# Utah Wildlife Board Meeting - UWC's Proposed Rule Amendment



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

For the last several years, there have been questions, dialogue and debate regarding the 200 Convention Permits that the Utah DWR issues to MDF and SFW to give away at the Expo. The key facts relating to the Convention Permits are as follows: (1) the administrative rule that created the Convention Permits expressly states that one of the purposes of the permits is to "generate revenue for wildlife conservation activities;" (2) the state took 200 premium hunting permits out of the public draw and entrusted them to the groups participating in the Expo; (3) these participating groups have been raising several hundred thousand to nearly a million dollars a year from the $5 application fees; (4) there is no requirement whatsoever in the statute that the participating groups spend any of those funds on actual conservation projects; (5) the DWR does not audit how much money is raised from the 200 permits or how the groups spend that money; (6) the participating organizations have refused to provide any information or accounting as to how the revenues generated from the 200 permits have been spent; (7) the DWR, the Wildlife Board and the participating organizations all fail to see any problem with this situation. In a nutshell, Convention Permits are public assets and monies generated from those permits should be carefully accounted for and spent in an open and transparent manner.

There is a proposal from the United Wildlife Cooperative ("UWC") on the table that will remedy this longstanding problem and mandate accountability and transparency. The proposal circulated by the UWC will not jeopardize the Hunting and Conservation Expo. Rather, it would improve what is already a wonderful event and ensure that the money generated from the Convention Permits is spent in such a way as to fulfill the very purpose for which those permits were created. The proposed amendment imposes the same basic requirements that already apply to Conservation Permits to Convention Permits. In other words, 90% of the revenue generated from the $5 application fees would have to be spent on actual conservation projects and the groups would have to account for those funds. These proposed changes are fair and equitable, and are frankly long overdue.

There is widespread support among the general public for the UWC's proposed amendment. Over 1,000 sportsmen have signed a petition in support of the UWC's proposed amendment. See http://www.change.org/petitions/utah-wi ... ction-item The proposed amendment is also consistent with the RMEF's recent call for transparency with regard to special game permits. See http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/NewsRe ... ermits.htm. Not surprisingly, the two conservation groups involved with the Expo, SFW and MDF, do not support the proposed amendment. SFW has stated that it stands behind the current version of the rule that imposes no accountability or transparency requirements. MDF has not responded to multiple inquiries regarding its official position.

This brings me to the purpose for this post. The Utah Wildlife Board has placed the UWC's proposed rule amendment on the agenda for the Board Meeting scheduled for Thursday August 16th. It is my understanding that the Board is not placing the amendment on the RAC agendas as an action item. Rather, it has simply placed it on the agenda for the Wildlife Board meeting so that the public has an opportunity to comment on this important issue. This is a very positive development.

If you are one of the many sportsmen that have expressed frustration on this issue over the past few years or one of the 1,000+ sportsmen that signed the online petition, this is your chance to share your thoughts with the Wildlife Board and help fix this problem. Please mark August 16th on your calendars and make time to attend the Board Meeting in SLC, Utah. Please spread the word to your friends and family members. It is absolutely critical that we rally the troops and have a massive showing of support at this meeting. In the past, we as sportsmen have had a tendency to complain on the internet but then fail to show up at important meetings where the actual decisions are made. As a result, the DWR and the Wildlife Board have listened to conservation groups and their agendas. If we want the Wildlife Board to take us seriously then we need to show up in masses and demand accountability and transparency. There have been a number of developments over the last few years that have helped build momentum on this issue. Let's take advantage of this opportunity and fix this problem once and for all.

If you are willing to attend the Wildlife Board meeting on Thursday August 16th to express support for the UWC's proposed rule amendment, please post a message on this thread. Your comments at the meeting don't need to be lengthy or eloquent. Just tell the Board who you are and why you are concerned about this issue. If you live out of state and cannot make it to the meeting, please take the time to email the Wildlife Board Members. If you are concerned about this issue and would like to get involved but need more information on this issue, please feel free to PM or email me or Tye Boulter, President of the UWC.

In conclusion, this issue has been festering for a long time. While we still have an uphill battle ahead of us, we have an opportunity to August 16th to show the Wildlife Board that we are not happy with the current situation. I believe that the conservation groups involved, and possible even the DWR, doubt that the average sportsmen have the determination and organization to push this amendment through. Let's prove them wrong and show them that we can do more than complain on the internet. Together we can fix this problem.

Who will join on us on August 16th?

Hawkeye


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

*Re: Utah Wildlife Board Meeting - UWC's Proposed Rule Amendm*

I'll be there.

Side Note: Backcountry Hunters and Anglers also support this.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

*Re: Utah Wildlife Board Meeting - UWC's Proposed Rule Amendm*

Time of day and location? I only see the date.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

*Re: Utah Wildlife Board Meeting - UWC's Proposed Rule Amendm*

starts at 9:00 AM


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

*Re: Utah Wildlife Board Meeting - UWC's Proposed Rule Amendm*

Thanks, at North Temple?? Do they schedule those during the day just to discourage input?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

*Re: Utah Wildlife Board Meeting - UWC's Proposed Rule Amendm*

"2012 WILDLIFE BOARD/RAC SCHEDULE
All information is subject to change and all agendas are tentative. Please check the DWR website often at www.wildlife.utah.gov for complete agendas and meeting locations posted prior to meetings. Unless otherwise noted, all Wildlife Board meetings are on Thursdays in the DNR Salt Lake office auditorium, 1594 West North Temple, Salt Lake City. Board meetings begin at 9 a.m, unless otherwise indicated. Additional meetings may be scheduled if necessary. RACs meet at the locations and times listed below unless otherwise noted. Scheduling changes will be posted on the DWR website. Please check it often.

August Board meeting August 16:
• Cougar Guidebook & Rule
• Furbearer Guidebook & Rules
• Waterfowl Guidebook & Rule
• Fee Proposals
• Convention Permits (contingent)
No RAC meetings scheduled."


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

*Re: Utah Wildlife Board Meeting - UWC's Proposed Rule Amendm*

What is it "Contingent" to? If the RACs have not visited the issue, will the Board address it or will they just put it on the Action Item list?

If they address this item at the end of the Board meeting then people will be waiting until the afternoon, but if they slip it in first then you'll need to be there early. Could be a long day for attendees depending on when or IF the Chairman wants to address the topic.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Utah Wildlife Board Meeting - UWC's Proposed Rule Amendm*

It's on the agenda. They will be discussing it and public input will be key to getting it put on as an action item at a later meeting.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

*Re: Utah Wildlife Board Meeting - UWC's Proposed Rule Amendm*

Trying to arrange a carpool from Southern Region for a day trip up and back....if so, I'll be there for sure!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

*Re: Utah Wildlife Board Meeting - UWC's Proposed Rule Amendm*



klbzdad said:


> Trying to arrange a carpool from Southern Region for a day trip up and back....if so, I'll be there for sure!


Shawn, count me in!


----------



## Bears Butt (Sep 12, 2007)

*Re: Utah Wildlife Board Meeting - UWC's Proposed Rule Amendm*

It looks like three of us will be there. Probably after the lunch recess.


----------



## Charina (Aug 16, 2011)

*Re: Utah Wildlife Board Meeting - UWC's Proposed Rule Amendm*

This may be a matter that needs to be addressed by the legislature, not the WB.


----------



## guner (Sep 25, 2007)

*Re: Utah Wildlife Board Meeting - UWC's Proposed Rule Amendm*

I must admit that I generally am an Armchair quarterback when it comes to these type of things, but I feel strongly about this subject and what right do I have to pi-$ and moan if I won't stand up and be counted.
I will be there.

(the above message is fully endorsed by the council of pi-$ and moan)

Wally


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

*Re: Utah Wildlife Board Meeting - UWC's Proposed Rule Amendm*



Charina said:


> This may be a matter that needs to be addressed by the legislature, not the WB.


It is fully within the power of the Wildlife Board to implement such an amendment. The Legislature would be used for far more radical changes.


----------



## Charina (Aug 16, 2011)

*Re: Utah Wildlife Board Meeting - UWC's Proposed Rule Amendm*



Lonetree said:


> Charina said:
> 
> 
> > This may be a matter that needs to be addressed by the legislature, not the WB.
> ...


That depends on how this amendment is worded. I haven't taken the time on this matter to research the amendment's language, jurisdictional language of statutes authorizing the tangential WB powers, etc, so I have no intent of speaking on jurisdictional 'power'.

Irregardless of jurisdiction, this still may be a matter better taken up with the Legislature - or at least the Administrative Rule Committee if the WB refuses to consider the matter appropriately. I think that there would be quite a contingency of sympathetic ears among a broad spectrum of senators and representatives - almost certainly more so than the WB.

If it is statue that allows the DWR/WB to issue conversation permits, then establishing the expectations related to those permits is at home with the legislature and in the statutes.


----------



## jasonwayne191 (Jun 11, 2012)

*Re: Utah Wildlife Board Meeting - UWC's Proposed Rule Amendm*

Your points may be true in the bigger scheme of things Charina, but sometimes all it takes is a bunt to get the runner home from third. No one likes things taken over their head in a chain of command situation, although sometimes it's necessary. Should this proposal not get the attention it deserves via the WB, then perhaps a bit more strategizing might be in order, as you suggest. I won't be able to attend the meeting, but have sent my emails to the Board backing this proposal strongly.


----------



## Charina (Aug 16, 2011)

*Re: Utah Wildlife Board Meeting - UWC's Proposed Rule Amendm*



jasonwayne191 said:


> Your points may be true in the bigger scheme of things Charina, but sometimes all it takes is a bunt to get the runner home from third. No one likes things taken over their head in a chain of command situation, although sometimes it's necessary. Should this proposal not get the attention it deserves via the WB, then perhaps a bit more strategizing might be in order, as you suggest. I won't be able to attend the meeting, but have sent my emails to the Board backing this proposal strongly.


Good points. Guess I'm just more of a 'why only bunt if a HR will score two runs' type of person. Plus, I have experience working with the DWR on admin rule changes, and have my own biased expectatiion that nothing will happen until push comes to shove.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

*Re: Utah Wildlife Board Meeting - UWC's Proposed Rule Amendm*

Good work to all of those who signed the petition and took action when it was requested on such an important issue. This has now been updated on the divisions WB meeting agenda for next week as and ACTION ITEM (line #12)!!!!!

Good work and huge thanks to Jason, Tye, and others who worked diligently to make this happen but we're not done yet! Voices still need to be heard and bodies present at the meeting on the 16th! That is a Thursday and hopefully many will make it to support this proposal.

*August Wildlife Board Meeting Agenda*

Thank you again to all of those who worked so hard on this and continue to "DO WORK" for sportsmen and wildlife in Utah!

Shawn Spring
UWC - Southern Region Vice Chair


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

*Re: Utah Wildlife Board Meeting - UWC's Proposed Rule Amendm*



Charina said:


> jasonwayne191 said:
> 
> 
> > Your points may be true in the bigger scheme of things Charina, but sometimes all it takes is a bunt to get the runner home from third. No one likes things taken over their head in a chain of command situation, although sometimes it's necessary. Should this proposal not get the attention it deserves via the WB, then perhaps a bit more strategizing might be in order, as you suggest. I won't be able to attend the meeting, but have sent my emails to the Board backing this proposal strongly.
> ...


Charina,

The bottom line is in the current rules there is a provision to allow the Wildlife Board the power to modify the current agreement. The idea here is to urge the WB to do just that. I don't think the bunt analogy works as well as saying this approach is the shortest distance between 2 points. The legislature is an option but the effort to compel them to make a change would likely be much greater and take more time.


----------



## Bears Butt (Sep 12, 2007)

*Re: Utah Wildlife Board Meeting - UWC's Proposed Rule Amendm*

klbzdad, the date of the meeting is Thursday August 16.


----------



## Semaj3 (Aug 22, 2011)

*Re: Utah Wildlife Board Meeting - UWC's Proposed Rule Amendm*

I can't say I'm well versed on the whole situation or a very eloquent speaker but I can definitely be a body there. Should I be there at 9 or would a little later be fine?


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

*Re: Utah Wildlife Board Meeting - UWC's Proposed Rule Amendm*

Correct BB....I corrected my post. The work meeting and the actual public meeting must have stirred the big boy ADD and I mistyped. PLEASE DO YOUR BEST TO BE THERE ON THE 16th!


----------

