GElms

Attached is the Commission Rule that defines the process R12-4-121. Big Game Permit or Tag Transfer A. A parent or guardian to whom a big game hunt permit-tag is issued may transfer the unused permit or tag to the parent’s or guardian’s minor child, if: 1. The minor child is from 10 to 17 years old on the date of transfer, 2. The minor child has a valid hunting license on the date of transfer, and 3. A minor child less than 14 years old satisfactorily completes a Department-approved hunter education course by the beginning date of the hunt. B. A parent or guardian may obtain a transfer, in person, at any Department office. To obtain a transfer, a parent or guardian shall provide the following: 1. Proof of ownership of the big game permit or tag to be transferred; 2. The minor’s valid hunting license; and 3. The unused big game permit or tag. C. An individual to whom a hunt permit-tag is issued or the individual’s legal representative may donate the unused tag to a non-profit organization if: 1. The organization is exempt from federal taxation under Section 501© of the Internal Revenue Code; 2. The organization provides opportunities and experiences to children with life-threatening medical conditions; and 3. The individual or legal representative that donates the tag provides the organization with some type of statement that indicates that the tag is voluntarily donated to that organization. D. A non-profit organization that receives a hunt permit-tag under subsection © may obtain a transfer by contacting any Department office. To obtain a transfer, an organization shall: 1. Provide proof of donation of the big game permit-tag to be transferred; 2. Provide the unused big game permit or tag; 3. Provide proof of the minor child’s valid hunting license; and 4. Transfer the tag to a minor child who meets the following criteria: a. Has a life-threatening medical condition; b. Is 10 to 17 years old by the date of the transfer; c. Has a valid hunting license; and d. If is less than 14 years old, satisfactorily completes a Department-approved hunter education course before the beginning date of the hunt. E. The Department shall issue a transfer permit or tag in the name of the minor child if it is lawfully submitted according to this Section. The Rule does not require the person donating the tag to be present in the field. A previous version of the rule required the person donating the tag to be continuously presnet. That wording was removed in the last revision in 2006. Gene Elms Law Enfrocement Branch Chief Arizona Game and Fish Department

Guys The Department goes to great lengths to communicate to our customers on most issues. Our I&E folks have huge Email distribution lists for a wide range of topics. You can go to our website and sign up for automatic Emails on a wide variety of issues. I have attached a link to that distribution list as well as links to some portions of our web site you may find useful. I know this blog is located on several other web sites so feel free to pass on these links. Game and Fish eNews Distribution List Game and Fish Commission Link Game and Fish Legislative Affairs Link Rule Making Process Link You also indicated the wording is vague. When drafting new laws or legislation we do our best to make sure the language is sound and has the desired result. In cases where a law is drafted and we learn that there are issues with interpretation or we discoverer an unintended consequence we can address that in Rule. Rule making is an internal process that ultimately must be approved by the Governor's Regulatory Review Council. If it is determined in the future that this statute is creating problems we can address it there. I can also issue a Law Enforcement Directive to clear up how our Officers enforce the law. As always the intent is not to prosecute the middle man, the buddy or the friend. We are after people purposely trying to bypass the rules and regulations that define a guides activities. You can modify this definition a thousand times and you will not be able to address every concern. What we do know is the current definition is flawed. The Department is taking measures to correct the language. The enforcement and prosecution of illegal guiding practices has not changed. I will not respond any furhter to this post. If you have further questions you can contact me directly or your nearest Game and fish Office.

Guys I applaud your efforts and encourage you to keep up to date on legislative issues that impact the sportsman of this state. However much of the information that TLH posted is incorrect. The Arizona Game and Fish Department is always available to answer specific questions. Especially pertaining to issues that could potentially impact your hunting/fishing privileges or the wildlife resources of the state. I would encourage anyone with questions on any issue to first seek the truth before jumping to unfounded conclusions or promulgating false information. While the law TLH inserted in his post is correct many of his statements are simply not true. The legislation he is referring to is a proposal to modify law, specifically a change to ARS 17-101.A.10. There are other components of that proposal but I will only address the issue surrounding the definition of Guide. In addition TLH indicates the Department is trying to "sneak another new rule into the books." This is a proposed statue change and not part of our very public rules review process. Last year the Department lost a portion of a court case that claimed a person was guiding a client. In the court case the licensed guide accepted compensation but not money. The state lost the charges related to the guides illegal activities because the Department could not prove the current definition of guide which states, "a person who, for pay, aids or assists any person in taking wildlife." Following that case, our Officers experienced an increase in the number of people using the court case as a defense in their investigations. In cooperation with our legal council we drafted the proposed definition to be more specific. Our desire is to be able to have the tools necessary to prosecute those who are operating an illegal guide service and taking advantage of hunters or clients that may not know their guide is above board. I see many cases in which a client killed what he thought was a legal animal only to find out later that the actions of his guide were illegal. The result of this activity is the harvested animal now becomes unlawfully taken and the hunter can also be cited. Guides must meet a higher standard. They are required to pass a written test to get a license. They must conduct business legally and any violation of Title 17(Wildlife Statues) will result in the loss of their guide license privileges. They must report their guiding activity to the Department and they must pay a fee for their license. This revision to the guide definition will help protect those who are operating legally and aid in the prosecution of those who are guiding illegally. The proposed changes to the statute are listed below. 10. "GUIDE" MEANS A PERSON WHO DOES ANY OF THE FOLLOWING: (a) ADVERTISES FOR GUIDING SERVICES. ( HOLDS HIMSELF OUT TO THE PUBLIC FOR HIRE AS A GUIDE. © IS EMPLOYED BY A COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE AS A GUIDE. (d) ACCEPTS COMPENSATION IN ANY FORM IN EXCHANGE FOR AIDING OR ASSISTING ANY PERSON TO LOCATE OR TAKE WILDLIFE. The intent is and will continue to be, those who are operating as a business. The key word in this legislation is Compensation. It is considered a common word so the courts will reference the normal definition when considering prosecution. Websters defines compensation as "something that constitutes an equivalent." This eliminates the tank of gas for a buddy, the price of groceries, and the box of ammunition. At the point you combine those elements, with the cost of 4 days in a hotel and tip the guy a new pair of Swarovski binoculars you will then enter the realm of definition D listed above. However at that point we are not dealing with a buddy situation. TLH identified some possible illegal scenarios that simply do not satisfy the proposed definition or would not be considered by law enforcement. If you think long and hard you can probably come up with a few more "what if" scenarios but at the end of the day if you compare them to the current definition they would probably also be illegal now. The bottom line here is at the end of the day our Officers must be able to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits. As I stated before we hold our legal guides to a higher standard and we are going to do everything we can to prosecute those who conduct the same business illegally. We support this legeslation and hope you will do the same. If you have any further questions on the issue please feel free to call me of call your local Game and Fish Office. Gene Elms, Law Enforcement Chief, Arizona Game and Fish Department.