audsley

I understand there are several tricks that can be played, striker amendments being only one. AZSFW's inner circle knows the various mechanic's tricks that can be used, and I expect we will see one or more tried. What is needed are eyes and ears around the legislature who can spot one of these moves in its early stages and alert everyone. We do have some eyes and ears in place, but we'll all have to act fast when word gets out. I would suggest people write their emails and phone call scripts in advance and have them ready. I'd also suggest using a generic term such as "Elite Wildlife Tags Bill" that would cover any future variation of 2072 but under a different bill number. I would put that in emails titles and refer to any new bill number in the body of the message. Phone calls are also important.

Some quick facts related to the statements above. First, a ballot initiative is very expensive. Signature-gathering costs a couple million bucks. You would probably need a sponsor with deep pockets. You could dodge the petition expense by persuading the legislature to refer the measure to the ballot (referendum), but it's doubtful the legislature would support it. (Refer to my earlier comment above.) Yes, the commission is currently in charge of issuing all big game tags, but the legislature has the power to take on that activity if it chooses to. Maybe some of you will recall that during the Prop 109 (Right to Hunt) campaign, opponents from Sierra Club and Animal Defense League of Arizona argued that Prop 109 would put the legislature in charge of wildlife instead of the commission. The reality is that the legislature is - and always has been - the supreme legal authority over wildlife in Arizona. The legislature created the Az Game & Fish Commission 80 years ago, delegated specific authority and can take that authority back any time it wants. The legislature could dissolve the commission tomorrow and take over all its functions. The actions of certain parties to take wildlife and hunting issues to the legislature, by-passing the commission, is against the long-term interests of sportsmen and wildlife. State wildlife commissions were established across the nation after experience showed that politics and wildlife don't mix well. Somebody is always working the issue to their advantage. The proper route to recovering and maintaining healthy wildlife populations was deemed to be the independent game commission guided by a staff of professionals trained in law enforcement and the biological sciences. That system is critical to what has made America's wildlife conservation program great. Now we're seeing people who have no apparent understanding or respect for that system wanting to tear it down and replace it with something that works better for them. While the commission-agency system is rooted in science and logic, politics runs on emotion and competition for resources. AZSFW wants to manage wildlife and hunting policy through the legislature, which means backroom deals brokered by compromise and collusion with other special interests. And it's a private organization that does not need to reveal its finances or be answerable in any way to the Arizona sportsmen. That's why it needs to go.

Not likely you'd get support in the legislature. You'd be asking them to relinquish authority to the commission. They don't like anything that diminishes their own authority. Lately certain parties have been encouraging the legislature to take a more active role in managing the details of wildlife and hunting policy. In order to get the legislature to go for a law like that, we'd need to do some persuasive educating, and I'm not sure the effort would be successful especially with the current legislature.

I had thought some of Peay's recent comments would lead AZSFW supporters to distance themselves from him. Instead they seem to be doubling down. Here's some Don Peay thinking. You decide whether you agree with it. To end hunting 'socialism' Rossi's move to give landowners special rights to the wildlife on their property coincides with the ideology of Don Peay, a Utah guide and founder of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife. Peay, who stressed that the Utah chapter isn't trying to push its view in Alaska or even with the Alaska chapter, said it's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource. Peay described that egalitarian doctrine, found in Alaska's state constitution and laws throughout the West, as "socialism." It offers no economic incentive for landowners to kill predators, improve big game habitat and even provide food and water for target species. "We understand the North American model where wildlife belongs to the people, but we're also seeing dramatic reductions in game populations in the western United States under that model," he said. Population pressure, habitat loss from development and the rise of environmental organizations opposed to predator control have put pressure on game herds that weren't envisioned when the laws were written a century or more ago, he said. "When wildlife is a very highly valued asset, people want more of it and they'll invest additional funds to make sure it's abundant," Peay said. The same is true of professional guides and outfitters, he added. "They tend to be more involved to make sure there's abundant game herds than a lot of guys who just buy their license the day before the hunt starts and then, when game disappears, the masses tend to complain -- but what did they do to allow that situation to happen and why weren't they more involved to fix it?" Wildlife as huntable livestock? Is that what we want in Arizona? And since most huntable game is on state and federal lands, should grazing permittees be allowed to manipulate game populations and cash in too? Maybe this isn't such a bad idea. Given a financial incentive to grow big-antlered ungulates and lots of 'em, possibly by using special feed supplements, breeding wildlife in pens for better control of genetics and marketing "cull" animals to the lower classes, Arizona could become a big game hunter's paradise. Of course, all that investment in wildlife will have to show a profit, so don't expect 400-point bulls at the low prices we have today. Those will go to the people whose fees cover the cost to make the game animal in a more marketable configuration. The rest of us will have to settle for knowing that someone else is hunting bigger animals than we ever did because now wildlife is receiving enhanced care. (Personal opinion - I tend to look at antler enhancement via controlled nutrition and supplements the same way I happen to view breast enhancements. Anything manipulated to augment what nature didn't provide in abundance actually detracts from the original product. But that's just my opinion. Obviously others think differently.) And of course the landowners - or lessees, as the case would be in Arizona - will need to do something about those pesky predators. Can't have high-value deer or elk that are expensive to raise getting eaten by lions. Predator control is a rallying cry for all the Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife groups around the West (Alaska, Utah, Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico, Idaho and here in Arizona as well.) I'm just wondering how they plan to do it, especially in Arizona where most of the land is public. But how would you go about doing that in today's world? Do AZSFW's strategists plan to start using 1080 again and simply tell the Feds to shove it? Or does AZSFW plan to start trapping on public lands and tell the people of Arizona to mind their own business? Or are we going to eventually have mega-fundraisers to put hundreds of helicopters in the air to blast coyotes, and dozens of houndsmen on the ground for months at a time to shear down the lion population? Significantly reducing predator populations throughout Arizona would be a massive undertaking that would take years to accomplish assuming judges and voters would even let you do it. Maybe we should ask any AZSFW supporters who show up March 22 how they plan to accomplish this.

Something else I should have mentioned - this does NOT distract from things going on on the home front. If this movement gets going, its effects will be felt here by Arizona hunters more than anywhere else. We have less huntable private land than any other state. If anyone insists on keeping the focus on AZSFW, then maybe someone would like to ask them what they're doing to stop this. After all, AZSFW has been a consistent supporter of Republican candidates in the past, same as me. Do I have to fight this battle by myself? Or is there an organization that will stand up for Arizona hunters?

As long as Republicans believe that, they'll treat you like they own you. Never let any party take you for granted.

Thanks for posting this, SWDesertRat. As one who has donated time and money to Republican candidates in the past, I find this trend very disturbing. The idea of either selling off public lands or turning them over to the states (who will then sell them off) seems to be sweeping the party. Rick Santorum said in his interview with US Sportsmen's Alliance that there is way too much federal land and we need to sell it. I've been told the same by a couple of our state legislators, one of which is now running for Congress. What they don't understand is that the national forests, BLM and wildlife refuges administered by USFWS are the people's land, not some bureaucrat's. (And sometimes the bureaucrats forget that too.) Republican candidates have been listening to ranchers, developers, miners and other private interests who would like to get rid of the public. Now they need to hear from sportsmen. It's in the best interests of sportsmen - as well as the Republican party in the long run - that we expose this idea early and persuade them to drop it like they had to drop privatization or elimination of social security. Some of their campaign contributors might want it, but the majority of American voters don't, or at least so I believe. Couple this with Don Peay's remarks (posted recently on this forum without receiving as much attention as it should have) that wildlife should belong to landowners and that public ownership of wildlife is "socialism." Consider that Don Peay purports to represent Western hunters and has the ear of key U.S. Senators and Congressmen. I've heard the Safari Club Intl lobbyist is supportive of wildlife privatization as well. (SCI is welcome to straighten me out on this if I'm wrong, but antoher Washington lobbyist told me that's the case.) If we don't speak out, this idea will only get bigger. If you're Republican and can speak to Republican officials or candidates, let them know how you feel, and that yes, you would consider voting Democratic if the GOP pushes selling off our federal lands to private parties.

Bill, Good question you asked me. I'm answering with a PM because there are some sensitive aspects. Larry

Comment on an earlier post by Bill Quimby: It used to be that only AGFD had the presumed authority to close roads on state trust land. Then 4 or 5 years ago there was a new opinion from the state's attorneys that said state land dept. could also close them. I don't know how active SLD has actually been in closing roads on their own.

Doesn't anyone read my posts? I just explained (p.1 of this thread) that AWF was never a member or affiliate of AZSFW. Kind of hard to resign from a group you never belonged to.

Amanda, AWF was never an affiliate of AZSFW. AWF was invited to affiliate but declined.

Very well said. All of it.

You may well be right, KRP. I gave my ideas about representative democracy to the AZSFW organizers several years ago but was blown off. Maybe what you're putting them through is necessary to convince the diehards that AZSFW as we know it is dead in the water and a big change is needed.

If 3,000 hunters and anglers gave $10 a year, we (the state's sportsmen) could probably have our own sportsmen's advocacy group. Annual dues could be collected by automatic credit card charges through web sites like this one. Someone suggested to me that if you have 3,000 sportsmen paying in, you'll get 3,000 conflicting opinions on direction and priorities. But this ignores the concept of "representative democracy" in which individuals are elected to represent the members and given the power to act in accordance with rules and procedures designed to ensure transparency and accountability. A representative democracy does not preclude electronic surveys, polling and even direct votes on certain issues by the members. If Arizona sportsmen want an advocacy group, I believe we'll have to form one. It's my impression that AZSFW is headed for Chapter 11 (figuratively speaking). I believe an effort to form a new organization would be far more productive than meeting with ADA to complain about AZSFW.

I must have gotten lost somewhere along the way. What's with the $10?

I see no reason to meet with ADA. I don't believe ADA gave us HB2072. I believe AZSFW and Jerry Weiers did. ADA put themselves on the hook by refusing to denounce HB2072, and some in the ADA even came to the bill's defense, but ADA is still just a third party, at least as an organization. This does not rule out the possible presence of some AZSFW operatives or pawns among the ADA board members, but the primary role of ADA in this melodrama is that of volunteer spear-catchers, P.R. men for AZSFW and, I’m afraid in the end, fall guys. IF AZSFW believes it can remain effective in the wake of HB2072, then a meeting between sportsmen and the AZSFW people who conceived and drafted HB2072 - provided anyone can figure out exactly who all of them are - might be useful. But there’s no use having a meeting about HB2072 or AZSFW with any entity that can’t accept full responsibility for either. If you go, expect to hear how HB2072 would not have hurt the existing Habitat Partnership program and its attendant fundraising through auctions and super raffles. You will also hear about all the good things revenue from HB2072 would have accomplished. You will hear that HB2072 would have put more big game on the ground and given back far more resident hunting opportunity than was being lost through the sale of tags. But I doubt you will hear any re-designed organizational plan making AZSFW more transparent and accountable, and thus a truly legitimate voice for the state’s sportsmen. If AZSFW shows up and surprises me, I will gladly apologize for any dark thoughts I’ve had about them. Now I'll repeat something I said several days ago. HB2072 was designed primarily as a funding mechanism for AZSFW. AZSFW has been put on notice that the private financial backers and sportsmen's groups that have carried AZSFW up to now will not continue contributing at their previous levels. This bill was intended to replace that funding. Everyone needs to cling on the words in lines 20-24, P.4, paragraph H: “The qualified organization shall apply the remaining proceeds… to achieve any of the following purposes, including the qualified costs of administration (emphasis added).” Only AZSFW qualifies. The most compelling message in ADA’s sale pitch will probably be the urgent need for a sportsmen’s advocacy group in this state. I agree with them on that point, and I could write a 200-page book on why. But unless sportsmen are willing to pay a significant share of the costs, we will keep getting what we’re paying for. Currently the principal NGOs speaking for the state’s sportsmen are the NRA and AZSWF. You’ve seen AZSFW’s program. The NRA has been unusually active for hunters lately by initiating bills that would allow us to hunt any big game with AR-15s and to put silencers on our rifles when we hunt. Just what every Arizona hunter has been dreaming of, right? The NRA charges its members for annual dues, but doesn’t single out hunters for any separate charge, so it seems hunters can enjoy the benefits of NRA activism for free. But there’s a problem with things that seem free for your use. They’re usually designed for you to be used.

So you should have the right to carry a firearm into the courtroom, and when visiting someone in jail?

I looked to see if there were any exceptions such as I'd expect to see. Unless I somehow missed them, it looks to me like taxpayers would have to provide secure storage and check-in, check-out services at all state and local government facilities.such as court houses and jails. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Archerycrazy, I still don't understand what the policy is. I know that department employees have been forbidden to actively support legislation and initiatives or referendums. That was enforced for Prop 109, which the commission supported. But when was the commission itself ever forbidden to express a position, or the department's Wildlife News forbidden to report their position? Does this mean the commission won't ever express support, opposition or a neutral position on a bill? I don't know exactly what was agreed to.

John, you say Weiers was promised that the department wouldn't be "lobbying" through the use of the agency's time, money, etc. What does that really mean? Are they going to fire Tony and Jorge? I don't think that's what they meant. I think you and I have completely different understandings of what was agreed upon. I think it means they aren't supposed to communicate any analyses, opinions or facts concerning pending legislation. That's what I think it means. Maybe we should ask the department what they think it means. And John, maybe you should ask Representative Weiers what he thinks it means. He'll probably respond to you.

Gag order - that's exactly what it is. Is it time we spoke with some more legislators?

Jerry Weiers was behind the amendment. As I understood Weiers' comments before the House Military Affairs and Public Safety Committee this morning, Weiers and Gowan agreed to pull the amendment in exchange for Game & Fish complying with its intent. In other words, Game & Fish can no longer tell the public its opinion of matters pending before the legislature. At least that's my understanding. Is that acceptable to everyone? And is it legal?

Bonus Pt. John, I'm not so sure about department personnel being prohibited from addressing the legislature. Yesterday I spoke to a House committee on the high-capacity magazine bill and was followed by AGFD's law enforcement branch chief, who expressed concerns about wounded game and multiple kills. Although the commission had not taken a position against the bill, the department nevertheless did give input. The next day we got this amendment.

Amanda, thanks for your call for facts and a focus on going forward instead of ruminating over what has already happened. I agree that AZSFW has had its Chappaquidick moment - that event that forever tarnishes and can't be washed away. But I also agree that Arizona sportsmen and wildlife badly need a voice at the legislature, with our U.S. Congressmen, federal land agencies and with the public. We also need that voice to accountable to, and acting in the best interests of, the state's sportsmen and the future of hunting and wildlife. How do we get that? Part of it requires that sportsmen pay into the organization. I believe there are mechanisms to accomplish this. In fact, my first thought involves the various Arizona sportsmen's websites including this one, but more on that later if we can get that far. What Arizona sportsmen have had up to now is a group that claims to speak for the state's sportsmen but is not organized to be accountable or transparent (AZSFW), and the NRA, which seems to believe our greatest needs are the right to hunt with AR-15s with bannana clips (HB 2640) and to put sound suppressors on our rifles (HB 2728). Can we improve on that?

If the non-ADA attendees bring such an extensive list of issues to this meeting, you won't get much accomplished. I suggest sticking to basics. Who makes the decisions at AZSFW? How is AZSFW accountable to the state's sportsmen and the organizations it represents? What is the protocol for approving actions and communication to member groups? Until those issues are satisfactorily resolved, nothing will be accomplished. Finally, how is the organization to be funded?