PaysonBrad

HB 2072 misses the mark and opens the door to numerous issues. Its a clear attempt by one organization to gain control over significant funds and to decide who and where the publics resources are utilized. The concept of utilzing tag revenue to fund habitat and access needs is attractive but as proposed in this bill its designed as a funding mechanism for one organization, opens the door to land owner tags and is destined to be divisive between the sportsmen groups in the State. Its mystifying to me with the relative small amount of sportsmen/women in the State why the organizations can't work together to develop legislation that is beneficial to the fish and wildlife of the State. Secretive bills that are poorly conceived are detrimental to sportsmen and ultimately to the wildlife of the State. I plan to contact Jerry Weiers and express my opposition to this Bill, I hope you do that same.

I read with interest Pete Cimellaro's summary of the Arizona Department of game and fish Commission meeting where they voted to oppose SB1200. I continue to be amused to some degree about the argument that who pays for the work of the Department should be the deciding factor in how the commission is comprised. This is stated and accepted by many as a given, that increased financial involvement should increase your ability decide how the commission is composed and thus how the department operates. There a couple of things that stick in my craw about that argument. First I recognize and support that there is some logic and certainly all of us sportsmen that care about fish and wildlife have a vested interest in how the habitats and fish and wildlife populations are managed. Financial contributions are an important component of the work that has to be done. But lets step back a moment and think about the logic of the argument. I will admit some bias as to having dealt with this very issue numerous times as a Federal land administrator in the past. Lets look at a public land model. When you look at direct financial involvement on Federal public lands often the highest spenders are logging companies, ranchers, miners and energy producers (oil and gas). They all contribute millions to the federal treasury. They have long argued that because of these contributions they should have additional "rights". They pay for it, they deserve it. Should we put everything out to the highest bid. Many of us in the sportsmen community have long fought this concept, and have argued that these are public lands and that the benefits from them are a public trust to be shared by all of us. Also its often overlooked that they derive a benefit from their uses. I see a very similar parallel with those of us that hunt and fish. Sure we contribute and pay for our uses but we also derive a direct benefit. I also agree that its easy to argue others get a benefit and don't pay their fair share. I ask a simple question do we really want a system that is driven by who pays the most. Do we really want to put our wildlife management up for bid. Is it smart to turn this into who pays the most. Should we put everything out for highest bid. We can generate more income from out of state licenses than instate, we may generate more money by limiting hunting and selling at bid, trophy hunts, etc. I think sportsmen should fear what might happen if that were the case. Another point that continues to rattle around in my thoughts. Sportsmen/women are declining in Arizona and across the country at least as measured by licenses. Do we really think the way to strengthen our position is to alienate the majority that don't actively hunt or fish. I understand that this view point isn't a popular one but when I think long term it seems to me that we need to build the hunting and fishing base, and we also need to build support for consumptive uses of fish and wildlife. Developing scenarios that alienate and anger the majority often is short sighted and ultimately the consequences may be harmful to the proper management of fish and wildlife.