krp

The relevant issue is tags for education. You addressed me, expect a reply. Kent

No problem, if you quote me and want to comment on the white part of my post and not the black I'll correct you. Kent

Then start another thread, this is about tags for education. Kent

AZ receives about 4 million from section 4 per year and 240,000 from section 10. Kent

Anyone saying Pittman Robertson funds absolutely can't be used are guessing. The scope may be narrow and only fund a minority of whatever programs G&F decide needed for public education... but then like all funding it often evolves multiple sources. Anything usable from PR reduces the burden of other sources. I definitely could see a public educational announcement for hunter/prospective hunters, stressing the importance of super predator control (lion, coyote,bear) to alleviate pressure and distress on prey animals where super predators are in abundance and in the same message stress the importance of identifying endangered super predators and the need for their protection from hunting. Public announcements to all hunters/prospective hunters in the state not just those at hunter safety classes. Possibly general announcements educating hunters/prospective hunters on how their license and tag fees go to create habitat and wildlife conservation. If approached the right way there are some messages that could fit into PR funding. https://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/subpages/grantprograms/HunterEd/HE.htm Hunter Education - OverviewAbout The Hunter Education Program provides grant funds to the states and insular areas fish and wildlife agencies for projects to provide instruction in firearm operations and safety, wildlife management, nature conservation, ethics, game laws, outdoor survival and wilderness first aid. Funds may also be used for the development and operations of archery and shooting range facilities. The goal is to teach students to be safe, responsible, conservation-minded hunters. Most States require completion of a hunter education course prior to purchasing a hunting license. The Hunter Education Program is part of the Wildlife Restoration Program. Spending for the Hunter Education Program is authorized in the Wildlife Restoration Act. Learn more about Wildlife Restoration Program accomplishments. Source of Funds States and insular areas are apportioned funds for Hunter Education - Section 4 © (traditional funds) and Hunter Education - Section 10 (enhanced funds). Each state receives an annual apportionment for Section 4 © and Section 10 funds based their population compared to the total U. S. population with no state receiving more than 3 percent or less than 1 percent. Insular areas receive 1/6 of 1 percent. Revenues from manufacturers' excise taxes collected on pistols, revolvers, bows, arrows, archer accessories and arms and ammunition are deposited to the Wildlife Restoration Account. 1/2 of the excise taxes collected on pistols, revolvers, bows, arrows and archer accessories are used to fund Section 4 ©. After funding Section 4 ©, $8 million is deducted from the Wildlife Restoration Account to fund Section 10. The funds remaining in the Wildlife Restoration Account fund WSFR administration, the Multistate Conservation Grant Program and the Wildlife Restoration Program. Section 4 © funds may be used for hunter education projects or wildlife restoration projects. If all Section 4 © funds apportioned in a fiscal year are obligated for hunter education projects, the Section 10 funds apportioned in the same fiscal year may be used for either hunter education or wildlife restoration projects. However, if all Section 4 © funds apportioned in the fiscal year are not obligated for hunter education projects, Section 10 funds must be used for hunter education. Grants States and the U.S. Insular Areas fish & wildlife agencies may apply for grants by contacting the specific WSFR Office or apply online at grants.gov. Grant funds are disbursed to states for approved grants up to 75% of the project costs and insular areas up to 100% of the project costs.

I guess if we want to educate folks about lions we could auction/raffle lion tags. Kent

Also from trophyseeker's link the funds can only be used for the species the tag was for. Kent

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/50/80.50

§ 80.50 What activities are eligible for funding under the Pittman-RobertsonWildlife Restoration Act? The following activities are eligible for funding under the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act: (a)Wildlife Restoration program. (1) Restore and manage wildlife for the benefit of the public. (2) Conduct research on the problems of managing wildlife and its habitat if necessary to administer wildliferesources efficiently. (3) Obtain data to guide and direct the regulation of hunting. (4) Acquire real property suitable or capable of being made suitable for: (i) Wildlife habitat; or (ii) Public access for hunting or other wildlife-oriented recreation. (5) Restore, rehabilitate, improve, or manage areas of lands or waters as wildlife habitat. (6) Build structures or acquire equipment, goods, and services to: (i) Restore, rehabilitate, or improve lands or waters as wildlife habitat; or (ii) Provide public access for hunting or other wildlife-oriented recreation. (7) Operate or maintain: (i) Projects that the State fish and wildlife agency completed under the Pittman-Robertson WildlifeRestoration Act; or (ii) Facilities that the agency acquired or constructed with funds other than those authorized under the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act if these facilities are necessary to carry out activities authorized by the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act. (8) Coordinate grants in the Wildlife Restoration program and related programs and subprograms. (Wildlife Restoration - Basic Hunter Education and Safety subprogram. (1) Teach the skills, knowledge, and attitudes necessary to be a responsible hunter. (2) Construct, operate, or maintain firearm and archery ranges for public use. ©Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety program. (1) Enhance programs for hunter education, hunter development, and firearm and archery safety. Hunter-development programs introduce individuals to and recruit them to take part in hunting, bow hunting, target shooting, or archery. (2) Enhance interstate coordination of hunter-education and firearm- and archery-range programs. (3) Enhance programs for education, safety, or development of bow hunters, archers, and shooters. (4) Enhance construction and development of firearm and archery ranges. (5) Update safety features of firearm and archery ranges.

Are they claiming exclusive access to the educational funds through tag sales vs education license/application fee? Kent

I suggested here that a 5 dollar added fee per application, education fee, at around 300,000 apps could raise the money. But a 2 or 3 dollar license fee increase adding fishing would also do it. Pittman Robinson funds should be the first look. Kent

I truly try to make specific statements of fact or reasonable logic, and try not to single one post or person out, though Dave pressed some issues so it was more of a one on one with him. I don't expect everyone to understand what I'm saying but I'm not asking questions, I'm putting a very specific line of thought out for others to think about. I also expect to pissoff some folks and don't care. Kent

I never referenced a 6 year old post on this thread, go back and read my posts on this thread, I have laid out and referenced why this is a bad idea and alternate funding if it is necessary. I'm only answerable to the black part of my posts, anything you read in the white part is on you. Kent

Weird, I make statements on this issue that haven't been refuted. Only sneaky thing may be that it was me that asked Pete at the ADA meeting but that's all history on this site. Kent

At the 2012 ADA meeting someone pinned Pete down for an answer on whether the tag grab was ethical and right, with his head down he answered no... wonder who that person was... Kent

Problem I see this time... last time it was a legislative move to allow the sell of tags and the group keep the money to spend as they see fit, admin costs/salaries, expo, ect... stealing funds from G&F and G&F was against it... this time they are wanting to sell tags and give the money to G&F, hey do you want more money for 'education'? I don't think we have the allies we had last time. Kent

Well I know that they were still active during the original Portal/tag return/paid premium membership proposal by the G&F. I was contacted for an opinion of the proposal before the Mesa G&F meeting and saw them at the meeting and talked with them after. As far as I remember they were a watchdog group of legislative bills harmful to G&F and hunters. They weren't funded or soliciting funds to fight these bills, just make them public and not get under the radar as HB2072 almost did in 2012. Saying they were supposed to do what this group is wanting to do is wrong... if they had, all the critter orgs would have been asked to join and fund... right. Kent

I'm here but seldom post on this website anymore, I'll scan through the classifieds occasionally. When I was told what was going on again I knew I shouldn't have looked, even held off for a couple days. Kent

Dave you said this... "Absolutely no monies raised from tag and or permit fees can go to fight a political agenda. It would take a change to the state constitution. .....Please look into the money, time and effort required to do so. Also the slim chance it would be approved Pittman - Robertson monies would require a complete change to the system country wide." Now it's an educational program funded from the G&F not political. I've already addressed this in previous posts without calling out any specific posters quotes. An educational campaign can be funded conventionally and most probably with P/R funds. Kent

What group? I already linked the g&f site for hpc explaining their structure whitch doesn't match your description of what you were told of a board of individuals foot this new fund. I'm strictly addressing your words. Kent

I already understand the hpc process and if I wished to bring a proposal I could, but not to a board of individuals. Though I was invited to meetings and attended I was never a part of the constituency group, as far as I know they still exist and your description of their policies isn't correct and I dont remember them looking to create funds, they are a watchdog group against those wanting to screw the average hunter. You need to ask Allen Taylor, been a few years since I saw him at a g&f meeting. They might be looking into this fight now. There's be a bunch of misinformation in this thread, I can't go back and address it all again on my phone out of town. Kent

First thing I'd ask the g&f rep is can Pittman Robinson money be used as it's earmarked for hunter/prospective hunter education.

Sorry for any misspelling as I'm on my phone working out of town. Hoc not hoc.

I get my info from the azgfd website and reading the minutes of previous meetings. You said board of individuals. Are you a member of the hoc board of individuals? Or a representative of an org running a local committee? Kent

What you are describing is not similar to the HPC. There is no HPC board of individuals, there are local committees. AZGFD approves all funding proposals. This is a blatant attempt to piggyback off a successful and popular program. Who is feeding you this info and staying behind the scenes? Let me given you some advice, last time I was point man in 2012, my phone bill was 300 bucks from all the org leaders and others that wanted give me info to put out publicly.. you need to vet any info you relay as it's on you if it's wrong... don't let someone feed you soundbites and then sit back anonymous to see how it plays. Kent