LAST EDITED ON Jun-11-17 AT 03:40AM (MST)[p]>Grizz gets it... The reason I
>brought up the fiasco of
>a 29 magic unit
>highly restrictive deer plan was to
>point out the fact that
>this plan was
>supported by a loose knit group
>of individuals and one lobbyist
>org.
>It was pushed through in spite
>of the two RACS that
>represent 80% of the States
>
>hunters voting against it as well
>as RMEF, MDF and UBA
>in opposition. Ironically one of
>the "loose knit individuals" responsible
>for "Option Magical 29 Units"
>still ain't happy.
>
>This happens when a system is
>over run by special interests.
>Wealth tags are a byproduct
>of a bigger problem.
>
>We could potentially lose 20 million
>from the expo bid corruption
>and over the life of
>the conservation tag payola we've
>lost 10% x any federal
>match for the funds given
>to the groups to sell
>a permit. ( 10% x
>4 real funds )
>
>So ya fix it by.
>1 wealth tag per LE species
>per group per RAC Region.
>
>no 10% commission to the groups,
>all funds go back to
>the DWR.
>
>Go to a three year period
>of phasing out bonus points.
>After three years
>its straight luck of the draw
>with no waiting periods.
>
>Forced public input via online survey
>when you purchase a hunting
>license.
>This way the RAC/WB gets input
>from hunters that aren't the
>same dozen or so dudes
>that get paid to go
>to these meetings.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>"If the DWR was just doing
>its job, and
>wildlife and hunting were the actual
>focus,
>none of this process would even
>matter.
>But that is not the focus
>or the goal in any
>
>of this. The current DWR regime,
>and
>SFW were born out of wildlife
>declines,
>and are currently operated and funded
>
>under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
>
>tags would not even be worth
>anything if
>the focus was where it was
>supposed to
>be, and wildlife and tags were
>plentiful.
>But under the current business model,
>
>that is how the money and
>power is
>generated. It is generated through the
>
>rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
>resource. A resource that is supposed
>to
>be being beneficially managed for the
>
>masses that own that resource, ie.
>US.
>The problem is obvious, hedging is
>not a
>long term sustainable strategy, and
>others have to lose, for some
>to win. In
>this case it is us, the
>many, and our
>resources, that are being forced to
>lose,
>because there is a minority who's
>power
>and money is derived from our
>loses."
>
>LONETREE 3/15/16
And a rollback of the 5 year extension of the Expo contract.
And a 90% DWR direct/10% SFW split of the Expo tag application funds with a provision included in the contract to provide manpower for DWR determined projects. Sorry, Gordy, but I'm ok with that split for both the Expo and Conservation tags as long as the 90% goes directly back to the DWR and the manpower is provided. Plus, (Sorry, Hawkeye) as far as I'm concerned, the 10% could be considered private funding per compensation for the distribution of permits by the organizations and doesn't need to be publically audited. The IRS can do that and we can read the 990 form.
And a 5% limit on ALL LE & OIL permits taken out of the public draw. (It's currently 5% for the Expo and another 5% for the Conservation Program.)
Now, whether or not those provisions would tame the beast which has gotten out of hand (IMO) is yet to be seen, but I think those programs could be valuable if they were run as was intended when they were set up. Otherwise, shut 'em down!