Crunching the Numbers - Expo Fee Application Fee Revenues

[Hawkeye]

I apologize for starting another Expo Tag thread but I wanted to show people exactly how much money has been generated from the $5 application fees at the Expo since those tags were taken out of the public draw. According to the statute that created the Expo Tags, one of the two express purposes was to "generate revenue to fund wildlife conservation." Despite this clear language, there was absolutely no requirement that a single dollar from generated from these permits be used for actual conservation activities. Why not? That is an entirely separate story.

When sportsmen, including many from this website, rose up and demanded change and accountability in 2012, SFW, MDF and the DWR reluctantly agreed to allocate a small portion of the revenues to actual conservation projects beginning in 2013. Based upon the numbers provided by the DWR, SFW and MDF have generated over $8.5 million in revenue from the Expo Tags since they were created. Of that $8.5 million, SFW and MDF have pocketed nearly $7.5 million in the form of ?administrative expenses? while reluctantly agreeing (after dragging their feet for years) to earmark just over $1 million for actual conservation projects. I don't know about you but I think we can and should do better. These tags are public assets and we should demand a higher level of accountability from the DWR and our conservation groups.

Fast forward to the 2015, RMEF has stepped forward and submitted a generous proposal that includes a voluntary commitment to dedicate 100% of the application fee revenue to approved conservation projects. That would represent millions of additional dollars for conservation during the 5 to 10 year term of the contract. In addition, RMEF has committed to bring the RMEF National Convention to SLC during the term of the agreement. This would be an awesome event. If this is something you care about, please contact the DWR, the Wildlife Board and your politicians. Something tells me that this will be an uphill battle.

By the way, I based my calculations below on the recent "audit" performed by the DWR and circulated at the August Wildlife Board meeting. See http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/board/2015-08_board_packet.pdf If you see any mistakes in my calculations, please let me know. Math was never my strong suit.

[/URL]

-Hawkeye-

 

[YZF_88]

Nice work. Those are staggering numbers. They speak volumes. I am good at math with respect to engineering problems, not so much with accounting so I'll leave it to somebody else to check your numbers...but the last three columns and rows check out from what I see in the board meeting notes.

I looked at Attachment 2 of the audited projects they spent money on. Some of those are so vague it makes me squeemish. For instance, MDF spent $50,000 on "Advancing Hunting and Angling Sports"

 

[Tristate]

Thanks for posting Hawkeye. I will be interested to see how this all plays out.

I for one do not care if RMEF ends up getting the contract. However I do find it interesting that over a year ago I caught some flack from people on here for questioning Bigfin's motives since he belonged to a company, RMEF, which stood in direct competition with SFW.

I think yall can see now that although I am sure Bigfin is a great guy but THESE ARE COMPETITIVE COMPANIES all fighting for pie slices.

 

[elkantlers]

If they were worried about the money generated by the $5 app fee they would open up the applications to anyone and take off the restriction of having to validate in person in SLC. I would bet the app #s would skyrocket if that happened. SFW wants people to validate in person so they are more likely to buy a ticket into the expo. the more people through the doors the more money they make that doesn't have to be used in any way, shape or form for wildlife.

 

[Cheater]

Thanks Hawkeye, great work.

Tri, they are competitive, but under the RMEF proposal all of those dollars go back to the DWR, Wildlife, Sportsmen. Transparency wins for me.

 

[Tristate]

Cheater,

Dollars going back to DWR does not automatically translate into transparency. RMEF may do a better or worse job than SFW, I really don't know for sure and neither does anyone else on here, we may get to find out.

There is more to a business and its effectiveness than the price of the product or kickbacks.

I guarantee you that if RMEF is going to give up %100 of the five bucks they will get it from somewhere else. It may be in a method which is more tasteful to the general public but they ain't coming to run the circus to break even or lose money. THAT I CAN GUARANTEE YOU.

 

[Cheater]

Agreed. RMEF wouldn't submit a bid if the expo wasn't viable from a finance and logistics standpoint. I do think RMEF would move their convention to SLC simply to unseat SFW who they and many view as a corrupt organization.

 

[elkfromabove]

>Cheater,
>
>Dollars going back to DWR does
>not automatically translate into transparency.
> RMEF may do a
>better or worse job than
>SFW, I really don't know
>for sure and neither does
>anyone else on here, we
>may get to find out.
>
>
>There is more to a business
>and its effectiveness than the
>price of the product or
>kickbacks.
>
>I guarantee you that if RMEF
>is going to give up
>%100 of the five bucks
>they will get it from
>somewhere else. It may
>be in a method which
>is more tasteful to the
>general public but they ain't
>coming to run the circus
>to break even or lose
>money. THAT I CAN
>GUARANTEE YOU.

Of course RMEF intends to make money with this convention. In fact, they've been doing it with conventions for years without the EXPO tags, so why would this move be any different?

 

[BrowningRage]

I believe RMEF knows how to raise/make money without the $5 application fee, that is why they are willing to do this deal. They will get their money elsewhere, and I believe in a much more tasteful and ethical manner than SFW...

"Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!" 2 Ne. 28: 24

 

[llamapacker]

The best part of the RMEF "making money" by holding the EXPO is their proven track record of returning the funds to wildlife conservation. They have been doing the same with their convention proceeds for years, and are very transparent with how those funds are used. The same cannot be said of SFW / MDF.
As one of the highest ranked non-profits, RMEF is not trying to make money as a "company", but rather raising funds to put back on the ground. The way it should be.
Bill

 

[Mbogo]

Unfortunately, the number crunching that will end up factoring the most is PeayDay sitting in his recliner thinking, "So if this year I go on 2 stone sheep hunts $XXX . . . a dall hunt $XXX . . . a desert down in Mexico $XXX . . . etc.

I don't see any way RMEF wins this with the deck stacked against them.

 

[Homer]

....angel Moroni will always get his cut.....

 

[txhunter58]

LAST EDITED ON Sep-14-15 AT 05:53AM (MST)[p]Since RMEF is transparent about the money they take in and it is documented that aprox 89 cents out of every dollar they take in goes to actual projects, I hope they get the bid and make a TON of money........for wildlife/habitat.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

 

[joesikora]

Hawkeye, don't apoligize for starting another post about this.
I want to thank you personally for taking your time to inform us about this.
Thanks again
Joe

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

 

[DonVathome]

Did I "dumb this down" correctly:

Roughly only 13% of the money raised to date went towards conservation? Basically these tags were pulled from the draw (I think 1/2 for NR right) so SFW could make money for themselves (not wildlife)? If so can some of the people who plugged so hard for them, and spoke so highly please explain?

 

[Deerlove]

Don there in hiding.

 

[SnowsNBlues]

Ya, kinda funny! All the big SWF supporters that aways chime in, have gone silent since this all started...like BIRDMAN for one. And Lumpy too.

 

[akah2o]

With all do respect, I too am wondering where we are getting an sort of formal statement from MDF/SFW. I figured that something would be said.


On that note, any word back from the DWR?

 

[DeerMadness]

LAST EDITED ON Sep-29-15 AT 12:13PM (MST)[p]F'n A- both should have to pay for conservation out of their own pockets to reimburse the pocketing!

 

[DonVathome]

>Did I "dumb this down" correctly:
>
>
>Roughly only 13% of the money
>raised to date went towards
>conservation? Basically these tags were
>pulled from the draw (I
>think 1/2 for NR
>right) so SFW could make
>money for themselves (not wildlife)?
>If so can some of
>the people who plugged so
>hard for them, and spoke
>so highly please explain?

Again was this statement true???

 

[Hawkeye]

Don, I cannot argue with your math. My calculations show that 13.34% of the $8.6 million dollars raised from the Expo Tags has been earmarked by SFW, MDF and the DWR for actual conservation. Contrast that with RMEF's proposal to voluntarily put 100% of the application fees toward actual conservation projects. So why are we waiting around for the DWR to change the rules, issue a formal RFP, and eventually make a decision on what is the "best proposal"? Seems pretty clear to me.

-Hawkeye-

 

[curlycoyote]

Does anyone know if the RFP has been issued yet. You would think with everything going on with this they would have put a high priority on getting it done.

Also maybe Hawkeye can answer this. Why was SFW not mentioned in the letter the DWR put out. Have they not been the major partner in this all along?? Seems like they left them out to call less attention to who they really want this to go to.

 

[Hawkeye]

The word on the street is that the RFP will be issued in the next couple of weeks. Once it is issued, it will likely have a 45-day response period. I am not sure why it is taking this long to issue the RFP. I would guess that the DWR knows they are under a microscope right now and wants to make sure that they get it right. Plus, they have enlisted the help of other state aganecies in preparing the RFP.

With regard to your question as to why the DWR press release did not mention SFW as having received the Expo Tag contract in the past, the DWR has typically only contracted with one conservation organization for the Expo Tags. For instance, the last Expo Tag contract which expires in 2016, was signed by the DWR and MDF in 2010. MDF noted in its application for that contract that it would be partnering with SFW and SFW would help host the Expo. However, the original contract was between the DWR and MDF. I would guess that MDF and SFW have their own agreement laying out the terms of their partnership relating to the Expo. Therefore, the DWR is correct that the prior contract was not signed with SFW. As a technical matter, however, MDF and SFW have put on the Expo together and have shared in the revenues generated therefrom. The DWR knows this to be the case and when the parties signed an amendment to the Expo Tag contract in 2012, the DWR, MDF and SFW all signed that amendment. That amendment specifically states that "MDF partners with SFW . . . in administering the annual wildlife convention" and that "MDF and SFW share in the application fee revenue generated from the wildlife convention permit drawing."

-Hawkeye-

 

[BrowningRage]

The other thing you all have to remember is that the 13.34% that went back to wildlife is based solely on the $5 application fee money...

If you were to go back and see how much each and every auction tag brought in for the private organizations and throw that into the mix, the $1.1 million that went back into wildlife conservation would be dwindled down to a percentage less than 10%... maybe even down to 7%...

Or does a percentage of the auction tags also go to conservation..??

"Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!" 2 Ne. 28: 24

 

[Hawkeye]

Auction tags, also known as "Conservation Permits," are an entirely separate issue. The applicable rules states that 90% of the funds raised from Auction Tags must be used for approved conservation projects.

-Hawkeye-

 

[Cheater]

Hawkeye-

So it sounds like the "new" RFP process is still happening, slow as it may be. Is anyone going to challenge this legally, it seems like a pretty black and white issue? The statute reads that proposals were due early this month...But somehow quietly mentioning the RFP process in the wildlife meetings overrides that? Frustrating to say the least. It seems like you're really in the loop on this, and I appreciate your efforts.

 

[nebo12000]

If you want to hear a report on the money generated at the Expo, the Wildlife board meets tomorrow (Thurs. Oct. 1) at the DNR office building. If you can, it may be a good place to respectfully ask questions and give your opinions.
Here's the schedule--
Utah Wildlife Board Meeting
October 1, 2015, DNR, Boardroom
1594 W. North Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah
Thursday, October 1, 2015, Board Meeting 9:00 am
1. Approval of Agenda ACTION
? John Bair, Chairman
2. Approval of Minutes ACTION
? John Bair, Chairman
3. Old Business/Action Log CONTINGENT
? Kirk Woodward, Vice-Chair
4. DWR Update INFORMATION
? Gregory Sheehan, DWR Director
5. Fishing Guidebook and Rule R657-13 ACTION
- Drew Cushing, Aquatic Program Coordinator
6. Hunting Technologies Discussion INFORMATION
- Mitch Lane, Captain
7. Conservation Permit Annual Report ACTION
- Bill Bates, Wildlife Section Chief
8. Conservation Permit Audit ACTION
- Mike Fowlks, Deputy Director
9. Conservation Permit Allocation ? 1 & 3 year ACTION
- Bill Bates, Wildlife Section Chief
10. 2016 RAC/Board Dates ACTION
- Staci Coons, Wildlife Board Coordinator
11. Mexican Wolves ACTION
- Martin Bushman, Asst. Attorney General
12. Other Business CONTINGENT
? John Bair, Chairman
? Winter WAFWA
In

 

[curlycoyote]

LAST EDITED ON Sep-30-15 AT 09:52AM (MST)[p]those are conservation permits and this is about convention permits if I understand it right.

I bet that if someone questions what is going on with the bid for the convention permits they will be told that is another subject and will not give any answers. Just my thoughts on it. I guess we will see tomorrow.

I have funeral to go to tomorrow but hope to get home in time to watch some of it. This is late enough in the agenda that it may be afternoon before they talk about it.

 

[Hawkeye]

Rich-

Thanks for the heads up about the Wildlife Board Meeting tomorrow. I just reviewed the agenda (http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/board/2015-10_board_agenda.pdf) and don't see any item relating to the Expo Tag issue or the forthcoming RFP. I doubt that the Wildlife Board would be willing to address a topic that is not listed on the agenda? I also agree that if anyone does try to raise the issue it should be done in a respectful manner.

Thanks.

-Hawkeye-

 

[nebo12000]

You can certainly bring up the subject in the comment period and ask about it. You may not get an answer as such-- but you can ask that they address it at a future meeting. The $5 app fee was discussed at prior RAC meetings and the split in regards to who gets how much was discussed and voted on.
Nothing wrong with requesting that the board look at it again.
Thanks for your input-- its important for all of us to be involved and voice our opinions.