Conservation Permit @ the RAC's

I haven't done the math, but it looks like a lot more tags going to the average Joe.

Grizzly
 
No change in the Conservation Tags. There is some rewording and corrections to make understanding better. No more tags than there is right now.
 
I really did not want to do this on a website, but here goes.....

What Birdman says is only slightly true because the UDWR has been over-issuing Conservation Permits the past 3 years. They got caught over issuing and so they are changing the Rule to accommodated their past errors.

The "re-wording" takes out the current cap on permits. It removes the words "a Maximum of". Without those words, the UDWR will use rounding techniques to allocate Conservation Permits. This will mean units qualify for sheep CPs when they reach 5 public permits and all other species units qualify at 11 public permits. The current Rule dictates that sheep is 1 for 10 (10%) and other species is 1 for 20 (5%).

Under this proposed rule change, a sheep unit (or group of units) only needs to have 5 permits to qualify for 1 Conservation Permit. That is equal to 20%. Under the Current Rule, a unit (or group of units) would need 10 tags to give one, which is 10%. The proposed change allows the UDWR to double the percentages allowed for sheep-- 10% now is up to 20% and increases all other species from a cap of 5% to up to 9%+.

This proposed change could increase Desert Sheep permits from 4 to 7. Rocky permits from 3 to 5. It could double or triple tags for other species/units.

So go ahead and believe what you want. The math of a 5th grader can tell us that this proposed Rule change will allow for more Conservation Permits to be issued than allowed under the Current Rule.
 
If there is no intention of going over the 5% and 10% limits then why reword the regulations for the conservation tags? The writting is on the wall! My prediction...in very short order 10% of LE tags will be conservation tags and 20% of sheep tags. After all, before the conservation tags there were X number of LE tags and OIL tags. Since the conservation tags started there are X+Y. If more tags are taken from the average joe's they are still way ahead of where they would be without them. Another snake oil pitch. The argument will be after the new increase Utah will have X+Y+Z. It is a win/win situation. The simple question should be why reword the rules if there is no intention of giving the conservation organizations more tgas than 5% and 10%. The answer...there is no reason.
 
According to the rac meeting tonight, a good discussion took place over the conservation tags. The 5% stays with the other tags and the 10% stays with the sheep. The 10% for sheep was changed in 2006. When they do the tags Kevin said that they combine several units to come up with the numbers to get 10%. The numbers that came up tonight was there were two extra sheep tags that were sent to the conservation tags. The reasoning given by the DWR was that in order to keep the sheep program going at the rate it is with transplants etc they need the money. The conservation tag money is used for that species. It was said that the general sheep tags brought in $50,000 dollars and the conservation tags brought in $300,000 dollars for the sheep. The DWR said that they would do what the board decides but it can hurt the sheep program. There is no 20% of the sheep tags going to conservation.
 
In the morning, I will post my thoughts regarding the Central RAC.

Birdman, was that you that commented during the RAC meeting about hunting buffalo on the Henry Mountains? I am still trying to put names to faces.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
Birdman,

If the numbers are going to stay 5% and 10% then why re-write the current system? There will be more than 5% on LE and more than 10% on sheep! That is the only reason to re-write the tag allotments. I believe you have said that you think the 5% and 10%. I am not going after you just the current trend in conservation tags. You have to admit that the re-write will allow for more tags. If this passes, they could get a conservation tag when there are 10 LE tags (i.e. 10%) and a sheep tag when there are five tags (i.e. 20%). Has there ever been a time when they issued less conservation tags than they were allowed? The last time I did the math they were over the 5% and 10% cap. Now with the re-write they would be allowed to go up 10% and 20%. I bet they will be at the max in almost all if not all areas. Best of luck but my guess is that this will pass and the number of conservation tags will go up.
 
At the central RAC the RAC voted on looking at a table to make sure that 5% for conservation tags with the exception of the sheep tags. The vote on the sheep tags was to leave it as it is so that more money could come in for the sheep programs. According to Kevin of the DWR they combine units together to come up with general tags to get a conservation tag. From a study done the current tags would be cut by 2 to get the tags to 10%. The reasoning the DWR used for rewriting the rule was for more clarity. Both a member of the RAC and SFW stated that they would like to see even more clarity in the writing to make it easier for people to know what is going on. I am guessing in the future to see more rewriting for clarity. Biggest problem is that people read the plan and three people get three different thoughts. More clarity needed.
 
I also attended the Central RAC meeting last night to comment on the proposed changes to the conservation permit rule. I was surprised by how few people were in attendance. There were probably only 4 or 5 people other than RAC members and DWR employees.

First, Kevin Bunnell from the DWR presented some background information on the conservation permit program and showed how the number of conservation permits and the revenue generated therefrom has increased dramatically over the years. Mr. Bunnell also referenced the recent legislative audit and noted that the State determined that the program is functioning very well. When he got to the proposed changes to the language of the rule, Mr. Bunnell admitted that the DWR has been issuing conservation permits in excess of the 5% and 10% caps. He explained that when somebody asked him to look at the rule several months ago he was surprised to see that the language of the rule did not track with the practices of the DWR. Thus, the proposed changes to the rule are not intended to clarify the existing rule and impose a hard 5% or 10% cap on conservation permits. Rather, the proposed changes to the rule are meant to bring the rule in line with the past and current practices of the DWR and the conservation groups.

Following the presentation by the DWR, Karl Hirst a RAC member, asked several questions demonstrating that the proposed language of the rule was ambiguous and could be interpreted in several different ways. He also noted that although the general public typically supports the conservation permit program, they are growing weary of alleged abuses and the ?smoke and mirrors? involved with the program. He asked that the DWR impose a hard cap of 10% (or 8 permits whichever is less) for sheep and 5% (or 8 permits whichever is less) for all other species. Karl even prepared a revised table that would limit the number of permits to these hard caps. Karl was asked if imposing a hard cap would result in a decrease in conservation permits and he said yes. The DWR apparently issued 2 too many sheep conservation permits this last year. Karl said there would also likely be decreases in conservation permits for other species if the DWR complied with the hard cap.

When the RAC opened the discussion up for public comment, I was the first to speak. I explained that although I recognize that the conservation permit program funds a number of valuable projects, there needs to be limits on the program. I stated that I was disappointed to learn several months ago that the DWR was violating the 5% and 10% caps. However, I was encouraged to hear that the conservation permit rule was going to be amended. I assumed that the language of the rule was going to be strengthened so that the DWR and the conservation groups would have to comply with the 5% and 10% caps. However, I was shocked to learn that the DWR was merely amending the rule to authorize its previously unauthorized conduct. In other words, if you cannot play the game by the rules?change the rules. I also shared several other concerns regarding the conversation permit program. In a nutshell, I stated that although the conservation permit program funds some great projects, the program and the conservation groups themselves are there to benefit the wildlife and the general public. Unfortunately, I feel like we have reached a point where these groups have obtained so much power and influence that they are receiving preferential treatment to the detriment of the general public, which is not right. The tail should not be wagging the dog.

Following my comments, several others commented, including Troy Justensen from SFW. The main thrust of his comments was that the conservation permits result in millions of dollars of revenue for conservation projects. SFW supports the program but if the statute needs to be amended to clarify the language, then SFW supports such a change. In the end, SFW supports the recommendation of the DWR to modify the statute.

Mr. Hirst made an initial motion to modify the statute but to include a revised table that imposed hard caps of 10% for sheep and 5% for all other species. Matt Clark seconded the motion but when it was voted upon it only received 2 votes.

Jay Price then made an alternative motion to impose a 5% hard cap on all species except sheep. With regard to sheep, he moved to follow the DWR recommendation that would allow the DWR to issue a conservation permit once a unit or group of units reach 5 permits. Yes Birdman, this could result in 20% of the permits for a unit or group of units being sold as conservation permits. Mr. Price?s motion passed 7 to 2, with Karl Hirst and Matt Clark voting against it. The reasoning for Mr. Price?s motion was that the sheep program depends heavily on conservation permit money and the loss of 2 conservation permits could result in a $100K of lost revenue I tried to point out that the rule already makes an exception for sheep by allowing 10% as opposed to 5% of the permits to be sold as conservation permits. However, the RAC had already made up its mind.

Birdman and the DWR are partially correct in stating the amendment to the rule will not result in an increase in conservation permits. This is only because the DWR has been violating the prior rule and the amendment authorizes their past and current practices. However, the amendment to the rule will remove the hard 5% and 10% caps and allow the DWR and the conservation groups to issue tags in excess of those caps.

In summary, I was disappointed that the Central RAC did not send a message to the DWR and conservation groups that you need to understand the rules of the game and play by those rules. However, I was pleased that they at least voted to impose a hard cap on all species with the exception of sheep. I was very impressed with Karl Hirst and felt like he had done his homework in advance of the meeting and listened to the input of the general public. Utah has set aside nearly 350 conservation permits. If a handful of those permits have to be returned to the public draw in order to comply with the current rule, so be it. If you have a chance to attend the Northern RAC tonight, please do so and let your voice be heard. The real battle will be at the Board Meeting on June 6th. If this is an issue you care about, please make an effort to attend the Board Meeting and send a message to the Wildlife Board. I believe that it will take a massive groundswell of support to get them to listen to the general public.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
LAST EDITED ON May-16-12 AT 10:22AM (MST)[p]Somewhat Hawkeye is correct. Didn't Kevin say that they combine different units to make up the numbers for 10%. In otherwords. yes 20% of one unit could be used but then 0% of another unit would be used as conservation tags. He also said that overall 10% would be used. Now I know that there were two extra tags. Kevin also said that that money is important for the growth of the sheep program. He also said that when the conservation program started there were two sheep tags. Without the program we may still only have the two tags. So yes there have been more sheep conservation tags issued and as a result we have many more sheep tags that go to the public. Now they could do away with the sheep conservation tags and make up the money by raising the sheep tags to $2500 dollar or there abouts for residents. That would make up the money. It is amazing that 7 members of the public show up to find out what is going on but everyone has an thought how things should be done. They go by hear say to make up their minds instead of knowledge. I commend those that take the time to attend RACs and Wildlife board meetings and thanks to Hawkeye for taking the time to make a comment and suggestions. Good food for thought.
 
Dang Troys got the perfect job he gets paid to sell the tags and then guide them. Talk about double dippen. LOL
 
Yep the perfect job. Do I detect some jealousy. And don't tell me that if you had a situation to promote something that you loved and make money at you wouldn't do the same thing.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-16-12 AT 10:46AM (MST)[p]Birdman says what I told you guys, that they over-issued permits. They over issued Desert Sheep Permits by 2, not 1. They qualified for 3, but issued 5. Then he states they did it for the money. We are talking about 20-30 permits too many across the board annually.

And anyone can go look at the RAC info packet to see that the Proposed Rule includes a table to guide how the permits will be issued. Conservation Permits are issued by unit (or groups of units for sheep). The Table says that once a Sheep unit or a group of units reaches 5 public permits then one of those permits can be issued as a Conservation Permit. Again, no one can dispute that 1 out of 5 = 20%.

Finally, it looks like this proposed Rule does little to take out the ambiguity and mis-interpretations. One must read the Rule and view it as hard fact, not what a presenter says "might" happen. The hard fact is that under the proposed Rule there can be 7 Desert Sheep Permits. Under the current Rule that number is 4. This scenario plays out in other units as well.

I have been accused of trying to destroy the Conservation Permit Program. This is a false statement. I support the program under the Current Rule. I just don't like the proposed changes to the percentages.
 
Birdman-

How am I "somewhat correct?" Everything I stated is true and accurate. The language of the rule allows for conservation sheep permits as follows: "10% of the toal permits or eight permits, whichever is less, assigned to a hunt area OR COMBINATION OF HUNT AREAS, for Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep and desert bighorn sheep." (Emphasis added). But then the table allows for 1 conservation permit once you have 5-14 permits on a unit or COMBINATION OF HUNT AREAS.

In other words, if you have three sheep units with 1 tag, 1 tag and 3 tags respectively, none of those units would be eligible for a conservation permit if there was a hard cap in place on a unit by unit basis. However, the DWR can combine those three units to reach 5 tags and then apply the table to take one of those five permits out of the public draw and into the conservation permit program. This means that 20% of the total tags for those 3 units went into the conservation permit program. I believe Kevin Bunnel also stated that the lucky (wealthy) hunter who purchases the conservation permit would have access to each of the units during the hunt. This is the type of "rounding" that has been employed by the DWR and the conservation groups and will now be authorized under the revised rule. Karl Hirst quizzed Kevin Bunnell about this very issue and Mr. Bunnell admitted that this is occurring.

My goal in attending the RAC meeting was two-fold: First, to comment on the proposed rule change. Second, to provide an accurate report to the general public regarding the position of the DWR and the consveration groups. I too wish that more people would have been there to comment. However, not everyone can make it to every meeting. This is a great forum to openly discuss these topics.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
Hawkeye, I agree that 1 of 5 permits is 20%. I think Kevin said that overall they try to stick with the 10% of all tags. Now I know that is not happening. They admitted it last night. I can see were they are coming from in the fact that the money coming into the sheep program has increased the hunting units and sheep numbers where more and more hunters can now hunt sheep. I guess that I look at it different than you do. It increases the ability to hunt sheep in the future. now I know that I will never be able to hunt sheep in my lifetime the way it is going right now. I only hope for grandkids and kids in the future. The way it is now I will probably never be able to hunt any OIL unless I get lucky and draw at the expo or buy a conservation permit which I could never do with what money I have. But the future is important to look at. I know they have been going over the alotted tags. They admit it. In my opinion I think the future is important.
Now on the other hand. The Central RAC voted for a table to be used. I agree to that. I also think that there needs to be more clarity of the writing of the rule. Like was said last night. Three people read the rule and come up with three different was to inturpet the rule. Maybe more simplified and straight forward. I also agree that not everyone can make it to the rac. My question is, if it pertains to deer, the room is packed. There definatly could have been more than 7 people attend if they are really that concerned with the rule and changes. Just my thought. I only go for one reason, to educate myself on what is going on in the hunting of Utah.
 
The DWR (with input from the conservation groups) are the ones that write the rules. Therefore, they should understand the rules and abide by them. It is inexcusable for a DWR representive to over-issue conservation permits in violation of the rule. It is even more troubling to hear a DWR employee admit that he had not even reviewed the rule until a couple of months ago, and therefore he was unaware that they were exceeding the maximum number of conservation permits.

I too am concerned about the future. However, I believe that we have gone overboard with conservation permits. If generating the maximum amount of money is the goal then why not auction off all of the permits? If DWR and the conservation groups cannot live with the 300+ conservation permits that would be available under the current rule if the 5% and 10% caps were enforced, then too bad. At some point we have to draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough. I would like to see a substantial reduction in the number of conservation permits. At a minimum, I would like to see the rules enforced rather then changed to allow even more conservation permits.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
According to the DWR the extra conservation permits are vital to the future of Utahs sheep. If its appropriate for the spotsmen of Utah to sacrifice maybe its appropriate for the conservation orgs to wave thier 10% cut for marketing sheep permits.
 
fin little posted: "According to the DWR the extra conservation permits are vital to the future of Utahs sheep."

That argument is a complete crock. The rule already authorizes double the amount of sheep permits (10% for sheep v. 5% for all other species), and yet they still were violating the rule. Additionally, the DWR was issuing too many conservation permits for all species--not just sheep. The fact of the matter is that the DWR and the conservation groups have been ignoring the law and issuing extra conservation permits. Now that they have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar, they don't want to give up the excess "cream" that they never should have had in the first place.

We are heading down a dangerous road in Utah where the dominant attitude is "the ends justify the means." If something is done in the alleged name of wildlife conservation then it doesn't matter if it violates the law, is unethical, misleading or detrimental to the general public. I am afraid that it won't be long before the DWR and these groups are looking to further increase the number of conservation permits. In fact, comments were made during the meeting last night that the mountain goat and moose programs do not "pay their way." Don't be surprised if you see another amendment in the near future seeking to increase the limits on those particular species.

There must be reasonable limits on conservation permits, and unfortunately, we cannot count on the DWR or the conservation groups to set those limits.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
I think that if there were less conservation permits for the rich to buy, it would make those tags available more VALUABLE, therefore generating the same amount of $$$ or more.

If I had the $$$ to buy tags, and there was a, lets say a Paunsaguant deer tag I really wanted (and because there are a ton of them), I go to the 1st auction of the year to buy 1, but Billy Bob buys that tag for a few hundred more than I was hoping, well, I wait til next week and go to the next banquet to buy tag. Now Billy Joe buys the tag For a few hundred more than I was hoping. So now I wait 2 week till the next banquet.........and so on and so on.

BUT, if there was only that 1 or 2 tags available instead of the 25+ tags that there are. I would buy that tag or bid ALOT higher because I know that there is not 25 other banquets with all these tags.

CAP the tags please. Like others have said, I know that they do alot of good with projects from these. But if they desperately need the $$$, then what will stop them from auctioning off all LE or OIL tags in Utah?

I feel that there should be a consequence for the DWR and the groups involved that knowingly knew that there was a problem. I would almost say cut back the # of tags for next year or even a few years to make up to the average Joe. I am an average Joe. I am tired of the rich JUMPING TO THE FRON OF THE LINE year in and year out while I wait year in and year out. I am tired of the whole $$$ game. Everything revolves around $$$. Lets make things fair for once.
 
I was not aware that the conservation groups were asking for more tags. I thought that the DWR was the one that set the tags and how many were to be auctioned off. I know that the DWR met with the groups but I did not hear the groups wanting more tags. I know that the DWR wants more money. They seem to never have enough so they say. I know that the DWR has really loved the money and have accomplished lots with it. They like those accomplishments and want to continue them. I still am not sure that they are going to up the tags. I do not think that they proposed this issue to raise tags. I think they did it to bring more clearity. That was brought up by several people during the RAC. The money is definantly needed to accomplish the things that they are trying to do. Lets face it, money is needed to get things done. If we want things done somewhere we have to sacrafice. We either get these projects accomplished through conservation tags or the DWR raises the permit fees. I know that there are people that have quit hunting because of the prices we have now.
 
And you will have many more quit hunting because of the politics and greed of different organizations.
 
The DWR is not amending the rule to bring clarity. Rather, they are amending the rule to remove the provisions that they have been violating. The language of the proposed rule is anything but clear. Hence the different interpretations of the same provision. I could sit down and draft clear language in less than 5 minutes but it would not allow the rule bending that has been occurring.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
Hawkeye, my post was with heavy sarcasm. Should have clarified. I agree the number of con permits is way past acceptable.
 
All I will go by what the DWR said that they were doing. I now what you are saying and you are drawing conclusions but I have to go by what they say they will do no matter what the plans say. There is no question that the plan can go with many interpitations and needs to be rewritten in a much better way but I will not read into it something else until I see them really moving into that direction. I think that it has been brought to their attention the feeling and I am sure that the wildlife board will tell them to rewrite it. It needs to be much more clear.
 
Birdman said: "All I will go by what the DWR said that they were doing. I now what you are saying and you are drawing conclusions but I have to go by what they say they will do no matter what the plans say."

Birdman, I don't even understand what you are saying. Did we attend the same meeting? The DWR said that they were not previously complying with the 5% and 10% caps in the rule. In fact, Kevin Bunnell said that he was not even aware of the language of the rule until a couple of months ago. Mr. Bunnell also stated that the DWR is amending the lanugage of the rule to bring it in line with what the DWR has been doing and intends to keep doing. How I am drawing conclusions by simply repeating what the DWR stated at the meeting? Is it asking too much to require the DWR to draft a clear rule and then follow that rule? As sportsmen, we are held accountable if we violate the rules. Shouldn't the same be true with regard to the DWR and the conservation groups?

I am not trying to argue with you but I truly do not understand what your position is. As far as I can tell, you don't mind if the DWR issues too many conservation permits in violation of the rule because the money goes to a good cause and the DWR says that they really need the money. Is that a fair summary?

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
Can someone who attended the Northern RAC last night provide a report on the conservation permit issue?

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
I attended the Northern Rac last night. It was very poorly attend like most of the other RAC's.

Micheal Christensen was there Ryan Foutz was present representing UTFNAWS. Myself and Byron Bateman representing SFW were present also.

Before I get into last night I would like to address a few things that have been posted that are not entirley accurate or true!

The Central RAC was a good meeting. I appreciate the time and effort that Karl Hirst had obviously put into the issue. He brought to light several things that I was not aware of! (Thanks Karl!)

One thing that failed to be mentioned was the fact that Karl through the internet had put out feelers for anyboby with proof or facts concerning fraud,abuse,misappropreation etc to contact him and he would reasearch the claims and if validaded he would confont the DWR with it. (Paraphrasing)

I dont recall the exact number of claims he recieved but I believe it was over 20. Karl stated that not one of the claims he recieved and researched was valid or true!

Jason commented to the RAC that there are to many conservation tags and an exapmple would be SFW. If you are not sucessfull in aquiring a Paunsaugunt Deer Permit at one of thier banquets dont worry there will be another one at their next banquet.(Paraphrasing)

If you will check the list of Conservation Permits issued to the different groups you will see that SFW was awarded NO Paunsaugunt Conservation Permits!

The tags you are refering to are Landowner Tags that the Paunsaugunt Landowner Association has asked SFW to market! Not Conservation Permit!
There are 8 Paunsaugunt Conservation Permits.

Jason also brought up the point that "Utah issues more Conservation Permits than all western States Combined." Though factually true it does not take into consideration what permits some states issue in programs called by a different names.

Look at Nevada.
Called by a different name (Guide Draw Permits) but still deducted from the General Draw and slated for a Specail Interest Group/Industry that the genral public cannot particiapte in unless they are willing to sign on with an Outfitter!
These are public land hunts in units that the average joe apply's for. Not Private land!

In 2010 Nevada issued 330 Guide Draw Tags. In addition to these permits Nevada issued 13 Auction Permits
Total 343 Permits
Funds Generated Roughly $461,000

In the same year Utah issued
341 Conservation Tags
Funds Generated $2,863.240

My point is this both sides of the story need to be told. If you are going to make the statement that Utah has more Conservation Tags than all other Western States combined you need to finish the statement. Utah has also treated more habitat than all other Western States Combined over 800,000 thousand acres.

From and investment perspective what program gives you a better return? Basically the same number of permits but 6 times the amount of revenue! These numbers do not reflect the matching funds available.

If you want to take it a step further and include Expo Tags and Land Owner Permits

Utah Issued 735 Permits
Nevada Issued 696 Permits

These are public land permits. CWMU's were not included because they are 99.9% Private Property. It is comparing Apples to Apples!

Concerning my comments at the Central RAC. The majority of my time was spent speaking for myself concerning the importance of the Conservation Permit Money to Utah's Sheep program.
Bottom line is with out Conservation permit money Utah's Sheep program does not exsist!

The average Joe is hunting sheep in Utah for one simple reason The Sheep Conservation Permit Money!
I am one of those avergae Joes and I want to have the opportunity to hunt them one day in my home state.

You want to severely hinder the program and cut opportunity? Then cut Conservation Permits.

Greg Sheehan stated that the Sheep Conservation Permit money funds 100% of Utah's Sheep Program.
Its a big deal.

There is nothing cheap about managing sheep!

The notion that if a few tags are cut it will only drive up the price is not true.

Yes you may see a little increase but it will not make up the loss of revenue incurred by the cutting those permits. Not a Chance!

I asked Karl about this after the meeting and his reply was I know but I had to make the argument.

The balance of my time was spent speaking on behalf of SFW and apparantly my words have been misinterpited or I did not make myself clear.

In a nut shell I stated as a whole SFW supports the Conservation Permit Program presented by the DWR but if there are changes that need to be made to bring clarity to the program SFW would support those changes.

I encouraged the RAC to discuss all options and come up with what is fair & right. (Paraphrasing)

SFW has no problem supporting the Table that was passed out by Karl Hirst pertaining toLimited Entry & Once In A Lifetime except for Bighorn Sheep. I expressed that support to Karl after the meeting was over.

Karl also made a motion that I feel is very important. The motion stated that the DWR create one place on thier website that people can go to and find all of the facts and details pertaining to the Conservation Permit Program. This site would include what permits,how much money was raised and where it was spent etc!
I feel this would be very benifical in accounting for what the programs generates and funds!

Northern Rac

The presentation was made by Greg Sheehan. Alan Clark was also on hand to answer question pertaining to the program.

Alan has been involved with the program from about day one. No offense to Kevin but I felt like Alan was better able to answer some of the questions based on his history with the program.

Mike Christensen asked several questions.

The DWR was fourth right in admiting there was some oversights and that the program is in need of some changes to bring clarity.
It was suggested that we move to a table formula and get rid of the percentages.

By having both a table and percentages it only made matters more complicated.

Alan stated that he has been the one primarily in charge of writing the rule.
He was also asked who figures out the number of permits, for what species and if Conservation Groups have any say in that process?

Alan answered that he was the one that put together the list and then it was given to the board for approval.
Alan said that during this process the Conservation Groups are granted NO input.

Once approved by the board these groups are then assembled to select thier perstective tags based on their ranking.

Mike Christensen was the first to address the Rac. Mike ask the RAC to adopt the table that was presented at the Central RAC pertaining to Limited Entry & Once in a Lifetime excluding sheep.
He stated that he could support a seperate table that was more reflective of what is curently being given for sheep in an effort to maintain Utah's Sheep Program.

I was next to address the RAC representing SFW. I stated in no way shape or form is SFW in favor of changing the mechanism that would allow for more Conservation Permits to be given out pertaining to Once In a Liftime & Limited entry excluding Sheep. I stated that we would support a table format based on what was presented at the Central Rac and the DWR, not to exceed 5%.

Concerning Sheep SFW ask the RAC to pass a motion that would adopt a table for allocating Conservation Sheep Permits that would reflect current numbers of permits.
I expressed to the RAC that Conservation Permit money is the Life Blood to Utah's Sheep Program and that cutting these permits would have a negative affect on the public's opportunity to hunt sheep in the state of Utah.

Ryan Foutz representing UTFNAWS was next to address the RAC. Ryan echoed what had already been said concerning the importance of Sheep Conservation Permit money. He also pointed out the increase in the publics opportunity to hunt sheep in Utah since the introduction of the Conservation Permit program.

After some discussion the motion was made by Bryce Thurgood to adopt a table formula for both Sheep Permits & Limited Entry Once In a Lifetime Permits.

The table for Once in a Lifetime permits would reflect the table that was presented in the Cetral RAC.

The table for Sheep would be put together to relect what is currently being issued.

The cap of 8 permits would still apply and NO General Season Deer permits would be available for the Conservation Permit Program.

The Motion Passed.

I believe in this round of RACs & pertaining to this issue the system worked!

Facts were brought to light, error's were exposed and solutions were proposed! Though not a perfect system these meetings are a better place to debate and issue and to present ones case for or against than on a public forum!

Nothing can be solved, No action can be taken, No decision can be made, No compromise can be agreed to if one is not willing to step away from the computer screen and participate in the process!

Thanks Mike for taking the time to share with us what you found!

X-treme
Troy Justensen
 
LAST EDITED ON May-17-12 AT 03:57PM (MST)[p]Just a clarification from Troy's post-- The Northen RAC did not vote for the Central RAC's table dealing with all other species. The Northern RAC voted for the UDWR's proposal. They felt there should be not cuts to permits to not hurt the species involved. They acknowledged that the table they passed was over the 5% found in the current Rule. One man voted against the proposal, siding with me and the Central Region's table.

I asked for there to be no or at least extremely limited number of general season deer conservation permits. The UDWR and SFW agreed and the RAC passed it, which will exclude general season deer permits from the program.

SFW Reps did not disagree with the Central RAC's table. We had some good discussion. I appreciate Troy's input and our discussion.

My biggest problem with the UDWR proposal was they always started their presentations by discounting the other side of the story, calling anyone against their proposal "mis-informed", confused, etc. That is not forthright with the RACs and is a slap in the face to those who have valid information to express.

Mike
 
LAST EDITED ON May-17-12 AT 04:13PM (MST)[p]Troy,

Thanks for the response. I don't think you can compare Nevada's guide draw with Utah's conservation permits. To use your words they are not apples to apples. On a side note, I am not a big fan of outfitter set-a-side tags. I think everybody should enter the same draw and then if they choose to use a guide so be it. The Nevada draw still requires a person to draw a tag. The Utah conservation tags can be purchased by the highest bidder. Not even close to an apple to apple comparison.

Using your numbers?

In Utah in 2010 conservation tags raised $2,863.240

From the Utah division of wildlife web page?

In 2011 in Utah general season permits raised $2,262,000 in hunting license (using 87,000 permits for deer and using resident hunting license cost of $26) and raised $4,377,675 in tag fees. These numbers don't use any nonresident data. In total the general tags raised at least $6,639,675 in 2011.

To be clear, IMO there is little debate that a limited number of conservation permits can be beneficial. IMO opinion Utah has too many and the current proposal will allow more. Utah has more conservation permits than the other states. Trying to add Nevada?s (Oregon and Nevada also has the same type of draw) to their number of conservation permits is disingenuous and only clouds the issue.

Can you please tell me what your/SFW?s stance is on conservation permits? Is 5% max on LE permits enough? If not what is? Is 10% on sheep enough? If not what is? I have the same questions for the other conservation groups in Utah. SFW does deserve credit for being willing to answer questions on MM.
 
Troy, I am not sure and this is why I ask. Are those tags from Nevada in the draw (guided draw), are they auctioned off to the highest bidder, or are they random draws? Honest question. I thought those are draw tags. So compare apples to apples. If they are auction tags to highest bidder, then yes, nevada is right there with Utah.

However, I do feel with the amount of $ spent on conservation project in Utah, our herds should be far superior than our surrounding states. Just my opinion. I am glad they do the projects they do. Most, if not all, are needed.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-17-12 AT 05:14PM (MST)[p]Troy-

Thank you for providing a report on the Northern RAC meeting. I am disappointed to hear that they did not vote to adopt the table adopted by the Central RAC.

I am not sure what sparked Karl Hirst's investigation into the alleged fraud relating to the conservation permit program. I am not aware of any such fraud and I have never made any such accusations. I believe that there are simply too many conservation permits, and I am troubled by the fact that the DWR has been ignoring/violating its own rule. Now that people are aware of those abuses, the DWR is seeking to change the rule rather than comply with the existing limitations.

During the Central RAC meeting I mentioned that the DWR has allocated 300+ conservation permits this year. In light of your comments, I wanted to be certain my statement was accurate. According to the DWR's website, there are 327 conservation permits in 2012. See (http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/12_conservation_permit_list.pdf). My comment regarding the SFW banquets was not meant to be taken literally. I was simply illustrating the point that there are an awful lot of these tags. Whenever I have attended an SFW banquet in the past, it seems like there is always a Paunsaugunt permit up for sale. Perhaps some of these permits are landowner permits. However, you yourself admit that there are 8 conservation permits on the Paunsaugunt this year. As others mentioned during the meeting, the law of supply and demand applies to these tags. If you reduce the number of tags available, the average price per tag will go up. Likewise, as you increase the number of tags, the average price per tag will likely decrease. That is not to say that the total amount of revenue raise will remain the same--just that you cannot simply deduct what those tags sold for last year from the total.

You also admit that Utah has more conservation permits than all of the western states combined. I am not sure what Nevada's guided permits that are available in the public draw have to do with Utah's conservation permits that are sold to the highest bidder? That is a poor comparison. I often ask myself why does Utah have more conservation permits than all of the other western states combined? Are we smarter than all of the other states? Is our wildlife management better than the other states? Do we have better hunting than those states? I acknowledge that Utah has done a ton of habitat restoration work. Kudos to the groups involved. However, I wonder if the general public (from whom those tags are taken from when they are pulled out of the public draw), are receiving enough of a return on this significant investment.

I am not going to respond to your comments regarding Expo Permits since it is undisputed that none of those funds are required to be used for wildlife conservation and the groups involved refuse to provide any accounting as to how much money is generated from those 200 permits or how it is spent. That is an issue that I care deeply about but let's save that discussion for another day.

With regards to sheep, the current rule already authorized twice as many sheep tags as it does for all other species (10% v. 5%). Unfortunately, that is not enough. The DWR has been issuing permits in excess of the statutory limitations. I recognize that this is primarily the DWR's problem but the conservation groups involved should have the incentive to self-police and make sure the program is operating properly. To make it simple, the DWR and the conservation groups should play by the rules--not change the rules. I know that the DWR says they need the money for the sheep program but when was the last time you heard a governmental agency say they have too much money? They will spend whatever amount they have available.

Thank you for your thoughts. Although we disagree on some key points we are both passionate about hunting and wildlife. I do not take your comments personally and I hope you don't either. I enjoy the discussion and I think there is value to a public dialogue on the internet. I look forward to seeing you at the upcoming Board Meeting.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
I was not going to weigh in on this but after Troy's post feel I need to say some things.

1st thanks to those attending and watching out that we adhere to the "rule". I am sure I have folks on both sides of the fence cussing me. Some close friends believe we should not have conservation permits others I consider friends usually see me as anticonservation permit. Having served as Chairman and as a committee member of multiple conservation groups I believe there is a real value in conservation permits. However, WE can no longer tolerate the loopholes and lack of accountability for how we manage conservation permits. I believe that there should be accountability when rules have been broken, unfortunately the only accountability here is to get a solid rule. If that is a table then make it a table with no chance of loopholes 20 permits = 1 permit, 40 permits = 2 permits (NOT 39) etc. This is 5th grade math, no need to try and write a rule that confuses a 5th grader. It is simple. Then hold anyone breaking the rule to the cosequences of the law. If I buy a permit, issue a permit, or market a permit outside of the rule I need to be punished like any other person acting outside of wildlife law.

With that said I apologize I did not attend the RAC. However, I beleive my story sheds light on why there were 4 "citizens" at the RAC last night. The RAC WAS a process to encourage public involvement, however over the years of nonlistening, preferential treatment to power groups and lack of openeness and behind the scene bargaining the citizens have seen through what the RAC was to what it has become and no longer attend as it is a waste of time. How did I come to this determination, I am a few days out of a major surgery from an acccident, 4-16 3:00 pm sitting in the doctors office I am advised not to drive to the RAC. That is alright I will make a few call and someone will not mind driving me over. In fact I have a couple young guys I have encouraged and mentored that have attended RAC's recently I am sure I can tag along with them. 17 phone calls later I can not find a ride to the RAC. However, I have learned that all my friends are true, they are not going to go because it is a waste of time, Most of them feel they are doing me a favor because I won't be wasting my time at the RAC. The RAC process has failed the intent, we are waisting the time of those folks on the RAC's.

WE can worry about conservation permits, wolves, lack of deer etc. However the system we have created is our worst enemy. We have sportsman who are disengaged which means future generations that will follow suit. Over the years I have been as vocal a sportsman as there was. I have volunteered, petitioned , spent $$$ etc. because as a young boy I couldn't wait to sit at the Rod and Gun club when the fish & game came to town and listen to our wildlife managment. We need to right the ship or we will soon sink. This starts with the DWR being true to their purpose, the conservation groups being the one to fix the wrongs in programs they benefit from without coninuing to take from the masses.

I applaud Troy, I have known him to be a just man. I have hope he will see through that we adhere to the rule as his comments above allude we have and not modify the rule to fit the program.

Hawkeye, Thanks we need a conditioned fighter in the common mans corner.

I am discouraged that the only group there was SFW, this truly an example of why we ride the SFW train, you can bet the RMEF will be getting a why letter from this member.

I am tired now hope I made some sense, will try and pick it up later. In the meantime hope I can make it to the Board meeting. This is our first chance to start righting the ship in a while.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-17-12 AT 05:21PM (MST)[p]Landon

I believe only 13 of the permits in that time frame are auction permits the others are drawn for but you have to be using the services of an outfitter in order to apply!

This equates to money in order to play and does nothing for the resource other than what is generated by the cost of the license.

Mike

Thanks for the correction, my Bad I stepped out to take a call from my daughter and it was my understanding that the Central RAC table was passed. My error!

Sorry for reporting it incorrectly!

The numbers I used do not include the money generated from the cost of the license!

When a person buys a conservation permit he or she is still responsible for that cost.

We will have to agree to disagree on the likeness of these permits!
They are still not available to the average joe unless he or she is willing to pay for the services of an outfitter. So if the tags are not available to the general public why not use a system that generates million's of dollars to benifit all sportsmen?

Greg Sheehan from the DWR had some interesting information concerning the money generated from all limited Entry & Once in a life time permits compared to the 300 plus Conservation Permits.

Mike chime in here and help me with the numbers, I believe he said there was between 5000 & 7200 Once in a lifetime & Limited Entry permits that generated about 1.8 million dollars in revenue for the DWR.

The 300 plus Conservation Permits generated a considerable amount more. I dont remeber the exact number but I will find it.

He also stated that of that 1.8 million a majority of that was spent on overhead where as the Conservation permit money all went back on the ground for Wildlife.

Going forward SFW will ask the Wildlife Board to adopt a table resembling the one that was presented at the Central Rac not to exceed 5% concerning Once In A Lifetime & Limited Entry permits excluding Sheep.

X-treme
Troy Justensen
 
Troy,

There is no comparison between guide DRAW tags and conservation tags. How much money does Arizona raise with a fraction of the tags Utah offers? To add the guide draw tags from Nevada to their conservation tags distracts from the real issue. Thank you for the not-more-than-5% rule for LE tags. What % should be used for Sheep in your opinion?
 
Thanks for educating me guys. I am kind of new to the whole conservation tag issue.
It is a lot clearer now.
The DWR "inadvertently" issued to many sheep tags but instead of being held accountable they want to change the rules to make what they did OK.

So by the same logic if someone happens to "inadvertently" shoot an "extra" animal they shouldn't be cited and held accountable, in fact someone should change the rules to make it OK for next time.
It makes more sense now.
 
projp-

You are a quick learner. That is a great summary.

Troy-

I forgot to mention in my response to your original post that I also support Karl Hirst's motion for the DWR to provide the public with more information regarding the conservation permit program. Karl's motion actually called for the DWR to provide a detailed "annual report" on the program. I agree that increased disclosure and transparency would be an improvement.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
LAST EDITED ON May-17-12 AT 08:18PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON May-17-12 AT 08:09?PM (MST)

Honestly, I hate debating on these websites, but here are just a few more random thoughts. We all have viewpoints.....

Troy's, numbers are in the ballpark of what I remember. All the LTD Entry permits bring in around $1.8 million. The 300+ Conservation Permits sell for $2.2 million or so and once the 10% fee of selling the permits it nets the program around $2 million. To be fair and look at both sides-- I'd wager there is a large amount of revenue generated by the draw regulation of needing a License to apply. It is hard draw a perfect comparison, but it gives one an idea.

Over $2 million is generated every year through Habitat Earmarks on hunting/fishing licenses. That is the general public paying that burden.

I am not against the Conservation Permit program. There just needs to be lines drawn in the sand. The public thought those lines were already drawn at 5 and 10%. When it was found that the line was fudged the people expected the UDWR to follow what the public had accepted in the wording of the Current Rule. Instead, the UDWR chose to increase the stated percentages within the Rule to be up to 9%+ and up to 20% respectively. That is what gives many people heartburn. Sure is a lot of bad publicity and divisive rhetoric over 20-30 permits. Everyone can decide if it is worth it.

Troy and I have been going through wildlife issues for many years. Sometimes we want different things and many times we want the same thing. He is a fair guy who will return respect when given. He can clarify, but I think he was ok with the Central RAC table of "other species" and he didn't speak against it at the Northern RAC. I appreciated the manner of his discussion at the Northern RAC on this topic.
 
"In 2010 Nevada issued 330 Guide Draw Tags. In addition to these permits Nevada issued 13 Auction Permits
Total 343 Permits
Funds Generated Roughly $461,000

In the same year Utah issued
341 Conservation Tags
Funds Generated $2,863.240

My point is this both sides of the story need to be told. If you are going to make the statement that Utah has more Conservation Tags than all other Western States combined you need to finish the statement. Utah has also treated more habitat than all other Western States Combined over 800,000 thousand acres.

FROM AN INVESTMENT PERSPECTIVE WHAT PROGRAM GIVES YOU A BETTER RETURN? Basically the same number of permits but 6 times the amount of revenue! These numbers do not reflect the matching funds available."




The above comparison made me laugh, not really apples to apples but maybe I can help answer that question anyways.

1. Nevada has a steadily increasing deer population.

2. NDOW estimates 32% of the current population are bucks.

3. Nevada sharply increased the buck quota this year to try
and bring the percentage down to NDOW?s target of 30%
bucks.

Sure seems like Nevada is getting more Bang for the Buck :7
 
I think the point that X-treme was making was other states have tags that go to people that have more money, that exclude the ave joe hunter. I can't afford a guided hunt. So the permits allocated for guides in NV,NM,are too expensive for myself and 90% of the hunter, like conservation permits. Conservation permits are generating alot more money.

It sounds like the wildlife board will likly make recommendations to change the language on the allocation of conservation permits. The RACs have recieved an ear full. so has the conservation groups. Hopefully, a win win situation for our future hunting and wildlife.
 
It's good to see this getting attention and being discussed. I've been talking with quite a few decision makers over the last several months and we can all nickel and dime the minutia, but the bottom line is that we need clarity, accountability and transparency and I believe we are set to move closer to these things.

There absolutely has to be a clear cut structure and limits, but on the flip side we have proven that even though rules exist, there is nothing really in place to keep oversights like these from occurring in the future. That needs to be addressed.

Thanks to all that have given it attention. It has made a difference even if it's the simple fact that more people are aware of what has and is happening with the conservation permit program. It requires more proactivity to continue the trend of diminishing the gray areas. Hopefully people acknowledge what a handful of people getting involved can do, causing them to do the same.



http://unitedwildlifecooperative.org
 
LAST EDITED ON May-18-12 AT 10:57AM (MST)[p]We differ on the opinion but that is fine. Concerning Sheep SFW recomends that the Table or Percentage reflects the current # of tags being issued.

I believe the way that Karl Hirst had it figured out it was right around 13%.

SFW has no problem with supporting the Table used in the Central Rac or if the DWR wants to create one that does not exceed 5%!


X-treme
Troy Justensen
 
>It's good to see this getting
>attention and being discussed. I've
>been talking with quite a
>few decision makers over the
>last several months and we
>can all nickel and dime
>the minutia, but the bottom
>line is that we need
>clarity, accountability and transparency and
>I believe we are set
>to move closer to these
>things.
>
>There absolutely has to be a
>clear cut structure and limits,
>but on the flip side
>we have proven that even
>though rules exist, there is
>nothing really in place to
>keep oversights like these from
>occurring in the future. That
>needs to be addressed.
>
>Thanks to all that have given
>it attention. It has made
>a difference even if it's
>the simple fact that more
>people are aware of what
>has and is happening with
>the conservation permit program. It
>requires more proactivity to continue
>the trend of diminishing the
>gray areas. Hopefully people acknowledge
>what a handful of people
>getting involved can do, causing
>them to do the same.
>
>
>
>
>http://unitedwildlifecooperative.org

I agree Tree, the current structure needs to be finite with proactive oversight. Personally, I would like to see a major reduction in the con tags. Remaining tags can be designated for specific/special projects. Money from the reduced tags can be made up/aquired through other means. It just takes a bit of thinking to get it done. These current tag numbers are out of hand and need to be addressed, for a few reasons, imo.

www.unitedwildlifecooperative.org
 

Similar threads

DBLung
No permit numbers before deadline!
Replies
6
Views
854
middlefork
M

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

2022 Mule Deer 18.jpg
Double Dropper
Buck 1.mov
52.JPG
Big Bull Down
art's deer.jpg
Big Bull Elk
IMG_3580.JPG
IMG_5026.jpeg
Buck 2.mov
MFDC0238.JPG
20231126_104325.jpg
Back
Top Bottom