I just got word that CA Governor Jerry Brown has signed AB 2015, sponsored by CA WSF!
This bill allows for NGOs which sell California Fundraising tags for CA DFW to retain 5% of the selling price as a 'reasonable vendor fee.'
Since the modern sheep season opened in 1987, 100% of the sale price of these tags had to be returned to the state. No more!
I've been working on this bill since late last year and went to Sacramento five or six times to meet with the staffers of several Assembly and Senate members, as well as the DFW Director. I also went down to testify before three Assembly and Senate Committees. So this is pretty special to me.
Assemblyman Jim Frazier carried the bill for us and he and his staff were simply off-the-charts amazing in their dedication, commitment, professionalism and support of the bill, as was our lobbyist, Bill Gaines.
I'm gonna' go celebrate now!
Good luck on your sheep hunts next month and try not to get run over by any rams, as happened to you last season.
I'll see you at The Sheep Show in Reno in January.
Kyle
Congrats Kyle, your hard work paid off.
Respectfully, some of the rest of you guys are sadly uninformed.
Shortlty after I founded CA WSF, I became concerned as to how the Department was spending the money they received from DBHS Fundraising tags.
By law, these funds were required to be spent, not in usual, reasonable and customary programs to maintain the DBHS programs, but rather, were only be used to augment such programs.
It took me a year or more of reminding the department that CA had a freedom of information act I could use if needed to access this data. After some resistance, the biologists at the sheep program convinced the bean counters that we were the 'good guys' and they finally gave me the data.
It was shocking, although about what I expected.
This money was not being spent on DBHS programs. It was being spent on whatever the DFW bean counters wanted to spend it on. That included things like a trout hatchery and rent on a building in San Diego that had nothing to do with sheep!
Once the bean counters realized they were being watched, things started to change.
Other NGOs from the deer and elk world then took notice and started objecting as well.
The result was the Harman bill, passed in the fall of 2010. This bill required full disclosure of fundraising tag monies and demanded they ONLY be spent on legitimate Big Game projects.
Moreover, it required the establishment of a Big Game Advisory Committee, the members of which could only come from sportsmans NGO organizations, on which I sit, to oversee and recommend how such funds would be spent. BGAC NGOs also can request project grants from the DFW to fund projects, which we do.
So far, this program is working very well.
Now, as to the NGOs retaining 5% for doing all the marketing, promotion and effort it takes to sell these tags for the best price possible, I offer this:
Selling these tags requires the resources, the system, a network of potential bidders, and the proper venue, as well as knowing the best way to promote these tags.
Good NGOs have all of these. The DFW has none of them, which they freely admit. NGOs sell these tag for at least double what the Department could sell them for.
The CA DFW Director has noted at least twice in the past year or so that CA WSF is the model all other NGOs should follow when working with the Department.
Now, think about this: Whom do you trust to spend money more wisely- Government bureaucrats or committed private NGOs?
CA DFW takes ~ 33% off the top from fundraising tags just for overhead. NGOs take little or nothing. Almost all of the funds CAWSF raises goes directly into the CA DBHS program
The best model would not be to allow NGOs to get 5%. The best model would be for NGOs to get 100% while being required to work with the DFW to agree upon good projects.
"Now they spend that 5% paying back the political favor! No body does anything for free."
How about you call yourself 'reallystupidanduniformed'? Because you are both.
You have NO idea what the hell you're talking about.
In addition, you are questioning my ethics, my integrity and my character.
DO NOT GO THERE, because you'll lose every single time!
I have NO knowledge of what goes on in California, nor do I wish too. I'll focus on my own backyard. Me being clueless about California is ok with me
Respectfully, the tone of the thread appears to be self promotional horn tooting. Not my thing.
Very happy to see you persevere, I don't hunt sheep and have never hunted in CA but hats off to you for getting this changed and having such a positive impact. congrats!
XMan
When people post crap that is biased and wrong, that is not 'questioning.' When they then attack my character to boot, I have a problem with that.
What a laugh that grasshopper in his first post goes on a full-frontal attack over something that happened in California, then in his next post writes, "I have NO knowledge of what goes on in California, nor do I wish too."
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Its the same "sheep snob" effect in every sheep thread. Sounds like you've done good, lord knows getting anything positive through any legislature is next to impossible. Great job! if thats what your fishing for.
That said, I'm not "sheep snob", and don't live in CA or NV. so a little less attitude is helpful. Do you call clients who walk into your office with no knowledge of investments "scary clueless"?
A little humility goes a long way, and criticism accomplishes nothing positive.
You're wasting your time. People either get it or they don't. Some of these guys don't. Some of us do. Thank you for all your efforts.
Tilzbow,
Thanks for the pictures. I have a bunch that look a lot like them. Where is that guzzler that's being built in the second one. Trying to decide if I worked on that one.
First, my error in confusing your post with the crap 'realunlucky' wrote. It was he, not you, who attacked my character. My apology. I screwed up!
Do you know of ANYTHING government does better or more efficiently than non-government entities?
Of course not, because there aren't any. Why would that undeniable truth of life be any different simply because a state DFW is spending the money?
It doesn't.
CA requires DFW to take ~ 33% of any money they get off the top for admin and overhead. 33%! That's obscene.
But it gets worse. Three years ago when the Big Game Advisory Committee held it's first meeting, a DFW attorney was there in the event he was needed to answer legal questions on the Harman Bill.
So I asked him why the DFW had to take 33% off the top when previously it had been taking 'only' ~ 23%. He said it was because of the financial crisis the state was facing. Then I asked this: "If I hear you correctly, you're telling me that if I gave the DFW sheep program $100,000 to fund a sheep project, they'd still be required to take $33,000 of my donation off the top?"
His answer was "Yes."
OTOH, if someone gave CA WSF $100,000 for a sheep project, we'd take ZERO off the top for overhead.
Now, on the 'Other' other hand, per your issue about potential new clients:
When clients walk into my office, one of the first things I do is try to determine their understanding of financial issues. I think I'm a pretty good educator on these things, but if they can't be educated, I'll tell them I don't think I can be of service and suggest they look elsewhere.
At the same time, if they call for an appointment and start out by attacking my character or what I do, they will not get an appointment.
I have three types of people I will not take as clients:
1. People who cannot be educated on financial matters so they at least have a basic understanding of what I recommend and why.
2. People who are absent of ethics and character. I don't care how much money they have, it's a deal killer.
3. Liberals (See #1 above.)
Guys, don't be offended. When someone works his ass off on something, and doesn't ask for anything in return, and then feels attacked, it's easy to occasionally overreact, or perhaps be a bit too blunt.
Grasshopper was probably asking an innocent question, coming from an uninformed position, but it could easily have been seen as a challenge. When I read it I saw both sides of it.
Kyle is passionate and tireless, and (to my knowledge) he never claimed to be a politician or a diplomat. But he's a hell of a friend of all Wild Sheep. And the rest of us owe him a debt of gratitude, whether we all realize it or not.
Thank you.
You're very perceptive and said it far better than I ever could have.
I know that sometimes I get too aggressive with negative posters and as you noted, I can overreact at times. But only because I care too much and have so much passion for what I try to do for wild sheep. I also have little patience for people who criticize and complain while not being on the playing field themselves.
Kudos to you, Chas!
