RMEF WantsTransparency on Special Permits

ABE,


Do you supprt more accountability from ALL conservation organizations? Does the public have a right to know where the money from their tags go? RMEF is asking for more openness and accountability. Why would the head of Utah DWR be against an attempt to shed light in the model that he helped create? Using your numbers looks good but also under Karpowitz Utah's deer herd has gone into the crapper. He gets the good and bad. It happened on his watch!
 
Big ABE this thread is about transparency and if you're against more transparency then it sheds more light on the issue since you're on the SFW Executive Advisory Board.

Are you afraid of what can be found on the financial books?
 
Todd,

Is there an executive reason that nobody else from the "advisory board" isn't posting at this time or are you the sacrificial lamb? From one Southern Utah Sportsman to another...its time that you let this go and focus on local issues. You're not doing yourself or your organization any favors right now. I would suggest that you speak with your fellow board members before you continue on here...what happened with "off the grid"? Jason tried to help you and I'm offering advice or if you'd like, an olive branch.

Regards,

Shawn Spring
UWC Southern Region Co-Chair
 
Birdman,

RMEF exec is asking for openness and accountability while SFW exec says he was told that request is Terrorism? Do you really try and claim they are the same in openness? Don agreed to SFW financial info then backed away. RMEF wants all con orgs to be open. Simple question for you. Do you believe that a private org that gets public tags should be accountable for the money from the tags (I.e. open)? Also can you clarify for me where SFW stands on the Simpson Tester wolf deal. Did they try to kill it? We're they instrental in getting it passed? Which is it be because SFW/BHF sends out mass emails about the victory, NRA sends out and email warning people not to trust SFW, Don brags about getting the wolf delisted and now you claim it was a bad deal. Can you please clarify the deal for me and a few others?
 
HAHAHA are you as stupid as people are saying? If the SFW website was so transparent then you wouldn't have people like Randy Newberg who is a CPA asking for the SFW financial books. Everything isn't posted on their website you goofball tweety bird.
 
ABE, which is the correct % of money that goes to mission? Is it the 89% that SFW recently updated on their own website, or is it the 37% as reported by the Utah Divisioin of Consumer Protection?

Or, are you going to say the state agency charged with rating these non-profit groups is all wrong, a common SFW tactic when fact is interjected to any discussion? I suspect SFW has a harder time influencing the Division of Consumer Protection, given there is no beneficial relationship as might exist with other Utah state agencies.

I have been getting more and more information to augment that which I had received in preparation for the debate. None of it supports the information SFW has felt compelled to post on their website the last few days.

Here is just one little piece as an example of what I am talking about. I've got plenty more, if ABE and JBP want to continue to press the case of SFW being so transparent.

So, let us hear it ABE. You are on the Executive Board of SFW. Is your self-reported amount of 89% something we should believe, or should we beleive the 37% according to the Utah Comsumer Protection Agency, an independent agency that has no involvement with SFW?

Given the track record of reliability of anything reported by SFW, I suspect most will rely on the independent state agency number of 37%.

I am also sitting on copies of your beloved SFW tax returns. The tax returns don't show anything near the 89%. Are we going to be told that the tax returns are wrong, also?

I will let people decide for themselves with the data shown below.

Straight off the Utah Consumer Protection Agency website. I highlighted in Yellow, what that agency shows as the percent of SFW money that goes to Mission. A whopping 37%. Even that was probably giving some benefit of the doubt on certain expenditures.

5859sfw_utah_division_of_consumer_protection.jpg




Now the new number recently posted on the SFW website.

6870sfw_bs.jpg


Give any CPA access to the financial statements and it would take about two minutes to verify whether the Consumer Protection Agency is correct, or if SFW is correct.

ABE, like I said when we debated on the wolf delisting thread, I admire your commitment to the cause. I suspect you are a really good guy. Just like when your were lead astray about what SFW/BGF did on the wolf delisting issue, you are again being misled by people you trust. And again it is making you look foolish. Too bad, but not much we can do about that, except oblige your requests.

Just because one of your SFW guys "Says so," doesn't make it fact. The rest of the world is armed with facts to refute most anything that has fairy tale characteristics, so for the sake of your reputation, start posting facts and data from outside sources, not just the party line.

Not sure how many times SFW guys have to get caught in these situations before realizing that the rest of the world is not as accepting of the "Trust me" or "Because I said so" Doctrine that seems to permeate the SFW ranks. It is too bad for those good soldiers being sent out as fodder.

I do regret that someone as dedicated and passionate as you seem to be for the valuable cause of conservation is being used as a pawn. That is just one more casualty of the Utah Model.

With all due respect to your passion, if the fairy tales continue to be posted and promoted when blatantly false, I have no problem making fools of those who volunteer as targets, innocent or not.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
4,958,696 X .37 = 1,834,680.50

4,958,696
-1,834,680.50 to program
--------------------
3,124,015.50


Where is the 3 million spent?
 
Guys,

We are addressing your questions. In fact we were ignoring them and decided to address them but that to isn't good enough. Do you want answers and dialogue or do you just want to fight?

I am setting up a meeting in the next few weeks to discuss these "transparency concerns". We will invite interested rational parties. If you are interested and rational please send me a private message with your contact information.

If you want to fight that's fine to.

Thanks,

From Todd (Back on the grid and at your service for a few hours)
 
Just a quick question from an interested outstate sportsman please. Why when this issue has been ongoing for I don't know how long, with it now coming to a head now, will it take weeks to set up a meeting? I would suggest you call an emergency meeting of the Board of Directors or whatever you call them in the SFW organization, and immediately come to the decision that the SFW books need to be opened for audit/perusal by Mr. Newberg a CPA with impeccable credentials. IMHO, that needs to be done immediately or your post just appears to be a stall tactic. If this isn't considered an SFW emergency by your leadership, I don't know what is. As far as your last comment about fighting is concerned, that cooment, Sir, was more like a schoolboy challenge than a person in a leadership role such as yourself and was definitely not needed and IMO greatly detracted from your post.
 
ABE,

I see an easy solution to this. Let Randy review your financials. Shouldn't even take any valuable conservation money as he offered to do it in preparation for a debate free of cost.

Of Course I can't speak for Randy and maybe his offer is no longer on the table.

You were truly "ignoring" the sportsman of Utah? Isn't that your battle cry that you represent Utah Sportsman?

Sir Walter Scott "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to decieve"
 
>Guys,
>
>We are addressing your questions.
>In fact we were ignoring
>them and decided to address
>them but that to isn't
>good enough. Do you
>want answers and dialogue or
>do you just want to
>fight?
>
>I am setting up a meeting
>in the next few weeks
>to discuss these "transparency concerns".
> We will invite interested
>rational parties. If you
>are interested and rational please
>send me a private message
>with your contact information.
>
>If you want to fight that's
>fine to.
>
>Thanks,
>
>From Todd (Back on the grid
>and at your service for
>a few hours)

What exactly would the topics of discussion be? I fail to see the point at this juncture.

I do see attacking character as possibly counter productive, though results deserve some serious scrutiny.

http://unitedwildlifecooperative.org
 
Ok I'm sorry for implying that you guys wanted to fight. I wasn't implying the flagpole but, never mind.

Tye Boulter is supposed to be the guy I'm setting this meeting up with. Does anyone know how to get in touch with him? I hear he is very reasonable and wants to sit down, ask questions, get answers, and move forward.

Any help would be appreciated! Oh, an yes I do know that the last anonymous guy promoting UWC's website was Tye Boulter. It's kind of hard to give answers to people who aren't listening and also tough meeting with people who don't see the point.
 
ABE---I'm sending you Tye's home phone number that he gave me when I joined his group. I'd rather not put it up on the Forum without his permission.
 
Seriously, taking more time, (to figure it out) has overtones of "cover up" written all over it.

Just make the books available to Randy. Let him look them over. You won't find a more stand up guy in the world than him. If nothings amok, then he'll say so. If things aren't so good, well then it's better for everyone except a few that this gets taken care of.

For the true sportsman of Utah, and the West, this should be laid to rest.




I wanted to take a scalp,but the kill was not mine.
 
Question: Where is Troy J, and Ryan F., and John B, and Kurt W. and Bryce P. and of course the great Don???? They sure have sure been quite on this topic....Kinda funny to me!

How fast SFW is to send out emails proclaiming victories but yet when it comes to transparency they are hiding in there spacious homes watching there hunting videos from when they guided Karl Malone for his sheep hunts!

Why doesn't someone drive up to the address listed on the web page that is from the Utah Consumer department and ask to see the books from Bryron Bateman?????

Maybe someone should just call up the Attorney General's office and ask them to investigate, or maybe even get Gephart involved from Channel 2 news...

When is enough enough???? My thought is that the same corruption that has spilled from SFW is now filtering to BGF, the Full Curl Society and of course Utah FNAWS. All of which have been the ideas of the Great Don, or he has had a hand in "helping" them and they can all call SFW a sister conservation group...

Where there is smoke there is fire!
 
"Tye Boulter is supposed to be the guy I'm setting this meeting up with. Does anyone know how to get in touch with him? I hear he is very reasonable and wants to sit down, ask questions, get answers, and move forward.

Any help would be appreciated! Oh, an yes I do know that the last anonymous guy promoting UWC's website was Tye Boulter. It's kind of hard to give answers to people who aren't listening and also tough meeting with people who don't see the point."

You don't get in touch with Tye, he gets in touch with you! :)
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-22-12 AT 05:10PM (MST)[p]>Ok I'm sorry for implying that
>you guys wanted to fight.
> I wasn't implying the
>flagpole but, never mind.
>
>Tye Boulter is supposed to be
>the guy I'm setting this
>meeting up with. Does
>anyone know how to get
>in touch with him?
>I hear he is very
>reasonable and wants to sit
>down, ask questions, get answers,
>and move forward.
>
>Any help would be appreciated!
>Oh, an yes I do
>know that the last anonymous
>guy promoting UWC's website was
>Tye Boulter. It's kind
>of hard to give answers
>to people who aren't listening
>and also tough meeting with
>people who don't see the
>point.

Hmm. I wouldn't call putting my name at the bottom of the proposal "anonymous". I guess it's a matter of perspective and how much one is willing to habitually use cognitive dissonance as standard protocol.

Of course I see you posted this before you decided to call me.

All is well.

http://unitedwildlifecooperative.org
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-22-12 AT 10:21PM (MST)[p]Sorry for not knowing how MM works. I need to reply to this post, so I will go ahead and try and put it here and hope it works.


Against my better judgment, I am going to weigh in on this thread and clarify some things from my response to the RMEF news release and address some points raised in David Allen?s letter. Yesterday I invited Jason Hawkins to come to my office to discuss this issue. I also emailed David Allen and invited him to stop by or call me on the phone to discuss the issue and to clarify what I think is a huge misunderstanding. I had a good discussion with both Jason and David and I think we now better understand each other?s concerns. I mentioned to both of them that I would probably respond to Mr. Allen?s letter.

When I talked with Jason and David I attempted to identify and clarify their main issues and concerns. As a result of these discussions it became clear to me that their concerns were focused on convention permits not conservation permits. Both Jason and David agreed that this is not about conservation permits, a point that was not clear in the RMEF news release. We all agreed that the Conservation Permit Program has done great things for wildlife in Utah and doesn't need much change. My comments in my letter to RMEF was focused on both conservation and convention permits since the RMEF news release did not distinguish between the two. RMEF referred to them only as ?state special big game permits? so it was not clear to me that they were not talking about conservation permits.

In my letter to RMEF,I attempted to communicate that UDWR is very concerned about accountability and transparency in both the Conservation and Convention Permit Programs. So let me reiterate and clarify the points I was trying to make. 1) Accountability for expenditure of conservation permit funds is thorough and transparent in Utah. 2) All groups have the same level of accountability for the 10% conservation permits dollars they retain. 3) An audit of the conservation and convention permit programs are conducted annually to make sure all groups are in compliance with the rule. 4) UDWR has successfully passed three major external audits of the conservation permit program in the last seven years. 5) The groups involved in the hunt expo have voluntarily reported on how they have used application fees, even though they are not required to do so by rule.

So, let me make it very clear to all concerned - the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources agrees with Mr. Allen?s statement that ?accountability and transparency are paramount to the public?s trust in actions of non-profit organizations.? I also want to make it clear that we have taken numerous steps to make sure that transparency exists, and we stand ready to implement any changes the Wildlife Board makes in the rules governing these programs.

I would now like to address the second point in Mr. Allen?s letter that had to do with whether conservation groups should be funded by ?their own fund raising effort or by subsidy that comes from public assets.? I certainly did not understand how Mr. Allen could make this statement since RMEF is one of the main participants in the Conservation Permit Program. I was told by both Jason and David that they have no objections using conservation permits for fund raising efforts because of the level of accountability. They are only concerned with using convention permits to support fund raising efforts.

This issue with convention permits is a little puzzling to me considering what has transpired in the last two years. In 2010, the Convention Permit Rule was up for its five year renewal and to the best of my recollection no one from the public came to express their concerns at the RAC and Board meetings. So the board renewed the rule for another five years. In 2011, when the Board needed to act on a new five-year contract for the convention, once again no one came to the Board meeting to voice any concerns or object to the contract. So the Board approved a new five-year contract for the convention.

It appears to me that the main issue of concern is that there should be better accountability of the $5 application fee for convention permits. I firmly believe and I think most people agree that the hunt expo is good for the economy of Salt Lake City, good for the State of Utah and that it brings notoriety to Utah?s big game program. However, many people have said they would like to see more complete reporting of how the $5 application fee is used by the convention groups.

I need to point out that when the Convention Permit Rule was first adopted in 2005 the Wildlife Board felt like $5 was a reasonable amount to allow the convention groups to charge for administrative expenses associated with the drawing at the Expo. Our big game application fee for the regular draw at that time was $5. It is not unreasonable to expect that the overhead in administering this drawing consumes much of $5 per application. As a point of reference, the cost of administering the regular big game drawing in Utah currently exceeds $5. It should also be mentioned that none of the actual permit fees are retained by the organizations. 100% of the permit fees go to UDWR.

Now as to accountability of the application fees - two or three years ago when the convention groups heard that the public would like more information on how the $5 application fees are being spent, the groups voluntarily submitted information that showed how they were spending these funds. They provided this information in a public meeting of the Wildlife Board even though it was not required by rule. That information has been and is available to the public.

So what do we do now? Each year the Wildlife Board has to act on the number and type of permits that are allocated to the convention. That will occur at the Wildlife Board meeting in August. I suspect there will be those at that meeting who will ask the Board to amend the rule to require more thorough accounting of the convention permit application fees. The Board chairman will then need to decide whether they would like to revisit the rule realizing it was renewed in 2010 and considering that a five-year contract was issued in 2011. The Division will be supportive of whatever the Board decides to do on this issue. In the meantime, I am going to meet with the convention groups and ask that they voluntarily do a better job of accounting for how the $5 application fees are spent.

I just want to make one more point before I shut up. I am very concerned to see conservation groups at odds with each other and trying to pull each other down. I believe that is very counterproductive and bad for wildlife in Utah. I think we need to put our differences aside and get back to the core missions or our organizations. We have been very successful in Utah in expanding most of our big game populations because we have had strong partnerships with conservation organizations. It disappoints me greatly to now see those great organizations at each other throats. We need to resolve this issue and then we all need to get back doing good things for wildlife.

I hope this clarifies my position on conservation and convention permits. I don't intend to make any additional posts on this topic and I won't see your replies since I do not frequent this forum. I would, however, invite you to give me a call or come and talk to me if you would like to discuss this further.

Jim Karpowitz
 
Just got this PM from Birdman when I got in from cutting grass. This guy is absolutely unbelievable!

Topgun, By now I would
assume that you are aware
that SFW as released the
same information that RMEF has.
their 990 tax form
as well as money from
the expo and banquets.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-22-12 AT 08:08PM (MST)[p]I'm doing a C/P of this post from Mr. Karpowitz that I found way up the thread to make sure everyone reads it since I don't think he wanted it way up where he put it!


jimk Jun-22-12, 07:40 PM (MST)
121. "RE: RMEF WantsTransparency on Special Permits"

Sorry for not knowing how MM works. I need to reply to this post, so I will go ahead and try and put it here and hope it works.
Against my better judgment, I am going to weigh in on this thread and clarify some things from my response to the RMEF news release and address some points raised in David Allen?s letter. Yesterday I invited Jason Hawkins to come to my office to discuss this issue. I also emailed David Allen and invited him to stop by or call me on the phone to discuss the issue and to clarify what I think is a huge misunderstanding. I had a good discussion with both Jason and David and I think we now better understand each other?s concerns. I mentioned to both of them that I would probably respond to Mr. Allen?s letter.
When I talked with Jason and David I attempted to identify and clarify their main issues and concerns. As a result of these discussions it became clear to me that their concerns were focused on convention permits not conservation permits. Both Jason and David agreed that this is not about conservation permits, a point that was not clear in the RMEF news release. We all agreed that the Conservation Permit Program has done great things for wildlife in Utah and doesn't need much change. My comments in my letter to RMEF was focused on both conservation and convention permits since the RMEF news release did not distinguish between the two. RMEF referred to them only as ?state special big game permits? so it was not clear to me that they were not talking about conservation permits.
In my letter to RMEF,I attempted to communicate that UDWR is very concerned about accountability and transparency in both the Conservation and Convention Permit Programs. So let me reiterate and clarify the points I was trying to make. 1) Accountability for expenditure of conservation permit funds is thorough and transparent in Utah. 2) All groups have the same level of accountability for the 10% conservation permits dollars they retain. 3) An audit of the conservation and convention permit programs are conducted annually to make sure all groups are in compliance with the rule. 4) UDWR has successfully passed three major external audits of the conservation permit program in the last seven years. 5) The groups involved in the hunt expo have voluntarily reported on how they have used application fees, even though they are not required to do so by rule.
So, let me make it very clear to all concerned - the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources agrees with Mr. Allen?s statement that ?accountability and transparency are paramount to the public?s trust in actions of non-profit organizations.? I also want to make it clear that we have taken numerous steps to make sure that transparency exists, and we stand ready to implement any changes the Wildlife Board makes in the rules governing these programs.
I would now like to address the second point in Mr. Allen?s letter that had to do with whether conservation groups should be funded by ?their own fund raising effort or by subsidy that comes from public assets.? I certainly did not understand how Mr. Allen could make this statement since RMEF is one of the main participants in the Conservation Permit Program. I was told by both Jason and David that they have no objections using conservation permits for fund raising efforts because of the level of accountability. They are only concerned with using convention permits to support fund raising efforts.
This issue with convention permits is a little puzzling to me considering what has transpired in the last two years. In 2010, the Convention Permit Rule was up for its five year renewal and to the best of my recollection no one from the public came to express their concerns at the RAC and Board meetings. So the board renewed the rule for another five years. In 2011, when the Board needed to act on a new five-year contract for the convention, once again no one came to the Board meeting to voice any concerns or object to the contract. So the Board approved a new five-year contract for the convention.
It appears to me that the main issue of concern is that there should be better accountability of the $5 application fee for convention permits. I firmly believe and I think most people agree that the hunt expo is good for the economy of Salt Lake City, good for the State of Utah and that it brings notoriety to Utah?s big game program. However, many people have said they would like to see more complete reporting of how the $5 application fee is used by the convention groups.
I need to point out that when the Convention Permit Rule was first adopted in 2005 the Wildlife Board felt like $5 was a reasonable amount to allow the convention groups to charge for administrative expenses associated with the drawing at the Expo. Our big game application fee for the regular draw at that time was $5. It is not unreasonable to expect that the overhead in administering this drawing consumes much of $5 per application. As a point of reference, the cost of administering the regular big game drawing in Utah currently exceeds $5. It should also be mentioned that none of the actual permit fees are retained by the organizations. 100% of the permit fees go to UDWR.
Now as to accountability of the application fees - two or three years ago when the convention groups heard that the public would like more information on how the $5 application fees are being spent, the groups voluntarily submitted information that showed how they were spending these funds. They provided this information in a public meeting of the Wildlife Board even though it was not required by rule. That information has been and is available to the public.
So what do we do now? Each year the Wildlife Board has to act on the number and type of permits that are allocated to the convention. That will occur at the Wildlife Board meeting in August. I suspect there will be those at that meeting who will ask the Board to amend the rule to require more thorough accounting of the convention permit application fees. The Board chairman will then need to decide whether they would like to revisit the rule realizing the it was renewed in 2010 and considering that a five-year contract was issued in 2011. The Division will be supportive of whatever the Board decides to do on this issue. In the meantime, I am going to meet with the convention groups and ask that they voluntarily do a better job of accounting for how the $5 application fees are spent.
I just want to make one more point before I shut up. I am very concerned to see conservation groups at odds with each other and trying to pull each other down. I believe that is very counterproductive and bad for wildlife in Utah. I think we need to put our differences aside and get back to the core missions or our organizations. We have been very successful in Utah in expanding most of our big game populations because we have had strong partnerships with conservation organizations. It disappoints me greatly to now see those great organizations at each other throats. We need to resolve this issue and then we all need to get back doing good things for wildlife.
I hope this clarifies my position on conservation and convention permits. I don't intend to make any additional posts on this topic and I won't see your replies since I do not frequent this forum. I would, however, invite you to give me a call or come and talk to me if you would like to discuss this further.

Jim Karpowitz
 
>Guys,
>
>We are addressing your questions.
>In fact we were ignoring
>them and decided to address
>them but that to isn't
>good enough. Do you
>want answers and dialogue or
>do you just want to
>fight?
>
>I am setting up a meeting
>in the next few weeks
>to discuss these "transparency concerns".
> We will invite interested
>rational parties. If you
>are interested and rational please
>send me a private message
>with your contact information.
>
>If you want to fight that's
>fine to.
>
>Thanks,
>
>From Todd (Back on the grid
>and at your service for
>a few hours)


you want to fight? thats how sfw presents itself
 
They call people terrorists that don't agree with them or don't fully trust them which they should blame themselves since they don't believe in transparency.

Don Peay called Tony Abbott the taliban a few years ago.
 
>They call people terrorists that don't
>agree with them or don't
>fully trust them which they
>should blame themselves since they
>don't believe in transparency.
>
>Don Peay called Tony Abbott the
>taliban a few years ago.
>


damn they need to get over themselves
 
I appreciate Jim Karpowitz for taking the time to post on this thread. See Post #121 above. I know he said that he will not review the responses but we all know he will.:) Jim is correct that my primary concerns, and the problem addressed by the UWC?s proposed rule amendment, relates to the Convention Permit program, not the Conservation Permit program. As I told Jim during our meeting, however, I was disappointed to learn that the DWR was issuing Conservation Permits in excess of the statutory caps, and when alerted of this fact the DWR moved to amend the rule to authorize those same permits numbers. However, that issue was already decided by the Wildlife Board and Jim is right that I take solace in the fact that there is accountability and transparency imposed on the Conservation Permit program and 90% of the proceeds from those permits are earmarked for actual conservation projects. My current concerns, and most of the concerns I have been hearing on this forum, relate to the Convention Permit program (i.e., the Expo tags).

I was pleased to read that the Jim and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources agree with Mr. Allen?s statement that ?accountability and transparency are paramount to the public?s trust in actions of non-profit organizations.? That was not the message that I and many others took from his letter to David Allen so I was happy to hear that clarified in his post. Thank you. That is all we are asking for with respect to the Conservation Permit?accountability and transparency?nothing more.

Just to be clear, there currently are no accountability or transparency requirements with regard to how SFW and MDF use the monies generated from the Convention Permits. We are talking about significant amounts of money. According to the DWR?s records, these groups are raising hundreds of thousands of dollars a year from the $5 application fees. Yet, there is no requirement that these groups spend one red cent of that money on actual conservation projects. The DWR does not audit how those monies are spent. The groups refuse to provide the public with any accounting as to how those monies are spent. Why are we allowing this to occur? Why should these groups be allowed to take 200 public permits without providing any accounting of the resulting revenues? Jim?s statements that our main concern ?is that there should be better accountability of the $5 application fee for convention permits? and that the groups should ?do a better job of accounting for how the $5 application fees are spent? suggest that there currently is come level of accountability and transparency with regard to the Convention Permits. This simply is not the case. There is none. No accounting or transparency requirements. Nothing. This needs to be fixed.

Perhaps it would have been preferable if the public would have showed up in masses at the Wildlife Board meeting 2 years ago when the Conservation Permit rule was up for review. However, that is irrelevant at this point. Let's focus on the present. The real question is what can the DWR, the Wildlife Board and the conservation groups do today to fix this problem. There is a proposal from the UWC on the table that will remedy this longstanding problem and mandate accountability and transparency. It will not jeopardize the Expo. Rather, it will merely impose the same requirements and protections that are already in the Conservation Permit rule to the Convention Permits. I invite Jim and the DWR to carefully consider that proposal and to strongly support the proposal to the Wildlife Board. I also invite SFW and MDF to get on board and voluntarily support the proposed change to the rule. It is time for a change and it is the right thing to do. The frustration, controversy, conflict, debate and upheaval will go away when this problem is fixed. Let's work together to make it happen.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
It couldn't have been said better than you Hawkeye.
Appreciate your mediation and your work.

Jim,DWR officials,RMEF,MDF,SFW....
Lets make this rule change happen.

Jim, thanks for clarifying your position.

Accountability and Transparency should be there with every group involved with wildlife.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-23-12 AT 01:47PM (MST)[p]Jim,

Thank you for your clarification and response. I echo Jason's comments and I'll add my own. It was very interesting to see your defensive response to RMEF's release, to say the least. I'm glad that your meeting with Jason went well and you were able to see the argument that we (the frustrated sportsmen of Utah, represented well by Mr. Hawkins) are making here.

This is not an attack on you personally, or on Don, or on any individual. Rather, this is a problem and a frustration that has been festering for years and has finally come to a head. We are fed up with the way things are going for Utah's wildlife and we want to make a change, and we feel the convention tags is a great place to start, as there are 200+ glaring problems that need attention.

I realize that there have been meetings and RACs in the past to discuss these items. I wish I could say that we as sportsmen did more sooner, but that didn't happen. The momentum hadn't gathered and many did not know or did not care about the laws. Things have changed. You'll see, however, if you do a search on this website and others like it, that many of us have been vocal about this for years. My opinion on the subject has not differed since I found out about the convention tags, and I know quite a few others like me who feel the same.

It is very troubling to see the path Utah has gone down regarding big game tags. These tags are a valuable public resource. As a long time Utah resident, I feel some ownership and responsibility for how they are used. Every year, it seems, Utah approves more and more tags to be used for conservation groups in various ways. I understand that some of that is necessary and I understand that this generates millions of needed income for the state. But, I fear, once these tags are given out, there is no going back. These organizations get used to the dollars generated, and at no point will anyone suggest less tags for conservation. At no point will anybody say, "give us less tags." It will always be more.

I know you and the others at the DWR are trying to find the balance that keeps the wildlife and citizens happy while generating the most revenue that can be put back into the resource. I worry, however, that we are squeezing this goose too much and too often, and the golden eggs will one day stop being layed. Every one of these tags is valuable and we owe it to ourselves and future generations to make sure that any monies generated from the sale of these tags be used helping the future of our state and our herds.

The 200+ tags sold at the convention can and should be a great source of income for the state. We all know that many of us, myself included, have paid hundreds and thousands of dollars into the pot to get a chance at one of these tags we'd otherwise not be able to draw. Again, these tags, and the animals they represent, are a public resource. The monies generated, also, should be public. I want to know where my money is going.

If you were to come in my house and I gave you one of my personal possessions to sell, and you succeeded in selling it, I would want to know how much you sold my item for and what you planned to do with my money. I feel no different about the tags that are "donated" to these conservation groups. If you take a public asset and sell it, I would like to know for a fact that the money generated would be put to good use, and i would like to see exactly how.

Currently, I'm satisfied with the rules in place for the use of funds generated by the sale of the regular conservation tags sold and auctioned at banquets. Ten percent is a fair amount of overhead and I can feel good that 90% is put back into the resource it was taken out of. Accounting is required and the groups who get these tags are held responsible. I think most of us would agree this is fair.

How, then, did the legislation ever pass that allows the monies generated from the 200+ convention tags to be handed over to conservation groups with NO STRINGS ATTACHED? How did the DWR let this happen? Frankly, it's a disgrace. A public asset is taken and given to a separate organization, sold, with no requirements on the funds generated whatsoever. In my book, that equates to theft. There is a stewardship associated with the money from these tags, and it has been ignored.

While SFW, MDF and others may have noble intentions, and while they may have used every penny of the money generated to improve our wildlife, all we have to go on are vague tax statements with huge, general categorizations and whatever else we can dig up and glean from our own research. We have been asking for detailed accounting for years, and time and time again we have been led on, ignored, and denied. In regards to the convention money, all we have to go on is a handshake, a powerpoint presentation, a tour, and a promise that they're helping us out.

I should point out that the convention tag money is different from the money generated by these groups through other means. There is no obligation by anyone to show how they use or spend money that is donated, earned or given to them, other than the laws the government puts on non-profit organizations. The dollars generated from selling OUR tags is a completely different matter.

I have never doubted that SFW and others have done many good things. I appreciate all the hard work and efforts by all the honest sportsmen in the state that have worked and sweat in behalf of our herds. I do feel, however, that we need a detailed explanation and accounting on how this money is being used. There should be nothing to hide, here. There should be no reason that these groups shouldn't parade every number in front of everybody because they are proud about the good they are accomplishing.

What have these groups done with the tags and associated money they were given? Who is responsible? What habitat was restored? How has our wildlife been helped? Why won't they tell us?

The time for answers is now. We can't change the fact that we let this pass in the first place, but we can change what we're facing.

SFW and MDF have obeyed the laws as they currently exist. They should volunteer this information without being forced to, because it's morally right, but they don't have to do so. Utah and the DWR has the obligation to find out how our public resources are being used. The onus is now on you and the DWR to get this law changed. This has been ignored for too long.

Jim, obviously you're the major player in this. Please help us and do what is right. If there is a reason that 90% of the funds from the expo should not be used directly for wildlife in Utah, let us know what it is. Give us explanations and help us out in getting this changed. If there is a reason why it was put in the way it was, now would be a good time to explain it.

Please consider backing the proposed legislation detailed here by UWC. It's the right thing to do.

Ben Armstrong
Vi Et Armis Invictus Maneo
 
I appreciate Director Karpowitz taking the time to give his comments. Only he and Mr. Allen know what discussed in their phone call.

From reading the release and letter from RMEF, I was left with the understanding that RMEF was concerned about a three things, none of which were pointed toward Director Karpowitz.

<> 1. Transparency and accountability of non-profit groups receiving benefit via public assets, auction or raffle tags.

<> 2. Non-profit groups becoming financially dependent upon public assets, such as auction and raffle tags.

<> 3. Proliferation of auction and raffle tags in places they currently exist and establishment of such programs where they currently do not exist.

I am still at a loss as to why the Director felt inclined to respond to the RMEF release, to start with. And, why his letter was provided to the SFW crowd so they could feel "blessed" (SFW's terminology) to read it before it was finally leaked to the public.

The principles above still stand as germane to the discussion, regardless of the Director's feelings that the auction program is just fine. Even if he does not mention two of the three his comments.

Another major thing that is hard to measure, and seems to be the skunk no one wants to talk about in the context of auction tags, is the unfavorable by-product from increased popularity of the auction system - The damage auction tag proliferation does to the North American Model tenet of democratic allocation of wildlife opportunity.

No one can deny that when these auction programs grow as they have in some states, there becomes a feeling of unfairness among the rank and file hunters, as they donate their time to conservation, but lacking the funds to play the auction game, they have to stand on the sidelines and watch as the same small group of well-healed hunters and their outfitters buy their way to the front of the line. Year after year, this same small group of auction buyers go hunt the best the west has to offer, while the volunteers who put time and energy into the conservation projects, the fund raisers, the politics, have to wait ten years, twenty years, a lifetime to draw the same tag.

Though surely some auction tag buyers may have done so, I suspect a largest percentage of committee volunteers, those donating time and labor to habitat projects, and those attending legislative or wildlife hearings, are not the auction tag buyers, rather the average hunter who is left on the sidelines as the auction game is played. The hunter who does most of that volunteering is not a paid employee or consultant to some organization; he/she gets nothing for it, other than satisfaction that he/she is doing all they can. Is that hunter's time, labor, and activism not as valuable as the money some pay for auction tags?

That is the sticky point of expanding auction tag numbers that the Director, and a few of the tag selling groups, seem to miss. Is it OK to increase those auction tags to the point where hardly anyone can objectively say we are in compliance with the North American Model principle of fair allocation of our hunting opportunity?

Amazing how some states and some groups can complete their conservation work without the need for stacks and stacks of auction tags. Amazing how some groups have no problem providing complete accountability for their use of publicly-derived funds.

For the reason described above, I have a problem with lots of auction tags, whether there is transparency, or not. I suspect others share that feeling, or we would probably not be having this discussion.

When it comes to auction tags, fewer is better. And yes, I can easily make a case justifying a few auction tags of each species in each state. Maybe I am just old school. Maybe I am too hung up on the principles that brought about this conservation recovery we enjoy today.

Not everyone, whose time and commitment has done a ton of benefit for hunting and conservation, is financially as blessed as some of us who are able to hunt anywhere and everywhere. Yet, that person might have done more for our cause; for the future or youth hunters; or to change a political tide against us, than a check coming from those of us fortunate enough to have resources to write it.

All the money in the west is not going to improve public land hunting if we continue toward a point where the conservation volunteer and the hunter-activist feel like some piece of cold left-overs from the King's dinner. Hopefully we never arrive at a destination where the volunteers and activists feel that way. It seems the proliferation of auction tags is taking us closer to, rather than further from, that point.

If the state of Utah is comfortable with "auction tags by the hundreds," that is up to the citizens of Utah. After all, states decide what they want to do with their wildlife and how they want to allocate such.

When the Utah Model provides funding for groups to start franchises in other states, based on the Utah Model, it then becomes the business of others outside Utah. When that funding is used to negatively influence national issues, such as wolf delisting and public land policy, to the detriment of hunters outside Utah, it becomes the business of all hunters.

Which is why many here have applauded the RMEF for their positions on transparency when receiving public benefits, financial independence from public assets, and the proliferation of these auction and raffle programs.

Thanks again to the Director for providing his comments and for David Allen providing the principles held by RMEF. Both being in the public eye, their every decision opens them for criticism from one side or the other.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
Great comments dryflyelk and BigFin.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
OK, SFW guys; Answer just one question.

1. why are you guys so against showing your books.

If you had nothing to hide I would think you would open them right up and prove everyone wrong. Refusal to open the books creates a BIG red flag to people with common sense. WHy not remove the thorn in your sides and prove your not hiding anything and open the dang books! QUit with the political dodgin and open the books! Its not that hard! It just proves that there is something to hide when you refuse it
 
It's to the point now that when the books are finally opened they will show that they have put back 89% on the ground just like their website states, LOL!!!
 
That is correct TopGun. The 'books' no longer exist in their true form. Everyone clamoring for SFW to open their books is just a waste of precious oxygen.

I wish I was as articulate as BigFin.

The wounds are still fresh here in Arizona........
 
Bigfin,

Thanks for standing up and addressing this issue. I wish I could express myself as well as you can. But I think you have hit the nail on the head. I don't believe that many sportsman and wildlife professionals even consider the big picture of Auction Tags and Utah?s model of Conservation. Although I don't consider myself special I do believe I have a better than average understanding of how the system in Utah works. I am frustrated enough that I have removed myself from trying to work the system because time and time again it has proven that we have went past the point of science and into politics for big game management. SFW definitely has the corner on the political side of Conservation in Utah. For most sportsmen the effort it takes to understand the proclamation and drawing system is confusing enough let alone working the political game management circuit.

Lest some think I am just a whiner, let me provide a slight resume.
Former DWR part time employee, Former Hunter/Bowhunter Ed Instructor, Originator of AR301, Past Chairman of Northern Utah RMEF Committee/Member, Former SFW Committee Member, Member of DWR Mule Deer Recovery Group, Past Vice Chairman of UBCH. DWR Youth Hunt Volunteer, Guide and Outfitter among many others.

I would guess in my life, I have spent an average of 200 hours a year volunteering for wildlife. From A youth who learned early the value of range management planting thousands of bitter brush plants with the aid of a USFS District Ranger that was my scout master to a UDWR Biologist/Conservation Officer Uncle who let me tag along doing mortality counts, transect data collection etc. My life as a volunteer has been dedicated to wildlife conservation and the opportunity to hunt. My most rewarding experience was cleaning up miles of telephone wire on the Cache National forest and hauling it out on my mules after rescuing a cow moose that had become entangled in the wire. So for those who say I am whining go ahead, I will fight a system that my life experiences have taught me is wrong.

Mr. Newberg a truer statement has never been spoken:

?Another major thing that is hard to measure, and seems to be the skunk no one wants to talk about in the context of auction tags, is the unfavorable by-product from increased popularity of the auction system - The damage auction tag proliferation does to the North American Model tenet of democratic allocation of wildlife opportunity.
No one can deny that when these auction programs grow as they have in some states, there becomes a feeling of unfairness among the rank and file hunters, as they donate their time to conservation, but lacking the funds to play the auction game, they have to stand on the sidelines and watch as the same small group of well-healed hunters and their outfitters buy their way to the front of the line. Year after year, this same small group of auction buyers go hunt the best the west has to offer, while the volunteers who put time and energy into the conservation projects, the fund raisers, the politics, have to wait ten years, twenty years, a lifetime to draw the same tag.?

Let me provide my view of this. I find it ironic that as sportsman we are required to apply for big game tags in February before the UDWR has even finalized the number of tags as they have to figure what will be allowed from their post season counts. Many sportsman especially nonresidents apply for a hunt that will not offer a tag to them. Others may apply for a hunt based on last year?s permit numbers only to find out that the tags have been cut by 50% leaving them little opportunity of drawing that particular tag. Some may say this is a good management technique to ward off over harvest, I tend to agree. However, the same DWR finds no fault in entering into contracts that allow ?Auction Tags? guaranteed regardless of herd population over a period of three years. If the auction tags exceed the number allowed by rule so be it. It is more important for the DWR to honor the contract than to manage the ?Auction Tags? the same as they manage the public hunter?s tags. IMO this is a huge violation of the NAM and is leading to privatization of wildlife or at the very least selling to the highest bidder. One does not have to look far to find proof in Moose permits over the past two years. The irony is that although we do not decrease permits within the contract period there is no problem increasing permits before the contract expires.

As a second example to the threat Conservation Permits pose.

In the past few years many have complained of the decline of Utah?s world class elk herd. Why has there been a decline in trophy bulls and the rewriting of the record books by Utah elk? Many blame the spike hunts, weather and other factors. For a moment let me blame conservation/convention tags. I wonder if it has ever occurred to anyone that we have became so dependent upon the monies earned from Conservation tags we manage permit numbers by them? Otherwise as a rule has been imposed on the percentage of conservation tags in accordance to the public permits, do we raise the public permits simply to insure the auctioning of one more conservation tag? I believe most of us can remember the day when there was one conservation permit for our favorite elk unit. If that number has increased doubled or as the case on my particular unit tripled plus added one convention permit a direct result been an increase in public permits which means the bulls have taken a significant hit. At the same time we have consistently adjusted age objectives to justify the harvesting of bulls. Just for a minute let's look at my favorite unit, for the past 3 years the unit has still harvested bulls above age objective although the success rate has dropped below 50% each year. Without factoring unfilled tags into age objective it is hard to know if the unit is meeting goal. I am not an advocate for seasons that allow 100% harvest but it is easy to recognize this unit has lost its ability to produce enough bulls to justify the number of permits being issued. At one time it was a 90% harvest unit meeting age objective. So what is the driving factor in the total number of permits I assert it could be conservation permits. It surely is not bull numbers, trophy potential, or success rate.
I may be off base I am sure there will be some who say I am. However, this system of management and relying on monies earned through auction tags at least poses the threat of such management which is in direct conflict to the NAM.
I am out of time now. However I plan to return and continue discussing the ?skunk? because I to believe it is a threat as real as wolves, antihunters or opposing view points and others to the NAM. It is not time to let this thread die, there is more to it than transparency and accountability and I hope the average Joe is ready to fight for a change.

Travis Sparks
 
I agree with Mr. Sparks. Randy is doing the average joe hunter in UT a huge favor and we need to get behind this movement. Thanks for all your facts and knowledge Bigfin.

Very interesting comments and thoughts from Mr. Sparks. I would agree 100% with your theory of convention and conservation tags adjusting the amount of tags available to the draws. We already know the DWR doesn't know how to count animals so maybe this is their so called "formula" they throw the numbers in every year and come up with tag numbers.

Lets keep this going. We are making waves. Gov Herbert and crew can't stand by and watch much longer, especially when a state employee is defending a non-profit group.
 
Some more very interesting facts and comments from Bigfin here.

http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=251176

Seems that SFW's sister org BGF is an LLC and is making the water muddier between the two groups. One more reason to not open the books. SFW is spending non-profit monies through their LLC. Makes it all legit then huh?

"Birdyman" and "ABE", please read whats being posted on the other forum and get back to us with answers for us on BGF and their "LLC".

Can't wait to hear from you.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-26-12 AT 00:20AM (MST)[p]Pretty interesting that a DWR Director would take the time to get on a public forum like MM. Jim I appreciate your time and guts to subject yourself to such abuse! I guess you have not learned from the rest of us.

I have taken the time to read all of the posts on this thread as well as others and I believe there has been alot of good questions asked and information stated. No doudt I will be labled as one of the Kool-Aid drinkers but that is fine.

There are a couple of topics that I would like to address as a SFW supporter and employee.

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.

What I do have a problem with is the timing and the way it was presented. Through sources and being privie to certain conversation there is no doudt that this call was directed at certain groups for one reason or another.

I also find it ironic that RMEF, to my knowledge is the only major conservation group that has been placed on probation by the Wildlife Board for Co-mingling Conservation Permit Money & not being able to account for funds raised!

SFW Transparency
Since this has all come about I have spent some time looking at all of the Major Conservation Groups websites, specificly looking for their financials.
I will admit the SFW's was one of the worst and it was very difficult to find.Since that time changes have been made and will continue to be made to make SFW's Financial Records more accessible.

RMEF,DU,SCI and NWTF were amongst the best. I could not find anything on MDF's or WSF website.

SFW's Books

Based on Industry Standards and the IRS, SFW is in full complicance with regards to posting its financials! If you truley look at RMEF's Financial Report it is merley and extention of their 990.
It is simpley put in a report form and realy does not give that much more detail than what is contained in the 990. It does not provide specific's as to who got what and what for!

Having said that, if that is what our membership wants SFW will work towards having something simular put together.

Randy Newberg
I am not real clear on what is actually being asked for from Randy pertaining to SFW's Books.

If it is SFW's check register it is not going to happen! If it is projects that SFW has funded with Conservation Permit Money & Convention Application money that is a different story.

I dont know any organization that would provide access to its check register by an individual that is tied to an organization that is deemed as a competitor! Especially considering the circunstances.
I dont know Randy and he might be a great guy, but it is obvious he is a critic of SFW and there is not a chance in hell he would provide an unbiased opinion.
I dont care if a non-discloser is signed,they are not going to do it.
I am not aware of any organizations that has allowed such and SFW is not going to be the first!

The IRS has specific codes/statutes that protect Non-Profits from being forced into providing such.

It seems to me that SFW is being singled out here and asked to do something that I dont believe any other group would agree too! My opinion.

Allegations have been made that hardly any Convention Application Permit Money has hit the ground for wildlife. That is not true,

Take this week for example

1- Deer Crossing Signs between Monticello & Blanding

2- 3000 Manchurian Ring Neck Cross chicks for a future Pheasant release

3- Tiger Muskie release in Joe's Valley Res.

Just these three alone amount to over $50,000 dollars. At every banquet there is a sheet placed in the program that lists projects that have been funded by SFW monies (Convention & Banquet) other that Conservation Permit Money. It amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

You might not agree on the project and how it is spent, but bottom line it is benefiting Utah Sportsman.

Here is the problem it will not matter what we do or dont do it will never change the minds of those that dont like SFW. If it is not one thing it will be another!


I dont have a problem with sitting down and talking about how these moneys can be better accounted for. I do not support UWC's proposal but maybe some middle ground can be reached.

It's passed my bedtime. 5:30 comes way to early to play Church Ball!

X-treme
Troy Justensen
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-26-12 AT 06:06AM (MST)[p]. something we should work towards its not that hard show the books

. rmef is not the only ones calling for transperancy the general public is as well

. within industry standards on tags. thats the whole problem the expo's profits should have been geared to raise money for wildlife to begin with. seeing how you guys are non profit orginazation and all.

. church ball, dang you guys are arrogent from beeing called terrorist to asking if we want a fight to now churchball all coming from sfw high archey. you guys have no respect for the common sportsmen.

. dont support uwc's proposal shocker. and i am sure sfw has scrambled to come up with all kinds of projects quick. due to their reputaion now a days
 
"Allegations have been made that hardly any Convention Application Permit Money has hit the ground for wildlife. That is not true"

All ya need to do is let a CPA verify that and we are golden.. Whats the issue??







2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-26-12 AT 07:39AM (MST)[p]"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.

What I do have a problem with is the timing and the way it was presented. Through sources and being privie to certain conversation there is no doudt that this call was directed at certain groups for one reason or another."


Transparency is not something you need to "work towards". It's something you should just do!!!

Timing??? Are you crappin me? If not now........when?

SFW has been "working towards" transparency for 10 years! We have heard the promises for 10 years!

X-treme - Two months ago you admitted you did not know what the North American Model For Wildlife Conservation said. I asked you how on earth you did not learn that in your 1st hunter's ed class! You still haven't answered that. You have an answer yet?

I have taken hunter's ed or bowhunter's ed classes in 3 states, and been an instructor in one. The NAMWC was one of the very first topics discussed in all my classes, usually within the first 10 minutes! Is this philosophy something they just no longer teach in Utah???!!! Or were you just daydreaming by the window?


***********************************
Member RMEF, Pope & Young Club, UBNM, UWC & the SFW Hate Club
 
Troy,
Wow...you just don't seem to get it do you? Nobody on this thread is saying SFW hasn't done anything positive. You koolaid drinkers are'nt catching on here. But what's funny is it isn't hard to figure out. We don't care what your sorry azz excuses are for not opening the books. Or why you choose not to support the petition. Because we know that there are no good excuses. Unless you have something personel to lose.
Like I said before. The herds in Utah are not going to get better when there is so many people only looking out for themselves. This isn't about competition between two non profit organizations. This is about doing what is right. The problem is simple. Open your books so WE CAN DECIDE FOR OURSELVES what oppurtunities you've had to support the wildlife in utah. I don't care what projects your group has done or how much it cost. I want to see OVERALL, what percentage of the funds your group has recieved that has been put back towards the wildlife. What about that do you not understand? There are MANY waiting to see.
Since you choose not to, it creates an eye sore for your group that has created hostility from the average joe hunter who wants things fair for the wildlife,himself and all other hunters.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-26-12 AT 07:39AM (MST)[p]X-treme (142 posts)
Jun-26-12, 00:13 AM (MST)
141. "RE: RMEF WantsTransparency on Special Permits"
LAST EDITED ON Jun-26-12 AT 00:20 AM (MST)

"Pretty interesting that a DWR Director would take the time to get on a public forum like MM. Jim I appreciate your time and guts to subject yourself to such abuse! I guess you have not learned from the rest of us."

TG***Pretty interesting and pretty stupid for a public official to write that letter to RMEF or to come on here and defend a private organization!

"I have taken the time to read all of the posts on this thread as well as others and I believe there has been alot of good questions asked and information stated. No doudt I will be labled as one of the Kool-Aid drinkers but that is fine."

TG***So now when are any of those good questions asked of your organization going to be answered with facts to back them up?

"There are a couple of topics that I would like to address as a SFW supporter and employee.

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."

TG***Work towards, LOL! Transparency and accountability should be built into an organization from the get go!

"What I do have a problem with is the timing and the way it was presented. Through sources and being privie to certain conversation there is no doudt that this call was directed at certain groups for one reason or another."

TG***Gee why would you think that and why would the DWR Director think that and issue a letter under the State of Utah letterhead defending an organization that wasn't even mentioned in any letter?

"I also find it ironic that RMEF, to my knowledge is the only major conservation group that has been placed on probation by the Wildlife Board for Co-mingling Conservation Permit Money & not being able to account for funds raised!"

TG***Typical tactic of a guilty party to try and change a discussion or subject to something other than themselves!

"SFW Transparency
Since this has all come about I have spent some time looking at all of the Major Conservation Groups websites, specificly looking for their financials.
I will admit the SFW's was one of the worst and it was very difficult to find.Since that time changes have been made and will continue to be made to make SFW's Financial Records more accessible."

TG*** This came about years ago and not last week! You mean the new website message that claims 89% is put back into programs for the mission statement when the State agency tracking those things states it's 37%, LOL! Funny I didn't see any disclosures on the website until just recently when the chit hit the fan over this debate!

"RMEF,DU,SCI and NWTF were amongst the best. I could not find anything on MDF's or WSF website.

SFW's Books

Based on Industry Standards and the IRS, SFW is in full complicance with regards to posting its financials! If you truley look at RMEF's Financial Report it is merley and extention of their 990.
It is simpley put in a report form and realy does not give that much more detail than what is contained in the 990. It does not provide specific's as to who got what and what for!

Having said that, if that is what our membership wants SFW will work towards having something simular put together."

TG***Yea, right! We aren't talking about IRS records here that are about as poor as you can get to try and distinguish things we're discussing and need to know! I'll bet there will be a proposal for your rank and file to vote on real soon like there always is on major undertakings, huh, LOL!

Randy Newberg
I am not real clear on what is actually being asked for from Randy pertaining to SFW's Books.

TG***SFW and it's top employee's don't seem to be too clear on much of anything! Ask Randy exactly what he wants or needs and settle this issue for God's sake!

"If it is SFW's check register it is not going to happen! If it is projects that SFW has funded with Conservation Permit Money & Convention Application money that is a different story."

TG*** So why hasn't that already been done a long time ago or at least now when Randy asked for records if Don wanted to tout the SFW on the "3 hour tour"? That would have at least been a start to get people off your back and keep the debate rolling!

"I dont know any organization that would provide access to its check register by an individual that is tied to an organization that is deemed as a competitor! Especially considering the circunstances.
I dont know Randy and he might be a great guy, but it is obvious he is a critic of SFW and there is not a chance in hell he would provide an unbiased opinion.
I dont care if a non-discloser is signed,they are not going to do it.
I am not aware of any organizations that has allowed such and SFW is not going to be the first!"

TG***How do you know what any other organization may or may not do when asked to provide anything of substance to justify it's being? I'm pretty sure if you did and it exceeded the little bit that appears to be put out by SFW that you wouldn't say so.

"The IRS has specific codes/statutes that protect Non-Profits from being forced into providing such."

TG***Screw the IRS and their lame standards for what a nonprofit organization has to do to be and stay in existence! If an organization is open and above board they should provide enough materials to easily show they are not leeches off public programs (200 big game tags in this particular instance)!

"It seems to me that SFW is being singled out here and asked to do something that I dont believe any other group would agree too! My opinion."

TG***The SFW singled themslves out from the get go with the shoddy way they appear to do business. With the BGF also started by Don Peay that appears to be an LLC for profit business, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to wonder what may be going on with a lot of the monies taken in and not fully accounted for on the SFW end of it!

"Allegations have been made that hardly any Convention Application Permit Money has hit the ground for wildlife. That is not true,

Take this week for example

1- Deer Crossing Signs between Monticello & Blanding

2- 3000 Manchurian Ring Neck Cross chicks for a future Pheasant release

3- Tiger Muskie release in Joe's Valley Res.

Just these three alone amount to over $50,000 dollars. At every banquet there is a sheet placed in the program that lists projects that have been funded by SFW monies (Convention & Banquet) other that Conservation Permit Money. It amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

You might not agree on the project and how it is spent, but bottom line it is benefiting Utah Sportsman."

TG***No question about that, and maybe some SFW persons as well, from the way it looks with the limited financials we are privy to!

"Here is the problem it will not matter what we do or dont do it will never change the minds of those that dont like SFW. If it is not one thing it will be another!"

TG***Same old baloney when you can't justify one thing and then make a blanket statement like that. Open the friggin books and you may have a lot of new members joining your ranks if everything is clean. I think from the looks of it the SFW hierarchy is worried that just the opposite will happen and a lot of dedicated, trusting members will abandon the sinking ship!


"I dont have a problem with sitting down and talking about how these moneys can be better accounted for. I do not support UWC's proposal but maybe some middle ground can be reached."

TG***As Gomer Pyle used to say: "SURPRISE, SURPRISE, SURPRISE", LOL! Middle ground? This proposal isn't a bartering proposal with your SFW. It's a whole new way of doing business that IMHO should have been done to begin with, rather than what the DWR agreed to by allowing the SFW to make huge profits off those 200 tags.

It's passed my bedtime. 5:30 comes way to early to play Church Ball!

X-treme
Troy Justensen


TG***Good night is right!
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-26-12 AT 08:36AM (MST)[p]X-treme:

You should stick things you know about. Financial reports appears to not be high on your list of expertise.

RMEF has posted their AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS on their website. That is miles ahead of posting a tax return.

Here is a link to all 27 pages. They hire a firm, Clark Nuber, one of the most repsected CPA firms on the west coast, to come in for a few weeks each year and complete an audit of the financial statements, compliance with programs, and issue an opinion on such.

Here is the link, right off the RMEF website.

http://www.rmef.org/NR/rdonlyres/69...15419335/0/2011RMEFAuditedFinancialsFinal.pdf


Go to Page 4 - The Auditors Report. RMEF received an unqualified opinion from these auditors that the financial statements and programs of RMEF reflect exactly what RMEF says they represent.

That is an audit under the Governmental Audit Standards issued by the Comptroller General. In laymans terms, this is the highest level of audit that a non-profit can subject itself to. It costs thousands of dollars, it is a pain in the butt to deal with these CPAs, but it gives assurance to the entire world that RMEF has a great set of books, great internal controls and oversight, and presents their financial activities in a manner accepted by the CPA and Governmental Accounting profession.

So when you say the RMEF financial statements are merely and extension of their Form 990, you look foolish.

Care to show us where your beloved SFW has subjected itself to this process?

I find it funny that almost every state has a requirement that a non-governmental agency (which SFW is) receiving certain dollar amounts or percentages of its support, directly or indirectly, from state government sources, requires the recipient organization to undergo such an audit. Almost always required when organizations are holding state funds, as is the case with the 60% that comes from the auction tags.

Yet, I can find not record of SFW having their financial statements and internal controls subjected to such. I can find nowhere that DWR has required that of SFW.

If so, it would end all this discussion. All SFW needs to do is hire a reputable CPA firm experienced in non-profit audits, to conduct an audit under these standards, and I can assure you that most everyone would be happy. If they received an unqualified opinion, it would be hard for anyone to argue with what SFW says in their financial statements. I highly doubt they would receive an unqualified report.

Why DWR does not require an outside audit of every group receiving these state funds, is beyond me. It is a common practice to require such in just about every level of government in this country, where organizations are receiving government funds, or entrusted to government assets. I have researched your Utah audit standards and they reflect the same as most every other state. Seems strange that no one has required this type of audit for organizations receiving these payments from auction and raffle tags.

So, before you start talking financial statements and audits of organizations, you ought to have a basic grasp of what the topic is.

You might struggle with this notion, but it is pretty hard for anyone outside the SFW circle to accept "Trust me" as evidence to support the assertions that funds from the Utah Model have been used exactly as required in the statutes that established the tag and auction programs.

Would you like me to provide examples of what I was looking for in order to confirm the assertions Don had made to me about the great work SFW had done, things he demanded be included as part of the debate?

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
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
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-26-12 AT 10:15AM (MST)[p]Don keeps sacraficing his employees rather than face his critics.

Why would they fear an audit, if everything is on the up and up like they claim, it should be a no brain-er. As time goes on, the picture gets clearer. We all know what hes up too. Why else would they try to cloud the issue with repeated sacrificials? I think the people are pretty focused now, and that tactic isn't going to get it.

Don fight your own battles, your embarrasing yourself. You would have been better off debating Randy. At least you were in control of the issues being discussed. One blunder after another. You chose poorly dude.

I've heard how great SFW's leader has done making a living off of his work in his organizations. Make no mistake, now it looks more like he's made his living (indirectly) off of the sale of a public resource.

Time to end his welfare.


I wanted to take a scalp,but the kill was not mine.
 
Randy Cronkite and Hawkeye Brokovich nail it again. Thank you, gentlemen.

This isn't new. We've been chirping about this for years. Our state gives millions in assets to private organizations and nobody knows where the proceeds go.

We're getting closer.

Vi Et Armis Invictus Maneo
 
Zim

I took your advice and went back and read the North American Model.

It does not change the way I feel or how I will move forward. I do not need a statement or saying to define who I am or what I stand for!

If you require such, more power to you.

Randy I have already read through the audit you are talking about. Once again it does not provide the in depth details that many are calling for from SFW.

A few things I did learn RMEF spends over 2 million a year in employee benifits. Their payrol if I recall correctly is over 5 million and they carry a substantial amount of debt.

Not doudt you are fare more qualified to understand financials based on your education. I will never dispute that. But let me share with you a statement from a independant CPA just as qualified as you.

Scott Czaja (Haynie & Company)

"As the independant accountant for Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife, I am writing to address recent questions regarding SFW. There is very clearly an attempt to put SFW on the hot seat. I have seen this with other non-profit organizations in the past. This is a common tatic which the IRS refers to as a "campaign of harrassment". The IRS has warned charities against being coerced or intimidated by parties which have an adversarial position to the charity. They have instructed that this is often done in an attempt to gain access to privileged or confidentail information that non-fiduciaries have no legal rigt to obtain. SFW is current in all of its tax filings. Aditionally, SFW meets or exceeds all IRS disclosures standards and just recently provided a very detailed accounting to its advisory board. In my professional opinion, the amount of money SFW raises and contributes to mission accomplishment is very generous when compared with similarly positioned non-profit organizations. As the past Chairman of the Utah Association of CPA's Non-Profit Committee (and current member of this committee) and as a Certified Public Accountant with 36 years of practice experience, I question why anyone would suggest that the contrary is true."

Like I stated earlier it does not matter what SFW provides or does it will never change the mind of certain individuals. I think it would be unwise if SFW Leadership did not listen to an individual with the experience and qualifications as Scott Czaja!

It was stated that Tranparency is something done from the get go and not worked towards.
If that were the case with RMEF maybe that would not have been put on probation for Co-Mingling Funds!

The rules are very clear, a seperate account has to be created to deposit Conservation Permit Money in. It surprises me that an organization so transparent and with the staff they employee could not follow such a simple rule! Funny no other group had that problem.

Several refrences have been made concerning the % of money raised that actually goes towards the mission of the group. Obviousley their is a contradiction on what SFW reports and the Agency cited by Randy.

For the sake of argument lets go with the lesser. What does this say about groups that may have a higher rating? If accurate would it not say that SFW gets more done with less?

It is not even arguable that SFW hands down puts more private moneys on the ground than any other group! Since it seems as though we have set RMEF as the standard to work toward, lets hear what they have put into the State of Utah excluding conservation permit money?

A few years back I was traveling up Sigard Canyon in Southern Utah. We passed a friend that works for the Forest Service who was brush hoging the side of the HWY to increase visability for motorist in hopes of decreasing wildlife road kill (Deer & Elk).

He was loading up his equipment when we stop to talk to him. He told us that he had ran out of money for fuel and was going to have to quit before he was finished with the job.
He told us that he had asked RMEF for money to finish the job $1,500 dollars.
They would not commit to help. Keep in mind that this individual has servered on the local RMEF committee for years and donates to them and other organizations on a regualar basis.

With one phone call a check was put in the mail to cover the fuel. Fund's generated by the local SFW committee.

SFW does not have to rush in order to show projects being accomplished. We have a long track record of putting our money & time where our mouth is.

It's really as simple as this. Had exsisting Conservation Groups been doing their job there would not have been a need for SFW to be formed.
The fact of the matter is the majority of these groups are non exsistant when it comes to the hard or devisive issue's. One only needs to attend a RAC or Wildlife Board Meeting to see who is there!

The last round of RAC's dealt with Deer & Elk Mangement Plans and the Conservation Permit Rule.

RMEF attended one RAC meeting
MDF attended the Board meeting

The only other groups there were SFW & UWC. SFW is the only group that attended all of them.
You would think it would be important to attend the meeting concerning the specie your organization represents!

X-treme
Troy Justensen
 
Troy-

Does RMEF receive any Convention Permits from the State of Utah? No. Please focus on the core issue for just a minute and stop blaming other groups and indviduals. There are only two groups that currently receive Convention Pemits: SFW and MDF. The vast majority of the comments and concerns expressed on these forums relate to, and the only issue addressed by the UWC's proposed rule amendment is, the Convention Permits.

The facts relating to the Convention Permits are simple. Each year SFW and MDF receive 200 premium permits to "generate revenue for wildlife conservation activites." The groups raise upwards of a million dollars a year from the application fees for those permits. Surprisingly, there is no requirement that any of those monies be spent on actual conservation activities. Neither the DWR nor the State of Utah require any accounting for those funds. SFW and MDF have consistently refused to provide any accounting for those funds. The sportsmen of the State of Utah are angry and frustrated and would like to know how "their money" is being spent. UWC has submitted a proposal to the DWR that will fix this problem and require the same accounting, auditing and transparency procedures that apply to the Conservation Permits. The UWC's proposed amendment will not jeopardize the Expo. Rather, it will ensure that the Convention Permits are fulfilling the purpose for which they were created.

I only have one question for you -- are SFW and MDF willing to support the UWC's proposed rule amendment and, in your words, "move towards increased transparency?" If not, please explain why not.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-26-12 AT 11:53AM (MST)[p]Hawkeye--- All his post stated was more BS trying to justfy that which can't be. Send in the next SFW employee/follower so they can take a beating! How can he come back and say he read that accounting of RMEF spending and even speak of SFW in the same post doing so? It looks like at least one employee has now come to realize that with this groundswell they are fighting for their job that the public has been paying for with tag generated money. To put that quote up by the SFW accountant is both laughable and ludicrous. Maybe he should go seek help from BO next and maybe BO will issue an Executive Priviledge order to try and take the heat off the SFW like he is for himself and Holder, LOL!
 
Troy,

"It does not change the way I feel or how I will move forward. I do not need a statement or saying to define who I am or what I stand for!"
Unfortunately we all have statements and sayings of who we are and what we stand for. You may not need the NAM but you are tied to others. A simple statement of going to bed so you could awake and play church ball was enough of a statement and saying to give insight to who you are.

I applaud you if you can decipher the RMEF financial and realize the faults of it and where SFW's reports and CPA statement are stronger. I know I was confused trying to make sense of it. I hope a CPA helps me understand these documents better. You may believe SFW is great for doing more with less; however I see it as a case of good, better and best. It is obvious SFW is only doing good as there is 52% discrepancy left on the table with which I am sure SFW could do better or best.

I will agree that SFW is often quick to help sportsman's programs with funding and it is a benefit to how it is set up. However, it is not fail proof as projects have been turned down when asking for SFW funds, so it is not always as you portrayed it.

As for RAC attendance I will say it again IMO SFW has created a political system in Utah that discourages people from attending RAC and Wildlife Board Meetings. Too many of us have seen over the years as SFW cronies are appointed to key positions and then direct business according to the SFW will. I find it somewhat disheartening that the UDWR director has taken all of the heat because I believe Director Styler of the DNR and Blackham head of the Dept. of Ag are also individuals that have facilitated the Utah system. It is the system in Utah that has created the apathy not the other way around. How many times will you go to the well that only serves one master if you are not the master?

I do not know if you were on the Capital steps when SFW arose. However, it had little to do with how other Conservation Groups were doing their job. In fact I believe that is another Johnny comes lately excuse. Now why don't you quit trying to counter punch and take a jab with some facts now might support your argument?

I do have a question I believe you have the answer to.
Has SFW used the 30% or 60% conservation money to purchase SFW held assets?
 
Anyone who truly believes in transparency and accountability will support the UWC proposal. Not one single reason has been provided for objecting to this proposal.

It is time for this proposal to be put on the Commission meeting agenda and discussed formally, on the record at the next meeting. Then we will see if the DWR, SFW, and MDF really support transparency and accountability. If Jim and the DWR do not support this proposal, they better have a really good reason.

MDF and SFW may or may not support the proposal based on their own self interest (and at their peril), but their is no excuse for the DWR wanting to hide this information.

Bill
 
Michael

You better throw a harder punch I am still standing. I guess I haven't been beat enough yet.

And I guess the hat dont fit! By the way I prefer Resitol 7 5/8 white,shaped like Tom Horn's!

I am not fighting for my job. I made a living prior to this job and I am more than capable of doing it again!

Infact I look forward to the day that I can return to volunteer status like I was before I took this job.

Jason both SFW & MDF will have to decide if they will support UWC's proposed rule change.

Personally I do not think they will. And if I were a betting man I would beat that neither group will back it. I may be wrong, I guess we will waite and see.

Like I have stated in the past I believe this is different than Conservation Permits it is an application fee!

Very different from an actual Permit Voucher! RMEF was invited to participate in the beging but chose not too.

I believe the application fee's generated are no different than those generated by Fallon Nevada!

I know you do not agree with this so we will have to agree to disagree.

To say there is no accounting is not true! Is not providing a sheet summerizing the projects that we have funded through Convention/Banquet dollars a form of accounting?

It is not what you want but to say there is no accounting is not accurate!

Michael why is the statement from Scott laughable? Is he not as qualified as Randy? Is he not an independant CPA? Has he not audited SFW's Book's and found them to be inline with what is required?

There are 4 years left on the current agreement. Like Jim pointed out where were you guys when this went through the public RAC system last time? and the time before?

We will see who shows up this round! I hope those that are so opposed to this rule will actually take the time to attend rather than talk big behind a computer screen.

It takes a little more effort to make the drive and physically get up and talk in front of people. Jason I know you have put fourth that effort along with a few others here, but I am interested to see just how many guys are willing to show up. I guess only time will tell.

X-treme
Troy Justensen
 
Travis not exactly sure what you are refrencing to? Just come right out and ask it.

If I dont have the answer I will try and find it.


X-treme
Troy Justensen
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-26-12 AT 01:35PM (MST)[p]Has SFW spent Conservation tag money on SFW Assets, (i.e. land purchases habitat restoration equipment etc.) where title is held in SFW's name after the completion of the project. This could either be the 60% held by the organization to be used on projects they request or the 30% awarded back to the oganization by the DWR.

Pretty simple has conservation tag money bought SFW (real)property?

I did not tyhink I would have to paint a picture to someone so adept at reding financial statements.

By the way the permits Handled through Fallon are per contract of which I am sure is up for bid. Maybe that is how convention permits should be handled bid on THEM to see who is going to provide the best deal to the state. A definite contrast to having the DWR award them to organiztions to use as chum for attending their expo.

Travis
 
"I am not fighting for my job. I made a living prior to this job and I am more than capable of doing it again!
Infact I look forward to the day that I can return to volunteer status like I was before I took this job.
Jason both SFW & MDF will have to decide if they will support UWC's proposed rule change.
Personally I do not think they will. And if I were a betting man I would beat that neither group will back it. I may be wrong, I guess we will waite and see."

***Really! Who will pay your salary if the SFW loses close to one million dollars generated by that $5 fee per ticket if the UWC proposal would go through? I'm sure Don will give you a big chunk of his consulting fees to make up for the money they won't have to pay you! Gee, why am I not surprised that you don't think SFW/MDF will go along with that proposal, LOL! Why not answer tha question Travis asked as it looked pretty straight forward to me. However, no question asked of SFW ever seems to be answered by other than another question or beating around the bush. The $5 per ticket amounts to big money not accounted for the way it should be, regardless of what you want call it! SFW is taking a 100% cut, not just a nice slice of the pie on those 200 tags, no ifs, ands, or buts!
 
X-treme says: "Michael why is the statement from Scott laughable? Is he not as qualified as Randy? Is he not an independant CPA? Has he not audited SFW's Book's and found them to be inline with what is required?"

How can you be an independent CPA when you're on SFW's Executive Advisory Board?

SFW?s Executive Advisory Board: Todd Abelhouzen, Kevin Pritchett, Kurt Wood, Dave Woodhouse, and Scott Czaja CPA, Hanie & Company
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-26-12 AT 01:49PM (MST)[p]AZB---I'm glad you addressed that because I was going to in my other post and had to take the dog out for a few minutes. These guys just keep coming up with BS that is so easy to contradict with facts that it's unreal. The guy is a paid employee doing their bookkeeping, on their Board, and Troy asks why I'm laughing. Are these guys all just plain stupid or what?, LOL!
 
Yep! See my post #154 where I told him he should go seek BO and get an Executive Priviledge order issued to take the heat off SFW like BO is doing for Holder and himself on the "Fast & Furious" Congressional investigation, LOL!
 
X-Treme - again, you show how knowledgeable you are on such things.

At least you answered that we will not see SFW supporting the UWD request for transparency related to Expo tags. Thanks for confirming what most already knew.

Troy, ask Scott if he would be allowed to issue an Independent Auditor's Report on the Financial Statements of SFW, as a member of the SFW advisory committee. Please ask him, and post his answer here.

I can save you the work. He cannot. As a member of your advisory board, he would be prohibited from doing so, as he would not be considered indpendent. But, please, ask him, and post it here.

I am sure Scott is a good guy and a very smart guy. I would love to see you post his answer.

Your comprehension of the issues at hand do not make you a good advocate for the cause SFW has sent you to fight. Like ABE, I suspect you are a great guy, committed to the cause of conservation.

After asking Scott about his ability to conduct an audit of SFW, ask Scott what value his little paragraph, quoted in your post above, would hold in the professional standards of the profession he and I both share. I can assure you, it would get laughed at when pawned off as any official attestation to the the financial statements of any entity.

Then, ask Scott if he conducted an "audit" as you imply when you posted "Has he not audited SFW's Book's and found them to be inline with what is required?." Please, ask him that one and post his answer here.

I can spare you some time on that one, also. He did not conduct an audit. You have no clue what an audit is, or you would not have made such a foolish statement.

Your comparison of an adhoc paragraph from an non-independent CPA, who is an SFW insider, to that of an opinion issued by an Independent CPA firm who has spent weeks conducting audit tests, is like comparing a bar stool rumor to testimony under a Federal Grand Jury.

This is pitiful to see such a dedicated guy, such a loyal soldier, sent out to sing the party line, only be shown a fool. Signing off on this topic and heading to the sidelines on this topic would do your reputation a lot of favors.

You now think you know something about financial statements, when you make your comments on the RMEF statements. When it comes to these topics, your knowledge is so elementary, it does not even allow you to know how foolish your comments make you look. I suggest you start a new thread on the financial statements of them, DU, SCI, or any other group who has issued audited financial statements. It would give plenty of time to rebutt the misinformed assertions you made herein about RMEF.

Carry on, Troy.

Oh, and please answer MulePacker's question in post #159 about SFW holding title to assets paid for with auction tag money. Be careful how you answer that one.

Would love to see ABE, JBP, dkpeay, or any other "big auger" in the SFW franchise come out and answer MulePacker's question, on a public forum.

For those wondering why such a question as MulePacker's might be asked, SFW does have over $5,000,000 shown as land and buildings on their 2010 balance sheet.


9066990_land.jpg



"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
"For those wondering why such a question as MulePacker's might be asked, SFW does have over $5,000,000 shown as land and buildings on their 2010 balance sheet." - Big Fin post 165

Wow, SFW owns 5MM in land and buildings? Are these lands open to the public? SFW members, or is a it some sort of playground for the well-heeled SFW crowd?

Maybe I should just ask? What did all those public tags buy SFW???

"Whatever you are, be a good one."
- Abraham Lincoln
 
MNHunter---With the small membership they actually have, I'll wager a bet that all that land and those building worth 5 mil wasn't all from donations, LOL!
 
The renewal of the convention permits I belive was done in Oct. HMM what do most hunters do in Oct? What a good time for a rac meeting. LOL
 
Deerlove, It is interesting as to who attends the WLB. As Tye can tell you, if the subject is emportant to a person they make an effort to attend. There are a few, very few where there is a crowd. When they were doing the unit change last year, You needed a shoe horn to get people in there and they opened sections. When it came to the board meeting that was to have numbers of hunting permits and antlerless permits, and what permits would be used for the convention tags, as well as the convention tag numbers that was a big issue, there were a handful of people. Maybe 10 of the public. Most are DWR employees.
 
Topgun, Just for you, yes that much is donated and more. Millions from one individual almost covers that full amount. Have a great evening.
 
Question from an out of stater---How well publicized are these meetings, how far ahead of time are notices given, and what time of the day or night are they usually held?
 
>Question from an out of stater---How
>well publicized are these meetings,
>how far ahead of time
>are notices given, and what
>time of the day or
>night are they usually held?
>

The schedule for the meetings is available well in advance, but hardly publicized.

The Wildlife Board meetings are at 9 AM during the middle of the week.
http://unitedwildlifecooperative.org
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-26-12 AT 08:03PM (MST)[p]Birdman. Did SFW use convention or conservation tag money to purchase real property? Simple question. I am still waiting for your other reply via PM.
 
Thanks Tye! So they're poorly publicized and held when the common average Joe is at work. On top of that the big decision on tags was made during hunting season---hmm! very interesting!

Birdman---Thanks for that information, but how do you know and is there anything to back that statement up other than you just know it's a fact? As far as the question being asked of you by Utah400Elk, how would you know that information when nobody else in the heirarchy will say or seems to know how to answer it?
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-26-12 AT 08:56PM (MST)[p]>There are 4 years left on
>the current agreement. Like Jim
>pointed out where were you
>guys when this went through
>the public RAC system last
>time? and the time before?
>
>
>We will see who shows up
>this round! I hope those
>that are so opposed to
>this rule will actually take
>the time to attend rather
>than talk big behind a
>computer screen.
>
>It takes a little more effort
>to make the drive and
>physically get up and talk
>in front of people. Jason
>I know you have put
>fourth that effort along with
>a few others here, but
>I am interested to see
>just how many guys are
>willing to show up. I
>guess only time will tell.
>
>
>X-treme
>Troy Justensen

I think you've forgotten where you came from.

I can't speak for others, but I can tell you where was I prior to 2008 when the RAC and WIldlife Board meetings were taking place! At Cedar High School sweeping floors and cleaning toilets 'til 9:30 pm.

It's easy for you to say that it takes a "little more effort" when you're just doing your job by showing up at the meetings, but for the vast majority of Utahns it's more than just a "little more effort"! I'm now retired and, financially, I think I'm just like most of the hunters in Utah in that I have enough, but I have to watch where it goes. The trips to the Southern RACs (Beaver, Richfield, Cedar) are quite doable, but the trip to Salt Lake costs me $150 in gas. (We own a home and have married children in Magna so housing isn't an issue.) It's a major expense that in some months is hard to justify.

And besides the money, time is a major issue. With family, work, church, sleep and other commitments, those RAC and Wildlife Board meetings can't be very high on the time priority lists.

As far is speaking up at the meetings, for many of us that's also more than a "little more effort" I'm getting better at it, but is has taken some time which many people aren't willing or able to take. The fear overpowers the passion!

Finally, there are far too many folks who have had bad experiences at those meetings because you "professionals" seem to take over the meeting. I've been at Southern RAC meetings where SFW was offically represented by 4 different speakers who each got their 5 minutes because they all "represented" a different chapter (Washington, Iron, Beaver, Richfield and/or State) and they spoke on almost every issue brought up running the meeting 4 to 6 hours long. Who wants to continue going to meetings like that, especially when the decisions are unfavorable to them?

You're waiting for 150,000 outdoorsmen and women to change their long-lived priorities on time, money and effort? It ain't gonna happen by the next round of meetings, but I think you'll see many more of them as time goes on. They're catching on!
 
Travis

In answer to your question yes property's has been purchased with Conservation permit Money that SFW holds title too. This has been brought up before and for specific details I would refer you to Byron Bateman & Jim Karpowitz.

There are restrictions on the property's acquired by CP monies and yes all property's have always been open to the public for access and recreation.

Michael before the convention came along I still recieved a pay check. My income is not soley dependent on the convention.

Randy since you are real good at answering questions you ask of others would you still like me to ask Scott?

The advisory board was created about a year ago prior to that Scott still did our financials.

The board was created in an effort to provide checks and balances and add transparency for our members. Its is made up of both people outside of SFW and some committee guys as well.

Like I stated prior it does not matter what SFW does it will never be good enough for our critic's.

You acuse me of not answering the questions asked. What have I missed.

1- No Randy is not going to have access to SFW Check Register

2- No I do not support UWC's Proposal

3- Yes SFW does hold title to property Purchased with CP money. If I remeber correctly it was a combination of private funds and CP money. Byron & Jim can answer this better than I.

4- Yes I support SFW becoming more Transparent

X-treme
Troy Justensen
 
Troy-

You state that you personally do not support the UWC proposal but you do support SFW becoming more transparent.

My question remains the same -- does SFW support the UWC proposal and if not why not? I am not playing games with this question. I sincerely would like to know SFW's official position on this issue. If you are not authorized to speak on behalf of SFW would you please check with Byron? There are many sportsmen out there who would like to hear SFW's official position on the proposed rule amendment.

Thanks.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
You don't support the UWC proposal but you support SFW becoming more transparent? That is exactly what we are asking for. What specifically in the proposal is not acceptable? We are all ears (or eyes in this case, you have our attention since you're the only one who seems to have full access and speaks for the powers that be).

How does a non profit justify owning hard assets in the form of title on property purchased with CP money obtained with public assets(tags)?

Just want to understand how over the almost past 20 years this has helped big game herds in Utah or how it will help in the future because in this very moment, I personally don't see it.

Shawn Spring
UWC Southern Utah Co-Chair
 
Troy,

Thanks for the answers.

I do see a conflict of using money earned from public resources to buy private assets and now after years of asking and finding my assumptions to be correct I hope I can rectify a system that allows such.

As for those who will speculate all of the bad in this. Of the properties I was skeptical of let me say that they have not been shut off of public use and have seen slight improvements under SFW's ownership IMO.

However, I now would ask if any of these properties in all or part have been sold? Are there are leases or contracts that allow income off of these properties? If so does that income go into the general account of SFW or is it placed into the holding account for conservation permit monies? I understand interest accrued from conservation permit holdings is allowed to be kept by the managing organizaion by rule. Do you know if there is a rule that addresses other income made from conservation permit such as land sales and leases?

Thanks again Troy.
 
I am curious who brokered the purchase of the lands held by SFW and what kinds of commissions were paid. I bet that money trail would be a fun one to follow.

Nemont
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-27-12 AT 10:12AM (MST)[p]Travis

I am not sure on the sale and income generated from these property's. I will check. I do know they are listed on SFW's website.

Like I stated before there are others (Byron & Jim) that have far more knowledge of these Property's than me.
Not all of the Property's were purchased with CP money!

Some of the reasons for purchasing these Property's was to maintain Sportsman's Access and to prevent the loss of habitat (Mostly Winter Range) due to development!
They are open to the public and always will be. SFW pays the taxes on them and has put some money into improving them.

Unlike the rule that allows Group's to retain the intreset generated from CP money I do not think there is any language or rule that applies to property's purchased with CP money. I am not sure though.
I do think it is revelent to point out that SFW is one of the few groups that returns the interest generated by CP sales to the DWR!

One will be better served by calling Byron or Jim to gain additional information concerning these property's. Byrons number is on SFW's website. Give him a call.

Jason I cannot speak for SFW on UWC's proposal,for the simple fact they have not formed one.I will ask them today for an official position on the amendment.

One could view the public process that was went through to pass the Convention Permit Drawing as a form of a bid.
All the Major Conservation Groups were invited to participate and a few chose not too.

We can continue to debate what was agreed too and what wasnt but I am quit sure this will all come out at this round of RAC's. I hope it will generate more participation than the last round did concerning the CP rule!
The public was given the opportunity to comment and the proposal was passed.

Now that does not say that it cant be changed in the future, but I beleive the same process needs to be followed!

Travis I apologize for asking you to spell out what you were asking, but like many critic's have pointed out here I am stupid,slow and out of my league.

X-treme
Troy Justensen
 
Troy said: "Jason I cannot speak for SFW on UWC's proposal,for the simple fact they have not formed one. I will ask them today for an official position on the amendment."

Thanks Troy. I look forward to hearing SFW's official position. I would hope that both SFW and MDF see the importance of addressing this issue. It has been ignored far too long. Thank you again for following up with the decision makers.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-27-12 AT 10:54AM (MST)[p]What's happened? The last 8 (now 9 )posts have been civil, informnative, and a pleasure to read. I miss the name-calling, insinuendoes, snide remarks, geneological references and falsehoods! NOT!!! Keep it up fellas and we'll actually get somewhere!
 
X-treme (147 posts)
Jun-27-12, 07:55 AM (MST)
176. "RE: RMEF WantsTransparency on Special Permits"
Travis
In answer to your question yes property's has been purchased with Conservation permit Money that SFW holds title too. This has been brought up before and for specific details I would refer you to Byron Bateman & Jim Karpowitz.
There are restrictions on the property's acquired by CP monies and yes all property's have always been open to the public for access and recreation


*** Question for Hawkeye or Big Fin---If this property was purchased with any monies from the sale of public tags, would that not be improper, if not downright illegal? It would seem that Utah is either lax on all their standards the more I see of this tag situation or things have not been brought to the attention of the AG's Office for proper resolution.
 
Troy,

Thanks again and I apologize also as some of my frustrations have shown through in my comments.

I will back up I do not think unwise choices have been made when it comes to protecting lands and trust that SFW is holding those lands for the benefit of Sportsman. My concern is using public resources to purchase private assets and then the long term interest of those assets. I believe there must be provisions for additional income from these purchases by conservation tag money requiring profits to be returned into the conservation fund. I also beleive a huge conflict exists in ownership, IMO these should be Public Trust lands rather than private holdings.

I am currently working on a letter to Director Karpowitz about my concerns. I will be sure to copy SFW along with other public officials and Conservation Organizations etc. Hopefully we will get an answer to the definition and legalities of this practice.

Troy thanks for addressing the issues.
 
X-treme:

Thank you for providing answers. I mean that seriously. If answers and full information were provided more often, this process could probably die a quick death.

One of my many questions in preparing for the debate was to investigate the long list of work accomplished in Utah, some with auction tag money and much without. Don gave me his list that he had asked for from DWR. It only covered 2010-11.

When I talked to DWR people about the list, it became apparent that in previous years, auction money was used to purchase properties, but SFW was the holder of the properties.

It was only reasonable for me to investigate that further, if we were to debate the Utah model.

My research provided that many in DWR knew that auction money was being used for this purpose. How this was handled, who approved, to what degree, under what terms, still remains a mystery, at least to me.

Maybe DWR will provide all the details now, putting that issue to bed. Until DWR comes forward with all details, I hope you can see how failing to do so may taint the Director's heavy stroking of Don and SFW on these threads.

To most, the fact that the Utah Model allows for non-profits to own the assets purchased with auction tag money, public money, is a major concern, and rightfully so. Hopefully you can understand why people in other states who see the Utah Model coming to their state, have questions. And, why people in other states have taken an interest when the Utah Model is what is funding the SFW franchises in other states.

From this, I hope people can see my one requirement that if the Utah Model were to be part of the debate, it was necessary to paint the full picture of what is going on, rather than just the pretty part of the story that was provided by SFW.

I did question it when a few within DWR told me of this use of auction proceeds to purchase land now held by SFW, but I guess we now know. Thanks for verifying.

Now, the remaining questions on that topic seems to be, to what degree, how is the state investment protected, and does the Utah hunter expect that to be corrected?

Imagine the fool I would have been to get up in a debate, having much information that state money was used to buy assets in the name of SFW, but I did nothing to rebut Utah auction tags as being such a great idea, as I did not have access to the financial information. Hopefully you can now understand why I requested the financial information if we were to include the Utah Model as part of the debate.

I hope the many other questions about auction permit monies, auction tag allocation numbers and units, use of that money and who is benefitting, eventually get answered.

The Expo has a ton of questions, and it is a part of the Utah Model Don wanted to include in the debate. That is a program where the statute says proceeds should be used for conservation. Therefore I think there was value in discussing the topic as part of the debate, so long as transparency existed as to how the funds were used. Not just some explanation by those benefiting from the Expo funds; not just a discussion of the net funds after everyone got to dip their cup in the well; but all funds coming from the Expo activity.

It is a very large pool of money that has a lot of siphons tapped into it. Or, so I am told by a few on the inside who would know. If those leads are true, I am certain we will never get to see the Expo books, going back to the very first Expo.

Until such questions are answered by a review of the Expo finances, they are only rumors. I am not going to a debate and try to press rumors as fact, without having the information to know I am not bullshipping people.

And, I am not going to a debate when so many claims exist about these problems and let the opposition sweep them all away, because I was not provided the information needed to rebut any claims.

For the sake of some, showing the entire history of Expo funds could turn out to be painful. Not sure if that would be any more, or any less, painful than having these topics continue to cause so much turmoil.

That is why all this financial information is relevant if the Utah Model, both the Expo and Auction tags, were to be part of the debate.


Thanks again for answering the questions you did.


"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
mulepacker---As I stated above, I think the Utah AGs Office should should look into the legality of SFW owning those properties. Therefore, I would suggest a copy of your letter go to that Office.
 
MulePacker, I was challanged by Fishon about contacting the DWR director. I sent an email and ended up having a phone conversation with him. As Troy has said, call and ask questions to get the answers. It was all done with the State suggesting that the land be bought with the monies and be used for winter range be open to the public. No one is hiding the fact that the money was used to buy the property, the problem is everyone seems to be jumping at conclusions and not finding the facts and why it was done.
 
It looks like more information and answers are coming. It is nice to see people being civil. I'm sure there are checks and balance with SFW property. The one that I was involved with, the owner Dale Weeks wanted it to stay open for sportsmen and wildlife. It is located in Smithfield Utah. One acre was sold for Smithfield City for a water tank. A guzzler was made to help wildlife and hopefully keep more deer and wildlife of roads and Birch Creek golf course.

It has been a win, win for both the Weeks family and sportsmen. It provides public access to wilderness and stopped development on those 160 acreas. It provides and protects an area to feed deer on hard winters.

I know of a piece of property the DWR used to have near Bear Lake that they sold. I wished they would have kept the property for winter range. I don't know why they didn't. I don't have all the answers. There needs to be checks and balances. Just because the DWR has some property doesn't mean it is forever safe. We need to protect critical land for wildlife or we wont have much to hunt down the road.

I hope we can work together to have a good future.
 
You say noone is hiding the fact that Expo money was used to buy the land and yet you did not answer the question, and until Troy finally just answered it today it was up in the air. I find it hard to fathom that State executives allowed and even suggected, as you have now ststed, for monies made through the sale of public assets be spent on land placed in the name of a private entity. That is just plain wrong, regardless of why anyone says it was done, and it needs to be rectified and placed in the public sector ASAP.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-27-12 AT 02:13PM (MST)[p]Birdman,

You are so far behind you think your first. I have asked, the DWR and SFW these questions for years and got the standard answers you are receiving. However, when pressured for actual documents neither have been forthcoming in providing them. It is not alright if state money has purchased assets for a private company over a handshake agreement. We have made siginificant progress in the past couple of days. Believe me I have requests in to find out if the laws allow this arrangement to be valid. I told you before someones word is not enough for me, I am a cynic. If you are happy with trust me as the answer so be it. I don't find need in criticizing you for your effort or trust. I would expect the same consideration for my desire to see for myself.

Greg, can i take this sling off so I can type?
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-27-12 AT 02:49PM (MST)[p]So much for being civil, as I see the wolfman is back stirring the pot and not adding anything positive to the mix! Anyway, when the DWR sells properties does it go through public meetings/hearings so that the public can weigh in with positive or negative comments before a sale is completed? It would seem that should be the proper way to do things such that a piece of property as you mentioned is not lost forever to the public if it's of value to wildlife, etc. Also, I would submit that if property is owned by the taxpayers, it would and should be much harder to sell without going through the proper procedures than if it were held by a private entity such as SFW, who might be able to sell it with little or no oversight to the detriment of the public interest.
 
Greg,

I am not sure as to what Bear Lake property you are referring to but that does not matter. The DWR has sold many properties over the years.

However, here is the difference.

When the DWR sells property titled to them the money accrued is returned to the public.

When SFW sells property that was purchased with public money how is the money returned to the public? Another view if SFW uses that property for collateral and was to lose the property. How is the public reimbursed? There are so many questions and scenarios as to whether it is legal or wise to allow the public resource and funding to purcahse assets that become titled to a private organization it would take years to discuss them.

This is the same scenario as public school dollars funding private charter schools. I think that battle was just fought.

For now we will just focus on the legalities of whether this should have ever happened.
 
No Mulepacker, I am not behind the times. All that I said is quit trying to get hearsay answers and call Jim Karpowitz and get the information from the head guy. He is one that knows what is going on and when property was bought and what the rules are. That is not hear say. It comes straight from the horses mouth.
 
Several people have asked over the last couple of days if the Conservation Permit rule allows Conservation Permit funds to be used to purchase property in the name of the a conservation organization. While I am no expert on the ins and outs of the Conservation Permit, a simple reading of the rule reveals a few basic provisions that may apply to the question of SFW purchasing lands in its own name with Conservation Permit funds.

Section R657-41-9, entitled ?Conservation Permit Funds and Reporting,? includes several provisions that touch on this issue. Subsection 5(b) outlines the requirements for the 60% of the funds that can be retained for the conservation group (?retained revenue?) to be used for approved conservation projects. Section 5(b) provides as follows:

(b) 60% of the revenue may be retained and used by the conservation organization only for eligible projects as provided in subsections (i) through (ix).

(i) eligible projects include habitat improvement, habitat acquisition, transplants, targeted education efforts and other projects providing a substantial benefit to species of wildlife for which conservation permits are issued.

(ii) retained revenue shall not be committed to or expended on any eligible project without first obtaining the division director's written concurrence.

(iii) retained revenue shall not be used on any project that does not provide a substantial and direct benefit to conservation permit species located in Utah.

(iv) cash donations to the Wildlife Habitat Account created under Section 23-19-43, Division Species Enhancement Funds, or the Conservation Permit Fund shall be considered an eligible project and do not require the division director's approval, provided the donation is made with instructions that it be used for species of wildlife for which conservation permits are issued.

(v) retained revenue shall not be used on any project that is inconsistent with division policy, including feeding programs, depredation management, or predator control.

(vi) retained revenue under this subsection must be placed in a federally insured account. All interest revenue earned thereon may be retained and used by the conservation organization for administrative expenses.

(vii) retained revenue shall not be used by the conservation organization as collateral or commingled in the same account with the organization?s operation and administration funds, so that the separate identity of the retained revenue is not lost.

(viii) retained revenue must be completely expended on or committed to approved eligible projects by September 1, two years following the year in which the relevant conservation permits are awarded to the conservation organization by the Wildlife Board. Failure to commit or expend the retained revenue by the September 1 deadline will disqualify the conservation organization from obtaining any future conservation permits until the unspent retained revenue is committed to an approved eligible project.

(ix) all records and receipts for projects under this subsection must be retained by the conservation organization for a period not less than five years, and shall be produced to the division for inspection upon request.

(Emphasis added).

According to the highlighted language of subsection (i), eligible projects include ?habitat improvement, habitat acquisition, . . . and other projects providing a substantial benefit to species of wildlife for which conservation permits are issued.? I will leave it to someone smarter than me to determine if purchasing the subject properties in the name of SFW falls into one or more of these approved categories.

It is also clear that no project can be funded with retained revenues without the Director?s ?written concurrence? and such projects must ?provide a substantial and direct benefit to conservation permit species located in Utah.? I suppose that somebody could request a copy of the DWR director?s written concurrence for each such transaction. It would be interesting to see if the Director imposed any restrictions or provided any guidance to the group in his written concurrence.

Although the language of subsection (vii) specifically addresses the ?commingling of funds,? the purpose of that provision appears to be to preserve the ?separate identity? of the ?retained revenues.? A logical argument could be made that this same policy prohibits the conservation organization from holding title to the purchased properties. After all, the purpose of the subsection (vii) is to maintain the separate identity of the retained revenues, and by extension, the properties purchased with those revenues.

Finally, it is important to note that ?all records and receipts for projects? must be maintained for 5 years and ?shall be produced to the division for inspection upon request.? If the DWR does not have records regarding these transactions, it can certainly obtain copies of any such records for any projects funded in the last 5 years.

Based upon the language of the rule, it is unclear to me whether such transactions are authorized under the rule. As a policy matter, however, it seems pretty clear that if public assets are used to purchase private property to be held in the name of a private entity, the DWR and the groups involved better make darn sure that those properties maintain their ?separate identity? and are owned and used in such a way as to benefit the general public. I would also note that such transactions should be open, transparent and subject to review and comment from the general public. This is a very interesting issue and it would be interesting to hear SFW?s and Jim Karpowitz?s positions on the issue.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-28-12 AT 10:28AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jun-28-12 AT 10:25?AM (MST)

Thanks Hawkeye for weighing in on this. I am certainly not smart enough to interpet the rules. This helped, I am in the process of getting the documents for Conservation Permit expenditures. So we will see how purchases were approved. I hope the 5 years does not become an issue as some of the transactions will be older than 5 years. I figure the UDWR would need to keep record longer than 5 years.

I did go back and review the rule:

I believe that clause R657-41-9 5 (v) retained revenue shall not be used on any project that is inconsistent with division policy, including feeding programs, depredation management, or preator control.

I believe it would be against division policy to buy real property for private individuals with public funds not directly related to employment within the division.
 
Lets wait and see. Oh wait, you know as well as the rest of us that it wont happen.

Just look at all the good SFW has done with the properties for wildlife.
 
>It is also clear that no
>project can be funded with
>retained revenues without the Director?s
>?written concurrence? and such projects
>must ?provide a substantial and
>direct benefit to conservation permit
>species located in Utah.?
>I suppose that somebody could
>request a copy of the
>DWR director?s written concurrence for
>each such transaction. It
>would be interesting to see
>if the Director imposed any
>restrictions or provided any guidance
>to the group in his
>written concurrence.
>
>
>Finally, it is important to note
>that ?all records and receipts
>for projects? must be maintained
>for 5 years and ?shall
>be produced to the division
>for inspection upon request.?
>If the DWR does not
>have records regarding these transactions,
>it can certainly obtain copies
>of any such records for
>any projects funded in the
>last 5 years.
>
>Hawkeye


That sounds like a GRAMA request just waiting to happen.
 

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
309
bullskin
bullskin

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

B16CCEF2-4459-4292-BF7A-8FDA3829792D.jpeg
41225161-FACC-44D2-A9A2-CCA86A31468E.jpeg
F5006E40-599A-461E-8D04-C5DC721A4537.jpeg
302 copy.jpg
Monster Bull from the San Carlos
fullsizeoutput_3fb1.jpeg
fullsizeoutput_2af9.jpeg
6E8592FD-6A66-4C94-A65B-F7F496E2D8D7.jpeg
IMG_8772.jpeg
Parsnip Bull(3).JPG
IMG_7424.jpeg
20200823_084101.jpg
Back
Top Bottom