bonuspointjohn

the 3 bar wildlife area ( walnut canyon enclosure ) should be an excellent example of predation! Put a fence up and keep out the deer killers and those heards #s will increase. I think last time I was there there still are collard deer there and there were students from Texas doing a study and surveys on them. It seems they addressed the predator issue a little by rebuilding 1 of the tanks up there and allowing night mnt lion hunting in that area, so they obviously know it's an issue. I don't have a problem with the "bait ban" but it won't stop there! I agree, if it is about ethics and fair chase then say so!! It would be cool to be a fly on the wall behind closed doors of the big wigs at the G&F office... we can speculate all we want on what there agendas truly are but unless we here it straight from the horses mouth it's only speculation and that drives up the price of oil from what they say. James the ADA helped fund that study with the help of Texas Tech students. The last part of the monitoring came a few years back and Amanda and I spent time in the area . They had inserted 20 does with IUD's that were expelled upon birth of the fawns. The Texas Tech crew then went out and attempted to collar the new born fawns. After collaring, the crew kept checking them until a mortality occurred and then they went to the collar site to determine what had killed them. The usual suspects were of course predators. It was a very worthwhile study, but the key factor in the 3Bar was that there were NO PREDATORS at all in the enclosure. It was hot tough work and those students earned their keep. Cruising along on foot in the desert in July without wearing Gators was a true testament to their passion. One morning climbing those hills convinced me that those kids were really tough and in great shape. BPJ

There has been some debate about changing the name, but we all looked at it as "damned if you do and damned if you don't". We still meet the 4th Tuesday of each month and review all the applications for grants through the WCC (Wildlife Conservation Committee). We still have 13 member groups (I think) and more are talking about coming back in. There are no more of the folks who ran, lobbied and funded the AZSFW, since that group has folded. We are still discussing ideas and philosophies, but are strictly adhering to not get involved on a political front with the legislature unless there is a unanimous vote from all the sportsmen's groups. We have been busy funding a lot of different items for various groups across the state. The AES, Mohave Valley, Yuma Valley Rod and Gun Club have all been given funding over the past few months. The largest amount of funding was to the Arizona Wildlife Federation / Coconino Sportsmen for the 4 Forest Initiative to do the beginnings of clearing work in the Coconino. If someone has questions, please feel free to send me an e-mail. Amanda has mine and it is open...BPJ J. Koleszar

ADA will probably vote on it at next meeting or at least discuss. We are all getting ready for deer season, camps, and 2 projects before the end of the year, so we will be busy...bpj

I was at the meeting and commented regarding the activities that I was present for. The AZSFW officially has been disbanded. That took place over 3 months ago..... Where were you Lance?... I expected to hear you chime in from Tucson at the regional site..... Sorry, I was hunting for bad guys in unit 35. But good job PBJ, were you representing AZSFW, ADA, or just your self? I was representing the ADA officially (as Vice President) on the Condor issue. The ADA fully supports the AZGFD and the commission on the voluntary use of copper and we pointed out the virtual impossibility of 1) passing any laws since the CBD has lost everywhere on lead suits in the past. 2) covering the thousands of square miles would be an absolutely impossible cause and 3) garnering local support is so much more possible through cooperation rather than through litigation. Again the AZSFW has been disbanded for over 4 months now, so they are long gone. The principals had a meeting and the AZSFWC was advised that they are no longer an entity in Arizona. The AZSFWC no longer has some of the key players as members. Most resigned when the AZSFW was disbanded. I represented myself on the issue of the Mcdowell preserve and I am planning on attending the next Scottsdale meeting regarding the preserve. I also represented the PNRC during the call to the public. The PNRC wanted someone to approach the commission and the department about arranging for tags that cannot be utilized either through illness injury or death and giving them to any disabled veteran who has suffered those wounds while serving in the military. There are a lot of disabled veterans who would like to hunt and are part of the draw process. If there are tags available where someone cannot use them, we are attempting to see if there is any possible legislative effort in the future where disabled vets can get to use these tags. It is similar to the program where kids can get tags for life threatening illness. It would move some of the vets up faster to hunt and I am hoping that it will be part of the political process in the future. Again, that idea came from the PNRC (Payson Natural Resources Committee) which I am a member of through the AES and the ADA... BPJ

I was at the meeting and commented regarding the activities that I was present for. The AZSFW officially has been disbanded. That took place over 3 months ago..... Where were you Lance?... I expected to hear you chime in from Tucson at the regional site.....

I was in attendance at the meeting on Saturday but did leave at noon to fulfill other obligations. One item of interest was the folks from the City of Scottsdale who appeared in force to remove archery from the McDowell Preserve. To their credit, the Commission held the line on not commenting to their plea, since it was not a listed part of the agenda. Their comments came during the Javelina section of the proposed spring hunt guidelines. there was one individual who spoke in support of the hunting in the preserve, while 6 opposed it. I filled out a blue slip and offered my own opinion that it is a slippery slope regarding the outlawing of hunting on the preserve. I also pointed out that almost all who opposed stated that they did not want to see hunting in "their backyards"... I pointed out the obvious that these are "public lands", not "their backyards" and that as a multi use, we have every right to be there and pursue hunting by archery. This is a battle that will not go away and the department and commission will be pushed further in the future. I was surprised that there were so few sportsmen at the commission meeting and even fewer from the remote locations...I thought that Lance would appear from Tucson, but I was mistaken. I also hoped that someone from the ABA would be in attendance, but that did not happen either. I know they tend to shut down for a few months prior to the archery season, but they still need to have someone watching the chicken coop while the foxes are out...JK

Not true. The AZGFD did manage to hire the OHV officers and they have been working in the field. That department is headed up by Jimmy Simmons, who at one time was a WM in unit 23, then over to I think DPS and finally back to the department a couple of years ago. So the money that came to the department has stayed. The OHV grant money always has been sent to State PArks, but they continually sweep the funds to pay for their own personnel. The OHV boys need to play tough...BPJ But in reality, they removed someone from another job to do this job, right? No the net increase in expenditure is probably little to none. Does the money these guys generate in the form of fines get swept away too? The jobs were created from the outside and there was an extensive process. These are all new people, funded by the OHV fund. There was no movement of monies in the department to pay for it. So for that part, the fund paid for those OHV Rangers. I have no idea where the fines go to...BPJ

I assume that a lot of the CWT folks are OHV riders. When the OHV bill was passed a few years ago, there was the establishment of OHVAG that was supposed to be the defining board for applicants that wanted to apply for grants for OHV projects. Roads, trail maps, construction etc. I received an e-mail today that says the Arizona State Parks Board is ignoring their recommendations for grants and is applying the monies where the state parks board wants it to go. Long ago the fact that the Arizona State Parks had control of the OHVAG money was astounding.... and the monies were swept year after year from OHVAG..... It appears that once again the omnipotent state Parks board is raiding monies with impunity. There is not a single inch of trails in any state parks...and they administer the funds....Politics gone from bad to worse for the OHV groups...BPJ

<img alt="" border="0" height="152" width="606" /> July 12, 2012 Dear Arizona OHV Community, Many of you recently received a letter from Mr. John Savino, Chairman of Arizona State Parks Off-Highway Vehicle Advisory Group. Although I appreciate Mr. Savino’s passion, his message requires some clarification. Please allow me to briefly address the current relationship between the OHV community in Arizona and Arizona State Parks. AZ State Parks and the OHV Community are partners. AZ State Parks is Legislatively required to manage OHV Sticker funds in an effort to enhance OHV operations throughout the State of Arizona. I take that responsibility very seriously. As the new Arizona State Parks Director, I was very concerned when I was briefed that OHV sticker money is having trouble getting to OHV programs. OHV sticker money is the OHV community’s money! Let me say that again. OHV sticker money belongs to the entire OHV community. When I say the entire community, I mean everyone who drives off-highway. Those people include campers, hunters, birders, hikers, equestrians, etc. Working with Parks staff, the Parks Board and the Attorney General’s office, I wanted to put a program in place that would ensure appropriate OHV Grants were adequately addressed, fairly scored and awarded in a timely manner. Most importantly, I wanted to make sure the OHV community was well represented. At the June ‘12 Parks Board meeting the Board adopted a new policy for awarding OHV Grant Funds. The core of the policy rests with the original OHV legislation. Effective immediately, OHV grants will be reviewed and graded by the following partners: Off Highway Vehicle Advisory Group (OHVAG), Arizona Outdoor Recreation Coordination Committee (AORCC), and Arizona State Parks Staff. The final decision for grant awards rests completely with the AZ State Parks Board. The final piece of the puzzle is establishing the correct criteria for grading/awarding OHV grant dollars. To that end, we are gathering OHV experts to determine the way ahead. We will have public meetings in the coming months with members of your community to ensure we get your input. Mr. Savino also brought up the issue of the initiative, The Arizona Natural Resources Protection Act. Let me be clear. Arizona State Parks did not write the initiative. Although we surely appreciate any group who steps up to seek long term funding for the Parks, we were not part of the initiative drafting process. The issue of a single Parks fund that might strip OHV of their funds was an issue I personally discussed with Mr. Savino. I made it clear that the OHV community would “remain whole” no matter the funding source. The OHV community can ask for more assurances, but that is all I can do. As far as I am concerned, OHV funds were never at risk. When all was said and done, the initiative was unable to gather the required signatures to get on the ballot. I encourage the OHV community to engage their legislators to ensure that any future funding legislation specifically addresses OHV funds. Lastly, there is the issue of almost $700,000 from OHV sticker money being used to help operate AZ State Parks. Although completely legal, I philosophically disagree with the practice. OHV money needs to go to OHV stuff. Arizona State Parks will wean itself of sticker money over the next few years. Make no mistake, OHV money was a huge factor in keeping State Parks open following the more than $80M in legislative funding sweeps. We couldn’t have done it without your help. But, it’s time to step up and make things right. Again, OHV sticker money is for OHV programs. I look forward to working together for our great state in the future. Please feel free to contact me directly with your questions and concerns. We are partners! This message was sent to all who received the Savino e-mail about the funding issues. Hopefully Mr. Martyn will keep to his "Philosophical" beliefs and not lobby the legislature for the funds in the future...BPJ

Kind of an interesting question..... since you know that the AZSFW was disbanded over 3 months ago.......BPJ

Not true. The AZGFD did manage to hire the OHV officers and they have been working in the field. That department is headed up by Jimmy Simmons, who at one time was a WM in unit 23, then over to I think DPS and finally back to the department a couple of years ago. So the money that came to the department has stayed. The OHV grant money always has been sent to State PArks, but they continually sweep the funds to pay for their own personnel. The OHV boys need to play tough...BPJ

Unless you have been buried for the past 3 months, the whole world knows that the AZSFW is no more. The funding source removed themselves from Arizona politics and the vote was taken to disband. That happened a few months back...BPJ

The California Senate today passed a bill that would outlaw the use of hounds in pursuit of bears and bobcats. The move took place in spite of an outpouring of sportsmen who packed the legislative halls protesting against the bill. U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance has a re-cap. I would suggest that all read what our neighbors to the west have done. The bill was pushed / supported by.... the HSUS...BPJ

OK... Take your hands away from the weapons..... Larry is being ultra cautious about the approach. We are truly not Utah and as scary as it may seem, as a state, Arizona with the influx of CA folks is much closer to CA than Utah. As a hunting community, we have the potential to do a lot of things that the AZGFD and Commission are reluctant to do. That said however, your point is right on Donnie. Our opposition has money, the press (see the article on hunting archery in the McDowell's or the latest on the CBD and how wonderful they are to help prevent the extinction of species) and a war chest that would kick our butts all over the place. We are one well planned initiative from extinction. We do need to tread a little lightly, but let no on mistake our direction....JK

as you and I talked Larry, there is no easy solution. Antelope and sheep fawns survive within 6 weeks. Elk fawns do well a little longer than that. Mule deer fawns however are susceptible for up to 6 months. Even the strategic removals will have those holes filled in a short period of time. Combine drought and a reluctance to do anything that the public will view as distasteful and you have the result of mule deer fawns getting hammered. They are placing us between the proverbial rock and a hard place. The passing of night hunting where the predator base is doing a number on mule deer is one of the few keys that are out there..... having a concentrated effort that does not involve the AZGFD is also a solution. The department gets whacked by the other 10% who want the natural way, so their hands are tied, but with our hunting licenses we can make a difference... ain't saying... just saying...

If only 10% of the hunters in Arizona did what you do, we would be a remarkable state. Sadly, less than 1% make ANY effort to do ANYTHING. That situation has been this way forever and will likely never change. Congrats on doing that which you can. It is always appreciated by the department and wildlife.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/08/environmental-groups-paid-millions-by-federal-agencies-sue-studies-show/?test=latestnews While there has been mention of $10.00 per person for an organized effort for the conservation groups, please review the attached to see where the real money is. This practice has been increased year after year. There are some records which refute Mr. Suckling's claim of minute returns. The largest litigants are the Center for Biological Diversity, The Sierra Club and the National Wildlife Federation. This is what is after the hunting community and what we have to prepare against.

There is news today about a meeting that Don Martin attended whereby the lands north of the Colorado river will be changed to a new designation. Currently sportsmen enjoy a lot of access to the Kaibab as well as the Strip lands. The proposal by the Grand Canyon Trust, which is comprised of several groups that are decidedly against sportsmen, have their documentation in place and will be presented. I am not sure if you will be able to read the attachment, but the overall thrust has been for years to turn that land eventually into a national park. There is also mention of the land for wolves, bears and lions. The future of the Kaibab will be in jeopardy if this is changed by President Obama. The efforts of all are needed to make certain that the change in designation does NOT go into effect. MUSUMR3339.pdf... I am not sure if it can be found through this method, but the document is a disaster for sportsmen. BPJ

The final results of the survey are in an will be published in our newsletter. We owe it to our membership to give them the information of the survey. I have read that there were "trick Questions" in the survey. There were 3 questions. Question 1 was "Are you for the ADA continuing to support the AZSFW?" If you can discover the tricky part, please advise Amanda, since she helped craft some of the questions. As far as the AZSFW, it will continue to exist, but in a far different format and certainly without funding from any of the conservation groups, including the ADA. There is a HB in the legislature which is designed around what can or cannot be said on the internet. I hope that it does not garner support, but CWT would be an interesting place to visit if it does. I must admit that the silver lining is that some people have come out and gotten involved. Don Lee is a good example of what can happen when people get off their collective backsides and get to rolling up their sleeves. I attempted to call all those who voted to NOT support the AZSFW only to thank them for participating in the process. Some folks did not place their names or addresses on the return vote or envelope, but those that did I attempted to contact. As far as responding to CWT, I apologize, but we really do owe you nothing. The ADA will have their annual election in June and we are looking forward to our members attending and having new board members on the slate for a 2 year commitment. Regard, BPJ

Do yourself and many others on this site a favor and review from the AZGFD reports on just where the funds for deer have been spent. There is a common misrepresentation on many forums that "most of the money goes north of the ditch". That is just not true. Ruth Gregory in the big game branch has all the funding numbers for ALL of the state. Get a copy and review just where the money has been spent. You will be surprised. Then go back 4 years and you will find that the land north of the ditch has received much less than that "small area" you referenced. You seem to have enough of an intellect to figure out that much of what is said on these sits is just not true.... but very popular. Then review the "grading reports" that the AZGFD puts together for ALL the HPC proposals. Who is at fault when a particular region places proposals that are 1) incomplete 2)Do not have NEPA or Arc work done 3) have no local commitment for matching funds 4)do not supply maps, photos or important data 5) have no ranching support or access agreements. I wonder if you will take the time to chase down this story ...... John, I don't recall saying anything about money spent. I said focus. You were at the meeting, how much time did Brian spend on the Kiabab and the strip? Most of the time Brian was going over that data. How many collared mule deer are there on the Kiabab right now... 20? How many collard mule deer are in the rest of the state? And why the heck are we collaring deer on the Kiabab? We know they are there. Its a strong deer herd, so strong that the dept feels its ok to have a doe hunt. How about the deer in region 4? I don't see anyone trying to spend $90,000 to collar 20 deer there. "I wonder if you will take the time to chase down this story ......" Partner, I respect your opinion and position but I do not appriciate your combative approach. I'm not here to fight with you and if you read thru all my posts on this thread you'll see that I'm trying to bridge a gap that was created by a bad bill and those that supported it. I'm trying to get the average hunter involved in the process. Does that threaten you in some way? And who was the last guy you tried to call out? George from Yuma Valley right? I might be uneducated as of now but I know for a fact that George knows a thing or two. And how has your current approach worked so far? Should we discuss your conversation with the commission on Saturday? Oh and yes, I am involving and educating myself in the process and I will be looking at all kinds of numbers very soon. Donnie Nothing combative about my query. There have been many statements that the ADA only cares about deer north of the Colorado. If you were to take the time and do the readings, you would find that the ADA funded the 3Bar study and that cost us over $50,000.00 to do. It involved capturing 20 does that were pregnant, inserting an IUD that was expunged when the doe gave birth. Then we tracked the device to the exact location and collared the fawns. From that point the fawns were then tracked until the collar indicated that they had been killed. The information proved that in an area with NO predators, the mule deer survival rate was close to 90%. Immediately adjacent to that area the fawn survival rate was less than 25%. I have tried calling you, but you do not seem to answer. I wonder why you approached only the ADBSS at the meeting and not the ADA? It seems too easy to shoot at the ADA when having a conversation would solve some of the problems. There is a lot to learn if you are just stepping into the arena of conservation. I would pose the same question to you ... what are you afraid of in talking to me or the ADA?..

Do yourself and many others on this site a favor and review from the AZGFD reports on just where the funds for deer have been spent. There is a common misrepresentation on many forums that "most of the money goes north of the ditch". That is just not true. Ruth Gregory in the big game branch has all the funding numbers for ALL of the state. Get a copy and review just where the money has been spent. You will be surprised. Then go back 4 years and you will find that the land north of the ditch has received much less than that "small area" you referenced. You seem to have enough of an intellect to figure out that much of what is said on these sits is just not true.... but very popular. Then review the "grading reports" that the AZGFD puts together for ALL the HPC proposals. Who is at fault when a particular region places proposals that are 1) incomplete 2)Do not have NEPA or Arc work done 3) have no local commitment for matching funds 4)do not supply maps, photos or important data 5) have no ranching support or access agreements. I wonder if you will take the time to chase down this story ......

Geez George... If I were a betting man, I would say that it is Comm1 writing your responses. I have watched your posts and I would say that half the time it is Robbie doing the posting. If you want to believe that all is great from the Carefree towers, so be it. I will continue to think differently. I will hope that an agency that is over 90 million dollars will show us what is behind the curtains.

I would not be so quick to laud the AZGFD. There are people within the agency who are directly opposed to hunting, who believe that a "healthy ecosystem" is paramount to anything with human intervention. There are way too many people within the agency who make their living off the wolf program and are tied to the USFWS. By September of this year there will be documentation that will be provided which will show without a doubt that some within the agency think that wolves on the Strip or Kaibab is not a bad thing. Picture 3 metapacks of 250 each running all around Arizona... That is what will have to be fought and it will have to be done within the structure of the EIS comment time frames. You are invited George to contact me with any questions, but please do not think that everyone in the agency has hunter's best interests...BPJ

I have been on the AZ Super Big Game Raffle since the inception, courtesy of Pete Cimellaro, who sold the idea to the commission and the various critter groups. The costs for the raffle are very substantial, since getting the word out is pricey when you mail out over 50,000 pieces all over the U.S. and Canada. Under mandates from the legislation, every penny goes to the AZGFD. Proposing to eliminate any auction tags would have a minor impact, because those who do want to purchase an auction tag can go to any other state and do so. If someone buys a raffle ticket, it is not tax deductible. If you purchase an auction tag, The "fair market " price for the tag is the same as you and I pay. The advice from a good tax consultant is necessary for someone who is claiming the difference from an auction tag selling price versus the listed price for a tag. The Raffle has had people who have invested significant dollars into a particular hunt and they have not been drawn as the winner... so the theory of blowing money for a raffle maybe versus a sure thing in Auction does not have merit. The HPC process has been very successful for those who have been involved. The question those who have worked on the HPC still have is why our tag numbers continue to drop after giving the department over $1,00,000.00 each year through our efforts. Some will say water... some will say food... the real answer is predation... with a side of water....The bigger picture that a lot of sportsmen are not seeing is the marketing ploy by some very bright outfitters who will approach a rancher, offer to pay him say $20,000 per year and then guarantee that only his supervised hunters will be on the checkerboard land.... and not the great unwashed masses that will litter, cut fences, create their own roads and generally cause havoc. That said outfitter will then bring in 10 -15 hunters who each pay a $5,000 access fee as well as the going guiding fee. Everyone comes out happy... The rancher has a source to go to if there are problems, he gets his cash. The outfitter has a clear open area for his clients and the hunter has little if any competition on some public / private land. This has been going on for a few years and it appears to work well. How do those who claim to be "joe average" plan on competing against that in the future?.....