coueshunter Report post Posted February 9, 2012 Kent, I talked with Vince and now know what/where the connection is. You really went out of your way on his 3A/3C hunt. Yeah on this 2072 it really brings back all the research I did a few years back. I was assured and assured again that nothing like Utah would happen and yet it feels like Utah SFW with this bill. Now absolute assurances/contractual need to be in place with any "lobbying group" before I am comfortable. Everyone keeps mentioning how much money is needed to support the lobbying, but if we dont protect how the lobbyists spend the money, it wont matter how much we raise. Oversight Oversight Oversight will be a very key issue..............Allen Taylor.............. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
runningbird Report post Posted February 9, 2012 Do other groups have lobbyist? Do we really need a lobbyist, or are lobbyist telling us we need lobbyist. I look at what Suzanne Gilstrap has done the past few weeks and am very nervous about lobbyist. Does the AZGFD have a lobbyist? Would need or be allowed to have one? I have a feeling that a few organizations put there trust in Suzanne and that doesn't seem to have worked out well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chef Report post Posted February 9, 2012 The anti's have lobbyists, and lawyers, and volunteers, and money... We just need the right ones. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rthrbhntng Report post Posted February 9, 2012 See how this sounds Allen. The key is "what is the hidden agenda". Even if you have oversight, if you don't know the agenda of the group or principles in the group, then thinking you have oversight is useless. My thoughts are that we need to have lobbyist that will represent the group, the group also needs to communicate with it's members and the sportsmen that take the time to want to be informed. The lobbyist needs to keep the group informed on legislation that is important to the mission of the group. The group needs to discuss and formulate whether they support, are neutral, or oppose the legislation. The group then informs the lobbyist to represent the group at the legislature, this includes speaking the position of the group and maybe discussing issues with the legislators. At the legislature a person that is not a registered lobbyist cannot speak for a group. It is also important to involve everyone to log in and register their position on the issue separately. But to speak for a group at the Committee hearings we have to have a lobbyist. The problem I see is when the lobbyist is hired to run legislation for the group and then doesn't communicate with the group and the people they say they represent, but does communicate with the hidden agenda people. Many of the anti-hunting groups have agendas that they put on the table then they have a hidden agenda, most time the hidden agenda is a long term plan to chip away at their enemies. This is is the part that is hard to decipher, we need to make sure, if there is one, that the hidden agenda is what the populace wants. This may be confusing but I thought I would like to see if it is a start. Steve Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
runningbird Report post Posted February 9, 2012 Is it possible for several groups who have common goals,ideas to share a lobbyist? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rthrbhntng Report post Posted February 9, 2012 Yes as long as the goals and agendas are the same. Even if a little different it should work to split the cost. The Arizona Elk Society does the same thing with a wildlife biologist that we use. We share the letters and info with other groups to make it easier for the other groups to comment. It works much better than a group speaking for all of us. The way it should work is to form a partnership that benefits each group and combines the message. The problem is when egos and agendas get in the way. Steve Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
coueshunter Report post Posted February 9, 2012 Steve, I couldnt agree with you more. One of the "unspoken" issues/turn offs with alot of groups is the hidden agenda. I think many people dont want to belong to any conservation group formally just because of the "hidden agenda" many of the members have. Having said that, if all the conservation groups just get back to "wildlife conservation" and not multiple hidden agendas, life will be easier. Any joint lobbyist must be speaking for the group as a whole and not 1 or 2 individuals with "hidden agenda's". Also the lobbyist shouldnt go off on their own agenda, they must support the conservation groups............Allen........... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CouesWhitetail Report post Posted February 9, 2012 Hey, can you guys give me an idea of who is coming to the meeting Feb 21st? We are trying to make sure we have enough space/chairs and have a layout that makes sense for the amount of people coming. So if you can let me know if you are coming, that would be great. You can post here in this thread or call me personally or PM me if you don't want to post it here. 928-200-0544. And again, the meeting is so you all can come give input to the ADA on the issues related to HB2072 and AZSFW. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
coueshunter Report post Posted February 10, 2012 I will be there...allen Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
runningbird Report post Posted February 10, 2012 I'll be there has well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chef Report post Posted February 10, 2012 I will be there. I hope to see the fine gun room at Bass Pro filled to capacity. It would speak volumes if people would actually show up. Otherwise it's the "same old story" and people only talk the talk. It would send a clear message to the ADA and the others looking at this, that when people get pushed, they'll push back. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
javihammer Report post Posted February 11, 2012 I agree with Chef, numbers matter. I will be there. Ryan Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
archerycrazy Report post Posted February 13, 2012 This thread has been running for nearly 10 days. There has been nearly stone cold silence from the leadership of ADA. One post from BPJ. I for one would like to see a clear position statement by ADA before I waste my time on a trip to Phoenix. With a clear position statement well before the meeting it would be much easier to assist ADA in recovering from the damage that has been done to their reputation. Silence can be damning. George Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elkaholic Report post Posted February 13, 2012 well add another week easily off the original thread - we been askin for a while before this thread( a repost)- or like any of the others orgs posting their point of view or comments - surely a few have been here and read all the info - the- lets wait see what the others do first - is whoooozie B.S. attitudes. we see whos got cahoonas and who doesn't already Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
runningbird Report post Posted February 13, 2012 Also notice that only four or five of us have responded to Amanda saying we will be there on the 21st. Won't be hard for them to blow us off and continue on there way. If we want to make a difference people need to show up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
