Utah expo and RMEF???

[Oneye]

As most of you on this site know, I sit on the RMEF Board of Directors. A lot of you have emailed me with questions and given the confidentiality requirements that come with sitting on the Board, I have had to point you to the RMEF Headquarters. While I was out filming in Wyoming last week, RMEF issued a press release that confirmed that RMEF did submit a bid and some details of that bid.

There is now a lot of conjecture about why RMEF submitted a bid, what RMEF plans to do if awarded the bid, and a host of other things that seem intended to cast doubt over the motives of the RMEF bid for the Expo in Utah.

We have been working on this for the better part of a year. It was something we decided to do because we feel that the wildlife and the hunters of Utah could benefit by having all of these raffle tag proceeds directed to wildlife, whether RMEF hosted the Expo or some other organization made an even better proposal. If the final outcome is that wildlife and hunters benefit from the money that is being raised, that is a good outcome, no matter who is awarded the Expo.

RMEF engaged expert legal counsel to assist with preparing the bid. We examined every aspect of the Utah Statutes that relate to how the Expo operates, how the bid process works, criteria that must be met to be eligible, and all other aspects to make sure the RMEF bid was crafted as requested. The bid was hand delivered to the UT Division of Wildlife Resources the afternoon of the deadline that is identified in UT statute and a signed receipt was provided to the law firm.

Subsequent to RMEF submitting that bid, plenty has occurred behind the scenes, some of which DWR is requesting be kept confidential. The new idea of a Request for Proposals (RFP) comes as a complete surprise to RMEF and to the law firm hired to assist us with the bid. That RFP is not provided for in statute. There is no administrative rule that we are aware of that allows DWR to change the manner by which the process is awarded. Maybe such administrative rule exists and we are not aware of that.

Rumors have been floating around that RMEF will get the tags and move the Expo. Not sure who would start such a rumor, or why (well, I have a pretty good idea on both), but that is completely false. RMEF plans to host their annual convention in Salt Lake City for as long as the Expo contract would be awarded to RMEF.

Rumors have been started that RMEF will use the proceeds to purchase land outside of Utah. Again, another completely false rumor. Read the RMEF proposal and it states that 100% of the raffle proceeds will be given back to the state of Utah for habitat and access.

If there are other questions, please feel free to ask. Now that RMEF has issued their release, I am at liberty to answer questions that will clarify and concerns and hopefully dispel some of the rumors that seem to be growing by the day.

Most importantly, I hope the folks of Utah will ask their elected and appointed leaders to follow the statutes that exist. And whatever the final decision on who will be awarded the Expo contract, request that the leaders do what is best of Utah wildlife and Utah hunters. Putting more money on the ground is the reason why RMEF would go through the effort and cost to prepare and submit this bid. Hopefully that will be the outcome, no matter which organization is awarded the Expo.

Thanks for all the interest in this topic.

I understand that wildlife is the main concern here, but it does matter who gets this bid. If it is being done behind closed doors to push SFW through the door at the last second that is simply not right.

I have contacted the wildlife board and the DWR director, who else should I contact. I have also contacted them over the change they pulled out of their hat after the fact. It upsets me, yet doesn't suprise me. SFW has gotten so deeply rooted in Utah it's sickening. 4 members on the wildlife board have been a big part of SFW and these back room deals are beyond a joke. SFW has decent volunteers but as an organization and their leadership they are not what I stand for. I was more excited about getting them out of this process than anything. Does RMEF plan on taking legal action if the Utah DWR does not comply with their own process? I would encourage it, I'm tired of these backdoor deals that has kept SFW rooted in Utah. It's time for a change, and if this continues down the path it looks to be going, don't worry the vast majority of sportsmen will stand up for RMEF not the Utah DWR that has a proven track record of being in bed with SFW.

 

[Big Fin]

I understand that wildlife is the main concern here, but it does matter who gets this bid. If it is being done behind closed doors to push SFW through the door at the last second that is simply not right.

Agreed. But if something like you mention were to happen, the only people who can bring about change to the transparency level are the citizens of Utah.

I have contacted the wildlife board and the DWR director, who else should I contact. I have also contacted them over the change they pulled out of their hat after the fact. It upsets me, yet doesn't suprise me. SFW has gotten so deeply rooted in Utah it's sickening. 4 members on the wildlife board have been a big part of SFW and these back room deals are beyond a joke. SFW has decent volunteers but as an organization and their leadership they are not what I stand for. I was more excited about getting them out of this process than anything. Does RMEF plan on taking legal action if the Utah DWR does not comply with their own process? I would encourage it, I'm tired of these backdoor deals that has kept SFW rooted in Utah. It's time for a change, and if this continues down the path it looks to be going, don't worry the vast majority of sportsmen will stand up for RMEF not the Utah DWR that has a proven track record of being in bed with SFW.

Would RMEF take legal action? That's too much of a what if scenario to speculate, but in my own personal opinion, I would doubt it. RMEF's mission is to ensure the future of elk, other wildlife, their habitat, and our hunting heritage. As one of many who would have some input in that decision, I would struggle to see how tying up money and resources in a legal battle would be what is best for elk, other wildlife, their habitat and out hunting heritage.

If compelling case was made that litigation would be best for elk, et al, then as a board member charged with the responsibility to fulfill the RMEF mission, I would have to look at that option. Right now, I'm not worrying "what if" scenarios, rather I expect the state trustees to do what is best for the wildlife they are charged with managing for the citizens of Utah; citizens who are the beneficiaries of the Public Trust of Utah Wildlife and should expect reasonable and prudent management on their behalf.

If it goes in some manner like you are worried, again, it would be the Utah citizens who can change what they might see as a problem. History has shown that litigation seldom helps anyone other than the attorneys. If the situation in Utah is as you describe, that would be too bad for wildlife, as the millions of dollars back to the state of Utah would be very beneficial to elk, other wildlife, their habitat, and our hunting heritage.

 

[Cheater]

Randy, thanks for the effort that you and RMEF have put in this. The SFW situation is completely out of hand down here. I too have contacted the director's office without a response yet...

Oak, I did file a GRAMA request. We'll see what comes of it.

 

[noharleyyet]

The new idea of a Request for Proposals (RFP) comes as a complete surprise to RMEF and to the law firm hired to assist us with the bid. That RFP is not provided for in statute. There is no administrative rule that we are aware of that allows DWR to change the manner by which the process is awarded. Maybe such administrative rule exists and we are not aware of that.

Doesn't pass the smell test for 'the fix'. Be interesting (and evident) to see just how entrenched the 'take money' has become.

 

[Matt Foley]

Oh how I miss Utah hunting politics. I am no longer a Utah resident but I will still send an email. I also went to high school with a current Utah State Senator, who I will email. I am afraid that he is pretty much in bed with SFW but I never said that I liked the guy. I would also encourage other out of state hunters, who may be interested in hunting Utah in the future or attending the expo, also contact the DWR and wildlife board and let them know how you feel. Utah has some great habitat and hunting. It is worth the effort to get SFW and the deep pockets out of Utah hunting. I also fear that there are many here in Colorado that are looking to the Utah model and that it is coming here and will be spreading to other states as well. As western sportsman, we need to make a stand in Utah.

 

[Cheater]

I also fear that there are many here in Colorado that are looking to the Utah model and that it is coming here and will be spreading to other states as well. As western sportsman, we need to make a stand in Utah.

That's just it Matt, if SFW was content with their place in Utah only--everyone else could let us poor saps suffer and not worry about it. I don't think SFW is content though...

 

[Big Fin]

Appears "the fix" is in. This just got posted on the DWR website today.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/wildlife-news/1723-expo-permits.html

Wildlife News
Posted Thursday, 17 September 2015 17:39
Distributing future expo permits

There has been a noticeable amount of confusion and speculation recently regarding wildlife expo permits in Utah. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) and Utah Wildlife Board will soon select a conservation organization to distribute up to 200 hunting permits at a Utah-based expo. Since 2007, permits have been issued to past expo organizers, including both the Foundation for North American Wild Sheep and the Mule Deer Foundation.

Applications from conservation organizations will be accepted through a formal Request for Proposals (RFP) process managed by the Utah Division of Purchasing and General Services. The RFP process was mentioned at six public hearings throughout the past year. A meeting also occurred in October 2014, prior to the public hearings, when the DWR met with many of the state's major conservation organizations and outlined the plan to solicit proposals through an open, competitive process. Attendees at that meeting included the Mule Deer Foundation, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, National Wild Turkey Federation, United Wildlife Cooperative, Utah Bowmen's Association, Utah Foundation for North American Wild Sheep and Safari Club International. The RFP process was most recently mentioned on Aug. 27, 2015 at the Utah Wildlife Board meeting.

The RFP process was intended to coincide with the anticipated submission period of Aug. 1 through Sept. 1, 2015. Unfortunately, although the DWR and the Division of Purchasing and General Services have been working together on the RFP for several months, there have been delays in releasing the RFP. Despite those delays, the RFP should be released shortly. The RFP will list specific evaluation criteria that will be formally disclosed and publically available.

Individuals from multiple Utah state agencies will serve on the RFP evaluation committee. Any proposals or supporting materials received by the DWR and the Division of Purchasing and General Services will be held in confidence until after the conclusion of the RFP process and presentation to the Wildlife Board for final approval. We look forward to working with all interested conservation groups throughout this process.

I guess in Utah, all you have to do is "mention" something and it becomes more relevant that state statute.

 

[kansasdad]

I am suddenly downwind of a big ol pile of poopie mcpooperson debris from Utah.

 

[Oak]

Well if it was mentioned in six meetings, it should be in the meeting minutes. I would try to obtain the minutes for those meetings and see for yourself.

 

[Big Fin]

Well if it was mentioned in six meetings, it should be in the meeting minutes. I would try to obtain the minutes for those meetings and see for yourself.

The law firm has acquired those minutes and no mention is made in the minutes of those meetings. I suspect the the scribe at every meeting probably forgot to reference those "mentions" of the RFP process.

 

[Stillhunterman]

Hey Stillhunterman, has anyone filed a GRAMA request for the initial applications submitted by RMEF and MDF/SFW? I wonder if they just submitted a minimal proposal, or even nothing at all, thinking they had it in the bag? It would be very interesting to see what they submitted.

I filed a GRAMA request back in 2010 for, among other things, the applications received in 2005 for the 2007-2011 convention permit award. I received everything I asked for, but I'm not sure if they would give it out before completion of the selection process.

I'm not aware of any such filings at this time, though I have no doubt there will be more than a few to follow, including one from myself. With millions of dollars at stake, I don't think MDF/SFW would be so cocky as to not submit an application that, at minimum, matched previous ones. They also need to follow the rule of law, so NOT submitting an application isn't a consideration. Also, since all proposal applications are held in strict confidence until the process is completed, it wouldn't be until that time that any GRAMA requests would be honored, but I don't know that for sure....

This is going to be more than a little interesting to follow, and I have a hunch the aftermath could be substantial in a couple of ways...

 

[Stillhunterman]

The law firm has acquired those minutes and no mention is made in the minutes of those meetings. I suspect the the scribe at every meeting probably forgot to reference those "mentions" of the RFP process.

Funny how that happens. I attended and spoke at a Regional Action Committee meeting for the North East a few years ago, and made no bones about how SFW's proposals that year were 'less than desirable'. When the minutes to the meeting came out weeks later, seems the scribe forgot to include my less than favorable comments.

 

[kansasdad]

The law firm has acquired those minutes and no mention is made in the minutes of those meetings. I suspect the the scribe at every meeting probably forgot to reference those "mentions" of the RFP process.

More excrement upwind.

 

[Oneye]

So I'm kind of at a loss as to what's going on at this point? They have completely disregarded protocol? They knew for over a year this deadline was coming and they couldn't meet their own deadline? Or is it simply to see what was presented by other conservation organizations so favorites could adjust theirs accordingly before the DWR got these things "finalized"?

 

[Big Fin]

So I'm kind of at a loss as to what's going on at this point? They have completely disregarded protocol? They knew for over a year this deadline was coming and they couldn't meet their own deadline? Or is it simply to see what was presented by other conservation organizations so favorites could adjust theirs accordingly before the DWR got these things "finalized"?

You're not the only person at a loss.

Seems like a rather newsworthy story for any journalist interested in protocol and transparency. Odds are, Utah media is the only thing that can ask these questions and demand the information to a point that some answers will come forward.

 

[Oneye]

You're not the only person at a loss.

Seems like a rather newsworthy story for any journalist interested in protocol and transparency. Odds are, Utah media is the only thing that can ask these questions and demand the information to a point that some answers will come forward.

Well I'll do my best by contacted as many Utah news sources as I can and hope at least one bites. I will post contact information on this thread to the news sources I contact and would encourage anyone who cares resident or not to also contact them. It's time to put pressure on this backdoor bull crap SFW and the UDWR have gotten away with. It's hard enough that their are major players sitting at the wildlife board this thing has to get past from SFW, but if murky waters are already blinding the transparency of this process, we are not headed in a beneficial or proper direction.

 

[Oneye]

Here's the contact information of the following Utah news sources:

KSL News: http://www.ksl.com/?nid=205

KUTV: [email protected]

ABC4: http://www.good4utah.com/contact/news

Salt lake tribune: [email protected]

Deseret news: [email protected]

Fox 13: [email protected]

 

[jryoung]

I'd reach out to Brian Maffly at the Salt Lake Tribune.

 

[Big Fin]

It gets stranger by the day, maybe by the hour.

From: Martin Bushman <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: GRAMA Request
Date: September 18, 2015 at 10:02:47 AM MDT
To: XXXXX YYYYYYY <[email protected]>

Mr. YYYYYYY:

I apologize the the delay in responding to your request for information on the 2017 hunting expo contract. I cannot provide you a copy of the new expo RFP at this point since it is not finalized. We expect it will be completed in the near future where it will then be published and available to all who wish to read it. The 2017 expo contract will be awarded through the state RFP process administered by the Division of Purchasing and General Services. Obviously, we have not yet received proposals in response to the RFP, but we anticipate one or more will be submitted once the RFP is published.

Thank you for your patience.

Marty Bushman

MARTIN B. BUSHMAN
Natural Resources Division
Utah Attorney General's Office
1594 West North Temple, #2110
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
Tel: (801) 538-4703
Fax: (801) 538-4709
E-mail: [email protected]

Really? Are you kidding me? I thought this RFP process had been in place for over a year, according to the Director's office. Supposedly it had been "mentioned" in many meetings, though the meeting minutes make no reference of it.

Yet, according to the UT Attorney General's office, it is not yet finalized as of today, 17 days following the deadline for submission of Expo proposals. It was not even in place by the deadline date called for in the Utah Expo statutes.

Sheesh, when in a hole, put down the shovel.

 

[Oneye]

It gets stranger by the day, maybe by the hour.



Really? Are you kidding me? I thought this RFP process had been in place for over a year, according to the Director's office. Supposedly it had been "mentioned" in many meetings, though the meeting minutes make no reference of it.

Yet, according to the UT Attorney General's office, it is not yet finalized as of today, 17 days following the deadline for submission of Expo proposals. It was not even in place by the deadline date called for in the Utah Expo statutes.

Sheesh, when in a hole, put down the shovel.

You'll quickly learn SFW doesn't care who they step on, they keep digging until they come out the other side, and so will their crooked buddies in the Utah legislature. Let's look at the list of things SFW has.... Influenced should we say, in the state:

-$50 coyote bounty
-hundreds of thousands out of taxpayers pockets for sage grouse and wolf "lobbying" with no accounts for where that money went.
-big reduction in deer tags in the state
-unit management
-higher buck:doe ratio requirements for those units and now raising them that they are meeting this ratios.
I'm sure I'm missing some but this is just in recent history.

I hope RMEF comes out on top here, I hate the path it's going down, but if Utahs expo and wildlife can benefit from it in the end.... It will be worth it.