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