Hawkeye
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,021
As I have spoken with many people regarding the UWC?s proposal to modify the Convention Permit rule to mandate accountability and transparency, I have heard the same excuses from the conservation groups involved and the DWR. The first excuse is that MDF and SFW do not have to provide any accountability or transparency because they are not required to do so under the current version of the rule. In other words, ?we won't because we don't have to.? As explained previously, this argument ignores the fact that this is exactly why the UWC has proposed an amendment to the rule that will fix this glaring problem. If the UWC?s proposed amendment is adopted by the Wildlife Board, SFW and MDF will be required to carefully account for the funds raised from the Convention Permits just as they currently do with Conservation Permits.
The latest excuse that I have been hearing is that the DWR and the conservation groups have signed a 5-year contract and are therefore bound by the terms of that contract. As a result, even if the DWR and the groups wanted to address the problem, they cannot make substantive changes to the Convention Permits until 2017. Every time I hear this explanation, I have the distinct feeling that these groups are using the contract as an excuse to justify their refusal to act. As a result, we requested a copy of the current contract between the DWR and the conservation groups, which is included below. After reviewing this contract, it is fairly clear to me that the DWR and the conservation groups have the power and authority to fix this problem right now if they want to. Let me explain.
Before I get into the specific language of the contract, I should point out that the contract is between the DWR and MDF. Although SFW is not an actual party to the contract, SFW has apparently partnered with MDF for purposes of the Expo. The DWR and MDF entered into the current contract in November of 2010, and it governs the Conservation Permits through 2016. Therefore, if the DWR refuses to address this problem until the current contract expires, the resulting changes will not take effect until 2017---five years from now. That is simply too long to wait. After reviewing the contract, I believe that there are at least 3 separate grounds under which the DWR and MDF (the two actual parties to the contract) can address this problem.
First, the contract states in multiple locations that it was entered into pursuant to Utah Administrative Code R657-55. For instance, Section A.1 states that the Convention Permits will be provided ?annually for five (5) years beginning in 2012, subject to R657-55.? Likewise, in Section B.1, MDF agrees to conduct the Expo and distribute the Convention Permits in accordance with ?the procedures and requirements set forth in R657-55.? R657-55 is the Convention Permit rule and is the very section that the UWC proposal seeks to amend. Therefore, if the Wildlife Board adopts the UWC proposal, the parties to the contract (the DWR and MDF) would be bound by the provisions of the current version of the rule. There is nothing in the contract that prohibits the Wildlife Board from amending or modifying the Convention Permit rule during the term of the contract.
Second, Section A.1 clearly states that the DWR will provide MDF with Convention Permits ?subject to . . . any future stipulations of the Wildlife Board.? This language could not be any clearer. The DWR has agreed to provide the Convention Permits but it made it clear that the Wildlife Board retained the authority and power to impose additional stipulations. Pursuant to this language, the Wildlife Board could certainly adopt to the UWC?s proposal and MDF would be bound by the ?stipulations? set forth in that amendment.
Finally, Section C.1 allows the parties to the contract to amend and modify the contract. It provides as follows: ?This Contract may be amended from time to time as need may arise, provided all such amendments are in writing agreed to by both parties.? Pursuant to this language, the DWR and MDF can agree to modify their contract and fix this problem. Interestingly, SFW does not need to agree to the amendment since it is not a party to the contract.
In summary, the contract between the DWR and MDF does not prevent the parties from addressing the complete lack of transparency and accountability in the current version of the rule. To the contrary, the parties to the contract (the DWR and MDF) have the ability to come together and fix this problem. Furthermore, even of MDF refuses to agree to an amendment that would require it to put a significant portion of the application fees toward actual conservation projects, the Wildlife Board has the power and authority to amend the Conservation Permit rule and to impose such requirements. Despite what these groups might say, their hands are not tied. They can fix this problem right now if they want to. They can do the right thing.
I have included a complete copy of the contract (without the exhibits below).
By the way, the UWC petition just passed 1,000 signatures. Thank you to all of you who have taken the time to get involved. We will need your help when this issue comes before the Wildlife Board in August.
Hawkeye
Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
The latest excuse that I have been hearing is that the DWR and the conservation groups have signed a 5-year contract and are therefore bound by the terms of that contract. As a result, even if the DWR and the groups wanted to address the problem, they cannot make substantive changes to the Convention Permits until 2017. Every time I hear this explanation, I have the distinct feeling that these groups are using the contract as an excuse to justify their refusal to act. As a result, we requested a copy of the current contract between the DWR and the conservation groups, which is included below. After reviewing this contract, it is fairly clear to me that the DWR and the conservation groups have the power and authority to fix this problem right now if they want to. Let me explain.
Before I get into the specific language of the contract, I should point out that the contract is between the DWR and MDF. Although SFW is not an actual party to the contract, SFW has apparently partnered with MDF for purposes of the Expo. The DWR and MDF entered into the current contract in November of 2010, and it governs the Conservation Permits through 2016. Therefore, if the DWR refuses to address this problem until the current contract expires, the resulting changes will not take effect until 2017---five years from now. That is simply too long to wait. After reviewing the contract, I believe that there are at least 3 separate grounds under which the DWR and MDF (the two actual parties to the contract) can address this problem.
First, the contract states in multiple locations that it was entered into pursuant to Utah Administrative Code R657-55. For instance, Section A.1 states that the Convention Permits will be provided ?annually for five (5) years beginning in 2012, subject to R657-55.? Likewise, in Section B.1, MDF agrees to conduct the Expo and distribute the Convention Permits in accordance with ?the procedures and requirements set forth in R657-55.? R657-55 is the Convention Permit rule and is the very section that the UWC proposal seeks to amend. Therefore, if the Wildlife Board adopts the UWC proposal, the parties to the contract (the DWR and MDF) would be bound by the provisions of the current version of the rule. There is nothing in the contract that prohibits the Wildlife Board from amending or modifying the Convention Permit rule during the term of the contract.
Second, Section A.1 clearly states that the DWR will provide MDF with Convention Permits ?subject to . . . any future stipulations of the Wildlife Board.? This language could not be any clearer. The DWR has agreed to provide the Convention Permits but it made it clear that the Wildlife Board retained the authority and power to impose additional stipulations. Pursuant to this language, the Wildlife Board could certainly adopt to the UWC?s proposal and MDF would be bound by the ?stipulations? set forth in that amendment.
Finally, Section C.1 allows the parties to the contract to amend and modify the contract. It provides as follows: ?This Contract may be amended from time to time as need may arise, provided all such amendments are in writing agreed to by both parties.? Pursuant to this language, the DWR and MDF can agree to modify their contract and fix this problem. Interestingly, SFW does not need to agree to the amendment since it is not a party to the contract.
In summary, the contract between the DWR and MDF does not prevent the parties from addressing the complete lack of transparency and accountability in the current version of the rule. To the contrary, the parties to the contract (the DWR and MDF) have the ability to come together and fix this problem. Furthermore, even of MDF refuses to agree to an amendment that would require it to put a significant portion of the application fees toward actual conservation projects, the Wildlife Board has the power and authority to amend the Conservation Permit rule and to impose such requirements. Despite what these groups might say, their hands are not tied. They can fix this problem right now if they want to. They can do the right thing.
I have included a complete copy of the contract (without the exhibits below).
By the way, the UWC petition just passed 1,000 signatures. Thank you to all of you who have taken the time to get involved. We will need your help when this issue comes before the Wildlife Board in August.
Hawkeye
Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
