Yup.
And there are degrees of difference in all of them. Not a defense to any of it, but a few differences worth noting.
SHOT SHOW is an industry show. Does not have tag auctions or even the slightest pretense that it is about conservation. It is the big show for the National Shooting Sports Foundation and is all about the industry gathering to promote their wares and write as many sales orders as possible. You have to look hard for any conservation aspects to this show. Same could be said for ATA, which is the trade show for the Archery Trade Association.
I think one of the reasons the Utah Expo is the focal point for criticism is the volume of tags taken from the draw that go to the same bidders year after year, purchased on their behalf by their agents who will end up guiding them on these hunts. Most the events that I attend will have one or two statewide/provincal-wide tag from each state/province, with the majority of the other auctioned hunts being donated guided hunts. Those guided hunts don't take opportunity out of the pocket of the general public in the way that statewide tags do.
At the Utah Expo, the overwhelming majority of these auctioned items are taken from the pool of tags that the general public could draw if the tags were left in public draw. And, there is some really fuzzy accounting and almost zero transparency in how the funds are used from both the auction and raffle tags. When you are talking this many millions of dollars, it seems only appropriate that a level of public transparency and accountability is appropriate.
If the tags were all like the AZ tags, where 100% of the money has to go back to AZ G&F, I think the criticisms would be less. That money goes to AZ and is earmarked for conservation of that species. There is no 10-30% selling commission on the AZ tags. And, Arizona, like most other states, keeps the number of tags to a small handful.
Additionally, in awarding the UT Expo contract the organizations submitting for the contract must demonstrate how much business their Expo plans will generate for the SLC economy. That is to be part of the scoring when awarding the contract. I think most question what purpose wildlife allocation serves in funding metropolitan economic activity. They are diametrically opposite activities, or at least I thought they were.
Lastly, if not for these auction and raffle tags in Utah, the financial health, possibly the solvency, of two groups would be dramatically different. Are public assets meant to keep conservation organizations afloat? If one thinks that is a useful purpose, then those organizations at a minimum should submit to a public audit of what they are doing with those proceeds, something that, to my knowledge, has never happened for the two groups sponsoring the Utah Expo.
The fact that people are questioning these auction-type events should serve as a warning to the groups sponsoring them that the public wants to know where the money is being used. It is a Public Trust asset, tags and hunting opportunity, that is being sold. It is reasonable, I'd say necessary, for the public to ask if the Trustees are getting a good return for the Beneficiaries when these public trust assets are being sold to the highest bidder. That requires transparency and accountability.
As a CPA whose main work was trust taxation and administration, I nerd out on this Public Trust stuff. I think these comments and concerns are helpful in determining if the Trustees are getting the public Beneficiaries a good deal in how these trust assets are being doled out.
