Hunt Expo and RMEF

C

ColoradoOak

Very Active Member
Messages
1,920
Do you Utah guys know if there is any truth to the rumor I heard about RMEF submitting a proposal to UDWR to administer the hunt expo starting in 2017? I looked at the regulations on the website and see that yesterday was the deadline to submit proposals for the 2017-2021 contract.

I heard that the RMEF proposal included returning 100% of the $5 convention license application fees to UDWR, instead of the 30% required by the regulations. It seems like that would be a great deal for UDWR and sportsmen. Surely someone has heard something if there is any truth to the rumor.
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-02-15 AT 10:30AM (MST)[p]It is not a rumor. RMEF's proposal was hand delivered to the UDWR yesterday. RMEF is proposing to bring their national convention to Utah and to contract for the current expo tags. RMEF's proposal is to return 100% of the $5.00 application fee for the expo tags to the UDWR, no strings attached. Their convention would dwarf the current SFW/MDF convention. It would be a great thing for Utah and truly have the national attendance.
 
Wow, no kidding! That's great news for UT, but bad news for draw odds for the expo tags! LOL

Thanks for the info, igotabigone.
 
Well this should be interesting to see how it plays out. I use the word "see" pretty loosely, cause we all know it's the backroom that will be deciding.

If this really is true, SFW must be wide eyed and working it like never before.

If this really is true, this needs to be brought to the light of the general populous. We see how much play the Outdoor Retailer Convention gets and how much the state lobbies to keep it. This would be close to the same league and potentially worth more $ to the state than exp $s are to SFW.
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-02-15 AT 03:48PM (MST)[p]It was smart to hold off their submittal to the last day. Hopefully SFW didn't know it was coming.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

Hopefully economic impacts and returns are part of the evaluation criteria for award decisions.
 
I would love to see this, but isn't the UDWR board full of SFW guys? Should be pretty interesting how they could possibly reject RMEF's offer and justify it.
 
Any bets on the winner? I would not bet against Don and the Utah system. This would be great for Utah wildlife but I bet it doesn't happen. I know I am synical but we are talking about iUtah, SFW., and money.
 
Sorry for the delayed response but I have been out of town scouting for an upcoming hunt. This is not a rumor - it is 100% true. RMEF has submitted a proposal to the UDWR for the next 5 years of Expo tags that includes bringing the RMEF national convention to Utah and a commitment to dedicate 100% of the application fee revenue to actual conservation projects. Kudos to the RMEF for stepping up to the plate on behalf of sportsmen. Share this good news with your friends and family members. I am fairly confident that more details will be forthcoming.

-Hawkeye-
 
I Just Heard a RUMOR:

PEAYDAY will be giving the UDWR 6.00 per every 5.00 applicant,a 1.00 out of his own pocket per person!

He wants the EXPO,again!






Go Ahead!

Make Me take it down!

9001hank2.jpg
 
If they do not win the bid, we need to all raise hell.
Glad they found out at the last moment about the opportunity to bid, and put forth a great bid.
 
I highly doubt RMEF found out last minute. I'm sure it's been in the works for a while and they strategically planned to wait until the last minute to submit their application. If they had submitted it sooner I guarantee SFW would have been notified and more than likely submitted a new app that matched RMEF's offer. I hope I am wrong but being that it is Utah and SFW we are talking about it would not shock me at all to see when proposals are made public that SFW magically decided this was the year to up the percentage they give back to the DWR purely out of the kindness of their hearts.
 
I was on the RAC board for 4 years and one thing that the DWR had said when I was there when we gave SFW the bid for 5 years was that the money that SFW was getting the DWR was still using. If the DWR has complete control of the money they have to many loop holes they have to go through to use the money being a state funded agency, by some other group controlling the money they were able to get more projects done and funded because they didn't need to go through all the garbage to make it happen. So take it for what its worth but your $5 money was still being used.
 
Don will not allow this to happen. the deal will be done behind closed doors and once again SFW will steal the wildlife of Utah.
 
>I was on the RAC board
>for 4 years and one
>thing that the DWR had
>said when I was there
>when we gave SFW the
>bid for 5 years was
>that the money that SFW
>was getting the DWR was
>still using. If the
>DWR has complete control of
>the money they have to
>many loop holes they have
>to go through to use
>the money being a state
>funded agency, by some other
>group controlling the money they
>were able to get more
>projects done and funded because
>they didn't need to go
>through all the garbage to
>make it happen. So
>take it for what its
>worth but your $5 money
>was still being used.

Hghghgag........excuse me I just threw up in my mouth a little.


***********************************
Member RMEF, Pope & Young Club, NRA, UWC & DP Hate Club
 
I am sure the $5.00 was being used. Now how and what it was being used for will never be known. Again, I don't think Don will allow this to happen. I am sure that backroom deals are already happening. Watch the extension get backdated to the current agreement...Problem solved.
 
>>I was on the RAC board
>>for 4 years and one
>>thing that the DWR had
>>said when I was there
>>when we gave SFW the
>>bid for 5 years was
>>that the money that SFW
>>was getting the DWR was
>>still using. If the
>>DWR has complete control of
>>the money they have to
>>many loop holes they have
>>to go through to use
>>the money being a state
>>funded agency, by some other
>>group controlling the money they
>>were able to get more
>>projects done and funded because
>>they didn't need to go
>>through all the garbage to
>>make it happen. So
>>take it for what its
>>worth but your $5 money
>>was still being used.
>
>Hghghgag........excuse me I just threw up
>in my mouth a little.
>
>
>
>***********************************
>Member RMEF, Pope & Young Club,
>NRA, UWC & DP Hate
>Club

Was it a white creamy fluid????
 
Cantkill, By law regardless of which organization runs the expo the funds are stored and spent the same(you can look it up on the DWR's website) the difference is the percentage that goes back into wildlife vs. the organizations back pocket. Of the $5 app fee SFW was keeping $3.50 for admin. fees(back pocket) and spending $1.50 on Utah's wildlife. From what I can tell RMEF is proposing to put NOTHING in their back pocket and 100% of the app. fee back into Utah's wildlife.

How could anyone with a working brain feel like SFW using 30%(which they just started doing last year due to public pressure) on our wildlife is more beneficial than RMEF's offer?
 
>Cantkill, By law regardless of which
>organization runs the expo the
>funds are stored and spent
>the same(you can look it
>up on the DWR's website)
>the difference is the percentage
>that goes back into wildlife
>vs. the organizations back pocket.
>Of the $5 app fee
>SFW was keeping $3.50 for
>admin. fees(back pocket) and spending
>$1.50 on Utah's wildlife. From
>what I can tell RMEF
>is proposing to put NOTHING
>in their back pocket and
>100% of the app. fee
>back into Utah's wildlife.
>
>How could anyone with a working
>brain feel like SFW using
>30%(which they just started doing
>last year due to public
>pressure) on our wildlife is
>more beneficial than RMEF's offer?
>

A 6.00 offer!-120% offer!

They'll add a Dollar of their own Money/back Pocket to Top the RMEF's offer!






Go Ahead!

Make Me take it down!

9001hank2.jpg
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-04-15 AT 10:23AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Sep-04-15 AT 10:11?AM (MST)

That is great news!

This is exactly the type of organization and proposal that I've been hoping would step to the plate and force all parties to lay their cards on the table. It's a great day for sportsmen in Utah (except for maybe those for Fish and Wildlife).

It appears that RMEF has come forward and said that they would do the exact same thing that SFW is doing, they'd do it better, and they'd give back ALL of their take from the sales of generated through application fees. RMEF is perhaps the most respected non-profit wildlife organization out there and to have them submit a bid to get the rights to the show is a big deal.

We've been fighting SFW for years to show us what they've been doing with that money. To their credit, they've come a long way in recent years, but it wasn't without a whole lot of screaming and gnashing of teeth. Moreover, when they did show us their accounting of the money generated from the tags that were given to them by the state, we've seen that only a fraction of the overall package was used "on the ground", as they say. There was and is an awful lot of inefficiency and nebulous accounting.

Despite the shortcomings, The DWR has long stated that SFW was the best org for the job, even through numerous inquisitions as to the use of the funds being generated by the expo and the lack of transparency and record keeping for both parties. The DWR and SFW have been very loyal to each other.

All of the reasons that SFW and the DWR have used to defend their partnership will now be put to the test. This is where the rubber meets the road.

If it is true, and if RMEF is proposing to put their world wild brand and marketing behind this expo, (enough to switch right there already, IMO), AND IN ADDITION, they're proposing to return 100% of the funds generated back into local conservation projects? Wow. That's exactly what we've been hoping for. Jackpot. That actually goes above and beyond any proposal that I can remember ever being discussed regarding the Expo.

Now, that said - if the DWR and SFW already have some kind of backroom deal in place, this proposal will help bring that to light. We'll hear some kind of excuse as to why SFW has earned the right to continue with the expo based on good will and longevity. Sadly, this is almost expected, and we've seen this type of thing happen many times in the past.

We know that there is a lot of overlap in DWR, the wildlife board and SFW. They are friends, they talk, they help each other out, and they usually know what is going to happen well before there is any kind of public "hearing" or debate.

We can be sure that if nothing else this proposal would (and should) shine a giant magnifying glass on the relationship that currently exists among those parties and exactly how these deals are being made. This will be very interesting to watch.

The bottom line is that RMEF's proposal will help all of us either directly or indirectly. I'm excited to see how this plays out. Thank you RMEF!

Also - does anybody have a link to the proposal? Or has anybody submitted a grama request to get it? I'd love to read through it. It should be publicly available at this point.


Vi Et Armis Invictus Maneo
 
I would encourage EVERYONE who cares to send your input to the wildlife board and express your opinion - here are most of their email addresses:

'[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'

Here is the text of the email I sent - use it if you want or write up your own, but make your voice heard:

Hello All,
As members of the Wildlife Board with decision making authority over wildlife in this state, I am writing to urge you to push for and accept the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation?s recent proposal to bring their national convention to Utah and to contract for the current Expo tags. It is my understanding that RMEF?s proposal includes agreement to return 100% of the $5.00 application fees for the Expo tags to the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. The current agreement with SFW/Mule Deer Foundation is 30% return of application fees, which is a travesty and says a lot about the current situation for anyone that is willing to look at it objectively.

As a resident of Utah and a die-hard hunter that cares deeply about the future of hunting in this state for my children and their future children, I implore you to push for this proposal from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. 100% return to the UDWR on these fees would be a boon for wildlife and habitat restoration projects and would be a HUGE improvement over the current situation. RMEF?s involvement would almost certainly bring more national attention and additional earnings to the table as well.

Please do what is right for Utah, Utah residents, and most importantly the wildlife of Utah, by accepting RMEF?s proposal. If this proposal is not accepted, I believe serious questioning should occur as to the integrity of our overall wildlife management process. Thank you for your service and I trust you will do what is right for all involved. If you have questions for me or additional info that you feel is worth sharing, I would love to hear it as I am extremely interested in the outcome of this.
 
elkhunterUT-

That is a great email. In addition, I would suggest asking the wildlife board to include this issue on the agenda for an upcoming board meeting so that the public has an opportunity to provide input.

-Hawkeye-
 
I hope RMEF is given a shot. I'd love more transparency around how these funds are used.

I just sent my email to the wildlife board.
 
Just a suggestion since I do not have a bone in this as I am out of state. The more of you Utah hunters that take the time to send emails to the board will make it harder for them not to be more public about the bids and who gets the bid for the convention.
I hope your state will come out ahead on this deal for the future hunts and hunters in your state and even non resident hunters. GOOD LUCK!!!

RELH
 
I have often heard SFW supporters say something like, "when a better org. shows itself, i will support them but until that happens, i will support SFW"

Here's your chance!

kudos to RMEF!!

Joey


"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-05-15 AT 00:09AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Sep-04-15 AT 11:36?PM (MST)

>I would encourage EVERYONE who cares
>to send your input to
>the wildlife board and express
>your opinion - here are
>most of their email addresses:
>
>
>'[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'
>
>
>Here is the text of the
>email I sent - use
>it if you want or
>write up your own, but
>make your voice heard:
>
>Hello All,
>As members of the Wildlife Board
>with decision making authority over
>wildlife in this state, I
>am writing to urge you
>to push for and accept
>the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation?s
>recent proposal to bring their
>national convention to Utah and
>to contract for the current
>Expo tags. It is
>my understanding that RMEF?s proposal
>includes agreement to return 100%
>of the $5.00 application fees
>for the Expo tags to
>the Utah Division of Wildlife
>Resources. The current agreement
>with SFW/Mule Deer Foundation is
>30% return of application fees,
>which is a travesty and
>says a lot about the
>current situation for anyone that
>is willing to look at
>it objectively.
>
>As a resident of Utah and
>a die-hard hunter that cares
>deeply about the future
>of hunting in this state
>for my children and their
>future children, I implore you
>to push for this proposal
>from the Rocky Mountain Elk
>Foundation. 100% return to
>the UDWR on these fees
>would be a boon for
>wildlife and habitat restoration projects
>and would be a HUGE
>improvement over the current situation.
> RMEF?s involvement would almost
>certainly bring more national attention
>and additional earnings to the
>table as well.
>
>Please do what is right for
>Utah, Utah residents, and most
>importantly the wildlife of Utah,
>by accepting RMEF?s proposal.
>If this proposal is not
>accepted, I believe serious questioning
>should occur as to the
>integrity of our overall wildlife
>management process. Thank you
>for your service and I
>trust you will do what
>is right for all involved.
> If you have questions
>for me or additional info
>that you feel is worth
>sharing, I would love to
>hear it as I am
>extremely interested in the outcome
>of this.

Correction on the Board Members:
Add: Byron Bateman: [email protected]
Add: Donnie Hunter: [email protected]
Add: Mike King: [email protected]
Remove: [email protected]

Mike is a current Board member that wasn't listed.

Both Byron and Donnie, the newest Board members, are prominent SFW members (Byron, recently resigned President; Donnie, not sure if he is an officer but is very active in the Iron County Chapter.

Bill was one of the two Board members due for release on July 1 because his six year tenure was up, but, sadly he passed away just before that.
 
Thanks Elk for adding those - I knew I did not have addresses for the newest members of the board (They are the ones that need to hear this the most!!). I will resend my email to those additions.
 
Here is a complete list of the email addresses for the Wildlife Board Members and a copy of the email that I sent. Make sure your voice is heard:

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Gentlemen--

I am a lifelong Utah citizen and sportsmen, and I am writing you regarding the next 5-year contract for the Expo Permits. It is my understanding that the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) submitted a application for the next contract that includes a commitment to dedicate 100% of the $5 application fees to approved conservation projects and to bring the RMEF National Convention to Salt Lake City for the next 5 years. This is a very generous offer and would be a significant improvement over the current situation.

I generally support the idea of a Hunting and Conservation Expo and usually attend the Expo each year. However, I have been concerned about the lack of transparency and accountability regarding the revenues raised from the 200 Convention Permits. These permits were taken from the public draw and are public assets. As a result, we all have a responsibility to ensure that the monies generated from those permits are used to benefit wildlife. After being allowed to keep 100% of the $5 application fees for the first several years, the DWR, SFW and MDF eventually agreed to dedicate 30% of the application fees to actual conservation projects starting in 2013. This only occurred after substantial outcry from sportsmen and the general public. I attended many meetings related to this topic and I have heard representatives of SFW and MDF say that they could not afford to put on the Expo if they were required to turn over 100% of the application fee revenue. In contrast, the RMEF proposal includes a voluntary commitment to dedicate 100% of application fee revenue to approved conservation projects. Based upon last year's numbers, that would mean that an additional $800,000 would go towards actual on the ground conservation projects. Over the life of the 5-year contract, you could be talking about an additional $4 to 5 million dollars for conservation projects or possibly $8 to 10 million now that the 5-year contract can be extended under the revised rule. This is a very generous offer by the RMEF given that under the rule they could simply pocket this money and allocate it to "administrative expenses" as has occurred in the past..

The statute is very clear that theses tags were created for two specific purposes: (1) to generate revenue for conservation; and (2) to bring a regional or nation convention to Utah and thereby attract visitors so as to generate tourism dollars. See Administrative Code R657-55-1(2). SFW and MDF have had some success with each of these goals. However, there is no doubt that the RMEF proposal would help further accomplish the statutory purposes of the Expo permits. First, as set forth above, the RMEF proposal would result in millions of additional dollars being put on the ground in Utah for actual conservation. Second, due to the RMEF's commitment to bring its National Convention to Utah, it is likely that the RMEF proposal would attract many more applicants, especially nonresident applicants, and thereby generate more tourism dollars. According to the recent audit conducted by the DWR, roughly 15% of the Expo Tag applicants from 2007 to 2015 were nonresidents. This means that on average the Expo has attracted roughly 11,000 applicants per year and approximately 1,650 of those applicants have been nonresidents. RMEF has over 200,000 members located across the country and around the world. Thus, the RMEF membership is many times larger than SFW and MDF combined. By bringing its National Convention to Salt Lake City and pairing it with the 200 Expo Permits, RMEF would likely attract many more nonresident applicants than what we have seen in the past. This would result in a win for sportsmen, conservation, local area restaurants, hotels and other businesses. Therefore, the RMEF proposal would further the statutory purposes for creating the Expo Permits.

In closing, I hope that you will carefully consider the merits of the RMEF proposal. The decision of which conservation group(s) will be awarded the contract should not be based upon which conservation group had it in the past, which group we like better or which group our friends are involved with. Rather, it should be based upon the factors set forth in the Rule, one of which is the "applicant conservation organization's commitment to use expo permit handling fee revenue to benefit protected wildlife in Utah." R657-55-4(7)(b). I , and numerous other sportsmen, attended the Wildlife Board meeting in August of 2012 and urged the Board to require the SFW and MDF to allocate some portion of the application fees to actual conservation projects. At that time, the Board decided that it would not make any changes until the contract has expired. Now that the contract is up for renewal, it is time to make a decision as to what is best for Utah's wildlife and how we can maximize the return on the 200 permits set aside for the Expo. Please carefully consider the RMEF proposal and do what is right for Utah's wildlife and sportsmen. In addition, I would ask that you include this issue on the agenda for an upcoming Wildlife Board Meeting so that the public has an opportunity to provide input on this important issue.

Thank you for your service and for taking the time to consider my comments. I hope that my comments will not be interpreted as an attack on the Expo or the conservation groups involved in the past. Rather, I would like to make sure that we are safeguarding public assets and maximizing the return for Utah sportsmen and wildlife. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding my comments.

Thanks.

Jason Hawkins

-Hawkeye-
 
Hawkeye that is one very well thought out message with many facts brought forth that should be considered. You might think about submitting a copy of that memo to the Governor of Utah due to the impact it may have on many business in the area. Just might help to have a little higher power looking out for what is best for all of Utah.

RELH
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-07-15 AT 11:07PM (MST)[p]>They may just double the 200
>tags and have two conventions.
>

They may come up with 2 conventions, but there's only 200 tags and they come as a package, so only one convention will get the 200 EXPO tags.
 
Lee is correct. The rule states that the Wildlife Board can set aside "up to 200 tags" for an Expo. So there could be less than 200 tags but no more than 200.

-Hawkeye-
 
>Lee is correct. The rule
>states that the Wildlife Board
>can set aside "up to
>200 tags" for an Expo.
> So there could be
>less than 200 tags but
>no more than 200.
>
>-Hawkeye-

I'm sure they will find a way to change the rule.
 
Wow, I hope this goes through! I believe application dollars would increase significantly if people could actually feel good about where their money was going.

RMEF's proposal needs to be promoted, without public visibility I could see a backroom deal being done between SFW and the board.
 
Last week I forwarded this conversation and my commentary to all the local news outlets (KSL, KUTV, KTVX, FOX13, Trib, DNews). This was done just through their general tip lines. I hope they will bite.

I don't have any inside tracks to the local media outlets. Mabey if someone here does, you could make sure this is getting in front of the right people.

This transcends far beyond just the hunting crowd. This could be big tourism dollars for the state in addition to a far better offer on the conservation side. It's win, win.

The hunt expo pulled in about 11k visitors, mostly UT residents. Last year's RMEF convention had 26K visitors, mostly out of state visitors. More than double!

The Outdoor retailers expo gets so much play in the media. Only fitting that this comes out of the darkness of the backroom and into the visibility of the general public.
 
Good work Forkwest. Keep pushing for media attention. We need someone to shine a light on this entire process.

One of the rumors that has been circulating is that RMEF is simply trying to get their hands on the 200 Expo Permits so that they can take them to Las Vegas or Reno as part of their national convention. If you happen to hear this rumor it is completely false. RMEF has committed in its proposal to bring their national convention to the SLC city area for the next five years if they are awarded the Expo Permits. That would be an awesome event that would generate more dollars for conservation and tourism.

Hopefully some additional information along these lines will be released in the near future. Stay tuned.

-Hawkeye-
 
>One of the rumors that has
>been circulating is that RMEF
>is simply trying to get
>their hands on the 200
>Expo Permits so that they
>can take them to Las
>Vegas or Reno as part
>of their national convention.
>If you happen to hear
>this rumor it is completely
>false. RMEF has committed
>in its proposal to bring
>their national convention to the
>SLC city area for the
>next five years if they
>are awarded the Expo Permits.
> That would be an
>awesome event that would generate
>more dollars for conservation and
>tourism.


That is a ridiculous rumor obviously started by someone with ulterior motives. The administrative rules for convention permits are pretty clear:

R657-55-1. Purpose and Authority.

(1) Under the authority of Sections 23-14-18 and 23-14-19 of the Utah Code, this rule provides the standards and requirements for issuing wildlife expo permits.

(2) Wildlife expo permits are authorized by the Wildlife Board and issued by the division to a qualified conservation organization for purposes of generating revenue to fund wildlife conservation activities in Utah and attracting a regional or national wildlife exposition to Utah.

(3) The selected conservation organization will conduct a random drawing at an exposition held in Utah to distribute the opportunity to receive wildlife expo permits.

(4) This rule is intended as authorization to issue one series of wildlife expo permits per year to one qualified conservation organization.


The potential economic benefits to UT of RMEF bringing their national convention, as well as the increased return to the state on the expo permits, seems to make this a no-brainer decision for the Wildlife Board.
 
From watching his show, I always got the impression that FSTOP was a pro SFW guy. Just my opinion, it would be great if he chimed in with his thoughts though. His show reaches a lot of folks.
 
It will be interesting to see what happens.
Just think, a couple more dollars per application fee over 5 years might just fix our deer herd and future wildlife concerns.

I think the expo has some good positive things for wildlife and hunting and gives the DWR some extra money for projects. I think it is good for the State of Utah as well.
 
Just wondering...Didn't Mr Abbot also help run MDF? Perhaps he is now working for RMEF?
 
YBO -

Yes, Tony did work for MDF and helped put the expo together. He parted ways with them some time ago. He doesn't have any relationship with RMEF.

Vi Et Armis Invictus Maneo
 
This is a great thing. I hope RMEF locks it in for the next 5 years and then gets the 5 year extension when it comes up.
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-09-15 AT 07:22PM (MST)[p]If RMEF did get the the contract, how much control would they have (if any) over which conservation projects would take place with those extra funds.

Would Muleys take a back seat to to Elk?

Do Muleys take a back seat to Elk now?
 
Just wondering where oh where are all the SFW bootmen proclaiming how wonderful SFW is and how much they have done and why SFW should be in charge of the Expo.

Guess we know when the going gets tough the apparent tough get going due to the scam job that the state has been getting since'07!
 
Dang Shotgun1,
You'd think we had coffee every morning. You seem to know me pretty well?

Do I have friends that are SFW/MDF members...yes..
Do I have friends that are RMEF/DU/Delta/FNAWS/TU members...yes..

Do I cover stories that concern Utahans...yes..
Do some of those stories concern SFW/MDF/RMEF/D.U./Delta and other orgs....yes..

Just because I report on a story, does not mean I agree 100% of the time with what is going on, only that it concerns the viewer/Utahan. It is up to the viewer to decide, make judgement, and go forth with any action they see fit.

As a journalist, I'm supposed to keep my opinions to myself. At least that's what I remember my professors telling me, many, many moons ago.

But, as a Utah hunter. One who hopes to one day watch his kids hunt in his home state as much as possible. I would hope that the DWR grants the 200 tags to which ever org gives me that chance. I'd like to see the money generated, stay in Utah. I'm not privy to what all is involved. I plan on finding out as soon as I get back from hunting elk in a week. Maybe I'll be able to share a pic of my hunter. I hear she's pretty dang cute!

If you have any ideas on what I should be asking the DWR/SFW/RMEF/MDF...send me an email [email protected] I should be able to receive an email from time to time. Good hunting. Adam
 
Ask your buddys at $FW what they spend the 70% of the money generated from the 200 expo tags on? And ask them when the turn the 30% over to the DWR, why do they call it a "donation"? Good luck getting any real answers.

While you're at it, why don't you lay out on your show for all of the sportsmen and women of Utah to see, RMEFs proposal and what $FW is doing with the tags right now. Also show everyone how RMEF submitted their proposal before the deadline but magically a new proposal request process appeared.
 
Will RMEF purchase Tule Elk property in Kalifornicted with funds generated from the Expo?
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-15-15 AT 09:36AM (MST)[p]>Will RMEF purchase Tule Elk property
>in Kalifornicted with funds generated
>from the Expo?

That's certainly a possibility. It would be great for the Tule Elk, but probably not so great for Tule Elk hunters. California would protect them! And the funds wouldn't come from the EXPO permit applications anyway! Those funds would stay in Utah if we correctly understand RMEF's intent to return 100% of it to the DWR.
 
I have yet to hear about a purchase RMEF made that was not beneficial to hunters. So, in some form or fashion, if they make this purchase, I suspect it will be as well

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
It doesn't matter to me who does the Expo as long as it is a positive for better wildlife management in Utah. If the RMEF will do it and not keep any of the $$$ and it will be used to purchase habitat, that would be great. The RMEF knows how to make money when they put on conventions. They are not going to do something that will cost them money. They will get the money via some other avenue-- it will no doubt come from people who support them in one way or another. It could be good. I hope that if they don't take a cut of the revenue that it only goes directly into purchasing critical wildlife habitat in Utah.
 
>I have yet to hear about
>a purchase RMEF made that
>was not beneficial to hunters.
> So, in some form
>or fashion, if they make
>this purchase, I suspect it
>will be as well
>
>txhunter58
>
>venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore
>I am)

You're probably right! RMEF does their homework before making ANY move, including land purchases AND this Expo!
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-16-15 AT 11:56AM (MST)[p]I've called the DWR a couple times now to get their explanation of the "new RFP process"... so far I haven't been able talk with anyone who could speak to it, apparently the directors are all at a meeting in Tucson this week.

I'm told that a statement regarding this issue is being prepared, and will be posted on the division's website. I was also told that someone will return my call eventually.
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-16-15 AT 01:57PM (MST)[p]Cheater - good on you for following up. "In meetings" is code for "our attorney hasn't told us how to get out of this mess yet."

What we're seeing here is the DWR and SFW painted back into a corner. They've given us half truths and milquetoast explanations for years now, and somebody has finally showed up who is going to make them put their literal money where their mouths are.

Perception is reality. Because of the history of this mess, the DWR, the board, and SFW are all in the same sinking ship regarding the expo whether they like it or not.

If the DWR is smart, they will distance themselves from SFW immediately. They will avoid any actions that make it look like there is any type of underhanded dealing and they'll lay their cards out on the table for everyone to see. If they made a mistake with the imaginary new RFP process, they need to admit it, take the heat, and back away. They will do backflips and cartwheels and rejoice that an organization has figured out a way to put MILLIONS of more dollars into conservation, no strings attached.

The wildlife board needs to do the same. Any board members who have had anything to do with SFW in the past need to recuse themselves from this mess and get the hell away.

SFW is just plain screwed. They've been pulling a con on all of us for years now and their expo days are numbered. There is no way they come out of this mess looking good. The best they could do would be to step away semi-gracefully, with a statement along the lines of "RMEF is a worthy successor, yada yada, they bring resources we don't have, yada yada, we're excited to see the good this will bring to Utah's wildlife."

That's not going to happen, though.

One possibility is that SFW will try to figure out a way to become some kind of partner with RMEF and co-sponsor the event so they can continue to eat that pie. Hopefully RMEF stands up, kicks them to the curb, and tells them where they can stick it.

Because of all of the political connections with these groups and the friends they have in high places, I'm sure we'll also see all sorts of new things popping up that try to derail this thing. My hope is that there is enough legislation currently in place that the same laws and rules put in place to protect SFW will end up protecting RMEF.

We've now had YEARS of this dog and pony show running the expo. Who knows how many millions of our tax dollars have been wasted. I feel very good about the fact that RMEF is saying they will give back 100% of the proceeds of the expo tags to Utah's wildlife. That's a HUGE deal.

I am about to sign up as a lifetime member of the RMEF to show my support. It's not just this - they do so many good things and they are one of the most efficient orgs around. Kudos to RMEF for getting involved.


Vi Et Armis Invictus Maneo
 
Heck, MDF and SFW probably thought they had it in the bag and submitted no proposal or a minimal proposal prior to the deadline. Hence the new RFP process. Someone should GRAMA the initial proposals.

It seems like a no-brainer for UDWR to select RMEF. Therefore, I suspect MDF/SFW will retain the convention. :) You guys should keep the pressure on them if you care.
 
Oak, those were my thoughts exactly. I wonder if SWF figured they had it in the bag (like always), and didn't even submit anything....

I've never submitted a GRAMA request, but I think I just might.
 
I just had a crazy thought! Maybe we're looking at this all wrong! What if this supposed new process was written to FAVOR RMEF and is an attempt to get MDF & SFW to belly up to the bar?

In my limited dealings with DWR personnel, I've discovered that administration doesn't always agree with SFW and/or MDF regarding policies, procedures or protocol and they may be as tired of some of their antics as we are. Per the current RAC and WB system, DWR is mandated to do certain things, but that doesn't mean they prefer it and this may be one of those things. I'm sure they would prefer to continue an established relationship rather than to have to start from scratch, but only if the established relationship will produce the results a new arrangement is capable of producing.

If this is the case, MDF and SFW certainly have quite a ways to go. Aside from the EXPO Permit fees (which I think are actually incidental to RMEF), they'd have to pull in double the visitors (triple or quadruple out of state visitors), increase the number of vendors (especially Utah based vendors), increase the number of sponsors, produce more world class shows and seminars, have more events for visitors of all ages, auction off more gear and leave more money in Utah! It's my guess that RMEF would love to move their annual membership convention to Utah on a permanent basis rather than Las Vegas or back east somewhere and this would be an ideal place to bring it. After all they are the ROCKY MOUNTAIN Elk Foundation and Salt Lake City is in the heart of the ROCKY MOUNTAINS!

Overall, I think this EXPO offers more for them and us than just the EXPO Permit fees being spent in Utah!
 
As many of you know, I sit on the RMEF Board of Directors. A lot of you have emailed me with questions and given the confidentiality requirements that come with sitting on the Board, I have had to point you to the RMEF Headquarters. While I was out filming in Wyoming last week, RMEF issued a press release that confirmed that RMEF did submit a bid and some details of that bid.

There is now a lot of conjecture about why RMEF submitted a bid, what RMEF plans to do if awarded the bid, and a host of other things that seem intended to cast doubt over the motives of the RMEF bid for the Expo in Utah.

We have been working on this for the better part of a year. It was something we decided to do because we feel that the wildlife and the hunters of Utah could benefit by having all of these raffle tag proceeds directed to wildlife, whether RMEF hosted the Expo or some other organization made an even better proposal. If the final outcome is that wildlife and hunters benefit from the money that is being raised, that is a good outcome, no matter who is awarded the Expo.

RMEF engaged expert legal counsel to assist with preparing the bid. We examined every aspect of the Utah Statutes that relate to how the Expo operates, how the bid process works, criteria that must be met to be eligible, and all other aspects to make sure the RMEF bid was crafted as requested. The bid was hand delivered to the UT Division of Wildlife Resources the afternoon of the deadline that is identified in UT statute and a signed receipt was provided to the law firm.

Subsequent to RMEF submitting that bid, plenty has occurred behind the scenes. The new idea of a Request for Proposals (RFP) comes as a surprise to RMEF and to the law firm hired to assist us with the bid. That RFP is not provided for in statute. There is no administrative rule that we are aware of that allows DWR to change the manner by which the process is awarded. It is possible that such administrative rule exists and we are not aware of that.

Rumors have been floating around that RMEF will get the tags and move the Expo. Not sure who would start such a rumor, or why, but that is completely false. RMEF plans to host their annual convention in Salt Lake City for as long as the Expo contract would be awarded to RMEF. As stated above, SLC would be a great place to host an annual convention for elk hunters and would be attractive to those companies wanting to be part of an event that brings hunters from all across the country.

Rumors have been started that RMEF will use the proceeds to purchase land outside of Utah. A completely false rumor. Read the RMEF proposal and it states that 100% of the raffle proceeds will be given back to the state of Utah for habitat and access.

Most importantly, I hope the folks of Utah will ask their elected and appointed leaders to follow the statutes that exist. And whatever the final decision on who will be awarded the Expo contract, request that the leaders do what is best for Utah wildlife and Utah hunters. Putting more money on the ground is the reason why RMEF went through the effort and cost to prepare and submit this bid. Hopefully more money to wildlife will be the outcome, no matter which organization is awarded the Expo.

Hope you all have great hunts this season.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
"Salt Lake City is in the heart of the ROCKY MOUNTAINS!"

Actually, the heart of the rockies is about 8 miles south and west of my house, in western Wyoming. I agree with the rest though...
 
I have said this before, I have no bone in this squabble since I live in CA. For the past two years I have read many posts on this forum that berates SFW and how they conduct business with their exclusive use of the hunt expo tags.

My suggestion is to quit bellyaching and step up to the plate and do something positive that will benefit your state and your wildlife. Instead of bellyaching, send emails to your state representatives requesting a fair selection on who gets the expo for the next 5 years. Point out the benefits that RMEF has Vs. SFW in their larger organization has in drawing a 1000 or more non resident hunters into the SLC area for the duration of the expo.

If any of you have connections with the SLC Better Business Bureau, contact them and get them involved. Many of the clients that the BBB has are owners of hotels, motels, food and beverage places that will see a increase in business due to the drawing in of any out of state hunters for the expo.

So quit the bellyaching and take positive steps by getting those emails out to your state representatives at the capital and seek other local sources to support your ideal of a fair selection process to get the expo for the next 5 years.

If you fail to do this, then do not bellyache anymore in the future, as it will fall on deaf ears for many of us. Good luck and go to work.

RELH
 
>"Salt Lake City is in the
>heart of the ROCKY MOUNTAINS!"
>
>
>Actually, the heart of the rockies
>is about 8 miles south
>and west of my house,
>in western Wyoming. I agree
>with the rest though...

You're probably right, but I suspect you don't have enough facilities, including hotels and restaurants, 8 miles south and west of your home to be able to hold the EXPO. So let's keep it in Salt Lake City and they'll welcome us both there. I'm 260 miles south! :)
 
Randy, I knew we'd get a candid well written response from you and RMEF. Hopefully we'll get one out of the DWR/Wildlife Board.

Thanks for all of your work on this.
 
I just did a Google "News" search under "RMEF UTAH SFW Bid" and got nada, -0-, zip! Is this issue of RMEF's Bid not Newsworthy or is somebody trying and doing a good job of keeping it on the hush?

Joey


"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"
 
Funny there is a rumor about RMEF taking the 200 Convention tags to another location outside Utah. It was $FW/MDF who wanted to take the tags and run. I don't remember what year but it was shortly after the tag grab and expo thing started. $FW/MDF wanted to take the tags and expo to Reno, it was even announced in print in MDFs magazine.
 
If your newspaper in SLC has a "letter to the editor" section. Some of you guys should write a letter to the editor detailing the advantages of the RMEF contract bid. Expand on the benefits it will give wildlife and business in the SLC area as compared to SFW/WDF due to RMEF being able to draw in more out of town members that will spend money in the SLC area.
Do not make the letter a bashing of SFW that will turn people off that reads the article. If you can take the time to bellyache here, you can take the time to write your local newspaper. Hurry time is getting short!!!!

RELH
 
Nebo,

Can you elaborate? Are you saying that the proposals already submitted are being reviewed by the purchasing department, or the new RFP process is being reviewed?
 
Here is a letter I sent the Wildlife Board. A different approach than some on here, but hopefully supporting the same goal. Copy and use as you see fit.
Bill

"Gentlemen,
I am writing in support of the RMEF bid to host the Hunt Expo program from 2017-2021.
A bigger, better, more well attended Expo is in the interest of all Utah sportsmen. I have previously traveled to several of the RMEF National conventions, and know first hand what quality events they organize.
Learning that 100% of the proceeds from the hunt tag raffles conducted by RMEF at the Expo will be returned to the State of Utah is a great benefit. RMEF has an amazing record of transparency with the funds it raises, and an outstanding track record of generating the highest possible revenue from its convention and State sanctioned tags.
I appreciate the efforts of MDF and SFW in the past and have enjoyed the Hunt Expo, but the RMEF proposal will truly position Utah and the Hunt Expo as a premier destination for sportsmen. I urge you to award the next 5 year contract to operate the Hunt Expo and the associated raffle and auction tags to RMEF.
Thank you."
 
Also could someone please explain what RMEF put their proposal in on if the RFP was not done yet. Not trying to be a smart a$$ in any way just do not understand all of the bid process and how it works.
 
>Also could someone please explain what
>RMEF put their proposal in
>on if the RFP was
>not done yet. Not
>trying to be a smart
>a$$ in any way just
>do not understand all of
>the bid process and how
>it works.

Because state statute says nothing about an RFP. The RFP is something that came about after RMEF submitted their proposal by the deadline outlined in state statute. The state law states a deadline of September 1st, with not a single reference to an RFP process. We hired attorneys to advise us and we followed their advice that was based on state law.

I read the link posted on the DWR website today. All it says is that the RFP process "was mentioned" at some meetings. Not sure how it works in Utah, but I suspect a lot of things get mentioned at meetings. Does that make the "mentioned" idea more relevant than state statute, because the idea "got mentioned?" According to the law firm that assisted with preparation of our application, the "mention" of an RFP process does not supersede state statute.

I'm never the smartest guy in the room, so maybe that is how Utah law gets enacted retroactively.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
Thanks bigfin I thought that your original bid was on a RFP. So this is in addition to the normal big process if I understand you right.

Again like I said in my other post, something sounds fishy about this whole thing. Not with RMEF but with SFW and the Utah F&G. Especially since RMEF was never notified of a RFP and they are listed as one of the orgs. at the meeting.
 
>I read the link posted on
>the DWR website today.
>All it says is that
>the RFP process "was mentioned"
>at some meetings. Not
>sure how it works in
>Utah, but I suspect a
>lot of things get mentioned
>at meetings. Does that
>make the "mentioned" idea more
>relevant than state statute, because
>the idea "got mentioned?"
>According to the law firm
>that assisted with preparation of
>our application, the "mention" of
>an RFP process does not
>supersede state statute.


If it was mentioned in six meetings, it should be documented in the meeting minutes. Someone should acquire those meeting minutes and see exactly what was discussed.
 
Bigfin, I would hope those same Lawyers are drafting a letter to the DWR stating that they will take this matter to court if they change the rules of the game after it started.

DZ
 
The fix is in folks, what a crock!

This statement tells us that SFW never submitted a proposal. It also tells us that "mentioning" something to the good ole boy network means more than the law. RMEF has already put their cards on the table, how hard will that be to match...
 
Pretty amazing to see this roll out the way it has.

You'd think that a state organization that was in charge of the state's wildlife would be jumping for joy that an organization showed up with a proposal to give the state millions of extra dollars while bringing more tourism and more visitors to the state. You'd think they'd do everything possible to make sure that 100% of the money generated is used for us and not 30%.

Right?

How telling is this? Unbelievable.

The state organization that should be looking out for OUR best interest is now scrambling to make sure that the old guard can somehow hold on. That statement they issued is laughable and total BS.

Everything that happened in those meetings is documented. The RFP process was not part of the deal, no matter how many times it was mentioned. It appears that RMEF did their homework here, so we'll all know shortly exactly what the statues say and what was put in place.



Vi Et Armis Invictus Maneo
 
WOW...... just read the statement on the link posted above from the divison, that whole thing sounds shady as F#@& if ask me.


Jake H. BIG BONE HUNTING Page on Facebook.
458738e374dfcb10.jpg
 
If I remember correctly it has been the Mule Deer Foundation that has been the lead conservation organization with SFW as a partner, that has been running the Expo.
 
Did you notice they did not even mention SFW in their letter. My understanding was sfw was heavily involved. Has it not been them that has handed the check to the wildlife board and pounded their chest.

I have never heard of the sheep foundation being given the tags.

My guess is they some how got wind of what RMEF was doing after they put in their bid and this was the only way they could submit something equal or better. Only my guess and again I really do not understand the bid process.
 
>If I remember correctly it has
>been the Mule Deer Foundation
>that has been the lead
>conservation organization with SFW as
>a partner, that has been
>running the Expo.

Legally and in theory, you're correct! However, in practice, SFW ALWAYS likes running whatever they are involved in and this is no different. We (UWC) have never seen them willing to take a back seat or supportive role in any dealings we've had with them and that goes for the Parowan Front deer transplant, the Mule Deer Committee, the Bear Committee, the Cougar Committee, RAC's and RAC meetings, Wildlife Board and Wildlife Board meetings, and numerous other less public DWR meetings. They don't play second fiddle!
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-18-15 AT 01:06PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Sep-18-15 AT 01:03?PM (MST)

Per a GRAMA sent on September 2 by Gordy Bell, a UWC Board member, followed by another sent yesterday September 17, he received the following response:

"From: Martin Bushman
Subject: Re: GRAMA Request
Date: September 18, 2015 at 10:02 AM MDT
To: Gordy Bell

Mr. Bell:

I apologize the (sic) the delay in responding to your request for information on the 2017 hunting expo contract. I cannot provide you a copy of the new expo RFP at this point since it is not finalized. We expect it will be completed in the near future where it will be awarded through the state RFP process administered by the Division of Purchasing and General Services. Obviously, we have not yet received proposals in response to the RFP, but we anticipate one or more will be submitted once the RFP is published.

Thank you for your patience.

Marty Bushman

Martin B. Bushman
Natural Resources Division
Utah Attorney General's Office
1594 West North Temple #2110
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
Tel: (801)538-4703
Fax: (801)538-4709
E-mail: [email protected] "
 
It gets stranger by the day, maybe by the hour. To quote Mr. Bushman;


"I apologize the the delay in responding to your request for information on the 2017 hunting expo contract. I cannot provide you a copy of the new expo RFP at this point since it is not finalized. We expect it will be completed in the near future where it will then be published and available to all who wish to read it."

Really? Are you kidding me? I thought this RFP process had been in place for over a year, according to the Director's office. Supposedly it had been "mentioned" in many meetings, though the meeting minutes make no reference of it.

Now we find out, according to the UT Attorney General's office, the RFP is not yet finalized as of today, 17 days following the deadline for submission of Expo proposals. It was not even in place by the deadline date called for in the Utah Expo statutes.

The truth is always stranger than fiction. This is really strange.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
Lee, I have seen you at numerous RAC meetings and have valued your opinions and comments. I have never felt that SFW and their proposals were ever more important or that they somehow were trying to run the show. In fact, I value the individual sportsmans voice and opinions just as much. I for one am thankful for the different groups that provide much needed feedback and information at the RAC meetings. I do believe that it is a good thing that the Expo process is going to be done trough the use of an RFP format. It may help with the transparency of the decision that is made, however an RFP may effectively eliminate smaller, less well funded entities because of the amount of information etc that may be required. I am not privy to how technical the RFP will be, but I am curious to see what will be contained in it.
Do you think that the RACs should be able to be involved in the process before it goes to the WB for final consideration ?
Also, an RFP does not guarantee that the entity that shows the best in dollar value, will be awarded the contract. In my experience it simply eliminates some entities because of technical errors and provides cover for whoever is in charge of making it a fair and open process--making sure they perform their due diligence in regards to the matter--.
We did talk about the Expo contract at a RAC meeting several months ago and the idea of an RFP was discussed. But, as I recall,the only action we could take at the time was to approve of disapprove of the DWR being able to extend the contract for an additional 5 years to whomever was the current Expo contractor. I am sure this will all get ferretted out and hopefully we end up with what will be best for Big Game and the sportsman.
 
>It gets stranger by the day,
>maybe by the hour.
>To quote Mr. Bushman;
>
>
>"I apologize the the delay in
>responding to your request for
>information on the 2017 hunting
>expo contract. I cannot provide
>you a copy of the
>new expo RFP at this
>point since it is not
>finalized. We expect it will
>be completed in the near
>future where it will then
>be published and available to
>all who wish to read
>it."
>
>Really? Are you kidding me? I
>thought this RFP process had
>been in place for over
>a year, according to the
>Director's office. Supposedly it had
>been "mentioned" in many meetings,
>though the meeting minutes make
>no reference of it.
>
>Now we find out, according to
>the UT Attorney General's office,
>the RFP is not yet
>finalized as of today, 17
>days following the deadline for
>submission of Expo proposals. It
>was not even in place
>by the deadline date called
>for in the Utah Expo
>statutes.
>
>The truth is always stranger than
>fiction. This is really
>strange.
>
>"Hunt when you can - You're
>gonna' run out of health
>before you run out of
>money!"

What crock! This entire thing stinks to high heavens with corruption and greed. I am happy to say that in light of all this mess I have donated a little extra to RMEF in hopes that when the time comes you can hit the corrupt bastards hard with a lawsuit if needed.

I would love nothing more than to see the EXPO be combined with RMEF and be held in SLC. I do not like SFW so I do not buy a chance at an expo tag. Also SLC seems like a much better location for the RMEF banquet.
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-18-15 AT 04:24PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Sep-18-15 AT 04:19?PM (MST)

"We did talk about the Expo contract at a RAC meeting several months ago and the idea of an RFP was discussed. But, as I recall,the only action we could take at the time was to approve of disapprove of the DWR being able to extend the contract for an additional 5 years to whomever was the current Expo contractor. I am sure this will all get ferretted out and hopefully we end up with what will be best for Big Game and the sportsman."

so what was the boards decision to approve/disapprove? the current contractor? sounds like a crock of stuff to me. just another way of doing an end around the system. why would they extend to a org that is not transparent with there dealing with public money. I agree any board member that has held office with SFW should not be able to vote or have input in this matter.

all along the expo was sold as a way of increasing tourism in the salt lake valley. here you have RMEF bringing a MAJOR convention that dwarfs the current platform, and also with the REAL promise of giving more back to the DWR. if the "current contractor" remains it will clearly show the real side of our DWR and there relationship with SFW. it would be a clear move from the intent of the program. increase the flow of convention money into Utahs economy.

no smoke....no mirrors....no BS. that is what the RMEF is proposing, it would be a breathe of fresh air and a positive change from all the backroom/ secret handshake/ self serving non-sense we have to live with the "current contractor"
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-18-15 AT 10:18PM (MST)[p]Little mention so far is the time, effort, and Money involved in the prep. and legal fees that RMEF has already incurred to submit their Application by the date that was put down to be the date. Now they're being told to nevermind, you guys need to do this again.

This is all very interesting to follow but, IMO, some very underhanded politics going on and the people causing it don't care a bit as long as they get their way.

Joey


"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"
 
It almost appears that the UDWR Board and or SFW intention all along was to see SFW competition's bids so they would know what they had to beat and then have a redo. This is so blatantly wrong it should be embarrassing for anyone associated with SFW, UDWR Board, or the person who appointed the Board members. Regardless of what organization is awarded the bid, it should be done fairly and within the rules and regulations. Hopefully the Board and DWR will do what is right.
 
Bigfin,

Keep up the good work! I have a feeling this process is going to get ugly. Maybe it should?? Im just shaking my head at all the hoops being put in the path of progress. I really don't see how RMEF won't get this bid. If they somehow don't, this might be the straw that breaks the camels back for sportsman here in Utah.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

Wide Buck 5-18-23.mp4
IMG_0355.jpeg
IMG_6652.jpeg
71144D28-7F6E-4B33-996B-5BE48B0DF9FE.jpeg
0D56803E-8134-41C5-81B7-39BD83B4D5F6.jpeg
EDB98FC3-AD39-4C6A-BEFC-5A5F6955F715.jpeg
kaibabmuledeer.jpg
VQMP9653.JPG
IMG_5393.jpg
58B03058-F17E-47D9-AE7D-0B981E19A0CC.jpeg
elk10.jpg
3E1C6E4D-562B-44AE-BC52-ED769AF3F399.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom