SB1200 HR2189

[September]

Pete I agree with you 100%. On both the SB1200 and HR2189.

[Coues 'n' Sheep]

Very well said, September

 

+1

 

Also +1!!!

 

 

mgolightly,

 

I am sorry but once again I see a skew in your reasoning and that of your cohorts.... As more folks fron CA move east we as Sportsman/women, and mostly of Conservative persuasion, become less of a majority each year in the state of AZ... in years to come our voices will be heard less and even though our dollars do the work. If at any time these "other groups" wish to put their money toward conservation instead of into lobbying, then maybe they too could be viewed as part of the "funding" base for conservation in this state... or as you like to refer to... "the Elite Goup".... In the meantime as a life long resident, sportsman, and conservative in this great state I am very concerned about the rights and opportunities of my (future) grandchildren in regaurds to hunting, fishing, and conservation in the decades to come and who will be making those choices for us. Just my $.02.....

 

You can officially add these names to list of those that have been "Sold" on the bills.

 

Gino & Tina Wullkotte

 

[PaysonBrad]

I read with interest Pete Cimellaro's summary of the Arizona Department of game and fish Commission meeting where they voted to oppose SB1200. I continue to be amused to some degree about the argument that who pays for the work of the Department should be the deciding factor in how the commission is comprised. This is stated and accepted by many as a given, that increased financial involvement should increase your ability decide how the commission is composed and thus how the department operates. There a couple of things that stick in my craw about that argument.

 

First I recognize and support that there is some logic and certainly all of us sportsmen that care about fish and wildlife have a vested interest in how the habitats and fish and wildlife populations are managed. Financial contributions are an important component of the work that has to be done. But lets step back a moment and think about the logic of the argument. I will admit some bias as to having dealt with this very issue numerous times as a Federal land administrator in the past.

 

Lets look at a public land model. When you look at direct financial involvement on Federal public lands often the highest spenders are logging companies, ranchers, miners and energy producers (oil and gas). They all contribute millions to the federal treasury. They have long argued that because of these contributions they should have additional "rights". They pay for it, they deserve it. Should we put everything out to the highest bid. Many of us in the sportsmen community have long fought this concept, and have argued that these are public lands and that the benefits from them are a public trust to be shared by all of us.

 

Also its often overlooked that they derive a benefit from their uses. I see a very similar parallel with those of us that hunt and fish. Sure we contribute and pay for our uses but we also derive a direct benefit. I also agree that its easy to argue others get a benefit and don't pay their fair share. I ask a simple question do we really want a system that is driven by who pays the most. Do we really want to put our wildlife management up for bid. Is it smart to turn this into who pays the most. Should we put everything out for highest bid. We can generate more income from out of state licenses than instate, we may generate more money by limiting hunting and selling at bid, trophy hunts, etc. I think sportsmen should fear what might happen if that were the case.

 

Another point that continues to rattle around in my thoughts. Sportsmen/women are declining in Arizona and across the country at least as measured by licenses. Do we really think the way to strengthen our position is to alienate the majority that don't actively hunt or fish. I understand that this view point isn't a popular one but when I think long term it seems to me that we need to build the hunting and fishing base, and we also need to build support for consumptive uses of fish and wildlife. Developing scenarios that alienate and anger the majority often is short sighted and ultimately the consequences may be harmful to the proper management of fish and wildlife.

[Muley62]

PaysonBrad

 

Feel free to introduce yourself.

 

The only groups that have been vocal about this bill are anti-hunting groups. Do you really think we are going to alienate them any more than they already are? Do you believe that anti-hunters should have an equal voice in selecting a commissioner?

 

They don't like this bill because it will impede their ability to intimidate the commission and the department.

 

I agree that we need to build the hunting and fishing base. The conservation organizations who support this bill raise money and spend countless hours doing just that. Have you ever been to one of our camps or clinics?

[bonuspointjohn]

Brad is a friend of mine who I happen to disagree with... by the way, thanks for the "NO" vote, we were running way short of those. Brad your comparison of the Federal Land uses by the big mining companies is way off base. First of all, yes, we do derive some benefit from the past time that we all enjoy... however, by no stretch is this even close to the profits of mining. The Arizona Game & Fish Department is funded by us, and yet for the past 5 years, the Commission was being counseled by those who would rather do away with hunting than to see it prosper. We are not Alienating the general public in any way... We are however, getting those who do not pay really ticked off, because they had a lot of power in the past 5 years and they can see that going away. The future of Arizona is certainly less conservative than in the past, as more of the "D" crowd moves in. If this bill does not make it through, and if another "D" becomes Governor and that "D" is like former Governor Napolitano, then we are in a world of hurt. A biug concern for Brad is that the AWF, which he is a board member of is not voting for the bill. There are 2 solid reasons for that. 1) they have a long standing resolution that prohibits any change in the commission structure. That decision was based a long time ago and should be honored. 2) The AWF was at one time probably "THE" organization for sportsmen across the state. That has changed over the years, and the traditional conservation groups now all belong to the AZSFW (Arizona Sportsmen for Wildlife). I know that the AWF was asked to join the AZSFW, but they chose not to, stating that they were not joiners. That sometimes leaves them out of the loop, because they send no representatives to any of the meetings. There were some hard feelings that they were not part of the planning and wording of this legislation.... and we shall leave it at that. The general public is in no way offended by what we are doing... they have no clue about anything the department is or does. We, the hunting community function however at their passive consent. There is nothing in this that affects them and really, nothing that we do can be construed as "making a profit" off wildlife. It is exactly the opposite... We, hunters and fishermen pay much higher fees than those states that have a Department of Natural Resources, because the public pays nothing. I would suspect that given the general information the public at large would say... "hey, they are footing the bill, and as long as it does not affect me financially let them do what they want." The extra funding that we pay and the labor of love that we do in banquets, raffles and other fundraisers does make a huge difference for habitat. The habitat of this state, if you were to take out the millions of dollars that the special tags have generated, would be in a sorry condition. Every project that we do for a species specific critter has a trickle affect that benefits all creatures, not just one. So, comparing us to those who profit by taking from the land, or utilizing the resources is just plain wrong. Sorry Brad, we will continue to disagree on this item... But I still respect you...BPJ

[bonecollector]

I would suspect that given the general information the public at large would say... "hey, they are footing the bill, and as long as it does not affect me financially let them do what they want."

 

I totally agree with that, well said on your entire post.

[audsley]

John,

 

I have to disagree with something you just said.

 

"The general public is in no way offended by what we are doing... they have no clue about anything the department is or does."

 

Beg to differ. The general public knows a lot of things about the department. If you don't believe me, read the comments that follow any story about wildlife in the Phoenix or Tucson newspapers, especially any story that's controversial. For instance, they know that the department and commission is controlled by good old boys for the benefit of hunters and ranchers. They know that corruption and ineptitude killed the last jaguar in Arizona, and that Game & Fish won't do anything about the idiotic hunters who were out shooting near their property last weekend. They know, because PEER's press release told them so in the Arizona Daily Star, that the Kofa Refuge is being managed as a game farm for the benefit of hunters and to the detriment of people who appreciate natural ecological systems. They know that hunters are tearing up landscapes with ATVs and shooting holes in saguaros and killing wildlife illegally because the newspapers tell them that (using, by the way, press releases from the department.) If the comment thread is long enough, you will inevitably see a complaint about how AGFD is spending his or her tax dollars, and no one ever corrects that statement. About one in five comments is semi-intelligent and maybe one in 15 truly informative, but that's your public, and if you don't think they know a lot about Game & Fish and hunters, just ask them.

 

It's true that sportsmen pay most of the bills, but that's still a secret among most of the public. Another secret is that America's wildlife is probably in better shape than that of any other developed country. Unfortunately, much of what the public believes reflects the output of the Green Machine, whose propaganda mill convinces donors that things are terribly broken and will get worse if someone doesn't write them a check immediately. They and animal rights groups have the active cooperation and assistance of the mainstream media. Sportsmen don't.

 

Fact: Responsive Management found that 46% of respondents (which included hunters) believes that modern, regulated hunting is causing some species to become endangered. Yes, there's a lot of common "knowledge" out there.

 

Politics is like chess. An aggressive move can cost you an important piece if you haven't studied the board carefully enough. Note that Daniel Patterson has started a bill in the house of represenatives to change Game & Fish to something else. It won't go anywhere for now, but that might not be the case in two to four years. Institutionalizing sportsmen's dominance of the game & fish commission would make it an appealing political target for "reform."

 

I also believe that sportsmen should only go to the legislature as a last resort. The legislature is like the neighborhood loan shark - the interest is high, and they will be repaid.

 

This has been a tough one for me because I know AzSFW worked hard on it with the best intentions. What will be represented in the press as an aggressive move is actually a defensive play aimed at preventing serious losses of freedom and hunting opportunity in the near future. However, I just don't believe this proposed remedy will serve us well in the long run.

 

As an AWF board member along with BonusPointJohn and PaysonBrad, I also dislike not supporting another group's efforts, especially when AWF has put forth no solutions of our own to protect the future of hunting and fishing. We've already begun talking about that.

 

If this bill becomes law and is a long-term success, I'll be happy to say I was wrong in predicting that it will be more trouble than it's worth and might even lead to disaster.

[bonuspointjohn]

Hi Larry.... I meant about us having a board that recommends a number of people to the Governor for the position of Commissioner. The Tucson papers may carry the bad stuff, but when push comes to shove, we can always point to all the good things that should outweigh the bad things... unless they belong to some of your wacko groups down there.... By the way, what is in the water there that makes the CBD like they are? Yes, the department does publish the results of the poachers... why not?... the ethical sportsmen are leading the way to prevent those guys from ever setting foot in the woods again... and the groups that are supporting the bill are the ones that offer rewards for any information that helps nab poachers. I suspect that you know as well as I do that the AWF board is a very mixed bag, with some who are considered "green"... and a few of us who are of the hook and bullet persuasion. Do you feel that the AWF represents sportsmen?.... do you feel that they have the pulse of what the public says?.....Do you think that there is any way top determine what ATV enthusiast is destroying the habitat?.... Look how hard some of us worked on getting that bill passed last year... and then the legislature sweeps the funds..... Any anti-hunter will portray us as the black hat boys..... The AWF should examine why they are so heck bent on separating themselves from the mainstream of the conservation community...Look at the results of the poll....These are not the hard core guys who work on the various boards... these are your normal everyday guys who have a life and just enjoy talking about hunting....If this were even a close vote it might point to something... but based on what I am seeing and what the true conservation groups are saying, I think the proof is in the pudding as they say. 95% is a big index for anyone to look at. And that number is skewed because Mike Golightly, Bill McLean and Brad Powell voted against it.....

I look at the potential of another "D" as a governor and feel that hunting will be a thing of the past... Most of us will fight that and this is a step in the direction of at least being in the process. To think that our enemies will play fair in the future is absurd...BPJ

[audsley]

What's in the water down here that makes CDB the way they are? Money. See the Karen Budd-Falen report for details. Also, having an activist lifestyle and not having to work for a living.

 

The internal discussion about AWF's relationship with sportsmen and sportsmen-conservation groups has already started. This is gonna take a while.

[September]

I guess the other way to see it is coming into this country illegally and demanding things but I do not want to pay for anything. I think what those who do not support the bills are saying that those who do not what to contribute should have a say with what happens with our wildlife and to the sportsmen and women here in Arizona. If I am not mistaken that is what is going on in our country today. Hispanos Por La Causa, Sierra Club, CBD Etc... Etc... Etc... In my book it’s the same thing, just a different fight. This is how our country has been taken over by a bunch of liberals and those who built this great country have to pay for those who think they are entitled to something they do not contribute to. SB1200 and HR2189 are the first steps in making sure that WE as hunters and anglers will not stand idle and watch the world go by hoping that someone else does the work and then get upset when things do not go as they hoped. This is one of the many reasons why the bills are important to me as a financial supporter of AZGFD and as an American.

September

 

[Guest spcheuvront]

Sportsmen of Arizona;

 

I have been reading all the posts that have been written, and it seems the sportsmen of the state are

 

in agreement on this issue.

 

The folks who have lost power or who represent a group who is slow to act, are the no votes.

 

I am by no means one of the " MOVERS and SHACKERS "

 

My self and the majority of the other yes votes, are just regular sportsmen.

 

We all work for wildlife the best way we can.

 

These organizations , that some here refer to as the power grabbers, are the organizations who work tirelessly

 

on a mulitude of projects thruout the year. Youth hunts, hunt clinics, banquets, volunteer projects, etc., etc., etc.

 

I would ask, what do the " Greenies " actually do to improve the wildlife habitat. In all my 15 plus years of involvement

 

with wildlife issues, I personally have never seen the green groups spend their money on anything but lawyers and lawsuits.

 

If I am wrong please tell me. If I thought they did any good for wildlife, I would join up, quite washing my hair, and buy all my clothes at R.E.I.

 

This bill is for fair representation, in the decision making process, that's is what an overridding majority of sportsmen said with their vote.

 

Steve Cheuvront

[September]

Steve, you made some great points and appreciate you for what you have done and are doing to help support the wildlife and outdoorsmen and women here in Arizona. Along with all the youth projects, habitat projects, water projects and for staying on top of AZGFD and their spending habits the list goes on and on. If you ever join a green group I will quit hunting and fishing.

September

 

[wetmule]

Are these some of the folks that want an equal say in how the Dept. is managed?

 

http://www.endangeredspeciescondoms.com

[Guest spcheuvront]

September;

Sorry for doing this but I can't figure an other way.

Septmeber, you speak as though you know me , who are you?

e-mail me

spcheuvront@yahoo.com

Steve

[bonuspointjohn]

Hello wet mule... thought you were the CBD.... too many issues and not enough time...BPJ