Troy-
BigFin just provided a lesson in accounting. I will now provide a short tutorial on history.
There are a number of statements in your post that I would like to respond to but I am going to limit my response to the following statement: "I have no problem with RMEF's press release asking for transparency amongst Conservation Groups. I believe it is a good thing and something we should all work toward.? That statement is laughable.
We have had an ongoing dialogue regarding this issue for a number of years! This same issue has been festering for a very long time. Just to refresh your recollection, I pulled up a few threads dating back over four years. First, a thread that started in May of 2008. Four years ago! See
http://www.monstermuleys.info/cgi-b...read&om=12085&forum=DCForumID5&archive=yes#78
In Post #72, I made the following post:
Allright, I am going make a reasonable proposal that will hopefully provide the public with the information they want while at the same time lay these issues to rest. Here we go:
1. SFW and/or the other organizations involved with the Hunting Expo will provide the pubic with a detailed accounting of every penny generated from the expo and where those funds were spent. We do not want a list of projects completed over the last year. We want to know where every penny was spent.
2. SFW and/or the other organizations involved with the Hunting Expo will provide detailed information regarding the Expo over the last two years. This information should include, the number of people who attended the Expo, the number of people who applied for any tag, the number of people who applied for each specific tag, and the exact drawing odds for each specific tag.
3. SFW and/or the other organizations involved with the Hunting Expo will provide a detailed explanation of the proposal that was presented to the RACs regarding allocating 5 OIL tags to nonresidents only. Please explain the impetus for this proposal and how the proposal would work.
What does everyone think?
Hawkeye
Then in Post #85:
My purpose in putting forth a "proposal" was simply to show that the public is not asking for anything improper or unreasonable.
We simply want an accounting so that we can determine how a public resource is being utilized. Not for a second did I believe that SFW was going to log on in response to my proposal and post all of the requested information. I personally think that SFW and the other groups do a lot of good things but they could do a better job of answering questions, providing information and courting the average hunter.
Hawkeye
The frustration and outrage continued to build on this issue until the spring of 2010 when SFW scheduled a meeting at the U of U. That meeting took place on March 25, 2010. During that meeting, we discussed a number of issues, most of which centered on the need for increased transparency with regard to the monies generated from the Convention Permits. SFW promised to be more transparent and accountable to the public. Just to refresh your recollection, I pulled up the thread that includes my report from that meeting. See
http://www.monstermuleys.info/cgi-b...read&om=15869&forum=DCForumID5&archive=yes#45
Post #1 provides as follows:
Well, I just returned home from the SFW meeting and I wanted to post a short report before I go to bed. The meeting started at 7 pm and finished just after 11 pm. SFW was represented by most of its officers and board members and its accountant, including Don Peay, Byron Bateman, Ryan Foutz, Troy Justensen, Mike Pritchett, John Bair and others. There were probably 30-40 people in attendance including many monstermuley.com members (dryflyelk, deerlover, llamapacker, grizzmoose, etc.). There was also at least one member of the media in attendance-a reporter from KSL.
Overall, I would say the meeting was a success. Everyone was polite and professional. SFW gave its presentation and then Don and other SFW representatives fielded questions raised by those in attendance.
The most important issue that came to light was SFW's admission that it has done a poor job with transparency and that it is committed to improving in this area. SFW provided some general financial information at the meeting. In addition, SFW is working to add key financial information (tax returns, financial statements, etc.) and detailed expo data (subject to obtaining approval from SFW's expo partner-MDF) to its website and/or the expo website in the near future. That was a huge concession in my mind. Assuming SFW follows through and provides that information, this will go a long way toward resolving some of the basic concerns I have had for the last couple of years.
The Q&A period involved a host of issues ranging from
the lack of a statutory requirement that a certain percentage of the funds raised from the convention tags be used for actual conservation to SFW's position regarding the recent elk management committee proposal. I will let others chime in regarding the specifics on the various issues.
At the end of the day, I thought the meeting was very productive and I appreciate SFW's willingness to take the time to meet with us and answer questions. I am anxiously looking forward to the increased transparency, which frankly is long overdue. I do not agree with SFW's position on all issues but I do believe that SFW has done and is doing many good things.
As I promised Don, I still intend to attend the upcoming RAC and Wildlife Board Meetings to push for a statutory requirement that at least 90% of the funds generated from the sale of convention permits be used for actual conservation projects and for stiff audit procedures.
I am now going to bed. Hopefully, others who were in attendance will chime in an share their thoughts and opinions.
Hawkeye
Post #45 provides as follows:
They did not serve Kool-Aid but I did have a large diet coke.
Many questions were asked and many answers were provided. People were free to ask whatever they wanted. I personally agreed with some of the answers provided by SFW and I disagreed with others. Overall, we met for 4+ hours and I think it was helpful. Did we solve all of the problems facing Utah's wildlife? No. But, I found the meeting to be helpful and I appreciated Don and the others for taking the time to meet.
In the past, I have been as critical of SFW as anybody, and rightfully so. I think SFW has done a lousy job of accounting to hunting public as to how it was spending its non-profit funds, some of which are derived from a public resource. However, based upon what I heard last night, I am hopeful this is going to change. SFW committed to become more transparent and agreed to post financial/expo information on the internet in the next 30-45 days. They did not clarify exactly what % of money raised is actually hitting the ground as opposed to going toward the illusive "mission accomplished" category. However, I am looking forward to reviewing their financial information to find answers for myself. I am hopeful that as a result of the meeting and the recent criticism on this website, SFW will turn over a new leaf of increased transparency, openness and accountability.
I am still frustrated that the State turns over 200 convention tags to SFW and MDF each year without requiring that any of the funds generated therefrom go to conservation. As I stated last night, I plan on personally attending the RAC and Wildlife Board meetings to fight for such a requirement. I would invite others to get involved on issues that they are concerned about.
It is too bad that more people were not able to attend the meeting. I went in with serious concerns and some of those concerns were addressed and resolved. The dialogue was encouraging.
Hawkeye
The point of this history lesson is to highlight the fact that the public's call for transparency and accountability with regard to the Convention Permits is nothing new. This same cry has fallen on SFW's and MDF's deaf ears for the past several years. Over the last few weeks I have spoken with many members of SFW and they uniformly ask "why didn't you come and raise your concerns with us in person rather than taking this issue to the internet?" My answer is always the same. I, and many other sportsmen, have raised this issue with SFW's leadership on multiple occasions over the period of several years. All we have received in response is broken promises or the company line that "we are in full compliance with the Convention Permit rule and the IRS regulations dealing with non-profit companies." Well, that answer is not good enough. It is time to change the Convention Permit rule to mandate the level of accountability and transparency that should have been required from the beginning.
I am hopeful that the public is finally waking up to what has been happening with our 200 Convention Permits. I am sorry that certain individuals involved are taking some personal heat. But with all due respect, it is largely self-inflicted. SFW, MDF, the DWR and the Wildlife Board could have and should have addressed this problem long ago. The time for casually allowing these groups to voluntarily "work toward transparency" is over. The sportsmen of this state need to get behind the UWC proposal and demand that the Convention Permit rule be amended to ensure that the monies generated from those tags are used for actual "wildlife conservation activities" as provided for in the statute.
Hawkeye
Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD