conclusion, I will admit that I was disappointed by the outcome of yesterday's meeting. However, there were some positive developments. The "annual report" requirement is a step in the right direction. It is not what we were asking for but it is a start. Our efforts also sent a message to the conservation groups and the DWR that we (the public) are aware of and willing to pursue this issue. It was very clear that the groups were feeling the pressure. I am hopeful that there will be some ongoing dialogue on this issue. In the event that we do not see significant improvement in the transparency and accountability of these groups, I am committed to continue to pursue this issue on the internet, in the media, at upcoming board meetings, etc. Right now, however, I am going to take some time to catch up on work, chase deer with my bow and decompress.
Thank you again to all those who sent emails and attended the meeting. While the Wildlife Board did not adopt our position, I think that we got their attention.
Hawkeye
Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
One positive development that came out of yesterday's meeting was the fact that SFW and MDF met with the DWR in advance of the meeting and made a proposal to have the groups prepare an "annual report" that contains the total amount oif revenue generated from application fees for the Convention Permits and a list of projects funded with that money. However, during the public question period, the Director of the DWR acknowledged that this will not be an audit or an actual accounting of those specific funds. Rather, it would be a list of projects funded by those group with monies "other than Conservation Permit monies." It was pretty clear to me that the DWR and the groups put this proposal together and placed it on the agenda as item #10 in an effort to undermine the UWC proposal, which was scheduled as item #12. We have been asking for an accounting for years and have been repeatedly told no. Now, just minutes before the UWC proposal was to be heard, the groups suddenly saw the need to provide an annual report. I guess time will tell whether that report provides real, accurate and complete information or whether it will be a smokescreen used to silence the critics.
I also felt like while the Board wanted to provide the public with "an opportunity to be heard," they were not very interested in the UWC proposal or in imposing any real accounting requirements. You could tell by the board members' body language that they did not agree with the comments from the public but they were receptive to the representatives of the two groups. It was also interesting to note that representatives of the groups generally were often given the last word. I was also bothered by the fact that the attorney for the Wildlife Board told the Board that if they amended the Convention Permit Rule it would likely consitute a breach of contract, despite that fact that there is a provision in the contract that allowed the Board impose "any stipulation" it saw fit. As a lawyer, I recognize that issues are not typically black and white--there is usualy a great deal of gray. However, I had the distinct impression that the Board wanted to punt on this issue and the Mr. Bushman gave them the out they were looking for.
I would also troubled by the fact that nobody explained why the DWR failed to include an "annual audit" provision in the contract with the conservation groups similar to what existed in Conservation Permit Rule. The Wildlife Board instructed the DWR to do just that during the 3/31/2005 Wildlife Board Meeting. Jim Karpowitz, Miles Moretti, Greg Sheehan, Don Peay and Byron Bateman were all present at the meeting. For some reason that provision never made it into the DWR's contract with the groups. Nobody from the DWR or the groups explained why that directive was not followed. Mr. Karpowitz stated during his provision that perhaps the DWR did not understand what the Board intended by its resolution. If that was the case, then somebody from the DWR should have followed up with the Board and requested clarification. If an annual audit provision would have been included in that original contract, we likely would not be where we are today. Plus, the fact that the DWR and the groups knew clear back in 2005 that there was supposed to be some type of annual audit provision in their contract undermines their current argument that it would be prejudicial to include such a provision now given their current contract. Simply put, they all knew there was supposed to be some type of "annual audit" from the very begginning.
The Board did invite the parties to get together and engage in an ongoing dialogue in and effort to resolve some of these issues. I hope that happens. Time will tell if the groups are truly interested in increasing transparencty and showing the public that the majority of the monies generated from the Convention Permits is being used for actal conservation.
In conclusion, I will admit that I was disappointed by the outcome of yesterday's meeting. However, there were some positive developments. The "annual report" requirement is a step in the right direction. It is not what we were asking for but it is a start. Our efforts also sent a message to the conservation groups and the DWR that we (the public) are aware of and willing to pursue this issue. It was very clear that the groups were feeling the pressure. I am hopeful that there will be some ongoing dialogue on this issue. In the event that we do not see significant improvement in the transparency and accountability of these groups, I am committed to continue to pursue this issue on the internet, in the media, at upcoming board meetings, etc. Right now, however, I am going to take some time to catch up on work, chase deer with my bow and decompress.
Thank you again to all those who sent emails and attended the meeting. While the Wildlife Board did not adopt our position, I think that we got their attention.
Hawkeye
Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
That's why I wish those of us that had to listen on our computers would have also had a video feed. I could almost sense the squirming that was going on by Bateman as he was talking several times in that just his voice alone seemed to indicate that he was very nervous. The Board just sounded like a bunch of old men that should turn their positions over to those who really care and would like to get things done in an up and up Democratic way. Thanks for all you've done on this Hawkeye, and I think you more than deserve to get out now and have a great Fall that you'll remember for the rest of your life. God Bless---MIKE
hossblur
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 10,519
The audio reminded me of the movie Braveheart where the nobles and English squabbled about titles and property.
Hawkeye, god bless you man! When you get around to it I am wondering though,
1. Why is there not a non compete clause in the contracts for upper DWR personel? It may be legal, but seems dirty that upper personel are now in leadership of lobbying groups(MDF/SFW)?
2. Perhaps we need to(myself included) need to spend less time in here and more time establishing personal relationships with the WB. Of course they are more comfortable with THE DON, he makes sure that they know him, and spend a lot of time with him.
3. I truly am saddened. I grew up hunting, live for it, have set up my lifestyle around it, and now its simply agriculture. It is now a buisness, and a DIRTY one at that. Give THE DON credit, he sold out over a decade ago, he could see that if he got in early, it would be very lucritive. His true skill has been selling conservation and caring to his membership, who have done some great work. Much like other organizations(unions) the membership is the true backbone, but the leadership sells them out continuously, all the time selling the "at least we are doing something", line. JUST SAD. HORRIBLY SAD. I guess thats what I get for trusting that hunters were together on wildlife, we are not, and have been sold out(the best words I can come up with) by powerhungry, greedy, egomaniacs. I sure am glad that while mule deer continue their decline, that SFW/MDF with further add to their cofers(the ONLY thing they truly care about). Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutly!!!
When they came for the road hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the oppurtunists I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the public land hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for me there was no one left to say anything!
Hawkeye, god bless you man! When you get around to it I am wondering though,
1. Why is there not a non compete clause in the contracts for upper DWR personel? It may be legal, but seems dirty that upper personel are now in leadership of lobbying groups(MDF/SFW)?
2. Perhaps we need to(myself included) need to spend less time in here and more time establishing personal relationships with the WB. Of course they are more comfortable with THE DON, he makes sure that they know him, and spend a lot of time with him.
3. I truly am saddened. I grew up hunting, live for it, have set up my lifestyle around it, and now its simply agriculture. It is now a buisness, and a DIRTY one at that. Give THE DON credit, he sold out over a decade ago, he could see that if he got in early, it would be very lucritive. His true skill has been selling conservation and caring to his membership, who have done some great work. Much like other organizations(unions) the membership is the true backbone, but the leadership sells them out continuously, all the time selling the "at least we are doing something", line. JUST SAD. HORRIBLY SAD. I guess thats what I get for trusting that hunters were together on wildlife, we are not, and have been sold out(the best words I can come up with) by powerhungry, greedy, egomaniacs. I sure am glad that while mule deer continue their decline, that SFW/MDF with further add to their cofers(the ONLY thing they truly care about). Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutly!!!
When they came for the road hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the oppurtunists I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the public land hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for me there was no one left to say anything!
BattleBorn
Active Member
- Messages
- 185
Thanks for all your hard work on this Hawkeye and enjoy your hunt!
I thought Item No. 10 looked fishy when I saw the agenda that was posted. At the very least, I hope this will help keep Utah's money in Utah to help Utah's wildlife. That is where it belongs, not MT, WY, AZ, NV, or any other place it does not belong!!!!!
I thought Item No. 10 looked fishy when I saw the agenda that was posted. At the very least, I hope this will help keep Utah's money in Utah to help Utah's wildlife. That is where it belongs, not MT, WY, AZ, NV, or any other place it does not belong!!!!!
Not the hoped for outcome but definitely progress was made yesterday with the agreed upon annual report. The Utah Wildlife Board and others have been put on notice by concerned sportsmen that this issue will be closely watched and followed. A big salute to all those who sent emails and participated in yesterday's meeting and a big thank you to Hawkeye for his tireless work to make Convention permits more transparent and accountable.
Eldorado
Eldorado
