Coues247

SOLD

It's pretty common knowledge that reservations vote nearly 100% Democrat. Easy to understand when the democrats are the ones giving them all of the social programs and other handouts. You'd think after voting Democrat forever and not being any better off than they were 50 years ago they'd switch it up. Most are happy just existing so they don't care.

Not being facetious but. . It is actually too late to register to vote.

Your points are not updated yet. It takes a week or two. If you look at your app it will show 1 point under individual bonus points but below that it will show 3 points for group average. That would be how many points you had for that app. Now that you didn't draw turkey you will have 2 individual bonus points and the hunter safety and loyalty are added into your group average. My guess on the double charge is they accidently charged you twice for the javelina tag and just voided one of the charges.

He means exactly what he said. Thick billed parrots. Like the talking bird. They used to live down there.

Any combo of turkey or javelina. Both are $25

Where are you located?

Incorrect. AZGFD can only make rules. Laws are passed by the legislature. In the end they have the same effect but if we are getting technical your facts aren't facts, FACTS.

Literally every word I said regarding the case is exactly what happened according to the court documents. Study up: https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:VA6C2:fb6eaf6e-03ae-4f66-afd2-d0d33f584c56

Pete's 2.0

So you're gonna say leaving your tag to let them finish off someone else's animal and then tagging it with their tag is perfectly legal? Is that you Shawn? Shawns civil case went before an administrative judge because the ones in charge in Pinetop didn't follow protocol in punishing Wagner. They did all they could to ensure Shawn never went before a criminal judge and it backfired on them when they finally decided they needed to do something to him. The question of whether he was guilty of a crime was pretty clear, it just never made it that far because everyone involved were wardens. Ars 17-340 (A)(5) is pretty clear. The commission may revoke someone's license if: Knowingly allowing another person to use the person’s big game tag. Just because an administrative judge found that his rights were violated doesn't mean he didn't break the law.

There are multiple laws/rules in the world to help avoid conflicts of interest. They aren't made "to appease" anyone. They are made to avoid giving employees an advantage over others and to avoid impropriaty. (Like getting to fly helicopters over units when others can't.) Even if that warden doesn't fly his own unit, what do you think that first call is when his buddy who flew it for him sees a 400+ inch elk?

It's still early, but this is the dumbest thing I've seen today. Perfectly reasonable to ask why someone is selling a gigantic deer mount.

Ttt $2000 OBO

Bought a pair of Razors and then got some swaros as a birthday present so selling the razors. Have never been opened. Asking $800 OBO.

SOLD

I have no idea what route his appeal process is taking. However, it is common knowledge that if someone feels that a crime they have been charged with is unconstitutional then they can appeal it. He was convicted so more than likely as it currently sits they had evidence to show he broke that rule as written. His next argument would have to be that although he broke that rule it shouldn't and couldn't have been a rule in the first place because who is azgfd to tell people they can't fly an airplane over an area several weeks before their hunt?

Based off the current version of the rule, yes that would be illegal if you happened to locate an animal while flying the drone. Wouldn't even need to have the elk hunt coming up in a few weeks to make it illegal. The current version of the rule, technically an animal lover flying their drone to look at cute little deer during any open season would be breaking the law. Hence why so many have said azgfd is overstepping their bounds. Similar to their trail cam law saying people can't take pictures of animals.

You poor thing. I'm saying just because the commission proclaimed this rule doesn't mean that it is a constitutional law/rule. The azgfd could choose to make a rule stating that all people named Billy Bob aren't allowed to hunt. Does that now mean all Billy Bob's are out of luck now? No. Because azgfd can't just make any rule they please and we just have to accept it. Koury is going through the process necessary to find out if azgfd truly has jurisdiction to proclaim this rule and for their wardens to enforce it. If the appeals court finds that they can then azgfd is good to go. If the appeals court says they can't then azgfd gets to remove the rule from the books.

Reading comprehension is an important skill to have my friend. I mentioned nothing about law enforcement officers. I spoke about the ones that made the rule. Keep up.

Making a rule out of thin air doesn't mean azgfd had the jurisdiction to enforce it. They have the ability to make the rule and now the courts will decide if the rule is enforceable as written. Someone getting a ticket for it and fighting it is usually the process on how laws/rules are either upheld or reversed. The azgfd commission aren't kings that can make laws and rules without restriction.

He has already been convicted of it and appealed so just delaying the inevitable.

Ttt $700 OBO

Ttt $2100 OBO