DWR Release expo doc and signed contract.

From the dwr's website... Question and answers bout the expo.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/utah-expo-permits-faq.html


Also, here is the link to the signed contract!


http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/expo_permit_contract.pdf

LAST EDITED ON Mar-04-16 AT 10:03PM (MST)[p]Q16: Who was on the State Purchasing committee that selected the expo permit distributor?

The State Purchasing committee consisted of one person from each of the following offices, departments and divisions:

Governor?s Office
Department of Natural Resources Administration
Department of Technology Services
Division of Wildlife Resources
Division of Purchasing and General Services (assisted with the process in an advisory capacity but did not score proposals)

These five individuals were selected for their ability to objectively and impartially assess the criteria outlined in the RFP and included in the proposals.


3 of these 5 departments have ties to SFW... biased??????
oh and the 5th depart didnt even score the proposal, so only 4 did! WOW!

I hope the state will get sued and forced to do another RFP. Herbie needs to man up to this situation because it's only going to grow into a huge scandal if they don't do the right thing now.

I posted this in another thread but I wanted to add it here. After quickly reviewing the latest contract between the DWR and SFW and DWR's FAQ's regarding the Expo Tags, I am confused and offer the following general response:

1. I don't see any real change in what the groups can do with the 70% they retain from the application fees. The have to use that 70% for "policies, programs, projects and personnel that support wildlife conservation inititives in Utah." What does that mean? Does everything SFW does accomplish those goals? Did they simply draft a provision that authorizes them to do what they were already doing? Can they pay salaries to SFW "personnel" with that money? Can they lobby with that money in an effort to affect "policies"? There is no audit provided for the 70% or for the 30% for that matter. And the annual report provided by SFW to the DWR only covers the 30% that has to be spent on approved projects. The groups have issued statement stating that they will "annually disclose how these funds are utilized to benefit Utah wildlife" and the DWR's FAQ's states that "SFW and its partner, MDF, have committed to annually disclose how 100 percent of these funds are used to benefit Utah wildlife." However, I don't see anything in the rule or the contract that requires any accountability or transparency with the 70% the groups retain. Perhaps we should all email the DWR and the groups and ask what exactly constitutes a "wildlife conservation initiative"?

2. After reviewing the "Frequently Asked Questions" prepared by the DWR, it is obvious that they are feeling the heat. This appears to be a self-serving CYA document that was intended to push the blame to others -- particularly RMEF. I take issue with a number of the statements in that document, and I will prepare a detailed response when I have some time. Just as a preview, consider FAQ #9: "Has the Wildlife Expo Permit Program ever been audited? Yes, the DWR audits the program annually." Once again the DWR is playing word games. Over the years, the DWR has conducted certain "Wildlife Convention Audits." The first such audit was conducted in 2010, four years after the Expo began. In fact the 2010 "audit" states that no formal audit was performed in 2007, 2008 or 2009. More importantly, those "audits" never looked at how any of the application fees were spent by the groups until 2013, when the DWR began to require the groups to spend 30% on actual conservation. The DWR fully understands that the public is concerned about how the money is being spent by the groups and that is why we are asking for an audit. Yet, the DWR is more than happy to simply state, "Yes, the DWR audits the program annually." That statement is confusing and misleading.

I will start a separate post this weekend where I will debunk the DWR's FAQ's one by one.

-Hawkeye-

But the FAQ is suppose to clear up any confusion and help the uninformed. HA!

Because so many people on these wildlife forums are misunderstood and giving out false information.....according to Canning.
It's easy to see that these groups and the DWR are "partners". So I don't see anyone convincing them to do what's right. I agree with others who have posted that they are actually making things worse.

Something big has to happen for them to make it right.

Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning
conservation...
"The movement for the conservation of wildlife,
and the conservation of all our natural resources,
are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
method."

"We do not intend that our natural resources shall
be exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural
resources for the public as a whole, for the
average man and the average woman who make
up the body of the American people."

"It is in our power...to preserve game..and to give
reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the
skill of the hunter,whether he is or is not a man of
means."

Question 5 says the organizers must use the 70% on conservation. Must is a word that has consequences.

>Question 5 says the organizers must
>use the 70% on conservation.
> Must is a word
>that has consequences.

What they say in the FAQs they posted doesn't mean diddly squat. The contract is the legally binding document and if you click on the contract and scroll down to 7c it addresses the 70% they can keep. It doesn't have any "musts" or "shalls" in the language and if you read the line with what they consider conservation it includes policies and personnel. That line is so wide open it can go anywhere, any time, and it also doesn't require auditing.