Hunt Expo and RMEF
- Thread starter ColoradoOak
- Start date
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,122
LAST EDITED ON Sep-21-15 AT 12:41PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Sep-21-15 AT 10:51?AM (MST)
LAST EDITED ON Sep-21-15 AT 10:46?AM (MST)
>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.
I really appreciate your ability and willingness to view comments, opinions and proposals equally regardless of who presents them. It's a rare thing when it comes to such passionate issues as we see at RAC's, Wildlife Board, DWR public meetings and DWR committee meetings.
Admittedly, I view those meetings with a bit more tainted perspective. But here's what I see, specifically with SFW commenters and tactics: 1)speakers who claim to be representing different SFW Chapters so they each get 5 minutes, 2)speakers stacked at various points throughout the meeting in order to be able to counter any opposition, 3)comments and proposals that focus on emotions and social solutions while avoiding or disregarding biology and reducing opportunity ("quality"/"overcrowded"/increased buck to doe ratios/increased population/shorter seasons/more limited entry units with their accompanying Conservation Permits), 4)constant reminders of the amount of money (our money) spent by SFW for projects, 5)stacking committees with SFW members who are supposedly representing others, 6)disregarding invitations to DWR meetings that call for ONE representative, 7)giving interviews to media that favor their agenda and views while discrediting or ignoring their opposition and claiming to represent ALL outdoorsmen, 8)claiming that funds mandated to wildlife are "donations" or "gifts", and 9)stacking RAC's and the Wildlife Board with SFW members who are supposedly representing others (4 of the 7 public Wildlife Board members are prominent SFW members or former officers). And those are just the public tactics. The private tactics are quite similar, only just more personal! Am I just paranoid? Maybe, but I'm not the only one that's noticed.
Now then, yes, I definitely think this issue should go through the RAC's and the Wildlife Board process. But only after a final RFP is disclosed.
As for the RFP, the fact that the applicants were expected and required to meet a deadline based on current law is a definite (and probably illegal) disservice to the applicants. Those applications were developed with the deadline foremost in mind and to now require a new one is politics at its worst! Shame on those responsible whether intentionally done or not!
LAST EDITED ON Sep-21-15 AT 10:46?AM (MST)
>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.
I really appreciate your ability and willingness to view comments, opinions and proposals equally regardless of who presents them. It's a rare thing when it comes to such passionate issues as we see at RAC's, Wildlife Board, DWR public meetings and DWR committee meetings.
Admittedly, I view those meetings with a bit more tainted perspective. But here's what I see, specifically with SFW commenters and tactics: 1)speakers who claim to be representing different SFW Chapters so they each get 5 minutes, 2)speakers stacked at various points throughout the meeting in order to be able to counter any opposition, 3)comments and proposals that focus on emotions and social solutions while avoiding or disregarding biology and reducing opportunity ("quality"/"overcrowded"/increased buck to doe ratios/increased population/shorter seasons/more limited entry units with their accompanying Conservation Permits), 4)constant reminders of the amount of money (our money) spent by SFW for projects, 5)stacking committees with SFW members who are supposedly representing others, 6)disregarding invitations to DWR meetings that call for ONE representative, 7)giving interviews to media that favor their agenda and views while discrediting or ignoring their opposition and claiming to represent ALL outdoorsmen, 8)claiming that funds mandated to wildlife are "donations" or "gifts", and 9)stacking RAC's and the Wildlife Board with SFW members who are supposedly representing others (4 of the 7 public Wildlife Board members are prominent SFW members or former officers). And those are just the public tactics. The private tactics are quite similar, only just more personal! Am I just paranoid? Maybe, but I'm not the only one that's noticed.
Now then, yes, I definitely think this issue should go through the RAC's and the Wildlife Board process. But only after a final RFP is disclosed.
As for the RFP, the fact that the applicants were expected and required to meet a deadline based on current law is a definite (and probably illegal) disservice to the applicants. Those applications were developed with the deadline foremost in mind and to now require a new one is politics at its worst! Shame on those responsible whether intentionally done or not!
dryflyelk
Active Member
- Messages
- 842
LAST EDITED ON Sep-21-15 AT 08:50PM (MST)[p]If there is anybody else, like me, who is curious about exactly what was said in these meetings, you can find the minutes and audio recordings of the RAC meetings here:
http://wildlife.utah.gov/board-rac/...rd-meeting-agendas-materials-and-minutes.html
Vi Et Armis Invictus Maneo
http://wildlife.utah.gov/board-rac/...rd-meeting-agendas-materials-and-minutes.html
Vi Et Armis Invictus Maneo
in other news. Looks like the USFWS announced the Sage Grouse will not go on the Endangered Species list.
So does that mean that Utah can stop handing over hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars to the welfare leeches of $FW to lobby for this? Looks like one of the welfare checks for $FW should stop coming, but doubt it. Now we can watch the SG go the same way as the Dodo bird.
So does that mean that Utah can stop handing over hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars to the welfare leeches of $FW to lobby for this? Looks like one of the welfare checks for $FW should stop coming, but doubt it. Now we can watch the SG go the same way as the Dodo bird.
Hawkeye
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,012
It was actually $2 million per year for the last two years. But the wolf money should keep trickling in.
http://www.sltrib.com/home/2279953-155/utah-lawmakers-set-to-give-sage
http://www.sltrib.com/home/2298978-155/utah-sends-500k-more-to-unexplained
-Hawkeye-
http://www.sltrib.com/home/2279953-155/utah-lawmakers-set-to-give-sage
http://www.sltrib.com/home/2298978-155/utah-sends-500k-more-to-unexplained
-Hawkeye-
You kidding they're still complaining, they still need more money, here's big game forevermore quote about the listing decision:
Big Game Forever Supporters,
Today, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced that Greater Sage-grouse will not be added to the Endangered Species List as either an endangered or threatened species.We are grateful for your efforts to ensure this species and the 165,000,000 acres of its habitat across the West remains under state wildlife management authority. Unfortunately we are not out of the woods yet.
There are several problems with today's announcement:
?First, this decision only lasts for a period of 5 years.
?Second, the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service are moving forward with new heavy-handed restrictions on millions of acres of public land across the West.
?Third, there is nothing to stop the floodgate of litigation by groups who are opposed to the use of public land by sportsmen, livestock, outdoor recreation and many other uses.
Don't be fooled by Washington; today's action is about regulation, not conservation.
Congress is currently working to protect our access to and use of these lands by a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This provision protects critical state management programs for Greater Sage-Grouse, stops the endless lawsuits and provides additional time to ensure any new BLM or Forest Service plans protect the needs of local communities who are investing the most in Sage-Grouse conservation.
In the coming weeks we will need your help. Watch for future action alerts and additional information from Big Game Forever. Your support of these common-sense solutions that protect the rights of sportsmen to hunt and fish on public lands in America makes all the difference.
Thank you for your support.
Ryan Benson
Big Game Forever Supporters,
Today, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced that Greater Sage-grouse will not be added to the Endangered Species List as either an endangered or threatened species.We are grateful for your efforts to ensure this species and the 165,000,000 acres of its habitat across the West remains under state wildlife management authority. Unfortunately we are not out of the woods yet.
There are several problems with today's announcement:
?First, this decision only lasts for a period of 5 years.
?Second, the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service are moving forward with new heavy-handed restrictions on millions of acres of public land across the West.
?Third, there is nothing to stop the floodgate of litigation by groups who are opposed to the use of public land by sportsmen, livestock, outdoor recreation and many other uses.
Don't be fooled by Washington; today's action is about regulation, not conservation.
Congress is currently working to protect our access to and use of these lands by a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This provision protects critical state management programs for Greater Sage-Grouse, stops the endless lawsuits and provides additional time to ensure any new BLM or Forest Service plans protect the needs of local communities who are investing the most in Sage-Grouse conservation.
In the coming weeks we will need your help. Watch for future action alerts and additional information from Big Game Forever. Your support of these common-sense solutions that protect the rights of sportsmen to hunt and fish on public lands in America makes all the difference.
Thank you for your support.
Ryan Benson
SOOOO SICK and TIRED of the Kool-Aid that we as Utah sportsman are being fed.
3 members of the WB appointed by the Gov of utah on the board...
Extending the time frame so that SFW can match or one up RMEF's bid...
BGF taking 4 million dollars Utah tax paying dollars to fight sage grouse... Can you imagine how much money that would have put on the ground to help grouse and other wildlife instead of lining the pockets?
This Utah bull crap of Holding Utah sportsman hostage due to lining the pockets of a few is old We need to stand up and get rid of this monopoly.
3 members of the WB appointed by the Gov of utah on the board...
Extending the time frame so that SFW can match or one up RMEF's bid...
BGF taking 4 million dollars Utah tax paying dollars to fight sage grouse... Can you imagine how much money that would have put on the ground to help grouse and other wildlife instead of lining the pockets?
This Utah bull crap of Holding Utah sportsman hostage due to lining the pockets of a few is old We need to stand up and get rid of this monopoly.
SnowsNBlues
Member
- Messages
- 39
Hey Hawkeye,
what are your thoughts about the latest bunch of BS with our lovely Fish & Game, allowing more time after the deadline at the expo? Is this legal? This just blows my mind. What a crock of crap this is! I hope RMEF are prepared to battle this out in some way. I can't imangine how SFW can or will match RMEFS offer. ITS AN ABSOLUTE NO BRAINER FOR THE DNR TO ACCEPT RMEF's OFFER.
what are your thoughts about the latest bunch of BS with our lovely Fish & Game, allowing more time after the deadline at the expo? Is this legal? This just blows my mind. What a crock of crap this is! I hope RMEF are prepared to battle this out in some way. I can't imangine how SFW can or will match RMEFS offer. ITS AN ABSOLUTE NO BRAINER FOR THE DNR TO ACCEPT RMEF's OFFER.
Hawkeye
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,012
Snowsnblues-
I've tried to limit my online comments over the last couple of weeks because I have been working on these issues behind the scenes. Needless to say, I am confused and troubled by these developments. The DWR's recent decision to move to a formal RFP process is in conflict with their own administrative rule (R657-55-4), which the DWR just amended in January. If the DWR wanted to implement a formal RFP process then they should have stated that in their rule amendment. Under Utah law, a properly enacted administrative rule has the binding effect of law and binds not only the public but also agency. I am curious what authority the DWR is relying upon to ignore its own rule and implement an entirely new process after the fact. It makes no sense.
There are a lot of unanswered questions that likely will not be answered until the process is completed. At that point, however, all of the documents, proposals, communications, etc., will become public documents and be subject to GRAMA request. Unfortunately, by then it may he too late as a contract will already be in place. In the meantime, concerned sportsmen should continue to watch closely, ask questions and contact the DWR, the Wildlife Board and their politicians. The decision makers need to know that the public is watching and at some point we will all know what is really going on behind the scenes.
The RMEF is not looking for any favors or special treatment. They just want to be treated fairly, to have their proposal considered based upon the criteria identified by the DWR in its rule, and to see the revenue from the Expo Tags be used to "generate revenue to fund wildlife conservation activities in Utah" as stated in R657-55-1. That all sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Stay tuned and keep calling, emailing and talking about this story. Public pressure and awareness have more of an impact than you can imagine.
-Hawkeye-
I've tried to limit my online comments over the last couple of weeks because I have been working on these issues behind the scenes. Needless to say, I am confused and troubled by these developments. The DWR's recent decision to move to a formal RFP process is in conflict with their own administrative rule (R657-55-4), which the DWR just amended in January. If the DWR wanted to implement a formal RFP process then they should have stated that in their rule amendment. Under Utah law, a properly enacted administrative rule has the binding effect of law and binds not only the public but also agency. I am curious what authority the DWR is relying upon to ignore its own rule and implement an entirely new process after the fact. It makes no sense.
There are a lot of unanswered questions that likely will not be answered until the process is completed. At that point, however, all of the documents, proposals, communications, etc., will become public documents and be subject to GRAMA request. Unfortunately, by then it may he too late as a contract will already be in place. In the meantime, concerned sportsmen should continue to watch closely, ask questions and contact the DWR, the Wildlife Board and their politicians. The decision makers need to know that the public is watching and at some point we will all know what is really going on behind the scenes.
The RMEF is not looking for any favors or special treatment. They just want to be treated fairly, to have their proposal considered based upon the criteria identified by the DWR in its rule, and to see the revenue from the Expo Tags be used to "generate revenue to fund wildlife conservation activities in Utah" as stated in R657-55-1. That all sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Stay tuned and keep calling, emailing and talking about this story. Public pressure and awareness have more of an impact than you can imagine.
-Hawkeye-
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,122
>SOOOO SICK and TIRED of the
>Kool-Aid that we as Utah
>sportsman are being fed.
>
>3 members of the WB appointed
>by the Gov of utah
>on the board...
>
>Extending the time frame so that
>SFW can match or one
>up RMEF's bid...
>
>BGF taking 4 million dollars Utah
>tax paying dollars to fight
>sage grouse... Can you imagine
>how much money that would
>have put on the ground
>to help grouse and other
>wildlife instead of lining the
>pockets?
>
>
>This Utah bull crap of Holding
>Utah sportsman hostage due to
>lining the pockets of a
>few is old We need
>to stand up and get
>rid of this monopoly.
I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but there are actually 4 prominent SFW members on the Wildlife Board, which could be a voting majority (John Bair, Steve Dalton, Byron Bateman and Donny Hunter). I'm sure they won't agree on every issue and they certainly won't conspire on the votes, but the same mindset that drew them to SFW will reveal itself anyway.
>Kool-Aid that we as Utah
>sportsman are being fed.
>
>3 members of the WB appointed
>by the Gov of utah
>on the board...
>
>Extending the time frame so that
>SFW can match or one
>up RMEF's bid...
>
>BGF taking 4 million dollars Utah
>tax paying dollars to fight
>sage grouse... Can you imagine
>how much money that would
>have put on the ground
>to help grouse and other
>wildlife instead of lining the
>pockets?
>
>
>This Utah bull crap of Holding
>Utah sportsman hostage due to
>lining the pockets of a
>few is old We need
>to stand up and get
>rid of this monopoly.
I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but there are actually 4 prominent SFW members on the Wildlife Board, which could be a voting majority (John Bair, Steve Dalton, Byron Bateman and Donny Hunter). I'm sure they won't agree on every issue and they certainly won't conspire on the votes, but the same mindset that drew them to SFW will reveal itself anyway.
Hawkeye...
I heard from a friend who works for one of the Utah Local News channels that they got wind of it and started making some phone calls to RMEF, SFW, MDF, and the UDWR... They are waiting for calls back but looks like pressure is on from the media about this as well.
Thanks for keeping us informed.
Cannot wait to see what happens when the heat is turned up from the public with this nonsense.
I heard from a friend who works for one of the Utah Local News channels that they got wind of it and started making some phone calls to RMEF, SFW, MDF, and the UDWR... They are waiting for calls back but looks like pressure is on from the media about this as well.
Thanks for keeping us informed.
Cannot wait to see what happens when the heat is turned up from the public with this nonsense.
curlycoyote
Active Member
- Messages
- 101
I thought fstop was going to look into this as soon as he got back from his hunt last week. Maybe they will not return his calls either or he just has not found the time yet. I hope he reports what is really going on and does not spin in in SFW's favor.
How about it fstop what have you found out???
How about it fstop what have you found out???
The only thing Fstop is finding out is that the Kool-aid gets sweeter and sweeter every time he takes a chug. I've only caught his show a few times and saw plenty of $FW hats being worn. I seriously doubt he will report the truth that would paint $FW, his buddy Donny boy and the UDWR in a negative light. Just the way it is in Utardia.
So, Lee what part of the "mindset" are you referring to in regards to their association with SFW. Steve Dalton is a rancher and represents agriculture.
I am not an SFW member, but I am a member of RMEF. Certainly you can a agree that all of the conservation orgs have all done some great things for wildlife. Unfortunately, money becomes a big driver in order to accomplish many of the things we would all like to see happen in regards to habitat, management etc. I don't believe that there is any kind of conspiracy going on. There might be some procedures that need to be fixed and I hope that will be done properly.
Also, the "mindset" that improves habitat and having better management is what I think we can all agree on. Habitat acquisition would have to be at the top of the list but the legislature has made it harder for the DWR to purchase lands. Local and county govt's are concerned with the tax base etc, even under PILT, if lands are tied up and can't be developed. I believe that the division relies on conservation organizations to purchase land and then sell it or set up conservation easements with the DWR.
I do agree that organizations can start out with motives to make a difference the way wildlife is managed but can morph into more of a business model where money becomes more of a driving issue instead of their original intent to improve things for wildlife. However, very few if any organizations will long survive if they don't eventually have people on a payroll that allows them to devote themselves to a fulltime job of accomplishing their goals. UWC will eventually need someone to continue to carry their message fulltime if they want to have the kind of influence that they believe is for the good of hunting. The use of member volunteers only goes so far.
I am not an SFW member, but I am a member of RMEF. Certainly you can a agree that all of the conservation orgs have all done some great things for wildlife. Unfortunately, money becomes a big driver in order to accomplish many of the things we would all like to see happen in regards to habitat, management etc. I don't believe that there is any kind of conspiracy going on. There might be some procedures that need to be fixed and I hope that will be done properly.
Also, the "mindset" that improves habitat and having better management is what I think we can all agree on. Habitat acquisition would have to be at the top of the list but the legislature has made it harder for the DWR to purchase lands. Local and county govt's are concerned with the tax base etc, even under PILT, if lands are tied up and can't be developed. I believe that the division relies on conservation organizations to purchase land and then sell it or set up conservation easements with the DWR.
I do agree that organizations can start out with motives to make a difference the way wildlife is managed but can morph into more of a business model where money becomes more of a driving issue instead of their original intent to improve things for wildlife. However, very few if any organizations will long survive if they don't eventually have people on a payroll that allows them to devote themselves to a fulltime job of accomplishing their goals. UWC will eventually need someone to continue to carry their message fulltime if they want to have the kind of influence that they believe is for the good of hunting. The use of member volunteers only goes so far.
curlycoyote
Active Member
- Messages
- 101
>The only thing Fstop is finding
>out is that the Kool-aid
>gets sweeter and sweeter every
>time he takes a chug.
>I've only caught his show
>a few times and saw
>plenty of $FW hats being
>worn. I seriously doubt he
>will report the truth that
>would paint $FW, his buddy
>Donny boy and the UDWR
>in a negative light. Just
>the way it is in
>Utardia.
I don't know fstop from Adam (pun intended).. I was just hoping from his post he would give a fair report of why this really happened.
and where it all started to do the bids over.
>out is that the Kool-aid
>gets sweeter and sweeter every
>time he takes a chug.
>I've only caught his show
>a few times and saw
>plenty of $FW hats being
>worn. I seriously doubt he
>will report the truth that
>would paint $FW, his buddy
>Donny boy and the UDWR
>in a negative light. Just
>the way it is in
>Utardia.
I don't know fstop from Adam (pun intended).. I was just hoping from his post he would give a fair report of why this really happened.
and where it all started to do the bids over.
browtine
Super Moderator
- Messages
- 4,887
>
>I don't know fstop from Adam
>(pun intended).. I was just
>hoping from his post he
>would give a fair report
>of why this really happened.
> and where it
>all started to do the
>bids over.
Adam's father just passed away. I don't suspect he will chime in anytime soon.
>I don't know fstop from Adam
>(pun intended).. I was just
>hoping from his post he
>would give a fair report
>of why this really happened.
>
and where it >all started to do the
>bids over.
Adam's father just passed away. I don't suspect he will chime in anytime soon.
Talked to RMEF for a good 20 minutes. They're not worried about the extended deadline. Say it's a very involved process and think it's likely DWR just wanted to attract more applicants before beginning the selection process. So.... while it looks like a shady move to block RMEF, it may not be.
curlycoyote
Active Member
- Messages
- 101
LAST EDITED ON Sep-30-15 AT 12:35PM (MST)[p]>Of course it's a shady move,
>a deadline is a deadline.
>RMEF is just saying the
>right things.
+1 on that. BigFin it seems was heavily involved with this and reading his post right after this happened they seemed plenty pi$$ed off to me. Everyone and anyone that had an interest in putting in a bid new for a year and would have had already done it. Why would delaying it bring in more folks. The major groups were at the original announcement and knew the dead line. My personnel opinion is they just don't want to make any waves in public right now. Just my 2 cents.
Not saying anything at all against you. You are just passing on what you were told. Thanks for the info.
>a deadline is a deadline.
>RMEF is just saying the
>right things.
+1 on that. BigFin it seems was heavily involved with this and reading his post right after this happened they seemed plenty pi$$ed off to me. Everyone and anyone that had an interest in putting in a bid new for a year and would have had already done it. Why would delaying it bring in more folks. The major groups were at the original announcement and knew the dead line. My personnel opinion is they just don't want to make any waves in public right now. Just my 2 cents.
Not saying anything at all against you. You are just passing on what you were told. Thanks for the info.
dryflyelk
Active Member
- Messages
- 842
Gentlemen,
After speaking with a friend of mine who works in the gov't and is very familiar with these type of issues, he strongly suggested one thing:
we need to all contact our local state legislators.
The governor is somewhat bound in what he can and can't do. However, the local state legislators can and will get involved on these type of issues. They want to be able to have a platform and something like this could and should get a lot of traction. If it gets to their attention and is brought up on the floor in a session on the hill, things will get attention fast. That's also a great way to get the media to pay attention quickly.
Who should you contact?
Here's the link to find out who your local reps are. I'd strongly urge you to look them up for your area and write them an email explaining the situation and your feelings. Explain that this issue could (and is) costing taxpayers millions and also the effects it could have on wildlife.
http://le.utah.gov/GIS/findDistrict.jsp
Thank you!
Vi Et Armis Invictus Maneo
After speaking with a friend of mine who works in the gov't and is very familiar with these type of issues, he strongly suggested one thing:
we need to all contact our local state legislators.
The governor is somewhat bound in what he can and can't do. However, the local state legislators can and will get involved on these type of issues. They want to be able to have a platform and something like this could and should get a lot of traction. If it gets to their attention and is brought up on the floor in a session on the hill, things will get attention fast. That's also a great way to get the media to pay attention quickly.
Who should you contact?
Here's the link to find out who your local reps are. I'd strongly urge you to look them up for your area and write them an email explaining the situation and your feelings. Explain that this issue could (and is) costing taxpayers millions and also the effects it could have on wildlife.
http://le.utah.gov/GIS/findDistrict.jsp
Thank you!
Vi Et Armis Invictus Maneo
S
SMELLYBUCK
Guest
Utah400Elk,
Looks like your bet is still in play - even though it shouldn't be.
Looks like your bet is still in play - even though it shouldn't be.
grizzly
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,603
>Gentlemen,
>
>After speaking with a friend of
>mine who works in the
>gov't and is very familiar
>with these type of issues,
>he strongly suggested one thing:
>
>we need to all contact our
>local state legislators.
>
>The governor is somewhat bound in
>what he can and can't
>do. However, the local state
>legislators can and will get
>involved on these type of
>issues. They want to be
>able to have a platform
>and something like this could
>and should get a lot
>of traction. If it gets
>to their attention and is
>brought up on the floor
>in a session on the
>hill, things will get attention
>fast. That's also a great
>way to get the media
>to pay attention quickly.
>
>Who should you contact?
>
>Here's the link to find out
>who your local reps are.
>I'd strongly urge you to
>look them up for your
>area and write them an
>email explaining the situation and
>your feelings. Explain that this
>issue could (and is) costing
>taxpayers millions and also the
>effects it could have on
>wildlife.
>
>http://le.utah.gov/GIS/findDistrict.jsp
>
>Thank you!
>
>Vi Et Armis Invictus Maneo
Great advice. I contacted my legislatures a few weeks ago and had an immediate response from my State Senator (who is an attorney) saying there were possible legal ramifications. He then cc me on an email he sent to Governor Herbert and AG Reyes. I have not received a response from any of them since, but I know they are aware of it.
One important angle to keep in mind with the Legislature is the Tourism money. Utah is spending millions trying to attract Convention business and a potential large convention (like RMEF) would be an attraction that every state agency should be seeking... especially an Expo that is obligated by its founding documents to enhance tourism into the state.
Grizzly
>
>After speaking with a friend of
>mine who works in the
>gov't and is very familiar
>with these type of issues,
>he strongly suggested one thing:
>
>we need to all contact our
>local state legislators.
>
>The governor is somewhat bound in
>what he can and can't
>do. However, the local state
>legislators can and will get
>involved on these type of
>issues. They want to be
>able to have a platform
>and something like this could
>and should get a lot
>of traction. If it gets
>to their attention and is
>brought up on the floor
>in a session on the
>hill, things will get attention
>fast. That's also a great
>way to get the media
>to pay attention quickly.
>
>Who should you contact?
>
>Here's the link to find out
>who your local reps are.
>I'd strongly urge you to
>look them up for your
>area and write them an
>email explaining the situation and
>your feelings. Explain that this
>issue could (and is) costing
>taxpayers millions and also the
>effects it could have on
>wildlife.
>
>http://le.utah.gov/GIS/findDistrict.jsp
>
>Thank you!
>
>Vi Et Armis Invictus Maneo
Great advice. I contacted my legislatures a few weeks ago and had an immediate response from my State Senator (who is an attorney) saying there were possible legal ramifications. He then cc me on an email he sent to Governor Herbert and AG Reyes. I have not received a response from any of them since, but I know they are aware of it.
One important angle to keep in mind with the Legislature is the Tourism money. Utah is spending millions trying to attract Convention business and a potential large convention (like RMEF) would be an attraction that every state agency should be seeking... especially an Expo that is obligated by its founding documents to enhance tourism into the state.
Grizzly
>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!!
>
AMEN, I know a FEW promised they would back it up and support... Time To STEP up to the plate, You have been called out!
>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!!
>
AMEN, I know a FEW promised they would back it up and support... Time To STEP up to the plate, You have been called out!
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,122
>Does anyone know if any questions
>were asked and answered at
>the DWR board meeting about
>the new requirements created after
>RMEF put in the ppaerwork
>for the Expo next year?
>
During the meeting there was a 2 minute+ official update given by Greg Sheehan and he stated that the DWR did their part in preparing their portion of the RFP at the proper time and that DWR's intent was to receive the proposals in the month of August which they did. He didn't try to blame anyone for the delay. He simply said it's in the hands of the State Purchasing Office. And that they expect it to be available to the Wildlife Board at any time. They also expect the final determination by the Wildlife Board will be during the December meeting or possibly the January meeting. He didn't ask for questions or comments from the audience, but Kirk asked a question about the rule being voted on. However, the question wasn't really specific to the current issue and neither was the answer. Basically, we were told it's out of their hands.
However, prior to the meeting I asked Marty Bushman for any additional info to his response to Gordy Bell's GRAMA request and he said it's actually now beyond the Purchasing Office and in the hands of several other agencies. Also, I eavesdropped in on a conversation between Greg, Randy Dearth and another gentleman before the meeting started and apparently there's some legal issues beyond the DWR/EXPO contract, EXPO and DWR website security issues, and I'm not sure what else. (The current arrangements must be so tangled that no one seems to know what they are or how to untangle them.)
In any case, they all were as anxious to get through this as you and I are and they didn't seem to have much more info than you or I have.
Is a lawsuit warranted? Maybe, but we're gonna have to wait til all this gets sorted out in order to know who to sue and over what!
>were asked and answered at
>the DWR board meeting about
>the new requirements created after
>RMEF put in the ppaerwork
>for the Expo next year?
>
During the meeting there was a 2 minute+ official update given by Greg Sheehan and he stated that the DWR did their part in preparing their portion of the RFP at the proper time and that DWR's intent was to receive the proposals in the month of August which they did. He didn't try to blame anyone for the delay. He simply said it's in the hands of the State Purchasing Office. And that they expect it to be available to the Wildlife Board at any time. They also expect the final determination by the Wildlife Board will be during the December meeting or possibly the January meeting. He didn't ask for questions or comments from the audience, but Kirk asked a question about the rule being voted on. However, the question wasn't really specific to the current issue and neither was the answer. Basically, we were told it's out of their hands.
However, prior to the meeting I asked Marty Bushman for any additional info to his response to Gordy Bell's GRAMA request and he said it's actually now beyond the Purchasing Office and in the hands of several other agencies. Also, I eavesdropped in on a conversation between Greg, Randy Dearth and another gentleman before the meeting started and apparently there's some legal issues beyond the DWR/EXPO contract, EXPO and DWR website security issues, and I'm not sure what else. (The current arrangements must be so tangled that no one seems to know what they are or how to untangle them.)
In any case, they all were as anxious to get through this as you and I are and they didn't seem to have much more info than you or I have.
Is a lawsuit warranted? Maybe, but we're gonna have to wait til all this gets sorted out in order to know who to sue and over what!
Stonefly
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,195
LMAO...this just shows how inept the government is. As a private sector Sub Contractor I can tell you all, It only take a dishonest Contractor about 2 minuets to "SHOP" my bid to a dishonest sub...... LMAO crooked Government even red tapes dishonesty...
Hawkeye
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,012
Based upon the latest info I have received, the RFP should be issued in the next week or two. Once it is issued, interested parties will have 45 days to submit a proposal. There will be a separate committee formed to evaluate the proposals in light of the criteria set forth in the RFP. RMEF was not aware of this new RFP process and previously submitted an application pursuant to the process set forth in the DWR's expo tag rule. It is unclear if other conservation groups, including SFW and MDF, were aware of this new process or whether they also complied application process set forth in the DWR's rule. Despite this change in direction, RMEF intends to submit a proposal in response to the upcoming RFP. Once a contract is awarded, all of the relevant documents will be accessible to the public and we will have a better idea of what was happening behind the scenes.
-Hawkeye-
-Hawkeye-
Blow_n_Smoke
Member
- Messages
- 48
Sent my check to join RMEF this week.
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,122
LAST EDITED ON Oct-04-15 AT 08:55PM (MST)[p]>So, Lee what part of the
> "mindset" are you referring
>to in regards to their
>association with SFW. Steve Dalton
>is a rancher and represents
>agriculture.
>I am not an SFW member,
>but I am a member
>of RMEF. Certainly you can
>a agree that all of
>the conservation orgs have all
>done some great things for
>wildlife. Unfortunately, money becomes a
>big driver in order to
>accomplish many of the things
>we would all like to
>see happen in regards to
>habitat, management etc. I don't
>believe that there is any
>kind of conspiracy going on.
>There might be some procedures
>that need to be fixed
>and I hope that will
>be done properly.
>Also, the "mindset" that improves habitat
>and having better management is
>what I think we can
>all agree on. Habitat acquisition
>would have to be at
>the top of the list
>but the legislature has made
>it harder for the DWR
>to purchase lands.
>Local and county govt's
>are concerned with the tax
>base etc, even under PILT,
>if lands are tied up
>and can't be developed. I
>believe that the division relies
>on conservation organizations to purchase
>land and then sell it
>or set up conservation easements
>with the DWR.
>I do agree that organizations can
>start out with motives to
>make a difference the way
>wildlife is managed but can
>morph into more of a
>business model where money becomes
>more of a driving issue
>instead of their original intent
>to improve things for wildlife.
>However, very few if any
>organizations will long survive if
>they don't eventually have people
>on a payroll that allows
>them to devote themselves to
>a fulltime job of accomplishing
>their goals. UWC will eventually
>need someone to continue to
>carry their message fulltime if
>they want to have the
>kind of influence that they
>believe is for the good
>of hunting. The use of
>member volunteers only goes so
>far.
In a word, the mindset is "trophy" (now usually called "quality" or "mature"), meaning the number of inches scored on the antlers, horns or skull of the animal according to the B&C/P&Y/SCI/etc. method of scoring. Trophies provide the majority of SFW's income via Conservation Permits and EXPO Permits, their attendance at their banquets and the EXPO, their membership signups, their sponsorship signups and donations. It drives their proposals, their politics, their interactions with others and their decisions. Ultimately, for me, their recently re-designed logo says it all! According to the contest rules it was re-designed to reflect who they now are.
Steve Dalton may be a rancher, but he doesn't officially represent agriculture according to the list I received when I attended the recent Wildlife Board and RAC Orientation meeting (the first and only person from the public to attend in at least 7 years.) Here's the list:
Name - Committee Group
Bair, John - Sportsmen
Bateman, Byron - Public
Crandall, Calvin - Agriculture
Dalton, Steve - At-large
Hunter, Donnie - Public
King, Michael -
Woodward, Kirk - Sportsmen
No, I didn't forget Mike King's Committee Group. His wasn't listed, so I asked him who he represented and he was surprised I asked because he didn't know that the members of the board were supposed to represent any group, just regions. (Since he's the only voting wildlife biologist on the board, I listed him as representing Wildlife.)
But even if Steve represented Agriculture, how would he vote on issues that don't affect ranchers? Statewide archery? Buck to doe ratios? Additional Limited Entry Units? Fewer permits?, Shortened seasons?, Transplants vs. doe hunts?, the EXPO contract?
I also don't believe there's a conspiracy, but like minds often agree on policy. It's just the way it is.
Yes, I and UWC can agree that all of the conservation groups have done some great things for wildlife in regards to habitat and wildlife management. However, that doesn't ALWAYS apply to wildlife management. I've mentioned some of the trophy driven so-called wildlife management issues we cannot agree on, but there certainly are others. "Better" management is in the eye of the beholder.
As for money being the big driver, that's only partially true! The leverage and influence that the money brings to the table is, for me, a bigger problem! And that leverage and influence is used to manage the system to further perpetuate the money by increasing the number and value of trophies. The irony of it is that the money brought to the table (Wildlife Board and RAC's) by the conservation organization is only a small portion of DWR's budget with the vast majority of it being generated by non-affiliated sportsmen. Of course, salaries, vehicles, gasoline, buildings, utilities, copies, booklets, office supplies and computers, though necessary, aren't newsworthy, showworthy and glamorous, so they get no billing at RAC and Wildlife Board meetings and neither do those who provide the funds for them.
As for habitat acquisition being at the top of the list, it may be for some conservation organizations, but it's not even on the radar for DWR according to Greg at the WB meeting on Thursday. Whether conservation organization private property ends up in DWR's hands or is available to the public is questionable.
Finally, your observation that organizations can change motives because of money is right on. We think SFW and others have done just that. And, while we do have modest financial needs, we'll pass on the fulltime salaries.
> "mindset" are you referring
>to in regards to their
>association with SFW. Steve Dalton
>is a rancher and represents
>agriculture.
>I am not an SFW member,
>but I am a member
>of RMEF. Certainly you can
>a agree that all of
>the conservation orgs have all
>done some great things for
>wildlife. Unfortunately, money becomes a
>big driver in order to
>accomplish many of the things
>we would all like to
>see happen in regards to
>habitat, management etc. I don't
>believe that there is any
>kind of conspiracy going on.
>There might be some procedures
>that need to be fixed
>and I hope that will
>be done properly.
>Also, the "mindset" that improves habitat
>and having better management is
>what I think we can
>all agree on. Habitat acquisition
>would have to be at
>the top of the list
>but the legislature has made
>it harder for the DWR
>to purchase lands.
>Local and county govt's
>are concerned with the tax
>base etc, even under PILT,
>if lands are tied up
>and can't be developed. I
>believe that the division relies
>on conservation organizations to purchase
>land and then sell it
>or set up conservation easements
>with the DWR.
>I do agree that organizations can
>start out with motives to
>make a difference the way
>wildlife is managed but can
>morph into more of a
>business model where money becomes
>more of a driving issue
>instead of their original intent
>to improve things for wildlife.
>However, very few if any
>organizations will long survive if
>they don't eventually have people
>on a payroll that allows
>them to devote themselves to
>a fulltime job of accomplishing
>their goals. UWC will eventually
>need someone to continue to
>carry their message fulltime if
>they want to have the
>kind of influence that they
>believe is for the good
>of hunting. The use of
>member volunteers only goes so
>far.
In a word, the mindset is "trophy" (now usually called "quality" or "mature"), meaning the number of inches scored on the antlers, horns or skull of the animal according to the B&C/P&Y/SCI/etc. method of scoring. Trophies provide the majority of SFW's income via Conservation Permits and EXPO Permits, their attendance at their banquets and the EXPO, their membership signups, their sponsorship signups and donations. It drives their proposals, their politics, their interactions with others and their decisions. Ultimately, for me, their recently re-designed logo says it all! According to the contest rules it was re-designed to reflect who they now are.
Steve Dalton may be a rancher, but he doesn't officially represent agriculture according to the list I received when I attended the recent Wildlife Board and RAC Orientation meeting (the first and only person from the public to attend in at least 7 years.) Here's the list:
Name - Committee Group
Bair, John - Sportsmen
Bateman, Byron - Public
Crandall, Calvin - Agriculture
Dalton, Steve - At-large
Hunter, Donnie - Public
King, Michael -
Woodward, Kirk - Sportsmen
No, I didn't forget Mike King's Committee Group. His wasn't listed, so I asked him who he represented and he was surprised I asked because he didn't know that the members of the board were supposed to represent any group, just regions. (Since he's the only voting wildlife biologist on the board, I listed him as representing Wildlife.)
But even if Steve represented Agriculture, how would he vote on issues that don't affect ranchers? Statewide archery? Buck to doe ratios? Additional Limited Entry Units? Fewer permits?, Shortened seasons?, Transplants vs. doe hunts?, the EXPO contract?
I also don't believe there's a conspiracy, but like minds often agree on policy. It's just the way it is.
Yes, I and UWC can agree that all of the conservation groups have done some great things for wildlife in regards to habitat and wildlife management. However, that doesn't ALWAYS apply to wildlife management. I've mentioned some of the trophy driven so-called wildlife management issues we cannot agree on, but there certainly are others. "Better" management is in the eye of the beholder.
As for money being the big driver, that's only partially true! The leverage and influence that the money brings to the table is, for me, a bigger problem! And that leverage and influence is used to manage the system to further perpetuate the money by increasing the number and value of trophies. The irony of it is that the money brought to the table (Wildlife Board and RAC's) by the conservation organization is only a small portion of DWR's budget with the vast majority of it being generated by non-affiliated sportsmen. Of course, salaries, vehicles, gasoline, buildings, utilities, copies, booklets, office supplies and computers, though necessary, aren't newsworthy, showworthy and glamorous, so they get no billing at RAC and Wildlife Board meetings and neither do those who provide the funds for them.
As for habitat acquisition being at the top of the list, it may be for some conservation organizations, but it's not even on the radar for DWR according to Greg at the WB meeting on Thursday. Whether conservation organization private property ends up in DWR's hands or is available to the public is questionable.
Finally, your observation that organizations can change motives because of money is right on. We think SFW and others have done just that. And, while we do have modest financial needs, we'll pass on the fulltime salaries.
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,122
LAST EDITED ON Oct-07-15 AT 10:08PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Oct-07-15 AT 10:06?PM (MST)
Per an email from Mike Canning, Asst Director, UDWR: sent Wed 10/07/15 2:38 PM to leaders of UBA, MDF, SFW, UWC, RMEF, NWTF, and several others whose email addresses I don't recognize:
"Conservation Leaders,
As a follow-up to the Expo Permit meeting we held last year (From Lee: held Oct 23, 2014 at SLC DWR Office), I wanted to let you know that the Request for Proposals (RFP) to distribute the wildlife expo permit series will be available very soon. In order to submit a proposal, you will need to register as a vendor on the BidSync website, www.bidsync.com. When you register on BidSync, the Utah Division of Purchasing and General Services has informed us that the most appropriate commodity codes for the distribution of expo permits are 91807 (advertising), 95897 (wildlife/fish management services), and 95836 (exhibition/exposition management services). The attached file contains additional information regarding the RFP process and Bidsync.
The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) will not be able to contact you when the RFP is released, but public notice of RFP availability will be posted on the UDWR web page at http://utah.gov/expo-rfp, so check that page frequently.
If you have any questions regarding the RFP, they can be asked and answered through Bidsync. If you need to elevate this information within your organization, it is incumbent upon you to do so.
Sincerely,
Mike
Michael Canning
Assistant Director
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources"
From Lee: The attachment is a general notice from the Division of Purchasing as follows:
"April 2014
Subject: Vendor Guide to Doing Business with the State of Utah
To All Interested Suppliers:
This vendor guide is designed to share with suppliers the procedures governing the sale of commodities and services to the State of Utah. It will acquaint you with the purchasing procedures and techniques we employ and explain standard terms and conditions applicable to the procurement process. Annually, the Utah State Division of Purchasing procures over $1 billion in supplies, equipment, services and construction.
The foundation of the State's procurement process is found in the Utah Procurement Code (63G-6a Utah Code Annotated). Specific rules governing procurement have been established by the Utah Procurement Policy Board and may be found in the Utah Administrative Code (Section R33). Fair and open competitive bidding provides the basis for the State's procurement process.
The State of Utah has partnered with BidSync to distribute and receive bids, RFPs and other solicitations. BidSync is an online bidding service designed to streamline the procurement process for buyers, vendors, and suppliers. In order to access the State of Utah's procurements online, you must register as a vendor on the BidSync website, www.bidsync.com. For assistance, you may call BidSync's customer support helpline at: 1-800-990-9339. Be sure to inform BidSync that you are registering under the State of Utah's contract. Registration, email/fax notifications, electronic responses for bids, RFPs and other solicitations are FREE under the State of Utah contract with BidSync, however, this free service is limited to procurements by the State of Utah and political subdivision of the State of Utah.
During the BidSync registration process, you will have the opportunity to choose categories for the commodities that match your company's area of business. Once you are registered, you will automatically receive email or fax notification concerning all bids, RFPs, and other solicitations for the categories for which you have registered. If you choose, you can view all of the State of Utah's bids, quotes, proposals, etc. Vendors and suppliers that have properly registered with BidSync will have the ability to safely and securely submit responses to bids, RFPs, and other solicitations online. You will also receive automatic updates regarding bid addendums and questions.
We appreciate your interest in doing business with the State of Utah, and look forward to our future business interactions. We encourage all qualified vendors to offer their commodities and services to the State of Utah. We welcome your questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Signed Kent D. Beers
Kent D. Beers
Chief Procurement Officer
Director of Purchasing and General Services"
Lee Tracy
United Wildlife Cooperative
Per an email from Mike Canning, Asst Director, UDWR: sent Wed 10/07/15 2:38 PM to leaders of UBA, MDF, SFW, UWC, RMEF, NWTF, and several others whose email addresses I don't recognize:
"Conservation Leaders,
As a follow-up to the Expo Permit meeting we held last year (From Lee: held Oct 23, 2014 at SLC DWR Office), I wanted to let you know that the Request for Proposals (RFP) to distribute the wildlife expo permit series will be available very soon. In order to submit a proposal, you will need to register as a vendor on the BidSync website, www.bidsync.com. When you register on BidSync, the Utah Division of Purchasing and General Services has informed us that the most appropriate commodity codes for the distribution of expo permits are 91807 (advertising), 95897 (wildlife/fish management services), and 95836 (exhibition/exposition management services). The attached file contains additional information regarding the RFP process and Bidsync.
The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) will not be able to contact you when the RFP is released, but public notice of RFP availability will be posted on the UDWR web page at http://utah.gov/expo-rfp, so check that page frequently.
If you have any questions regarding the RFP, they can be asked and answered through Bidsync. If you need to elevate this information within your organization, it is incumbent upon you to do so.
Sincerely,
Mike
Michael Canning
Assistant Director
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources"
From Lee: The attachment is a general notice from the Division of Purchasing as follows:
"April 2014
Subject: Vendor Guide to Doing Business with the State of Utah
To All Interested Suppliers:
This vendor guide is designed to share with suppliers the procedures governing the sale of commodities and services to the State of Utah. It will acquaint you with the purchasing procedures and techniques we employ and explain standard terms and conditions applicable to the procurement process. Annually, the Utah State Division of Purchasing procures over $1 billion in supplies, equipment, services and construction.
The foundation of the State's procurement process is found in the Utah Procurement Code (63G-6a Utah Code Annotated). Specific rules governing procurement have been established by the Utah Procurement Policy Board and may be found in the Utah Administrative Code (Section R33). Fair and open competitive bidding provides the basis for the State's procurement process.
The State of Utah has partnered with BidSync to distribute and receive bids, RFPs and other solicitations. BidSync is an online bidding service designed to streamline the procurement process for buyers, vendors, and suppliers. In order to access the State of Utah's procurements online, you must register as a vendor on the BidSync website, www.bidsync.com. For assistance, you may call BidSync's customer support helpline at: 1-800-990-9339. Be sure to inform BidSync that you are registering under the State of Utah's contract. Registration, email/fax notifications, electronic responses for bids, RFPs and other solicitations are FREE under the State of Utah contract with BidSync, however, this free service is limited to procurements by the State of Utah and political subdivision of the State of Utah.
During the BidSync registration process, you will have the opportunity to choose categories for the commodities that match your company's area of business. Once you are registered, you will automatically receive email or fax notification concerning all bids, RFPs, and other solicitations for the categories for which you have registered. If you choose, you can view all of the State of Utah's bids, quotes, proposals, etc. Vendors and suppliers that have properly registered with BidSync will have the ability to safely and securely submit responses to bids, RFPs, and other solicitations online. You will also receive automatic updates regarding bid addendums and questions.
We appreciate your interest in doing business with the State of Utah, and look forward to our future business interactions. We encourage all qualified vendors to offer their commodities and services to the State of Utah. We welcome your questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Signed Kent D. Beers
Kent D. Beers
Chief Procurement Officer
Director of Purchasing and General Services"
Lee Tracy
United Wildlife Cooperative
