mgolightly

Today by a vote of 3 to 2 the Game and Fish Commission opposed sb1200 and the companion bill hr2189. I am sharing with you the coment made by one of the majorityI’ve heard this bill described as providing a stronger voice for hunters in Commissioner selection. It’s been promoted that way – sold that way. But it is not about a voice. It’s about complete control over who the Governor even gets to see. And it’s not about control by hunters. It’s about control by an elite clique. I’ve heard some say that they value diversity on the Commission, but anyone who says that and then supports this bill is not being truthful. The majority of the proposed Board is to be comprised of individuals designated by the Boards of Directors of the various hunting clubs. This would lead to, and is intended to lead to, a Commission made up entirely of people with similar views, similar backgrounds and similar intentions. I’ve opposed this bill from the beginning because I believe it doesn’t do justice to the majority of stakeholders and the majority of Arizonans, but it took some time for me to realize how dramatic a change to the Commission system this truly represents, and how great a threat to the viability of the Commission. Today the Commission system would politically be virtually impossible to dissolve because our wide diversity of stakeholders all adamantly support it, and will stand together against any attempt to weaken the Commission and place the Director under gubernatorial control. This is because our stakeholders recognize that this system provides greater opportunity for public involvement than any other system in the United States. If this bill passes, and the majority of our stakeholders are disenfranchised and most Arizonans are left out, our broad support base that’s always waiting in the wings to protect the Commission system if necessary will disintegrate before our very eyes. This bill is simply a power grab. Nothing more, nothing less. A narrow group is distinguishing itself from others and asserting dominance over them. I don’t believe that ground can be gained against such a power grab by remaining neutral. I have seen first-hand the Commission’s neutrality used to promote this bill. I have heard that yesterday the primary proponent, i.e. Sportsmen for Wildlife, stated that it does not wish to negotiate any further and wishes to see no further changes to the bill. The last amendment made the language much more restrictive, not less. I can’t overstate the significance of this bill to the Commission system as we know it. This is the time for us, as the Commission, to take a strong stance. The authors of Title 17 left Commissioner qualifications broad intentionally. They crafted the Commission because they had seen what self-serving interests could do when they are able to exert control over wildlife management. Now it’s time for us to protect the Commission that they gave us. If we wait, we could easily find that we waited too long and stood by silently as it happened. vote prior to the official vote.

Amanda, with due respect you are correct in your reading of the actual amended bill BUT you left off the most important part of the sentence where the Governor SHALL, a powerful legal word, meaning she must or have to., no wiggle room. For instance, the Gov may send a final list of lets say 20 names to this board for review. The board will then go through a process (good) and select 2 but not more than 5 names from this list back to the Gov and she SHALL pick from the 2 names. How fair is that to the common guy who does not belong to the good ole boys clubs. 1. AFTER THE GOVERNOR'S CALL FOR APPLICATION FOR AN OPEN POSITION ON THE COMMISSION AND THE APPLICATION PERIOD IS CLOSED, THE GOVERNOR SHALL DELIVER A FINAL LIST OF THE APPLICANTS TO THE BOARD WITHIN FIVE DAYS AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE APPLICATION PERIOD. THE BOARD SHALL REVIEW THE LIST OF APPLICANTS AND THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY EACH APPLICANT AND PROCEED TO INTERVIEW, EVALUATE AND RECOMMEND CANDIDATES AS PROVIDED BY THIS SUBSECTION. ( WITHIN ONE WEEK AFTER THE PUBLIC FORUM, THE BOARD SHALL RECOMMEND AT LEAST TWO, BUT NO MORE THAN FIVE, CANDIDATES FROM THE GOVERNOR'S FINAL LIST OF CANDIDATES. THE GOVERNOR SHALL SELECT AND APPOINT A COMMISSIONER FROM THE LIST SUBMITTED BY THE BOARD.

How about this? HB2189 and SB1200 aren't just about making sure that only hunters can be involved in the process to select Commissioners. They are designed to insure that Commissioners are selected by the upper echelon of a few very narrowly defined groups. Only one seat in five may be held by a member of the general public (the ammended language inserts "or a member of a nongame organization," whatever that means). I am imagining that it does not mean the bass and trout anglers, the trap and skeet shooters, the bird watchers, the reptile people, and on and on. One seat is reserved for a rancher. This leaves three, not for just any hunters, but only hunters who are members of very specifically described hunting clubs. A lifelong, avid hunter who does not belong to any clubs would have to take his/her chances competing against the big game club member, apparently. This incredibly exclusive language is made much worse by the ammendment that inserts "designated by the Board of Directors" of each respective club. Now simply being a member of, for example, the Elk Society, would not qualify you to occupy the seat designated for a member of an organization whose mission is to conserve big game. To even be eligible for consideration, that club member would need to be "designated" by the Elk Society Board. It seems the authors cannot insert enough layers of politicing into this to satisfy themselves that only members of an elite clique could ever be appointed to - not even the Commission - but the Board that would select members of the Commission!

How about this? This bill sb1200 will allow 20% of the vote to ranchers that will result in your next commissioner. Great! My following coments are not meant to include All ranchers as, thank goodness there are some really great ranchers out there like the O'Hacos etc. But, Why do you think the game dept. has to hire special folks just to monitor land closures to hunting by ranchers? Why does the dept have full time employees, paid for with hunting and fishing dollars, to go around and investigate illegal sign posting of no hunting on public lands? The game dept created the Elk Habitat Partnership Program just to quell all the rancher complaints about too many elk and deer eating a blade of grass that could have been consumed by their abundant supply of grazers on public lands. The amount of sportsman and fishers dollars poured into this ongoing program is starteling. Folks, a very few individuals, the ones that put this committee requirements together can answer my questions. If they do it will be the boiler plate excuses always offered when the real answer is I believe the select few at AZSFW really want to reopen the ----big game tags for ranchers---- discussions.

Hey John and all, I do remember that the 1980's AWF board THOUGHT they had the exclusive right to select the commissioners for THE Governor. I also recall that Bruce Babbitt put and end to it when he was told that he ""must"" by a very few of the then radical board members who claimed to represent thousands and thousands of voters. Remind you of anyone John?? If one didn't cow-tow to the board of AWF at the time their chance of making it to the selection list was about as succussful as winning the lottery. Talk about extreme special interest appointments.

For what it's worth, here is my two bits. Afraid of the Governor's selection of a of a Game and Fish Commissioner? Why? Let me fill you in on the legal process that a nominee is subjected to before he or she becomes a bonafied commissioner. Once an individual aspires to become a GF commissioner he/she sends a letter to the Governors office and asks for the appointment. Next step, garner all the political support you can via letters endorsements from sporting groups, friends, church, even non-consumptive groups. The appearance of a well balanced, cool head and thinker is important. The pool of applicants has traditionally been numerous. Next step after Governor selects you is to have your name forwarded to the Senate for comfirmation (by law). The first step at the Senate is to sell yourself as to why you will make a good Game and Fish Commissioner and represent fairly all wildlife enthuisiasts to the Senate Natural Resource Committee (a body of 7 elected Senators) to receive a majority vote of them to have your name forwarded to the full Senate (30 elected members). Next step, receive a majority vote of the full Senate (16 votes). Now, all along this 2-3 month process of confirmation the public, anyone who resides in Arizona ,or the world for that matter, can weigh in on the nominee's wothiness or non-worthiness of representing all of Arizona's residents as to his ability to set policy and give direction the the Director for the management of Ariz. diverse wildlife species. Now, give me a break. There is plenty of room and time to get rid of a anti hunter before he/she ever gets to a voting commissioner. In all the past years I only have knowledge of a couple of selections where the person had not had a hunting license prior to their confirmation. They both from the day they were confirmed to today are hunting or fishing license holders. And by the way they made excelent commissioners. Our founding fathers set up this process. It continues to work fine. It is not broken so don't fix it. Beware of unentended consequences.