Proposition 109 - The Right to Hunt and Fish

[Heat]

NEWS CONFERENCE, MONDAY, OCTOBER 4TH, 11 A.M. CAPITOL MALL, NORTH OF SENATE CHAMBERS

 

(1700 W. WASHINGTON, PHOENIX)

 

Arizona Game & Fish Commissioners Woodhouse, Husted and Harris form Campaign Committee to support Prop 109 and Respond to Misinformation Being Disseminated to the Public

 

PHOENIX--Opponents to Prop 109, are saying that “it is a power grab by Politicians to take away the rights of Arizona Voters and the Arizona Game & Fish Commission to determine wildlife policy in the state” and “that the right to hunt will trump the use of sound science to establish wildlife management decisions”. Robbie Woodhouse, current Vice Chairman of the Arizona Game & Fish Commission, fellow Game & Fish Commissioners, Jack Husted of Springerville and John Harris of Sahuarita, announce Monday the formation of “Support the Arizona Game & Fish Commission by supporting Prop 109”Campaign Committee. Commissioner Husted stated “the objective of forming the committee is to make sure the public has accurate information on Prop 109 because there is a lot of misinformation being disseminated by the press and groups opposed to Prop 109 including the above comments taken from their opposition ballot arguments.”

 

Commissioner Husted spent an hour last week with Arizona Daily Star reporter Tony Davis and was disappointed to see the Star’s editorial Monday asking the Public to Vote No on Prop 109. When asked, Davis said his opinion was not requested prior to the editorial being published. “This comes as a surprise to most of us,” said Husted “as Mr. Davis writes many articles on wildlife-related issues for the Star. It is very disappointing to see the Star’s outright bias. We have no recourse except to form the Committee and set the record straight.”

 

The Arizona Game & Fish Commission worked closely with the National Rifle Association as the language for HCR 2008 (now Prop 109) was being drafted and the Commission also voted to support the bill during the 2010 legislative session. “We were involved because we wanted to make sure the mission, role and responsibility of the Department and Commission were not compromised,” said Woodhouse. Click here for link to commission position on HCR 2008.

 

“The Commission would not have supported Prop 109 if it compromised or otherwise limited the current wildlife management role played by the Game & Fish Commission” Woodhouse added. “We believe it actually provides a stronger foundation for the role of the Commission because with the passage of Prop 109 the Commission will be formalized in the state’s Constitution.”

 

Commissioner Husted explained “The Provisions of Article 4, Section 1 of the Arizona Constitution and Title 17 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) are very clear. The Constitution vests the authority to make laws with the legislature, which consists of a senate and a house of representatives. The Legislature has given the Arizona Game & Fish Department the power to administer the laws relating to wildlife and the Legislature of its own free choice further vested the Arizona Game & Fish Commission with the responsibility to control the Game & Fish Department.”

 

Commissioners Woodhouse, Husted and Harris agree that the Constitution and ARS Title 17 provide the framework for the governance of game and fish issues today and Prop 109 will do nothing to change this framework when passed by the voters.

 

Commissioner Woodhouse reaffirmed that, “The Game & Fish Commission will continue to base its wildlife management decisions on scientific findings and science will not take a back seat to hunting and fishing or politics as suggested by the opponents of Prop 109.”

 

Consistent with the North American Model of Wildlife Management, the Arizona Game & Fish Commission uses hunting and fishing as the primary means of controlling and managing wildlife today as does every other Game & Fish Agency throughout the United States. The Commissioners agree that, “the requirement for hunting and fishing to be the preferred means of managing wildlife changes nothing as Prop 109 further requires that future laws and rules ‘shall have the purpose of wildlife conservation and management’.”

 

-End-

 

Contacts: Commissioner Robbie Woodhouse @ 928-941-1700 or hrking00@aol.com and Commissioner Jack Husted @ 928-245-0885 or jhusted@frontiernet.net or Carole V. Bartholomeaux, 602.404.8018 or Carole@b-pr.com Day of News Conference, 602.628.2666

 

 

[CouesWhitetail]

Hopefully this news conference will help get the word out about Prop 109. If anyone attends, please post a review of it here.

[Outdoor Writer]

Amanda,

 

The Republic had a thingie in it yesterday that said they will have Prop 109 profiled on Fri. I sent the following into the editorial board and asked that it be published on that day, as well. Not sure they will, but we'll see.

 

*****

 

Vote YES on Prop 109

 

The election ballot this year includes Proposition 109, which would guarantee the right to hunt and fish in Arizona. It also will keep the status of wildlife management with the state legislature and Arizona Game & Fish Department (AGFD) just as it has been for many decades under Arizona's Title 17 statutes.

 

The nation's leading extremist anti-hunting group, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), in conjunction with other advocacy organizations such as the Sierra Club and Center for Biological Diversity, is working to defeat Prop 109. None of these three groups directly contributes a penny to the actual management of wildlife in Arizona. In reality, they annually cost this state and others millions of dollars because of the various, often frivolous lawsuits they file.

 

While these groups represent the ballot proposition as a "power grab," nothing could be more untrue. In reality, Prop 109 will not change a thing. It will instead guarantee everything remains intact under Title 17: the legislature makes the laws and under those laws, they designate the AGFD as the caretaker of Arizona's wildlife. As such, the AGFD makes rules and regulations and enforces those and the laws in regards to hunting and fishing.

 

The agency's nongame branch, using revenue mostly contributed by hunters and anglers through license sales and the federal excise taxes on the equipment they use, also manages myriad unhunted species with similar rules and regulations. Those rules often address the complete protection and preservation of many species, including those that are endangered and threatened.

 

Informed voters should also be aware of the deceptively-named HSUS that has nothing to do with local animal shelters or organizations. HSUS is a self-avowed national anti-hunting group with an annual budget of over $100 million. In the past, HSUS has worked to ban specific hunting seasons, the hunting of specific species and even traditional methods of hunting. This anti-hunting organization has funded the successful campaign to close the dove hunting season in Michigan without any scientific reason to do so. And now HSUS has set its sights on Arizona.

 

HSUS president, Wayne Pacelle, once claimed his goal is to create “a National Rifle Association of the animal rights movement.” He also said, "We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States" and "we will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state."

 

If Pacelle has his way, it will signal the end of sound wildlife management in this state. The relentless efforts of the anti-hunting movement are exactly why Prop 109 is needed. It is specifically written to pre-empt anti-hunting groups from attempting to restrict the right of Arizonans to hunt and fish – the key reason why HSUS and the others oppose it.

 

Prop 109, as written, will not only help protect and preserve the right to hunt and fish, it will also ensure that all of Arizona's wildlife, including that which is NOT hunted, will be managed with long-tested and sound scientific principles rather than by emotions that sometimes have disastrous consequences.

 

Any voter concerned about the future of all of Arizona's wildlife should not allow it to be managed by the anti-hunting emotions of extremists. That means a "yes" vote on Prop 109.

[CouesWhitetail]

Great article Tony!!! Thanks for submitting that, I sure hope they run it!!

[raisedin32]

This is where I got my info on the bill. I will be voting yes.

 

Just for laughs look who in opposing the bill and why.

 

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Ariz..._109_%282010%29

[CouesWhitetail]

For more info:

http://www.arizonasportsmenforwildlife.org/

 

[rthrbhntng]

If anyone needs bumper stickers let me know and I will mail some out. N/C.

Please put them on your vehicles and help the organizations get the YES Vote info out.

If you have a store or can take them to a place to be handed out let me know and I will send a bunch.

We have canvased a bunch of sportsmen related businesses across the state but could use more help.

If you have friends that are non hunters or on the fence have them go to www.outdoorheritagearizona.com.

It is a great website that just promotes information for the public about what we do for conservation and has info about prop 109.

Steve Clark

stevec@arizonaelksociety.org

602-885-0835

[Outdoor Writer]

I see no one has commented on the editorial in Fri.'s Republic. I posted the following as a comment on AZCENTRAL.COM at:

 

Opinions.

 

*****

 

The hatchet job on Prop 109 by the Republic was obviously written by someone with low reading comprehension. In fact, after reading it, it's easy to assume it might have been written by HSUS president Wayne Pacelle.

 

For example, the comment about the poacher is erroneous from the get-go. The writer of the editorial apparently does not know the difference between legal and illegal.

 

The amendment clearly states: "A. The citizens of this State have a right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife LAWFULLY." By definition, poachers harvest wildlife UNLAWFULLY. Thus they have no right under the proposed amendment.

 

Also, another comment addresses the possible return of leghold traps. By definition, trapping is neither hunting or fishing.

 

I submitted the item below to the Republic earlier in the week knowing the topic would be covered in the Fri. issue. It outlines the true intent of Prop 109. Not surprisingly, the Republic chose not to run it, likely because it would have shown how far out in left field its own editorial is.

 

The Republic's editorial contends there is no threat to hunting and fishing. The missing word in that conclusion is "currently." While there might be no threat now, HSUS and the other animal-rights organizations will do their best to change that. Note specifically the past quotes from Pacelle below, which point directly to the concern for the FUTURE.

 

 

Vote YES on Prop 109

 

The election ballot this year includes Proposition 109, which would guarantee the right to hunt and fish in Arizona. It also will keep the status of wildlife management with the state legislature and Arizona Game & Fish Department (AGFD) just as it has been for many decades under Arizona's Title 17 statutes.

 

The nation's leading extremist anti-hunting group, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), in conjunction with other advocacy organizations such as the Sierra Club and Center for Biological Diversity, is working to defeat Prop 109. None of these three groups directly contributes a penny to the actual management of wildlife in Arizona. In reality, they annually cost this state and others millions of dollars because of the various, often frivolous lawsuits they file.

 

While these groups represent the ballot proposition as a "power grab," nothing could be more untrue. In reality, Prop 109 will not change a thing. It will instead guarantee everything remains intact under Title 17: the legislature makes the laws and under those laws, they designate the AGFD as the caretaker of Arizona's wildlife. As such, the AGFD makes rules and regulations and enforces those and the laws in regards to hunting and fishing.

 

The agency's nongame branch, using revenue mostly contributed by hunters and anglers through license sales and the federal excise taxes on the equipment they use, also manages myriad unhunted species with similar rules and regulations. Those rules often address the complete protection and preservation of many species, including endangered and threatened species.

 

Informed voters should also be aware of the deceptively-named HSUS that has nothing to do with local animal shelters or organizations. HSUS is a self-avowed national anti-hunting group with an annual budget of over $100 million. In the past, HSUS has worked to ban specific hunting seasons, the hunting of specific species and even traditional methods of hunting. This anti-hunting organization has funded the successful campaign to close the dove hunting season in Michigan without any scientific reason to do so. And now HSUS has set its sights on Arizona.

 

HSUS president, Wayne Pacelle, once claimed his goal is to create “a National Rifle Association of the animal rights movement.” He also said, "We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States" and "we will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state."

 

If Pacelle has his way, it will signal the end of sound wildlife management in this state. The relentless efforts of the anti-hunting movement are exactly why Prop 109 is needed. It is specifically written to pre-empt anti-hunting groups from attempting to restrict the right of Arizonans to hunt and fish – the key reason why HSUS and the others oppose it.

 

Prop 109, as written, will not only help protect and preserve the right to hunt and fish, it will also ensure that all of Arizona's wildlife, including that which is NOT hunted, will be managed with long-tested and sound scientific principles rather than by emotions that sometimes have disastrous consequences.

 

Any voter concerned about the future of all of Arizona's wildlife should not allow it to be managed by the anti-hunting emotions of extremists. That means a "yes" vote on Prop 109.