# PROPOSAL TO CAP EXPO TAGS AT 10%



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Today the *United Wildlife Cooperative *delivered a proposal to the Division of Wildlife Resources requesting a change in the distribution and accounting of funds raised and associated with publicly owned expo tags and the organizations that participate in their use.

This would require the same transparency called on and displayed by RMEF and its president, David Allen, last week. This proposal would be a slight modification of *R657-55 Division of Wildlife Resources* and could be handled through the RAC's and the Wildlife Board. The change would require complete disclosure of the funds as well as limit the amount each participating group could retain to no more than *10%* which ultimately would mean more money for those approved projects that are so important for the wildlife of Utah. The proposal would require the funds from the convention tag application fees to be distributed in the same fashion as conservation permits. i.e.. 60/30/10

*HERE IS THE BODY OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE:*

R657-55-6. Convention Permit Funds and Reporting. 
(1) Within 30 days of the last day of the wildlife convention, the conservation organization must submit to the division: 
(a) a final report on the distribution of permits; 
(b) the total number of applications for each permit; 
(c) the total funds raised through the handling fees assessed by the conservation organization to process applications; 
(d) the funds due to the division; and 
(e) a report on the status of each project funded in whole or in part with retained convention permit revenue. 
(2) Permits shall not be issued until the permit fees are paid to the division. 
(3)(a) Conservation organizations shall remit to the division by September 1 of each year 30% of the total revenue generated through the handling fees assessed by the conservation organization to process applications. 
(b) The permit revenue payable to the division under Subsection (3)(a), excluding accrued interest, is the property of the division and may not be used by conservation organizations for projects or any other purpose. 
(c) The permit revenue must be placed in a federally insured account promptly upon receipt and remain in the account until remitted to the division on or before September 1 of each year. 
(d) The permit revenue payable to the division under this subsection shall not be used by the conservation organization as collateral or commingled in the same account with the organization's operation and administration funds, so that the separate identity of the permit revenue is not lost. 
(e) Failure to remit 30% of the total permit revenue to the division by the September 1 deadline may result in criminal prosecution under Title 76, Chapter 6, Part 4 of the Utah Code, and may further disqualify the conservation organization from obtaining any future convention permits. 
(4) A conservation organization may retain 70% of the revenue generated through the handling fees assessed by the conservation organization as follows: 
(a) 10% of the revenue may be withheld and used by the conservation organization for administrative expenses. 
(b) 60% of the revenue may be retained and used by the conservation organization only for eligible projects as provided in subsections (i) through (ix). 
(i) eligible projects include habitat improvement, habitat acquisition, transplants, targeted education efforts and other projects providing a substantial benefit to species of wildlife for which convention permits are issued. 
(ii) retained revenue shall not be committed to or expended on any eligible project without first obtaining the division director's written concurrence. 
(iii) retained revenue shall not be used on any project that does not provide a substantial and direct benefit to convention permit species located in Utah. 
(iv) cash donations to the Wildlife Habitat Account created under Section 23-19-43, Division Species Enhancement Funds, or the Conservation Permit Fund shall be considered an eligible project and do not require the division director's approval, provided the donation is made with instructions that it be used for species of wildlife for which convention permits are issued. 
(v) retained revenue shall not be used on any project that is inconsistent with division policy, including feeding programs, depredation management, or predator control. 
(vi) retained revenue under this subsection must be placed in a federally insured account. All interest revenue earned thereon may be retained and used by the conservation organization for administrative expenses. 
(vii) retained revenue shall not be used by the conservation organization as collateral or commingled in the same account with the organization's operation and administration funds, so that the separate identity of the retained revenue is not lost. 
(viii) retained revenue must be completely expended on or committed to approved eligible projects by September 1, two years following the year in which the relevant convention permits are awarded to the conservation organization by the Wildlife Board. Failure to commit or expend the retained revenue by the September 1 deadline will disqualify the conservation organization from obtaining any future convention permits until the unspent retained revenue is committed to an approved eligible project. 
(ix) all records and receipts for projects under this subsection must be retained by the conservation organization for a period not less than five years, and shall be produced to the division for inspection upon request. 
(5)(a) Conservation organizations accepting permits shall be subject to annual audits on project expenditures and convention permit accounts. 
(b) The division shall perform annual audits on project expenditures and convention permit accounts.

CLICK HERE FOR COMPLETE PROPOSAL

*Contact the DWR, Wildlife Board and RAC members to show your support to have this as an action item in the August board meeting*


Let them know that you support the UWC proposal that changes the convention tag rule to mirror the conservation tag rule.

*Wildlife Board Members*
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

*RAC members:*
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Do we have text of the proposal, and a title of the proposal. This may help in contacting all these folks, so everyone is taliking about the same thing.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Do we have text of the proposal, and a title of the proposal. This may help in contacting all these folks, so everyone is taliking about the same thing.


I absolutely agree.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Nice format on the emails, BTW, they copy and paste into the address field in my email program nicely. Makes it very easy.


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

That's fantastic. Glad you guys are representing transparency, and just good practices that help hunters look good. Honestly, it benefits us all if those groups that are involved are on the up and up. 

Would be even cooler if retroactive. I hope you can lead a separate effort to cap current tags, or lower allocations. I think that if this opens the door to them being clean going forward, the downside is that they can argue responsibility with the tags and ask for more. I guess if that is true, well, I still don't want them getting more which seems - total guess- likely over time.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

*OUTSTANDING!!!* Bout fricken time


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

This is good. Really like this part.
(2) Permits shall not be issued until the permit fees are paid to the division.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

Nice job guys. What are you having the subject be for the emails ?


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

Wow klbzdad, how long did it take to type up that post? I would hope there was a bit of cut and paste...

Thanks for posting and thanks UWC for getting involved on this important issue.


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

awesome news


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

FANTASTIC POST

thanks for all of the hard work and effort that it took to get this together


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

> (5)(a) Conservation organizations accepting permits shall be *subject to annual audits* on project expenditures and convention permit accounts.
> (b) The division shall perform annual audits on project expenditures and convention permit accounts.


Fantastic! Sounds like some people might be shaking in their boots for lack of accountability previously...


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

The UWC will be trying to push this through the RAC and WB system, and to do that we need all the support we can get. Send emails, make phone calls, and when the time comes, attend the RAC's/WB meetings and sound off loud and clear. This process will take a bit of time, but please don't take your foot off the gas pedal, push hard guys and gals! Thanks for your support!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

dkhntrdstn said:


> Nice job guys. What are you having the subject be for the emails ?


I'm just going with: Proposal to cap expo tags at 10%


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> dkhntrdstn said:
> 
> 
> > Nice job guys. What are you having the subject be for the emails ?
> ...


thanks I will do the same.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Lonetree said:


> dkhntrdstn said:
> 
> 
> > Nice job guys. What are you having the subject be for the emails ?
> ...


Throw in "UWC" in the sentence and you should be golden.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

stillhunterman said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > dkhntrdstn said:
> ...


For full viceral effect, yes, do not forget the UWC part.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

emails have been sent.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Absolutely great news and great post. I will be following through with emails as well.


----------



## ramrod (Apr 15, 2008)

Nice!!!!


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

stillhunterman said:


> The UWC will be trying to push this through the RAC and WB system, and to do that we need all the support we can get. Send emails, make phone calls, and when the time comes, attend the RAC's/WB meetings and sound off loud and clear. This process will take a bit of time, but please don't take your foot off the gas pedal, push hard guys and gals! Thanks for your support!


here is a copy of an email i sent to every single person on that list. it was real easy with a little copy and paste thank you for the hard work uwc.

I am contacting you to let you know that myself and many others support what the rocky mountain elk foundation and the united wildlife cooperative are trying to get pushed through. as a utah sportsman and self conservationist i believe the big game tags that have been put up for drawings in the utah sportsman's expo held by the sportsman for fish and wildlife have been very poorly handled by sfw. i want to see some transparency on how much of that money that is being made (off our public animals ) is actually going to the right full cause that sfw claims it is intended for. I believe the expo could be a major asset for Utah's wildlife if it is done right

thank you for your time.

Brian


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Great job everyone!


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

I sent my e-mail 

However, a few e-mails did come back as undeliverable due to spam filters or bad addresses. But the vast majority must have gone through


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

Bax* said:


> I sent my e-mail
> 
> However, a few e-mails did come back as undeliverable due to spam filters or bad addresses. But the vast majority must have gone through


i had 3 comeback as well . but i have also gotten responses from a few already. dont forget to email the dwr as well


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Good point Hazmat, i addressed my email to the DWR board and Rac members


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

All of you guys that have sent or will send emails. I recommend you include the following email address as well:

[email protected]

It is my understanding that the Division of Wildlife Services first needs to be "bombarded" with this request so they feel enough pressure to put it in front of the RAC & WB. In any case it doesn't hurt to fill their comment email address with this as well so they know it is important to put up as a discussion item/proposal.

Thanks!


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Interesting to say the least. Good luck.


----------



## bwhntr23 (Sep 29, 2008)

Email has been sent, had a few bounce back as well. Does anyone have John Bair's email, I don't know if he is under the board members but it didn't look like he was listed there. Thanks


----------



## jasonwayne191 (Jun 11, 2012)

Been in Utah for less than a year and haven't figured out all the tag details, but this seems reasonable to me. Emails sent, thanks for the hard work.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

The complete proposal can be found by CLICKING HERE.

Thank you so much for your support on this measure!


----------



## Bears Butt (Sep 12, 2007)

WOW! That was a lot of hard work fellas! Good job! Posting up on my site and will be forwarding emails of it to all the folks listed plus the dwr comment email AND all my hunting buddies. You have done a remarkable job on this! Thank you from myself and for all hunters in Utah!


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

First step in this process is to petition the Wildlife Board and DWR to add this to the RAC and WB agenda as an action item so that this can't just be ignored. To help compel them to add this to August agenda as an action item the UWC has put together an online petition. Please click on the link and sign:

http://www.change.org/petitions/utah-wi ... ction-item


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

bullsnot said:


> First step in this process is to petition the Wildlife Board and DWR to add this to the RAC and WB agenda as an action item so that this can't just be ignored. To help compel them to add this to August agenda as an action item the UWC has put together an online petition. Please click on the link and sign:
> 
> http://www.change.org/petitions/utah-wi ... ction-item


This petition is deserving of a link all it's own.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> > First step in this process is to petition the Wildlife Board and DWR to add this to the RAC and WB agenda as an action item so that this can't just be ignored. To help compel them to add this to August agenda as an action item the UWC has put together an online petition. Please click on the link and sign:
> ...


I think you may be right. New thread it is.


----------



## BERG (Dec 4, 2007)

The entire proposal is awesome! This should have been done years ago. A sincere thanks to all who are working to make this proposal a reality! I'm sure that The UWC, and many others, have spent a tremendous amount of their time in order to make this happen. 8)

Please make sure and include John, Wildlife Board Member, in your emails:

[email protected]


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> Interesting to say the least. Good luck.


I respect your opinion and think you do a good job of explaining your position. What are your thoughts in general about the proposal (excluding the orgs involved)?


----------



## deerlove (Oct 20, 2010)

"Interesting" What does this mean??


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

deerlove said:


> "Interesting" What does this mean??


Loosely translates to, "Better wake up Donnie and have him do some distraction maneuvers before they hand out the tin foil hats!"


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

JuddCT said:


> bwhntr said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting to say the least. Good luck.
> ...


Thank you JuddCT and congrats on an awesome bear hunt, looks like you had a great time.  
I don't completely have my thoughts together on this proposal, nor have I read every detail. I have scanned through and noticed the more "exciting" parts. That being said...I have a lot of trust in the private sector and believe they do a better job at raising money and being accountable than ANY government sector could ever do. IMO the bottom line is utlimately the only thing that really matters. I don't believe the DWR could produce half the revenue that is handed to them from these tags. So with that attitude I tend to believe the old saying "don't look a gift horse in the mouth". I have read the articles and comments that RMEF has put out there this past couple of weeks (and before) and my gut feeling is there is far more involved than they would ever share with the public.

On the other hand I appreciate balance. I am doubtful that this petition alone will make any change, but it might be a start to something in the direction of change that so many dream of. I like the energy it produces and I encourage all to get the FACTS on what is going on in your community and make a stand. Get involved. I get tired of hearing my friends tell me they don't vote or speak up because it doesn't make a difference yet in the same breath they complain about our current system. This is quite frustrating.

Here is a little unknown secret, I am a supporter of the UWC. How is it I can support someone like the SFW as well? I think that there is a place for both and many others. I believe we are better off having the SFW than if we never did. That being said, I think balance is needed. I don't want the SFW making all the decisions towards my hunting future anymore than I want the UWC making up all the rules. I want all parties listened to and then make an educated decision based on the information at hand.

I applaud the UWC efforts and look forward to seeing how this plays out. I am sure I will have more to say in the near future as I study deeper into the issues. I do wonder where the 10%, 30%, 70%, etc numbers come from. Are these just "feel good" numbers or was there a process by which the authors came up with them?


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

klbzdad said:


> deerlove said:
> 
> 
> > "Interesting" What does this mean??
> ...


That's a cute thing to say.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

It mirrors the conservation tag allocations. The language is very similar, making it unnecessary to study some foreign document. There is pretty much no investigation necessary to those who already know and understand the language and stipulations governing the conservation tag funds.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

I am assuming you already know the DWR doesn't share the same position as the UWC?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Why do you assume this?


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

This was only written yesterday so I am sure you haven't had a chance to see it.
Letter from Jim Karpowitz to David Allen, RMEF:


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> JuddCT said:
> 
> 
> > bwhntr said:
> ...


I just want to take a second an say that this is very true. He has been to several events and is an all around good guy. I just wanted to get that out there, we may not agree on all the same topics, but bwntr is out there on the ground and I respect him a lot.

On your post about the DWR feelings on it, I am not sure how the DWR feels about it. This proposal is not doing anything to get rid of the tags, it is simply creating accountability and transparency that there currently is with the conservation permits. I personally want to know where the money from pubic tags is going and that is all that is being done here is making sure that is easier to see.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

jahan said:


> I just want to take a second an say that this is very true. He has been to several events and is an all around good guy. I just wanted to get that out there, we may not agree on all the same topics, but bwntr is out there on the ground and I respect him a lot.
> 
> On your post about the DWR feelings on it, I am not sure how the DWR feels about it. This proposal is not doing anything to get rid of the tags, it is simply creating accountability and transparency that there currently is with the conservation permits. I personally want to know where the money from pubic tags is going and that is all that is being done here is making sure that is easier to see.


Thanks Jahan, that was very kind of you to say. Now stop making up lies about me. :mrgreen:

I thought it would be important and help bring in another point of view by sharing the above letter that Jim sent to RMEF. I found it quite interesting.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

I agree bwhntr, it is interesting. I also agree with some of your other sentiments, especially having a balance in things like this. I fully expected that rocking the boat with this proposal would call out the gauntlet squad, so be it. Thanks for sharing Jim's letter to RMEF. I found it interesting that Jim spent the majority of his words addressing the conservation tag program rather than the convention tags, though he did put out some numbers on that as well.

It will indeed be interesting to see where this goes and how balance is applied. I do, however, feel very strong about the issue of accountability here, and would love to be able to see things in columns in black and white. By the way, thanks for the "good luck"...we just might need it! ;-) :shock:


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

Bwhntr,

Thanks for posting the letter from Jim. I think that the letter may have cleared up some long held believes about the conservation and Expo tags. I also concur with your thoughts and secret about SFW and joining UWC as I have done the same.

Gary hit the nail on the head a few threads ago when he said that the population of man has caused as much of the decline in mule deer as anything. I think Gary is right on target with his assessment. The reason I bring this up is because much of the failures associated with SFW are attributed to the decline in mule deer. Even after the millions that have been poured in to habitat restoration and rehabilitation mule deer have not rebounded as many had predicted that they would. Really the only tools left un tried have been extensive predator management (Coyotes) and issuing human depredation permits, (Hunger Games.)

My opinion is that SFW (Bateman-Peay) have caused a great riff in the force by not addressing the financial aspect of the Expo to the public and further more I blame Ryan Foutze for not shedding light on this issue from day one as the expo is his responsibility as I understand it. Much of the apprehension could have been alleviated from the start had these men come forth and addressed the issues and restated the ground rules. I will sign the petition for this one reason alone…
Big


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> JuddCT said:
> 
> 
> > bwhntr said:
> ...


Thanks for being honest.

I too feel that private corporations tend to handle things better than government. Unfortunately I feel we have a private-government "mut" when it comes to the convention tags. What does it hurt to have a little more clarity of the rules and actions of those involved (including our state & DWR)? I truly hope those involved have been running these as it should be. Maybe this will help prove they have. The truth isn't always damning, it can also set you free.

Plus (as you stated), this brings more awareness and focus potentially from a segment of hunters that have felt no representation in the past.


----------



## BERG (Dec 4, 2007)

Demagoguery: It's what Karpowitz does! I see some truth in his letter, yet there is also bullshnitzle a plenty. In a number of instances he preaches that which he knows to be false! Anyone care to point out what I'm talking about before I have my turn with this one? Hey Karpi., are you on The Dole? I'm waiting patiently for a RMEF reply! This is going to be quite a show. o-||


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Bwhntr, thanks for posting this letter. 

I agree that it was indeed interesting. My thoughts were, however, that if the convention (and conservation) tag program(s) were as clean as he said they were, then the DWR and participating groups would seemingly welcome initiatives that would increase transparency with gladness. -Ov- Why would there be an objection to what is proposed by UWC and RMEF?


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

bwhntr said:


> klbzdad said:
> 
> 
> > deerlove said:
> ...


 :O•-:


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Uhmmmm.....I'm just curious if Mr. Karpowitz bothered to read.....actually, never mind.....of course he knows he's full of crap! Clearly a certain someone picked up the phone as soon as it was brought to his attention that his "consulting fees" were about to dry up so he hit the MM site to create a distraction blaming Randy for cancelling "the big debate" which is NOT what happened and then immediately went on the warpath to make sure the RMEF President was attacked as well. I'm sure Tye and UWC are next for this proposal and petition which asks for this and just a little bit more based on the majority desires of Utah sportsmen:

*R657-55 - Wildlife Convention Permits*

*R657-55-1. Purpose and Authority.*
(1) Under the authority of Sections 23-14-18 and 23-14-19 of the Utah Code, this rule provides the standards and requirements for issuing wildlife convention permits.
(2) Wildlife convention permits are authorized by the Wildlife Board and issued by the division to a qualified conservation organization for purposes of generating revenue to fund wildlife conservation activities and attracting a regional or national wildlife convention to Utah.
(3) The selected conservation organization will conduct a random drawing at a convention held in Utah to distribute the opportunity to receive wildlife convention permits.
(4) This rule is intended as authorization to issue one series of wildlife convention permits per year beginning in 2012 through 2016 to one qualified conservation organization.

I can't help but want to jam out to a certain AC/DC tune that has some bells in it....just sayin'

CURRENT DWR RULE 657-55 CONVENTION TAGS


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Keep in mind, RMEF NEVER questioned any division transparency, or the conservation permits program. RMEF questioned the transparency, of the accounting, of "conservation orgs", not the division. They also questioned the dependancy of some "conservation orgs" on funds generated by these special permits. I would invite everyone to reread the RMEF news release, and then reread Carp's response. WTF! is Carp responding to? If Carp's letter is not a blatant, reactionary, defense of SFW, I dont think anyone could have done a better job at doing so. Of course he is on the take. If he is not on the take, why cant he seperate a generic call for accountability of independant conservation orgs, ie. SFW, from the division? RMEF calls for transparency of unnamed independant conservation orgs, and this is how the head of the Utah division responds? Really? Thanks Carp for making sure everyone knows how tight ya'all are. Of course, maybe Carp's boss asked him to write it. HHHMMMMM......... 

And thank you RMEF, and David Allen for the great tutorial in fishing, I though all you guys did was elk over there. Thats the thing about throwing out bait, you never know what is going to bite. Of course when you reel in something unexpected, its always a valuable learning experience. :mrgreen:


----------



## BERG (Dec 4, 2007)

The truth is a wonderful thing! Those who attack RMEF, Randy, UWC, and any other group or individual supporting this proposal, will come out of the mosh pit of public opinion with nothing but rotten eggs slathered all over their greedy faces!


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

What makes this most interesting to me is I don't think the UWC has the pull to make such a change...yet. They do have enough energy to write up a proposal and present it to maybe spark up a discussion. This isn't a bad thing, you have to start somewhere. I think that this org is a little young and needs to grow into the shoes it deserves to wear. So for me, this is why I say "interesting". For me it has little to do with the content of the proposal, but to see how it is carried out and what actually happens. Of course I am sure the UWC is just as interested in seeing where this goes as anyone.

I have at least enjoyed the talking points here on the UWN. 8)


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

I just want to see funds raised from a public resource go back to the wildlife they were intended to benefit. Not to line peoples pockets! That's where the accountability comes in. o-|| :O•-:


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

JERRY said:


> I just want to see funds raised from a public resource go back to the wildlife they were intended to benefit. Not to line peoples pockets! That's where the accountability comes in. o-|| :O•-:


This is most likely where we will disagree. The private sector has a MUCH greater ability to raise money, and it is proven that the private sector does a MUCH better job at controlling spending. I have no problem with a company that can produce large amount of money for our wildlife gaining a profit and paying salaries. I think your idea of "lining pockets" is where the true discussion lies. What do you consider too much? Some would argue that a $200,000 salary is too much. I wonder if they know how much their tax dollars pay out for school superintendents....


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

bwhntr said:


> JERRY said:
> 
> 
> > I just want to see funds raised from a public resource go back to the wildlife they were intended to benefit. Not to line peoples pockets! That's where the accountability comes in. o-|| :O•-:
> ...


To some degree, you're right. However, its 1993 anymore and there are very effective ways to raise money other than the "way its always been done". Ultimately the Expo could definitely continue the way it has has been and I doubt anyone would really object to the leadership of the org's being paid reasonably. Here's a great example of maximizing return on limited tag numbers:

http://dfw.state.or.us/news/2012/May/052312b.asp

Again, transparency would be the ultimate goal. Lets start there.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

I think personal attacks and speculative accusations are counter-productive.

That said, I support the proposal not because there's anything shady going on, but because it will necessarily lead to recognition of a major flaw in the design of the program. Karpowitz's mention of the Watershed Restoration Initiative is a great demonstration because other states procure funding for WRI projects without that revenue source and I think they get better returns on their investment. How does hazing pelicans, a UWRI project, restore a watershed?

Utah's model is to generate funds and then decide where to invest them. That's bass-ackwards. It encourages poor investment, prevents informed participation by investors (us) and invites the very situations that are currently under investigation in our education system. It would be much more efficient (and transparent) to propose the projects first, then generate the funds necessary to fund them.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Great post Finn!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

"I think personal attacks and speculative accusations are counter-productive."

Speculation implies a certain amount of the unknown. Thats not exactly the case here. There are some things with regard to the division and its employees that are known. And I would _strongly_ suggest that those division employees uphold what is best for wildlife, and sportsmens, that is what the public has entrusted them with. Not the political bidding of NGOs for profit, and the current election cycle. This response from Carp, to the RMEF, is wholely inappropriate.

Let me reiterate. The divsion was not questioned by RMEF, but they responded as if they were. That speaks volumes about the problems here. Conservation tags and convention tags were not attacked or questioned. But the division responded as if they had been. The only thing called for, was better accountability of conservation orgs that participate in the convention tag program. The accountabilty is to ensure that the money generated is providing the highest level of benefit to the wildlife it was intended to benefit. That is in everyones best interest.

Further more, NGOs are not the private sector. The private sector consists of cooporations, propriatorships, LLCs, etc. In the private sector we generate capital with private resourses for our private benefit. Those generating private capital with public resources are called thieves!


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Lonetree said:


> This response from Carp, to the RMEF, is wholely inappropriate.
> 
> Let me reiterate. The divsion was not questioned by RMEF, but they responded as if they were. That speaks volumes about the problems here. Conservation tags and convention tags were not attacked or questioned. But the division responded as if they had been.


To be fair, Karpowitz's response does not necessarily imply wrongdoing, but could simply be from a fear of his agency losing a lucrative cash cow for his programs. I agree that overdoing an accusatory tone at this time towards the DWR is not productive.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

I'm terribly sorry for my ignorance here, but where in this press release on the RMEF website does the President of RMEF put out an accusatory tone toward DWR? Further, where in this press release does he really even mention the division? I feel as though I'm missing something.

http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/NewsRe ... ermits.htm


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Klbzdad

That is just it. No one is talking about taking away money from the division or its programs. People are talking about enhancing these programs. Why would the division be adverse to improvements of existing programs that benefit wildlife and the divisions funding? Who would benefit from such a stance?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

"I feel as though I'm missing something."

You are, thats what the proposed rule change is attempting fix


----------



## Duckholla (Sep 24, 2007)

I sent an email, and received this in response. I will leave out who sent the response, but I thought you might like to hear the position of one of our RAC members:

_Here are some of my thoughts concerning this situation--
My question to you is- do you think government could do the auction better and raise just as much money? And-- who in government should do the auction or would they have to hire additional people to run the expo and the auctions ? I have no problem with the process being more transparent, but you must also realize that private business is much , much more effecient than government . Accountablity for the monies involved is appropriate, but how a private organization chooses to use the funds they earn from there business activity is their right. If you work for an entity that uses government funds- whether through a bidding process or through grants-- should you be required to disclose what you as an employee does with the money you are paid to perform your job in connection with that work ? If the folks that run the Expo can't expect to somehow make a reasonable profit, why would them or anyone else want to do it. Its called capitalism-- thats one thing that has made the USA the greatest the greatest nation on earth. I am not a member of the SFW so I am not biased one way or the other. I do not have a problem with any organization making money by providing a service that actually benefits wildlife and all sportsmen in the state. The fact is there would not be much of a Wild Sheep program in the state if not for the funds raised through the Expo as well as other programs that benefit directly from the money raised . I think you need to give some thought to who will run the Expo if their is not an upside financially to it. Any registered organization can apply to run the Expo-- If the UWC is committed to Wildlife, why wouldn't they be willing to apply for and run the Expo so that they can raise the funds that would help wildlife in this state. Its one thing to fault find in how someone wrestles the bear, its quite another to to actually wrestle the bear.
I have gotten alot of e-mails concerning this subject and it seems that one thing that seems to be missing is the realization that someone has to get paid to run the Expo, auctions etc. As I stated above-- Do you want government to do it ? As was stated in our last RAC meeting, the monies raised through the Expo/ Conservation tags is " a funding windfall for wildlife ". I think we need to careful about "throwing the baby out with the bath water" in our race put the hammer down on any one organization or person. This applies to all organizations that benefit from conservation tags-- RMEF, MDF etc etc. 
_


----------



## ut1031 (Sep 13, 2007)

Sounds to me that the RAC/Board members need to have a lesson on the diference in the types of tags that are being talked about. The CONSERVATION tags are just that, and everyone benefits with the DWR getting the lions share of 60%. The EXPO tags are a completely different animal. These are fully gifted PUBLIC RESOURCE tags given with NO specifc amount that is to be given to the DWR if any. Sure, I am all for capitalism, but not at the expense of the public.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Duckholla said:


> I sent an email, and received this in response. I will leave out who sent the response, but I thought you might like to hear the position of one of our RAC members:
> 
> _Here are some of my thoughts concerning this situation--
> My question to you is- do you think government could do the auction better and raise just as much money? And-- who in government should do the auction or would they have to hire additional people to run the expo and the auctions ? I have no problem with the process being more transparent, but you must also realize that private business is much , much more effecient than government . Accountablity for the monies involved is appropriate, but how a private organization chooses to use the funds they earn from there business activity is their right. If you work for an entity that uses government funds- whether through a bidding process or through grants-- should you be required to disclose what you as an employee does with the money you are paid to perform your job in connection with that work ? If the folks that run the Expo can't expect to somehow make a reasonable profit, why would them or anyone else want to do it. Its called capitalism-- thats one thing that has made the USA the greatest the greatest nation on earth. I am not a member of the SFW so I am not biased one way or the other. I do not have a problem with any organization making money by providing a service that actually benefits wildlife and all sportsmen in the state. The fact is there would not be much of a Wild Sheep program in the state if not for the funds raised through the Expo as well as other programs that benefit directly from the money raised . I think you need to give some thought to who will run the Expo if their is not an upside financially to it. Any registered organization can apply to run the Expo-- If the UWC is committed to Wildlife, why wouldn't they be willing to apply for and run the Expo so that they can raise the funds that would help wildlife in this state. Its one thing to fault find in how someone wrestles the bear, its quite another to to actually wrestle the bear.
> ...


This response for the most part reflects my feelings on the subject as well.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

A couple of comments.

1.


Duckholla said:


> you must also realize that private business is much , much more effecient than government . Accountablity for the monies involved is appropriate, but how a private organization chooses to use the funds they earn from there business activity is their right.


I will agree that private enterprise is more efficient than government, but then the appropriate question is "is the entity currently in charge of the expo draw the most efficient option for the government to use" and can another business divvy up the tags better and with a greater return to the DWR and public?

2.


Duckholla said:


> If the folks that run the Expo can't expect to somehow make a reasonable profit, why would them or anyone else want to do it. Its called capitalism--


What does reasonable profit mean? Again, it would be interesting to put the tag allocation up for a competitive bidding process. BTW, *that's capitalism*.

3.


Duckholla said:


> I have gotten alot of e-mails concerning this subject and it seems that one thing that seems to be missing is the realization that someone has to get paid to run the Expo, auctions etc.


Would the expo shrivel up and die if the tags were withdrawn or their allocation changed ? Is that what is even being asked for? Are there not multiple revenue streams that the expo has? Just asking?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

The DWR, some WB members, and many of the RAC members are intentionally trying to cloud the issue. This is being done to confuse the general public on the issue.

1. The RMEF newsletter does not go after the divsion, or the conservation tags, or the convention tags. It calls on _conservation orgs _to be more transparent.

2. The rule change proposed by the UWC, supported by RMEF, BHA, and others, is about transparency and accountability of public resources. This ensures that the funds generated from tags go where they are intended. This enhances the program, and the money it generates. NO ONE is talking about ending those prgrams, or takingmoney from the DWR or wildlife. This is about efficient, transparent, accountability of public resources for the benefit of hunters and wildlife.

Again, many seem to think that middle manning public resources is a form of free market capitalism. Bull $hit, capital enterprises are grown with private equity and capital. I invite anyone to join in such pursuits. Private profit, from public trust, is nothing short of theft. And those that enable it, are nothing short of accessories to the theft.

And come on UWC, why havn't you got on the dole?


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

So let me get this straight... The success of Capitalism and Private Business DEPENDS ON A PUBLICLY OWNED SUBSIDY in this matter??

Look at the 7 sisters of the NAWCM, is it frivolous use to have the public trust subsidizing
the Salt Lake Hotel Industry?? Antelope Island State Park?? Paying a freaking SCUMBAG like Troy Gentry to sing??? Hell lets not stop there why don't I get a few tags to subsidize my mortgage?

In my opinion it is ridiculous that SFW and MDF are allowed to use the public trust to pay the overhead for their yearly party.


----------



## nickpan (May 6, 2008)

Lonetree said:


> Again, many seem to think that middle manning public resources is a form of free market capitalism. Bull *, capital enterprises are grown with private equity and capital. I invite anyone to join in such pursuits. Private profit, from public trust, is nothing short of theft. And those that enable it, are nothing short of accessories to the theft.
> 
> And come on UWC, why havn't you got on the dole?


I have gotten some responses to my email and the whole "capitalism makes America great" has been used often. Private parties gaining capital of off public resources that the public pays for, and then taking away that resource from the public while they are still paying for it is not "capitalism" in my eyes....


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> The DWR, some WB members, and many of the RAC members are intentionally trying to cloud the issue. This is being done to confuse the general public on the issue.
> 
> 1. The RMEF newsletter does not go after the divsion, or the conservation tags, or the convention tags. It calls on _conservation orgs _to be more transparent.
> 
> ...


Exactly, they are trying to muddy the water and turn this into something it isn't. Here are some facts about the proposal:

1. There will still be the same amount of tags issued
2. The proposal still allows for the conservation groups to use them
3. Nothing is different with this than before except for the fact that they actually have a defined amount that needs to go back to conservation instead of an opened ended "lions share" going back.

I don't understand how anyone would object to this. All it does is hold those who use these PUBLIC tags to make money have to show where it is going. We expect that with any of our public money. We shouldn't let anyone use OUR money how they feel without some (ready for this bwntr :mrgreen: ) accountability and transparency.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

I love those two words...they are now my favorite.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

I am going to make a shirt for you with those words on it, of course I will make it sleeveless, I know how you like them. :lol:  :mrgreen:


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

> *I don't understand how anyone would object to this.*


BINGO!

Given that nobody has anything to hide and are in it to only benefit wildlife and conservation, there would be no reason to object. None at all. Right?

If there is a valid reason to object, somebody please let me know what it is.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> > *I don't understand how anyone would object to this.*
> 
> 
> BINGO!
> ...


None that are valid, just people that cant be successful in the private sector.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

I've gotten a couple of the "American Capitalism is Magnificent" responses but most know I'm a member of the media too so I have the plague and get the majority of them coming back with the obligatory, "Thank you for caring for wildlife in Utah." :? 

Is anyone here chairing a retirement committee? I'm just wondering....


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> JERRY said:
> 
> 
> > I just want to see funds raised from a public resource go back to the wildlife they were intended to benefit. Not to line peoples pockets! That's where the accountability comes in. o-|| :O•-:
> ...


They can raise all the money they want. The Expo can stand on it's own. :roll: Several other shows get along just fine without those tags.

What I am against is using a public resource to make the select few rich. The intended purpose of the tags was to raise funds to benefit wildlife. In this regard SFW has let us down. SFW has done some great things for wildlife in Utah, but at the same time has been taking away from that same wildlife. Keep 10%!!! That is still a lot of money! Give the rest back to benefit wildlife and conservation, as it was intended. WIN,WIN!! :O||:

As far as the response from Karp. :? He should be glad if there is transparency. The division would get more money to spend if SFW had to give back 90% of the money raised from public tags.
I don't get it. -)O(-


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

I think its a great proposal!!!

Don't worry about the Expo, they will make it just fine without all those tags (which they should loose if they won't report numbers), they will cut the tickets discounts, raise the booth prices, they might have to ditch half or all of those professional sales ladies they use to get you to join SFW, or start up some other $ making scheme: but you can bet that for everyone who vows not to go, another bored person will walk through the door to draw in that $! :lol:


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Oil, gas, timber, minerals, water and graze. All public resources that are developed and resourced by private concerns. And quite lucratively I might add. 

So what make wildlife any different?


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Some responses I received via e-mail today (maybe you got them too): _Note that names have been omitted _


> For your information--from a letter to the RMEF from the DWR--
> "Conservation permit dollars have also funded our massive Watershed Restoration Initiative which has now resulted in the restoration of over 700,000 acres of big game habitat at a cost of over $76 million dollars in the last seven years. Most of the conservation permit dollars are now being directed to this huge conservation initiative."
> By far the majority of the money raised is being used to benefit wildlife
> Thanks


and


> Thank you for your interest in Utah's wildlife. I agree it needs a second look, the timing may make this difficult. If you guys can get it before the RAC, I think we need to take a serious look at the issue.


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

Most of you have had the opportunity to read the letter that the Director of the Utah DWR sent to David Allen of RMEF questioning RMEF's press release calling for increased transparency among conservation groups. Well, today David Allen sent the following response to Mr. Karpowitz. I admire Mister Allen for having the courage to take a stand on this issue and not back down. The RMEF has certainly gained my respect as a result of this exchange. Let's make sure we support organizations like RMEF and UWC that embrace the principles of transparency and accountability. Thank you Mister Allen.



















Hawkeye


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> Oil, gas, timber, minerals, water and graze. All public resources that are developed and resourced by private concerns. And quite lucratively I might add.
> 
> So what make wildlife any different?


In this state? appearantly nothing. Your right, I give up, lets sell all of our wildlife to the highest foreign bidder. Sounds good, a handful of individuals get rich, and I cant hunt, unless I'm also rich.

Of course there is that over 100 years of law, policy, heritage, and precendent.........Then again, we dont care about that kind of stuff in this state, do we?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Duckholla said:


> I sent an email, and received this in response. I will leave out who sent the response, but I thought you might like to hear the position of one of our RAC members:
> 
> _Here are some of my thoughts concerning this situation--
> My question to you is- do you think government could do the auction better and raise just as much money? And-- who in government should do the auction or would they have to hire additional people to run the expo and the auctions ? I have no problem with the process being more transparent, but you must also realize that private business is much , much more effecient than government . Accountablity for the monies involved is appropriate, but how a private organization chooses to use the funds they earn from there business activity is their right. .
> ...


I'm not sure the person that wrote this response understands the propsal. It is very simple, _be transparent and set goal lines to work towards_. The propsosal is not intended to take the tags from expo organizers. The proposal is not intended to say the money that is being spent is being spent innappropriately. In fact if the money currently is being spent appropriately all this reporting will do is vindicate those that have been accused of misappropriation.

This is a win win for ALL. There are lots of revenue streams that come from the expo, in fact the other big expo in town turns quite a nice profit without any tags. I think if expo organizers can be transparent enough to show that they need more than 10% to operate then so be it. If salaries are not exhorbant and funds are currently being spent appropriately why would anyone be against this?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

bwhntr said:


> This is most likely where we will disagree. The private sector has a MUCH greater ability to raise money, and it is proven that the private sector does a MUCH better job at controlling spending. I have no problem with a company that can produce large amount of money for our wildlife gaining a profit and paying salaries. I think your idea of "lining pockets" is where the true discussion lies. What do you consider too much? Some would argue that a $200,000 salary is too much. I wonder if they know how much their tax dollars pay out for school superintendents....


You make some valid points but let's be clear, non-profits by definition can't legally turn a profit. I'm sure you will see the irony in your statement. "Lining pockets" does mean big salaries that aren't necessarily reasonably justified. You can justify big salaries when a certain skill set or talent justifies it but do you really think that if we sent this out to competive bid on the open market we couldn't get the same product at a better price? Do we really think that it takes exceptional talent or skills to sell cheap chances to win a highly coveted, highly sought after, limited product that almost everybody knows about? I'm not saying anybody can do it but at the same time I wonder if we are getting the most out of the expo tags?

I can't answer the above questions right now but transparency will tell that story and we'll either breath easier about what we have or we will realize things aren't right. This isn't complicated. We were told that the lions share of the money will go back to wildlife in Utah when the tags were requested and now we want to see it.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Oil, gas, timber, minerals, water and graze. All public resources that are developed and resourced by private concerns. And quite lucratively I might add.
> 
> So what make wildlife any different?


I have asked this question several times and never get an answer. Coal anyone?


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

BWHNTR a competitive bid process is the difference, ask Tim DeChristopher, vs a handout.

Ask a guide what it costs to do a little filming on FS lands.. It surely ain't done for free


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

hawkeye said:


> Most of you have had the opportunity to read the letter that the Director of the Utah DWR sent to David Allen of RMEF questioning RMEF's press release calling for increased transparency among conservation groups. Well, today David Allen sent the following response to Mr. Karpowitz. I admire Mister Allen for having the courage to take a stand on this issue and not back down. The RMEF has certainly gained my respect as a result of this exchange. Let's make sure we support organizations like RMEF and UWC that embrace the principles of transparency and accountability. Thank you Mister Allen.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


President David Allen just made Mr Karpowitz look like a big fool. I'm not sure why Mr Karpowitz thought he needed to address the issue like he did in the first place.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

RMEF brings the big guns! For the Wildlife Board to think that they could tough talk the RMEF is akin to my basset hound talking tough to a rottweiler. RMEF has Cameron Hanes...the Utah Wildlife Board has.......Byron Bateman?? 
It's just engrained in the Wildlife Board mentality that they're gonna do whatever they want regardless of what anyone says (including the DWR)...so when someone calls their bluff of course they're gonna get super defensive.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> BWHNTR a competitive bid process is the difference, ask Tim DeChristopher, vs a handout.
> 
> Ask a guide what it costs to do a little filming on FS lands.. It surely ain't done for free


The only difference I see is none of the other resources hand out big fat checks in the end.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Cameron Hanes??? LMAO I don't know if you meant for that to be funny but I just laughed myassoff.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> Iron Bear said:
> 
> 
> > Oil, gas, timber, minerals, water and graze. All public resources that are developed and resourced by private concerns. And quite lucratively I might add.
> ...


Non-profits don't mine, log or drill.

Natural resource businesses participate in an open bid process that's mandated by law. If a tag grab is the same as resource extraction, why can't HSUS bid for con tags?

Natural resource businesses pay taxes...excise taxes, severance taxes, reclamation fees, etc.

Natural resource businesses provide jobs...not a dozen jobs, but hundreds of thousands.

If some business doesn't mine, log or drill, the resource isn't utilized. In the case of wildlife, the resource is already utilized to the fullest extent possible.

If hunting is a business as SFW reps have repeatedly suggested it is, then let's compare apples to apples. A thriving hunting business already exists on hundreds of game ranches. If I owned such a ranch, invested my money and sweat into it, took the financial risks, etc., I'd take issue with publicly subsidized competition.

Finally, we need to be **** careful about equating hunting with resource extraction because the inevitable consequence of that argument would be placing a cash value on every game animal. SITLA is already thinking that way.


----------



## nickpan (May 6, 2008)

bwhntr said:


> Iron Bear said:
> 
> 
> > Oil, gas, timber, minerals, water and graze. All public resources that are developed and resourced by private concerns. And quite lucratively I might add.
> ...


I dont know about you guys but I dont pay every year for a permit to harvest, conserve and manage any oil, timber, minerals or grazing rights, and then let the private sector make millions off of it at mine and thousands of others expense.......


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> Cameron Hanes??? LMAO I don't know if you meant for that to be funny but I just laughed myassoff.


yeah I was gonna throw something in there as well about vests and tony lamas...well there it is...
In short...Ducks Unlimited, RMEF, NRA...these are the big guns when it comes to the American outdoors...they have the following and money to make any state DWR or lesser wildlife organization look stupid if they wanted to. When they say something that makes absolute sense to the layperson, you would have to have your head pretty far up your butt to take offense to it and publicly state that you are offended.


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

RMEF just has class. They are able to accomplish their mission on their own shoulders, and with the support of the body of their membership. 

How is it that the press hasn't picked up on this exchange and reply from Karpowitz?

Help me out on something. Karpowitz says there is accountability and RMEF and this forum say there isn't. Are the reports that Karpowitz claims go out not sufficient? Do they withhold info or only offer partial info?

For SFW, it seems way back I was told they had a for-profit and a not for profit branch. Is that true? Can someone with authority clear that up?


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

BTW - I love Utah, dearly, but it kind of goes without saying...only in Utah. 

I just wish they would serve juice, prepaid legal services, creams and lotions, or insurance at the Expo. I just want to also bear witness to you that SFW is saving the future of hunting for our kids, and none of the other wildlife groups are true.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Amen, Elder steep


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

I hope this doesn't become emotional and personal to the point we lose the working relationships established over the years between the hunting public, the DWR, RMEF, and others. But accountability needs to be a big part of those relationships, otherwise even without outside assistence, those relationships, like all relationships, will, in time, come to an unpleasant end. This proposal can prevent that!


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I would like to see the DWR be accountable for the deer herd. Instead of always blaming mother nature.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

bwhntr said:


> The only difference I see is none of the other resources hand out big fat checks in the end.


Really? Oil and gas royalties pay for states entire school systems, not modest sums to transport a few sheep or turkeys. Just ask the oil patch states or Alaska about that.

Look, the "ain't capitalism great" RAC members, the WB, and Karpowitz (if he feels that way) don't want to go down that road in justifying the current system for the expo tags. More importantly, *we* don't want to go down that road either with our wildlife resources. It would throw the North American model out on it's head, and I can't support that.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Iron Bear said:


> I would like to see the DWR be accountable for the deer herd. Instead of always blaming mother nature.


My head is going to explode....someone please get me some camo duct tape!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

What's going on here?

o-||


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> What's going on here?
> 
> o-||


hahaha...don't you know it's wrong to buck the system Mr. Boulter?!?!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> What's going on here?
> 
> o-||


Oh nothing, just move along now, nothing to see here.


----------



## DarKHorN (Mar 4, 2012)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> What's going on here?
> 
> o-||


Well lets see, UWC wants there piece of the pie (TAGS). UWC doesnt understand Sh it ty Politics, and UWC is slowly but surely burning there house down. HHHMMM I think that covers it all. :mrgreen:


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

"Get them out
Ah

Watch out, you might get what you're after
Cool babies, strange but not a stranger
I'm an ordinary guy
Burning down the house

Hold tight, wait 'til the party's over
Hold tight, we're in for nasty weather
There has, got to be a way
Burning down the house

Here's your ticket pack your bags
Time for jumpin' overboard
Transportation isn't here
Close enough but not too far,
Maybe you know where you are
Fightin' fire with fire, huah

All wet, hey you might need a raincoat
Shakedown, dreams walking in broad daylight
Three hundred, sixty five degrees
Burning down the house

It was once upon a place sometimes, I listen to myself
Gonna come in first place
People on their way to work say baby what did you expect
Gonna burst into flame
Go ahead

Burning down the house
My house, is out of the ordinary
That's right, don't want to hurt nobody
Some things, sure can sweep me off my feet
Burning down the house

No visible means of support and you have not seen nothin' yet
Everything's stuck together
I don't know what you expect staring into the TV set
Fightin' fire with fire, huah

Yea
Burning down the house
Burning down the house
Burning down the house"

--David byrne


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> What's going on here?
> 
> o-||


I didn't do it.....it was him! He started it.....that other guy over there! :O•-:


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

do any of you guys have the rmef response letter. or a link to it. allen calls him out on all of the b.s


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

hazmat said:


> do any of you guys have the rmef response letter. or a link to it. allen calls him out on all of the b.s


Besides here on this thread, it is posted here: http://www.backcountryhunters.org/index ... &Itemid=97


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

Lonetree said:


> hazmat said:
> 
> 
> > do any of you guys have the rmef response letter. or a link to it. allen calls him out on all of the b.s
> ...


thanks lonetree


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

Wow, after reading through both letters, I am astounded at the differences in opinions. Mr. Karpowitz gave the impression of siding with and supporting the unaccountability of funds from a public resource. Mr. Allen reminded Karpowitz of the true definition and mission of a Non-Profit. Mr. Karpowitz made it sound as if we the public should be expected to pay the salaries of these jokers for everything they do. Does he not understand the concept of a non-profit and the benefits they get from holding the title. 

I really liked Mr. Allen's approach that although he really likes Utah he is not afraid to take his ball and play elsewhere, but it would be a real shame if he did. Praise to him for sticking to his guns. I am sure it got Karpowitz's and the WB attention. With that attitude, we may just get some resolve to his issue that has irked many of us for years.


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

Why did it block out Allen's name, is it a cuss word or something?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Cant text search it, if its not there.


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

here is karpowitz response to the 2nd letter borrowed from another website. seams like a whole lot of back peddling here you go.



Sorry for not knowing how MM works. I need to reply to this post, so I will go ahead and try and put it here and hope it works.
Against my better judgment, I am going to weigh in on this thread and clarify some things from my response to the RMEF news release and address some points raised in David Allen’s letter. Yesterday I invited Jason Hawkins to come to my office to discuss this issue. I also emailed David Allen and invited him to stop by or call me on the phone to discuss the issue and to clarify what I think is a huge misunderstanding. I had a good discussion with both Jason and David and I think we now better understand each other’s concerns. I mentioned to both of them that I would probably respond to Mr. Allen’s letter.
When I talked with Jason and David I attempted to identify and clarify their main issues and concerns. As a result of these discussions it became clear to me that their concerns were focused on convention permits not conservation permits. Both Jason and David agreed that this is not about conservation permits, a point that was not clear in the RMEF news release. We all agreed that the Conservation Permit Program has done great things for wildlife in Utah and doesn't need much change. My comments in my letter to RMEF was focused on both conservation and convention permits since the RMEF news release did not distinguish between the two. RMEF referred to them only as “state special big game permits” so it was not clear to me that they were not talking about conservation permits. 
In my letter to RMEF,I attempted to communicate that UDWR is very concerned about accountability and transparency in both the Conservation and Convention Permit Programs. So let me reiterate and clarify the points I was trying to make. 1) Accountability for expenditure of conservation permit funds is thorough and transparent in Utah. 2) All groups have the same level of accountability for the 10% conservation permits dollars they retain. 3) An audit of the conservation and convention permit programs are conducted annually to make sure all groups are in compliance with the rule. 4) UDWR has successfully passed three major external audits of the conservation permit program in the last seven years. 5) The groups involved in the hunt expo have voluntarily reported on how they have used application fees, even though they are not required to do so by rule. 
So, let me make it very clear to all concerned - the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources agrees with Mr. Allen’s statement that “accountability and transparency are paramount to the public’s trust in actions of non-profit organizations.” I also want to make it clear that we have taken numerous steps to make sure that transparency exists, and we stand ready to implement any changes the Wildlife Board makes in the rules governing these programs.
I would now like to address the second point in Mr. Allen’s letter that had to do with whether conservation groups should be funded by “their own fund raising effort or by subsidy that comes from public assets.” I certainly did not understand how Mr. Allen could make this statement since RMEF is one of the main participants in the Conservation Permit Program. I was told by both Jason and David that they have no objections using conservation permits for fund raising efforts because of the level of accountability. They are only concerned with using convention permits to support fund raising efforts.
This issue with convention permits is a little puzzling to me considering what has transpired in the last two years. In 2010, the Convention Permit Rule was up for its five year renewal and to the best of my recollection no one from the public came to express their concerns at the RAC and Board meetings. So the board renewed the rule for another five years. In 2011, when the Board needed to act on a new five-year contract for the convention, once again no one came to the Board meeting to voice any concerns or object to the contract. So the Board approved a new five-year contract for the convention.
It appears to me that the main issue of concern is that there should be better accountability of the $5 application fee for convention permits. I firmly believe and I think most people agree that the hunt expo is good for the economy of Salt Lake City, good for the State of Utah and that it brings notoriety to Utah’s big game program. However, many people have said they would like to see more complete reporting of how the $5 application fee is used by the convention groups. 
I need to point out that when the Convention Permit Rule was first adopted in 2005 the Wildlife Board felt like $5 was a reasonable amount to allow the convention groups to charge for administrative expenses associated with the drawing at the Expo. Our big game application fee for the regular draw at that time was $5. It is not unreasonable to expect that the overhead in administering this drawing consumes much of $5 per application. As a point of reference, the cost of administering the regular big game drawing in Utah currently exceeds $5. It should also be mentioned that none of the actual permit fees are retained by the organizations. 100% of the permit fees go to UDWR.
Now as to accountability of the application fees - two or three years ago when the convention groups heard that the public would like more information on how the $5 application fees are being spent, the groups voluntarily submitted information that showed how they were spending these funds. They provided this information in a public meeting of the Wildlife Board even though it was not required by rule. That information has been and is available to the public. 
So what do we do now? Each year the Wildlife Board has to act on the number and type of permits that are allocated to the convention. That will occur at the Wildlife Board meeting in August. I suspect there will be those at that meeting who will ask the Board to amend the rule to require more thorough accounting of the convention permit application fees. The Board chairman will then need to decide whether they would like to revisit the rule realizing the it was renewed in 2010 and considering that a five-year contract was issued in 2011. The Division will be supportive of whatever the Board decides to do on this issue. In the meantime, I am going to meet with the convention groups and ask that they voluntarily do a better job of accounting for how the $5 application fees are spent.
I just want to make one more point before I shut up. I am very concerned to see conservation groups at odds with each other and trying to pull each other down. I believe that is very counterproductive and bad for wildlife in Utah. I think we need to put our differences aside and get back to the core missions or our organizations. We have been very successful in Utah in expanding most of our big game populations because we have had strong partnerships with conservation organizations. It disappoints me greatly to now see those great organizations at each other throats. We need to resolve this issue and then we all need to get back doing good things for wildlife.
I hope this clarifies my position on conservation and convention permits. I don't intend to make any additional posts on this topic and I won't see your replies since I do not frequent this forum. I would, however, invite you to give me a call or come and talk to me if you would like to discuss this further.

Jim Karpowitz


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

"Against my better judgment, I am going to weigh in on this thread" --Jim Karpowitz

That is the understatement of the year. Its just a longer version of the origonal inappropriate unneeded defense. 

"get back to the core missions or our organizations"--Jim Karpowitz

That is what this is about. 

"It disappoints me greatly to now see those great organizations at each other throats."--Jim Karpowitz

This implies that this is some sort of out of control riot. Not so, it is several organizations standing by a statement, and calling for transparency and accountability of public resources.


----------



## BLACKEYE (Feb 1, 2012)

WOW,
What makes jim think he or the WB could not ammend this program. As he thru "emergency orders" and the board thru continued ammendments have not stuck to any management plan for any length of time. 5 YEAR PLAN REALLY???

Attend a board meeting or rac meeting for concerns or change.......REALLY!!!

"Conservation groups at odds" really look at your first letter and a few were missing form the attached list!!! 

Bottom line the same group has been at the front for 18 years and the money and deer are missing!!!

TIME FOR CHANGE!!!!

GREAT JOB
RMEF, UWC!!!


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

I just want to see a guy like this make a speech at a RAC/WB meeting one day...


----------



## DarKHorN (Mar 4, 2012)

LMAO great response Jim Karpowitz politics are pretty deep on this one. Nothing will ever become of the Convention issue except RMEF and UWC just stirred the wrong pot. I fear for there groups future in helping Utah Wildlife.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

DarKHorN said:


> LMAO great response Jim Karpowitz politics are pretty deep on this one. Nothing will ever become of the Convention issue except RMEF and UWC just stirred the wrong pot. I fear for there groups future in helping Utah Wildlife.


I agree ..

And to add to that , The UWC is trying to take total control of the UWN ..
Making this forum THIER PERSONAL agenda ...

Dragging it right down the sewer drain ..

There's a long list of VERY GOOD UWN members that have left this site ..

I'm considering taking my pictures and stories elsewhere were ..
Just not the same here any more ..


----------



## wapiti67 (Oct 2, 2007)

We wont miss ya Goofy...you haven't added anything to this forum in years


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

wapiti67 said:


> We wont miss ya Goofy...you haven't added anything to this forum in years


REALY wap ??

I'm getting close to the end of my guiding carrier ..

Don't mind giving a little info here and there ..

You'd chit it you knew how many members I've helped out :!:


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

From MM (my least favorite forum) and right from DP's playbook....I thought Karpo wasn't going to respond, read, or return to that forum but BOOM! Here he is his "Bromance Novel for Don Peay." Better get a bucket before you read it.....I'm still steam cleaning my carpet.....blahph! 

jimk (4 posts) 
Jun-23-12, 12:23 PM (MST)
40. "RE: Karpowitz retirement"

Wow. I get my own thread on MM - pretty good for a dumb wildlife biologist! Thanks to all who don’t think I am the devil himself. As for retirement, I can go at any time. I have worked 34 years and it gets a little harder every year to work in the public arena. Since, I have my own named string I thought I would take this opportunity to say a few things.

You know it’s pretty discouraging to get bashed by sportsmen for whom I have worked tirelessly to expand hunting opportunities for over 34 years. I went to work for DWR because I am a hunter and fisherman myself and because I wanted to see better hunting opportunities in Utah. So despite the bashing I have carried on.

Let me just take a minute and tell you about a few of the changes I have seen during my career. When I first went to work for the Division as a trainee in 1976 there were 12,000 elk in Utah there are now 72,000; there were less than 1,000 bighorn sheep by 1984 and now there are more than 5,000; there were very few moose in 1976 and now there are over 4,000; there were no mountains goats in 1976 and now there are more than 3,000; there very few wild turkeys and now there are more than 20,000; and there are also many more bison and pronghorn than were in 1976. However, there are fewer mule deer than there were in 1976 and that is a huge disappointment to me. I guess that is why I insisted we make mule deer recovery a top priority. Since becoming director seven years ago, more than 100 million dollars have been spent on that effort.

So how did this all happen? I can tell you it didn’t just happen by itself. And it didn’t happen because of Jim Karpowitz - that not my point. It happened because of two things -because we have great employees at DWR and because we have had strong partnerships with conservation organizations. Without either one of those it would not have happened.

During my carrier I have been with wildlife biologists as we have hung out of helicopters capturing bighorns, moose, bison, elk and mountain goats to transplant them to new areas. For the first part of my career I spent so much time trapping and transplanting elk that I thought I was a truck driver rather than a biologist! But the results have been amazing and many people have had fantastic hunting opportunities they never thought they would have as a result of these efforts.

It also happened because of strong partnerships with conservation organizations such as SFW, UFNAWS, MDF, RMEF, NWTF and others. I appreciate the efforts of all of these groups who helped make this great success story happen. These groups have not only raised huge amounts of funding for wildlife, but they have helped fight the political battles that were so important to the expansion of big game in Utah.

There have been many great sportsmen in these groups who have helped wildlife over the years, but I want to take a minute and recognize one sportsman who has taken a lot of heat on MM, but has been very instrumental in the expansion of wildlife in Utah over the years. I know I will get bashed for this, but it is high time somebody stood up and recognized all the good Don Peay has done for wildlife over the years.

I want to give you just a few examples of the contribution Don has made to wildlife over the years. Some 25 ago, I was young biologist trying desperately to preserve the last of the bighorn sheep that were dwindling fast in Utah. Money for sheep work was non-existent. That is when I first met Don Peay at the first organizational meeting of the Utah Chapter of FNAWS. Don helped get that organization started and then proceeded to raise large amounts of funding for bighorn sheep work. With that funding and with the support of Don and his group, we moved several hundred bighorns over the next two decades planting the seeds of bighorn expansion across their native range in Utah. I will always be grateful that that Don and UFNAWS came along when help was needed. We now have 5,000 bighorns and hundreds of sportsmen have had the opportunity to hunt bighorns in Utah including me and my son.

Throughout the 80s and 90s Utah was also involved in a massive elk herd expansion effort. We have 6 times as many elk in Utah now because of an aggressive transplant effort and because of a lot of hard work. One person I could always count on when I needed help fight the political battles was Don Peay. He was always there at the old Board of Big Game Control meetings and now the RAC and Wildlife Board meetings to speak for more elk in Utah. There are many sportsmen groups who helped with this effort, but none more than SFW. Don has also been a big proponent of high quality elk and deer hunting and so have I. I did not think I would ever have the opportunity to kill a 380 bull or a 30 inch buck in Utah – but I have.

Fast forward to 2008 when DWR desperately needed a hunting and fishing license increase – many people helped with that effort, but at the eleventh hour when it appeared the increase was going down in flames, Don went to the capitol and convinced a key legislator that the fee increase and its accompanying bill had to pass. Had the bill not passed the DWR would be financially crippled right now following the collapse of the economy later that year.

Now a couple of recent examples – in 2010 and 2011 two important bills worked their way through the legislature concerning the delisting of wolves in Utah. These bills sent a strong message to Washington that we are not going to stand idly by in Utah and watch wolves devastate our elk herds. The only sportsmen to come to the legislature to voice support for these bills were Don Peay and Clark Aposhian of the Utah Shooting Sports Council.

More recently, two important bills made their way through the 2012 legislature to increase funding by more than a million dollars for predator control in Utah. Three sportsmen groups were there to support these bills - SFW,BGF and MD. But, it is safe to say these bills would not have passed without Don.

My final example occured at the the last Wildlife Board meeting. On the agenda was the revision of the Statewide Elk Management Plan that called for an increase of elk on several units in the state. The only sportsman to stand and testify for this elk herd expansion was Troy Justeson of SFW.

So you can see from my perspective who is always there when I need help. There are many more examples of how Don has worked with the Division to do good things for wildlife. I have been accused of “carrying the water for SFW” which is not true. They carry their own water very well. But, I can tell you who “carries the water" for wildlife in Utah time and time again – Don Peay. There are also many other sportsmen in Utah who have done great things for wildlife in Utah, but none more than Don.

Many people have the opinion that Don controls the Division of Wildlife Resources. Nothing could be further from the truth. Don and I have many disagreements and we often engage in heated discussions. But we have one thing in common, we want to expand and protect this great wildlife heritage in Utah for future generations.

Yes, Don is a great businessman and he has been successful in building several wildlife related businesses. But, I can tell you this - I have stood with Don Peay in the Book Cliffs and I have stood with Don on the steps of the Utah State Capitol. I know his heart and I now of his concern and love for wildlife.

So, there you have it – I am sure the bashing of DWR and Don Peay will resume on MM. But you all have a choice – you can roll up your sleeves and do something positive for wildlife or you can bash those who do. I know which will do the most for wildlife. I encourage you all to join the conservation organization of your choice and go to work for wildlife. There is nothing to be gained from tearing down other organizations. There are huge challenges facing wildlife in Utah and wildlife desperately needs your help and support. And, yes I will retire someday, but I will never quite working for wildlife.


It was the money and the power that DP got drunk on....he's a cardholder of Asshats of America now sending others out to fix the world he crumbled. Chickencrap! I pledge to give my shirt off my back to anyone on this or any other forum who is a sportsman in need of help that is honest in his dealings....except Don.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> I agree ..
> 
> And to add to that , The UWC is trying to take total control of the UWN ..
> Making this forum THIER PERSONAL agenda ...
> ...


 :OX/:


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

stablebuck said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > I agree ..
> ...


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I for one dont want to see goofy take his stories elsewhere. He might not agree with me on everything but he is a man and can look past your differences and still help a guy out. I for one commend him for that.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> DarKHorN said:
> 
> 
> > LMAO great response Jim Karpowitz politics are pretty deep on this one. Nothing will ever become of the Convention issue except RMEF and UWC just stirred the wrong pot. I fear for there groups future in helping Utah Wildlife.
> ...


A couple of thoughts.

So just because a new group pops up and offers their opinion it is stirring the pot. However, an existing org tries to cut deer tags for little biological reason and they aren't stirring the pot? Where is the "rolling eyes" emoticon when you need it.

Also, wouldn't establishing a rule requiring a set amount of the $5 app fees from the convention tags going forward to be used on UTAH wildlife projects/etc. be "helping Utah's wildlife"? I need that emoticon again. Even if they are currently doing so, why would anyone disagree with this?

If this new proposal came from SFW or the MDF wouldn't you two be applauding? How does the proposal hurt wildlife? I expect both of you will not answer either of these with a straight and truthful answer.

This board has evolved over the years and we have gained/lost a pretty equal amount of members. I'll also say that I believe there is much more awareness due to the efforts of the UWN and the UWC. I appreciate the UWNs willingness to allow the posting of all this information as it is ALL wildlife related and typically sparks good conversation. However, sometimes members take something good and try to make it appear bad (for example this new proposal that DOES NOT try to get rid if convention tags, only set some rules and accountability).

You can always post your stories and help in a separate post. I agree with SWbuckmaster, keep sharing. You might think about using the "Friend/Enemy" function if you can't handle certain people. It has worked wonders for me in the fishing forums.


----------



## DarKHorN (Mar 4, 2012)

JuddCT said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > DarKHorN said:
> ...


----------



## DarKHorN (Mar 4, 2012)

klbzdad said:


> From MM (my least favorite forum) and right from DP's playbook....I thought Karpo wasn't going to respond, read, or return to that forum but BOOM! Here he is his "Bromance Novel for Don Peay." Better get a bucket before you read it.....I'm still steam cleaning my carpet.....blahph!
> 
> jimk (4 posts)
> Jun-23-12, 12:23 PM (MST)
> ...


I wonder how Jim feels about abortion and gay marriage. Cause what I read he doesnt feel the same as UWC and RMEF about the Convention Tags.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Funny, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation makes a generic call for transparency and accountability, from Missoula Montana, with no mention of names, and the Utah director of the fish and game feels compelled to respond to it.

The United Wildlife Cooperative proposes a rule change that would put MORE money on the ground for wildlife, and the director of the Utah fish and game gets on a message board, to justify giving the money to a couple of people instead.

Why is the division opposed to more money going to conservation?

Mr. Karpowitz's latest MM post, says everything we need to know, about why capping the convention tags at 10% is needed..........and why RMEF sent out their news release.

Sportsmen dont want SFW in Utah.....Or Idaho, or Wyomong, or Arizona(another attempted tag grab), or Alaska. Speaking of Alaska, maybe thats what Mr. Karpowitz is afraid of, SFW helped replace the AK director, with a non qualified, non biologist, to push their agenda there. Maybe this is a job security issue. http://newsminer.com/view/full_story/67 ... e-director

Maybe more than 10% is needed to be retained by conservation organizations to fund the Expo's expenses. If this is the case, just open the books, and justify the need for retaining more than 10%. If it is truly justified, I dont think anyone would argue, just open the books and justify the expense of funds raised from public resources.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

DarKHorN said:


> JuddCT said:
> 
> 
> > goofy elk said:
> ...


Thanks for playing DarKHorN, but as I expected you missed my point. I'll try to do better next time so you understand.


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

Good post lonetree, which brings up one of my concerns with the proposal, for both the conservation and convention tags. It's the fact that 100% of the interest generated from these funds (since they are required to be deposited in a federally insured account, can be kept by the organization and spent on whatever they want. I see this as a loophole for further corruption and questionable activities. All they have to do is hold off on any projects and collect the profits from public generated funds, and being a non-profit, they get tax advantages on the interest money.

I say that needs to be changed to no more than 10% can be kept by the org and the rest be turned over to the DWR or reinvested into conservation projects. I would also like to see detailed and approved plans for future projects required for any org desiring to take part in collecting funds from both conservation and convention permits. That is one way these monies/projects can be initiated promptly rather than sitting on the back burner while the accounts collect interest to be used at the org's discretion.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Good point, on future planning. Have them put proposals together, and do the ground work first, rather than "finding" something to spend the money on. This is how one applies for grants and venture capital, they dont just give you the money, and say go "find" something to do with it.

I keep hearing the arguement that conservation orgs need more than 10% to run the Expo, sell tags, etc. I'm just saying that if that is the case, open the books and prove it.


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Maybe more than 10% is needed to be retained by conservation organizations to fund the Expo's expenses. If this is the case, just open the books, and justify the need for retaining more than 10%. If it is truly justified, I dont think anyone would argue, just open the books and justify the expense of funds raised from public resources.[\quote]
> 
> Can't these guys generate the necessary funds from sponsors, membership, and admission tickets without having to use funds made off a public resource. These so called non-profits should not only be able to cover expenses through sponsors and admission fees, but should be making a profit. I agree with you lonetree that if the funds aren't there and it is necessary to use more than the allotted 10% they should be able to do so, but I just don't see it.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

None of us can see it, they wont open the books.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

klbzdad said:


> From MM (my least favorite forum) and right from DP's playbook....I thought Karpo wasn't going to respond, read, or return to that forum but BOOM! Here he is his "Bromance Novel for Don Peay." Better get a bucket before you read it.....I'm still steam cleaning my carpet.....blahph!
> 
> jimk (4 posts)
> Jun-23-12, 12:23 PM (MST)
> ...


Amen...Thanks for sharing this post


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

DarKHorN said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > What's going on here?
> ...


 :lol: :lol: I needed a good laugh. Just to be clear UWC wants zero tags, but nice try. Just accountability and transparency. I am surprised so many people are upset about this proposal, it makes me curious as to why. 8)


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

I'm not upset


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

I used to know this guy( I worked for him) that had these community acheivment awards in his living room. His neighbors loved him. He had spent allot of money in the neighborhood. He bought equipment for the park, he got gutters and sidewalks put in. He got everyone on board, and bought trees for the park strips. I mean this guy gave allot. Well one day his house was raided by the narcotics task force, and he was arrested for distribution. There was one guy in the neighborhood that ardently stood up for him, and went on and on about all the great things this guy had done.........at what cost?. That was even his defense in court, "look at all the great things I've done". 

The problem with Don's defender, is that he has included many of the bad things as accomplishments. He cant tell the difference himself.


----------



## Bears Butt (Sep 12, 2007)

I just sent my personal UWC proposal approval email to the members of the Wildlife Board. I sure do hope they put this on the agenda. Time is running short! I encourage anyone who has not sent their letter/email/phone call to do so very soon.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

bwhntr said:


> klbzdad said:
> 
> 
> > From MM (my least favorite forum) and right from DP's playbook....I thought Karpo wasn't going to respond, read, or return to that forum but BOOM! Here he is his "Bromance Novel for Don Peay." Better get a bucket before you read it.....I'm still steam cleaning my carpet.....blahph!
> ...


Yes, Thanks for sharing this post, but IMO, some of it doesn't deserve the Amen!

What does deserve the Amen is the long list of positive wildlife accomplishments that have happened under Jim's leadership, including the those things that Don Peay and any group he has been associated with have accomplished. And what also deserves the Amen is Jim's and Don's original intent and outlook, along with their persistence in the face of the personal bashing which is discouraging to say the least!

But what doesn't deserve the full Amen is Don's current intent and outlook and Jim's apparent alignment to them.

For instance: "it happened because of two things" (great DWR employees, conservation organizations). Only two? What about other state and federal wildlife agencies, BLM, FS, Utah legislature, Wildlife Board, Mother Nature, and most of all, the thousands of mostly silent citizens (outdoorsmen) who pay taxes, buy licenses and permits, turn in poachers, and get their hands dirty helping wildlife?

For instance: "Some 25 years ago......... Don helped get that organization (UFNAWS) started and then proceeded to raise large amounts of funding for bighorn sheep" So was he able to raise large amounts of money without Conservation and/or Convention permits? (I have to admit, I don't know when those programs started.)

For instance: "Don has been a big proponent of quality elk and deer hunting and so have I." Quality? If you mean "Trophy" per your 380" and 30" stats, please just say it! Almost all of my hunts are "quality" hunts because of things (scenery, family, friends, getting away from the rat race, "quality" meat, etc.) other than the size of the antlers of the animal I harvested (or not). And trophy hunting always comes with prices that most Utah hunters aren't willing or able to pay, including scouting time and expenses, guiding services, a reduced number of permits and higher priced permits among others. And Don is now a much bigger proponent of trophy hunting per Option #2 and SFW's attempt to add a third tier to the buck to doe ratio all at the expense of the majority of Utah's deer hunters.

For instance: The delisting of wolves is a multi-state versus federal issue I won't even go into except to say it's not as it has been portrayed by Don Peay, BGF and SFW who are more than happy to take all or most of the credit.

For instance: "But it is safe to say these bills (2 predator/coyote bills) would not have passed without Don." In fact, these two ill-conceived non-productive bills probably would not have been proposed without Don. And shooting 30,000 coyotes at $50 each over a years time will do very little to nothing to save the mule deer, thus the other conservation groups didn't support them. Additionally, most of the people I know were not aware of, nor are they happy with the reason for the $5 increase in big game permits.

For instance: There is a reason Don is at most of the meetings. He's a lobbyist/spokesman for SFW. He's looking out for them. That's his job ($162,000 in 2009 per SFW's IRS form 990).

For instance: "But you all have a choice - you can roll up your sleeves and do something positive for wildlife or you can bash those who do." It's not an either/or choice. We certainly can and should roll up our sleeves, but we would be foolish to sit back while politics and social issues undo our efforts to increase our opportunities to hunt those animals we're working so hard to sustain or grow.

Utah's hunting climate has swung too far to the trophy and big money side of the interests of most Utahns and, unless attended to, will ultimately become rare for most of them.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Well said.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Thanks LT! Couldn't have surmised it better myself although I would have been a little more crass, I should leave it where you have put it...but I can't.

Sure would have been nice when being quoted that the entire post was "QUOTED"...but whatever. I'm already tired of JK's and DP's bromance. While I do credit JK with plenty of good in his early years as director, retirement can't come quick enough but of course Gubner Herbie has proven to be a fantastic judge of character, NOT! Especially in light of his published love letter on MM.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

I'm gone fishin for 3-4 days. So if things get too civil, feel free to jump in.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

Jim has clarified his remarks.... 

Start Quote from MM

"Sorry for not knowing how MM works. I need to reply to this post, so I will go ahead and try and put it here and hope it works.


Against my better judgment, I am going to weigh in on this thread and clarify some things from my response to the RMEF news release and address some points raised in David Allen’s letter. Yesterday I invited Jason Hawkins to come to my office to discuss this issue. I also emailed David Allen and invited him to stop by or call me on the phone to discuss the issue and to clarify what I think is a huge misunderstanding. I had a good discussion with both Jason and David and I think we now better understand each other’s concerns. I mentioned to both of them that I would probably respond to Mr. Allen’s letter.

When I talked with Jason and David I attempted to identify and clarify their main issues and concerns. As a result of these discussions it became clear to me that their concerns were focused on convention permits not conservation permits. Both Jason and David agreed that this is not about conservation permits, a point that was not clear in the RMEF news release. We all agreed that the Conservation Permit Program has done great things for wildlife in Utah and doesn't need much change. My comments in my letter to RMEF was focused on both conservation and convention permits since the RMEF news release did not distinguish between the two. RMEF referred to them only as “state special big game permits” so it was not clear to me that they were not talking about conservation permits.

In my letter to RMEF,I attempted to communicate that UDWR is very concerned about accountability and transparency in both the Conservation and Convention Permit Programs. So let me reiterate and clarify the points I was trying to make. 1) Accountability for expenditure of conservation permit funds is thorough and transparent in Utah. 2) All groups have the same level of accountability for the 10% conservation permits dollars they retain. 3) An audit of the conservation and convention permit programs are conducted annually to make sure all groups are in compliance with the rule. 4) UDWR has successfully passed three major external audits of the conservation permit program in the last seven years. 5) The groups involved in the hunt expo have voluntarily reported on how they have used application fees, even though they are not required to do so by rule.

So, let me make it very clear to all concerned - the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources agrees with Mr. Allen’s statement that “accountability and transparency are paramount to the public’s trust in actions of non-profit organizations.” I also want to make it clear that we have taken numerous steps to make sure that transparency exists, and we stand ready to implement any changes the Wildlife Board makes in the rules governing these programs. 

I would now like to address the second point in Mr. Allen’s letter that had to do with whether conservation groups should be funded by “their own fund raising effort or by subsidy that comes from public assets.” I certainly did not understand how Mr. Allen could make this statement since RMEF is one of the main participants in the Conservation Permit Program. I was told by both Jason and David that they have no objections using conservation permits for fund raising efforts because of the level of accountability. They are only concerned with using convention permits to support fund raising efforts.

This issue with convention permits is a little puzzling to me considering what has transpired in the last two years. In 2010, the Convention Permit Rule was up for its five year renewal and to the best of my recollection no one from the public came to express their concerns at the RAC and Board meetings. So the board renewed the rule for another five years. In 2011, when the Board needed to act on a new five-year contract for the convention, once again no one came to the Board meeting to voice any concerns or object to the contract. So the Board approved a new five-year contract for the convention.

It appears to me that the main issue of concern is that there should be better accountability of the $5 application fee for convention permits. I firmly believe and I think most people agree that the hunt expo is good for the economy of Salt Lake City, good for the State of Utah and that it brings notoriety to Utah’s big game program. However, many people have said they would like to see more complete reporting of how the $5 application fee is used by the convention groups. 

I need to point out that when the Convention Permit Rule was first adopted in 2005 the Wildlife Board felt like $5 was a reasonable amount to allow the convention groups to charge for administrative expenses associated with the drawing at the Expo. Our big game application fee for the regular draw at that time was $5. It is not unreasonable to expect that the overhead in administering this drawing consumes much of $5 per application. As a point of reference, the cost of administering the regular big game drawing in Utah currently exceeds $5. It should also be mentioned that none of the actual permit fees are retained by the organizations. 100% of the permit fees go to UDWR.

Now as to accountability of the application fees - two or three years ago when the convention groups heard that the public would like more information on how the $5 application fees are being spent, the groups voluntarily submitted information that showed how they were spending these funds. They provided this information in a public meeting of the Wildlife Board even though it was not required by rule. That information has been and is available to the public. 

So what do we do now? Each year the Wildlife Board has to act on the number and type of permits that are allocated to the convention. That will occur at the Wildlife Board meeting in August. I suspect there will be those at that meeting who will ask the Board to amend the rule to require more thorough accounting of the convention permit application fees. The Board chairman will then need to decide whether they would like to revisit the rule realizing it was renewed in 2010 and considering that a five-year contract was issued in 2011. The Division will be supportive of whatever the Board decides to do on this issue. In the meantime, I am going to meet with the convention groups and ask that they voluntarily do a better job of accounting for how the $5 application fees are spent.

I just want to make one more point before I shut up. I am very concerned to see conservation groups at odds with each other and trying to pull each other down. I believe that is very counterproductive and bad for wildlife in Utah. I think we need to put our differences aside and get back to the core missions or our organizations. We have been very successful in Utah in expanding most of our big game populations because we have had strong partnerships with conservation organizations. It disappoints me greatly to now see those great organizations at each other throats. We need to resolve this issue and then we all need to get back doing good things for wildlife.

I hope this clarifies my position on conservation and convention permits. I don't intend to make any additional posts on this topic and I won't see your replies since I do not frequent this forum. I would, however, invite you to give me a call or come and talk to me if you would like to discuss this further.

Jim Karpowitz

End Quote.


Maybe people should pick up the phone a little more often instead of relying on internet posts and press releases to communicate.

If Jim is serious about groups fighting each other he will push for removal of the items that are deviding the groups. There will always be disagreement but he can push for balance, which to his credit, he has in the past.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Yeah....we got that part. He has pushed for credit in the past, but lets share the most pertinent of responses to JK's post against his better judgement which seams to be fading fast, from Mr. Newberg (BigFin):

BigFin (602 posts) 
Jun-23-12, 05:23 PM (MST)
51. "RE: Karpowitz retirement"
Randy Newberg Post on MM

BigFin (602 posts) 
Jun-26-12, 08:27 AM (MST)
147. "RE: RMEF WantsTransparency on ..."
Latest Randy Newberg Post Concerning RMEF Financials VS SFW Financial Disclosures

Great perspective and handle on the NAM! Here's to all the hunters and sportsmen.....Amen, Randy!


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

...and I thought I unsubscribed to MM...sigh, I think it's following me.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

It's not as if the 10's if not 100's of millions poured into habitat restoration has increased a single deer herd in the state over the last 30 yrs. So you really cant say it benefits deer. So why conservation groups and the DWR like to pat themselves on the back over it is beyond me.

I'd get rid of conservation tags all together.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

bwhntr said:


> ...and I though I unsubscribed to MM...sigh, I think it's following me.


There...cleaned it up and made it a link. You're right, I hate that sight too but that is where the bulk of the BS is being posted and UWN is where it seems the intelligent can discuss the issues and still show up and be friends at projects and camps or in the field somewhere. I have yet to see anyone here type in all caps, and that is good!


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

klbzdad-

I thought I should chime in on this post so that I can be numbered among the intelligent.

Carry on.

Hawkeye


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

klbzdad said:


> There...cleaned it up and made it a link. You're right, I hate that sight too but that is where the bulk of the BS is being posted and UWN is where it seems the intelligent can discuss the issues and still show up and be friends at projects and camps or in the field somewhere. I have yet to see anyone here type in all caps, and that is good!


Lol...You did good. :mrgreen: I don't know about the intelligent, after all some of my friends post on here , but I do agree there are some really good guys on this forum. Although we may disagree (which is a good thing) I think most have their heart in the right place.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

hawkeye said:


> klbzdad-
> 
> I thought I should chime in on this post so that I can be numbered among the intelligent.
> 
> ...


Always good to see you in the discussion Jason!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Bears Butt said:


> I just sent my personal UWC proposal approval email to the members of the Wildlife Board. I sure do hope they put this on the agenda. Time is running short! I encourage anyone who has not sent their letter/email/phone call to do so very soon.


Per the DWR website, "Convention Permits" is already on the Wildlife Board agenda for August though it's contingent. I'm not sure exactly what that means, but they've heard us! Also, there is no Board meeting in July, so we do have some time for that meeting, but there are RAC meetings so get those emails out to them!


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

elkfromabove said:


> Per the DWR website, "Convention Permits" is already on the Wildlife Board agenda for August though it's contingent. I'm not sure exactly what that means, but they've heard us! Also, there is no Board meeting in July, so we do have some time for that meeting, but there are RAC meetings so get those emails out to them!


NO WAY!!!!!!!! That would be impossible because.........



DarKHorN said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > What's going on here?
> ...


How could a tiny little org (with a rather large and growing membership roll) have any sort of effect without running out and crying to its members? After all, have any of you other UWC members gotten a call to action email? I didn't.....hmmmmm. This must be sportsmen in general that want this to happen. Oop.....excitement just got the best of me!
:mrgreen:


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

Yep, invited a bunch of friends on Facebook (I hate that site) to sign the petition, a few of which are strong supporters of SFW. Needless to say I have been hearing it from them how this petition is BS and UWC is a scam. No worries though, I will continue to try and edumacate them...  My more intelligent friends signed it promptly.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I spoke with one of my friends that is fairly well entrenched in the SFW and is somewhat high up on the ladder of things (I joined it earlier this year because of him before I did all of my homework). Anyhow, I asked him specifically what portion of the proposal he had issues with as a "sportsman", aside from being a big part of the SFW, he told me that as a "Sportsman" there was really nothing he could or should oppose.

I then asked him if being a part of "Sportsmen *FOR* Fish and Wildlife" did not, in of itself, call for it's members to back a proposal which could only benefit fish and wildlife?.............silence ensued.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

klbzdad said:


> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> > Per the DWR website, "Convention Permits" is already on the Wildlife Board agenda for August though it's contingent. I'm not sure exactly what that means, but they've heard us! Also, there is no Board meeting in July, so we do have some time for that meeting, but there are RAC meetings so get those emails out to them!
> ...


I guess we don't really understand politics. I know I don't. But we do understand and care about people and that's why we haven't needed to rally the UWC members. Our very existence and cause is enough. Besides, if we sent emails to the members we'd get to the 1000 names too soon and the rest of the folks out there wouldn't have their say! (And we wouldn't increase our numbers as much.)


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Stupid SFW trophy crickets.....I'm getting a whole lot of them on the subject as well....










I wounder if you have to be a member to get a tag and what the meat tastes like....oh well.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> Bears Butt said:
> 
> 
> > I just sent my personal UWC proposal approval email to the members of the Wildlife Board. I sure do hope they put this on the agenda. Time is running short! I encourage anyone who has not sent their letter/email/phone call to do so very soon.
> ...


The convention permit slot on the agenda existed before this proposal, though it did make it convenient.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> > Bears Butt said:
> ...


You're correct! I went back and looked at it and noticed when it was last updated. I'm sorry I missed that.

Do we know what the issue was when it was placed on the agenda?

In any case, it's on the agenda and they have indeed heard from us, so it's likely they'll address the proposal.


----------

