Nefarious Red

from my understanding, those items are to be scrutinized by the committee. The committee isn't to decide on raffle tags alone, but to come up with viable funding solutions. Of course, we are all free to debate amongst ourselves as we see fit, but it is the committee that should ultimately hear from you. I personally would not take anything off the table, including things like heritage stamps, until it is proven to be unable to move forward.

If who gets tags? The whole thing would be managed in the same manner as the Big Game Super Raffle, with control by the Department, Commission, and sportsmen representation. The only people getting tags would be Game and Fish. It would be mandated by legislation.

And I will keep it on topic also, buy saying that I'm glad the trail camera ban was defeated. I spent some time in Commissioner Sparks office, and when I recognized that he was leaning a certain direction on the issue, I engaged him on that. We then focused our attention to Mr. Sparks, confident he would do the right thing. I am pleased that he did.

To reiterate, and I know I'm repeating myself, but the discussion of Conserve and Protect Arizonas 501c4 status is irrelevant to the financial particulars of any funding methods, because they will not get the tags or the funding. To accuse them of trying to gain from this financially is akin to me accusing Flatlander of trying to gain financially from his license fee increase proposal. And as far as your statement, Flatlander, about supporting people that are involved in the discussion and attend the committee meetings, I have listened to and even supported ideas that do not include the use of tags. However, in return I get accused of being a "tag grabber", even though nobody gets tags, and I have only found that the majority of the naysayers oppose the plan in general. Very, very few people have both supported the plan but opposed the use of tags.

*edit* response was to a post that has been removed

The plan already exists within the Department. The Department was the first to petition the Commission on a plan for funding. You can read the Department's proposal for continual funding for the "public awareness campaign" at the Game and Fish agenda minutes, dated September 8th-9th, 2017, item 3a. The Department has also made several presentations on the need for the plan since then.

dude, you're like the energizer bunny of crybabies. You just keep going and going and going.

you're still uttering your nonsense.

Perfect, something we can all agree on Red! I knew you’d come around Ha! You know what I mean. No organization gets tags. The Commission wants to fund their current model. Raffle tags was Conserve and Protect Arizona suggestion on how to fund it. There are other suggestions on the table, but with the Department's current projected shortfall, license fee increases aren't viewed as favorably by some, just as raffle tags aren't viewed as favorably by some. I'd like to see my idea pan out, but it probably won't because of the logistics. At any rate, the Commission wants it funded, but just like us, they all have different ideas on how to go about doing it. You have to present your ideas to the committee that will hopefully be formed. They will have the final say.

who is "they"? You know that nobody gets any tags, correct? The tags and funds stay with Game and Fish to fund a mission statement that already exists within the Department. That's like saying Flatlander will get the license fees for suggesting their usage. And you can't just add raffle tags. They are now, and will be, governed by State statutes.

Have a look at this file, Fred. There is also a section on it at the Game and Fish website 2014HPCPrioritiesforHabitatEnhancementandWildlifeManagementDRAFT4-24-2014.pdf

how is it stealing, when the Department keeps the tags and the funds?And by the way, I submitted a proposal that doesn't include tags, fees, or stamps, and is voluntary as well. I care about the plan. At the end of the day, if it's a license fee or raffle tag, or even my idea, I want to see the plan in place.

how much longer are you going to continue with the bafoonery? Nobody is "stealing tags" from anyone. Your faux outrage is growing weary even in those that didn't want auction tags. You have childish arguing tactics and your constant complaining of a fictitious tag grab is worn out. I don't know if you are having reading comprehension problems, but it has been stated several times that NO organization gets any tags. Time to put your big boy pants on and cease with your theatrics.

Where in the North American model does it say raffle tags are an abuse,unethical,or illegal? I kinda think you are hiding behind a false sense of morality to justify your misguided anger. How many hours do you spend trying to repeal the current auction or raffle tags? None.

Flatlander, you forgot to quote my paragraph above the one you quoted. Obviously if there was a set number of available raffle tickets, and one singular personal was able to purchase them all, it would favor the person who could afford to buy all the tickets. I'm not in favor of doing that. However, a person that can't afford a sheep tag has a better chance, and possibly his only chance, of obtaining one in a raffle. So you could say that raffles put more opportunities in front of the less financially inclined.

That's an entirely different organization and an entirely different plan, Ringer. You can choose to spend your time how you wish, but you still haven't provided any connection between the 2. This plan is for Game and Fish. They raffle the tags if that's the chosen method, they administer and retain the funds, and it is their program. Nobody outside of Game and Fish gets anything.

The guy that can spend 300 dollars for a sheep tag can afford to buy a tag that someone without 300 dollars can't. Everything about our current system disparage someone else based upon income.

I don't see how the wealthy would benefit from raffle tags, unless there was predetermined amount and a singular person could purchase all of them. I definitely don't think that would be a good idea, I'd like to see a cap on the amount an individual is able to purchase. When you look at the raffles for the HCP funds, it's always the average guys that win. The committee overseeing the program would be similar to the Big Game Super Raffle already in place.

CAPAZ doesn't get any tags. They suggested it, just as you guys will suggest a license fee, and I suggested a lottery. The committee will ultimately decide, not the Department, the Commission, CAPAZ, or us. By now, the Commission has received so many emails from people against every form of funding, it's hard to say if they will act on the plan that even they want, and just leave us all to fend for ourselves. I tend to think that the Commission should be doing more for us as hunters, but at this point I'm not sure. I wish looking out for hunters was more of a priority than trail cameras, but what can I do.

I agree, Flatlander, that part is speculative. But the rest is solid. CAPAZ gets NO tags. Will the Commission be willing to fund this project with raffle tags? I'm not sure. Would they be willing to fund it with a fee increase? I'm not sure about that, either. I do know that the program that these funds would go towards already exists within the Department, and the Commission has expressed the interest in funding it. At this point, I'm at a loss as to how they would expect to do that if they aren't interested in the options provided.

Still lots of misinformation here. 1. CAPAZ will get NO tags and NO money by law. The raffle tags will be administered by a committee similar to the one that handles the HPC funds, and will be made up of members of the Department, Commission, and sportsmen representation. 2. The super raffle style tags will be capped at 7, and the general raffle tags would be around 100. 3. Legislation is required so the funds go to the program as intended, not spent on tree frogs or bogus trail camera restrictions. This is how we protect our investment, just as HPC funds are protected by legislation. 4. A DNR is exactly what this program seeks to prevent. The end goal is public opinion in our favor,so Constitutional right to hunt and fish is possible.

you are a dishonorable person. You received a phone call from someone that informed you of the events that transpired in regards to how the lion ban was defeated, yet you still came on here and spouted your nonsense and continued to lie to everyone. You weren't raised with any ethics? Not ONCE have you contributed anything relevant, you have only slandered those that do. Keep feeding into the negativity, it is laughable.

you are still going on about that nonsense? The recording clearly states that the position of CAPAZ is now raffle tags, not auction tags. Raffle tags are something that many on here are on record as supporting, even those that were against auction tags. The Commission also stated the need and want to form a committee to review the funding process. So like many here, I can only wait to see what the outcome is.

This idea is already in the works, just not by hunters.

was that vote on the trail camera issue?