Fee Increases for next year

[TexasHunter]

Not getting in the Bill and Rick debate but political clout is something we need to look at and some are discussing this right now on MM. It's a new political arena today and if we look at how other small in percentage but large in influence groups do it, that may be the answer.

 

Here's a repeat of my post during the brainstorming session.

 

I honestly believe we are looking at the answer. Our society and lives are being changed by public opinion driven by 'Blogs', if that's the correct term, not reason and logic. We have to adapt to this style of getting the message out. It's telling how fast a responce we received from the dept when we took the issue to the public on these websites concerning the A/B tags and price increases. I again want to thank Mr. Wakeling for answering in a timely manner.

We need to expand on this. If untruthfulness can change our country because of the power of ’Blogging'. Then maybe the truth will regain it’s power doing the same.

 

I can see in the near future a dedicated blogging site for G&F issues in this state that the hunting public can express themselves from their computers on issues, polls constructed by anyone on any issue and even petitions to take to the Legislature. We can sway public opinion also, took us this long to see it. I can see this expanding to emailing alerts to all licensed hunters in a data base and putting real political pressure right back on. We will not be ‘onesided’ by the G&F political spin machine anymore. This case here wasn’t spin, just some info added without explanation, a learning experience.

 

The power of a blogging site is that everyone can see what others are feeling about an issue and can discuss it together. There will never be total agreement but it is evident how the majority feel. Just having an email response doesn’t allow everyone to see what other’s are saying and the political spinners can cherry pick the responses that suit them. Giving a few minutes at a commission meeting doesn’t get the back and forth for new ideas to develop.

 

In the past we have went through channels individually or in specialized groups and therefore separated and defeated. We’ve tried the reasonable and logical responses to the political spin and propaganda shoved our way and feel frustrated and powerless. We can only sit around dumbfounded for so long before we realize we can use the same tactics that are changing our country and state to our advantage.

 

If I was the G&F, I would be the first to add this to my site. Not that you will be able to control the responses, but it would be a win politically, it’s coming one way or another.

 

Kent

 

This is exactly what I mean great post.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TexasHunter]

Well they need a spell check on this forum! And to think I got in A in my writing classes

 

I am not looking to soley rule the AZGFD just for it to be "fair" to all. When they raise tags to a point which most hunters cant afford them that is not right.

 

Look the reason the other side has more clout is because we for so long have let them. We kept to ourselfs for the most part except for major issues. They on the other hand have been fighting toth and nail. Imagine if we accually fought back.

 

As for your articles the ones I read were ussually hidden in the back of the citizen. When the other side puts out its "propaganda" its front and center all over the news. The fact is our propaganda is directed at people who are already hunters, we cant get to many recruits from that. I recently took my new girlfriend and her son on a hunt in Texas. They had never been. Both are now hooked. We need to stop making ourselfs look like right wing skinhead radiccals and more like the compasionate people we are. I am not saying we are skinheads but that is the perception and perception is reality. There are a lot more people who would be sympathetic to our cause if it was presented differently.

 

More tags means the possobility of more hunters yes but the logic to price them so far out of reach that most can not afford them means less hunters. If Joe Shmoe cant afford to take his kids hunting they in turn will not become hunters themselves. Then we loose not only Joe but his children and their children as well.

 

I understand that there are other sources of revenue out there for AZGFD but I do not believe it would be as lucrative as what they recieve from hunters. I am not sure of the numbers but think one hunter who draws an elk tag pays for his tag, license, app fee, fee to enter the land usually, camping permit, fire permit, gas to drive there and back, maybe a hotel, hunting supplies, ammo, topo maps, extra food for camping, and so on. It is a pretty segnifigant economic boost and I find it hard to believe that our government doesnt realize that. I also doubt if the other sources of revenue are going to provide the state with alternatives for stimulating the economy like we do. We have more clout and barganing power then most relize we just have to use it to our advantage.

[NRS]

"Well they need a spell check on this forum"

 

Everybody has one, it is called stopping to proofread your work before you hit the Add Reply key.

[Snapshot]

This is almost as good as UFC Fight Night!

[Red Rabbit]

Well they need a spell check on this forum! And to think I got in A in my writing classes

 

I recall when 2 misspelled words garnished an F on your handwritten paper, but college is no longer HIGHER education.

Google toolbar has a spell check. One can download ispell, or copy and paste a response precomposed on MS Word.

 

[billrquimby]

I am not looking to soley rule the AZGFD just for it to be "fair" to all. When they raise tags to a point which most hunters cant afford them that is not right.

It may not be fair, but prices of licenses and tags are governed by elementary rules of economics: supply and demand, and what the market will bear versus what is needed to cover anticipated costs. One way to keep tag fees low is to increase supply.

 

Look the reason the other side has more clout is because we for so long have let them. We kept to ourselfs for the most part except for major issues. They on the other hand have been fighting toth and nail. Imagine if we accually fought back.

Our inaction did not allow the other side to steal our clout. We are losing it because our numbers are shrinking . A few of the reasons this is happening are:

 

1. Hunting occurs in rural settings, and most Americans live in and around cities far removed from wildlife. Comparatively few people have seen even a chicken killed.

2. A lot of misinformation appears in television documentaries and school literature. Much of it is deliberate.

3. Our opponents are better than we are at influencing public opinion. They outnumber us and are better organized and better funded.

4. Hunting is expensive, there are complicated restrictions, and it is hard to learn where to go.

5. Today’s emphasis on hunting for trophies is repugnant to people who have not hunted, even though they may not be opposed to hunting.

 

There are others, of course, but these rank at the top of my list.

 

As for your articles the ones I read were ussually hidden in the back of the citizen. When the other side puts out its "propaganda" its front and center all over the news. The fact is our propaganda is directed at people who are already hunters, we cant get to many recruits from that. I recently took my new girlfriend and her son on a hunt in Texas. They had never been. Both are now hooked. We need to stop making ourselfs look like right wing skinhead radiccals and more like the compasionate people we are. I am not saying we are skinheads but that is the perception and perception is reality. There are a lot more people who would be sympathetic to our cause if it was presented differently.

It is amazing that you would remember my stuff in the Citizen. I held that job from 1967 until I retired from it in March 1994, when you were just twelve years old. The newspaper was not my only venue. By then, I also was freelancing articles in international magazines and editing and publishing SCI’s magazine, books and newspapers. As you said, though, I mostly preached to the choir.

 

My guess is most Americans consider us to be rednecks, and not skinheads. That’s the way we come off (even to me) when a typical hunter is interviewed by media. What we don’t need are the “whack ‘em and stack ‘em in-your-face Buster” presentations that at least one self-appointed spokesman for hunters uses whenever he is interviewed.

 

More tags means the possobility of more hunters yes but the logic to price them so far out of reach that most can not afford them means less hunters. If Joe Shmoe cant afford to take his kids hunting they in turn will not become hunters themselves. Then we loose not only Joe but his children and their children as well.

That already has happened in Arizona, beginning with the advent of permit-only deer hunting in 1970. John Shmoe (Joe's father) applied for deer permits for a couple of years early on, but took up golf when he could not draw a tag where and when he wanted to hunt. As the years passed, Arizona went from more than 100,000 deer tags sold in 1969 to only about 40,000 deer permits authorized today. John never applied again. His son Joe has never hunted, and Joe's kids think hunting is abominable. A few years from now, they will help promote separate ballot measures to ban the hunting of doves, bighorn sheep, and all carnivores. What they really want is to stop all hunting, but the team of strategists the Humane Society of the United States sends to Arizona for the campaign believes it is best to go after a few species at a time.

 

I understand that there are other sources of revenue out there for AZGFD but I do not believe it would be as lucrative as what they recieve from hunters. I am not sure of the numbers but think one hunter who draws an elk tag pays for his tag, license, app fee, fee to enter the land usually, camping permit, fire permit, gas to drive there and back, maybe a hotel, hunting supplies, ammo, topo maps, extra food for camping, and so on. It is a pretty segnifigant economic boost and I find it hard to believe that our government doesnt realize that. I also doubt if the other sources of revenue are going to provide the state with alternatives for stimulating the economy like we do. We have more clout and barganing power then most relize we just have to use it to our advantage.

AGFD operates on our license, tag and application fees, a percentage of the federal excise taxes on the hunting, shooting and fishing equipment that we buy, and some state lottery funds. Everything else you mentioned goes to other agencies and private enterprises.

 

There was a time when the economic impact of hunting led all other types of outdoor pursuits except fishing. No more. Expenditures by “non-consumptive users,” such as birdwatchers, wildlife photographers, hikers, campers, mountain bikers, ORV drivers, etc., surpassed ours several years ago.

 

There are many ways a wildlife agency can be funded, and some could bring in more money than selling licenses and tags. We better hope our opponents never discover them.

 

Bill Quimby