PROP 109

[notsoslim]

I would like to start off by saying I do not post a whole lot on the site, but I look at it everyday. One comment that stood out to me was "allow landowners to lobby for private tags". IMO landowners should be able to get a tag or whatever is deemed reasonable within the count from the biologists in that area. I know I have asked permission to several private access points with a "NO" answer, And when asked for my own curiosity, why? They said in the past hunters did not respect their land, left trash, dummped sewage on the road, did not put fires out all the way. I think they are entitled to private landowners tags. They take care of it and all that is their, they provide water and food, granted not specifically for the wildlife, but nonetheless it is provided. If Game and Fish ask for easment then all major landowners should be entitled to a private landowner tag. Just my opinion. As for 109 Many people did not understand it. I heard in the polling area that I voted in many people did not know or even hear of it prior to them getting their. It was for the lack of understanding that many did not know how to vote on it, not that they do not wnat to. This is not a personal jab at you Ringer what so ever, your comment just got me to thinking a little bit about the ranchers in Arizona that own a substantial amount of land that could contribute to opening areas that re typically off limits if Game and Fish would give thme guaranteed tags for access.

[archerycrazy]

Similar measures were on the ballots in three other states. All passed. Arkansas 82% South Carolina 89% Tennessee 90% in favor. We failed in Arizona simply because we as sportsmen failed to understand the measure, failed to do the research and failed to engage others to support. The claims of a legislature takeover were unfounded. The legislature already has the authority to enact laws.

 

The discussion regarding landowner tags is rediculous. The wildlife of this state belong to all of the citizens of this state. They do not belong to an individual land owner. A land owner can and will restrict your access if he/she thinks they will reap economic benefit. If a land owner wants to harvest any wildlife, they are required by law to obtain the proper license and/or tag to do so, No free ride here.

 

I am amazed at the comments that I have seen on this forum. The citizens in this state think that hunters and anglers are passionate about what they do. That passion is not evident here. Passion includes being informed and capable of stating your case.

 

If you love to hunt of fish, don't just learn how to do it, That doesn't take much effort. You can teach a child to fish or hunt. A true sportsman will learn the history and why the heritage is so important. Enjoy hunting or fishing while you can. If you don't learn how to protect the opportunity to do it, you won't be able to do it for long and future generations may never have the chance.

[notsoslim]

archerycrazy, Well thought out statement. And I hear and understand your stance on the landowners tags, But, as you said "The wildlife of this state belong to all of the citizens of this state." would this not be more so if the private landowners that are not allowing acess now, had something to gain from it for allowing other hunters to access the land that is currently closed and unable to be trespassed upon? Again I was not intending to make this a HUGE debate, I was just thinking out loud when I read that statement.

[Heat]

One thing that I have learned through all of this, is it's a lot easier to see a commercial on tv and believe their message, than to learn how your own state government works and make your own informed choice.

 

We got our butts kicked for a number of reasons:

 

First and foremost is because hunters and anglers are some of the most complacent people I have ever met. Most are just fine knowing that someone is out fighting for them, regardless if less than 1% of the people are doing the work for all. Every hunter and angler will need to make this fight their own fight. Make ourselves personally responsible for the job at hand, rather than expect some other group, some other person, or anything else to get the results. When I suggested to members of our club that people get out and talk to their friends, co-workers, and other acquintances that don't hunt, the looks on their face might have well said that I just asked them to give up their first born child.

 

Second, we did a poor job of getting our message out. I now realize how big of a job it is/will be to educate not only those from our own ranks, but those that don't give a dang whether you or I hunt. We must educate people about who pays for wildlife management, who benefits, and what will happen if sportsmen and women do not have a continued strong stake in wildlife management, IE North American Model of Wildlife Management. Part of this failure was the censoring of our message by the liberal media. There was very little written about the pro side of 109 versus the multitude of articles, letters, and editorials against 109.

 

Third and certainly not least is that we got outspent $$$. Nobody got out their checkbook to get this done until it was too little and too late. NRA, AZSFW, Safari Club, Cabelas, Bass Pro etc need to put their money where their mouth is. Clearly, expecting the "grassroots" word of mouth do get it done did not work. Instead people grew "assroots" and thought this would just magically appear with no work done or no money spent. We will need a huge advertising campaign in Phoenix and Tucson starting at least a year in advance to be successful next time.

 

Bringing up landowner tags was just another scare and confuse tactic, along with the power grab BS. Apparently that nonsense was eaten up hook, line, and sinker by not only the uninformed non-hunters, but those within our own ranks as well. That is very sad.

 

Nick

[Outdoor Writer]

Dead on for all points, Nick.

 

I attempted to get an article/letter to the editor published in the AZ Repulsive twice -- once before the editorial in it suggesting a "no" vote and again right after. The editorial board basically ignored me.

 

Here's what I wrote the 1st time in my e-mail with the article (which was posted elsewhere on CWT) attached.

 

I noticed the Republic will feature Prop 109 in the Fri. issue. I've attached an item that I would like to have published as a "My Turn" or similar to run on that day, as well. Could you please get it to the proper person for consideration? And if the Republic chooses NOT to run it, please let me know so I can submit it elsewhere.

 

 

I wasn't quite as nice the 2nd time I sent it.

 

The Hatchet Job

 

When I submitted my original item -- "Vote YES on Prop 109" -- I asked that someone inform me if it wouldn't be published so I could submit it elsewhere. Neither occurred, but after reading the editorial, I understand why.

 

And here's another opinion that is now appearing on all of the major websites where Arizona’s hunters and anglers congregate. It was also posted as a comment to a letter on azcentral.com.

 

 

 

*****

 

 

 

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 premise 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, poachers 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 recaps the intent of Prop 109 and why it is necessary. 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.

[billrquimby]

Tony, and all:

 

After nearly 30 years of working at a daily newspaper, including about a dozen years when I was a full member of its editorial page board, I feel qualified to pass on a few tips on getting your message printed in newspapers:

 

1. Submit only 75 or fewer words (this note is more than 400 words). An old rule of thumb for a letter to the editor is, "if you can't write it in longhand on a postcard, you're trying to say too much." Although a paper may publish longer letters, you improve your odds if your letter is short enough to fill an unplanned "hole" when the letters section is being "built."

 

2. One thought is enough, and it must be unique. Cliches such as "when guns are outlawed..." won't get you published.

 

3. Don't get carried away by your passion. Stay calm, and never, ever attack the publication if you want your letter to be chosen over the hundreds it receives every week.

 

As for "op-ed" pieces, one way to stand out above the huge number of people who want a newspaper to provide them podiums is to telephone the editorial page editor. If you can get to her or him, be prepared to say in a few words what you want to say and why you are qualified to say it.

 

If you do get a commitment, ask how many words your piece should be (it probably will be 700 to 900 words) and then edit and edit and edit what you write until it does not exceed that length.

 

You also need to be respond quickly and be timely. Three or four days is a long time when responding to something that appeared in a daily publication, and five days is too long. Readers (and editors) are fickle and have short memories.

 

Again, stay focused (two thoughts should be enough; four are too many) and positive.

 

If your piece is published, be sure to call the editorial page editor to say thanks, then follow your call with a letter saying the same thing. Include your business card with the letter and suggest that the editorial board call you to "get the other side" when a similar issue arises.

 

Believe it or not, a publication wants to present both sides -- if for no other reason than controversy sells papers. Most editors, though, want to be "fair and balanced," to quote a Fox News motto, even though it is impossible for many of them.

 

Bill Quimby

[archerycrazy]

The Right to Hunt and Fish is not a dead issue in Arizona. I and others will not allow it to die. As I type this, new language for a future inititiative is being developed. Points of contact are being determined. We are attempting to find out who among us is ready to go to work now.

The new language will consider the sticking points and areas of concern that sportsmen and others had. This must be a citizen's inititiative rather than a referendum by the legislature We must demonstate to the general public that this is something that the average joe wants. The authority of THE Game and Fish Commission must be stressed. There is no need to reemphasize the current authority of the legislature.

Opponents focused on "exclusive authority". We will not make that mistake again. That language probably had to be there to garner the support of the legislature. Commissioners Freeman and Woodhouse battled long and hard just to get 109 to the ballot. They had to fight with both the NRA and the legislature just to get the Commission mentioned.

With a "citizen's inititiative we don't have to bow to the will of the NRA or legislature. We simply need to craft language that they can live with.

I ask all who post here, to carry the message to every forum that you visit. I can not cover them all.

[Outdoor Writer]

Well aware of all that, Bill, and I have had a couple "letters" on other topics published over the last year.

 

The first submission I made was sent to be published as a "My Turn" op-ed (not a letter-to-the editor), which are typically 500-750 words. It was meant to run the same day the Repulsive addressed 109 and suggested a "no" vote. When I submitted it, I didn't know they would recommend the no vote, of course. Obviously, my article would have been contrary to the editorial opinion. Although I didn't post them here, I had also tacked on my qualifications to write on the topic. Here's the original again.

 

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.

[billrquimby]

A good piece, Tony. Too bad it didn't get published because it might have given us a few more votes.

 

My reason for starting this thread was to point out that the defeat of Proposition 109 could bring us some big problems from the groups you mentioned and others. I am surprised that they haven't yet said that Arizona's voters have spoken: we have no right to hunt or fish. Just wait, though, it is coming.

 

If another effort to guarantee our hunting and fishing rights is ever mounted again, the backers darned sure better make certain it is well organized, well planned, and well funded. A second loss at the polls would be disastrous.

 

Bill Quimby

[Outdoor Writer]

Bill,

 

Watch the ballot next year. Wanna bet HSUS and their pardners will be going after lion hunting?? If it goes bye-bye, any sportsman who voted "no" on 109 can take some of the blame.

 

What is really unfortunate with what happened is the ignorance many sportsmen showed of how wildlife and hunting is currently managed and regulated, as I outlined in the above. Rather than do their own reserach to find out the facts, they ate everything the opposition spewed forth. But the editorial the Repulsive published was probably the last nail in the coffin. It probably swayed the folks in the middle the most.

[billrquimby]

Bill,

 

Watch the ballot next year. Wanna bet HSUS and their pardners will be going after lion hunting?? If it goes bye-bye, any sportsman who voted "no" on 109 can take some of the blame.

 

What is really unfortunate with what happened is the ignorance many sportsmen showed of how wildlife and hunting is currently managed and regulated, as I outlined in the above. Rather than do their own reserach to find out the facts, they ate everything the opposition spewed forth. But the editorial the Repulsive published was probably the last nail in the coffin. It probably swayed the folks in the middle the most.

 

 

Tony:

 

We never see the Republic, nor the Arizona Daily Star for that matter. I was in Greer until just a couple of weeks ago, and saw nothing about Prop. 109 on TV or in the White Mountain Independent. My only exposure to it came through the internet.

 

I am never surprised at the lack of understanding by the average sportsmen about wildlife management or how and why regulations come about. I could elaborate, but I won't.

 

Bill Quimby

[CouesWhitetail]

Tony or Bill,

 

What is required currently for a citizens initiative to pass, is it 2/3 majority or is it just a simple majority? Someone recently told me they voted no on prop 109 because they thought any wildlife related initiative would require a 2/3 majority to pass and they felt that was security enough to defeat an anti-hunting initiative. I thought it only took a simple majority vote to pass.

 

Amanda

 

[billrquimby]

The other side didn't wait to gloat. Below is from the Humane Society of the United States' website the day after the election. Note the last paragraph and its implied threat of more to come. -- Bill Quimby

 

 

Arizona Voters Shoot Down Prop 109

 

Defeated by preliminary margin, Prop 109 results

demonstrate Arizona voter support for animal protection policies

and the right to citizen initiatives

 

PHOENIX Nov. 3, 2010 — Voters sent a strong message to the Arizona Legislature on Tuesday by rejecting Proposition 109, a referendum that would have amended the Arizona Constitution to give the legislature “exclusive” authority over wildlife issues while seeking to also forbid citizens from initiating statutory petitions.

 

“We are grateful to the citizens of Arizona for once again rejecting an attempt by the trophy hunting lobby to block citizen initiatives to protect wildlife,” said Kari Nienstedt, Arizona state director for The Humane Society of the United States. “It’s always better to keep power in the hands of the people, and that’s just what voters did tonight by saying ‘no’ to Prop 109. This is a victory for voters and for wildlife, and a defeat for the NRA and other special interests that don’t trust the judgment of voters.”

 

Prop 109 was one of 10 measures on the 2010 ballot. If passed, Prop 109 would have given the Arizona Legislature “exclusive” authority over wildlife issues, disturbing the system that is partially insulated from politics and has been in effect in Arizona for more than 80 years. Prop 109 also would have threatened voter rights regarding the initiative process when it came to inhumane and unethical wildlife treatment.

 

“Arizona voters spoke loud and clear. They don’t want the Legislature to politicize wildlife policy,” said Stephanie Nichols-Young, chair of Arizonans Against the Power Grab – No on 109. “Prop 109 was a power grab, pure and simple—and the voters of Arizona not only knew it, but clearly opposed it.”

 

Several former Arizona Game and Fish Commissioners lauded the results, encouraged that the vote will help keep science-based wildlife management in place. “My wife and I hunt and fish each year, and I’m glad voters saw through the shady language and deceptive wording of this referendum so that we could enjoy these wonderful traditions for years to come,” said former Commissioner Tom Woods.

 

A coalition of organizations across the state provided the foundation for a strong grassroots effort. Funding for the campaign was provided by the Humane Society of the United States, with 230,000 supporters in Arizona. The primary funder among Prop 109 proponents was the National Rifle Association, which persuaded the Legislature to place the referendum on the ballot, and then contributed more than $223,000 in support of the campaign.

 

Tempe resident Thomas Hulen, a hunter and self-described conservationist, voted no on Prop 109. “As a longtime hunter, I’m ecstatic that this ridiculous ballot referendum has gone down to defeat,” he said. “There is no threat to hunting and fishing in Arizona, and I’m glad my hunting buddies and other Arizonans who voted ‘no’ realized that.”

 

Opposition to Prop 109 was widespread including prominent elected officials, community leaders, and organizations such as the Animal Defense League of Arizona, the Sierra Club, and the Humane Society of the United States. By the end of the campaign, nearly all major news outlets that weighed in on the issue editorialized against Prop 109 including The Arizona Republic, East Valley Tribune, Tucson Citizen, Tucson Weekly, Arizona Daily Star and The Yuma Sun.

 

The failure of Prop 109 marks the latest defeat of efforts by special interests to weaken Arizona’s now well-established reputation for supporting animal protection efforts and the right to citizen initiatives. In 2006, Arizona voters approved the Humane Farming initiative. In 2000, Arizona voters overwhelmingly rejected a ballot measure that would have required all wildlife initiatives pass by a two-thirds vote. In 1998, Arizona voters approved an initiative that banned cockfighting after the Legislature failed to ban the practice and also approved the Voter Protection Act to protect the initiative process. And in 1994, Arizona voters approved a citizen initiative banning the use of leghold traps, again after the Legislature failed to act on similar legislation.

[archerycrazy]

Amanda,

 

I am no constitutional expert but this is how I understand it. A citizen's initiative to amend the constitution requires the signatures of 15% of the number of qualified voters during the most recent gubernatorial election in order to be placed on the ballot. If the initative makes it to the ballot it can be passed by a simple majority. It takes a little research, but all neccessary information is available on the Legislature's web site.

Article 21 Section 1 applies in this area.

 

It is important that all of us understand this Article, Article 4 and Article 22 Section 21 of the Constitution. All of us must be intimately familiar with Title 17 of the Arizona Revised Statutes.

We can not argue if we have not educated ourselves.

[Outdoor Writer]

Tony or Bill,

 

What is required currently for a citizens initiative to pass, is it 2/3 majority or is it just a simple majority? Someone recently told me they voted no on prop 109 because they thought any wildlife related initiative would require a 2/3 majority to pass and they felt that was security enough to defeat an anti-hunting initiative. I thought it only took a simple majority vote to pass.

 

Amanda

 

 

Amanda,

 

It's somewhat complicated, but I'll try to explain it as best I understand it.

 

First, there are several ways that an issue (proposition) can get on the ballot where the voters determine its fate. The two most common are the voter-driven (the anti-trapping one here was one) and the referral proposition, which is placed on the ballot by the state Legislature through a majority vote by the state House and Senate members. The Legislature MUST refer all changes to the state Constitution or to programs previously approved by a public vote to the voters. Prop 109 fell under the first part -- change to the state Constitution.

 

To get a voter-driven initiative on the ballot, a group must file a prescribed number of VALID signatures between the close of one election and four months before the next. The number of signatures needed are decided by: A.) the purpose of the initiative B.) the number who voted for governor in the previous election.

 

The purpose is important because it determines how many are needed for B. If the purpose is to change or enact a law, the signature total needed is 10% of B; if the purpose is to amend the Constitution, the signature total needed is 15% of B. Obviously the latter is a much more difficult task for any group. This year it took 153,365 signatures for a normal VOTER-driven initiative to make the ballot. That means one attempting to change the Constitution would have required about 230,000 signatures.

 

In any case, once a proposition goes on the ballot, regardless of the source, it requires only a majority vote to decide its fate.

 

So in effect, if HSUS and its ilk decides to try a ban on lion hunting or make changes to any other hunting, fishing or widlife-related issue -- think wolves and such -- the task will be much easier with the failure of Prop 109.

 

As a side note, in 1998 the initiative process was used to protect the initiative process. It is known as the Voter Protection Act and is part of the state constitution. Basically, it prohibits the governor from vetoing any citizen-approved measure; prohibits the Legislature from repealing such measures and it permits the Legislature to amend a citizen-approved measure only if the amendment furthers the purpose of the citizen measure and passes by three-quarters majority. Essentially, this makes citizen-approved measures virtually unalterable except by a subsequent vote of the people. This is what protects the Heritage Fund from being raided.

 

Hope this is a bit clearer than mud.