Why Didn't the DWR Require Annual Audits as Directed by the Wildlife Board?

Hawkeye

Hawkeye

Long Time Member
Messages
3,014
I am going to apologize in advance for a very long post. But, this is important.

As I have discussed the UWC?s proposed amendment to the Conservation Permit Rule with members of the participating conservation groups and representatives of the DWR, I have been asked on several occasions, ?where were you guys two years ago when we reviewed the rule.? My response to this question has always been the same. Although many of us have been following this issue and asking questions of the groups for several years, it has taken time to build some momentum and understand what is actually going on. I also point out that we as the general public should not have to rise up and demand transparency and accountability when it comes to our public resources. The DWR and the Wildlife Board represent us and they should have been protecting our interests from the beginning. Additionally, I believe that the conservation groups involved have a fiduciary duty when dealing with public assets to account to the public regarding those assets. I also note that the Administrative Rule creating the Conservation Permits states very clearly that one of the primary purposes for those permits was to ?generate revenue for wildlife conservation activities.? The public has a right to know if, and to what extent, that statutory purpose is being fulfilled.

In any event, the question is not why we as the public weren't demanding accountability and transparency sooner. The real question is what can the Wildlife Board, the DWR and the conservation groups do right now to fix this problem today.

As I dig deeper and deeper into this issue, I continue to uncover issues that are troubling to me. The latest issue surfaced last night as I was reviewing minutes from Wildlife Board meetings from 2005 and 2006 ? the period of time when the Convention Permits were created. The Convention Permit Rule was adopted by the Wildlife Board during a meeting on March 31, 2005 ? a full two years before the first Expo. I have attached portions of the minutes from that meeting below. The minutes are 29 pages in total so I have only attached the most relevant portions of the minutes.

Starting Page 16, Greg Sheehan of the DWR presented the proposed Convention Permit Rule to the Wildlife Board. Mr. Sheehan explained the proposed rule to the Board. During his presentation, Mr Sheehan noted that ?Permits are authorized by the Wildlife Board and issued to a qualified conservation organization for purposes of generating revenue to fund wildlife conservation activates.?

Following the Mr. Sheehan?s presentation, the Board heard the RAC recommendations and comments from the public. There were a number of questions and comments regarding the need for transparency and an accounting to ensure that a significant portion of the money generated from the $5 application fees was used for actual conservation projects in the State of Utah. Some of the key comments were as follows:

Tony Abbot said that ?The intention is that the lions share of the money will go back into Utah.? (P. 18)

Max Morgan stated that ?all of the conservation groups are answerable to the Division on where they spend the money for habitat.? (P. 18)

Bill Fenimore recommended ?that they add to the rule a fiduciary responsibility to keep track of the money generated. He further stated that ?it is incumbent on the Wildlife Board that they show how this money is used.? (P. 20-21) Mr. Fenimore also stated that ?The value of the audit process would be to build the confidence and support of the public.? (P. 21)

Lee Howard stated that ?The wildlife organizations have great track records and every dollar they get will come back into Utah.? (P. 21)

Mr. Diamond stated that ?There is a need for transparency for the general public, some kind of accounting showing where the money will be generated and ultimately put on the ground for habitat in Utah. Some language needs to be in the plan that delineates for the public where the money is coming from and where it is going.? (P. 22)

Lee Howard asked Don Peay if he was comfortable with an auditing process and ?Mr. Peay said it is fair to ask how much comes in with the five dollar application fees and how much went on the ground. Our groups have a great track record.? (P. 22)

Following the public comments, a motion was made to accept the Convention Permit Rule as presented by the Division (with a couple of minor changes). That motion passed unanimously. (P. 23)

This, however, is when is gets interesting. After the motion passed, Ernie Perkins, Chair of the Northern RAC, asked what the Wildlife Board was going to do about the Northern RAC?s recommendation to include an audit requirement in the Convention Permit Rule. The Chairman of the Board asked Mr. Perkins if the language of the DWR?s rule was sufficient to address the Northern RAC?s concerns, and Mr. Perkins said, ?No.? At that point the Chairman asked the Board if they wanted to discuss an addendum to the rule they just enacted that would address this auditing concern. At that point Mr. Clark (presumably Alan Clark with the DWR) stated that the Convention Permit Rule required the DWR to execute a contract with the conservation organizations and rather than amending the Conservation Permit Rule, the Wildlife Board could ?give some additional? direction on this issue and the DWR would ?build it into the contract? with the conservation groups.

At that point Mr. Diamond made a second motion as follows: ? I move that we ask the Division, in their contract negotiations with the representing organization that the annual audits be accomplished in a similar way that is done for conservation tags.? This motion was seconded by Allan Smith and passed 5-1.

So you might ask how this relates to the current problem. Let me explain. Although the DWR acted upon the first motion which created the Convention Permits, it appears that the DWR never followed through on the second motion that was passed that day. That second motion required the DWR to include in the contract with the conservation organizations the very same annual auditing requirements that already existed in the Conservation Permit Rule. The Conservation Permit Rules provides as follows:

(6)(a) Conservation organizations accepting permits shall be subject to annual audits on project expenditures and conservation permit accounts.

(b) The division shall perform annual audits on project expenditures and conservation permit.

See Utah Administrative Code R657-41-9(6). I have reviewed the current Expo contract between the DWR and MDF it contains no such provisions. As far as I can tell, the DWR did not follow the Wildlife Board?s directive to include the audit language from the Conservation Permit Rule in its contract with the conservation groups. Had this occurred, we likely would not be dealing with this issue right now. MDF and SFW would be required to participate in ?annual audits on project expenditures and convention permit accounts? and the DWR would be required to conduct those audits on an annual basis. Obviously, the results of those audits would be available to the public under GRAMA.

So this raises a number of questions. Why didn't the DWR act on the second motion from the Wildlife Board? Why didn't the DWR include in the Expo contract the same audit requirements that exist in the Convention Permit Rule? Why didn't the conservation groups ensure that their contract with the DWR contained these provisions? How did this slip through the cracks? Was this auditing requirement intentionally left out of the contract? Who drafted the contract? Why didn't the DWR or the Wildlife Board follow up on this issue and ensure that this auditing requirement was included in the contract. And finally, since the DWR and the conservation groups were obviously aware of this requirement, why have they consistently refused to provide an accounting of the $5 application fees?

When I met with the Director of the DWR a few weeks ago regarding the UWC?s proposed amendment to the Convention Permit Rule, I asked him very pointedly why the DWR did not impose accounting and transparency requirements at the time the Convention Permit Rule was adopted. He noted that he was not the Director at the time. Perhaps we should ask Miles Moretti, who was then the ?Acting Director of the DWR.? Ironically, Mr. Moretti is currently the President and CEO of the MDF, the party with whom the DWR executed the Convention Permit contract.

In conclusion, it appears from the March 2005 Wildlife Board Meeting minutes that the Board directed the DWR to include in the Expo contract an annual audit requirement similar to what already exists in the Conservation Permit Rule. Had the DWR followed that directive, we likely would not be gearing up to address this issue in the August 16th Wildlife Board Meeting. Regardless, we are where we are today and we need to focus on fixing this problem today. However, I hope that the DWR and the conservation groups do not continue asking where were you 5 years ago? The fact of the matter is sportsmen were there and they expressed these very same concerns. Unfortunately, the DWR and the conservation groups appear to have dropped the ball.

For those of you who might question my comments, don't take my word for it. Please take the time to read the portions of the minutes posted below. I am interested to hear the explanations provided by the DWR and the conservation groups.

If you care about our hunting resource and want to help fix this problem, please attend the Wildlife Board Meeting on August 16th.

page0001.jpg


page0002.jpg


page0003.jpg


page0016.jpg


page0022.jpg


page0023.jpg


page0024.jpg






Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
The only way to correct this "oversight" is to once again have the Utah Wildlife Board vote in favor of amending the Convention Permit Rule. Participation will be crucial in sending a clear and resounding message to the Board of the importance to enact guidelines establishing the transparency and accounting of the monies collected from the sale of convention permits. I have already emailed the Board and asked them to vote in favor of the UWC proposal to amend the Convention Permit Rule.


Eldorado
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-03-12 AT 03:39AM (MST)[p]TRISTATE-ELK30
READ IT BUT DONT COMMENT!!!!
WE ARE TIRED OF YOUR POST'S

GOOD JOB HAWKEYE- THAT SHOULD BE CHECK MATE.
 
"Hawkeye:
What legal options are on the table given this negligence?"

I would have to agree. If this one meeting and these votes are all there is to the story sounds like the courts can resolve this matter, to get the UWC and what I want. Doesn't look like you need the petition with the %90 of $5 rule.
 
The wormhole goes deeper. Unbelievable. Or, rather, very believable, unfortunately, but now we've got more hard evidence.

Thank you, Hawkeye, for another piece of this sordid puzzle.

A summary of this post:

1. Greg Sheehan proposed the convention permit to the board for the purpose of generating revenue to fund wildlife conservation activities.

2. Sportsmen voice the need for transparency. Mr. Peay says its fair to ask for an audit.

3. Motion passes unanimously to pass the new convention rule.

4. Motion passes to allow an addendum to first rule allowing annual audits for convention tags. It passes 5-1.

5. Somehow nothing happens and this addendum is never added.

6. The director of the DWR at the time is now the CEO of one of the groups benefiting from the windfall of money with no strings attached.


So...as it is most of the time, to get to the root of a problem you follow the old adage "follow the money". This reeks of impropriety and it points directly at the DWR, the MDF and SFW. I would not be surprised if somebody ends up in jail when this thing is over. Hawkeye Brokovich strikes again.

Mind blowing.

To all of you who support these organizations with your sweat and dollars: stand up and demand accountability of your leaders and ask what in the world is going on. Most of you "average joes" had nothing to do with this, but it's time to make it right.

This hole will only continue to get deeper, and the closer we get to the nest, the louder the protests will be.



Vi Et Armis Invictus Maneo
 
Dryflyelk-

Good summary but one minor clarification. In points 4 and 5, the Wildlife Board's second motion directed the DWR to include the annual audit requirements in the contract with the conservation groups, not in an addendum to the rule. Somehow those provisions did not make it into the contract.

It will be interesting the hear DWR's and the group's explanation of what allegedly happened.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
When these "facts" are put out on the table at the 8/16 meeting, there should be be a lot of squirming around by the top dogs of SFW, BDF, and the DWR. There should be no need for a court case if they do what is right and proper. With these known facts, both parties (MDF & DWR) should immediately agree to open the existing contract and make it right. Any hesitancy or excuses by either organization that this shouldn't be done will tell the tale as to whether they want to do what is right for wildlife or continue on with a corrupt system that appears to be putting wads of money in pockets somewhere.
 
"With these known facts, both parties (MDF & DWR) should immediately agree to open the existing contract and make it right."

It may not be that easy. Depends on what is actually in the contract.
 
Hawkeye,

As usual you have done some very good work and I commend you for that. One would hope that this was an innocent oversite that the DWR made that some very smart men at the groups have taken advantage of.

I wonder though if somewhere in you presentation if it was slipped in that if the DWR and the groups don't remedy the situation that they all agreed upon at the meeting on the 16th, and immediately put into action, that the courts will be the next step.

I have tried to get the Board, and even my RAC members to respond on this issue and its seems they are quiet. According to the minutes, Mr. Perkins found a problem with the proceedings, which is great, but why upon his problem not being followed through on, did he just go silent on the issue? I will try again today, as well as let them know that I expect the situation to be remedied on the 16th. Thanks hawkeye!


When they came for the road hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the oppurtunists I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the public land hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for me there was no one left to say anything!
 
Tristate---That may be true, as I guess I was looking on the bright side that maybe the contract had written into it that it could be opened upon mutual agreement. If that isn't the case, I would think when these facts are presented that the MDF and Miles Moretti would want to save face and agree to do what was originally voted on until the contract comes back up for renewal and can be updated at that time to what it should have been all along.
 
Once again GREAT work Hawkeye.

It all is starting to make more sense now why the MDF has been quiet in all this. I can't wait to hear the response we get from the DWR, the board, SFW & the MDF on the 16th.

This issue should be concerning to all sportsman no matter what group you support. That is as illegal a move as someone could pull.
 
Looks like to me Miles has played his cards right and set himself up a golden goose. The more o read this the more po'ed I get.

This was illegal!!!
 
Hawkeye, your research on this haas been astounding and I for one realy appreciate your time and efforts. The meeting on the 16th will be very interesting, hopefully civil as well. I have been making notes for the past couple of days about what to say given the chance at the meeting. Keeping comments civil and straight forward is a hard thing to do after reading this stuff. Makes one wonder if Mr. Morrieti will attend , and if the county sherrif should attend as well. Mr. Morrieti should go straight to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.00
He has allready pocketed a substantial amount, buying a lawyer should be easy for him.
The heads of UDWR, SFW, and MDF can only do the right thing and resign, after adopting the UWC proposal!
 
Nice work Hawkeye!

And there you have it, at the very least the current contract should be amended. I'll let those more astute with the laws determine whether any legal improprieties should be investigated.
 
These minutes also seem to moot the argument of the DWR and the conservation groups that they cannot make any changes to the current system until the current five-year contract expires. As I explained in a prior post, the contract is subject to any future "stipulations" of the DWR. Even if that were not the case, there should have been annual auditing requirements in the contract from the very beginning--and the DWR and the groups were both fully aware of this fact.

Although this recent development is very concerning, please refrain from accusing individuals or groups of intentional or criminal conduct. I have learned from experience that it is foolish to rush to judgment before you have all of the facts. This may have been a simple mistake and/or ommission on the part of the DWR. That does not excuse the problem or mean that it should not be addressed immediately. However, until we hear an explanation from the DWR and the conservation groups, please do not make unfounded personal accusations. The most important thing we can do is spread the word and get people out to the Board meeting on August 16th.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
I agree Hawkeye & I will keep my comments more civil. Just hard not too say anything when the smell of a rat is so rancid.

How many other proposals have been "forgoton" or "overlooked" from these meetings? Down right scary to me.
 
Hawkeye - Sound advice, as always. Thank you just isn't enough.

I personally choose to believe that this entire convention scenario was developed with nothing but the best intentions. The quantity of money involved, and the passing of time sometimes leads very good people down the wrong road. This is precisely why transparency and accountability is so important in all government activities. It keeps the good people on the right road. (The true scoundrels break the laws regardless.)

Please continue to push for and support transparency and accountability.

Bill
 
Hawkeye,

My involving the courts wasn't a personal attack, I was thinking that perhaps we could "wonder aloud" if there was a need to force the audits via the court system.

The sad fact is that most groups, being wildlife or others, that suck off the government tit often hire former heads of government agencies for leadership. Who would know better "where the bodies are buried" better than the people who put them there. Hiring the head of the DWR gives MDF basically a man in room on everything. What Miles does is not illegal, IT IS SLIMMY, but not illegal. I agree with others, MDF, via Miles knows exactly what it is supposed to do, however they are playing a game, based on some minor technicallity. As individuals we believe that if someone(DWR, public) gave us money(tags) we would be happy to say what we did with it, because we got to keep 10%, however MDF, SFW are not individuals, and they are not a sportsmans group anymore, they are simply lobbist for special interests and as such only care about those special interests(deep pockets).

Lastly, Tony Abbott, FISHON. Regardless of how I feel about you helping to create the mess, you do get props for standing against it now. The minutes pretty much back up what you have been saying now for years, the "lions share" should be going back to wildlife.


When they came for the road hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the oppurtunists I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the public land hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for me there was no one left to say anything!
 
TR175 and Hossblur-

I was not trying to call either of you out. Feel free to share your opinions as you see fit. I just wanted to point out that we have not heard from the other side yet and the meeting on August 16th is still our best chance to fix this problem.

Carry on.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
The illegal part is "forgetting" or "over looking" a proposal that was requested and voted on by several people according to the minutes.

You're right Hawkeye, we have not heard from the other side (Miles or one of his trolls) yet. There are reasons that are very apparent why we haven't or probably never will.

Rally the troops. Let's all be there on the 16th.

As others have mentioned, I wish there was a way to compensate you for the great time and effort you have put into this investigation Hawkeye.
 
No need to thank me. I just want to band together and fix this problem.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
The Division and Wildlife Board will be discussing convention permits at the Aug. 16 board meeting. Here is the meeting agenda. We invite you to attend or listen online. I'll post a link here on MonsterMuleys on the morning of the 16th, when the audio stream is available.

Amy Canning
Communications Specialist
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
 
Tr175 or anyone else for that matter, Will the heads of MDF, SFW be at the meeting on the 16th? Are they required to be there to answer the questions from the board?


Tallbuck1
 
>No need to thank me.
>I just want to band
>together and fix this problem.
>
>
>Hawkeye
>
>Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
>Winchester Apex .50 Cal
>Mathews Drenalin LD

+1 thanks for your all your hard work from one sportman to another!


Tallbuck1
 
Tallbuck1-

SFW and MDF will definitely have representatives at the meeting on August 16th. Will you be there?

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-03-12 AT 01:14PM (MST)[p]I was looking at the agenda Amy so kindly posted a link to and noticed items 10 & 11 on the list before 12 / UWC proposal. Both are regarding the convention permits, but more interesting to me is No. 10 ?Convention Permit Audit?. Is this a new item of discussion this year or has this been seen on the agenda in previous years?

When they say "audit" are they just talking about the actual quantity of permits to be allocated?

10. Convention Permit Audit - Alan Clark, Assistant Director

11. Convention Permit Allocation - Alan Clark, Assistant Director

12. Utah Wildlife Cooperative Proposal - Tye Boulter, UWC - Martin Bushman, Assistant General Attorney
 
I am not sure whether the "Convention Permit Audit" item has appeared on prior meeting agendas or not. However, pursuant to the Convention Permit Rule, the "Convention Permit Audit" conducted by the DWR looks only at the drawing procedure for the tags at the Expo. The DWR does NOT audit the money generated from the $5 application fees.


UTah Administrative Code R657-55-2(2)9d) provides as follows:

"Wildlife Convention Audit" means an annual review by the division of the conservation organization's processes used to handle applications for convention permits and conduct the drawing, and the protocols associated with collecting and using client data.

http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm

Hawkeye

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

Is there any way the wildlife board could do meeting at time that those of us with bosses can attend. Almost seems like the time of the meetings is meant to keep average guys from attending.


When they came for the road hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the oppurtunists I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the public land hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for me there was no one left to say anything!
 
If the Board agrees to an examination of those Expo moneys, I would demand it be an examination from the start of the program, and an audit by an outside agency. No state agency can effectively audit itself.

I would recommend it go out for bid to a qualified CPA firm. It would fall under an "Agreed Upon Procedures" engagement, where the outside auditor examines all cash disbursements in excess of some dollar amount, say $5,000. In the process, they would examine a very large percentage of the total disbursements, with the least amount of effort and cost to Utah taxpayers. The higher the percentage of disbursements examined, the greater the reliance of the audit findings.

The purpose is to determine how well the accounting system works, whether expenditures are appropriate for the given program, and if they were properly recorded in the accounting records, all of which helps you determine how reliable the representations of the accounting records and reports are.

That is a very easy engagement to complete. You get the check registers and bank statements, select every transaction over the stated dollar amount, ask the accounting staff for documents supporting the payment made, verify it was authorized and correct, then move on to the next one.

Also include examination of any payment to related parties, board members, or officers. If any irregularities exist, it is common to find them in payments to related parties, where you often find no documentation under the "trust me" principle. If a payment is made to a related party, you require third-party documentation to support the payment made, so that the eventual payment is supported by a party outside the organization.

Our firm has done many of these engagements as agents of the court. By auditing a couple years, you know if you have a reliable accounting system, or if you have a problem needing further investigation, or sometimes just sloppy accounting.

It should also include an examination of the expenditure to determine if it complies with the intent/language of the legislation establishing the program, separation of funds, used for conservation, etc. Hawkeye has done a great job of researching those statutes and the related discussions.

As hard as you guys have worked to get this on the agenda, do not settle for some internal cursory gloss over. I have read audit reports from the Utah Legislative Audit Division issues on topics related to DWR activities. The scope of the audits I read were not very broad, limiting how indpeth the Legislative Auditor's work would be. That is not what you want, after all the work you guys have put into it.

If you have to settle for only two or three years being audited, demand the first two or three years, then only audit the more recent years if anything is found. If nothing is found in those beginning years, odds are the later years are OK also. Do not start at the most recent years and work backwards.

Once the disbursements have been examined, you can determine the what level of reliability can be given to the reporting provided by the examined entity.

If I was inside a program getting this much public scrutiny I would want this audit completed ASAP and in as much depth and as wide of scope as possible, thereby silencing the critics.

Good luck getting that passed and getting the type of examination that will give confidence once and for all. For the sake of all, and the sake of putting this topic to rest, hopefully a thorough examination will be provided, resulting in no adverse findings.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
Fellas

There are NO hard feelings from me on this. When it was set up I tried to put things into place to keep it from going where it went. Once I was no longer in charge of the MDF it seems to have went VERY bad. Lions share, significant, substantial, accountability, reporting, etc.... those are the words I used representing MDf and the Hunt expo request for the permits at the racs and the wildlife board when referring to revenue.

You may not like me but I can tell you I DONT lie and never have about ANYTHING to do with my time with the conservation groups. Hawkeye found what I have been preaching for years so now lets go get it fixed for good. If you get all the rac minutes you will see I said similar things,

I will be at the board meeting to say it one more time. The groups involved should just be smart and show up and offer to change it by themselves, but they wont because the greed appears to have gotten the best of them.

I 100% believed in the permits for the expo, to bad I was not around long enough to see it through. I will be this time.

CYA at the meeting.



Tony Abbott
The next buck to have a fawn will be the
1st.
 
It is indeed now an action item on the agenda (see Amy's posting or follow this link: http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/pdf/2012-08_board_agenda.pdf )

Good work Hawkeye and those who have contributed to this effort! I too believe that this continues in the right direction for wildlife in our great state of Utah and will serve to bring more of us together in the end on many of the issues that have divided sportsmen for so long.

See ya'll there!

Shawn Spring
UWC - Southern Region Vice Chair
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-08-12 AT 08:51AM (MST)[p]I'm not sure what the debate will turn into, but if it goes in the directions of either "We need the whole $5 to administer the draw.", or "It's only a small percentage of total tags.", or "It's part of the Convention profits.", I've done enough research to counter those moves and I'll be there and will do it if I have to.

Lee Tracy
UWC Southern Region Chair
 
Good , there needs to be someone besides just Hawkeye who can show facts and debate civily.
Hope to meet some of you there.
Thanks everybody, who has worked on this.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-08-12 AT 12:39PM (MST)[p]>Tallbuck1-
>
>SFW and MDF will definitely have
>representatives at the meeting on
>August 16th. Will you
>be there?
>
>Hawkeye
>
>Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
>Winchester Apex .50 Cal
>Mathews Drenalin LD

I will ask the boss if I can get off early to be there... as i know it is very important to be there!!! Will the MDF and SFW guys be asked to talk or will they be watching the drama unfold in front of their eyes?

Also, Does anyone know what SFW and MDF will say in retaliation of this proposal to the board???

Tallbuck1
 
So Hawkeye, if I am reading things correctly-it is listed in the Rule as a requirement already? It would seem to me that WE the SPORTSMEN (and women LOL) need to hold the feet to the fire and kindly point out that the DWR is not following it's own rules.

Then propose a moratorium on CP's until audits are completed for past years.
 
Predator, Hawkeye can probably give you a better answer but basically it was a rule proposal that passed 5 to 1 that somehow was overlooked when the final contract was written up.

It should have been on there but wasn't. Would have saved us all some time, headaches and bad feelings.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-12-12 AT 09:58PM (MST)[p]Predator-

Just to be clear, the audit requirements are not in the convention permit rule. After the Board enacted the rule in March of 2005, they passed a second motion instructing the DWR to include the audit provisions in the actual convention permit contract with the conservation organizations. Unfortunately, the DWR apparently failed to follow that directive and no audit requirements were included in the 5-year contract with the groups. It is unclear why the DWR did not follow the Board's mandate. Questions regarding this issue should probably be directed to Miles Moretti. He was acting director of the DWR at the time and is currently the President/CEO of MDF - the group that has the 5-year contract with the DWR.

The real question is how many of us are going to show up at the Wildlife Board meeting this Thursday to help us fix this problem? If you are ever going to attend a Board meeting, this is the one.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
Wow......there has been more recent activity for tire chain and sleeping pad threads than posts lending support to Hawkeye and the UWC for the meeting THIS Thursday. Hawkeye asked for people to post up whether they plan to be at the meeting or not (yes the meeting is in the middle of the day.........excuses are like a-holes, everybody has one). Call in sick if you have to.

This feels like 3rd grade, watching some bully extort lunch money from kids on the playground. Hawkeye has the bully by the ankles and needs some backup in order to get him on the ground. Utah hunters need to step out from behind the trees and dogpile on Thursday. If you are too lazy or scared to support the UWC there is a good thread about sleeping pads you can read I guess. Utah hunters seem a little too willing to sleep and DREAM about hunting rather than exercise their right to actually do it.

Is it the water up there? As a non-resident, the apparent weakness and apathy of many Utah hunters is both puzzling and embarassing at the same time. What are you afraid of? I dont know Hawkeye but I appreciate the work he has done, man up and let him know if you will be at the meeting to support this common sense proposal on Thursday.

Sorry for the negative energy but gees.....I wish I could jump on the dogpile in person but I live in a different playground. Be a hero not a victim.

Ryan
 
"excuses are like a-holes, everybody has one)."

First you say this. Then you spend two paragraphs bashing Utah hunters. But then you finish with your own smelly excuse. :7


"I wish I could jump on the dogpile in person but I live in a different playground."

All I have seen from the UWC is an abrasive pattern of childish behavior. Gentlemen tend not to want to associate with people like that. Maybe thats why more people are talking about sleeping pads????
 
I see you're back at it again trying to ruin every thread that's for a good cause! Go glue some eyeballs in or something Mr. Taxidermist troll!
 
"I see you're back at it again trying to ruin every thread that's for a good cause!"


What cause was that? Is it the cause of javihammer to talk trash about hunters in another state? Or was it the cause for $5? Your credibility is swirling in the bowl.
 
Great! I think I'm on board.

Now tell me how will this help our deer herds? Or is this just a power struggle between the have's and have not's.

IMO if it's not directly benefiting deer herds in Utah tangibly. Then its just a distraction from the number one issue threatening big game hunting. Deer or lack there of.

Deer! The sole reason I joined and donated generously to the UWC.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-14-12 AT 08:01AM (MST)[p]Deersman---We are talking about close to one million dollars a year they take in from that $5 per raffle ticket fee. 90% of that, which would be over 3/4 million dollars a year, would go back on the ground for habitat projects like it was originally designed for and voted on by the Board. Right now there is no accountability through an oversight or possibly just a sheer disregard of the vote and that needs to change so it's in line with the accountability of the auction tags.
 
Oh if its for getting more money to put into habitat restoration. Then count me out.
 
"which would be over 3/4 million dollars a year, would go back on the ground for habitat projects like it was originally designed for and voted on by the Board."

Are you sure those habitat projects would be for deer? Can the state use that money to update computers in offices? Can it be used for research for non-game species? Can it be used for legal funds allowing the state to attack/defend hunters interests, or even anti-hunter's interests? How do you know where the state will allocate these funds?
 
Arguing with Tristate is pointless, but here goes anyway.

The money wouldn't go to the state for use at its discretion. All funds gerenated by conservation groups go directly to projects they agree to sponsor. The only way the application fees could go to "buying computers for the office" would be if the screwballs at SFW approved that use for these funds. A pointless argument inteded to simply deflect from the real issue.

I will be at the meeting Thursday and supporting full accountability for these revenues. Nothing more, nothing less.
Bill
 
"All funds gerenated by conservation groups go directly to projects they agree to sponsor. The only way the application fees could go to "buying computers for the office" would be if the screwballs at SFW approved that use for these funds. A pointless argument inteded to simply deflect from the real issue."

Then what is the point of ever turning it over to the government if they have to spend it on what the SFW says anyway? Couldn't the SFW give it to the government and then command the government spend it on lobbying against the department of the interior and its wolf projects???????? Face it Llamapacker it ain't as simple as you just put it.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-14-12 AT 01:09PM (MST)[p]I hope you're better at taxidermy than debating on internet forums because you really suck at it, LOL! You'd make a damn good politician though the way you twist and turn everything that's said to try and stir the pot. Please quit asking stupid questions and look into how the tag money has to be allocated if you're so interested in it. It's all there in black and white if you'd bother to look things up, rather than just come on here to give people grief and move things in a direction away from what the thread was intended for. You've done that every time now in the couple short weeks you've been on the site and by now everyone knows why you're doing it!
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-14-12 AT 04:33PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Aug-14-12 AT 01:23?PM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON Aug-14-12 AT 01:03?PM (MST)

>"which would be over 3/4 million
>dollars a year, would go
>back on the ground for
>habitat projects like it was
>originally designed for and voted
>on by the Board."
>
>Are you sure those habitat projects
>would be for deer?
>Can the state use that
>money to update computers in
>offices? Can it be
>used for research for non-game
>species? Can it be
>used for legal funds allowing
>the state to attack/defend hunters
>interests, or even anti-hunter's interests?
> How do you know
>where the state will allocate
>these funds?

Here's the breakdown!

First, 30% 0f the funds are directly returned to the DWR with no strings attached, so they may, indeed, upgrade computers if they so desire, but since they already have money for that from the Utah legislature, it's not likely that will happen. And even if it does, who's to say it doesn't benefit mule deer per classification/counting models or habitat upgrade planning or whatever!

Second, 10% is retained by the conservation organization for administrative purposes and they may use it any way they choose!

Third, 60% is retained by the conservation organization to be used for DWR approved conservation projects. The conservation organization recommends the projects and the DWR has to approve them before the money is allowed to be used.

So where do we, the public, fit into all of this? The RAC's and Wildife Board!! The Wildlife Board has to approve of the rules and regulations governing the program, they have to approve of the organization(s) receiving and distributing the permits, they approve of the contracts between the DWR and the conservation organization(s), etc. Thus, UWC's proposal!

So, does all of the money go directly to growing the mule deer herds? Obviously not, but most of it does. Think about it! THE conservation organization receiving the convention permit series (all 200 permits) is the MULE DEER Foundation, with SFW as a partner. One of them concentrates on mule deer and the other less so. But since both are primarily made up of big game hunters, do you think either of them is about to recommend and get approval of a project primarily benefiting the Western Spadefoot toad or the Southern Grasshopper mouse? Additionally, most of the big game (and many upland game) projects benefit mule deer as well and also, the DWR has the decline of mule deer herds as a very high priority, thus the Monroe study. If mule deer is your "thing", support of this UWC proposal for accounting and transparency is time and money well spent. IMHO, of course!
 
>"All funds gerenated by conservation groups
>go directly to projects they
>agree to sponsor. The only
>way the application fees could
>go to "buying computers for
>the office" would be if
>the screwballs at SFW approved
>that use for these funds.
>A pointless argument inteded to
>simply deflect from the real
>issue."
>
>Then what is the point of
>ever turning it over to
>the government if they have
>to spend it on what
>the SFW says anyway?
>Couldn't the SFW give it
>to the government and then
>command the government spend it
>on lobbying against the department
>of the interior and its
>wolf projects???????? Face it
>Llamapacker it ain't as simple
>as you just put it.
>

You really should do your research before you post. SFW can't "command" the government (DWR) to do anything with that money. It's the other way around! All they (MDF or SFW) can do is recommend a conservation project and the DWR "commands" (approves) MDF/SFW whether or not that project is consistent with the intent and rules/regulations of the program and whether or not it is timely and cost effective.
 
So by your calculations %40 of this money could be used on toad and mouse conservation and you have no control over it. Then %60 is taken from them to give back to them for projects approved by the DWR. Why do the governing bodies need to take it in the first place then? Then you state that the Conservation organizations are going to spend the %60 on mule deer projects anyway since that is what they are attached to. Well if you believe that why take any of the money from them in the first place? Let them have the money which you believe they will spend on mule deer projects anyway. You already said the DWR doesn't need computers and I doubt hunters want money going to the toad research. Sounds like the whole thing is again designed by a anti-hunting group to extract funds from hunters and their causes.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-15-12 AT 00:06AM (MST)[p]>So by your calculations %40 of
>this money could be used
>on toad and mouse conservation
>and you have no control
>over it. Then %60
>is taken from them to
>give back to them for
>projects approved by the DWR.
> Why do the governing
>bodies need to take it
>in the first place then?
> Then you state that
>the Conservation organizations are going
>to spend the %60 on
>mule deer projects anyway since
>that is what they are
>attached to. Well if
>you believe that why take
>any of the money from
>them in the first place?
> Let them have the
>money which you believe they
>will spend on mule deer
>projects anyway. You already
>said the DWR doesn't need
>computers and I doubt hunters
>want money going to the
>toad research. Sounds like
>the whole thing is again
>designed by a anti-hunting group
>to extract funds from hunters
>and their causes.

Great response! Maybe I'll cancel my 260 mile one way trip to Salt Lake to attend the meeting. No need to be there now as long as MDF and SFW instead of UWC and/or DWR are in control of %100 of the money!
 
The suggestion that any group needs more than $100,000 to print and run the conservation tag scam raffle is laughable. The details of this raffle are widely known and marketing costs to advertise are probably minimal. $100,000 would cover 2 good admins for a year and printing costs. The UWC proposal makes sense to sensible people. 10% of each five dollar ticket is PLENTY.

The ONLY opponent bold enough to comment lately seems to be a Texan with ties and interests directly tied to the EXPO tag carnival. If he is representative of the people running the CON ORGS the UWC should have no problem on Thursday.

Hopefully future meetings will be scheduled when more recreational hunters can join rather that just hunt profiteers. Our friend from Texas has probably done more to agitate and energize the pro-UWC proposal crowd than anyone. The UWC should send him a hat because he may just be one of the UWC MVPs when everything is said and done.

And yes, I think most hunters would prefer to see money spent on spadefoot toad habitat than for mortgage payments of human toad habitat.

Ryan
 
"Our friend from Texas has probably done more to agitate and energize the pro-UWC proposal crowd than anyone. The UWC should send him a hat because he may just be one of the UWC MVPs when everything is said and done"


He sure has and make it an XXXL size, LOL!
 
"The details of this raffle are widely known and marketing costs to advertise are probably minimal. $100,000 would cover 2 good admins for a year and printing costs."

Lets do this cheep.

Office space for 2 admins and needed materials: $12,000

All office equipment: $7,000

Salaries including taxes: $120,000

Liability and workers comp: $10,000

Accountant fees: $3,000

Printing: $2,000 (This one I am probably way low on)

Advertising: $50,000

All utilities for a year including coms: $15,000

Security: $2000

If you decide to use sales girls for tickets: $2000

Plus there may or may not be a comptroller position over your 2 admins that could drive the price up another $100,000 a year. There may also be municipal permiting involved which can be very costly. You may also need to keep an attorney on retainer. Once you get them involved there is no telling where the line between black and red will fall.

You can see your cost estimates aren't even in the ballpark.
 
Again you're full of baloney because all those costs are amortized over the year due to the fact that a private company does those things for the MDF as one of many similar activities thery do for other organizations throughout the country and that's how they make their living. Your figures are based on a company only doing that one Expo a year, so you are the one who is way off base, as usual!
 
"Again you're full of baloney because all those costs are amortized over the year due to the fact that a private company does those things for the MDF as one of many similar activities thery do for other organizations throughout the country and that's how they make their living. Your figures are based on a company only doing that one Expo a year, so you are the one who is way off base, as usual!"

Actually I was right on base. I was just showing how much running a raffle with two admin positions can cost. And I pretty much proved he didn't know what he was talking about. So who is the company that runs all of it and what do they charge for a year???? Face it dude I am right on target but your brain, which might I ad has never had to run a business, fails to grasp what things actually cost.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-15-12 AT 08:55AM (MST)[p]Again you're talking out your azz and din't prove a friggin thing other than that you're a trool and a sorry one at that! Everything is in black and white and all you have to do is look it up to see who does the draws for the Expo run by MDF/SFW. You wouldn't know the truth if it bit in the azz and you just keep coming up with more crap to keep your name in the forefront on these threads. That's fine, because we need them keep ttt, but your name is associated with nothing but trouble and these continuing posts only prove how wrong you are, LOL! What color azzhat would you like?
 
You are talking about something else totally. One of your boys, javihammer, claimed to know the cost of running the show with two admins. I shot his hypothetical to pieces. No one is talking about who actually runs the draws. You are talking trash just to make yourself feel better about not having a leg to stand on anymore.
 
" One of your boys, javihammer, claimed to know the cost of running the show with two admins. I shot his hypothetical to pieces."

What planet are you living on?.... Terry
 
Javi is talking exactly about the same thing I mentioned and that's why it doesn't cost any more than 50 cents a ticket to do that draw with the private company. Quit with all the BS posts and look some of this stuff up! Your taxidermy business is obviously slow enough right now that you have enough time to argue chit you know nothing about on these forums, so take some time and find out some facts if you want to have a meanigful debate, which I don't think you do. Yoy'd rather just stir the pot and make a bigger azz of yourself and you're doing a good job of it! We might just have to go up another azzhat size or two the way it's looking today, LOL!
 
"The details of this raffle are widely known and marketing costs to advertise are probably minimal. $100,000 would cover 2 good admins for a year and printing costs."

AZStickman, this is the quote from Javihammer's post. Came from the same planet you are living on.
 
Those are private estimates and they are extremely conservative. If I was estimating government I probably would have thrown in highly expensive inspection fees plus the mind blowing cost of bonding the entire setup. You could double the cost of the fee to $10 and probably not cover the costs.
 
"Those are private estimates and they are extremely conservative. If I was estimating government I probably would have thrown in highly expensive inspection fees plus the mind blowing cost of bonding the entire setup. You could double the cost of the fee to $10 and probably not cover the costs."

Which brings us back to "What planet are you from?"... Terry
 
"Which brings us back to "What planet are you from?"..."

The planet where I started my own business 14 years ago and I still run it today. Anyone that runs a business can tell you there isn't one single thing in business that government intervention would make cheaper. They can't even compete to deliver mail.
 
>"The details of this raffle are
>widely known and marketing costs
>to advertise are probably minimal.
>$100,000 would cover 2 good
>admins for a year and
>printing costs."
>
>Lets do this cheep.
>
>Office space for 2 admins and
>needed materials: $12,000
>
>All office equipment: $7,000
>
>Salaries including taxes: $120,000
>
>Liability and workers comp: $10,000
>
>
>Accountant fees: $3,000
>
>Printing: $2,000 (This one
>I am probably way low
>on)
>
>Advertising: $50,000
>
>All utilities for a year including
>coms: $15,000
>
>Security: $2000
>
>If you decide to use sales
>girls for tickets: $2000
>
>
>Plus there may or may not
>be a comptroller position over
>your 2 admins that could
>drive the price up another
>$100,000 a year. There
>may also be municipal permiting
>involved which can be very
>costly. You may also
>need to keep an attorney
>on retainer. Once you
>get them involved there is
>no telling where the line
>between black and red will
>fall.
>
>You can see your cost estimates
>aren't even in the ballpark.
>
>
>
>


What about all the money they receive to run the expo from the Tourism department? My understanding is it basically offsets the costs of the event or close to it.
 
"What about all the money they receive to run the expo from the Tourism department? My understanding is it basically offsets the costs of the event or close to it."

I have no idea. I am just responding to Javihammers post that it can be run for the cost of $100,000.
 
PLEASE!!!!!!!!

For the love of GOD, PLEASE STOP RESPONDING TO TROLLSTATE.

HE IS A COMPLETE WASTE OF OUR TIME!!!

IF NOBODY RESPONDED TO HIM, HE WOULD START TO ARGUE HIMSELF and then he would really be lost and confused.

But honestly, please stop taking his bait and leave him alone.
 
+1 Robiland

Just like I mentioned above Bi-state will go away if no one wastes their time responding to him.
 
Tristate, you are truly a highlight reel of ignorant comments we have heard many times before by the Kool Aid crowd. You are like a dancing monkey looking to distract. There is no doubt you have been deployed by the home office to kill unfavorable CON ORG threads. You have failed in your mission as this has only shined the spotlight on them more. I am impressed you mentioned "comptroller", that is like a $5 dollar word. FYI - A comptroller is a corporate job title, it isn't the thing you use to type your endless stream of drivel on the internet, that would be called a "keyboard".

Sorry TR175, I need to address one more thing. Tristates projections are wrong based on the completely incorrect presumption that a whole separate enterprise is required to manage the 200 conservation tag raffle. Most of the infrastructure Tristate included in his projections already exists within the CON ORGS, if it didn't the CON ORGS wouldn't be eligible to distribute the tags (if you read the Utah statutes about which entities are qualified to distribute the tags, it is clear the requirements were tailored for certain CON ORGS......clearly an intentional barrier to entry for potential competitors and speaks to the pull certain CON ORGS have in Utah politics). If the proceeds of the raffle are so vital to the sustainability of the CON ORGS that should raise a big red flag and beg the question about whether they are truly conservation organizations or just tag pimps. If CON ORGS cannot raise significant money outside of tag brokering they just need to change their legal status to something other than non-profit, last I looked ticket scalpers are not eligible for tax exempt status. The difference between ticket brokers and the EXPO pimps is that ticket brokers actually pay something for the tags they sell.

I guess the funniest part about Tristates projections are that by his own boloney estimates there is still $600,00 to $700,000 worth of gravy left over from the conservation tags for the CON ORGS every year (and has been for many years....MILLIONS). Average hunters are just supposed to look past that huh? Those genius EXPO "consultants" are entitled to a lifetime royalty financed by this slush fund right?

And yes, Terri and I live on the same planet. A place where the North American Wildlife model is valued and the where the BIGGEST mulies roam. Most guys that have success on planet Arizona have actual hunting skills and obtain tags through a public drawing. Hunting skills matter more here than whether or not you have a buddy with some landowner tags or how many pounds of corn drop out of your feeder every night. I don't think the outfitters in Arizona are even obligated to share their game cam pictures with some centralized hunt info service (moss who?), a hunter could actually kill a RECORD ANIMAL here without getting approval from the outfitter home office first. Arizona is exhibit A in how good Utah could be if they made a few sweeping adjustments to simplify and clean things up.

This problem is much bigger than Utah and most hunters would benefit from kicking the wealth tag dog every chance they get, it is contributing to the wussification and impacting the future viability of our sport for our kids. As for Utah, It really doesn't matter what us non-residents think, we are just cheerleaders on the sideline. The real players on the field are the guys in Utah that find a way to get to that meeting tomorrow.

Quick thought - Someone that is present at the meeting should update this thread throughout the morning to give updates about when this issue will come up on the agenda, there may be hunters in the area that have the time to drop in once the timing of the agenda becomes a little clearer.

Ryan
 
>Those are private estimates and they
>are extremely conservative. If
>I was estimating government I
>probably would have thrown in
>highly expensive inspection fees plus
>the mind blowing cost of
>bonding the entire setup.
>You could double the cost
>of the fee to $10
>and probably not cover the
>costs.

Per Bryan Christensen from the Utah Division of Wildlife Resourses state office a week ago, the cost of the much more complicated Utah draws to the company in Nevada is only $2 to $3 per application, while the Division keeps the other $7 to $8. Which means that the Nevada company can do it and still cover costs and make a profit for about 1/2 of that $5 fee charged at the Expo.
 
I started and still run my own business ya gov can't deliver mail but this is not about gov it's about real people wanting a wrong righted. U got no dog in this fight and clearly got no clue what this issue is about give it arrest from one small business to another!!!
 
"Per Bryan Christensen from the Utah Division of Wildlife Resourses state office a week ago, the cost of the much more complicated Utah draws to the company in Nevada is only $2 to $3 per application, while the Division keeps the other $7 to $8. Which means that the Nevada company can do it and still cover costs and make a profit for about 1/2 of that $5 fee charged at the Expo."

Elkfromabove you are proving my point for me. If you take %90 of the $5 fee that only leaves 50 cents to cover the costs. How do they come up with the other couple of dollars to cover their costs??????? But I guess you don't care about that.
 
Blablabla Javihammer. I never made statement as to how much money the orginization has to pay to process the paperwork. I was only shooting your crazy idea of $100k a year for to admins. Plus I know what a comptroller is thats why I cited one. As for your rant about your hunting skills and where the biggest mule deer live I am very unsure of what inadequacy you are trying to fill. If all you care about is where the biggest horns are then you have obviously missed the point of hunting. If you think a private land tag versus a public draw tag makes you the better hunter good luck with your snobbery, cause I ain't getting in those childish arguements.
 
"U got no dog in this fight"

Really??? You just went and decided that for me. When the future of wildlife conservation is in play, I AM THE DOG IN THE FIGHT!
 
REMEMBER EVERYONE......

FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY,

PLEASE STOP RESPONDING TO TROLLSTATE.

HE WILL GO AWAY IF WE IGNORE IS IGNORANCE.

DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS PERSON.

HE IS ONLY TRYING TO STIR THE POT AND IS DOING IT ALL DAY LONG.

IGNORE HIM, AND SHOW SUPPORT FOR WHAT EVER YOU WANT BUT HIS POSTS.
 
"HE WILL GO AWAY IF WE IGNORE IS IGNORANCE."


You have to admit Robiland, that is one of the funniest sentences ever written. My English sucks but we can all laugh at that one.
 
Good thought javihammer, hopefully someone can update this site as to the closer it will be discussed. I have a few things that need to get done before 11:00am, and then I'm there.
If the time is adjusted ,please let us know..
 

Similar threads

runamuk
Idaho wildlife federation
Replies
10
Views
839
devobrodie
devobrodie

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

31F08659-DC34-4966-BAC4-E5C8D8576C9A.jpeg
IMG_1203.jpeg
95AC0DCD-B911-4ECF-BBD9-B846C8D91BE7.jpeg
IMG_5825.jpeg
bull1.JPG
2683.jpeg
ACD3266A-08B8-467C-9DB9-E16C98C3780E.jpeg
C0D58CC2-8D29-4B70-85FC-A3D5B87431B4.jpeg
Screenshot_20211109-225559_Gallery.jpg
7ADB1336-0EA2-478A-843B-C9D1E56367EA.jpeg
0CB737A8-7D3B-4A3E-B9EB-1BE8B934FEAD.jpeg
phonto.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom