654321

I didn't see anywhere in the December 6th commission agenda this being even mentioned. I hate to admit it but the 17 page petition the CBD has sent to the AZGFD is a well written document.

ASU football ranked 12th or so and their basketball team ranked 21st, volleyball #5 seed in tournament. U of A nowhere to be seen. ugh.

According to his post it states he’d been applying for 17 years, so no chance he drew 24B, plus no NR’s drew in either 6018 or 6019

Looks like they got the AZ schools backwards on who finishes last in the Big 12

Cheaper to contract out, than pay a full time employee 🤷🏼

5" of snow on the Kaibab this past weekend and 66* forecasted for opening day.

That's brutal hunting weather down south for the whitetail opener.

That 1 tag will be up for grabs for anyone that puts in for it no matter how many points one has

It would be interesting to know how the AZGFD knew he was flying. Did someone from the public make a call to Operation Game Thief and report an aircraft flying in low circles appearing to locate wildlife and a WM just happened to be close enough to watch the aircraft land? Was the aircraft he was using required to have a flight plan and the AZGFD tied that to him? Was it another guide that was pissed he was flying and turned him in. I would have to guess that there was undeniable evidence that he was indeed flying some sort of aircraft.

R12-4-319 Use of Aircraft to Take Wildlife A. A person shall not take or assist in taking wildlife from or with the aid of aircraft, including drones. B. Except in hunt units with Commission-ordered special seasons under R12-4-115 and R12-4-120 and hunt units with seasons only for mountain lion and no other concurrent big game season, a person shall not locate or assist in locating wildlife from or with the aid of an aircraft, including drones, in a hunt unit with an open big game season. This restriction begins 48 hours before the opening of a big game season in a hunt unit and extends until the close of the big game season for that hunt unit. C. A person who possesses a special big game license tag for a special season under R12-4-115 or R12-4-120 or a person who assists or will assist such a licensee shall not use an aircraft, including drones, to locate wildlife beginning 48 hours before and during a Commission-ordered special season. Stay Legal - Commission Rules 2024-2025 ARIZONA HUNTING REGULATIONS 107 Arizona Game and Fish Commission Rules About Hunting D. This Section does not apply to any person acting within the scope of ofcial duties as an employee or authorized agent of the state or the United States to manage or protect or aid in the management or protection of land, water, wildlife, livestock, domesticated animals, human life, or crops. E. For the purposes of this Section, “locate” means any act or activity that does not take or harass wildlife and is directed at locating or nding wildlife in a hunt area. I have provided the rule for the use of Aircraft to Take Wildlife. I'm not a WM, attorney, judge etc. so I can't say is that illegal or not. If it was Memorial day I believe he could fly his drone with no issues since there are no open big game hunt seasons. If it was Labor Day there would have been an archery antelope hunt and archery deer hunts going on so I guess it would be at the discretion of the WM if he determined if your child was using the drone to take or assist in the taking of wildlife or if he felt your child was using the drone to locate wildlife using the definition in part E. He would also have to be careful when flying his drone that he wasn't hit with a harassing wildlife charge. I don't have a drone so I'm not real familiar with them, but I feel like most people are flying them with some sort of camera on them. I would hope a WM would ask to look at the footage and see how the drone was being used and go from there. I think there is quite a bit more involved before a WM issues a citation and there is definitely a lot that goes on before someone is found guilty if they are actually given a citation for something.

rulemaking process details Seek Permission from Governor’s Office: Under A.R.S. § 41-1039, an agency must obtain prior written approval: 1) before conducting rulemaking and 2) before submitting a final rulemaking to the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council (GRRC). The need for the rulemaking must meet one of the justification criteria established under A.R.S. A.R.S. § 41-1039(A)(1) through (10). Notice of Rulemaking Docket Opening: SOS publishes the Commission’s Notice in the Arizona Administrative Register (AAR) to notify the public that the Commission is considering amending its rules. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: SOS publishes the Commission’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Arizona Administrative Register (AAR) to provide the public with actual proposed additions, deletions, or changes to the Commission’s rules. Comment periods: The public has three opportunities in which to submit comments to the Commission: 1). Any time. Comments received by the Department are placed in the rule record and will be considered by the next review or Rulemaking team. 2). During the thirty (30) day public comment period immediately following the publication of the proposed rules in the AAR. Once a proposed rule is published, the public has at least thirty (30) days to submit comments to the Department concerning the rule. 3). At a Commission Meeting. A blue ‘speaker slip’ is required and are available to the public at each Commission Meeting. Note: Comments are statements, suggested rule language, data, views, or other observations submitted to the Department in regards to an existing or proposed rule. Comments submitted during the official 30-day public comment period for a particular rulemaking will become part of the official record for that proposed rulemaking. Notice of Final Rulemaking: The Department drafts a Notice of Final Rulemaking after considering comments and other information received during the comment period. The Department must determine whether the suggestions received meet the Department’s mission and objectives, do not place an undue burden on the regulated community, are not discriminatory, and are permitted under statute. Submittal to Governor’s Regulatory Review Council: The Department submits the final rulemaking to GRRC. GRRC reviews the rulemaking to ensure that the rules are necessary, consistent with legislative intent, within the agency’s statutory authority, do not create an adverse impact on the public, and whether the benefits of the rule outweigh the costs. Approval by GRRC: When GRRC determines that the rulemaking meets the statutory criteria identified above, GRRC will approve and file the final rulemaking with SOS. Effective date: Typically, the effective date of the rule is sixty (60) days from the date of filing. However, the Commission may request an immediate or specific effective date when authorized by statute, specified in the rulemaking preamble, and approved by GRRC. Codification: SOS publishes final rulemakings in the Arizona Administrative Code (Code). The Code is the official compilation of rules that govern state agencies, boards, and commissions; the paper copy of the Code serves as the official version. SOS is required to publish updates to the Code four times a year. As a result, the Code may not contain the most recent Game and Fish rules. The Rule Changes page provides Commission rules approved by GRRC, but not yet included in the Code. The above rulemaking description is not comprehensive. It is meant only to provide a brief overview of the rulemaking process and is not binding on the Commission or Department. Five-year Reports Under A.R.S. § 41-1056, every agency shall review its rules at least once every five years to determine whether any rule should be amended or repealed. Each agency shall prepare a report summarizing its findings, its supporting reasons, and any proposed course of action; and obtain approval of the report from the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council (G.R.R.C.). Five-year review reports Want to Get Even Closer to Arizona Wildlife? Find ways to experience and support our state’s unique species of wildlife. they need us. we need you Help with our conservation efforts. make a donation subscribe to our wildlife views magazine Compelling wildlife and outdoor recreation stories with spectacular photography. learn more about the magazine Subscribe to our Newsletter Subscribe Follow Us: Account Login Operation Game Thief AZ.gov Copyright© 2024, Arizona Game and Fish Department. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy Terms of Use Google Translate Select LanguageEnglishAfrikaansAlbanianAmharicArabicArmenianAzerbaijaniBasqueBelarusianBengaliBosnianBulgarianCatalanCebuanoChichewaChinese (Simplified)Chinese (Traditional)CorsicanCroatianCzechDanishDutchEsperantoEstonianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrisianGalicianGeorgianGermanGreekGujaratiHaitian CreoleHausaHawaiianHebrewHindiHmongHungarianIcelandicIgboIndonesianIrishItalianJapaneseJavaneseKannadaKazakhKhmerKoreanKurdish (Kurmanji)KyrgyzLaoLatinLatvianLithuanianLuxembourgishMacedonianMalagasyMalayMalayalamMalteseMaoriMarathiMongolianMyanmar (Burmese)NepaliNorwegianPashtoPersianPolishPortuguesePunjabiRomanianRussianSamoanScottish GaelicSerbianSesothoShonaSindhiSinhalaSlovakSlovenianSomaliSpanishSudaneseSwahiliSwedishTajikTamilTeluguThaiTurkishUkrainianUrduUzbekVietnameseWelshXhosaYiddishYorubaZulu I believe the process in which the AZGFD commission makes rules is quite a bit more complicated than its the rule because we say it is a rule.

I never said it was the crime of the century in fact I never wayed in one way or the other. I believe the thread was is Shane Koury the next guide to lose his license. You’re dove hunting and the limit is 15 and you have 14 and your next shot miraculously drops 2 birds. A WM is watching and comes over and writes you a citation for over limit. Is that the crime of the century? Hardly but still a citation and how much conversation do you think that would drum up about over reach and chicken chit WM ect ect.

So are you saying his appeal process is trying to get the rule removed. I believe his appeal is trying to get the guilty verdict overturned. AZGFD has lost cases before and the rule wasn’t changed because they lost a case.

You say you don’t believe he was trying to locate deer so what do you believe he was trying to do? I honestly don’t know what he was doing flying around. I also believe the burden of proof is on the prosecution and best I can tell he has been found guilty and is appealing so there must have been some evidence that led the judge to his decision. It seems if he just wanted to be out flying around he should have picked somewhere other than where he had a deer tag in a couple weeks

Seems Ted Nugent has to make these videos often, he also has one explaining his no contest plea in California for a baiting charge.