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-