Hawkeye
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,014
Over the last few weeks, several of you have inquired regarding the status of the discussions between the DWR, SFW, MDF and UWC regarding the Convention Permits. I have been very busy with work, family and, of course, hunting. Therefore, I have not had a chance to provide an update until now. Please forgive the lengthy post but I prefer to provide as much information as possible so that the public will better understand what has taken place. At the outset, please note that these are my own personal comments and recollections. I do not speak on behalf of the UWC or any of the other groups involved. In fact, I would welcome any additional input that the groups might have on the issues.
As you recall, at the Wildlife Board Meeting in August, the Board stated that it would not modify the terms of the existing Convention Permit Contract or impose any additional requirements until the current contract expires. In the interim, however, the Board invited the DWR to meet with the groups and discuss the concerns raised by the UWC and the general public to see if any of those concerns could be addressed through voluntary changes to the Convention Permit Contract.
Jim Karpowitz, the former Director of the DWR, took the lead in these discussions. First, Mr. Karpowitz met with each of the three groups separately. Tye Boulter, President of the UWC, invited me to join him when he met with Mr. Karpowitz. As most of you know, I do not hold a leadership position in the UWC. In fact, I was not even a member at the time I began working with the UWC to address these problems. However, Tye invited me to participate given my prior involvement. Mr. Karpowitz invited us to his office on August 21, 2012. During that meeting, we discussed the general public?s concerns regarding the lack of transparency and accountability relating to the Convention Permits. Given the recent decision from the Wildlife Board, we focused our discussions on potential compromises that the two groups involved in the Expo might voluntarily make in an effort to address the concerns of the public. From my point of view, this discussion was quite helpful and I appreciate Mr. Karpowitz for facilitating it. At the conclusion of our meeting, Mr. Karpowitz informed us that he would also be meeting separately with MDF and SFW, and then he would like to schedule a meeting with all three groups.
On October 3, 2012, we were invited back to the DWR?s offices for a joint meeting with Mr. Karpowitz and the leadership from MDF and SFW. Miles Moretti and Eric Tycksen represented MDF, and Byron Bateman and Ryan Foutz represented SFW. During that meeting, Mr. Karpowitz updated us on his discussions with the three separate groups and told us that he believed there was some room for compromise. However, he reminded us that any concessions would have to be voluntary until the contract comes back up for renewal?at which point everything would be on the table. In an effort to address the UWC?s concerns, the groups discussed the following four points:
1. The Funds from the $5 application fees for the Convention Permits should be segregated in a separate bank account similar to how the funds from Conservation Permits are currently handled.
2. Given the two express purposes for the Convention Permits (generating revenue to fund wildlife conservation activities and attracting a regional or national wildlife convention to Utah), the conservation groups should be allowed to retain some portion of the application fees to help pay for the costs of the drawing and the Expo.
3. The remainder of the application fees should be spent on approved conservation projects that benefit wildlife and sportsmen.
4. All projects funded with Convention Permit monies must have prior written approval from the director of the DWR?similar to the requirement that currently exists with regard to Conservation Permit projects.
A number of other issues and concerns were addressed but the groups ultimately focused on these four points as a potential compromise until the Convention Permit Contract comes back up for renewal and review. As you can imagine, the real sticking point was with point #2 ? what portion of the $5 application fees would be retained by the groups. Mr. Karpowitz proposed that the groups hosting the Expo be permitted to retain the same amount that the Nevada contractor charges the DWR for the regular draw (currently $3.12 per application). The conservation groups argued that they should be entitled to retain more than that given that they are hosting the Expo which greatly benefits wildlife, sportsmen and the DWR. We argued that the vast majority of the $5 application fees should be spent on actual conservation projects and the groups should only be permitted to retain a small portion to help offset the costs of the drawing. We noted that MDF and SFW have other sources of revenue at the Expo that could be used to offset other costs associated with the Expo generally.
After discussing these issues for nearly two hours, we ran out of time before we were able to reach an agreement on this issue. At that point, Mr. Karpowitz excused UWC (and me) and met separately with MDF and SFW. We knew all along that he would be meeting with them separately because they are parties to the Convention Permit contract, and any changes to that contract would only be made on a voluntary basis. At the time we left, we had not reached an agreement as to the amount that conservation groups would be permitted to retain from the $5 application fees. However, we agreed that those four points, if finalized and mutually agreed upon, would generally address our concerns until the Convention Permit Contract comes up for renewal.
It is my understanding that some time subsequent to our meeting, MDF and SFW eventually agreed to the allocation that Mr. Karpowitz proposed?allowing the conservation groups to retain an amount equivalent to that which the DWR pays its regular drawing contractor to cover the costs associated with the general drawing (currently $3.12 per application). As I mentioned before, we were not involved in that decision because neither the UWC nor me are parties to that contract. I have heard that the DWR prepared an amended Convention Permit Contract that incorporates the four points outlined above, with the allocation in point #2 being tied to what the DWR pays the Nevada entity for conducting the regular draw. I also understand that the amended contract also requires the groups to provide an annual report for the Convention Permits, which they voluntarily offered to do during the August Board Meeting. I have not seen a copy of the amended contract but look forward to reviewing it in the near future.
At the November 1st Wildlife Board Meeting, Mr. Karpowitz read a letter to the Board summarizing the discussions that had taken place and the agreement that was ultimately reached with MDF and SFW. I have included a copy of that letter below:
While I agree with the most of Mr. Karpowitz?s letter, it incorrectly implies that we (UWC and me) agreed to the allocation of the $5 application fees that was ultimately agreed to by MDF and SFW. At the time we left the October 3rd meeting, there was no agreement as to the amount that would be retained by the groups. Moreover, we were not involved in any of the subsequent discussions or in the process to amend of the existing contract. In fact, we did not even know that had occurred until sometime after the November 1st Board Meeting when we heard about the letter read by Mr. Karpowitz. Had we known about the amendment, we would have likely attended the Board Meeting to thank the DWR and the conservation groups for making these voluntary concessions and to clarify that we did not agree to the exact allocation agreed to by the DWR, MDF and SFW.
In an effort to clarify this issue, Tye Boulter of the UWC sent the following letter to the DWR and the Wildlife Board.
In his letter, Mr. Boulter thanks the DWR and the conservation groups for making these voluntary changes and acknowledges that this is a step in the right direction to create more transparency and openness. However, he clarifies that ?though a step in the right direction,? the voluntary changes ?still leave questions regarding fund distribution that we intend to address at a later date.?
I agree entirely with Tye Boulter. I am grateful that the DWR, MDF and SFW were willing to sit down and discuss these issues. I have been fairly critical of each of these groups over the last few years but I am more willing to recognize them when they do something right. I want to personally thank each of these groups and the individuals involved. Most importantly, I would like to thank each of you who got involved in the process by educating yourself, sending emails, making phone calls and attending the Wildlife Board Meeting. If it weren't for you, this issue would have continued to be ignored.
In summary, I understand that given the decision from the Wildlife Board, the conservation groups did not have to make any changes regarding the Convention Permits. They could have simply rode out the existing contract and ignored the complaints and concerns of the general public (even though that would have resulted in additional public outcry and scrutiny). The concessions they agreed to make to the existing contract were entirely voluntary. However, I look forward to further discussion regarding the allocation of the $5 application fees when the Convention Permit Rule and Contract come up for renewal. I still believe that the vast majority of that money should be put on the ground for actual projects. To quote Tye Boulter, we did not get everything we were asking for but this is a step in the right direction.
Hawkeye
Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
As you recall, at the Wildlife Board Meeting in August, the Board stated that it would not modify the terms of the existing Convention Permit Contract or impose any additional requirements until the current contract expires. In the interim, however, the Board invited the DWR to meet with the groups and discuss the concerns raised by the UWC and the general public to see if any of those concerns could be addressed through voluntary changes to the Convention Permit Contract.
Jim Karpowitz, the former Director of the DWR, took the lead in these discussions. First, Mr. Karpowitz met with each of the three groups separately. Tye Boulter, President of the UWC, invited me to join him when he met with Mr. Karpowitz. As most of you know, I do not hold a leadership position in the UWC. In fact, I was not even a member at the time I began working with the UWC to address these problems. However, Tye invited me to participate given my prior involvement. Mr. Karpowitz invited us to his office on August 21, 2012. During that meeting, we discussed the general public?s concerns regarding the lack of transparency and accountability relating to the Convention Permits. Given the recent decision from the Wildlife Board, we focused our discussions on potential compromises that the two groups involved in the Expo might voluntarily make in an effort to address the concerns of the public. From my point of view, this discussion was quite helpful and I appreciate Mr. Karpowitz for facilitating it. At the conclusion of our meeting, Mr. Karpowitz informed us that he would also be meeting separately with MDF and SFW, and then he would like to schedule a meeting with all three groups.
On October 3, 2012, we were invited back to the DWR?s offices for a joint meeting with Mr. Karpowitz and the leadership from MDF and SFW. Miles Moretti and Eric Tycksen represented MDF, and Byron Bateman and Ryan Foutz represented SFW. During that meeting, Mr. Karpowitz updated us on his discussions with the three separate groups and told us that he believed there was some room for compromise. However, he reminded us that any concessions would have to be voluntary until the contract comes back up for renewal?at which point everything would be on the table. In an effort to address the UWC?s concerns, the groups discussed the following four points:
1. The Funds from the $5 application fees for the Convention Permits should be segregated in a separate bank account similar to how the funds from Conservation Permits are currently handled.
2. Given the two express purposes for the Convention Permits (generating revenue to fund wildlife conservation activities and attracting a regional or national wildlife convention to Utah), the conservation groups should be allowed to retain some portion of the application fees to help pay for the costs of the drawing and the Expo.
3. The remainder of the application fees should be spent on approved conservation projects that benefit wildlife and sportsmen.
4. All projects funded with Convention Permit monies must have prior written approval from the director of the DWR?similar to the requirement that currently exists with regard to Conservation Permit projects.
A number of other issues and concerns were addressed but the groups ultimately focused on these four points as a potential compromise until the Convention Permit Contract comes back up for renewal and review. As you can imagine, the real sticking point was with point #2 ? what portion of the $5 application fees would be retained by the groups. Mr. Karpowitz proposed that the groups hosting the Expo be permitted to retain the same amount that the Nevada contractor charges the DWR for the regular draw (currently $3.12 per application). The conservation groups argued that they should be entitled to retain more than that given that they are hosting the Expo which greatly benefits wildlife, sportsmen and the DWR. We argued that the vast majority of the $5 application fees should be spent on actual conservation projects and the groups should only be permitted to retain a small portion to help offset the costs of the drawing. We noted that MDF and SFW have other sources of revenue at the Expo that could be used to offset other costs associated with the Expo generally.
After discussing these issues for nearly two hours, we ran out of time before we were able to reach an agreement on this issue. At that point, Mr. Karpowitz excused UWC (and me) and met separately with MDF and SFW. We knew all along that he would be meeting with them separately because they are parties to the Convention Permit contract, and any changes to that contract would only be made on a voluntary basis. At the time we left, we had not reached an agreement as to the amount that conservation groups would be permitted to retain from the $5 application fees. However, we agreed that those four points, if finalized and mutually agreed upon, would generally address our concerns until the Convention Permit Contract comes up for renewal.
It is my understanding that some time subsequent to our meeting, MDF and SFW eventually agreed to the allocation that Mr. Karpowitz proposed?allowing the conservation groups to retain an amount equivalent to that which the DWR pays its regular drawing contractor to cover the costs associated with the general drawing (currently $3.12 per application). As I mentioned before, we were not involved in that decision because neither the UWC nor me are parties to that contract. I have heard that the DWR prepared an amended Convention Permit Contract that incorporates the four points outlined above, with the allocation in point #2 being tied to what the DWR pays the Nevada entity for conducting the regular draw. I also understand that the amended contract also requires the groups to provide an annual report for the Convention Permits, which they voluntarily offered to do during the August Board Meeting. I have not seen a copy of the amended contract but look forward to reviewing it in the near future.
At the November 1st Wildlife Board Meeting, Mr. Karpowitz read a letter to the Board summarizing the discussions that had taken place and the agreement that was ultimately reached with MDF and SFW. I have included a copy of that letter below:
While I agree with the most of Mr. Karpowitz?s letter, it incorrectly implies that we (UWC and me) agreed to the allocation of the $5 application fees that was ultimately agreed to by MDF and SFW. At the time we left the October 3rd meeting, there was no agreement as to the amount that would be retained by the groups. Moreover, we were not involved in any of the subsequent discussions or in the process to amend of the existing contract. In fact, we did not even know that had occurred until sometime after the November 1st Board Meeting when we heard about the letter read by Mr. Karpowitz. Had we known about the amendment, we would have likely attended the Board Meeting to thank the DWR and the conservation groups for making these voluntary concessions and to clarify that we did not agree to the exact allocation agreed to by the DWR, MDF and SFW.
In an effort to clarify this issue, Tye Boulter of the UWC sent the following letter to the DWR and the Wildlife Board.
In his letter, Mr. Boulter thanks the DWR and the conservation groups for making these voluntary changes and acknowledges that this is a step in the right direction to create more transparency and openness. However, he clarifies that ?though a step in the right direction,? the voluntary changes ?still leave questions regarding fund distribution that we intend to address at a later date.?
I agree entirely with Tye Boulter. I am grateful that the DWR, MDF and SFW were willing to sit down and discuss these issues. I have been fairly critical of each of these groups over the last few years but I am more willing to recognize them when they do something right. I want to personally thank each of these groups and the individuals involved. Most importantly, I would like to thank each of you who got involved in the process by educating yourself, sending emails, making phone calls and attending the Wildlife Board Meeting. If it weren't for you, this issue would have continued to be ignored.
In summary, I understand that given the decision from the Wildlife Board, the conservation groups did not have to make any changes regarding the Convention Permits. They could have simply rode out the existing contract and ignored the complaints and concerns of the general public (even though that would have resulted in additional public outcry and scrutiny). The concessions they agreed to make to the existing contract were entirely voluntary. However, I look forward to further discussion regarding the allocation of the $5 application fees when the Convention Permit Rule and Contract come up for renewal. I still believe that the vast majority of that money should be put on the ground for actual projects. To quote Tye Boulter, we did not get everything we were asking for but this is a step in the right direction.
Hawkeye
Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
