# Hunt Expo Contract Change



## grizzly (Jun 3, 2012)

Just a heads-up...

RAC's start today and run through next week. There is a potentially significant change proposed that I think we should all be aware of.

-----

The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources is proposing that the Division and the current Expo contract holder be able to mutually extend their contract for an additional five years.

I know many of us wanted this current five year contract to expire so additional conservation organizations had the opportunity to bid on the Expo in an open and fair way.

I am not writing this to get into a SFW is better or worse than MDF, RMEF, UWC, or any other organizations. I simply feel public and open bidding is ALWAYS better when referencing public property (big game tags) than two people working behind closed doors.

Whether or not SFW wins the bid for the next five years, I don't really care. But I do think other groups should have the opportunity to make their case as well.

And just to clarify what is in question... 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.

My thought is another group could potentially guarantee a higher ratio of the application fee to wildlife, or a certain amount of additional revenue generated by the Expo goes to wildlife (this could include ticket revenue, booth rental, advertising, concessions, etc...).

We don't know how much money the Expo generates or how much could possibly be generated for wildlife, but doesn't the State of Utah owe it to us to find out?

Grizzly

See page 100 for more info... 
http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/rac/2014-12_rac_packet.pdf


----------



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

grizzly said:


> Just a heads-up...
> 
> RAC's start today and run through next week. There is a potentially significant change proposed that I think we should all be aware of.
> 
> ...


My personal opinion is it should at least be half. They are supposed to be a sportsmen group committed to wildlife, and wildlife is where the money should go. I think $2.50 towards wildlife projects and $2.50 towards administrative costs is more than fair it would also encourage me to apply for more knowing where the money is going. And yes we should know where all the money goes IMO. Also how is the $10-$20 you pay to get in used?


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> My personal opinion is it should at least be half. They are supposed to be a sportsmen group committed to wildlife, and wildlife is where the money should go. I think $2.50 towards wildlife projects and $2.50 towards administrative costs is more than fair it would also encourage me to apply for more knowing where the money is going. And yes we should know where all the money goes IMO. Also how is the $10-$20 you pay to get in used?


Admin fees are way more than half... just ask a lot of the non-profits out there. (.10 of every dollar will go directly to what you care about!)

In reality though, I can't say how much their costs are. I thought that most the work was volunteered? What costs them that much in admin fees?

We need a thread that has a summary of all the facts we know about the expo operation.


----------



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

RandomElk16 said:


> Admin fees are way more than half... just ask a lot of the non-profits out there. (.10 of every dollar will go directly to what you care about!)
> 
> In reality though, I can't say how much their costs are. I thought that most the work was volunteered? What costs them that much in admin fees?
> 
> We need a thread that has a summary of all the facts we know about the expo operation.


Admin fees are bad with some nonprofits. So far it seems most wildlife nonprofits do about 90% towards there goal of money accounted for , but there's plenty that who knows where it goes . And very true with volunteered work , and many times volunteered materials, what exactly is the administrative cost that is so **** expensive ?


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Also how is the $10-$20 you pay to get in used?


I don't think that the entry fee is relevant to the discussion. The entry fee is no different than an entry fee to any number of events, and the whole reason I take issue with the lack of accounting of the expo tag app fees is because those tags are a public resource, therefore the public should be able to know. The expo is a private event and we choose to participate(or not). I think it is completely separate and a non-issue.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Why should that specific expo get ALL of these "convention tags" ? We have other hunting / outdoor expos in the state, maybe some of them might give larger return on the money generated or at least greater transparency. 


-DallanC


----------



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

Kwalk3 said:


> I don't think that the entry fee is relevant to the discussion. The entry fee is no different than an entry fee to any number of events, and the whole reason I take issue with the lack of accounting of the expo tag app fees is because those tags are a public resource, therefore the public should be able to know. The expo is a private event and we choose to participate(or not). I think it is completely separate and a non-issue.


I feel the entry fee is very relevant. You have to go to the expo in order to validate your application for the "public tags", so it all ties into that. Without the public tags they would get far less entry fees so some of that money should be given to wildlife as well IMO. If I didn't have to validate my application I wouldn't go and they wouldn't get my money.


----------



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

DallanC said:


> Why should that specific expo get ALL of these "convention tags" ? We have other hunting / outdoor expos in the state, maybe some of them might give larger return on the money generated or at least greater transparency.
> 
> -DallanC


The DWR is somehow inclined to SFW in a lot of ways, that's why I think we can all kinda see that.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I feel the entry fee is very relevant. You have to go to the expo in order to validate your application for the "public tags", so it all ties into that. Without the public tags they would get far less entry fees so some of that money should be given to wildlife as well IMO. If I didn't have to validate my application I wouldn't go and they wouldn't get my money.


You don't have to pay any entry cost to go in and validate your application. Everyone knows that the DNR facilities are located before the paid entry point at the convention....kind of like in the lobby.------SS


----------



## grizzly (Jun 3, 2012)

The Convention Tags are the inducement to attend the Expo. The Expo makes money off the relationship and marketing of the tags. If you don't believe me, go see what emails the Hunt Expo is sending out right now, it is for the tags not for the general booth exhibitors. They know why we attend, it is for the tags. Additional Expo money could come from attendance, booth rentals, advertisement, tourism grants, concessions, etc...

My point is that a competitive conservation organization could potentially come and offer more than the current 30% of application fees to go towards habitat. And what if they also pledged a percentage of ancillary revenue (from the sources listed above) to go to habitat as well. Don't we deserve the opportunity for that conservation organization to make their bid and compete for the contract?

This is how the dispersal of public property (tags) is supposed to work... through open and competitive bid. That is all I am asking.

The RACs start tonight for Central Region and tomorrow for Northern Region and continue through next week. Please attend or at least email the RAC and Wildlife Board members and let them know of your feelings on this. Their emails can be easily found at http://wildlife.utah.gov/board-rac.html

Again, this is not an anti-SFW position. This is a "get the most money for Utah wildlife" position... regardless of the conservation organization behind it.

Grizzly


----------



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

Springville Shooter said:


> You don't have to pay any entry cost to go in and validate your application. Everyone knows that the DNR facilities are located before the paid entry point at the convention....kind of like in the lobby.------SS


Yes true, but if I'm driving 3 hours to validate permits I'm gonna go in, I've got no other reason to visit SLC I hate being in that mess. I guess that's more of a personal issue though , but heck shouldn't that cover the administrative cost?


----------



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

grizzly said:


> The Convention Tags are the inducement to attend the Expo. The Expo makes money off the relationship and marketing of the tags. If you don't believe me, go see what emails the Hunt Expo is sending out right now, it is for the tags not for the general booth exhibitors. They know why we attend, it is for the tags. Additional Expo money could come from attendance, booth rentals, advertisement, tourism grants, concessions, etc...
> 
> My point is that a competitive conservation organization could potentially come and offer more than the current 30% of application fees to go towards habitat. And what if they also pledged a percentage of ancillary revenue (from the sources listed above) to go to habitat as well. Don't we deserve the opportunity for that conservation organization to make their bid and compete for the contract?
> 
> ...


I 100% agree, it should be fair and in best interest for wildlife in our state.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Yes true, but if I'm driving 3 hours to validate permits I'm gonna go in, I've got no other reason to visit SLC I hate being in that mess. I guess that's more of a personal issue though , but heck shouldn't that cover the administrative cost?


Ok 1-I, I'm going to agree with you. It's not fair for those who live away from SLC to have to drive in to validate their applications. Public tags should be able to be validated at the convention, or at any of the regional DNR offices. They would sell a heck of a lot more applications that way and those from the 435 wouldn't have to mingle in the 801.-------SS


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Springville Shooter said:


> Public tags should be able to be validated at the convention, or at any of the regional DNR offices. They would sell a heck of a lot more applications that way and those from the 435 wouldn't have to mingle in the 801.-------SS


Once you allow that, you might as well cut out the convention entirely and let the DWR keep all the money just like the Sportsmens Tags.

-DallanC


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Utah agencies are under certain bid requirements. SFW can side-step those requirements until someone calls foul, i.e. files a law suit.

I've talked with Don, SFW board members and the state AG's office about this. The concern is that when somebody/anybody pays attention to this cash cow, that suit will be filed.

As I understand it, anybody (conservation organization) could bid for this contract. Think about that.

SFW and MDF have our collective ass hanging out there, hoping nobody notices. Meanwhile, they're looking for any way to forestall the inevitable.

Pathetic.


----------

