# My thoughts regarding the Expo Tag decision



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

Sorry for the long rant but I have been holding this in for a while. Now that a decision has been formally announced, I want to offer a few personal thoughts on the State of Utah's decision to award the next Expo Tag contract to SFW. As some of you know, I have volunteered some of my professional time to RMEF over the last several months in an effort to help them prepare their proposal and comply with the DWR's requirements (and changing requirements). I did this because I appreciated RMEF's willingness to step up and voluntarily offer to do the right thing to generate more money for actual conservation. That being said, my comments on this forum are my personal comments as a Utah citizen and sportsman. If RMEF wants to make any formal statements, it can do so through David Allen, Rod Triepke, Randy Newberg or others.

First, I would like to summarize some of the key points of RMEF's proposal. As you know, in its original proposal that was submitted back in September, RMEF committed to bring its National Convention to SLC, Utah for the next 5 years and voluntarily committed to dedicate 100% of the $5 application fees to authorized conservation projects in the State of Utah. After the State of Utah changed the rules and issued a formal RFP in early October, RMEF was disappointed but it decided to play along with the changing rules and work improve its initial proposal. The proposal that was submitted in response to RFP included the following (most of this information was revealed in the state's justification document or has already been posted on Randy's website):

- 100% of the application fees from the 200 Expo permits would be returned to Utah for habitat, access, and conservation.

- RMEF would bring its National Convention to Salt Lake City for the life of the contract.

- RMEF offered to give DWR 50% of the total net income from the national convention that would be moved to SLC. Given the level of sponsors RMEF attracts to its national convention, the fact RMEF has 205,000+ members, and RMEF has a media platform that reaches millions, the size of this event would have grown far from what it currently is and would have grown far beyond what RMEF currently has as its national convention in Las Vegas. To provide 50% of that larger number is not insignificant.

- RMEF voluntarily committed to provide an annual independent audit of the expo/convention and make the results of such available to the public. After all, these tags around which this event seems to be focused are a public asset. RMEF believes it is only reasonable to give the public assurance of what is done with those monies generated by the public asset of tags.

There are many other details to the RMEF proposal that will be revealed when the proposals are made public. But as you can see, RMEF's proposal was extremely generous to the State of Utah, sportsmen and wildlife.

Second, I was disappointed that the DWR changed the rules mid-stream. As explained previously on this forum, the DWR has an administrative rule that governs the Expo Tags (R657-55). That Rule has been in place for a decade and has been amended by the DWR and the Wildlife Board over the years when changes for made to the Expo Tag program. In fact, the Wildlife Board just amended the Rule in January of this year to make certain changes, including the option to extend the 5 year contract for an additional 5 years. Section R657-55-4 sets forth the requirements for apply for the Expo Tag contract. It spells out (1) who can apply, (2) when applications were due, (3) what information must be included in the application, (4) the criteria for deciding which group would be awarded the contract, and (5) who makes that decision. If you read that the DWR's Rule, it says NOTHING about a formal RFP process. RMEF worked for many months to prepare a detailed proposal that complied with the requirements of the DWR's Rule. After we submitted the RMEF proposal on the September 1st deadline, the DWR informed RMEF that they were no longer going to follow their rule and that they were moving to a formal RFP process. This came as a complete surprise to RMEF and me. The DWR stated that they had been planning on moving to a formal RFP process for some time but it took longer than expected. I see several problems with the DWR's position: First, state agencies are bound by their administrative rules, which have the binding effect of law. Second, if the DWR wanted to use a different approach then why didn't it modify its rule accordingly? Third, if the DWR wanted to use the formal RFP process then why didn't issue the RFP prior to the application period set forth in its own rule? And fourth, if the DWR was unable to prepare the RFP in time then why didn't it notify all conservation groups not to submit proposals as required by the rule? Although I was troubled by the DWR changing the rules after the fact, RMEF ultimately decided that it would play along with the DWR's changing rules and submit a proposal in response to the RFP.

Third, I am disappointed that the DWR chose to move forward in a manner that violates it own Administrative Rule. As explained above, the RFP process is in direct conflict with R657-55-4. The DWR has attempted to explain away this problem by stating that the DWR is using the formal RFP process to implement to requirements of R657-55-4. This simply is not true. The formal RFP process employed by the DWR conflicts with multiple provisions in R657-55-4. During the last two wildlife Board Meetings the attorneys for the DWR even admitted that there are conflicts. In a last ditch effort to justify the move to a formal RFP, the attorneys for the DWR stated that they are required to use a formal RFP under the State Procurement Code Statute, and to the extent that there are conflicts between the requirements of R657-55-4 and the State Procurement Code, the State Code controls. Well, there is one major problem with this argument. If the State Procurement Code Statute truly controls, and the State Code requires the use of a formal RFP, then the DWR has been violating those requirements for the past 10 years. They previously awarded 5-year contracts to MDF/SFW pursuant to the process set forth in R657-55-4 without using a formal RFP. It was only after RMEF submitted its proposal that this new process was publicly announced. As a side note, it will be very interesting to see if SFW or MDF submitted a proposal under R657-55-4 prior to the September 1st deadline. If they did submit a proposal then this supports the argument that nobody knew about the new RFP process. If they did not submit proposal then they obviously had more information than RMEF.

Fourth, I am disappointed that the DWR changed the process without any public input. Whenever the DWR enacts or changes rules, those changes are typically presented to the RACS and the Wildlife Board. This provides an opportunity for the public to participate in the process and provide input. Anyone who has attended a RAC meeting or Wildlife Board Meeting knows it can be frustrating. However, that is out only real opportunity to express our views and participate in the process. As a result of the process that was employed by DWR, the public was denied any opportunity to comment on the change from the process set forth in R657-55-4 to the formal RFP process. Now, a contract is going to be awarded pursuant to that new RFP process for the next 5 years (10 years with the extension) and the public has had no opportunity to comment on that change in process. Had the DWR included the new RFP process in its amendments to R657-55-4 earlier this year, this would not have occurred. I asked the lawyer for the DWR earlier this week if they were ever going to go back and change their rule to conform to what they are already doing, and he stated that would likely happen at some point. You all know the saying, "a day late and a dollar short."

Fifth, I was disappointed with the form of the RFP. Much has been said on these forums about the requirements and the grading criteria in the RFP. Many have claimed that the criteria favored SFW and MDF. I will merely state that when I first saw the RFP, it was clear to me that that it would be very difficult for RMEF to respond to many of the criteria with the same level of specificity as the groups that already have the contract. I knew that RMEF's proposal would be very strong as far as money generated for actual conservation and tourism dollars. However, there were a number of additional criteria included that are very difficult to address when you are a new party seeking the contract. On those items, RMEF did its best to explain what it would do if it was awarded the contract and made it clear that it would comply with all of the DWR's requirements and recommendations. However, if you look at the Recommendation Committee's Justification Statement (http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/2015-12-18_justification_statement.pdf), you will notice that they repeatedly stated that RMEF's proposal lacked detail, documentation and evidence in certain categories whereas SFW's proposal contained documentation, specific numbers and historical information. Section 4 dealing with the Permit Drawing and Data Security Plan is perhaps the best example. Although SFW's proposal has not yet been released, I am assuming that SFW laid out in detail the process that it has had out in place over the last 10 years for conducting the drawing and maintaining data security. In contrast, RMEF committed to meeting all of the DWR's requirements, noted that it was in discussions with two potential subcontractors who can provide this service (both of whom have worked for the DWR previously), and noted that it would have everything in place well in advance of the Expo. However, the Selection Committee stated the following with regard to the RMEF proposal: "The Offeror B response addresses the main components of this category, but omits the details necessary to effectively review the proposal. The proposal states Offeror B will comply with the standards in the RFP, but gives few details on how they will do so. Offeror B states that they will hire a contractor in the future, but the proposal gives no details on how they will run a complex drawing, maintain data security, manage data, or interface with DWR databases. The proposal contains minimal details on PCI compliance at the expo." This section of the RFP alone resulted in a 40 point swing to SFW. This is just one example but the Justification Statement confirms repeatedly what I first thought when I saw the RFP - that it would very difficult for any conservation group seeking the contract to respond to many of the criteria with the same level of specificity as the groups that already have the contract and the experience of hosting the expo.

Sixth, I was frustrated earlier this year when the DWR amended R657-55 to allow the DWR and the Wildlife Board to extend the Expo Tag contracts from 5 years to 10 years. That concern, however, is moot at this point. I am now of the opinion that no conservation group is ever going to win that contract from SFW/MDF under the current system. My opinion is based upon the following: (1) I doubt that any conservation group could offer anything more than RMEF already put on the table (and lost); and (2) Given the criteria in the RFP and the recently released Justification Statement, it would be practically impossible for any new group to provide enough detail and specificity to compete with the parties holding the current contract. Ironically, I don't think that SFW or MDF ever thought they were really in risk of losing the contract. As you will notice in Section 5 of the Justification Statement, SFW and MDF will continue to keep $3.50 of every $5.00 application. If SFW was truly worried that it might lose the contract, it almost certainly would have offered to contribute a larger portion of the application fees to actual conservation. Congratulations to SFW for putting together the winning proposal.

Finally, I would like to thank RMEF for being willing to step into this mess. It has been a long and difficult road that changed directions a couple of times but at every juncture they were honorable, professional, and committed to doing the right thing. It was a pleasure working with RMEF and I am sorry that the State of Utah did not recognize the true value of what RMEF was offering. If you are not a member of RMEF, please consider joining. I also want to thank all of you who helped along the way, expressed support, called and emailed the DWR and Wildlife Board, etc. Please continue to do so. I have been working on this issue (Expo Tags) for nearly 10 years now, and I don't plan to let up. I guess I am a glutton for punishment. Stay tuned as more information is released and comes to light. Sorry for the long rant but I have been trying to stay quiet until a decision was made and lawyers always have a lot to say.

-Hawkeye-


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

Thanks for all your hard work Hawkeye. Disgusted with the state and their corruption I am sick of the average sportsman being the stepping stone in this state. To line people's pockets disgusting


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Yes thanks again for everything every one did.
Once again I'm so sorry for the politics involved in not only wildlife but also the land grab issue. Sorry state of politics in the state.
Something about absolute power absolutely corrupts. Where does it go from here?

Sent from my LG-H810 using Tapatalk


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Thanks for all your efforts. I fear there is not much we can do now that a decision had been made. Many, including myself, share your disappointment in the way this process was handled. 

The state had a great opportunity to bring a huge national convention to the state and have more money available for conservation. Instead, they chose to stay with the status quo. 
I am truly amazed that even knowing rmef's proposal, SFW didn't even offer up more money of the permit app fees. I suppose when you know the outcome before the game is played, there isn't any need to give more money back to the state.

Thanks again for your continued efforts. 

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

middlefork said:


> Yes thanks again for everything every one did.
> Once again I'm so sorry for the politics involved in not only wildlife but also the land grab issue. Sorry state of politics in the state.
> Something about absolute power absolutely corrupts. Where does it go from here?
> 
> Sent from my LG-H810 using Tapatalk


Down hill sad sad year not just today .for people who are concerned about the future of hunting in this state


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Thank you Hawkeye. I have been fairly reserved in my opinions and have mostly chose not to chime in to online forums but rather put in practice my beliefs on issues concerning wildlife and public lands in Utah through my own real life channels. On this particular topic, I too am disappointed and disgusted at the state's handling of the public trust. But many of you resign yourself to "it is what it is" but are quick to become critical of those who actually are willing to do the work financially or literally. 

The proper response to this sad decision is simple. Join and support RMEF and/or other organizations that reflect your views and personal ethics. Redirect your efforts, those of you who actually do put in effort, into organizations willing to speak up and try to make a difference. Apply for the expo and conservation tags, get your applications validated but then do not enter the convention center for the expo. Also, start voting smart and speaking your mind to political candidates who are supposed to represent sportsmen and the public trust. I am a member of both RMEF and UWC and will pay my annual dues because it's an insignificant amount put toward some really hard work. The old adage still applies today that many hands means light work. Open pocket books have the same effect when opened to the right group of people. 

The burden on the RMEF proposal fell on a few folks to nagivate an impenetrable wall of horse crap bureaucracy and so once again, a huge thank you to Hawkey and other council and thank you to the vision and want to support the real average Joes in Utah by the RMEF. $100.00 well spent every year in my opinion. That is all.....


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

Is there anything lawsuit wise RMEF can do to overturn the decision?


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

mikevanwilder said:


> Is there anything lawsuit wise RMEF can do to overturn the decision?


Randy Newberg has basically said rmef will most likely not pursue this any further as it wouldn't further their mission as an organization by committing more resources towards what appears to have always been a foregone conclusion. Which makes total sense from an organizational perspective.

RmEF stepped up to the plate big time. We now have to shoulder the load as far as making sure our voices are heard regarding our frustrations here.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

klbzdad said:


> Thank you Hawkeye. I have been fairly reserved in my opinions and have mostly chose not to chime in to online forums but rather put in practice my beliefs on issues concerning wildlife and public lands in Utah through my own real life channels. On this particular topic, I too am disappointed and disgusted at the state's handling of the public trust. But many of you resign yourself to "it is what it is" but are quick to become critical of those who actually are willing to do the work financially or literally.
> 
> The proper response to this sad decision is simple. Join and support RMEF and/or other organizations that reflect your views and personal ethics. Redirect your efforts, those of you who actually do put in effort, into organizations willing to speak up and try to make a difference. Apply for the expo and conservation tags, get your applications validated but then do not enter the convention center for the expo. Also, start voting smart and speaking your mind to political candidates who are supposed to represent sportsmen and the public trust. I am a member of both RMEF and UWC and will pay my annual dues because it's an insignificant amount put toward some really hard work. The old adage still applies today that many hands means light work. Open pocket books have the same effect when opened to the right group of people.
> 
> The burden on the RMEF proposal fell on a few folks to nagivate an impenetrable wall of horse crap bureaucracy and so once again, a huge thank you to Hawkey and other council and thank you to the vision and want to support the real average Joes in Utah by the RMEF. $100.00 well spent every year in my opinion. That is all.....


It ain't sunday, but I'll still give you an amen. Well said.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

mikevanwilder said:


> Is there anything lawsuit wise RMEF can do to overturn the decision?


Challenging the decision would be subject to an arbitrary and capricious standard. I think the DWR would be hard pressed to succeed if challenged on the switch to the RFP.

Hawkeye, if RMEF is even remotely interested in pursuing legal action I'm more than happy to volunteer my time for legal research.


----------



## UtahMountainMan (Jul 20, 2010)

Would it be possible to purchase a 10x10 booth at the expo solely for the purpose of educating attendees about this whole mess?

I would be willing to pitch in. It seriously ticks me off that RMEF brought a better proposal and offered to give more back to Utah and it seems the DWR didn't care. 

So seriously, if we rented a booth would SFW have the authority to shut it down if they didn't like what was being said or marketed? Or does their deal with Utah allow for a vendor to spread their message without being pushed aside?


----------



## grizzly (Jun 3, 2012)

Does RMEF have to be the plaintiff? Would any Utah resident have standing, either as a citizen concerned about DWR following its own statutes, or a citizen concerned about wildlife, or a hunter who has spent thousands of dollars on the Expo with concern about nepotism in the government? I'm sure RMEF could file suit (though it looks unlikely), but what about an RMEF member?

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems a judge would give some latitude on standing in a case against the government regarding potential corruption accusations. It would probably be worth it just to depose some of those involved and to get through discovery.

PS. Hawkeye, I didn't realize you were providing RMEF counsel. Thanks for your efforts.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

johnnycake said:


> Challenging the decision would be subject to an arbitrary and capricious standard. I think the DWR would be hard pressed to succeed if challenged on the switch to the RFP.
> 
> Hawkeye, if RMEF is even remotely interested in pursuing legal action I'm more than happy to volunteer my time for legal research.


I'll let you legal guys tell us for sure, but it is my understanding that changing or ignoring the administrative rules as cited by Hawkeye in this process represents an unlawful act and would likely subject the DWR's decision to be overturned in court. Another question. If RMEF declines pursuit of this in court, could a 3rd party litigate this in behalf of the citizens of the state?

As we found out in the stream access battle, it is often necessary to beat the State in court in order to get them to look after the public trust.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

One could follow the path the Utah Stream Access Coalition 
Took to success. 

Problem is, in 10 days nobody will give a chit. 

Hunter apathy is a SFW/DWR ally.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

There is a standing problem for anybody but RMEF (the organization, not a member). Third parties cannot bring suits against administrative action, nor can the grounds for standing be a "generalized grievance". That basically eliminates anyone but someone who submitted under the original process and didn't get the contract under the RFP


----------



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

johnnycake said:


> Challenging the decision would be subject to an arbitrary and capricious standard. I think the DWR would be hard pressed to succeed if challenged on the switch to the RFP.
> 
> Hawkeye, if RMEF is even remotely interested in pursuing legal action I'm more than happy to volunteer my time for legal research.


I wish they would have done it before going along with the new process.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I wish they would have done it before going along with the new process.


That ultimately doesn't really matter, and in some ways it helps show that RMEF sustained an injury after exhausting their administrative remedies.


----------



## grizzly (Jun 3, 2012)

johnnycake said:


> There is a standing problem for anybody but RMEF (the organization, not a member). Third parties cannot bring suits against administrative action, nor can the grounds for standing be a "generalized grievance". That basically eliminates anyone but someone who submitted under the original process and didn't get the contract under the RFP


You're the expert here, so I'm just asking... Do you think there's any chance a judge would grant a member of the public who pays money towards the Expo, and thus is harmed by the state failing to follow it's own statutes regarding the dispersal of those funds, standing at least enough to get through discovery and depositions? If there's a chance, I feel like it's worth trying.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

None at all. You wouldn't survive standing, nor would you demonstrate proximate cause. It would be tossed out in 2 minutes.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

wileywapati said:


> One could follow the path the Utah Stream Access Coalition
> Took to success.
> 
> Problem is, in 10 days nobody will give a chit.
> ...


This is what Ben Ferry, the Farm Bureau, and Utah Association of Realtors thought back in 2009 about fishermen. They were wrong then. Could you be wrong about big game hunters? Only time will tell. Is there a leader willing to step up and see this fight through?

I have a few thoughts, so here it goes:

Politics: Emailing the DWR or the Wildlife Board about this is worthless. They already played their hand, and it's not changing unless they are made to change. I mentioned Ben Ferry. He was the first sponsor of a bill to restrict public stream access. His bill was defeated that year. When word of Ferry's bill first surfaced, a small group of about 15 of us met in a guy's shop and discussed grass roots strategy to take on some of Utah's most powerful lobbies and legislators. Ben Ferry was chair of the Rules Committee. It was no accident he was picked to run that bill. From that meeting in a local glass shop, the Utah Water Guardians were born. This was a grassroots, almost entirely online movement to get warm bodies up to the Capitol to demand to be heard. It worked. People were inspired, and they responded. The debates were fierce. The time required was immense. The legislature was SHOCKED at the response they witnessed, and we prevailed. That year Ben Ferry lost his seat in the legislature, orchestrated by a small number of his constituents, entirely due to this issue. The next year, those powerful lobbies beat us. But not without a clear statement that we would NOT just get tired and go back to fishing the Middle Provo. You go talk to the legislators that were in office during the stream access wars, and you'll know what needs to happen by big game hunters here. You want to effect change on how the Wildlife Board does business? Hit them where it hurts. If the legislature demands change, change will occur. If your legislator won't listen, are you willing to resort to "gorilla warfare" and get him/her out like a group in Box Elder county did to Ben Ferry? Are you willing to spend 4-5 days per week at the Capitol lobbying legislators to see things the way you do? I've been in a fight like this. I went to the Capitol 3-4 times per week my entire last semester of law school. There were others that were there literally every single day of the session. These weren't paid lobbiests. These were guys like you and me. We had one person in particular that dedicated his entire life to this and led out, sacrificing pretty much everything because a life without fishing public waters was not a life worth living for him. Are there people here willing to do this? Is someone willing to take the lead? It will be an uphill battle. On the day that the legislature was voting on HB 80 and HB 141, the legislature 'coincidentally' passed a resolution about how great SFW is. SFW lobbied to defeat us on the stream acces issue, and ultimately won in the legislature. Anyone willing to put in this kind of sustained effort?

Court: as was stated, only RMEF can challenge this in court. If enough people pledge money and ask them to, maybe they will? I am not a RMEF member. I would become one if they will fight this. Am I alone? I hope not. Honestly, as much time as I spent in the legislative route, I always knew our only chance for change was in court. I knew the legislature wouldn't support us, because we don't give them enough money for their campaigns. The legislative efforts were necessary, but never were going to work. I feel very similar here. SFW has their hooks in deep in the legislative and executive branches. Thank goodness for the judicial branch! When fishermen, along with s small number of other water users, lost at the legislature, the Utah Stream Access Coalition was born. This organization was born to see us through the legal battle. A couple very good attorneys decided they would take this case pro bono. Experts were hired. USAC members researched for data to provide factual and historical use of streams around the state. Fundraisers to pay legal costs (not to the attorneys) were conducted. This has been a 5 year battle, and the appeals still need to take place. We won both our court cases at the district court level. First was getting the Weber River declared navigable. Then was getting HB 141 declared unconstitutional. Countless hours have been spent litigating this. Tens of thousands of dollars have been donated and spent on the legal battle, and the attorneys were not paid. RMEF has a major advantage here that USAC didn't: namely money, and I suppose access to attorneys. I don't know all the ins and outs here, but I suspect RMEF would have s good case here. They will need to pursue it. Can you convince them to?

We have the ability to effect change. I've witnessed it. I was lucky to play a very small part in it. We can do it. But will we?


----------



## grizzly (Jun 3, 2012)

johnnycake said:


> None at all. You wouldn't survive standing, nor would you demonstrate proximate cause. It would be tossed out in 2 minutes.


The 200 Expo tags are public property held in public trust. Does the public have no way to verify those tags are used to the highest and best use of their stated purpose, as required by the statute that gave birth to those very Expo tags.

What about the SL District Attorney investigating and/or suing on behalf of its constituents? The SLC area will certainly lose millions of dollars in tourism revenue by this decision and the failure of DWR to follow its own statue dated a recently as January of this year. We have no way of knowing, but it's possible that RMEF was the only bid submitted by the initial deadline. Which would make the arbitrary decision to impose a random RFP process extremely harmful to the city.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

The problem with a city suing the state is two fold: preemption via supremacy, and the arbitrary/capricious standard. That standard results in a win for the government agency 99% of the time. All the agency has to show is a mere scintilla of evidence that they based their decision on. No one but RMEF can challenge based on the switch to an RFP, and that is the only argument that has a chance of succeeding.

Just because SLC will likely miss out on greater revenue from RMEF, isn't likely to convince a judge that it is an injury sufficient for a cause of action; not to mention that such a claim won't overcome an arbitrary and capricious standard.


----------



## grizzly (Jun 3, 2012)

That's too bad. Thx for the info.

I guess the thing that comes to mind for me is the old quote, "Evil persists when good men do nothing."

I guess it's up to RMEF to help right this wrong. Or one of us needs to get our legislator to do something about it.


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

The RMEF proposal has already been posted elsewhere but I wanted to make sure that I also included it in this thread: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-wN_VDhjGeEQk5DUWh4ZmQ4X1k/view

You will notice that there are no redactions. Please also keep in mind the following instruction that was included in the DWR's RFP:

"3.1 PROPOSAL FORMAT

*Proposals should be concise, straightforward and prepared simply and economically. Expensive displays, bindings, or promotional materials are neither desired nor required.* However, there is no intent in these instructions to limit a proposal's content or to exclude any relevant or essential data."

RMEF followed that instruction. When you view the SFW proposal, you will ntoice that nearly every other page includes a photograph, display or promotional material. My favorite photos are SFW leaders posing with state and national political leaders, MDF's president posing with Governor Herbert, Greg Shaeehan (Director of the DWR) giving a speech at the Expo, and John Bair (Chairman of the Wildlife Board) performing acution services at the Expo. You have to wonder what message was being conveyed to the selection committee.

-Hawkeye-


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

It seems to me from what I'm reading here that only RMEF could take any sort of legal action to have this process/decision questioned and being the respectable organization that they are, will likely not waste their member's or sponsor's money pursuing it. So that leaves us, the average joe to put the word out and attempt to affect change in either the system or the future Expo's.

Do not attend the expo. Period. Don't spread word about it, suggest friends and family do not attend, etc. It won't take long for their sponsors to stop buying booth space if there is nobody there to show or sell their wares to.

Perhaps if the SFW can't generate the attendance or revenue they expected and agreed to in their proposal then the UDWR would start losing money. Then, as taxpayers we might have a leg to stand on in this fight. If a government agency is continually losing money or missing opportunity to generate revenue then perhaps some accountability could be expected from us the taxpayer? Questions could then be asked why the UDWR intentionally rejected an offer to voluntarily bring a national and highly successful convention to our state.

Don't know really, just thinking out loud. What I do know is that forum shaming is not going to accomplish much but hitting an organization in their pocket books would surely have a bigger effect. Won't hurt me a bit to not put in for Expo tags for the next several years in order to not support the SFW/MDF.

I really hope this poor, shortsighted decision does not effect RMEF's future dedication to wildlife and conservation programs in our state...I'd really be angry if UDWR just burned a bridge that cannot be rebuilt with one of the most highly successful and generous organizations around.


----------



## swampfox (Dec 30, 2014)

Sign me up for what vanilla is selling. If someone can figure out a way to start the process of getting SFW out of here, I'm all in


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

Hawkeye, would it be possible to put together a basic article about this? Something that could be posted on social media, or sent to people that don't know about it? I would love to help get the word out, but without a nicely packaged link or news article it's hard. Something that covers the basic facts from the when the expo first started. Don's lies about putting the "lion's share" of funds into conservation, his ridiculous consulting fees, the pattern of nepotism between the wildlife board and SFW, and the recent bull crap about the DWR breaking its own laws and rigging the RFP. People love reading about government corruption! Our poor excuse for a governor is up for re-election soon and I'm sure the voters and other candidates would love a well-written piece about this outrage.

I would be happy to help, I just don't have as strong of a position to write such a thing.


----------



## bornking (Mar 6, 2010)

*RMEF*

I would be careful about RMEF, they do a lot of great things but my biggest concern with them is how much Federal grant money they receive on a yearly basis. Does SFW receive federal money? I know that SFW receive money from state coffers, because they need groups such as these to support our States rights as a republic to manage wildlife and predators within our own borders and not by the heavy hand of the feds who are flaming environmentalist.

To me RMEF is a green decoy sportsman's group, they support what the Fed tells them to.. They haven't been extremely helpful with wolves and haven't been supportive increasing tags in Wyoming or Montana. For example unit 313 in Montana Will likely reduce elk tags buy 95% from 1500 to 75 tags.. And guess what they kept Wolf permits in that area at 2!!! Where is RMEF in this battle? They can't say anything because the lose millions in federal money if they go against their Masters.

I support states rights and would like to tell the federal government to pound sand when they try to regulate our hunting heritage.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Born, here is the official press release from the RMEF
On wolf management.

http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/Pr...ol/Newsroom/RMEFPositiononWolfManagement.aspx

Pretty clear they favor state management.

The rest of your post needs its own thread.


----------



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

bornking said:


> I would be careful about RMEF, they do a lot of great things but my biggest concern with them is how much Federal grant money they receive on a yearly basis. Does SFW receive federal money? I know that SFW receive money from state coffers, because they need groups such as these to support our States rights as a republic to manage wildlife and predators within our own borders and not by the heavy hand of the feds who are flaming environmentalist.
> 
> To me RMEF is a green decoy sportsman's group, they support what the Fed tells them to.. They haven't been extremely helpful with wolves and haven't been supportive increasing tags in Wyoming or Montana. For example unit 313 in Montana Will likely reduce elk tags buy 95% from 1500 to 75 tags.. And guess what they kept Wolf permits in that area at 2!!! Where is RMEF in this battle? They can't say anything because the lose millions in federal money if they go against their Masters.
> 
> I support states rights and would like to tell the federal government to pound sand when they try to regulate our hunting heritage.


I hope this post is a joke or troll. Calling RMEF a green decoy is about as far from the truth as you'll get. As for state vs fed, I take it issue to issue. There's plenty of things I would like the Feds to tell the state of Utah to pound sand on.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

1I I didn't bite on the BS. Unfortunately some people are convinced this
Is fact. 

Turns out the talking point that SFW is selling is that the RMEF couldn't possibly
Pull the expo off the way they committed to in their RFP. 

The quotes I've heard are asanine.


----------



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

wileywapati said:


> 1I I didn't bite on the BS. Unfortunately some people are convinced this
> Is fact.
> 
> Turns out the talking point that SFW is selling is that the RMEF couldn't possibly
> ...


Share some of the quotes, I'm interested. If RMEF didn't know it could commit to its proposal, it wouldn't have proposed it. Throwing more **** against the wall hoping it would stick. Finally got an email back from the division director, just singing the same old tune, I'll post it if anyone's interested, I'm sure it's just a standard response email sent to everyone who emailed him.


----------



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

Here is the email back from the DWR director I got:



> Thank you for your letter. I appreciate it when folks will contact me and share their concerns. I have had some other emails on this issue so I will share my response with the others as well.
> 
> The Division of Wildlife Resources appreciates the conservation efforts that all of our partners bring to Wildlife in Utah and throughout the nation. These efforts have recovered and restored nearly all wildlife species in America in the past 120 years. In Utah we have furthered this success by having dedicated sportsmen conduct any number of banquets and expo's to benefit wildlife.
> 
> ...


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

1I do you have Facebook?? Head on over to the SFW page there. 
The Koolaid is flowing.

As far as the reply from Greg... Not sure if he is trying to keep his appointment or if he actually believes what he has written.


----------



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

Also as a note, RMEF has committed since 2014 to give 100% of proceeds from all conservation tags in every state. Their reasoning was, these are public assets and should be returned to the state agencies that oversee them. The more I learn about RMEF the more I love about them. I do have a Facebook, I will have to try and look at their posts. 

I think putting a nice flier together with face about each organization and handing them or at every banquet would get some of the word out. Hit the SFW banquets hard with factual fliers that show how much money SFW has not accounted for. As for the director, I emailed him back we'll see if he replies to that one. No one involved with the DWR or SFW is going to address or admit this problem until forced to do so. The heat needs to be kept on.


----------



## robiland (Jan 20, 2008)

#1DEER, I got the exact same letter yesterday from Greg SHEHANN. Cut and past. Word for word.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

From the form letter the DWR director is sending out.

"I know that many out there believe that all wildlife discussions revolve around issues such as the awarding of expo permits or the number of hunting permits issued on a certain unit in any given year. These are very important but please understand that additionally some of the biggest threats and challenges to our love of hunting and fishing come from an environmental community that is unrelenting in their quest to end sport hunting and fishing in America. I can assure you that is true by the many harsh emails sent to me from that community. My hope is that we can work through these issues of one conservation group against another and continue to moving forward together to ensure that our public-at-large understands the value of sportsmen in the protection of all wildlife and our rights in this country. That can only be accomplished by working together."

The sentiment expressed here, that disagreements on how public resources are utilized and in what manner, is bad because it divides hunters in the fight against environmentalists and animal rights advocates has been expressed before. Sheehans's predecessor (Karpowitz) said the exact same thing in a letter before he left his post. I have also heard the sentiment expressed by SFW. I wanted to briefly comment on this.

In my line of work, I am intimately exposed to the sentiments of the animal rights crowd. I am quite confident that there is little that hunters could do that would change how they feel about hunting and other things they advocate. They could care less about disagreements between conservation issues about resource allocation. I am also quite confident that all hunters would quickly unite against the extremists schemes, regardless of our differences. However, I also believe that this crowd is not likely to change the future of hunting. The group we need to be concerned about is the much larger group of citizens that do not hunt, but also do not have innate opposition to it. These people far outnumber the anti hunting extremists *and* us.

With this group of citizens, I can't help but think that they would be much more "turned off" on the sport of hunting by private entities making enormous profit from a public resource while being enabled by the public agency in charge of the said resource. If they see chronically questionable behavior and decision making by the public stewards of the resource, they possibly will have their confidence eroded in that agency to protect it and also look negatively at the users of the resource (us, the hunters). That could cause them to listen a bit more closely when the extremists bring along their nonsense, and possibly go along with it.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

That's the most ridiculous excuse I've ever seen


----------



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

Catherder I agree with you and I actually think it's a little ridiculous the director has chosen in board meetings and this letter to deflect debate on the issue at hand and make it an environmentalist vs hunter issue. SFW and corruption within our DWR will have and will continue to be more of a destroyer of our hunting future than environmentalists could ever hope to be. He didn't directly answer any of us, so I guess the next process is a phone call. Hopefully all those who can will also give him and the rest of the people who need to be contacted a call.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

This is sad. Hope Gregory looses his job. The division should work for the public and not sfw. 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Cliff Dweller (Dec 27, 2015)

I'm just your basic Jo who has no power at all but I also know that we do have power as a whole hunters in our state are very passionate about what we do it's an inborn family heritage or so to speak and being able to trust the DWR is a big part of that seems as though I've lost a little bit of trust today in our DWR very sad day but I think we act as a union and go on strike I propose that no one attend the expo truly that's the only way to get the word out so take your balls out of your wife's purse and don't attend this year's expo. Hey Hawkeye thanks for all your hard work


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

While we are waiting for the DWR and SFW to sign the Expo Tag Contract so that all of the underlying documentation can be made public, I thought I would take an opportunity to address some of the inconsistencies that have been put forth by the DWR. Although I have volunteered some of my time over the last year helping RMEF through this process, these are my own personal views and opinions. A little background might be helpful.

On the afternoon of September 1, 2015, RMEF hand-delivered to the DWR its application for the upcoming 5-Year Expo Tag Contract. In preparing its application, RMEF carefully followed the DWR's application requirements, including the September 1st deadline, set forth in the DWR's own Administrative Rule (R657-55-4). Remember, this is the same rule that the DWR had previously used to award the two prior 5-year contracts to MDF and SFW, and the same rule that was just recently amended by the DWR in January 2015.

Within days after receiving the RMEF application, however, the DWR unilaterally announced that it was changing the process after-the-fact for awarding Expo Tag Contracts. The DWR had apparently decided to move away from the process set forth in its own Administrative Rule (R657-55-4) and move to a formal RFP process conducted by the Utah Division of Purchasing. This sudden change came as a complete surprise to RMEF who had worked for months to prepare a detailed proposal that complied with the requirements in the DWR's rule. A couple of the highlights of RMEF's initial proposal were a commitment to bring the RMEF National Convention to SLC for the 5-year term of the agreement and a voluntary commitment to dedicate 100% of the $5 application fees to approved conservation activities in the state of Utah. RMEF politely expressed its surprise and disappointment to the DWR's sudden change of direction in a press release dated September 11, 2015: http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PressRoom/NewsReleases/RMEFConfirmsUtahExpoBid.aspx

In an effort to calm the waters and justify its decision to change the rules after the application period had closed and after receiving RMEF's application, the DWR issued its own press release on September 17, 2015: http://wildlife.utah.gov/wildlife-news/1723-expo-permits.html The following statement in the DWR press release is particularly troubling:

"Applications from conservation organizations will be accepted through a formal Request for Proposals (RFP) process managed by the Utah Division of Purchasing and General Services. *The RFP process was mentioned at six public hearings throughout the past year. A meeting also occurred in October 2014, prior to the public hearings, when the DWR met with many of the state's major conservation organizations and outlined the plan to solicit proposals through an open, competitive process. Attendees at that meeting included the Mule Deer Foundation, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, National Wild Turkey Federation, United Wildlife Cooperative, Utah Bowmen's Association, Utah Foundation for North American Wild Sheep and Safari Club International. The RFP process was most recently mentioned on Aug. 27, 2015 at the Utah Wildlife Board meeting.*"

I have two major problems with this statement. First, the fact that the words "RFP" or "RFP process" may have been "mentioned" at a RAC or Wildlife Board meeting does not change the law as reflected in the DWR's own Administrative Rule. Moreover, the DWR is playing word games. If you carefully review the t minutes from the December 2014 RAC meetings and the January 2014 Wildlife Board meeting you will find some casual references to the phrase "RFP process." However, those statements are generally made in the context of a DWR employee describing the existing application process set forth in R657-55-4, which is essentially an informal RFP process. I challenge anyone to identify somewhere in the minutes where Kenny Johnson, the presenter for the DWR, or anyone else clearly stated on the record that "the DWR is moving away from the existing application process set forth in R657-55-4 and moving to a formal RFP process with the Utah Division of Purchasing." It does not exist. I personally attended several of those meetings and I can tell you that as a lawyer who was very interested in what changes were being made to the process, I had absolutely no clue that the DWR was moving to an entirely new process.

Second, I take issue with the DWR's suggestion that it outlined this change during an October 2014 meeting that was attended by representatives of various conservation groups, including RMEF. To be clear, I did not attend that meeting. However, this suggestion is in direct conflict with the following email that was sent by the DWR to the various conservation groups in advance of that meeting: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GVTVtN1IxS3pqVmM

In that email, the DWR notifies the various groups about an upcoming October 23rd meeting to discuss various changes to R657-55 and even included a redlined version of the rule showing the proposed changes. You will notice that the DWR outlined the *"three major proposed changes,"* which included the following:

1. Convention Permits would be renamed "Expo Permits" to avoid confusion with "Conservation Permits."

2. Conservation groups would be allowed to extend the 5-year contract for additional 5 years (10 years total).

3. The rule was being amended to require that the conservation groups spend 30% of the $5 application fee revenue on actual conservation projects. This 70/30 split was previously agreed to by the DWR and the groups in 2012 after significant public outcry.

If the purpose of this meeting was to truly to inform the groups that the DWR was moving to a new, formal RFP process don't you think that would have been identified as one of the "major proposed changes" in the DWR's email.  Plus, the DWR included redlined version of R657-55 showing the proposed changes to the rule. Did the DWR include revised language outlining a new formal RFP process? No. To the contrary, it updated and amended the very same application process that it has used to award the prior two contracts, including Section 3 which required conservation groups to submit applications to the Division between August 1st and September 1st, and Section 4 which spelled out what information should be included in an application, and Sections 6 and 7 which stated the criteria the DWR and the Wildlife Board would consider in awarding the upcoming contract.

So once again, the DWR is playing semantics. The statement in the press release that the DWR "outlined the plan to solicit proposals through an open, competitive process" during the meeting likely referred to the rule changes being made to the existing process in R657-55. That process is an open, competitive process so long as the DWR administers it as such. Plus, it is the very same process that the DWR used to award the two prior 5-year contracts. And, it is the very same process that the DWR amended just months before RMEF submitted its application. So next time you hear or read a statement that the new, formal RFP process was openly discussed as early as October 2014, did in a little deeper and find out what was really being discussed at that time. Plus, there is a process for changing a law or administrative rule that was not followed here.

One other comment on this issue, once all of the documents are made public, it will be very interesting to see of SFW or MDF submitted an application pursuant to R657-55-4 prior to the September 1st deadline and the DWR's decision to move to a formal RFP process. If either of those groups submitted an application then that would completely gut the argument that the DWR discussed this change with all of the conservation groups and RMEF somehow just missed this point.

-Hawkeye-


----------



## curlycoyote (Sep 11, 2015)

Did anything every come of the TV stations looking into this and doing some kind of investigation. It would be nice to see someone that was not tied to SFW look into this and ask some hard questions before the contract is signed.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I wish we could get RMEF to sue the state. If nothing else, it is one way to expose corruption. 

Maybe we can get the House to do an investigation, like Shurtleff/Swallow, on the DWR and Wildlife Board regarding their relationship and preferential treatment with private organizations? Not likely. 

We need the law suit.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Hawkeye, Thanks, keep up the good work.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Hawkeye, great information and synopsis of what happened.

However, if the info doesn't see a courtroom, it will not do anyone any good. What does it take to get RMEF to take action? 

I do not hold out much hope that complaining to the legislature will do much good in this matter.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

I received my email from the expo the other day, at the bottom was the option to unsubscribe, I hit that and up came a screen asking if I would tell them why.

I told them that some of my friends and I attended every year but with the way that it was awarded we would not be attending any more and to please remove me from their email list.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

My question is,

A law suit based on what?


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> My question is,
> 
> A law suit based on what?


Just guessing but failure to follow the rules laid out by R657-55-4 which I believe is the law that states who the convention is to be awarded.

But then I'm no lawyer and can only hope someone who is gets involved.
Short of lining up the politicians and Wildlife board along with the head of the DWR agianst a wall I certainly don't have the answers.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Saw something recently on the news where I believe Tooele County got sued because they sold some property "racetrack" to a lower bidder. When the states sell something it must get fair market value for it which would be the high bid. I don't see anything different with our tags being state-owned and what SFW did lowball

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> Saw something recently on the news where I believe Tooele County got sued because they sold some property to a lower bidder. When the states sell something it must get fair market value for it which would be the high bid. I don't see anything different with our tags being state-owned and what SFW did lowball
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


So another answer to Goofy's question, fiduciary responsibility to the tax payer and owners of entrusted wildlife, by the trustees.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Edited LT said it


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

RMEF has the full standing needed for a lawsuit based on damages, but there are certainly other avenues for a lawsuit from the citizens of Utah, separate or together with RMEF. That would require those citizens(us) getting together, organizing, and doing something, like filing a lawsuit.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Lonetree, I'm curious what process you think would get around third-party standing and general grievance prohibitions in administrative law?

I agree that litigation is the best route to resolve this issue, but RMEF is pretty restrictive as to how they use their funds. 

Goofy, RMEF would sue the state for awarding the contract contrary to their own rules, alternatively they would sue that the decision was made arbitrarily or capriciously. The first argument is the strongest, as the second only requires the state to show a "mere scintilla" of evidence that they were justified in awarding it to SFW. 

SW, big difference in the issue you raised and this one is that the end bidder on the tags are private individuals and the open auction process pretty much guarantees the fair market value requirement. Now the brokerage fee obtained by SFW for organizing/facilitating the auction is a different dog entirely. As I see it, the Tooele suit is not sufficiently analogous to use as the basis for a suit.
As much as I don't like it, I think we're stuck with SFW


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

This site really isn't the best thing for anyone wanting to sue to come out and say what they are sueing for. All it does is build a case that can be defended easier. 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

johnnycake said:


> Lonetree, I'm curious what process you think would get around third-party standing and general grievance prohibitions in administrative law?
> 
> I agree that litigation is the best route to resolve this issue, but RMEF is pretty restrictive as to how they use their funds.
> 
> ...


I'll deffer to my like on the above post. But on the Arbitrary and Capricious note, I was involved briefly with a lawsuit(successful) against several National Parks for their implementation(specifically the means by which decisions were made) of processes and rules for awarding "things".

Our standing was weak compared to those that brought the lawsuit, WRT to NP "processes" being A&C. Should that ruling of A&C not have been awarded, we were the back up plan with a better angle. To our surprise the weaker A&C case was a slam dunk.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

swbuckmaster said:


> Saw something recently on the news where I believe Tooele County got sued because they sold some property "racetrack" to a lower bidder. When the states sell something it must get fair market value for it which would be the high bid. I don't see anything different with our tags being state-owned and what SFW did lowball
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


Lawsuit was initiated by the losing bidder. In this case, RMEF would be the comparable party.


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

I wanted to take some time today to debunk another myth put forth by the DWR. As a lawyer, one of the things that bothers me most about the DWR's recent move to a formal RFP is the fact that they are violating their own administrative rule, which sets forth a process for awarding the five-year Expo Tag contracts. See R-657-55-4 (http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm). Those of you who have taken the time to ask the DWR why they are not following their own rule have likley been told that the DWR recently realized that the process set forth in its own administrative rule was somehow inconsistent with a separate state procurement statute. As a lawyer, this makes little sense to me for the following reasons:

First, I don't believe there is any real conflict between the DWR's administrative rule and the procurement code. The fact is the DWR has relied upon the process set forth in its rule (which is already an informal RFP process) to award to two prior five-year contracts. If what they are saying is true then the DWR violated the state procurement code for 10 years. Why the sudden change now? What is the conflict? It makes no sense.

Second, assuming what the DWR is saying is true, there did not need to be any conflict between the DWR's administrative rule and the state procurement code. As you will recall, the DWR just amended its rule in January 2015. If the DWR wanted to change the process then it had a perfect opportunity to do so in the January 2015 rule amendment. All it had to do was remove the prior application process from the rule and spell out that the DWR would be issuing a formal RFP through the Division of Purchasing. If the DWR truly discussed all of this with several conservation groups in an informal meeting in October 2014, then there is no reason why they could not have incorporated the formal RFP process into the proposed rule amendment that went out to the RACs in December 2014 and the Wildlife Board in January 2015. In summary, there was absolutely no reason to have any conflict between the DWR's rule and some other supposed state statute. In essence, what the DWR is saying is "we created a conflict between our rule and another statute and now we are relying on that alleged conflict to violate our own rule."

Third, the DWR is ignoring the binding effect of their own administrative rules. The Utah Department of Administrative Services Division of Administrative Rules is the state agency that is responsible for publishing the administrative rules for every Utah state agency, including the DWR. On their website (http://www.rules.utah.gov/abtrules.htm), they include a brief explanation as to the purpose of administrative rules. Take a minute and read it when you have a chance. It states the following:

"*DUAL PURPOSE OF ADMINISTRATIVE RULES*

An administrative rule serves at least two purposes. First, a properly enacted administrative rule has *the binding effect of law*. *Therefore, a rule affects our lives as much as a statute passed by the legislature, restricting individuals AND the agency that issues it*.

Second, an administrative rule is a *messenger of sorts*. *It informs citizens of actions a state government agency will take or how a state agency will conduct its business*. It provides citizens the opportunity to respond -- whether by providing public comment, or becoming involved in some other way."

That is the summary/explanation provided by the State of Utah. Those are their own words. That means that the application process set forth by the DWR in R657-55 has the "binding effect of law" just as much as some other statute passed by the legislature and it binds "the agency that issue it." So much for the DWR's explanation that they suddenly became aware of some statute that requires them to violate their rule.

The second point is also critical. The DWR communicates with the public (and conservation groups) through its administrative rules. That is how the DWR informs the public (and conservation groups) as to how actions it "will take or how will conduct its business." As I explained to the DWR, RMEF had no obligation to attend the DWR's private meeting in October 2014 and what may or may not have been "mentioned" at the meeting is completely irrelevant. RMEF also had no duty to inform the DWR that they might be interested in applying for the next Expo tag contract. The DWR was bound by the process set forth in its administrative rule and that is how the DWR is supposed to communicate with the public.

RMEF (and every other group) was perfectly entitled to rely on the process set forth by the DWR in its rule and it is ridiculous for the DWR to try to blame its repeated blunders on an alleged lack of communication within the RMEF. If the DWR wanted to change the process and move to a formal RFP process then they should have put it in their rule. The fact of the matter is the RMEF wanted to keep its interest in the expo tag contract a secret until the last possible minute because it was concerned about being treated fairly. Was that a valid concern? You tell me.

One other note, even after the DWR received RMEF's proposal on 9/1/2015 and realized that they had failed to properly spell out the process that they supposedly intended to use in their adminstrative rule, they chose to move forward and continue to violate their rule. The DWR could have stopped the preparation of the RFP and amended their rule to reflect what they were going to do. However, they were concerned that the public would have gone crazy and said that the DWR was merely changing its rule to authorize what it wanted to do -- which is true. But now the situation is even worse. Now, the DWR will have to go back and amend its rule to authorize what they have already done in violation of their rule. Once again, another major mistake by the DWR.

In summary, I still do not understand why the DWR thinks that it can simply ignore and violate its own administrative rule. Can you imagine of we all chose to ignore and violate the DWR's rules? Can the DWR expect us to respect and follow their rules when they don't?

If you have not contacted your legislative reps yet, please do so. The 2016 legislative session opens tomorrow. I would like to see the Utah Legislative Auditor take a look at the Expo Tag program and monies generated from those tags like he did with the wolf lobbying money provided to BGF back in 2013. See http://le.utah.gov/audit/13_11rpt.pdf.

I will continue to address additional issues in subsequent posts.

-Hawkeye-


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

hawkeye said:


> In summary, I still do not understand why the DWR thinks that it can simply ignore and violate its own administrative rule. Can you imagine of we all chose to ignore and violate the DWR's rules? Can the DWR expect us to respect and follow their rules when they don't?
> 
> -Hawkeye-


WOW,

That paragraph alone is very powerful, VERY true!


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

hawkeye said:


> I wanted to take some time today to debunk another myth put forth by the DWR. As a lawyer, one of the things that bothers me most about the DWR's recent move to a formal RFP is the fact that they are violating their own administrative rule, which sets forth a process for awarding the five-year Expo Tag contracts. See R-657-55-4 (http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm). Those of you who have taken the time to ask the DWR why they are not following their own rule have likley been told that the DWR recently realized that the process set forth in its own administrative rule was somehow inconsistent with a separate state procurement statute. As a lawyer, this makes little sense to me for the following reasons:
> 
> First, I don't believe there is any real conflict between the DWR's administrative rule and the procurement code. The fact is the DWR has relied upon the process set forth in its rule (which is already an informal RFP process) to award to two prior five-year contracts. If what they are saying is true then the DWR violated the state procurement code for 10 years. Why the sudden change now? What is the conflict? It makes no sense.
> 
> ...


That is a lot of money in "consulting fees" - Not to mention it has been said that SFW/BGF almost got the wolves re-listed in Montana and Idaho, then took the credit for them not being re-listed.

http://hunttalk.libsyn.com/ep-007-r...e-theodore-roosevelt-conservation-partnership


----------



## Groganite (Nov 14, 2012)

So someone asked what the ratio was on money returning to wildlife from tags and I posted this thread on sfw facebook...needless to say I'm now blocked lmao! It was good entertainment while it lasted:mrgreen:


----------

