# Another SFW question



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

I've went through SFWs 2013 990 form a couple times on page 10 Line 24 a, what is the Big game hunts&a permits expense that is listed? It is listed as a $1.1 million expense and then landowners permits are on the next line with an expense of almost $541,000. Habitat improvement is only listed as a $184,000 expense. What are those two giant expenses?

Here's the 990 report:

http://www.sfw.net/data/SFW-990-2013.pdf


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Hey oneye,

Vacation and no were to go?

Or has SFW possessed you...........................................


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

( A post I put up on MM, applies here pretty well too....)

A lot of slamming SFW & MDF.....

I would argue its just as much Utah DWR's fault for creating the
situation we are in with the conservation and expo permits..

It looks to me like SFW is becoming a byproduct of the DWR's
motives....JMHO


----------



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

goofy elk said:


> ( A post I put up on MM, applies here pretty well too....)
> 
> A lot of slamming SFW & MDF.....
> 
> ...


And I'll agree with you, I would even say the DWR is more to blame, they have the power. All I want is transparency, at least on the required funds. This relationship and the amount of information that isn't accounted for has got old,especially after how they just awarded the permits.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Goofy Agree with that.. Never can figure this Crap Out.. Still Think Peay is Crooked As A Jaybird.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Hey 1 eye. A little obsessed are we?
You wouldn't be "Jason Petersen" on facebook would you?


----------



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

ridgetop said:


> Hey 1 eye. A little obsessed are we?
> You wouldn't be "Jason Petersen" on facebook would you?


I haven't yet got involved in the Facebook drama, I read a little bit of it, but I've been obsessing enough on these forums, I don't need more places to keep up with. Between here and MM I can't remember which I've posted which on most the time. I guess I could jump in if you like, then I'll be everywhere you look.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Goof, ridge...why is it a problem if 1-I is possessed or obsessed? Corrupt people, organizations, and governments bank on the fact that 'we the people' will grow tired and move onto the next controversy involving someone else. They bank on us getting fatigued and for us to stop caring, and therefore can continue to get away with whatever they want. 

Not everything SFW does is bad. They have done some good things. But I think we all have to agree there are some problems here. 1-I is trying to keep that relevant, instead of the typical 24 hour outrage followed by apathy and moving on and forgetting about it. I tip my hat to him. Don't let it die, 1-I. Keep asking questions. People will start to see what you are seeing.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Vanilla said:


> Goof, ridge...why is it a problem if 1-I is possessed or obsessed? Corrupt people, organizations, and governments bank on the fact that 'we the people' will grow tired and move onto the next controversy involving someone else. They bank on us getting fatigued and for us to stop caring, and therefore can continue to get away with whatever they want.
> 
> Not everything SFW does is bad. They have done some good things. But I think we all have to agree there are some problems here. 1-I is trying to keep that relevant, instead of the typical 24 hour outrage followed by apathy and moving on and forgetting about it. I tip my hat to him. Don't let it die, 1-I. Keep asking questions. People will start to see what you are seeing.


I agree. I was on the same trip a year or two back and then felt as if I was just talking to myself. Lost a couple of friends that are big time supporters of the SFW arrangement. While I don't respond to all of 1-I's posts on the subject there are a lot of people that I forward the links to. I am glad he keeps at it.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

TS 30,

There are 5 different SFW threads on page one of the big game forum ( UWN }

Lost count of expo/SFW over on MM .......

THAT'S the problem.


----------



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

goofy elk said:


> TS 30,
> 
> There are 5 different SFW threads on page one of the big game forum ( UWN }
> 
> ...


I apologize for the inconvenience.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Maybe the problem is the DWR and SFW relationship and not what someone is doing to point out that it is *THE* problem!


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

goofy elk said:


> TS 30,
> 
> There are 5 different SFW threads on page one of the big game forum ( UWN }
> 
> ...


Soon enough the UWN will have a ton of new members asking where to put in for their LE hunts and you can have the front page back Goofy.

Patience.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Goof---As opposed to the 15+ different Wasatch cow elk threads you started or contributed to last year? A new question asked on a related topic. I think it's worthy of a new thread. You put a link and a question like this on a single thread that is talking about a lot of different things and it will just get lost in the fray. I guess that is what some people would like to see happen.

I don't think the 5 different threads on the Big Game section on this stuff is the problem. I think the problem lies in the question asked here: Why can't (or won't?) SFW or the DWR account for the majority of the money that is mandated to be used in a certain way? That bothers me a heck of a lot more than 5 threads on an online forum.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I've went through SFWs 2013 990 form a couple times on page 10 Line 24 a, what is the Big game hunts&a permits expense that is listed? It is listed as a $1.1 million expense and then landowners permits are on the next line with an expense of almost $541,000. Habitat improvement is only listed as a $184,000 expense. What are those two giant expenses?
> 
> Here's the 990 report:
> 
> http://www.sfw.net/data/SFW-990-2013.pdf


Deer, unfortunately having seen first hand how corruption works in government with private entities these two could be most anything. My cousin was the only 4 term governor in the history of LA and served quite a few years in federal prison for his crimes as governor. However the enlightening fact is that between the 3 expenses there is a total expenditure of $1,825,000 with only $184,000 going to habitat improvement (and that could be on private lands no less) which is a paltry 10.1%. I am sure our DWR and state accountants will be all over this (sarcasm). My guess is those two expenditures are their private slush fun but again I am only conjecturing with no proof. A copy of their federal tax return with receipts etc would be the only way to know what those are and where they went.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

It is largely the DWR's fault. Do away with all conservation permits. 

Don't look now but habitat will do just fine with out our tags going to the highest bidders. 

We're the only state that finances conservation groups to this extent. Let them operate on their own merit.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

And a mentality like 1-I's that wildlife is threatened and we need to raise more money to save them is a perfect foundation for this kind of corruption. 

I've said it for decades now habitat restoration is BS and is the vehicle guys like DP use to fleece hunters.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> Goof, ridge...why is it a problem if 1-I is possessed or obsessed? Corrupt people, organizations, and governments bank on the fact that 'we the people' will grow tired and move onto the next controversy involving someone else. They bank on us getting fatigued and for us to stop caring, and therefore can continue to get away with whatever they want.
> 
> Not everything SFW does is bad. They have done some good things. But I think we all have to agree there are some problems here. 1-I is trying to keep that relevant, instead of the typical 24 hour outrage followed by apathy and moving on and forgetting about it. I tip my hat to him. Don't let it die, 1-I. Keep asking questions. People will start to see what you are seeing.


I was mainly just razz'in 1-I a little but since you want my option.;-)
I don't think what 1-I is doing is very healthy.
1-I is a very negative person.
Look at his last 2,000 post, 99% of them are of some type, negative nature.
I asked if he was the same person as "Jason Petersen" on facebook because their writing styles are the same and are talking about the same subjects.
Since 1-I is not Jason, I will talk about him to keep myself out of trouble.
I think a person like "Jason" that will not give his "real name" or any background info. about themselves is a pathetic coward.
I have asked 1-I through PMs, what his real name is and what town he lives in and he will not give it out.
Have you guys ever seen a picture of 1-I?
I have no respect for a person that hides behind a "user name", no matter what their cause is.
Like I have said many times before, I think it's great to have a cause like UWC and what Lee is doing. Even Josh with wildlife researches. 
But it is unhealthy to be soooo negative all the time and worried, with the "sky is falling" attitude all too often.
I see people doing it all the time with religion and politics too.


----------



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

ridgetop said:


> I was mainly just razz'in 1-I a little but since you want my option.;-)
> I don't think what 1-I is doing is very healthy.
> 1-I is a very negative person.
> Look at his last 2,000 post, 99% of them are of some type, negative nature.
> ...


Ridge, as much as I love having this conversation with you, I think I'll just let it be. We can go on ten posts about this, or I can just simply say that neglecting the negative side, and always looking on the bright side gets you no where but screwed. I can't remember you PMing me, but it could have been years ago,so you probably did and I've forgot. Don't burden Jason with my idenitity, he surley wouldn't want it. PM me again and I'll have a conversation with you of where I live, what I do for a living, what my name is, etc. if it is that important to you, I don't wish to have you lose any sleep over it. Would you like my mailing address so you can send christmas cards and birthday wishes? Okay ridge, hope you have a good one, and try to look on the bright side today.


----------



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

Iron Bear said:


> And a mentality like 1-I's that wildlife is threatened and we need to raise more money to save them is a perfect foundation for this kind of corruption.
> 
> I've said it for decades now habitat restoration is BS and is the vehicle guys like DP use to fleece hunters.


At this point IB, I would be fine with doing away with these permits, it seems it isn't accomplishing the goals it has set out to do. Wildlife no doubt do need habitat IB and I don't want to turn this into that type of back and forth either. So instead of disagreeing, let's agree on the fact getting rid of these tags at this point is fine with both of us. Expo and conservation permits.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Iron Bear said:


> And a mentality like 1-I's that wildlife is threatened and we need to raise more money to save them is a perfect foundation for this kind of corruption.
> 
> I've said it for decades now habitat restoration is BS and is the vehicle guys like DP use to fleece hunters.


Maybe other than the fact that habitat restoration is not total BS. Fire suppression has impaired a critical natural process and now we have pinion and juniper spreading like wild fire. Furthermore, I have spent several hundred hours removing barbed wire fence from nature. Picking up garbage and shells from nature and farrowing and planting over roads that go through nature. All of these are habitat restoration.

There are many forms of habitat restoration. Somebody might want to get off their ass one of these decades and partake in some habitat restoration so they actually know what it is.

Your comment made about as much sense as thinking that all predation is a bad thing.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Ridge,

No doubt 1-I and I have had it out in the past, and will likely have it out in the future again. But just like SFW hasn't done all bad, neither has 1-I.

I'm much more concerned about the message at this point than the messenger. If he was just ranting without any documentation, that is one thing. Is this specific issue in this thread (the accounting on dollars spent) not concerning to you as a sportsman here in Utah?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Predator control is too expensive and has little return? 

What about the 100s of millions spent on habitat? Is that working? And working for who? 

Deer are the bread and butter of big game hunting in Utah. Most of the habitat restoration done in Utah has benefited cattle and elk not deer. I don't think RMEF is the answer to anything. Get rid of the conservation tags and focus on what matters. How do we manage for a general hunt for 100,000 hunters. 

No other state spends as much money on so called habitat. And they are no better or worse off then us in that regard.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Iron Bear said:


> Predator control is too expensive and has little return?
> 
> What about the 100s of millions spent on habitat? Is that working? And working for who?
> 
> ...


A huge majority of habitat restoration is freaking *CLEAN UP* and removal of fence and trash. Bullhogging and transplants take years and years to show any signs. When was the first bitterbrush transplant done? Are you a biologist? A botanist?

Oh I get it......YOU don't see any sudden returns so YOU don't think anything has worked or helped.

Dollar per Dollar habitat restoration is far more effective than killing yotes and cats.

NOT EVEN CLOSE.


----------



## bekins24 (Sep 22, 2015)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> A huge majority of habitat restoration is freaking *CLEAN UP* and removal of fence and trash.


This is the thing that is sticking out to me. Whenever I've been out and about scouting or hunting, I always find campsites that have trash from previous occupants, whether that was hunters or just people out for the weekend with their kids and atvs. The problem with this is that the cost then will come out of the budget that everyone wants to go toward improving the herds of animals. If everyone would just clean up after themselves, that would be 1000's of dollars that would be freed up to start implementing programs that will show those changes in herd numbers.


----------



## stick&string89 (Jun 21, 2012)

Iron Bear said:


> It is largely the DWR's fault. Do away with all conservation permits.
> 
> Don't look now but habitat will do just fine with out our tags going to the highest bidders.
> 
> We're the only state that finances conservation groups to this extent. Let them operate on their own merit.


Keep the conservation permits. I have purchased a permit in the past and will do so again. I personally support SFW,MDF, and UBA. If someone does not that's great. There are several organizations out there to chose from if you chose to support any. As for the DWR if you don't want to support them don't buy tags and licenses. As many have said its time for a topic change.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Habitat, Predators and Weather are all intertwined to have singular or cumulative effects on wildlife. We can debate until the end of time which is more important. At different times one will be more important than the other. For example if we had 10,000 cougars one could argue that cougar control at this point in time was more important than the other two factors. Habitat improvement has always been a longer term option that may have some short term benefits but will benefit the herd more over a longer period of time. To ignore habitat improvement will surely eventually cause a decline in the herd just as ignoring predator control will as well. As for the weather, well if anyone can wave their magic wand go for it.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> What about the 100s of millions spent on habitat? Is that working? And working for who?


Some of us smelled that skunk years ago because genuine habitat work has to be specific. But Utah's con tag programs are bass-ackwards with the result that a participating org raises the money first, then decides how to spend what they raised. Granted, the projects have to be approved, but that's still how it works.

So, for just one example, guzzlers are a popular way to spend habitat funds. The DWR monitors most of these guzzlers and wonders why some of them aren't being used. Shouldn't they have thought about that before installation? Guzzlers in the right location are great. In the wrong location, they're a waste of money.

When my kids would ask me for money, my immediate question was always "What for?" If they didn't have a good answer, they didn't get the money.

Seems to me that con tags should be the same way. Before any organization gets a tag, they should propose the project, show evidence of the project's benefit to wildlife and provide a budget. Any tag allotments should be based on that information.

Meanwhile, I can't help but notice that many of the most successful habitat projects are completed by organizations that don't participate in Utah's con tag programs at all. Trout Unlimited comes immediately to mind.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

So who's going to approve the projects? The WB?


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> Goof, ridge...why is it a problem if 1-I is possessed or obsessed? Corrupt people, organizations, and governments bank on the fact that 'we the people' will grow tired and move onto the next controversy involving someone else. They bank on us getting fatigued and for us to stop caring, and therefore can continue to get away with whatever they want.
> 
> Not everything SFW does is bad. They have done some good things. But I think we all have to agree there are some problems here. 1-I is trying to keep that relevant, instead of the typical 24 hour outrage followed by apathy and moving on and forgetting about it. I tip my hat to him. Don't let it die, 1-I. Keep asking questions. People will start to see what you are seeing.


Vanilla, its best just to stick your head in the sand, keep your mouth shut, do what you're told and don't ask questions. That's what the $FW faithful do and it seems to be working out good for them.

BTW, can any of the $FW faithful answer 1Is original question???
Yea, I didn't think so.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> Ridge,
> 
> No doubt 1-I and I have had it out in the past, and will likely have it out in the future again. But just like SFW hasn't done all bad, neither has 1-I.
> 
> I'm much more concerned about the message at this point than the messenger. If he was just ranting without any documentation, that is one thing. Is this specific issue in this thread (the accounting on dollars spent) not concerning to you as a sportsman here in Utah?


I'm going to lay off on 1-I for now. I said my peace.
Seems like they(SFW) has accounted for most their money to me.
It would take a mountain of receipts to account for all their spending too.
Where would you start.
I'm sure all those hunts they buy and then sell off during their raffle draws add up real fast.
I'm sure those guides and outfitters don't give away those hunts.

What really bugs me is all the conservation tags that are giving away to all the dozens of different groups out there.
I feel Big Game tags should never be given away to pay for bird, fish and other non Big Game projects.
I will help fight for the cause of getting those tags back into the regular draw.


----------



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

Did you get my PM ridge? Also I can agree with what you've said, and I can also agree that if these permits are not being used in the most effective and efficient way possible, I would just rather put them back in the draw as well. To me, it doesn't seem the most beneficial amount of money is going towards wildlife, and that isn't okay. I would rather have had the wildlife board vote no and lose the permits as to the hand sportsmen got. As regards to my initial question, I would just like to verify what those expenses are, I don't care to see each transaction that adds up to that amount. If that's where their money they don't by law have to use on wildlife is going, I don't think that is doing anything for any of us.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Did you get my PM ridge? Also I can agree with what you've said, and I can also agree that if these permits are not being used in the most effective and efficient way possible, I would just rather put them back in the draw as well. To me, it doesn't seem the most beneficial amount of money is going towards wildlife, and that isn't okay. I would rather have had the wildlife board vote no and lose the permits as to the hand sportsmen got. As regards to my initial question, I would just like to verify what those expenses are, I don't care to see each transaction that adds up to that amount. If that's where their money they don't by law have to use on wildlife is going, I don't think that is doing anything for any of us.


I did get your PM. Thank you.
Have you tried asking some of the people at SFW if they could give you a better breakdown?
Maybe their secretary?
Maybe Amy with the DWR could refer you to someone in their division that may know more details.
Those are a few of the places I would have started looking, before I started to complain on an internet forum.
Anyway, good luck in your search for truth.
That last statement has a couple different meanings, if you know what I mean.;-)


----------



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

ridgetop said:


> I did get your PM. Thank you.
> Have you tried asking some of the people at SFW if they could give you a better breakdown?
> Maybe their secretary?
> Maybe Amy with the DWR could refer you to someone in their division that may know more details.
> ...


I appreciate it ridge, maybe one of these days I'll find truth of some kind. The director has answered back I'm just waiting for another response from him for clarification. SFW hasn't answered back yet, but whatever I find out of course I'll start another thread and post it.


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> #1DEER 1-I said:
> 
> 
> > Did you get my PM ridge? Also I can agree with what you've said, and I can also agree that if these permits are not being used in the most effective and efficient way possible, I would just rather put them back in the draw as well. To me, it doesn't seem the most beneficial amount of money is going towards wildlife, and that isn't okay. I would rather have had the wildlife board vote no and lose the permits as to the hand sportsmen got. As regards to my initial question, I would just like to verify what those expenses are, I don't care to see each transaction that adds up to that amount. If that's where their money they don't by law have to use on wildlife is going, I don't think that is doing anything for any of us.
> ...


Ridge, did you write that with a straight face? Because that's hilarious!!!

"Have you tried asking some of the people at SFW if they could give you a better breakdown?"

Thats pure gold right there. You're a funny funny guy Ridge.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

blackdog said:


> Ridge, did you write that with a straight face? Because that's hilarious!!!
> 
> "Have you tried asking some of the people at SFW if they could give you a better breakdown?"
> 
> Thats pure gold right there. You're a funny funny guy Ridge.


You just answered your earlier question about "why SFW members don't jump in and answer question".
I had one of my hunting partners asking that same question a few years ago.
My answer was.... Why should they, they will only get "haters" like blackdog, trying to stir the pot and heckle from afar. 
No answer will ever be of their liking because they are so closed minded to see anything else.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

ridge, you're barking up the wrong tree if you're going to defend SFW's lack of transparency. That is what this is really about here. The lack of published data, the secrecy, the refusal to answer simple questions, all regarding public assets.

If SFW wasn't sucking constantly off the government teet with public tags, none of this would be a problem. But alas, here we are...still waiting to see what they are doing with the proceeds they receive from *US*! That is my beef. They are required to spend a certain percentage directly back on wildlife projects here in the state. The numbers don't play out. When you ask SFW, you get nothing. When you ask the DWR, you get nothing. Someone needs to be accountable to the people. If they are doing things right, publish the data and we can all move on. If they are doing things wrong, who is holding them accountable?


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

Hey Ridge, you said you don't like big game tags being used to fund bird and fish projects and would fight to get those put back in the regular draw. 

So how do you feel about big game tags being used to fund a so called wildlife conservation organization that supports taking away your public lands and access to rivers and streams where they only put 30% of the proceeds of those tags to habitat projects and pocket the remaining 70%? Are you willing to fight to get those put back in the regular draw too?


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

On another somewhat unrelated note. After reading 1Is and Ridges comments about Facebook I went and checked out SFW Wyoming, SFW Idaho and SFW Montanas facebook pages. In the arguments going on, on those pages all 3 of them SFW Idaho, SFW Wyoming and SFW Montana said people should support them because they are nothing like SFW Utah. Even SFW chapters in other states are trying to distance themselves from SFW Utah. That is so frecken funny to me.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

blackdog said:


> Hey Ridge, you said you don't like big game tags being used to fund bird and fish projects and would fight to get those put back in the regular draw.
> 
> So how do you feel about big game tags being used to fund a so called wildlife conservation organization that supports taking away your public lands and access to rivers and streams where they only put 30% of the proceeds of those tags to habitat projects and pocket the remaining 70%? Are you willing to fight to get those put back in the regular draw too?


I think your assuming a lot.
What's the percentage the DWR gets back from the $10 app. fee, from the reg. draw?


----------



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

ridgetop said:


> I think your assuming a lot.
> What's the percentage the DWR gets back from the $10 app. fee, from the reg. draw?


I believe they get $7 back, I'm pretty certain the company that funds the draw for them keeps $3.


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> blackdog said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Ridge, you said you don't like big game tags being used to fund bird and fish projects and would fight to get those put back in the regular draw.
> ...


Ridge, I not assuming anything. I was asking you a question. I thought that was pretty clear.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Correct me if I'm wrong ..(EFA)

But, NONE of the application fee money go's back to the DWR.

It all go's to the company in Nevada the dose the draws..


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Just to add a splash of additional color on the problem of comparing the regular draw v. expo draw and who keeps what. To me, I actually don't have a problem with the Nevada company keeping 100% of the draw fee (IDK if that is the case or not, btw) and that is because they are organized and taxed as a for-profit corporation versus SFW which is a 501c(3) tax-exempt nonprofit organization. To try to compare the two is a flawed analogy to begin with. Apples and Buicks.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

blackdog said:


> Ridge, I not assuming anything. I was asking you a question. I thought that was pretty clear.


 Ok, whatever.
I see the expo tags as more opportunity to draw a tag but I do wish there was a cap on how many tags were allotted for the expo and conservation groups.
Like, no more than 5% of the total LE deer, elk and antelope tags can go to those groups. Right now it's a lot more than that.
No more than 1% of the OIL tags or a max of (1) OIL tag from any given unit.
I think right now, about 30% of the Zion Bighorn tags are given to various groups. Which is crazy.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Back to 1I's original question,

The answer might be some were in the rules-regulations governing these permits,

http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting-in...57-41-conservation-and-sportsman-permits.html


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

DWR gets their money from the required hunting license that must be purchased before you can even apply.


-DallanC


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> blackdog said:
> 
> 
> > Ridge, I not assuming anything. I was asking you a question. I thought that was pretty clear.
> ...


That's great Ridge, I agree with what you just wrote 100%. However that's not the question I asked you. Whatever.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong ..(EFA)
> 
> But, NONE of the application fee money go's back to the DWR.
> 
> It all go's to the company in Nevada the dose the draws..


The contract with Systems Consultants out of Fallon Nevada is negotiated yearly and is currently $3.01 (30%) per app to them, $6.99 (70%) per app to DWR. And that's only up to a negotiated quota of apps. Once the apps exceed the quota it drops to $1.25 (12.5%) to S.C. and $8.75 (87.5%) to DWR. Of course S.C. does a great deal more for that 30% than SFW/MDF ever does for their 70% Expo tag profits.. Most people think the DWR sends and/or prints all of the tags, reminders, notices, etc., but if you get something in the mail or get an email from the DWR it's usually from S.C. They also conduct a much more complicated draw (Lifetime License Holder quota, Dedicated Hunter quota, youth quota, point system, 2nd/3rd choices, 30 unit deer system, waiting periods, antlerless hunts, etc.) And they are the ones who collect, calculate and print the odds and harvest rates information after the hunts are over. And they do it for ALL draws.

Edited: In case you didn't notice, under the general draw, the more apps generated the *less* System Consultants gets per app, but under the Expo draw the more apps generated the *more* SFW/MDF gets overall.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I believe they get $7 back, I'm pretty certain the company that funds the draw for them keeps $3.


 Basically, yes! See post #49.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Whats the breakdown for the Sportmans tags? That there is the big money earner for what is offered (1 tag per species)


-DallanC


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

DallanC said:


> Whats the breakdown for the Sportmans tags? That there is the big money earner for what is offered (1 tag per species)
> 
> -DallanC


 It's the same as the other draws, 30% to S.C., 70% to DWR. That goes for the swan tags, sage grouse tags, etc.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

blackdog said:


> BTW, can any of the $FW faithful answer 1Is original question???
> Yea, I didn't think so.


Well,
I'm NOT an $FW faithful...
But I do know there was a state/DWR Audit done on Conservation permits..

Look here dog.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/board/2015-10_board_packet.pdf

Pages 85 thru 129..

( Thank you Hawkeye for the link )


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

goofy elk said:


> Well,
> I'm NOT an $FW faithful...
> But I do know there was a state/DWR Audit done on Conservation permits..
> 
> ...


Who cares, the issue everyone is worked up about are CONVENTION tags. Show me an audit on those.

-DallanC


----------

