UWC proposal to cap Utah expo tags at 10%
stillhunterman
6/19/12 5:40pm
Today the United Wildlife Cooperative delivered a proposal to the Division of Wildlife Resources requesting a change in the distribution and accounting of funds raised and associated with publicly owned expo tags and the organizations that participate in their use.
This would require the same transparency called on and displayed by RMEF and its president, David Allen, last week. This proposal would be a slight modification of R657-55 Division of Wildlife Resources and could be handled through the RAC’s and the Wildlife Board. The change would require complete disclosure of the funds as well as limit the amount each participating group could retain to no more than 10% which ultimately would mean more money for those approved projects that are so important for the wildlife of Utah. The proposal would require the funds from the convention tag application fees to be distributed in the same fashion as conservation permits. i.e.. 60/30/10
HERE IS THE BODY OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE:
R657-55-6. Convention Permit Funds and Reporting.
(1) Within 30 days of the last day of the wildlife convention, the conservation organization must submit to the division:
(a) a final report on the distribution of permits;
(b) the total number of applications for each permit;
(c) the total funds raised through the handling fees assessed by the conservation organization to process applications;
(d) the funds due to the division; and
(e) a report on the status of each project funded in whole or in part with retained convention permit revenue.
(2) Permits shall not be issued until the permit fees are paid to the division.
(3)(a) Conservation organizations shall remit to the division by September 1 of each year 30% of the total revenue generated through the handling fees assessed by the conservation organization to process applications.
(b) The permit revenue payable to the division under Subsection (3)(a), excluding accrued interest, is the property of the division and may not be used by conservation organizations for projects or any other purpose.
(c) The permit revenue must be placed in a federally insured account promptly upon receipt and remain in the account until remitted to the division on or before September 1 of each year.
(d) The permit revenue payable to the division under this subsection shall not be used by the conservation organization as collateral or commingled in the same account with the organization's operation and administration funds, so that the separate identity of the permit revenue is not lost.
(e) Failure to remit 30% of the total permit revenue to the division by the September 1 deadline may result in criminal prosecution under Title 76, Chapter 6, Part 4 of the Utah Code, and may further disqualify the conservation organization from obtaining any future convention permits.
(4) A conservation organization may retain 70% of the revenue generated through the handling fees assessed by the conservation organization as follows:
(a) 10% of the revenue may be withheld and used by the conservation organization for administrative expenses.
(b) 60% of the revenue may be retained and used by the conservation organization only for eligible projects as provided in subsections (i) through (ix).
(i) eligible projects include habitat improvement, habitat acquisition, transplants, targeted education efforts and other projects providing a substantial benefit to species of wildlife for which convention permits are issued.
(ii) retained revenue shall not be committed to or expended on any eligible project without first obtaining the division director's written concurrence.
(iii) retained revenue shall not be used on any project that does not provide a substantial and direct benefit to convention permit species located in Utah.
(iv) cash donations to the Wildlife Habitat Account created under Section 23-19-43, Division Species Enhancement Funds, or the Conservation Permit Fund shall be considered an eligible project and do not require the division director's approval, provided the donation is made with instructions that it be used for species of wildlife for which convention permits are issued.
(v) retained revenue shall not be used on any project that is inconsistent with division policy, including feeding programs, depredation management, or predator control.
(vi) retained revenue under this subsection must be placed in a federally insured account. All interest revenue earned thereon may be retained and used by the conservation organization for administrative expenses.
(vii) retained revenue shall not be used by the conservation organization as collateral or commingled in the same account with the organization's operation and administration funds, so that the separate identity of the retained revenue is not lost.
(viii) retained revenue must be completely expended on or committed to approved eligible projects by September 1, two years following the year in which the relevant convention permits are awarded to the conservation organization by the Wildlife Board. Failure to commit or expend the retained revenue by the September 1 deadline will disqualify the conservation organization from obtaining any future convention permits until the unspent retained revenue is committed to an approved eligible project.
(ix) all records and receipts for projects under this subsection must be retained by the conservation organization for a period not less than five years, and shall be produced to the division for inspection upon request.
(5)(a) Conservation organizations accepting permits shall be subject to annual audits on project expenditures and convention permit accounts.
(b) The division shall perform annual audits on project expenditures and convention permit accounts.
Contact the DWR, Wildlife Board and RAC members to show your support to have this as an action item in the August board meeting
Let them know that you support the UWC proposal that changes the convention tag rule to mirror the conservation tag rule.
Wildlife Board Members
JakeAlbrecht@utah.gov , DelBrady@utah.gov , CalvinCrandall@utah.gov , BillFenimore@utah.gov , JimKarpowitz@utah.gov , MikeKing@utah.gov , ErniePerkins@utah.gov
RAC members:
fred@south-fork.net , rwb62@comcast.net , briggsangus@yahoo.com , steveflinders@fs.fed.us , djones@preciscom.net , mattcmc@hotmail.com , ular@earthlink.net , sj392@yahoo.com , gary.nielson@juab.k12.ut.us , sflinders@fs.fed.us , kris@unitedwildlifecooperative.org , Michael_D_Gates@blm.gov , Jayprice@shadowlink.net , sawmillcanyon@msn.com , duane_smith@byu.edu , duane_smith@byu.edu , jblazzard@allwest.net , rjonleonard@aol.com , jcavitt@weber.edu , delta1.nelson@gmail.com , pcowley@fs.fed.us , ann.neville@riotinto.com , joelmferry@gmail.com , jill_silvey@blm.gov , jhgaskill@gmail.com , ccvtrph@yahoo.com , rjefree@msn.com , brycethurgood@msn.com , rslawrencefam@msn.com , stuffer4@aol.com , mitchhacking@yahoo.com , jamerrell@easilink.com , rchristensen@fs.fed.us , rodmorrison@ubtanet.com , bethhamann@hotmail.com , carlosr@utetribe.com , carrie.mair@hotmail.com , rwinterton@co.duchesne.ut.us , wmcallister@easilink.com , kirk.woodward@yahoo.com , brandon_mcdonald@blm.gov , aiken@infowest.com , morrellranch@yahoo.com , daveb@racivil.com , cordellpearson1999@yahoo.com , dbagley@piute.utah.gov , stahelis@frontiernet.net , pbriggs@blm.gov , lktorgerson@live.com , samc@xpressweb.com , woodbury10@hotmail.com , brianjohnson5575@gmail.com , mvworthen@yahoo.com , kalbrecht@fs.fed.us , trhdds@etv.net , allred1911@gmail.com , mulehounds@gmail.com , sbellagamba@tnc.org , cmicoz@emerytelcom.net , nutterranch@etv.net , tepehrs@utah.gov , jeff@co.emery.ut.us , priddle@blm.gov , wyh@xmission.com
This would require the same transparency called on and displayed by RMEF and its president, David Allen, last week. This proposal would be a slight modification of R657-55 Division of Wildlife Resources and could be handled through the RAC’s and the Wildlife Board. The change would require complete disclosure of the funds as well as limit the amount each participating group could retain to no more than 10% which ultimately would mean more money for those approved projects that are so important for the wildlife of Utah. The proposal would require the funds from the convention tag application fees to be distributed in the same fashion as conservation permits. i.e.. 60/30/10
HERE IS THE BODY OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE:
R657-55-6. Convention Permit Funds and Reporting.
(1) Within 30 days of the last day of the wildlife convention, the conservation organization must submit to the division:
(a) a final report on the distribution of permits;
(b) the total number of applications for each permit;
(c) the total funds raised through the handling fees assessed by the conservation organization to process applications;
(d) the funds due to the division; and
(e) a report on the status of each project funded in whole or in part with retained convention permit revenue.
(2) Permits shall not be issued until the permit fees are paid to the division.
(3)(a) Conservation organizations shall remit to the division by September 1 of each year 30% of the total revenue generated through the handling fees assessed by the conservation organization to process applications.
(b) The permit revenue payable to the division under Subsection (3)(a), excluding accrued interest, is the property of the division and may not be used by conservation organizations for projects or any other purpose.
(c) The permit revenue must be placed in a federally insured account promptly upon receipt and remain in the account until remitted to the division on or before September 1 of each year.
(d) The permit revenue payable to the division under this subsection shall not be used by the conservation organization as collateral or commingled in the same account with the organization's operation and administration funds, so that the separate identity of the permit revenue is not lost.
(e) Failure to remit 30% of the total permit revenue to the division by the September 1 deadline may result in criminal prosecution under Title 76, Chapter 6, Part 4 of the Utah Code, and may further disqualify the conservation organization from obtaining any future convention permits.
(4) A conservation organization may retain 70% of the revenue generated through the handling fees assessed by the conservation organization as follows:
(a) 10% of the revenue may be withheld and used by the conservation organization for administrative expenses.
(b) 60% of the revenue may be retained and used by the conservation organization only for eligible projects as provided in subsections (i) through (ix).
(i) eligible projects include habitat improvement, habitat acquisition, transplants, targeted education efforts and other projects providing a substantial benefit to species of wildlife for which convention permits are issued.
(ii) retained revenue shall not be committed to or expended on any eligible project without first obtaining the division director's written concurrence.
(iii) retained revenue shall not be used on any project that does not provide a substantial and direct benefit to convention permit species located in Utah.
(iv) cash donations to the Wildlife Habitat Account created under Section 23-19-43, Division Species Enhancement Funds, or the Conservation Permit Fund shall be considered an eligible project and do not require the division director's approval, provided the donation is made with instructions that it be used for species of wildlife for which convention permits are issued.
(v) retained revenue shall not be used on any project that is inconsistent with division policy, including feeding programs, depredation management, or predator control.
(vi) retained revenue under this subsection must be placed in a federally insured account. All interest revenue earned thereon may be retained and used by the conservation organization for administrative expenses.
(vii) retained revenue shall not be used by the conservation organization as collateral or commingled in the same account with the organization's operation and administration funds, so that the separate identity of the retained revenue is not lost.
(viii) retained revenue must be completely expended on or committed to approved eligible projects by September 1, two years following the year in which the relevant convention permits are awarded to the conservation organization by the Wildlife Board. Failure to commit or expend the retained revenue by the September 1 deadline will disqualify the conservation organization from obtaining any future convention permits until the unspent retained revenue is committed to an approved eligible project.
(ix) all records and receipts for projects under this subsection must be retained by the conservation organization for a period not less than five years, and shall be produced to the division for inspection upon request.
(5)(a) Conservation organizations accepting permits shall be subject to annual audits on project expenditures and convention permit accounts.
(b) The division shall perform annual audits on project expenditures and convention permit accounts.
Contact the DWR, Wildlife Board and RAC members to show your support to have this as an action item in the August board meeting
Let them know that you support the UWC proposal that changes the convention tag rule to mirror the conservation tag rule.
Wildlife Board Members
RAC members:
3,574
The organization must return 30% of the monies generated to the DWR, 60% must go to approved projects, and 10% may be retained by the organization for "administrative costs"... whatever that means.
Arggh... too much politics and "legalese" for my taste... I'm exhausted from reading that.
Here is the full red lined version
Yes, none of the money generated by the tag fees are given to the DWR. If SFW would publish their financials, perhaps thay could prove something to counter that, but they haven't and wont. There is no requirement for these orgs to even do so. The dollar amounts are close to a million bucks per year. SFW/MDF get monies from other sources as well to help advertise, etc. When nonprofit orgs are utilizing a public resourse for their own benefit, there MUST be some kind of accounting for that benefit.