Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Hawkeye

Long Time Member
Messages
3,013
Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

As most of you know, the DWR has taken a great deal of criticism over the last several months regarding it handling of the Expo Tag program and its decision to award the next five-year contract to SFW, MDF and UFNAWS. The primary concern has been and continues to be the lack of accountability and transparency for the revenues generated from those public tags. Although concerned sportsmen have been frustrated for some time, the frustration reached as climax when KUTV News ran a story on this issue on February 25, 2016: http://kutv.com/news/local/allegations-of-corruption-surround-utah-hungtin-and-conservation-expo. This story led to numerous emails and phone calls to politicians, discussions on social media and calls for reform.

Rather than acknowledging the concerns of sportsmen and looking for ways to address those concerns, the DWR has dug in its heels and become even more entrenched. In an effort to cover its own tail, the DWR released a set of 26 Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding. See http://wildlife.utah.gov/utah-expo-permits-faq.html#q1. As a concerned sportsman that has been actively involved in this issue for several years, I was disappointed with the DWR?s response. Rather than recognizing the legitimate concerns expressed by sportsmen and owning up to the mistakes that have been made, the DWR has prepared a self-serving, one-sided statement that does little to resolve the concerns of sportsmen. Most of the people that I have spoken with see the DWR?s response for what it is ? a blatant attempt to calm the waters and ?CYA.?

Rather than spending the next 24 hours preparing a lengthy and detailed response to the DWR?s entire FAQ document, I am going to address and debunk one of the DWR?s FAQ a day for the next 26 days. Please be patient and bear with me. Some of the DWR?s points are accurate but many of them are confusing, misleading or only tell half of the story. The DWR?s statement also unfairly portrays the RMEF in a bad light. In my opinion, the RMEF has taken the high road and stayed professional through this entire process. As I address the DWR?s FAQ?s, I will try to share the history, links, documents and other information. My hope is that this thread will provide an opportunity to respond to the DWR?s FAQ?s and educate sportsmen as to the other side of the story. These are my personal thoughts and comments, and should not be attributed to the RMEF. I will leave it to David Allen and others to speak on behalf of RMEF.

As we take this journey, feel free to chime in, offer your opinions and ask questions. I want this thread to be a place of dialogue and discussion. Additionally, please continue to call and email your friends, family members and politicians. We need to keep this story alive.

Although there are certain of the FAQ?s that I am particularly anxious to address, I will start at the beginning with FAQ #1 and work through them in numerical order. So let's get started.

FAQ #1 - What is the Wildlife Expo Permit Program?
The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) operates the Wildlife Expo Permit Program, which has two primary purposes:
To generate revenue to fund wildlife conservation activities in Utah.
To attract a regional or national wildlife exposition to Utah.
As part of this program, the Utah Wildlife Board authorizes up to 200 hunting permits (expo permits) per year that are allocated to hunters through a public drawing held at a wildlife exposition.

RESPONSE:


I generally agree with the DWR?s response to FAQ #1. R657-55-1 specifically states that the Expo Tags we specifically created ?for purposes of generating revenue to fund wildlife conservation activities in Utah and attracting and supporting a regional or national wildlife exposition in Utah.? See http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm#T1. These statutory purposes have been the same since the Expo Tags were created in 2005. In fact, if you go back at look at the minutes from the March 31, 2005 Wildlife Board Meeting where this rule was first adopted, Greg Sheehan explained to the Board that the Expo Tags ?are authorized by the Wildlife Board and issued to a qualified conservation organization for purposes of generating revenue to fund wildlife conservation activities.? See 3/31/2005 Minutes at 15 - https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GYzBUYlVvS3RCTXM.

I believe there is no real dispute that the Expo Tags have been used to ?attract a regional or national wildlife exposition to Utah.? The Western Hunting and Conservation Expo is certainly a regional or national wildlife exposition. Over the last 10 years attendance has increased and the groups have had some success in attracting nonresidents. Thus, the second purpose for Expo Tags is not an issue.

The problem has been the DWR?s failure to pay attention to the first and primary purpose of the Expo Tags ? ?generating revenue to fund wildlife conservation activities in Utah.? During the first 10 years the groups raised $9,764,445 in $5 application fees, with a record $1,166,050 raised in 2010. There is no dispute that the groups have generated plenty of revenues from these tags. The question is whether those revenues were actually used to fund ?wildlife conservation activities in Utah. The reality is that the groups were not required to spend one red cent of the revenues from the Expo Tags on actual conservation projects from 2007 through 2012. As a result, the $5,436,655 that the groups generated from those tags during this time period remains completely unaccounted for. After concerned sportsmen rose up in 2012, the DWR and the groups modified the rule to allow the groups to retain $3.50 of every $5 application and to earmark $1.50 for approved conservation projects. See R657-55-10. As a result, from 2013 through 2016, the groups generated $4,327,790, and 30% of that money or $1,298,337 has been earmarked for actual conservation and accounted for.

Many sportsmen, including me, are frustrated with the fact that the DWR required no accountability for the first 6 years of the Expo Tag program and only required 30% accountability since 2013. I believe that any private group that deals in public assets should be prepared to account for the monies generated from those assets. This is particularly true when the primary purpose of creating the Expo Tags was to ?generate revenues for wildlife conservation activities in Utah.? How can the DWR or the public be certain that the monies are being used for that purpose without requiring accountability and transparency? Even more troubling is the fact that the groups and the Wildlife Board appear to have committed to some level of accountability when these tags were created in 2005.

For instance, at the March 31, 2005 Wildlife Board Meeting, numerous sportsmen expressed concern about how the conservation groups would use the money generated from the Expo Tags. See 3/31/2005 Minutes at 21-24. In response to those concerns, Don Peay, who was representing SFW, stated the following: ?it is fair to ask how much comes in with the five dollar application fees and how much went onto the ground.? Unfortunately, SFW has not honored that commitment and has refused to disclose to the public what it has done with the monies generated from those tags.

In a further effort to address the concerns of sportsmen regarding the use of the monies generated from the Expo Tags, the Wildlife Board passed a motion specifically directing the DWR that "in their contract negotiations with the representing organizations that annual audits be accomplished in a similar way that is done for conservation tags.? See 3/31/2005 Minutes at 24. However, neither the DWR nor the groups made any effort to ensure that an annual auditing requirement similar what exists for conservation permits was included in the 5-year contracts. Therefore, the DWR and the groups have ignored that binding directive of the Wildlife Board.

In summary, the DWR has accurately described the two purposes for the Expo Tags as set forth in R657-55-1. However, the DWR has dropped the ball and failed to ensure that the nearly $10 million generated from the Expo Tags was actually used for ?wildlife conservation activities.? And that is the heart of the frustration that is currently being expressed by sportsmen across the state.

Until tomorrow.

-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Sounds like your problem has been fixed when they set up the %30 rule. No reason to whine now. Concerns were voiced, they addressed them, changes were made. Now your being greedy and whining.


SFW is providing a contracted service for the state. It is totally normal for companies to receive compensation for doing a job.

I find people who think other people should do services without expectation of compensation have something fundamentally wrong with them. It didn't work for slave masters and it shouldn't work for you. Either way it is spawned from greed.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Tritip, are you purposely thick??




"WE USED TO HUNT GAME TO
MANAGE, NOW WE MANAGE TO
HUNT"
Finn 2/14/16
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

LAST EDITED ON Mar-05-16 AT 11:05PM (MST)[p]Is it greedy for the public to ask a conservation group to account for its use of public assets? Is it greedy to ask them to use the revenues for "wildlife conservation activities" as specified in the rule? Is it greedy for the public to ask for an annual audit as required by the wildlife board's motion in March of 2005? Is it greedy to ask how much of the money actually made it onto the ground as stated by Don Peay at that same meeting? Is it greedy for the public to expect the DWR to look out for our interests? Is to greedy to expect that our public tags will be used to support actual conservation projects and not just conservation groups?

If the answers to these questions are yes, then I guess I am greedy.

-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

>Is it greedy for the public
>to ask a conservation group
>to account for its use
>of public assets?

They aren't using your public assets. They are brokering the sale of them. Then they are compensated fiscally UNDER CONTRACT for their services. It is no longer not ever was YOUR money.

Is
>it greedy to ask them
>to use the revenues for
>"wildlife conservation activities" as specified
>in the rule?

It can be. In this case likely is.

Is
>it greedy for the public
>to ask for an annual
>audit as required by the
>wildlife board's motion in March
>of 2005?

An audit is a sword and a microscope in a war that to enforce people's agendas or seize control of money. Sounds pretty greedy to me.


Is it
>greedy to ask how much
>of the money actually made
>it onto the ground as
>stated by Don Peay at
>that same meeting?

It's either greed or ignorance. Sitting around arguing to define a metaphor is as silly as arguing over a half full glass.

Is
>it greedy for the public
>to expect the DWR to
>look out for our interests?

Yes! The DWR should be looking out for wildlife first instead of spending time and money pandering to some self-serving whiners.

> Is to greedy to
>expect that our public tags
>will be used to support
>actual conservation projects and not
>just conservation groups?
>

Again a business is providing a profitable service for your state. Your state is making more money off of these tags now. When you enlist the skills of a salesman or broker it is only right to compensate them.

>If the answers to these questions
>are yes, then I guess
>I am greedy.
>
>-Hawkeye-

Here is your chance Hawkeye. Tell all parties you will personally cover the cost of the audit you demand. Quit being so willing to spend other people's money to bludgeon your enemies.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

This website needs a forum for Utah or better yet a political forum! ;) [font face="verdana" color="green"]
Jake Swensen
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Tristate u are really grasping at straws.
I can tell deep down you know the truth but you just don't wanna believe or admit it.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

>This website needs a forum for
>Utah or better yet a
>political forum! ;) [font face="verdana"
>color="green"]
> Jake Swensen

GEEZUS Jake!

We Don't need another Political Forum!

What We Really Need is an SFW Hate Forum!




[font color="blue"]"I Don't get No Sleep!I Don't get No Peace!"

Hey Founder?

Did You get Permission From shotgun1 before you made your Last
Post?
[/font]
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

I asked Founder to add a Binky Forum for the SFW haters... That post was removed quite fast...
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

I usually ignore tristate's posts because there is no point to them. But in an effort to promote discussion on this thread, I am going to respond to the following comment from tristate:

"Here is your chance Hawkeye. Tell all parties you will personally cover the cost of the audit you demand. Quit being so willing to spend other people's money to bludgeon your enemies."

Whether intentionally or accidentally, tristate is confused and off point yet again. I have never asked SFW or MDF to pay for a private, independant audit of their finances. Rather, the requests for an audit have taken two different forms.

First, in an effort to increase the accountability and transparency of the groups, sportsmen have asked the DWR and the groups to treat the monies generated from the Expo Tags the same way that they currently money generated from the Conservation Permits. That would require them to earmark the vast majority of the monies (90%) for for approved conservation projects and for the DWR to perform an annual audit on those funds just like they already do on the Conservation Permit funds. See R657-41-9 - http://wildlife.utah.gov/rules-regulations/970-r657-41--conservation-and-sportsman-permits.html. SFW and MDF would not incur any direct costs as a result of this DWR audit other than the adminnistrative costs of putting their house in order so as to meet the DWR's requirements.

Second, because the groups have refused to account for the vast majority of the funds generated from the Expo Tags, sportsmen have turned to their legislators and asked for a legislative audit of the Expo Tag program. This would allow the state legislative auditor to examine the Expo Tag program, to see if the proper controls are in place, to see of the money is being handled properly, and to make recommendations as to how to improve the program. If you would like to see an example of how a legislative audit wworks, please review the results of the legislative audit performed on SFW's sister company, Big Game Forever ("BGF") in 2013: http://le.utah.gov/audit/13_11rpt.pdf The Utah legislative audit could certainly perform a similar audit of the Expo tag program.

I hope that helps clear up the question regarding the various types of audits that have been discussed on these threads. Once again, nobody is asking SFW or MDF to pay for an independent audit of the Expo Tag revenues -- even though that is exactly what RMEF offered to do.

-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

LAST EDITED ON Mar-06-16 AT 04:04PM (MST)[p]FAQ #2 - Who can be awarded expo permits and what does that contract allow them to do?
The group selected to distribute expo permits must be a wildlife conservation organization. That organization is then allowed to award the expo permits at its annual convention through a public drawing. The organization does not receive the rights to use any prior expo organizer?s event name, venue dates, exhibitors or scheduled events and activities.

RESPONSE:


Overall, I agree with most of the DWR's FAQ #2. However, I would like to expand on one minor point in FAQ #2.

Pursuant to R657-55-4, any "conservation organization" may apply of the Expo Tag contract. See http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm#T5. R657-55-1 defines "conservation organization" as "a nonprofit chartered institution, corporation, foundation, or association founded for the purpose of promoting wildlife conservation." Therefore, any nonprofit group who was founded for the purpose of wildlife conservation was qualified and had the right to apply for the Expo Tag contract.

Although we are all probably familiar with some of the established local groups here in Utah, there are hundreds of such groups across the country. This highlights one of the problems with the DWR allegedly verbally announcing the decision to move to a formal RFP process at a private meeting in October 2014 with a few of the local conservation groups. If the DWR wanted to change the application process, then the DWR should have incorporated that significant change into the proposed rule amendments that it presented to the RACs in December 2014 and the Wildlife Board in January 2015. Had it done so, and the Wildlife Board had adopted those changes, then the DWR would have published to all qualified conservation groups that it was going to use a formal RFP process.

The DWR should not have been choosing which groups it thought may be interested in the Expo Tag contract. Rather, it should have made any necessary changes through the formal rule making process so that all qualified groups were treated fairly and had an equal opportunity to apply. That, of course, assumes that the DWR wanted to invite competition from other conservation groups.

Overall, I have no major issues with FAQ #2.

-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

>GEEZUS Jake!
>
>We Don't need another Political Forum!
>
>
>What We Really Need is a
>SFW Hate Forum!
^^^^
You got that right!!! Lmao I really hope $fw never gets their filthy paws on Wyoming's tags.

[font face="verdana" color="green"]
Jake Swensen
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Jake Swenson, I hooe you are right. I love Wyoming and its hunting. I've killed my biggest deer and elk and antelope there and hope to continue the hunting I love there. Let's all hooe your dwr sees these problems and runs as fast as they can from the crap going on.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Hmmm no WY tags?
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

You misunderstood me Hawkeye. I never said you were requesting SFW or BGF to pay for it. Worse than that is you expect the government, WITH OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY, to do it. It's always easy spending other people's money.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

FAQ #3 - Q3: What are the possible economic benefits of a wildlife expo?
The largest wildlife expo currently held in Utah is the Western Hunting & Conservation Expo, which has been an annual event in downtown Salt Lake City since 2007. This particular expo delivers a multimillion-dollar economic benefit to the State of Utah and its businesses. The 2016 Western Hunting & Conservation Expo had more than 40,000 attendees from all 50 states, 12 countries and five continents.

RESPONSE:


I am not going to argue with the numbers posted in the DWR's FAQ #3. The groups and the state of Utah have been touting the economic benefit of the Expo since it started in 2007. I will admit that SFW and MDF put on a good show, which attracts sportsmen and results in business for local restaurants and hotels. However, I maintain that other groups could do just as well, or perhaps even better, if they were given 200 premium hunting tags to make available at their event. Those 200 tags are a huge draw.

As you will recall, that was one of the two purposes for creating the Exp Tags. See FAQ #1 above (?supporting a regional or national wildlife exposition in Utah.?). As a result, an important number to consider is how many nonresidents attend the Expo each year. This number is important because most of the residents who attend the Expo can drive to the Expo, apply for the tags, attend if they choose and drive home in the same day. In contrast, nonresidents who attend the Expo typically book hotel rooms, eat at restaurants, and generate other types of tourism dollars for the states. According to the latest ?2015 Audit? performed by the DWR, a total of 14,910 applicants applied for the Expo Tags, of which 16% of those were nonresidents. See http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/board/2015-08_board_packet.pdf at 137/187. Based upon those numbers, the Expo likely attracted roughly 2,300 to 2,400 nonresidents who came to Utah and applied for those tags. Perhaps someone affiliated with the groups can provide more detailed numbers.

What types of numbers would RMEF have generated if the state of Utah would have awarded the five-year Expo Tag contract to them? To be honest, I do not know the exact answer to that question because RMEF was not provided the opportunity. But I do know it would have been a massive, world-class event. RMEF committed to bring its National Convention to Utah for the full life of the contract and make the 200 Expo Tags available at that event. RMEF recently experienced record attendance at their Hunter & Outdoor Christmas Exposition in Las Vegas with nearly 87,000 people attending. See http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PressRoom/NewsReleases/RecordAttendanceatRMEFsHOC.aspx. I also know that the RMEF National Convention would also likely attract a larger number of nonresidents. Just consider the fact that RMEF has nearly 220,000 members across the United States and around world. See http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PressRoom/NewsReleases/RMEFRecordsAllTimeMembershipHigh.aspx. RMEF would have tapped into that massive membership to attract nonresidents to its National Convention in SLC. I do not how many members SFW and MDF have but I know it is significantly less. Perhaps somebody can post those numbers when they have a chance. RMEF also committed to a significant multi-platform marketing strategy to publicize the Expo and the 200 tags. See RMEF Proposal dated 11/24/2015 -- https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GZXpSQ3R3MS1MTnM.

My point is sharing these numbers is to highlight the fact that although SFW and MDF have put on a good show for the last 10 years, RMEF could have done the same thing and likely would have grown the event due their increased size and reach. Additionally, all of us should recognize that the 200 premium tags provided to the host of the Expo are a massive draw to help bring people to the show. Finally, while we may not know exactly how massive the RMEF National Convention would have been in SLC, Utah coupled with the 200 Expo Tags, we do know one thing for certain ? 100% of all application fees would have been used for actual conservation projects. The DWR cannot argue with that fact.

-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Tristate-

Not surprising. You are easy to misunderstand because your posts are generally incoherent.

Why do you think the "Office of the Legislative Auditor General" was created? To audit state programs and find ways to improve efficiency, effectiveness and return. Perhaps we should shut down that division of the state government on your request?

But you are right about one thing, "it is always easy spending other people's money." That's what the groups have been doing for the last decade.

-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

LAST EDITED ON Mar-07-16 AT 11:17AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Mar-07-16 AT 10:02?AM (MST)

And the facts that 100% of all application fees, and 50% of the Expo profits, and 100% of all of RMEF's auctioned tag proceeds would also have gone back to Utah's wildlife are BIG draws in and of themselves. I, and many others, have either never attended and/or applied for the Expo tags, or have quit attending and/or applying for Expo tags, simply because there was no assurance our money would be used to improve wildlife, hunting and fishing. I know RMEF's offer would have made all the difference for me.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Hawkeye,

To what level do you think attendance would drop w/out the draw of the National Finals Rodeo? Do we know what the net proceeds were for that convention? I'm waiting for a copy of the RMEF's proposal directly from them perhaps that will answer some of my questions relating to attendance #'s ect.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Could it be MORE or Less than of 480? I'll take the under!
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Tworay-

I don't know exactly what impact the NFR had on the RMEF event in Las vegas. Nor do I know exactly what impact it would have if RMEF had 200 premium Expo Tags availabel at the event. I included a link to RMEF's Proposal dated 11/24/2015 in post #15 above.

-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Oh well since there is a government office for auditing I guess then it's free.......right? Lets just load them up with whatever frivolous audit we can dream up. You aren't that ignorant are you?

The groups haven't been playing with other people's money. They brokered deals which made more money for a government entity. The money for the tags was and is still paid to the government. You forget to tell people that detail when you go on these rants.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Tristate said: "The groups haven't been playing with other people's money. They brokered deals which made more money for a government entity."

Wrong again. The groups have been playing with our (the public's) money. The groups have raked in nearly $10 million off our public Expo Tags and accounted for only a fraction of those funds. While it is true that the groups have "brokered deals," those deals have not made more money for a government entity. The DWR gets paid the same license fee regardless of whether the tag is given out in the general drawing, given out at the Epo by SFW and MDF, or given out by some other group that was awarded the five-year contract.

Keep trying.

-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

You are lying your butt off. DWR does get paid this license fee. The exact same fee you or I would have to pay if we were to draw the tag. The difference is they get the money from processing fee also. THAT IS A PROFIT. PROFIT MEANS MORE MONEY! The DWR PROFITS from the draw and the auctions. YOU KNOW THEY DO!

They have not been playing with your "money". The state gives them no money initially. They are given the privilege of distribution and allocation. NO TAG IS EVER "GIVEN" TO THEM. When you purchase or draw one of the tags at the expo does SFW hand you a tag? NO. Does the tag you eventually receive say department of SFW on it? NO. Plus it isn't "playing". They are under legal contract to do this. Either you are confused Hawkeye or you are intentionally lying to these people.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Shame on me for arguing with a troll.

Show me how the state profited off the Expo Tags from 2007 through 2012? During that time, the groups raised roughly $5.4 million in application fees. How much of that money made it back to the state? That's right a whopping $0. Thanks for playing Tristate.

-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

First of all that's the past and you won that battle and they give up %30 now. You want to use the past against someone after you win a compromise and you will find people a lot less interested to compromise with you ever again. Second you know that the tags you were talking about were used to draw people to an event which made a whoooooooooole lot more money each year for the state than just this chump change you are whining about. And we aren't just talking about the DWR. We are talking about businesses and municipalities within your state which were receiving funds from the event.


You want to know what I find most interesting about your last post though. You just admitted there is no profit in the state selling tags to the public through the state draw system. GAME SET MATCH. Why would your goal be to leave them stuck in a system which you claim they can't profit from it?
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Because I believe in the North American Conservation model and you don't. GAME SET MATCH.

Goodbye tristate.

-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

No question the 200 permits would help any group how put on an expo. Do you really think that is the reason people attend the expo or do you think there are other reasons such as the full curl which I know brings a lot of people and the tags that are auctioned at the different auctions. Those tags are something no other groups can compare with. That is also a giant draw. The out of state people that come and buy the big tags.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Where in the NACM does it say our wildlife agencies have to operate on strangled budgets. Where in the NACM does it state you are guaranteed an underpriced tag at the detriment of the herds you hunt. That is what I mean by greed. You think the NACM was set up to get you stuff when in reality it was about wildlife first.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

The 200 tags are responsible for the shows success. That's not even debatable
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

>No question the 200 permits would
>help any group how put
>on an expo. Do
>you really think that is
>the reason people attend the
>expo or do you think
>there are other reasons such
>as the full curl which
>I know brings a lot
>of people and the tags
>that are auctioned at the
>different auctions. Those tags
>are something no other groups
>can compare with. That
>is also a giant draw.
> The out of state
>people that come and buy
>the big tags.

Another wasted post Birdman, as we're not talking about the tags that have full accountability! Sure those auction tags are bringing in people, as they are all sold aren't they? it sure would be nice if one post of yours made the slightest bit of sense as to what is being discussed.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

LAST EDITED ON Mar-07-16 AT 08:20PM (MST)[p]It is not even close. A small handful of guides and wealthy hunter's bid on the auction tags. In contrast, thousands of sportsmen show up for a chance at the 200 Expo Tags.

-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Your right topgun. But then it seams people are saying the 200 tags are Why the expo is successful. I said there is other reasons also. If you are going to talk about the success of drawing people to Utah let's discuss all the reasons. Not arguing the 200 tags helped build the expo. Just saying the 200 tags are not the only draw.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

LAST EDITED ON Mar-07-16 AT 08:49PM (MST)[p]>Your right topgun. But then
>it seams people are saying
>the 200 tags are Why
>the expo is successful.
>I said there is other
>reasons also. If you are
>going to talk about the
>success of drawing people to
>Utah let's discuss all the
>reasons. Not arguing the
>200 tags helped build the
>expo. Just saying the 200
>tags are not the only
>draw.



Judas Priest! We ARE NOT talking about anything but the 200 raffle tags on these threads. SFW/MDF and the DWR are feeling the heat and it started with Jon Larson not wanting to be interviewed and said the TV people should run one about the great Expo itself! You're just stating the same garbage that they and the DWR are now putting out and trying to blow smoke up you know where and all it's doing is making things worse.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Birdman-

Thanks for posting. You have to have thick skin to participate in these forums. Some folks are overly critical of opposing views but I enjoy the dialogue.

That being said, we all know that the Expo Tags are a huge draw. In the years that I attended the Expo, I went to apply for the tags. Same with most of my friends. SFW and MDF have worked hard to build a nice event but without the 200 tags, the Expo would be just another convention.

-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Hold on Topgun, we are talking about the total economic benifit of the expo and if the RMEF would bring in more than SFW/MDF. It not just about the 200 tags which are a large draw. Hawkeye brought up the expo tags in my earlier post where I asked about the effects of timing and location of the RMEFs success of their annual banquet. Pretty brilliant timing and marketing to have your convention lined up with the NFR. I'm undecided if that draw of people would make it with the RMEF in Utah. It's actually a pretty large financial risk to the RMEF if the plan was to pull that event for this one.

Of course you would maintain the near 15k in applicants for the expo tags but would you really grow the overall attendance. You certainly could given a more central location in the west but I'm not sure as their proposal didn't provide any growth estimates that I could see. As for the other tags that are generally auctioned those are a big draw also and as it stands now with the current listing I definitely don't see the RMEF having as many prime tags to draw higher attendance.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

LAST EDITED ON Mar-07-16 AT 09:30PM (MST)[p]>Hold on Topgun, we are talking
>about the total economic benifit
>of the expo and if
>the RMEF would bring in
>more than SFW/MDF. It
>not just about the 200
>tags which are a large
>draw. Hawkeye brought up
>the expo tags in my
>earlier post where I asked
>about the effects of timing
>and location of the RMEFs
>success of their annual banquet.
> Pretty brilliant timing and
>marketing to have your convention
>lined up with the NFR.
> I'm undecided if that
>draw of people would make
>it with the RMEF in
>Utah. It's actually a
>pretty large financial risk to
>the RMEF if the plan
>was to pull that event
>for this one.
>
>Of course you would maintain the
>near 15k in applicants for
>the expo tags but would
>you really grow the overall
>attendance. You certainly could
>given a more central location
>in the west but I'm
>not sure as their proposal
>didn't provide any growth estimates
>that I could see.
>As for the other tags
>that are generally auctioned those
>are a big draw also
>and as it stands now
>with the current listing I
>definitely don't see the RMEF
>having as many prime tags
>to draw higher attendance.

Hawkeye started this thread to address the FAQs put out by the DWR and the heading of that FAQ is: "Utah expo permits and conservation funding". You and Birdman may be talking about what you stated, but the intent is for him to answer those questions and it's typical of SFW supporters to come on all of these threads and along with Tristate to just muddy the issue(s) being discussed. Leave RMEF out of this, as what is wanted is transparency for the 200 raffle tags and nothing more. It shouldn't have taken the RMEF to get that across, but it certainly did when they made that contract bid that blew the SFW/MDF contract bid out of the water if it had been done on the up and up. Here's a question for you since you wanted to diverge some. Why do you think SFW/MDF didn't even place a bid in the original process that the RMEF met on the last day of the original application period? I'll answer it for you to save you some time scratching you head. Those two organizations knew if anyone submitted a bid that the RFP would then be brought in such that they knew what had been offered and even then didn't offer up a better bid because they knew the outcome before it was done at the WB meeting where it was voted on! Now let's please get back to letting Hawkeye get on to the next question.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

What's the attendance for the annual ISE show at Southtowne??

No tags, no NFR, no group or groups sponsoring the event.

Should the ISE show ask for a couple hundred tags?





"WE USED TO HUNT GAME TO
MANAGE, NOW WE MANAGE TO
HUNT"
Finn 2/14/16
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

>Hawkeye started this thread to address
>the FAQs put out by
>the DWR and the heading
>of that FAQ is:
>"Utah expo permits and conservation"
>funding. You and Birdman
>may be talking about what
>you stated, but the intent
>is for him to answer
>those questions and it's typical
>of SFW supporters to come
>on all of these threads
>and along with Tristate to
>just muddy the issue(s) being
>discussed.

So we aren't talking about Hawkeyes post #15- fact #3 from the DWR; What are the possible economic benefits of a wildlife expo? I guess I missed the part where only a select few were allowed to post their opinions or thoughts. Guess I've been corrected by the post police.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

How about crossroads of the west gun show.

They are a smaller event, maybe they only get 50 tags.



"WE USED TO HUNT GAME TO
MANAGE, NOW WE MANAGE TO
HUNT"
Finn 2/14/16
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

100k across all four of their events. Please don't lobby to give them anymore tags. But that show is off topic so we should stop discussing this instance.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

>How about crossroads of the west
>gun show.
>
>They are a smaller event, maybe
>they only get 50 tags.
>
>
>
>
>"WE USED TO HUNT GAME TO
>
>MANAGE, NOW WE MANAGE TO
>HUNT"
>Finn 2/14/16

Do additional background checks apply?
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

But think of the economic impact these other shows could have if they also had a couple hundred tags to make hunters jump through hoops for.

I mean a good old Utah Republican would never condone Govt picking winners or losers in business.

Except in this Taylor made Expo with a Taylor made RFP.


"WE USED TO HUNT GAME TO
MANAGE, NOW WE MANAGE TO
HUNT"
Finn 2/14/16
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

hey WW he has 6 posts now.... AND already learned to disable his profile.... How long do you think he has been a member in good standing for?...can you guess what chapter even???
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Stone, ya gotta love the newbies or like we all know the not so new.

I'm noticing a trend. Every several days a new rebuttal to the pressure comes down from the throne.

First there was no way that the RMEF would give back 100% of the app fees. After the person was reminded that a legal contract was signed making this commitment they clam up.

Then it went to on the ground spending and 80% of funding coming from the Expo partners. Once the person found out that the expo partners have 10 times the conservation permits as the RMEF and all 200 expo permits they usually see the light.

Now they want to play the economic benefit card. OK let's play it and give all these other events a portion of the 200 expo tags. I'd bet not a one of these other expo organizers would balk at the requirement to put all this money back on the ground.

Keep the heat on.




"WE USED TO HUNT GAME TO
MANAGE, NOW WE MANAGE TO
HUNT"
Finn 2/14/16
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

I haven't seen any "debunking" whatsoever. I have seen a bunch of cut and paste with unprovable opinions, on both sides, and a whole lot of whining about the same junk.

The DWR is making more money giving away the 200 tags using this method than they would if they gave them away in the draw. Second it is used as a draw to attract people to an event where they make a lot more money than just the 200 tags. Plain and simple. Its like a gas station selling cheep bags of ice when the real loot they make is you buy the beer that goes in it and that's where the major profit is.

IF ANY ONE OF YOU UNDERSTOOD A SINGLE PRINCIPAL OF BUSINESS OR MARKETING YOU WOULD SEE WHAT IS GOING ON?

Crap I used logic again and we all know this is really a fight over you thinking you deserve a deer tag.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

The DWR is making more money by doing the tags this way? Hmmm, that's and interesting 'provable fact.'

I'd like to see the figures of how much the DWR makes off these 200 tags by giving them to SFW vs how much the DWR would make if they were in the general draw.

You're so averse to opinions that can't be proved, so I'm sure you have the data to back that up at the ready.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

FAQ #4 - Q4: Which conservation groups have held the expo permit contract?
Since the Wildlife Expo Permit Program began in 2007, three separate expo permit contracts have been awarded. The first contract went to the Foundation for North American Wild Sheep in 2007, and the second one went to the Mule Deer Foundation (MDF) in 2011. The most recent expo permit contract ? which will run from 2017?2021 ? was awarded to Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife (SFW) in December 2015. SFW will partner with MDF and the Utah Foundation for North American Wild Sheep (UFNAWS) during this contract period.

RESPONSE:


The statements in FAQ #4 are generally accurate but they make it appear as if the DWR has been awarding the five year Expo Tag contracts to different conservation groups. But the reality is that SFW and MDF have controlled those contracts and the Expos since the Expo Tags were created.

The first Expo Tag contract (2007-2011) was technically awarded to the FNAWS, who partnered with SFW and MDF to host the early Expos. After three years, however, FNAWS elected to no longer be a part of the Expo and withdrew from the contract. By the way, does anybody know why FNAWS pulled out? Pursuant to the rule, that initial contract was then transferred to SFW and MDF, who were partners with FNAWS. See R657-55-11 (?If the conservation organization awarded the wildlife expo permit series withdraws before the end of the 5 year period or any extension period under R657-55-4(1)(b), any remaining co-participant with the conservation organization may be given an opportunity to assume the contract and to distribute the expo permit series consistent with the contract and this rule for the remaining years in the applicable period.?) See http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm#T4. Therefore, SFW and MDF were involved in the Expo for the full 5 years of the initial contract (2007-2011).

The second Expo Tag contract (2012-2016) was technically awarded to MDF. See 2010 Contract Between the DWR and MDF -- https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwhBsR2dj01GUWx3dkgxM0dBTzQ/view?usp=sharing. It is significant to note that the DWR utilized the process outlined in R657-55-4 to award the first two Expo Tag contracts. At that point in time, it did not believe that some other state statute required it to utilize the formal RFP process. Although the DWR generally contracts with a single entity, the application submitted by MDF (Exhibit 2 to the Contract) makes it clear that MDF was going to partner with SFW to host the Expos during the five-year term. Moreover, if you review the application submitted by MDF and SFW for the contract (Exhibit 2 to the Contract), you will also notice that the parties submitted a simple 3-page application which contained very little information. SFW and MDF hosted the Expo for the full 5 years under this second contract (2012-2016).

The third Expo Tag contract (2017-2021) was just recently awarded to SFW. See 2016 Contract Between the DWR and SFW -- http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/expo_permit_contract.pdf. In addition to MDF, SFW also listed UFNAWS as a partner for the Expo. Does anybody know what the relationship is between UFNAWS and SFW? If you look at SFW?s proposal for the most recent contract, you will notice that they included the same address for both SFW and UFNAWS. See RFP Proposal at 23-24 ? http://sfw.net/data/SFW-200-Expo-Tags-RFP-web.pdf. It is also important to note that the DWR, at the request of the groups, recently amended the Expo Tag rule allow an additional five-year extension of this contract. See R657-55-4(1)(b). Therefore, SFW and MDF will likely be involved in the Expo for the next ten years (2017-2026).

In summary, while the DWR?s response to FAQ #4 is technically correct, it gives the false illusion that the five-year Expo Tag contracts have been awarded to conservation groups, and groups other than SFW and MDF have been awarded the Expo Tags. This simply is not true. The reality is that SFW and MDF have been involved with every Expo since 2007 and now have the right to continue to do so for likely the next decade. While it is true that FNAWS was involved from 2007 to 2009 and now will be partnering with SFW and MDF under the new contract, this does not change the fact that these two groups have controlled the contract and the Expo Tags since the beginning.


-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

LAST EDITED ON Mar-08-16 AT 09:29AM (MST)[p]Question/Answer #4 by the DWR is a prime example of how they are trying to blow smoke up our rearends, as Hawkeye just pointed out and will continue to down the line of questions. Lets just forget about the drivel one member keeps posting since we all know he can twist things with the best of them and is only trying to muddle the truth.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Vanilla,

If you go back and read one of my posts from years ago I broke down how, I am going on memory, but if I recall the math broke down that by doing this taking .4% of the tags out of the public draw and using them at the expo was covering almost 10% of the DWR budget. Now I know you will have to go back and look at posts from a couple of years ago but next time it might be better just to pay attention.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

So you are angry 3 companies work together to put this expo on????????

You talk about this like you have just uncovered the secret Nixon tapes but it is really just ordinary run of the mill business. Has it occurred to you that there is value in people working together?????? Instead of single entity crying and whining for years on the internet AND GETTING VERY LITTLE DONE, three groups can actually get together and make a difference. That's amazing?
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Still waiting on those figures regarding the amount of money the DWR makes from giving away 200 tags to SFW for the expo vs issuing them in the draw. Since you never just throw stuff out as opinion, and you only share provable facts, those figures should be easy to come by.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Vanilla, that one is pretty easy.

If they put the tags in the draw or the expo, they make the exact same mount of money. What ever the cost is for drawing an elk tag, they get paid the same.

For example.

I draw an elk tag in the Utah dwr draw. I pay them, the dwr, $286 (or what ever it is now).

If I draw a tag at the Expo, I pay the Dwr $286.

So they get the same amount of money. The only difference is our chances go down with less tags in the draw. Not a lot, but it does. Over the last 10 years, thats 2000 tags taken away from the public. I like the expo and the chance of drawing a tag, because I have actually drawn a tag at the expo.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Actually Robiland that's not correct either because the state is going to receive $1.50 off of each application for each tag, and here is the important part, NO OVERHEAD FOR THE TRANSACTION. So that is a net. Mooooooooooo money! Plus they get the advertising for the rest of their expo which is where they make the most money. Plus they get to say in truth the expo isn't just about rich guys getting hunting tags when anyone can come get an extra chance at a tag with $5. Its an all around win. Its how business gets done well.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

I am quite the fan of all punctuation and grammar although I am horrible at it.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

This was posted on another forum and needs to be posted here....

In its answer to FAQ #3, the DWR claims that the Western Hunting and Conservation Expo (the "Expo") (1) drew 40,000 attendees and (2) "delivers a multimillion-dollar economic benefit to the State of Utah and its businesses." This is an interesting and confusing claim. Although millions of dollars flow through the Expo via the auction and the raffle, does attendance at the Expo create a "multimillion-dollar economic benefit" in Utah? Certainly, the 40,000 Expo attendees collectively spent millions in Expo related activities, e.g. travel, lodging, food, etc. Nevertheless, is the millions spent by all Expo attendees commensurate with the "multimillion-dollar economic benefit to the State of Utah" claimed by the DWR?

Although Expo attendees generate significant economic activity, I believe that most of this activity is not a net benefit of the State of Utah. Instead, I believe that most of the economic activity created by the Expo attendees is simply shifting money from various parts of Utah to other parts of Utah, e.g. Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County. Furthermore, in terms of overall net economic benefit to the state, it is the number of non-residents Expo attendees, not the overall number of attendees, that matters most.

The DWR's claim about the economic impact of the Expo is a claim commonly made by sports franchise owners whenever they are seeking public funds to build a new facility. In the case of a sports franchise, the owner will claim that the state, county, or city should help pay for the proposed facility because the new facility will create millions of dollars of economic activity for the state, county, or city. The problem with this claim is that study after study has shown that it is not true. Instead of creating new economic activity, the new sports facility simply shifts economic activity from one area of the state, county, or city to another area of the state, county, or city. Therefore, the net increase in economic activity created by the sports facility is typically insignificant or nonexistent.

The reasons why a new sports facility does not generate new economic activity, but instead simply shifts economic activity, are two-fold. First, sports facilities serve a limited geographic area. Although some non-residents may attend games at the facility, the vast majority of the attendees are residents of the geographic area surrounding the facility. Two, in general, people have limited discretionary income. Because people have a limited discretionary income they must choose how that income will be spent, i.e. they must choose "Option A" or "Option B," but cannot choose Option A and Option B. Even those with a high amount of discretionary income must choose between various options based on (1) money and (2) time/availability. Consequently, when a new sports facility is built it does not bring new money to the area. Instead, it simply shifts economic activity from the previous facility or other businesses in the area, i.e. restaurants, theaters, shops, etc., or both, to the new sports facility.

The same phenomenon occurs with the Expo. As hawkeye pointed out, in 2015 only 16% of the raffle tag applicants were non-residents. Furthermore, it is likely that non-residents account for a much smaller percentage of Expo attendees (I would guess less than 10%), which means the vast majority of Expo attendees are residents of Utah. Consequently, the majority of money spent on Expo related activities does not add to Utah's economy. Instead, the Expo shifts millions of dollars from various businesses throughout Utah to businesses in Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County.

To illustrate my point, let us compare the annual "Expo" to the semi-annual "Outdoor Retailer" show. As stated previously, the DWR claims that the Expo drew 40,000 attendees in 2016. This is similar to the attendance figures for Outdoor Retailer. http://www.sltrib.com/home/2789841-1...ler-show-opens. It is estimated that the combined attendance of the summer and winter Outdoor Retailer shows is approximately 45,000. Id. Although the attendance figures for the Expo and Outdoor Retailer are similar, the financial impacts of the expositions are vastly different. The Expo brings an estimated $10 million to the "local economy," while Outdoor Retailer brings $45 million to the state. https://muledeer.org/western-hunting...ing-records-2/ and http://kutv.com/news/local/22k-expec...salt-lake-city.

The disparate economic impacts of the Expo and Outdoor Retailer is simple to explain. While the Expo draws 40,000 attendees who mostly live in Utah, Outdoor Retailer pulls 45,000 attendees who primarily live out-of-state (Outdoor Retailer is closed to the public and is exclusively for retailers of outdoor equipment). Therefore, while the average Expo attendee spends $100 or less for food, fuel, and tickets to the expo, the average Outdoor Retailer attendee is spending $1000 or more for hotel, food and beverage, entertainment, rental car, etc. In addition, the $100 spent by the Expo attendee would have been spent elsewhere in Utah if it was not spent at the Expo, whereas the $1000 or more spent in Utah by the Outdoor Retailer attendee would not have been spent in Utah except for the Outdoor Retailer show.

Hawkeye asked an interesting question, "What types of numbers would RMEF have generated if the state of Utah would have awarded the five-year Expo Tag contract to them?" Although we will never be able to answer this question accurately, I think we can answer two related questions: (1) Would RMEF affect the number of Utahns attending the Expo and (2) Would RMEF affect the number of non-residents attending the Expo? (I understand that if RMEF were hosting the event it would be the RMEF national convention and not the Expo, but I am using the term "Expo" for simplicity.)

Would RMEF affect the number of Utahns attending the Expo? Probably? What the effect would be is impossible to know, but certainly if RMEF were hosting the Expo there would be some change in the number of Utahns attending the Expo. Yet, again, in terms of economic benefit to Utah, I believe any change would have little, if any, net economic benefit for Utah.

Would RMEF affect the number of non-residents attending the Expo? Almost certainly. As Hawkeye stated, RMEF boasts a membership of nearly 220,000. http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/Pre...rshipHigh.aspx. Furthermore, I believe this figure is ten times higher than the combined membership of the current Expo sponsors (This conclusion may be incorrect because I could not confirm the Mule Deer Foundation's membership figures). http://sfw.net/about/. Given RMEF's vast membership, if RMEF hosted the Expo it is almost certain that additional non-residents would attend the Expo. Moreover, even if the increased number of non-residents was small, e.g. two percent (2%) of RMEF total membership (excluding members in Utah) or 4280 additional non-resident attendees, the net economic benefit to Utah would be over $4,000,000 (assumming each attendee spends $1000 during the Expo). Even less than 1% of RMEF members attending the Expo would geneate more than $2,000,000 for Utah's economy.

In conclusion, I think the DWR is overstating the value of most Expo attendees to Utah's economy. Furthermore, the economic value the Expo provides to Utah can only be increased significantly by increasing the number of non-residents who attend the expo.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

>Actually Robiland that's not correct either
>because the state is going
>to receive $1.50 off of
>each application for each tag,
>and here is the important
>part, NO OVERHEAD FOR THE
>TRANSACTION. So that is
>a net. Mooooooooooo money!
> Plus they get the
>advertising for the rest of
>their expo which is where
>they make the most money.
> Plus they get to
>say in truth the expo
>isn't just about rich guys
>getting hunting tags when anyone
>can come get an extra
>chance at a tag with
>$5. Its an all
>around win. Its how
>business gets done well.

Actually Trip, that is right. He asked about the 200 tags, thats what they cost. Did he ask about the $5 app fee, not the way I understood it. So the cost of the 200 tags is the same any way you look at it. Try again buddy. Keep in drinking!
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

I know quite a few nonresidents who spend quite a bit of money going to the expo each year. I was going to go this year but had something come up. I have been in the past.


Robiland,

You are talking in circles and you don't know the context of what happened before. Its OK everybody gets confused sometimes.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

>I know quite a few nonresidents
>who spend quite a bit
>of money going to the
>expo each year. I
>was going to go this
>year but had something come
>up. I have been
>in the past.
>
>
>Robiland,
>
>You are talking in circles and
>you don't know the context
>of what happened before.
>Its OK everybody gets confused
>sometimes.

Tri, once again, I am afraid I know a bit more than you on this and the reading comprehension is lacking in Texas right now. Simmer down boy, you'll be fine.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Tristate you know why it doesn't bother u that utajns are being played for jokers by sfw! These are our wildlife the sfw and Dwr are
Pimping out!
You don't live here and I don't understand why it's such an issue to you. It's really weird ur such an advocate of sfw when u live out of state.
My only guess is you run a business that too dogs from
Sfw use. And if those guys get the boot ur business will suffer.
I mean what could u possibly care about nth ear tags for!?
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Robiland,

I think you know a lot about this. Like I think you know what Hawkeye's true motives are here. Why don't you enlighten us.

One thing I can tell you don't know and that's when I'm hot.

Keep talking in circles sister.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Theox,

You really must have the shortest memory out of anyone on here. Literally moments ago on another thread you specifically quoted me when I said I don't care if SFW gets these tags and now you type this trying to figure out why I am worried about SFW going under?

Do you know what's worrying me. Why a bunch of kids measure their happiness on whether SFW suffers? There is something fundamentally wrong with people like that.

Now I know I just told you a whole bunch but try not to forget it this time. And please learn how to speak English that last post was barely recognizable.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

LAST EDITED ON Mar-08-16 AT 01:58PM (MST)[p]Tristate-

You are asking the wrong person. Whenever I want to find out what my "true motives" are I ask you, Birdman, DeLoss or Muley73. You guys seem to know everything.

-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Actually Hawkeye I have asked but I can't recall telling you what your motives are. I don't think you have been honest about what they are on these forums.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Tri

I have had enough with your STUPID comments. Its getting old. It is 100% clear that you have completely failed at reading comprehension. I guess in Texas, they dont teach that. His motives are clear to everyone but you, birdy, and 73. Maybe SFW and the DWR should be clear with their motives. Lets start to play this game. Or lets ask you what your true motives are?
Sorry Founder, but I had to say it and its getting laughable.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Robiland,

You complain about my reading comprehension and then complain about not knowing my motives when I have clearly posted my motives and beliefs for y'all time after time. I have never wavered in these beliefs. If you don't believe me I posted my motives on the expo article thread just a couple of days ago. Good read. Ask me questions if you want. If you can behave yourself I will surely answer them as clearly and as honestly as you can't handle.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Tri- Where is this $1.50 coming from that is going to the DWR?

I think you might need to review the rules surrounding the $5 application fees before you respond.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

When there is no basis to argue the pertinent facts, attack the opponent personally.



"WE USED TO HUNT GAME TO
MANAGE, NOW WE MANAGE TO
HUNT"
Finn 2/14/16
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Has anyone ever met your honesty criteria?


"WE USED TO HUNT GAME TO
MANAGE, NOW WE MANAGE TO
HUNT"
Finn 2/14/16
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

It comes from the $5 application fee.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Tristate, there is another problem with your theory. The DWR actually makes more money off the general draw than the Expo draw. There is a $10 application fee to apply any general hunt and the DWR pays the Nevada groups that handles the general draw just over $3. Therefore, the DWR pockets between $6 and $7 from every general application. So much for your theory that the Expo Tags are a cash cow for the DWR. As I said before, the Expo Tags were created to fund conservation groups not conservation projects.

-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Hawkeye do you know what "costs and liabilities" are? Do you know what a "net" is?

The money paid to the state in the draws there are costs there. They are actually doing work and providing a service to people. That actually costs them money. I know you don't understand any of this because you don't think that the company that is doing that work for them now doesn't deserve fiscal compensation either but that's a business fact. This way another person does all the work and turns around and hands the state a straight profit. No overhead comes off of that except for maybe a bank transaction fee. THAT IS A BETTER NET. That is what you don't get.

I have never called it a "cash cow" those are your words. I have simply said it is more profitable to allow someone else to do the work while you get paid.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

I think we all owe tristate a big thank you. If it wasn't for his senseless arguing about the sfw and being such an over all cheese ball, i don't think hawkeye and others would have been so diligent in determining the facts. Lots of these posts would have gone no where but instead because of tricheese and his senseless arguments they went really deep into the facts. I used to think tri cheeseball was good for nothing, but now i think he single handedly kept all these posts going long enough that the real facts came out. I say feed the troll, cause every time he opens his mouth he actually helps out the side he's fighting against, and it doesn't matter who he's arguing with he always helps his opposition somehow just by talking. I would like to say thank you tricheese for being such a dbag, you've buried your beloved organization so well that it's an honor to have you around. Can you guys just imagine tri arguing with his wife or boyfriend every day. That would be worthy of pay per view!!!
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

LAST EDITED ON Mar-09-16 AT 08:43AM (MST)[p]FAQ #5 ? Q5: Where does the money from the application fees go?
Hunters are charged a $5.00 per-permit application fee when they apply in the expo permit drawing. The DWR must approve in advance how 30 percent of these funds are spent. Expo organizers must spend the remaining 70 percent on policies, programs, projects and personnel that support conservation initiatives in Utah. All of the application fee revenue benefits wildlife conservation in Utah.

RESPONSE:


The question raised in the DWR?s FAQ #5 is exactly what sportsmen have been asking for nearly 10 years. Unfortunately, the answer provided by the DWR is confusing and misleading.

First, the DWR is correct that ?hunters are charged a $5.00 per-permit application fee when they apply in the expo permit drawing.? As explained above, from 2007 through 2016, the groups $9,764,445 in $5 application fees, with $1,166,050 raised in 2016. There is no dispute that the groups have generated plenty of revenues from these tags. The question is whether those revenues were actually used to fund ?wildlife conservation activities in Utah? as was originally pitched to sportsmen. See R67-55-1 ? See http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm#T1. The DWR did not require the groups to spend one red cent of the revenues from the Expo Tags on actual conservation projects from 2007 through 2012. As a result, the $5,436,655 that the groups generated from those tags during this time period remains completely unaccounted for. After concerned sportsmen rose up in 2012, the DWR and the groups modified the rule to allow the groups to retain $3.50 of every $5 application and to earmark $1.50 for approved conservation projects. See R657-55-10. As a result, from 2013 through 2016, the groups generated $4,327,790, and 30% of that money or $1,298,337 has been earmarked for actual conservation and accounted for.

Second, the DWR states that ?the DWR must approve in advance how 30 percent of these funds are spent.? R657-55-10(3) states that this 30% must be spent on actual conservation projects and that ?project funding will not be committed to or expended on any project without first obtaining the division director?s written approval.? Under the contract recently signed by the DWR and SFW, the conservation groups must also prepare detailed annual reports accounting for these monies. See 2016 Contract, Section 7.e.4 ? http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/expo_permit_contract.pdf. This is the level of accountability and transparency that should be required of private groups generating revenues off of our public tags. However, it begs the question why is this transparency limited to only 30% of the Expo Tag revenues? Why doesn't the DWR require the same love of accountability and transparency for the remaining 70% of the revenues?

Third the DWR states that ?Expo organizers must spend the remaining 70 percent on policies, programs, projects and personnel that support conservation initiatives in Utah.? This statement is referring to specific contract language that was recently added to the latest contract between the DWR and SFW in response to pressure from sportsmen and the media. Pursuant to Section 7.c of the contract, SFW and its partners retain $3.50 from every $5 application and that money must be used for ?policies, programs, projects and personnel that support wildlife conservation initiatives in Utah.? The highlighted language referencing ?wildlife conservation initiatives? is new language that was not included in prior contracts between the DWR and the groups. But what does that language actually mean? Can the SFW/MDF pay salaries to SFW/MDF ?personnel? with that 70%? Can they lobby with that 70% in an effort to affect ?policies?? Did the parties simply draft a provision that authorizes them to do what they were already doing? Can anybody tell me what a ?wildlife conservation initiative? is? Why didn't the parties define that term in the contract? As a lawyer, I always define critical contract terms unless I am purposefully trying to leave the term ambiguous so that my client can take advantage of the ambiguous language. I am guessing that is what happened here. I have asked for some clarification from some of my contacts but I have not heard back yet. Do any of you know what that term means? On the surface, this statement sounds great but it has no real meaning. In theory, the groups could spend the 70% of the Expo tag revenues on nearly anything and argue that it somehow supports ?wildlife conservation initiatives in Utah.? I am guessing that this language was added to the contract as window dressing so the groups and the DWR can point to it and say that 100% of the revenues are spent on wildlife conservation. Hopefully, folks dig a little deeper into the issue.

Finally, the DWR states that ?all of the application fee revenue benefits wildlife conservation in Utah.? This statement seems like a real stretch. Given the extremely broad and ambiguous language that governs the spending of 70% of the Expo Tag revenues, how can the DWR make this statement? I think that we should all email the DWR and ask them: (1) please define for us what constitutes a ?wildlife conservation initiative? under Section 7.c of the contract; and (2) why didn't the DWR actually define that term in the contract so that it was clear to the parties and the public. Now some people might say perhaps the DWR wanted to provide the groups some flexibility during the year with how to spend the 70% but they intend to audit those expenditures at the end of the year? Wrong. A simple reading of the contract reveals that there is no audit provision in the agreement. Pursuant to 7.e, SFW and its partners must submit a report to the Wildlife Board and the DWR by September 1st detailing among other things a description of each project funded with Expo Tag revenues. However, the annual reporting requirement in Section 7.e only applies to projects funded with the 30% of the Expo Tag revenues (which expenditures already require DWR approval). There is no audit or reporting requirement in the contract or the rule that applies to the 70% retained by the groups.

In summary, given the lack of accountability and transparency and the lack of any clear requirements as to how the groups can spend 70% of the Expo Tag revenues, it is unclear to me how the DWR can make a definitive statement that ?all of the application fee revenue benefits wildlife conservation in Utah.? Even if you think the new requirement that the groups spend that money on ?wildlife conservation initiatives,? which is completely undefined, somehow solves the problem, the DWR?s blanket statement is still misleading in that ignores the fact over the last 10 years, millions of dollars have gone unaccounted for. Thus, the statement that ?all of the application fee revenue benefits wildlife conservation in Utah,? fails to recognize the lackluster history of accountability and transparency with respect to the Expo Tag revenues and the loosey-goosey ?fix? that has recently been put in place.

What do you guys think about the new contract language?

-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

LAST EDITED ON Mar-09-16 AT 08:43AM (MST)[p]Tags were created to fund conservation groups not conservation projects- Hawkeye--
With all due respect I really don't agree with that statement. The DWR did it to help raise additional funds for wildlife conservation projects that were not possible within their budget. Has it help fund conservation orgs-- absolutely true. The DWR has used these groups to run conventions, hold banquets etc to raise money for those projects. We can disagree with the fact that they provide the tags at all but it has indeed raised huge amounts of money for projects that otherwise would have not been possible. These groups also are a big voice in our communities that keep our wildlife heritage in a visible and pro-active position. To say that providing tags for these groups was simply for them, is simply incorrect. Did the groups see the benefit to them-- of course they did. does the process still need to be refined-- absolutely. Is it a program that is nefarious in its intentions -- I don't think so.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Richard-

If the purpose for the Expo Tags was to fund conservation projects and not conservation groups then why was no there no requirement in the rule or contract for the first 6 years that one red cent be spent on actual conservation? Mistake? Oversight? Too much trust on the part of the DWR? Or was it purposefully set up in that manner?

With regard to the banquets and the conservation projects, you really need to treat that as a separate issue. As was posted in the other thread, the DWR hands out hundreds of Conservation Permits every year to conservation groups to auction of at fundraising banquets. Unlike the Expo Tags, 90% of the revenues from the Conservation Permits must be spent on actual conservation projects and that money is audited annually by the DWR. See R657-41-9 - http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting-in...7-41--conservation-and-sportsman-permits.html

When the groups pound their chests about the projects they have funded you have to remember that they are generating millions of dollars a year of the Conservation Permits and are required to spend that money within two years on actual projects. Now, I think that there are too many Conservation Permits but I at least appreciate the accountability and transparency in that program. What didn't we follow that model with the Expo Tags?

-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Nebo1200, once again you confuse conservation tags with convention tags. This discussion revolves around convention tags and convention tags were given to prop up the expo. If they were meant to provide funds for on-the-ground conservation the groups would have been required from the first day to do so, but they were not.

Hawkeye, The organization itself is viewed as a conservation organization so of course all funds generated by the organization are used to fund conservation. That is the answer you will get from the other side.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

I just laughed when I read the contract and then I laughed a lot more when I read the SFW, MDF, and DWR responses trying to smooth things over when the ##### hit the fan. That contract was written just as you stated and allows the organizations to take however much of that 70% they want to and do whatever they want with it, including put more money into the Don's "consulting fee pockets" and "lobbying pockets"!
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

2_Point posted: "Hawkeye, The organization itself is viewed as a conservation organization so of course all funds generated by the organization are used to fund conservation. That is the answer you will get from the other side."

Yes, I have heard that many times. That explanation may be good enough for the DWR but it is not good enough for me and many other sportsmen. If you are going to take our public tags to raise money in the name of conservation, you better be willing to account for it. The Conservation Permits are a prime example.

-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

complete b******* that's what it is nothing but problem has not even been addressed
I can't even get a word out of my representative or my legislator this is crap
so once again we're being told spend wisely boys
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

LAST EDITED ON Mar-09-16 AT 10:15AM (MST)[p]2 Point--- You need to understand again --- I know very well the difference between the two !!! All of those tags provided come from the same pot--- the way they are dispersed is the ONLY difference. the Expo tags and the Conservation permits work in a symbiotic relationship to enhance wildlife conservation. The use of the $5 raffle fee is the point in question-- The use of the $5 fee was used by the Expo vendor to fund their organization-- period. The use of those funds are not and were not "public monies". (a.k.a. taxes?) You can argue all you want about the "use" of the money but at the end of it all what do you want out of this whole scenario? I have no problem with transparency if it helps wildlife conservation. If at the end of it all it shows that the $5 was used to pay salaries, dinners, travel, secretaries, lobbying, rent, habitat work, wildlife studies, advertising, promoting fishing for disabled folks,etc etc., What are you going to do about it? I don't and never have bought $5 raffle tickets or even attended the Expo but I don't see any evidence that anyone has been forced to buy raffle tickets or attend it.
What is the end game in all this now? In my own opinion, some of this is now about some personal vendettas, not really concern about enhancing and ensuring the future of wildlife and hunting in this state. I have no problem with good folks holding the feet of the powers that be to the fire. We need watch dogs and their opinions to help keep things moving in positive directions for wildlife. The RACS and the WB were put into place by the State and DWR in response to public pressure to make it more open to the public and their opinions. I believe it has made a difference over the years- good and bad depending on your own personal views.
Still-- if all you want is transparency-- I'm all for it-- is that all you want now?
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

LAST EDITED ON Mar-09-16 AT 11:55AM (MST)[p]Richard-

With all due respect, didn't you just disagree with me for saying that the Expo tags were created to fund wildlife conservation groups not wildlife conservation projects in Post #75? And then in Post #81 you state: "The use of the $5 fee was used by the Expo vendor to fund their organization-- period." We are apparently saying the same thing.

What do we want? We want to make sure the money raised from those 200 public tags is actually used for conservation projects that benefit wildlife and sportsmen and not "to pay salaries, dinners, travel, secretaries, lobbying, rent, advertising, etc." And we would like some real transparency and accountabily to make sure this is happening. I feel like I have been pretty clear and consistent on this point. Does that make sense?

So tell me Richard, do you believe that the new language included in the recent contract resolves our concerns? If so, how? I am still trying to wrap my arms around what that provision means and what actual impact, if any, it will have on how the money is spent and accounted for. Thanks.

-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Hawkeye-- that's why these organizations exist. If they use the money to maintain their ability to promote wildlife conservation and enhance wildlife isn't that using the money they get to do just that? I'll bet Lee with UWC would like some additional funding to promote their agenda. If it wasn't for Lee, UWC would only be logo in the rear view mirror. Getting their message out has cost him a lot of money personally. Whether its Expo tag money or conservation permit money-- it all comes from the same pot. Also, do you know how much the DWR pays the folks in Fallon to do the Big Game draw for -- its in the millions. Is it being done in the most cost effective way ? I don't know. Is their work more important than what the conservation orgs do ? Keep up the good work.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Hawkeye,

All that stuff you don't think the %70 should pay for IS NECESSARY. If you own a restaurant You don't get to just serve food and stay in business. No, you have to pay for printing, signage, advertising, bookkeeping, tax preparation, computers, buying office supplies, utilities, permitting, PLUS THE EMPLOYEES TO RUN ALL THAT. All that stuff and more you can't see on your plate but believe me it is necessary to make the hamburger. The same goes for the conservation business. Not everyone is getting paid to do a deer study or do brush removal but that person answering phones and placing brochure orders is just as much a conservationist.

I want an answer to a question from you do you think you can run a business if all the sudden someone commanded you to pay for all those costs and more out of your own pocket?

YOU ARE SPLITTING HAIRS TO PUSH AN AGENDA.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

So damn close with the Agenda argument.

Keep fleshing.


"WE USED TO HUNT GAME TO
MANAGE, NOW WE MANAGE TO
HUNT"
Finn 2/14/16
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Can anybody please explain why some people don't want accountability for funds derived for a public asset. Simple question that I believe deserves an answer. If the funds have been used to pay salaries..say so! I don't like the word play to cover ineptitude or apathy.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

>So damn close with the Agenda
>argument.
>
>Keep fleshing.
>
>
>"WE USED TO HUNT GAME TO
>
>MANAGE, NOW WE MANAGE TO
>HUNT"
>Finn 2/14/16

He just can't understand the difference between what we're discussing as a nonprofit entity dealing with the public trust and a restaurant! That's all, LOL! What do you expect from a Texas Aggie?
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Nebo, that's the problem.

SFW is not using funding from a good or service they create or offer wholly.

SFW uses funding derived fro the sale of a public resource. Either Conservation or Expo tags.

I want to know exactly where this group is spending these funds and specifically when these funds are used against sportsmen. In cases such as stream access, a neutral stance on PLI, Option 2, contributions to politicians that push for transfer of public lands, contributions to politicians that would raid FFSL funds to make appropriations to grouse and wolf lobbyists and funds that enable the nominating process for the wildlife rule making body to become the gerrymandered cluster$&@? It is currently.

The topic of motive came up earlier, let me restate mine in case Tritroll may not be perfectly clear.

SFW as currently constituted needs to be eliminated. Gone, cease to exist.
The good vs bad scale, in my mind is no longer in sportsmens favor any longer with this group. Peay has stated that he doesn't believe in the North American Model and if you don't think what is going on in Utah right now is Peay's Model your head is in the sand. Our game isn't managed by biologists and the public input process any longer, it's managed by Noel, Okerlund and a few other cronies on Capital Hill. This is wrong.

The longer this BS is allowed to continue is just another generation that doesn't know any different. There is no reason any of these discussions are taking place other than one groups toxic philosophy, that in the long run will prove to be the first Kings Deer scenario in America.

If they wish to use their own Capitol to push their BS, good for them, but don't take a bunch of public tags and crush hunters anglers and the most successful method of managing game on this planet.



"WE USED TO HUNT GAME TO
MANAGE, NOW WE MANAGE TO
HUNT"
Finn 2/14/16
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

I don't know if the language now used is sufficient or not. Not even lawyers can agree on how something is properly worded or not worded. I've been in a deposition that one lawyer asked me the same question in 5 different ways- my answer was always the same. I guess the original answer didn't work for his desired outcome-- so I really don't know if the new contract language will bring about the desired results you want. I guess it depends on which lawyer you ask or don't ask.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

No tophun you don't get it. Nonprofit does not mean they have to exist within bankruptcy. That doesn't change with any business. You throw the word repeatedly "public trust" out there and thing some how the rules of money don't apply. Well some of us have actually worked our entire lives and not sat and collected a paycheck from the "public". Some of us know what it actually takes to keep a business going from year to year. Just because of its tax classification doesn't mean SFW is not a business. No matter what kind of BS communist reason you come up with THIS IS THE USA. Not the united socialist republic of topgun. PEOPLE GET COMPENSATED FOR WORK. WE ARE CAPITALISTS. CONSERVATIONISM COSTS MONEY. You don't know what a 501c3 is. You don't know what a trust or public trust is. Someone has filled your head with useless garbage and convinced you it is facts.

I notice Hawkeye didn't have the balls to answer the question so he sent his favorite pet, you.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

>No tophun you don't get it.
> Nonprofit does not mean
>they have to exist within
>bankruptcy. That doesn't change
>with any business. You
>throw the word repeatedly "public
>trust" out there and thing
>some how the rules of
>money don't apply. Well
>some of us have actually
>worked our entire lives and
>not sat and collected a
>paycheck from the "public".
>Some of us know what
>it actually takes to keep
>a business going from year
>to year. Just because
>of its tax classification doesn't
>mean SFW is not a
>business. No matter what
>kind of BS communist reason
>you come up with THIS
>IS THE USA. Not
>the united socialist republic of
>topgun. PEOPLE GET COMPENSATED
>FOR WORK. WE ARE
>CAPITALISTS. CONSERVATIONISM COSTS MONEY.
> You don't know what
>a 501c3 is. You
>don't know what a trust
>or public trust is.
>Someone has filled your head
>with useless garbage and convinced
>you it is facts.
>
>I notice Hawkeye didn't have the
>balls to answer the question
>so he sent his favorite
>pet, you.

Keep Hawkeye out of your post when addressing me, as he and everyone else posting on here has more than enough balls to deal with you! You sure are good at telling people how smart you are and then you invent the word "CONSERVATIONISM", LOL! Only a Texas Aggie could come up with that one! Sometimes with the terrible English, spelling, punctuation and lack of math skills you exhibit in about every one of your posts I really wonder if you even "graduated" from middle school boy! I know exactly what that tax exempt status is and it wasn't designed to rape the general public and put hundreds of thousand of dollars into certain pockets to allow them to live a grandiose lifestyle. Can you name another conservation organization that wholly owns an outfitter operation outside our country like SFW does? I'm sure all the money they make from it goes back on the ground here in the US. Tell me boy, just what did over $800K that they paid and show on their tax form to take all their employees on a fancy guided hunting "tour" in another country do for Utah?
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Tri-

R-E-A-D T-H-I-S V-E-R-Y S-L-O-W-L-Y: I have answered that question numerous time in this forum. If you don't remember the answer, go reread any one of about 20 posts in response to the same question from you, Lumpy, Muley73 and Birdman. If after doing that you still don't understand my answer, send me a pm with your cell number and I will call you and explain why I would like to see more accountability and transparency. Frankly, it should be obvious to about anyone that when a private group takes 200 tags out of the public draw in order to "generate revenues for wildlife conservation activities," sportsmen like me might eventually ask: Hey, what have your been doing with that money? How much went to actual conservation activities/projects? Would you mind accounting to the public for those funds?

Did you get it this time?

-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

"It comes from the $5 application fee." -Tristate

Wrong. Like I said, you need to check your facts.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

LAST EDITED ON Mar-09-16 AT 11:42PM (MST)[p]>Hawkeye,
>
>All that stuff you don't think
>the %70 should pay for
>IS NECESSARY. If you
>own a restaurant You don't
>get to just serve food
>and stay in business.
>No, you have to pay
>for printing, signage, advertising, bookkeeping,
>tax preparation, computers, buying office
>supplies, utilities, permitting, PLUS THE
>EMPLOYEES TO RUN ALL THAT.
> All that stuff and
>more you can't see on
>your plate but believe me
>it is necessary to make
>the hamburger. The same
>goes for the conservation business.
> Not everyone is getting
>paid to do a deer
>study or do brush removal
>but that person answering phones
>and placing brochure orders is
>just as much a conservationist.
>
>
>I want an answer to a
>question from you do you
>think you can run a
>business if all the sudden
>someone commanded you to pay
>for all those costs and
>more out of your own
>pocket?
>
>YOU ARE SPLITTING HAIRS TO PUSH
>AN AGENDA.

Tritroll,

A couple of things.

First, and this one is a nitpick: the % comes AFTER the number, not before. It's 100%, not %100.

Second: You are correct - a business needs to pay operating costs. That was a very astute observation. But guess what? The state of utah and utah's sportsmen are not employers trying to run a business. This is not a business. We're trying to put as much of our money back into the ground as possible. Matter of fact, the best case scenario would be to cut out ALL of the overhead, fire the employees, the lobbyists and the politicians, and use all of the money for conservation projects within the state. The overhead is what's killing this whole thing.

Do you need to hire employees to cook the hamburger and pay for signs to advertise the hamburger and clean up after the hamburger gets eaten? If your main objective is to run a restaurant, then yes, you do. SFW is the restaurant. Their main objective is not to make the best hamburgers: it's to make sure their business does well.

We had another "restaurant", if you will, come in and offer to give hamburgers to everybody for free, and as a matter of fact, they're much better hamburgers. Some of the best. Yet here you are arguing that we should instead be trying to make the restaurant bigger and better when, if you think about it for even a half a second, you'll realize is a completely backwards way of looking at things. We're not trying to open new locations of this restaurant.

Third: it really is comical to me to see you keep coming back to the "hidden agenda" and "real motivation" thing. I've been in this battle with many of these guys (including my good friend Hawkeye) since almost the beginning, and I can tell you that we care about one thing only: we want what's best for Utah's wildlife. Period. Full stop. The end. There is no further motivation than this. We fight because we think it's the right thing to do. We spend our time and energy and resources battling internet nitwits like yourself with the slim hope that we can improve the current situation and educate sportsmen about what's going on.

We believe that we are getting screwed (because we are). Please stop trying to tell us that there are ulterior motives or hidden agendas. Our ONLY agenda is to make things better for us and our kids. That might be hard for you to believe, but it is the truth.


Vi Et Armis Invictus Maneo
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

LAST EDITED ON Mar-10-16 AT 06:31AM (MST)[p]Hawkeye,

Read this very sloooooooowly. THAT REPEATED WHINING YOU JUST POSTED DOESN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION! Go to post 84 and read the question again and then think hard and answer it.


Topgun,

You still have nothing but trash talk to offer. I love how you and others can scream there is no transparency in SFW but then you claim to know they spent 800k on hunting. Then you think it is some kind of evidence of underhandedness when you see they own a business outside of the USA. Ooooooooooooh...... you got'em on the ropes now G-man. :eek:

Vanilla,

You need to go check your facts. The DWR gets to control $1.50 of every $5.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Dryfly,

I didn't say the state of Utah is a business. But the state contracted with a business, SFW, on distribution of these tags. THEY HAVE TO RUN LIKE A BUSINESS!

I'm %100 correct on that one.

I like how you make a correlation to getting free hamburgers. I guess we should all start telling kids the creeps in vans offering "free candy" is a great deal. Ain't nothing "free". Start believing you get free stuff and soon you'll be standing in line next to Showanda waiting on an Obama phone.

By the way when you typed "Third" that should have been followed by a comma. %100 of the time. Welcome to your new home. 5050 Glasshouse drive.

Your good friend Hawkeye has an agenda besides "transparency". You are just blind enough to follow.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Tristate-

Your question has been answered repeatedly on this thread and other threads. Dryflyelk broke it down for your again in Post #94 - and he even used your burger analogy. If you still don't understand then you are either too dense to grasp simple facts or you don't want to understand the truth.

At the end of the day the question is, were the Expo Tags created to fund conservation actual projects/activities or to fund private conservation groups. If you look at the actual language of the rule, it is clear that the purpose was to "generate revenues to fund wildlife conservation activties." R657-55-1. If you look at the history of what we were told when the tags were created, it is again clear that the purpose was to fund actual conservation projects. See Wildlife Board Meeting Minutes dated 3/31/2005 ("Mr. Peay said it is fair to ask how much comes in with the five dollar application fees and how much went onto the ground.").

If the conservation groups had been honest with the public and told them that they wanted to take 200 public tags out of the draw so that they could make $1 million+ dollars per year to cover their operating expenses, salaries, consulting fees, benefits, rent, ultilites, office supplies, book keeping, etc., the public would have revolted and the tags never would have been approved. While it is true that private companies have many overhead costs, they don't get to dip into the public trough to pay those costs.

Goodbye. It is time to return to the adult conservation.

-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

You are still dodging my question. No one else answered it for you and I wouldn't have accepted that as an answer. Man up and answer the question and quit counting on other peoples big mouths to do it for you.

An adult would answer that question and be able to defend his stance. You are running boy.
 
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Nope. I don't dodge questions. Communicating with you is like communicating with my children -- when they don't like or don't understand the answer, they just keep asking. That does not change the fact that the question has been asked and answered. Moving on to more important things.

FAQ #6 ? Q6: Where does the money from the permit fees go?
When an applicant is selected to receive an expo permit, he or she must pay the regular permit fee that all other hunters in Utah must pay. Expo organizers have never received any of the permit fees charged for the 200 expo permits. One-hundred percent of those funds have always gone directly to the DWR.
RESPONSE:


I have no issues with the DWR?s FAQ #6. If you apply for the Expo Tags and your name is drawn in the Expo Tag drawing, you still have to purchase the actual permit from the DWR. For instance, when I drew a LE deer tag at the Expo in 2008, I received written notification in the mail but I then had to go the DWR and purchase the actual permit, which today costs $168 for a resident. Successful applicants must pay the regular permit fee and those fees go to the DWR.

FAQ #6 is pretty straight forward but there are more interesting topics on the horizon. 20 more to go!

-Hawkeye-
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom