UT Hunt Expo Contract Changes/ Or Not

[grizzly_]

Just a heads-up...

In reference to page 100 of the RAC Agenda for December meetings which start this week...


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

http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/rac/2014-12_rac_packet.pdf

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Good luck, as the way DP has that whole bunch in his back pocket it's probably a done deal! I do agree that anything like this should be out for bid on the open market, but does it surprise you that they are trying an end run to get it renewed as quietly as possible?

 

[hawkeye44]

Grizzly-

Thanks for giving everyone a heads up regarding this issue. I have two concerns regarding the proposed amendment to the Convention Permit Rule.

First, I would like to see a requirement that a larger portion of the application fees be used for actual conservation. Like you, I am concerned that the conservation groups are allowed to keep 70% of the application for administrative expenses (salaries, bonuses, consulting fees, etc.). This was the primary concern that we raised with the Wildlife Board back in 2012, when there used to be no requirement that any portion of the application fees be used for actual conservation projects. While a requirement that 30% of the revenues be used for actual conservation is a “baby step” in the right direction, we can and should do much better. Why not impose the same requirements that the DWR imposes with Conservation Permits – that 90% of the application fees be used for approved conservation projects and the groups keep 10% for administrative expenses.

Second, like you I am very concerned that the 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. As we saw in 2012, the DWR and the Wildlife Board were extremely reluctant to make any changes to the program while a contract is in place. Therefore, this proposed amendment would essentially prevent the public from requesting changes or improvements to the program for up to 10 years at a time. I think this is a very bad idea that is completely unnecessary. The explanation given by the DWR and the conservation groups is they need a long term contract in order to secure a convention center and the other facilities to host the Expo. However, five years is long enough. If the groups cannot make arrangements to host the Expo with a five-year contract in hand then there must be other problems. I personally believe that this explanation is a smokescreen and a pretext to justify locking up the Convention Permits for up to 10 years at a time without allowing the public an opportunity to comment on the process. Plus, the way the proposed rule is currently drafted, then DWR and the conservation groups could potentially use this amendment to extend the current agreement so that it does not even come up for renewal in 2016. I don’t think that was the intention of the DWR or the conservation groups but that issue should be clarified in the proposed rule amendment. If the extension language passes, it should only apply to future contracts – not the current agreement that was signed back in 2010.

Please take the time to attend your RAC meetings and voice your opinion on this important issue. The meeting times are set forth below:

CR RAC – Dec. 2nd 6:30 PM
Springville Civic Center
110 S. Main Street, Springville

NR RAC – Dec. 3rd 6:00 PM
Brigham City Community Center
24 N. 300 W., Brigham City

SR RAC – Dec. 9th 7:00 PM
Beaver High School
195 E. Center St., Beaver

SER RAC – Dec. 10th 6:30 PM
John Wesley Powell Museum
1765 E. Main St., Green River

NER RAC – Dec. 11th 6:30 PM
Wildlife Resources NER Office
318 North Vernal Ave, Vernal

Board Meeting – Jan. 6th 9:00 am (Tuesday)
DNR Boardroom
1594 West North Temple, SLC

Hawkeye

 

[grizzly_]

Thanks for the dates Hawkeye, people can also find the email addresses for the Wildlife Board and all RAC members on the UDWR website.

If you can't attend, emails would still be worthwhile.