Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
- Thread starter Hawkeye
- Start date
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
LAST EDITED ON Mar-10-16 AT 09:04AM (MST)[p]>"Nope. I don't dodge questions." >
>Them lies just get easier and
>easier to tell.
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.
Hey Mr. Tristate! It doesn't take a "G Man" to look on their tax return that's readily available right on this website to read the line showing over $800K spent taking their people on a hunting "tour" up to the Outfitting business they wholly own. I guess that's a great use of conservation money IF you were one of the lucky guys to go on that "tour", LOL! I'll give you one thing. You're the biggest and best Troll on the internet!
LAST EDITED ON Mar-10-16 AT 09:04AM (MST)[p]>"Nope. I don't dodge questions." >
>Them lies just get easier and
>easier to tell.
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.
Hey Mr. Tristate! It doesn't take a "G Man" to look on their tax return that's readily available right on this website to read the line showing over $800K spent taking their people on a hunting "tour" up to the Outfitting business they wholly own. I guess that's a great use of conservation money IF you were one of the lucky guys to go on that "tour", LOL! I'll give you one thing. You're the biggest and best Troll on the internet!
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
>Finally you admit you get to
>see their tax returns and
>still claim they aren't "transparent"???????????
>
We aren't talking about transparency when tax returns are mentioned here genius! A top CPA that is a Board Member and on the Finance Committee of RMEF has advised that tax returns can't solely be used to determine other than a few things like that trip I mentioned and that it takes a full independent audit of the books, which RMEF has done yearly, and SFW/MDF will not submit to that. Therein lies the transparency issue that we have been discussing on so many different threads and even when we try to "dumb it down" to your level you either can't understand or do and just want to be center stage and ruin every thread. I vote for the latter even though you're a Texas Aggie. Now please go sniff some more glue in the back of your shop.
>Finally you admit you get to
>see their tax returns and
>still claim they aren't "transparent"???????????
>
We aren't talking about transparency when tax returns are mentioned here genius! A top CPA that is a Board Member and on the Finance Committee of RMEF has advised that tax returns can't solely be used to determine other than a few things like that trip I mentioned and that it takes a full independent audit of the books, which RMEF has done yearly, and SFW/MDF will not submit to that. Therein lies the transparency issue that we have been discussing on so many different threads and even when we try to "dumb it down" to your level you either can't understand or do and just want to be center stage and ruin every thread. I vote for the latter even though you're a Texas Aggie. Now please go sniff some more glue in the back of your shop.
Tristate
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,860
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
Topgun,
step outside your house and listen. You should be able to hear me laughing all the way from Texas.
You want to know why I am laughing? Well I am going to tell you anyway.
Back a couple of years ago when you bunch of Jonesenites were trying to compare what RMEF posted as "transparency" to what SFW was doing I TOLD YOU THEN if SFW did that you wouldn't accept it as transparency. AND GUESS WHAT I AM RIGHT AGAIN.
Topgun,
step outside your house and listen. You should be able to hear me laughing all the way from Texas.
You want to know why I am laughing? Well I am going to tell you anyway.
Back a couple of years ago when you bunch of Jonesenites were trying to compare what RMEF posted as "transparency" to what SFW was doing I TOLD YOU THEN if SFW did that you wouldn't accept it as transparency. AND GUESS WHAT I AM RIGHT AGAIN.
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
Seeing tax forms might be proficient enough for you to claim transparency but does little to show where all the money went. I believe the expo began in 2007 correct? A full audit needs to take place on the expos entire program since its beginning. Preferably from an outside source. Not an "annual audit" that the DWR conducts only on the 30%.
Tristate.... You have little to defend on this topic. You don't have a lot to lose in this dog fight. You might not like the "whining" but this debacle has little affect on you and you could simply not involve yourself with this debate. With all your many responses, you have done nothing to convince the "whiners" that we are complaining without reason. But continue to post if you'd like. I'll just keep scrolling past your pointless posts.
Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning
conservation...
"The movement for the conservation of wildlife,
and the conservation of all our natural resources,
are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
method."
"We do not intend that our natural resources shall
be exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural
resources for the public as a whole, for the
average man and the average woman who make
up the body of the American people."
"It is in our power...to preserve game..and to give
reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the
skill of the hunter,whether he is or is not a man of
means."
Seeing tax forms might be proficient enough for you to claim transparency but does little to show where all the money went. I believe the expo began in 2007 correct? A full audit needs to take place on the expos entire program since its beginning. Preferably from an outside source. Not an "annual audit" that the DWR conducts only on the 30%.
Tristate.... You have little to defend on this topic. You don't have a lot to lose in this dog fight. You might not like the "whining" but this debacle has little affect on you and you could simply not involve yourself with this debate. With all your many responses, you have done nothing to convince the "whiners" that we are complaining without reason. But continue to post if you'd like. I'll just keep scrolling past your pointless posts.
Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning
conservation...
"The movement for the conservation of wildlife,
and the conservation of all our natural resources,
are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
method."
"We do not intend that our natural resources shall
be exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural
resources for the public as a whole, for the
average man and the average woman who make
up the body of the American people."
"It is in our power...to preserve game..and to give
reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the
skill of the hunter,whether he is or is not a man of
means."
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
Natural resources, including wildlife represent the health and wealth of a country and its people. We are fortunate in North America to have a proven system that not only recognizes these values, but also provides for and directs the proper use and management of these resources.
The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is anchored by a Supreme Court decision that decreed that wildlife belongs to the people, and not government, corporations or individuals.
Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning
conservation...
"The movement for the conservation of wildlife,
and the conservation of all our natural resources,
are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
method."
"We do not intend that our natural resources shall
be exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural
resources for the public as a whole, for the
average man and the average woman who make
up the body of the American people."
"It is in our power...to preserve game..and to give
reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the
skill of the hunter,whether he is or is not a man of
means."
Natural resources, including wildlife represent the health and wealth of a country and its people. We are fortunate in North America to have a proven system that not only recognizes these values, but also provides for and directs the proper use and management of these resources.
The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is anchored by a Supreme Court decision that decreed that wildlife belongs to the people, and not government, corporations or individuals.
Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning
conservation...
"The movement for the conservation of wildlife,
and the conservation of all our natural resources,
are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
method."
"We do not intend that our natural resources shall
be exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural
resources for the public as a whole, for the
average man and the average woman who make
up the body of the American people."
"It is in our power...to preserve game..and to give
reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the
skill of the hunter,whether he is or is not a man of
means."
Hawkeye
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,014
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
LAST EDITED ON Mar-10-16 AT 10:01AM (MST)[p]Tristate-
You have a talent for making yourself look foolish.
Every nonprofit organization must make their tax return (Form 990) available to the public. That is a requirement of the IRS: https://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non...-and-Applications:-Public-Disclosure-Overview Why don't you try to locate SFW's tax returns for the last three years.
RMEF has gone far beyond meeting that minimal requirement imposed by the IRS. RMEF posts the following information on its website for the world to see:
1. Tax returns for the prior 5 years.
2. Complete audited financial statements.
3. A detailed annual report.
4. A 5-year summary of special permit revenues.
See http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PressRoom/AboutRMEF/Financials.aspx Why don't you try locating similar information on SFW's website, and post the results for us if you don't mind? http://sfw.net/about/ I will save you the time and trouble. What you will find is one tax return from 2013. http://www.sfw.net/data/SFW-990-2013.pdf
Plus, with respect to the Expo, RMEF also voluntarily offered to provide a fully indpendent audit of the Expo itself -- that's right, every penny earned and every penny spent. The results of the audit would have been made available to the DWR and the public.
In summary, RMEF is one of the most transparent conservation groups on the planet, and SFW does not hold a candle to them in that respect. So to put that in your terms, "SFW did not do what RMEF did." Sorry buddy, but you are wrong again.
-Hawkeye-
LAST EDITED ON Mar-10-16 AT 10:01AM (MST)[p]Tristate-
You have a talent for making yourself look foolish.
Every nonprofit organization must make their tax return (Form 990) available to the public. That is a requirement of the IRS: https://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non...-and-Applications:-Public-Disclosure-Overview Why don't you try to locate SFW's tax returns for the last three years.
RMEF has gone far beyond meeting that minimal requirement imposed by the IRS. RMEF posts the following information on its website for the world to see:
1. Tax returns for the prior 5 years.
2. Complete audited financial statements.
3. A detailed annual report.
4. A 5-year summary of special permit revenues.
See http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PressRoom/AboutRMEF/Financials.aspx Why don't you try locating similar information on SFW's website, and post the results for us if you don't mind? http://sfw.net/about/ I will save you the time and trouble. What you will find is one tax return from 2013. http://www.sfw.net/data/SFW-990-2013.pdf
Plus, with respect to the Expo, RMEF also voluntarily offered to provide a fully indpendent audit of the Expo itself -- that's right, every penny earned and every penny spent. The results of the audit would have been made available to the DWR and the public.
In summary, RMEF is one of the most transparent conservation groups on the planet, and SFW does not hold a candle to them in that respect. So to put that in your terms, "SFW did not do what RMEF did." Sorry buddy, but you are wrong again.
-Hawkeye-
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
>Topgun, >
>step outside your house and listen.
> You should be able
>to hear me laughing all
>the way from Texas. >
>You want to know why I
>am laughing? Well I
>am going to tell you
>anyway. >
>Back a couple of years ago
>when you bunch of Jonesenites
>were trying to compare what
>RMEF posted as "transparency" to
>what SFW was doing I
>TOLD YOU THEN if SFW
>did that you wouldn't accept
>it as transparency. AND
>GUESS WHAT I AM RIGHT
>AGAIN.
Right about what?! Since day one we've been talking about a full, independent audit for SFW like RMEF has done yearly to show exactly what and how the money comes in and exactly where it goes. It still hasn't happened! Tax returns can at least give you an inkling of what's going on and why that $800K+ line on a hunting tour for employees really stands out. You skipped right over my question/statement as to how that is considered conservation by anyone, including yourself. Would you care to expound on anything positive that tour accomplished other than taking a bunch of employees somewhere most probably couldn't afford in a couple lifetimes? Also, I can't hear you laughing, but when I opened the door I do smell something a little ripe on the breeze coming out of the southwest up here this AM!
>Topgun, >
>step outside your house and listen.
> You should be able
>to hear me laughing all
>the way from Texas. >
>You want to know why I
>am laughing? Well I
>am going to tell you
>anyway. >
>Back a couple of years ago
>when you bunch of Jonesenites
>were trying to compare what
>RMEF posted as "transparency" to
>what SFW was doing I
>TOLD YOU THEN if SFW
>did that you wouldn't accept
>it as transparency. AND
>GUESS WHAT I AM RIGHT
>AGAIN.
Right about what?! Since day one we've been talking about a full, independent audit for SFW like RMEF has done yearly to show exactly what and how the money comes in and exactly where it goes. It still hasn't happened! Tax returns can at least give you an inkling of what's going on and why that $800K+ line on a hunting tour for employees really stands out. You skipped right over my question/statement as to how that is considered conservation by anyone, including yourself. Would you care to expound on anything positive that tour accomplished other than taking a bunch of employees somewhere most probably couldn't afford in a couple lifetimes? Also, I can't hear you laughing, but when I opened the door I do smell something a little ripe on the breeze coming out of the southwest up here this AM!
Tristate
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,860
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
Hawkeye,
I have seen what RMEF posts. Yall have put it on here. THAT AIN'T AN AUDIT. SO how does your boy topgun know how many dollars they spend hunting in Canada if there isn't any transparency?
Topgun,
A audit isn't independent if the company getting audited chose the firm and paid for it. See Arthur Anderson
Billybob,
You don't know what your talking about. The supreme court doesn't right law. All they said in their decision is if states want to set up themselves as owners of the wildlife they aren't violating the constitution and the federal government will not strike those laws. In fact there are states right now in the US that are backing off of state ownership and the feds aren't doing anything. You know why? Because that isn't unconstitutional.
Hawkeye,
I have seen what RMEF posts. Yall have put it on here. THAT AIN'T AN AUDIT. SO how does your boy topgun know how many dollars they spend hunting in Canada if there isn't any transparency?
Topgun,
A audit isn't independent if the company getting audited chose the firm and paid for it. See Arthur Anderson
Billybob,
You don't know what your talking about. The supreme court doesn't right law. All they said in their decision is if states want to set up themselves as owners of the wildlife they aren't violating the constitution and the federal government will not strike those laws. In fact there are states right now in the US that are backing off of state ownership and the feds aren't doing anything. You know why? Because that isn't unconstitutional.
Robiland
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,074
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
>Hawkeye,
>
>I have seen what RMEF posts.
> Yall have put it
>on here. THAT AIN'T
>AN AUDIT. SO how does
>your boy topgun know how
>many dollars they spend hunting
>in Canada if there isn't
>any transparency?
>
>Topgun,
>
>A audit isn't independent if the
>company getting audited chose the
>firm and paid for it.
> See Arthur Anderson
>
>Billybob,
>
>You don't know what your talking
>about. The supreme court
>doesn't right law. All
>they said in their decision
>is if states want to
>set up themselves as owners
>of the wildlife they aren't
>violating the constitution and the
>federal government will not strike
>those laws. In fact
>there are states right now
>in the US that are
>backing off of state ownership
>and the feds aren't doing
>anything. You know why?
> Because that isn't unconstitutional.
>
Tribate says, and I quote:
"blah blah blah, and blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah, and blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah, and blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah, and blah blah blah blah blah blah"
Makes sense to me.
>Hawkeye,
>
>I have seen what RMEF posts.
> Yall have put it
>on here. THAT AIN'T
>AN AUDIT. SO how does
>your boy topgun know how
>many dollars they spend hunting
>in Canada if there isn't
>any transparency?
>
>Topgun,
>
>A audit isn't independent if the
>company getting audited chose the
>firm and paid for it.
> See Arthur Anderson
>
>Billybob,
>
>You don't know what your talking
>about. The supreme court
>doesn't right law. All
>they said in their decision
>is if states want to
>set up themselves as owners
>of the wildlife they aren't
>violating the constitution and the
>federal government will not strike
>those laws. In fact
>there are states right now
>in the US that are
>backing off of state ownership
>and the feds aren't doing
>anything. You know why?
> Because that isn't unconstitutional.
>
Tribate says, and I quote:
"blah blah blah, and blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah, and blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah, and blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah, and blah blah blah blah blah blah"
Makes sense to me.
Hawkeye
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,014
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
Tristate posted: "I have seen what RMEF posts. Yall have put it on here. THAT AIN'T AN AUDIT."
Oh boy. You just cannot help yourself, can you? So the audited finanical statements from the Certified Public Accountant Clark Nuber dated February 18, 2016, is not an audit? See http://www.rmef.org/Portals/0/Documents/2015 Audited Financial Statements_FINALpdf.pdf
You are officially beyond help.
-Hawkeye-
Tristate posted: "I have seen what RMEF posts. Yall have put it on here. THAT AIN'T AN AUDIT."
Oh boy. You just cannot help yourself, can you? So the audited finanical statements from the Certified Public Accountant Clark Nuber dated February 18, 2016, is not an audit? See http://www.rmef.org/Portals/0/Documents/2015 Audited Financial Statements_FINALpdf.pdf
You are officially beyond help.
-Hawkeye-
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
LAST EDITED ON Mar-10-16 AT 10:36AM (MST)[p]With that last silly, twisted, incorrect post that made absolutely no sense, I'm with BillyBob and will also scroll past any more posts that Tristate puts up. He definitely did get one thing correct though. The Supreme Court Justices don't "right" law!
LAST EDITED ON Mar-10-16 AT 10:36AM (MST)[p]With that last silly, twisted, incorrect post that made absolutely no sense, I'm with BillyBob and will also scroll past any more posts that Tristate puts up. He definitely did get one thing correct though. The Supreme Court Justices don't "right" law!
CPAjeff
Active Member
- Messages
- 205
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
LAST EDITED ON Mar-10-16 AT 11:00AM (MST)[p]
>
>Topgun,
>
>A audit isn't independent if the
>company getting audited chose the
>firm and paid for it.
> See Arthur Anderson
>
Tristate,
As a CPA, working for one of the Big 4 auditing firms, please enlighten me as why an audit "isn't independent if the company getting audited chose the firm and paid for it."
This means that every public company and a host of private companies throughout the world are paying auditing firms to conduct audits that aren't independent?? WOW - please enlighten the world's best and brightest business leaders, and more importantly, the SEC that all the audits performed everyday are not independent and should be invalid.
Audit firms are a professional service provider - this means that they are always looking for new clients to serve through marketing, client relations, etc. The CLIENT gets to choose which audit firm they contract with. This contract involves a list of duties performed and the billing for such duties. Once both parties agree on the contractual terms, work can begin. The audit firm accepts a certain measure of accountability with the SEC, if the audit findings are not properly prepared, or if something is missed in the audit that goes against US GAAP. THIS is the reason that audits performed are independent, because at the end of the day - the client is responsible to themselves, their customers, the audit firm, and the SEC to do things right. The audit firm is responsible to themselves, their clients, and the SEC to do things right.
You stated Arthur Anderson in your post - any idea why Arthur Anderson ceased to exist?? They didn't maintain their INDEPENDENCE with respect to the Enron. Both companies were wiped off the map.
Please comment on topics that you fully understand.
LAST EDITED ON Mar-10-16 AT 11:00AM (MST)[p]
>
>Topgun,
>
>A audit isn't independent if the
>company getting audited chose the
>firm and paid for it.
> See Arthur Anderson
>
Tristate,
As a CPA, working for one of the Big 4 auditing firms, please enlighten me as why an audit "isn't independent if the company getting audited chose the firm and paid for it."
This means that every public company and a host of private companies throughout the world are paying auditing firms to conduct audits that aren't independent?? WOW - please enlighten the world's best and brightest business leaders, and more importantly, the SEC that all the audits performed everyday are not independent and should be invalid.
Audit firms are a professional service provider - this means that they are always looking for new clients to serve through marketing, client relations, etc. The CLIENT gets to choose which audit firm they contract with. This contract involves a list of duties performed and the billing for such duties. Once both parties agree on the contractual terms, work can begin. The audit firm accepts a certain measure of accountability with the SEC, if the audit findings are not properly prepared, or if something is missed in the audit that goes against US GAAP. THIS is the reason that audits performed are independent, because at the end of the day - the client is responsible to themselves, their customers, the audit firm, and the SEC to do things right. The audit firm is responsible to themselves, their clients, and the SEC to do things right.
You stated Arthur Anderson in your post - any idea why Arthur Anderson ceased to exist?? They didn't maintain their INDEPENDENCE with respect to the Enron. Both companies were wiped off the map.
Please comment on topics that you fully understand.
Tristate
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,860
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
Hammertime,
Your finishing statement is exactly what I am talking about. Thanks for expanding upon my point.
If you get to pick your auditor and you are paying the auditor, THAT AIN'T INDEPENDENT.
In fact that's a flat out conflict of interest. I know it goes on every day LEGALLY in the USA. Still doesn't make it independent.
Hammertime,
Your finishing statement is exactly what I am talking about. Thanks for expanding upon my point.
If you get to pick your auditor and you are paying the auditor, THAT AIN'T INDEPENDENT.
In fact that's a flat out conflict of interest. I know it goes on every day LEGALLY in the USA. Still doesn't make it independent.
RELH
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 17,480
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
TriState, your defense of SFW has gone far beyond anything that approaches being reasonable. Is your defense based on protecting your pocketbook? By any chance do you do the taxidermy work for the honchos at SFW? Reason I ask is that your defense does appear to be outright ludicrous for a problem in Utah and you reside in Texas.
RELH
TriState, your defense of SFW has gone far beyond anything that approaches being reasonable. Is your defense based on protecting your pocketbook? By any chance do you do the taxidermy work for the honchos at SFW? Reason I ask is that your defense does appear to be outright ludicrous for a problem in Utah and you reside in Texas.
RELH
Tristate
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,860
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
I do business with some people in Utah. I have no idea if they are members of SFW.
Your offense against any group who is a contracted broker of these tags is equally ludicrous to me.
I do business with some people in Utah. I have no idea if they are members of SFW.
Your offense against any group who is a contracted broker of these tags is equally ludicrous to me.
CPAjeff
Active Member
- Messages
- 205
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
>Hammertime,
>
>Your finishing statement is exactly what
>I am talking about.
>Thanks for expanding upon my
>point.
>
>If you get to pick your
>auditor and you are paying
>the auditor, THAT AIN'T INDEPENDENT.
>
>
>In fact that's a flat out
>conflict of interest. I
>know it goes on every
>day LEGALLY in the USA.
> Still doesn't make it
>independent.
Since the SEC deems it as an independent audit, and it's done legally, like you said - lets stick to that and not worry about Tristate's definition of independence. Maybe call the SEC and enlighten them that they have been doing it wrong for all these years.
>Hammertime,
>
>Your finishing statement is exactly what
>I am talking about.
>Thanks for expanding upon my
>point.
>
>If you get to pick your
>auditor and you are paying
>the auditor, THAT AIN'T INDEPENDENT.
>
>
>In fact that's a flat out
>conflict of interest. I
>know it goes on every
>day LEGALLY in the USA.
> Still doesn't make it
>independent.
Since the SEC deems it as an independent audit, and it's done legally, like you said - lets stick to that and not worry about Tristate's definition of independence. Maybe call the SEC and enlighten them that they have been doing it wrong for all these years.
Tristate
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,860
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
Yeah we could start another thread bout "independently audited" businesses operating right under the nose of the SEC for years. Yeah the SEC is awesome. I am going to base what I believe off of what they tell me to believe.
Yeah we could start another thread bout "independently audited" businesses operating right under the nose of the SEC for years. Yeah the SEC is awesome. I am going to base what I believe off of what they tell me to believe.
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
LAST EDITED ON Mar-10-16 AT 03:27PM (MST)[p]I wonder what drove them to write this article?
I recently found this article from Boone and Crockett.
I thought of the issues as of late involving SFW and the UTDWR and the lack of transparency.
"Our position on tags:
The Boone and Crockett Club supports other conservation organizations raffling and auctioning special hunting opportunities because this form of funding is a critical element for wildlife agencies to keep pace with current challenges and demands. The Club has long supported state, provincial, tribal, and First Nations wildlife agency management authority. This includes allowing them to decide what is necessary to fully fund wildlife programs, including the issuance of tags. The Club would not be supportive, however, of an agency using these tag revenues for non-wildlife purposes or in a manner that differs from what was advertised. Such actions would undermine the support and trust sportsmen have for our wildlife agencies.
The Club believes the perception that tag programs are unfair to the average hunter or create a double standard for the wealthy could be alleviated through better communication and transparency. Agencies that issue these tags should provide valid reasons why they have adopted certain rules and processes for them, including communicating how these monies are being used and what types of benefits and successes are being achieved with these funds."
Something to think about.
Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning
conservation...
"The movement for the conservation of wildlife,
and the conservation of all our natural resources,
are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
method."
"We do not intend that our natural resources shall
be exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural
resources for the public as a whole, for the
average man and the average woman who make
up the body of the American people."
"It is in our power...to preserve game..and to give
reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the
skill of the hunter,whether he is or is not a man of
means."
LAST EDITED ON Mar-10-16 AT 03:27PM (MST)[p]I wonder what drove them to write this article?
I recently found this article from Boone and Crockett.
I thought of the issues as of late involving SFW and the UTDWR and the lack of transparency.
"Our position on tags:
The Boone and Crockett Club supports other conservation organizations raffling and auctioning special hunting opportunities because this form of funding is a critical element for wildlife agencies to keep pace with current challenges and demands. The Club has long supported state, provincial, tribal, and First Nations wildlife agency management authority. This includes allowing them to decide what is necessary to fully fund wildlife programs, including the issuance of tags. The Club would not be supportive, however, of an agency using these tag revenues for non-wildlife purposes or in a manner that differs from what was advertised. Such actions would undermine the support and trust sportsmen have for our wildlife agencies.
The Club believes the perception that tag programs are unfair to the average hunter or create a double standard for the wealthy could be alleviated through better communication and transparency. Agencies that issue these tags should provide valid reasons why they have adopted certain rules and processes for them, including communicating how these monies are being used and what types of benefits and successes are being achieved with these funds."
Something to think about.
Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning
conservation...
"The movement for the conservation of wildlife,
and the conservation of all our natural resources,
are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
method."
"We do not intend that our natural resources shall
be exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural
resources for the public as a whole, for the
average man and the average woman who make
up the body of the American people."
"It is in our power...to preserve game..and to give
reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the
skill of the hunter,whether he is or is not a man of
means."
dryflyelk
Active Member
- Messages
- 842
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
Oh, man. I haven't laughed that hard in a while.
I'd like to thank tristate for his valuable lesson to the CPA and the rest of this forum about audits and what constitutes an "independent" audit.
I could go through the list of textbook logical fallacies and find examples of every one of them in our friend tristate's posts. It's like a debate lesson. I need to bookmark these pages and bring kids here to show them how not to argue a point.
Thanks for the chuckle, tri. That was percent one hundred terrific.
Vi Et Armis Invictus Maneo
Oh, man. I haven't laughed that hard in a while.
I'd like to thank tristate for his valuable lesson to the CPA and the rest of this forum about audits and what constitutes an "independent" audit.
I could go through the list of textbook logical fallacies and find examples of every one of them in our friend tristate's posts. It's like a debate lesson. I need to bookmark these pages and bring kids here to show them how not to argue a point.
Thanks for the chuckle, tri. That was percent one hundred terrific.
Vi Et Armis Invictus Maneo
CPAjeff
Active Member
- Messages
- 205
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
LAST EDITED ON Mar-10-16 AT 04:52PM (MST)[p]
After reading a whole bunch of Tristate's comments on this thread and other threads, and by exchanging comments with Tristate earlier today, this movie clip came to mind about a lot of his responses/posts....
LAST EDITED ON Mar-10-16 AT 04:52PM (MST)[p]
After reading a whole bunch of Tristate's comments on this thread and other threads, and by exchanging comments with Tristate earlier today, this movie clip came to mind about a lot of his responses/posts....
Utah400Elk
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,270
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
dryflyelk,
You last line made me spit my drink all over my phone. Thanks for a good laugh.
dryflyelk,
You last line made me spit my drink all over my phone. Thanks for a good laugh.
cannonball
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,266
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
QUOTE:
(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-)
For me this is what so ridiculous about the whole mess. I spend 40.00 for gas only, buy 20.00 permit tickets. There are only two hunts I am interested in, so if I am an average joe and draw after 7000 chances the permit would cost me $150,000. That didn't even figure in the wear and tear of the truck.
The entertainment is the only thing you may factor in, but to me at this point, when you've seen one you've seen them all.
These shows are for the money people (and the gamblers of course)
QUOTE:
(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-)
For me this is what so ridiculous about the whole mess. I spend 40.00 for gas only, buy 20.00 permit tickets. There are only two hunts I am interested in, so if I am an average joe and draw after 7000 chances the permit would cost me $150,000. That didn't even figure in the wear and tear of the truck.
The entertainment is the only thing you may factor in, but to me at this point, when you've seen one you've seen them all.
These shows are for the money people (and the gamblers of course)
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
>dryflyelk,
>
>You last line made me spit
>my drink all over my
>phone. Thanks for a
>good laugh.
And that is exactly how backwards all the rest of his ramblings are too!
>dryflyelk,
>
>You last line made me spit
>my drink all over my
>phone. Thanks for a
>good laugh.
And that is exactly how backwards all the rest of his ramblings are too!
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
Several nonprofit groups have been under fire for quite sometime.
I wonder if there are other nonprofit groups doing the same thing.
http://kutv.com/news/nation-world/w...-ceo-coo-fired-amid-controversy-over-spending
Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning
conservation...
"The movement for the conservation of wildlife,
and the conservation of all our natural resources,
are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
method."
"We do not intend that our natural resources shall
be exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural
resources for the public as a whole, for the
average man and the average woman who make
up the body of the American people."
"It is in our power...to preserve game..and to give
reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the
skill of the hunter,whether he is or is not a man of
means."
Several nonprofit groups have been under fire for quite sometime.
I wonder if there are other nonprofit groups doing the same thing.
http://kutv.com/news/nation-world/w...-ceo-coo-fired-amid-controversy-over-spending
Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning
conservation...
"The movement for the conservation of wildlife,
and the conservation of all our natural resources,
are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
method."
"We do not intend that our natural resources shall
be exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural
resources for the public as a whole, for the
average man and the average woman who make
up the body of the American people."
"It is in our power...to preserve game..and to give
reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the
skill of the hunter,whether he is or is not a man of
means."
Apexmtnman
Active Member
- Messages
- 591
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
I wonder why Tri's parents thought it was a good idea to have a child as brother and sister. I think he has proven it was %100 a bad idea.
I wonder why Tri's parents thought it was a good idea to have a child as brother and sister. I think he has proven it was %100 a bad idea.
Zim
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,291
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
>Several nonprofit groups have been under
>fire for quite sometime.
>I wonder if there are other
>nonprofit groups doing the same
>thing.
>
>http://kutv.com/news/nation-world/w...-ceo-coo-fired-amid-controversy-over-spending
>
>
>
>
>Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning
>conservation...
>"The movement for the conservation of
>wildlife,
>and the conservation of all our
>natural resources,
>are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
>
>method."
>
>"We do not intend that our
>natural resources shall
>be exploited by the few against
>the interests of the
>majority. Our aim is to preserve
>our natural
>resources for the public as a
>whole, for the
>average man and the average woman
>who make
>up the body of the American
>people."
>
>"It is in our power...to preserve
>game..and to give
>reasonable opportunities for the exercise of
>the
>skill of the hunter,whether he is
>or is not a man
>of
>means."
This crap has been going on for eons. Does the United Way ring a bell? Wherever there is big money, there will always be some trying to corrupt and exploit it for personal gain. That is why accountability is so critical. Defenders, like this WWP guy, wave a red flag when they answer questions with the same canned response. Same as the SFW rep did. Because they don't want to tell you the truth.
***********************************
Member RMEF, Pope & Young Club, NRA, UWC & DP Hate Club
>Several nonprofit groups have been under
>fire for quite sometime.
>I wonder if there are other
>nonprofit groups doing the same
>thing.
>
>http://kutv.com/news/nation-world/w...-ceo-coo-fired-amid-controversy-over-spending
>
>
>
>
>Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning
>conservation...
>"The movement for the conservation of
>wildlife,
>and the conservation of all our
>natural resources,
>are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
>
>method."
>
>"We do not intend that our
>natural resources shall
>be exploited by the few against
>the interests of the
>majority. Our aim is to preserve
>our natural
>resources for the public as a
>whole, for the
>average man and the average woman
>who make
>up the body of the American
>people."
>
>"It is in our power...to preserve
>game..and to give
>reasonable opportunities for the exercise of
>the
>skill of the hunter,whether he is
>or is not a man
>of
>means."
This crap has been going on for eons. Does the United Way ring a bell? Wherever there is big money, there will always be some trying to corrupt and exploit it for personal gain. That is why accountability is so critical. Defenders, like this WWP guy, wave a red flag when they answer questions with the same canned response. Same as the SFW rep did. Because they don't want to tell you the truth.
***********************************
Member RMEF, Pope & Young Club, NRA, UWC & DP Hate Club
Hawkeye
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,014
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
FAQ #7 ? Q7: Was there an open public process to determine how the Wildlife Expo Permit Program operates?
To set the terms of the Wildlife Expo Permit Program ? and the use of the application fee revenue ? the DWR held open public meetings in December 2014. Five public regional advisory council (RAC) meetings were held throughout the state to discuss the rule and the revenue split. The 51 members of the RACs included elected officials, sportsmen, livestock producers, tribes, wildlife enthusiasts and other appointed members of the public. During these statewide public meetings, there were comments on the program from five citizens, and only two of them raised concerns. All five of the RACs approved the DWR program recommendations and the proposed split of the application fee revenue. On Jan. 6, 2015, the Utah Wildlife Board adopted the RAC recommendations.
RESPONSE:
I have several comments regarding the DWR?s FAQ #7. The DWR is correct that the made certain changes to the Expo Tag Rule (R657-55) in January 2015. As part of that effort, those proposed rule changes were sent out to the RACs in December 2014 and then the amendments were formally adopted by the Wildlife Board on January 6, 2015. I did not attend all 5 RAC meetings around the state but I did attend the Central RAC meeting and the Wildlife Board meeting.
The DWR makes a big deal out of the lack of public outcry at the RAC and WB meetings. Most of you have probably attended a RAC or Wildlife Board meeting at some point. While the public process is a good one in principle, most of the folks I have spoken with have become frustrated with RAC and WB process and rarely attend. At the December 2014 Central RAC meeting, there were only 12 or 15 people in attendance - half of which were DWR employees and 3 or 4 more were with SFW. Lee Tracy of UWC and I both expressed detailed concerns about the Expo Tag program, including the proposed 5-year rule extension and the lack of accountability and transparency from the conservation groups. If the DWR is correct that only 2 people in the entire state expressed any concerns, then I guess Lee and I were those two people. I would just note that the DWR should not interpret the lack of participation at the RAC and WB meetings by sportsmen as support and endorsement for the Expo Tag program (and other issues for that matter). Rather, I believe the lack of participation is more of an indication of frustration and the fact that folks have simply given up on the public process. If the DWR wanted to really know how many sportsmen feel about this issue, all it needed to do was think back to the August 2012 WB board meeting where we presented a proposed rule amendment, a petition signed by over 1,000 sportsmen (https://www.change.org/p/utah-wildl...nvention-permits-to-august-agenda-action-item), and numerous sportsmen asked the DWR and WB to address the lack of accountability and transparency. Those requests were ignored. I also noticed that the DWR failed to mention that over the last year the DWR and the WB has been flooded with calls and emails expressing concern about the Expo Tag program, in addition to the recent media attention covering this issue.
However, the most glaring omission from the DWR?s FAQ #7 is the fact that the DWR failed to clarify at the December RAC meetings and the January Wildlife Board meeting that the DWR was allegedly going to move to a formal RFP process in order to award the next Expo Tag contract. Mike Canning, Assistant Director of the DWR, sent an email out to a handful of conservation groups in October 2014 announcing ?three major proposed changes? to the Expo Tag rule and program. This email also included a redline version of R657-55 showing the proposed rule changes. See https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwhBsR2dj01GVTVtN1IxS3pqVmM/view?usp=sharing. Nowhere in Mr. Canning?s email or in the redline version of the rule amendments did the DWR clearly state that it was going to change the process for awarding the Expo Tag contract. That same redline version of R657-55 was presented at each of the RAC meetings in December 2014 and the WB meeting in January 2015. In addition, Kenny Johnson presented a power point presentation at the RACs and WB meeting that said nothing about a formal RFP process. If the DWR truly intended to move to a formal RFP, then they should have made that clear in those public meetings. And more importantly, the version of the rule that was presented to the RACs and formally adopted by the Wildlife Board on January 6, 2015, did not say anything about a formal RFP. Please read the current version of R657-55-4 and see what was adopted by the Wildlife Board. See http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm. To this day, there is nothing in the Expo Tag rule authorizing the use of the formal RFP.
In conclusion, while it may be true that here was not a great deal of participation and outcry at the RAC and Wildlife Board meetings when the Expo Tag rule was discussed, the DWR should not interpret that silence as support from the general public. This is especially true given that the DWR failed to adequately inform the public of the most significant change that was being made ? the change to a formal RFP process. Plus, the DWR has heard from sportsmen many times on issue at prior meetings, through emails and phone calls, and through the media. The fact that the DWR needed to release 26 separate FAQs in an attempt to tell their side of the story suggests that they are hearing from us now. Will they listen this time?
-Hawkeye-
FAQ #7 ? Q7: Was there an open public process to determine how the Wildlife Expo Permit Program operates?
To set the terms of the Wildlife Expo Permit Program ? and the use of the application fee revenue ? the DWR held open public meetings in December 2014. Five public regional advisory council (RAC) meetings were held throughout the state to discuss the rule and the revenue split. The 51 members of the RACs included elected officials, sportsmen, livestock producers, tribes, wildlife enthusiasts and other appointed members of the public. During these statewide public meetings, there were comments on the program from five citizens, and only two of them raised concerns. All five of the RACs approved the DWR program recommendations and the proposed split of the application fee revenue. On Jan. 6, 2015, the Utah Wildlife Board adopted the RAC recommendations.
RESPONSE:
I have several comments regarding the DWR?s FAQ #7. The DWR is correct that the made certain changes to the Expo Tag Rule (R657-55) in January 2015. As part of that effort, those proposed rule changes were sent out to the RACs in December 2014 and then the amendments were formally adopted by the Wildlife Board on January 6, 2015. I did not attend all 5 RAC meetings around the state but I did attend the Central RAC meeting and the Wildlife Board meeting.
The DWR makes a big deal out of the lack of public outcry at the RAC and WB meetings. Most of you have probably attended a RAC or Wildlife Board meeting at some point. While the public process is a good one in principle, most of the folks I have spoken with have become frustrated with RAC and WB process and rarely attend. At the December 2014 Central RAC meeting, there were only 12 or 15 people in attendance - half of which were DWR employees and 3 or 4 more were with SFW. Lee Tracy of UWC and I both expressed detailed concerns about the Expo Tag program, including the proposed 5-year rule extension and the lack of accountability and transparency from the conservation groups. If the DWR is correct that only 2 people in the entire state expressed any concerns, then I guess Lee and I were those two people. I would just note that the DWR should not interpret the lack of participation at the RAC and WB meetings by sportsmen as support and endorsement for the Expo Tag program (and other issues for that matter). Rather, I believe the lack of participation is more of an indication of frustration and the fact that folks have simply given up on the public process. If the DWR wanted to really know how many sportsmen feel about this issue, all it needed to do was think back to the August 2012 WB board meeting where we presented a proposed rule amendment, a petition signed by over 1,000 sportsmen (https://www.change.org/p/utah-wildl...nvention-permits-to-august-agenda-action-item), and numerous sportsmen asked the DWR and WB to address the lack of accountability and transparency. Those requests were ignored. I also noticed that the DWR failed to mention that over the last year the DWR and the WB has been flooded with calls and emails expressing concern about the Expo Tag program, in addition to the recent media attention covering this issue.
However, the most glaring omission from the DWR?s FAQ #7 is the fact that the DWR failed to clarify at the December RAC meetings and the January Wildlife Board meeting that the DWR was allegedly going to move to a formal RFP process in order to award the next Expo Tag contract. Mike Canning, Assistant Director of the DWR, sent an email out to a handful of conservation groups in October 2014 announcing ?three major proposed changes? to the Expo Tag rule and program. This email also included a redline version of R657-55 showing the proposed rule changes. See https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwhBsR2dj01GVTVtN1IxS3pqVmM/view?usp=sharing. Nowhere in Mr. Canning?s email or in the redline version of the rule amendments did the DWR clearly state that it was going to change the process for awarding the Expo Tag contract. That same redline version of R657-55 was presented at each of the RAC meetings in December 2014 and the WB meeting in January 2015. In addition, Kenny Johnson presented a power point presentation at the RACs and WB meeting that said nothing about a formal RFP process. If the DWR truly intended to move to a formal RFP, then they should have made that clear in those public meetings. And more importantly, the version of the rule that was presented to the RACs and formally adopted by the Wildlife Board on January 6, 2015, did not say anything about a formal RFP. Please read the current version of R657-55-4 and see what was adopted by the Wildlife Board. See http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm. To this day, there is nothing in the Expo Tag rule authorizing the use of the formal RFP.
In conclusion, while it may be true that here was not a great deal of participation and outcry at the RAC and Wildlife Board meetings when the Expo Tag rule was discussed, the DWR should not interpret that silence as support from the general public. This is especially true given that the DWR failed to adequately inform the public of the most significant change that was being made ? the change to a formal RFP process. Plus, the DWR has heard from sportsmen many times on issue at prior meetings, through emails and phone calls, and through the media. The fact that the DWR needed to release 26 separate FAQs in an attempt to tell their side of the story suggests that they are hearing from us now. Will they listen this time?
-Hawkeye-
Vanilla
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 4,593
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
It started that the DWR "makes more money" on expo tags in the draw, and now it's "they control" $1.50 out of every $5. Those two statements DO NOT mean the same thing. And neither of them are even true. So much of what this dude says isn't even close factually.
Tri- you're not only a troll, you're a flat out liar. Glad this thread could show that once again.
It started that the DWR "makes more money" on expo tags in the draw, and now it's "they control" $1.50 out of every $5. Those two statements DO NOT mean the same thing. And neither of them are even true. So much of what this dude says isn't even close factually.
Tri- you're not only a troll, you're a flat out liar. Glad this thread could show that once again.
Tristate
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,860
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
Vanilla,
If you can sit there and say nothing about your daddy Hawkeye making the stretch that the same company has been awarded the same contract since its inception then I can make the safe correlation that an account that the DWR gets to control is their money and that an expo tag used as a marketing device to draw people to an event where the DWR makes a ton of money is more profitable for the DWR. If you can't make that jump then there is no help for you sister.
Vanilla,
If you can sit there and say nothing about your daddy Hawkeye making the stretch that the same company has been awarded the same contract since its inception then I can make the safe correlation that an account that the DWR gets to control is their money and that an expo tag used as a marketing device to draw people to an event where the DWR makes a ton of money is more profitable for the DWR. If you can't make that jump then there is no help for you sister.
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
LAST EDITED ON Mar-11-16 AT 09:54AM (MST)[p]>Vanilla,
>
>If you can sit there and
>say nothing about your daddy
>Hawkeye making the stretch that
>the same company has been
>awarded the same contract since
>its inception then I can
>make the safe correlation that
>an account that the DWR
>gets to control is their
>money and that an expo
>tag used as a marketing
>device to draw people to
>an event where the DWR
>makes a ton of money
>is more profitable for the
>DWR. If you can't
>make that jump then there
>is no help for you
>sister.
Your own words in post #50:
So you are angry 3 companies work together to put this expo on????????
Has it occurred to you that there is value in people working together?????? ...three groups can actually get together and make a difference. That's amazing?
Tristate---You know as well as the rest of us that, regardless of who was named on the contract, that a partnership was formed and well know by everyone including the organizations, DWR, and the WB. You sure can waste people's time with your continual drivel.
LAST EDITED ON Mar-11-16 AT 09:54AM (MST)[p]>Vanilla,
>
>If you can sit there and
>say nothing about your daddy
>Hawkeye making the stretch that
>the same company has been
>awarded the same contract since
>its inception then I can
>make the safe correlation that
>an account that the DWR
>gets to control is their
>money and that an expo
>tag used as a marketing
>device to draw people to
>an event where the DWR
>makes a ton of money
>is more profitable for the
>DWR. If you can't
>make that jump then there
>is no help for you
>sister.
Your own words in post #50:
So you are angry 3 companies work together to put this expo on????????
Has it occurred to you that there is value in people working together?????? ...three groups can actually get together and make a difference. That's amazing?
Tristate---You know as well as the rest of us that, regardless of who was named on the contract, that a partnership was formed and well know by everyone including the organizations, DWR, and the WB. You sure can waste people's time with your continual drivel.
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
Maybe part of the problem is people NOT showing up at the RAC and WB meetings. Kind of like people not voting and then complaining about who was elected. There are some folks who do show up at the RACs and their proposals or ideas are not put into play. Some understand the process and even though it didn't go their way, they understand its about trying to do the best thing for the MAJORITY of the hunting public and what's best for wildlife in general, not what's best for an individual hunter or group. It used to be that RAC meetings were huge in attendance--partly because Dedicated Hunter participants were required to attend at least one RAC meeting as part of the requirements to participate in the program. Since that was changed the number attending the RAC meetings has decreased significantly. Most of the time it is people that will be affected by a particular item as an individual. Then of course there are the conservation groups that generally show up and present their views. For one I am very thankful for both the conservation groups and the individual folks who come and express their views and present a solution/proposal. One of the most impressive presentations that was made a few years ago was by a group of disabled hunters at our RAC. What they presented is now the basis for how that program is set up. It started at our RAC, went through the WB and was adopted into our hunting regulations. They were not a formal organization, didn't have any name recognition etc. They simply showed up, voiced their views, presented a plan and it worked for them-- because in my opinion, it made sense and it was the right thing to do. I personally do not believe that the folks on the RACs value more what the conservation groups present or individual people. Of, course we all have our own biased ideas but the bottom line is that the RACs need all the information possible from ALL sources in order to make good decisions. Simply put, the RACs make the best decisions they can with the information that is available to them at the time. Most of us really do care.
Maybe part of the problem is people NOT showing up at the RAC and WB meetings. Kind of like people not voting and then complaining about who was elected. There are some folks who do show up at the RACs and their proposals or ideas are not put into play. Some understand the process and even though it didn't go their way, they understand its about trying to do the best thing for the MAJORITY of the hunting public and what's best for wildlife in general, not what's best for an individual hunter or group. It used to be that RAC meetings were huge in attendance--partly because Dedicated Hunter participants were required to attend at least one RAC meeting as part of the requirements to participate in the program. Since that was changed the number attending the RAC meetings has decreased significantly. Most of the time it is people that will be affected by a particular item as an individual. Then of course there are the conservation groups that generally show up and present their views. For one I am very thankful for both the conservation groups and the individual folks who come and express their views and present a solution/proposal. One of the most impressive presentations that was made a few years ago was by a group of disabled hunters at our RAC. What they presented is now the basis for how that program is set up. It started at our RAC, went through the WB and was adopted into our hunting regulations. They were not a formal organization, didn't have any name recognition etc. They simply showed up, voiced their views, presented a plan and it worked for them-- because in my opinion, it made sense and it was the right thing to do. I personally do not believe that the folks on the RACs value more what the conservation groups present or individual people. Of, course we all have our own biased ideas but the bottom line is that the RACs need all the information possible from ALL sources in order to make good decisions. Simply put, the RACs make the best decisions they can with the information that is available to them at the time. Most of us really do care.
Tristate
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,860
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
Topgun,
I never said there wasn't a partnership. I just told you I have no problem whatsoever when people work as partners to get a job done. There is NOTHING unethical about it.
Topgun,
I never said there wasn't a partnership. I just told you I have no problem whatsoever when people work as partners to get a job done. There is NOTHING unethical about it.
Robiland
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,074
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
Nebo,
I used to go to the RAC meeting every year, a couple a year, not all but some when my schooling and work allowed me (College). The reason I went was because of the dedicated hunter program. But I only had to go to one a year. As I went to those meetings, those became a waste of time for me only because I felt like many others, that it was for the special interest groups and that it. Even the ones I went to last year were the same dang thing. A few public people get up, then the 1 or 2 antis show up, and then specifically SFW gets up. Even if the average Joe gets up to talk, with out fail every time, SFW member gets up to smooth things over. The one that always seems to be the last to speak was Troy J. every single time. Same thing at the 2 WB meetings I have attended. Why is it that after everytime its about over, SFW has a member get in the last word with out even filling out a comment card? Every time.
Nebo,
I used to go to the RAC meeting every year, a couple a year, not all but some when my schooling and work allowed me (College). The reason I went was because of the dedicated hunter program. But I only had to go to one a year. As I went to those meetings, those became a waste of time for me only because I felt like many others, that it was for the special interest groups and that it. Even the ones I went to last year were the same dang thing. A few public people get up, then the 1 or 2 antis show up, and then specifically SFW gets up. Even if the average Joe gets up to talk, with out fail every time, SFW member gets up to smooth things over. The one that always seems to be the last to speak was Troy J. every single time. Same thing at the 2 WB meetings I have attended. Why is it that after everytime its about over, SFW has a member get in the last word with out even filling out a comment card? Every time.
Hawkeye
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,014
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
That is a fair comment Richard, and I appreciate your service on the Central RAC. Sportsmen do need to get more involved. However, as I have told you before many sportsmen are frustrated with the RAC and WB process. Right or wrong, they feel like it is a waste of time and nobody listens unless your are affilaited with certain groups. I know that is frustrating to folks like you who serve on those committees and I don't know how to fix that problem.
Plus, how were sportsmen supposed to comment on something like the DWR changing to a formal RFP process when it was never clearly disclosed to the public. The facts are clear: (1) It was not included in the proposed rule amendment presented to the five RAC's in December 2014; (2) It was not included in Kenny's power point presentation presented to the five RAC's in December 2014; (3) It was not clearly disclosed by the DWR at the January 6, 2015 Wildlife Board Meeting where the revised rule was adopted; and (4) it still has not been spelled out in the applicable rule today (R657-55-4). That is very disappointing and frustrating.
Rather than owning up to this obvious mistake, the DWR points to the fact that Kenny Johnson supposedly mentioned that the DWR was moving to the RFP process during August 2015 Board Meeting? Really? He mentioend it on August 27, 2015 -- 4 days before the deadline to submit applications under R657-55-4? 8 months after the amended Expo Tag rule had been adopted by the Wildlife Board? Was the public provided notice on the agenda for that Board Meeting that the DWR would be announcing a significant change to the Expo Tag program? Nope. Did that supposed announcement go out to the RACs in August of 2015? Nope.
Simply put, the change to the formal RFP process was handled very poorly by the DWR. Rather than blowing smoke up our butts, and issuing a one-sided set of 26 FAQ's that does not even address that particular issue, the DWR should just own up to it.
So folks, let's have a discussion regarding how you feel about the RAC and Wildlife Board process. Why don't you get involved? What experiences have you had in the past? How can we improve the process? I know that folks with the DWR are following these threads. Perhaps something positive may come from this discussion.
-Hawkeye-
That is a fair comment Richard, and I appreciate your service on the Central RAC. Sportsmen do need to get more involved. However, as I have told you before many sportsmen are frustrated with the RAC and WB process. Right or wrong, they feel like it is a waste of time and nobody listens unless your are affilaited with certain groups. I know that is frustrating to folks like you who serve on those committees and I don't know how to fix that problem.
Plus, how were sportsmen supposed to comment on something like the DWR changing to a formal RFP process when it was never clearly disclosed to the public. The facts are clear: (1) It was not included in the proposed rule amendment presented to the five RAC's in December 2014; (2) It was not included in Kenny's power point presentation presented to the five RAC's in December 2014; (3) It was not clearly disclosed by the DWR at the January 6, 2015 Wildlife Board Meeting where the revised rule was adopted; and (4) it still has not been spelled out in the applicable rule today (R657-55-4). That is very disappointing and frustrating.
Rather than owning up to this obvious mistake, the DWR points to the fact that Kenny Johnson supposedly mentioned that the DWR was moving to the RFP process during August 2015 Board Meeting? Really? He mentioend it on August 27, 2015 -- 4 days before the deadline to submit applications under R657-55-4? 8 months after the amended Expo Tag rule had been adopted by the Wildlife Board? Was the public provided notice on the agenda for that Board Meeting that the DWR would be announcing a significant change to the Expo Tag program? Nope. Did that supposed announcement go out to the RACs in August of 2015? Nope.
Simply put, the change to the formal RFP process was handled very poorly by the DWR. Rather than blowing smoke up our butts, and issuing a one-sided set of 26 FAQ's that does not even address that particular issue, the DWR should just own up to it.
So folks, let's have a discussion regarding how you feel about the RAC and Wildlife Board process. Why don't you get involved? What experiences have you had in the past? How can we improve the process? I know that folks with the DWR are following these threads. Perhaps something positive may come from this discussion.
-Hawkeye-
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
Don't know why that may be happening. We just are trying to let people express their views. I do know that even just individual folks like to address something after they have originally spoke. Clarifications sometimes are good. I highly value the information that any person has to present. Even if they don't fill out another comment card, the minutes will have their name and any group they are representing. Thanks for coming, your voice means as much as the conservation groups views.
Don't know why that may be happening. We just are trying to let people express their views. I do know that even just individual folks like to address something after they have originally spoke. Clarifications sometimes are good. I highly value the information that any person has to present. Even if they don't fill out another comment card, the minutes will have their name and any group they are representing. Thanks for coming, your voice means as much as the conservation groups views.
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
Deerlove-- the RACs are very well aware that he is getting paid to be there. Still doesn't make his comments any less important or valuable than any one else's in the decision making process
Deerlove-- the RACs are very well aware that he is getting paid to be there. Still doesn't make his comments any less important or valuable than any one else's in the decision making process
Utah400Elk
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,270
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
When I lived in Utah, I had attended numerous RAC meetings and often questioned the willingness of the RACs to listen to the public. This all changed at one RAC meeting.
I was at the central RAC meeting Tony Abbot proposed the Expo (Don was in the audience but was not the person who proposed the expo tags). Many of the central RAC members were SFW members. The general public at that RAC meeting were very outspoken and were not in favor of the Expo tags. As a general person of the public, we were told we would be given a limited amount of time. I took my allotted time and was cut off when I had reached my time limit. The RAC was very careful to limit the average Joe. We were told this was done because of time constraints. Well Don gets up, explains he is not presenting the expo tag proposal and talks with the average Joe's. Don was given five to six times as long as anybody else. He was actually never stopped by the RAC he simply finished he sales pitch. He talked about the benefits to the state, sportsmen and sportswomen and the Utah Wildlife. Odd but he never gave any specifics.
The crowd was getting very heated and they were vocal about their opposition to the expo tags. Well...you guessed it. The RAC voted for the expo. One of the RAC members stated that the SFW RAC members should have recused themselves from the vote but they did not. From that date on, I never attended another RAC meeting. I was very clear to me and many of the members of the audience, that it did not matter what the public felt or wanted. The RAC (dominated by SFW)did whatever they wanted despite the overwhelming opposition.
I believe the apathy in the RAC meetings can be attributed to meeting like that one. The public voices its concern but the RAC did not listen. The public was held to time constraints but SFW/Don were not. The publics concerns took a back seat to SFW/Don's desires. When the public feels like there voice and concern were ignored they stopped participating in the process. For me, I realized the RAC was a waist of time and I never went again.
When I lived in Utah, I had attended numerous RAC meetings and often questioned the willingness of the RACs to listen to the public. This all changed at one RAC meeting.
I was at the central RAC meeting Tony Abbot proposed the Expo (Don was in the audience but was not the person who proposed the expo tags). Many of the central RAC members were SFW members. The general public at that RAC meeting were very outspoken and were not in favor of the Expo tags. As a general person of the public, we were told we would be given a limited amount of time. I took my allotted time and was cut off when I had reached my time limit. The RAC was very careful to limit the average Joe. We were told this was done because of time constraints. Well Don gets up, explains he is not presenting the expo tag proposal and talks with the average Joe's. Don was given five to six times as long as anybody else. He was actually never stopped by the RAC he simply finished he sales pitch. He talked about the benefits to the state, sportsmen and sportswomen and the Utah Wildlife. Odd but he never gave any specifics.
The crowd was getting very heated and they were vocal about their opposition to the expo tags. Well...you guessed it. The RAC voted for the expo. One of the RAC members stated that the SFW RAC members should have recused themselves from the vote but they did not. From that date on, I never attended another RAC meeting. I was very clear to me and many of the members of the audience, that it did not matter what the public felt or wanted. The RAC (dominated by SFW)did whatever they wanted despite the overwhelming opposition.
I believe the apathy in the RAC meetings can be attributed to meeting like that one. The public voices its concern but the RAC did not listen. The public was held to time constraints but SFW/Don were not. The publics concerns took a back seat to SFW/Don's desires. When the public feels like there voice and concern were ignored they stopped participating in the process. For me, I realized the RAC was a waist of time and I never went again.
Robiland
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,074
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
>When I lived in Utah, I
>had attended numerous RAC meetings
>and often questioned the willingness
>of the RACs to listen
>to the public. This
>all changed at one RAC
>meeting.
>
>I was at the central RAC
>meeting Tony Abbot proposed the
>Expo (Don was in the
>audience but was not the
>person who proposed the expo
>tags). Many of the
>central RAC members were SFW
>members. The general public
>at that RAC meeting were
>very outspoken and were not
>in favor of the Expo
>tags. As a general
>person of the public, we
>were told we would be
>given a limited amount of
>time. I took my
>allotted time and was cut
>off when I had reached
>my time limit. The
>RAC was very careful to
>limit the average Joe.
>We were told this was
>done because of time constraints.
> Well Don gets up,
>explains he is not presenting
>the expo tag proposal and
>talks with the average Joe's.
> Don was given five
>to six times as long
>as anybody else. He was
>actually never stopped by the
>RAC he simply finished he
>sales pitch. He talked
>about the benefits to the
>state, sportsmen and sportswomen and
>the Utah Wildlife. Odd
>but he never gave any
>specifics.
>
>The crowd was getting very heated
>and they were vocal about
>their opposition to the expo
>tags. Well...you guessed it.
> The RAC voted for
>the expo. One of
>the RAC members stated that
>the SFW RAC members should
>have recused themselves from the
>vote but they did not.
> From that date on,
>I never attended another RAC
>meeting. I was very
>clear to me and many
>of the members of the
>audience, that it did not
>matter what the public felt
>or wanted. The RAC
>(dominated by SFW)did whatever they
>wanted despite the overwhelming opposition.
>
>
>I believe the apathy in the
>RAC meetings can be attributed
>to meeting like that one.
> The public voices its
>concern but the RAC did
>not listen. The public
>was held to time constraints
>but SFW/Don were not.
>The publics concerns took a
>back seat to SFW/Don's desires.
> When the public feels
>like there voice and concern
>were ignored they stopped participating
>in the process. For
>me, I realized the RAC
>was a waist of time
>and I never went again.
>
Amen, that is exactly how I feel and what I have seen. The special interest groups dont get cut off at all, but the average Joe gets his 3 minutes and not a second more. Cant tell you how many times I have seen that.
>When I lived in Utah, I
>had attended numerous RAC meetings
>and often questioned the willingness
>of the RACs to listen
>to the public. This
>all changed at one RAC
>meeting.
>
>I was at the central RAC
>meeting Tony Abbot proposed the
>Expo (Don was in the
>audience but was not the
>person who proposed the expo
>tags). Many of the
>central RAC members were SFW
>members. The general public
>at that RAC meeting were
>very outspoken and were not
>in favor of the Expo
>tags. As a general
>person of the public, we
>were told we would be
>given a limited amount of
>time. I took my
>allotted time and was cut
>off when I had reached
>my time limit. The
>RAC was very careful to
>limit the average Joe.
>We were told this was
>done because of time constraints.
> Well Don gets up,
>explains he is not presenting
>the expo tag proposal and
>talks with the average Joe's.
> Don was given five
>to six times as long
>as anybody else. He was
>actually never stopped by the
>RAC he simply finished he
>sales pitch. He talked
>about the benefits to the
>state, sportsmen and sportswomen and
>the Utah Wildlife. Odd
>but he never gave any
>specifics.
>
>The crowd was getting very heated
>and they were vocal about
>their opposition to the expo
>tags. Well...you guessed it.
> The RAC voted for
>the expo. One of
>the RAC members stated that
>the SFW RAC members should
>have recused themselves from the
>vote but they did not.
> From that date on,
>I never attended another RAC
>meeting. I was very
>clear to me and many
>of the members of the
>audience, that it did not
>matter what the public felt
>or wanted. The RAC
>(dominated by SFW)did whatever they
>wanted despite the overwhelming opposition.
>
>
>I believe the apathy in the
>RAC meetings can be attributed
>to meeting like that one.
> The public voices its
>concern but the RAC did
>not listen. The public
>was held to time constraints
>but SFW/Don were not.
>The publics concerns took a
>back seat to SFW/Don's desires.
> When the public feels
>like there voice and concern
>were ignored they stopped participating
>in the process. For
>me, I realized the RAC
>was a waist of time
>and I never went again.
>
Amen, that is exactly how I feel and what I have seen. The special interest groups dont get cut off at all, but the average Joe gets his 3 minutes and not a second more. Cant tell you how many times I have seen that.
Utah400Elk
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,270
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
I %100 don't understand your logic.
I %100 don't understand your logic.
heartshot
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,474
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
I saw the same thing in Brigham City the first and only time I went to a RAC. There were a lot of people there because of the Dedicated Hunter Program. More than a dozen people expressed their concerns and were against one of the proposed items. Dozens more in the audience applauded their opposing comments. After hearing all their concerns I agreed with them and was thinking to myself that it would never get passed. Then the very last person to comment did a huge spill on how good it was and then the next thing I knew it was passed. I couldn't believe it. I do not know who that last person was but he did represent a group. I left there thinking that the RAC didn't care a hoot what the bulk of the audience thought.
I saw the same thing in Brigham City the first and only time I went to a RAC. There were a lot of people there because of the Dedicated Hunter Program. More than a dozen people expressed their concerns and were against one of the proposed items. Dozens more in the audience applauded their opposing comments. After hearing all their concerns I agreed with them and was thinking to myself that it would never get passed. Then the very last person to comment did a huge spill on how good it was and then the next thing I knew it was passed. I couldn't believe it. I do not know who that last person was but he did represent a group. I left there thinking that the RAC didn't care a hoot what the bulk of the audience thought.
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
LAST EDITED ON Mar-11-16 AT 02:00PM (MST)[p]This is what chaps my hide.....
The DWR can find meaningful ways to ask hunters about possible rule changes to optics on a muzzleloader for 2016 hunt via questionnaire or by email, or can have a representative call my a$$ about my hunt, but they expect everyone to take a vacation day in the middle of the week to attend a meeting for an opportunity to express outcry about stuff like this?
Absolutely ridiculous!
They don't care what we think.
Lip service is what it is.
Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning
conservation...
"The movement for the conservation of wildlife,
and the conservation of all our natural resources,
are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
method."
"We do not intend that our natural resources shall
be exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural
resources for the public as a whole, for the
average man and the average woman who make
up the body of the American people."
"It is in our power...to preserve game..and to give
reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the
skill of the hunter,whether he is or is not a man of
means."
LAST EDITED ON Mar-11-16 AT 02:00PM (MST)[p]This is what chaps my hide.....
The DWR can find meaningful ways to ask hunters about possible rule changes to optics on a muzzleloader for 2016 hunt via questionnaire or by email, or can have a representative call my a$$ about my hunt, but they expect everyone to take a vacation day in the middle of the week to attend a meeting for an opportunity to express outcry about stuff like this?
Absolutely ridiculous!
They don't care what we think.
Lip service is what it is.
Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning
conservation...
"The movement for the conservation of wildlife,
and the conservation of all our natural resources,
are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
method."
"We do not intend that our natural resources shall
be exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural
resources for the public as a whole, for the
average man and the average woman who make
up the body of the American people."
"It is in our power...to preserve game..and to give
reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the
skill of the hunter,whether he is or is not a man of
means."
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,109
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
LAST EDITED ON Mar-11-16 AT 07:18PM (MST)[p]I hope I can make my point without ticking too many of you off, BUT a few people going to a RAC or Wildlife Board meeting once or twice won't make much of a difference. That's what SFW and some of the other conservation groups are hoping for and that's why a few of them show up almost every time. They don't show up in great numbers (unless they promise to give their members a cap), but they do show up often enough that they are easily recognized and on a first name basis. And they "socialize" with the RAC and WB members before and after the meetings and during any breaks.
Maybe not the first, but one of my earliest Southern Region RAC's was held in Cedar City (I live in Enoch, 6 or 7 miles north) and I sat by myself in the back on a hard school cafeteria chair. I had been posting on the internet (the other forum) with some remarks about opportunity vs. trophy hunts. I don't even think I was a UWC member at the time, let alone an officer. In any case, a gentleman came over and sat beside me on a vacant chair. I don't remember whether or not he said his name, nor do I remember much about the conversation, but I do remember him accusing me of calling him a name on the internet. I assured him it wasn't me since I've never done that. At first he insisted it was me, but later conceded he had made a mistake before he moved on to another seat. I found out later that evening he was a member of SFW. Whether or not that was a set-up I couldn't say for sure. And though it wasn't a pleasant experience, I determined it wouldn't stop me from going back. Nor have any of the other tactics or decisions stopped me from going because I know that those RAC and WB members and their positions change and I never know when something I've said will make an impact or will resonate with future (or even immediate) issues, rules or regulations.
I know it's discouraging, but I know they notice the numbers and the frequency of attendees, even if it becomes troublesome for them. I can assure you, I'm a pain in the rear for some of them, but I've actually been thanked by others. And they sure as heck know my ugly face and shrunken little body and my name! Cheers!
Lee Tracy
UWC
LAST EDITED ON Mar-11-16 AT 07:18PM (MST)[p]I hope I can make my point without ticking too many of you off, BUT a few people going to a RAC or Wildlife Board meeting once or twice won't make much of a difference. That's what SFW and some of the other conservation groups are hoping for and that's why a few of them show up almost every time. They don't show up in great numbers (unless they promise to give their members a cap), but they do show up often enough that they are easily recognized and on a first name basis. And they "socialize" with the RAC and WB members before and after the meetings and during any breaks.
Maybe not the first, but one of my earliest Southern Region RAC's was held in Cedar City (I live in Enoch, 6 or 7 miles north) and I sat by myself in the back on a hard school cafeteria chair. I had been posting on the internet (the other forum) with some remarks about opportunity vs. trophy hunts. I don't even think I was a UWC member at the time, let alone an officer. In any case, a gentleman came over and sat beside me on a vacant chair. I don't remember whether or not he said his name, nor do I remember much about the conversation, but I do remember him accusing me of calling him a name on the internet. I assured him it wasn't me since I've never done that. At first he insisted it was me, but later conceded he had made a mistake before he moved on to another seat. I found out later that evening he was a member of SFW. Whether or not that was a set-up I couldn't say for sure. And though it wasn't a pleasant experience, I determined it wouldn't stop me from going back. Nor have any of the other tactics or decisions stopped me from going because I know that those RAC and WB members and their positions change and I never know when something I've said will make an impact or will resonate with future (or even immediate) issues, rules or regulations.
I know it's discouraging, but I know they notice the numbers and the frequency of attendees, even if it becomes troublesome for them. I can assure you, I'm a pain in the rear for some of them, but I've actually been thanked by others. And they sure as heck know my ugly face and shrunken little body and my name! Cheers!
Lee Tracy
UWC
Hawkeye
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,014
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
FAQ #8 ? Q8: Is there accountability for the use of application fee revenue?
The 2017?2021 expo permit contract recently signed between SFW and the State of Utah clearly states that all of the money raised from expo permit application fees will be used specifically for "policies, programs, projects and personnel that support conservation initiatives in Utah." SFW and its partner, MDF, have committed to annually disclose how 100 percent of these funds are used to benefit Utah wildlife.
RESPONSE:
The question posed in FAQ #8 asks if there is accountability for the use of the application fee revenue from the Expo Tags. Accountability is exactly what sportsmen have been asking for over the last ten years. Rather than answering this question honestly and admitting the shortfalls of the past, the DWR appears to be using a smokescreen in hopes of getting sportsmen off its back. Let me point out a few of the problems with the DWR?s answer to FAQ #8.
First, the DWR fails to acknowledge that they failed to require any accountability for the first six years of the Expo. From 2007 to 2012, the DWR did not require the groups to spend one red cent on actual conservation and there was zero accountability from the Expo Tag revenues. As a result, sportsmen have no clue how the conservation groups spent the $5,436,655 that was raised during those years ? and neither does the DWR. That is simply inexcusable.
Second, the DWR fails to acknowledge that from 2013 until today, the DWR has only required that the groups spend 30% on approved projects. See R657-55-10(3) - http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm. 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. While 30% is better than 0% it is still woefully insufficient given that these revenues are generated from our public tags and were supposed to be used for ?wildlife conservation activities.? R657-55-1. What is even more disappointing is the fact that the DWR was perfectly fine with zero accountability. The only reason that there is a requirement that 30% must be spent on approved projects is because sportsmen threw fit about the lack of accountability and transparency.
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.? See 2016 Contract, Section 7.e.4 ? http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/expo_permit_contract.pdf. The highlighted language referencing ?wildlife conservation initiatives? is new language that was not included in prior contracts between the DWR and the groups. On the surface this sounds great 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.
Fourth, if the DWR was truly concerned about accountability then you would think they would audit the groups? use of the Expo Tag funds. However, there is no requirement in the Expo Tag Rule of the Expo Tag Contract that provides for an audit of the monies raised from the Expo Tags. This is surprising given that the DWR conducts annual audits on the monies the conservation groups raise from Conservation Permits that are auctioned off by the groups. See R657-41-9(6) - http://wildlife.utah.gov/rules-regulations/970-r657-41--conservation-and-sportsman-permits.html. Why doesn't the DWR do the same thing with the Expo Tag revenues?
Fifth, the DWR may attempt to argue that the groups are going to self-report on how they spend the money generated from the Expo Tags. 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, it is important to note that 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 absolutely no audit or reporting requirement in the contract or the rule that applies to the 70% retained by the groups.
Finally, the DWR states that ?SFW and its partner, MDF, have committed to annually disclose how 100 percent of these funds are used to benefit Utah wildlife.? This statement is particularly troubling. The DWR states this as if it is a fact but where is this spelled out in the Expo Tag Contract or the Expo Tag Rule? The answer is there is no binding requirement in the contract (http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/expo_permit_contract.pdf) or the rule (http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm) that requires the groups to annually disclose how 100 percent of these funds are used to benefit Utah wildlife. In fact, that requirement is actually inconsistent with the requirement in the contract and the rule that the groups only have to account for the 30% that is earmarked for approved projects. If the DWR was serious about a 100% reporting rule then why didn't the DWR include that requirement in the contract? Instead, the DWR points us to press releases from SFW and MDF stating that ?we will annually disclose how these funds are utilized to benefit Utah wildlife.? See http://sfw.net/2016/03/02/2492/ and https://muledeer.org/hunting-expo-p...ervation-successes-of-10th-anniversary-event/. Did the new Expo partner (UFNAWS) issue a similar statement? If so, I have not seen it. So rather to including a binding requirement in the contract or rule, the DWR appears to be relying on a nonbinding statement from the groups that they will account for 100% of the Expo Tag proceeds. Let's hope SFW and MDF honor that commitment unlike the commitment that Don Peay made when the Expo Tags were created. See 3/31/2005 Wildlife Board Minutes at 12 (?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."). Time will tell if the public will get burned again as a resulting of leaving that requirement out of the contract. You know the old saying, ?Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.?
In conclusion, the DWR gets an ?F? when it comes to requiring transparency and accountability for the Expo Tag revenues. What little accountability exists today, is the result of sportsmen demanding it. The DWR would be fine with zero accountability and as explained to me they are comfortable ?simply trusting in good faith that the money would be used properly.? Additionally, the DWR did nothing to improve the accountability and transparency for the Expo Tag proceeds in the latest contract. Rather, the DWR is relying on the nonbinding statements from the groups that they will account for 100% of the Expo Tag proceeds. That is not how you watch over public assets. As a result, the DWR?s answer to FAQ #8 sounds great to the uninformed but when you dig into the details it is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
-Hawkeye-
FAQ #8 ? Q8: Is there accountability for the use of application fee revenue?
The 2017?2021 expo permit contract recently signed between SFW and the State of Utah clearly states that all of the money raised from expo permit application fees will be used specifically for "policies, programs, projects and personnel that support conservation initiatives in Utah." SFW and its partner, MDF, have committed to annually disclose how 100 percent of these funds are used to benefit Utah wildlife.
RESPONSE:
The question posed in FAQ #8 asks if there is accountability for the use of the application fee revenue from the Expo Tags. Accountability is exactly what sportsmen have been asking for over the last ten years. Rather than answering this question honestly and admitting the shortfalls of the past, the DWR appears to be using a smokescreen in hopes of getting sportsmen off its back. Let me point out a few of the problems with the DWR?s answer to FAQ #8.
First, the DWR fails to acknowledge that they failed to require any accountability for the first six years of the Expo. From 2007 to 2012, the DWR did not require the groups to spend one red cent on actual conservation and there was zero accountability from the Expo Tag revenues. As a result, sportsmen have no clue how the conservation groups spent the $5,436,655 that was raised during those years ? and neither does the DWR. That is simply inexcusable.
Second, the DWR fails to acknowledge that from 2013 until today, the DWR has only required that the groups spend 30% on approved projects. See R657-55-10(3) - http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm. 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. While 30% is better than 0% it is still woefully insufficient given that these revenues are generated from our public tags and were supposed to be used for ?wildlife conservation activities.? R657-55-1. What is even more disappointing is the fact that the DWR was perfectly fine with zero accountability. The only reason that there is a requirement that 30% must be spent on approved projects is because sportsmen threw fit about the lack of accountability and transparency.
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.? See 2016 Contract, Section 7.e.4 ? http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/expo_permit_contract.pdf. The highlighted language referencing ?wildlife conservation initiatives? is new language that was not included in prior contracts between the DWR and the groups. On the surface this sounds great 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.
Fourth, if the DWR was truly concerned about accountability then you would think they would audit the groups? use of the Expo Tag funds. However, there is no requirement in the Expo Tag Rule of the Expo Tag Contract that provides for an audit of the monies raised from the Expo Tags. This is surprising given that the DWR conducts annual audits on the monies the conservation groups raise from Conservation Permits that are auctioned off by the groups. See R657-41-9(6) - http://wildlife.utah.gov/rules-regulations/970-r657-41--conservation-and-sportsman-permits.html. Why doesn't the DWR do the same thing with the Expo Tag revenues?
Fifth, the DWR may attempt to argue that the groups are going to self-report on how they spend the money generated from the Expo Tags. 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, it is important to note that 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 absolutely no audit or reporting requirement in the contract or the rule that applies to the 70% retained by the groups.
Finally, the DWR states that ?SFW and its partner, MDF, have committed to annually disclose how 100 percent of these funds are used to benefit Utah wildlife.? This statement is particularly troubling. The DWR states this as if it is a fact but where is this spelled out in the Expo Tag Contract or the Expo Tag Rule? The answer is there is no binding requirement in the contract (http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/expo_permit_contract.pdf) or the rule (http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm) that requires the groups to annually disclose how 100 percent of these funds are used to benefit Utah wildlife. In fact, that requirement is actually inconsistent with the requirement in the contract and the rule that the groups only have to account for the 30% that is earmarked for approved projects. If the DWR was serious about a 100% reporting rule then why didn't the DWR include that requirement in the contract? Instead, the DWR points us to press releases from SFW and MDF stating that ?we will annually disclose how these funds are utilized to benefit Utah wildlife.? See http://sfw.net/2016/03/02/2492/ and https://muledeer.org/hunting-expo-p...ervation-successes-of-10th-anniversary-event/. Did the new Expo partner (UFNAWS) issue a similar statement? If so, I have not seen it. So rather to including a binding requirement in the contract or rule, the DWR appears to be relying on a nonbinding statement from the groups that they will account for 100% of the Expo Tag proceeds. Let's hope SFW and MDF honor that commitment unlike the commitment that Don Peay made when the Expo Tags were created. See 3/31/2005 Wildlife Board Minutes at 12 (?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."). Time will tell if the public will get burned again as a resulting of leaving that requirement out of the contract. You know the old saying, ?Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.?
In conclusion, the DWR gets an ?F? when it comes to requiring transparency and accountability for the Expo Tag revenues. What little accountability exists today, is the result of sportsmen demanding it. The DWR would be fine with zero accountability and as explained to me they are comfortable ?simply trusting in good faith that the money would be used properly.? Additionally, the DWR did nothing to improve the accountability and transparency for the Expo Tag proceeds in the latest contract. Rather, the DWR is relying on the nonbinding statements from the groups that they will account for 100% of the Expo Tag proceeds. That is not how you watch over public assets. As a result, the DWR?s answer to FAQ #8 sounds great to the uninformed but when you dig into the details it is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
-Hawkeye-
Hawkeye
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,014
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
FAQ #9 ? Q9: Has the Wildlife Expo Permit Program ever been audited?
Yes, the DWR audits the program annually.
RESPONSE:
FAQ #9 is at best confusing and misleading, and at worst, false. When you read the DWR?s answer you are given the false impression that the DWR has conducted annual audits of the Expo Tag program since the beginning. Moreover, given that the public?s concerns are focused on how the groups are spending the monies generated from the Expo Tags, the DWR?s answer also falsely implies that they have been auditing the expenditures of the groups. Let's look at the real facts.
Over the years, the DWR has conducted certain "Wildlife Convention Audits." The first such audit was conducted in 2010, four years after the Expo began. See https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GMDJfZGZJV0VoXzA. In fact, the 2010 "audit" states that no formal audit was performed in 2007, 2008 or 2009. See 2010 Audit at 1. Therefore, it is simply not true to state or imply that audits have been performed on an annual basis.
More importantly, the "audits" that were performed in the early years did not look at how any of the application fees were spent by the groups. Rather, those early ?audits? only looked at the drawing process, the number of applicants and the amount of money generated from the Expo Tags. See generally 2010 Audit. This is consistent with the prior version R657-55 that merely provided for a ?Wildlife Convention Audit,? which was focused solely on the ?processes used to handle applications for the convention permits and conduct the drawing, and the protocols associated with collecting and using client data.? See R657-55-2(2)(d) - https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01Gd1Fjb1doaElMbUU. As a result, the DWR failed to look at or ?audit? how any of those monies were spent by the groups. Therefore, even in the years when ?audits? were performed between 2007 and 2012, we do not know if any of the money generated from the Expo Tags was spent on actual conservation projects. This is why I used to get so frustrated in the early years when we were discussing the Expo Tags proceeds and the DWR or the groups would claim that there was an annual ?audit.? Yes, there were ?audits? in some years but those ?audits? did not even consider how the money was spent. An ?audit? that doesn't look at expenditures is like a colonoscopy that does not require you to remove your pants -- pointless.
After public outcry reached a climax in 2012, the conservation groups and the DWR agreed that the groups would begin spending 30% on actual conservation starting in 2013 and the rule was amended to require the groups to self-report on the 30% that is earmarked for approved conservation projects. The DWR was also authorized to audit that 30% of the proceeds. The relevant language provides as follows:
?(d) "Wildlife exposition audit" means an annual review by the division of the conservation organization's processes used to handle applications for expo permits and conduct the drawing, the protocols associated with collecting and using client data, the revenue generated from expo permit application fees, and the expenditure of designated expo permit application fee revenue on division-approved projects.? R657-55-2(2)(d).
Since 2013, when the DWR performs its Expo Tag audit, it actually looks at the how the groups have spent the 30% earmarked for approved projects. I have attached a link to the 2015 Expo Tag Audit as an example. Take a minute to review it. It contains some interesting information. See https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GeWZmaUFGZnh6VVU. The 2015 Audit begs the question, however, of why only audit 30% of the Expo Tag revenues. The answer to that question is the DWR and the groups wanted to get the public off their backs but they are not really serious about accountability or transparency.
In summary, FAQ #9 is both confusing and misleading, at best. The DWR fully understands that the public is concerned about how the money is being spent by the groups and that is why we are asking for an audit. Yet, the DWR is more than happy to simply state, "Yes, the DWR audits the program annually.? That statement is false in that audits were not performed in the early years. Plus, the statement is confusing and misleading because in those early years the ?audits? that did occur did not look at expenditures and since 2013 the ?audits? have only really audited 30% of the Expo Tag revenues.
So what do you think? Was the DWR?s response was inadvertently unclear or purposefully misleading?
-Hawkeye-
FAQ #9 ? Q9: Has the Wildlife Expo Permit Program ever been audited?
Yes, the DWR audits the program annually.
RESPONSE:
FAQ #9 is at best confusing and misleading, and at worst, false. When you read the DWR?s answer you are given the false impression that the DWR has conducted annual audits of the Expo Tag program since the beginning. Moreover, given that the public?s concerns are focused on how the groups are spending the monies generated from the Expo Tags, the DWR?s answer also falsely implies that they have been auditing the expenditures of the groups. Let's look at the real facts.
Over the years, the DWR has conducted certain "Wildlife Convention Audits." The first such audit was conducted in 2010, four years after the Expo began. See https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GMDJfZGZJV0VoXzA. In fact, the 2010 "audit" states that no formal audit was performed in 2007, 2008 or 2009. See 2010 Audit at 1. Therefore, it is simply not true to state or imply that audits have been performed on an annual basis.
More importantly, the "audits" that were performed in the early years did not look at how any of the application fees were spent by the groups. Rather, those early ?audits? only looked at the drawing process, the number of applicants and the amount of money generated from the Expo Tags. See generally 2010 Audit. This is consistent with the prior version R657-55 that merely provided for a ?Wildlife Convention Audit,? which was focused solely on the ?processes used to handle applications for the convention permits and conduct the drawing, and the protocols associated with collecting and using client data.? See R657-55-2(2)(d) - https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01Gd1Fjb1doaElMbUU. As a result, the DWR failed to look at or ?audit? how any of those monies were spent by the groups. Therefore, even in the years when ?audits? were performed between 2007 and 2012, we do not know if any of the money generated from the Expo Tags was spent on actual conservation projects. This is why I used to get so frustrated in the early years when we were discussing the Expo Tags proceeds and the DWR or the groups would claim that there was an annual ?audit.? Yes, there were ?audits? in some years but those ?audits? did not even consider how the money was spent. An ?audit? that doesn't look at expenditures is like a colonoscopy that does not require you to remove your pants -- pointless.
After public outcry reached a climax in 2012, the conservation groups and the DWR agreed that the groups would begin spending 30% on actual conservation starting in 2013 and the rule was amended to require the groups to self-report on the 30% that is earmarked for approved conservation projects. The DWR was also authorized to audit that 30% of the proceeds. The relevant language provides as follows:
?(d) "Wildlife exposition audit" means an annual review by the division of the conservation organization's processes used to handle applications for expo permits and conduct the drawing, the protocols associated with collecting and using client data, the revenue generated from expo permit application fees, and the expenditure of designated expo permit application fee revenue on division-approved projects.? R657-55-2(2)(d).
Since 2013, when the DWR performs its Expo Tag audit, it actually looks at the how the groups have spent the 30% earmarked for approved projects. I have attached a link to the 2015 Expo Tag Audit as an example. Take a minute to review it. It contains some interesting information. See https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GeWZmaUFGZnh6VVU. The 2015 Audit begs the question, however, of why only audit 30% of the Expo Tag revenues. The answer to that question is the DWR and the groups wanted to get the public off their backs but they are not really serious about accountability or transparency.
In summary, FAQ #9 is both confusing and misleading, at best. The DWR fully understands that the public is concerned about how the money is being spent by the groups and that is why we are asking for an audit. Yet, the DWR is more than happy to simply state, "Yes, the DWR audits the program annually.? That statement is false in that audits were not performed in the early years. Plus, the statement is confusing and misleading because in those early years the ?audits? that did occur did not look at expenditures and since 2013 the ?audits? have only really audited 30% of the Expo Tag revenues.
So what do you think? Was the DWR?s response was inadvertently unclear or purposefully misleading?
-Hawkeye-
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
DUH, I think on purpose! This FAQ list they put out is really coming back to haunt them, as are the canned letters coming out of their Office and the Governor's Office. Keep the heat on boys!
DUH, I think on purpose! This FAQ list they put out is really coming back to haunt them, as are the canned letters coming out of their Office and the Governor's Office. Keep the heat on boys!
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
Can someone please post a link to SFW proposal. I can't find it. I'd like to read pages 80-114. Supposedly it's somewhere on the inter web. Unless someone was able to get ahold of by GRAMA request from State purchasing dept.
Thanks
Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning
conservation...
"The movement for the conservation of wildlife,
and the conservation of all our natural resources,
are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
method."
"We do not intend that our natural resources shall
be exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural
resources for the public as a whole, for the
average man and the average woman who make
up the body of the American people."
"It is in our power...to preserve game..and to give
reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the
skill of the hunter,whether he is or is not a man of
means."
Can someone please post a link to SFW proposal. I can't find it. I'd like to read pages 80-114. Supposedly it's somewhere on the inter web. Unless someone was able to get ahold of by GRAMA request from State purchasing dept.
Thanks
Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning
conservation...
"The movement for the conservation of wildlife,
and the conservation of all our natural resources,
are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
method."
"We do not intend that our natural resources shall
be exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural
resources for the public as a whole, for the
average man and the average woman who make
up the body of the American people."
"It is in our power...to preserve game..and to give
reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the
skill of the hunter,whether he is or is not a man of
means."
Hawkeye
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,014
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
BillyBob-
This the the link to the SFW proposal from SFW's website: http://sfw.net/data/SFW-200-Expo-Tags-RFP-web.pdf. I was having trouble getting the link to work so I also downloaded the version I received in response to a GRAMA request onto ggogle drive: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GZDBGQVUxZ1FFb1E.
Tell me if you see anything in those pages referenced by Mike Canning (pp. 80-114) that specifically defines what constitutes a "wildlife initiative." Please also let me know if you see any auditing or reporting obligations. What I see is a detailed report of what conservation projects SFW and its parters have funded in the past -- most of which were funded with Conservation Permit revenues instead of Expo Tag revenues. As you know, 90% of the Conservation Permit revenues must be spent on approved projects. As you see on the other link, SFW recievees the majority of the Conservation Permits issued by the DWR so it makes sense that they would fund more projects than the other groups as a result of the 90% requirement.
I also found it curious that SFW redacted information about its use of the $5 application fees on p. 91 of its proposal. Why would that information be considered confidential or proprietary?
I am interested in your thoughts and comments. Post them up once you have reviewed the document. Thanks for following up on this issue.
-Hawkeye-
BillyBob-
This the the link to the SFW proposal from SFW's website: http://sfw.net/data/SFW-200-Expo-Tags-RFP-web.pdf. I was having trouble getting the link to work so I also downloaded the version I received in response to a GRAMA request onto ggogle drive: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GZDBGQVUxZ1FFb1E.
Tell me if you see anything in those pages referenced by Mike Canning (pp. 80-114) that specifically defines what constitutes a "wildlife initiative." Please also let me know if you see any auditing or reporting obligations. What I see is a detailed report of what conservation projects SFW and its parters have funded in the past -- most of which were funded with Conservation Permit revenues instead of Expo Tag revenues. As you know, 90% of the Conservation Permit revenues must be spent on approved projects. As you see on the other link, SFW recievees the majority of the Conservation Permits issued by the DWR so it makes sense that they would fund more projects than the other groups as a result of the 90% requirement.
I also found it curious that SFW redacted information about its use of the $5 application fees on p. 91 of its proposal. Why would that information be considered confidential or proprietary?
I am interested in your thoughts and comments. Post them up once you have reviewed the document. Thanks for following up on this issue.
-Hawkeye-
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
LAST EDITED ON Mar-13-16 AT 09:17PM (MST)[p]Hawkeye,
I have seen this and read it from beginning to end in the past. I was hoping to see what was blacked out. Which is a lot.
Also concerning was the confidentiality of the 5$ use.
It does mention past wildlife initiatives on page 95. But another interesting statement in small print in bottom right corner of page 94 mentions future dispersements of funds will only be used when needed. But a bunch is blacked out above that.
There is no mention of auditing obligations or reporting concerning the expo tag revenue.
Some other items noticed was the number of times the term "200 expo tags" was used. I didn't count but they mention it a billion times. Maybe a selling point.
Also a paragraph blacked out subtitled potential conflict of interest I thought was odd.
They throw a lot of numbers out and most of the funding has come from the conservation permits or private funding. 3.3 million in 2015. But they receive most of the conservation permits.
The wording in the SFW proposal doesn't state "funding personnel". But it does use the words in the January contract.
I'm still confused on how the revenue is "leveraged" (10-1 or even 20-1)in some cases.
Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning
conservation...
"The movement for the conservation of wildlife,
and the conservation of all our natural resources,
are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
method."
"We do not intend that our natural resources shall
be exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural
resources for the public as a whole, for the
average man and the average woman who make
up the body of the American people."
"It is in our power...to preserve game..and to give
reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the
skill of the hunter,whether he is or is not a man of
means."
LAST EDITED ON Mar-13-16 AT 09:17PM (MST)[p]Hawkeye,
I have seen this and read it from beginning to end in the past. I was hoping to see what was blacked out. Which is a lot.
Also concerning was the confidentiality of the 5$ use.
It does mention past wildlife initiatives on page 95. But another interesting statement in small print in bottom right corner of page 94 mentions future dispersements of funds will only be used when needed. But a bunch is blacked out above that.
There is no mention of auditing obligations or reporting concerning the expo tag revenue.
Some other items noticed was the number of times the term "200 expo tags" was used. I didn't count but they mention it a billion times. Maybe a selling point.
Also a paragraph blacked out subtitled potential conflict of interest I thought was odd.
They throw a lot of numbers out and most of the funding has come from the conservation permits or private funding. 3.3 million in 2015. But they receive most of the conservation permits.
The wording in the SFW proposal doesn't state "funding personnel". But it does use the words in the January contract.
I'm still confused on how the revenue is "leveraged" (10-1 or even 20-1)in some cases.
Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning
conservation...
"The movement for the conservation of wildlife,
and the conservation of all our natural resources,
are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
method."
"We do not intend that our natural resources shall
be exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural
resources for the public as a whole, for the
average man and the average woman who make
up the body of the American people."
"It is in our power...to preserve game..and to give
reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the
skill of the hunter,whether he is or is not a man of
means."
Hawkeye
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,014
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
FAQ #10 ? Q10: Why was a Request for Proposals process used to award the expo permit contract for the 2017?2021 timeframe?
The expo organizer performs a service for the DWR by administering the expo permit drawing and attracting a large wildlife exposition to the state. When a state agency wants to contract for services, it's required to follow the provisions of state procurement laws. The state procurement process is overseen by the Division of State Purchasing and General Services (State Purchasing).
The DWR worked with State Purchasing to issue a formal Request for Proposals (RFP) that was publically distributed and then analyzed by an impartial evaluation committee. An RFP provides a clear set of minimum requirements as well as the scoring criteria that are used to evaluate each proposal. This allows applicants to understand what is important to include in their proposals and how the proposals will be judged.
RESPONSE:
In FAQ #10, the DWR states that ?The expo organizer performs a service for the DWR by administering the expo permit drawing and attracting a large wildlife exposition to the state.? While one of the purposes for the Expo Tags as set forth in R657-55-1 is to attract a wildlife exposition to the state, the DWR has continually ignores the other express purpose which is to ?generate revenues for wildlife conservation activities.? See http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm. As explained prior posts, nobody will dispute that SFW and MDF have attracted a wildlife exposition to the state. The question is whether the nearly $10 million in application fee revenues have been used for ?wildlife conservation activities.?
The main thrust of FAQ #10 is the DWR?s suggestion that under ?state procurement laws? it was required to use the formal RFP process to award the latest five-year Expo Tag Contract, and that it worked with the Division of Purchasing to do so. In other words, the DWR is saying that it was required to move to a formal RFP process, a move which is directly inconsistent with the informal application process set forth in R657-55-4, in order to comply with some separate state procurement statute. There are multiple problems with this position, including the following:
First, I don't believe there is any real conflict between the DWR's administrative rule and the state procurement code. Why hasn't the DWR identified the specific state statute that supposedly required them to move to a formal RFP process? And if there is such a statute, why did the DWR just learn about it now ? 10 years after the Expo Tags were created? The fact is the DWR has relied upon the process set forth in its rule (which is already an informal RFP process) to award to two prior five-year contracts. If what they are saying is true then the DWR violated the state procurement code for 10 years. Why the sudden change now? Where is the alleged conflict? It makes no sense.
Second, assuming what the DWR is saying is true, there did not need to be any conflict between the DWR's administrative rule and the state procurement code. As you will recall, the DWR just amended its rule in January 2015. If the DWR wanted to change the process then it had a perfect opportunity to do so in the January 2015 rule amendment. All it had to do was remove the prior application process from the rule and spell out that the DWR would be issuing a formal RFP through the Division of Purchasing. See R657-55-4. If the DWR truly discussed all of this with several conservation groups in an informal meeting in October 2014, then there is no reason why they could not have incorporated the formal RFP process into the proposed rule amendment that went out to the RACs in December 2014 and the Wildlife Board in January 2015. In summary, there was absolutely no reason to have any conflict between the DWR's rule and some other supposed state statute. In essence, what the DWR is saying is "we created a conflict between our rule and another statute and now we are relying on that alleged conflict to violate our own rule."
Third, the DWR is ignoring the binding effect of their own administrative rules. This is very important. The Utah Department of Administrative Services Division of Administrative Rules is the state agency that is responsible for publishing the administrative rules for every Utah state agency, including the DWR. On their website (http://www.rules.utah.gov/abtrules.htm), they include a brief explanation as to the purpose of administrative rules. Take a minute and read it when you have a chance. It states the following:
"DUAL PURPOSE OF ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
An administrative rule serves at least two purposes. First, a properly enacted administrative rule has the binding effect of law. Therefore, a rule affects our lives as much as a statute passed by the legislature, restricting individuals AND the agency that issues it.
Second, an administrative rule is a messenger of sorts. It informs citizens of actions a state government agency will take or how a state agency will conduct its business. It provides citizens the opportunity to respond -- whether by providing public comment, or becoming involved in some other way."
That is the summary/explanation provided by the State of Utah. Those are their own words. That means that the application process set forth by the DWR in R657-55 has the "binding effect of law" just as much as some other statute passed by the legislature and it binds "the agency that issue it." So much for the DWR's explanation that they suddenly became aware of some statute that requires them to violate their rule.
The second point is also critical. The DWR communicates with the public (and conservation groups) through its administrative rules. That is how the DWR informs the public (and conservation groups) as to how actions it "will take or how will conduct its business." As I have explained to the DWR, RMEF had no obligation to attend the DWR's private meeting in October 2014 and what may or may not have been "mentioned" at the meeting is completely irrelevant. RMEF also had no duty to inform the DWR that they might be interested in applying for the next Expo tag contract. The DWR was bound by the process set forth in its administrative rule and that is how the DWR is supposed to communicate with the public.
I would also like to point out that although the DWR may have worked with the Division of Purchasing to prepare the formal RFP, the DWR is the agency that determined the criteria to be included in the RFP and how to score those criteria. The Division of Purchasing?s role was to provide support with the preparation of the RFP and to administer the RFP process. The DWR should accept responsibility for the decision to move a formal RFP process, for failing to adequately communicate that change, and for the format and scoring criteria included in that RFP.
At the end of the day, I have no issue with the DWR?s decision to move to a formal RFP process. However, if the DWR was truly contemplating that decision in late 2014 then it should have included that change its in January 2015 rule amendment so that everyone was aware of the change and there would have been no conflict between the DWR?s own administrative rule (R657-55-4) and the actions taken by the DWR.
I will discuss the format of the RFP and the makeup of the selection committee in later posts.
-Hawkeye-
FAQ #10 ? Q10: Why was a Request for Proposals process used to award the expo permit contract for the 2017?2021 timeframe?
The expo organizer performs a service for the DWR by administering the expo permit drawing and attracting a large wildlife exposition to the state. When a state agency wants to contract for services, it's required to follow the provisions of state procurement laws. The state procurement process is overseen by the Division of State Purchasing and General Services (State Purchasing).
The DWR worked with State Purchasing to issue a formal Request for Proposals (RFP) that was publically distributed and then analyzed by an impartial evaluation committee. An RFP provides a clear set of minimum requirements as well as the scoring criteria that are used to evaluate each proposal. This allows applicants to understand what is important to include in their proposals and how the proposals will be judged.
RESPONSE:
In FAQ #10, the DWR states that ?The expo organizer performs a service for the DWR by administering the expo permit drawing and attracting a large wildlife exposition to the state.? While one of the purposes for the Expo Tags as set forth in R657-55-1 is to attract a wildlife exposition to the state, the DWR has continually ignores the other express purpose which is to ?generate revenues for wildlife conservation activities.? See http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm. As explained prior posts, nobody will dispute that SFW and MDF have attracted a wildlife exposition to the state. The question is whether the nearly $10 million in application fee revenues have been used for ?wildlife conservation activities.?
The main thrust of FAQ #10 is the DWR?s suggestion that under ?state procurement laws? it was required to use the formal RFP process to award the latest five-year Expo Tag Contract, and that it worked with the Division of Purchasing to do so. In other words, the DWR is saying that it was required to move to a formal RFP process, a move which is directly inconsistent with the informal application process set forth in R657-55-4, in order to comply with some separate state procurement statute. There are multiple problems with this position, including the following:
First, I don't believe there is any real conflict between the DWR's administrative rule and the state procurement code. Why hasn't the DWR identified the specific state statute that supposedly required them to move to a formal RFP process? And if there is such a statute, why did the DWR just learn about it now ? 10 years after the Expo Tags were created? The fact is the DWR has relied upon the process set forth in its rule (which is already an informal RFP process) to award to two prior five-year contracts. If what they are saying is true then the DWR violated the state procurement code for 10 years. Why the sudden change now? Where is the alleged conflict? It makes no sense.
Second, assuming what the DWR is saying is true, there did not need to be any conflict between the DWR's administrative rule and the state procurement code. As you will recall, the DWR just amended its rule in January 2015. If the DWR wanted to change the process then it had a perfect opportunity to do so in the January 2015 rule amendment. All it had to do was remove the prior application process from the rule and spell out that the DWR would be issuing a formal RFP through the Division of Purchasing. See R657-55-4. If the DWR truly discussed all of this with several conservation groups in an informal meeting in October 2014, then there is no reason why they could not have incorporated the formal RFP process into the proposed rule amendment that went out to the RACs in December 2014 and the Wildlife Board in January 2015. In summary, there was absolutely no reason to have any conflict between the DWR's rule and some other supposed state statute. In essence, what the DWR is saying is "we created a conflict between our rule and another statute and now we are relying on that alleged conflict to violate our own rule."
Third, the DWR is ignoring the binding effect of their own administrative rules. This is very important. The Utah Department of Administrative Services Division of Administrative Rules is the state agency that is responsible for publishing the administrative rules for every Utah state agency, including the DWR. On their website (http://www.rules.utah.gov/abtrules.htm), they include a brief explanation as to the purpose of administrative rules. Take a minute and read it when you have a chance. It states the following:
"DUAL PURPOSE OF ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
An administrative rule serves at least two purposes. First, a properly enacted administrative rule has the binding effect of law. Therefore, a rule affects our lives as much as a statute passed by the legislature, restricting individuals AND the agency that issues it.
Second, an administrative rule is a messenger of sorts. It informs citizens of actions a state government agency will take or how a state agency will conduct its business. It provides citizens the opportunity to respond -- whether by providing public comment, or becoming involved in some other way."
That is the summary/explanation provided by the State of Utah. Those are their own words. That means that the application process set forth by the DWR in R657-55 has the "binding effect of law" just as much as some other statute passed by the legislature and it binds "the agency that issue it." So much for the DWR's explanation that they suddenly became aware of some statute that requires them to violate their rule.
The second point is also critical. The DWR communicates with the public (and conservation groups) through its administrative rules. That is how the DWR informs the public (and conservation groups) as to how actions it "will take or how will conduct its business." As I have explained to the DWR, RMEF had no obligation to attend the DWR's private meeting in October 2014 and what may or may not have been "mentioned" at the meeting is completely irrelevant. RMEF also had no duty to inform the DWR that they might be interested in applying for the next Expo tag contract. The DWR was bound by the process set forth in its administrative rule and that is how the DWR is supposed to communicate with the public.
I would also like to point out that although the DWR may have worked with the Division of Purchasing to prepare the formal RFP, the DWR is the agency that determined the criteria to be included in the RFP and how to score those criteria. The Division of Purchasing?s role was to provide support with the preparation of the RFP and to administer the RFP process. The DWR should accept responsibility for the decision to move a formal RFP process, for failing to adequately communicate that change, and for the format and scoring criteria included in that RFP.
At the end of the day, I have no issue with the DWR?s decision to move to a formal RFP process. However, if the DWR was truly contemplating that decision in late 2014 then it should have included that change its in January 2015 rule amendment so that everyone was aware of the change and there would have been no conflict between the DWR?s own administrative rule (R657-55-4) and the actions taken by the DWR.
I will discuss the format of the RFP and the makeup of the selection committee in later posts.
-Hawkeye-
Tristate
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,860
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
You are cutting and pasting words again to satisfy your agenda. The expo tags are part of a larger business plan which makes a lot more than the $10 million dollars you claim for ?wildlife conservation activities.? Plus it deflects many sportsmen's claims that the expo is soley for the purpose of wealthy individuals. It offers more chances hunting opportunities to anyone that has $5 of discretionary income. You keep using the description of a business model to fight one tiny piece of a plan. That's not logical.
You are cutting and pasting words again to satisfy your agenda. The expo tags are part of a larger business plan which makes a lot more than the $10 million dollars you claim for ?wildlife conservation activities.? Plus it deflects many sportsmen's claims that the expo is soley for the purpose of wealthy individuals. It offers more chances hunting opportunities to anyone that has $5 of discretionary income. You keep using the description of a business model to fight one tiny piece of a plan. That's not logical.
Robiland
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,074
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
>You are cutting and pasting words
>again to satisfy your agenda.
> The expo tags are
>part of a larger business
>plan which makes a lot
>more than the $10 million
>dollars you claim for ?wildlife
>conservation activities.? Plus it
>deflects many sportsmen's claims that
>the expo is soley for
>the purpose of wealthy individuals.
> It offers more chances
>hunting opportunities to anyone that
>has $5 of discretionary income.
> You keep using the
>description of a business model
>to fight one tiny piece
>of a plan. That's
>not logical.
I %100 thought that maybe somebody had given up on his lost cause or even maybe he got a hint he made %0 common cents/sense. But at A.m. 7:48, SOMEBODY chimed in. So much for that hope of mine.
>You are cutting and pasting words
>again to satisfy your agenda.
> The expo tags are
>part of a larger business
>plan which makes a lot
>more than the $10 million
>dollars you claim for ?wildlife
>conservation activities.? Plus it
>deflects many sportsmen's claims that
>the expo is soley for
>the purpose of wealthy individuals.
> It offers more chances
>hunting opportunities to anyone that
>has $5 of discretionary income.
> You keep using the
>description of a business model
>to fight one tiny piece
>of a plan. That's
>not logical.
I %100 thought that maybe somebody had given up on his lost cause or even maybe he got a hint he made %0 common cents/sense. But at A.m. 7:48, SOMEBODY chimed in. So much for that hope of mine.
Hawkeye
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,014
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
Tritroll-
As stated in the first paragraph of my response, the Expo Tags were created for 2 purposes: "generating revenue to fund wildlife conservation activities in Utah and attracting and supporting a regional or national wildlife exposition in Utah." R657-55-1(2) - http://wildlife.utah.gov/rules-regulations/981-r657-55--wildlife-convention-permits.html. The DWR and the groups like to focus on the second purpose stated in the rule and ignore the first purpose -- "generating revenue to fund wildlife conservation activities in Utah."
Thus, there is nothing illogical or unclear about what I posted. Rather, your reading comprehension skills have failed you yet again.
-Hawkeye-
Tritroll-
As stated in the first paragraph of my response, the Expo Tags were created for 2 purposes: "generating revenue to fund wildlife conservation activities in Utah and attracting and supporting a regional or national wildlife exposition in Utah." R657-55-1(2) - http://wildlife.utah.gov/rules-regulations/981-r657-55--wildlife-convention-permits.html. The DWR and the groups like to focus on the second purpose stated in the rule and ignore the first purpose -- "generating revenue to fund wildlife conservation activities in Utah."
Thus, there is nothing illogical or unclear about what I posted. Rather, your reading comprehension skills have failed you yet again.
-Hawkeye-
Tristate
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,860
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
If someone uses a raffle of any type to attract a wide demographic of people to join and spend money on an even greater scale, on funds specifically ear marked for conservation, THAT IS GENERATING REVENUE TO FUND CONSERVATION ACTIVITIES. Arguing that is completely illogical. That's like saying the McDonalds monopoly game doesn't sell hamburgers.
Lets look at scratch off lottery tickets. Do you ever see a store that only sells lottery tickets? NO. Do you see stores that sell lottery tickets but do not receive compensation for doing so? NO! Which do you think the convenience store AND THE GOVERNMENT, makes more money selling, booze and cigarettes or lottery tickets? Does the government even try and tell them how they can spend their portion? HECK NO!
So here is a very similar business model. Convenience stores get to sell lottery tickets, a state asset, and make money off of the sail, and they don't have to turn in an annual audit for the percentage which they get to keep. All the while getting people to enter their store and buy the items which they make the most money on. The state supplies them with advertising signage AND EVEN ADVERTISES ON TV RADIO AND INTERNET.
The state assembled a business plan and you figure if you deconstruct one portion of the model the entire thing will crater. Not going to happen.
If someone uses a raffle of any type to attract a wide demographic of people to join and spend money on an even greater scale, on funds specifically ear marked for conservation, THAT IS GENERATING REVENUE TO FUND CONSERVATION ACTIVITIES. Arguing that is completely illogical. That's like saying the McDonalds monopoly game doesn't sell hamburgers.
Lets look at scratch off lottery tickets. Do you ever see a store that only sells lottery tickets? NO. Do you see stores that sell lottery tickets but do not receive compensation for doing so? NO! Which do you think the convenience store AND THE GOVERNMENT, makes more money selling, booze and cigarettes or lottery tickets? Does the government even try and tell them how they can spend their portion? HECK NO!
So here is a very similar business model. Convenience stores get to sell lottery tickets, a state asset, and make money off of the sail, and they don't have to turn in an annual audit for the percentage which they get to keep. All the while getting people to enter their store and buy the items which they make the most money on. The state supplies them with advertising signage AND EVEN ADVERTISES ON TV RADIO AND INTERNET.
The state assembled a business plan and you figure if you deconstruct one portion of the model the entire thing will crater. Not going to happen.
Hawkeye
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,014
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
LAST EDITED ON Mar-14-16 AT 12:56PM (MST)[p]Slow down cowboy. You said: "If someone uses a raffle of any type to attract a wide demographic of people to join and spend money on an even greater scale, on funds specifically ear marked for conservation, THAT IS GENERATING REVENUE TO FUND CONSERVATION ACTIVITIES."
So tell me what portion of the funds are or have been "specifically earmarked for conservation"?
-Hawkeye-
LAST EDITED ON Mar-14-16 AT 12:56PM (MST)[p]Slow down cowboy. You said: "If someone uses a raffle of any type to attract a wide demographic of people to join and spend money on an even greater scale, on funds specifically ear marked for conservation, THAT IS GENERATING REVENUE TO FUND CONSERVATION ACTIVITIES."
So tell me what portion of the funds are or have been "specifically earmarked for conservation"?
-Hawkeye-
Hawkeye
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,014
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
So assuming that you are comfortable with the 30% requirement that exists today (which most of us are not), then what was the purpose of the Expo tags for the first six years (2007-2012) when zero percent was "specifically earmarked for conservation" -- to use your words?
-Hawkeye-
So assuming that you are comfortable with the 30% requirement that exists today (which most of us are not), then what was the purpose of the Expo tags for the first six years (2007-2012) when zero percent was "specifically earmarked for conservation" -- to use your words?
-Hawkeye-
Tristate
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,860
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
The %100 that they didn't have any issue giving to a conservation org.
Now I answered your questions, let me ask you something. What do you think would happen if they let you run an "audit" and you discovered they used %100 of their money traveling around going hunting?
The %100 that they didn't have any issue giving to a conservation org.
Now I answered your questions, let me ask you something. What do you think would happen if they let you run an "audit" and you discovered they used %100 of their money traveling around going hunting?
Tristate
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,860
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
Don't start dodging my question. You understand what I wrote.
I will simplify my question. If YOU knew %100 of the money was spent on the members of SFW going on Hunting trips what would happen?
Don't start dodging my question. You understand what I wrote.
I will simplify my question. If YOU knew %100 of the money was spent on the members of SFW going on Hunting trips what would happen?
Hawkeye
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,014
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
First, Hawkeye asked: "So assuming that you are comfortable with the 30% requirement that exists today (which most of us are not), then what was the purpose of the Expo tags for the first six years (2007-2012) when zero percent was "specifically earmarked for conservation" -- to use your words?"
Tristate answered: "The %100 that they didn't have any issue giving to a conservation org."
Please decipher what you are trying to say. Your "answer" makes absolutely no sense and fails to respond to my question.
Second, Tristate asked: "What do you think would happen if they let you run an "audit" and you discovered they used %100 of their money traveling around going hunting?"
Hawkeye's answer assuming that he correctly understands the poorly worded question: Let's be clear that I would never "run an audit." I am not a CPA nor an I qualified to perform any such audit. However, perhaps you are asking what would happen if the DWR or the State Legislative Auditor ran an audit and determined that SFW and MDF spent 100% (or %100 as you like to say) of the $5 application fees sending its employees around the globe on hunting trips? If that were to occur, then I think sportsmen as a whole would be pissed -- except for the same few loyal SFW defenders. We were told that the application fee revenues would be used for "wildlife conservation activities." However, I have to admit that the groups could still make an argument that they were entitled to do this for the first 6 years since the DWR dropped the ball on including any auditing or earmarking requirements. And frankly, the groups could still make an argument today that they can spend the 70% traveling around the globe on hunting trips and somehow that supports the undefined "conservation initiatives" referenced in the latest contract.
-Hawkeye-
First, Hawkeye asked: "So assuming that you are comfortable with the 30% requirement that exists today (which most of us are not), then what was the purpose of the Expo tags for the first six years (2007-2012) when zero percent was "specifically earmarked for conservation" -- to use your words?"
Tristate answered: "The %100 that they didn't have any issue giving to a conservation org."
Please decipher what you are trying to say. Your "answer" makes absolutely no sense and fails to respond to my question.
Second, Tristate asked: "What do you think would happen if they let you run an "audit" and you discovered they used %100 of their money traveling around going hunting?"
Hawkeye's answer assuming that he correctly understands the poorly worded question: Let's be clear that I would never "run an audit." I am not a CPA nor an I qualified to perform any such audit. However, perhaps you are asking what would happen if the DWR or the State Legislative Auditor ran an audit and determined that SFW and MDF spent 100% (or %100 as you like to say) of the $5 application fees sending its employees around the globe on hunting trips? If that were to occur, then I think sportsmen as a whole would be pissed -- except for the same few loyal SFW defenders. We were told that the application fee revenues would be used for "wildlife conservation activities." However, I have to admit that the groups could still make an argument that they were entitled to do this for the first 6 years since the DWR dropped the ball on including any auditing or earmarking requirements. And frankly, the groups could still make an argument today that they can spend the 70% traveling around the globe on hunting trips and somehow that supports the undefined "conservation initiatives" referenced in the latest contract.
-Hawkeye-
Tristate
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,860
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
"The %100 that they didn't have any issue giving to a conservation org."
I have looked at this again and all I can figure is that you don't understand that when I say "they" I am referring to the Utah DWR.
Second thank you for actually answering my question. Here is my problem. You have spent years on this forum and YOU desire the state to spend time and money auditing $750k so at best, in your words, "sportsmen as a whole would be pissed". You have to be kidding right? That's the end game for you???? Lets see if we can make a lot of sportsmen pissed????
"The %100 that they didn't have any issue giving to a conservation org."
I have looked at this again and all I can figure is that you don't understand that when I say "they" I am referring to the Utah DWR.
Second thank you for actually answering my question. Here is my problem. You have spent years on this forum and YOU desire the state to spend time and money auditing $750k so at best, in your words, "sportsmen as a whole would be pissed". You have to be kidding right? That's the end game for you???? Lets see if we can make a lot of sportsmen pissed????
Hawkeye
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,014
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
Sorry Tristate. Trying to communicate with you about these issues is like trying to explain them to my four-year old son. It is above his pay grade for the time being. The good news is he is young and only in pre-school. Your "answer" to my question is Post #163 is illogical and unintelligble. I hereby surrender and give up hope that you can or will respond in a way that makes any sense at all.
Your question as to what would happen if we found out that SFW had blown millions in application fees on wine, women and song is an interesting hypothetical? As I said before, I don't know what would happen. I do know that sportsmen would be pissed. Would the DWR, the Wildlife Board or the governor care? Probably not. Would the groups finally take steps to address the problem? I do not know. But the point is that an audit would allow us to pull back the curtain and shine a light on the problem. Until you know what it actually occurring (diagnose the problem), it is difficult to fix the problem.
-Hawkeye-
Sorry Tristate. Trying to communicate with you about these issues is like trying to explain them to my four-year old son. It is above his pay grade for the time being. The good news is he is young and only in pre-school. Your "answer" to my question is Post #163 is illogical and unintelligble. I hereby surrender and give up hope that you can or will respond in a way that makes any sense at all.
Your question as to what would happen if we found out that SFW had blown millions in application fees on wine, women and song is an interesting hypothetical? As I said before, I don't know what would happen. I do know that sportsmen would be pissed. Would the DWR, the Wildlife Board or the governor care? Probably not. Would the groups finally take steps to address the problem? I do not know. But the point is that an audit would allow us to pull back the curtain and shine a light on the problem. Until you know what it actually occurring (diagnose the problem), it is difficult to fix the problem.
-Hawkeye-
Tristate
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,860
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
Hawkeye,
You know what my answer was and you are to scared to go further because you know it strips away what credibility you think you have. I like how now you have twisted my words to say I was asking a hypothetical based on "wine women and song" which I never said. But facts mean little in your crusade to "get most sportsmen pissed"
Hawkeye,
You know what my answer was and you are to scared to go further because you know it strips away what credibility you think you have. I like how now you have twisted my words to say I was asking a hypothetical based on "wine women and song" which I never said. But facts mean little in your crusade to "get most sportsmen pissed"
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
LAST EDITED ON Mar-14-16 AT 05:54PM (MST)[p]Now he has the balls to talk about Hawkeye lacking credibility, LOL! This guy has to be the troll of all trolls on the internet! The only good thing coming from him posting is that he keeps these threads going so more and more of the people coming on board can learn the facts that Hawkeye posts.
LAST EDITED ON Mar-14-16 AT 05:54PM (MST)[p]Now he has the balls to talk about Hawkeye lacking credibility, LOL! This guy has to be the troll of all trolls on the internet! The only good thing coming from him posting is that he keeps these threads going so more and more of the people coming on board can learn the facts that Hawkeye posts.
Tristate
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,860
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
I hope people do see this thread. It shows that Hawkeye has failed to grasp reality. The "facts" are he demands that the government spend time and money in a government audit which Hawkeye himself expects nothing more than to "piss" off sportsmen.
I hope people do see this thread. It shows that Hawkeye has failed to grasp reality. The "facts" are he demands that the government spend time and money in a government audit which Hawkeye himself expects nothing more than to "piss" off sportsmen.
Hawkeye
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,014
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
No, actually I would hope for much more than merely pissing people off. I want to see this problem fixed. Unfortunately, the groups, the DWR, the Wildlife Board and many of our politicians could care less. Therefore, educating sportsmen is the first step to finding a solution. I am assuming this all just went over your head but others sportsmen will understand. Ironically, your knuckle-headed posts actually help highlight the problem and the absurdity of the other side's position, especially since SFW members have been instructed to stay off these threads. Thanks for posting.
-Hawkeye-
No, actually I would hope for much more than merely pissing people off. I want to see this problem fixed. Unfortunately, the groups, the DWR, the Wildlife Board and many of our politicians could care less. Therefore, educating sportsmen is the first step to finding a solution. I am assuming this all just went over your head but others sportsmen will understand. Ironically, your knuckle-headed posts actually help highlight the problem and the absurdity of the other side's position, especially since SFW members have been instructed to stay off these threads. Thanks for posting.
-Hawkeye-
Tristate
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,860
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
And now you crawfish.
So if your last answer was dishonest let's go ahead and hear your real answer. If you got your way and the state paid for an audit that said all the past moneys from the expo tags paid for nothing but hunting trips what would you like to see happen?
And now you crawfish.
So if your last answer was dishonest let's go ahead and hear your real answer. If you got your way and the state paid for an audit that said all the past moneys from the expo tags paid for nothing but hunting trips what would you like to see happen?
wileywapati
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,808
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
TriTip, until the last few years there is nothing legally that could be done from an expo contract angle.
There was no law saying any money from these fees had to go anywhere but back to the organizers.
Now, you being the welfare Capitalist that you are, would see no problem with these leech orgs being lip locked on a public resource teat. Sportsmen see it different.
Whether you are just that thick in the head, or too prideful to admit that public resources shouldn't be used by supposed conservative businessmen in this fashion we'll probably never know.
Either way, there was an alternative, and just like always in a good crony / welfare Capitalist system the profit was privatized while the loss was public.
"WE USED TO HUNT GAME TO
MANAGE, NOW WE MANAGE TO
HUNT"
Finn 2/14/16
TriTip, until the last few years there is nothing legally that could be done from an expo contract angle.
There was no law saying any money from these fees had to go anywhere but back to the organizers.
Now, you being the welfare Capitalist that you are, would see no problem with these leech orgs being lip locked on a public resource teat. Sportsmen see it different.
Whether you are just that thick in the head, or too prideful to admit that public resources shouldn't be used by supposed conservative businessmen in this fashion we'll probably never know.
Either way, there was an alternative, and just like always in a good crony / welfare Capitalist system the profit was privatized while the loss was public.
"WE USED TO HUNT GAME TO
MANAGE, NOW WE MANAGE TO
HUNT"
Finn 2/14/16
shotgunjim
Active Member
- Messages
- 967
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
Is this Tridrok guy for real?
Hawkeye keeps kicking this guys arse in every argument this guy starts and all this guy can do is squirm like a worm and twist Hawkeyes words around like a 6 year old.
Dorkstate, do you spend hours everyday defending SFW, because of your support for SFW or your hatred for Hawkeye?
No estas en mexico ahora, entonces escoja tu basura
chancho sucio.
Is this Tridrok guy for real?
Hawkeye keeps kicking this guys arse in every argument this guy starts and all this guy can do is squirm like a worm and twist Hawkeyes words around like a 6 year old.
Dorkstate, do you spend hours everyday defending SFW, because of your support for SFW or your hatred for Hawkeye?
No estas en mexico ahora, entonces escoja tu basura
chancho sucio.
Tristate
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,860
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
Well that's when you know Hawkeye is getting whooped a bunch of know nothings come out calling people names. But lets stay on target with this conversation.
Hawkeye replied "Fix the problem."
What's the problem? How do you fix it? What gives you the right to "fix it". Just like you want answers out of SFW and the DWR, I WANT ANSWERS OUT OF YOU. I want to see a realistic plan that shows you don't want to wantonly blow tax payer money on an audit that is nothing more than a character sword.
Well that's when you know Hawkeye is getting whooped a bunch of know nothings come out calling people names. But lets stay on target with this conversation.
Hawkeye replied "Fix the problem."
What's the problem? How do you fix it? What gives you the right to "fix it". Just like you want answers out of SFW and the DWR, I WANT ANSWERS OUT OF YOU. I want to see a realistic plan that shows you don't want to wantonly blow tax payer money on an audit that is nothing more than a character sword.
Hawkeye
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,014
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
Tristate-
You have been following and trolling these threads for years, and yet you still don't understand: (1) what the problem is; (2) how to fix it; and (3) what gives me or anyone else from the public a right to ask to have it fixed. Sorry, but nobody is that stupid. If you don't understand what we are discussing then move on over to pbskids.com and let us adults carry on with our grown-up discussion.
-Hawkeye-
Tristate-
You have been following and trolling these threads for years, and yet you still don't understand: (1) what the problem is; (2) how to fix it; and (3) what gives me or anyone else from the public a right to ask to have it fixed. Sorry, but nobody is that stupid. If you don't understand what we are discussing then move on over to pbskids.com and let us adults carry on with our grown-up discussion.
-Hawkeye-
Tristate
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,860
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
Actually Hawkeye you won't define those things. I know what you say the problem is. But the DWR fixed that problem and you still are whining about it. SO now the new problem is you want them to go back and "audit" the old problem. BUT YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY CAN DO WITH THE RESULTS OF THE AUDIT. Previously you thought the purpose of the audit was to "piss" people off. Once you realized the silliness of forcing the government to pay for an audit to "piss" people off you crawfished on that. Which is good. But now you can't say what you would want to happen. Yes I do have the right to ask you what gives you the right to demand in vague terms something "get fixed" when you don't know what that means nor can you prove that anyone violated a contract between the state and these conservation orgs. FIX WHAT? Even if these guys spent all the money going hunting YOU CAN"T PROVE THAT IS WRONG.
Actually Hawkeye you won't define those things. I know what you say the problem is. But the DWR fixed that problem and you still are whining about it. SO now the new problem is you want them to go back and "audit" the old problem. BUT YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY CAN DO WITH THE RESULTS OF THE AUDIT. Previously you thought the purpose of the audit was to "piss" people off. Once you realized the silliness of forcing the government to pay for an audit to "piss" people off you crawfished on that. Which is good. But now you can't say what you would want to happen. Yes I do have the right to ask you what gives you the right to demand in vague terms something "get fixed" when you don't know what that means nor can you prove that anyone violated a contract between the state and these conservation orgs. FIX WHAT? Even if these guys spent all the money going hunting YOU CAN"T PROVE THAT IS WRONG.
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
I wonder if Trollstate argues with himself in front of the mirror when he's away from MM.
He obviously doesn't have a clue. He's not worth the time.
Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning
conservation...
"The movement for the conservation of wildlife,
and the conservation of all our natural resources,
are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
method."
"We do not intend that our natural resources shall
be exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural
resources for the public as a whole, for the
average man and the average woman who make
up the body of the American people."
"It is in our power...to preserve game..and to give
reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the
skill of the hunter,whether he is or is not a man of
means."
I wonder if Trollstate argues with himself in front of the mirror when he's away from MM.
He obviously doesn't have a clue. He's not worth the time.
Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning
conservation...
"The movement for the conservation of wildlife,
and the conservation of all our natural resources,
are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
method."
"We do not intend that our natural resources shall
be exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural
resources for the public as a whole, for the
average man and the average woman who make
up the body of the American people."
"It is in our power...to preserve game..and to give
reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the
skill of the hunter,whether he is or is not a man of
means."
chewyman55
Active Member
- Messages
- 847
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
Stone cold fact: Tristate will fight to the death for three things in this world...SFW, poachers, and donuts. This is the guy that argued tooth and nail against banning drone use to aid in hunting because the government might go after his "large Coke" next. His stomach and his wallet over rule all else.
Stone cold fact: Tristate will fight to the death for three things in this world...SFW, poachers, and donuts. This is the guy that argued tooth and nail against banning drone use to aid in hunting because the government might go after his "large Coke" next. His stomach and his wallet over rule all else.
Hawkeye
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,014
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
FAQ #11 ? Q11: Did DWR use the RFP process to award the expo permit contract in the past? If not, why was it used this time?
The Wildlife Expo Permit Program rule (R657-54) also describes a procedure for awarding the expo permit contract, and there are many areas where this rule and state purchasing code overlap. For the past two expo contract awards, proposals were requested by and submitted directly to the DWR for evaluation and consideration.
However, state procurement code does not give the DWR independent purchasing authority ? the DWR was required to coordinate with State Purchasing and its RFP process for this contract award. In areas where state purchasing code and the DWR?s rule conflict, the DWR must follow state purchasing code.
In May 2015, DWR began formally working with State Purchasing to develop the RFP document, with the goal of using the RFP process within its existing rule. The DWR specifically mentioned its intent to use an RFP for the 2017 expo permit contract during formal public meetings in December 2014 and August 2015. Listen to recordings of those meetings.
RESPONSE:
FAQ #11 is another example of where the DWR provides a superficial response but carefully skips over a number of key issues and problems. Let me walk you through FAQ #11 paragraph by paragraph.
In the first paragraph, the DWR admits that its own administrative rule sets forth a procedure for awarding the five-year Expo Tag contract. Unfortunately, the DWR cites to the wrong rule. R657-54 addresses wild turkey hunts. See http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-054.htm. The correct DWR rule is R657-55 and Section 4 of that Rule includes the following process for awarding the expo tag contracts. It spells out that conservation organizations may apply for the contract by submitting and application to the DWR between August and September 1 of the year preceding the expiration of each wildlife exposition term. It spells out exactly what information must be included in that application. It states that the DWR will consider two specific criteria and making a non-binding recommendation to the Wildlife Board. And finally, it states that the Wildlife Board will make the final decision as to awarding the contract based upon four specific criteria, one of which is the recommendation from the DWR. See R657-55-4(3)-(7) - http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm#T4. The DWR used this informal RFP process to award the prior contracts to SFW and MDF. I have attached a link to the simple 3-page proposal from MDF that was the basis for the second five year contract (2012-2016). See https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GSzQtSG9FT1JoT1U. The DWR followed and utilized this process for the first 10 years of the Expo Tags.
In the second paragraph, the DWR states that it ?was required to coordinate with State Purchasing and its RFP process for this contract award. In areas where state purchasing code and the DWR?s rule conflict, the DWR must follow state purchasing code.? What is missing from the DWR?s statement is any explanation of why it was suddenly required to change course and utilize the formal RFP process now ? 10 years and two contracts later. Was there a recent change to the state purchasing code that suddenly brought the DWR and the Expo Tags within its jurisdiction? Did the DWR simply ignore the state purchasing code for the prior 10 years? Was the DWR even aware of these alleged requirements of state purchasing code when it awarded the prior contracts to SFW and MDF? Why now? And as I set forth in Post #156 responding to FAQ #10 above, where exactly is the conflict between the informal application set forth in R657-55-4 which the DWR had relied upon for a decade and the requirements of state purchasing code? As I have explained in other posts, I don't see any real, significant conflict and even if there is a conflict, there was no reason for there to be any conflict given that the DWR amended its rule in January 2015. The DWR seems to suggest that the Division of Purchasing was pushing them to use a formal RFP. I have personally spoken with Kent Beers, the Director of the Division of Purchasing, and he told me that was not the case. Mr. Beers confirmed that Division of Purchasing does not tell state agencies that they must utilize the formal RFP process, nor does it mandate the criteria to be included in RFP?s. Rather, each state agency must determine whether is to utilize the formal RFP process. If an agency decides to use that approach then the Division of Purchasing assists in drafting the RFP and coordinates the RFP process. However, the agency itself determines the criteria to be included in the RFP and how to score and weigh those criteria. That is exactly what occurred here.
In the third paragraph, the DWR states that it ?began formally working with State Division of Purchasing to develop the RFP document.? Assuming this is true, you have to ask why did the DWR wait until May 2015 to start working on the RFP when it claims it discussed that change during a private meeting with conservation groups in October 2014? Why the seven month wait? Also, you have to ask if the DWR began working on the RFP in May 2015, then why didn't they have the RFP ready prior to the September 1st close the application period in R657-55-4? Assuming the DWR?s statements are true, it shows that their approach in moving to a formal RFP was sloppy and untimely, at best. Next, the DWR states that it ?specifically mentioned its intent to use an RFP for the 2017 expo permit contract during formal public meetings in December 2014 and August 2015.? Now I have addressed this point before but let me reiterate that the DWR did not clearly disclose to the public during the December 2014 RAC meetings or the January 2015 Wildlife Board meeting that it was moving away from the informal application process set forth in its own rule and moving to a formal RFP. See Post #132 Responding to FAQ #7. If you listen to the minutes from those meetings there are a few casual references to the term ?RFP? but they generally come in the context of describing the informal RFP process set forth in the DWR?s own rule. I challenge the DWR or anyone else to show me where the DWR specifically disclosed this change in those meetings and in particular during the January 2015 Wildlife Board Meeting where the amended rule was adopted. Certainly a change this significant would have been included in Kenny Johnson?s power point presentation on the topic or even better in the redline version of the rule? But it is not there. And finally, rather than owning up to this obvious mistake, the DWR points to the fact that Kenny Johnson supposedly mentioned that the DWR was moving to the RFP process during August 2015 Board Meeting? Really? He mentioned it on August 27, 2015 -- 4 days before the deadline to submit applications under R657-55-4? 8 months after the amended Expo Tag rule had been adopted by the Wildlife Board? Was the public provided notice on the agenda for that Board Meeting that the DWR would be announcing a significant change to the Expo Tag program? No. Did that supposed announcement go out to the RACs in August of 2015? No.
In conclusion, the DWR?s response to FAQ #11 is superficial response that attempts to gloss over the problems, questions and mistakes that surround the DWR?s move to a formal RFP process. If the DWR wanted to use a formal RFP process to award the Expo Tag contract, so be it. But own up to that decision and implement the RFP in a timely, open and transparent matter. And most of all, amend your own administrative rule to reflect that change.
-Hawkeye-
FAQ #11 ? Q11: Did DWR use the RFP process to award the expo permit contract in the past? If not, why was it used this time?
The Wildlife Expo Permit Program rule (R657-54) also describes a procedure for awarding the expo permit contract, and there are many areas where this rule and state purchasing code overlap. For the past two expo contract awards, proposals were requested by and submitted directly to the DWR for evaluation and consideration.
However, state procurement code does not give the DWR independent purchasing authority ? the DWR was required to coordinate with State Purchasing and its RFP process for this contract award. In areas where state purchasing code and the DWR?s rule conflict, the DWR must follow state purchasing code.
In May 2015, DWR began formally working with State Purchasing to develop the RFP document, with the goal of using the RFP process within its existing rule. The DWR specifically mentioned its intent to use an RFP for the 2017 expo permit contract during formal public meetings in December 2014 and August 2015. Listen to recordings of those meetings.
RESPONSE:
FAQ #11 is another example of where the DWR provides a superficial response but carefully skips over a number of key issues and problems. Let me walk you through FAQ #11 paragraph by paragraph.
In the first paragraph, the DWR admits that its own administrative rule sets forth a procedure for awarding the five-year Expo Tag contract. Unfortunately, the DWR cites to the wrong rule. R657-54 addresses wild turkey hunts. See http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-054.htm. The correct DWR rule is R657-55 and Section 4 of that Rule includes the following process for awarding the expo tag contracts. It spells out that conservation organizations may apply for the contract by submitting and application to the DWR between August and September 1 of the year preceding the expiration of each wildlife exposition term. It spells out exactly what information must be included in that application. It states that the DWR will consider two specific criteria and making a non-binding recommendation to the Wildlife Board. And finally, it states that the Wildlife Board will make the final decision as to awarding the contract based upon four specific criteria, one of which is the recommendation from the DWR. See R657-55-4(3)-(7) - http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm#T4. The DWR used this informal RFP process to award the prior contracts to SFW and MDF. I have attached a link to the simple 3-page proposal from MDF that was the basis for the second five year contract (2012-2016). See https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GSzQtSG9FT1JoT1U. The DWR followed and utilized this process for the first 10 years of the Expo Tags.
In the second paragraph, the DWR states that it ?was required to coordinate with State Purchasing and its RFP process for this contract award. In areas where state purchasing code and the DWR?s rule conflict, the DWR must follow state purchasing code.? What is missing from the DWR?s statement is any explanation of why it was suddenly required to change course and utilize the formal RFP process now ? 10 years and two contracts later. Was there a recent change to the state purchasing code that suddenly brought the DWR and the Expo Tags within its jurisdiction? Did the DWR simply ignore the state purchasing code for the prior 10 years? Was the DWR even aware of these alleged requirements of state purchasing code when it awarded the prior contracts to SFW and MDF? Why now? And as I set forth in Post #156 responding to FAQ #10 above, where exactly is the conflict between the informal application set forth in R657-55-4 which the DWR had relied upon for a decade and the requirements of state purchasing code? As I have explained in other posts, I don't see any real, significant conflict and even if there is a conflict, there was no reason for there to be any conflict given that the DWR amended its rule in January 2015. The DWR seems to suggest that the Division of Purchasing was pushing them to use a formal RFP. I have personally spoken with Kent Beers, the Director of the Division of Purchasing, and he told me that was not the case. Mr. Beers confirmed that Division of Purchasing does not tell state agencies that they must utilize the formal RFP process, nor does it mandate the criteria to be included in RFP?s. Rather, each state agency must determine whether is to utilize the formal RFP process. If an agency decides to use that approach then the Division of Purchasing assists in drafting the RFP and coordinates the RFP process. However, the agency itself determines the criteria to be included in the RFP and how to score and weigh those criteria. That is exactly what occurred here.
In the third paragraph, the DWR states that it ?began formally working with State Division of Purchasing to develop the RFP document.? Assuming this is true, you have to ask why did the DWR wait until May 2015 to start working on the RFP when it claims it discussed that change during a private meeting with conservation groups in October 2014? Why the seven month wait? Also, you have to ask if the DWR began working on the RFP in May 2015, then why didn't they have the RFP ready prior to the September 1st close the application period in R657-55-4? Assuming the DWR?s statements are true, it shows that their approach in moving to a formal RFP was sloppy and untimely, at best. Next, the DWR states that it ?specifically mentioned its intent to use an RFP for the 2017 expo permit contract during formal public meetings in December 2014 and August 2015.? Now I have addressed this point before but let me reiterate that the DWR did not clearly disclose to the public during the December 2014 RAC meetings or the January 2015 Wildlife Board meeting that it was moving away from the informal application process set forth in its own rule and moving to a formal RFP. See Post #132 Responding to FAQ #7. If you listen to the minutes from those meetings there are a few casual references to the term ?RFP? but they generally come in the context of describing the informal RFP process set forth in the DWR?s own rule. I challenge the DWR or anyone else to show me where the DWR specifically disclosed this change in those meetings and in particular during the January 2015 Wildlife Board Meeting where the amended rule was adopted. Certainly a change this significant would have been included in Kenny Johnson?s power point presentation on the topic or even better in the redline version of the rule? But it is not there. And finally, rather than owning up to this obvious mistake, the DWR points to the fact that Kenny Johnson supposedly mentioned that the DWR was moving to the RFP process during August 2015 Board Meeting? Really? He mentioned it on August 27, 2015 -- 4 days before the deadline to submit applications under R657-55-4? 8 months after the amended Expo Tag rule had been adopted by the Wildlife Board? Was the public provided notice on the agenda for that Board Meeting that the DWR would be announcing a significant change to the Expo Tag program? No. Did that supposed announcement go out to the RACs in August of 2015? No.
In conclusion, the DWR?s response to FAQ #11 is superficial response that attempts to gloss over the problems, questions and mistakes that surround the DWR?s move to a formal RFP process. If the DWR wanted to use a formal RFP process to award the Expo Tag contract, so be it. But own up to that decision and implement the RFP in a timely, open and transparent matter. And most of all, amend your own administrative rule to reflect that change.
-Hawkeye-
Hawkeye
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,014
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
M73, I have been told in confidence by several SFW members and former members that SFW has encouraged folks not to debate the issues on these forums because it is akin to "engaging the enemy on his turf", that monstermuleys.com users are just a bunch of haters who have an ax to grind, and that it further fuels the fire and highlights the issues. Sound familiar? I often reminesce about the good ol' days when Troy, John and Don would participate in our discussions. My all-time favorite was when Jim Karpowitz, Director of the DWR, jumped into the fray. Even though we often butt heads, I do appreciate the fact that you have stuck around.
-Hawkeye-
M73, I have been told in confidence by several SFW members and former members that SFW has encouraged folks not to debate the issues on these forums because it is akin to "engaging the enemy on his turf", that monstermuleys.com users are just a bunch of haters who have an ax to grind, and that it further fuels the fire and highlights the issues. Sound familiar? I often reminesce about the good ol' days when Troy, John and Don would participate in our discussions. My all-time favorite was when Jim Karpowitz, Director of the DWR, jumped into the fray. Even though we often butt heads, I do appreciate the fact that you have stuck around.
-Hawkeye-
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
I think the truth and actions that you presented in your FAQ#11 is easy to understand and follow. Especially if you have been paying attention along the way. Like many have been.
From the frustration and anger shown on this site and on social media, this issue was the straw that broke the camels back.
What little hope was left before 12/18/15, disappeared after the RFP debacle.
These actions taken by the DWR left myself and many others, no doubt about the corruption involving the DWR and the WHC in SLC.
The question I have, with all the media attention this stinky crap has received, how many will boycott next February? Guess we will see. I know one thing, I won't be attending.
Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning
conservation...
"The movement for the conservation of wildlife,
and the conservation of all our natural resources,
are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
method."
"We do not intend that our natural resources shall
be exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural
resources for the public as a whole, for the
average man and the average woman who make
up the body of the American people."
"It is in our power...to preserve game..and to give
reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the
skill of the hunter,whether he is or is not a man of
means."
I think the truth and actions that you presented in your FAQ#11 is easy to understand and follow. Especially if you have been paying attention along the way. Like many have been.
From the frustration and anger shown on this site and on social media, this issue was the straw that broke the camels back.
What little hope was left before 12/18/15, disappeared after the RFP debacle.
These actions taken by the DWR left myself and many others, no doubt about the corruption involving the DWR and the WHC in SLC.
The question I have, with all the media attention this stinky crap has received, how many will boycott next February? Guess we will see. I know one thing, I won't be attending.
Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning
conservation...
"The movement for the conservation of wildlife,
and the conservation of all our natural resources,
are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
method."
"We do not intend that our natural resources shall
be exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural
resources for the public as a whole, for the
average man and the average woman who make
up the body of the American people."
"It is in our power...to preserve game..and to give
reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the
skill of the hunter,whether he is or is not a man of
means."
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
Hawkeye, you are really great at assuming things. First off ex sfw members are out of it. Second NO head person has made the statement to stay off. We have just learned that we don't want to get into a pissing match with a shunk.
Hawkeye, you are really great at assuming things. First off ex sfw members are out of it. Second NO head person has made the statement to stay off. We have just learned that we don't want to get into a pissing match with a shunk.
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
>Hawkeye, you are really great
>at assuming things. First
>off ex sfw members are
>out of it. Second
>NO head person has made
>the statement to stay off.
> We have just learned
>that we don't want to
>get into a pissing match
>with a shunk.
Use of that nasty word was pretty low even for you Birdman, but I can see where you might be getting a little ticked off when you guys come on here with posts like Tri that make no sense and actually just make your organization look worse with every post. It's sort of telling that it took you years to make that decision after looking so bad all this time. It was really a lot better when the BS was spread around by a few, rather than now just by your Texas buddy!
>Hawkeye, you are really great
>at assuming things. First
>off ex sfw members are
>out of it. Second
>NO head person has made
>the statement to stay off.
> We have just learned
>that we don't want to
>get into a pissing match
>with a shunk.
Use of that nasty word was pretty low even for you Birdman, but I can see where you might be getting a little ticked off when you guys come on here with posts like Tri that make no sense and actually just make your organization look worse with every post. It's sort of telling that it took you years to make that decision after looking so bad all this time. It was really a lot better when the BS was spread around by a few, rather than now just by your Texas buddy!
Hawkeye
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,014
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
LAST EDITED ON Mar-15-16 AT 09:56AM (MST)[p]I did not assume anything. I have had more than one person make those statements to me. In fact, the reference to "engaging the enemy on his turf" was a direct quote. That being said, I appreciate you, M73 and others when you engage in substantive discussions even if you offer contrary views. I wish more SFW members were still involved in these discussions and I have told you that before.
I believe the lack of participation from the SFW crowd has less to do with the fear of getting into a pissing match with a "shunk" and more to do with the fact that you guys don't have any good answers to the tough questions. It probably gets frustrating telling the public to "prove SFW did not use the millions in application fees for actual conservation projects." That is what I call counterintuitive.
-Hawkeye-
LAST EDITED ON Mar-15-16 AT 09:56AM (MST)[p]I did not assume anything. I have had more than one person make those statements to me. In fact, the reference to "engaging the enemy on his turf" was a direct quote. That being said, I appreciate you, M73 and others when you engage in substantive discussions even if you offer contrary views. I wish more SFW members were still involved in these discussions and I have told you that before.
I believe the lack of participation from the SFW crowd has less to do with the fear of getting into a pissing match with a "shunk" and more to do with the fact that you guys don't have any good answers to the tough questions. It probably gets frustrating telling the public to "prove SFW did not use the millions in application fees for actual conservation projects." That is what I call counterintuitive.
-Hawkeye-
Robiland
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,074
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
Fact #11 is one that really ticks me off. And its clear to me when you see the SFW crowed now just doesnt answer. They cant. What can they say? Nothing. I wish the dwr would respond to some of this. Or even the Wildlife board. I know they see this. One of them deleted and blocked one person because he got sick of seeing this stuff. Well, I would too. Especially when it shows how bad the DWR and the WB screwed up. Id crawl into a hole and not come out either.
Fact #11 is one that really ticks me off. And its clear to me when you see the SFW crowed now just doesnt answer. They cant. What can they say? Nothing. I wish the dwr would respond to some of this. Or even the Wildlife board. I know they see this. One of them deleted and blocked one person because he got sick of seeing this stuff. Well, I would too. Especially when it shows how bad the DWR and the WB screwed up. Id crawl into a hole and not come out either.
Bucksnorts
Member
- Messages
- 43
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
Hawkeye,
I think your responses are very helpful and thorough in illuminating the discrepancies in the UDWR. It would be nice to have them compiles into one document so we can send them to our public officials. Thanks again for keeping this going.
Hawkeye,
I think your responses are very helpful and thorough in illuminating the discrepancies in the UDWR. It would be nice to have them compiles into one document so we can send them to our public officials. Thanks again for keeping this going.
Robiland
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,074
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
I agree with Bucksnorts. Would it be best to be sending each FAQ sheet seperate, or send them all 26 of them? I dont know but if we all send them to them, they "might" get a hint. But I doubt it. I know certain members of the Wildlife board wont read them.
I agree with Bucksnorts. Would it be best to be sending each FAQ sheet seperate, or send them all 26 of them? I dont know but if we all send them to them, they "might" get a hint. But I doubt it. I know certain members of the Wildlife board wont read them.
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
Sorry top if that affected but just a statement I consider to be true. I have no idea where tri-state is coming from on his statements. He is free to say what he wants. He represents himself.
Hawk, I like the way if someone says something negative about sfw you assume it is correct. Not knowing if it is right or not, you assume that it is correct and run with it. What's the matter you got time to assume things but not find out the facts?
Sorry top if that affected but just a statement I consider to be true. I have no idea where tri-state is coming from on his statements. He is free to say what he wants. He represents himself.
Hawk, I like the way if someone says something negative about sfw you assume it is correct. Not knowing if it is right or not, you assume that it is correct and run with it. What's the matter you got time to assume things but not find out the facts?
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
LAST EDITED ON Mar-15-16 AT 10:39AM (MST)[p]>Sorry top if that affected but
>just a statement I consider
>to be true. I
>have no idea where tri-state
>is coming from on his
>statements. He is free
>to say what he wants.
>He represents himself.
>Hawk, I like the way
>if someone says something negative
>about sfw you assume it
>is correct. Not knowing
>if it is right or
>not, you assume that it
>is correct and run with
>it. What's the matter
>you got time to assume
>things but not find out
>the facts?
It was downright low and nasty, but you saw how Hawkeye responded in a gentlemanly manner as he always does. Also, your statement about Hawkeye assuming anything or not dealing with facts is preposterous and downright ridiculous! The guy is so meticulous about putting his own posts together strictly with facts that you just continue to ignore or make stupid posts like this one is par for the course because there is no logical way to respond other than the way you do.
LAST EDITED ON Mar-15-16 AT 10:39AM (MST)[p]>Sorry top if that affected but
>just a statement I consider
>to be true. I
>have no idea where tri-state
>is coming from on his
>statements. He is free
>to say what he wants.
>He represents himself.
>Hawk, I like the way
>if someone says something negative
>about sfw you assume it
>is correct. Not knowing
>if it is right or
>not, you assume that it
>is correct and run with
>it. What's the matter
>you got time to assume
>things but not find out
>the facts?
It was downright low and nasty, but you saw how Hawkeye responded in a gentlemanly manner as he always does. Also, your statement about Hawkeye assuming anything or not dealing with facts is preposterous and downright ridiculous! The guy is so meticulous about putting his own posts together strictly with facts that you just continue to ignore or make stupid posts like this one is par for the course because there is no logical way to respond other than the way you do.
Tristate
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,860
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
So what do you want for this Hawkeye? How do you fix it? Do you not want this system used next time the bid comes up? What is the pathway to make this better? How does internet whining fix it?
So what do you want for this Hawkeye? How do you fix it? Do you not want this system used next time the bid comes up? What is the pathway to make this better? How does internet whining fix it?
Hawkeye
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,014
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
Ken, I have posted many facts and will continue to do so. We are only on FAQ #11 - there are 15 more to go. Do you disagree with any of the facts set presented in my responses to FAQ #1 through #11. If so, what do you take issue with? I have not heard you correct me yet on any of those facts. Oh and by the way, all of the links in my posts will take you to statutes, rules, contracts, minutes, correspondence, etc., all of which include more facts on the subject. That is the purpose of this thread - to post facts.
Yes, I generally trust friends when they tell me something. Just to be clear, I did not say that SFW issued a press release and ordered all members off monstermuleys.com. Rather, I heard that SFW leadership had encouraged some members not to debate the issues on these forums because it is akin to "engaging the enemy on his turf", that monstermuleys.com users are just a bunch of haters who have an ax to grind, and that it further fuels the fire and highlights the issues. Has SFW leadership ever asked you about your posts on this forum? Have they ever asked you to drop it? Do they appreciate your efforts to advocate their position? I know that I do. Discussion is good if you can filter out the crazy statements. Stay involved.
-Hawkeye-
Ken, I have posted many facts and will continue to do so. We are only on FAQ #11 - there are 15 more to go. Do you disagree with any of the facts set presented in my responses to FAQ #1 through #11. If so, what do you take issue with? I have not heard you correct me yet on any of those facts. Oh and by the way, all of the links in my posts will take you to statutes, rules, contracts, minutes, correspondence, etc., all of which include more facts on the subject. That is the purpose of this thread - to post facts.
Yes, I generally trust friends when they tell me something. Just to be clear, I did not say that SFW issued a press release and ordered all members off monstermuleys.com. Rather, I heard that SFW leadership had encouraged some members not to debate the issues on these forums because it is akin to "engaging the enemy on his turf", that monstermuleys.com users are just a bunch of haters who have an ax to grind, and that it further fuels the fire and highlights the issues. Has SFW leadership ever asked you about your posts on this forum? Have they ever asked you to drop it? Do they appreciate your efforts to advocate their position? I know that I do. Discussion is good if you can filter out the crazy statements. Stay involved.
-Hawkeye-
RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
Hawk, in other words you are assuming what people have told you to be true. They are not. Jon Larson has said nothing like that for people to stay out. But then again you are assuming. What if I took on the same method you are usong. Some of my friends are saying mean and bad things about you. I don't assume what they say is correct though it sounds good. I guess I guess I can assume. Since you have so much time to be on mm you as an attorney must not have much to do. Maybe your not that good since you have plenty of time. But then again, with your hand on the pockets of rmef I guess you are making plenty of money to fight sfw and all they stand for. After all you are on the payroll of rmef.
Top, if the shoe fits so be it.
Hawk, in other words you are assuming what people have told you to be true. They are not. Jon Larson has said nothing like that for people to stay out. But then again you are assuming. What if I took on the same method you are usong. Some of my friends are saying mean and bad things about you. I don't assume what they say is correct though it sounds good. I guess I guess I can assume. Since you have so much time to be on mm you as an attorney must not have much to do. Maybe your not that good since you have plenty of time. But then again, with your hand on the pockets of rmef I guess you are making plenty of money to fight sfw and all they stand for. After all you are on the payroll of rmef.
Top, if the shoe fits so be it.
