Utah Wildlife Forum banner
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
188 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Dear Dean:

Thank you for your email to the Office of the Governor regarding the Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR). I have been asked to respond on behalf of the Governor.

Our office appreciates hearing from constituents and your comments and opinion regarding this issue have been noted. As much misinformation has circulated, I wanted to share a statement from Michael Canning, Assistant Director at DWR. I hope the below details remove any doubt you may have had regarding the expo selection process.

"The purpose of the wildlife expo permits is to raise revenue for conservation, but also to bring a large wildlife exposition to Utah for all of the economic benefits such an exposition would provide to the state. Whenever the state desires to procure goods or services, we follow the process described in state procurement code. In this case, state procurement code required that the state issue a formal "Request for Proposal", which not only asks that proposals be submitted, but it also clearly defines how those proposals will be scored. The RFP for the expo permit distributor clearly stated that proposals would be scored on: 1) the viability of the business plan and potential to put on a high quality expo (40% of total score), 2) the ability to organize and conduct a secure and fair permit drawing (20%), 3) the commitment of the organization to use revenue generated for wildlife conservation in Utah (30%), and 4) the historical contribution and previous performance of the organization in Utah (10%). All of this information was made available to potential applicants before proposals were written.

After proposals were received, an independent four-person committee (comprised of members from the Department of Information Technology Services, the Department of Natural Resources, the Governor's Office, and the Division of Wildlife Resources) reviewed the proposals and scored them based on the pre-established criteria. The independent committee unanimously agreed that the proposal submitted by Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife (SFW) was the superior proposal, because it better addressed the criteria in the RFP, and consequently had the highest total score. The SFW proposal scored particularly well because it contained a detailed expo business and marketing plan that included data to support the claims in the proposal, and it also provided a detailed data security plan to protect the personal information of the state's customers, as well as the credit card information of people that attend the expo. The other proposal provided a much less detailed business plan, and its data security plan provided little to no detail. The lack of detail in the data security plan was particularly troubling, as a data breach could cost the state millions of dollars. As I'm sure you can understand, we could not put the social security numbers and credit card numbers of our customers at risk due to the lack of a detailed data security plan. If you would like more information about the committee's decision, please read the justification statement for their selection, which is located at: http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/2015-12-18_justification_statement.pdf.

As many have noted, the SFW proposal did not directly return the most money to the state on a percentage basis (and as you can tell by the justification statement, that component of the SFW proposal was scored accordingly). However, it was the only proposal that provided enough detail to give the state certainty that a high-quality expo would occur and that customer data could be secured. Because of these concerns with the losing proposal and the lack of detail it provided, there is no way to say with any certainty that the total amount of money directly provided to the state would have been higher if the losing proposal was selected. In fact, the losing proposal may have cost the state money if the expo was not economically viable or if there had been data security issues. Although both proposals had their strong points, the state purchasing process selected the best proposal in a fair and unbiased manner. Finally, it is important to note that the contract recently signed between the state and SFW to distribute expo permits clearly states that all of the money raised from expo permit application fees will be used specifically to "support conservation initiatives in Utah". No money has been lost, and all proceeds will benefit Utah wildlife conservation."

Thank you for taking time to contact us regarding this matter. If you have additional questions, please feel free to contact the Governor's Office again.

Sincerely,

Austin Cox
Constituent Services
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,993 Posts
Received the same email, verbatim. Apparently they tasked someone in the office with responding to all the emails they have apparently received regarding this issue. Interesting, but the response doesn't do much to assuage my concern over the way the whole process was handled.

The statement kinda seems like "Hey, we fixed it in the contract. It doesn't matter how the process was handled." Maybe I'm being overly skeptical of two organizations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
188 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
rubber form letter

kinda wondering. thanks for confirming "they've" worked up a canned response.

just plain ugly.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
9,999 Posts
And just what did you expect from the governors office?

I would say that 99% of the emails that are sent to him or her will get a canned response.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,993 Posts
And just what did you expect from the governors office?

I would say that 99% of the emails that are sent to him or her will get a canned response.
Truthfully I didn't expect any response.

It was more the obviously thought out commentary included in the canned response that was disconcerting to me. There is clearly an assumption that everything was above board with the whole process simply because the DWR says so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,131 Posts
" Finally, it is important to note that the contract recently signed between the state and SFW to distribute expo permits clearly states that all of the money raised from expo permit application fees will be used specifically to "support conservation initiatives in Utah". No money has been lost, and all proceeds will benefit Utah wildlife conservation."
I received the same letter. The quotation above made me chuckle. How do they know that those 70% of funds that SFW keeps are used to support conservation initiatives in Utah? SFW refuses to open their books and DWR refuses to make them!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,944 Posts
Could paying Don Peay $250,000 in consulting fees be considered "supporting conservation initiatives in Utah?"

The contract, if this is the qualifying language, was written in a way that leaves a lot of ambiguity.

100% of the $5 application fees is one problem. Transparency is another. But the biggest problem Utah faces with SFW is still the allowance of their unfettered influence in all things related to sportsmen. It's one thing for SFW to pay lobbiests that are successful. It's quite another to make one organization king over wildlife.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Wow...nice to see the state leaders office is prepared for this kind of upheaval from below "quick send out the DWR letters to anyone who complains about the wildlife issue", they're
probably right next to the stream access letters. How dare we ask for transparency, honesty and objective "constituent services" from him and his appointed state employees.
Remember this royal brush off at election time folks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
325 Posts
Watch this video and tell me wether the Governor is going to take a serious look at this issue? Who wrote the script for his speech for the Expo? Don? The most entertaining part of the speech is when the Governor declares the "great news" that the parties just signed a 10-year contract and the Expo is locked up for the next decade. That is exactly what I have been saying but the DWR always tries to ecxplain that away by stating that the 5-year extension is not guaranteed -- "it has to be approved by the DWR and the Wildlife Board." So much for that position after the Governor's speech.

http://sfw.net/2016/03/02/utah-governor-herbert-praises-western-hunting-conservation-expo/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
218 Posts
I received the same response. The odd thing to me is who or what is "constituent services" ? It sounds like the state has contracted with an outside company to answer the Governor's emails. Does anybody know anything about who they are?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,181 Posts
Only way you are going to get the governors attention on this is to pay $10k for a sit down dinner with the guy.

People always forget, Herbert was never initially elected Governor... he got the job when the elected Governor Huntsman stepped down.


-DallanC
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
45 Posts
Only way you are going to get the governors attention on this is to pay $10k for a sit down dinner with the guy.

People always forget, Herbert was never initially elected Governor... he got the job when the elected Governor Huntsman stepped down.

-DallanC
Herbert is a quack, about as useful as **** on a bull. I would not hesitate to wager that monies from the exop find their way to him in some way, shape or form.

The only people that are going to fix this are concerned sportsmen who keep up the pressure. If we are not concerned, our elected officials wont be either.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top