SB1200 HR2189

[September]

Coming from a business back ground, my job was to take companies out of the red and into the black. It has always worked out as follows. Whoever pays the bills makes the rules. If you are the owner, CEO, CFO or President of a company then you decide how the company is going to conduct business. Your managers are in charge of making as much money as possible by doing the right thing and by following and implementing processes for every employee to follow. If they cannot or get lazy the owners or decision makers will replace those leaders and if it keeps happening then we must visit the process and evaluate it or replace the managers. If the process is not working with current times then the process needs to be rewritten or replaced. If the customers of these companies are upset on the way they are conducting business then they will shop elsewhere. If the previous leader of any company did not do the right thing (whatever that could be) then they have left a ripple effect that could have lasting negative effects on the company. If those ex-leaders\managers did the right thing and did not upset too many customers then business grows. The question I would be asking myself as an ex-commissioner or decision maker is, "Did I make any bad decisions to cause MY CUSTOMER to start demanding changes?'

 

"If it is not broken, then do not fix it"

 

Based on what I have read the process is and has been broken and needs fixing. If it was that great then what would you say to the 95% on this poll vote for this bill? Are you saying that you know more than they do? Are you saying that they have no clue but its okay to fund 72% of the AZGFD income? Are they only important when they have money at hand during the draws or when they want to buy hunting or fishing license? Are you saying that your customers of companies do not control the growth and bottom line? If you run a company this way then you would be out of business soon, very soon.

 

I guess then based on the comments about not fixing the process when 95% of your customers are telling you they want something new. Based on my business back ground then the only thing I can say is that this was broken and has been broken for a few years. The consumer has had enough with having to deal with the only game in town. AZGFD has cornered the market in hunting and fishing here in Arizona. As a consumer of such companies that have abused their power and trust of their customers I would only suggest that they do not shop there for a few years and then you will find out if they would listen.

 

The best way to make any suggestion and be heard is to threaten the pocket books of those in charge by putting their jobs on the line. DO NOT HUNT OR FISH FOR 2 YEARS and then ask the left over employees how much did those anti hunting groups like the Sierra Club, PETA and any groups who are affiliated with them. How much money those groups spend in helping with wildlife conservation and wildlife management? If anyone wants to be heard then do not shop at these location. If we stop hunting and fishing for 2 years we could directly impact the whole state. It would cause lay off’s at AZGFD and panic. We directly affect 21,000 full time jobs here in Arizona mainly in rural Arizona. If you live in rural Arizona I recommend that you call every AZGFD commissioner and ask them to support this bill. I would also recommend that you call every senator and legislator and express your concern. Your voice can be the difference of having a job or not.

 

It is time for all the hunting and fishing organizations here in Arizona including AZGFD to stand together on this. Either you will support this bill as an organization or you will not. Then the Arizona hunting and angling community will know who is in true support. Before you answer this posting please review the standing of the poll based on people who hunt and fish here in our state. Last I check it was 133 votes or 95% in support of this bill and 7 votes or 5% not in support of this bill. If these numbers are not making sense then please do us all a favor, DO NOT EVER state that you represent 369,000 Arizona hunters and anglers who do not belong to any outdoor organization (like an ex-AZGFD Commissioner stated yesterday at a meeting with Senator Nelson) (NOTE: I was not at the meeting but was told by more than one person about this statement).

 

Let me just remind everyone how much Arizona Sportsmen spend here in Arizona.

 

Taken from page 9 of the Arizona 2009-2010 Hunting and Fishing Regulations:

 

Little to no state general fund monies is used for wildlife conservation in Arizona (general taxpayers usually do not pay for Wildlife conservation). The state’s sportsmen, however, do contribute.

- Arizona hunters and anglers spend $1.3 BILLION a year.

- Their spending directly supports 21,000 jobs and generates $124 MILIION in state and local taxes. This especially benefits rural communities.

- Sportsmen support nearly twice as many jobs in Arizona as Raytheon, one of the state’s largest employers (21,000 jobs vs 11,000 jobs).

- Annual spending by Arizona SPORTSMEN is nearly three times more than the combined revenues of Go Daddy Group, Sprouts Farmers Market and Cold Stone Creamery, which are some of the state’s fastest growing companies ($1.3 BILLION vs $481 MILLION).

- The economic stimulus of hunting and fishing equates to $3.8 MILLION a day pumped into the state’s economy.

 

End of Page 9

 

If our current commissioners and AZGFD leaders along with any politicians read this then let me give you 1.3 BILLION reasons why you should think long and hard of your actions.

 

I guess the alternative is to have the Sierra Club, PETA, Animal Defense League and any other groups that do not support this bill pay for AZGFD operating expenses. These are the same groups that do not think that ARIZONA hunters and anglers who spend $1.3 BILLION a year should have a bigger voice than those who spend nothing such as Sierra Club, PETA, Animal Defense League and any other group who is against this bill.

 

WHERE DO YOU STAND on SB1200 HR2189?

 

Please reply so that we who support your organizations or for those who might be shopping for an organization know where we should spend our money? Please reply if with a simple Yes or No. A non reply could be considers a NO (not supporting the hunters who pay for wildlife).

 

Arizona Deer Association

Arizona Elk Society

Arizona Antelope Foundation

National Wild Turkey Federation

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

Trout Unlimited

Quail Unlimited

Ducks Unlimited

Xtreme Predator Callers

Phoenix Varmint Callers

Arizona Predator Callers

Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society

Arizona Bowhunters Association

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership

Arizona Falconer’s Association

Yuma Valley Rod and Gun Club

Arizona Game and Fish Department

The Nature Conservancy

Arizona Sportsmen for Wildlife Conservation

Sierra Club

Arizona Aoudubon Society

PETA

Arizona Wildlife Federation

Huachuca Mountain Archers and Bowhunters Club

Desert Christian Archers

Safari Club International

Phoenix Rod and Gun Club

Arizona Pointing Dog Club

Arizona Rifle and Pistol Association

Wildlife for Tomorrow

 

I do apologize if I forgot anyone.

Thanks for allowing me to express my thoughts and my opinions.

September

[mason a]

Very well said, September

[bonecollector]

Very well said, September

 

+1

[Guest spcheuvront]

September;

 

Very well said.

 

I have already said I support the bill.

 

Steve

[Muley62]

Many good points September!

 

Many of you may remember when Mr. Bill was a commissioner he stated that those of us speaking for a conservation organization did not represent our membership, we only represented the few board members. Well in a meeting down at the senate yesterday the very same Mr. Bill claimed to represent over 300,000 ARizona sportsmen who did not belong to an organization! Is that insane or what?!!

[Dick]

I listened to the webcast, the Commission voted not to support the bill. 2 opposed 3 yea votes. Commissioners Lewis and Hustad voted no.

 

I am not surprised by the vote but dissapointed that the Commssion did not remain neutral.

 

Commissioner Harris, I owe you an apology, I incorrectly called you Commissioner Lewis, that was lack of concentration on my part. Thank you for your vote of support towards the organizations and individuals that believe this is the correct road to pursue.

 

Dick King

[CouesWhitetail]

The commission is meeting today and I believe this is on the agenda. You should be able to watch it live, but I just checked and it didn't appear to be on. Perhaps they are in executive session. But you can check back periodically and see if anything is going on. The meeting was supposed to start at 1 pm.

 

http://www.azgfd.gov/inside_azgfd/CommissionCam.shtml

[CouesWhitetail]

I listened to the webcast, the Commission voted not to support the bill. 2 opposed 3 yea votes. Commissioners Lewis and Hustad voted no.

 

I am not surprised by the vote but dissapointed that the Commssion be not remain neutral.

 

 

Guess I tuned in a little late. Thanks for the update.

 

Amanda

 

[bonecollector]

Very short webcast, as said before commission does not support bill!

[mgolightly]

Today by a vote of 3 to 2 the Game and Fish Commission opposed sb1200 and the companion bill hr2189. I am sharing with you the coment made by one of the majorityI’ve heard this bill described as providing a stronger voice for hunters in Commissioner selection. It’s been promoted that way – sold that way. But it is not about a voice. It’s about complete control over who the Governor even gets to see. And it’s not about control by hunters. It’s about control by an elite clique.

 

I’ve heard some say that they value diversity on the Commission, but anyone who says that and then supports this bill is not being truthful. The majority of the proposed Board is to be comprised of individuals designated by the Boards of Directors of the various hunting clubs. This would lead to, and is intended to lead to, a Commission made up entirely of people with similar views, similar backgrounds and similar intentions.

 

I’ve opposed this bill from the beginning because I believe it doesn’t do justice to the majority of stakeholders and the majority of Arizonans, but it took some time for me to realize how dramatic a change to the Commission system this truly represents, and how great a threat to the viability of the Commission. Today the Commission system would politically be virtually impossible to dissolve because our wide diversity of stakeholders all adamantly support it, and will stand together against any attempt to weaken the Commission and place the Director under gubernatorial control. This is because our stakeholders recognize that this system provides greater opportunity for public involvement than any other system in the United States. If this bill passes, and the majority of our stakeholders are disenfranchised and most Arizonans are left out, our broad support base that’s always waiting in the wings to protect the Commission system if necessary will disintegrate before our very eyes.

 

This bill is simply a power grab. Nothing more, nothing less. A narrow group is distinguishing itself from others and asserting dominance over them. I don’t believe that ground can be gained against such a power grab by remaining neutral. I have seen first-hand the Commission’s neutrality used to promote this bill. I have heard that yesterday the primary proponent, i.e. Sportsmen for Wildlife, stated that it does not wish to negotiate any further and wishes to see no further changes to the bill. The last amendment made the language much more restrictive, not less. I can’t overstate the significance of this bill to the Commission system as we know it. This is the time for us, as the Commission, to take a strong stance. The authors of Title 17 left Commissioner qualifications broad intentionally. They crafted the Commission because they had seen what self-serving interests could do when they are able to exert control over wildlife management. Now it’s time for us to protect the Commission that they gave us. If we wait, we could easily find that we waited too long and stood by silently as it happened.

vote prior to the official vote.

 

 

 

[TLH]

Interesting Mike.

 

I know for a fact that what we have had in the past isn't helping all facets of the hunters or fishermen and woman in this state--what i have seen is some very rude, narcissists that think they can bully people while these people are trying to speak their mind--will not look at a person because i believe that these people think they are above the people who pay the tab in this state for our wildlife. You yourself are against archers as it was proven time and time again at the meetings i have attended over the years--Hernbrode was the bully who is now gone thankfully that would look at another commissioner with disdain if the other commissioner failed to vote the way he did. I saw an attorney doing what attorneys do and talk over people and tell people that he did not want to hear them any more (this in a public forum) and watching a very good man get humiliated in front of this commission.

 

What i am trying to say is this--the bill as it is written may not be perfect but is is better than what we have had the past 10 or 15 years. The group we have now are far better than what we have had and that is only because we have a governor in place that makes decisions with her facts and not with her political agendas-.

 

Lets all be thankfull that we have two new commissioners and the other two are gone--maybe now we can get someone to listen to us that do not think they are so much superior than us peons who pay the tab!

[bonuspointjohn]

Mr. Golightly made his comments..... A "Narrow" group of sportsmen?..... and a "power Grab"...... Come on Mike.... Power Grabbing is when someone wants a 3rd term as Commissioner.....Power abuse is when a Commissioner tells someone in the public "you don't listen"... or "you do not represent sportsmen". I feel sorry for Bill... he never learned that Commission meetings were not part of the adversarial process. He viewed meetings as conquests, a winner and a looser... and by God "let me tell ya" was always trying to punish anyone who disagreed with him. I know that Bill has a good intellect, but he was as abrasive as anyone who ever sat in that chair. Over the past couple of years I have learned that to say even a minor criticism of Commissioner Hernbrode would have him in a snit fit. His parting farewell at the Commissioners banquet got me a ton of apologies from various folks who attended....And you say this is a good thing????? the systems is not broke????? Mike, this bill is a reaction to the flagrant disregard of the very people who make up the backbone of the Department... their customers. US.... not the CBD, not Defenders of Wildlife, and certainly not the Sierra Club!. Why has the Commission decided to try and have an outreach to the conservation groups? Because we turned away and decided to heck with attending meetings where the Sierra Club is fawned over. Please Mike.. admit that the Sierra Club is not even close to being in the league of sportsmen.... They are activists and litigants... calling them conservationists does a disservice to all who hunt and fish and contribute to projects, banquets, buy tags and licenses and work diligently to maintain our hunting heritage. Is there anything in the Sierra Club that states they want to continue our hunting heritage?.....Look who is ion favor ow placing wolves all over the state... not just in an experimental area...The CBD, Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club......just what we need... Wolves all across the state... and even across the Strip and the Kaibab...Stated in Last Saturdays edition of the Arizona Flagstaff Daily Sun.....Geez Mike... you really need to stop bashing those who are trying to keep hunting alive in AZ...BPJ

[Muley62]

Those are not original thoughts from Mike, he is just using Jennifer Martin's comments from today's commission meeting. He must have had Jennifer e-mail her response prior to the meeting today. She obviously did not come to the meeting to discuss the bill, she had her response all typed up before she even got there. That is the open minded, listen-to-all sides commissioners we need?!

[Guest spcheuvront]

Sportsmen of Arizona;

 

My opinion is this-

 

The commissioners who did so much to harm wildlife are gone.

 

Answering them or debating with them is a waste of time.

 

They are yesterdays news. This is a new day, with a new bill, that has fairness written all over it.

 

It is sad to see these former commissioners try to explain their view points. They speak as if any sportsman has the least respect for any thing they have to say.

 

So Bill, Mike and Bob write away, but if you listen carefully, the phone has been hung up, and you are talking to the wind.

 

Just my opinion,

 

Steve Cheuvront

Sportsman

[CouesWhitetail]

From Pete Cimellaro:

 

 

 

3-9-10 G & F Commission Meeting comments and update

 

 

To those of you who have been following the deliberations of the Arizona Game & Fish Commission, no surprises in this afternoon’s 3 – 2 vote to move from a neutral position to opposition of SB1200 / HB 2189. This change was made when Robbie Woodhouse changed his vote, just like he announced he would last Friday. Special thanks to Commissioners Jack Husted and John Harris for their continued support of the legislation.

 

While this decision is disappointing to many of us, it also clearly defines the difference between those commissioners appointed by former Governor Napolitano and those appointed by Governor Brewer. You may make your own assertions as to who your are more comfortable with; I appreciate the recent appointments.

 

Today Commissioner Freeman spoke of how a change in the political climate may take us in another direction in the future. I think he is absolutely correct and we will need to be vigilant! It was a change of political climate that woke many of us up just a few short years ago. When Governor Napolitano, then candidate Napolitano asked the WCC members to support her and we chose not to, the climate became cold, ice age cold.

 

Since we did not rally to help elect her, either she or her staff, decided we were unneeded. Sportsmen were shut out from any meaningful dialogue with her office. This marked the first time I had seen a complete dismissal of sportsmen by a Governor’s administration.

In the past it didn’t matter whether it was a democratic or republican administration, the door was kept open; and then after we opposed one of Napolitano’s commission nominees, the door was sealed forever.

 

As citizens we have a right to question and to participate in any public process, including commission nominations. As major stakeholders we even have more than a right, we have a responsibility to speak up. If we pass on that responsibility, then shame one us for what may follow.

 

Currently we find ourselves in a struggle with those who want an equal say in the commission selection process. Actually it goes beyond that, they want more, they want to change the culture of the agency. We, as sportsmen are standing in their way, and they will whenever possible try to diminish our contributions and more importantly our role in Arizona’s wildlife management process.

 

Make no mistake, they want change and they want it without paying for it. Perhaps, since they want to be full partners, we should suggest that sportsmen take a year off from the approximately $70,000,000 we contribute annually to the G & F Department and let them fund the agency for a year. I know this would certainly make them full partners in my mind! While I am not being serious in my jabs at the envrio’s; they are deadly serious about being full partners in directing the agency.

 

An important side note, because most of you are not aware of the contentious atmosphere that has arisen regarding sportsmen’s contributions to the agency; let me bring you up to speed.

 

We went to the G & F and asked them specifically for the numbers. Show us your budget breakdown and give us the contributions sportsmen make to fund the agency. We armed them with the knowledge that we needed good numbers that were defensible because we would be challenged. We were given numbers that ranged from about $67,000,000 to over $70,000,000. We chose to use the higher numbers because they included funds derived from watercraft and many of those are used for sportsman’s activities.

 

Commissioner Freeman took great exception to the numbers we used and when we stated that these were department numbers he said he still disputed them. Our suggestion to the Department and to Commissioner Freeman is take care of your disagreement in house. We did exactly what is right, based on what we were told.

 

To wrap it up, yesterday at Senator Nelson’s stakeholders meeting for SB1200, lovable Bill McLean was at his best! He was there as a ex-Commissioner and more importantly to represent the “369,000” sportsmen who did not belong to any of the wildlife conservation organizations. Bill, this rang a little hollow for most of us. As the father of the infamous “you don’t represent your organizations membership, you only represent yourself” statement, we decided to dismiss the message; but later it did bring us all a good laugh!

 

Support SB1200 / HB2189; help keep sportsmen from being an endangered species!

 

Pete