Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Hawkeye

Long Time Member
Messages
3,013
Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Due to the size of the initial thread on this topic, I am starting a second thread with FAQ #13. I would personally like to watch the initial thread approach 1,000 posts but it is already becoming unwieldy, especially for folks using their phones or handheld devices. Feel free to chime in with your comments and questions as we move forward.
_______________________________________________

FAQ #13 ? Q13: Did this delay cause confusion for any potential bidders?
Yes. Although the DWR openly referenced its plan to issue the RFP, one organization was unaware of that statement and submitted a proposal directly to the DWR. That proposal was from Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF), and it was delivered on Sept. 1, 2015. Because the proposal was submitted outside the RFP process, the DWR encouraged RMEF to resubmit a proposal when the RFP was open. RMEF later submitted a proposal in accordance with the terms of the RFP.

RESPONSE:


In FAQ #13, the DWR misstates what actually occurred and attempts to blame RMEF for following the DWR?s own Administrative Rule. This is complete nonsense and ignores the binding effect of the DWR?s Administrative Rules and the history of the DWR?s own actions.

In the two sentences of FAQ #13, the DWR states that ?Although the DWR openly referenced its plan to issue the RFP, one organization was unaware of that statement and submitted a proposal directly to the DWR. That proposal was from Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF), and it was delivered on Sept. 1, 2015.? The DWR is correct that on the afternoon of September 1, 2015, RMEF hand-delivered to the DWR its application for the upcoming 5-Year Expo Tag Contract. See Initial RMEF Proposal - https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01Gc0M2a3lIUV9VRlE. In preparing its application, RMEF carefully followed the DWR?s application requirements, including the September 1st deadline, set forth in the DWR?s own Administrative Rule. See R657-55-4(3) - http://wildlife.utah.gov/rules-regulations/981-r657-55--wildlife-convention-permits.html. Remember, this is the same rule that the DWR had previously used to award the two prior 5-year contracts to MDF and SFW, and the same rule that was just recently amended by the DWR in January 2015.

The DWR is still clinging to its position that although it ?openly referenced its plan to issue the RFP,? but RMEF was ?somehow unaware of that statement.? As explained in my response to FAQ #12 above, the DWR is referring to the fact that Kenny Johnson mentioned that change during the August 27, 2015 Wildlife Board Meeting while presenting on another topic. As explained before, that statement by Mr. Johnson occurred roughly 7 months after the Wildlife Board adopted the current version of the rule (that does not even mention an RFP), 27 days after the application period opened pursuant to R657-55-4(3), and 4 days before the deadline to submit applications pursuant to R657-55-4(3). More importantly there was nothing on the agenda for the August 2015 Wildlife Board Meeting to suggest that the DWR was going to announce a monumental change the Expo Tag program. Is this how the DWR conducts its business? It does not have to follow its own rules? It does not have to amend its rules to reflect significant changes to programs? It does not have to provide notice to the public of those changes? It is pathetic and embarrassing for the DWR to attempt to blame RMEF for submitting an application pursuant to the terms of the DWR?s own Administrative Rules.

The next sentence of the FAQ #13 states: ?Because the proposal was submitted outside the RFP process, the DWR encouraged RMEF to resubmit a proposal when the RFP was open.? Just to be clear, RMEF?s proposal was not submitted outside the ?RFP process? because the ?RFP process? did not even exist as of September 1, 2015, when RMEF submitted its initial application. The DWR did not even issue its RFP until October 8, 2015, and there is nothing in the Expo Tag Rule requiring or even referencing a formal RFP. Therefore, the DWR should have followed the information application process set forth in R657-55-4, which is the same process that the DWR relied upon to award the two prior Expo Tag contracts.

I also take issue with the statement from the DWR that it ?encouraged RMEF to resubmit a proposal when the RFP was open.? The DWR makes it sound as if when it received RMEF?s proposal it merely contacted RMEF, apologized for the confusion about the move to the formal RFP, and encouraged them to resubmit when the formal RFP was open. That is not what happened here. After receiving RMEF?s initial proposal on September 1st, one week later the Director for the DWR sent a letter to RMEF informing them that their proposal was deficient and failed to comply with the requirements of the DWR?s administrative rules. But fortunately, RMEF would have an opportunity to ?correct? that deficiency during the upcoming formal RFP process. Specifically, the letter states as follows:

?This RFP process will offer RMEF an opportunity to correct and elaborate on certain aspects of your original proposal that would have disqualified RMEF in the initial submission. More specifically, from the application, it appears that RMEF is the only conservation organization that would be involved in the exposition. Although the rule frequently speaks of conservation organizations in the singular, R657-55-2(2)(c) defines ?wildlife exposition? as a multi-day event held within the state of Utah that is sponsored by multiple conservation organizations as their national or regional convention or event that is open to the general public and designed to draw national attendance of more than 10,000 individuals.? (Emphasis added). Partnerships are critical to preserving our hunting heritage and reaching a broader audience with our wildlife message. As such, the involvement of two or more conservation organizations is a regulatory condition to awarding the exposition contract. This is not a new requirement or concept, and in fact this was an underlying theme of this permit program when it was initially created in 2005.?

See 9/8/2015 Letter from Sheehan to Allen - https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GLWVwaFVIQWpNZFE.

Now, I have to state that both RMEF and I were completed shocked when we received this letter from the DWR. We had carefully complied with the requirements set forth in the DWR?s own rule and we were dumbfounded by the suggestion that the DWR was now moving to a formal RFP process in violation of its own rule and the suggestion that RMEF?s proposal failed to meet the requirements of the DWR?s rule.

The irony of the DWR?s attempt to ?CYA? by pointing to an alleged deficiency in RMEF?s proposal is that the DWR had actually removed the requirement that the Expo be hosted by ?multiple conservation organizations? as part of the rule amendments that were presented during the December 2014 RAC meetings and the January 2015 Wildlife Board Meeting. Surprisingly, the DWR did not know about its own rule changes and relied upon language that it deleted from its own rule in an effort to try to disqualify RMEF?s proposal. Fortunately, I had attended the Central RAC meeting and the January 2015 Wildlife Board meeting so that I would be aware of any such changes. As a result, I understood that the DWR had removed the requirement that the Expo be sponsored by ?multiple conservation organizations? and replaced it with language stating that the Expo must be sponsored by ?one or more wildlife conservation organizations.? See R657-55-2(2)(c). Once again, this underscores the importance of making changes to the Expo Tag program through the formal rule making/amendment process and public meetings.

Determined to get to the bottom of the situation, I immediately contacted the lawyer for the DWR. When I asked him about the alleged deficiency in the RMEF proposal, he reiterated what was stated in the Director?s letter and told me how important the ?multiple conservation organizations? requirement was because it promoted partnerships, attracted a broader audience and was in fact a regulatory condition for the Expo Tags from the beginning. When I explained to him that the DWR had deleted that requirement as part of the recent rule amendments, he asked me how I knew that to be the case. I responded by saying that I knew about the amendment because I attended the public meetings and I was looking at a redline copy of the rule amendments presented by the DWR and adopted by the Wildlife Board. See DWR?s Redline Version of R657-55 (attached to email) - https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GU19XQTlnVWxRMzA. The DWR?s lawyer said he would look into the issue and be in touch.

Three days later, the Director of the DWR sent a second letter to RMEF correcting his prior misstatements about the ?multiple conservation organizations,? acknowledging the mistake by the DWR, and conceding that RMEF could apply for the Expo Tag contract on its own. However, the DWR confirmed that it still intended to move forward with the formal RFP process. The relevant portions of the Director?s second letter provide as follows:

?I am writing to correct a statement made in the letter that I sent you earlier this week concerning the expo rule requiring eligible applicants to consist of two or more conservation organizations. Yesterday, it was brought to my attention that the proposed amendments to the exposition rule provided to our regional advisory councils and the Wildlife Board last winter modified, among other things, the definition of ?wildlife exposition.? The proposed amendment eliminated the multiple conservation organization requirement, allowing one or more conservation organizations to participate.

Yesterday, we learned that the Division inadvertently provided the Division of Administrative Rules an earlier draft of the expo rule amendments that did not modify the multiple conservation organization requirement in the definition of ?wildlife exposition.? We plan to correct this oversight by immediately refilling the appropriate rule with the Division of Administrative Rules.

What this means for RMEF is that it may alone respond to the upcoming RFP and proceed without a cooperating conservation organization. I apologize for the confusion and thank you for your patience. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me personally.?

See 9/8/2015 Letter from Sheehan to Allen - https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GbGtablcxNjR4Q2s.

Had I not reached out to the DWR and informed them of their mistake, they would not have even known that they filed the wrong version of the rule with the Division of Administrative Services. And they almost certainly would have maintained that RMEF?s initial application was disqualified for failing to meet an ?important regulatory condition? and they likely would have continued to enforce the ?multiple organization? requirement on RMEF even though it no longer existed. I understand that everyone makes mistakes from time to time. But for the DWR to make a complete mess out of this process and then attempt to blame RMEF is unacceptable.

In conclusion, the DWR?s FAQ #13 is inaccurate, self-serving and unfairly blames RMEF for the DWR?s repeated mistakes and refusal to follow their own Administrative Rules. RMEF submitted a proposal to the DWR that met all of the requirements of the DWR?s rules. Any confusion on the part of RMEF was not the result of the fact that RMEF was ?unaware? of some ?statement? by the DWR that it wanted to used a formal RFP process. Rather, the confusion was the direct result of the fact that RMEF followed the DWR?s Administrative Rules by the DWR chose to use an alternative process that conflicted with its own rules. Moreover, when the DWR received RMEF?s 9/1/2015 proposal, it did not politely contact RMEF and encourage RMEF to resubmit a proposal in response to the not yet release RFP. Rather, the DWR sent RMEF a ?gotcha letter? stating that RMEF failed to meet one of the fundamental ?regulatory requirements? of the Expo Tag rule and as a result RMEF?s proposal would be disqualified. But the ?good news? was that RMEF could correct that deficiency as part of the upcoming RFP process. I believe that the DWR had an ?oh sh!t? moment when it received RMEF?s proposal and attempted to rely on a requirement in the rule that no longer existed in an attempt to cover its tail and force RMEF into the formal RFP process. The irony of the situation is the DWR was not even aware of the fact that it deleted the requirement 8 months earlier.

I would also point out this the DWR has demonstrated a pattern of sloppiness and carelessness when it comes to the rule making/amendment process. Consider the following: First, the DWR struck the ?multiple conservation organization? requirement from the Expo Tag rule but somehow was unaware of that change 8 months later when it was lecturing RMEF on the importance of that critical ?regulatory condition.? Second, after the DWR removed the ?multiple conservation organization? from See R657-55-2(2)(c), it apparently filed the wrong version of the amended rule with the Division of Administrative Rules (which then published the incorrect version), forcing the DWR to go back and republish the correct version. Third, when the DWR presented all of the other changes to the Expo Tag rule during the December 2014 RAC Meetings and the January 2015 Wildlife Board Meeting, it did not bother to amend R657-55-4 to include the most significant change of all ? the planned move to a formal RFP process. And finally, when the DWR formally notified RMEF of its intention to use the formal RFP process after receiving its 9/1/2015 proposal, and we expressed our concerns that the DWR could not move to a formal RFP without violating R657-55-4, the DWR elected to press forward with the formal RFP process without taking the time to amend its rule to allow it to do so.

I wonder how the DWR would react if we as the public decided that we did not need to follow the DWR?s rules? What would the consequences be for us?

-Hawkeye-

-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

So when they are asked did a delay cause confusion they in perfect terms say "Yes". And You call that blaming RMEF????????????????????
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Rmef made a decision not to attend the meetings involved in the issue. They attend very few meetings. It was announced in a public meeting but because Rmef made other decisions they made a mistake. Then the Dwr corrected the issue and allowed Rmef the opportunity to resubmit. I would say the DWR went the extra mile.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Birdman,

When and where was that meeting and where was it posted for the public to attend?
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Done at the racs and wlb. Posted on dwr sight.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Is this the meeting that nobody knew about? The one where they talked about the change? The one where it was NOT posted anywhere or had an agenda or minutes about the meeting?
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

The FACT is rmef makes little effort to know what is going on in the state of utah. They do not even attend elk issues. As such it cost the the 200 tag issue.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

So Birdman,

Its the fault of RMEF that the dwr did not post any notice if this "NAPKIN" meeting? It did cause them the 200 tags, because now sfw and dwr is using that as a LAME excuse. The private meeting about public assets.
But when there is a public process that has to happen and it does NOT happen, then to turn and blame them for not attending is down right wrong. I guess our RAC process isnt what you all claim it to be. Go figure.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

>Rmef made a decision not to
>attend the meetings involved in
>the issue. They attend
>very few meetings. It
>was announced in a public
>meeting but because Rmef made
>other decisions they made a
>mistake. Then the Dwr
> corrected the issue and
>allowed Rmef the opportunity to
>resubmit. I would say
>the DWR went the extra
>mile.

Birdman, your posts are so lame that a blind man could see right through them! First, the RMEF did not make any mistakes and followed the Administrative Rules to the letter when they submitted their bid on the last afternoon allowed! The DWR screwed the pooch and violated their own rules by not posting and holding open public meetings regarding the plan to change their rule allowing them to go to the RFP process. To this day they are STILL in violation! The only "extra mile" the DWR has gone to is trying to lie and subvert what they have done illegally. They are very lucky the RMEF decided not to spend money going to court on this because with all the facts that are now out in the open they would loose the case in a heartbeat IF the court was not rigged like everything else that it appears the DWR and SFW is involved with that benefits them.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

For Christ sake, I need a Bleach shower after reading this slime.

Great job DWR.

Secret meetings

Muffed rules

Fumbled guidelines.

Great job all around.




"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Bird-

You are way off base on this one. The RMEF and any other conservation group in the country that may have been interested in the five-year Expo Tag contract had a right to review the DWR's Administrative Rule on the subject and rely upon that rule. I attended the Central RAC meeting in December 2014 and the Wildlife Board Meeting in January 2015. Although the DWR did amend other unrelated provisions of its Expo Tag rule (R657-55-4), them DWR did not inform the public that they were moving to a formal RFP. Show me where that was on the agenda or in the proposed rule changes presented by the DWR. The fact that the DWR is hanging its hat on a statement in the August 27, 2015 Wildlife Board Meeting, that "mentioned" the DWR was working on a formal RFP is laughable. That statement occurred 7 months after the relevant rule amendment, without notice to the public, and there was no corresponding rule amendment. You attempting to blame this on the DWR is about as effective the DWR's effort to "disqualify" the RMEF for failing to comply with the DWR's rules.

-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

If anybody can read this sequence of events and come to the conclusion that the DWR isn't totally corrupt / incompetent, you must have a reading comprehension problem.

As these facts continue to come out (letters from Director Sheehan) the depth of the DWR's malfeasance is on display for all sportsmen to see. It is pathetic.

I've been involved in state procurement contracts previously, and the tiniest of inconsistencies has routinely led to rebidding, sometimes costing the states months of delays. Failure to follow the written administrative rule is a serious offense. Nobody is allowed to point to an offhand remark and think that modifies the administrative rule. And the DWR knows this. It isn't a minor or inconsequential mistake.

Only in a state where soooo many politicians are bought and paid for by a local conservation group can the DWR get away with this behavior. It taints the entire public sector, and leads to even greater distrust of public officials in the future.

This corruption must be rooted out and eliminated. Not just for the good of the DWR and sportsmen, but for the good of the entire state's population. Corruption in one government agency has an insidious ability to spill over into other parts of government.

Bill
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

WW said, "For Christ sake, I need a Bleach shower after reading this slime."

LLpacker said, "If anybody can read this sequence of events and come to the conclusion that the DWR isn't totally corrupt / incompetent, you must have a reading comprehension problem."

+1 to both statements, well said! I been feeling the slime from these guys for months now. Next they will want our Public land to control, sell, manage as the wish. Makes me sick to my stomach that these self serving, imo, corrupt guys aren't in jail let alone the forefront of what is happening to our western big game Hunting and Heritage.

Keep your slimy paws off My, Yours, Our,.. Public Land!!!

Joey


"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

It would be interesting to see how many posters would agree to their own personal trial be held on the MM or any other Interweb forum......
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Everybody keeps saying DWR is blaming RMEF but I haven't seen that at all. Seems to me they are taking %100 accountability in saying that the confusion stemmed %100 from a DWR decision. And then they let RMEF change alter and resubmit a proposal to make up for it. Doesn't look like a blame game. It looks like a screw up with a grace period. I think they are being very gracious.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Tri-

Where exactly in the following FAQ #13 does the DWR take "%100 accountability" and state that the "confusion stemmed %100 from the DWR?":

"Although the DWR openly referenced its plan to issue the RFP, one organization was unaware of that statement and submitted a proposal directly to the DWR. That proposal was from Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF), and it was delivered on Sept. 1, 2015. Because the proposal was submitted outside the RFP process, the DWR encouraged RMEF to resubmit a proposal when the RFP was open. RMEF later submitted a proposal in accordance with the terms of the RFP."

Oh, perhaps you were referring to the 9/8/2015 letter where the DWR informed RMEF that its proposal was "disqualified" for failing to comply with a critical "regulatory condition" clearly set forth in the DWR's rules since 2005? But at least the DWR graciously invited RMEF to participate in the not yet released RFP so it could remedy the alleged deficiency.

Gracious indeed.

-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

>It would be interesting to see
>how many posters would agree
>to their own personal trial
>be held on the MM
>or any other Interweb forum......
>


The DWR made their bed, now they get to sleep in it.....with SFW.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

>Everybody keeps saying DWR is blaming
>RMEF but I haven't seen
>that at all. Seems
>to me they are taking
>%100 accountability in saying that
>the confusion stemmed %100 from
>a DWR decision. And
>then they let RMEF change
>alter and resubmit a proposal
>to make up for it.
> Doesn't look like a
>blame game. It looks
>like a screw up with
>a grace period. I
>think they are being very
>gracious.

Your reading comprehension sucks again! The RMEF proposal was done properly and met all the Administrative Rules in effect at the time the bid was submitted. The DWR did nothing out of the goodness of their heart to help RMEF! They initially said the RMEF had screwed up and were going to eliminate the RMEF bid because they said they were a single organization applying for the tags. RMEF then had to point out that the DWR didn't even know what rules were in effect in it's own Department! DWR didn't "let" RMEF change and resubmit their bid. They changed the entire process illegally when they went to the RFP process and that opened things up to ANY organization that wanted to apply that met the criteria, resulting in SFW and RMEF putting in bids and then the debacle of the RFP itself started.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Right here Hawkeye.

"Did this delay cause confusion for any potential bidders?
Yes."

That doesn't make any excuses. No "ifs and or buts". Just a plain and simple "Yes". The DWR previously said the delay was their fault. They haven't run from any accountability here.

The "debacle" was just typical government. Quit acting like your going to find the Watergate tapes from reading the DWR FAQs, Flopgun.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

I don't see it that way. I see the DWR doing a serious "CYA" by opening it back up... then selecting the 30% payback anyway.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

I'm just a dumb tax paying hunter but please Mr. Director,... Explain to me again how 30% is better than 100%.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

HIIIIIIIIIIJAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK!

Nebsy,

Nobody is whining about that dead horse. If you want an answer to that question which you can learn from go start a business and fail.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

One more point Tristate, the "delay" was not what caused confusion on the part of RMEF. What caused the confusion was the fact that the DWR did not follow the process set forth in its own Administrative Rule. From RMEF's perspective, there was no delay because they were not expecting the DWR to issue a RFP. RMEF expected the DWR to follow its own rules. That was their one and only mistake.

-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

>I don't see it that way.
> I see the DWR
>doing a serious "CYA" by
>opening it back up...
>then selecting the 30% payback
>anyway.

+1 Nebsy

Also I think it was a way for SFW to rebid and try to match the RMEF bid but their cronies in the DWR told them not to worry about matching anything as it was already a forgone conclusion that SFW was going to get the bid. No reason to give more than 30% as it was already in the bag.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

The "debacle" was just typical government.
> Quit acting like your
>going to find the Watergate
>tapes from reading the DWR
>FAQs, Flopgun.


It certainly was typical government the way it appears Utah government is run from seeing this along with the land transfer deal where they're spending/wasting millions of dollars, etc. We don't need to delve too deep in this "Watergate" mess to know what we now know because it's so simple to see for other than a few SFW supporters and an Aggie!
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

>>I don't see it that way.
>> I see the DWR
>>doing a serious "CYA" by
>>opening it back up...
>>then selecting the 30% payback
>>anyway.
>
>+1 Nebsy
>
>Also I think it was a
>way for SFW to rebid
>and try to match the
>RMEF bid but their cronies
>in the DWR told them
>not to worry about matching
>anything as it was already
>a forgone conclusion that SFW
>was going to get the
>bid. No reason to give
>more than 30% as it
>was already in the bag.
>

Just a quick correction in that the SFW was not a "rebid". They did not even bid in the initial system that was changed to the RFP where it was then know what RMEF bid. As you stated, even at that they knew the low bid they made was in the bag the way the RFP was written and the scoring rigged!
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Tri, the percent symbol goes after the number as in 30% not %30 even a 6 year old can figure that out. Here's a video to help you out if you have any questions.

 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

LAST EDITED ON Mar-17-16 AT 03:07PM (MST)[p]One question I have is when did the SFW crew know about the RFP process?
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Robi,
Are you sure? Are you sure about all of this or are you just following the lead of Hawkeye? I find it interesting that Hawkeye chooses the court of MM and the Internet. He of all people should know if any of this would hold up in real court. If it would why is he choosing to try the case here? I think you were the one that said this was your only outlet or last chance or something like that? Those in the real world were ok with things? Weird. Oh and again I love how this all is working toward convicting those actually fighting for our wildlife. I'm sure glad I don't get so hung up on personal rejection. That seems a tough way to go through life!
The real world is just not black and white it's grey. Even if you claim that you live a life of absolute right and wrong or black and white there is someone out there that will question you. If they scream loud enough the world has those that will run to see and join in. It's human nature. I'm not an attorney but it just seems very very strange to me that the actual attorney that knows the laws chooses to try his case on MM rather than the actual court of law. Maybe it's easier to try it here with those that are not professionals or those that don't know the full story. This way you can feed them what you want and hold back that which you don't. It's why in real court both sides are involved not just the side accusing. You'll all say well why isn't SFW and DWR on here defending their side. Well because it's not real court it's only a person presenting his case to the only outlet that will listen. Again, I'll bet the Duke Lacrosse team is sure glad that real trials aren't held on the Internet.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Nebsy,
If you educate yourself....say back 40 years until present. Rather then jump into the interweb bubble of reality you will be able to answer that question on your own.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

BIG-

SFW and MDF appear to have known about this proposed change all along. If you ask the DWR, they will tell you that they "mentioned" the change to a formal RFP during a private October 2014 meeting that was attended by representatives of various conservation groups, including SFW, MDF and RMEF. To be clear, I did not attend that meeting. However, the DWR's position is in conflict with the following email that was sent by the DWR to the various conservation groups in advance of that meeting: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GU19XQTlnVWxRMzA

In that email, the DWR notifies the various groups about an upcoming October 23rd meeting to discuss various changes to R657-55 and even included a redlined version of the rule showing the proposed changes. You will notice that the DWR outlined the ?three major proposed changes,? which included the following:

1. Convention Permits would be renamed ?Expo Permits? to avoid confusion with ?Conservation Permits.?

2. Conservation groups would be allowed to extend the 5-year contract for additional 5 years (10 years total).

3. The rule was being amended to require that the conservation groups spend 30% of the $5 application fee revenue on actual conservation projects. This 70/30 split was previously agreed to by the DWR and the groups in 2012 after significant public outcry.

If the purpose of this meeting was to truly to inform the groups that the DWR was moving to a new, formal RFP process don't you think that would have been identified as one of the ?major proposed changes? in the DWR?s email? Plus, the DWR included redlined version of R657-55 showing the proposed changes to the rule. Did the DWR include revised language outlining a new formal RFP process? No. To the contrary, it updated and amended the very same application process that it has used to award the prior two contracts, including Section 3 which required conservation groups to submit applications to the Division between August 1st and September 1st, and Section 4 which spelled out what information should be included in an application, and Sections 6 and 7 which stated the criteria the DWR and the Wildlife Board would consider in awarding the upcoming contract.

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what the DWR "mentioned" during the October 2014 meeting. The fact of the matter is any conservation group should have been able to rely on the process set forth in the DWR Administrative Rule R657-55-4 to pursue the Expo tag contract. See http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm.

-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Also I think it was a way for SFW to rebid and try to match the RMEF bid but their cronies in the DWR told them not to worry about matching anything as it was already a forgone conclusion that SFW was going to get the bid. No reason to give more than 30% as it was already in the bag.
This is the sad truth!!! How do you even defend this??
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Deerlove,
Please prove how that is the TRUTH. Honestly please enlighten us. That would be a silver bullet in this case. Who is your source and are they willing to take the stand.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

I have had a number of people within SFW tell me that SFW was nervous it might lose in the RFP process right up to the last minute. However, if that was the case then why didn't SFW increase its proposal above the 30% minimum, especially knowing that our RMEF had already offered 100%? Based upon SFW's proposal, it sure didn't seem like they were worried about losing the expo tag contract.

-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Cody, I have zero problem with either you or DC as men. I believe you tell it like you honestly believe it to be. Differences of opinion are what they are.

That groundwork being laid do you honestly believe that this is the best that sportsmen and wildlife are capable of in Utah??

No bogus statement from either side, do you believe the current management philosophy is going to be a long term success for your children, my grand children and wildlife??




"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Excellent detailed explanation of the sequence of events here, Hawkeye. Thank you again.

This is just another boulder in the mountain of damning evidence against the collusion and corruption that exists between the DWR and SFW. It's a nauseating concoction of greed, incompetence and carelessness.

Vi Et Armis Invictus Maneo
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

LAST EDITED ON Mar-17-16 AT 06:33PM (MST)[p]Muley73 says, "please enlighten us". Funny that's what people have been asking SFW to do with their books for a long time. You want people to "enlighten you" but how dare they ask the same of you and sfw.

As I have said many times before. Why would anyone try to debate someone as ignorant as tristate is beyond me.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

"Damming evidence"???????


Internet gossip is now considered "damming evidence"????? I actually heard Hawkeye demand answers for something he heard from a supposed SFW member. Grannies at the salon have a higher standard of truth and evidence than you Hens.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

WW

"No bogus statement from either side, do you believe the current management philosophy is going to be a long term success for your children, my grand children and wildlife?"

No, I do not, can't speak for Cody.

DC
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Burden of proof falls to the prosecutor. It's why we have courts and such. Like I stated above, it would be interesting to see if you wanted your personal trial held on the interweb.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

This doesn't seem to me to be a public trial on MM, rather, it's a public awareness to fellow hunters.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

How bout post 34 73??




"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Hawkeye. The new rule went through the racs and passed in all of them. Two, the northern and the central race both discussed the switching to an rfp. Believe you were to that meeting. I believe you also made the statement that the dwr got $6.99 back from nevada. That means $3.01 per application was cost. The agreement at first was having the group putting on the drawing getting the same amount as fallon. Thus, the dwr gets $1.50 of the five dollars and $3.01 cost of the drawing. That leaves .41 cents to be divided by mdf and sfw. So 20.5 cents per group is what you are fighting over. That is fine. Big money
Second I did not blame the dwr for anything. I blamed rmef for not being up on things. Now since you knew that the rfp was going into affect for this last expo tag issue, I guess you were not working with rmef at that time so you didn't say anything. However if you were helping them submit why didn't you let them know or did you forget. The other thing I noticed was that if rmef was thinking of applying for the expo tags, then with the rule change being discussed, and it was on the web, you knew about it, why didn't the rmef make any attempt to attend the racs or the Wlb meeting. And yes it was talked about it at the same rac you addressed.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Ken-

The DWR never clearly disclosed at the Central RAC that it was moving to a formal RFP. The DWR likes to play word games point to the fact that somebody mentioned the word "RFP" at the meeting. As I explained before, those references were made in the context of describing what was already an "informal RFP process" in R657-55-4. Over the years, I have heard people refer to that process as an "RFP" many times.

Show me where the DWR clearly announced they were moving to a formal RFP through the Division of Purchasing. Think about it Ken. Had that occurred, it would have been highlighted in Kenny's PowerPoint presentation and in the redlined version of the rule presented at those meetings. However, it was not included in either. Nor was it even discussed at the January 2015 WB meeting. It is laughable to argue that a monumental change like this was effectuated by someone "mentioning" the word RFP at a meeting. Is that how the DWR amends its rules?

Moreover, I did not "forget" anything. I, along with RMEF, carefully tracked the DWR's changes to its rule and then we fully complied with that rule. The only party that forgot something was the DWR, who somehow forgot the changes it made to its on rule. Go read the rule even today. RMEF's 9/1/2015 application still meets those requirements because the DWR still hasn't bothered to modify its rule.

-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

LAST EDITED ON Mar-17-16 AT 09:44PM (MST)[p]Gordy,
No I don't think the current model will be successful long term. The reason is I believe in any thing if you stay status quo you will eventually lose. That being said I believe we MUST have an actual voice. Not a bunch of people complaining on the interweb. We may not agree completely with system the way it currently is but I can assure you without a doubt if we loss that voice we will be run over and lose it all. To this point SFW has given that voice and fought the actual fight. Others have too but SFW has been the strongest and most powerful voice. I'll take the good they bring even if I don't always agree. To be 100% honest if I was King I'm sure there would be many that would beg to bring back the SFW. Others would probably love it.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Llamapacker said


""""If anybody can read this sequence of events and come to the conclusion that the DWR isn't totally corrupt / incompetent, you must have a reading comprehension problem.

As these facts continue to come out (letters from Director Sheehan) the depth of the DWR's malfeasance is on display for all sportsmen to see. It is pathetic.

I've been involved in state procurement contracts previously, and the tiniest of inconsistencies has routinely led to rebidding, sometimes costing the states months of delays. Failure to follow the written administrative rule is a serious offense. Nobody is allowed to point to an offhand remark and think that modifies the administrative rule. And the DWR knows this. It isn't a minor or inconsequential mistake.

Only in a state where soooo many politicians are bought and paid for by a local conservation group can the DWR get away with this behavior. It taints the entire public sector, and leads to even greater distrust of public officials in the future.

This corruption must be rooted out and eliminated. Not just for the good of the DWR and sportsmen, but for the good of the entire state's population. Corruption in one government agency has an insidious ability to spill over into other parts of government."""""


I COULD NOT AGREE MORE WITH THE ABOVE POST.

I HAVE RESPONDED TO HUNDREDS OF GOVERNMENT RFPs OVER THE LAST FIFTEEN YEARS, AND KNOWING HOW FORMAL OF A PROCESS THIS IS LAWFULLY SUPPOSED TO BE, I HAVE A HARD TIME WRAPPING MY MIND AROUND THE FACT THAT THIS ##### IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING. HOW IN THE FU.. DO THESE DWR GUYS STILL HAVE THEIR JOBS?? THE CORRUPTION MUST RUN DEEP BECAUSE NOBODY FROM INSIDE THE DWR IS EVIDENTLY CALLING THEM ON IT.

DO YOU SFW/DWR SUPPORTERS HAVE ANY IDEA HOW IGNORANT YOU REALLY ARE? IF YOU HAD EVEN THE SLIGHTEST BIT OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT AND RFPS, YOU WOULD TUCK YOUR TAIL AND RUN. IT IS 1000 PERCENT IMPOSSIBLE TO EVEN BEGIN TO JUSTIFY WHAT HAS GONE ON HERE. AS SAID ABOVE, YOU ARE EITHER EXTREMELY IGNORANT, HAVE SOME BLIND FAITH TO SFW FOR UNKNOWN REASONS, OR YOU ARE JUST NOT THE SHARPEST TOOL IN THE SHED.

Excavator
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Ex,
Clam down man! You just burst in the door and started yelling. We've already got a Topgun find another niche please.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Hawk, the fact alone that they were changing the program and rip was brought up should have rank a bell. In the northern race it was brought up it was changing to the rfp. You of all people should have been on top of it. Other groups were. It's funny that rmef had no one to any of the racs then complain they were unaware. The racs were held as a rule change. Now I am sure you as an attorney will try to twist this. Your good at it but you knew then what would happen it was obvious in the racs. Your plan backfired. Now knowing sfw turned you down then getting beat because this rmef plan failed, no wonder you have such a vendetta against sfw. Even bringing the Dwr and the wildlife board into this to try to cover up your screw up. No question things backfired. Now keep twisting things around to cover your ass.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Somebody needs to yell at you guys because what you are arguing is absurd.

Again, anybody with even the slightest amount of experience in government procurement is reading this thread in disbelief.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Hawk, don't forget out of your mouth came the words, dwr gets $6.99 back of the $10.00 application fee. Costing the state $3.01 per application to process. First $1.50 goes to the state leaving 49 cents to be divided between sfw and mdf. 20.5 cents each. The state does its own advertising where the expo does theres. So your wondering where that 20.5 cents goes. Now that was your questions at the rac.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

You are saying that an addendum to the proposal requirements was made by a verbal comment mentioned at a meeting, and thus it became a binding part of the proposal. That's one of the craziest things I have ever heard, and there is absolutely no way that is legal. If my company was RMEF, we would be taking legal action.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Ex,
We already have a yeller here. In fact a couple. You're late to party my friend. Nobody likes the obnoxious late guy. I'm offering up friendly advice here.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Nice try Birdman. Yes, the DWR was amending the rule. That's why I was there. But all you have to do is look at there proposed rule amendment and look at Kenny's PowerPoint presentation to see that they failed to state with any clarity that they were moving to an RFP.

Keep trying to change the topic. And by the way, are you ever going to identify the specific clause in the new contract that requires as you said, that "all of the money goes on the ground"? Still waiting.

-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

By the way Birdman, your writing and reasoning skills have significantly improved in the last few posts. My guess is that some of your buddies are feeding you comments to post on the forum. Invite them to come join us and post directly. I always welcome new participants to the discussion, even when they have opposing views. It helps highlight the strengths and weaknesses of both sides of the issues. Bring them on over. The more the merrier.

-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Welcome to the discussion Ex. Don't let the 2 sfw guys get mad at you for joining in. That's exactly what they don't want. More people to see this crap. So comment away and share with everyrone. The more, the better.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

FAQ #14 ? Q14: Who submitted proposals during the RFP process?
Two conservation organizations submitted proposals during the RFP process: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife.

RESPONSE:


Before we get to the issue of who submitted proposals during the RFP process which was open from October 8th to November 24th, we should consider who submitted proposals during the application period forth in the DWR?s own Administrative Rule that ran from August 1st to September 1st? See R657-55-4(3) - http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm#T4. According to the DWR, RMEF was the only group that submitted a proposal for the Expo tag contract during the application period. See DWR?s FAQ #13. I have attached a copy of RMEF?s proposal that was hand-delivered to the DWR on September 1, 2015. See https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01Gc0M2a3lIUV9VRlE. If you compare RMEF?s application to the requirements set forth in the DWR?s own Administrative Rule, you will see that RMEF complied with all of those requirements. See R657-55-4. Contrary to the position taken by the DWR in an effort to ?disqualify? RMEF?s initial application, RMEF?s proposal was fully compliant. If the DWR would have followed the process set forth in its own Administrative Rule, the contract would have been awarded to RMEF because they were the only group who submitted a proposal and their proposal met all of the necessary requirements. As a side note, take a minute to compare RMEF?s initial proposal to the 2010 proposal submitted by MDF under 657-55-4. You will see that RMEF?s application was frankly much more detailed than what the DWR had received and relied upon in the past to award prior contracts. See https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01Gc0M2a3lIUV9VRlE and https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GSzQtSG9FT1JoT1U.

Moving now to the formal RFP process, I agree with the DWR?s statement that ?Two conservation organizations submitted proposals during the RFP process: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife.? I am attaching links to the two proposals for your convenience: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GZDBGQVUxZ1FFb1E and https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GZXpSQ3R3MS1MTnM.

I will break down the two proposals in future posts responding to other FAQ?s from the DWR.

-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Sorry hawk, no help here. Just facts. You were involved in all the discussion before the racs. You new there was a new rule going in. Anyone that was truly interested in the rule and situation would have been on top of it.
Now you want to argue about where the money goes. Your question was that the state gets $6.99 back from Nevada which was yes. And as Kenny stated it can very. It has been more. So with $5 application $1.50 goes to the dwr. $3.01 for draw costs leaving 49 cents divided by 2 is 20.5 cents. So in reality you are wondering where the 20.5 cents goes.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

>Sorry hawk, no help here.
>Just facts. You were
>involved in all the discussion
>before the racs.
>You new there was a
>new rule going in. Anyone
>that was truly interested in
>the rule and situation would
>have been on top of
>it.
> Now you want
>to argue about where the
>money goes. Your question
>was that the state gets
>$6.99 back from Nevada which
>was yes. And as
>Kenny stated it can very.
>It has been more.
>So with $5 application $1.50
>goes to the dwr.
>$3.01 for draw costs leaving
>49 cents divided by 2
>is 20.5 cents. So
>in reality you are wondering
>where the 20.5 cents goes.
>


Seriously Bird, that's all you got. At that meeting they announced the RFP,right? They changed th e rules for all to see?
As Hawkeye posted earlier, who's writing your posts? We all know you are not capable of this "change" all of a sudden.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

LAST EDITED ON Mar-18-16 AT 07:51AM (MST)[p]Bird-

Facts are good. I like facts. Now, let's look at some real facts. Yes, I was aware the DWR was amending the Expo Tag Rule. That is why I attended the Central RAC Meeting and the Wildlife Board Meeting. Unfortunately the DWR did not inform the public that they were moving to a formal RFP process and incorporate that change into the rule. Had they done so, it would be reflected in the rule today and they would not be saying "but the word RFP was mentioned at one of the RAC meetings."

So here is your chance to prove me wrong, Ken. I am attaching the link to the following materials: (1) the agenda to the December 2014 RAC Meetings (see Item #8); (2) the letter from Kenny Johnson to the Wildlife Board summarizing the changes to the Expo Tag rule and program; and (3) the redline version of R657-55 showing each of the the rule changes proposed and presented by the DWR. This comes from the DWR's own packet of materials available online.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GRzVGSTdqOV9NZ2c

So take a minute and review the actual materials presented by the DWR at the RACs and the Wildlife Board and show me where they clearly disclosed that they were moving to formal RFP process. Remember, these are the DWR's own documents.

After you spend a few minutes reviewing the DWR's presentation materials, then please review the actual Administrative Rule that was adopted by the Wildlife Board in January 2015 and that remains in place. Show me where the DWR spelled that they would be using a formal RFP process. I will give you a hint, look at subsection R657-55-4.

http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm

We both know that you will not review the materials and respond to the substantive issues but perhaps these links will help educate others on the topic.

With regard to you question regarding the Expo tag monies, sportsmen are concerned about the use of the full $5 application fee not 20.5 cents. Nice try though.

-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Hawk, that does break down the money situation. It does tell where the money goes with the exception of 20.5 cents. SAW announced that money goes to the pheasant plants, and to the purchasing of fish for the state. No they will not open up their check book to you now. I think they realize your other motives. You have convinced your followers you are looking out for them but the vendetta you have inches forward. No question your a typical lawyer. Twist twist twist.
True it doesn't mention the rep but still someone Interested should be on top of things. Question. When you went to rmef to talk them into applying did they really want to? They never put forth the effort. They never followed the rules for applying either. Did they really want the tags?
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

>Sorry hawk, no help here.
>Just facts. You were
>involved in all the discussion
>before the racs.
>You new there was a
>new rule going in. Anyone
>that was truly interested in
>the rule and situation would
>have been on top of
>it.
> Now you want
>to argue about where the
>money goes. Your question
>was that the state gets
>$6.99 back from Nevada which
>was yes. And as
>Kenny stated it can very.
>It has been more.
>So with $5 application $1.50
>goes to the dwr.
>$3.01 for draw costs leaving
>49 cents divided by 2
>is 20.5 cents. So
>in reality you are wondering
>where the 20.5 cents goes.
>

Is that the new Utard math Birdman? Since when did 49 divided by 2 = 20.5 cents, LOL?! You just keep posting BS and now it's obvious from the change in the way some of your posts are written that either someone else is writing them using your username or someone is sitting there helping you along the way. Hint buddy---They aren't helping you one bit and we're still waiting for the answer as to where it's stated in the contract that "all the money goes on the ground". Just keep on deflecting just like muley73 when he came in and couldn't comment on anything Ex stated other than trying to move the conversation off track just like you guys always do in every post. Pitiful, just pitiful!
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Bird-

I thought so. I knew that you would not review the links to the DWR's own materials and rule and point to any "facts" to support your position. That is because they do not exist. Similar to your repeated claims that I am "lying, mistating and twisting facts." But when I have called you on those statements and invited you repeatedly to point to something specific, you always dodge the question and move on to something elses. Same song different day.

With regard to your statement that RMEF "never followed the rules," actually they are the only group that did follow the rules. Once again, take a look at the relevant rule (R657-55-4), RMEF is the only group that followed that process including SFW, MDF and the DWR. Strike two and its only 10:30 am.

-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

I remember specifically discussing the RFP at the RAC. Not a very long discussion, but if I remember correctly- I stated that going to a formal RFP would actually be a good thing because I felt it helps keep the process in the light. I have dealt with RFP's and to say that the "low bidder" always gets the job is not true. Also, there are some comments that don't always get transcribed into the minutes. Sometimes the recordings are not clear because more than one person may be commenting-- but for the most part the written minutes are extremely accurate. Amanda does a great job.
I am not taking anyones side particularly,on this issue, but I do believe that there have been some things and decisions made, that could have, in retrospect, been done in way that would have been better. But, to blast people and call them names and demean their character and infer that what was done was devious in nature, goes way to far for me. Everyone who reads or comments here has done things that, given the way they chose to do it at the time, would go back and change the way they originally did it. I don't have any problem with folks making the effort to correct things they don't like in government or other groups, but it seems to me that it gets to a point where the original intent gets morphed into personal attacks and the whole purpose gets lost.
For me personally, there are some things that were done that I can see, (IMO) weren't the best way. But the correcting of that has been done or in the process of being done. What more can we expect or want than course corrections going forward ? For some, I have to ask the question-- what more do you want out of this and at what point will you be satisfied. I know that for some that may never happen, but hopefully for some they can move on and put their passion for wildlife into efforts to preserve and protect our wildlife heritage.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

LAST EDITED ON Mar-18-16 AT 10:02AM (MST)[p]Top,
I don't know if you crack me up or make me sad.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

>Top,
>I don't know if you crack
>me up or make me
>sad.

Is that all ya got booby? You haven't made a single post anywhere on any of these discussions that has done anything to help your cause. Maybe that's because you, your Papa, and the Birdman can't find a single thing that's been posted regarding this whole debacle that can be countered with any facts from your side to show what is being stated is false. Yep, it's the same old chit---deflect, deflect, deflect! Just keep on deflecting and the hole you're digging will just keep getting deeper. Why don't you do something useful and go help Birdman find where in the new contract it says that "all money will go back on the ground". While you're at it, maybe give him a remedial lesson in simple math too!
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Nebo 12000,

I was at that RAC and I do not recall any of this discussion at all. But once again, if this is such a big rule that has to be followed and there was going to be a change, then why was it not noted in any agenda, minutes or even in the RULE? Yes there should be some things done differently. And it should have been done from the beginning, like having the rules set and written down before the process begins so everyone can follow them.

After reading what been going on, IMO, it seems like the 26 FAQs that were written were to try to brush things over the HUGE mistakes that the DWR made. And by doing this, the average JOE would skim over them and say, "OK, cool, everything is good." BUT THAT IS SIMPLY NOT THE CASE.

You know, it is embarrassing to talk to my friends that I have in Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho and Wyoming and as we talk about our hunting plans for the year, they all just laugh at this mess. I guess its not embarrassing to me but for the DWr of Utah.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Nebo-

You are correct that the the word RFP was used during that Central RAC Meeting. But as I explained before, that phrase was used in the context of people decribing the informal RFP process that already existed in R657-55-4. In fact, the first time that the term RFP was used in that meeting was when Chris Marble asked a question about the five-year extension being proposed by the DWR, and Mr. Marble asked if it made sense to allow the contract "to continue to go out to RFP" every five years. As I acknowledged in other posts, folks generally used the word RFP in the meeting but nobody, especially the DWR, explained that the DWR was abandoning the informal RFP process in R657-55-4 and moving to a formal RFP process with the Division of Purchasing. Nor was that made clear in the proposed rule amendment.

I agree that we should discuss these issues without personal attacks, name-calling etc., and I have tried to do that in these posts. However, I believe it is both fair and necessary to post the facts (rules, minutes, contracts, correspondence, etc.) relating to the recent Expo Tag contract. This is particularly true given that the DWR has chosen to issue a 26 point set of FAQ's some of which are fair and accurate but many of which are confusing, do not tell the entire story and unfairly portray other parties involved in the process. I feel obligated to tell the other side of the story. If telling that story is viewed as an attack by some then I am sorry. I do my best to stick to the facts but no matter how you tell the story some people will interpret it as an attack unless you simple shut up and go away. I have personally spoken with the key groups and individuals about these issue and explained the same points in person so I cannot be accused of being an "internet hero" that refuses to dig in and work directly with people.

In summary, I am not sure how best to resolve this issue. The DWR and the groups seem determined to press forward and many of us as sportsman are frustrated and determined to continue to shine a light on what is happening. If you have any suggestions on how best to resolve this issue, please let me know.

-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Hawk, check your PMs
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

No top I just know the real fight isn't being fought here. You'd like to think it is so you can claim to be "involved" but it's really not. In the end I'll do my thing either way. It is what it is.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

You have to start the fight somewhere. This is a good place to start. No, its not the best place, but we need to let the general public know. As you know 73, the dwr cant even let people know there are changes being made to contracts or rules. so where do you suggest to fight the fight? BTW, with this elk meeting that "NOBODY" showed up to, where was that mentioned on the DWR web page? I still cant find it. Cant help out when we dont know about it, then you get all bent out of shape by saying people dont get involved.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

>No top I just know the
>real fight isn't being fought
>here. You'd like to
>think it is so you
>can claim to be "involved"
>but it's really not.
>In the end I'll do
>my thing either way.
>It is what it is.
>


Oh you are so wrong son, and yep, it's more than obvious that you'll keep "doing your thing"! I'm not only on this big website, but also on several of the other biggest ones on the net and thousands now know exactly what is going on in Utah and are more than upset. Yep, there are actually now thousands of people in Utah and throughout the country that are aware of the BS that your Don and his SFW have pulled along with the either corrupt or incompetent people in the DWR. It will take some time to get this corruption under control and purged from your state and it will happen sometime down the line if people like Hawkeye keep fighting the good fight. I would certainly not want to be in the two top spots of the DWR right now because that 26 FAQs they put out really put them in a spot they will not get out of without making the necessary corrections to start doing things legally.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

I'll keep pounding my message because I believe it is right. The SFW has and will continue to do good things for wildlife in Utah. You can all tell me you have thousands and thousand pissed off on the Internet. Good for you guys, congrats, job well done. So now what? What are these thousands of pissed off interweb posters going to do for the wildlife in Utah? The answer is nothing! That was never the point of this battle. It was to destroy an organization actually fighting for wildlife and our hunting future. The truth is it's a difference of philosophy, the problem with the opposing philosophy is it is not organized and as truly dedicated as SFW. It's easy to be pissed off and angry with the powers that be, it's easy to post on the Internet, it's easy to be an arm chair QB, it's easy to have an opinion, it's takes a while lot more to actually put in the hours, sacrifice, and get actual results. And guess what it's not worth doing for free, you can not be successful and make and actual difference and have an actual voice with out money. It's the world we live in. If you don't believe me feel free to ask Lee Tracy how expensive it is to have a voice, ask him why UWC is now asking for money. If you guys really think the RMEF is really any better than SFW or any other established organization you're being played a fool. They are playing off of your emotions to build their membership. If they really cared about Utah wildlife there are plenty of opportunities to show it besides trying to slide in the back door and take control of the Expo tags. Like I said most of you have not the slightest what you you're actually fighting for or against or any reference of the actual history.

But hey dancing around Piggy's head is fun at the moment!!!!
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

>Sorry hawk, no help here.
>Just facts. You were
>involved in all the discussion
>before the racs.
>You new there was a
>new rule going in. Anyone
>that was truly interested in
>the rule and situation would
>have been on top of
>it.
> Now you want
>to argue about where the
>money goes. Your question
>was that the state gets
>$6.99 back from Nevada which
>was yes. And as
>Kenny stated it can very.
>It has been more.
>So with $5 application $1.50
>goes to the dwr.
>$3.01 for draw costs leaving
>49 cents divided by 2
>is 20.5 cents. So
>in reality you are wondering
>where the 20.5 cents goes.
>

Birdman, so it's $3.01 in draw costs for every $5.00 application? Can you prove that? Where does it say that? I'm sure you have the figures to back that up right? I seem to remember a thread a while back that stated a firm in Bountiful was the contractor for the Expo tag draws and it was by a contracted amount not a set amount per application. We'd all like to see the evidence to back up your figures. By the way you suck at math.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Cody, how did RMEF try to "slide in the back door and take control of the Expo tags"? All they did was submit a proposal to the dwr Pursuant to the DWR's own rules. Isn't that the purpose of the contract coming up for bid - to give other groups a chance and ensure the state and the public get the best deal?

-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Robiland-- The RFP was briefly discussed, that is a fact. Should it have been discussed more fully-- in hindsight.. probably.
If the DWR folks said to you.. "We handled it incorrectly, it won't happen again" would you be satisfied and would you move onto other issues? Is there something more you want out of this particular issue?
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Same old BS in post #71 that Muley73 put up. It's the same MO to not answer any questions being asked and to just divert from what is being discussed. You suck at it about as bad as Birdman does in his math, LOL! Nobody is trying to destroy your SFW even though you keep spouting your garbage that isn't true. All we ask is that the money being made from public tags is accounted for so that it actually goes back on the ground. Obtaining tag money for use other than what it's designed for is not right no matter what the SFW/MDF faithful thinks needs to be done with it. The comment that Muley73 made regarding RMEF is more SFW garbage and it will be interesting to see if Hawkeye gets a response to his question.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

>But hey dancing around Piggy's head
>is fun at the moment!!!!


Dance around this muley73! It's page after page of what RMEF has done and spent in the state of Utah. It will probably only take you the entire weekend, so maybe do some reading instead of putting up your BS posts and come back to the thread sometime next week:

http://www.rmef.org/SearchResults.aspx?Search=utah+projects
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

No question my math sucked. It is 24.5 cents. As for ax question the Figures from the dwr. They pay a sum of money to Fallon each year. The cost averages $3.01 per aplication. Then the dwr does the advertising to promote the draw. They allowed that to whoever had the expo tags. Sfw not only pays for the advertising of expo tags, they have a group of people that handle all the paper work including handling of money and making sure someone does not break the rules. That is not volunteers but hired people. They have to make sure people are there to handle it. No I don't know the actual cost but that is the way the system was set up. If they can do all that for the price that is great.
As for hawk, you state that you quote each of the rules the dwr put out and then after you add to it what you think. You twist it to make you look good. Course that's what attorneys do. Paid to do so. You also mentioned you made an offer to help sfw and was turned down. They didn't need you and hurt your feelings. That's life.
I do not see being on this as doing anything but fueling the haters that are your followers. You can continue with your vendetta as the leader of your group that does not know what is really going on. I will not get into a pissing match with a skunk or the boy on the back of the bus. You and your followers can say about me all you want. Being Simi retired I still don't have the time you do to spread your stuff on the net. You have a great job. Now top, if you push a little harder you can get your eyes up far enough to see out your mouth.
Wish all of you a great day. Keep your hatred up. You been doing great. Continue the name calling. It seams to make you feel better. SFW is here to stay. They will continue to grow thanks to you all making people ask questions. Actually have some of you people coming to banquets to find out things. Even bought a few dinners. Thanks for your help.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

>No question my math sucked.
>It is 24.5 cents.
>As for ax question the
>Figures from the dwr.
> They pay a sum
>of money to Fallon each
>year. The cost averages
>$3.01 per aplication. Then
>the dwr does the advertising
>to promote the draw.
>They allowed that to whoever
>had the expo tags.
>Sfw not only pays for
>the advertising of expo tags,
>they have a group of
>people that handle all the
>paper work including handling of
>money and making sure someone
>does not break the rules.
>That is not volunteers but
>hired people. They have
>to make sure people are
>there to handle it. No
>I don't know the actual
>cost but that is the
>way the system was set
>up. If they can
>do all that for the
>price that is great.
> As
>for hawk, you state that
>you quote each of the
>rules the dwr put out
>and then after you add
>to it what you think.
> You twist it to
>make you look good.
>Course that's what attorneys do.
> Paid to do so.
> You also mentioned you
>made an offer to help
>sfw and was turned down.
> They didn't need you
>and hurt your feelings.
>That's life.
> I
>do not see being on
>this as doing anything but
>fueling the haters that are
>your followers. You can
>continue with your vendetta as
>the leader of your group
>that does not know what
>is really going on.
>I will not get into
>a pissing match with a
>skunk or the boy on
>the back of the bus.
> You and your followers
>can say about me all
>you want. Being Simi
>retired I still don't have
>the time you do to
>spread your stuff on the
>net. You have a
>great job. Now top,
>if you push a little
>harder you can get your
>eyes up far enough to
>see out your mouth.
> Wish all of
>you a great day.
>Keep your hatred up.
>You been doing great.
>Continue the name calling.
>It seams to make you
>feel better. SFW is
>here to stay. They
>will continue to grow thanks
>to you all making people
>ask questions. Actually have
>some of you people coming
>to banquets to find out
>things. Even bought a
>few dinners. Thanks for
>your help.

Well there you go boys! Nothing but more BS, spewing the same old garbage that everyone has a vendetta and are haters, yadayadayada! Still no answer to a simple question that has been asked of him a half dozen times to verify his statement that the current contract requires "all of the $5 fee money to go back on the ground", but what else is new?! Hey Birdman, I know you've told me your health is not good. Here's a suggestion. Stay off this site because sooner or later you're going to have a heart attack and croak and then all of us SFW/BGF "haters" will be blamed for that too!
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Ken-

If you think that I am twisting the meaning of the DWR's rules then show me where I am wrong. I have even provided you with the links. It is easy to make unsupported blanket statements. It takes time and research to back up your statements with facts. I have not attacked you. I have simply addressed the issues and responded to the DWR's statement of FAQ's. You have taken offense to my comments due to your involvement with SFW.

I am glad the you and Cody chime in with opposing views. I wish there were more SFW supporters involved in the discussion. I just wish we could stick to the issues. Have a great time at the banquet tonight and take a break from the forums.

-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Its amazing to me that you all really believe that arguing with Bird and myself has anything to do with the actual issues or battle. I guess you find victories where you can, but seriously I still don't get the internet battle verses where it actaully matters.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Hawkeye,
I'm sure there are multiple views on multiple issues all across any organization. I think you guys have built up this monster in your heads and have honestly lost touch with the big picture. When you're fighting for the big picture I think you see things differently than when you get hung up on personal vendetta and you're own crusade. You constantly ask me questions about the SFW and expect me to answer. I am not the SFW I'm a member and supporter. You are you, you are the core and force of your movement. You take no ownership of this but it is true. Yet you don't answer questions, this doesn't surprise me because you're not concerned about making our wildlife better. You're more concerned about righting your personal wrong.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Who is arguing? As I have said many times, I prefer to have a discussion regarding the issues as a way of educating people as to what is happening. Judging from the emails and pm's I have received, folks appreciate hearing the other side of the story.

So tell us Cody, how would you "fight the battle" for accountability and transparency if you were in our shoes? I know you are not but just pretend for s moment. Assuming you were concerned about the use of public assets what would you do? Would you go to the group's directly? The dwr? The racs? The wildlife board? The legislature? The governor? The media? The courts? How would you go about trying to fix the problem since you believe the interweb is pointless?

-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

I have answered many questions. That is the point of this thread -- to educate and answer questions. What question would you like me to try to answer? I am happy to try so long as it is legitimate question related to the issues (e.g., don't waste my time with questions about being scorned by SFW or how much RMEF is paying me to post my own personal views).

-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

FAQ #15 ? Q15: How could the DWR have improved the RFP process?
We could have been more proactive in communicating the fact that we were using an RFP process through State Purchasing. We assumed that mentioning it in public meetings would be sufficient, but in hindsight, we should have made an additional effort to reach out to all interested parties. We also regret the delayed release of the RFP. We?re sorry for any confusion and concern these issues may have caused.

RESPONSE:


I appreciate that the DWR acknowledges that it ?could have been more proactive? in communicating that they were moving to a formal RFP through the Division of Purchasing. I also appreciate that they are apparently sorry for any confusion and concern that they caused. However, I don't know why they continue to state that they believe simply ?mentioning it in public meetings would be sufficient.? Even with the benefit of hindsight, the DWR still does not understand or appreciate that if they wanted to move to a formal RFP then they should have amended their Administrative Rule accordingly and taken that rule amendment through the public input process.

There are consequences resulting from the DWR?s cavalier decision to move to a formal RFP in violation of its rule, including the following: (1) the public was denied an opportunity to comment or provide input on this significant change at a RAC or Wildlife Board Meeting; (2) RMEF submitted a proposal pursuant to the DWR?s rule and disclosed the terms of its proposal before the RFP was even released; (3) SFW had the benefit of knowing the key terms of RMEF?s proposal when it responded to the formal RFP; (4) the DWR has established a precedent and example of violating its own administrative rules.

Just to be clear, the DWR did not even do a good job of ?mentioning the rule change? at public meetings. The amended Expo Tag rule was presented at the December 2014 RAC meetings and January 2015 Wildlife Board meeting. As explained before, most of the instances where the RFP was ?mentioned? consist of someone randomly using the word ?RFP? to discuss the informal application process set forth in R657-55-4. I personally attended the Central RAC meeting and the January 2015 Wildlife Board Meeting and the DWR never clearly disclosed that they were abandoning the informal RFP process set forth R657-55-4 and moving to a formal RFP process through the Division of Purchasing. The DWR continues to hang its hat on the fact that it finally described the change with some clarity during the August 27, 2015 Wildlife Board meeting but that was 7 months after the amended rule was adopted by the Wildlife Board.

I also understand that at some point during the application period set forth in the DWR?s own rule (August 1st to September 1st) SFW/MDF contacted the DWR and asked if they should submit an application pursuant to the DWR?s Administrative Rule because the DWR had not issued a formal RFP yet. The DWR apparently told SFW/MDF not to submit an application because the RFP was forthcoming. If the groups that have the closest relationship with the DWR were confused about the process then the DWR should have know there was a problem. I don't know why at that point the DWR did not contact all conservation groups, including RMEF, to let them know what they were doing. The only thing I can think of is the DWR did not think any other groups would be interested in the contract.

In summary, I appreciate the DWR apologizing for the confusion created by the move to a formal RFP. However, I am surprised that the DWR still does not see the problem with making significant changes to programs by merely ?mentioning? them at meetings and DWR?s the complete disregard for the rule making/amendment process. The DWR still has not amended its rule to reflect the formal RFP process that it implemented last year. See R657-55-4.

-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

I have a question. How did SFW have the benefit of knowing RMEF even submitted a proposal, let alone know it's contents? I thought that information was kept confidential.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

LAST EDITED ON Mar-20-16 AT 09:03AM (MST)[p]elkfromabove-

In the days following RMEF's submission of its initial proposal, word began to creep out on social media and web forums that RMEF had submitted a proposal and the general terms of that proposal (RMEF had committed 100% of the application fees to actual conservation projects and to bring its National Connvention to SLC for the full five-year term of the contract). I do not believe that the DWR leaked any information to SFW or the public. Rather, I believe that information leaked out from excited sportsmen who mistakenly assumed that the DWR would comply with the September 1st deadline set forth in R657-55-4. Had the DWR followed the process set forth in their Administrative Rule, there would have been no harm in anyone, including SFW and MDF, knowing the terms of the RMEF proposal after the deadline because it was too late to submit or amend proposals.

-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

FAQ #16 ? Q16: Who was on the State Purchasing committee that selected the expo permit distributor?
The State Purchasing committee consisted of one person from each of the following offices, departments and divisions:

Governor?s Office
Department of Natural Resources Administration
Department of Technology Services
Division of Wildlife Resources
Division of Purchasing and General Services (assisted with the process in an advisory capacity but did not score proposals)
These five individuals were selected for their ability to objectively and impartially assess the criteria outlined in the RFP and included in the proposals.

RESPONSE:


FAQ #16 explains who participated in the selection committee for the Expo Tag contract. As a result of the GRAMA request that I served on the Division of Purchasing, I know the names of the five individuals who served in the selection committee. I will not post their names in this post because I don't want people to harass or malign them. However, everyone already knows that Mike Canning from the DWR was one of those five people. Mr. Canning acknowledged his participation during the December 18, 2015 Wildlife Board Meeting when he declared that after reviewing the proposals ?it was not even close.?

My only comment regarding FAAQ #16 is that the DWR states that the purpose of selecting these particular individuals was ?to objectively and impartially assess the criteria outlined in the RFP and included in the proposals.? When I first saw SFW?s proposal, I wondered why they included so many photos and marketing pieces in the proposal when Section 3.1 of the RFP specifically stated: ?Proposals should be concise, straightforward and prepared simply and economically. Expensive displays, bindings, or promotional materials are neither desired nor required.? When you review SFW?s proposal, you will notice multiple photos of Governor Gary Herbert, Natural Resources Executive Director Mike Styler, DWR Director Greg Sheehan and Wildlife Board Chairman John Bair speaking or making other appearances at past Expos. See SFW Proposal at 4, 13, 14, 30, 31, 56, 100, 110, 113, 120 - https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GZDBGQVUxZ1FFb1E. One has to wonder what impact these photos and related information had on the representatives on selection committee from the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources and the Governor?s Office during the review process. Would it influence you if you knew that your boss supported a specific group or event? I think the answer to that question depends on the person.

Those of you that heard Mike Canning speak at the December 18, 2015 Wildlife Board Meeting can reach your own conclusions regarding his objectivity and impartiality. You can also consider the ?canned? response that the Governor?s office has been sending out in response to emails from the public expressing frustration and concern about the Expo Tag issue. That response was prepared in large part by Mike Canning and provides as follows:

March 2, 2016

Dear XXXXX:

Thank you for your email to the Office of the Governor regarding the Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR). I have been asked to respond on behalf of the Governor.

Our office appreciates hearing from constituents and your comments and opinion on this issue have been noted. As much misinformation has circulated, I wanted to share a statement from Michael Canning, Assistant Director at DWR. I hope the below details remove any doubt you may have had regarding the expo selection process.

"The purpose of the wildlife expo permits is to raise revenue for conservation, but also to bring a large wildlife exposition to Utah for all of the economic benefits such an exposition would provide to the state. Whenever the state desires to procure goods or services, we follow the process described in state procurement code. In this case, state procurement code required that the state issue a formal "Request for Proposal", which not only asks that proposals be submitted, but it also clearly defines how those proposals will be scored. The RFP for the expo permit distributor clearly stated that proposals would be scored on: 1) the viability of the business plan and potential to put on a high quality expo (40% of total score), 2) the ability to organize and conduct a secure and fair permit drawing (20%), 3) the commitment of the organization to use revenue generated for wildlife conservation in Utah (30%), and 4) the historical contribution and previous performance of the organization in Utah (10%). All of this information was made available to potential applicants before proposals were written.

After proposals were received, an independent four-person committee (comprised of members from the Department of Information Technology Services, the Department of Natural Resources, the Governor's Office, and the Division of Wildlife Resources) reviewed the proposals and scored them based on the pre-established criteria. The independent committee unanimously agreed that the proposal submitted by Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife (SFW) was the superior proposal, because it better addressed the criteria in the RFP, and consequently had the highest total score. The SFW proposal scored particularly well because it contained a detailed expo business and marketing plan that included data to support the claims in the proposal, and it also provided a detailed data security plan to protect the personal information of the state's customers, as well as the credit card information of people that attend the expo. The other proposal provided a much less detailed business plan, and its data security plan provided little to no detail. The lack of detail in the data security plan was particularly troubling, as a data breach could cost the state millions of dollars. As I'm sure you can understand, we could not put the social security numbers and credit card numbers of our customers at risk due to the lack of a detailed data security plan. If you would like more information about the committee's decision, please read the justification statement for their selection, which is located at: Caution-http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/2015-12-18_justification_statement.pdf.

As many have noted, the SFW proposal did not directly return the most money to the state on a percentage basis (and as you can tell by the justification statement, that component of the SFW proposal was scored accordingly). However, it was the only proposal that provided enough detail to give the state certainty that a high-quality expo would occur and that customer data could be secured. Because of these concerns with the losing proposal and the lack of detail it provided, there is no way to say with any certainty that the total amount of money directly provided to the state would have been higher if the losing proposal was selected. In fact, the losing proposal may have cost the state money if the expo was not economically viable or if there had been data security issues. Although both proposals had their strong points, the state purchasing process selected the best proposal in a fair and unbiased manner. Finally, it is important to note that the contract recently signed between the state and SFW to distribute expo permits clearly states that all of the money raised from expo permit application fees will be used specifically to "support conservation initiatives in Utah". No money has been lost, and all proceeds will benefit Utah wildlife conservation."


Again, we appreciate your communication and thank you for taking time to contact us regarding this matter. If you have additional questions, please feel free to contact the Governor's Office again.

Sincerely,

Austin Cox
Constituent Services

For those of you who may be wondering if the Governor and his office have any bias as to who should receive the Expo Tag contract. Please also take a minute to listen to the speech that Governor Herbert delivered at the most recent Expo hosted by SFW and MDF:
My favorite part of the speech is when the Governor announces that after ?significant negotiation? the State Department of Purchasing? has awarded the next Expo Tag Contract ?for the next 10 years to the Mule Deer Foundation and Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife.? ?Put it on your calendars.? I wonder who wrote his speech?

Let's not pretend that existing relationships between SFW/MDF and various state agencies had no impact on the Expo Tag decision.

-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

LAST EDITED ON Mar-20-16 AT 02:19PM (MST)[p]>LAST EDITED ON Mar-20-16
>AT 09:03?AM (MST)

>
>elkfromabove-
>
>In the days following RMEF's submission
>of its initial proposal, word
>began to creep out on
>social media and web forums
>that RMEF had submitted a
>proposal and the general terms
>of that proposal (RMEF had
>committed 100% of the application
>fees to actual conservation projects
>and to bring its National
>Connvention to SLC for the
>full five-year term of the
>contract). I do not
>believe that the DWR leaked
>any information to SFW or
>the public. Rather, I
>believe that information leaked out
>from excited sportsmen who mistakenly
>assumed that the DWR would
>comply with the September 1st
>deadline set forth in R657-55-4.
> Had the DWR followed
>the process set forth in
>their Administrative Rule, there would
>have been no harm in
>anyone, including SFW and MDF,
>knowing the terms of the
>RMEF proposal after the deadline
>because it was too late
>to submit or amend proposals.
>
>
>-Hawkeye-

"Word begin to creep out" Yeh, it's tough keeping good news (or bad news) to yourself! One of the frailties of men.

Unfortunately for RMEF, it's even tougher to refrain from using that information, from whatever source, to attempt to discredit your opponent in order to further your agenda as SFW did on their proposal. But, it's even more unfortunate that the evaluation committee didn't see that or perceive that as a red flag. Such is politics.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

LAST EDITED ON Mar-20-16 AT 04:45PM (MST)[p]"Independent four-person committee"? I guess they have a different definition of "independent" than most of us do.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

That's more "independent" than Hawkeye's interpretation of the word. In Hawkeye's definition they could have been paid directly by SFW and still get called independent.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

I find it humorous that you fellas crap on the DWR and their relationship with SFW for years in the most profane ways possible and then are surprised when they pick SFW over your pick.

Nobody likes to be threatened into doing business with someone.

Lets look at it realistically. I can choose between two groups.

Group 1:
1. Local people
2. State has a proven business history with them
3. Expo keeps growing in size and revenue each year
4. Doesn't talk crap about the DWR constantly.

Group 2:
1. No business history with Utah DWR.
2. No proven plan for developing the expo.
3. Only want to do business here if DWR gives them stuff.
4. Has an out of state carpet bagger sitting on their board which talks trash about the relationship between DWR and SFW constantly.
5. Would fight against Utah getting control of federal lands.

If you were Utah DWR why in the world would you ever pick the out of state guys that hate your guts and could stand in your way of billions of dollars while promising to give you several hundred thousand dollars???????????
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

LAST EDITED ON Mar-21-16 AT 06:44AM (MST)[p]Two questions Tristate:

1. Assuming your points outlined above are true (which they aren't), then why does the DWR even pretend to send the Expo Contract out for bid every five-years? Why not just stop pretending and sign a 100-year contract with their buddies?

2. What is SFW's and MDF's position of the transfer of federal lands to state ownership so that Utah can get its hands on "billions of dollars" as you say?

-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

FAQ #17 ? Q17: Which criteria did the committee assess?
The committee used the following weighted criteria to evaluate the proposals:

Business plan ? Expo operations (20% of total score)
Business plan ? Economic considerations (10% of total score)
Business plan ? Promotion of hunting, fishing and trapping in Utah (10% of total score)
Ability to organize and conduct a secure and fair permit drawing (20% of total score)
Commitment to use revenue generated for wildlife conservation in Utah (30% of total score)
Historical contribution and previous performance of organization in Utah (10% of total score)

These criteria were published and publically available before proposals were submitted. Any potential vendors who had concerns with the scoring breakdown had the opportunity to discuss those concerns with the Division of Purchasing while the RFP was open. There were no formal objections to the criteria or the scoring breakdown.
RESPONSE:


The scoring criteria outlined by the DWR in FAQ #17 correctly represents the six general categories of information requested by the DWR in the formal RFP. However, each of those general categories were then broken down into further detailed questions in the actual RFP. For example, ?Business Plan? was addressed in Section 2.3.1 of the RFP, which provides as follows:

1. Business Plan. For all descriptions and topics provided for this section, provide support and verification of your assertions and expectations, such as historical documentation of past performance, any market analysis or projections your organization may have performed, or other materials that may lend credibility to your business plan.

a. Expo operations. Discuss the past performance of your organization in planning and operating large scale events, conventions, and expositions, including activities undertaken in support of the conservation permit program described in Utah Admin. Code R657-41. Describe in detail how you will organize and run the expo. Provide an estimate of the number of attendees expected per year, the number of expo permit applications expected per year, the proposed location of the expo, proposed dates of the 2017 expo, and a detailed description of the proposed venue, including whether the venue is secured or if there is a reasonable expectation that the venue can be secured. List conservation and business organizations you expect to draw to the expo.

b. Economic considerations. Discuss your past performance in advertising and marketing large scale events, conventions, and expositions, including activities undertaken in support of the conservation permit program described in Utah Admin. Code R657-41. Describe your advertising and marketing strategy for the expo and how it will result in expanded attendance and participation by conservation organizations, vendors, and the public. Describe the projected economic benefits to the State of Utah stemming from the expo on an annual basis.

c. Promotion of hunting, fishing and trapping in Utah. Describe how your operation of the expo will benefit Utah sportsmen and women and wildlife conservation in Utah. Describe how your expo will result in recruitment, retention, and reactivation of Utah sportsmen and women of all ages. Describe how your operation of the expo will help further UDWR?s mission, including the square footage of floor space you would donate to UDWR, if any, for administration and outreach activities for items such as National Archery in the Schools Program (2 day state championship), Help Stop Poaching, Outreach, DWR Information, and general meeting space.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GcmpTbVJnTU5SeFU.

These criteria were much more detailed and in some case different than the criteria set forth in the DWR?s Administrative Rule. For example, under R657-55-4(4), an application for the Expo Tag Contract only had to include the following:

(a) the name, address and telephone number of the conservation organization;

(b) a description of the conservation organization's mission statement;

(c) the name of the president or other individual responsible for the administrative operations of the conservation organization; and

(d) a detailed business plan describing how the wildlife exposition will take place and how the wildlife expo permit drawing procedures will be carried out.

http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm#T4.

Consider the 2010 proposal that MDF submitted pursuant to R657-55-4, which the DWR relied upon to award the prior five-year Expo Tag contract. See https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GSzQtSG9FT1JoT1U. It consisted of a three ?page application, and that is after MDF and SFW had already been hosting the Expo for five years. Why didn't the DWR require the same level of detail and documentation for the prior two contracts? What prompted the move to the formal RFP for this contract?

In a nutshell, my concern with the formal RFP issued by the DWR was not that it asked for very detailed information but that it then requested historical documentation, actual numbers and analysis, and in some instances it suggested that you should have actual subcontracts in place even though the first Expo under the contract was over 15 months away. In essence, the formal RFP and the scoring system set forth therein established a precedent where the DWR values certainty and past performance from the incumbents over a proposal from a new bidder that may result in even greater returns for sportsmen, wildlife and the state?s economy. Both RMEF and I had this concern the first time we read through the formal RFP document.

Some might ask why didn't RMEF file a formal protest to the RFP during the RFP process? The DWR is correct that there is a protest procedure available under the formal RFP process. See RFP at 8/38 and Utah Code ?63G -6a-1602. If RMEF would have filed a protest to the format of the RFP pursuant to Utah Code ?63G -6a-1602 that would triggered an administrative action and would have resulted in a hearing. See Utah Code ?63G -6a-1603. As I have explained before, RMEF was willing to submit a very generous and competitive proposal for the Expo Tag contract. However, it was not interested in litigating against the State of Utah or other conservation organizations. As a result, RMEF decided to press forward and submit its best proposal and hope that it would be enough. At the end of the day, RMEF was committed to putting its best offer on the table and would leave it up to the State of Utah and the DWR to determine whether they wanted to do business with RMEF. You can ask a girl to dance with you but it is her choice whether she will accept the invitation.

In conclusion, FAQ# 17 correctly states the six general categories of information requested by the DWR in the formal RFP. These criteria were much more detailed and in some case different than the criteria set forth in the DWR?s Administrative Rule and the criteria used to award the prior Expo Tag contracts. The formal RFP and the scoring system set forth therein established a precedent where the DWR values certainty and past performance from the incumbents over a proposal from a new bidder that may result in even greater returns for sportsmen, wildlife and the state?s economy. Under this system, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for outside group to compete with SFW and MDF for future Expo Tag contracts. The DWR should not interpret RMEF?s decision to not file a protest to the formal RFP as an agreement that the terms of the RFP were fair and competitive. Rather, RMEF was simply not interested in litigating with the DWR in an effort to force the DWR to do business with RMEF.

Additionally, given that the move to a formal RFP process substantially changed the process utilized and the criteria considered in awarding the Expo Tag contracts, the public should have been given an opportunity to review and comment on a proposed rule amendment addressing this change. Unfortunately, the public was denied any opportunity to do so because the DWR moved to the formal RFP process without amending its corresponding Administrative Rule. See R657-55-4.

-Hawkeye-
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

"Two questions Tristate:

1. Assuming your points outlined above are true (which they aren't), then why does the DWR even pretend to send the Expo Contract out for bid every five-years? Why not just stop pretending and sign a 100-year contract with their buddies?

2. What is SFW's and MDF's position of the transfer of federal lands to state ownership so that Utah can get its hands on "billions of dollars" as you say?"

Those points are just as much truthful as every single thing you have posted on here and labeled as a "fact". Howdy goose.

Question 1 and 2: Why not sign a 100 year contract? Maybe because they are seeing the last 100 year contract fall apart. Its called the NACM. BLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAM!

Question 3: You lied and told me there were only two questions. Call them up and ask them. I am sure they'll take your call after you have been trash talking for years.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Quote: My favorite part of the speech is when the Governor announces that after ?significant negotiation? the State Department of Purchasing? has awarded the next Expo Tag Contract ?for the next 10 years to the Mule Deer Foundation and Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife.?

?significant negotiation? in procurement is generally reserved for sole source situations where you negotiate terms between two parties (the buyer and the seller). In a truly competitive RFP the criteria is already laid out and if you need to enter discussions for clarification (a type of negotiation) you must do the same thing with all interested parties to maintain the competitive integrity.

In Competitive RFPs you evaluate and if needed clarify with all parties involved.

In single source/non-competitive RFP's you evaluate and then negotiate terms all you want till you reach an agreement that you are satisfied with.

If there was "significant negotiation" it is another red flag.


As far as the criteria, it appears to unduly restrict competition. It may appear competitive because they allowed any org to submit a proposal but the criteria the DWR provided to the purchasing department appears unduly restrictive in nature where only the incumbent would be able to get the award.

I imagine and would hope that the state purchasing department did a decent job at evaluating the proposals. The error would be in the DWR created criteria that they had to follow. The purchasing department should have done some market research and rejected the criteria because the criteria unduly restricted competition.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Dorkstate,

You have any numbers to back up your claim the expo keeps growing every year?

Or are you just talking out your a$$ as usual?

I'll ask you again, do you spend hours everyday defending SFW because of your support for SFW or your hatred for Hawkeye?

Answer the questions if you have any balls, boy.


No estas en mexico ahora, entonces escoja tu basura chancho such.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

Heartshot,

I believe the governor is probably just using the word significant negotiation" because it sounds good but isn't really applicable. Kind of like how Hawkeye uses the words "truth" and "facts", and you use quotation marks and "quote".
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

TRI 73 and BIRD still have not found 1 place where Hawkeye had posted something false. Even with all the links to everything, you guys have clearly never read any of the links Its all right there. Either read them and then comment, or dont say a thing. It gets old all the accusations with no proof.
 
RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding

LAST EDITED ON Mar-21-16 AT 01:51PM (MST)[p]That is a terrible practice. So Tristate is advocating standing up and saying things that sound good at the moment but are not based in fact. That is exactly how we got into this mess. Think back to the March 31, 2005 Wildlife Board Meeting when the Expo Tags were created. The following things were said/done at that meeting:

1. Don Peay stated on the record on behalf of SFW that "it is fair to ask how much comes in with the five dollar application fees and how much went onto the ground."

2. The Widlife Board specifically directed the DWR "in their contract negotiations with the representing organization that the annual audits be accomplished in a similar way that is done for conservation tags."

Neither of these things occurred. As Tristate says, these folks said things because they sounded good in the moment but they never followed through on those statements and nobody held the groups or the DWR accountable. That may be the standard practive in Texas but I expect more from our politicians and state agencies.

-Hawkeye-
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom