HB 2072 Sale of big game tags

[.270]

cool, how we have even more facts that are contrary to pbj's BS. this is really getting good. the bad guys lost and now they're getting their butts kicked even more. like i always say, stomp a mudhole in their @$$, rest a up awhile and then stomp it dry. anybody else out there with even more unrefutable facts? that's facts pbj, not BS. Lark.

[archerycrazy]

I'm almost caught up. I've been following this thread since it's inception, excluding time on a hunt. I noted that I had only commented three time before today #s 234,289, and 309. Other than #289, I refrained from speaking about specific names. Post #289 was in respone to BPJ's post #286 that lumped Woodhouse, Freeman and McClean with Hernbrode and Martin.

 

BPJ has indicated that he has protected those involved with the crafting of this bill.

 

PBJ decided to identify me by name. So much for protection. I have made no attempt to identify BPJ. When specifically asked by BPJ, former Chairman Woodhouse made his identity known. Obviously Mr. Woodhouse has more integrity than BPJ.

 

In defense of bpj, I think that he was not fully aware of the details of this bill. I think he fell in love with the concept and has chosed to defend it at all cost.

 

I further believe that a very small number of board members of AZSFW were fully involed and knowlegible of it's content. I seriously doubt that AZSFWC board members were directly involved.

 

This is not the first time that the AZSFW lobbist has crafted bills and brought them to the membership of affiliated organizations at the last minute. This tactic has been used with YVRGC onseveral occasions The method of opperation appears to be, spend a lot of time crafting legislation and then asking for the support of member organizations so that they can use our name at the legislature.

 

You can view the legislative archived videos and determine if your orqanizations name has been used.

[runningbird]

Robbie and George

 

Thanks for getting some facts into this discussion!

 

Has I have mentioned before, I think this whole thing will unite the average sportsman and help them wake up a bit.

[elkaholic]

I'll take it one step further... future commissioners have to go through the SFW controlled review board... Weiers is still on board for this legislation... if a future commission backs it also....

 

Kent

Hi Kent; You seem to know your way around the internet. You can review where the candidates come from, how they get interviewed and how long they serve. When you say SFW, are you referring to Utah, or the AZSFW?.... No one can control the board... sorry to take that bit of conspiracy away...BPJ

 

 

we need to take a better look into this guys

 

 

 

Commission appointment recommendation board, which is made up of a small group of hunting organizations and one rancher, plus one member of the public. The purpose is to interview Game and Fish Commission candidates and make 2-5 recommendations to the Governor and she is to pick from among them.

 

who picks these people on the review board ?- how long are they on the board ?

 

heres there recommendations for this round:

http://www.azgfd.gov/govCommBoard/docum ... ts2011.pdf

 

we missed this one guys !--

 

2010: azsfw legislation recommended

 

SB 1200 Game and Fish Commission Appointment Recommendation Board –

 

Passage of SB 1200 over the objections of Arizona Game & Fish Commission (3-2 vote), Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, Arizona Audubon, and Arizona Wildlife Federation to provide certainty that sportsmen have a voice in the future selection of game and fish commissioners

 

HB 2619 Game & Fish Commission Process Bill - Successfully passed bill out of House of Representatives and Senate Natural Resource Committee. President Burns refused to bring the bill to the floor so we are currently working with Governor Brewer’s office to draft an Executive Order to define process including dates, etc.\

 

its too late for this but we missed this one - how can we get it removed

in reguards to the commission review board bill -

 

this was G&F responce:

The Arizona Game and Fish Commission today urgently asks the public in joining them in opposition to Senate Bill 1200, proposed legislation creating a new appointment recommendation board that would evaluate and control which candidates for commission vacancies the governor could select.

 

SB 1200 is scheduled to be debated tomorrow and voted on this week in the state senate.

 

The commission asks people to immediately contact their state senator in opposition to SB 1200 and let them know that House Bill 2619 is a much better solution to an open and fair commission appointment process. Contact your senator now by following this link.

 

The commission expressed concern that SB 1200, if passed by the Arizona Legislature, could threaten the current commission system by granting greater influence to a select group while weakening the public’s voice in wildlife management.

 

“This legislation would lead to, and is intended to lead to, a commission made up entirely of people with similar views, similar backgrounds and similar intentions,” said current commission chair Jennifer Martin from Phoenix. “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.”

 

 

 

does this smell of sfw to you!? drafted by azsfw and gilstrap ends up as board member ??

[archerycrazy]

In late 2005, governor Napolitano nominated Jennifer Martin to serve on the Arizona Game and Fish Commission. Martin was highly qualified but heavily opposed. At her Senate confirmation hearing a member of the AZSFW raised concerns regarding Ms Martin's status as a single mother and her ability to focus on the job at hand. After the Senate failed to confirm Martin, the door was left open for the Governor to seat her. Ms. Martin served well that first year and there was little opposition when she was confirmed by the Senate.

 

AZSFW went to work crafting HB 2235 which was filed by Rep. Weiers in 2009. I call the bill "The Jennifer Martin Bill". HB 2235 would have made individuals such as Jennifer ineligible and would have made people like Robbie Woodhouse ineligle as well. About 5 days before the bill was scheduled to be heard, the lobbyist for AZSFW came to a Yuma Valley Rod and Gun Club Board meeting and requested our endorsemant. The YVRGC Board of Disrectors voted unanimously to oppose the bill.

 

Representative Weiers pulled the bill the night before the scheduled hearing.

 

Representaive Weiers and AZSFW went back to the drawing board. SB 1200 appeared on our door step days before the first hearing. Unfortunately we supported the revised edition. A bit of a amistake on our part.

 

Prior to SB 1200 and the Commission Appointment Recommendating Board, prospective Commisioner were encouraged to contact most organitation and present their resumes and seek endorsement. Woodhouse and Freeman and all who preceeded them went through this process.

 

In my opinion AZSFW has effectively silenced the voice of the average sportsman.

[elkaholic]

well how can we make the voice we've show this past week, be heard even louder and see what we can do to reverse this unneeded board before they set up exactly whom they-(azsfw ) want in control of the g&f commission.

 

Here agin we all need to see this-commission reveiw board - is as bad as 2072 and what we can do to put it to an end to something azsfw has forced thru .

[archerycrazy]

well how can we make the voice we've show this past week, be heard even louder and see what we can do to reverse this unneeded board before they set up exactly whom they-(azsfw ) want in control of the g&f commission.

 

Here agin we all need to see this-commission reveiw board - is as bad as 2072 and what we can do to put it to an end to something azsfw has forced thru .

[archerycrazy]

To some extent we must support the efforts od Rep. Daniel Patterson with HB 2538. I have opposed most legislation proposed by Patterson but this is an extreme case and requires our support. I for one, may support HB 2538. It's time to reestablish the voice of the common sportsman. We don't need an organization that solely represents their own interests while getting funding from sportsmen.

 

We all need to do our own research. Learn the history behind all wildlife related legislation, It will take a lot of our time. The AZSFW lobbyist is paid well to focus on our issues.

 

Take a look at last years Rotenone Bill. Most of us opposed the bill brought by Senator Griffen. The ASSF lobbyist could not support us due to a conflict of interst. Aclose releationship wit Senator and other legislation that Sen. Griffen supported.

[runningbird]

Well I guess we can see where Amanda stands on this, since she is pimping AZSFW's talking points to us...

 

 

Actually, as I posted before, I haven't decided on this yet. When making a decision about this, I think it's important to get as many facts as possible. I think it's important to hear from lots of hunters, the AGFD commission, other sportsmens groups as well as the people who created this bill. I expect to be attending a meeting next week with the sportsmens groups to discuss this issue.

 

Just wondering if you did in fact attend a meeting on this subject. If so what did you find out.

Thanks!

[Swivelhead]

I'll jump in on this thread hijack. Support Rep. Patterson? You're kidding, right?

 

Posted below is the specific language of the commission recommendation board make-up. Works for me.

 

 

17-202. Arizona game and fish commission appointment recommendation board

 

A. The Arizona game and fish commission appointment recommendation board is established consisting of members appointed by the governor pursuant to this section and section 38-211. The board shall consist of one person who has been a resident of this state for at least five years from each of the following qualifying groups:

 

1. One member designated by the board of directors of an organization that is qualified pursuant to section 501©(3) or 501©(4) of the internal revenue code, whose membership consists of a significant cross-section of wildlife conservation and sportsmen organizations from throughout the state, that does not have an affiliation or charter with a national wildlife conservation or sportsman's organization and that has been in existence for at least five years.

 

2. One member designated by the board of directors of an organization that is qualified pursuant to section 501©(3) or 501©(4) of the internal revenue code whose articles of incorporation or bylaws stipulate that the mission or purpose of the organization is to increase, sustain or otherwise conserve wild turkey, deer, elk, pronghorn (antelope), bighorn sheep, ducks, quail or fish and that has been in existence for at least five years.

 

3. One member designated by the board of directors of an organization that is qualified pursuant to section 501©(3) or 501©(4) of the internal revenue code whose articles of incorporation or bylaws define it as a sportsman's organization whose membership is primarily confined to a specific geographic area or region of the state or an organization described in paragraph 2 of this subsection or is a chapter or affiliate of a national sportsman's conservation or shooting organization and that has been in existence for at least five years.

 

4. One member designated by the board of directors of an organization that is qualified pursuant to section 501©(3) or 501©(4) of the internal revenue code that is statewide, whose membership is comprised of cattlemen or ranchers and that has been in existence for at least five years.

 

5. One member of the general public or one member of a nongame organization that is qualified pursuant to section 501©(3) or 501©(4) of the internal revenue code.

 

B. Except as otherwise provided by law, members of the board serve five year terms of office. A board member must maintain continuous membership in the organization the member represented when appointed during the entire term of office. The governor may remove a member of the board for inefficiency, conflict of interest, neglect of duty or misconduct in office and replace the member with an individual from the same organization represented by the former member. If a board member dies, resigns or is removed from office, the governor shall appoint an individual to fill the vacancy within thirty days from the same organization represented by the former member.

 

C. Three members of the board constitute a quorum. Meetings of the board shall be held at the Arizona game and fish department main office or at a regional office as determined by the board. The department shall issue a public notice at least one week before the meeting.

 

D. Members of the board are not eligible for compensation for their services or reimbursement of expenses.

 

E. The board shall assist the governor by interviewing, evaluating and recommending candidates to fill vacancies on the Arizona game and fish commission as follows:

 

1. After the governor's call for applications for an open position on the commission and the application period is closed, the governor shall deliver a final list of the applicants to the board within five days after the close of the application period. The board shall review the list of applicants and the application submitted by each applicant and proceed to interview, evaluate and recommend candidates as provided by this subsection.

 

2. If the board is considering candidates to fill the office of a commission member whose designated term is about to expire:

 

(a) On or before November 15 of each year, the board shall host a public forum to interview the commission candidates. The department shall issue a notice of the public forum at least five days before the scheduled date of the forum.

 

( On or before November 25, the board shall recommend at least two, but no more than five, candidates from the governor's final list of candidates.

 

© The governor must select and appoint a commissioner from the list submitted by the board.

 

3. If the board is considering candidates for a vacancy resulting from a commission member's death, resignation or removal from office:

 

(a) Not later than two weeks after receipt of the final list of commission candidates from the governor, the board shall host a public forum to interview the candidates. The department shall issue a notice of the public forum at least five days before the scheduled date of the forum.

 

( Within one week after the public forum, the board shall recommend at least two, but no more than five, candidates from the governor's final list of candidates.

 

© The governor must select and appoint a commissioner from the list submitted by the board.

 

F. The board shall assist the governor to identify commission applicants.

[krp]

Does the 501C3 status not concern you? This removes the 'people' from another government process, not allowing us even the pretense of a voice to the Governor on who's appointed. Our only recourse in the past was our vote for governor to shape the G&F commission, that was restrictive already... example Nappy's appointees and then Brewer... we now have no say as the choice is dependent on special interest nonprofit orgs... socialism, no matter how you dress it.

 

Kent

[krp]

With this legislation SFW successfully lobbied for in 2010, has member(s?) on the review board, the Super PAC status for SFW in 2010 and Weiers as their legislator... is it any wonder they aren't concerned about what we public think, or the other orgs. If the other orgs remove their support financially, the parent organization can still convert outside donations from those that want these tags and possibly even Utah tag money they control, into the Super PAC fund. Making another legislative attempt in the next two years, without being secret... and we or even G&F can't do a thing about it...

 

Weiers is still the hinge... we need some reassurances from him on who he stands with.

 

I'll now remove my Chicken'little suit and tinfoil...

 

Kent

[archerycrazy]

Swivelhead, I know that supporting Patterson on anything he proposes, is a tough pill for us to swallow. HB 2538 will repeal the Commission Selection Review and Recommendation Board. Prospective Commissioners would then need to speak with large numbers of sportsmen/women and all of the influencial organizations in order to garner support. In the past the Governor has always considered to opinion of many organizations before making a selection.

 

Under the current system prospective Commissioners only need to submit strong resumes and meet with 5 individuals on just two occassions. After the Board interviews the applicants they select at least two and not more than 5 to forward to the Governor. The Governor is now required by law, to select one of those forwarded.

 

This year one of the two applicants forwarded is a member of the AZSFW Board of Directors. He lost. Even though I supported Kurt Davis, I still have concerns because he has never communicated with Yuma Valley Rod and Gun Club and I am not aware of any organization that truely knows him.

[Swivelhead]

Does the 501C3 status not concern you? This removes the 'people' from another government process, not allowing us even the pretense of a voice to the Governor on who's appointed. Our only recourse in the past was our vote for governor to shape the G&F commission, that was restrictive already... example Nappy's appointees and then Brewer... we now have no say as the choice is dependent on special interest nonprofit orgs... socialism, no matter how you dress it.

 

Kent

 

Nope, the 501c3 or 501c4 status does not concern me, most clubs are 501c4's. It would be interesting to know the make up of the board that recently convened. Anybody?

 

What I gather from the language of ARS 17-202 the board would consist of the following:

 

1 - AZSFW board member.

2 - Board member from ADBSS, ADA, AES, etc.

3 - Board member from YVRGC, Mohave Sportsmans, etc.

4 - Board member from AZ Cattlemens Association.

5 - Board member from Sierra Club, CBD, the usual suspects.

 

Suspect AZSFW may be gone soon depending on how many current wildlife/sportsmen organizations renounce their affiliation with the group. That being said I think the recommendation board as it is will provide qualified commissioners.

[krp]

Yep... all special interest organizations that don't come close to representing the majority of hunters as far as paying membership goes, and three of the five have organizational and funding ties...

 

The few knowing best for the many... Elitism, socialism, cronyism, possible corruption...

 

No thanks...

 

Kent