UDWR Board June meeting

[llamapacker]

The Wildife board just voted to maintain the Division's method of calculating conservation permit numbers. While the rule says 5% for most species, and 10% for sheep tags, the Division routinely rounds these numbers in such a way that it exceeds 5% significantly. In the case of pronghorn, a hard 5% cap would allow 25 conservation permits to be issued, but the Division's method of rounding allows 37 conservation permits to be awarded. I am disappointed with their decision.

I must say I was quite surprised to hear John Bair arguing strongly for the hard, 5% cap. Most other members of the board seemed only to want to focus on how much revenue they would lose by implementing the hard cap. There was no question that money was the motivating factor for most board members. I want to thank John for his efforts to push for the hard cap, and believe if he had made a motion for the hard cap, it probably would have passed. Several members of the public made statements supporting the 5% cap, although SFW seemed to be supporting the higher (rounded) numbers. It was a very confusing discussion once the public input was closed, with Board members making several competing proposals. Most of the proposals were never put to a vote, and the motion to accept business as usual cut off all other proposals. John did vote against the current proposal.

As a first step towards reigning in the excessive number of conservation tags, this proposal failed. It is clear that sportsmen's concerns are being herd, however, and we need to continue the outcry.

Bill

 

[Packout]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-06-12 AT 01:09PM (MST)[p]Actually, SFW supported the hard cap at 5% for all species but sheep. I met with them and talked about this issue and they ended up supporting the 5%. I give them credit for this. Well done to Bair for being willing to change his stance on the issue after he saw the issues voiced through the public process.

The waters were muddied to the point that everyone was confused. It was unfortunate they allowed the Chairman to make a motion and vote, as he missed a large part of the discussion and showed up late. Then he did not assume his role of Chairman, but voted as a non-chair member. (The Chairman usually does not vote, nor make a motion.) Such a divisive issue.

 

[Hawkeye]

Bill-

Thanks for posting a report. From my point of view, the Board's decisions were a mixed bag with respect to conservation permits. On one hand, they voted unanimously to require an annual report regarding the conservation program and to add language allowing for a reduction of conservation permits for limited entry species in the event that the number of public permits is reduced. However, they also adopted the DWR's proposal with regard to the table to determine the number of permits.

You are correct that the primary motivating factor appeared to be the money generated from the permits. I believe that the State, the Wildlife Board and the DWR are all addicted to the money. After all, it is hard to argue with the many wonderful projects that are funded through the conservation permit program. But, there needs to be balance, limitations and transparency. Unfortunately, the Board was simply unwilling to do anything that would result in a reduction in conservation permits--even if the DWR has been issuing too many permits under the current rule. What this tells me is that it is easy to justify an increase in conservation permits given the money generated therefrom but it is difficult, if not impossible, to reduce the number of permits once there are in place.

Other states should take a lesson from this. Although there are clearly benefits to the conservation permit program, it is akin to opening pandora's box. Once you go down that road, good luck turning back.

Thank you to all that commented to the board or otherwise participated.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD

 

[TOPGUN]

So is this 5% cap that should allow only 25 tags, but that the DWR is "rounding up" to make it 37, part of the "new math" the kids have been learning for some time? What the he** are they rounding to in order to go from 25 to way up 37 for God's sake? I don't mind saying that I'm completely lost on this one!

 

[llamapacker]

The "rounding issue" really should be called by a different name. I don't have their table in front of me, but it is something like this:
If a unit gives between 11-20 tags to the public, they issue 1 conservation permit.
If there are between 21-40 permits, they give 2 conservation permits.
And so on....
Clearly you are only at 5% when at the maximum number in a group, otherwise it is considerably more than 5%. Given the current tag allocations for each units, 37 conservation permits will be issued, not the 25 which would be issued if they actually followed the 5% rule. New math indeed....
Bill

 

[Zeke]

Good reporting Bill.
Thank you....and thanks to John for his vote. The guy is solid.
Zeke

 

[Birdman]

I believe at the end of the discussion there were three proposals that were offered. I also think that it was done over the money that is brought in. John Bair did say something about the speed goat tags did not bring in a ton of money. He should know the prices. With all that was discussed in the RAC's on the clearity of the tag situation I would have thought that the DWR would have wanted it to be clearer and I would have thought that the board would have also wanted it clearer. Not many there for the tag issue. Most there were over the increasing of elk numbers in different parts of the State. Now that was a war. There were lots agianst the increase of elk numbers.

 

[Robiland]

If we stop the # increase of elk, we also need to stop the projects that better the habitat or the elk too, wich in return help the cattle and the sheep. So I think that the cattle men need to back off just a bit. (not trying to be rude)
I feel that all of these habitat restoration projects that get done benefit all sides. My family has allowed people to run cattle and or sheep on our property on monroe mt. The cattle and sheep devistate the property. We did it for the green belt/tax benefit and also for the fire protection. BUT THEY DO THEY # on the property.

 

[tabbyhntr]

antelope shmantelope... look at the Henry's archery tags, only 3 go to public draw but according to the dwr report of how many tags each unit has, there are 9 resident archery tags!!! correct me if im wrong....

 

[deadibob]

If the DWR is breaking their own rules on this one, it seems a lawsuit would be a slam dunk to bring them into line.

 

[Hawkeye]

deadibob-

Two quick points.

First, the DWR was violating the rules by issuing conservation tags in excess of the statutory caps. However, they conveniently amended the rules to authorize what they were already doing.

Second, very few lawsuits are slam dunks. Take my word on this one.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD

 

[TOPGUN]

From what I'm gathering in reading this thread, the DWR has been in grave violation of the cap requirement and nobody did anything about it. Now they have legalized what should have never been allowed to continue in the first place the way it was written. Maybe now with this debate being cancelled the Utah guys should get together and quit griping about the closed books reason that caused it and focus on what they that can do to open them. I know there is another thread going where a number of members have offered donations and if they actually get something going there will be a check coming from MI to help them!

 

[grizzly]

I offered $100, but only got like three other guys that would commit too.

Either a bunch of people didn't see that thread, or it is a case of "talk is cheap".

Grizzly

 

[buttshot]

Like I said on the other thread, I'm in! $100.00 for a good cause!

 

[chubchub]

I would through money at it for sure!!!pretty weird how all that debate sh!t went down on one end

 

[DBLung]

Thanks Bill. Sounds like People are listening to us a little. John was the one I was most worried about. Do you know who voted for it? We need to corner them.

Thanks for the news.

 

[llamapacker]

As I recall John was the only one to vote against the proposal (authorizing in excess of 5% conservation permits.)
Bill

 

[Tree]

100% true. John was in favor of a 5% hard cap. SFW and UWC supported this as well. MDF supported the division recommendation that passed and Del Brady was the one who heavily favored their proposal. I believe Jake Albrecht supported it vocally as well.

Ernie Perkins had a proposal of his own that looked to be somewhere in the middle. I wish John would have made a motion.

In the end, it's the difference between a handful of tags, but it sets a precedence. In the future will it be ok to be in violation of rules/statutes and simply change the rule to fit the violation?

http://unitedwildlifecooperative.org