# Expo RMEF Proposal



## Igottabigone (Oct 4, 2007)

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation hand delivered their proposal to obtain the contract for the expo tags yesterday. RMEF is proposing to bring their national convention to Utah. In addition, RMEF has committed to return 100% of the $5.00 application fee for the expo tags back to the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. This is a BIG deal! RMEF's convention would dwarf the current SFW/MDF as their national following is substantially larger. This means that there would be far more attendees from out of state and would generate more revenue for the state than the current Western Hunting & Conservation Expo. Currently SFW/MDF only returns 30% of the application fees for the expo tags to the DWR and SFW/MDF have only done this recently after years of the public wanting them to be more transparent. RMEF is proposing to return 100% of the application fee with no strings attached. This great for Utah. Now, with the Wildlife Board having several former SFW officials, we'll see if they truly care about Utah wildlife or if the old crony system of the past decade prevails. If you support the new proposal by RMEF, contact the powers that be to ensure they are awarded the contract.


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

Love it get those crooks out of there


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Anyone with information on where to direct our voices, please post here.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

They will just issue an additional 200 permits. 

Am I mistaken or was the past renewal of the Convention contract just negotiated for 10 years? I doubt RMEF can get the tags away from the Hunt Expo.


----------



## Raptorman (Aug 18, 2009)

Sounds great, who can we talk to?


----------



## Oak (Mar 10, 2009)

Packout said:


> They will just issue an additional 200 permits.
> 
> Am I mistaken or was the past renewal of the Convention contract just negotiated for 10 years? I doubt RMEF can get the tags away from the Hunt Expo.


It looks like the application period for the 2017-2021 period ended yesterday, per the Administrative Rules on Convention Permits.



> *R657-55-4. Obtaining Authority to Distribute Wildlife Expo Permit Series.*
> 
> (1)(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), the wildlife expo permit series is issued for a period of five years.
> (b) For expo contracts governing the 2017 expo, and all expo contracts thereafter, the original five year term may be extended an additional period not to exceed five years, so long as:
> ...


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

I like it already.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Thanks for the info Oak. Should be interesting to see what happens.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Oak said:


> It looks like the application period for the 2017-2021 period ended yesterday, per the Administrative Rules on Convention Permits.


 In spite of what SFW tried to argue, the automatic 5 year renewal regulation can legally apply only to the 2017-2021 contract, not the current contract, which would require changing! MDF/SFW will receive the 200 EXPO permits in 2016, but after that, the permits will go to the organization that is awarded the 2017-2021 contract, along with the 5 year renewal option. In other words, there will NOT be an additional 200 EXPO tags issued.

It's marvelous that RMEF is willing to return 100% of the application fees back to wildlife and the public, but there still needs to be some formal/legal mandate much higher than 30% for that return, just in case RMEF doesn't get this contract now or in the future. As hard as we fought for 90%, then 70% or even 50%, all we got from SFW and MDF (and DWR) was 30%. And they were reluctant to even give that up, and it's not likely that they will change!

And there's still the issue of the percentage of some OIL permits going to the EXPO. It's supposed to be 5%, but as we just learned at the Wildlife Board meeting that's just a "guideline", as is the percentage of Conservation (auctioned) permits, and the actual amount can be as high as 7%. We would like to see that become 5% rounded down.

Even with those pending issues, UWC would love to see RMEF awarded the EXPO Permit Contract, or, if not that, MDF/SFW willing to return at least 90% of those EXPO application fees back to wildlife projects. It will, indeed, be interesting to see how the 4 SFW heavy hitters on the Wildlife Board respond to this development.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

So Last Year 228,530 people bought $5 apps for 200 permits.

Resulted in $1,142,650 of money. 30 percent of that sum is $342,795. 

Imagine how much more good Utah could do with $799,855 for wildlife. 

Oh, and the overall draw odds are 0.088 percent - which means out of all the apps only 8.8 apps out of each thousand will draw a permit. 

To get your own personal odds are drawing a permit it will be a big long equation or you can take my word that it isn't good.


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

Kudos to RMEF for stepping up to the plate and offering to do the right thing. I am sure more details are forthcoming. 

Hawkeye


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

If 100% of the money came back to the DWR, I would probably apply for more hunts each year. As it stands now, I do very few each year. The thought of SFW getting any money from me makes me want to puke. That said, I can't pass an opportunity to apply for hunts that I'm not even allowed to apply for in the regular draw, even if the odds are bad and I don't like the organization that helps run the Expo. 

I would like RMEF to win this. It would be great for wildlife and great for the state of Utah. I think we should all be contacting not only the Wildlife Board members, but also the governor's office.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> Imagine how much more good Utah could do with $799,855 for wildlife.


Yep they can buy 20 trucks or maybe buy more perfect deer weather. Or they can just waste it on habitat like the other 100s of millions spent with no direct increases in game populations.

Habitat restoration is the vehicle used to monetize rare and coveted tags.

Just sayin.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

No habitat, no animals. Simple as that.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Does that mean if the animals have nowhere to live then we won't have any animals? 
Is a golf coarse deer habitat? 

How about less predators, more animals. Simple as that.


----------



## tallbuck (Apr 30, 2009)

MWScott72 said:


> No habitat, no animals. Simple as that.


We can have all the Habitat in the world, but with the Farm Bureau, ranchers and WB putting a CAP on Elk in Utah there is only so much money to spend on habitat. This needs to be changed...


----------



## bowhunt3r4l1f3 (Jan 12, 2011)

tallbuck said:


> We can have all the Habitat in the world, but with the Farm Bureau, ranchers and WB putting a CAP on Elk in Utah there is only so much money to spend on habitat. This needs to be changed...


Couldn't agree more tall. This is one of the more frustrating things about the state.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Iron Bear said:


> Does that mean if the animals have nowhere to live then we won't have any animals?
> Is a golf coarse deer habitat?
> 
> How about less predators, more animals. Simple as that.


Colorado, Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho have more predators and more deer.

Nevada and Utah do not have as many and Mule Deer are steadily declining, and they have less predators.

It's not as simple as eliminate/reduce predators and all your troubles will go away.

All these things encompass mule deer increases.

Habitat Quality - High Quality Forage in summering and wintering grounds.

Habitat Quantity - How much of this high quality forage we have

Predators - Black Bear, Cougar, Coyote, and Bobcats. Utah's coyote population is high, Black Bears are on the rise, and Cougars are there.

Disease - Pneumonia, etc

Competition - Utah is an managed towards trophy elk and everything else is a novelty. BLM cows, sheep, etc will also compete with mule deer.

Hunters - Kill Deer

Automobiles - Kill Deer


----------



## elkman (Sep 1, 2013)

I have been against the hunting expo for this reason. If you live in Utah you can only apply for residential OIL tags. If you live outside of Utah you can apply for the same tags as the residence do plus apply for the out of state OIL tags. Once I learned this I never stepped foot in the again. If the RMEF gets to run the show I hope this changes or they will not get my support either.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

elkman said:


> I have been against the hunting expo for this reason. If you live in Utah you can only apply for residential OIL tags. If you live outside of Utah you can apply for the same tags as the residence do plus apply for the out of state OIL tags. Once I learned this I never stepped foot in the again. If the RMEF gets to run the show I hope this changes or they will not get my support either.


Well, technically all the expo tags were pulled from the Non Resident pool of tags.

Giving NR's back 4 from the 200 that they removed from the NR pool is a great deal for Utah Residents.

In fact, it gives Utah Residents more opportunity to pull a tag, that they would not otherwise have an opportunity to pull.

Remember that you are a Non Resident in 49 states.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> Habitat Quality - High Quality Forage in summering and wintering grounds.
> 
> Habitat Quantity - How much of this high quality forage we have


And California has 4X the habitat as Utah but 1/3 the deer. An even bigger population decline over the last 30 yrs with no rebounds. Bouts of good weather half the hunter harvest as Utah.

What's the cougar situation in California?


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> What's the cougar situation in California?


It's off the hook!!!! Lots of plastic surgery tho!


----------



## stick&string89 (Jun 21, 2012)

Keep it as is. I'll give my money to SFW.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Iron Bear said:


> And California has 4X the habitat as Utah but 1/3 the deer. An even bigger population decline over the last 30 yrs with no rebounds. Bouts of good weather half the hunter harvest as Utah.
> 
> What's the cougar situation in California?


I wouldn't say California has 4x the habitat that Utah has. There are a lot of farms and cities. Also, there are many articles that state the decline in deer in California to habitat loss by development and fires. Having a surplus of cougars doesn't help.

The banning of Cougar hunting in California is a classic case of Charismatic Megafauna.

Cougars live in the cities and are picking off pets.

There is no management strategy for cougars in California. People are concerned for the lack of habitat for them as well as them getting hit by cars.

California also has 30,000 black bears in this dwindling habitat.

They are in bad shape on all accounts.

I am not against cougar hunting, but I believe they should be managed like any other wildlife species.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> I wouldn't say California has 4x the habitat that Utah has. There are a lot of farms and cities. Also, there are many articles that state the decline in deer in California to habitat loss by development and fires.


California has 20 million acres of national forest. Utah has 880,000.

Percentage wise I bet Utah has seen the same or more of its acreage burnt over the last 30 yrs. the percentage of deer habitat developed to the point deer can't live there in California is minuscule. Remember one of Utah's most thriving deer herds is right on the Wasatch front.

My point is and always will be.

Dollar for dollar predator control will out perform habitat restoration, hunter restriction and luck (weather) every time.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

stick&string89 said:


> Keep it as is. I'll give my money to SFW.


Can you give 1 reason that this benefits Utah or Utah's wildlife over the RMEF proposal?

I'm willing to keep an open mind if it means the State and our wildlife will benefit more.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

I have mixed feelings about RMEF. There is some sort of political angle, you can count on that. RMEF is a rich man's club as well, go to a banquet and auction and you'll see. 

The only permits that should be available at any kind of an expo are ones that would be on private land only, not public, and should not come from the normal public ground pool of resident or non-resident.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Iron Bear said:


> California has 20 million acres of national forest. Utah has 880,000.
> 
> Percentage wise I bet Utah has seen the same or more of its acreage burnt over the last 30 yrs. the percentage of deer habitat developed to the point deer can't live there in California is minuscule. Remember one of Utah's most thriving deer herds is right on the Wasatch front.
> 
> ...


Acres to Acres comparison is not a proper comparison for habitat. It does not take into account the quality.

National forest is not a good representation to of overall deer habitat. The edges of most of the national forest in California are covered by cities, which means a bad winter can cause a lot of winter kill.

Like I said California is in more trouble than, just predators.

You really, can't use California to compare cougars to Utah - because they are not managed in California and they are in Utah.

With fires - that statement is false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wildfires

The Wasatch Front thrives until a bad winter hits, because the deer have no where to go during the winter. People have built onto the shelves to escape the inversion and deer have no where to go, when a bad winter hits.

Here is a study that might tickle your fancy.

http://www.muledeerworkinggroup.com.../9th_2011_NM_Proceedings_DeerElk_WorkShop.pdf

*Effect Of Enhanced Nutrition On Mule Deer Population Rate Of*
*Change*: We found strong evidence that enhanced nutrition of deer reduced coyote and mountain lion predation rates of less than 6 month old fawns and adult females. Winter range habitat quality was a limiting factor ... we recommend evaluating habitat treatments for deer that are designed to set-back succession and increase productivity of late-seral pinyon-juniper habitats that presently dominate the winter range....

*Utilizing Antler Point Restrictions For Mule Deer To Maximize *
*Hunter Opportunity In Southern British Columbia*: We provide explanations as to why our results appear to counter some findings from other studies and suggest that utilizing a combination of 4-point and any-buck seasons for mule deer for 92 days can maintain maximum hunter opportunity while retaining a sustainable harvest.


----------



## SLCHunter (Dec 19, 2013)

utahgolf said:


> It's off the hook!!!! Lots of plastic surgery tho!


:mrgreen::shock: LOL


----------



## Mtnbeer (Jul 15, 2012)

Iron Bear said:


> California has 20 million acres of national forest. Utah has 880,000.
> 
> Percentage wise I bet Utah has seen the same or more of its acreage burnt over the last 30 yrs. the percentage of deer habitat developed to the point deer can't live there in California is minuscule. Remember one of Utah's most thriving deer herds is right on the Wasatch front.
> 
> ...


Your numbers are way off. I will break it down for you:

Public Land (state and federal land open to hunting) by acres


California = 38,197,000
Utah = 34,736,000 (9.1% lower than CA)
Mule/blacktail Deer population estimates (by latest year available)


California = 550,000
Utah = 332,900 (39.5% lower than CA)
Let's also put it another way. Acres of public land per deer:


California = 69.45 acres of public land per deer
Utah = 104.34 acres of public land per deer
Now, before you bring up other arguments, like the fact that California has almost double the acres of rural land than Utah (98 million vs. 52 million), remember there are large portions of California that are not suitable habitat for deer. California's habitat numbers include marginal habitat, whereas Utah's numbers do not, but these were the best numbers I was able to find.

Available habitat (regardless of quality/seasonality of use) by acres:


California = 56,320,226 acres (57% of rural landmass)
Utah = 29,370,577 acres (56% of rural landmass)
As above, let's look at it in terms of acres of habitat per deer:


California = 102.40 acres per deer (16% lower than UT)
Utah = 88.23 acres per deer
Also, almost every mule deer biologist out there will disagree with you on whether habitat or predation is the bigger limiting factor in deer. From CDFW's own words:

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/hunting/deer/bigfire.html


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I'm talking about deer habitat. Not land open to hunting. And your using nearly every acre in Utah like the salt flats. 

You have to lump costal blackmail deer to inflate a number to compare to Utah's deer herd? 

Marginal habitat? Ever been to California? Miles and miles and miles of habitat.

I like the habitat acreage per deer comparison. It show just how improbable the deer at capacity argument is. 

I'm not going to break it down for you. But take California, the most unproductive state in the Union in terms of providing 
Hunting opportunity per acre. Now compare it to somewhere like Alabama or anywhere east of the Mississippi where apex predators like wolf and cougar don't live. How many acres does it take to sustain a deer in Pennsylvania? Georgia? 

No it's not an apples to apples comparison but the must be some similarities. Or are they alternate dimensions where there are no comparisons to be draw? 

Just about ever biologist didn't think option 2 and coyote bounty would be a benefit. But look at us just a couple yes in and things are better, more deer more buck. And hunter satisfaction is as high as its been in decades. 

Is it weather to thank? Sure I'll give good weather some credit. But it's not the first time mother nature strung together 2 good years of "deer weather" in the last 40 yrs. But it is the first time we have seen such substantial increase in not only buck but overall deer numbers in the last 30 yrs. Statewide not just in pockets. 

The WB has increased some HO cougar tags this year and that's a good thing and a move in the right direction. Things will continue to improve in the deer dept in Utah for more years to come. 

Back to the thread at hand 

IMO I think all conservation organizations can pound sand and operate on their own donations and merits. No tags for any of them. If they want to put on an expo great. Let them have the admission fees and call it good. 

I don't like these groups in bed with the DWR.


----------



## tallbuck (Apr 30, 2009)

My thoughts.... Random too!

SFW is in bed with the DWR and that is not a good thing on any level with me. I do like that there is an open book from SFW to donate to help on projects that is not Political but I think more can be done. SFW does have selfish motives with keeping the 3.50 from the application fee and that is wrong in my book.... Prove the ACTUAL operations cost and then put the rest of the $$ on the ground for projects and improvments and transplants. 

RMEF is not a Golden Glove either in my book. I have a bad taste in my mouth with Bill C. when he stepped out on the Wolf Vote years ago due to getting political Pressure and taking the stance that RMEF is only about Elk Habitat. 

But I would like to see what RMEF can do? Just like WSF did a few years back but then pulled away and took there convention back to Reno. 

My thought is I would support RMEF to allow a change and a PROMISE to put more money into Utah's wildlife. With all the private land issues (access), habitat projects, transplants and so forth It would be nice to have more Money going back to support our love of hunting and wildlife. 

Unless SFW steps up and promises the same thing.... then I am on the fence and it will have to get dirty as to who I support. :mrgreen:


----------



## elkhunterUT (Jan 21, 2008)

Send your input to the wildlife board and express your opinion - here are most of their email addresses:

'[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'

Here is the text of the email I sent - use it if you want or write up your own, but make your voice heard:

Hello All,
As members of the Wildlife Board with decision making authority over wildlife in this state, I am writing to urge you to push for and accept the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation’s recent proposal to bring their national convention to Utah and to contract for the current Expo tags. It is my understanding that RMEF’s proposal includes agreement to return 100% of the $5.00 application fees for the Expo tags to the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. The current agreement with SFW/Mule Deer Foundation is 30% return of application fees, which is a travesty and says a lot about the current situation for anyone that is willing to look at it objectively.

As a resident of Utah and a die-hard hunter that cares deeply about the future of hunting in this state for my children and their future children, I implore you to push for this proposal from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. 100% return to the UDWR on these fees would be a boon for wildlife and habitat restoration projects and would be a HUGE improvement over the current situation. RMEF’s involvement would almost certainly bring more national attention and additional earnings to the table as well.

Please do what is right for Utah, Utah residents, and most importantly the wildlife of Utah, by accepting RMEF’s proposal. If this proposal is not accepted, I believe serious questioning should occur as to the integrity of our overall wildlife management process. Thank you for your service and I trust you will do what is right for all involved. If you have questions for me or additional info that you feel is worth sharing, I would love to hear it as I am extremely interested in the outcome of this.


----------



## tallbuck (Apr 30, 2009)

elkhunterUT said:


> Send your input to the wildlife board and express your opinion - here are most of their email addresses:
> 
> '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'
> 
> ...


Do the RAC's get a say on this subject? If so we should send it to the RAC members as well.

If so I can add the RAC members to send this too


----------



## elkhunterUT (Jan 21, 2008)

Not sure if this will be reviewed by the RACs or not, but Wildlife Board typically makes the final decisions. Couldn't hurt to include RAC members


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

elkhunterUT said:


> Send your input to the wildlife board and express your opinion - here are most of their email addresses:
> 
> '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'
> 
> ...


Some corrections on the Wildlife Board emails:

Bill Fenimore is no longer on the Board! In fact, he just recently passed away just before his 6 year tenure was up on July 1. He'll be missed, not only by Utah sportsmen, but especially by nationwide birders!

Donnie Hunter and Byron Bateman are new Board members and both are SFW heavy hitters. Byron recently resigned as SFW Pres. and Donnie was/is involved in the Iron County Chapter, though I don't know his position.
Byron Bateman: [email protected]
Donnie Hunter: [email protected]

And Mike King is a current member, but was not listed
Mike King: [email protected]


----------



## silentstalker (Feb 19, 2008)

elkfromabove said:


> Some corrections on the Wildlife Board emails:
> 
> Bill Fenimore is no longer on the Board! In fact, he just recently passed away just before his 6 year tenure was up on July 1.
> 
> ...


Thanks!


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

Here is a complete list of the email addresses for the Wildlife Board Members that you can cut and paste, and a copy of the email that I sent. Make sure your voice is heard:

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Gentlemen--

I am a lifelong Utah citizen and sportsmen, and I am writing you regarding the next 5-year contract for the Expo Permits. It is my understanding that the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) submitted a application for the next contract that includes a commitment to dedicate 100% of the $5 application fees to approved conservation projects and to bring the RMEF National Convention to Salt Lake City for the next 5 years. This is a very generous offer and would be a significant improvement over the current situation.

I generally support the idea of a Hunting and Conservation Expo and usually attend the Expo each year. However, I have been concerned about the lack of transparency and accountability regarding the revenues raised from the 200 Convention Permits. These permits were taken from the public draw and are public assets. As a result, we all have a responsibility to ensure that the monies generated from those permits are used to benefit wildlife. After being allowed to keep 100% of the $5 application fees for the first several years, the DWR, SFW and MDF eventually agreed to dedicate 30% of the application fees to actual conservation projects starting in 2013. This only occurred after substantial outcry from sportsmen and the general public. I attended many meetings related to this topic and I have heard representatives of SFW and MDF say that they could not afford to put on the Expo if they were required to turn over 100% of the application fee revenue. In contrast, the RMEF proposal includes a voluntary commitment to dedicate 100% of application fee revenue to approved conservation projects. Based upon last year's numbers, that would mean that an additional $800,000 would go towards actual on the ground conservation projects. Over the life of the 5-year contract, you could be talking about an additional $4 to 5 million dollars for conservation projects or possibly $8 to 10 million now that the 5-year contract can be extended under the revised rule. This is a very generous offer by the RMEF given that under the rule they could simply pocket this money and allocate it to "administrative expenses" as has occurred in the past..

The statute is very clear that theses tags were created for two specific purposes: (1) to generate revenue for conservation; and (2) to bring a regional or nation convention to Utah and thereby attract visitors so as to generate tourism dollars. See Administrative Code R657-55-1(2). SFW and MDF have had some success with each of these goals. However, there is no doubt that the RMEF proposal would help further accomplish the statutory purposes of the Expo permits. First, as set forth above, the RMEF proposal would result in millions of additional dollars being put on the ground in Utah for actual conservation. Second, due to the RMEF's commitment to bring its National Convention to Utah, it is likely that the RMEF proposal would attract many more applicants, especially nonresident applicants, and thereby generate more tourism dollars. According to the recent audit conducted by the DWR, roughly 15% of the Expo Tag applicants from 2007 to 2015 were nonresidents. This means that on average the Expo has attracted roughly 11,000 applicants per year and approximately 1,650 of those applicants have been nonresidents. RMEF has over 200,000 members located across the country and around the world. Thus, the RMEF membership is many times larger than SFW and MDF combined. By bringing its National Convention to Salt Lake City and pairing it with the 200 Expo Permits, RMEF would likely attract many more nonresident applicants than what we have seen in the past. This would result in a win for sportsmen, conservation, local area restaurants, hotels and other businesses. Therefore, the RMEF proposal would further the statutory purposes for creating the Expo Permits.

In closing, I hope that you will carefully consider the merits of the RMEF proposal. The decision of which conservation group(s) will be awarded the contract should not be based upon which conservation group had it in the past, which group we like better or which group our friends are involved with. Rather, it should be based upon the factors set forth in the Rule, one of which is the "applicant conservation organization's commitment to use expo permit handling fee revenue to benefit protected wildlife in Utah." R657-55-4(7)(b). I , and numerous other sportsmen, attended the Wildlife Board meeting in August of 2012 and urged the Board to require the SFW and MDF to allocate some portion of the application fees to actual conservation projects. At that time, the Board decided that it would not make any changes until the contract has expired. Now that the contract is up for renewal, it is time to make a decision as to what is best for Utah's wildlife and how we can maximize the return on the 200 permits set aside for the Expo. Please carefully consider the RMEF proposal and do what is right for Utah's wildlife and sportsmen. In addition, I would ask that you include this issue on the agenda for an upcoming Wildlife Board Meeting so that the public has an opportunity to provide input on this important issue.

Thank you for your service and for taking the time to consider my comments. I hope that my comments will not be interpreted as an attack on the Expo or the conservation groups involved in the past. Rather, I would like to make sure that we are safeguarding public assets and maximizing the return for Utah sportsmen and wildlife. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding my comments.

Thanks.

Jason Hawkins


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> Well, technically all the expo tags were pulled from the Non Resident pool of tags.
> 
> Giving NR's back 4 from the 200 that they removed from the NR pool is a great deal for Utah Residents.
> 
> ...


Wrong, wrong, wrong-- common misconception among Utah hunters that the expo tags came from the non resident pool. This is incorrect. The non residents are allowed 10% of the tags, if the your statement above is correct when I look at non resident allocations it should be less than 10% but it is not. Non residents received 10% before the expo and they have received 10% after the expo. The 200 expo tags came from all of us or were added to the current allotment of tags. Regardless the non residents have their 10% and we all give up 200 tags. If I am wrong then show me where non residents get less than 10% on the agragate.


----------



## elkman (Sep 1, 2013)

My point was not where the tags come from. My point is at the expo there are tags that residence are not allowed to apply for. Non-resident only. Then there are tags that anyone can apply for. resident and non-resident.
Please forgive me I don't have exact numbers but lets just say at the expo they have 3 hunters choice bison tags. lets say they put one tag for non-resident only. That leaves 2 tags for the general draw. These tags are available to residence and non-residence. 
So lets say there are 100,000 residence that apply and 50,000 non-residence that apply.
For the non-resident tag the odds are 1/50,000
For the general tags the odds are 1/75,000
that is my problem with the expo. If the draw was set up for residence and non-residence like it is for the DWR hunt draw I would support it.
I am not against non-resident hunters I just don't think they should get more opportunities for Utah OIL tags than residence do.


----------



## elkman (Sep 1, 2013)

Here is another question. If it is called the Western Hunting and Conservation Expo then why does Utah have to put up all the tags? Why cant Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Arizona and others from the Western states put up some tags?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

There have been other state hunts at the auction. Just not in the draw. i do think that would be cool to make it more of a regional expo by getting other states on board for the draw. 

Not sure it would happen, but that would be cool.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Iron Bear said:


> I'm talking about deer habitat. Not land open to hunting. And your using nearly every acre in Utah like the salt flats.
> 
> You have to lump costal blackmail deer to inflate a number to compare to Utah's deer herd?
> 
> ...


I was just in Salmon, Idaho this weekend. A place with Wolves, Cougars, and Black Bears. I saw 100+ Head of deer Whitetails and Mulies. I also seen 34 Elk, 28 Pronghorn, and 6 Bears (2 Sows and 4 cubs, no legal bears for me). If you want to talk about a game rich area. The habitat supports all of these animals in one place.

If habitat is great and has a huge quantity, then the predation is lower. The issue is in areas with low habitat.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Airborne said:


> Wrong, wrong, wrong-- common misconception among Utah hunters that the expo tags came from the non resident pool. This is incorrect. The non residents are allowed 10% of the tags, if the your statement above is correct when I look at non resident allocations it should be less than 10% but it is not. Non residents received 10% before the expo and they have received 10% after the expo. The 200 expo tags came from all of us or were added to the current allotment of tags. Regardless the non residents have their 10% and we all give up 200 tags. If I am wrong then show me where non residents get less than 10% on the agragate.


That is the way the sold it to the public.

I think someone on here said the tags didn't change, which is why I said technically.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

elkman said:


> My point was not where the tags come from. My point is at the expo there are tags that residence are not allowed to apply for. Non-resident only. Then there are tags that anyone can apply for. resident and non-resident.
> Please forgive me I don't have exact numbers but lets just say at the expo they have 3 hunters choice bison tags. lets say they put one tag for non-resident only. That leaves 2 tags for the general draw. These tags are available to residence and non-residence.
> So lets say there are 100,000 residence that apply and 50,000 non-residence that apply.
> For the non-resident tag the odds are 1/50,000
> ...


They don't. If you look at the number of overall OIL permits to NR's it is 36 including the expo. The 4 in the expo are to entice NR's to come to Utah and spend money. Which will contribute more money to support the various species. It's a lessor form of auction tags.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

elkman said:


> Here is another question. If it is called the Western Hunting and Conservation Expo then why does Utah have to put up all the tags? Why cant Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Arizona and others from the Western states put up some tags?


Then you would have to split the profits 4/5/6/7 ways. It would be cool, but I don't think it will happen.


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

The purpose for the handful of "nonresident only" tags at the Expo is to try to attract nonresidents to Utah in an effort to generate tourism dollars. That specific aspect of the Expo Tags has nothing to do with generating money for conservation. Conservation dollars could be generated through resident applications.

With regard to the question about why other states don't contribute raffle tags to the Expo. Thank goodness most western states don't agree with this approach. An SFW-type group recently tried to create similar Expo tags in Arizona but that effort was torpedoed by vigilant sportsmen. I personally do not want to see the Expo Tag idea spread to other states. I am not a huge fan of the 200 Expo Tags in Utah but if we are going to have them then we should at least make sure that we as sportsmen are getting a maximum return on their investment.

Hawkeye


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

The application email for the Western Hunting and conservation expo just arrived. Does anyone know who won the contract?

http://www.huntexpo.com/registration.php


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

SFW and MDF still have one year (2016) left on the current contract. A new contract will be awarded for 2017-2021. The deadline to respond to the DWR's recently issued RFP is 11/24/2015. So decision will not likely be made until at least December.

Hawkeye


----------

