krp

Bought my ticket online, not sure how the date works yet, hopefully I can attend. Kent

I know the effort Josh put in over the last years to accomplish this... great job buddy. Kent

If local mail in tomorrow midday to sat early morning. They dump all the envelopes onto a table and pick them out of the pile until all tags are gone. If you don't draw they put your stuff in another envelope and send it back. Kent

Either 23 dec muley or 24b dec coues. Kent

The Arizona Game and Fish Commission approved a draft hunting and fishing license structure and license/tag fees at its June 15 meeting in Payson, Ariz. The proposal will now be taken to the public for a 30-day comment period from June 20 to July 20, 2013. A webcast on the draft structure and fees will be conducted at 6 p.m. on Tuesday, June 25. The webcast can be viewed at www.azgfd.gov/webcast, or the public is welcome to view it at any of the Game and Fish offices. Members of the public who view the webcast at department offices will have the opportunity to ask questions of department staff at those offices after conclusion of the webcast. The ability to ask questions will not be available to those viewing the webcast online. In approving the draft, the commission took into consideration a variety of factors, including comments on the conceptual license structure and fees received during Phase 1 of the public input process in May and June. The Game and Fish Department received 658 comments from more than 200 people who attended 17 public meetings, and received more than 800 comments via e-mail. The department also conducted a science-based mail survey of hunters and anglers and received more than 1,480 responses. One of the most discussed concepts was that of a “premium” hunt structure for certain deer and elk hunts. Based on the public comment received -- predominantly against the premium concept -- the commission did not include a premium hunt structure in the draft proposal. Other factors the commission took into consideration in approving the draft were prior statutory fee caps, the opportunity to simplify the license structure and offer bundled privileges for more value, removal of barriers for the recruitment of new hunters and anglers, reduced cost for youth, and the need to maintain department revenue and services. Some of the key features of the new proposal are: The proposed license structure is simplified to nine license options and a migratory bird stamp, reduced from the current structure of more than 40 license and stamp options that often caused confusion among customers. The proposal would make a new hunting or fishing license valid for one year from the date of purchase. Currently, a license is valid only for the calendar year in which it was purchased, regardless of when it was purchased. Some licenses would have combined privileges (and eliminate the need for separate stamps) at a discount over what those privileges would cost if purchased separately. For example, the proposed price of a resident general fishing license would increase from the current $23.50 to $37, but the new license would include the privileges of a general license, trout stamp, two-pole stamp, a community (urban) fishing license, and Colorado River stamps for Arizona’s shared waters with California and Nevada (dependent on agreements under negotiation with those states). This is a savings of $32.75 over those licenses and stamps if purchased separately under the current structure, or a savings of $16 over the current “Super Fishing” license. The proposal creates a new “youth license” at a significantly reduced price of $5 each year for individuals from ages 10-17. The youth license includes hunting and migratory bird privileges (a tag for big game is still required) and fishing privileges (general, trout stamp, community license, and two-pole stamp, and Colorado River CA/NV stamps, depending on agreements with those states). Most tag fees would be increased under the proposal. For example, a deer tag would cost $45 for residents (up from the current $34.75) and $300 for nonresidents (up from $225.25). An elk tag would cost $135 for residents (up from the current $114) and $650 for nonresidents (up from $587.50). In all cases, the tag increases do not exceed the former fee caps under which the commission previously had authorization prior to passage of SB 1223, and in most cases the proposed tag fees are still less than the old caps. This would be the first increase in license and tag fees since 2007. At that time the Game and Fish Commission made a commitment to sportsmen/sportswomen that it wouldn’t raise fees again for at least five years. The commission and department have honored that commitment despite the challenges presented by the economy over the past several years. Any increases that may ultimately be approved through this proposal would not go into effect until 2014, or seven years since the last increase. Based on public input, the commission decided not to implement a “premium hunt structure” for certain deer and elk tags. The majority of the public comments were against the concept of a premium structure. The commission directed the department to propose an increase in the hunt permit-tag application fee to $13 for residents and $15 for nonresidents (up from the current $7.50), with $3 of the resident fee and $5 of the nonresident fee to be dedicated to hunter access and habitat enhancements. A summary sheet of the proposed draft license structure and fees, the department’s Draft Notice of Exempt Rulemaking, and the public comments received on the license and fee concepts presented in May-June, can be found at www.azgfd.gov/LicenseSimplification. Comment can be provided through July 20, 2013, via e-mail at LicenseSimplification@azgfd.gov or via U.S. mail to Arizona Game and Fish Department, License Simplification Comment, Attn: Ben Alteneder, 5000 W. Carefree Highway, Phoenix, AZ 85086. The commission will review and take into consideration the “Phase 2” public comments on the draft before approving a final license structure and fees, anticipated in August. The goal is to have a new structure and fees implemented by Jan. 1, 2014. The process for setting the new structure and fees was authorized by the recent passage of SB 1223, which allows the Arizona Game and Fish Commission to set future hunting and fishing license structure and fees directly through a streamlined, customer-focused process as opposed to the former complex and time-consuming legislative and regular rulemaking process. (The commission already had the ability to raise fees up to the fee cap under its previous authority). It gives the Game and Fish Department the ability to operate more like a business and react to changing market conditions and customer needs in a timely manner. The bill was signed by Gov. Brewer on May 7 and was supported by 24 sportsmen’s organizations. For more information, visit www.azgfd.gov/LicenseSimplification.

The reality is you can add tags to coues hunt units and there will be within + or - a negligible effect on harvest numbers. Success odds with go down as the same amount of deer are taken by a larger number of hunters. Why? Because there are only a set number of bucks within the average hunters radius from roads or access points. The bucks harvested from that radius will happen whether it's 500 hunters or 1000. The old saying of 90% of animals are taken by 10% of hunters plays into the equation... there are no more 10%ers being added, they already have tags. It's a little different with elk... someone waiting for a tag, finally getting one... has very little chance of success by themselves. But most know a 10%er that wants to go out and get them on an elk. The two main issues for animal numbers are groceries and predation. Can't do much about groceries but predation you can. Kill a lion and you just saved about 30 to 50 deer. Predation control primarily happens in the same radius. The issues with backcountry hunting aren't other hunters, I have only once seen another hunter in my backpacking areas. There are a bunch of lions. If you want to improve your trophy succes, invest the time patterning year to year and predator control... the average once a year weekend hunter is not your competiton. Kent

I asked that same question at the meeting... it would only be draw hunts not OTC... the draw achery hunts above the ditch would be a premium. Kent

There is no biological reason for a premium hunt... this was confirmed by G&F at the Mesa meeting. Changing the biology in units, even on a rotating platform, just to accomodate a minority of hunters... isn't sound management. We already have 'alternative managment units' I don't know what the term is off the top of my head... units that are managed for quality over quantity. There was a suggestion at the mesa meeting of having a habitat stamp for those units, same as the kaibab now... worth thinking about. The premium structure is all political and zero biological... it clashes with the NAM that the G&F tout in their 7 point core concept... especially 3 and 4... http://www.azgfd.gov/h_f/documents/NAM%20Brochure.pdf Hunting and Angling Laws are Created Through Public Process Hunting seasons, harvest limits and penalties imposed for violations are established through laws and regulations. Everyone has the opportunity to shape the laws and regulations applied in wildlife conservation. Hunting and Angling Opportunity for All Opportunity to participate in hunting, angling and wildlife conservation is guaranteed for all in good standing, not by social status or privilege, financial capacity or land ownership. This concept ensures a broad base of financial support and advocacy for research, monitoring, habitat conservation and law enforcement. We need to offer alternatives instead of just saying no to the premium proposal and the obvious is the the best. About 4500 premium elk tags at 55.00 extra or 10.00 across the board of 24,000 total elk tags equal the same... or increase the cow tags the same as bull. Deer there would be 3200 premium at 55.00 extra... a couple of bucks across the board would generate that. Elk right now is 121.00 with app fee... it would be 158.00 conceptional Deer now is 42.00 with app fee... 58.00 conceptional These increases seem steep but with the added app fee to all applications it would generate millions... the premium designation would only create 400,000 and cause all kinds of polorization of hunters and confict in the field... it also will put another wrinkle in the draw system that is already experiencing 'unintended' consequences with the 20% pass. All for a decmial point in the overall budget percentage. Kent

OTC tags stay the same, no premium... Mesa meeting... there was concern expressed over whether some units might close to archery in dec because of the premium rifle tags. This emphasizes the class/social problems of a premium system. Hunter against hunter and the same issues could come up in the early archery elk hunts where cow hunts are going on the same time as premium bull hunts. Comparing az to other states is a PR blunder, AZ has set the bar in the west for many years, we do not need to lower to the common denominator, they are not the punblic school system. We are not like other states in numbers and draw system and shouldn't try to be. 13 bucks seems steep of an app fee. Prices have to go up, it's been 7 years. Pittman/Robinson funds are addressed in the license changes and I support generally those. Drop the premium hunt idea completely, a few bucks on all tags across the board generate just as much increase, which isn't much. Kent

It's very important to express your thoughts in emails, this was emphasized last night repeatedly... as these are not even recomendations yet. This is still evolving. The commissioners have only approved going to the public for opinion at this time... voice that opinion. Kent

TJ, I was the one that asked you what you came up with as a count. You looked familiar, I guess from your pictures here, but I didn't put it together till you posted today. Next time I'll introduce myself. good seeing you buddy. Kent

TJ, there was that one guy that had to leave early... I was surprise so many showed, usually it's just a couple in Mesa. Ryan, I think the Mesa meeting fairly mirrored the Phx one based on your commentary. Thanks for those that came and spoke up, there were some very insightful views and alternatives expressed. Kent

http://www.outdoorne...court&Itemid=18 HSUS getting taste of its own medicine in court Print E-mail By JIM MATTHEWS www.OutdoorNewsService.com The Humane Society of the United States, an organization that does little to nothing for animal shelters, but sues, badgers and lobbies politicians and businesses into adopting its radical animals rights agenda, is getting a taste of its own medicine. In a little-reported ruling by a judge in the District of Columbia earlier this month, the HSUS is going to court to face charges under RICO statues on racketeering, obstruction of justice, malicious prosecution and other charges for a lawsuit it brought and lost against Ringling Brothers Circus’ parent company Feld Entertainment, Inc. After winning the case alleging mistreatment of elephants in its circuses brought by Friends of Animals (later merged into HSUS), the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) and the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI), lawyers at Feld filed a countersuit with a litany of charges ranging from bribery to money laundering to racketeering. The attorneys for the animal rights groups asked the judge to dismiss all charges, but most stuck because the evidence was overwhelming. So in early August, HSUS will be facing the music in a case that should attract the attention of hunters, ranchers and farmers, and anyone impacted by HSUS radical animal rights agenda. While district judge Emmet G. Sullivan did dismiss allegations of mail and wire fraud, but he only did so because Feld didn’t have standing to file this charge. His ruling all but set the stage for a class-action RICO lawsuit against HSUS for misrepresenting itself in its fundraising campaigns across the nation. This future lawsuit could easily bankrupt HSUS and put it out of business – and send some of its top executives to prison. For the first time, a group has fought back against the animal rights and environmental extremists who have been setting policy in this country for the past 20 years or more. Now, instead of getting rich off their lawsuits and fund-raising schemes that misrepresent their efforts and accomplishments, they could be driven out of business when they start getting larger doses of their own medicine. These animal rights groups have cost the farming and ranching industry jobs and raised the price of products we all buy every day. They are behind the efforts to ban sport hunting across the nation. They have forced state wildlife and fishery agencies to waste countless millions of dollars on lawsuits, and they have spearheaded policies and legislation like the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA), which has ruined livelihoods in recreational and commercial fishing without helping marine resources. These groups operate with surly arrogance, and they believe they are above the law. Thankfully, that is not the case. Stay tuned. I'm sure there will be more to talk about in the near future….

I get a feeling the anti's are in a down swing... no lawsuit after the last wolf delisting from defenders of wildlife and now this... seems they may be hurting for funds in this economy. Add to that liabilty of lawsuit/truth in fund raising issues... reality may prove out finally. Kent

http://forums.couesw...es

There was a thread awhile back of a stolen camera, with a picture of the mangled lock box still on the tree... had yellow paint on the box from the pry tool used to open it... I said then it wasn't hunters... and again, most cameras aren't taken by hunters, though they are the first accused... find the yellow paint in the pictures... Kent

Humph... you guys were making so much dust on the way out sunday, Troy and I stopped and made a pork sandwich and tater salad... It also gave us an opportunity to disparage you , George, and Curtis freely... as you couldn't defend yourself... Oh, not only are you a scorpion whisperer... and you can halt runaway large excavating equipment with just the word 'stop'... my tire also heard you and quit leaking, it still has 45 lbs of air since I pumped it up... Awesomeness pales in comparison to you... Till next time brother... Kent

Donnie is doing a great job... my one post about pubic and private was to the couple folks that said they didn't owe us an answer, well maybe I don't remember well but those of us at the ADA meeting wanting an answer were suppose to get one at a later date, since we couldn't get one that night... I was challenged to show up to speak and get answers... ironic. Anyway, I'm still working on stuff, just no use talking much till it's complete. Kent

NRA, around 100,000 strong in AZ, is a powerful force even in state politics though they are mostly National. Here's an example of state legislation Gov Brewer signed for hunters less than two weeks ago. I didn't see any local orgs engaged in this successful legislation for hunters... http://www.nraila.org/hunting/issues-and-alerts/2012/4/arizona-governor-signs-hunter-protection-bill-into-law.aspx April 11, 2012... Last night, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed House Bill 2457 into law. This legislation will allow hunters to carry a handgun for self-defense while in the field. This important hunter protection bill passed the state Senate by a 21 to 7 vote on April 4 and passed in the House by a 54 to 4 vote on March 5. The RMEF has 5000 members in this state and there are other national orgs that we can rely on that have members here also. We need to rely on them because most of the threats from antis are on the Federal level... GC watershed monument as an example... We have many more people involved than is being stated... and with effectual organizations. Every person involved in hunting also supports the AZ G&F with licenses and fees, AZ G&F is the biggest entity in the state supplying biology and habitat solutions for wildlife... obviously... but it gets lost sometimes. Along with that every hunter pays the 11% Pittman Robertson taxes on equipment that comes back to AZ, and in 2010 it was 12,000,000... so the average hunter is funding in a big way already... http://www.fws.gov/southwest/federal_assistance/wr.html http://www.azgfd.gov/h_f/federal-aid-cycle.shtml Who does the best job in youth retention... family. For every youth hunter there is an average of 2 adults along and sometimes more... consider that, on the amount of youth tags given. I love youth camps and they are sorely needed, but they pale in comparison in the overall picture numbers wise. Our elk camp was typical this last year. There was a youth with a 3C jr tag one weekend and a youth with a general 3C cow tag the next and we also had a youth with a reservation archery tag at the same time... and adults with rez tags. So it's a big camp for a couple weeks... I help on all their hunts, the perfect example was the young lady that had her GreatGF, GF, Father in camp making 4 generations. GF, father and I take her out. What she gets out of this is how important she is to her family, how supportive they are not only in this but all things in her life... You can't replace that with a 8.00 hotdog and a fishtank at an expo. Local orgs are effective on the ground, no doubt, that's where their strength is, not politics... my take is there is X amount of extra donations available, just how life is... there are more and more orgs lining up for that pot and that's what we are seeing. We need to be smart in who gets our donation, who proves they won't waste it, who proves they are conservation orientated. Those that stepout into the 'public' political arena are making a big mistake and they can't hide behind their conservation skirts when public opinion confronts them. For politics we need an org that can prove they are effectual, not flail around in their agendas and representation. When we see a solid org, I will support... we are at ground zero. Kent

AZSFW is a PAC, that means POLITICAL action committee, emphasis on political... they are not a conservation org. They are a 'private' political entity, and I only care what they do in the 'public' political forum... and as a 'public' myself I have every right to question or opine on their actions. They feed off the conservation orgs by charging dues... therefore we have a right to question and have answers to the political support of the conservation orgs when we disagree with the 'public' political actions of AZSFW. I have continued to emphasis separation of politics and conservation, it was my subject at the ADA meeting with how the tag funding would be legal to use in a PAC political agenda with 2072. I continue to say the commission review board is a 'public' political entity, not conservation... and therefore under political scrutiny... yet I'm told I'm wrong because members have worked in conservation... lol... this is politics, with politic rules, where big boy pants are worn... Conservation isn't the answer, excuse or atonement... you support screwing me politically, I will question the political agenda. Kent

Good post non-typical... Anyway, this is a federal issue and my suggestion would for the Governor to play politics and approach this as she did the border... demand that the President make this a monument, threaten to support state legislation... Obama will have Holder sue the state to leave it's designation NF and they beat us again. Kent

Yep, luckily the influence of the 60s and early 70s are finally passing as is the influence of 60 to 70 year olds. It's too bad our history of the 'greatest generation' WWII era was followed by our worst since the founding fathers fought for our freedom and crafted our constitution. Hippies went from condemning 'the man' to running our congress, politics, media, societal culture... Old hippies aren't groovy... and they still need a bar of soap to clean up the stink. Kent

you forgot... in your pajamas, sipping a latte, from the latest Greenpeace 'save a whale' eco-cup collection... just say'n... Kent

Azsfw is a PAC and lobbyist, they brought the legislation to the legislature and got it passed. It was their idea, the appointment board members didn't walk in off the street, each has ties to founders of azsfw. Kent

The argument about solely with the governor is my same argument about solely with a few special interests... Kent