SB1200 HR2189

[mgolightly]

How about this?

 

HB2189 and SB1200 aren't just about making sure that only hunters can be involved in the process to select Commissioners. They are designed to insure that Commissioners are selected by the upper echelon of a few very narrowly defined groups. Only one seat in five may be held by a member of the general public (the ammended language inserts "or a member of a nongame organization," whatever that means). I am imagining that it does not mean the bass and trout anglers, the trap and skeet shooters, the bird watchers, the reptile people, and on and on. One seat is reserved for a rancher. This leaves three, not for just any hunters, but only hunters who are members of very specifically described hunting clubs. A lifelong, avid hunter who does not belong to any clubs would have to take his/her chances competing against the big game club member, apparently. This incredibly exclusive language is made much worse by the ammendment that inserts "designated by the Board of Directors" of each respective club. Now simply being a member of, for example, the Elk Society, would not qualify you to

occupy the seat designated for a member of an organization whose mission is to conserve big game. To even be eligible for consideration, that club member would need to be "designated" by the Elk Society Board. It seems the authors cannot insert enough layers of politicing into this to satisfy themselves that only members of an elite clique could ever be appointed to - not even the Commission - but the Board that would select members of the Commission!

 

[Muley62]

"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."

 

Bill, can you enlighten on us about how the sportsmen of Arizona have a “majority” voice now in regard to commission appointments? Until the Governor makes his/her appointment 99.9% of Arizonans don’t even know there is a position available. How are they supposed to have a voice when they don’t even know that it is happening?

 

Maybe we could have a “scientific poll" to determine the next commissioner!!

 

(Now, that was funny!)

 

[Muley62]

Mike...You have got to be kidding me! Are you really going to pull the old "Pete and Ron want landowner elk tags" crap out again? Dude, you need to hit the delete button on that posting real quick, you are only going to embarrass yourself on this site with that.

[Bill from Gold Canyon]

The answer is really simple, especially if you look at facts and not hype. Under the present system anyone who meets the minimum qualifications can apply to the Governor for NOMINATION to the Commission. He/she doesn't have to be a member of some club or special organization, they send in a letter. Most Governors then pick the best qualified applicants and ask for public input. (Remember, when Brewer nominated her first Commissioner there was no public input until the nomination got to the Senate.) This input includes letters, email, etc from individuals and, usually, a public forum sponsored by one or more "sportsmen's group". Each group/club then does its own thing (some vote openly, some don't) and decides who they support and makes that known to the Governor. The Governor then sends a name to the Senate and Public Hearings are scheduled and held there. All are invited to attend and give their input. To say that 99.9% of the citizens don't even know this is going on is just pure bunk.

 

What the sponsors and proponents of this Legislation want to do is CONTROL whose name(s) go to the Governor. By doing so they will limit the whole process. How is that fair? I guess the fact that I've been hunting and fishing in Arizona since the 50's isn't enough (by the way I ran a trap line when I was a kid too); now I have to join a bunch of clubs, too. I think anyone who has the guts to throw his or her hat in the ring ought to be able to do so without a bunch of ego charged people standing in the way!

 

I say again, "the system ain't broke and don't need fix'n!"

[bonuspointjohn]

Gee Mike..... talk about Landowner Tags is like going back several years. Sportsmen have for years denied that notion and we have buried it at every turn. There are many good ranchers out there, even though you could only name a couple. I look at it this way. Ranchers are on the land every day, during good times and bad, during drought and plenty. They help in a multitude of ways and they are the only payers at the table.... (don't go to their allotment costs, they did not set the rates). Let's turn the table around... what are you afraid of in a more referred process? Why do you feel that we are being unreasonable?.... What has the Sierra Club , CBD, Animal Defense League etc ever done to really help the Department? Give me one reason why the hunters and fishers of this state should not have a say in who becomes the Commissioner. We pay the bills and under Governor Napolitano we were never in any loop...you know that. Landowner Access has become a huge item, but you know as well as I do that if you walked into my backyard, cut my fences down, played mud bog in my water tanks and then littered to cap it off, you too might be reluctant to invite the public. We try and mitigate damages done by the species and yes, we have paid for that though some of the funds... but hey, who thought of the Arizona Big Game Super Raffle?... certainly not any of the groups that are screaming about this bill. I have issues with any one who denies the public to public land, but that talk drifts us off the main topic here today..... What are you and current Commissioners afraid of???

[Bill from Gold Canyon]

Simple answer, John. We are afraid that a very small group of people will end up using the Commission for their own purposes and not the general good of wildlife and Arizona's citiziens and the vast majority of licensed hunters and anglers!!!!! So far I don't know of a single PETA member or Center for Diversity member that has made it to tthe Senate, and certainly not to the Commission. Your fears are totally unfounded!

[bonuspointjohn]

Beg to Disagree with the attorney from Gold Canyon..... If it is not broken, then why has the commission been trying to get Conservation Groups back to the meetings? Why has it been an adversarial process for the previous 5 years?... Are you prepared to say that we had terrible Commissioners when the AWF ruled the roost?...Look at who would be on that Board.... it is not one group... it is from over 30 organizations across the state and represents all those folks who buy the tickets to promote habitat...Bill, what fears are there from having the people who pay the bills have a say in who should be Commissioner?.... By the way... Commissioner Norm Freeman, who is certainly not a hook and bullet knuckledragger met with the AZSFW prior to his appointment, and we did not know him from Adam.... but he represents a lot of good things... he is independent, owes no one, cares about wildlife and above all listens to what people are saying. In one hour he was able to get a ringing endorsement from that body. Good people have a way of being able to rise above the fray.... and I suspect that even with this minor adaptation, they will always do so. Sure seems that you guys do not trust Sportsmen at all...... Give us a little credit for having an IQ... We may not be learned justices, but common sense does abound...

[bonuspointjohn]

you mention the "very few" who might abuse the privilege Bill... that is why we are continually asking those who pay the bills for their input.... looking at the vote from this forum I see an overwhelming response in the affirmative. For too long the few who have done the fighting at the Capitol and at the Meetings have been told we represent only ourselves..... if that were so, why is the response so positive? Why did we have so many people who attended the ABA banquet last night sign up with a "support" next to their name? There was NO one who read the bill who said "no support".....Until Sportsmen tell us in this type of forum to get lost, we will continue to represent them to the best of our abilities.

[nohoch]

I support the bill.

[Bill from Gold Canyon]

John, come on, of course the Sheep Club supports the bill, they helped pay the Lobbiest who wrote it.

 

Over the last several years the Commission has been trying to get all interested parties to come to Commission meetings. That why it formed the Conservationist Committee. The system works best when all are given an equal opportunity to participate. This Bill simply limits, not expands, this opportunity. I am a "Sportsman" under any definition of that word. I am a hunter, angler and an admitted outdoor "nut." I believe you are, too. We have different views on some points, but that is a good thing. What I am saying is all should have the same opportunity to participate - This Bill restricts that privilage and that is why I'm against it.

 

On the issue of "who pays the bills" - We all do. I pay a whole lot more than some others do, but that doesn't make me any better than anyone else. The fact is, boaters who are non anglers pay just as much and sometimes more than anglers. Shooters, who are non hunters pay the same thing as hunter's do. Yes, you and I also pay for big game tags, but then, we're the ones who get to go hunt those tags, too. If the issue here is "who has more money to spend," then I'm really on the short end of the deal. I really believe that the phrase "We the People" means all the people, not just a few! Guess that's something else we disagree on.

 

Enuf for now, I have to fix dinner - Antelope burgers. I'm going shooting clays in the morning if it stops raining, but will try to make it down town in the afternoon. Hope to see you there.

 

 

[Muley62]

"To say that 99.9% of the citizens don't even know this is going on is just pure bunk"

 

Well Bill, I will bet you that you cannot find 100 people in Arizona who can name two candidates for the last commission seat. Given we have 6.5 million people in Arizona that would represent 99.9985%. Call me"The Bunk Buster"

 

 

"Over the last several years the Commission has been trying to get all interested parties to come to Commission meetings"

 

How many of you who attending a commission meeting durning Bill's tenure walked out of that meeting with a warm and welcome feeling? How many walked out feeling like you needed to throw up?

[CouesWhitetail]

"To say that 99.9% of the citizens don't even know this is going on is just pure bunk"

 

Well Bill, I will bet you that you cannot find 100 people in Arizona who can name two candidates for the last commission seat. Given we have 6.5 million people in Arizona that would represent 99.9985%. Call me"The Bunk Buster"

 

 

"Over the last several years the Commission has been trying to get all interested parties to come to Commission meetings"

 

How many of you who attending a commission meeting durning Bill's tenure walked out of that meeting with a warm and welcome feeling? How many walked out feeling like you needed to throw up?

 

 

+1

 

I think Chris is dead on.

 

The reason this bill is even being discussed is because MANY sportsmen felt they were not well represented on the commission in the last 5 years.

 

This bill sets up a process that ensures a public interview process. It puts a lot of the burden on sportsmen(through this board) to interview the candidates and evaluate their qualifications. Then the board makes a recomendation of 2-5 names from the list of names that the governor provided them. So the governor sends the names to the board, the board evaluates them, then sends back some reccommendations. The board thus does not make the final selection, the governor does.

 

Points from the bill:

 

3. Requires the Governor to deliver a final list of applicants to the Board within five days after the application period ends. The Board must then review the list and applications, and interview, evaluate and recommend candidates to the Governor.

 

4. Prescribes a public interview forum for Commission candidates, as follows:

 

a) If considering candidates to fill expired Commission terms, the Board is required to conduct public interviews of candidates by November 15 of each year. By November 25, the Board must recommend to the Governor two to five candidates from the Governor’s final list.

 

b. If considering candidates because of death, resignation or removal of office, the Board must conduct public interviews within two weeks of receiving the Governor’s final list. Within one week of the public interviews, the Board must recommend to the Governor two to five candidates from the Governor’s final list.

 

 

 

 

 

Amanda

[mgolightly]

Amanda, with due respect you are correct in your reading of the actual amended bill BUT you left off the most important part of the sentence where the Governor SHALL, a powerful legal word, meaning she must or have to., no wiggle room. For instance, the Gov may send a final list of lets say 20 names to this board for review. The board will then go through a process (good) and select 2 but not more than 5 names from this list back to the Gov and she SHALL pick from the 2 names. How fair is that to the common guy who does not belong to the good ole boys clubs.

1. AFTER THE GOVERNOR'S CALL FOR APPLICATION FOR AN OPEN POSITION ON THE COMMISSION AND THE APPLICATION PERIOD IS CLOSED, THE GOVERNOR SHALL DELIVER A FINAL LIST OF THE APPLICANTS TO THE BOARD WITHIN FIVE DAYS AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE APPLICATION PERIOD. THE BOARD SHALL REVIEW THE LIST OF APPLICANTS AND THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY EACH APPLICANT AND PROCEED TO INTERVIEW, EVALUATE AND RECOMMEND CANDIDATES AS PROVIDED BY THIS SUBSECTION.

 

 

( WITHIN ONE WEEK AFTER THE PUBLIC FORUM, THE BOARD SHALL RECOMMEND AT LEAST TWO, BUT NO MORE THAN FIVE, CANDIDATES FROM THE GOVERNOR'S FINAL LIST OF CANDIDATES. THE GOVERNOR SHALL SELECT AND APPOINT A COMMISSIONER FROM THE LIST SUBMITTED BY THE BOARD.

 

 

[Don Martin]

Arizona Wildlife Outfitters supports this bill!

 

Don Martin

Owner

[bowhuntaz1]

I support this bill along with my wife who does not hunt. She said it just made sense...