Yuma Valley Rod and Gun Club Position Statement

[archerycrazy]

Yuma Valley Rod and Gun Club Position Statement on HB 2072

 

HB 2072 was a bill that was intended to force our Game and Fish Department to give, just under 350 premium Big Game Tags to a “qualified” organization. Premium Big Game tags have fewer restrictions on harvest, are coveted by Sportsmen, and have an actual value that is higher than the face value of a regular tag. As HB 2072 was written, only one organization would qualify. That organization is Arizona Sportsmen for Wildlife Conservation (AZSFWC) a 501c3, an affiliate of Arizona Sportsmen for Wildlife (AZSFW).

If the original bill had passed, the Game and Fish Department would receive $35,000 to cover administrative costs and the price of the tags. The value of some 350 Premium Tags is projected AT AUCTION to be in the millions To be clear, these tags will be taken from the draw where regular hunters apply for a chance to harvest trophy class game at an affordable price that has been set by the Commission and the Legislature. Because of the high demand for these tags, the average hunter often waits many years to be selected from the random draw. Thus the overwhelming rejection of this concept by the tens of thousands (plus) hunters who don’t have the financial resources to purchase these tags outright at auction and will see even less chance of being drawn since the coveted tags will be diverted from the common draw to the rich man’s auction.

The original intent was to establish a new Sportsman’s Expo and banquets in order to auction or raffle these tags. However we currently have two Expositions and multiple banquets that are not funded by the sale of Public Assets (tags). The International Sportsman’s Expo and the Game and Fish Expo are the two current expositions.

Under HB 2072 the funds generated by the auction or raffle of these tags will be disbursed in the following order:

1. “To cover all costs associated with the annual sportsmen exposition in this state and any county chapter banquets at which rights to tags are auctioned or raffled”. This would include all advertizing and other administrative costs.

2. “To sustain or create sportsmen education and outdoor programs for youth of this state.”

3. “To facilitate access for sportsmen to cross private lands onto public land.”

4. “To sustain or enhance habitat in this state and to increase targeted species populations for deer, sheep, elk, pronghorn (antelope), and turkey in this state.”

5. “To facilitate public education and communication programs relating to sportsmen and wildlife issues.”

6. “To conduct other programs or activities that, promote concepts consistent with the North American Modal of Wildlife Conservation.”

My rebuttal is as follows:

1. The Arizona Game and Fish Commission, currently provides thirty (30) Big Game Tags to numerous organizations that qualify under their criteria. The tags provided result in direct revenue to the Department exceeding one (1) million dollars annually. The administrative costs are very limited.

2. The Department has no obligation to advertise the auction or raffle of these tags other than the current Game and Fish sponsored “Supper Raffle”.

3. The organizations that currently auction or raffle these tags bear most of the administrative expense as well as the costs associated with advertising and promoting.

4. Currently, EVERY PENNY garnered via the auction or raffle of these tags is returned to Game and Fish Department.

The six items presented above, as the intent of this bill are currently programs that the Game and Fish Department funds.

We have learned that the proponents of HB 2072 intend to amend the original bill. They are now offering to cap administrative costs to 10% where there was no cap before. They are also offering to negotiate with the Game and Fish Department and “offer up to 30% of the net proceeds to augment their hunter recruitment program if they endorse this legislation.”

I call to your attention the final paragraph. A cap of 10% exceeds that of the current administrative cost for the Department. Negotiate down to 30% from 100% only if the Department agrees to endorse the bill?

 

Finally, it appears the HB 2072 or any similar bill would be a violation of Article 9, Section 7, which

states:

 

“Neither the state, nor any county, city, town, municipality, or other subdivision of the state shall ever give or loan its credit in the aid of, or make any donation or grant, by subsidy or otherwise, to any individual, association, or corporation, or become a subscriber to, or a shareholder in, any company or corporation, or become a joint owner with any person, company, or corporation, except as to such ownerships as may accrue to the state by operation or provision of law or as authorized by law solely for investment of the monies in the various funds of the state.”

 

The bottom line is that the concept of HB 2072 amounts to a diversion of public assets…..assets that some 300,000 Sportsmen hold dear.

[Elkhunter1]

What I have read is very informative but I don't see where the "POSITION" is stated. Does this post mean YVRGC is apposed to HB2072.

[archerycrazy]

What I have read is very informative but I don't see where the "POSITION" is stated. Does this post mean YVRGC is apposed to HB2072.

[archerycrazy]

Adamantly!

[archerycrazy]

http://www.azgfc.org/guest1.htm This a link to a guest post on Commissioner Freeman's new website. It's a good read.

 

George

[SpeedGoat]

The YVRGC is adamantly opposed to HB 2072 and any legislation like it.

[Elkhunter1]

The YVRGC is adamantly opposed to HB 2072 and any legislation like it.

 

That's very good to hear!!!