LAST EDITED ON Dec-29-14 AT 05:14PM (MST)[p]>EFA, I always like your post,
>and believe you to be
>very knowledgeable about the DWR,
>you did not however
>answer my question as to
>why the draw is not
>done in State. You said
>there were 15 companies bidding
>on the "job", well if
>there is enough money to
>attract that many companies,why not
>do it ourselves? Do we
>as a state pay to
>much to our own employees
>to handle this? I certainly
>know that the in field
>LEO of the DWR are
>not overpaid. I bet the
>fallon folks get paid (
>all 16 employees and officers.)
>The problem I see with
>Utah doing it would be
>that eventually the process would
>be run by the special
>interest groups, that I believe
>are being pandered to by
>the DWR. You bring up
>another point. The expo tags.
>The DWR has a proposal
>that we keep 30% ?
>and UWC say's 50%?
>#1- Why is the DWR "proposing"
>30%, why aren't they flat
>out stating what the %
>will be. I think this
>is another way for them
>to save face with the
>people and still do their
>pandering. When I hire an
>employee I (tell) that person
>what the job will pay,
>I do not ask him
>what I have to give
>him for the job. You
>see its like the Fallon
>deal If there are people
>capable to do the job,
>and your one of them
>and want the job, you
>had better be the lowest
>bidder. And if the lowest
>bidder is to high for
>me. I'll do it myself.
>
>#2- Why in the world would
>they propose to give away
>70%. Tell me what the
>16 officers and employee's from
>Fallon could do with the
>money generated from the expo
>tags.. J/K but why, does
>it make sense to the
>DWR to give this money
>away, and have some projects
>done by SPECIAL interest in
>return.. I know and understand
>there are a lot more
>done by these groups, but
>with that said. Why would
>a special interest group want
>to do this without some
>type of gain? This is
>where you can tell me
>they just are lovers of
>hunting, And at this point
>I say ,then why pay,or
>I mean Peay lobbyists, Have
>expense accounts and or vouchers,
>and reimbursements for doing it
>all out of love for
>hunting, love of Mule Deer,
>Or love of the State
>of Utah. I'v heard it
>all and have yet to
>hear what I think is
>the TRUE answer. Love of
>MONEY and the gains allowed
>by it.
>#3- Issues with Lifetime tag holders
>and Dedicated Hunters.("issues") I take
>it that by your word
>"Issues" you mean that there
>would be some type of
>problem, with them as a
>group, or groups. In resolving
>the point problem? Ok, then
>I say if there is
>a problem ,Eliminate it. Or,
>its (the groups) ability to
>be a problem. First lets
>just pretend that Lifetime hunters
>still get their tag every
>year. And they can use
>that tag to draw a
>hunting permit from the regular
>general allotment. They could have
>the same 5 chances for
>an area as other sportsmen.
>and if not drawn then
>they receive a leftover or
>consolation permit from a small
>pool. This will make them
>cry but why give them
>special perks when there was
>NO NEED for them when
>the Lifetime license was purchased.
>Only people who didn't buy
>the license had to follow
>the rules made after?? Why.
>I was in the Dedicated
>Hunter program for a while,
>I really liked the program,
>I even had one of
>my projects put in the
>review. It was Great to
>hunt wherever I wanted and
>all 3 seasons. after seeing
>how the projects were ran
>and and seeing how people
>could gain advantages I quit
>the program., I think it
>was in 2000, I was
>a Hunter Ed. instructor until
>2012. I tell you this
>only to show you that
>I wasn't just tired of
>the working end of things.
>I never used my hours
>as an instructor as time
>for any dedicated hunter hours.
>1 way to relive pressure
>from the problem or (
>issue ) might be to
>only allow the "all 3
>hunts" AFTER a tag is
>drawn in the regular draw.
>Or reverse it that you
>can have your choice of
>tags, but can hunt only
>rifle. archery, or muzzle load
>one season each of the
>3 years or until you
>tag out. You could further
>it by making a different
>group with the same rule
>of a single season in
>an area of your choice,
>1 year rifle,1 muzzle loader,and
>1 Year archery. All I
>am saying is ,if you
>cant remove an "issue", Break
>it down into into smaller
>more manageable "issues". OK my
>rant is over . ready,
>aim, FIRE!
>
>
>
I beg your pardon, but I think I answered your question just fine. You just didn't like the answer! But to give you further background on my answer you need to know that the DWR had already been doing some of the draws for many years (OIL, LE, antlerless, special hunts, depredation hunts, etc.), but when the general deer hunts finally went to a draw system in 1994 along with the new regional and separate weapon hunts, it apparently became a lot more cumbersome and/or expensive. In fact, they actually did the general deer season drawings in 1994 and the rifle deer season drawing in 1995 (archery and muzzy went back to over-the-counter), but in 1996 they contracted all the drawings out to Systems Consultants, along with some of the other tasks they were doing. I think they did what they thought best at the time.
I'm not sure how all that came about because it would take a GRAMA to get the minutes of the Board of Big Game Control (now called Wildlife Board) meetings to find out when or if it was even discussed and I have neither the time or money to do that. However, I can think of a lot of possible reasons for contracting out the draws rather than doing it themselves, ie; taking employees out of the field, hiring more employees, buying new computer equipment, finding a place to handle the project, new state laws prohibiting it, legislature not funding it, not within the scope of DWR's mission, NOT COST EFFECTIVE, changes in DWR leadership, new mandates for data, public relations, no Utah company bid on the project, etc.
Also, you have to remember that the DWR isn't allowed to unilaterally do much on their own and since this was a major decision, I'm sure that the Board of Big Game Control, Attorney General's Office, Legislature, State Budget Office, State Auditor and who knows who else was involved. And to make a change now would involve as many or more entities and people as it did then.
Is it still the best choice given all the advancements in computers and data collection? I don't know for sure, but I do know that Systems Consultants is a leading edge computer programming company and that they just recently completed a remodel and an addition to their building to house some new equipment.
As far as the EXPO tag application fees go, since it's inception, the Convention/EXPO Permit Program has allowed the EXPO promoters to keep ALL the application funds with no stipulations or mandates. It wasn't designed to be that way, but since the parties involved couldn't come to a consensus on the amount to be returned to the DWR, it was omitted from the contract and supposedly put on the back burner for an agreement later on. However, there were no efforts by any original party to correct the error and it wasn't until UWC's proposal in 2012, that the issue was even addressed. At that time, we proposed that the EXPO Permit Program be run like the Conservation (auctioned) Permit Program with 30% going directly to the DWR, 60% being held by the promoters in a separate account to be used ONLY for DWR approved conservation projects and the remaining 10% to go to the promoters for their own use. At the time, we were told by a representative from the Attorney General's office that we couldn't change a contract in midstream and that we had to wait until it expired. UWC didn't agree with his assessment and so, during a series of meetings (I don't know how many) with MDF, SFW, DWR, UWC, and the Wildlife Board, it was agreed that the promoters (MDF & SFW) would temporarily voluntarily return 30% to the DWR in the form of DWR approved projects and they would give a financial report as good faith gestures until we could negotiate a permanent solution. Apparently, MDF, SFW, DWR (and maybe the WB), considered the temporary solutions as permanent solutions without any further input from UWC and thus originally scheduled their current presentation on the agendas of the November RAC's and December WB meetings. However, the item was dropped in the agendas for those meetings and put on the agenda for December RAC's and the WB January meetings. Prior to all of this, there was a special meeting called for all parties involved (and then some) on October 23rd to discuss the DWR proposal as currently presented and everyone agreed to it except UWC, and I simply told them I would get in contact our Board of Directors to get their advice and we would make our decision known at the November RAC meetings, which we eventually did in December because of the change in agendas. And now we're preparing to make our counter-proposal
And that's where our counter-proposal started out. We agreed with their figures, but wanted them flipped, ie; 70% to go back to wildlife and 30% to the EXPO promoters. However, those figures didn't fly with the first two RAC's because it was probably considered too much of a change from the 0%/100% that they were used to. So, upon the advice of one of the Central RAC members (No, not Kris Marble, UWC's chairman) and after consulting with our Board of Directors, we changed to our current proposal of 50%/50%. And that's where it now stands and that's the proposal we'll make at the January Wildlife Board meeting. Will we get it? It's a long shot since even the three remaining RAC's voted for the DWR proposal as presented, but I can tell you this. We'll make every effort we can to get it changed and will not apologize for our efforts.
(Edited) I had to look up my notes and made some corrections on the dates of the RAC and WB meetings on my first edition of this post. It got a little confusing trying to remember the postponement and change of the agendas regarding this issue. Sorry.
Regarding the "issues" of Lifetime License holders, etc. I simply mentioned them because the are "issues" that will come up during any discussion of combining points. I haven't offered any solutions simply because I don't know what the options will end up being. You could very well be correct about eliminating these "issues" in increments or by eliminating the "group", but if I know Utahns, it isn't likely to be easy or simple.