Is Shane Koury the next guide to lose license?

[654321]

18 minutes ago, jgraffaz said:

This makes my point. cannot be used to help take or locate wildlife during an open season. This restriction applies 48 hours before the start of a big game season and lasts until the season ends. 
 

I don’t believe he was trying to locate deer. Burden of proof is on the prosecutor. Unless they have evidence that he was trying to locate big game he’s not guilty and has every right to fly wherever the heck he wants.
 

Now I’m just playing devils advocate and trying to tell you how I believe this all really works. I don’t personally know the guy or care about his 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

[Coues247]

1 hour ago, 654321 said:

😂, you used the word “Jurisdiction “ who’s jurisdiction do you think it is to enforce title 17 and the commission rules? Keep up my friend the title 17 and the commission rules do indeed fall under the AZGFD and their WM enforce those laws and rules

You poor thing. I'm saying just because the commission proclaimed this rule doesn't mean that it is a constitutional law/rule. The azgfd could choose to make a rule stating that all people named Billy Bob aren't allowed to hunt. Does that now mean all Billy Bob's are out of luck now? No. Because azgfd can't just make any rule they please and we just have to accept it. Koury is going through the process necessary to find out if azgfd truly has jurisdiction to proclaim this rule and for their wardens to enforce it. If the appeals court finds that they can then azgfd is good to go. If the appeals court says they can't then azgfd gets to remove the rule from the books. 

[firstcoueswas80]

I had a lengthy discussion with a AZGFD officer at my sons field day. I explained the frustration with "grey area" stuff. He went on to explain spirit of the law, officer discretion etc. I had to explain to him that his job was law enforcement, not law interpretation. To the point that he asked me (in a condescending tone) of I was an attorney. I said "no, but I've been in law enforcement since you were drinking chocolate milk out of a Transformers lunchbox". We chuckled and found common ground. 

[654321]

22 minutes ago, Coues247 said:

You poor thing. I'm saying just because the commission proclaimed this rule doesn't mean that it is a constitutional law/rule. The azgfd could choose to make a rule stating that all people named Billy Bob aren't allowed to hunt. Does that now mean all Billy Bob's are out of luck now? No. Because azgfd can't just make any rule they please and we just have to accept it. Koury is going through the process necessary to find out if azgfd truly has jurisdiction to proclaim this rule and for their wardens to enforce it. If the appeals court finds that they can then azgfd is good to go. If the appeals court says they can't then azgfd gets to remove the rule from the books. 

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. 

[trphyhntr]

Is that a fact of the case, that he was cited because it was elk season when he flew 

[trphyhntr]

1 hour ago, 654321 said:

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

Ah, So he was flying well before his hunt started. 
 

hardly the crime of the century. 

[654321]

4 minutes ago, trphyhntr said:

Ah, So he was flying well before his hunt started. 
 

hardly the crime of the century. 

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.

[jgraffaz]

4 hours ago, 654321 said:

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 if you’re out camping over Labor Dayweekend and your kid got a new drone for Christmas and flys it is that illegal since an antelope hunt is going on? Let’s even say he has an elk hunt coming up in a few weeks. 

[trphyhntr]

23 minutes ago, 654321 said:

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.

I don’t thin you did say that. I was just commenting that I don’t think it’s the crime of the century, that’s all. I appreciate you bringing it to our attention, it’s good to know.
 

being over the limit is a bigger crime than flying weeks before a hunt. I always thought it was 48 hours until I read about this topic on here a while back 

[AZBIG10]

1 hour ago, trphyhntr said:

Ah, So he was flying well before his hunt started. 
 

hardly the crime of the century. 

How you know?

[trphyhntr]

30 minutes ago, AZBIG10 said:

How you know?

Did you read the guys post that I quoted? That’s where I got my information 

[Coues247]

1 hour ago, jgraffaz said:

So if you’re out camping over Memorial Day weekend and your kid got a new drone for Christmas and flys it is that illegal since an antelope hunt is going on? Let’s even say he has an elk hunt coming up in a few weeks. 

Based off the current version of the rule, yes that would be illegal if you happened to locate an animal while flying the drone. Wouldn't even need to have the elk hunt coming up in a few weeks to make it illegal. The current version of the rule, technically an animal lover flying their drone to look at cute little deer during any open season would be breaking the law. Hence why so many have said azgfd is overstepping their bounds. Similar to their trail cam law saying people can't take pictures of animals. 

[Coues247]

1 hour ago, 654321 said:

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. 

I have no idea what route his appeal process is taking. However, it is common knowledge that if someone feels that a crime they have been charged with is unconstitutional then they can appeal it. He was convicted so more than likely as it currently sits they had evidence to show he broke that rule as written. His next argument would have to be that although he broke that rule it shouldn't and couldn't have been a rule in the first place because who is azgfd to tell people they can't fly an airplane over an area several weeks before their hunt?

[654321]

2 minutes ago, Coues247 said:

I have no idea what route his appeal process is taking. However, it is common knowledge that if someone feels that a crime they have been charged with is unconstitutional then they can appeal it. He was convicted so more than likely as it currently sits they had evidence to show he broke that rule as written. His next argument would have to be that although he broke that rule it shouldn't and couldn't have been a rule in the first place because who is azgfd to tell people they can't fly an airplane over an area several weeks before their hunt?

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.

[654321]

1 hour ago, jgraffaz said:

So if you’re out camping over Memorial Day weekend and your kid got a new drone for Christmas and flys it is that illegal since an antelope hunt is going on? Let’s even say he has an elk hunt coming up in a few weeks. 

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.