# Contract on Expo permits for 10 years



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

There is talk about SFW/MDF getting a 10 year lock on the Expo permits.

Mcfly and Skinner should love that idea.............


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

I just wish I were you...a hero to everyone. .


----------



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

Personally I think that's horse ****. Just like any state agency things like this should go out to bid, not passed behind closed doors in the dead of night to ensure the same groups get there in. SFW would have a tough time even exhisting if the DWR didn't hand out tags to them.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Well I know the DWR and the State have been happy with how SFW has handled the Expo Permits. As they are ones deciding this decision would make sense. 

I think people on these forums get confused. 10-15 guys get rallied up on the interweb and they start to believe they are correct because they are agreeing with each other. Interweb and Reality do not always align, just a fact.


----------



## robiland (Jan 20, 2008)

They are happy with it cuz they dont have to worry about much, no audit to worry about the money and where it goes. Only 30% of that money goes back to wildlife??? Thats crap!!! Even last night one of the RAC members had no clue and even said WOW, thats It? I had no Idea. But I think its a bad idea to lock up public assets to private groups for long periods of time. If they do such a good job, what is there to worry about? Let us go every 5 years and make sure there are not any problems that might arise. Last night the man from the DWR even said, there is nothing to it, to bid out the contract. SO WHY LOCK IT UP???


----------



## stick&string89 (Jun 21, 2012)

I am completely fine if this is the case. I can't think of 2 other Organizations that do more than SFW and MDF. It's been earned.


----------



## robiland (Jan 20, 2008)

OH, MULEY37, 

SFW does not represent the average Joe with the 10 - 15 interweb people that praise SFW either. Infact, most of my friends are NOT FANS of SFW. WHY? Because of the crap that goes on. But many have seen how they control wild life and the RAC and WB and say, whats the point, they will do as they please because of SFW. I feel the same. But, I will try to get as many people to go to the next Wild life board meeting in Jan.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

I'm sure knee pads were involved with this new extension proposal.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

goofy elk said:


> There is talk about SFW/MDF getting a 10 year lock on the Expo permits.
> 
> Mcfly and Skinner should love that idea.............


Actually Goofy the only real problem I have is that if Utah is going to commercialize public tags it should only be the residents of Utah that benefit from it. It is pretty obvious that the state does not need a middle man in this electronic age. Just like they shouldn't have to pay an outside source to conduct the draws.

With regards to the SFW/MDF......I am not going to spend my life harboring ill will towards things that I can not control. It is the brainwashed people that I feel the worst for.

If it comes to the point that all tags are auctioned off to the highest bidder I will be buying a tag when I want it. Will you? Or will you be strictly a guide then? Careful what wish for. Might be a good thing you got a moose when you could.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

So 6 year lock isn't enough then. For some reason this comes to mind:










We've had the nose for quite a while, looks like we now get the rest of it.

-DallanC


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

The whole system is corrupt imho!


----------



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

robiland said:


> They are happy with it cuz they dont have to worry about much, no audit to worry about the money and where it goes. Only 30% of that money goes back to wildlife??? Thats crap!!! Even last night one of the RAC members had no clue and even said WOW, thats It? I had no Idea. But I think its a bad idea to lock up public assets to private groups for long periods of time. If they do such a good job, what is there to worry about? Let us go every 5 years and make sure there are not any problems that might arise. Last night the man from the DWR even said, there is nothing to it, to bid out the contract. SO WHY LOCK IT UP???


Actually 90% does from the tags. 30% is retained by the DWR themselves, then 60% is retained by the group who auctioned the tags to be used on DWR approved wildlife projects, then 10% is administrative.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Thats CONSERVATION tags 1I...

The EXPO tags..... Nah we should be licking SFW boots cause they've agreed to give US back about 30% for wildlife, otherwise they can spend that cash on expenses for the expo, boob jobs, braces, new homes in critical winter range and so on.

hope this clears it up.

peace 
GBell


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

I don't think that SFW is inherently evil. Nor do I believe that the intent of most members is to screw others out of hunting opportunity. I think they do a lot of great things such as habitat restoration, and the pheasant release program.

However, from what I read and understand, their ideas about big game management and the guys driving the train on what is going on do not align all that well with my views on hunting( which is fine).

I also don't think the criteria for extension should be, "they haven't screwed it up yet so let's give 5 more years without real stipulations or change in transparency." They are the most organized and the most vocal in the State, and they are able to get things done because of that. However, that doesn't mean they represent a majority of Utah Sportsmen, or that they should be given carte blanche(exaggeration) with the public tags and the money coming from the expo without a thorough review and further stipulated accountability.

This move is similar to wanting to revise the 5 year Mule Deer Plan every other Tuesday, If it was agreed that it should be handled a certain way with a 5 year contract, then maybe we should just stick to the plan for once instead of constantly trying to find ways to change it to keep one group or the other happy.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

(deleted and poster banned for two weeks)


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Derogatory ,Negitive ,Deceptive posts......
One after another, after another,,

Why is Mcfly not ban from the UWN ?


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Him is nou ban Gufy. Bet yer hapy!------SS


----------



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

wileywapati said:


> Thats CONSERVATION tags 1I...
> 
> The EXPO tags..... Nah we should be licking SFW boots cause they've agreed to give US back about 30% for wildlife, otherwise they can spend that cash on expenses for the expo, boob jobs, braces, new homes in critical winter range and so on.
> 
> ...


Yes that's the split up of conservation permits, but out of the 200 convention permits, the $5 application fees are what the organization doing the draw get and the division gets the money from the tags just like any other license if I'm not mistaken. Now 30% of the $5 fees would be a great addition, not as much as we hope for but at least it'll be more


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

I'm gonna miss mcfly...


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

I missed what happened to moose knuckles. :x


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Here is the suject matter under discussion, from the RAC meeting:

"DWR is proposing an amendment that would allow the DWR and the conservation groups (with Wildlife Board approval) to extend the Convention Permit contracts for an additional five-years. If passed, this would mean that once a group or groups were awarded a Convention Permit contract they could potentially have that contract in place for up to 10 years."

" the current proposal would require $1.50 of every $5.00 application fee be used for wildlife projects, the remaining $3.50 is retained by the conservation organization for Administrative Expenses"


----------



## grizzly (Jun 3, 2012)

So they keep 70% of application fees plus 100% of everything else (entrance fees, booth rental, advertising income, concession income, etc...) with absolutely no requirement that any of it is used on wildlife?

And the DWR thinks we shouldn't let another group bid on it and return more to the wildlife for which its intended? That's so insane it's stupid.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

The Expo was set up to generate money for the State/Salt Lake area originally. The SFW is providing a service and they are paid for it. Just like any other Expo. It was never intended to be anything but that. People get confused on where and why these tags became available. 

So what if the winning bid comes in from a group that is mostly concerned with bird watching or protection of wild horses? Tell me how much good this group would do with the money generated. The DWR and STATE (Meaning legislators) are VERY happy with how SFW has handled the tags and EXPO in general. Its not insane or stupid. Why change something that they are happy with??? Because a small handful (Yes small in the big picture) of individuals dislikes the SFW? To give into or even entertain such a small group seems insane to me.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Nice post 73..:!:..

Spot on..


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> The Expo was set up to generate money for the State/Salt Lake area originally. The SFW is providing a service and they are paid for it. Just like any other Expo. It was never intended to be anything but that.* People get confused on where and why these tags became available. *


*
*
So, please enlighten us.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

My goodness...... *shakes head slowly*


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Anybody know what the attendance is of the Expo? I thought I remember reading it was in the 30k range... but if anyone knows for sure please post.

SLC Comicon is now doing +170,000 attendance per year (they have two a year, 75k last spring, right around 100k for the sept one). Seems if the desire is to just get alot of visitors to SLC, the hunting expo ain't all that great.

-DallanC


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Dallan,
Like I said the tags come from the State and they seem pretty happy with it. It is what it is and that seems good enough for them to extend the offer. See now you're just fighting to fight. Nothing to do with wildlife, you're just looking for a reason to take it away or discredit it.


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

Muley73-

You posted: "The Expo was set up to generate money for the State/Salt Lake area originally. The SFW is providing a service and they are paid for it. Just like any other Expo. It was never intended to be anything but that. People get confused on where and why these tags became available. "

Unfortunately, your post is only partially true. The Administrative Rule that created the convention permits very clearly states the purpose of Convention Permits is as follows: "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." R657-55-1.

Yes, SFW and MDF have fulfilled the second purpose which is to attract a national or regional wildlife convention to Utah and generate tourism dollars. They put on a quality event every year and even draw in some nonresidents. However, they have not lived up to the first purpose expressly stated in the statute. In fact, for the first six years the Expo existed, there was no requirement that *any* of the revenues generate from those permits be used for actual conservation. After sportsmen demanded increased accountability in 2012, the groups and the DWR agreed to roughly the same split that is now being added to the Administrative Rule. For some people, the requirement to spend a mere 30% of the revenues on "wildlife conservation activities" is good enough -- particularly in light of the fact that no money was previously required to be spent on conservation. I guess some of us expect a little more out of these groups and the DWR.

I don't dispute that these groups are out doing some good things. I am just asking that they earmark the majority of these funds (that are generated from public assets) for actual conservation activities as contemplated by the Administrative Rule and as promised to sportsmen when these tags were created.

Hawkeye


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

Dallan-

According to DWR's Annual Report from 2013, 14,303 applicants applied for tags at the Expo in 2013. Of those applicants, 13,040 were Utah residents. The remaining 1,263 were non-residents. Of the applicants, roughly 88% were from Utah residents. Similarly, roughly 88% of the permits were drawn by Utah residents. SFW and MDF generated $986,560 in $5 application fees in 2013. From 2007 though 2013, they have generated nearly $6.5 million in $5 applications fees (for clarification this number does not include other revenue sources from the Expo such as admissions, booth rentals, etc.).

I hope that information answers your questions.

Jason


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Muley73 said:


> Dallan,
> Like I said the tags come from the State and they seem pretty happy with it. It is what it is and that seems good enough for them to extend the offer. See now you're just fighting to fight. Nothing to do with wildlife, you're just looking for a reason to take it away or discredit it.


I've always been against it from day one solely on the basis they took tags away from the public for use by a private entity. Some of our Mt Goat units are down to a couple tags or so, so the convention even removing a single tag from the public draw is a big deal.

Not fighting just to fight... fighting for what I perceive is a fairness issue in general.

-DallanC


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Hawkeye,
SFW is a proven wildlife conservation group. Thus the funds generated that are used to support that group are being used toward wildlife conservation. Slice it anyway you want it that is a fact. It's a strong enough fact to hold up to pressure from individuals like yourself. It's a strong enough fact that the DWR and State would offer the tags to SFW for an extended period of time. It may not be a fact that some like but none the less a fact. If people are unhappy with that they would need to challenge the legislators or law makers to reword the requirements of the usage if funds. To this point as you well know the lawmakers seem happy with the way it reads.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Dallan, 
I agree 100% on the mountain goats. The other tags I disagree. It actually gives hunters more opportunity to draw tags. That is an absolute FACT!


----------



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

hawkeye said:


> Dallan-
> 
> According to DWR's Annual Report from 2013, 14,303 applicants applied for tags at the Expo in 2013. Of those applicants, 13,040 were Utah residents. The remaining 1,263 were non-residents. Of the applicants, roughly 88% were from Utah residents. Similarly, roughly 88% of the permits were drawn by Utah residents. SFW and MDF generated $986,560 in $5 application fees in 2013. From 2007 though 2013, they have generated nearly $6.5 million in $5 applications fees (for clarification this number does not include other revenue sources from the Expo such as admissions, booth rentals, etc.).
> 
> ...


Yeah wildlife deserve a bigger chunk of that pie, especially when wildlife are the whole reason it exists. 30% a start, but at least 50% should be required IMO. However the 200 tags fees go towards wildlife and 90% of the conservation tag revenue go towards wildlife. This is a great event for wildlife in our state, it just needs a few tweaks to ensure wildlife are the beneficiaries of the money.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Does anyone have the numbers were the Expo permits come from,
Resident VR's Non-resident?

I know when they were set up, a very high percentage came from the NR pool.


----------



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

Muley73 said:


> Dallan,
> I agree 100% on the mountain goats. The other tags I disagree. It actually gives hunters more opportunity to draw tags. That is an absolute FACT!


I do agree on this, how does it really take opportunity away from the public ? You can apply for any of those 200 tags and it gives you two shots a year at drawing them. As for giving them away , you still have to pay the DWR for the tag it isn't just handing them over. The $5 fee is where the most concern is for me and I'd like to see accountability of it.


----------



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

goofy elk said:


> Does anyone have the numbers were the Expo permits come from,
> Resident VR's Non-resident?
> 
> I know when they were set up, a very high percentage came from the NR pool.


I believe so too. It was set up also to raise money so license prices wouldn't be higher in our state and so more tags could go to residents.


----------



## rick_rudder (Dec 31, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I believe so too. It was set up also to raise money so license prices wouldn't be higher in our state and so more tags could go to residents.


Ma'am you are completly wrong, it has nothing to do with how many tags in our state or the price of tags. The tags are strictly determined by population of the animails and the cost of the tags are determined by how many dozen donuts the DWR buys throughout the year. This thread has made me sick to my stomach and i have suspended myself for 2 weeks with this reply.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Muley73 said "It actually gives hunters more opportunity to draw tags. That is an absolute FACT!"

Yep, 1 in 3,000 odds to draw is "more" opportunity to draw. You are right that is a fact-- although not the best fact for anyone who made it out of elementary school math. Funny the same guys saying the expo provides more "opportunity" are the same one who use "opportunity" as a derogatory word when describing hunting. 

For sure though that all the permits distributed outside the regular draw have increased the point creep. 

Some of us were there when the Convention Permits were lobbied for-- It was a big kum-ba-ya moment as SFW, MDF, NWTF, RMEF, FNAWS all came together for the greater good. Didn't last long. There is so much more to the manner in which this passed, but it is water under the bridge by now. 

Doesn't matter much though as it will take some seriously crazy circumstances to radically change the Convention Tag system. 30% mandated back to wildlife is better than the 0% before.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Packout said:


> Muley73 said "It actually gives hunters more opportunity to draw tags. That is an absolute FACT!"
> 
> Yep, 1 in 3,000 odds to draw is "more" opportunity to draw. You are right that is a fact-- although not the best fact for anyone who made it out of elementary school math. Funny the same guys saying the expo provides more "opportunity" are the same one who use "opportunity" as a derogatory word when describing hunting.
> 
> ...


I agree.


----------



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

rick_rudder said:


> Ma'am you are completly wrong, it has nothing to do with how many tags in our state or the price of tags. The tags are strictly determined by population of the animails and the cost of the tags are determined by how many dozen donuts the DWR buys throughout the year. This thread has made me sick to my stomach and i have suspended myself for 2 weeks with this reply.


If the money wasn't coming in from the expo that funds lots of projects then the money would have to come from somewhere else. Other states fees are higher than Utah, for resident and nonresident, Utah also doesn't give out as many nonresident tags and gives a greater percentage of resident tags than many other states. If the money wasn't raised then to make it up you would have to either raise prices or sale a greater percentage of nonresident tags and a smaller percentage of resident tags than how it is currently distributed. Population determines tag numbers, not the price or determination of whether those tags will be resident or non resident though .


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

why not take all of the tags, divide them by 3 and have three different conventions?

By the math some of you guys use it would provide even more opportunity right? 33% more than the draw plus the convention right now correct? Now hang with me........

OMG......imagine this.........we divide the tags five times.............. have FIVE conventions............wait.............wait..........TEN............yes............TEN CONVENTIONS!!!!!!!!!!

WINNERS. We get TEN CHANCES to draw one tag! How about we do a different draw every month? TWELVE CHANCES???????????

We can all apply for a chance to win one of several hundred tags every month!!!!!

Insanity.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Once again, efa, you miss understand, as you so often do. Not because you're a bad person or have sinister intentions but because you are unable or unwilling to see the entire picture of the issues that your dealing with.

I already did enlighten you, but you can't or won't see the light. 

"The Expo was set up to generate money for the State/Salt Lake area originally."


That's the light your not seeing on this Expo issue Lee. 

The Expo was not set up originally to "primarily" improve wildlife in Utah. Although improving wildlife may have been sold as a secondary benefit and is continuing to be sold as a benefit. 

The reason we have the Expo is to sell motel rooms, meals in restaurants, gasoline as service stations, and put families in retail store in Utah, specifically Salt Lake County. The legislature regularly uses Utah's natural resources to drive business in Utah. They use the ski slopes, the Colorful Canyons, the waters of Lake Powell and Flaming Gorge, etc to bring people to the State and to the city, to spend money, put money in businesses tills, generate tax revenues, etc.

When you hold is a Ski Convention, to draw people into town, the Legislature doesn't put it out to bid, it allows a reliable ski organization to host the event and generate benefits to the ski industry.

When you hold an Outdoor's Convention, you don't hire a group that is opposed to Outdoor's Convention, money generating concept, to host the event, you hire a group of outdoor's people that want bring as much money and as many people into town, for the benefit of the town and the State as possible. In fact you probably hire the best group at generating revenue.

If the Ski org that host the event or the Outdoor's org is able to generate revenue, by hosting the event, to plow back into skiing and outdoors communities, that is a secondary benefit BUT that revenue is what motivates those groups to do the heavy lifting involved in hosting the convention.

It's not different with the hunting Expo, you can't see that. It's not the MDF or SFW that you need to change, it's the Legislature and the business people who drive State tax revenues that we all benefit from. If you can get them to see you problem with how they are conducting business, you might have a change in things. 

The big picture Lee, is, take this matter up with those that control it and while your at it, see how the ski, outdoor, racing, flying, music, art industries feel about your attitude toward how the Legislature brings business into Salt Lake City and Utah in general.

So I do thank Hawkeye for posting and showing that SFW is in fact following the guidelines of the contract.

That's how a small chapter reads, there are many many more all the way back 30-40 years when it comes to wildlife in Utah.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Packout,
Nice have you and Hawkeye back on discussion. You are absolutely correct that there have been changes with the EXPO since the start. I'll say again, the STATE and DWR sure seem to be ok with it, they are ones extending the offer.

As far as opportunity, It does supply more opportunity. In the current system I get to pick 1 elk, or deer or antelope, I get to pick 1 OIL. With the EXPO tag I get to apply for all. Dump the 200 back in and it increase the odds slightly for a select few. I have never been against opportunity, EVER, we both just have different views on how to provide opportunity.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Muley73 said:


> Once again, efa, you miss understand, as you so often do. Not because you're a bad person or have sinister intentions but because you are unable or unwilling to see the entire picture of the issues that your dealing with.
> 
> I already did enlighten you, but you can't or won't see the light.
> 
> ...


I haven't been hunting or involved with big game and hunting for 30 years. I actually haven't even been hunting big game for more than 5 years aside from a few deer hunts with my dad when I was in high school, so I know from your previous posts that my opinion is already worthless.

That being said, hunting is the one thing aside from my family that I am the most passionate about, and I do have an opinion. While the expo may have been set up to bring people into town, the simple fact is that without expo tags taken from the public draw, that expo would attract a mere fraction of the people that currently support it. And I, with my relatively limited hunting experience, have just as much of a stake(not say) in what happens to the public resource(the tag and funds derived from the app) as you or any other person in this state.

I'm fine with the fact that you share a different opinion, but the constant condescending remarks that seem to imply no one knows what you do are getting a little tired. All of our hunting experiences and desires are different, and just because someone agrees or disagrees with some aspect of SFW doesn't make those experiences and desires for the future or the "now" in Utah hunting any less meaningful. So while you are pointing out that everyone else is "not seeing", you yourself are missing the point that there is not only one viewpoint that matters.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

SFW and MDF kill more deer than they "conserve", and have taken more hunters out of the field than any anti hunting group could ever hope to. My vote is that PETA gets the convention contract, they have a better track record of not destroying wildlife and hunters in this state.

Here are where the scant "conservation" funds from convention tags go: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/service/25-stansbury-mountains-ut/ Read the imbedded links as well. Mark my words we are going to do the 90s all over again, we are sitting on a time bomb. And a most "conservation" orgs have been pouring powder.

The unprecedented convention money, and the last 20 years of the "quality era" have not conserved anything, and have done far more harm than good to hunting, wildlife, and hunters. After 20 years of this model, we have less wildlife and fewer hunters. And now many want to double down on that. Really?

SFW, MDF, DWR, etc. are crooked as all hell, and have 20 years of failed policies, and their affects to prove it! They should be put over Ebola management, it would be eradicated in no time.

If these orgs and the division had the interests of hunters and wildlife in mind, the last 20 years would not have gone like they did. At least RMEF can point to increased elk numbers, not that they know why it happened.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Kwalk,
You along with anyone else that wants to apply for the EXPO tags can. As you stated you're not is informed as some. That's not my fault. Education is valuable when making decisions and opinions. Go read the chain the posts objectively and ask yourself how many of all the post have a condescending tone. It's the interweb that's how it goes. 

This fight is more than this chain of posts. It discussion that's been had on here and in PMs and in person for several years with some of these fellas. If its offensive to you I'm sorry. I appreciate your input and your opinion but I also suggest a little thicker skin and being a little less sensitive if you wanna jump into the middle.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Muley73 said:


> Packout,
> Nice have you and Hawkeye back on discussion. You are absolutely correct that there have been changes with the EXPO since the start. I'll say again, the STATE and DWR sure seem to be ok with it, they are ones extending the offer.
> 
> As far as opportunity, It does supply more opportunity. In the current system I get to pick 1 elk, or deer or antelope, I get to pick 1 OIL. With the EXPO tag I get to apply for all. Dump the 200 back in and it increase the odds slightly for a select few. I have never been against opportunity, EVER, we both just have different views on how to provide opportunity.


I think everyone knows that the state and DWR are the ones extending the offer. The State Legislature and DWR are both public agencies, correct? Since we are supposed to participate in a democracy, it is only sensible for those members of the public who disagree with the decision to extend without the agreed-upon process being followed to voice their concern.

I personally think SFW does a lot of good. I also disagree with many viewpoints they espouse. They may do the best job in the world with the expo, and if that is the case, why not follow the agreement and let them prove that? They should have no problem continuing to provide a great event.

The issue is that many people would like to see more transparency with app fee moneys and also would like to see more of the money go back to wildlife. I realize there is hardly a chance of that changing, but if it is extended as proposed, there is zero chance of it changing for at least 5 more years.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Muley73 said:


> Kwalk,
> You along with anyone else that wants to apply for the EXPO tags can. As you stated you're not is informed as some. That's not my fault. Education is valuable when making decisions and opinions. Go read the chain the posts objectively and ask yourself how many of all the post have a condescending tone. It's the interweb that's how it goes.
> 
> This fight is more than this chain of posts. It discussion that's been had on here and in PMs and in person for several years with some of these fellas. If its offensive to you I'm sorry. I appreciate your input and your opinion but I also suggest a little thicker skin and being a little less sensitive if you wanna jump into the middle.


Never said I wasn't informed......Thanks though. Number of years involved has nothing to do with how much I can and do glean and understand. I'm not offended at all. Like I said, it's fine to have differing opinions. Different does not necessarily mean wrong. That is all I'm getting at.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Kwalk,
I agree, if you take a look at one of my earlier posts I pretty much stated the same thing. Several times.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Informed?????????? :-o


----------



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

Lonetree said:


> Informed?????????? :-o


If you're right about sitting on a time bomb I think were just gonna watch it go off, I don't see any sign of changing toward the right direction.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Welcome back Lonetree. I killed a deer with a weird mane. We'll have to discuss it on another thread. Anyways.....back to the discussion at hand.--------SS


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> If you're right about sitting on a time bomb I think were just gonna watch it go off, I don't see any sign of changing toward the right direction.


The fuse is lit, and when it goes off, the response will probably be that we did not use enough powder. Most of these folks are complete idiots, and nothing but politicians that will never learn.

If we don't see a defined trigger, like a heavy winter, or a really wet spring, it will be a precipitous, prolonged slide in numbers. The other possibility, given other conditions, is a summer die off, these are much harder to understand and observe in real time. A few places may have already suffered this fate to some extent this year. Too many dead deer with conditions being exceptionally good on many summer ranges.

I checked 4 deer on the side of the road today while driving from Ogden to South Weber, all 6 month old bucks. 2 with under bites, 3 with malformed genitalia/undescended testicles. That means out of those 4 deer, 3 would not have been able to breed.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Springville Shooter said:


> Welcome back Lonetree. I killed a deer with a weird mane. We'll have to discuss it on another thread. Anyways.....back to the discussion at hand.--------SS


Submit them here: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/service/photo-contest/

Or even email me there.

I still need to contact the last 3 months of winners and ship them their prizes, but it will happen, I've just been very busy. We still need to draw for Nov.


----------



## grizzly (Jun 3, 2012)

Just to clarify a few things that have been stated above as if they were fact. Hang with me for a second, this gets a little tricky to explain on a forum..

*The Expo does not improve opportunity.* The actual draw odds for any unit are applicants divided by tags. Don't get wrapped up in bonus points or number of hunts you can apply for, that just muddies the water... true odds are simply _applicants divided by tags_.

Let's look at a simplified example... under the current Bucks/Bulls system a hunter can only put in for one species (deer, elk, or antelope). For easy math, let's say there are 30 tags for each species and 3000 applicants for each species. The odds of any one person drawing a tag are 30:3000 or 1:100 or 1%.

It doesn't matter if some people have 10 bonus points and others only have 1 bonus point. All bonus points do is average out the draw, or increase the likelihood that it is average over time (think of it like odds in Las Vegas, overall the odds always swing the same way. Points decrease the likelihood that one person draws multiple tags before another draws a single tag). However they DO NOT increase the OVERALL odds. At the end of the draw, exactly 30 people will draw a tag and 2970 will not. A 'straight draw' verse a 'bonus point system' verse a 'preference point system' DOES NOT change the overall draw odds of a particular tag. The draw will always have 30 people that are successful and 2970 that are not, and it will be this way as long as each person can only draw one tag per year.

Now lets say they change the rules and let everybody apply for all three species (elk, deer, and antelope) in the same year. Many people will tell you this increases "opportunity" (this is the false argument made about the Expo). It does not. Lets look at the math again. Now you still have 30 tags for each species but you have 9,000 applicants per species since all hunters apply for every tag available. Your odds of each individual tag goes to 30:9000 or 1:300 or .33%. But, you put your name in three hats instead of one so now you have a .33% chance at three different draws or a grand total of 1% chance at drawing a tag.

Again, you DID NOT increase opportunity or odds. All that happened is you paid 3x the money for the same odds and the DWR makes 3x the money. (Now you know why they allow Non-Residents to apply for every species)

The reason I bring this up is a few guys/gals on here have stated that the Expo increases opportunity. IT DOES NOT. They take the tags that were recommended by biologists, subtract 200 tags out of it for the Expo and put them in a different hat. There are still the same number of tags and the same odds.

Except now we have to pay more money to apply for them and get the benefit of longer wait times in the Bucks/Bulls draw for those of us who have waited for years for a tag and the young kids who are just starting alike.

Sure I may have a better chance at drawing an elk (since I'm currently in the deer draw), but that means I have less of a chance at a deer tag. The real numbers are more complex, but the math is the exact same. ODDS ARE NOT INCREASED! YOU HAVE NO MORE OPPORTUNITY! THEY JUST MOVED THE TAG FROM ONE HAT INTO ANOTHER AND MADE YOU BUY ANOTHER TICKET!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> why not take all of the tags, divide them by 3 and have three different conventions?
> 
> By the math some of you guys use it would provide even more opportunity right? 33% more than the draw plus the convention right now correct? Now hang with me........
> 
> ...


Hooked on rant or hooked on crack?:shock:.................................;-)


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

grizzly said:


> Just to clarify a few things that have been stated above as if they were fact. Hang with me for a second, this gets a little tricky to explain on a forum..
> 
> *The Expo does not improve opportunity.* The actual draw odds for any unit are applicants divided by tags. Don't get wrapped up in bonus points or number of hunts you can apply for, that just muddies the water... true odds are simply _applicants divided by tags_.
> 
> ...


 And no one has even mentioned the $100 in gas money I would have to add to Utah's economy to drive the 520 miles round trip just to verify that ticket! That great "opportunity" gets expensive! I think I'll pass.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> The fuse is lit, and when it goes off, the response will probably be that we did not use enough powder. Most of these folks are complete idiots, and nothing but politicians that will never learn.
> 
> If we don't see a defined trigger, like a heavy winter, or a really wet spring, it will be a precipitous, prolonged slide in numbers. The other possibility, given other conditions, is a summer die off, these are much harder to understand and observe in real time. A few places may have already suffered this fate to some extent this year. Too many dead deer with conditions being exceptionally good on many summer ranges.
> 
> I checked 4 deer on the side of the road today while driving from Ogden to South Weber, all 6 month old bucks. 2 with under bites, 3 with malformed genitalia/undescended testicles. That means out of those 4 deer, 3 would not have been able to breed.


Sounds like the little fellers committed suicide.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

goofy elk said:


> Hooked on rant or hooked on crack?:shock:.................................;-)


Just tryan to speke yer langwich


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

grizz,
I am glad you took the time to post this up. It goes to show exactly your thought process. 2+2 is 4 it just is. Whether you like the number 4 or not it is still 4. You can tell yourself and everyone that will listen that it is not 4, you may even get a few people to agree with you. But in the end it really is still 4. My point is that you disagree or dislike an organization so much you are willing to argue against pure actual facts. 

Utah Bucks and Bull Draw, You are allowed to apply for either deer, elk or antelope.
Say you apply for Henrys deer. What are your odds to draw any elk tag or any antelope tag? Well the answer is ZERO.... That is a REAL number 0. You have not chance to draw any of them, regardless of odds because you are not allowed to even apply for them. 

Ok lets jump to Once in a Lifetime. You apply for Rocky Mountain Bighorns. What are odds at drawing a moose, desert bighorn, mountain goat, or bison tag??? They are again ZERO....It doesnt matter how many bonus points your have or how many tags are available. YOU HAVE ZERO CHANCE OF DRAWING THEM! 

Even if you add the 200 tags back into the draw it increases your odds of drawing one of those other tags from ZERO chance of drawing to....wait...here it comes.....ZERO!!!! It's fact, you have ZERO chance of drawing.

Well now lets look at the 200 EXPO tags. We all, every single person in the world with a hunter safety card and valid utah hunting license that chooses to apply for those 200 tags can. So minus the 1 deer, elk or antelope choice that you can apply for, and minus the 1 OIL specie you can apply for and you are left 198 opportunities to draw a tag that you would normally never get. Now non res, yes they get that chance on the regular draw, but residents, nope!!! 

So as much as you don't like the program or SFW or any of this stuff. 2+2 still equals 4!!!

I hope 1000s of people read your post and realize exactly your thought process. Its based on wishing reality was different as opposed facts.

EFA, 
You not attending is a personal choice, it to has nothing to do with opportunity. The opportunity is still there, you choose to not make it a big enough priority to take advantage of the opportunity.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Muley73, it has nothing to do with the tags. It is more about the fact that its called a "conservation" expo, and yet there is no conservation occurring. The people that run the convention have thrown the very science that conservation is based on out the window......baby with the bath water. More animals are what create opportunity, and our so called "conservation orgs" have not been able to provide this increase in opportunity, despite raising unprecedented amounts of money in the name of conservation over the last 20 years.

In private industry compensation is based on results, why do we keep rewarding these sham groups that keep enriching themselves, at our expense? Show me the ****ing deer! 20 years ago Don was going to save the deer, and 4 years ago it was that we would see 400,000 deer by now, it has not happened. And the reason why is because people like you have turned our hunting heritage over to politicians to loot and burn. Putting the convention back into he hands of these guys, is like handing matches to an arsonist. 

It is not a "conservation" expo, its a theft from hunters, our heritage, and our future. It has not produced any of its stated goals regarding conservation. The people that run it are directly responsible for reducing hunters and wildlife, all for their own monetary gain. Not you or anyone else can demonstrate other wise. Its nothing but sportsmen ****ing sportsmen!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> Sounds like the little fellers committed suicide.


You are always good with a joke, and I like jokes, but seriously......what is your solution?


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Lonetree,
No.... I believe we where discussing tags and general math. But thanks for your input and views of the SFW, DWR and State legislators.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> Lonetree,
> No.... I believe we where discussing tags and general math. But thanks for your input and views of the SFW, DWR and State legislators.


Oh yeah, thats what this thread was about, thanks for "informing" me. Its almost like I can't read, and don't understand the subject matter.

What YOU were discussing was one of the mechanisms for the decline of Western Hunting. Tell us about the "conservation" part.


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

Cody-

You keep trying to educate the rest of us as to the purpose for which the Conservation Permits were created. Before you go about attempting educating others, perhaps you should take a minute and read the actual Administrative Rule that created those tags. The language from the rule that I quoted above has been in the rule since the beginning and makes very clear that the first purpose expressly stated in the rule for creating the permits was "*to generate revenues to fund wildlife conservation activities*." So your statements that "The Expo was set up to generate money for the State/Salt Lake area originally" and that "The Expo was not set up originally to primarily improve wildlife in Utah" are just simply wrong.

Unfortunately, the DWR and the Conservation Groups did not put any requirements in the Administrative Rule or their contract to make sure that this occurred. Why not? Who knows? What I do know is that at the March 31, 2005 Board Meeting where the permits were approved, the Wildlife Board specifically directed the DWR to include annual audit requirements similar to those found in the Conservation Permit Rule in the Expo contract between the DWR and the conservation groups. Unfortunately, that did not occur either? Why not? Who knows?

I have never said that SFW and MDF are not conservation groups or that they do not engage in conservation activities that benefit wildlife. What I have said is that the majority of the monies generated from these public permits should be earmarked and used for actual conservation activities. That is exactly what we do with the Conservation Permits (I.e., the 90/10 split). That is exactly what was requested by the Wildlife Board clear back in 2005. That is exactly what most sportsmen assume is happening when the attend the "Hunting and *Conservation Expo*" and apply for those permits. That type of accountability and transparency is exactly what is expected from agencies and entities that are handling public assets.

You also state that everything is hunky-dory because the DWR, the wildlife board, the legislature and the conservation groups are happy with the status quo. Unfortunately, these are the same groups that negotiated and signed two separate Expo contracts without including any requirement that a single penny of the revenues be used for actual conservation despite the promises made to sportsmen when the tags were created, the clear language of the Administrative Rule, and the express directive from the Wildlife Board to the DWR clear back in 2005.

Now, those are what we call facts. But why bother with history and facts when we can just make inaccurate statements that support our position?

Carry on.

Hawkeye


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Hawkeye, very good points, and very good information.

Above and beyond the transparency that is so sorely lacking, I have an even greater problem with the lack of results, or any way of tracking them. It is very related and rooted in the problems of accountability and transparency. It also happens to be where we can see the failings of not having that accountability and transparency. 

People might be a little more forgiving about the lack of accountability and transparency, if they were at least seeing the benefits that these dollars are suppose to be providing. But after many, many years, there is no accountability, no transparency, and no net or gross gain from the supposed "conservation" that is supposed to be being funded by these dollars. 

I would go so far as to say that much of the money that is claimed to be going to "conservation" is either wasted in failed projects, or actually has detrimental affects on our wildlife like the poisoning campaigns that these orgs pay for. It is a failure from start to finish.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> Once again, efa, you miss understand, as you so often do. Not because you're a bad person or have sinister intentions but because you are unable or unwilling to see the entire picture of the issues that your dealing with.
> 
> I already did enlighten you, but you can't or won't see the light.
> 
> ...


Thanks for clearing that up! It's just what we thought! It's first about the money and wildlife is secondary. Actually, I understand enough to know it isn't about the money per se. It's about the SFW, BGF, Full Curl leverage that the money provides with the DWR, RAC's, Wildlife Board and legislature, ie: 4 or 5 additional SFW members on the Mule Deer Committee who were supposedly representing the public at large or agriculture or a RAC, 4 or 5 SFW representatives attending the October 23rd EXPO tag meeting when my invitation called for only one UWC rep, two or more SFW members on most RAC's or on the Wildlife Board at any given time, each separate SFW chapter given 5 minutes at RAC meetings, allowing SFW members to have the last word at some RAC meetings per their request, the automatic renewal of a 5 year contract, BGF wolf contract renewal even though they didn't do very well on the audit, *Big Game *Forever sage grouse contract awarded, and SFW reps at meetings seldom failing to tell us who we're up against by reminding us of the money they generate to do the great work they are doing, as if we weren't aware of it. In fact, in a Mule Deer Committee meeting, Bryon supposedly joked by suggesting we include the SFW organizational event as part of mule deer history. His joke didn't go over very well. And now your arrogant posts reflect that attitude.

It would be one thing if SFW were the same organization they were on the capitol steps 20 years ago, but the old leadership and apparently their children, have now become the very people they were protesting against and it's heartbreaking and mortifying to see that happening and a "handful" of us have decided to do something about it. Thankfully, some of your own members are starting to understand.

And you're making a mistake if you think we don't understand simply because we don't agree. We don't agree with some policies because we do understand.

One last thing! The ski industry, the craft industry, the comic book industry, the entertainment industry, the sports industry, the retail industry, the auto industry and even the LDS church, seem to be able to conduct successful events that draw hundreds if not thousands of nonresidents without using public assets. Maybe SFW isn't the ultimate sportsmen's organization they claim to be and maybe that's their real motive for the automatic contract renewal.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

elkfromabove said:


> Thanks for clearing that up! It's just what we thought! It's first about the money and wildlife is secondary. Actually, I understand enough to know it isn't about the money per se. It's about the SFW, BGF, Full Curl leverage that the money provides with the DWR, RAC's, Wildlife Board and legislature, ie: 4 or 5 additional SFW members on the Mule Deer Committee who were supposedly representing the public at large or agriculture or a RAC, 4 or 5 SFW representatives attending the October 23rd EXPO tag meeting when my invitation called for only one UWC rep, two or more SFW members on most RAC's or on the Wildlife Board at any given time, each separate SFW chapter given 5 minutes at RAC meetings, allowing SFW members to have the last word at some RAC meetings per their request, the automatic renewal of a 5 year contract, BGF wolf contract renewal even though they didn't do very well on the audit, *Big Game *Forever sage grouse contract awarded, and SFW reps at meetings seldom failing to tell us who we're up against by reminding us of the money they generate to do the great work they are doing, as if we weren't aware of it. In fact, in a Mule Deer Committee meeting, Bryon supposedly joked by suggesting we include the SFW organizational event as part of mule deer history. His joke didn't go over very well. And now your arrogant posts reflect that attitude.
> 
> It would be one thing if SFW were the same organization they were on the capitol steps 20 years ago, but the old leadership and apparently their children, have now become the very people they were protesting against and it's heartbreaking and mortifying to see that happening and a "handful" of us have decided to do something about it. Thankfully, some of your own members are starting to understand.
> 
> ...


checkmate


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> You are always good with a joke, and I like jokes, but seriously......what is your solution?


Ask Delta nicely to quit cloud seeding.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

In all honesty, I'm fine with SFW and MDF getting the convention for the next 10 years. But, this needs to be implemented: http://uwcnewsletter.wordpress.com/uwc-convention-tag-proposal/

Additionally all "conservation" projects need to be planned in advance of funding. No successful enterprise collects money, and then says "hey what should we do with this?"

The science behind these projects needs to be vetted, because many are doing more harm than good. In some best case scenarios, bitter brush planting for example, it is equivalent to burning money.

And there needs to be ROI(return on investment) analysis conducted to verify the claimed benefits of these projects. Conservation is no different than investments, its all about producing results, and making the future. If you were an investment firm, that just kept investing your clients money in failed endeavors, you would not last long. But this is exactly what is being done with these conservation dollars that are generated via services sold around public assets, with the intent purpose of producing the results of conservation of these public assets(OUR wildlife).

Show me the plan, show me the books, show me the results, and show me the ****ing deer! All I've heard for 20 years is broken promises, on the heels of failure after failure. Why should we expect any different?

Talk about the tags themselves is just a rouse to distract you guys from how they are stealing from us, destroying wildlife, and reducing hunting. More wildlife is the only thing that creates more opportunity, and the current status quo has created just the opposite.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> Ask Delta nicely to quit cloud seeding.


Not that that would hurt anything, but much like SFW habitat projects, please explain to us why you would start here, what is the desired out come? Is it scientifically supported? Does it benefit wildlife, or does it cause more harm than good? Or is it just something to do?


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Gang,
You can point out all of the assumptions, opinions and views you like. You can type them in long posts, you can use cut and past and quote all you like. The reality is this. Those that decide have offered the contract extension and offered to allow it to be locked in. That is reality. This is despite interweb banter and ranting, despite Hawkeye demanding meetings, despite Lee typing long posts and never getting enough time to present at RAC meetings. Lonetree preaching in riddles like a modern day oracle. The people that ultimately decide have made the offer. That tells me they (the ones that really matter) are happy and looking to move forward in the same manner. I am sure there will be tweaks and changes along the way, some just suggested, others actually implemented. 

Mule,
You say checkmate??? That would imply unarguable victory.....Tell me Mule do you feel like your winning?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Muley73 said:


> Gang,
> You can point out all of the assumptions, opinions and views you like. You can type them in long posts, you can use cut and past and quote all you like. The reality is this. Those that decide have offered the contract extension and offered to allow it to be locked in. That is reality. This is despite interweb banter and ranting, despite Hawkeye demanding meetings, despite Lee typing long posts and never getting enough time to present at RAC meetings. Lonetree preaching in riddles like a modern day oracle. The people that ultimately decide have made the offer. That tells me they (the ones that really matter) are happy and looking to move forward in the same manner. I am sure there will be tweaks and changes along the way, some just suggested, others actually implemented.
> 
> Mule,
> You say checkmate??? That would imply unarguable victory.....Tell me Mule do you feel like your winning?


Nope. Just that you have lost. As have the rest of us. There are no winners in this other than those that host the Expo. The biggest loser is the wildlife itself and our heritage.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Yeah that's what I thought you meant, thanks for clarifying.;-)

As an FYI me and my family hunt and fish every single year, in Utah out of Utah. With great success at times. My kids are nuts about the outdoors. Had a wonderful general deer season this year, youth and general pheasant hunts, outstanding fishing trips. Made a trip to hunt elk on the Gila with a good buddy for the week, unbelievable time and memories. Boys are headed to Pyramid Lake as we speak for the second time this year to hopefully fool some giant cuttys. They both had an outstanding weekend up on the Madison a few weeks ago. We enjoy the outdoors and we support groups that help keep that heritage alive, with results! I do not believe I am losing!!! I believe I am winning because I choose to focus on the good times and memories available to me and my family in the great outdoors!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Show me the results, that's what matters. Of course the status quo likes the status quo, it benefits them at our expense. People like you, SFW, and the DWR are anti hunting, plain and simple. This is clearly demonstrated by the results of the last 20 years of this corruption. 

Show us otherwise, and maybe you will have some credibility. The results of this incestuos BS are clear, less hunters, less wildlife, and more money being made on all of it. The PETA model.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Muley73 said:


> Yeah that's what I thought you meant, thanks for clarifying.;-)


Thanks for whatever your point was other than "it is what is". Oh yea........."those in charge have decided it is good and they are the only ones that matter"..........errr something like that.

Do you prefer sheep or parrots?


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

Muley73 stated: "The people that ultimately decide have made the offer. That tells me they (the ones that really matter) are happy and looking to move forward in the same manner."

Unlike your other comments that were completely off base, that statement is absolutely true and something that we both agree upon. No matter what is said on the internet, at RAC meetings or at the Wildlife Board meetings, the powers that be want this to happen and so it will happen. The public process is more about providing the public (those that show up) with an opportunity to vent than to honestly seek input and information so as to make better informed decisions.

As I have explained before, this is an issue I care about and so I have tried to get involved, help educate people and push things in the right direction. At the end of the day, it doesn't hurt my feelings and I don't lose any sleep over the fact that the State, the DWR and the conservation groups disagree with me. It is not about winning or losing. It is about trying to do the right thing.

Thanks for the discussion.

Hawkeye


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Thanks for whatever your point was other than "it is what is". Oh yea........."those in charge have decided it is good and they are the only ones that matter"..........errr something like that.
> 
> Do you prefer sheep or parrots?


He is more of a chimera, parrot head, sheep body. They herd them around, with a hand up their ass, telling them what to say.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

"It is about trying to do the right thing."--Hawkeye

These guys don't know what that is.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Hawkeye,
Your opinion is that same as mine, no more no less we both just disagree with what is right.

I do hope someday I can draw one of those EXPO tags. In fact the Pauns would be my choice. Just like the one you drew at the EXPO a few years ago.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Muley73, I guess we know what winning is for you and your ilk........less hunters, and less wildlife, all the while gloating about it.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Lonetree,
You assume you know me, if you really did know me you'd know I'm nobodies puppet. The honest truth is the real SFW guys could care less what gones on in these forums. You don't see them post much or weigh in on topics. They save the fight for where it matters and is effective. I just like to knife fight so its easy to jump on here and get my fix.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> Lonetree,
> You assume you know me, if you really did know me you'd know I'm nobodies puppet. The honest truth is the real SFW guys could care less what gones on in these forums. You don't see them post much or weigh in on topics. They save the fight for where it matters and is effective. I just like to knife fight so its easy to jump on here and get my fix.


SFW guys used to get on forums and try to spar, they have not been able to support an argument for years, just like you. I don't need to "know" you to know what you are all about, or that you are a part of the problem. You are just another symptom of rootlessness, and the sell off.

People without supportable ideologies, or representable facts and plans, typically avoid public debate, and keep it to the back rooms, its the only way to keep promoting failure, on top of failure.

You have no substance, which may be even worse if you are not a puppet, and believe what you promote. Puppets have more credibility.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Lone,
Chief this is the interweb. Like I said you don't know me. You make assumptions that is all.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> Lone,
> Chief this is the interweb. Like I said you don't know me. You make assumptions that is all.


And you still can't support your claims or beliefs, so you and yours keep it in the back room, under the desk.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Quite the discussion. 

I agree with Cody, we aren't playing on the same field, or even the same game for that matter. 

Those that have made the rules for the past 20 years have gerrymandered the system to perfection. 

The politicians are convinced that SFW / Peay / Benson and the DWR speak for sportsmen and more importantly wildlife. They do not. 

The entire system needs a few hundred gallons of gas and a road flare. 

The cronyism and back room lobbying is rapidly eroding anything that would resemble game or even hunter management. 

Until enough apathetic hunters realize that they are only knocking at the door of the Ivory tower housing the select few, and finally set fire to the sumbi*** not a darn thing is going to change. 

This system is so covered in skeezy back room deals and payola that it's not salvageable.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Maybe they can redeem themselves by demonstrating that they have been the savior of wildlife and hunters. Should be simple enough, after 20 years and millions of dollars they should be able to show us something like a simple chart that correlates the rise of wildlife, and hunters, with the rise of the money they have collected on it and our behalves. Maybe something like a citizenship test, but for wildlife conservation that shows that they understand wildlife science and how to use it to promote conservation.......................

If the rules of the convention clearly spelled out accountability, transparency, and the means to plan and track success, it would not matter who held the contract. In a fair and open market that was geared toward what is best for wildlife and hunters, it would go to the bidder that had the best offer and means to accomplish these goals. Not to the buddies of those that enrich themselves at the expense of hunters and OUR wildlife. Extending the contract to these "conservation org" failures that have it now, only solidifies the fact that it is not geared towards the goals its charter states, and that the people within the system are crooked and corrupt.

What a coincidence, I just so happen to have been stockpiling gasoline and flares for a couple years now.


----------



## grizzly (Jun 3, 2012)

Bottom line guys... SFW knows they are losing favor with the average hunter and a while ago I was personally contacted, via my cell phone, by a SFW higher-up asking me to lay off for a while so they can try and fix some of the errors of the past. He said they know things weren't done right and wanted an opportunity to prove it would get better. So far that has been no more than lip service as I have not seen any improvements. This phone call was made due to some of the problems that I saw and pointed out on forums just like this one. SFW hierarchy _does_ read these forums and _is_ worried about a mob of hunters gaining steam.

Something else, anybody that gets on here and repeatedly tells us that SFW has already won so to quit trying to change it... has tipped their hand already. If they truly thought there wasn't an uprising gaining speed, why take the time to tell us over and over we are wasting time? SFW guys don't typically get on here and argue, but they certainly don't pretend like our voices don't matter.

I'll keep up with my conversations with RAC members (every single one that I have spoken to has agreed this contract proposal should not be implemented), and I have now had two conversations with my State Legislator about this very issue. He is not a hunter so isn't too familiar with the intricacies of big game tags, his concern is about proper use of public funding and transparency. He was blown away that hunting tags were a multi-million dollar business, as I think most non-hunters are.

These forums led to the first change in 2012 requiring $1.50 per application for wildlife, why couldn't they lead to more improvement as well? This is how grassroots movements work.

One clarification... I am not anti-SFW. If there is a public bid of conservation organizations and SFW wins it for the next 5 years, I will be extremely happy knowing the maximum amount of funding is going to wildlife and that a fair-market set that amount. That is all I want. I hope some day to be the staunchest supporter of SFW, because that would mean I was seeing some true results from their endeavors. Here is to hoping that happens!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

grizzly, Now that is some optimism, in the face of things not known to produce it. 

The optimism is refreshing, and this could have been the case back in 2010, but the damage is done, and there is no changing the past 20 years, and the current path that we are still on, with some minor tweeks. There has been a corner turned, a fork taken, that changes what were possibilities in the not so distant past. Given what I now know, my optimism is all but non existent. 

Not that there is no hope for the future, but that future got seriously deferred at best. This is more than just a 2 dimensional political problem. It is 4th dimensional, and is political, social, and scientific. Appeasing any single aspect will not fix the problem, only some peoples perceptions of it. There are some serious scientific realities that we have been ignoring for decades, and I don't think these orgs are even capable of looking at them, let alone understanding them, or fixing them.

I don't get phone calls, I use to get "visits" from "friends".


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Why is it the responsibility of these orgs to address and fix these scientific problems that our wildlife face? Because that is what they signed up to do, that is what they have been raising money for..............CONSERVATION. 

If this had been being done, or was being done, we would not be having this conversation. We can make the politics perfect, it does not mean that wildlife and hunters will benefit. This whole mess has some very fundamental roots that begin with wildlife conservation science.

With so many wildlife conservation orgs, and so much money being generated for conservation..........whats the problem? Oh yeah, most of its a sham, with no meaningful conservation science being conducted. If it were, or had been being conducted, the last 20 years would not have been so bad, not to mention what is coming.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I got one of those visits from "friends" just a couple of weeks ago. They came bearing gifts that I wouldn't accept and then left them on the counter as they were leaving. I have known both of them for years. Same story.

"Join our forces. Things are changing and it is good"

"You would be a great asset to the SFW"

btw...........anybody need one of these:


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

wileywapati said:


> The politicians are convinced that SFW / Peay / Benson and the DWR speak for sportsmen and more importantly wildlife. They do not.


This isn't even close to being true. The politicians know full well that SFW and especially Don Peay don't speak for sportsmen or even wildlife. The are, however, very much of the belief that it is in their own personal and political interest to claim those listed fill that role. Follow the $$$. It's all you have to do.



wileywapati said:


> The cronyism and back room lobbying is rapidly eroding anything that would resemble game or even hunter management.
> 
> This system is so covered in skeezy back room deals and payola that it's not salvageable.


This, on the other hand, is 100% true. Muley73 keeps throwing out that word "fact" all over this thread. I can't help but think of a quote from "The Princess Bride": 'You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.'

And that is a fact!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

For the record--I am not against the expo or conservation tags. But the mention of Outdoor Retailer Show, Comic Con, etc are interesting. They don't even have the lure of "200 trophy hunts" and their numbers dwarf the hunt expo both locally and in tourism dollars. I would wager if the stipulation was that a high percentage came back to wildlife and a low percentage was allowed for "administrative costs" that more people would apply. I'd feel much better if my $30 was coming back to be applied to wildlife and not contributing some SFW or MDF exec's trip to the Caribbean. 

But muley73 says that the legislature likes it. So that makes it a FACT that Utahns aren't getting screwed. This legislature would never do anything against the interest of Utahns. FACT!


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Dallan,
> I agree 100% on the mountain goats. The other tags I disagree. It actually gives hunters more opportunity to draw tags. That is an absolute FACT!


Not a fact at all. How is it more opportunity when the tags are taken from the pool that people would had applied for in the first place? Also 1-eye you keep saying that all this money is going back to the wildlife, which it wasn't that was the whole point of several people including hawkeye and UWC tried to change the rule to be more like the Conservation Tags. The money would go into a general fund and they simply show projects from Conservation Permits as being used for Expo Tags. Everyone just wants more accountability and I agree that 30% is a good start.

I personally wish the an org would take it over and give every dime of the $5 fee back to the Division. The tag is the draw to get the people in, they are making plenty of money from just having the tags as a draw for the expo.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Looks like a done deal.

Here's the memo from the DWR.

"
The Division of Wildlife Resources is proposing three changes to this rule. First is to replace the term
"Convention" with the term "Expo" to more clearly separate these permits from conservation permits, reducing
confusion of the two. This name change will modify the wording of seven other rules where we reference
"convention". The second proposed change is to allow the conservation organization named in the Expo contract
the option to extend for up to 5 additional years upon mutual agreement of the division and approval of the
Wildlife Board. The third proposed change is to formalize in rule the amount of application fee revenue that can
be retained by the contractor for overhead at $3.50 per application, and specify that the remaining revenue be​utilized for division director approved projects that advance wildlife interests in the state."


----------



## robiland (Jan 20, 2008)

Sad day. 10 years is way to long to contract our public resources to a group. 5 year is plenty long enough. AND if the group is doing such a good job, there wont be any issues renewing the contract for 5 years. I wonder if the DWR and MDF/SFW are correlated? Just doesnt seem right.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Its no different than when the Division said they could not modify the contract or rules because they were worried about being sued.

So it is one of two things, they could have modified it in the past, or they can be sued now for modifying it. Or by their reasoning, maybe its both.

And I find the wording of this interesting: "The third proposed change is to formalize in rule the amount of application fee revenue that can be retained by the contractor for overhead at $3.50 per application, and specify that the remaining revenue be utilized for division director approved projects that advance wildlife interests in the state."

As with everything else, the word conservation is being scrapped, because it is definable, and because it is not the goal of the DWR, or many of the "conservation" orgs. So they have to water it down to "wildlife interests". It is yet one more way to muddy the waters, and give themselves more lattitude in destroying wildlife and hunting. 

So the "Division Director" an SFW apologist, real estate broker, that has no biological background, gets to approve the money for projects that "advance wildlife interests" ie. give it back to the "conservation orgs", or is it "wildlife interest" orgs?​


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Question: What if the director has a conflict of interest in "approving" those funds. Like an interest or former interest in property where funds are to be used, or a beneficial relationship with the current owners. Or what if the director would benefit directly and financially from said "approval"?


----------



## grizzly (Jun 3, 2012)

goofy elk said:


> Looks like a done deal.
> 
> Here's the memo from the DWR.
> 
> ...


Is that a new Memo or just the one that was included in the RAC packets for discussions? I was told that the DWR expressly stated that the 5-yr renewal-option would only apply to future contracts and not the current contract.

We just need to make sure other Conservation Organizations are aware of, and exercise, their opportunity to bid on the next round of Expo's. A few threatening phone calls and letters from these competing organizations pointing out potential Fair Trade violations and the bid process would open up immensely, IMHO.

(And I'll say it again... I don't care if SFW wins the bid, I just want it a fair process that maximizes revenue for wildlife)


----------



## robiland (Jan 20, 2008)

grizzly;1067777 said:


> Is that a new Memo or just the one that was included in the RAC packets for discussions? I was told that the DWR expressly stated that the 5-yr renewal-option would only apply to future contracts and not the current contract.
> 
> We just need to make sure other Conservation Organizations are aware of, and exercise, their opportunity to bid on the next round of Expo's. A few threatening phone calls and letters from these competing organizations pointing out potential Fair Trade violations and the bid process would open up immensely, IMHO.
> 
> (And I'll say it again... I don't care if SFW wins the bid, I just want it a fair process that maximizes revenue for wildlife)


When I went to the RAC, I was told that it is for the NEXT contract. Not the current contract. So this next bid is SUPPOSED to be wide open, then 5 year extension granted if favorable.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

robiland said:


> Sad day. 10 years is way to long to contract our public resources to a group. 5 year is plenty long enough. AND if the group is doing such a good job, there wont be any issues renewing the contract for 5 years. I wonder if the DWR and MDF/SFW are correlated? Just doesnt seem right.


Yea, thats like enough time to implement and abandon at least 6 or 7 different 5 year Mule Deer plans.

-DallanC


----------

