Expo update
- Thread starter bowhunt
- Start date
Hawkeye
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,022
SFW and MDF still have one year (2016) left on the current contract. A new contract will be awarded for 2017-2021. The deadline to respond to the DWR's recently issued RFP is 11/24/2015. So decision will not likely be made until at least December.
-Hawkeye-
-Hawkeye-
Iowan
Active Member
- Messages
- 549
This is going to be really interesting. Being a non-resident I have always stayed out of the SFW good or evil argument. This will clearly show whether or not the dog is waging the tail or vice versus. I believe that RMEF has clearly shown over several decades that they are a legitimate and very effective conservation organization - I would argue there is not one out there that is even close - maybe Pheasants Forever. Not slamming any of the other they are just that good - unbiased rating prove this over and over. If RMEF ever gets this under their umbrella it will be nearly impossible for any other group to take it back - they are just too effective and efficient.
LAST EDITED ON Nov-04-15 AT 05:17PM (MST)[p]>SFW and MDF still have one
>year (2016) left on the
>current contract. A new contract
>will be awarded for 2017-2021.
>The deadline to respond to
>the DWR's recently issued RFP
>is 11/24/2015. So decision will
>not likely be made until
>at least December.
>
>-Hawkeye-
Sounds to me like when the DWR issued that RFP giving a lot more time for more bids after the RMEF delivered their proposal at the close of business the day the bids were supposed to close puts the handwriting on the wall. The Board will look real bad if they give the contract to any other organization than RMEF with the great proposal they put out, but I'd not bet against DP with the stranglehold he has up there on the DWR and apparently the Legislature as well!
>year (2016) left on the
>current contract. A new contract
>will be awarded for 2017-2021.
>The deadline to respond to
>the DWR's recently issued RFP
>is 11/24/2015. So decision will
>not likely be made until
>at least December.
>
>-Hawkeye-
Sounds to me like when the DWR issued that RFP giving a lot more time for more bids after the RMEF delivered their proposal at the close of business the day the bids were supposed to close puts the handwriting on the wall. The Board will look real bad if they give the contract to any other organization than RMEF with the great proposal they put out, but I'd not bet against DP with the stranglehold he has up there on the DWR and apparently the Legislature as well!
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,122
LAST EDITED ON Nov-04-15 AT 06:57PM (MST)[p]The Wildlife Board isn't the group that makes the initial determination regarding which conservation organization would be the best one to sponsor the Expo and they cannot make a recommendation. They are only allowed to support or reject the initial decision made by the selection committee which is made up of representatives from various state government agencies/entities. Regardless of who the selection committee choses, if the Wildlife Board rejects the choice, I'm really not sure what the next step is. Does the committee have alternates? Do we start all over again? Can the loser appeal? Do the Expo tags go to another expo? Is the program suspended for a time? It will, indeed, be interesting!
Edited: As I understand it, this contract actually went to MDF with SFW as a partner. Is this the same partnership that submitted an application or did MDF and SFW switch places or did they separate and each submit an application? I guess we'll know in a few weeks.
Edited: As I understand it, this contract actually went to MDF with SFW as a partner. Is this the same partnership that submitted an application or did MDF and SFW switch places or did they separate and each submit an application? I guess we'll know in a few weeks.
cantkillathing
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,491
Just curious as far as if RMEF says they will put all the money back to the public which is probably true, but is it going back to Utah or other states?
From the messages that I have received some people seem to think that what is up for bid is the Expo. That is not the case. The Expo is owned by MDF and SFW. It is the up to 200 tags that are up for bid. If the RMEF gets the bid, they will have to start their own Expo to go with the tags. It will have to be held in Utah at their choice of location.
> From the
>messages that I have received
>some people seem to think
>that what is up for
>bid is the Expo.
>That is not the case.
> The Expo is owned
>by MDF and SFW.
>It is the up to
>200 tags that are up
>for bid. If the
>RMEF gets the bid, they
>will have to start their
>own Expo to go with
>the tags. It will
>have to be held in
>Utah at their choice of
>location.
true but without the tags, MDF/SFW have no expo...
Mntman
"Hunting is where you prove yourself"
>messages that I have received
>some people seem to think
>that what is up for
>bid is the Expo.
>That is not the case.
> The Expo is owned
>by MDF and SFW.
>It is the up to
>200 tags that are up
>for bid. If the
>RMEF gets the bid, they
>will have to start their
>own Expo to go with
>the tags. It will
>have to be held in
>Utah at their choice of
>location.
true but without the tags, MDF/SFW have no expo...
Mntman
"Hunting is where you prove yourself"
chewyman55
Active Member
- Messages
- 843
"true but without the tags, MDF/SFW have no expo..."
Amen. RMEF would simply have to schedule an expo a few weeks on either side of SFW and it'd be game over. Of course you could still show up and hear the SFW loyalists talk about the good ol days for a nominal donation.
Amen. RMEF would simply have to schedule an expo a few weeks on either side of SFW and it'd be game over. Of course you could still show up and hear the SFW loyalists talk about the good ol days for a nominal donation.
Hawkeye
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,022
Good point Birdman. Fortunately for the State of Utah and sportsmen, RMEF has committed that if awarded the contract, they will bring their National Convention to Utah for the life of the contract and offer the tags as part of their annual National Convention. Anyone familiar with RMEF knows this would be an awesome, top-notch event and 100% of the application fees we be used for actual conservation projects in Utah. You are correct that SFW and MDF could continue hosting the Hunt Expo but without the 200 expo tags. Thanks for the clarification.
-Hawkeye-
-Hawkeye-
cannonball
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,285
Friends, My passion is deer, not elk so my question is this: SFW & MDF has done quite a bit for deer on their projects so if the RMEF gets the bid will their emphasis be on elk? I would not like to see that. Most likely SFW's membership and ability to help would be gone.
Elk are easy to manage, deer are not and each year I see a decline of deer in so many area. We have had a pass for easy winters for the last several year. One really bad winter and our deer are gone.
When you wish for something, make sure you know what you are wishing for!!
Elk are easy to manage, deer are not and each year I see a decline of deer in so many area. We have had a pass for easy winters for the last several year. One really bad winter and our deer are gone.
When you wish for something, make sure you know what you are wishing for!!
Cannonball, if you are concerned that RMEF would somehow use expos to favor elk advocacy over deer, fear not. RMEF uses most of its $ to preserve and restore habitat, usually focusing on areas that benefit elk, deer and every other species of wildlife found there. RMEF is about the land much more than the species.
cannonball
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,285
That is fine and dandy, but every where I've seen habitat restoration it is all about grasses and NOT more expensive vegetation for deer. At least with the MDF they fight for more of the deer vegetation. I have not been happy with SFW position on a lot of issues, but I'm certainly not convinced that the RMEF would be the right people to be in charge of 200 permits and face it, they(the permits) are not going to go away.
One thing for sure, jocking for position is a good thing. We left DWR unchecked way to long. We need other voices to be heard. We needed the help that SFW and MDF yielded. Not sure they have done enough though, but the RMEF might not be there for the deer hunters and they are the ones that need the help.
One thing for sure, jocking for position is a good thing. We left DWR unchecked way to long. We need other voices to be heard. We needed the help that SFW and MDF yielded. Not sure they have done enough though, but the RMEF might not be there for the deer hunters and they are the ones that need the help.
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,122
LAST EDITED ON Nov-06-15 AT 11:31PM (MST)[p]I'm not sure about the EXPO permit application funds because there hasn't been a mandate regarding them until this year. But I don't think you have to worry about RMEF ignoring deer habitat, because the Conservation (auction) permits funds are species specific per the DWR's current policy. In other words, the funds from the elk tags are primarily used for elk projects, while the funds from deer tags are primarily used for deer projects.
Per R657-9 Conservation Permit Funds and Reporting.
(5)(b): 60% of the revenue may be retained and used by the conservation organization only for eligible projects as provided in subsections (i) through (ix).
(i) eligible projects including habitat improvement, habitat acquisition, transplants, targeted education efforts and other projects providing a substantial benefit to species of wildlife for which conservation permits are issued.
Also, remember that the DWR is trying to grow more deer while slowing down the growth of elk and they have the final say on which projects are approved. Besides, as has been stated, elk habitat also benefits other species, including deer. If we concentrate on native grasses for elk then we also fight the growth of cheatgrass and our sagebrush meadows and flats benefit.
Per R657-9 Conservation Permit Funds and Reporting.
(5)(b): 60% of the revenue may be retained and used by the conservation organization only for eligible projects as provided in subsections (i) through (ix).
(i) eligible projects including habitat improvement, habitat acquisition, transplants, targeted education efforts and other projects providing a substantial benefit to species of wildlife for which conservation permits are issued.
Also, remember that the DWR is trying to grow more deer while slowing down the growth of elk and they have the final say on which projects are approved. Besides, as has been stated, elk habitat also benefits other species, including deer. If we concentrate on native grasses for elk then we also fight the growth of cheatgrass and our sagebrush meadows and flats benefit.
deerslayer88
Active Member
- Messages
- 972
Rocky Mountain Elk has and always has been about the land and what will benefit all animals not just deer or so on. I have 100% confidence that they will use the funds to help all wildlife. I also trust they will not screw us like DP.
?If men were angels, no government would be
necessary.? John Adams
?If men were angels, no government would be
necessary.? John Adams
I do hope that whoever gets the "Expo" contract will be directed by the DWR to BUY critical big game wintering range. The habitat work that has been done will certainly pay benefits but if we don't protect existing wintering habitat we can't expect to see any more population growth in deer numbers.
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,122
LAST EDITED ON Dec-03-15 AT 00:09AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Dec-03-15 AT 00:08?AM (MST)
>Did anything about this come out
>of the Wildlife Board meeting
>today?
>
>Grizzly
Yes and No! And the plot thickens! We're not any closer to knowing who will be chosen, but we are closer to knowing more about the process. As I understood it (Hawkeye is a lawyer and he took much better notes, so he may have to correct me, which I certainly don't mind!), the RFP responses have been submitted, but they are not yet in the hands of the Evaluating Committee because of some needed clarifications and some possible compliance issues. The Evaluation Committee has to score them on some designated criteria and Purchasing wants to make sure they won't be disqualified later on.
Once they are in the hands of the Evaluating Committee they are given a score for each of the criteria (the exact criteria wasn't mentioned) and the one with the highest score will be the one submitted to the Wildlife Board for their approval. During the evaluation, the committee members (DWR, DNR, Governor's rep, State Purchasing rep, DTS rep) have to sign a conflict of interest agreement.
Once the Wildlife Board receives the recommendation from the Evaluation Committee they can either approve it or not. Here's where it gets real tricky. Any members of the Wildlife Board who are currently or who have ever been an officer in the selected conservation organization also have to sign a conflict of interest agreement and are not allowed to vote. I know John is SFW's current auctioneer and a former SFW President and Bryon Bateman was SFW's President but I'm not sure about Steve Dalton nor Donnie Hunter who are both prominent SFW members. So if SFW gets the bid, even if they are MDF's partner, it may be a problem getting a Wildlife Board quorum of 4 in order to take a vote. And not voting or not approving the top scorer or not issuing the EXPO Permit Packet could be a PR problem for all concerned per the DNR lawyer.
In any case, the Wildlife Board EXPO permit approval open public meeting is currently scheduled for Dec 18th (Friday) 9:00 am barring any more delays, complications or disqualifications. You can be there, but there is no public input.
There was a lot of talk about confidentiality, so I'm not sure all of what they can or can't tell the public, but they can tell us the name and score of the winning bidder and the scores of the others, but not the names.
Even the board members were somewhat confused as to their role but were given an opportunity to speak privately with the DNR state attorney after the meeting. Of course, I have no idea who talked to whom or who may have make an arrangement for later.
So there it sits until the 18th.
>Did anything about this come out
>of the Wildlife Board meeting
>today?
>
>Grizzly
Yes and No! And the plot thickens! We're not any closer to knowing who will be chosen, but we are closer to knowing more about the process. As I understood it (Hawkeye is a lawyer and he took much better notes, so he may have to correct me, which I certainly don't mind!), the RFP responses have been submitted, but they are not yet in the hands of the Evaluating Committee because of some needed clarifications and some possible compliance issues. The Evaluation Committee has to score them on some designated criteria and Purchasing wants to make sure they won't be disqualified later on.
Once they are in the hands of the Evaluating Committee they are given a score for each of the criteria (the exact criteria wasn't mentioned) and the one with the highest score will be the one submitted to the Wildlife Board for their approval. During the evaluation, the committee members (DWR, DNR, Governor's rep, State Purchasing rep, DTS rep) have to sign a conflict of interest agreement.
Once the Wildlife Board receives the recommendation from the Evaluation Committee they can either approve it or not. Here's where it gets real tricky. Any members of the Wildlife Board who are currently or who have ever been an officer in the selected conservation organization also have to sign a conflict of interest agreement and are not allowed to vote. I know John is SFW's current auctioneer and a former SFW President and Bryon Bateman was SFW's President but I'm not sure about Steve Dalton nor Donnie Hunter who are both prominent SFW members. So if SFW gets the bid, even if they are MDF's partner, it may be a problem getting a Wildlife Board quorum of 4 in order to take a vote. And not voting or not approving the top scorer or not issuing the EXPO Permit Packet could be a PR problem for all concerned per the DNR lawyer.
In any case, the Wildlife Board EXPO permit approval open public meeting is currently scheduled for Dec 18th (Friday) 9:00 am barring any more delays, complications or disqualifications. You can be there, but there is no public input.
There was a lot of talk about confidentiality, so I'm not sure all of what they can or can't tell the public, but they can tell us the name and score of the winning bidder and the scores of the others, but not the names.
Even the board members were somewhat confused as to their role but were given an opportunity to speak privately with the DNR state attorney after the meeting. Of course, I have no idea who talked to whom or who may have make an arrangement for later.
So there it sits until the 18th.
desertpointbrian
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,349
Correct me if I am wrong but didn't I read somewhere sfw was trying to buy a bunch of land in alaska. Where do people think that money to do so came from. Sfw just got chin checked by rmef and called out for their secrecy. Anybody who thinks rmef only does Conservation for elk needs to do their homework. This choice is ad simple as it gets a organization with 100% transparency luke rmef. Or the fraud fill our own pockets like sfw.
elkantlers
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,892
I'm just tired of SFW having a strangle hold on Utah wildlife. I think change can be a good thing.
llamapacker
Moderator
- Messages
- 1,084
The main difference is when RMEF had problems (Dart, etc.) they were on display for the membership to see, and the problems were corrected. Nobody is perfect, but when mistakes are made, the action taken to remedy the problem tells the most about an organization.
When has SFW even hinted they made a mistake? They are the least transparent, insular conservation group in the west. It is time for a change.
Bill
When has SFW even hinted they made a mistake? They are the least transparent, insular conservation group in the west. It is time for a change.
Bill
