brian390

In the above quote you state that flatlander, "only merely puts others down to bring himself up." You pretty much said that about me too and you would probably say it about anyone that disagrees with you. If you want to talk about slander just look at azkillers post in the elk section to me and you liked it.

I would love to see where I said that. Post the quote here please. Quote from the elk section under trail cam celebration from nefarious red to flatlander, directly off of page 10 Nefarious red says to flatlander, "You have no interest in the continual education plan, you have never defended it, and you have even mocked it at times. Good enough for me that the Commission has computers and knows how to use them. Continue how you see fit, but you aren't fooling anyone that matters." On one of your next quotes off of the next page which is page 11. directly off of page 11 Nefarious Red says to flatlander, "Show me anything, from anywhere, when you did something to defend hunting or hunters. Since you care so much. What was your plan for defeating the humane society? What is your plan for defeating them when they come back? you are only interested in defeating Pete for your own selfish reasons, and it has nothing to do with hunting. I will put my trust in those with proven track record of standing up for hunting in Arizona, and those that are actively trying to defend us from anti hunting groups. You are merely to put others down to bring yourself up. Well, where I come from you have to make your own success. you don't get kudos for being a mouth piece. you know nothing of the common good, or you would have done something to help when an out of states group was trying to take tags from you." quote from me, "So what are you trying to say, that you want him?"

Uh, wrong. Dan Agnew won one. Not exactly an Average Joe, and I have witnessed with my own eyes Cindi Richardson buy a raffle at a banquet by just flooding the bucket with her tickets. I didnt have a problem with it, I have a lot of respect for Corky and Cindy, but to say there is no advantage to the hunting elite is false. Let me make this as crystal clear as possible, I BELIEVE PROVIDING ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITY AT FINANCIAL PREMIUM IS A PROSTITUTION OF THE NORTH AMERICAN MODEL. We should fight it at every turn. If the goal is to raise as much money as is possible for this program then why does it matter who wins or how many tickets they bought? I put $300 in tickets in one bucket in the bucket raffle at the sheep banquet this year and didn't win. Just because you buy more tickets doesn't mean you win. Still on page 6, now azkiller is saying that it doesn't matter how many tickets a guy can buy. Nefarious Red put a like on this post by azkiller. So that must be saying that nefarious red is contradicting himself with whether a guy should be able to buy all of the tags or not. This is just an example of who these guys really are and their objectives. That would be a lie.

This is a quote from Nefarious Red on page 6 of this topic. Just read it. Ok he is saying that he doesn't think that it would be fair if one guy could purchase all of the raffle tickets. On the same page just below this quote from nefarious red, nefarious red contradicts himself under azkiller's post. azkillers post is below................................................. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Nefarious Red already stated in the elk section under trail cam celebration that he doesn't want Andrew (Flatlander). Flatlander has my vote.

Is there an easy way to get the emails and names of the commissioners? Are they listed anywhere on the Arizona Game and Fish website? Andrew Gillette is known as flatlander on this forum, and he looks at hunting how it was meant to be, and very logically. If you want to see some of his posts just look under the elk section under trail cam celebration.

IF raffle tags are used, and that's still an IF, a new program similar to the Big Game Super Raffle would be created. The current Big Game Super Raffle is mandated by legislation to disperse its funds to HPC. This one would be similar except funds would be Game and Fish. No outside organization would get any money. Who get's the HPC money? I am pretty sure its the critter groups and they guys that run the critter are the same people on CPAZ. In the above, I'm pretty positive ALL of the money from any auction/raffle tags is returned to the AGFD by law. That money is earmarked as HPC funds per species accordingly and is meted out for projects as determined by dept. and critter group committees for each game species. In short, the critter groups reap no financial benefit from any of it. The groups gain their owm operating revenue from dues, banquets and the other items that are auctioned or raffled during the year. And while we're at it, there appears to be a bit of misinformation that has pervaded this threads on the subject. It has to do with the "Utah model." Over the years I have followed most of the threads at MM on that topic. The set-up in Utah is quite different than the proposal here. Off the top of my head, I can't recall the percentage, but Peay's group keeps a large percentage of the money it raises from the raffles/auctions and offers little in the way of accounting for what his organization does with that money other than enrich the administrators. It's pretty much a mess. In contrast, the proposal here is for AGFD to receive and control 100% of the funds from any raffle/auction tags for the purpose of "educating the publc," akin to how it is now with HPC. And if that comes to pass, funds to battle the antis supposedly would come from other "sources" as was done this year with the lion initiative. Now, I'm guessing here, but other sources might include some sort of expo, banquets and private donors. In any case, it seems to be quite different than Peay's mess. Of course, a concrete proposal needs to be thoroughly put forth because the "devil in in the details." The references to the Utah Model are stemming from Petes comments on the podcast and at other meetings. He referred to it explicitly in several of the podcasts. And in the first podcast which was a recording of the CAPAZ kickoff meeting for the initiative he talked about how beautiful Peays system was and how when people raised concerns he shut them down right there on the spot. He discussed the importance of controlling the narrative around the initiative and the importance of having people engaged on all the social media platforms to refute any one who opposed the idea. This is how we came to know Dustin (nefarious red) as a regular poster. Thats the reason folks keep referencing the Utah Model because Pete keeps bringing it up. Flatlander, I haven't heard that particular podcast, but are you trying to say that before Utah got destroyed with these sort of tag grabs that they also got the hunt chat forums infiltrated with tag grabbers to try and control the narrative and silence any other opinions of better ideas? Whether they infiltrated Utah chat forums or not they definitely have infiltrated this hunting forum to try and shut better opinions down on the spot. Some of the more obvious ones to try and control the narrative are like nefarious red, twigsnapper, and maybe azkiller. Another one might be idgaf but who knows. You will notice how nefarious red and twigsnapper are on here constantly to respond immediately to lie, cheat and steal to get their agenda across.

So you're saying that I have a chance....Yeah of course, like one in a million.

The more I read the above statement the dumber it makes me. So first we will talk about the part that makes sense in your statement. So you're saying that the committee needs to be made up of a diverse group, and I somewhat agree. The group that is on the committee now seems to have an agenda and isn't diverse. When you say diverse do mean it needs a few tag grabbers and a few people that would fight for sportsman? That's why i say I somewhat agree with you because it definitely needs some members without an agenda and it would be better if none of them had the rich man agenda. So on the rest of your statement you say if you're a rich guy you can go to Mexico and get a 200" deer and Canada for a 400" bull yada yada. Then you state these guys got some major money and can get anything that they want. Then you say that these Arizona tags where they get to hunt the best animals at the best times don't mean anything to the rich guys and they mean a lot to the average hunter. And what point are you trying to make? So maybe you're trying to say that the rich guys won't want these Arizona tags?????? That would be a first, and something that I would have to see to believe. Or maybe you're trying to say that the tags that mean a lot to the average hunter they will no longer be getting????

True. However you're beating a dead horse. Commissioner Davis took that option off the table at the end of the meeting on Friday. The individual at the beginning also made it clear too that after all the work to get the pricing down, he doesn't want any increase. I haven't noticed a decrease in the price of tags lately. Maybe I'm missing something. So Commissioner Davis took raising the price of tags off the table so they say. Maybe a good proposal would be for Commissioner Davis to fund the "education," that's something that I would vote for. He's got my vote.

Like someone might have already mentioned earlier. The few on here defending the tag grab, raffle, auction, foolish idea or whatever you want to call it, are like just pass it then we will give you the details of how we're going to screw you afterwards. The raffle supporters on here are like arguing with Obama where you'll lie, cheat, and steal to get your way.

So they would rather have hunters chase tags that they will never get? By charging EVERYONE a small fee to apply with no loss in odds to get a tag sounds more reasonable and fair. The few on here that are saying oh we will make these raffles equal odds for everyone that enters them. For example someone mentioned like we will limit it to like 100 or whatever raffle tags sold per hunt. If you do that you're going to have to charge an OUTRAGEOUS amount for one entry into the raffle to get your so called "education" funds. So the rich would only be able to afford to enter this raffle. If they go with not equal chances and say oh it's cheap 1 ticket for 5 bucks or 5 tickets for 20 bucks. If they go this route than the rich guy gets the tag because he will out spend you. So no matter what the average hunter and majority are screwed. You can come back with your statistics and math but this is just how raffles work when they're trying to get max funds for "education." So if they set aside the best tags for the rich with this raffle proposal, than they're going to shoot themselves in the foot like I have said. They will lose more support for hunting from the average hunter which is the majority, and make their whole idea of funding "education" pointless. The average hunters aren't going to support the few rich to hunt when they can't. It's a slippery slope that you guys are trying to head down and it's going to back fire on you. Then the only hunting that you will be doing is in your imagination.

I wouldn't call it an early monsoon. It's more like a early hurricane that comes up from the south not that often.

Not all states have point systems. Go ask the residents of Wyoming(elk, deer, antelope) and New Mexico how their point system works. Wyoming uses preference points which is a fair way of doing a draw. New Mexico uses a lottery where everyone has equal chances. New Mexico and Wyoming also refund unsuccessful applicants. A raffle doesn't refund unsuccessful applicants and your kind of raffles for the rich guys I doubt would have everyone getting equal odds. Also in my opinion the way Arizona does their bonus points is more fair than these two states that you have mentioned. So Arizona does it better than most if not all and you guys are trying to make it worse than the rest. So if I look at your post above, what point are you trying to make other than change to the subject?

You could argue that, but you would be lying to yourself. If 300 tags are given to the raffle and tickets are sold for $10 and a 10 ticket per person limit were imposed then that would mean if someone were to max out on all of the rafffles it would cost him $30k. For his investment he would have 3000x more chance of drawing a tag than someone who bought a single ticket. That is the definition of disparity. Even for a single hunt anyone can purchase 10x more opportunity than another for $90 more investment. This is exactly my concern with these systems. They are built to exploit economic disparity among sportsmen. So will anyone please for crying out loud tell me why it HAS to be tags. Why is that the only option a certain group of people will advocate for? Your math is wrong. That's not how odds work. I thought you were the odds guyMy point isnt that your odds would be better, my point is that offering a chance at a tag for $5 makes it more accessible for some people than having to pay $13. Flatlander keeps arguing that the North American model is at being violated beacuase of the proposed raffle tags but its not. The North American Model doesnt say anything about keeping draw odds at a particular level. Auctioning tags is a different argument but a raffle is no different than a lottery tag through a normal draw system.I was talking about Andrew's mathIf the math is wrong feel free to fix it. I put it right there for everyone to see and understand. If you do it will be the first meaningful contribution you have ever made to this site. Would be a refreshing change from your vague posts and hiding behind someone elses ideas. Don't post drunk.. Let's play nice. Odds are 3% vs .3% you won't be able to buy 3000 tickets. I would have no problem however with someone wanting to put 30k into the g&f for this. Also I don't hate the rich. Now get back on that hog! Also I don't hate the middle class. Now get back on that hog!

This quote from you just shows that the only people that you want to be able to hunt is the rich and no one else. Bonus points and preference points don't mean equal opportunity for all but it means that everyone is getting a fair deal. If you can't afford to put in for a hunt at reasonable prices then you don't get a bonus or preference point. This makes bonus points and preference points not equal opportunity but it makes them fair for everyone and logical. If you guys just want the rich to hunt than you're going to kill support for hunting all together. This whole idea about raising money to educate for support of hunting would actually cause less support when only the rich can do it. You rich guys that think that you only deserve these tags will end up shooting yourself in the foot when you're the only one hunting and everyone else's support for hunting is gone.

You could argue that, but you would be lying to yourself. If 300 tags are given to the raffle and tickets are sold for $10 and a 10 ticket per person limit were imposed then that would mean if someone were to max out on all of the rafffles it would cost him $30k. For his investment he would have 3000x more chance of drawing a tag than someone who bought a single ticket. That is the definition of disparity. Even for a single hunt anyone can purchase 10x more opportunity than another for $90 more investment. This is exactly my concern with these systems. They are built to exploit economic disparity among sportsmen. So will anyone please for crying out loud tell me why it HAS to be tags. Why is that the only option a certain group of people will advocate for? Your math is wrong. That's not how odds work. I thought you were the odds guy My point isnt that your odds would be better, my point is that offering a chance at a tag for $5 makes it more accessible for some people than having to pay $13. Flatlander keeps arguing that the North American model is at being violated beacuase of the proposed raffle tags but its not. The North American Model doesnt say anything about keeping draw odds at a particular level. Auctioning tags is a different argument but a raffle is no different than a lottery tag through a normal draw system. Yeah 5 bucks and 13 bucks sounds a lot more affordable than your raffle and auction ideas. Just increasing everyone's fee a little would pay for it all and everyone would more likely be able to hunt. A raffle is a joke and you could spend a ton of money on them and never get a tag in a hundred years. A raffle is not the same as a normal draw system like you say. In a draw system you get a bonus point when not drawn and your odds increase most likely each year that you aren't drawn. In a raffle everyone is unlucky but 1 guy, and everyone just spent a ton of money for no increase in draw odds.

I can give you my opinion, but I can't speak directly for them. I believe they view tags as the best way to fund this based off of conversations with the Department, and the Department's opposition to using a license fee. If you go back through all my posts, you will see that I have essentially advocated for any funding methods that will move the plan forward, and I also believe that a stamp or license fee increase should be considered, as should ALL other alternative sources, unless they can prove not to be viable. My main concern about things like additional portal benefits and similar things is that the Department plans upon expanding the portal as it is and making their own money from it. Which is also a concern I have about license fee increases, without legislation the Department could do as they wish with the money. I will say that I submitted a proposal that doesn't include tags, license fee increases, or stamps, and essentially was to create a type of general lottery. However, I learned more about the laws that govern these things, and it doesn't appear as though that would be feasible. I also agree with you that a stamp or license fee increase should be considered, because your idea of raffle tags and auction tags is stupid. I trust the department a whole lot more than you guys on this committee with my money. If you're going to change things make them for the better not worse.

Yuma sucks! Absolutely the armpit of America True

This is Arizona not Mexico. Why would you compare Arizona to Mexico? That's like comparing Arizona to California. We don't want to be like Mexico.

It looks like Steven Rinella is coming to Phoenix June 28 for a live podcast. It looks like tickets are sold out for online purchase. I believe that it's at the tempe improv.

Craig Steele had a bunch of pictures of bulls killed in 2012. Pretty impressive for a dry year. the same guy that posts rain totals around the state every year for where to put in for elk.... Correct, but those were some big bulls in a dry year. Im definitely not saying rain doesnt help. its just kinda funny to me, like ive always said when the rain is good the guides try to make tag holders feel like they better not squander their tag and hire someone. now its dry and its the same thing. So true

Naturebob, yeah yotebuster is correct that you wouldn't get a shot at 12a west late even though it is your first choice. It didn't make sense to me either until I read a post that redrabbit put on this website at one time. That post was written out where once you read it, it made sense.

Or if you haven't put in yet you could do 13a or 13b first and 12a west late second choice. It looks like you want 12a west late over the rest so you could just put 12a west as your first choice and leave the rest of the choices blank until you draw that hunt. Like yotebuster said if you already put in with unit 27 as your second choice and if it qualifies in the bonus pass this year than that's what hunt you will get drawn for. Each year they seem to change some of the December rifle units around and some of the other units that were in the recent past I liked better.

isnt it not burning naturally the reason these so much fuel in the first place? Its hard to understand that the small town folks seem to think only they are responsible enough to use the forest. The rest of us are the tax base that pays the lions share of operations and maintenance cost right?If we start a fire here it burns our house down. It doesnt burn yours down. So naturally those that have more to lose than just the trees are going to be more careful. And were more inclined to want it closed so there isnt a fire no matter who starts it. Also last I checked when the forest closes we all are locked out of it so not like they are letting locals use it and out of towners can't. IF you don’t keep your property fire wise do you get the same ticket as the person who started the fire? I have 49 pine trees on a quarter acre lot. I had to sign a contract with Navajo county that I will not cut a tree down until 2025, last week I bagged 29- 55 gallon bags of pine needles. I am still no where near 'fire safe'. better yet just follow the rules for a few weeks and not start a fire. Could you just poison them and say that a bark beetle killed them?