AZGFD Votes to oppose HB 2235

[scoutm]

Did anyone else recieve this? The way I see it this bill would ensure that future commission members were Hunters and Anglers. Am I missing something? Seems like a good thing to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arizona Game and Fish Commission votes to oppose House Bill 2235

 

 

 

Jan. 26, 2009

 

 

 

Introduced legislation would alter commission qualifications, appointment process

 

The Arizona Game and Fish Commission on Friday unanimously voted to oppose Arizona House Bill 2235, proposed legislation that would amend an existing law concerning the qualifications and appointment process for Game and Fish commission membership.

 

If the Arizona Legislature were to pass HB 2235 as written, all future commission members would be required to have a continuous recorded registration with the same political party or as an independent for at least 5 years immediately preceding the appointment, must have also held a valid hunting or combination hunting and fishing license for at least 5 years immediately preceding the appointment, and must have been an Arizona resident for at least 10 years. The legislation would also require that all applications for appointment to the Commission be public records and that those records be available for public inspection not later than the second week in December.

 

The bill amends Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 17, Section 201.

 

“Although our vote was unanimous, our decision took some soul searching,” said Game and Fish Commissioner Robert Woodhouse. “Each commissioner understands the critical role sportsmen play in funding wildlife conservation. We also believe that Arizona’s wildlife belongs to all its citizens, each of whom has a responsibility to help fund conservation. However, as written, this piece of proposed legislation would eliminate more than 90 percent of Arizona citizens from eligibility to serve as a commissioner. This standard would be more restrictive than currently exists for any other public office in Arizona – including that of governor.”

 

The commission’s concern with the bill includes:

 

As written, the bill would prevent an individual from being an eligible applicant who had been a long time-purchaser of a hunting license but, for any reason, missed purchasing a license during the five years prior to becoming a candidate. This would prevent anyone serving as a commissioner who was unable to purchase a license due to economic or health reasons, family circumstances, or being out of state for a period of time such as a member of the U.S. military who might be deployed overseas.

 

The draft legislation would prevent the governor from making an appointment except from candidates that submitted applications prior to the second week in December. If the governor didn’t call for applications until after the second week in December, or if a current commissioner was unable to continue serving their term and resigned, the governor would be unable to appoint a new commissioner until the following December.

 

No specific skills, knowledge or qualifications are required of an individual who has purchased a hunting or combination hunting and fishing license that aren’t already required by the existing statute. The current law states that commission members be “well informed on the subjects of wildlife and requirements for its conservation”.

 

Click here to read the introduced version of House Bill 2235.

 

 

[Rembrant]

I think this is the real question:

Why is the Arizona legislature concerned with Game and Fish Dept. appointments?

[scoutm]

The Arizona legislature is fairly conserviative and now with Nappy gone there's a chance that something like this could actually pass and be signed by the new Gov. To me it's one way to try to address some of the issues that often get members of the site heated.

 

Did you read anything in the proposed law that would be a bad thing to hunters? I didn't.

 

 

[Snapshot]

I interpreted the bill as a way to have experienced hunters and anglers, aka outdoorsman, on the commission, Which in my mind is a good thing. Do we want bunny huggers and buffoons controlling our G&F department? Sorry if I offend anyone on this, but those kind of politics makes my blood boil.

[KGAINES]

I think the bill is being ammended and will be re-introduced with a little change to the wording, the commission will still probably vote against it because it limits them in some ways. A bill like this would try to ensure that sportsmen and women were on the commission, at least the majority would be. I would hope with our current Governor we will not have to worry about that, but if that changes it would make it harder to get people on the commission that are not hunters and/or fisherman.

[NRS]

The bill was introduced by Jerry Weiers, who is a hunter and active in sportsman's groups like the Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society. I am sure his interests are for the hunters in this state.

[Snapshot]

The bill was introduced by Jerry Weiers, who is a hunter and active in sportsman's groups like the Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society. I am sure his interests are for the hunters in this state.

 

There is no question that the bill is a good thing. I just wonder why the "Commission" unanimously voted against it?

[scoutm]

The bill was introduced by Jerry Weiers, who is a hunter and active in sportsman's groups like the Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society. I am sure his interests are for the hunters in this state.

 

There is no question that the bill is a good thing. I just wonder why the "Commission" unanimously voted against it?

 

 

I would suspect they voted against it because fewer than half of them would have qualified under these standards. I for one am contacting them to let them know I fully support it as is.

[KGAINES]

The bill was introduced by Jerry Weiers, who is a hunter and active in sportsman's groups like the Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society. I am sure his interests are for the hunters in this state.

 

He is probably one of the biggest supporters of sportsmen we have, if not the biggest in the legislature.

Some on the commission might see it as a threat and will never vote to support any bill with term limits, license or political party requirements, I also didn't see where it was a fishing or a hunting license, it was a hunting or combo license, its just the wording and it can be amended, but some fishermen might have taken offense as not being seen as equals. I don't know the status of our current commissioners as far as what they might see as a threat to their jobs, but it is good to put a little doubt about whether or not they can continue when they finish their term, no matter who the Governor is. Plus the legislature don't need the commissions approval to vote one way or another, but we can all call or email and support or oppose any bill and hopefully our legislators will listen to us.

[ghost hunter]

The bill, at least what was provided, doesn't mention that a commission candidate have any knowledge of game management, just be a 10 yr resident, a voter, and having had a hunting and/or fishing license for the past 5 years.

 

I tend to agree with the idea that this needs some re-wording.

[KGAINES]

It was hunting license or combo license, not just a fishing license, hopefully they fix it so that some of our not so hunter friendly governors have a harder time with bad commission choices. I am not saying that just because you have a hunting or fishing license you are the right choice, but it doesn't hurt.

[.270]

the azgfd commission has been a payback or reward position for a long time. it doesn't pay anything to speak of, but it's a nice thing to reward folks who have played ball with the right other folks. i had a good friend who was a commissioner once. he was a life long republican but had to change his party affilliation to democrat in order to get the appointment. he told me why and it seemed like they tried to keep a certain amount of elephants and donkeys on the commission. symington, a republican, was who appointed him too. and i also don't think he ever shot an animal in his life. decent enough guy, but he had no real interest in wildlife, especially not at as a sportsman. some guys who've been on the commission have been serious outdoor people who spent a lot of time in the field. but for the most part, they're people who are rewarded with a position of some authority for helping in other political situations. that is my observation anyway. and from what the guy i knew who was on the commission told me, he had the same opinion. this bill looks to me to try and stop some of the real damage that our past governor did with stacking the commission with people who have political desires and not wildlife conservation concerns. look at some of the people who've been appointed over the past 20 years. by both parties. a lot of them had no affiliation with wildlife conservation. or even a passing interest in it. not to bash women, but there have been several gals over the past 20 years who had next to no outdoor desires. their appointments were totally political. a few commissioner had some outdoor experience and a couple were quite involved in hunting and angling. but a bunch had never had a hunting or fishing license and had no desire to be involved in serious outdoor activity. the commission is just protecting themselves and don't want anymore scrutiny than they are already subject to. which is very little. one of the last appointees was voted down by the state legislature because of concerns brought up by sportsmen ogranizations, but the governor went ahead and appointed her for a year anyway and after the year she became permanent, because of weakness in the appointment process. Lark.