Weiers memo

[Pine Donkey]

1326848684[/url]' post='290209']

1326848392[/url]' post='290208']

I only want 100 tags... a bargain.

 

Kent

 

Kent, you must be from Utah and looking for a good start. Look at this raffle/auction tag list. Unbelievable.

http://www.monstermu...mID5/18901.html

 

Holy crap, that's a lot of tags!

[Jeff Welker]

As I noted in the HB2072 thread, I was disappointed that Rep. Weiers did not reply to my email questions. This mass email memorandum does not address any of my questions and only convinces me of one thing, this is definitely not over. I don't agree with this proposal and think that Arizona already has plenty of auction and raffle tags. That being said, I still think we/you/us are going to take this in the shorts in the long run. These folks are organized and well funded. Time is on their side. There are many ways to get this type of legislation approved - including incorporating it into a completely unrelated bill. Unfortunately, it will take some serious day-in-and-day-out diligence to make sure any future attempts are properly vetted by the AZGFD and via public meetings throughout the state. I wish I could be more positive; however, I've seen these things up close and personal. The well organized/funded groups have the influence/horsepower and usually get what they want. I hope I am wrong.

 

From my perspective as an old hippie from the '70's, it is just another example of THE MAN putting us down

[Swivelhead]

Got an email from Rep. Weiers today. Apparently only uninformed/ignorant people would dare oppose this legislation.

 

I believe Rep Weiers and AZSFW are out of touch with Arizona Sportsmen. I find myself extremely pleased that AZ sportsmen rapidly expressed their disdain for ANY group that would advocate privatizing hunting permits. Hopefully this "trip to the woodshed" will reform any group considering such action. Thank goodness for the internet and forums such as this.

[Ringer]

The only thing that will stop SFW is to organize a campaign to vote Weiers out and send a message. Also how about all the groups that were tything 10% to SFW to pay for them to screw the family hunters in Arizona? Might want to put some pressure on them to get out of the tag grab plot.

[.270]

pbj, wiers, the asfw (whatever it stands for really) can all say what they want. this was a scam to take tags from the rank and file and give them to guys that can hunt anywhere, anytime. while using conservation, the children, opening private land and making all the rural counties rich, as a smoke screen. i'm surprised they didn't add a cure for cancer in there with it. tell ya what, i'll sell ya the golden gate bridge for a discount and throw in some ocean front property in ajo. the only way 99.99% of us can ever hope to get a premium tag is through the draw. then we have to do all the hard work to be successful ourselves. the .01% lay down a buncha cash for tag, then hire some posse to sit on an animal until he wants to come out and shoot it. this sb2072 was a way to make it easier for the .01% to shoot as many trophy animals as they want to, while we sit around and wish we could get a permit. i agree with the sentiment that this ain't over. the backdoor didn't work so they're probly diggin' a tunnel now. Lark.

[runningbird]

My question still is, if AZ Sportsmen for Wildlife group represents all the other groups in AZ, did these groups such as the ADA know about this bill beforehand? Maybe Amanda can shed some light on this. If the other groups did know about it why did know one speak up? If they did not know about it than my impression is that the AZ Sportsmen for Wildlife group are a self serving group, who think they are above everyone else and can try and do what ever they want. If this group puts on the outdoor expo, then I will not be attending.

[CouesWhitetail]

My question still is, if AZ Sportsmen for Wildlife group represents all the other groups in AZ, did these groups such as the ADA know about this bill beforehand? Maybe Amanda can shed some light on this. If the other groups did know about it why did know one speak up? If they did not know about it than my impression is that the AZ Sportsmen for Wildlife group are a self serving group, who think they are above everyone else and can try and do what ever they want. If this group puts on the outdoor expo, then I will not be attending.

 

 

The ADA board was given very little information and only briefed once shortly before the bill was dropped. I was attending that particular ADA board meeting by telephone and they actually didn't get the phone thing going until after the briefing about the bill so I missed hearing it directly. However, as I understand it, some of the concepts were presented and the board asked for more details and those were not provided prior to dropping the bill. The ADA board was not given time to review or comment on the bill. This bill did not receive the support of the ADA board. I believe the AZSFW group was trying to keep this very quiet in order to keep anti-hunting groups from gathering forces to fight it. It's extremely disappointing to me that AZSFW chose to keep the hunting community out of the process as well.

 

with regard to your question about the outdoor expo, the AZSFW has nothing to do with that. There are actually two large hunting/outdoor expos in AZ and one is the International Sportsmen's Expo (put on by the ISE) and the other is the AGFD expo.

[krp]

Sierra Club and PETA would also qualify as a qualifying organization under this legislation... and they have the funding/legal resources to take control of at least some of these tags if not all, once it became law.

 

Kent

[CouesWhitetail]

Sierra Club and PETA would also qualify as a qualifying organization under this legislation... and they have the funding/legal resources to take control of at least some of these tags if not all, once it became law.

 

Kent

 

 

I don't see how they would meet the legal definition of a qualifying organization....they don't meet criteria a or b as far as I can tell.

 

 

6. "Qualified organization" means an organization that is qualified pursuant to section 501©(3) of the internal revenue code and that meets all of the following conditions:

 

(a) Its membership includes a significant cross-section of species‑specific wildlife conservation and sportsmen organizations from throughout this state.

 

( B ) It is not a member of, does not hold a charter from and is not a chapter of a national wildlife conservation or sportsmen organization.

 

© It has been in existence for at least five years.

[krp]

To be tax-exempt under section 501©(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501©(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

 

Organizations described in section 501©(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501©(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.

 

The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501©(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.

 

Section 501©(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues.

 

If this refers to SFW and they qualify, so does Sierra Club... They believe themselves to be a leader in wildlife conservation and have no trouble coming up with so call sportsmen saying they are representative.

 

Kent

[CouesWhitetail]

Do all these private organizations actually harm the game and fish's ability to manage wildlife or do they help? Are they really needed? What do they actually do? Can someone chime in here and not just recite a mission statement from one of these groups.

 

I ask because i do not know the details. What does raising money for "youth programs" actually mean? I bring up my kids and teach them about hunting/shooting, etc. i do not need a private group to help me with that.

[/quote

 

 

Yes, the nonprofit groups do a tremendous amount of good for wildlife and hunting in the state. "Youth Programs" are a part of just about every non-profit hunting group in AZ. The youth programs include holding hunting camps specifically for youth hunters. While you teach your kids about hunting and shooting, not all kids come from a hunting family. So the point of the youth camps is to help make the youth more successful on their hunts by providing guides/mentors as well as information and food during the hunt. Many times a kid may be the only person in their class in school that hunts and if the kid doesn't meet other kids who hunt, it can be hard for them to maintain their desire for hunting. So these camps also provide a way for kids to meet other youth hunters.

 

With regard to wildlife management in the state, all the nonprofit groups provide huge amounts of volunteer time to raise money for wildlife habitat and also to actually work on habitat projects. The list is way to huge to provide in a short response like this. But the website for the AZ Deer Assoc, the AZ Elk Society, AZ Desert Sheep Society and many others can give you more details.

 

Speaking for the AZ Deer Association as a board member I know we have been instrumental in getting better management on the Kaibab. This involved pushing AGFD to test their population model and habitat evaluation procedures (both of which were found by their own staff to be faulty) and to assist them in coming up with better popuation estimate and habitat measuring techniques. Read more about that here: http://www.azdeer.org/kaibab_summary_page.htm

 

We also worked with AGFD to fund the 3-bar mule deer study which focused on learning more about the effects of predation on mule deer. And then of course we have numerous water development projects that are funded annually by money raise through tags auctioned at the ADA banquets. We recently also pushed for and and accomplished getting the AGFD to increase buck:doe ratios in their statewide management guidelines.

 

We don't always win though...we were unsuccessful in getting the prior commission to stop a plan to increase less desireable deer tags and reduce the more premium tags (such as December whitetail tags). In that case we surveyed thousands of hunters in the state and presented that information to the commission but it didn't sway them at the time. Now things are changing course though it seems with the new commission.

 

the wolf issue will likely be the next big issue the ADA will be dealing with.

 

So anyway, there is a little bit of info about what sportsmen's groups do. but you really should check out their websites and read more about them to get a bigger picture of what they do.

[CouesWhitetail]

To be tax-exempt under section 501©(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501©(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

 

Organizations described in section 501©(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501©(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.

 

The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501©(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.

 

Section 501©(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues.

 

If this refers to SFW and they qualify, so does Sierra Club... They believe themselves to be a leader in wildlife conservation and have no trouble coming up with so call sportsmen saying they are representative.

 

Kent

 

 

but they are part of a national organization and therefore ineligible.

[runningbird]

Thanks for the info Amanda. The better informed we are, the stronger we are as a group.

I think it is important for us all to remember that most of these organizations do in fact help us all. Unfortunately there will always be a few who try to take care of their own interest and think they are above explanation.

[krp]

I don't see the 'National' disqualification and they are active in this state... Sierra club is a 501c qualification but has ties to 503c organizations. I referenced more than one organization earlier and HSUS is a 503c organization that has many ties with PETA and Sierra Club. They also undoubtably control smaller organizations and the ability to challenge for these tags through the proposed legislation.

 

Sierra Club activists have collaborated with the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to agitate against modern livestock farms. In 2002, Sierra Club members in Florida teamed with HSUS to pass a ballot initiative that extends constitutional rights to pregnant pigs. In 1998, the two groups successfully campaigned in California for Proposition 4, which bars ranchers from using traps to protect their livestock from mountain lions, coyotes and other predators. The edict has hurt California farmers, who have seen a steep increase in predator attacks on their herds. The Sierra Club and HSUS are also both members of the Keep Antibiotics Working coalition, a PR campaign that frightens Americans away from the conventional meat supply with scientifically baseless claims about livestock antibiotics.

 

Kent

[krp]

This legislation would create a legal battleground between a weak SFW and the combined might of the anti's, effectively screening out any interference from the AZG&F and sportsmen.

 

Kent