Sierra Club wants lion tag to auction

[billrquimby]

I've been told that the Arizona Game and Fish Commision (supposedly at its meeting on Saturday) will hear a request from the Sierra Club to auction a mountain lion tag.

 

The letter requesting the tag is said to have stated that the buyer most likely will NOT use it to “harvest” a lion.

 

Does anyone know anything about this?

 

Bill Quimby

[Red Rabbit]

Seems stupid as lion tags are OTC.

Why would G&F want to be a part of a SC fundraiser for their adversary?

SC could have all of their loony members buy a lion tag to support G&F

[CouesWhitetail]

I believe that is correct info you have there Bill. I think this we mentioned at one of the ADA board meetings. I think they might intend to auction it off as a photo safari type hunt rather than a a real lion hunt.

 

Amanda

 

[jamaro]

I don't think the SC is Anti-Hunter... I have seen a few articles in there that talk about backcountry bowhunting...

J

 

[cmc]

I have read the actual request and yes they are applying for one of the commissioner lion tags.

 

The trouble is they have admitted in the request they don't intend to harvest a lion with it and it will most likely go unused, but they intend to have the person that bids the highest use it as an education or wildlife viewing excursion. Someone goes out with hounds men and trees a cat. They observe, photo, and then let the lion go.

 

Two things that worry me...

 

G&F has been trying to stay out of the gray area in regards to pursuit

of predators with hounds. Knowing that the 'tag holder' is not in

pursuit with the intent to harvest then isn't that classified as

wildlife harassment? This thought comes to me with them expressing, up

front, their intentions of use of the tag?

 

My bigger concern is if they sold the tag and funds go to the department

the voice they have with how the dollars are spent. This would then put them at the table with the rest of the organizations that brought funds to the table, i.e. they can lay claim to funding of the department and in turn looking to have a much louder voice. This is bad.

 

Oh and the comment of the Sierra Club not being anti-hunting.... not from what I've experienced. As a club they might not claim it but the individuals that represent the club sure are pushing an anti-hunting agenda.

 

 

cmc

[billrquimby]

I have read the actual request and yes they are applying for one of the commissioner lion tags.

 

The trouble is they have admitted in the request they don't intend to harvest a lion with it and it will most likely go unused, but they intend to have the person that bids the highest use it as an education or wildlife viewing excursion. Someone goes out with hounds men and trees a cat. They observe, photo, and then let the lion go.

 

Two things that worry me...

 

G&F has been trying to stay out of the gray area in regards to pursuit

of predators with hounds. Knowing that the 'tag holder' is not in

pursuit with the intent to harvest then isn't that classified as

wildlife harassment? This thought comes to me with them expressing, up

front, their intentions of use of the tag?

 

My bigger concern is if they sold the tag and funds go to the department

the voice they have with how the dollars are spent. This would then put them at the table with the rest of the organizations that brought funds to the table, i.e. they can lay claim to funding of the department and in turn looking to have a much louder voice. This is bad.

 

Oh and the comment of the Sierra Club not being anti-hunting.... not from what I've experienced. As a club they might not claim it but the individuals that represent the club sure are pushing an anti-hunting agenda.

 

 

cmc

 

My concerns equal yours, as well as the distinct possibility of groups that definitely are not in our corner asking to auction bighorn and elk tags.

 

Bill Quimby

[audsley]

I don't understand why a tag is necessary for what they plan to do. I must be missing something.

[4Falls]

They need the tag to perform the auction.

 

You cant auction an OTC tag.

 

And they probably cant find an outfitter to stand with them and auction his services. Therefore they auction the tag and the "lucky" winner can line up his/her own outfitter.

 

I know this seems ridiculous from our stand point but.... them greenies dont never make no sense anyway.

[Coues 'n' Sheep]

I don't understand why a tag is necessary for what they plan to do. I must be missing something.

 

 

I agree, but them Greenies have always had something missing.... call it comon sense. I think they figure they can save one lion by taking the tag out of the hands of hunters and if a real hunter shows up to bid then he is just funding them in part.... And although they could auction off a camera safari... it makes it legal if you have a tag in hand to pursue the animal whether you intend to harvest or not....

 

Wake up AZGF.... Please don't bite!!!! Sportsman fund wildlife conservation.... The groups like Sierra Club impede wildlife management & conservation.... There is no room to waste the good management tools that the state has in place on those who are the first to stand against good managment practices in the first place.

[johnnie blaze]

I gotta feeling that the SC wants to spin this into animal creulty, or something to that effect. Somethin smells really fishy bout this. If AZGFD cant see through the rose colored glasses on this one, I hope that any dog outfitter will deny any request for their services.

[TAM]

Still not sure why they need the tag? Seems to me as long as the houndsman has a tag (which most do) they should be ok running the lion... right?

 

Houndsman do this sort of thing all the time to train their dogs. As long as they have a valid tag they can persue a lion without the intent of killing it.

 

Why would the Sierra Club person even need a tag if they aren't planning on killing the lion?

[cmc]

Houndsman do this sort of thing all the time to train their dogs. As long as they have a valid tag they can persue a lion without the intent of killing it.

 

 

And when a houndsman is stopped and asked what are they doing the usually respond with... we're lion hunting - as that is their intent. Proving that or are they just out training/running the dogs with no intent to kill is the gray area.

 

I believe, and would need to look back and find it to be exact, but the letter of the law is that two things are important. You have to be in pursuit with the intent to take wildlife. Pursuit for the sake of pursuit is not legal I believe. Yet this is exactly what the SC has stated up front, pursuit for the sake of pursuit, which to me means that they would be in violation of the law when put in context of their intentions.

 

I'll have to go back and try to find the wording of the current law which might just turn my thoughts around.

 

What still stands though is putting them at the table to make decisions based on funds accrued. The direction that they might take would probably be much different than that of sportsman that fund the great part of the department.

 

cmc

[4Falls]

Upon further reflection my last theory was flawed.

 

 

Clearly this is all about appearances. SC wants to appear to be saving a lion. The usual cast of characters (predominantly Californ-holes) that are a part of these groups know absolutley nothing about how the tag/draw system in this state works. Ill bet theyve done this in other states like Utah and Nevada.

 

So by doing this SC appears to their members as doing something to protect the fragile mountain lion population of AZ.

 

G&F is seeing dollar signs. They know they get a portion of the auction price for this and that alot more than theyve gotten for previous auctionable lion tags, I'm sure. And at the same time they appear to have a heart to the non-hunting public.

 

 

[audsley]

Wonder how much their tag for a no-kill hunt will bring at auction. My guess is quite a bit the first year because it's a novelty. But Sierra Club probably plans to advertise their good deed to help with fundraising for their own organization.

[NRS]

I think Bill Quimby hit the nail on the head.

 

"My bigger concern is if they sold the tag and funds go to the department the voice they have with how the dollars are spent. This would then put them at the table with the rest of the organizations that brought funds to the table, i.e. they can lay claim to funding of the department and in turn looking to have a much louder voice. This is bad."