UTAH CONSERVATION GROUP / DWR ETHICS

[MulePacker]

I believe it is time for accountability and adhering to correct principles.

The conservation tag and Convention tag permit rules were instugated and in principle presented and formulated by Conservation groups with the cooperation and good faith of the DWR. With the understanding that these groups had the best interest of "Sportsman" and the "Wildlife" in mind in fact it was a selling point for the programs.

My question then is this why are these groups going against the rule. If they truly have the best interest of sportsman and wildlife at heart wouldn't they relinquish tags that do meet rule guidelines. Specifically the 5% qualifier. I just reviewed the DWR's recommendations for 2012 and once again there are blatant violations of the rule. I believe it is time that DWR employees and Conservations groups are held accountable for violating rule and law.

I hope you will join with me in seeing that we all play within the boundaries. Write our DNR and DWR along with Utah Attorney General and the Leadership of the Conservation Organizations you belong to and ask why we are issuing permits that do not meet the rule.

Travis Sparks

 

[Hawkeye]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-29-12 AT 11:46AM (MST)[p]Travis-

Please post a few examples for those of us who have not reviewed the DWR's recommendations. Please point out a few of the errors/violations.

Hawkeye

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

 

[MulePacker]

I will follow up in more detail later. However, Moose is a blatant violation. Cache Moose proposed tags for 2012 a total of 6 public permits. There have been two conservation permits issued and I presume sold one to The Mule Deer Foundation and one to Sportsman for Fish & Wildlife. There was also one Cache Moose tag awarded and issued at the Western Hunting Expo in February which if I am correct would violate that rule also.
IMO if our DWR employees and Conservation group leaders are awarding and selling permits that violate the rule then this needs to be proescuted under the extent of the law as any other criminal act would be. Here is the conservation rule a simple internet search wil allow you to review it. R657-41

 

[Tree]

30% of all moose permits in the state of Utah last year went to conservation tags. It's being looked at.


http://unitedwildlifecooperative.org

 

[Packout]

They issued the current set of Conservation permits for a 3 year period, starting in 2010. So this is the last year of the "contract".

 

[MulePacker]

Where is this contract found?

Also it appears from reading the rule that the only way the contract could be valid is not for a set number of permits but for a number of permits that meet the rule. Otherwise you could not contract for 2 permits in 2012 unless they meet the 5% requirement as the multi year permit clause is subordinate to the 5% clause.

 

[Hawkeye]

If you review the state administrative code it allows the DWR to award converservation permits on a multi-year basis (up to three years). It sounds like the DWR has entered into a number of multi-year contracts with conservation groups. As a result, when tag number are reduced, the general public is subject to those tag reductions but the conservation groups continue to receive their conservation permits based upon the original allocations until their multi-year contract expires. This seems really unfair but it appears to be authorized under the rule.

There are a number of statutory provisions relating to both conservation permits and convention permits that are very questionable. In my mind, the biggest travesty is the fact that there is no requirement that any of the proceeds from the convention permits be used for actual conservation even though one of the statutory purposes for those permits is to "generate revenue to fund wildlife conservation." Unfortunately, this is what happens when the same groups that will benefit from these permits are the ones that dictate the language of the statute. I know for a fact that SFW lobbied against any such statutory requirement at the time that the convention permits were created.

SFW supporters will say "blame it on the DWR, the conservation organizations are complying with the statute." While that may be true at some level, we cannot ignore the fact that these groups have massive influence with the DWR. Additionally, even when the DWR has the statutory right to impose accountability and transparency, they generally fail to do so. Look no further then the fact that the DWR did not audit the Hunt Expo for the first 3 years of its existence. The general public cannot count on the DWR to protect their interests and keep these groups in line.

Hawkeye

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

 

[MulePacker]

Where does the administrative code allow for the multi year permit to exceed the 5%?

 

[Tikka]

Please Git-R-Done so we don't have to listen to Bawling anymore!!!

Now continue Bawling...

 

[Hawkeye]

Travis-

There is no provision in the code that expressly allows the multi-year contracts to violate the 5% limitation but the fact that Section R657-41-7 allow multi-year permits (up to 3 years) begs the question of what do you do if the DWR grants a 3 year contract for a given unit based upon the 5% rule and after the fact the tags numbers are reduced? There is nothing in the rule that requires the DWR or the conservation organization to voluntarily reduce the corresponding number of conservation permits. You could point to that Section R657-41-3, which states that "the number of conservation permits authorized by the Wildlife Board shall be based on," among other things, "the species population trend, size, and distribution to protect the long-term health of the population." Based upon this language, you could argue that the DWR should make mid-multi-year contract adjustments if the number of conservation permits exceeds the 5% rule due to a reduction in the number of tags. However, I don't see anything in the statute that expressly requires the DWR to reduce the number of conservation permits until the time comes to renew the multi-year contract. That's not to say that the DWR and the organizations should not be proactive and voluntarily make such reductions . . . but good luck with that one.

Hawkeye

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