krp Report post Posted February 17, 2012 Here it is... http://arizonasportsmenforwildlife.org/ Kent Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
4Falls Report post Posted February 17, 2012 Read the letter and have to admit I agree with all four points they made about the future of hunting in AZ. Lately Ive been watching this topic from the sidelines. They (AZSFW) seem to make a good argument. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
utah400elk Report post Posted February 17, 2012 Their argument is a joke. If they really wanted to help wildlife why not mandate money to wildlife. Why have only the left over money, as was stated in HB2072, going to wildlife? These are the same tactics that were used in Utah. Look how that worked out. Millions generated for SFW and no money to wildlife. They claim “For the record, AZSFW is not a chapter nor an affiliate of Utah SFW. Having said that, we do believe they have had very positive impacts on improving wildlife habitat and increasing tags for hunters.” The thing to remember about Utah SFW is that they claim all tag growth in Utah is because of their efforts but claim no responsibility for the decline in tag numbers (i.e. deer herds). I have never taken the time to do the research but it would be very interesting to see what has happened to elk numbers on MT, NM and CO (just look at the 10 years before SFW in MT and NM) and compare the growth numbers in elk tags with Utah with SFW. I would be willing to bet they are very similar. Elk populations have exploded in several areas without SFW. The simple fact is that HB2072 would have given a lot of money to AZ SFW with NO guarantee that AZ would have gotten anything in return. They will now claim they only had good intentions but the proof is in the proposed legislation! Also, why take a month to explain their efforts if they were so good? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
krp Report post Posted February 17, 2012 Problem #1. Loss of Wildlife: Our wildlife herds have been slowly declining or have at best remained status quo over the past 16 years despite significant increases in the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s (AZGFD) annual budget and the efforts of the species conservation organizations to improve their habitat by spending millions over this same period. The tables below shows game and fish budget increases and the number of permits issued and harvests for 1994-2010. We think you will agree that “Rebuilding our wildlife herds is Priority #1”. Problem # 4. Environmental Activists: These groups have been chipping away at the Sportsmen since we can remember (and that’s a long time). When they passed the anti-trapping initiative in 1994 after failing the first time in 1992 Predator control, they have the answer to #1 in #4... but predator control is not a political vehicle. The general public may applaud a catchment for animals but not killing predators. I remember the old timers I grew up with running trap lines and the amount of predators they eliminated, the herds were much bigger, fawn retention much higher. And in fairness it was wetter... Catchments are needed... kill a predator and you save more animals. Trying to sell a conservation policy and fear mongering as the reason to steal politically just T's me off. We understand there are real threats, just this isn't the answer. Kent Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
krp Report post Posted February 17, 2012 Then, if we are threatened by enviro-litigants or their initiatives that have a detrimental impact on wildlife herds, then we would react by allocating the money to deal with it at the time. What is important here is that we would have a stable source of funding so we could plan accordingly. As we see it no one issue is more important than another except our primary goal is to increase our wildlife herds and do everything we can to further our hunting and angling heritage for future generations to enjoy. Now we are right back to my original issue more than a month ago... How can you take tag money and use it to fund political lobbying? and this would open the door for all special interest groups including the Sierra Club ect to demanding or going to court for their own share or additional tags to use for funding, as the precedence will be set... political disaster and our tag system destroyed... Kent Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.270 Report post Posted February 17, 2012 The biggest problem Az has is lack of water. We haven't had much rain for almost 30 years. It always has and always will be what decides Az wildlife populations. No amount of legislation or tags for rich guys can make it rain. Lark. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
krp Report post Posted February 17, 2012 Yep, and lack of rain means less ground cover and less fawn retention... can't save animals that are eaten with more money... it's not like fish that you can grow in a hatchery and then release. Money is needed but also could be managed better, but that's the way of the world. This 350 tag deal was way over the top, a totally different agenda and filled with political pitfalls. Kent Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Snapshot Report post Posted February 17, 2012 The biggest problem Az has is lack of water. We haven't had much rain for almost 30 years. It always has and always will be what decides Az wildlife populations. No amount of legislation or tags for rich guys can make it rain. Lark. Yes Sir. Not enough water, and too much predation. Not a good recipe for increasing wildlife numbers. A few good years of winter/spring rains would be a blessing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SunDevil Report post Posted February 17, 2012 IMO, drought can prevent increase in herd sizes but the REAL problem is with predation. Not a coincidence that a lot of these problems started a couple of years after the 1992 trapping law. just look at the results of the 3 Bar wildlife enclosure (up by lake roosevelt) and study. all we ever hear about from G&F is drought, drought, drought. I am drowning in drought here. They NEVER mention the 3 Bar study on predation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
coueshunter Report post Posted February 17, 2012 Is anyone out there APPALLED at the 137% increase in operating funds on a resource that is dwindling? I mean how can 90 million in budget money be spent when everything is in decline. Wildlife, hunters, tags etc.....all went down and the budget goes up. In business this model wouldnt work. Someone has to take seriously the way the current money is being spent to ensure maximum positive effects are seen on the ground, or no additional money is going to help.........Allen......... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
4Falls Report post Posted February 17, 2012 Not saying Im going to join this group or even like them. Just saying that they make a strong argument even if it is crap. Ill just shut up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rthrbhntng Report post Posted February 17, 2012 There are other issues that affect deer recruitment and you only have to look at areas like Unit 7 where all the fires burned like the Hockdeffer, White Hills and others just off of HWY 180. Also the R/C and 4 Bar Mesa in Unit 27. Habitat needs to be improved but you need fire to recruit forbs that deer eat. In both the unit7 area and R/C area the deer herds did great for about 5 years then started back into a decline. It is now time to burn again. The FS is working with G&F on a plan to reburn much of the area. I hunt in 23 and they have been doing some large controlled burns and I see more and more deer in the burn areas than ever. So drought is a factor, habitat is a factor, predation is a factor, Forest Service fire policy is a factor and the number of deer tags is a factor. Some the best increases in deer populations that I have seen first hand were areas where fire went through and then it rained shortly after. In these cases there was no predator control other than the fire chasing them off temporarily. The AES is part of a monitoring team for aspen issues for the Schulz and Wallow Fire so we will be seeing first hand how those areas do. Working with the AZGFD, Forest Service, ranchers and land owners in cooperation is what is needed. There is no answer that one group can come up with. I don't know if a group that says give us the money and we will fix it will ever work. That was the motto of SFW in Utah and it isn't working. Why even try that here? The most successful model is one where everyone benefits and can get along. AZSFW and AZSFWC would like all the groups to take a backseat, let them have the money, and watch them do it for us. They keep saying that sharing with the groups was part of their plan but they have never played with others well in the sandbox to date. Surely going to the legislature to get something without input from the Commission, AZGFD and groups is not cooperation. It is politics at its worst. It is not a good precedent to circumvent the people and groups you will have to work with in the future. It is a grab of the power and money so you won't have to provide any oversight. Steve Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThomC Report post Posted February 17, 2012 This the part that effenjeff got right: quote "it is crap" unquote. I want the G&F to run the the program, NOT some money grubbing uncontrollable outside group. The Wcrap group are no different than the Anti-hunting groups. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.270 Report post Posted February 17, 2012 The answer is to let competent biologists with the best interest of wildlife in mind make the decisions that need to be made. The azgfd is ran by politicians within and politicians on the outside want run it too. Throw in the tag grabbers and it's a regular 3 ring circus. And all of em together can't make it rain. And rain is the only thing that will bring numbers up. Study up on boom and bust cycles. That'll splain it all. Wildlife must be correctly managed. No amount of bills, laws, politicians or rich guy tags can do it. It has to rain and good people must make right choices. Lark. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
krp Report post Posted February 17, 2012 3rd page... This is why HB 2072 is important and why AZSFW is trying to help solve the problem last paragraph of statement 4.Summary Most of the tags (about 276 of the total) are existing draw tags with special rules giving sportsmen a second opportunity to get drawn separate and apart from the AZGFD draw. Only 54 tags would be reserved for auction, without which we could not raise the money necessary to accomplish the objectives specified in the legislation. In other words, we would be investing in 54 tags a year to help increase our wildlife herd numbers by several thousand. Or we can keep the status quo and continue to reduce the number of permits for sportsmen by approximately 2,000 a year. We respectfully ask for your support in this endeavor. Kent Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
