I know better than to comment on this but I'm too stupid to keep my mouth shut any longer so here are my thoughts, for what they are worth.
I could be wrong but it seems to me it may have worked like this:
1. Wolves were intentionally introduced into some of the northern States (not Utah), some of these States border Utah.
2. Wolf populations expanded in those intentionally populated States and the consequence were such that some Utah residents decided it would be better for Utah not to allow wolves to be intentional introduced nor unintentional but naturally migrated into the State. (I happen to be one of those, but I'm certainly not the only one, or so it seems.)
3. Discussions with interested and concerned citizens took place where ideas where shared and numerous "potential" problems identified and numerous preemptive-preventive possibilities were "what if'ed" by those that participated in these discussions. (I was not part of those discussions so I can only presume.)
4. Some of those that participated in these discussion were most likely sportsmen, livestockmen, County Commissioners, Mayors, State Legislators, and maybe even the Utah Governor.
5. Someone most likely said, amongst other things, "the best thing we could do is try to keep them out before we get them because it seems like it would be a lot cheaper to "keep them out" that it would be to "get them out" if they ever come here on their own via migration or if they are introduced here intentionally." Now that could be a debatable line of logic and that logic could have been debated, for all you or I know. Never the less, in the end, apparently, these debaters and players decided it was wiser to spend the money to try to "keep them out" rather than to spend money, (at a later date) try "to get them out".
6. Now, if you going to keep them out, and the folks that want them in are constantly moving this way, than that, always adjusting their strategies according to the eb and flow of politics, natural phenomena, elections and State and Federal Court appointments, it would seem, if your going to oppose and defeat them, over an extended period of time, you need to have some organized effort that is tracking very closely the moves of the opposition, and constantly trying to be at the gate so we can make sure it's closed before the other side gets there. It would seem this would need to be done by a very specialized and very committed group of highly skilled, highly motived people, working to "keep wolves out", before they get in.
7. Would it seem prudent then, if you'd been hired to "keep wolves out" if there was the slightest chance, the less whisper, that the other side is discussing, planning, or even pondering an opening to "get wolves in" that you take an immediate action, often times, when possible, to "preemptively" seal off an weak spot before it ever becomes an opening. My Uncle, who tried to teach me to cowboy many years ago used to pound into my head this behavior, "you have got to know what the cow is going to do, BEFORE it ever enters her head, then be there before she even trys". Is it not the same principle true with people and wolves?
8. So........if my job is to "keep wolves out of Utah" and someone is paying me to do that (in this case the Legislature is paying (via contract) Big Game Forever) task, and for four years, you've paid me and if I have kept wolves out of Utah, have I not done the task that's been asked of me in the contract.
9. Now, if wolves come into Utah to the degree that the party hired to keep them out has failed, then we could say, "further expenditures" would be a waste of tax payer dollars. However, as of today, that has not been the case and apparently the Legislature that has allocated the funding believes the efforts, preemptive and otherwise, has been successful and future funding may be necessary in order to continue to "keep wolves out". If the threat of wolves continues to be a priority and a concern to the citizens of Utah and BGF continues to help "keep them out" I would expect to see the funding of the contract continue. If those providing the funding change there minds because BGF fails to "keep wolves out" or we all change our minds and decide we are okay with wolves in Utah, (like there are in neighboring States) the contract and funding will stop.
10. Therefore, for me, maybe not others, the question is very simple: Do we have wolves in Utah. My answer is No. (I know we've got a few but they are not here by our choice nor have they been put here intentional nor legally.) Is BGF working to "keep wolves out" of Utah. My Answer is Yes. Is BGF trying to "get the door closed" before the opposition thinks of it or even starts to think of Utah as a State with wolves. My answer is Yes. Does everyone like how BGF does it's job. My Answer is No. Will everyone like any individual or organization that "keeps wolves out of Utah". My answer is No.
11. Are there things that BGF should do differently as they go about executing their contract with the State of Utah. The auditing firm believes there are, they have spelled out those beliefs. If the State Purchasing Department and Legislative Over Sight Committee agree with the auditor, these chances will be made to the conditions of the contract and BGF will comply or they will loose the contract, give up the contact, or face the legal consequence before a judge and/or jury. At this time, the contract is in place, both parties are reviewing the audit and the future will determine the relationship.
12. For all the hope, expectations, desire, and effort by some, no one has been fired, charged, convicted at SFW or BGF. If they should violate the law at some future time I am confident they will be punished according, how ever if you were the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, the Attorneys General the Legislature, the State Tax Commission, eyc, etc, and you were getting call after call, complaint after complaint, and each and every time you called for an investigation you found nothing illegal, would you not, at some point, begin to think this might be a witch hunt over philosophy rather than issues of legality.
13. Differences of philosophy and difference of methodologies related to problem solving are not illegal nor are they necessarily sinister. They are however self serving, each individual and/or group works to have there needs and objectives met, when those needs come in conflict with philosophies and wants of other individuals or groups we have disagreements but that's a far cry from what some folks believe has been going on here.
14. Life will go one, this won't be the end of it, some think the entire world, but for their group. organization etc. is rotten, some believe everything is a conspiracy, and these 14 points won't do a thing to change a single person's opinion or beliefs but it's one guy's opinion, like i said at the beginning, for what it's worth.
I won't be responding to your comments, should there be any, I've read yours for the better part of a week now, they finally provoked me to add mine but I've said all I care to say on the most resent audit. I won't get into a hair splitting, name calling argument with my sportsmen friends on this one
DC