# Watch today's Wildlife Board meeting



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

The Utah Wildlife Board will meet at 10 a.m. today to decide on the expo permit distribution contract. For those who are interested, here's the meeting agenda and the link to the meeting webcast.


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

Thanks Amy!


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

I really feel sorry for all the good folks at the DWR that want this issue to be handled in the right way, it has to be hard on them given the decision process and the shenanigans that have gone on by one particular group. Keep up the good work all you honest DWR guys and gals.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Welp... Here we go!

Thanks for the link.


----------



## robiland (Jan 20, 2008)

Ive got my popcorn (french fries) and Mt Dew ready for the show!


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

o-||


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

I gotta go pee. Tell them not to start until I get back ok.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Just explained conflict of interest and asked that anyone who has a conflict of interest to recuse themselves...let's see how that plays out.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

LostLouisianian said:


> Just explained conflict of interest and asked that anyone who has a conflict of interest to recuse themselves...let's see how that plays out.


Surprised that at least a few of them recused themselves.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Handed out list of bidders or those bidding with a group. Chairman recuses himself due to conflict, turns over meeting to vice chair...3 members total were required to recuse themselves...4 members no conflict


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

Not going to be anyone left....

Just because they recuse themselves from the voting, does not mean they weren't involved in pre-meeting discussion or proposal reviews, correct? So, recusal at this point is almost worthless because they were already allowed to voice their opinions?


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Only two proposals submitted, not saying who they are, referring to them as Proposal A and Proposal B


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Going to review the proposals and scoring now, taking 30 minutes to look at them and if they need more time will ask for more time. Sorry guys I have a conflict coming up at the top of the hour and will not be able to monitor after 11:00. Will check in later to see what happened.


----------



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

So are we going to be left with a decision of group A or group B at the end of this meeting and still not know who got the contract?


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

KineKilla said:


> Just because they recuse themselves from the voting, does not mean they weren't involved in pre-meeting discussion or proposal reviews, correct?


To clarify: The only individuals who have seen the proposals are the evaluation committee, the contract manager from State Purchasing, and the four board members who didn't recuse themselves. The members who had conflicts of interest were not given copies of the proposals.


----------



## Idratherbehunting (Jul 17, 2013)

So is the board also blind to who has submitted the bid?


----------



## Idratherbehunting (Jul 17, 2013)

Meaning, do they not know the which bid is which, but are evaluating the bids as only bid A and bid B?


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Idratherbehunting said:


> So is the board also blind to who has submitted the bid?


I do not know if the proposals have the names on them or are just labeled proposal A and proposal B. The board was given the names of the two bidders and had to recuse themselves prior to seeing any proposal if there was a conflict based on Utah State rules. They said that for right now the proposals will be referred to as proposal A and proposal B


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

The gentleman on the left seems uneasy/fidgety. This is going to be Intresting!!


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

Idratherbehunting said:


> Meaning, do they not know the which bid is which, but are evaluating the bids as only bid A and bid B?


They are reviewing the actual proposals submitted to State Purchasing, so they do know which proposal came from each group.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

The whole A and B thing will come into play when the board asks clarification type questions on per proposal, so they don't accidentally mention who owns each proposal.

Once A or B gets selected, there is no reason to keep the actual proposal owners a secret.


-DallanC


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Anybody know who the 4 that are left are and what each of their background is?


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

The need to play the final Jeopardy theme music while they are looking at the proposals.


----------



## nocturnalenemy (Jun 26, 2011)

SFW wins.


----------



## bowhunt3r4l1f3 (Jan 12, 2011)

SFW, I seriously don't believe it!!!


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Looks like our fears have all been confirmed. I don't buy it


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Overwhelmingly recommended SWF.


-DallanC


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

No more expo for me.


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

Proposals can be acquired via a Grama request...


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Hahaa now the lawyer dude is basically explaining how the board is stuck with this... basically "where to apply the lube"


-DallanC


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

I would be incredibly interested to see the original submitted proposals before the RFP process was instituted.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Looks like SFW won......


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Its done, unanimous vote. SFW wins...


-DallanC


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

So honestly, what was the purpose of the board? The decision was made by the exploratory committee, the board could really only accept this decision (as was explained to them).

Ridiculous, corrupt...


-DallanC


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

It looks like the problem may be with the Utah Division Of Purchasing who scored the two proposals.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Hopefully we can see what the proposals look like from both bidders...unfortunately the fix was in from day 1 just as it has been on many state projects.


----------



## BUL_KRZY (Oct 17, 2008)

you could cut the tension and politics with a butter knife... and that was via video feed! I'm sure it was another degree of such in that room. Interesting to watch for sure. Wish we could have seen reaction of the general attendees when they flashed that name in yellow on the screen.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Not even a little surprised, but when I saw people recuse themselves I had a sliver of hope that things were going to be conducted on the up and up. 

What was the point of the Wildlife Board even looking at the proposals in this meeting? It was made abundantly clear that they had no recourse to reject the recommendation made by the nameless faceless(Besides the DWR rep) committee.

It appears that what Lost said has proven true(not that I ever doubted him). This decision was made when the RFP was written the way it was.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

well I at least hope the RMEF proposal led to more money returning to the state of utah. It will be interesting to see the proposals. also the original ones.


----------



## GeTaGrip (Jun 24, 2014)

Could tell the board member on the far left was not happy having his hands tied to either pass the proposal or scrap the whole program! Whole process is corrupt.


----------



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

Kwalk3 said:


> Not even a little surprised, but when I saw people recuse themselves I had a sliver of hope that things were going to be conducted on the up and up.
> 
> What was the point of the Wildlife Board even looking at the proposals in this meeting? It was made abundantly clear that they had no recourse to reject the recommendation made by the nameless faceless(Besides the DWR rep) committee.
> 
> It appears that what Lost said has proven true(not that I ever doubted him). This decision was made when the RFP was written the way it was.


Still, even with it written like that, how the hell did SFW score "far superior" on anything except the last bullet point on the criteria?


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

Critter said:


> It looks like the problem may be with the Utah Division Of Purchasing who scored the two proposals.


I believe that Purchasing simply monitors the process to ensure it follows the rules. It is the scoring committee (they will not disclose who was on it) that supposedly read and scored the proposals in an unbiased manner. Big question is how was the RFP written and who had a hand in writing it as well as who made up the scoring criteria and the underlying rules for each item.

As has been mentioned, it is not uncommon (nor ethical) for scoring criteria or RFP's to be written so that only one proposal CAN meet it. If SFW or MDF helped write them then you can bet it was written in such a way that only they could meet all the requirements.

Don't know how anyone could beat an offer that was made stating they'd donate 100% of the proceeds back to the state and instead voted to allow a different organization to keep 70% and only give 30% back.

**I don't type as fast as 1-Eye apparently**


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Kwalk3 said:


> Not even a little surprised, but when I saw people recuse themselves I had a sliver of hope that things were going to be conducted on the up and up.
> 
> What was the point of the Wildlife Board even looking at the proposals in this meeting? It was made abundantly clear that they had no recourse to reject the recommendation made by the nameless faceless comittee(Besides the DWR rep).
> 
> It appears that what Lost said has proven true(not that I ever doubted him). This decision was made when the RFP was written the way it was.


Isn't that how all RFP proposals are written, with a bidder in mind.

40% of the questions were tailored to SFW.

Business Plan - Expo Operations 20%

Business Plan - Promoting hunting, fishing, and trapping in Utah. 10%

Historical contribution and preview performance of organization in Utah 10%


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Everyone should take a minute and read/re-read this link... this is the position of the guy running things:

http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs...ares-north-american-hunting-model-“socialism”

-DallanC


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Still, even with it written like that, how the hell did SFW score "far superior" on anything except the last bullet point on the criteria?


I agree, but without dissecting each proposal, it's hard to say what SFW ponied up. My biggest issue with this whole process is that SFW shouldn't have been able to pony up after the fact.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

RMEF proposal from what I am reading on the onyouradventures forum was absolutely amazing.

I am interested to see how it compares to SFW

Link->http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=266418


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

There's not a snowball's chance in hell that the SFW expo brings near the economic benefit that RMEF's convention would. As is noted in Randy Newbergs post on the hunttalk forum, 50% of the total net income from the convention would have been given back. Seems like insanity to me.


----------



## sdstalker (Dec 15, 2015)

Yet another example of UT politics ruining opportunity.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Folks just keep in mind this is the same purchasing department that changed a multi BILLION dollar bid process for a road project so the company that lost it initially could win it. Until the corruption is cleaned up nothing will ever change.


----------



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

Kwalk3 said:


> There's not a snowball's chance in hell that the SFW expo brings near the economic benefit that RMEF's convention would. As is noted in Randy Newbergs post on the hunttalk forum, 50% of the total net income from the convention would have been given back. Seems like insanity to me.


I agree SFW has around 13,000 members. RMEF has over 200,000 and has proven they can draw nearly double the crowd without the expo permots to their convention. This was a loss for Utah wildlife today and the people of Utah, period. RMEF is at least a reason wildlife will get more of a benefit but not nearly what it could have been.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Kwalk3 said:


> There's not a snowball's chance in hell that the SFW expo brings near the economic benefit that RMEF's convention would. As is noted in Randy Newbergs post on the hunttalk forum, 50% of the total net income from the convention would have been given back. Seems like insanity to me.


It does seem like BS, but without knowing the SFW proposal - I don't want to get too much into that. They might have matched a lot of things in the RMEF proposal and won 1,3,6.

1) 20% Business plan - Expo Operations - if this would have been convention/expo operations, I think RMEF would take it. It makes me think they looked at past Expo performance and used that as a judge.

2) 10% Business plan - Economic considerations - SFW cannot come close to matching RMEF on this.

3) 10% Business plan - Promotion of hunting, fishing, and trapping in Utah. - Given the sage grouse and wolf propaganda and previous expo experience. I think SFW have the edge in this one.

4) 20% Ability to organize and conduct a secure and fair permit drawing system. This question needs to be here, but neither group should have got less than 100% of the points for this one.

5) 30% Commitment to use revenue generated for wildlife conservation in Utah. SFW can't match the offer on the RMEF convention, so RMEF should be the higher bid.

6)10% Historical contribution and previous performance of organization in Utah. SFW wins this question hands down.

I don't see how RMEF could lose 112 points in this system.

1) 100-? (I do not see REMF getting less than 50%) = 50
2) 50
3) 50- ? (I do not see RMEF getting less than 50%) = 25
4) 100
5) 150
6) 50- ? ( I don't see RMEF getting less than 50%) = 25

On the same token with SFW (only using what I know)

1) 100
2) 50 - (I do not see them closing close to 50% of RMEF offer.) 25
3) 50
4) 100
5) 150 - (I do not see them coming close to 50% of RMEF offer.) 75
6) 50

How SFW got over 400 considering the RMEF proposal is mind boggling.

When do they post the actual grades?


----------



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

Mind boggling, yet expected. They said they would have some information on the state purchasing this afternoon and something on the DWRs website after that. I believe it will just be the scoring not the whole proposal.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

Dallan- I remember reading at least some of this article in the past, but thank you for the refresher. Very scary what Peay and others of his mindset are proposing and pushing. 

I am curious to see what SFW's proposal actually is. If it anything less than RMEF's proposal on giving back 100% to wildlife, I won't step foot inside the actual convention hall. Sadly for most of us, it's not the common guy's dissent that is paid attention to. Now, if some of the sponsors decided to pull out, that would garner attention.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

Sorry...didn-t post rigHT from my phone. This:

http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs...ares-north-american-hunting-model-“socialism”


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

I don't think there was any surprise in what has happened today. In the way everything played out a couple months ago, it was inevitable. However, now is when the real interesting work and events may happen. It will now be required that both proposals will be available for public scrutiny. If the SFW plan was indeed better, then great! All of us and wildlife will be better for it. If the RMEF one was better, then I'm sure that RMEF will have plenty of help in generating a legal challenge. I don't claim to be an expert, but my gut feeling is that this is not over.

Ask the Tooele county commissioners about approving a questionable plan and having it overturned by the courts. ;-)

http://kutv.com/news/local/tooele-c...of-miller-motorsports-park-to-chinese-company


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Catherder said:


> I don't think there was any surprise in what has happened today. In the way everything played out a couple months ago, it was inevitable. However, now is when the real interesting work and events may happen. It will now be required that both proposals will be available for public scrutiny. If the SFW plan was indeed better, then great! All of us and wildlife will be better for it. If the RMEF one was indeed better, then I'm sure that RMEF will have plenty of help in generating a legal challenge. I don't claim to be an expert, but my gut feeling is that this is not over.
> 
> Ask the Tooele county commissioners about approving a questionable plan and having it overturned by the courts. ;-)
> 
> http://kutv.com/news/local/tooele-c...of-miller-motorsports-park-to-chinese-company


From what it sounds like, RMEF doesn't intend to challenge the decision. I think it's up to everyone who this doesn't sit well with to deal with what appears to be bedfellows contorting a process to maintain the status quo.

Even if we're better off than we were last year with SFW offering more. Lost economic opportunity for the state and it's wildlife is still a loss.

I knew as soon as the DWR gentleman was describing that this "wasn't a popularity contest," that the result wasn't going to be what I personally had hoped for.

In the end, when more money goes back towards Utah's wildlife it should be considered a win, as has been said by a few people. However, in this case I think that not taking a golden opportunity to maximize benefit to the wildlife and economy of utah should be considered a loss.

If i had $10 yesterday, and have $15 today I'm marginally better off, but I would still rather have $20.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> 3) 10% Business plan - Promotion of hunting, fishing, and trapping in Utah. - Given the sage grouse and wolf propaganda and previous expo experience. I think SFW have the edge in this one.


Can someone, anyone give me 1 single solitary example of when the Sportsman for *FISH *and Wildlife ever did anything for fish in this state?

-DallanC


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

DallanC said:


> Can someone, anyone give me 1 single solitary example of when the Sportsman for *FISH *and Wildlife ever did anything for fish in this state?
> 
> -DallanC


Here's one: They are strong proponents of fish rights. They have fought tooth and nail to protect fish residing in waters that flow through private property from the hooks of the general public. Those fish have been spared the pain of having holes poked in their lips by all the greedy public fishermen.>>O


----------



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

Kwalk3 said:


> From what it sounds like, RMEF doesn't intend to challenge the decision. I think it's up to everyone who this doesn't sit well with to deal with what appears to be bedfellows contorting a process to maintain the status quo.
> 
> Even if we're better off than we were last year with SFW offering more. Lost economic opportunity for the state and it's wildlife is still a loss.
> 
> ...


Well said. Once the proposals are released it lies on us to speak up if it wasn't the most beneficial decision. I don't care if SFW gave 100% of all proceeds back IMO, RMEF is such a larger more powerful organization that so many more people would have supported. We lost today as a state. Our wildlife got a better deal than they had yesterday, but not as much as they could have had tomorrow. The whole RFP process was a way to choose SFW after RMEF forced a better offer from them. It was a BS sequence of events that led up to this. I won't be back to the expo again, and I think many people will also not go. Had RMEF got the expo, although just speculation, I think you would have seen attendance double.

If once the proposals are out, and the decision doesn't sit well, it's the public's opportunity to go after them like they should. The DWR should be held accountable, SFW should be held accountable, and those that took place in the RFP process should be held accountable. I would also contact sponsors to the expo, and not attend it.

The DWR employee said this was not a popularity contest, and for the most part he is right. I want to see our wildlife benefit the most they can, but SFW better have had one hell of a bid. Those permits are all public property, and yes we should get to decide what happens with them. If by "popularity" we don't want the questionable group in charge of our valuable and limited public property, then we should have a say in that. So you can call that "popularity" or public opinion on their public property.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I guess I better have an opportunity to compare the proposals before I say the selection committee was corrupt. I'm inclined to lean that way, because I don't trust the parties involved. But I will reserve judgment until I see the information. 

In addition to getting the proposals via GRAMA, you should also be able to get not only the names of the selection committee, but any notes and individual scores by those individuals as well. They are not allowed to keep that secret.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Vanilla said:


> I guess I better have an opportunity to compare the proposals before I say the selection committee was corrupt. I'm inclined to lean that way, because I don't trust the parties involved. But I will reserve judgment until I see the information.
> 
> In addition to getting the proposals via GRAMA, you should also be able to get not only the names of the selection committee, but any notes and individual scores by those individuals as well. They are not allowed to keep that secret.


Agreed. My posts are simply speculation founded on mistrust of the process and the parties involved as you noted. I probably shouldn't be so hasty to speak in absolutes. The way this whole thing has played out, culminating in today's decision, just doesn't sit well with me.


----------



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

http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/2015-12-18_justification_statement.pdf

Reasoning just hit the divisions page, read up


----------



## GeTaGrip (Jun 24, 2014)

Vanilla said:


> I guess I better have an opportunity to compare the proposals before I say the selection committee was corrupt. I'm inclined to lean that way, because I don't trust the parties involved. But I will reserve judgment until I see the information.
> 
> In addition to getting the proposals via GRAMA, you should also be able to get not only the names of the selection committee, but any notes and individual scores by those individuals as well. They are not allowed to keep that secret.


I'm pretty sure that they said the committee members names would not be available to the public, so neither will their "score cards".


----------



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

SFW still retaining the $3.50 on the application fees, and RMEF lost this bid? What a ***** joke.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

GeTaGrip said:


> I'm pretty sure that they said the committee members names would not be available to the public, so neither will their "score cards".


While I will readily admit this is not my area of expertise, I do not believe that is possible. This is a public bid/hiring process, therefore fully accessible under GRAMA, including handwritten notes that selection members would be required to submit to the Division for keeping. Bidders are able to designate certain portions of their proposals as "proprietary" and can have those portions redacted. Everything else, including who made what selection or gave what score should be accessible under GRAMA.

What good is a public bid process if the most important part is kept secret? This is exactly why we have GRAMA in the first place.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

So essentially SFW changed nothing from how they have run the expo in the past, including dollars returned to the state for conservation projects, and still walked away with a victory by substantial margin?

Yup, still not sitting well with me.


----------



## FEDUPUTAH (Dec 18, 2015)

So where do we go from here? What do we do and who do we contact? I have not read one post on here that is pro-SFW..... We all seem to be upset over the decision that was made, but we have no direction. Any suggestions? I just want to try to do something instead of complain.


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

Kwalk3 said:


> I knew as soon as the DWR gentleman was describing that this "wasn't a popularity contest," that the result wasn't going to be what I personally had hoped for.


 EXACTLY!! I first saw the writing on the wall when the guy on the left was looking uncomfortable and twitching around like he had a spider in his undies; but once the announcer started talking about popularity and online talks and such favoring another party I knew exactly what the outcome was at that point! It was just a feeling of pending doom after that.


----------



## bowhunt3r4l1f3 (Jan 12, 2011)

Don't think the link to this has already been posted. Apologies if I'm double posting it.http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/2015-12-18_justification_statement.pdf

Reading through this is a freaking joke. Just goes to prove how the RFP is worded to benefit the party it was written for. All the complaints about "Offeror B" (RMEF) are unfounded.


----------



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

I'll compile as many emails and phone numbers as I can and start a thread. We should be contacted everyone from those with booths at the expo, to sponsors, and DWR employees as well as the wildlife board. Anyone else important let's et the contact info going.


----------



## Roadlesshunter (Mar 2, 2012)

Kwalk3 said:


> Agreed. My posts are simply speculation founded on mistrust of the process and the parties involved as you noted. I probably shouldn't be so hasty to speak in absolutes. The way this whole thing has played out, culminating in today's decision, just doesn't sit well with me.


After reading the response it appears that this RFP was written so no one could challenge the current contract holder. Especially after reading the grading report.


----------



## bowhunt3r4l1f3 (Jan 12, 2011)

"Offeror B will commit 100% of the $5 application fee to fund Utah conservation projects. Based on historic data from another organization's Expo, Offeror B estimates this will result in $1 million or more in annual revenue for projects. *The proposal also states that 50% of net revenue from the Expo will be used for conservation projects in Utah. There is no documentation to support Offeror B revenue numbers and no market analysis or other supporting materials*."

Seriously?


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

After reading the statement I can see how SFW won the bid. They have been in it before and knew just what was going to be required of them and that is what they put into their proposal. Where RMEF possibly went in blind or not knowing all the ins and outs of what Utah required. 

Too bad it is a 3 year contract.


----------



## bowhunt3r4l1f3 (Jan 12, 2011)

The Offeror B proposal shows demonstrated experience with a national convention and Offeror B's exposition. It also shows experience with banquets used to market conservation permits. * Although the proposal anticipates attendance of 42,500 with growth in future years, and also anticipates the number of permit applications will grow due to Offeror B's large membership, the proposal lacks documentation to support these claims.*

OK, this one kills me. A record 87k attended the yearly RMEF Expo. Yet there is no documentation to support their claims? http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PressRoom/NewsReleases/RecordAttendanceatRMEFsHOC.aspx


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

There you have it folks, they rejected the RMEF assertions of how much they would bring in due to pretty much arbitrary reasons. Uh no documentation....purely subjective scoring and nothing you can do about that now except take it to court and have a judge overturn it and rebid...If RMEF has good lawyers I hope they go for it.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Data security plan.. noticed that SFW didn't mention the number of board members and affiliates that regularly draw tags.

This is the grade you get from that one teacher that became a teacher just to be an *******. My son just got docked for not being dressed up enough in his grade school science fair (he wore slacks and a button up).. it said I can tell you tried but you should have at least worn a tie. This is that science teacher grading clothing.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

This really is BS.


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

Political corruption at its finest utah is a crooked state and our public game herds are nothing but a cash cow for those corrupt people to line their pockets. Wow I really love where public hunting is headed for my kids sake what a joke


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

RandomElk16 said:


> Data security plan.. noticed that SFW didn't mention the number of board members and affiliates that regularly draw tags.
> 
> This is the grade you get from that one teacher that became a teacher just to be an *******. My son just got docked for not being dressed up enough in his grade school science fair (he wore slacks and a button up).. it said I can tell you tried but you should have at least worn a tie. This is that science teacher grading clothing.


I had one of those in high school, distant relative too. We got into it one day because I only got partial credit for the right answer on a test when no one in the school except me had the right answer...she didn't like the "method" I used to get the right answer. So from that day forward I would bring a newspaper to class, sit on the last row and read the newspaper during math. Ticked her off to no end because I still had nearly 100 scores on every test and homework. Was somewhat of a math wiz when my brain still worked. Still ended up with the highest cumulative score in math for my senior class...just ate her up that I did that too. Dang luck I didn't get expelled because the principal was a family friend and I don't think mom and dad would have been too happy about getting kicked out of high school.


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

hazmat said:


> Political corruption at its finest utah is a crooked state and our public game herds are nothing but a cash cow for those corrupt people to line their pockets. Wow I really love where public hunting is headed for my kids sake what a joke


This is why my family will eventually be wyoming bound. Perhaps Idaho. Might not happen for twenty years when I retire but ultimately me and my family wont be part of this jacked up scene forever...


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

3arabians said:


> This is why my family will eventually be wyoming bound. Perhaps Idaho. Might not happen for twenty years when I retire but ultimately me and my family wont be part of this jacked up scene forever...


I don't care what state you go to you will find the same problems in all of them.


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

Critter said:


> I don't care what state you go to you will find the same problems in all of them.


I'm sure I'll notice it eventually, I've only been in Wyoming a year. Funny thing is you never read about it here. The State of Utah is corrupt from the Gov on down, anyone who can gain an upper hand by rubbing someone else's back will do it. The sorry thing is with this decision and the obvious corruption is they will still have a full house, make millions and a SFW board member will win a coveted tag.


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

Critter said:


> 3arabians said:
> 
> 
> > This is why my family will eventually be wyoming bound. Perhaps Idaho. Might not happen for twenty years when I retire but ultimately me and my family wont be part of this jacked up scene forever...
> ...


Im sure thats true but the scale wont be as heavy on the corruption side I'm sure; at least if I left right now. But who knows maybe in 20 years it will be Wyoming or Idaho with these problems and Utah will be all cleaned up. Time will tell. In the meantime I'll try and do what I can and be bitching and moaning the whole way at a minimum. For now I will make the best of things as the currently are


----------



## stick&string89 (Jun 21, 2012)

I am glad the bid stayed with SFW. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Lots of complaining About SFW .....

Kinda funny,
It's the Utah DWR that CANT live without them.....


----------



## Driftwood (Nov 29, 2015)

Well I just want to say utah will no longer be seeing any more of my money. These clowns do not deserve the authority they have, soon I will quit my job and stop paying taxes too. Thanks .


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

stick&string89 said:


> I am glad the bid stayed with SFW.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Can I politely and honestly ask why? I would be interested to hear from someone who believes their proposal was better than RMEF and that they have the ability to do more for our state.


----------



## FEDUPUTAH (Dec 18, 2015)

Stickandstring please expound on why you are glad it stayed with them and how this benefits the general public and not the private sector?


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

stick&string89 said:


> I am glad the bid stayed with SFW.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


In honor of the release of the new Star Wars movie tonight. All I heard when I read this post was the Empire March tune. Da da dadada da da da dadada...... daaa daaa daaa dadada dadada da da da dadada dadada. Someone's trying to be the bad guy.


----------



## stick&string89 (Jun 21, 2012)

I will do a more indepth post tomorrow when I'm not with my family. I have been around SFW and RMEF and choose to support SFW. I'm not a fan of RMEF after dealing with them in New Mexico. More will follow tomorrow. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Save your breath. These two organizations and their proposals aren't even in the same ballpark.

This goes far beyond personal feelings/dealings with a particular organization. 

This process is about what is best for the state of Utah and the wildlife therein. 

That's why there's so much frustration. This appears to be a huge missed opportunity, and to top it off shows just how beholden our DWR is to a certain organization.

I think goofy is right about the DWR needing SFW, and that isn't a good thing, in my opinion.

I don't have personal feelings or dealings directly with either organization, but do understand the track records of both and what they have to potentially offer the state and it's wildlife.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

What this decision shows is that it is NOT about the wildlife. Its about money and greed, period.


-DallanC


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Amy said:


> The Utah Wildlife Board will meet at 10 a.m. today to decide on the expo permit distribution contract. For those who are interested, here's the meeting agenda and the link to the meeting webcast.


Thanks for keeping us up to speed on and providing the links to all the Wildlife Board meetings Amy.

Merry Christmas

.


----------

