RMEF WantsTransparency on Special Permits

OutdoorWriter

OutdoorWriter

Long Time Member
Messages
8,340
From the Outdoor Hub:

Responding to questions about some nonprofit organizations? handling of special auction/raffle hunting permits issued by states, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is calling for transparency and open review of the financial records of all conservation nonprofits.

RMEF has made its records available online, reiterated its longstanding policy of financial accountability and is urging other nonprofit organizations to follow suit.

?When dealing with these special auction or raffle hunting permits we are dealing with a public trust,? said David Allen, president and CEO of RMEF. ?It is imperative that we are as open and transparent as possible when we assume the responsibility of selling these permits.?

?Organizations should not become financially dependent upon the sale of these permits for their operating budgets, but rather find ancillary benefit by helping our state agency partners realize greater conservation revenues from the sale of these limited permits,? he added.

At question is the accountability of some nonprofit groups that accept special permits for auction and/or raffle fundraising. More specifically, questions have surfaced about how funds generated from these permits are allocated and spent. In most states, legislation dictates how proceeds from these permits are allocated.

RMEF has an operating policy that specifies it will only sell special permits for states that require proceeds to go on the ground for wildlife conservation purposes. Over the last five years, for example, RMEF generated a total of $5,211,214 in special permit revenue. Of that, $4,759,759 was returned directly to the states or specific project accounts for wildlife habitat or conservation purposes. Approximately $451,455, or just 8.7 percent, was retained by RMEF for administrative and fundraising expenses. It is important to note that income from these permits represents less than half of one percent of RMEF?s annual budget. RMEF indicates that in nearly all cases, the administrative fees retained by the organization cover only the direct expenses associated with selling the permits.

To view five years of RMEF?s Special Permit Financial Summary, and more than 10 years of the organization?s Federal 990 tax returns, as well as RMEF?s Audited Financial Statements, go to www.rmef.org and click on the word ?Financial? at the bottom of any page.

?We are very proud of the fact that RMEF has been able to raise millions of dollars over the years for wildlife through special permits while only retaining an average of 10 percent or less to cover our marketing costs, transaction fees, overhead, etc.,? said Allen. ?We view our handling of these permits as a service to our state agency partners. When done correctly, and in very limited numbers, these permits can have a huge benefit to wildlife.?

?We?re an open book, we are accountable to our members, donors and supporters for every dollar they commit to RMEF,? said Allen. ?We also feel an accountability to all hunters, members or not, when receiving any amount for assisting state agencies in selling the public trust assets represented by these permits.?



TONY MANDILE
48e63dfa482a34a9.jpg

How To Hunt Coues Deer
 
ONLY 3 LETTERS COME TO MIND AFTER READING THIS,

SFW

I am glad to see this. I think it is important for all of them to do the same, but as we all know, a few of them wont and probably never will.
 
Your play SFW...... Although im sure you'll continue to just put your head in the sand. I do know this, I am not a member of the RMEF, but after seeing this, I will be.
 
This is exactly the right way to get SFW to be transparent. If RMEF decides to push the legal aspect of this initiative it will be game over for any abuse of funds from any wildlife organization. I hope people in Utah will take this to their legislators and get some action on changing laws pertaining to funding from the sale of big game tags. Excellent move.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-14-12 AT 08:56AM (MST)[p]Kudos to RMEF. They have been quite transparent for years, but it is good to see them politely calling out those groups which are not transparent. There is a move underway within Utah where RMEF will guarantee 100% of conservation tag revenue will be returned to the state. RMEF doesn't even want to keep one penny of these funds to distinguish themselves from other, less transparent groups. Outstanding!
Bill
 
+1 and if that comes about, it would and should eliminate the money abuse that has obviously been going on for some time by at least one particular organization that we're aware of.
 
Transparency vs secrecy and no accountability. Hmmm which type of org should I choose to support??

Any organization that feels threatened by transparency and public inspection is hiding something.

Ball is your court SFW....do the right thing

"Whatever you are, be a good one."
- Abraham Lincoln
 
Don Peay isn't near the man that David Allen is, so I won't be holding my breath on SFW following suit.

People from the west should recognize a quality sportsman's organization, as opposed to SFW/BGF. There is a huge difference.


I wanted to take a scalp,but the kill was not mine.
 
Bright light shining on all the cockroaches now. I'd like to see RMEF set up a legal fund to which we could all contribute to compel non-profits to comply with total transparency. I would up my contribution to help clean up the industry.
 
God Bless RMEF.

As for any organization that does not step up and comply to a very, very reasonable request then let them whistle while walking alone in a dark alley. The good in man takes a while to drive out the bad but with the Lord's help the bad will suffer in this world and the next.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-14-12 AT 12:42PM (MST)[p]What a breath of fresh air. I would hope that the other conservation organizations that voluntarily participate in the conservation and convention permit programs follow suit. If you are willing to take a public resource and sell it to raise money in the name of conservation then you should be willing to account for the monies generated from those public assets.

The winds of change are blowing and it would be better for these groups to voluntarily move in the direction of transparency and accountability than to be compelled to do so. Kudos to the RMEF for doing the right thing!

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
Another article on the issue: http://www.mtbullypulpit.org/2012/06/pox-on-fox.html

This seems to be receiving a great deal of attention. I would like to hear a response from SFW, MDF and some of the other conservation groups.

____________________________

A Pox on the Fox

When a fox gets in your henhouse, you don't just sit back and let it take your chickens. You grab the old Model 1906 Winchester and box of hollowpoints and you take care of the problem. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation did just that today.

Some states hand hundreds of prime limited entry tags over to non-profits. These tags, especially in Utah, have little to no accountability as to how the public resource is being allocated, or how the money raised is being spent. In some instances, groups raise millions of dollars that just disappear into "administrative fees" or "Consultant fees." That's wrong, and it's just another form of poaching.

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation receives a fair number of auction tags/transferable tags, and has laid the gauntlet down on how to properly account for, and manage the funds generated by these tags:

"When dealing with these special auction or raffle hunting permits we are dealing with a public trust," said David Allen, president and CEO of RMEF. "It is imperative that we are as open and transparent as possible when we assume the responsibility of selling these permits."

"Organizations should not become financially dependent upon the sale of these permits for their operating budgets, but rather find ancillary benefit by helping our state agency partners realize greater conservation revenues from the sale of these limited permits," he added.

We're solidly behind them when they take on the corrupt practices of a few groups who are trying to undermine the ability of the average hunter and angler to get out, and go hunt.

A tip of the Stormy Kromer to David, and the guys and gals at the Elk Foundation

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
Where is Don Peay? How come he hasn't posted anything about the debate not happening because SFW won't open their finanical books? What does Don Peay think about the articles?

Where is the rest of SFW? Not one peep from SFW on these issues.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-14-12 AT 04:06PM (MST)[p]To some and I am sure many SFW supporters they do not see the "why" in this. Or they may believe the reasons they have been told. However, for others we are not so trusting and so we need to see proof. Way before the open book policy was at the forefront, there were SFW and former SFW members asking for open books. In the past SFW made offers to see thier books. The offer was made to me that I could go to Byron Bateman's home and look at the books. Because I am lazy, skeptical and uneducated in bookkeeping, I never took up the offer. However, they now have had a valid offer from a trained professional to look at the books and SFW is arguably MIA, which does not fit their standard MO. This looks a little suspicious to say the least.

My personal reason for wanting a look at the books is to see how the Weeks' property was purchased in Cache County. I believe (personal opinion) that it was purchased with conservation tag dollars which would not be a problem if the land was held in the "Public Trust" i.e.the UDWR's or public land managers name. If conservation money was used to purchase the land and then title was in a private owners name I assume this is wrongful use of conservation monies and an issue that would need to be rectified. This is just one example of many why there is skepticism of SFW and conservation monies that a closed book policy has cultivated. My hope is that SFW sees the value in coming forward with an appropriate accounting of their fnancial records and not an offer to Joe Blow to sit on the couch and look at the books they present.

In defense of Don Peay, he has stated he no longer is in the leadership ranks of SFW and can not control their actions.

To SFW members I would recommend watching the Wizard of OZ. For those of us familiar with the story we realize it was the Wizard who controlled the land of OZ. Until he was flushed from behind the curtain!

Having split my time between SFW and RMEF committees in the past, I have never been prouder to say my truck wears the RMEF brand.
 
I will be sending in my new membership tommorrow. Thanks RMEF!
SFW, open your books and see how many new members you get!
BTW, I still have $100.00 to donate to a cause that can help force SFW to open their books. I don't think they will. Something tells me that UDWR board members could be looking at finding a job. SFW is not in this alone.
 
I had weak excuses for a few years and I let my membership expire. This is a strong message to rejoin. Gonna do it tommorrow. mtmuley
 
I just got done joining, +1 on this being a breath of fresh air.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never has and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson
 
mtmuley. glad you have to back..glad to see how much just the little guy means , with out us little guys thier is no hunting, to all sports groups. dont ever forget that,,,
 
d to have to back, with out the little guy thier is no hunting, to all sports groups, dont ever forget this,,
 
i rember when rmef was taking a beating over the wolfe deal., sfw has make some fukkk ups but dont kick them to curb just yet.
 
SFW is the United Way of the hunting world. Anybody that recalls the scandal knows what I am talking about. Don has seperated himself on paper in case the house of cards falls.

***********************************
Member RMEF, Pope & Young Club, UBNM, UWC & the SFW Hate Club
 
Thank you, RMEF. This is an organization I can feel good about giving my money to. Nothing to hide. One goal.

What a stark difference to SFW.

Gentlemen, if you are giving any of your money to SWF, your dollar is not being spent as well as it would be with RMEF.

Vi Et Armis Invictus Maneo
 
I too remember the wolf issue and RMEF dragging thier feet to get involved. Because of that I would not join RMEF. But it seems that the RMEF has learned that we care about the politics of hunting and has gained my support. I too will join up. Lets hope they keep up the good work. fatrooster.
 
Quick question. Why according to RMEF records and tax return is it that they put as much or more into matching 401k plans for there employees as the do for elk. According to their records they put 1% of the money taken in on elk. That is according to their records. $500.000 dollars out of $50 million is not all the good if the foundation is for elk.
Also in a recient article from the Montana Fish and Game the elk are almost extinct in some areas of Montana and the elk numbers are going down hill fast. That is in the state where RMEF is headquartered.
 
Birdman,
Ignorant and false accusations, to try and make your chosen pimp organization look good, is pretty transparent.

You know the statements made about RMEF are false. RMEF puts one of the greatest percentages of their donation dollars on the ground of any charity. Do you own reserach, find out the facts about RMEF, and you will see they are above board, ethical, transparent, and effective in their wildlife conservation efforts.

If only every Utah based wildlife group could match their standard we would all benefit.

Bill
 
>Quick question. Why according to
>RMEF records and tax return
>is it that they put
>as much or more into
>matching 401k plans for there
>employees as the do for
>elk. According to their
>records they put 1% of
>the money taken in on
>elk. That is according
>to their records. $500.000
>dollars out of $50 million
>is not all the good
>if the foundation is for
>elk.
> Also
>in a recient article from
>the Montana Fish and Game
>the elk are almost extinct
>in some areas of Montana
>and the elk numbers are
>going down hill fast.
>That is in the state
>where RMEF is headquartered.

They do have great benefits for their employees but the contributions DO NOT come from the monies raised from the tags. The monies come from other fund raising efforts and donations from members. The conservation and convention tags are but a small part of where the RMEF raises money. The difference, since you're looking at their financials, is that they don't depend on those tags for operating capital.
 
Birdman, you are a schill for SFW and Don if you are not Don. I think the game is over for SFW scamming millions of dollars from public tags for their personal agendas. This is just the start of the ride down for you and yours. If you had transparent books you might survive but after the beating in Arizona and now the wildlife groups going against you I think the game is about over. Open your books completely and if you don't you can pack it in.
 
Llamapacker, For your information I took what I said right off of RMEF web sight. On there they say that they put 1% back into the elk. Right off their web sight. I did not say that is all that they put on the ground. I said that is all that goes to elk. Look it up, it is on their website. If you also check with the Montana Fish and Game you will also see that the other part of my post is also correct.
Gleninaz, Not Don, Sorry, By the way, The tag money from Utah is audited yearly by the State Auditor. The money required to be returned to the State, 90% has been done 100% since the program started. SFW does not depend on that money to keep a float. I don't know where you get your information from but it is not correct. Also Sportsman For Fish and Wildlife was not involved in the Arizona tag grab. Has nothing to do with them. You better get your facts straight. Learn what you are talking about.
 
The RMEF for the year of 2011 according to the RMEF records.

Elk Restoration 1% of the money
Land Conservation 66%
Membership 14%
Conservation education 6%
Stewardship, 13%

In the State that they are headquartered in, the elk are disapearing fast. They need to do something about the elk in Montana. Soon it will be what elk.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-20-12 AT 11:17AM (MST)[p]>The RMEF for the year of
>2011 according to the RMEF
>records.
>
>Elk Restoration 1% of the money
>
>Land Conservation 66%
>Membership 14%
>Conservation education 6%
>Stewardship, 13%
>
>In the State that they are
>headquartered in, the elk are
>disapearing fast. They need
>to do something about the
>elk in Montana. Soon
>it will be what elk.
>

What does SFW's website say?

Here's a link to the UWC proposal in its entirety for those who wish to read it and fully understand. We are simply asking that the expo tags are administered, audited, and accounted for equally and in the same manner as the conservation tags. That will translate into more money staying in Utah for Utah projects, Utah habitat, and Utah wildlife. Most importantly, it translates into the TRANSPARENCY that all of us want.

http://uwcnewsletter.wordpress.com/uwc-convention-tag-proposal/
 
Birdman said: "The tag money from Utah is audited yearly by the State Auditor. The money required to be returned to the State, 90% has been done 100% since the program started. SFW does not depend on that money to keep a float. I don't know where you get your information from but it is not correct."

Birdman, much of the current discussion on this website relates to the Convention Permits, not the Conservation Permits. There is no requirement that any of the monies generated from the 200 Convention Permits be spent on actual conservation. There is also no audit or transparency requirements, and groups involved have refused to provide any information or accounting as to how those monies are being spent. Perhaps you understand the distinction between the two types of permits but many people do not. Hopefully, the UWC's proposed revision to the Convention Permit rule will pass and remedy this glaring problem relating to the Convention Permits.

By the way, I responded to your pm. Please give me a call so that we can talk.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
Hawkeye, Do you know the reason that the 200 convention tags were added to the expo? I will remind you that they were done for a reason to bring people to Utah. For the benefit of the State of Utah, not the benefit of SFW. If SFW dropped the tags, it would not break them. It would not break the Expo. It is a drawing card. The tags were added to bring revenue to the State. Yes it was a drawing card, but it brings in Millions of dollars every year to the State. If SFW dropped the 200 tags, the State would loose money. The tags are there both as a drawing card for the expo but mostly for the economy of the State. In the origonal setup of the conservation tags, there was never an agreement as to the money that is raised off of the $5 application fee. Never dispite hear say. It was set up to be a booster to the State, Now you are asking the State to make changes in it to where the expenses would not be covered by the 10% profit. I guess that is what people want. What ever that they can do to hurt the State and the DWR.
 
Birdman said: "Hawkeye, Do you know the reason that the 200 convention tags were added to the expo? I will remind you that they were done for a reason to bring people to Utah."

Birdman, unfortunately you are wrong, yet again. The administrative rule that created the Convention Permits includes the following two express purposes for those permits: (1) to "generate revenue to fund wildlife conservation activities"; and (2) to "attract a regional or national wildlife convention to Utah." See Utah Administrative Code Rule R657-55-1(2).

Your comments about drawing people into the State of Utah go to purpose #2. However, the first and primary purpose as stated in the statute is "to generate revenue to fund wildlife conservation activities." Unfortunately, SFW resisted the initial efforts to impose any such requirement in the original version of the rule. As a result, SFW and MDF have been free to spend the several hundred thousands of dollars raised on an annual basis through the $5 application fees on whatever they want. Their reluctance to demonstrate that those monies have been spent on actual conservation activities suggests that this likely has not been occurring.

Why don't you, SFW or MDF ever focus on the first stated purpose in the Convention Permit Rule? Why did the State of Utah and the DWR agree to create these tags without building in any protections to ensure that the revenues generated were used "to fund wildlife conservation activities." Why do SFW and MDF refuse to provide any accounting for those funds?

Please take some time to read the applicable rules and statutes. You might be surpised what you find.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
>The RMEF for the year of
>2011 according to the RMEF
>records.
>
>Elk Restoration 1% of the money
>
>Land Conservation 66%
>Membership 14%
>Conservation education 6%
>Stewardship, 13%
>
>In the State that they are
>headquartered in, the elk are
>disapearing fast. They need
>to do something about the
>elk in Montana. Soon
>it will be what elk.
>

Do you understand the difference between Elk Restoration and Elk Habitat Conservation?

Look to Missouri Elk Reintroduction, Virginia Elk Restoration, Kentucky Elk Restoration, Pensylvania Elk Restoration, Michigan Elk ......

Nationwide in all other states that have elk, is where the Habitat conservation work is done.

Different areas of emphasis, but still MISSION of the RMEF.

Wolves in Montana are a big reason for the decline in elk numbers, look at the record and see what they RMEF has done on the matter. (some will say after the fact )
 
Their mission statement: "The Elk Foundation?s mission is to ensure the future of elk, other wildlife and their habitat. "

I always tell people that the RMEF is primarily about preserving and enhancing habitat for elk. 1 % for elk "restoration" sounds about right to me. I would rather them spend the big dollars in elk central than restoring elk to Virginia

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
Usually the money it takes to restore elk populations will come from those states that are receiving the elk. Birdman's grasping for anything he can to justify his support of SFW. To bad his comprehension skills are so poor.

RMEF fills the gaps that our government bureaucracies can't. Without habitat there will be no elk, or other big game. Wild, free of development, lands. Those are qualities that SFW won't come to terms with either.




I wanted to take a scalp,but the kill was not mine.
 
No Birdman is not grasping at things. Birdman has done his homework on the situations. I have constantly ask others to do the same. Just because someone on MM says this is the way it is that does not make it gospel. You can believe them if you want. I choose to go and find out for my self. Jim Karpowitz said that because of the money that comes from the Expo tags and Expo itself generate not only money for the State but money for the Division. That is from his mouth. Good luck guys. Find out the truth. It is out there.
 
A letter to read.....
19 June 2012
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.
Dear Mr. Allen
I read with interest your recent news release entitled "RMEF calls for Transparency on State Special Big Game Permits." I am concerned with your statement in the news release that "questions have surface about how funds generated from these permits are allocated and spent." This statement could be interpreted by some readers that Utah has not been transparent. With RMEF having been a major participant in Utah's Conservation Permit Program, I am sure you know that neither implication is true. I believe you owe the public and the other conservation organizations in the program an explanation of your statements.

As you are aware, Utah has two types of "Special big game permits." Conservation permits are
auctioned at banquets, fundraisers and other special events sponsored by various conservation groups including the RMEF. More than 90 percent of all the proceeds go towards projects such as habitat enhancement, transplants, aerial surveys, radio telemetry studies, education efforts and research projects that directly benefit the species for which the permit was issued. The conservation group that auctions the permits may retain 10 percent of the proceeds to cover administrative costs. We do not question how the 10 percent is specifically used and I can see nothing in your financial report that explains how the RMEF uses these funds.

Convention permits are the second type of "special big game permit." They are not auctioned, Rather, they are a block of permits made available for a public drawing that is held in connection with a "wildlife convention" within the state that is sponsored by multiple conservation organizations. The conservation groups that host this annual event and conduct the drawing are allowed to collect a $5 fee for each application to pay for expenses associated with the drawing. If any additional funds remain, the groups use the money to support and promote wildlife at their discretion. In the past, the convention groups have provided information to the public showing projects they have funded with proceeds from the drawing, even though they are not required to do so. I think it is important to point out that the RMEF was instrumental in promoting and supporting the Conservation Permit Program when it was originally proposed.

You also need to know that both the Conservation and the Convention Permit Programs undergo an internal Audit each year, These audits are made available to the public in an open public meeting of our Wildlife Board. In addition to this annual audit, the Conservation Permit Program has been audited by the State Auditor, the Legislative Auditors Office and the Attorney General's office since I have been the Director. There is no other program in this agency that has been more thoroughly audited and scrutinized than the Conservation Permit Program.

Finally, let me say just how important the Conservation and Convention Permit Programs are to wildlife in Utah. In the case of conservation permits, the program has proven invaluable in enhancing and expanding our big game populations throughout the state. Since the advent of the Conservation Permit Program every big game species in Utah with the exception of mule deer has increased dramatically, and it is conservation permit dollars that are now funding large scale research projects designed to identify and correct the problems associated with our deer herd.

Conservation permit dollars have also funded our massive Watershed Restoration Initiative which has now resulted in the restoration of over 700,000 acres of big game habitat at a cost of over $76 million dollars in the past seven years. Most of the conservation permit dollars are now being directed to this huge conservation initiative.

The Convention Permit Program has also resulted in additional revenue to the state of Utah and to the Division of Wildlife Resources. In February 2011, the Western Hunting & Conservation Expo---and the opportunity to apply for up to 200 permits-- brought more than 30,000 people to downtown Salt lake City. Nonresident attendees paid for 24,567 hotel nights and spent $10,841,205 while visiting the expo. Conventions permits are a large part of the expo's popularity and tangibly benefit Utah's economy. We believe that the convention has the also greatly elevated the notoriety of Utah's
big game program and dramatically increased interest and participation in our regular big game drawing.

In conclusion, I would just like to say that I am concerned that a major conservation group such as the RMEF would issue a news release critical of the transparency of these important programs without first contacting the states and getting the correct information. We were especially surprised that your state representative did not provide you with the facts before the news release. If you or your staff would like to discuss this issue further, I would be glad to talk to you.
Sincerely,
Director of Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.


JBP
Tip Of the Spear
 
Birdman,
Do you work for NBC? It seems your selective editing would fit right in with their recent antics. You seem to omit the word restoration simply to imply something that is not so. There ins't much elk restoration work in Montana, but rather habitat improvement projects. Only someone with a birdbrain would suggest elk restoration projects in a state with a very large population of elk. MT doesn't need transplants, they need habitat work and wolf control. Get real...
Bill
 
Llamapacker, Better read again. Montana is in real trouble with the elk and deer population. Montana recently released a statement that in some areas of Montana the elk are all but extinct. The wolves have wiped them out. There is not plenty of elk in Montana. Another statement made by someone who does not follow or check things out. For a state that has a delisting of wolves there is not enough being done to protect the elk. Idaho just made the statement that there elk success has dropped in half. There elk are going fast. Now with the RMEF stationed in Montana they should be putting all the pressure on the DWR to so something about the wolves. Why did Montana cut off the hunt before the quota was reached.
 
No disrespect birdman, but you will do sfw better if you kept your mouth quiet. You have no idea the knowledge and time Hawkeye has spent on this stuff. He knows his stuff. He deals with laws and paperwork like this all day long. He knows people and has met with people that started sfw and mdf. He has talked with all of them several times, face to face, emails, phone calls. Do your self and sfw a favor and step out for a while.
 
If the Director of the DWR truly sent this letter to David Allen of the RMEF chastising him for calling out SFW, MDF and the DWR then shame on him. If this is true, then the DWR is truly out of touch and is not looking out for the interests of the general public.

Let's focus on the Convention Permits (not Conservation Permits) for a just a minute. Some of the key facts are as follows: (1) the administrative rule that created the Convention Permits expressly states that one of the purposes of the permits is to "generate revenue for wildlife conservation activities;" (2) the state took 200 premium hunting permits out of the public draw and entrusted them to the groups participating in the expo; (3) these participating groups have been raising several hundred thousand to nearly a million dollars a year from the $5 application fees; (4) there is no requirement whatsover in the statute that the participating groups spend any of those funds on actual conservation projects; (5) the DWR does not audit how much money is raised from the 200 permits or how the groups spend that money; (6) the participating organizations have refused to provide any information or accounting as to how the revenues generated from the 200 permits have been spent; (7) the DWR, the Wildlife Board and the participating organizations all fail to see any problem with this situation.

This tells me that it is going to take a massive groundswell of support to fix this problem. Please take the time to talk to all of your friends and family members and encourage them to email the Wildlife Board and RAC members, attend meetings and sign the UWC's online petition. We need to let the DWR that they work for us and that the current situation is not acceptable. Please also remember to remain professional and courteous in all of your communications. Although we are all passionate about these issues, it undermines our position when we resort to name calling and personal attacks.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-21-12 AT 09:40AM (MST)[p]Robiland
Jun-20-12, 10:15 PM (MST)
51. "RE: RMEF WantsTransparency on Special Permits"
No disrespect birdman, but you will do sfw better if you kept your mouth quiet. You have no idea the knowledge and time Hawkeye has spent on this stuff. He knows his stuff. He deals with laws and paperwork like this all day long. He knows people and has met with people that started sfw and mdf. He has talked with all of them several times, face to face, emails, phone calls. Do your self and sfw a favor and step out for a while.

Birdman won't quit posting until the SFW goes down the tubes because he knows all the facts, even though he hasn't put one up yet in the multitude of posts he's had on MM regarding the SFW organization. Now he's telling us the elk are going to be extinct in Montana and the deer are really in bad shape with a statement that Montana needs to take care of the wolf problem. Looks like he's so smart on what's going on in Utah that he's now branching out to other states to solve their problems, LOL! I guess he doesn't know that the state must stay within the paramaters of the agreement they signed when wolves were delisted. To start out too aggressively would take the chance that wolves could again be relisted and placed on the ESA. Also, I guess he has no idea what that 1% line marked as elk restoration has really been used for when he tries to make it sound like that is all that the RMEF has spent on elk out of it's large budget. As I've stated more than once, Birdman seems to be a good egg that has no idea of what he talks about. Yet he always says he does and those of us that don't live in Utah don't have a clue. I've got one big clue and that is that just about every time Birdman puts up a post he makes an azz of himself, and this thread's post are a good example. Please Birdman, cease and desist because you are doing no favors for your organization when you spout off and have no facts at all to back yourself up with. When you start trying to debate with Hawkeye and BigFin, you're so far from their level of expertise on this stuff that it's just plain funny!
 
Last week the RMEF issued a public statement entitled ?RMEF Calls for Transparency on State Special Big Game Permits.? (http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/NewsReleases/2012/biggampermits.htm) In the statement, David Allen, the President of RMEF said, ?When dealing with these special auction or raffle hunting permits we are dealing with a public trust. It is imperative that we are as open and transparent as possible when we assume the responsibility of selling these permits.?

Many sportsmen, including myself, applaud RMEF for its statement and recognize the need for increased accountability and transparency among conservation groups. As a Utah resident, I am particularly concerned with the lack of transparency and accountability relating to the 200 Convention Permits that are handed over by the DWR to SFW and MDF on an annual basis as part of the Hunting and Conservation Expo. I know that many of you share my concerns. RMEF?s call for increased transparency and accountability among conservation groups is particularly applicable to the Utah Convention Permits.

Rather than acknowledging the legitimate concern highlighted by RMEF?s statement and working toward a solution, the Director of the Utah Department of Natural Resources sent the following letter to Mr. Allen.

KarpLetter1.jpg


KarpLetter2.jpg


See JBP's POst #48 above.

The Director?s comments regarding Utah?s Convention Permits are particularly confusing. He acknowledges that Convention Permits are made available certain conservation groups in connection with a wildlife drawing. The Director also notes that those groups are ?allowed to collect a $5 fee for each application to pay for the expenses associated with the drawing.? However, he then states, ?If any additional funds remain, the groups use the money to support and promote wildlife at their discretion.? Finally, the Director states that the conservation groups ?are not required? to disclose how the funds are spent and that the Convention Permit Program ?undergoes an internal audit each year.?

I see several problems with this letter. First and foremost, rather than taking a defensive position and asking Mr. Allen to explain his statements, the Director should have embraced RMEF?s call for increased transparency and accountability. The Convention Permits are public assets and monies generated from those permits should be accounted for and carefully spent in an open and transparent manner. The Utah DWR represents the people of the State of Utah and should never resist a call for increased transparency and accountability.

Second, the Director states that the $5 application fees are meant to pay for the expenses associated with the drawing. However, the plain language of the administrative rule creating the Convention Permits expressly states that one of the two statutory purposes for the Convention Permits is to ?generate revenue to fund wildlife conservation activities.? Utah Administrative Code R657-55-1(2). Given the statutory language, shouldn't some portion of those funds be earmarked for actual conservation activities?

Third, the Director implies that that most, if not all, of the funds generated from the application fees are used to pay for the expenses associated with the drawing. According to the DWR?s own data, SFW and MDF have generated the following amounts from the $5 application fees:

2007 -- $1,027,310
2008 -- $694,940
2009 -- $845,970
2010 -- $847,285
2011 -- $981,000

Given these numbers, it is fairly safe to assume that the participating organizations have been generating significant amounts of revenue in excess of the actual expenses associated with the drawing. This begs the question, how have those funds been used? Have those funds been used ?to fund wildlife conservation activities? as stated in the Convention Permit rule? We do not know answers to these questions because the participating organizations refuse to disclose that information.

Fourth, the Director states that the conservation groups ?are not required? to disclose how the funds are spent. Why is this the case? Why doesn't the DWR require that the participating organization disclose that information? Why doesn't the DWR perform an annual comprehensive audit? Why isn't full disclosure and transparency a condition to participating in the Convention Permit program? Why weren't these requirements included in the language of the rule?

Finally, the Director states that the Convention Permit Program undergoes an internal audit each year. While it is true that the DWR has the authority to perform an ?annual audit,? this statement is somewhat disingenuous in that it implies that the DWR is actually auditing how the funds from the Conservation Permits are being spent. I have spoken with representatives of the DWR and have confirmed that the DWR performs no such audit. Moreover, the Convention Permit rule makes it perfectly clear that the annual ?Wildlife Convention Audit? is nothing more than an ?annual review by the division of the conservation organization?s processes used to handle applications for convention permits and conduct the drawing, and the protocols associated with collecting and using client data.? See Utah Administrative Code R657-55-2(d). In other words, the audit looks at the fairness of the drawing process not at the use of the resulting funds.

I hope that the RMEF stands its ground and continues to call for increased transparency and accountability among conservation groups. I also hope that other conservation groups rally around RMEF on this particular issue. I am disappointed with the tone of the letter sent by the Director of the Utah DWR to David Allen of the RMEF. The first step to fixing a problem is recognizing that there is a problem. I would hope that the Utah DWR would take a serious look at the Convention Permit rule and the proposed amendment circulated by the UWC. The proposed amendment will not jeopardize the Hunting and Conservation Expo. Rather, it would improve what is already a wonderful event and ensure that the money generated from the Convention Permits is spent in such a way as to fulfill the very purpose for which those permits were created.


Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
Hawkeye stated - "If the Director of the DWR truly sent this letter to David Allen of the RMEF chastising him for calling out SFW, MDF and the DWR then shame on him. If this is true, then the DWR is truly out of touch and is not looking out for the interests of the general public.

..........

This tells me that it is going to take a massive groundswell of support to fix this problem.

Hawkeye"

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


It seems rather peculiar that an agency Director would feel compelled to write such a defensive letter in response to a non-profit group calling for more transparency of all non-profits who benefit from public assets.

I mean think about that for a second. A public agency Director is feeling offended that a non-profit group is asking all non-profits to be open and accountable in their dealing with public assets. That does not even pass the "laugh out loud" test.

In any other state, under any other circumstances, that would be laughed off the street. Yet, in Utah, when it involves the public subsidy of auction or raffle tags, the Director of the agency puts himself in a position where it looks like he is being sent out to carry water for the groups who might feel jeopardized by a request for accountability and transparency. One would hope that is not the case, but this letter sure can lead people to that impression.

How is it that the SFW board members were all "blessed" (SFW's term) to receive this letter from Director Karpowitz, but the general public was not?

Did the Director need the SFW "blessing" before sending it out? Funny that the public did not get a copy via a release, just those groups who need someone to run interference on the topics of transparency and public subsidy.

Thanks to JBP, an SFW insider, for posting it here, or the public may have never known about the Director's feelings on transparency/accountability and his compulsion to share his thoughts with SFW. The fact that SFW insiders got a copy of the letter, but the public did not, shows just how cozy the relationships are with Utah DWR and SFW.

Given the UT DWR Director has now put himself in the strange position of being seen as the spokesman for those groups who want to continue hiding behind the cloak of secrecy, it gives more credibility to those UT hunters who claim that SFW controls DWR.

If that SFW/DWR cozines is really the case, which I have a hard time believing, then Hawkeye's comment about what level of grassroots effort will be needed, is completely correct.

To most anyone watching from the outside, you can only shake your head in disbelief when you see a Director of a state agency come out and demand an explanation from a non-profit group who is asking for more transparency. Really?

Asking for transparency and accountability are not reasons to be criticized? That is laughable, and if you are a citizen of Utah, probably embarassing.

Not sure what it is about transparency and accountability from non-profits that has the Director so worked up. Not sure why he would disagree with a press release that encourages non-profits to be financially independent and not rely on the subisidy of public assets for completion of their tax-exempt purpose.

If anyone can explain why a Director would feel compelled to write such a defensive letter in response to a press release promoting the long-held concept of fiduciary responsibility, please post it here. Many of us would like to know why a Director would do so, when the release he is challenging spoke favorably about state agencies as partners in conservation.

Something doesn't seem right with this one.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-21-12 AT 10:01AM (MST)[p]It's hard to believe the Director would respond so quickly with a letter that sounds more like it came from the top desks of SFW/BGF Representatives than a person in his capacity, especially when the RMEF letter wasn't even addressing state government, but rather organizations! Even as an outsider it appears, as Hawkeye has mentioned, that there are some untruths or half truths in that letter (Birdman---I didn't say lies!)regarding Convention tags and their intent. After reading that letter, it tells me that you guys are correct when you have stated how firmly entrenched DP/SFW/BGF is with the DWR and enough top politicians to cause a letter like that to be not only written, but done so quickly with apparently very little thought as to what was stated before it was sent. IMHO it just makes Utah Government look that much worse in the whole context of what we're discussing involving the SFW/BGF/MDF and how they seem to be entwined with the UTDWR!
 
I guess I'm just another dumb SFW guy but you guys want us to comment and when we do you tell us to shut up.

Hawkeye may have tons of knowledge and experience with laws and he may have spoken to the guys who started SFW, MDF, and may believe he is right but he is wrong about SFW being dishonest.

A couple of important facts that need to be considered. First the Expo/Convention Tags and the Conservation Tags are two separate things. The Expo Tags are a huge benefit to Utah by strengthening a great event for Utah Sportsmen, Outfitters, Retailers, Taxidermists, Hotels, Restaurants, and so on but the tags go to the public and the only money the Expo keeps is $5 for handling the transaction. If Hawkeye feels this is unfair he should also be auditing the Company who is contracted by the State of Utah to handle their Big Game Draw. That would be fair! They are making money off Utah's Tags also.

Concerning the Conservation Tags; If anyone thinks they are unfair and won't listen to why that is not the case there is no reason discussing it. I believe they have helped save Utah's Wildlife and Hunting because they have been part of a very valuable model that brings Sportsmen, Landowners, the State of Utah, and Conservation groups together to solve a problem. Creating Millions of Dollars to fund projects while improving herd size and quality making the resource more valuable for Land Owners, Sportsmen, and the State.

If you want to tear everything and every person apart trying to find some mistake or imperfection then I guess we can't help you there either. SFW has helped Utah to become a much better place. Others have helped to and RMEF, MDF, FNAWS, NWTF and others have helped to. RMEF and NWTF were very involved in the original plans for the EXPO and they must of had reasons for pulling out but they are still involved in selling their Conservation and Landowner tags at the EXPO and they still show up and show their support for the EXPO.
Now if you want us to shut up then quit asking us to respond. Go ahead and call me names and cut up this post. If you want to call me personally I would be happy to give you my phone number.

R. Todd Abelhouzen
SFW, Dixie Chapter
SFW Executive Advisory Board
 
Any government agency head who fights transparancy should send up all sorts or red flags for everybody. If there is nothing to hide then why hide? All the push back shows that there might be more to this than some thought? It is the Utah DWR, if the rules have not been been followed they will just change the rules to fit what has been done.
 
I can't remember did the RMEF article single out Utah?
I wonder if other Game Managers are responding to the RMEF in such a way?

Make a recommendation and see who begins defending themself.
A great way to find the guilty IMO.

As a Utah sportsman I also find Director Karpowitz's letter troubling both in it's content and that it alludes to the acknowledgement that the State is not willing to require transparency and accountability.

It is time stand up.

Hawkeye,
Utah Sportsman need you to compose a rebuttal to this letter. Will you? I would be happy to sign my name to it.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-21-12 AT 10:11AM (MST)[p]ABE,

Do you think all Conservation Organizations that receive public Tags should be accountable for the money they generate? Does the public have a right to know where the money from their tags go?
 
FYI the Nevada company is a contractor paid a set fee to draw Utah held tags. A big difference. The convention tags which are given to the Expo to do with as they please. I am sure the Nevada company is audited and held to contractual obligations.

Second if the Expo is such a boon for Utah I beleive great minds would figure a way to do it without the chum of Conservation Tags. In fact I beleive the outdoor retailers accomplish that twice a year among other special interest organiztions.
 
ABE-

I have no problem with you calling me out in a post but please at least try to be accurate. Please identify where I accused SFW of being "dishonest." Show me where I have said that. What I have said is that upper-level leasdership within SFW has a sense of entitlement, they resist accountability and transparency, and they are so out of touch that they don't even understand why the general public is asking for increased transparency. I have never bragged about my "knowledge and experience with laws" on these issues. Every point I have made is based upon reading the relevant rules, talking to people involved and common sense. It doesn't take a lawyer or a rocket scientist to understand the core issues.

Let me state this very simply. Convention permits are a public asset. The DWR has taken a public asset and turned it over to SFW and MDF supposedly to "generate revenue for wildlife conservation activities." SFW and MDF are generating lots of money from those assets. We (the public) would like to know how those monies are being used. Much to our surprise, the DWR and the conservation groups are offended that we have the adacity to ask such a question. The DWR should be looking out for our interests--we the people. Unfortunately, the DWR appears to be more concerned with protecting the status quo. The UWC has circulated a proposed amendment that will remedy this problem. I hope that people support the proposed amendement because it will force the DWR and the conservation groups to do the right thing. The proposed amendment will not jeopardize the Expo.

I would be happy to discuss these issues with you personally. Please pm me your number and I will call you.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
OPEN YOUR BOOKS. Either put up or shut up and prove if SFW is dishonest or not.
I'm not taking your word for it that they are reputable.
 
Abe---You have a lot of balls to come on here with that post chastizing anyone after you put up statements like these in the last two days: "I have been present to review the Financial Statements of SFW along with the other Executive Advisory Board Members and I am confident that SFW has nothing to hide. Asking SFW to open up to an audit by whomever for whatever reason is unacceptable to me and our accountant has told us that it is terrorism to ask for it. I'm not going to attack RMEF but it seems like anytime SFW is brought up on this public format all I hear are attacks. If you want to start hearing how SFW is doing with Habitat, Predator including wolves, Mule Deer Recovery, Elk and other Big Game Rehabilitation Projects, etc. I suggest you start watching because we are done sitting back and swatting at flies while trying to do good for each of you bitching moaning entitlement minded folks."

You make posts with quotes like that calling out people who are only asking for open books and transparency "terrorists" and "bitching, moaning, entitlement minded folks" etc., and then are pissed when people are saying maybe you should think before you speak! I guess I would have to readily agree with one statement you made though, and that's your opening one where you stated that you guess you are just another dumb SFW guy. Man did you hit the nail on the head to start that last post! Then you go on with other ludicrous statements such as: "Concerning the Conservation Tags; If anyone thinks they are unfair and won't listen to why that is not the case there is no reason discussing it" Really? Then you end with: "Now if you want us to shut up then quit asking us to respond. Go ahead and call me names and cut up this post." We have asked for responses stating facts that are backed up and neither you or any of your SFW backers have stated anything that can be backed up with facts as everything is just your feelings that all is okay in SFWville. Saying that $5 fee per raffle ticket that totals 1/2 to one million dollars per EXPO is just to handle the transaction is absolute BS because it can't cost a fraction of each $5 and the rest should go to conservation instead of God knows where! It's too bad that the deal was made between the DWR and SFW/MDF to handle those tickets with no accountability at the insistance of DP, but hopefully changes are in the wind. Just maybe the lack of transparency/accountability is why all those other organizations you mentioned pulled out as they saw what was happening to what would have been acceptable if the transparency/accountabilty factor had been left in place.
 
The letter from the DWR Director show how scared these people are of a little transparency. I never before believed that Jim Karpowicz (sp?) was in the back pocket of SFW. Reading his recent letter makes me now almost certain of his corruption by SFW. No doubt SFW funnels plenty of money to the department, and the department even gets some good things done with this funding. While funneled through SFW, the money still originates with the sportsmen of Utah and generous supporters of conservation efforts from around the country. The money would still be there for the department without SFW, and without SFW keeping its cut. The division has been suckling on the tit of SFW for so long they apparently can no longer distinguish between the intersts of SFW and the interests of the people of Utah.

Hawkeye is correct. It will take a massive groundswell of public support to clean house at the DWR, demand transparency from any conservation group getting state tags, and returning this public resource to the people of Utah.

The letter from RMEF was a shot across the bow, and the response by the UT DWR speaks volumes about their complicity. Only a guilty party would so quickly assume this blanket letter was directed at them. It is time to get the governer's office involved, and the DWR's actions are bound to bring uncomfortable questions to his door.

Bill
 
Like MulePacker has stated, there are several other "Expo's" that do it without any tags.
 
My thoughts....

This is going nowhere, Hate and slander are not helping any group. We are so busy fighting each other we are missing the big picture.

This is just what the enemies of hunting want. The easiest way to defete an enemy is to get them to fight each other. It is working.

Those who really care can see that the transperency is cryrtal clear. transpenencey is not the real issue.

I think every group is doing better. Look at the positive things being done here in Utah. Take some time, look at the numbers.

Utah has alot going for it. That costs money and men willing to fight.

Conservation is our goal. Preserving our way of life is MY goal. I want my kids and grandkids to enjoy this great way of life.

We have an uphill battle, on all fronts. why not band together and fight? Why let our enemies pick us off one at a time?

JBP
Tip of The Spear.
Proud Member of the SFW
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-21-12 AT 11:22AM (MST)[p]"The letter from RMEF was a shot across the bow, and the response by the UT DWR speaks volumes about their complicity. Only a guilty party would so quickly assume this blanket letter was directed at them. It is time to get the governer's office involved, and the DWR's actions are bound to bring uncomfortable questions to his door."
Bill

Bill---That's the same thought I immediately had when I read that letter from the Director. To write a defensive letter to the RMEF as he did in response to the letter by Mr. Allen that addressed all "organizations" was like the Allen letter had been addressed and sent to his office accusing him of wrongdoing. It sure looks like a "guilty party" letter, as you so aptly called it!

JBP (2 posts)
Jun-21-12, 10:59 AM (MST)
69. "RE: RMEF WantsTransparency on Special Permits"
My thoughts....

This is going nowhere, Hate and slander are not helping any group. We are so busy fighting each other we are missing the big picture.

This is just what the enemies of hunting want. The easiest way to defete an enemy is to get them to fight each other. It is working.

Those who really care can see that the transperency is cryrtal clear. transpenencey is not the real issue.

I think every group is doing better. Look at the positive things being done here in Utah. Take some time, look at the numbers.

Utah has alot going for it. That costs money and men willing to fight.

Conservation is our goal. Preserving our way of life is MY goal. I want my kids and grandkids to enjoy this great way of life.

We have an uphill battle, on all fronts. why not band together and fight? Why let our enemies pick us off one at a time?

JBP
Tip of The Spear.
Proud Member of the SFW


JBP---IMHO the only enemy we are talking about is your group that is doing much more harm right now than PETA, HSUS, et. al. can ever do. To make the statement like you just did "that the transperency is cryrtal clear. transpenencey is not the real issue" is about as far off as the moon! Straighten out our conception of the SFW organization by opening the books, as is being asked by a large number of sportspersons, and the uphill fight you mention will not be nearly as difficult for all of us!
 
Exactly my point,
It is easy to point the finger, but hard to look at yourself.

The books are open, to the requirments of Utah State. Same as the RMEF. probably more.

The SFW is not the problem.

JBP
Tip of The Spear.
Proud Member of the SFW
 
JBP.

"Preserving our way of life is MY goal. I want my kids and grandkids to enjoy this great way of life."

Then you to should be on the bandwagon to protect the "Public Trust"

In essence that is what this battle is about!!!!

We are not protecting your way of life or my way of life. We are presreving OUR way of life. Which includes transparency and accountability and not selling game to the highest bidder or landowner among a plethora of other ideals.

Are you any relation to Don Peay?
 
I'm just an average joe hunter who takes pride in knowing that my donations and my actions go towards a good cause and helps the herds in Utah. I'm not rich nor am I poor but I would bet that there are many hunters like me who give their hard earned money to organizations HOPING that it gets put towards helping these animals in UT. I've been sitting on the sidelines watching and listening to all the debate talk with SFW and Randy and Don and all that. It's not hard to see who wants to make sure that everyone's money is going to help the herds. It's not hard to see who's in bed with who. I should have known by reading this thread that I would feel sickened by the fact this issue of SFW not opening their books goes a lot deeper than I had hoped to expect. The longer this gets drug out the easier it is to see everyone's true colors.

There are certain peoples,organizations actions are making it easy to see who really wants to help the herds in Utah and who wants to make personnel gains. (greed,power). All these political scandals that are happening. It's all BS. I'm glad to see so many honest people are not going to continue to sit and turn a blind eye to all this chit that has been happening for too long.

I think Jim K. with the DWR is beginning to paint an ugly picture for himself that also reflects the image of the entire DWR.

I have great respect for RMEF for willingly opening their books to show where the money goes. Looks like they have nothing to hide. Let's continue to see others do the same. Including and most importantly SFW. There are many waiting.
 
JBP,
Sometimes you have to amputate the arm to save to body. That's what has to happen here.

No your wrong about SFW's books. Where the hell have you been?

Re-read everything on this thread, and the Randy Newberg, Don Peay debate thread.



I wanted to take a scalp,but the kill was not mine.
 
MulePacker.

This battle is about misinformation provided to spread hate.

The facts are clear, the proof is availible.

To everyone, Don't get all your infomation from soacal media when making and educated stance.

As far I as I know, no I am not directly related to Don, but we both have had family here in Utah for many. many generations so maybe we are, does it matter?

I will add this, I would be happy to be related.


JBP
Tip of The Spear.
Proud Member of the SFW
 
JBP

"This battle is about misinformation provided to spread hate.

The facts are clear, the proof is availible."

I do not see this as a hate driven quest at all. You state the facts are clear, would you care to share some of the facts with me? PM them if you want.

"Don't get all your infomation from soacal media when making and educated stance"

FYI, Much of my concern is based on past service to SFW and sitting in meetings and spending time with SFW members.
In the SFW circles I have heard discussions that have left me wondering, not hearsay on a website but from the mouths of SFW members. IMO the open book policy is the only proof of items I have heard that I applaud or despise as then it is not hearsay but wriiten record.

It does not matter about the relation. I have just spent some time with Don and a few members of his family over the years. I was trying to place a name with a face thinking we may have possibly met. Guess Not.
 
>MulePacker.
>
>This battle is about misinformation provided
>to spread hate.

JBP,

If you beleive this concern about SFW is done out of hate then ask yourself why do those that oppose SFW hate them? Is is a personal thing? If SFW has done so much good for Utah hunting then why would so many hate them? Could it be that the people of Utah are tired of seeing the deer, elk, moose and sheep auctioned off to the highest bidder. Could it be that they are tired of walls being placed up by the few that benefit the most when information is requested? Do as you requested others do and ask yourself why are so many so upset with what SFW has done? I look forward to your answer.
 
>FYI the Nevada company is a
>contractor paid a set fee
>to draw Utah held tags.
>A big difference. The convention
>tags which are given to
>the Expo to do with
>as they please. I am
>sure the Nevada company is
>audited and held to contractual
>obligations.
>
>Second if the Expo is such
>a boon for Utah I
>beleive great minds would figure
>a way to do it
>without the chum of Conservation
>Tags. In fact I beleive
>the outdoor retailers accomplish that
>twice a year among other
>special interest organiztions.


The Expo is an absolute failure if the intent was to create a regional or national expo. Took SFW years to release the facts on the Expo tags but if you look at how many applied for the tags reserved only for non-residents you will see a few hundred apply for each of those 5 tags. Every non-resident will put up $5 for that sheep tag if they bothered to travel to SLC spendings $100s on travel, correct?

Now, some non-residents live near SLC when they attend college or are temporarily working on a project in Utah. Other non-residents are working in the trade show booths. When the dust settles, the Expo is drawing in 200 or so people from beyond UT. This is basically a Utah event awarding non-resident pool tags to residents. This is not an economic engine. Residents do not fill up hotel rooms or go out for big dinners.

What about the folks paying big money for auction tags? They rarely attend these shows. A local outfitter will bid in person for the high-roller or they bid over the phone so no need for the Presidential Suite at the SLC hotel.

My 2 cents.
 
JBP,

It's a FACT that SFW/BGF, the Don, and Ryan B, all tried to kill the Wolf rider, the Simpson/Tester bill.

It's a FACT that SFW only spends around 25% of what they bring in, for wildlife.

It's a FACT that SFW fought sportsman in Utah on their attempt for access to their streams. Calling them "Selfish"

It's a FACT that SFW Montana, supported a bill that would have put the wolf "BACK" on the list.

It's a FACT that SFW Alaska got their man appointed to the highest position in Alaska's Fish & Game Department, even though he didn't even have a degree, and then the same dude committed illegal acts that cost him thousands of dollars, and he had to resign.

It's a FACT that SFW Arizona tried to back door the sportsman of that state by trying to pass a bill stealing tags for auctions.

I can go on, and on. Want more FACTS?




I wanted to take a scalp,but the kill was not mine.
 
Amputate the hand that feeds you.. that is an idea, I guess.

Can say that the quality of hunting has increased over the last 15 years,( Mule deer aside. we have issues with our deer herds, we all know that)

Is it just by accindent that habitat has been restored, that a greater awarness has been made? That wildlife projects are funded. accident? devine intervention?

NO! It is from conservation $$ and the hard work of the few.

Not one group can claim all credit, just as no group should take all the blame.

Who is called up to help feed the deer,elk, and turkeys when the snow is to deep for them to eat? Did you help feed them?

Who is transplanting tiger muskies in Joes valley today? are you?

Who is fighting predators everyday?

amputate that? I would think twice.

Social Media has a major flaw, anyone can become an "expert" and one or two self proclaimed experts can entice the sheep to follow them. It takes more research than a search bar on a media site to make an educated decision. Get out there, talk to people, get the facts in black and white.

There is no substitute for hands on fact finding.
Just because your read it on the internet does not make it true.


JBP
Tip of The Spear.
Proud Member of the SFW
 
4100fps
Your opinions are not FACTS. entertaining though.

JBP
Tip of The Spear.
Proud Member of the SFW
 
I just finished an hour plus discussion with Jason Hawkins. We agree on many topics and agree to disagree on others. We do agree that further open and reasonable dialogue is needed. I will encourage my side to make the necessary steps to bring a full understanding of how Convention Tag revenues are used and I believe that there is room for discussions about change in any program but all parties aren't going to ever get everything they want in any situation. We can still try.

With that said those that are continually slamming SFW and will never listen or at least try to understand others' positions can feel how they want. I'm speaking to sportsmen who care and are willing to listen. We will be posting further information in the next few weeks. I will be working with SFW Membership, Board, and Executives to deal with this and any other issues that need to be resolved.

I will be off the grid for a few days so don't bother calling me out until Monday.

Thanks!

R. Todd Abelhouzen
 
Abe stated: "I will encourage my side to make the necessary steps to bring a full understanding of how Convention Tag revenues are used and I believe that there is room for discussions about change in any program but all parties aren't going to ever get everything they want in any situation. We can still try."

***Do that and I think you'll be well on the way to solving this problem and if the results are positive you may be very surprised at the number of people that join your ranks out there.
 
Without a good house cleaning, it'l be hard to trust those that have been running things.

Jared, where would you like me to start sending the information you claim aren't "FACTS". I have it.

Here's the first:
4638sfw_tax_form_2010.jpg


I think you can figure this one out.


I wanted to take a scalp,but the kill was not mine.
 
Todd-

It was nice speaking with you. Although we agreed to disagree on certain issues, it was a polite and productive dialogue. I look forward to seeing what additional information SFW will be producing in the near future. Feel free to call me anytime.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
4100, Interesting that you put one page on MM. If you have that page then I am guessing that you have the rest of the return. You will also note that the 90% of the conservation tag money is not included in the tax return. Therefore the money that they are putting out is from other income that being the convention tags and banquets. This is a prime example of trying to confuse people.
 
4100, If you want to compare apples to apples, of the money SFW brought in, they put out $976,395 in conservation projects. You claming it is a small percentage. On the other hand, RMEF put out 4,548,584 to conservation projects. After their income that means that they put out about 11% to conservation projects. Isn't that interesting. Now this information came right from the RMEF tax return. What can I say.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-21-12 AT 05:22PM (MST)[p]Birdman---I hate to say that you're full of chit again, but I, as well as most others, am absolutely tired of all the BS you keep posting. We already covered that one page statement you just brought up again so stick it where the sun don't shine! As far as the RMEF statement, Randy did a full accounting as a professional CPA and found that the RMEF puts back more than 90% of what they take in back on the ground, just like they have stated. For you to come up with that post saying it's down at 11% makes me wonder if the heart problem you mentioned in a PM has also caused a stroke because your brain is not functioning anywhere near like it should be with all the irrational stuff you keep coming up with. Now come back and tell me I'm in MI and couldn't possibly know anything about what we're discussing. I really wish you would take a break like some of the others have suggested as you have become more of a joke than the SFW! Sorry man, but all this nonsense you keep posting makes it sound like a first grader posting here.
 
I never wanted to believe the corruption had really gone that high with in our goverment/DWR.

I am shocked to say the least that Mr. Jim K. sent a letter like that and added the 'cc' group of Charity Paycheck Con. Orgs in our State of Utah.

He should resign for being the voice of these Con Org's and not the public of Utah.

________________________________________________________

4100--- it doesn't matter how many times/how many years of Profit, the Public record tax fillings are posted.

These $FW appologist do not read what is in black and white.



Robb
 
2 days ago the final approval went though for the drilling of 1200 new gas wells, on 177,000 acres of BLM land in Uinta and Duchesne countys. It is a done deal and will no doubt bring a much needed boost to the economy.

1/4 of 1% of the yearly money spent on this one project would bring in about $2,000,000 per year for the next 15 years.

There are at least 8 more projects just like this one set for Utah. Some three times bigger than the one mentioned above. Most of them are just a wave of the pen away from approval. And that pen has started to wave for what ever reason.

These tag moneys we are arguing about are peanuts!

There are many so called conservation orgs. that already have there foot in the door and have already taken money and land to the bank. These are for the most part not hunter friendly orgs.

Many on this site work for some of the many hundreds of contractors, service providers and suppliers that will do well on these projects.

In an effort to get some kind of benefit for the Mule Deer herd out of this situation. Please look for ways to partner with some of the good people involved in this development. So as to secure funding to go towards Mule Deer enhancment projects.

PS. Every drop of oil and gas that can be drilled will be drilled sooner or later. Hunters have much to loose and should see some gain as we are the true conservationists.
http://gascoenergy.investorroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=21
 
Most of you have had the opportunity to read the letter that the Director of the Utah DWR sent to David Allen of RMEF questioning RMEF?s press release calling for increased transparency among conservation groups. Well, today David Allen sent the following response to Mr. Karpowitz. I admire Mr. Allen for having the courage to take a stand on this issue and not back down. The RMEF has certainly gained my respect as a result of this exchange. Let's make sure we support organizations like RMEF and UWC that embrace the principles of transparency and accountability. Thank you Mr. Allen.

Karp1.jpg


Karp2.jpg


Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
UDWR, SFW et al.....amateurs!

Keep up the great work Mr Allen. Your organization is exposing who they really are!

Kudos to the RMEF!!!
 
Put the UTAH DRW Director up for another of those XXXL azzhats after that rebuttal letter by Mr. Allen. Kudos to Mr. Allen and the RMEF!
 
Thank you, Mr. Allen.

That is, perhaps, the perfect response. And thank you for sharing it with us.

Any conservation organization out there who cares should take note: this is how it's done.

We didn't ask for anything from RMEF. We didn't have to jump through hoops, sit through presentations, or go on tours. They gladly volunteered all of their information, and they are proud of it. It shows hard work, dedication, and a sincere interest in what they are doing. THEY GET IT.

Because of your letter, Mr. Allen, and the actions of RMEF, I will be a member of your organization for the rest of my life.

As an avid elk hunter and a sportsman living in Utah, thank you for showing these guys how it should be done. My hat's off to you, sir.

Regards,
Ben Armstrong


Vi Et Armis Invictus Maneo
 
The fact Mr. Allen stood by his statements regarding this, shows he is as legit as anyone could want running an organization. I never had a doubt and that is why I am a member of RMEF.
Supporting the majority view on these matters proves it to those who may have been in doubt.
Hopefully this spreads to all states concerned with the same type of issues.
Best,
Jerry
 
I have a question for the RMEF. Why did you guys sit back and watch one of the biggest elk hunts in the world, IN YOUR HOME STATE, get all the way down to ZERO TAGS? I thought you guys where into saving elk? You guys all need to stop ridding this dead horse and start working together. The antis have all ready begun to win and your just making it easier for them.
 
Are you kidding me?

Slam SFW, Slam the Expo, Slam the Utah Model, and now slam Jim Karpowitz???

Since Jim has been involved in Managing Utah's Big Game and other rolls including Director we have seen Elk Herds grow from 20,000 to over 70,000. Thanks Jim. We have seen a 500% increase in Big Horn Sheep. We have abundant Moose, Goat, and Bison. We have over 1 million acres of habitat rehabilitation. We have a predator management plan that will along with habitat allow the Mule Deer Herds the needed relief to grow and thrive in the habitat.

Jim has received a number of awards from Conservation Groups and other State's Agencies for his outstanding wildlife management.

Jim, please ignore these ridiculous attacks and accept my apology on their behalf. They are obviously swayed by other issues and have no idea what a blessing you have been to Utah's wildlife and sportsmen.

You guys want a fight? Well now you have one! I encourage every sportsman or woman who has received benefit to at least stand up for a great man who has done a great job. It doesn't matter if you agree with Conservation Tags or Expo Tags or whatever but you would be wrong for not supporting Jim Karpowitz for all he has done for you and your quality of life in the outdoors.

One more thank you to Jim Karpowitz!


R. Todd Abelhouzen
SFW Executive Advisory Board
 

Similar threads

M
Nevada Elk Incentive or Damage Crop Tags?
Replies
12
Views
799
wstrntines
wstrntines
C
Wasatch thoughts
2
Replies
193
Views
5k
elkassassin
elkassassin
luckyluciano2
Have you heard of Howl For Wildlife
Replies
2
Views
310
bullskin
bullskin

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMAG0323.jpeg
2019110295083406.jpg
20150920_184254.jpg
IMG_2158 (3).JPG
216D7C9E-975A-4A12-AF66-349B0DA5E876.jpeg
2023 Elk2.jpg
fullsizeoutput_2dc3.jpeg
20230305_171356.jpg
DSCN3100.JPG
E478ED9C-5B17-4C94-A9EE-E229B4659EC9.jpeg
F8276B80-2034-4209-B817-0EEE0F8FCA11.jpg
Screenshot_2015-08-24-14-33-23.png
Back
Top Bottom