.270 Report post Posted November 3, 2009 bill, i understand what you're saying. i really do. these guys on this list might be great guys, but they are politicians. and by accepting the list and only choosing a guy from the list, sportsmen are buying into it. if we complain about it the all azgfd has to say is "hey, we sent ya a list and you picked a guy from it". why not give them a list? and i hafta agree, a lot of the time sportsmen who are involved heavily in different "conservation" organizations can be kinda militant it seems and may not be good commissioners. elk guys want more elk, deer guys want more deer, bow guys want more bow taqs, etc, etc. they don't neccessarily look at the big picture. but i still refuse to believe that every person appointed to the commission needs to be politcally connected. what's wrong with a guy with plumber or electrician or carpenter or mechanic next to his name instead of politician? there are a lot of smart guys that can see the see the big picture that aren't pollitically connected. if you put a politician anywhere, he's gonna make decisions on politics and not on what is right, every time. the last guy i would want on the commission is an ex game warden. he's too biased and too connected. every person on the commission needs to have a true desire to further wildlife conservation, for the sake of the wildlife, and they need to be connected to hunters and anglers closely, because they pay the bills. all i have seen for years is commissioners who are swayed by politics. if the commission would've stood up to the feds maybe we wouldn't have this stupid "wolf" program we have now. or this lead poisoning scare with the condors. we wouldn't have some of these absolutely ridiculous endangered fish programs that are eventually going to stop all sport fishing. if we had a commission that could see past politics we wouldn't have lost 25% of lion season. we wouldn't have elk season permit numbers for next year set before the elk seasons are over this year and before success numbers are gathered and before the winter surveys have been done. we wouldn't spend a fortune on different wildlife surveys only to have the data set aside because, in the words of the azgfd, it wouldn't be politically correct to impliment the findings. if we had commissioners that weren't pushed by whatever politcal wind that comes by they wouldn't make knee jerk decisions like stopping a varmint calling contest that was completely legal and making a law that was shot down so fast by the state supreme court that it wasn't funny, a law that would've led to the ban on every fishing derby, big buck contest and any other wildlife associated competition in the state. and it cost the azgfd a lot of money to try it too. sorry, but i'm sick of political favors making decisions about our wildlife. i know what it took for jack to get appointed to the commission. but i think he's a breath of fresh air in a room fulla old farts. the way he took it to the hugger over the lions awhile back shows he ain't afraid to make a few ripples. even if my reasoning does confuse somebody. give me the choice between a real guy that is the same to everyone and has real experience with real things and a politician and i'll always take the real guy. wildlife has to be managed. there isn't a truly wild place in the lower 48 left. higways, cities, subdivisions, farms, canals, roads, reserviors, fences, mines, etc,etc, have chopped up what was once endless wilderness into small areas that have definite boundaries. even the ones designated as wilderness, aren't wilderness. progress has spread everywhere and the places, wildlife and fauna that haven't been directly changed by it have to be managed in individual ways. a shotgun doesn't work. the people that have chosen to take the mantle of wildlife conservation upon theirselves have to do what is best for the wildlife and set politics aside. i don't see polticians having that ability. in the words of the greatest conservationist, al gore, a tiger never changes his spots. Lark. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
audsley Report post Posted November 3, 2009 Bill, Thanks for your historical perspective and wisdom. I'd heard it was Babbit's appointment of Tom Woods broke the tradition, but that's only what I heard. Again, I was too much like most of the guys inhabiting this board nowadays - pre-occupied with career and raising a family and not really paying much attention. Lark, Here's what you got right. Yes, wildlife need to be managed and wilderness designations are threatening the future of some of our wildlife, stream fishing is in danger of being phased out and our commission has become too political. Ironically, the people who were career wildlife biologists before being appointed to the commission seem to be most receptive to increasing the role of politics in wildlife management. CMC, Thanks for posting the links to Shane Mahoney's address. But I fear there isn't going to be any "third wave" of conservation by America's sportsmen because everybody's too busy looking at pictures of each others' bucks and generally taking for granted what may soon disappear. I'd like to develop that last item some more, but I need to get ready for tonight's forum. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billrquimby Report post Posted November 3, 2009 Lark: The AGFD did not come up with the list of people who are crazy enough to seek a seat on the game commission. The candidates themselves created the list by submitting applications to the governor's office. Bill Quimby Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.270 Report post Posted November 4, 2009 bill, again, i know how it's done. heck, there's probly money changes hands in the process. i'll bet a good dog against whatever ya got that they ain't the only guys that filled out the forms. if you don't have a political background, you ain't considered. and our wildlife suffers because of it. sportsmen need to look around for guys that would be good candidates. level headed, intelligent folks with no bias who won't be swayed by politics and get em signed up.i sorta think they still won't make it on "the list", but it needs to be tried. audsley, say whatever ya want about wildlife being politicized, it ain't right. it needs changed. it's time sportsmen, the guys that pay the bills and have a real and true interest in conservation, have meaningful input in the process and have some choice about who gets on "the list". as long as the process stays the same, nothing will ever get better. wildlife doesn't have a poltical preference. they don't have a religion. for the most part, they're all colorblind. they're existence, anymore, depends on good decisions by men. if we continue to let politics drive it, we'll have nothing but crossbred, inbred, semi-domesticated curs left. if folks are just gonna sit on their hands and say, well, that's they way it's always been, then i guess we get what we deserve. Lark. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
azpackhorse Report post Posted November 4, 2009 How did it go guys? I really wanted to be there but ended up having last minute surgery on my foot. Who impressed you the most? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billrquimby Report post Posted November 4, 2009 I also couldn't go because of a health problem. Who was selected by the audience? How did the other candidates do? Bill Quimby Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
audsley Report post Posted November 4, 2009 Very surprising outcome. An awesome-looking lady from the Mountain Lion Foundation applied at the last minute and turned out to be great! She fully understands our problems with predators and promises to bring us a win-win solution. Most of the guys voted for her as their first choice and that's the only name we're forwarding to the governor. Too bad you guys couldn't make it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
azpackhorse Report post Posted November 4, 2009 sounds about right Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
audsley Report post Posted November 4, 2009 Packhorse, I thought you were coming last night. Were you there? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
azpackhorse Report post Posted November 4, 2009 I wanted to be there, I got a last minute opening to have minor surgery done on my foot so I took it, even the wife was gonna tag along! I would've much rather been at the meeting........believe me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cmc Report post Posted November 4, 2009 Very surprising outcome. An awesome-looking lady from the Mountain Lion Foundation applied at the last minute and turned out to be great! She fully understands our problems with predators and promises to bring us a win-win solution. Most of the guys voted for her as their first choice and that's the only name we're forwarding to the governor. Too bad you guys couldn't make it. You forgot the insightful comments she had on wolves. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
audsley Report post Posted November 4, 2009 Sorry Packhorse, I missed your earlier post. I'll try to get off some comments later this evening. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.270 Report post Posted November 4, 2009 audsley, you're kiddin' about the woman from the mountain lion foundation aren't ya? you guys ever read their website and charter? or hear of prop 117 in california? tell me you're kiddin'. please. this is number 2 on the list of what the mountain lion foundation "believes". taken directly from their website, on the "about mlf" page. copied right off their website. musta been a really good lookin' woman for a buncha died in the wool sportsmen to wanna give up that easy. 2. The Mountain Lion Foundation opposes the sport hunting of mountain lions on the grounds that it is biologically and morally unjustified. Sport hunting of mountain lions is neither a legitimate wildlife management technique nor a morally justified recreational activity. the mountain lion foundation thinks game animals are nothing but food for lions. check out their website. Lark. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billrquimby Report post Posted November 5, 2009 Audsley: Please say your summary is only a cruel joke to punish those of us who were not there! Lark's comments are right on about the Mountain Lion Foundation's mission. Bill Quimby Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
azoutlaw Report post Posted November 5, 2009 If he is not kidding we should get the tar and feathers Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
