Hawkeye
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,014
Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
As most of you know, the DWR has taken a great deal of criticism over the last several months regarding it handling of the Expo Tag program and its decision to award the next five-year contract to SFW, MDF and UFNAWS. The primary concern has been and continues to be the lack of accountability and transparency for the revenues generated from those public tags. Although concerned sportsmen have been frustrated for some time, the frustration reached as climax when KUTV News ran a story on this issue on February 25, 2016: http://kutv.com/news/local/allegations-of-corruption-surround-utah-hungtin-and-conservation-expo. This story led to numerous emails and phone calls to politicians, discussions on social media and calls for reform.
Rather than acknowledging the concerns of sportsmen and looking for ways to address those concerns, the DWR has dug in its heels and become even more entrenched. In an effort to cover its own tail, the DWR released a set of 26 Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding. See http://wildlife.utah.gov/utah-expo-permits-faq.html#q1. As a concerned sportsman that has been actively involved in this issue for several years, I was disappointed with the DWR?s response. Rather than recognizing the legitimate concerns expressed by sportsmen and owning up to the mistakes that have been made, the DWR has prepared a self-serving, one-sided statement that does little to resolve the concerns of sportsmen. Most of the people that I have spoken with see the DWR?s response for what it is ? a blatant attempt to calm the waters and ?CYA.?
Rather than spending the next 24 hours preparing a lengthy and detailed response to the DWR?s entire FAQ document, I am going to address and debunk one of the DWR?s FAQ a day for the next 26 days. Please be patient and bear with me. Some of the DWR?s points are accurate but many of them are confusing, misleading or only tell half of the story. The DWR?s statement also unfairly portrays the RMEF in a bad light. In my opinion, the RMEF has taken the high road and stayed professional through this entire process. As I address the DWR?s FAQ?s, I will try to share the history, links, documents and other information. My hope is that this thread will provide an opportunity to respond to the DWR?s FAQ?s and educate sportsmen as to the other side of the story. These are my personal thoughts and comments, and should not be attributed to the RMEF. I will leave it to David Allen and others to speak on behalf of RMEF.
As we take this journey, feel free to chime in, offer your opinions and ask questions. I want this thread to be a place of dialogue and discussion. Additionally, please continue to call and email your friends, family members and politicians. We need to keep this story alive.
Although there are certain of the FAQ?s that I am particularly anxious to address, I will start at the beginning with FAQ #1 and work through them in numerical order. So let's get started.
FAQ #1 - What is the Wildlife Expo Permit Program?
The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) operates the Wildlife Expo Permit Program, which has two primary purposes:
To generate revenue to fund wildlife conservation activities in Utah.
To attract a regional or national wildlife exposition to Utah.
As part of this program, the Utah Wildlife Board authorizes up to 200 hunting permits (expo permits) per year that are allocated to hunters through a public drawing held at a wildlife exposition.
RESPONSE:
I generally agree with the DWR?s response to FAQ #1. R657-55-1 specifically states that the Expo Tags we specifically created ?for purposes of generating revenue to fund wildlife conservation activities in Utah and attracting and supporting a regional or national wildlife exposition in Utah.? See http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm#T1. These statutory purposes have been the same since the Expo Tags were created in 2005. In fact, if you go back at look at the minutes from the March 31, 2005 Wildlife Board Meeting where this rule was first adopted, Greg Sheehan explained to the Board that the Expo Tags ?are authorized by the Wildlife Board and issued to a qualified conservation organization for purposes of generating revenue to fund wildlife conservation activities.? See 3/31/2005 Minutes at 15 - https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GYzBUYlVvS3RCTXM.
I believe there is no real dispute that the Expo Tags have been used to ?attract a regional or national wildlife exposition to Utah.? The Western Hunting and Conservation Expo is certainly a regional or national wildlife exposition. Over the last 10 years attendance has increased and the groups have had some success in attracting nonresidents. Thus, the second purpose for Expo Tags is not an issue.
The problem has been the DWR?s failure to pay attention to the first and primary purpose of the Expo Tags ? ?generating revenue to fund wildlife conservation activities in Utah.? During the first 10 years the groups raised $9,764,445 in $5 application fees, with a record $1,166,050 raised in 2010. There is no dispute that the groups have generated plenty of revenues from these tags. The question is whether those revenues were actually used to fund ?wildlife conservation activities in Utah. The reality is that the groups were not required to spend one red cent of the revenues from the Expo Tags on actual conservation projects from 2007 through 2012. As a result, the $5,436,655 that the groups generated from those tags during this time period remains completely unaccounted for. After concerned sportsmen rose up in 2012, the DWR and the groups modified the rule to allow the groups to retain $3.50 of every $5 application and to earmark $1.50 for approved conservation projects. See R657-55-10. As a result, from 2013 through 2016, the groups generated $4,327,790, and 30% of that money or $1,298,337 has been earmarked for actual conservation and accounted for.
Many sportsmen, including me, are frustrated with the fact that the DWR required no accountability for the first 6 years of the Expo Tag program and only required 30% accountability since 2013. I believe that any private group that deals in public assets should be prepared to account for the monies generated from those assets. This is particularly true when the primary purpose of creating the Expo Tags was to ?generate revenues for wildlife conservation activities in Utah.? How can the DWR or the public be certain that the monies are being used for that purpose without requiring accountability and transparency? Even more troubling is the fact that the groups and the Wildlife Board appear to have committed to some level of accountability when these tags were created in 2005.
For instance, at the March 31, 2005 Wildlife Board Meeting, numerous sportsmen expressed concern about how the conservation groups would use the money generated from the Expo Tags. See 3/31/2005 Minutes at 21-24. In response to those concerns, Don Peay, who was representing SFW, stated the following: ?it is fair to ask how much comes in with the five dollar application fees and how much went onto the ground.? Unfortunately, SFW has not honored that commitment and has refused to disclose to the public what it has done with the monies generated from those tags.
In a further effort to address the concerns of sportsmen regarding the use of the monies generated from the Expo Tags, the Wildlife Board passed a motion specifically directing the DWR that "in their contract negotiations with the representing organizations that annual audits be accomplished in a similar way that is done for conservation tags.? See 3/31/2005 Minutes at 24. However, neither the DWR nor the groups made any effort to ensure that an annual auditing requirement similar what exists for conservation permits was included in the 5-year contracts. Therefore, the DWR and the groups have ignored that binding directive of the Wildlife Board.
In summary, the DWR has accurately described the two purposes for the Expo Tags as set forth in R657-55-1. However, the DWR has dropped the ball and failed to ensure that the nearly $10 million generated from the Expo Tags was actually used for ?wildlife conservation activities.? And that is the heart of the frustration that is currently being expressed by sportsmen across the state.
Until tomorrow.
-Hawkeye-
As most of you know, the DWR has taken a great deal of criticism over the last several months regarding it handling of the Expo Tag program and its decision to award the next five-year contract to SFW, MDF and UFNAWS. The primary concern has been and continues to be the lack of accountability and transparency for the revenues generated from those public tags. Although concerned sportsmen have been frustrated for some time, the frustration reached as climax when KUTV News ran a story on this issue on February 25, 2016: http://kutv.com/news/local/allegations-of-corruption-surround-utah-hungtin-and-conservation-expo. This story led to numerous emails and phone calls to politicians, discussions on social media and calls for reform.
Rather than acknowledging the concerns of sportsmen and looking for ways to address those concerns, the DWR has dug in its heels and become even more entrenched. In an effort to cover its own tail, the DWR released a set of 26 Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding. See http://wildlife.utah.gov/utah-expo-permits-faq.html#q1. As a concerned sportsman that has been actively involved in this issue for several years, I was disappointed with the DWR?s response. Rather than recognizing the legitimate concerns expressed by sportsmen and owning up to the mistakes that have been made, the DWR has prepared a self-serving, one-sided statement that does little to resolve the concerns of sportsmen. Most of the people that I have spoken with see the DWR?s response for what it is ? a blatant attempt to calm the waters and ?CYA.?
Rather than spending the next 24 hours preparing a lengthy and detailed response to the DWR?s entire FAQ document, I am going to address and debunk one of the DWR?s FAQ a day for the next 26 days. Please be patient and bear with me. Some of the DWR?s points are accurate but many of them are confusing, misleading or only tell half of the story. The DWR?s statement also unfairly portrays the RMEF in a bad light. In my opinion, the RMEF has taken the high road and stayed professional through this entire process. As I address the DWR?s FAQ?s, I will try to share the history, links, documents and other information. My hope is that this thread will provide an opportunity to respond to the DWR?s FAQ?s and educate sportsmen as to the other side of the story. These are my personal thoughts and comments, and should not be attributed to the RMEF. I will leave it to David Allen and others to speak on behalf of RMEF.
As we take this journey, feel free to chime in, offer your opinions and ask questions. I want this thread to be a place of dialogue and discussion. Additionally, please continue to call and email your friends, family members and politicians. We need to keep this story alive.
Although there are certain of the FAQ?s that I am particularly anxious to address, I will start at the beginning with FAQ #1 and work through them in numerical order. So let's get started.
FAQ #1 - What is the Wildlife Expo Permit Program?
The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) operates the Wildlife Expo Permit Program, which has two primary purposes:
To generate revenue to fund wildlife conservation activities in Utah.
To attract a regional or national wildlife exposition to Utah.
As part of this program, the Utah Wildlife Board authorizes up to 200 hunting permits (expo permits) per year that are allocated to hunters through a public drawing held at a wildlife exposition.
RESPONSE:
I generally agree with the DWR?s response to FAQ #1. R657-55-1 specifically states that the Expo Tags we specifically created ?for purposes of generating revenue to fund wildlife conservation activities in Utah and attracting and supporting a regional or national wildlife exposition in Utah.? See http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm#T1. These statutory purposes have been the same since the Expo Tags were created in 2005. In fact, if you go back at look at the minutes from the March 31, 2005 Wildlife Board Meeting where this rule was first adopted, Greg Sheehan explained to the Board that the Expo Tags ?are authorized by the Wildlife Board and issued to a qualified conservation organization for purposes of generating revenue to fund wildlife conservation activities.? See 3/31/2005 Minutes at 15 - https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GYzBUYlVvS3RCTXM.
I believe there is no real dispute that the Expo Tags have been used to ?attract a regional or national wildlife exposition to Utah.? The Western Hunting and Conservation Expo is certainly a regional or national wildlife exposition. Over the last 10 years attendance has increased and the groups have had some success in attracting nonresidents. Thus, the second purpose for Expo Tags is not an issue.
The problem has been the DWR?s failure to pay attention to the first and primary purpose of the Expo Tags ? ?generating revenue to fund wildlife conservation activities in Utah.? During the first 10 years the groups raised $9,764,445 in $5 application fees, with a record $1,166,050 raised in 2010. There is no dispute that the groups have generated plenty of revenues from these tags. The question is whether those revenues were actually used to fund ?wildlife conservation activities in Utah. The reality is that the groups were not required to spend one red cent of the revenues from the Expo Tags on actual conservation projects from 2007 through 2012. As a result, the $5,436,655 that the groups generated from those tags during this time period remains completely unaccounted for. After concerned sportsmen rose up in 2012, the DWR and the groups modified the rule to allow the groups to retain $3.50 of every $5 application and to earmark $1.50 for approved conservation projects. See R657-55-10. As a result, from 2013 through 2016, the groups generated $4,327,790, and 30% of that money or $1,298,337 has been earmarked for actual conservation and accounted for.
Many sportsmen, including me, are frustrated with the fact that the DWR required no accountability for the first 6 years of the Expo Tag program and only required 30% accountability since 2013. I believe that any private group that deals in public assets should be prepared to account for the monies generated from those assets. This is particularly true when the primary purpose of creating the Expo Tags was to ?generate revenues for wildlife conservation activities in Utah.? How can the DWR or the public be certain that the monies are being used for that purpose without requiring accountability and transparency? Even more troubling is the fact that the groups and the Wildlife Board appear to have committed to some level of accountability when these tags were created in 2005.
For instance, at the March 31, 2005 Wildlife Board Meeting, numerous sportsmen expressed concern about how the conservation groups would use the money generated from the Expo Tags. See 3/31/2005 Minutes at 21-24. In response to those concerns, Don Peay, who was representing SFW, stated the following: ?it is fair to ask how much comes in with the five dollar application fees and how much went onto the ground.? Unfortunately, SFW has not honored that commitment and has refused to disclose to the public what it has done with the monies generated from those tags.
In a further effort to address the concerns of sportsmen regarding the use of the monies generated from the Expo Tags, the Wildlife Board passed a motion specifically directing the DWR that "in their contract negotiations with the representing organizations that annual audits be accomplished in a similar way that is done for conservation tags.? See 3/31/2005 Minutes at 24. However, neither the DWR nor the groups made any effort to ensure that an annual auditing requirement similar what exists for conservation permits was included in the 5-year contracts. Therefore, the DWR and the groups have ignored that binding directive of the Wildlife Board.
In summary, the DWR has accurately described the two purposes for the Expo Tags as set forth in R657-55-1. However, the DWR has dropped the ball and failed to ensure that the nearly $10 million generated from the Expo Tags was actually used for ?wildlife conservation activities.? And that is the heart of the frustration that is currently being expressed by sportsmen across the state.
Until tomorrow.
-Hawkeye-