archerycrazy

I'm almost caught up. I've been following this thread since it's inception, excluding time on a hunt. I noted that I had only commented three time before today #s 234,289, and 309. Other than #289, I refrained from speaking about specific names. Post #289 was in respone to BPJ's post #286 that lumped Woodhouse, Freeman and McClean with Hernbrode and Martin. BPJ has indicated that he has protected those involved with the crafting of this bill. PBJ decided to identify me by name. So much for protection. I have made no attempt to identify BPJ. When specifically asked by BPJ, former Chairman Woodhouse made his identity known. Obviously Mr. Woodhouse has more integrity than BPJ. In defense of bpj, I think that he was not fully aware of the details of this bill. I think he fell in love with the concept and has chosed to defend it at all cost. I further believe that a very small number of board members of AZSFW were fully involed and knowlegible of it's content. I seriously doubt that AZSFWC board members were directly involved. This is not the first time that the AZSFW lobbist has crafted bills and brought them to the membership of affiliated organizations at the last minute. This tactic has been used with YVRGC onseveral occasions The method of opperation appears to be, spend a lot of time crafting legislation and then asking for the support of member organizations so that they can use our name at the legislature. You can view the legislative archived videos and determine if your orqanizations name has been used.

I've been out of the loop for a week (javalina hunt). As I'm catching up, I notice that BPJ mentioned me by name (George Reiners) claiming that he was at a meeting with AZSFW and pled for their support of Prop 109. Here are the facts: When the bill that finally resulted in Prop 109 passed, I immeadiately notified AZSFW's lobbyist. She reminded me of the need to submit letters in support of the Proposition. That evening, I wrote my letter of support and sent it to the Secretary of State. I then went to work assisting others from YVRGC in developing our club's letter of support. Considering the fact that the AZSFW lobbyist recommended letters of support, I believe that I reasonably expected that she would be in contact with all member organinzations and request letters of support. I watched and waited. Nothing was submitted until the last few days beofre the deadline. At great personal expense, I first designed and ordered several thousand "I support the right to Hunt and Fish" campaign buttons followed by Prop 109 bumper stickers. Samples of both were provided to the NRA. At AZSFWX's Sarah Palin banquet, I provided hundreds of buttons. Shortly before the banquet, I had been asked to join the Board of Directors of Arizona Wildlife Federation. The evening of the the Palin banquet. I was advixed by a sitting member, not to mention Prop. 109 when I met with the board the next day. I was not in a position to follow his advice. I was completely transparent. At the AWF annual meeting, I asked for the support of the board for Prop 109. The request was tabled until the quarerly meetin in September. Surprisingly, with on;y a few days left the board voted to support Prop. 109. AWF's letter of support arrived at the Secretary of States Office shortly before the deadline. BPJ needs to get his facts straight. He has claimed that he is protecting certain individuals by not identifying them. I guess Robbie and I don't fit in his protected group. Over the years, I have learned that you will get much more support if you are completely transparent, and work closely with the Arizona Game and Fish Commission and Department. As I get caught up, I may have more to say in order to set the reacord straight. George

Yuma Valley Rod and Gun Club has terminated its affiliation with AZSFW. We learned of HB 2072 Friday afternoon Jan. 6th. We immediately notified Chairman Woodhouse who was stunned. By the end of the day, we learned that no commisoner was aware, and the Department was also caught off guard. Most organizations were only provided concepual briefings without any of the details. YVRGC was never contacted prior to or after the bill was filed.

AS of 1 PM today the Director of Game and Fish has not been contacted by Representative Weiers or any of his staff with notice that this bill has been offically killed. Keep your antennas up.

Please don't try to lump Mclean, Freeman and Woodhouse in with Hernbrode and Martin. Hernbrode and Martin might be offended.

I would like to thery every one that posted on this including John. John almost single handed kept this discussion going. This should send a very stong message to all organiztions and legislators. Don't bring any wildlife related legislation unless the Commission and Deprtment are fully involved in every aspect. A vague briefing doesn't cut the mustard. Every sportsmens organization and all or their members should be made aware of every thing that is in it. AZSFW has the resources available that should allow them to contact the leadership of all organizations. Some times it is even wise to contact the usual opponents. They may surprise you with some good ideas. You may even learn a little bit about their objections. It will cause us to craft stronger legislation. Better legislation will get support from both sides of the aisle. Just my thougts.

Representative Russ Jones of Yuma is moving forward wtih House Bill 2396. Yuma Valley Rod and Gun Club proposed this legislation in response to a bighorn sheep poaching case that was prosecuted in the Yuma area. The perpetrator was fined a little more than $700.00 and received no jail time. YVRGC requested that legislation to enhance the penalties for the poaching of Trophy and Endangered Wildlife be brought forward. A stakeholder committee will be formed in the near future. The intent of the bill is to give the prosecuters and courts the option of prosecuting the most egregious cases at the felony level. Currently, most cases can only be prosecuted at the Class 2 Misdemeanor level. This is a work in progress. Please look at the bill and provide comments or recommendations.

Amanda, I am no constitutional expert but this is how I understand it. A citizen's initiative to amend the constitution requires the signatures of 15% of the number of qualified voters during the most recent gubernatorial election in order to be placed on the ballot. If the initative makes it to the ballot it can be passed by a simple majority. It takes a little research, but all neccessary information is available on the Legislature's web site. Article 21 Section 1 applies in this area. It is important that all of us understand this Article, Article 4 and Article 22 Section 21 of the Constitution. All of us must be intimately familiar with Title 17 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. We can not argue if we have not educated ourselves.

The Right to Hunt and Fish is not a dead issue in Arizona. I and others will not allow it to die. As I type this, new language for a future inititiative is being developed. Points of contact are being determined. We are attempting to find out who among us is ready to go to work now. The new language will consider the sticking points and areas of concern that sportsmen and others had. This must be a citizen's inititiative rather than a referendum by the legislature We must demonstate to the general public that this is something that the average joe wants. The authority of THE Game and Fish Commission must be stressed. There is no need to reemphasize the current authority of the legislature. Opponents focused on "exclusive authority". We will not make that mistake again. That language probably had to be there to garner the support of the legislature. Commissioners Freeman and Woodhouse battled long and hard just to get 109 to the ballot. They had to fight with both the NRA and the legislature just to get the Commission mentioned. With a "citizen's inititiative we don't have to bow to the will of the NRA or legislature. We simply need to craft language that they can live with. I ask all who post here, to carry the message to every forum that you visit. I can not cover them all.

Similar measures were on the ballots in three other states. All passed. Arkansas 82% South Carolina 89% Tennessee 90% in favor. We failed in Arizona simply because we as sportsmen failed to understand the measure, failed to do the research and failed to engage others to support. The claims of a legislature takeover were unfounded. The legislature already has the authority to enact laws. The discussion regarding landowner tags is rediculous. The wildlife of this state belong to all of the citizens of this state. They do not belong to an individual land owner. A land owner can and will restrict your access if he/she thinks they will reap economic benefit. If a land owner wants to harvest any wildlife, they are required by law to obtain the proper license and/or tag to do so, No free ride here. I am amazed at the comments that I have seen on this forum. The citizens in this state think that hunters and anglers are passionate about what they do. That passion is not evident here. Passion includes being informed and capable of stating your case. If you love to hunt of fish, don't just learn how to do it, That doesn't take much effort. You can teach a child to fish or hunt. A true sportsman will learn the history and why the heritage is so important. Enjoy hunting or fishing while you can. If you don't learn how to protect the opportunity to do it, you won't be able to do it for long and future generations may never have the chance.

Try this method to help you decide how to vote on this after you've done your research. Try the "TRUST METER" Which do you trust most? Legislature or HSUS G&F Commission or HSUS Legislature or Animal Defense League G&F Commission or Animal Defense League Legislature or Sierra Club G&F Commission or Sierra Club Legislature or PETA G&F Commission or PETA The list could go on and on. Prop 109 is not perfect. Nothing is. But it provides better protection than we have now. Finally who do you trust more, Yourself or those listed on the right.

INFORM OR INFLUENCE What is the responsibility of the media? I personally believe that the sole responsibility of the media is to inform the public. The media has absolutely no responsibility to influence the public. As far as I’m concerned the media has a responsibility to present all of the facts available. I think that the intent of our founders was to ensure that the media would always have the ability to publish the facts and let the public decide. Over the decades that intent has evolved. Now the media believes that they are free to provide limited facts and then inject opinion without providing an opposing view. The recent editorial in the Yuma Sun “Hunting, fishing already supported by most Arizonans” is basically factual. However, they fail to note that the Legislature already has authority to establish wildlife management laws. The Sun does not explain that the Legislature has granted the rule and regulation making authority to the Arizona Game and Fish Commission. That would not change since “A Game and Fish Commission” would then be part of the Constitution. The Sun also noted that “The proposition also states that hunting and fishing are the preferred ways of managing and controlling wildlife”. They fail to note that in the North American Wildlife Conservation Model, Hunting and Fishing are the preferred means of managing wildlife. The Sun does not explain why hunting and fishing would be the preferred means of managing wildlife. The reasons are simple. Wildlife managers can sell licenses and tags to hunters and anglers. Hunter and anglers control wildlife populations. Hunters and anglers provide over 70 percent of the funding required to maintain the habitat in which our wildlife survive. Hunter and anglers also provide the vast majority of volunteer labor on wildlife habitat enhancement projects. Without hunting and fishing other methods of wildlife population control would be required. All of the alternatives would require expenditure of funds that wouldn’t be there if hunting and fishing were restricted or eliminated. Another quote from the editorial: …”we do not support the idea of trying to “rope off” them off from full political participation by all citizens who may or may not support these activities”. I do not see anywhere that the proposed amendment prevents any citizen opposing or supporting hunting and fishing. Let me attempt to explain what the passage would do. Only a simple majority is required for passage. If Proposition 109 is passed, it would become part of the Arizona Constitution. Therefore, as part of the Constitution, it would require two thirds of the voters to override. Even the Legislature would be required to meet that standard. If Proposition 109 is passed any initiative from the people or referendum from the Legislature would require the approval of two thirds of the voters. This standard would simply require voters to examine a proposed initiative or referendum a little closer before making a decision

Visit this great new website www.commissionersyeson109.com Take a look at the list of supporters. There is also a way to contribute to the campaign. This Wednesday, October 20, Commissioners Husted and Woodhouse along with representatives of the NRA and possibly Senator McCain, will hold a news conference in the majority caucus room at 10:30 AM. Attend if you can. This past week the HSUS contributed $250,000.00 to the effort to defeat Propostion 109. They get all of the free liberal press that they could want but they are spending money on it too. If we do not defeat them now, we will be working and paying to protect our heritage every time they see a weak point. There are Hunting Rights measure on the ballots of Arkansas, South Carolina and Tennessee in addition to our effort here in Arizona. HSUS has focused solely on Arizona. They think we are weak It's time to prove them wrong once and for all. If each of us could convince 10 non hunters to support us and each of those 10 talk to 10 more we could really get this on a roll to victory on November 2nd.

I forgot to list the most important article of the constitution. That would be: Article 22 Section 21: "The Legislature shall enact all necessary laws to carry into effect the provisions of this Constitution." Do you have bumper stickers? Do the businesses in your area have bumper stickers. If you need help contact me.

I have watched this proposed amendment since it was first introduced in the Legislature as HCR 2008. I watched all of the hearings and debate. There was extensive interaction between the Game and Fish Commission and the NRA in order to arrive at language that the Commission could support. You can thank Commissioners Freeman and Woodhosure for that effort. I have studied it extensively. I have also studied the current Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes Title 17. Opponents claim that this is a power grab by the Legislature. Under the Constitution, the Legislature currently has the authority to pass wildlife laws. By enacting Title 17 they established the Game and Fish Commission and Department. They gave the Commission the authority to set all rules and regullations regarding wildlife and wildlife habitat. Oppenents claim that there is no threat to hunting or fishing in Arizona. Technically they are correct. However, history shows us that they have actively attempted to ban hunting or methods of hunting in many other states including Maine, Michigan, Oregon, California to name a few. They successfully blocked wolf hunting in Idaho, Wyoming and Montana. Opponents spend millions on litigation and initiatives. They spend nothing on wildlife management. They work to block wildlife management. I attended the first Townhall in Phoenix on Wednesday. Interestingly and opponent of Proposition 109 decided that she needed a supply of Prop 109 bumper stickers. I encourage all voters to study Article 22 Section 21 of the Arizona Constitution and Title 17 of Arizona Revised Statutes.