Need all of your help here!!

[TLH]

OK, our game and fish (commission) has decided to sneak another new rule into the books again. This one will change the way "guides" are classified--in fact, if you are a camp cook you will be considered a guide--if you are a booking agent you will be considered a guide--if you help your buddy Joe (if Joe buys food or gas) out you could be considered a guide with this new language presented in this.

 

Read below then please email Rep. Bill Konopnicki and ask him to not sponsor this bill.

Thanks for helping with this in advance!

 

I am sending this to a select list of individuals based on your involvement in the guiding industry or the impact a proposed Arizona law might have on you.

 

HB 2064 is making its way through the Arizona legislature this spring. This bill dramatically changes the definition of a “guide” in Arizona and could have a devastating impact to all of us. Here is a link to the bill http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hb2064p.pdf .

 

In a nutshell the bill changes the current definition of a guide from "Guide" means a person who, for pay, aids or assists any person in taking wildlife.

 

 

 

And below is the proposed definition:

 

 

 

9 10. "GUIDE" MEANS A PERSON WHO DOES ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

 

30 (a) ADVERTISES FOR GUIDING SERVICES.

 

31 ( HOLDS HIMSELF OUT TO THE PUBLIC FOR HIRE AS A GUIDE.

 

32 © IS EMPLOYED BY A COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE AS A GUIDE.

 

33 (d) ACCEPTS COMPENSATION IN ANY FORM IN EXCHANGE FOR AIDING OR

 

34 ASSISTING ANY PERSON TO LOCATE OR TAKE WILDLIFE.

 

First of all, I have not heard a compelling reason to change the original definition. But with the new language of “compensation in any form” is so far reaching that the potential mis-interpretation is scary. Under this definition you cannot even help someone locate wildlife!

 

Here are a few points:

 

1. Anyone involved in a non-profit group engaged in sponsoring youth camps would considered a guide.

 

2. If you buy a food for a bunch of buddies that come to help on a hunt then they would all be considered guides.

 

3. Even a camp cook would be considered a guide.

 

The scenarios are endless which is why it is a frightening proposition.

 

Rep. Bill Konopnicki from Safford is the bill sponsor, but the Arizona Game and Fish Department is the author and only supporter of this bill. I am asking you to please send a polite message to Rep. Konopnicki bkonopnicki@azleg.gov asking him to reconsider the sponsorship of this bill due to the vague language and damaging consequences to all of us. Please do this as soon as possible (today would be best!) and let me know that you did send it so we can follow up.

 

Thanks for your help.

 

 

 

[CouesWhitetail]

Just to clarify....the info that TLH posted is from an email Chris Denham sent out to spread the word and as a plea for help. Chris is very concerned about this and I spoke to him last night at the board meeting. However, he believes that Konopnicki will rethink the issue because I don't think he knew about all the ramifications of the bill in the way that Chris has pointed out. So Chris feels he will be open to input. Please send polite emails ASAP.

 

If anyone wants to call Chris and talk with him about it, please feel free.

 

Chris Denham

Western Hunter Magazine

480-219-1503

 

 

 

Amanda

 

 

[TLH]

Thanks Amanda for the clarification. I did add some of my own thoughts to the post and i feel this is just another attempt at pulling the wool over all of our eyes and doing what ever they can to make it more difficult for people who just want to hunt and fish to do what they love to do.

[CouesWhitetail]

Email sent to Konopnicki.

 

Amanda

 

[TAM]

Email sent.

[hawkeye]

E-mail sent

 

kdhawk

[ghost hunter]

#34 presents a scary scenario............sounds just like what a father does with his kids.

 

This thing really does to be dropped or changed.

[GElms]

Guys I applaud your efforts and encourage you to keep up to date on legislative issues that impact the sportsman of this state. However much of the information that TLH posted is incorrect. The Arizona Game and Fish Department is always available to answer specific questions. Especially pertaining to issues that could potentially impact your hunting/fishing privileges or the wildlife resources of the state. I would encourage anyone with questions on any issue to first seek the truth before jumping to unfounded conclusions or promulgating false information.

 

While the law TLH inserted in his post is correct many of his statements are simply not true. The legislation he is referring to is a proposal to modify law, specifically a change to ARS 17-101.A.10. There are other components of that proposal but I will only address the issue surrounding the definition of Guide. In addition TLH indicates the Department is trying to "sneak another new rule into the books." This is a proposed statue change and not part of our very public rules review process.

 

Last year the Department lost a portion of a court case that claimed a person was guiding a client. In the court case the licensed guide accepted compensation but not money. The state lost the charges related to the guides illegal activities because the Department could not prove the current definition of guide which states, "a person who, for pay, aids or assists any person in taking wildlife." Following that case, our Officers experienced an increase in the number of people using the court case as a defense in their investigations. In cooperation with our legal council we drafted the proposed definition to be more specific. Our desire is to be able to have the tools necessary to prosecute those who are operating an illegal guide service and taking advantage of hunters or clients that may not know their guide is above board. I see many cases in which a client killed what he thought was a legal animal only to find out later that the actions of his guide were illegal. The result of this activity is the harvested animal now becomes unlawfully taken and the hunter can also be cited.

 

Guides must meet a higher standard. They are required to pass a written test to get a license. They must conduct business legally and any violation of Title 17(Wildlife Statues) will result in the loss of their guide license privileges. They must report their guiding activity to the Department and they must pay a fee for their license. This revision to the guide definition will help protect those who are operating legally and aid in the prosecution of those who are guiding illegally.

 

The proposed changes to the statute are listed below.

 

10. "GUIDE" MEANS A PERSON WHO DOES ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

 

(a) ADVERTISES FOR GUIDING SERVICES.

( HOLDS HIMSELF OUT TO THE PUBLIC FOR HIRE AS A GUIDE.

© IS EMPLOYED BY A COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE AS A GUIDE.

(d) ACCEPTS COMPENSATION IN ANY FORM IN EXCHANGE FOR AIDING OR ASSISTING ANY PERSON TO LOCATE OR TAKE WILDLIFE.

 

The intent is and will continue to be, those who are operating as a business. The key word in this legislation is Compensation. It is considered a common word so the courts will reference the normal definition when considering prosecution. Websters defines compensation as "something that constitutes an equivalent." This eliminates the tank of gas for a buddy, the price of groceries, and the box of ammunition. At the point you combine those elements, with the cost of 4 days in a hotel and tip the guy a new pair of Swarovski binoculars you will then enter the realm of definition D listed above. However at that point we are not dealing with a buddy situation.

 

TLH identified some possible illegal scenarios that simply do not satisfy the proposed definition or would not be considered by law enforcement. If you think long and hard you can probably come up with a few more "what if" scenarios but at the end of the day if you compare them to the current definition they would probably also be illegal now.

 

The bottom line here is at the end of the day our Officers must be able to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits. As I stated before we hold our legal guides to a higher standard and we are going to do everything we can to prosecute those who conduct the same business illegally. We support this legeslation and hope you will do the same. If you have any further questions on the issue please feel free to call me of call your local Game and Fish Office.

 

Gene Elms, Law Enforcement Chief, Arizona Game and Fish Department.

[krp]

Gene, thanks for your responce on this forum, and explaining what this rewording is trying to do. I'm sure you'll still get alot of suggestions on how to better reword this law. I will have a few of my own. Just really appreciate you listening.

 

Kent

[TLH]

Gene,

 

I did say that the game and fish were trying to sneak another one under our radar and i still believe that is what happened here. I spoke with a commissioner two days ago and he and i spoke at length about the rules and how it was discussed at the commission meetings that no one ever attends but a very few--one of the very few is the originator of this post and i believe he is one of the only people who actually works hard to find loopholes in the ruling.

 

I believe the department can do a much better job of informing us the customers on changes or new rules and if they did there wouldn't be this problem of being surprised when and email hit my and a lot of others email in-boxes.

 

The thing i do not like about your response is that you say that many of the scenarios that were mentioned would never happen but as a law and as a person who has seen the law work (both good and bad) i have to say that you can not promise 100% that this would never happen--you can't because you would not be the judge who would be making those decisions--and yes i think a WM would have the opportunity to cite someone on something like this if they felt the need to do so.

 

I believe the department does a good job and i never felt any different but i can tell you that this rule was not broadcast too well and if you want us not to be paranoid then why not send this information along with all of the other emails i get from the game and fish? How about a "News" email that goes over this type of rule change and all of the others that the department is working on?? How hard would that be for the department to let us all know what is on the agenda at the game and fish department?? Why do we have to wait to find this kind of rule change out by an email that was sent to our in-box??

 

Communication is the best way to relieve opinions of hunters and anglers of our state and if the game and fish want us to not be concerned then by all means inform all of us and we then can say--well, we saw it in the email and now here it is--if we then do not respond or comment on the rule then shame on us.

 

Thanks for your input but as KRP has stated i am sure you all could do much better with the language of this bill.

 

 

[TAM]

Mr. Elms, thank you for your response.

 

I think section (D) the way it is currently worded is way to broad. It seems to leave way to many "what if" senarios open for debate.

 

Mr. Elms if I'm understanding you correctly you are saying that G&F is aware that this language is very broad, but it will only be applied to guides and outfitters? If that's the case it kinda sounds like the car salesman saying don't worry... you can trust me!

 

This doesn't have anything to do with the McClendons guiding the elk auction tag summer '07 does it?

[krp]

A guide means a person that is: Licensed by the state of Az. Signs a contract for sevices for hire even if payment is not paid but services were supplied.

 

A hunt is considered Guided if a person: Accepts any compensation that directly benefits themselves or their business through advertising rights, sponserships, promotional rights, videos, products, using the hunt images of another's tagged animal. This does not include personal tags or immediate family.

 

A hunt is considered Guided if: money or items of value are exchanged for aiding or assisting any person to locate or take wildlife, beyond the average family/friend outing and no more than $400.00 of compensation beyond actual personal expences.

 

If you accept money or compensation beyond personal expences plus $400.00 for info on locating or taking an individual animal, a guide license is required. This is directed at finders fees.

 

The 400.00 is much like the 750.00 that a small contractor can legally make in Az without being licensed by the state.

 

I know this isn't perfect but it would seem to cure some of the issues, and still allow those that hunt with their families and friends to be taken out to dinner and given a small gift for helping out. Or a High school kid making a few bucks scouting.

 

It would also not allow someone to claim they weren't guiding for cash and then make money off the images through advertising and promotions.

 

Just needs to be spelled out in more detail than what is being proposed right now. These is just some thoughts.

 

Kent

 

 

 

 

[GElms]

Guys

 

The Department goes to great lengths to communicate to our customers on most issues. Our I&E folks have huge Email distribution lists for a wide range of topics. You can go to our website and sign up for automatic Emails on a wide variety of issues. I have attached a link to that distribution list as well as links to some portions of our web site you may find useful. I know this blog is located on several other web sites so feel free to pass on these links.

 

Game and Fish eNews Distribution List

 

Game and Fish Commission Link

 

Game and Fish Legislative Affairs Link

 

Rule Making Process Link

 

You also indicated the wording is vague. When drafting new laws or legislation we do our best to make sure the language is sound and has the desired result. In cases where a law is drafted and we learn that there are issues with interpretation or we discoverer an unintended consequence we can address that in Rule. Rule making is an internal process that ultimately must be approved by the Governor's Regulatory Review Council. If it is determined in the future that this statute is creating problems we can address it there. I can also issue a Law Enforcement Directive to clear up how our Officers enforce the law. As always the intent is not to prosecute the middle man, the buddy or the friend. We are after people purposely trying to bypass the rules and regulations that define a guides activities.

 

You can modify this definition a thousand times and you will not be able to address every concern. What we do know is the current definition is flawed. The Department is taking measures to correct the language. The enforcement and prosecution of illegal guiding practices has not changed.

 

I will not respond any furhter to this post. If you have further questions you can contact me directly or your nearest Game and fish Office.

[TAM]

Again, thank you Mr. Elms for passing this information along.

 

Is it just me or is G&F trying to pass a law that covers a broad group of people and then telling them, don't worry we're not going to bust all you little guys, we're just going to go after the guides and outfitters?

 

Am I right or just missing something?

[Muley62]

I guess I would be a lot more supportive if I felt that this was a real problem. Sure there are some guys out there who don’t buy a guides license and do some funny trading, but is it a real problem? I don’t think so. Of course this was not a problem when guides licenses cost $100, but when the commission raised the price to $300 with absolutely no value added at all, then it became a problem.

 

The other side of this bill that remains somewhat hidden is that the department wants to change the punishment for “wasting edible portions” from a non-revocable offense to a maximum 5 year revocation of your hunting rights. So if an officer feels that you should have taken more of that rib meat or neck meat than you did, you could lose your right to hunt in the United States for 5 years. I am all for punishing a guy for cutting a head off and walking away but let’s at lease define the violation!

All that anyone is asking is that the department defines “compensation” and/or “edible portions” more precisely. Is that asking too much?

 

The biggest problem that I have with Mr. Elms response is that what definition the court would likely use for compensation. While the officer must prove his case, the judge must hear the case, and the jury must render a decision, all you have to do is pay $15,000 for an attorney to defend you! If you are found not-guilty or the case gets thrown out for lack of evidence nobody is going to cover your court cost.

 

20 years from now when Gene and all the old guard at G&F have retired and the average WM is a non-hunter with 2 years experience do you want this law on the books!??? I doubt it….