LAST EDITED ON Feb-19-16 AT 08:45AM (MST)[p]Great post javihammer. I call that the Readers Digest version of this thread.
I would like to address one more point that Birdman has brought up a couple of times in this thread and others. In an effort to defend SFW, he has mentioned that RMEF previously offered to give back 100% of the money raised from Conservation Permit tags but he has suggested that they are only returning 90% based upon the latest DWR audit. Let's look at the facts.
I assume that Birdman is referring to the following press release that RMEF issued in May of 2013: "RMEF Waives All Revenue from National Convention Tags; Again Calls for Transparency from All Wildlife Groups." See
http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PressRoom/NewsReleases/RMEFWaivesRevenuefromTags.aspx
In that press release, RMEF committed to returning 100% of revenues from "
special tags sold at our national convention." "It's of paramount importance to RMEF to not only be responsible for the money raised for wildlife, but to follow those funds from start to finish to make sure those who use them do so for their intended purpose,? said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. ?Sportsmen and women need to demand transparency and hold RMEF and all wildlife agencies and conservation organizations accountable, especially for the money and its use. These tags are a matter of public trust and we are proud to be part of that effort.?
Allen went to reissue a call to all other wildlife conservation groups to allow full and complete transparency of all their financial information including the publishing of their audited financials from each fiscal year. ?We voluntarily submit to independent audits of our annual finances. Why should we not make this information available to our members and the public at-large? If we were a publicly traded business we would have to do this on a regular basis. Let's do it as a matter of respect for, and accountability to, our members and the public.?
In its most recent proposal, RMEF renewed this offer to the DWR. In addition to voluntarily committing 100% of the $5 application fee revenue, and 50% of net profits from the entire convention, RMEF also offerered 100% of the revenues from state conservation or auction tags that would be auctioned off that the National Convention. Section 2.3.3 of RMEF's proposal provides as follows:
"Beginning in 2014, RMEF has dedicated 100% of revenue generated from national tag auctions back to state agencies regardless of the allocation that could be retained by the conservation organization. During this time, we auctioned 18 tags and generated more than $1.2 million for wildlife conservation. RMEF returned 100% of this revenue to the agencies to benefit protected wildlife."
Those are the facts. RMEF has offered to return 100% of special tags auctioned off at the RMEF National Convention. The state of Utah would have benefitted from that commitment if RMEF would have been awarded the Expo tag contract and RMEF would have brought its National Convention to Utah. But that did not happen. Hopefully, that clears up Birdman's questions on this issue. Rather than question the accountability and transparency of RMEF, SFW should focus on getting its own house in order.
-Hawkeye-
P.S. As a side note, RMEF issued a similar press release in 2012 calling for increased transparency from conservation groups dealing in public tags.
http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/Pr...EFCallsforTransparencyonStateSpecialBigG.aspx The most entertaining and disappointing part of this issue was the fact that Jim Karpowitz, then Director of the UDWR, sent a letter to RMEF on DWR letterhead criticizing RMEF for requesting increased transparency and making the State of Utah and other groups look bad. My favorite statement from Mr. Karpowitz's June 19, 2012 letter was the following: "This statement could be interpreted by some readers that Utah has not been transparent in the expenditure of these permit funds or that we have not required conservation organizations to be transparent." DUH!!!