krp

To be tax-exempt under section 501©(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501©(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates. Organizations described in section 501©(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501©(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170. The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501©(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction. Section 501©(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues. If this refers to SFW and they qualify, so does Sierra Club... They believe themselves to be a leader in wildlife conservation and have no trouble coming up with so call sportsmen saying they are representative. Kent

Sierra Club and PETA would also qualify as a qualifying organization under this legislation... and they have the funding/legal resources to take control of at least some of these tags if not all, once it became law. Kent

I'll take it one step further... future commissioners have to go through the SFW controlled review board... Weiers is still on board for this legislation... if a future commission backs it also.... Kent

Just for general info... I checked out BPJ's 2 references he suggested to me for SFW that they've accomplished since their inception in 2005. Yep they accomplished 2 legislative victories. The only thing of interest I noted immediate was... On the SB bill 1441, one of the G&F commissioners was W Hayes Gilstrap On the commission review board, one of the members is W Hayes Gilstrap Also On the board of SFW, is W hayes Gilstrap and Suzanne Gilstrap is the paid lobbyist Another X commissioner that served with Gilstrap is also on the commission review board. Another X commissioner is on the board of SFW. They are connected to Weiers obviously. Yet the commission was kept in the dark as well as the public... Just something I find interesting... Kent

See, that's why Jesus loves me best... I'm not greedy, one of the seven deadly sins... of the other six... wrath, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony... I may seem just a little lustful... but really just looking out for the folks. Kent

This bill was an attempt to transfer Public property/funds (sale of public tags) to a private organization to use for all administrative, lobbyist, special interest costs with no oversite. This was also an attempted transfer of wildlife management responsibilities from AZG&F to a private organization with no oversite. Nonprofit organization funding by 'Public' resources is truly distasteful, besides setting a president for PETA, HSUS, Sierra Club ect to sue for their own tags off this legislation... I'm for private organizations existing on 'private' donations... period. I don't support public funding for the NRA, RMEF, Salvation Army, St Mary's, First Baptist, Hunt of a lifetime, Ward 57... But 'Kent who Jesus loves best' should be funded, as obviously I am his favorite and am here to save the heathens, plus I just know best because I say. I only want 100 tags... a bargain. Sounds like they will try to take another route to the same destination. Hmmm Kent

The reason I wanted the info is there is a perception based on this tread that Weiers and AZSFW are fused at the hip. John's response is about what I figured. Weiers is very much involved in sportsmen issues and AZSFW not so much. The mistake I see is Weiers listening to special interest groups that lobby without at least some input from the majority of sportsmen. Understandable and something that can easily be rectified, Amanda's and Terry's sites are a powerful avenue for a politician to soundboard off on issues from the very people they want support from at the voting polls or contacting politicians. This should be the lesson and good that comes from this debacle. Weiers shouldn't be thrown under the bus... but also should be enlightened to the fact he can advance his agendas better than he has in the past by at least some conversation and input from those of us who are a majority but not involved in special interest groups or lobbying. Our voice is fairly loud as proven this last week. Amanda and Terry I'm sure would accommodate him with forums he can utilize. As far as AZSFW... I'll just throw some general responses out in no particular order... Why would I recognize as my leader politically an organization that has SFW in it's title? SFW does not have a respectable name in the west, the only reason that would be in an organizations name is from ties to the same sources somehow. As long as SFW was fundraising through it's private sources I have no say in how it runs it business, same as PETA, Sierra Club ect, once it tries to move into the public sector for funding, then expect heads to turn and look. Somehow being on SFW's email list for most of us is well down the list of all the national and state issues destroying our American way of life. Doesn't mean we can't take a few days and squash a real threat handily if it presents itself. I'm guilty of relaxing on the commission issue after Jan Brewer proved she can make the right choices. I was very outspoken on how the commission was not answerable to a voting constituency during Nappy's reign... now it seems we have two unanswerable groups. Lastly, John seems like a good guy, unfortunately the closer you are to these situation the harder it is to see outside. Kent

I looked through those binos where they stood and yes, I could see tree outlines and individual boulders in outcroppings, it was midday and there was plenty of mirage but impressive, over 10 miles away. They are Zeiss. Dr Ken Howell was the former editor of Rifle and Handloader magazines as well as an author, was also a teacher and Professor in Prescott years ago... He was also great friends with old Bill Jordan and Bill Ruger, I have been blessed to listen to hours of his reminiscence at his house in NM many nights and count him as family now. he's only 80 Gary, be 81 next week, I'm telling him you said he was 90... lol Anyone want his contact info I can forward... he'd be thrilled to have an ear to bend and he's definitely worth the listen. Kent

The failures of Weiers and AZFSW are their own fault and has nothing to do with 'us' sportsmen. We have not been included in any partnership on these legislative proposals. By failures I mean this debacle and the Hunter's rights ballot bill. How much lobbyist money was spent on that poorly written bill that was so bad the majority of hunters voted against. A little inclusion and input during the drafting stage of those 'expected' to support at the polls would have probably resulted in success... but that's too obvious. And we are expected to blindly support a losing record with 350 tags and the funds they generate? Nope. Enough generalities... I spent a little time trying to form an opinion of the 'Good' legislation allegedly enacted by these entities. Can't find much, for the same reason we aren't ever included in the first place. I'm willing to listen to specifics, here's your chance. The commission review board... I've found the names, a little info that sheds almost no light on the individuals... and their first minutes of the initial meeting, which sheds little light... How are they appointed? Who appoints them? What qualifies them to be the only source of appointee review. What advantage it is to us to have another 'non answerable to the voting constituency' 5 person panel, making decisions and another step away from the original 'non answerable to the voting constituency' 5 person G&F commission. We sportsmen aren't involved in the board selection and it puts one more step away from our voting voice. What's to keep the review board from being stacked liberal in the future and the tables being turned on us?... I really don't have enough specifics to know if this is a good thing or not, here's a chance to convince us that our best interests as a group were being worked for. I would like to also know specifically what other legislation has been enacted, we can start other threads to specifically review and dissect those. And what is this new Omnibus bill? maybe it'd be a good time to start including us if you want our support. Kent

Feels like 'Uncle' snuck in at midnight, put his hands in our panties and then tried to tell us how we should be grateful for the attempted molestation when we slap the hand away. Kent

Comes down to the attempted political theft of valuable public property, controlled by a single entity without oversite by a voting constituency, overblown statistics, gaping legal loopholes ripe for corruption, collusion and cronyism... with the promise of some future vague effort towards the average hunter's advantage... respectfully of course. What's not to like? Kent

I saw a collared female wolf on the 4B side of Forest Lakes in '99 during archery elk season, saw it two times and my buddy saw it once. called G&F and the lady said they were looking for a female that left whatever area it was in. I believed then and still do now, these 'escapes' were planned. More predator pressure, whether coyotes because of no more trapping, lions, wolves and humans having 8 hunting seasons in a unit... is the number 1 detriment to deer populations. Too many agendas.... Kent

That is so COOOOOL Matt!!!!! Nice write up also Congrats... Kent

Congrats to your Mom, good for you making sure she was successful. Looks like you have a nice spot. Kent

Exactly what does the law say on retrieving an animal from a legal kill by the original hunter... does it specify an exact time limit? Unless this is spelled out specifically, I would imagine it could be taken to court as AZG&F has set precedence of allowing hunters to find/keep their kills, even months later. Kent

Anytime Kent

Amazon has them for 315.72... if you need to borrow mine again this year they are available. Kent

Good info Blake and Gary. Problem I can see with bolting it on is exactly what happened, makes a prybar an easy can opener. The more secure it is to a solid object the more torque can be applied to a small area like a seam, use it's immobility against it. If the box flops around with torque it's much harder to get a bite on it. Being in construction and having to demo every once in awhile, I can see a very easy way to get at any cam in a box, welded or whatever. I won't say as to help future thieves. It just means if someone wants that cam they will get it. It only discourages a casual encounter and animals. Hope you all have better luck in the future. Kent

Gary, with all the bark rotted off on most of it, it looks dead to me... I know, I know but I'm a 'detail' guy as you know. Gets me in trouble. LOL Kent

This one is a no brainer, terrible! Check the area for who might be carrying yellow pry type tools, possibly in their job, yellow is not to common. Kent

That's reasonable. These cam issues are white hot now, just look at the response of just a couple of vague pictures. It gets beyond name calling, there are physical threats. This can of worms has been opened some posts down and you probably didn't know what you were walking into. These public cam fights are being noticed and the results will not favor cam users. I can see a law much like the Lacy act for cams... no use during hunting seasons, prescouting only. I agree with private property rights but also see the privacy issue if a guy is trying to 'hunt' a blind and he has cams filming him, flashing , whatever from 'scouters'. I can't blame someone for turning one off or covering it. It's much like the 'first come, first serve' on blinds, except the hunter should have precedence over the scouter. It's only going to get worse the more cams are put out... just the nature of the beast. The wrong person get accused in anger. Oh well, I'm headed hunting, maybe if I see a cam I can show someone my butt. Later, Kent

No problem, I'm stepping in deliberately to take some heat on myself and defuse a very serious situation until it can be ironed out. I am questioning Chiefbarry's evidence without trying to discredit him too much... most of my comments are for members that were seeing the evidence wrong. possibly he has 70 other pictures and for him he sees the full picture, he just hasn't put up the best of his evidence if that's the case, he needs to step back and start again. His evidence at this point sucks. That the members here grabbed the torches and noose, headed for a lynching is the sad part. It was getting out of hand fast. I'm out of this now. Kent

Different magnification and what's going on with the top 1/4 of the second picture. tampering somehow, don't know why. Guy was probably just out scouting for his kids Jr elk hunt and now he's a criminal. Kent

I'm defensive because fellow hunters, whether I know them or not are being raked over the coals, threats made, called names, their personal info posted, all over three posts and three pictures that don't come close to adding up. I'd stand here for you if your picture was shown. Obviously most don't need real proof or even a close proximity. This could just as well be the Vet's own camera. I can save any picture on the internet in 'my pictures' and put it in my photobucket and say they are mine. Like this.... After blowing up the picture in 'my pictures', that guy isn't my friend or the Vet, just a guy walking by at 7:30, doesn't matter. Chief claimed he was the second guy besides the older vet, stealing the cam during the 1/2 hour 9:20 theft fest. That is flat out wrong from the pictures which is his sole evidence. I will standup for that guy against a mob until real proof is shown, the BS meter is pegged... wake up. Kent

HUH? the third picture is of a guy in a floppy hat, hours earlier... unrelated unless you stretch really hard. I'm 90% sure I know that guy and there better be more proof that he specifically touched the camera, he is in no way related to the vets in any way. He does have a nov archery tag and has been scouting. The dates are 2009, big deal if you can't set dates but that rules out oct 2nd also. Which puts the time frame in question.. This could be the vets own camera, someone got the pictures from, as plausible as any explanation. Where's the pictures of the camera twisting and the bino with vet's care? There is a third person in the 9:00 time frame, that person is the one lifting the camera up at the older gentlemen... max1 camo doesn't match any of the others during that time. Possibly unlocking it to check the card of his camera? I'm going by what was said and it don't match the three pictures. The lynch mob mentality amazes me on almost zero evidence. Kent