AZGFD Response to Poaching Poll and the recent BHS case

[HaYen]

Below is a quoted response from Ken Dinquel, Operation Game Thief Program Manager, Arizona Game and Fish Department. I only know Ken by emails but he sounds like a really great guy and is fighting for us hunters and our rights.

 

Two interesting things I took away from Ken's response. First that is very important we never interchange the words hunter and poacher. Some public option is that all hunting is poaching and should be ban. The other is penalties for poaching in AZ vs. other states like Colorado or Utah. The poll responses show that there is a lot of anger over what had happen and through all that anger there were still individuals who felt that either the punishment fit the crime or may even be too harsh. No matter how you feel personally, two things are certain, this crime can not go unpunished and the sentence has to be harsh enough so as to deter poaching.

 

I was invited to hunt pigs in Georgia at a friends place. He said let me know a couple of weeks ahead of time and I'll have my dad start throwing slop. I said, "well when is the season and how much are the tags?" He said there is no season and the price of the tags are more than the poaching fine. The fines were less expensive then the tags, I passed.

 

Thank you Ken for you responses and thank the fellow G&F employees for their hard work.

 

BJ

 

1. G&F does not set the criminal penalties for wildlife crimes. Our department “suggests” a bond schedule to the courts for judges to use, but the judges have the option of taking or leaving our suggestion. Obviously, some courts are better (or worse) than others. Each crime that the BHS poacher was charged with was a Class 2 misdemeanor. By law (ARS 13-802), a C2M carries a maximum fine of $750 and 4 months in jail. This fine amount does seem low, especially when compared to other states like Colorado or Utah, where this BHS poaching would easily be a felony. Arizona has always been pretty liberal when it comes to the level of wildlife crimes and punishment. It has been very frustrating to myself and other officers over the years. Little we at G&F can do about this until the penalty law changes for wildlife crimes. Perhaps if there was a public push for this……………

 

2. As far as civil penalties go for wildlife crimes, this too is mandated by law (ARS 17-101.4.e and ARS 17-314A.6). A bighorn sheep’s minimum civil value is $8,000. That civil fine can go up from there depending on several factors including age, sex, horn size, number of animals poached, etc.. The poacher can also lose his hunting and fishing privileges for up to five years.

 

3. As for the BHS hunt in 24B for 2010, it seems that 50% of your poll respondents have their hearts in the right place, but they are also not considering all of the information. In particular, the two rams that were poached were smallish Class II and Class III rams. That is, they were pretty small rams. With that in mind, neither of these poached rams would (probably) be considered by a serious 2010 BHS hunter due to the low trophy value of the animals. Most BHS hunters prefer a Class IV ram and GMU 24B has a number of huntable Class IV rams in the herd. Ergo, it would really not do any good to shut the BHS hunt down in 24B for the 2010 season. Now, considering that the rams that were poached were small Class II and III, these rams (would have) had the potential, given a few more years of growth, to jump into the Class IV category. So, the loss of these two rams could adversely affect future BHS hunts in 2011 or 2012, etc.. We will simply have to monitor the BHS herd in 24B in future years to see how the classifications of sheep go. The tag numbers will be decided at that time.

 

This case shows, in a microcosm, how poaching (or illegal harvest) can directly affect legal hunting. BHS especially have limited tags per year in Arizona, and the illegal harvest of two rams can have a severe impact to the overall hunt. Essentially, by 2010 BHS tag numbers, 2% of the states potential rams that could have been legally harvested were poached. This should really, REALLY piss-off the legal hunters out there. By the tone of many posts on local web forums, this seems to be the case.

 

4. The poll about how the department is doing is also enlightening, too. We are trying to get the word out about poaching more and more. Our new Director, Larry Voyles, is very supportive of publicizing poaching cases, as long as it is done correctly. Larry is currently, and has been a Game Ranger in Arizona for many years and he intimately understands the poaching problem. He is also a hunter and personally a great guy! Our only caution is that our department NEVER wants to paint legal hunting or hunters in a negative light! Hence our catchphrase, “Poaching is not hunting and poachers are not hunters!” It never fails, though, that the media has a penchant at times to get it wrong by saying things such as “illegal hunters”. Our Public Information Branch is constantly reminding the local media about this issue. You might have noticed that all of the press releases that our department issues are carefully crafted and worded but once they get distributed the media outlets they can do whatever they wish with them, and even change the wording (and they often do). There is nothing our agency can do about this, other than to constantly remind the media of this issue.

 

The pole about how we are doing at catching poachers is interesting. Having been a state Police Officer and a Game Ranger for over 18 years, I can personally tell you that my colleagues and myself work our asses off on a day to day basis. I am lucky to work with a crew of men and women who are passionate about what we do and each and every one of us has dedicated our lives to Arizona’s wildlife resources and to the people of the state! Contrary to what some forum posters’ have said, we are anything but a bunch of people who sit around the office all day drinking coffee. In reality, though, we are limited by money and resources available. For example, our department only has approximately 150 commissioned officers statewide, of which only about half are “district game wardens”. The other half are either supervisory, administrative, or both. Compare that to, say, the Phoenix Police Department which has over 2000 officers for just the city! G&F Officers are also biologists and have other duties besides patrol. We do the best we can with the resources available. This, too, is why we rely so heavily on public support and public tips on poaching cases. Our Officers simply can’t be everywhere at once.

 

Feel free to share any of this with your fellow web posters, but all that I ask if you do is to quote me directly.

[bowhuntaz1]

Thank you for your response.

James T