I realize that your question was largely rhetorical. In no way, shape, or form does the SFW expo hold a candle to the economic benefit the RMEF convention would have to the wildlife of Utah, as well as the overall economy of the state. Every time something happens in this state I become a little more disappointed and hopeless in what's going on here.
Utah expo tag decision: December 18th at 10 am, link to live feed
- Thread starter Oneye
- Start date
I realize that your question was largely rhetorical. In no way, shape, or form does the SFW expo hold a candle to the economic benefit the RMEF convention would have to the wildlife of Utah, as well as the overall economy of the state. Every time something happens in this state I become a little more disappointed and hopeless in what's going on here.
When reading the RFP that came out after the statutory deadline, it became obvious that many points were being weighted to consider past involvement. Since only one submitting group has ever been involved, that is beneficial to them. But, if the committee/department feels that past involvement is a very important criteria, it is their prerogative to make that a criteria and weight it accordingly.
Reading much of the correspondence from Utah agencies, all of which is confidential and only available to those of us involved, this process seemed confusing and hard to align with the state statute that created these permits. The state writes the rules and the attorneys interpret the rules. All groups involved just play by the rules provided.
I have not seen the SFW proposal, but if it ranked that much higher, it must be one hell of a proposal from Utah hunters and wildlife. SFW submitting a proposal to invest more in UT wildlife than what RMEF has offered is good for everyone.
Like I said in my prior post, congrats to SFW for making a pitch that has convinced the selection committee that it is "overwhelmingly superior." It must be one hell of an offer to UT wildlife and UT hunters.
Some have already asked what RMEF intends to do. That's an easy answer; RMEF intends to keep doing the work our 205,000 members and 11,000 volunteers expect RMEF to do. That would be to ensure the future of elk, other wildlife, their habitat, and our hunting heritage.
Topgun 30-06
Active member
IMHO it's not what RMEF should or could do because of this outcome. It's the citizens of Utah that need to finally come together and say enough is enough and bury all the rats in a hole out there that they can never dig out of! If RMEF couldn't get that contract the way things were done to keep SFW running the show, it shows that it's not us "outsiders" that don't live in Utah that will clean your state up. It is you, the voters and residents of Utah!!!
Me as well. I will soon become a life member of RMEF and I will not attend the expo again. I'm sure SFW will have to give up a big percentage of funds they do raise, but 5 years down the road how much more conservation money would have been raised if RMEF got this bid for our wildlife?Hopefully RMEF knows how appreciated most of us here are of their work and how embarrassed we are of the people that make decisions.
Last edited:
I agree, they've got to be held accountable. Don't attend the expo and stop voting the same representatives in that support the corrupt things that go on in this state. I wonder when we'll hear the attorney generals office is okay with going forward with the lawsuit in federal lands, seems like we already know the decisions made in this state before they're even announced.
LopeHunter
Well-known member
I predict Utah will provide a grant to SFW that makes SFW "whole" for any reduction in proceeds that result from SFW having to reduce their take of the tag monies.
Sure, maybe it is called something else but once the money is pushed back and forth and the shells are lifted, Utah wildlife will still be getting a shorter end of the stick than if RMEF had been awarded the bid.
If I was a hotel or eatery in SLC, I would be pissed since foot traffic could have been way, way larger with RMEF in town. I guarantee the booze bills would be higher.
The Expo never was a big draw beyond those who are within a day's drive. Many of the "non-resident'' head count (best way is to look at how many applied to the desert sheep tag set aside for non-residents) was not someone flying over from South Carolina or Texas but rather BYU students from Idaho or wherever that are technically non-residents for the tag draw but sure as heck are not staying in a hotel room and treating anyone to a steak dinner while attending the Expo. Same applies for exhibitors from Montana or Wyoming as they were going to be at the Expo anyway. Subtract out students and exhibitors and you mostly are left with a couple of hundred of people that drove over from a neighboring state and those did spend money in SLC.
Step back a minute and consider the impact of RMEF hosting their annual shindig in SLC. Would have a much, much larger economic impact on SLC and Utah. But, that is not in the cards and no need to stock up on extra whiskey in SLC.
Sure, maybe it is called something else but once the money is pushed back and forth and the shells are lifted, Utah wildlife will still be getting a shorter end of the stick than if RMEF had been awarded the bid.
If I was a hotel or eatery in SLC, I would be pissed since foot traffic could have been way, way larger with RMEF in town. I guarantee the booze bills would be higher.
The Expo never was a big draw beyond those who are within a day's drive. Many of the "non-resident'' head count (best way is to look at how many applied to the desert sheep tag set aside for non-residents) was not someone flying over from South Carolina or Texas but rather BYU students from Idaho or wherever that are technically non-residents for the tag draw but sure as heck are not staying in a hotel room and treating anyone to a steak dinner while attending the Expo. Same applies for exhibitors from Montana or Wyoming as they were going to be at the Expo anyway. Subtract out students and exhibitors and you mostly are left with a couple of hundred of people that drove over from a neighboring state and those did spend money in SLC.
Step back a minute and consider the impact of RMEF hosting their annual shindig in SLC. Would have a much, much larger economic impact on SLC and Utah. But, that is not in the cards and no need to stock up on extra whiskey in SLC.
Lets wait for the proposals to come out for public view, if they do not benefit Utah wildlife and the Utah public as a whole, I would invite all of us who don't agree with this to contact those involved with the decision, contact sponsors of the expo, and not attend the expo again. They said this wasn't a "popularity contest", but guess what? Those are the publics tags and if you consider the public wanting these tags to go to a better organization, yes we should get the right to say where our public property is distributed. What is voting? A popularity contest. Contacting businesses in the area might also be a good idea. They lost a big economic chunk of change on this too IMO. I get that Utah wildlife probably benefited more than they did yesterday, but they didn't benefit as much as they could have at this point IMO. If the expo is not being run as the public sees fit, we have every right to pressure the right decisions are made on the issue.
http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/2015-12-18_justification_statement.pdf
Reasons just hit the divisions page read up
Reasons just hit the divisions page read up
Bambistew
Well-known member
First question... It appears that all catagories weighed heavily on being a "local" participant and also having "local" experience with a large expo. If this is the case, how can any other organization win this? It seems to me that the criteria for being "local" was interjected into all categories. Glad to see the state is willing to give away so much money.
Looks to me like the RMEF should have their next national Convention in UT.
Looks to me like the RMEF should have their next national Convention in UT.
WapitiBob
Well-known member
Based on the justification statement one could easily conclude the RMEF proposal was poorly written with little detail.
Topgun 30-06
Active member
Just as I suspected, but a lot quicker than I thought things would come out regarding the bidding! All I can say after reading what they stated and their justifications in the criteria and scores is what a bunch of BS!!! I wonder how much money is squandered by their office in other contracts that involve the state and bidding by contractors if things are done that way to favor a particular contractor! The justifications and scores are laughable and anyone in the know should see how this was set up and SFW won before the bids were even looked at.
Either that or they are simply unwilling to extrapolate the success and magnitude of the events held by RMEF in other states to be indicative of future success in Utah. Asinine, but the way they reasoned everything out seems as if they were unwilling to seek additional information and instead just went in favor of the status quo.
I recognize that I am not as smart as many of the people who are on the forum or who run the agencies who manage these events. I just finished reading how the proposals were scored and have a hard time believing that there is justification for the end result. It looks like to me that because SFW can claim past numbers they received preference.
Gulf of Ontario
Well-known member
Disappointed, but not at all surprised.
WapitiBob
Well-known member
Scoring was based on past performance in Utah and scored (evidently) with an eye to detail that probably wasn't conveyed to an outside org.
jryoung
Well-known member
Here is the summary of the scoring, clearly the RMEF won on the economic side, but as others have noted the specifics to Utah won the day....and they be keeping $3.50/tag.
http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/2015-12-18_justification_statement.pdf
http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/2015-12-18_justification_statement.pdf
