The meeting

[KGAINES]

It's funny how many people will show up to the banquets, ADA, RMEF, AES, we donate money, we buy raffle tickets, and support these large groups. That is not a bad thing, it is a very good thing, but when two or three members of each of these groups show up for the meetings, they are written off as represinting themselves and using the group to bolster their opinion, if a few hundred from each of these groups showed up it would be a lot harder to write off. If I can go to a banquet, I can go to a meeting, all I have to donate is time and all I can win is my hunting future, I think it is worth it.

[dave]

Keith,

 

Commissioner Mc Lean and commissioner Hernbrode seem to have partied up with their agenda's.

 

This is the World Wide Web and these words will go out to the world forever.

 

None of our Commissioners now bowhunt. It seems they all hunt with guns. That is a good thing. I think most of them also fish. That is a good thing.

 

What is not a good thing is to think that everyone wants to do what they do and think the way they think.

 

I am glad that at least these guys hunt and fish. Our new Commissioner coming in this month has never hunted. Will she be persuaded by the others? Will she be able to understand what her supporting constituency thinks?

 

I am just saying this because Mc Lean and Hernbrode have definite aggressive agendas to achieve their own desires if you were listening. They also may be more pro firearms than bowhunting. I hope this new Commissioner will be objective without a personal agenda.

[peloncillo]

All these posts on this have opened my eyes. I realize now that I have been ignorant of the way G&F runs things. Like Keith said earlier I thought hunts were run by biologists surveying habitat conditions and the animal populations. I didn't think politics played any role in it. I love hunting in Arizona and did not have any problems with the way hunts have been ran. When I learned that G&F wanted to change the hunt structure I assumed there were sound reasons for doing so. We all know what happens when you assume. My wife and I took the deer survey with the understanding that it would be a valuable input for the Commisioners. When they dismissed the survey and after reading all the posts I know now I need to attend the meetings. Hopefully someone here can post when and where they are and we can make a difference.

 

Keven

[AZP&Y]

Peloncillo - I agree with what you're saying.

 

As a life long Arizona resident, I believed things were going to be improved and that AZG&F would listen to the survey, public input and weigh that instead of dismissing the survey.

 

Both Keith and Dave have opened my eyes as to what is really happening. No more letters - a personal appearance will be required to 1) gain a true understanding of the objectives and 2) Offer a face with the opinion (hopefully hundreds of faces).

 

I can smell the dead deer carcass beginning to rot in the hot summer air and the coyote beginning to press his nose high in the air to gain its wiff.... and it smells of an Archery Draw for deer. The department has hinted of it's stench.... The result will not be the same as the reduction in December Coues tags, but a removal of the predator.... Cleanly and Justly.

 

As you know the PREDATOR is not the king of the desert...

 

AzP&Y

Doug

[coueshunter]

I am real scared that the next major issue will be landowner tags. One of the guys on the commission (Hembrode) I believe is from Colorado dept of wildlife and worked for years putting the Colorado landowner tag system in place. I really feel this will pop up later this year and will go through if we dont show up at meetings and politic against it. Landowner tags have been brought up over the years and there already is a plan in place, system in place being pushed by people and it wont take much for our commissioners/governor to support it to gain the votes of the farming/ranching community and political clout. I come from a ranching family so I have nothing against that segment of our society, I just dont think in Arizona the landowner tag program is a reasonable program............Allen Taylor.......

[DesertBull]

Speaking of which, what is the latest on AZ SFW? Are they taking membership yet?

[CouesWhitetail]

Yes, I believe AZ Sportsmen For Wildlife is taking memberships. If anyone is interested, I suggest emailing Pete Cimellaro pcimellaro@cox.net

[SunDevil]

So will AZ SFW be pushing for landowner tags? Or will their main objective be to organize, unite and represent all the different wildlife organizations in AZ. If it is the first, then we need to work to keep them out now. Just curious. CB

[CouesWhitetail]

Here is some info on SFW mission from the membership brochure that Pete gave me. Hopefully it will show well enough for you to read it.

 

[dave]

I don?t believe AzSFW will be supporting landowner tags. Several of the people I trust the most will be on their board. The good thing is that the way the board is constructed; I don't think anything kinky such as land owner tags could occur.

 

I think this idea is totally out of the question. I am sorry to still hear that some identify land owner tags with AzSFW.

 

If you have kept up on some of the politics going on, you would see that the AzSFW folks have been behind supporting making our 10% cap become a state law or statute. Why would a group that wants to have landowner tags want to support residents? Wouldn't such a group want to bring in non-residents?

 

All I know is that for now, I trust the ones that are working in this group.

 

I don't blame anyone for having reservations about this. We need to always test everything that comes our way and make sure it is true. So far, I believe this is a true blue thing and I support it.

[KGAINES]

I do have a couple of questions, if somebody has the answers I would appreciate it. Is this solely an Arizona organization, are there any out of state or political influences.

Amanda I see a forthcoming events calander on the bottom of the web page, is there any way to keep us informed about future meetings that way, or if anyone knows of an upcoming meeting do we just start a new topic so that everyone here knows about it beforehand. Good Luck All and God Bless

[DesertBull]

If you have kept up on some of the politics going on, you would see that the AzSFW folks have been behind supporting making our 10% cap become a state law or statute. Why would a group that wants to have landowner tags want to support residents? Wouldn't such a group want to bring in non-residents?

 

 

I don't blame anyone for having reservations about this. We need to always test everything that comes our way and make sure it is true. So far, I believe this is a true blue thing and I support it.

 

The reason people associate landowner tags with SFW is because of the current fiasco in Utah, which was rammed through by their version of SFW.

 

I will play Devil's Advocate here on this one though. The reason a group could be for limiting NR in the draw is that it would make demand for land owner tags even greater. Not saying this is the case, but it would be a reason to limit NR in the draw.

 

When the idea of SFW first surfaced, I was highly sceptical of the intentions, just because of the name association with SFW. They are REALLY into auction tags, to the tune of 25% of all NR tags in UTAH I believe.

[dave]

KGAINES & DesertBull,

 

It is solely an Arizona organization. It does not owe anything to anyone outside Arizona. 10% of the money this organization raises is set aside incase there is ever a need to lobby for a certain issue. This could be a national issue in which they may join forces with other organizations to accomplish. A decision to do this would have to be made by the Board of Directors. They have picked some of the finest and most trusted sportsmen in this state to be on the Board of Directors. I know and respect all of them. I don?t believe anything kinky can come out of this group of people.

 

There are many things that can be learned from what happened with SFW in Utah, some good, some bad. I don?t believe this group wants to make the same mistakes that SFW did in Utah. It is too bad they chose a similar name and have had to deal with the fallout created by Utah?s mistakes.

 

There is nothing wrong with being skeptical and putting things to the test. There is everything right about also recognizing good things that are done and seeing the positive direction this group has taken.

 

Some of the Board members are good friends of mine. They are totally opposed to landowner tags, as in ?over their dead bodys?. This group couldn?t go that direction as long as these folks are involved. The key to having a good organization that is on the right track and doing the right things is to have people involved in that organization that are good people on the right track doing the right things.

 

This is why KGAINES & DesertBull should join the group.

[DesertBull]

I'm in

[coueshunter]

Dave, I respect your dedication. I have concerns about SFW only because of the past track record in Utah, Colorado & Wyoming. It appears that super tags, landowner tags etc. for auction are a big part of Don Peay/SFW's method of raising money. In addition to this, SFW was aligned with Conservation force during the USO fiasco and it appeared that SFW supported the non-resident issue which sat wrong with alot of us AZ residents. I would be totally comfortable with AZ-SFW if there is a legal position statement that assures me there will be no landowner tags nor additional auction tags to raise money for their lobbying efforts. I am pretty sure that any money necessary for ongoing lobbying/operational costs can be covered by the 10% fee SFW charges to all member conservation partners like ADA, antelope foundation, sheep group, yuma groups etc...........I havent went to SFW's website in a couple months, but until today, I have not been able to find any written information about AZ-sfw. Thanks Amanda for posting the above brochure..........Allen............