# Hunt expo contract



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Does anyone remember the details of how exactly the hunt expo contract worked? The current contract only lasts through next year, and I know there’s some sort of 5 year extension but how does that extension work exactly? Or what are the grounds on extending and is there a way we can get them to put the permits out to bid again after next year?


----------



## robiland (Jan 20, 2008)

There are no grounds or rules. they make them up as they go.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

If they(SFW/MDF) think they're doing a good job, they pat themselves on the back and award the contract to themselves again. I think there was a provision that extended or will extend the current contract for 5 or 10 years. Not sure exactly though.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

robiland said:


> There are no grounds or rules. they make them up as they go.


This is 100% the truth. I am trying to figure out if RMEF will apply again, if so, it might be good to at least try pressuring them to open it back up.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Kwalk3 said:


> If they(SFW/MDF) think they're doing a good job, they pat themselves on the back and award the contract to themselves again. I think there was a provision that extended or will extend the current contract for 5 or 10 years. Not sure exactly though.


It's something like this, but I can't find the specifics. The current contract does end in 2021, and on the actual contract I don't see any specifics on the extension. Here's the contract

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


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

If I recall, their website showed projected expo dates until past 2027 or so. It seemed apparent that they (SFW/MDF) were planning on a 10yr deal.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

After this last fiasco I can't envision a scenario where RMEF would waste their resources on applying for it again.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

KineKilla said:


> If I recall, their website showed projected expo dates until past 2027 or so. It seemed apparent that they (SFW/MDF) were planning on a 10yr deal.


Their site does, and there is some sort of 5 year extension but that contract doesn't mention it at all and the contract runs through 2021. Which would mean the DWR likely has to mutually agree to continue to another contract, which idk, there's nothing in that signed contract that runs through 2021 that says anything about it, unless I'm just blind. If enough pressure is applied I do wonder if you could get them to open it back up after the fiasco before.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

derekp1999 said:


> After this last fiasco I can't envision a scenario where RMEF would waste their resources on applying for it again.


I asked Randy and said he's no longer on the board but this was his sentiment as well. I've contacted RMEF to see what they have to say. It would take some pressure but that contract ends in 2021 and if they get enough pushback, it's probably wishful thinking, you might could get them to put it out for bid again.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Here’s the provision a few pages down. I would guess it’s the wildlife boards decision. This is kind of vague but I’m guessing they will have to vote to extend the current contract. Or it may be the DWR and SFW. It’s pretty vague as to how that additional 5 year extension works.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

The contract is not for the expo itself. Any organization can run a hunt expo any time they want, anywhere they want. 

It's the 200 tags that are the subject of the contract.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Here’s the rule, so for it to get extended SFW, the General Service procurement officer, wildlife board, and Division will have to all mutually agree to extend it for 5 more years. Now is a good time to start on this if we truly would like to see change. The process should be opened back up after the **** show that occurred to begin with this.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> The contract is not for the expo itself. Any organization can run a hunt expo any time they want, anywhere they want.
> 
> It's the 200 tags that are the subject of the contract.


True, I should probably clarify this is for the 200 permits. It can be changed after next year if and ONLY IF Sportsmen put enough pressure to create that change.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

I remember when RMEF put on the annual Elk Camp in SLC in around '97 or '98. That was a good show.

Seems like a millennia ago now...


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

High Desert Elk said:


> I remember when RMEF put on the annual Elk Camp in SLC in around '97 or '98. That was a good show.
> 
> Seems like a millennia ago now...


Were you able to attend their event in Park City last year in conjunction with the total archery challenge? I went to a couple of the events they were good! They'll be having it again this July in Park City! Check it out! It the RMEF camp and mountain festival, its at the top of their website banner right now! RMEF puts on a great event! But again, I'm not sure if they're even willing to waste their time on the expo permits again. Once their board gets back to me I'll get some contact info together and post it.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

No, wasn't able to make it last year. Maybe this year.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Pressure would have to come from massive numbers or people. How many people marched on the capitol with Don Peay back in 93 or 92? (so long ago). That kind of pressure might work.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

MadHunter said:


> Pressure would have to come from massive numbers or people. How many people marched on the capitol with Don Peay back in 93 or 92? (so long ago). That kind of pressure might work.


Very difficult no doubt. Especially when RMEF feels like it's a lost cause it seems like. Making things more difficult I just got an email from MDF saying attendance and money hit a record again this year. Their attendance surpassed 60,000 and the funds raised was $8.7 million. I think if you could put a year of pressure on maybe the wildlife board and DWR you could get it re-opened. It's unlikely for sure. I still firmly believe RMEF could get much greater attendance and funds. I would attend and spend plenty if I knew 100% was going directly back to the division, but can't as of now.


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

I thought the whole issue boiled down to that the board gave sfw the priority rights to the expo as a venue and the tags couldn't be awarded to RMEF because they didn't have viable venue to distribute them at the maximize value. 
If no can use the expo but sfw how would a new bidder ever be considered?

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

MadHunter said:


> Pressure would have to come from massive numbers or people. How many people marched on the capitol with Don Peay back in 93 or 92? (so long ago). That kind of pressure might work.


Pretty sure it was 10k...


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

weaversamuel76 said:


> I thought the whole issue boiled down to that the board gave sfw the priority rights to the expo as a venue and the tags couldn't be awarded to RMEF because they didn't have viable venue to distribute them at the maximize value.
> If no can use the expo but sfw how would a new bidder ever be considered?
> 
> Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


The explanation they had was actually that their plans weren't detailed enough, they didn't show enough "details" on how they would keep the draw information secure. Quite honestly it was an excuse. RMEF has over 200,000 members nationwide and conducts far more business than SFW. Offered to give 100% of the funds raised. RMEF offered to move their national convention to Utah which gets over 100,000 people to it every year. They could have easily locked up the venue. It was an excuse so they could just give it to the good old boys group in the state. RMEF is a larger and far more successful organization. There was no good reason SFW was awarded the contract.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Pretty sure it was 10k...


I think in different forms you could apply plenty of pressure over a year to the DWR and wildlife board, but it would be very tough considering the current status of the relationship that is obviously corruptly rigged in favor of SFW. If Sportsmen are willing to push back enough over the next year and ask that they open it back up instead of extending. It would just take one of those who have to agree to extend it saying no, whether that be the DWR, or wildlife board. The wildlife board is likely the best chance. I would guess sometime later next year it will come up for bid at a board meeting.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Keep in mind, SFW didn't even submit a proposal during the RFP period. The state violated their own rules and then accepted late proposals to accommodate SFW's bid as well. 

Some believe this was so SFW could see any other bid that came through before they had to do their own. That it was all part of the charade and plan. Some believe that...


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Even if the state considered allowing another bid again what makes anyone think that RMEF or anybody else would go through the trouble based on past performance of the state?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

middlefork said:


> Even if the state considered allowing another bid again what makes anyone think that RMEF or anybody else would go through the trouble based on past performance of the state?


I've emailed and got a response from RMEF, and they would discuss and consider and vote on it. I think if you could get them to open it back up, that would mean enough pressure had been applied to make a difference. I think if you could get it opened up again after next year instead of extended it would signal there was enough pushback that the next process would be far more fair. RMEFs board and President has changed since the last process. I do think there's a decent possibility RMEF would be interested again, but they'd have to see push by Sportsmen here to make a change. Getting it opened up again after next year would be a good signal of change due to pressure on the entire thing.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> Keep in mind, SFW didn't even submit a proposal during the RFP period. The state violated their own rules and then accepted late proposals to accommodate SFW's bid as well.
> 
> Some believe this was so SFW could see any other bid that came through before they had to do their own. That it was all part of the charade and plan. Some believe that...


Honestly I had completely forgot about this. Yeah, the way it was handled was embarrassing in every way.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Honestly I had completely forgot about this. Yeah, the way it was handled was embarrassing in every way.


Embarrassing is a questionable adjective in this case (and others in this state). Keep in mind you have to have shame to be embarrassed and this group of people has shown they have no shame at all.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I don’t recall the timeline of the base agreement. Is it up after next year? There is no chance it would go to bid again before that agreement is done. And I see very little chance they would open it without just extending the current contract. If 10,000 people marched, that might do it. I think you’d have a hard time getting 500. But I’d be there! 

My preferred course of action would be the following:

1) End expo tag program entirely at end of current base agreement and put those tags back in the public draw. Reduce conservation tags from 300+ each year total to 2 per organization max for their banquets, and the tag revenue must be split 50/50 with org and state. No OIL tags allowed to be auctioned by conservation orgs. The state can create a “super tag” program to either auction or raffle off a limited number of tags to generate some more revenue specifically for conservation projects. 

If they won’t do that, then: 

2) Open up bid process and have a committee of independent people select the winning bid. One item that has to be in the RFP is that 100% of the $5 application fee stays with the DWR in their budget. And the state will conduct the draw through their current vendor. You’re basically getting the tags to attract people to your expo and can make money off admissions, but no longer off welfare tags. 

If they won’t do that, then: 

3) Keep doing shady business and allowing groups of people to get wealthy off publicly owned tags and keep no trust with the watchful public. Basically- status quo. By the end of the next agreement I’ll have burned all my points and have become so disenfranchised I’ll just give up hunting all together and stop caring. I’ll go fishing.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> I don't recall the timeline of the base agreement. Is it up after next year? There is no chance it would go to bid again before that agreement is done. And I see very little chance they would open it without just extending the current contract. If 10,000 people marched, that might do it. I think you'd have a hard time getting 500. But I'd be there!
> 
> My preferred course of action would be the following:
> 
> ...


Essentially the current signed contract is through 2021. Next year sometime, SFW, the DWR, the purchasing and general procurement officer, and the wildlife board have to mutually agree to extend it for 5 more years. Obviously the DWR and wildlife board will have to be the focus of trying to get it re-opened next year. Now depending on when that vote happens will depends on who will be on the board at the time. A couple board members time will be up in August of next year. Essentially I think we would have to sway enough of the wildlife board to vote against extending the current contract to get it re-opened next year. If you could get a lot of public input to all the wildlife board members, we might can effect some change. I do think that is where the effort has to be focused if we hope to see it re-opened I read of extended. Essentially we would have to get 4 wildlife board members to vote against extending the current contract.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

So pressure on the current board or a new board coming in?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

middlefork said:


> So pressure on the current board or a new board coming in?


I mean the twos terms who end next August are Byron Bateman and Donny something, both SFW guys, so I'm not sure you can sway their vote anyway. I will have to figure out when the vote is going to happen.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Need to start writing the Governor's office since he appoints the members of the board and see if you can start a movement to get someone else onto the board on the next appointments.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Critter said:


> Need to start writing the Governor's office since he appoints the members of the board and see if you can start a movement to get someone else onto the board on the next appointments.


Honestly it will probably have to come with a change in Governor. Huntsman and Cox are front runners and it's very likely one of those two will be elected in November. For the most part I like both, I think Huntsman would probably be the better bet for change seeing as Cox is Herberts Lieutenant Governor. This is a good point. I think trying to reach out to whoever is elected quite a bit on this issue you could see some change in regards to that as well. It will be Cox or Huntsman making those next appointments so contacting them about it is a good idea as well.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Something you guys need to consider. 58% of those expo tags came out of the Non-Res pools.
They just lowered the max 10% cap.

So, end the expo.
And if the permits go back to where they came from, minimal gain for residents. Big gain for NRs permits.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Goof- I’ve heard people say that, and also heard people say vehemently that isn’t true. And when you factor in the conservation tags especially, that claim just doesn’t add up. They didn’t pull 300 NR tags. 

Of course there will be some in the NR pool. But that’s where the biggest blockage exists anyway, so no complaints about that.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Vanilla said:


> Of course there will be some in the NR pool. But that's where the biggest blockage exists anyway, so no complaints about that.


Hey, I resemble that...


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> Goof- I've heard people say that, and also heard people say vehemently that isn't true. And when you factor in the conservation tags especially, that claim just doesn't add up. They didn't pull 300 NR tags.
> 
> Of course there will be some in the NR pool. But that's where the biggest blockage exists anyway, so no complaints about that.


To say they come from either the resident or the non-resident pool isn't accurate! The Conservation (and Expo) permits come from the total number of public permits BEFORE they are even divided into resident and non-resident pools. In fact, their numbers are determined from somewhat complicated formulas a year before they are even issued and since some of them are multi-year permits, it's hard to even determine where, how or when those numbers came from. Bottom line: both resident and non-resident public hunters lose equally!

See UDWR Rules and Regulations - R657-41-3, 6, 7, 8.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> Vanilla said:
> 
> 
> > Goof- I've heard people say that, and also heard people say vehemently that isn't true. And when you factor in the conservation tags especially, that claim just doesn't add up. They didn't pull 300 NR tags.
> ...


EFA
I was in the meeting when the Expo permits where pulled.

The resident and non- resident pools WERE established at that time.
And those that where there know exactly how the 'Expo permits" came to be .
Mostly from the NR pool.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Can any of you answer this for me...does the DWM get more money back from the organizations that get the free tags than they would if they (the DWM) handled the sale or auction or raffle of these same tags??? 
Why, for example, can't the Boat Show people get "free registration fees" for a few boats that they sell at their expo and then just donate a little of the money back to the state and call it a good deal for the boaters of Utah??


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

BPturkeys said:


> Can any of you answer this for me...does the DWM get more money back from the organizations that get the free tags than they would if they (the DWM) handled the sale or auction or raffle of these same tags???
> Why, for example, can't the Boat Show people get "free registration fees" for a few boats that they sell at their expo and then just donate a little of the money back to the state and call it a good deal for the boaters of Utah??


Who is the DWM?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> Who is the DWM?


Division of Wildlife Management I would guess.

BP, the answer is yes, the DWR could do it. Idk why they don't. This is more in regards to the 200 expo tags people apply for than the conservation tags.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Division of Wildlife Management I would guess.
> 
> BP, the answer is yes, the DWR could do it. Idk why they don't. This is more in regards to the 200 expo tags people apply for than the conservation tags.


I might be wrong but I'll give you what I can see and deduce from this whole thing.

The DWR gets "almost" exactly what they would from the tags if they were in the general Res/Non Res pool/draw. When you draw a tag you have to pay the tag fee according to your Res/Non Res status so the DWR still gets the tag money. What they loose out on, and this is what sticks in some folks craw, is the millions in draw application revenue that no one hold the expo folks accountable for.

Now... could the DWR do this? I suppose so. I also don't see why not. I do think they would have a nightmare of a time doing it. They are stretched out thin as it is so running a huge fundraiser with these tags would be a problem for them and they still would have to outsource the core of it if not all.

I think they should DEMAND at least 85% of the application revenue after all costs are covered and these costs should be fully disclosed and available for public review since they proceed from a public resource. After all, this money is supposed to be for wildlife projects.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Fallon could easily run any draw /auction the state decided to implement.

I don't particularly like government interference in anything but it is pretty obvious they are not milking the population to the the full extent they can.

It is almost un-American the way it is run. :smile:


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

middlefork said:


> It is almost un-American the way it is run.


According to the $FW folks it is absolutely the American way!!!


----------



## OriginalOscar (Sep 5, 2016)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> This is 100% the truth. I am trying to figure out if RMEF will apply again, if so, it might be good to at least try pressuring them to open it back up.


Volunteered last year at RMEF Mountain Expo in Park City. Lots of people mentioned how nice it would be if LE tags could be available. Mentioned to state chair and got basically not interested.

Seems like great opportunity to demonstrate what RMEF could do with tags and they do have access to Utah and other western tags.

Until they do RMEF has no grounds to P&M about SFW or the HuntExpo! I say that as a RMEF member since 1989 and yes I will continue to support; but put up or shut up time.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

OriginalOscar said:


> Volunteered last year at RMEF Mountain Expo in Park City. Lots of people mentioned how nice it would be if LE tags could be available. Mentioned to state chair and got basically not interested.
> 
> Seems like great opportunity to demonstrate what RMEF could do with tags and they do have access to Utah and other western tags.
> 
> Until they do RMEF has no grounds to P&M about SFW or the HuntExpo! I say that as a RMEF member since 1989 and yes I will continue to support; but put up or shut up time.


Umm they did......and were screwed out of it by this wonderful good old boy corruption known as Utah politics. I've been in contact with them over this and they'll get back with me next week sometime on it.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

OriginalOscar said:


> Volunteered last year at RMEF Mountain Expo in Park City. Lots of people mentioned how nice it would be if LE tags could be available. Mentioned to state chair and got basically not interested.


It would be nice if LE tags could be available for what?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> It would be nice if LE tags could be available for what?


I assume he meant the expo permits, other than that idk what he's talking about.


----------



## OriginalOscar (Sep 5, 2016)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I assume he meant the expo permits, other than that idk what he's talking about.


If you're gonna fly the RMEF logo you really should pay attention to what you profess to know!! https://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/bg/2019-21_conservation_permits.pdf

This is current distribution of Utah state tags to conservation organizations. Utah's RMEF could commit some of these tags to the Mountain Festival in July for attendees. They could also offer tags from other western states to attendees. Oh and CWMU's could also be asked to support. If they could offer 25-50 tags to attendees it would promote RMEF and the Mountain Festival.

I liked that RMEF came together with Total Archery Challenge last year and will again this year. Total Archery Challenge; lots of families, younger, more active, and very engaged demographic. It would be good to enhance hunting opportunities for these folks who we all want to stay involved with hunting and conservation.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

OriginalOscar said:


> If you're gonna fly the RMEF logo you really should pay attention to what you profess to know!! https://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/bg/2019-21_conservation_permits.pdf
> 
> This is current distribution of Utah state tags to conservation organizations. Utah's RMEF could commit some of these tags to the Mountain Festival in July for attendees. They could also offer tags from other western states to attendees. Oh and CWMU's could also be asked to support. If they could offer 25-50 tags to attendees it would promote RMEF and the Mountain Festival.
> 
> I liked that RMEF came together with Total Archery Challenge last year and will again this year. Total Archery Challenge; lots of families, younger, more active, and very engaged demographic. It would be good to enhance hunting opportunities for these folks who we all want to stay involved with hunting and conservation.


Ummmm.....these are conservation tags not expo tags though. These are given to the groups specifically to be auctioned off? So you would rather they auction them off at this than their banquet? I'm not sure what difference that makes.....like at all.


----------

