Where do we go from here?

[krp]

I've been wondering when somebody in this mob would ask the big question. If not AZSFW,then who? Thank you for finally asking it, Archerycrazy.

 

Before we try to decide where we're going next, let's take a look at where we've been. Maybe we can learn something. Here's what I know, or think I know:

 

When AZSFW was in its formative stage, with organizers touring the state and making their pitches for members and affiliates, I was an outspoken critic of their organizational plan, which gave policy and operational control to a handful of financial backers with no mechanism for accountability to the state's rank and file sportsmen. I questioned whether their agenda would serve the needs of most Arizona sportsmen or would it instead serve merely a select and affluent few. But a majority of the most vocal sportsmen, especially those in the sportsmen's conservation groups, felt differently about it. The sportsmen's conservation groups are more aware than the average hunter of the threats to the future of our wildlife and hunting heritage. But being men of action by nature, rather than policy wonks or political strategists, sportsmen are always happy to let others with different inclinations and aptitudes take over the task of haggling with politicians and bureaucrats so that sportsmen can keep going right on doing what's in their nature to do - raising money and putting sweat equity into projects that support bighorn sheep, turkeys, elk, antelope, deer and other species. Thus AZSFW was born, but not without certain key birth defects including lack of visibility and trust among the state's hunters.

 

AZSFW was initially financed by a handful of businessmen whose intention was to hand over the task of financial support to sportsmen once the organization got going. They had reckoned this might take 3 or 4 years. AZSFW made a serious attempt at a membership drive, charging $15 a year and even offering individuals commissions for signing up new members. If even one licensed hunter in 100 had joined, revenue from individual memberships would have been enough to sustain the organization. But very few signed up, so AZSFW soon took to holding its own fundraising events and relying more heavily on its affiliated organizations - the various single-species groups - for donations. That kept them going a while longer, but recently some of AZSFW's biggest backers among the sportsmen's groups announced they were going to stop contributing. I believe HB 2072, which would have brought a lot of money to the single species conservation groups, was a desperate last-ditch attempt to keep some money flowing to AZSFW. Yes, there were a lot of other beneficial deeds portrayed in that bill, but the circumstantial evidence of AZSFW's impending insolvency probably explains why it came when it did. Since I was not actually a part of that organization in any formal way, my explanation might differ a bit from that of some people who were more closely involved, but that's how it looked from where I sat.

 

So what does all this teach us? For one thing, whatever emotion inspires NRA members to keep sending in their dues checks does not seem to inhabit the hearts and minds of most Arizona sportsmen. Whoever has the gold makes the rules, so if everyone wants an organization that represents ALL of the state's sportsmen, then more of us will need to start digging into our pockets.

 

We can talk about transparency, trust, visibility and legitimacy of representation, and I'd even like to talk about the relationship between a sportsmen's advocacy group and our Game & Fish Commission, but first things first: a certain amount of money must be provided for any sportsmen's advocacy group to effectively provide certain services (i.e., skilled lobbying, public relations and communication to members, etc.), and much of that money must come voluntarily from the state's sportsmen as evidence of their support. That's how the NRA does it, and it works.

 

So before anyone starts designing the ideal organization - that's the fun part - do we think we could find a way for sportsmen to finance such a group and keep it going?

 

It's my belief that AZSFW could have worked well if the state's sportsmen had swarmed the organization at the beginning and essentially taken it over by paying a substantial share of the costs and demanding representation that reflected our contribution. We could have earned some ownership through our checkbooks and steered AZSFW toward being what I suspect we can all agree it should have been. But when we let someone else do all the heavy lifting, things will get done on their terms, not ours. I believe that is what we let happen.

 

And this is it... This is the rift...

 

The orgs are 'Private' repeat 'Private' special interest groups... that means in agenda and funding.

The orgs cannot accept that the general public does not flock to their mission statement with an open wallet, it's plain to them that the folks are uncaring, lazy, blind or stupid.

They can't accept the possibility many in the public have rejected the course and leadership they promote by 'not' funding them.

If the pubic won't willingly support them to the point they may stall, their vision not progress... they must be forced for their own good to support.

The orgs are too important to fail, they will legislate a public resource bailout repeat 'Public'... same as a stimulus...

 

The orgs need to accept that the public rejected AZSFW, same as if it would have been AZUSO, as our voice politically, as they are both a threat to our tags...

 

Kent

[.270]

audsley

 

Go back and read your last post and see if you can find anything that is so far over the line as to reflect poorly on this forum.

 

you really want to call us a mob? sfw is getting what they deserve, and not because of a mob. because they are liars and thieves. they did the same thing in utah and alaska that they tried here. i don't think financial survival was their plan. grabbing tags for rich guys was. only reason they involved the other groups was to give them some credibility and so they could say that these other groups supported it too. just like utah and alaska. folks can argue all they want about sfw's true intent. but we all know what the outcome would have been. intent is purely subjective here. they can say whatever they want, but it's really apparant what would have happened. and if they think they are catching hel l now, if they would have succeeded, you would have seen a mob. a really ugly one.

 

a mob, really? some guys voice their opinions and they are a mob? are you the new pbj? seriously, a mob? or did i grossly misunderstand you? Lark.

[.270]

bingo. Lark.

[DesertBull]

Just take a look at HB 2235 from 2009. We jilled it. It came back the following year and SB 1200 Commission Recommendation Board. Passage of that bill required two votes. During the first voted, it was soundly defeated. Most legislators who opposed it left the chamber and a second voted was called for. Since many legislators who opposed it were already headed to other appointment the bill was passed. Just take a look at the legislatures video archives to see what occurred.

I saw this on another site. Is this really how we got the recommendation board? If so, our law making process is a joke.

[coueshunter]

Archerycrazy: I for one agree with you and am not opposed to re-organizing AZSFW in a manner such that it "supports conservation groups" and is totally transparent. Audsley somewhat muddied the water up with his comments. Most regular guys like me were under the impression that the "funds" Audlsye is talking about came from the fee's our groups like ADA, AES etc...subsidized and sent directly to AZSFW. If we have a group that does function as a legislative/lobbying group soley functioning at the bequest of conservation groups and for causes we determine are worthwhile, I think for the most part, AZ sportspeople would be happy. As it sits now, there are a select few "insiders" at many of the conservation groups who make decisions without much input asked for or given from the members.

 

 

Summation: 1. Lets still have an organization to represent us politically. 2. That organization keeps us informed via a website or emails on any issues that they are working on. 3. The organization solicits help via the website/email to the members. 4. conservation groups have 1 member from each group(ADA 1, AES 1, etc) on a general council that oversees what the AZSFW lobbyist is doing

 

 

There are a couple ideas.............Allen Taylor............

[krp]

Plausible solutions, though I can't see the sfw moniker survive in any form... they tried to USO and Obama'ize us, with a tag takeover and forced multimillion public stimulus... that's unforgivable after the trust shown.

 

I wish the orgs luck, there is no easy fix and some hits will be taken in the near future.

 

Kent

[ThomC]

Why do we need one org. to do all the talking. I think that all groups should have a voice, that way you get a cross section of opinions.

 

Web sites like this are valuable to get the average guys opinion. But, groups like ADA need to watch what their leaders are doing.

 

In fact all of us need to watch what so called leaders are doing, and that goes all the way to the top.

[archerycrazy]

Audsley’s comments were right on target and served as a good wake up call for me.

The bottom line is money. We can’t form a totally new organization without lots of funding.

Actually, I don’t think we really need a new organization. We really don’t need a lobbyist.

For me direct communication with the leadership of all other organizations is important. Direct communication with the Game and Fish Commission and Department is paramount. Knowing how to communicate with our legislators is another key.

The Arizona Legislative Information System (ALIS) is the primary tool that I use in order to stay on top of important legislation. That system is how we caught HB 2072 before this session even began.

The leadership of every organization must be familiar with the use of the ALIS. Teach yourself how to use the ALIS in order to effectively report to your membership and get guidance on how to proceed. You can sit at home and study proposed bills of concern. You will then have information that you can bring to your members. To be most effective, you will need to go to the capitol and get logged in there. Once you do that, you can do everything at home.

It’s impossible to fully describe how to use the system on this forum. I hope that within the next week or two, there will be tutorial available on the internet. When it is up and running I will post the necessary information on this site. I will be prepared to answer questions regarding ALIS as well.

We can accomplish a lot if we are informed and organized. All of this doesn’t cost money, just time.

George

[javihammer]

Some great ideas from Kent and the rest of you all. I agree ALIS is the first alarm for future attacks.

 

Just some food for thought. The most exclusive chunk of hunting land in Arizona is probably the strip between the North rim of the Grand Canyon and the Utah and Nevada borders (including the Kaibab). This area is actually much closer to Utah, Nevada and even some parts of California than Phoenix (and even Flagstaff in terms of road miles). Most of the guides for this area are actually based out of St George, Utah. I can think of at least one critter group that is very active on the Strip and seem to be an exhuberant supporter of AZSFW. Could there be a link between AZSFW, this critter group and some group in Utah…..coincidence? Could an Arizona critter group actually be more supportive of the hunting community outside of Arizona than inside Arizona? Wierd..........

 

Kingman is also closer to California, Utah and Nevada than the major population centers in Arizona. Some enterprising person should start offering non-resident hunter education classes in Kingman, if they got a guide license they could tap into a nice supply of non-resident clients. They could even refer some of those clients out to other guides if they couldn’t accommodate them themselves. Imagine the influence I would have if I were “this person”. If I were this person I would have a hard time being critical of initiatives or groups that promote non-resident opportunity at the cost of resident opportunity. If I were this person, I would probably join some wildlife organization in Kingman and ask the resident general members what they thought about supporting a “partner” group that tried to steal tags from them. I bet that less than 50% of these residents would vote to maintain a relationship and provide financial support to tag thieves. How about a show of hands Kingman hunters…who wants their tag stolen? I bet the hunters in Kingman would prefer to keep their tags.

 

Letting this situation blow over is exactly what the AZSFW wants, if this happens they (and others) will be emboldened to try this again. We need to bleed the money out of the AZSFW and make it very unpopular for anyone (people or groups) to have anything to do with them. Any critter group that rides the fence might as well publicly endorse AZSFW….and that would be a weak display of Arizona pride. Average Joes need to vote with their checkbooks and leverage the fact that we have the numbers. We should organize a camo flash mob (using social networking sites and other hunting sites – maybe even pass out nametags that say “Average Joe”) at the AZGFD office the next time the AZSFW memo of understanding is discussed by the Arizona Game and Fish commission. We need to make it clear who the majority is and that this crap aint gonna fly in our state. Who’s in?

[krp]

Javihammer, I agree.... one thing you brought up I want to add something to, may not mean anything but it's nagged at me when I saw it. During my research to post the most correct info on these subjects, I've looked at many things that may or may not be an issue... I've looked at the Utah SFW on my own and been given some info also, if nothing else it was interesting and puts into prospective the timeline between Utah and Az tag grabs.

 

Anyway, seems SFW promoted the Mule deer foundation into the role of Co sponsor of the Western hunting and conservation expo, in Salt Lake. Possibly this is the expo that the AZSFW was trying to emulate and copy. Check the link.

 

http://www.huntexpo.com/exhibit.php

 

Here's what nags at me and it may be fine and there may be a good reason...

 

An Az mule deer governor tag is auction at the expo in salt lake by MDF and SFW, along with a ton of other tags, some from other states. The better the tags they can offer the better their expo and the clientele they attract, the more money they can bring in... I imagine they must send the money back here, excluding the 10% they charge on tag sales?

 

Why isn't this tag auctioned off at one of our banquets ADA, ADBSS ect or the AZG&F expo, bringing in the money and more importantly the prestige to our orgs?

 

There is a history of SFW and an Az tag... times that by 350 if they have their way.

 

This is not over or can be ignored.

 

Kent

[bonuspointjohn]

Javihammer, I agree.... one thing you brought up I want to add something to, may not mean anything but it's nagged at me when I saw it. During my research to post the most correct info on these subjects, I've looked at many things that may or may not be an issue... I've looked at the Utah SFW on my own and been given some info also, if nothing else it was interesting and puts into prospective the timeline between Utah and Az tag grabs.

 

Anyway, seems SFW promoted the Mule deer foundation into the role of Co sponsor of the Western hunting and conservation expo, in Salt Lake. Possibly this is the expo that the AZSFW was trying to emulate and copy. Check the link.

 

http://www.huntexpo.com/exhibit.php

 

Here's what nags at me and it may be fine and there may be a good reason...

 

An Az mule deer governor tag is auction at the expo in salt lake by MDF and SFW, along with a ton of other tags, some from other states. The better the tags they can offer the better their expo and the clientele they attract, the more money they can bring in... I imagine they must send the money back here, excluding the 10% they charge on tag sales?

 

Why isn't this tag auctioned off at one of our banquets ADA, ADBSS ect or the AZG&F expo, bringing in the money and more importantly the prestige to our orgs?

 

There is a history of SFW and an Az tag... times that by 350 if they have their way.

 

This is not over or can be ignored.

 

Kent

The ADA opposed the selling of tags through the MDF in an out of state venue. Commissioners who were on the Commission 3 and 4 years ago were talked to and the only concern that they had was "Where will our tag bring the most money". And that is a direct quote. There is no 10% fee that any organization can charge. Every penny has to be sent back to the AZGFD. There can be no surcharge. Legal opinion of the state, not mine. The history is between the MDF and the Commissioners. Personally I wanted the tags sold here.... including the Coues tag, but the Nappy commissioners were not in favor at that time. BPJ

[krp]

Thank you for the response John, good info. I did figure it was that they may get an extra bit at a bigger venue, but the prestige and attendance is just as valuable, even more so and the same people that go to Salt lake to buy that tag will come here.

 

Seems they collect a 10% fee off all the Utah tags as stated in one of their articles... glad to hear they can't keep any Az money, 10% would be an easy chunk.

 

http://www.sfw.net/2011/07/15/283k-donated/

 

Salt Lake City, Utah – Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife (SFW) and the Mule Deer Foundation presented a check for $283,500 to the Utah Division of State Parks and Recreation for wildlife habitat improvement and management work on Antelope Island State Park which is located in the Great Salt Lake. The funds were raised from the auction of a Mule Deer tag and a California Bighorn Sheep tag to be hunted on the Island this fall. The tags were auctioned last February at the Western Hunting and Conservation Expo (WHCE) held in Salt Lake City. The Mule Deer Tag sold for $265,000 and the Sheep tag sold for $50,000. The WHCE retains 10% of the sale price.

 

Kent

[javihammer]

Kent or John or whoever knows the answer.

 

I noticed many non-profit organizations have lots of “for profit” people on their boards and part of their leadership. AZGFD charges “for profit” businesses a significant amount of money for draw applicant data (could be $500-1000 a year). Non-profits are not charged for this information. Does anyone know how AZGFD makes sure non-profits secure their data in such a way that members with “for profit” interests are unable to access it or pass it along to others. I realize there are probably laws in place that restrict this but I was curious if anyone knew of any specific controls that are in place to prevent it. I would think that it would raise a flag if some of the more prominent hunting related businesses weren’t requesting this information on a regular basis, especially if they have people with ties to non-profit groups. I guess this is probably a Brian Wakeling question.

 

John, I disagree with you on just about everything but respect your diligence in being the human shield for AZSFW. I think the fact that noone from the AZSFW has come forward to help you publicly speak to these issues when things got hot shows a lack of character on their part. There is only one guy on the AZSFW board that understands the intricacies of the draw process well enough to craft a bill with the number of landmines that HB2072 had. That guy was smart enough to jump out of this debate early (he has ALL kinds of financial interests at stake) and have Amanda pull his comments in support of the bill. That guy and the rest of the AZSFW crew aren’t worth the abuse and it is sad to see a nice guy absorb shots on their behalf.

 

Ryan

[bonuspointjohn]

Kent or John or whoever knows the answer.

 

I noticed many non-profit organizations have lots of “for profit” people on their boards and part of their leadership. AZGFD charges “for profit” businesses a significant amount of money for draw applicant data (could be $500-1000 a year). Non-profits are not charged for this information. Does anyone know how AZGFD makes sure non-profits secure their data in such a way that members with “for profit” interests are unable to access it or pass it along to others. I realize there are probably laws in place that restrict this but I was curious if anyone knew of any specific controls that are in place to prevent it. I would think that it would raise a flag if some of the more prominent hunting related businesses weren’t requesting this information on a regular basis, especially if they have people with ties to non-profit groups. I guess this is probably a Brian Wakeling question.

 

John, I disagree with you on just about everything but respect your diligence in being the human shield for AZSFW. I think the fact that noone from the AZSFW has come forward to help you publicly speak to these issues when things got hot shows a lack of character on their part. There is only one guy on the AZSFW board that understands the intricacies of the draw process well enough to craft a bill with the number of landmines that HB2072 had. That guy was smart enough to jump out of this debate early (he has ALL kinds of financial interests at stake) and have Amanda pull his comments in support of the bill. That guy and the rest of the AZSFW crew aren’t worth the abuse and it is sad to see a nice guy absorb shots on their behalf.

 

Ryan

Hi Ryan, When a "list" becomes available to a non profit group, the list is typically in a format that is forwarded to a "mailhouse" to send out whatever information the non profit group is attempting to send. The board never sees the actual list per say. That list is immediately sent to the mailhouse, usually in a spreadsheet basis on disk, where they merge any documents that are being mailed out.The mailhouse is under fairly strict requirements to never release the list to anyone. The group that was responsible for sending out a mailer, then gets a re-cap of how many pieces were mailed and what the postage and prep work costs. I have been involved with a lot of lists, and have never visually seen them. I understand the question and know how boards work. In 20 plus years of being on boards and working banquets and raffles, I have never seen a list....J

[elkaholic]

- please read ! sfw influence on hunting

http://www.hcn.org/blogs/range/alaska-wildlife-woes-raise-red-flags-outside