Nefarious Red

I've only got 3 checks from Don Peay, and they were for a measly million dollars a piece.

I "liked" AZkillers post above. I wonder what that means?

The debate that I engaged Andrew in had everything to do with his commitment to the need for public education. If someone doesn't believe that we need this, why would they benefit the committee? What I gathered, and I hope I am correct, is that Andrew understands and supports the need for this to happen, but has his own views and thoughts on funding the plan. There is nothing wrong with that, as that is what committees are for. I also have independent views on funding. This is also the United States, and we encourage and reward creative ideas, as well as ambition. If Andrew wants to be considered for a committee, that is his decision. The Commission will NOT hear any negative remarks about Andrew from me. If you think running around this forum and slandering me to get brownie points from some of the members is going to affect me whatsoever, you have not been paying attention to recent events. The irony is that it's not my mouth that will have any negative impact on Flatlander, Brian390, it is your mouth. If you really think Andrew would be a good candidate, perhaps you should consider how you are choosing to support him. Some hints have been dropped to you about your language, but you are not picking up on them. A committee member serving the interests of hunters doesn't need to be surrounded by people that do nothing but slander everyone else. Best of luck to you if you are chosen, Andrew.

I agree with what you are saying, but there are different dynamics at play. We conducted, or at least attempted, a massive public outreach campaign on our own. It is not as easy as you may think to motivate people to participate. Not because we are all collectively lazy, but because of the every day functions that most of us view as more important, such as family, school, work, church, etc. We still have the tools and resources, as well as the desire, to continue our outreach. However, to do it on the scale required is almost impossible, and the message of conservation should come directly from those doing the conserving, which is the Game and Fish Department. They need the ability to speak for themselves, without limitations.

I would love to see where I said that. Post the quote here please.

true statement, and my personal opinion is an honest dedication to public outreach gives more credibility to honest funding assessments, be they raffles, stamps, merchandise, what have you. I have every intention of being involved in the outreach program, that is my ultimate goal. Who knows, maybe we will both end up having an impact on the future of hunting. Bonecollector made a defining statement, about this whole mess starting over education they should have been doing a long time ago. That sums it up perfectly, and, at no fault to any of us here, this should have been addressed as soon as HSUS kicked our butts in 1994.

I wonder if Andrew shares your sentiments of this need for education funding being fabricated. What say you, Andrew, is the need for education funding neccessary or not?

And my opinion, as I have stated, is to move the education plan forward. I never discredited your input on funding the plan, quite the opposite is true. I have never hid my thoughts or intentions, and at times I have set them aside to try and come to a more unified position for us all. But for some reason you have recently taken an opinion that I am some kind of infiltrator, or only here to speak for Pete. I can save you some conspiracies. I do not work for Conserve and Protect Arizona. But if they offered me the chance, I would take it in a heartbeat. Those guys and gals have done a whole lot for wildlife. And for hunters. They have a plan. I also don't need to lie to any of you, because like you, I stand behind what I think is right. I too appreciate those that are trying to come up with solutions to this problem, because it is a huge problem, and something needs to be done.

Show me anything, from anywhere, when you did something to defend hunting or hunters. Since you care so much. What was your plan for defeating the Humane Society? What is your plan for defeating them when they come back? You are only interested in beating Pete for your own selfish reasons, and it has nothing to do with hunting. I will put my trust in those with a PROVEN track record of standing up for hunting in Arizona, and those that are ACTIVELY trying to defend us from anti hunting groups. You are merely trying to put others down to bring yourself up. Well, where I come from you have to make your own success, you don't get kudos for being a mouthpiece. You know nothing of the common good, or you would have done something to help when an out of State group WAS actually trying to take tags from you.

Like Bonecollector 777? You seemed to be real cozy with him at the meetings, rubbing his back and all. You trusted him quite a bit, and you used him because you thought he would help you get somewhere. Now he's in a little bit of trouble and you turn your back on him and slander him. You have no interest in the continual education plan, you have never defended it, and you have even mocked it at times. Good enough for me that the Commission has computers and knows how to use them. Continue how you see fit, but you aren't fooling anyone that matters.

That's cool that you're a member of AES. They do a lot of good work for wildlife. You should speak with the President of the Arizona Elk Society and get his thoughts on Conserve and Protect Arizona.

Are you accusing me of something, Andrew? If you are, come out and say it so we can get this started.

That's a good question. I can tell you this much. I have a recorded phone conversation that HSUS President Kitty Block and Arizona HSUS director Kellye Pinkleton made to the Arizona staff after they conceded the initiative. They both made it very clear that they are in Arizona to stay, and that they will be back. I also have a sheet from HSUS that describes their initiative process and how they choose States to employ the initiative process. In that sheet is also a list of every initiative by State that the HSUS has enacted a ban or prevented a hunting measure from going to the ballot. Arizona is their number one target. They do something in Arizona every 2 years since 1994. They soundly outspent and defeated us when we tried to do Constitutional right to hunt and fish in 2010. They may beat is in 2020, but if they do, they won't stop there. They got their ban in California and still do something there every election cycle. This year they did a factory farming bill that will cripple the egg industry. So we need a long term systemic plan. This is a start. They conduct massive polling before they do an initiative, and hopefully we can change the polls enough that they pick a different State. We may in fact lose, we have been losing for a long time. I don't know what plan B is at the moment.

I'm not worried about my post count. I'm glad you're worrying about it for me. Flatlander asked me a question, I answered it the best I could. Seems like you are only interested in side tracking the conversation, and not contributing, and that is why these kinds of conversations never progress.

You sound bitter. Maybe you'll grow up and get over whatever has your little feelings hurt.

You are correct. Legislation would be required, and would be our only recourse as sportsmen against misuse of the funds. If one single penny that is earmarked for the education plan walks away from it, there will be heck to pay. I actively network everyday with hunters and sportsmen. I take their ideas and concerns, just as we all have ideas and concerns, and I am trying to find solutions to both implement those ideas, and address their concerns. I have a general concern myself about the impact of tag allocation from trophy units and for trophy animals. Those that want to work with me to address this issue, I do. But many only want it one way, as you say about CAPAZ. None of us are going to get exactly what we want, unless we get a fully funded outreach plan, then I will be getting exactly what I want.

I can give you my opinion, but I can't speak directly for them. I believe they view tags as the best way to fund this based off of conversations with the Department, and the Department's opposition to using a license fee. If you go back through all my posts, you will see that I have essentially advocated for any funding methods that will move the plan forward, and I also believe that a stamp or license fee increase should be considered, as should ALL other alternative sources, unless they can prove not to be viable. My main concern about things like additional portal benefits and similar things is that the Department plans upon expanding the portal as it is and making their own money from it. Which is also a concern I have about license fee increases, without legislation the Department could do as they wish with the money. I will say that I submitted a proposal that doesn't include tags, license fee increases, or stamps, and essentially was to create a type of general lottery. However, I learned more about the laws that govern these things, and it doesn't appear as though that would be feasible.

very articulate. Can't wait to see you take that third grade vocabulary in front of the Commission.

That's why, if you read my whole post, I clearly state the committee would be SIMILAR to the Big Game Super Raffle, and all funds would go to Game and Fish.

If you cant set aside $300 a year I would advise you not to waste your money on a raffle ticket. This argument isnt very strong.If you can't set aside 300k for an auction tag, I advise you not to waste your money on a stamp.

But not all have an opportunity to participate. If you don't have the 300 dollars for a sheep tag, you don't participate. However, we aren't going to lower the cost of a sheep tag. So an economic disparity already exists. But if someone has 10 or 20 dollars to enter a raffle for a sheep tag, they now have a chance. Provided some type of reasonable restrictions exist that prevent any one person from overpowering the raffle financially. Raffles would create more of a level playing field for those not economically viable.

I'm not disappointed in anything. Did you propose anything to the Commission?

Of course it's open for discussion and debate, I just don't have any intimate knowledge on how any raffle tag would be proposed, other than what we all already know. I thought you and Fred emailed the Commission with your license fee proposal?

Those are all good questions, and ones you should submit to the committee. They don't even have a dedicated funding source yet, so now is your chance for input.

IF raffle tags are used, and that's still an IF, a new program similar to the Big Game Super Raffle would be created. The current Big Game Super Raffle is mandated by legislation to disperse its funds to HPC. This one would be similar except funds would be Game and Fish. No outside organization would get any money.