SB1200 HR2189

[okbullfighter]

Let our (sportsmen and women) voices be heard. I support this bill.

[hawkeye]

I support this bill, one hundred percent

[xr440dude]

I, Ron Sorensen, as an individual support the proposed legislation. Thank you for your hard work, John!

[PhxHunt]

Is there a place I can get a copy of the bill and read it for myself?

[CouesWhitetail]

Yes, of course. You can check the AZ State Legislature website.

 

search by bill numbers (which are in the title of this topic)

 

or just click on this link below where the details of that bill are found on that website:

 

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?in...s-floor.doc.htm

[TLH]

I only have one question?? Will all things dealing with hunting go to vote to the general public?? If we make this a right and it is voted into law will the general public be voting on hunting and fishing issues??

 

 

[CouesWhitetail]

I only have one question?? Will all things dealing with hunting go to vote to the general public?? If we make this a right and it is voted into law will the general public be voting on hunting and fishing issues??

 

 

Are you talking bout a different bill Terry? Perhaps you are referring to the right to hunt bill? That is not the one being discussed here. The one being voted on here in this topic is one to create an advisory board to help make commissioner recommendations such that they are likely to reflect the views of sportsmen/women in the state.

 

Amanda

[mgolightly]

For what it's worth, here is my two bits.

Afraid of the Governor's selection of a of a Game and Fish Commissioner? Why? Let me fill you in on the legal process that a nominee is subjected to before he or she becomes a bonafied commissioner. Once an individual aspires to become a GF commissioner he/she sends a letter to the Governors office and asks for the appointment. Next step, garner all the political support you can via letters endorsements from sporting groups, friends, church, even non-consumptive groups. The appearance of a well balanced, cool head and thinker is important. The pool of applicants has traditionally been numerous. Next step after Governor selects you is to have your name forwarded to the Senate for comfirmation (by law). The first step at the Senate is to sell yourself as to why you will make a good Game and Fish Commissioner and represent fairly all wildlife enthuisiasts to the Senate Natural Resource Committee (a body of 7 elected Senators) to receive a majority vote of them to have your name forwarded to the full Senate (30 elected members). Next step, receive a majority vote of the full Senate (16 votes). Now, all along this 2-3 month process of confirmation the public, anyone who resides in Arizona ,or the world for that matter, can weigh in on the nominee's wothiness or non-worthiness of representing all of Arizona's residents as to his ability to set policy and give direction the the Director for the management of Ariz. diverse wildlife species.

 

Now, give me a break. There is plenty of room and time to get rid of a anti hunter before he/she ever gets to a voting commissioner. In all the past years I only have knowledge of a couple of selections where the person had not had a hunting license prior to their confirmation. They both from the day they were confirmed to today are hunting or fishing license holders. And by the way they made excelent commissioners.

 

Our founding fathers set up this process. It continues to work fine. It is not broken so don't fix it. Beware of unentended consequences.

[Bill from Gold Canyon]

Why to those who have offered this legislation, and I guess those who support it, want to give 20% of the voice to ranchers. This legislaion provides that one out of the five board members must be from the ranching community. Undoubtedly, there are some ranchers who have and will continue to support wildlife on their ranches. But, for every rancher who supports wildlife and allows hunters on their land to hunt, there are many who either deny us access (even accross their land to hunt public land) or want to charge us a "trespass fee." For those of use who hunt white tail this is getting critical. I believe ranchers are only included in this legislation because without their vote and lobby in the Legislature this won't pass. And, if they get this through the 90% of hunters and the rest of Arizona's citizens who don't belong to one or more of the "sponsoring organizations" will also be reduced to a minority voice.

[bonuspointjohn]

Well Well Well... Former Commissioner Mike ..... Welcome to the fray. Founding fathers?????? I suspect that you need a lesson in history Mike. The Arizona Wildlife Federation for over 40 years was the sole source that provided names to the Governor for the position of Commissioner. Upon election then Governor Babbitt decided that he wanted the political clout to name whomever he wanted. Since that time we have had governors naming the Commissioners. So, if you would like to rely on history and the founding fathers, I suspect that a further insulation by those who pay the freight of the department (over 65% by the Departments numbers) should have a say in who is appointed to the position. The system was not broke until the 1980's... and has since become a bit ugly. During the reign of Governor Napolitano, we the paying sportsmen, were not included in the information feed that the Sierra Club was...and yes, Sandy Bahr has a license which she is proud to tell everyone.... But...What kinds of dollars do you think the Sierra Club raises?. I have not seen them raise funds for wildlife by virtue of banquets. I have not seen them raise monies through raffles for habitat... I see them as exactly who they are... Activists and litigants.... no more, no less... and yes, sometimes we are on the same side of the fence, but more often, Sandy and the Defenders of Wildlife are on the same team holding the department and sportsmen in their sights.

[bonuspointjohn]

Hi Mike.... you should know as well as anyone that the AWF was the board that supplied names for over 40 years..... nice to see that we have 2 former Commissioners on this sight..My assumption is that since the Department monitors these chat rooms, you both were told to chime in....

[CouesWhitetail]

Welcome to our two former commissioners. I am glad to see those intimately involved in the process give their opinions.

 

Amanda

 

[bonuspointjohn]

To all on this Website: Current Commissioner Norman Freeman has just contacted me and asked that I print a retraction. I stated that he had told both Stephanie and Sandy Bahr that he wanted to hear from all Stakeholders. The information that I posted was indeed second hand, and since I cannot verify the statement I am hereby retracting it. I do know that a comment was made that the Commissioners wanted to hear from all the stakeholders on Monday. Commissioner Freeman has been an admirable Commissioner and I have no disputes with him. I do know that he told me at our meeting last week that he wanted to hear from others rather than the usual suspects who take the time to go down to the legislature and plead for our issues. The whole reason for this posting was to get the opinions of those folks who work at regular jobs and do not have the time or money to present their thoughts to the commissioners and the legislature. BPJ

[mgolightly]

Hey John and all,

 

I do remember that the 1980's AWF board THOUGHT they had the exclusive right to select the commissioners for THE Governor. I also recall that Bruce Babbitt put and end to it when he was told that he ""must"" by a very few of the then radical board members who claimed to represent thousands and thousands of voters. Remind you of anyone John?? If one didn't cow-tow to the board of AWF at the time their chance of making it to the selection list was about as succussful as winning the lottery. Talk about extreme special interest appointments.

[mgolightly]

How about this?

 

This bill sb1200 will allow 20% of the vote to ranchers that will result in your next commissioner. Great! My following coments are not meant to include All ranchers as, thank goodness there are some really great ranchers out there like the O'Hacos etc. But, Why do you think the game dept. has to hire special folks just to monitor land closures to hunting by ranchers? Why does the dept have full time employees, paid for with hunting and fishing dollars, to go around and investigate illegal sign posting of no hunting on public lands? The game dept created the Elk Habitat Partnership Program just to quell all the rancher complaints about too many elk and deer eating a blade of grass that could have been consumed by their abundant supply of grazers on public lands. The amount of sportsman and fishers dollars poured into this ongoing program is starteling. Folks, a very few individuals, the ones that put this committee requirements together can answer my questions. If they do it will be the boiler plate excuses always offered when the real answer is I believe the select few at AZSFW really want to reopen the ----big game tags for ranchers---- discussions.