A New Bill

[mikaele]

I'm not savvy on the whole political process, but have been learning. Wow what a joke these striker bills are! Anyway, I was thinking today that wouldn't it be worth the discussion and effort to get a new bill to be introduced at the start of the next session that would prohibit this from happening again. For example, passing into law that the disbursment of big game tags would need approval from the AZGFD commision. Something along the lines of giving responsibility of this to someone we trust and not a legislator that has no knowledge about the subject.

[coueshunter]

I think that would be a great idea.....allen....

[audsley]

Not likely you'd get support in the legislature. You'd be asking them to relinquish authority to the commission. They don't like anything that diminishes their own authority. Lately certain parties have been encouraging the legislature to take a more active role in managing the details of wildlife and hunting policy. In order to get the legislature to go for a law like that, we'd need to do some persuasive educating, and I'm not sure the effort would be successful especially with the current legislature.

[Snapshot]

.......Plus the Government, in whatever form, likes to complicate simple things!

[Ringer]

The best way in this state is through a ballot initiative. Call on a public interest group to find out how to get petitions signed and frame it as a bill to prevent the whoring of a public resource and I bet it would pass. People hate those nasty, rich 1%'ers trying to steal Bambi. It would get broad support and how can AZSFW advertise against it? We want to sell tags to rich guys to kill the King's deer?

[Non-Typical Solutions]

Funny, my simple mind thought that the AZGF was already in charge of disbursement of all tags??

That is where I apply for tags!!!!

Reminds me of HB1070.....I thought we already had laws to take care of immigration........I dunno.....over thinkin I guess........

[audsley]

Some quick facts related to the statements above.

 

First, a ballot initiative is very expensive. Signature-gathering costs a couple million bucks. You would probably need a sponsor with deep pockets.

 

You could dodge the petition expense by persuading the legislature to refer the measure to the ballot (referendum), but it's doubtful the legislature would support it. (Refer to my earlier comment above.)

 

Yes, the commission is currently in charge of issuing all big game tags, but the legislature has the power to take on that activity if it chooses to. Maybe some of you will recall that during the Prop 109 (Right to Hunt) campaign, opponents from Sierra Club and Animal Defense League of Arizona argued that Prop 109 would put the legislature in charge of wildlife instead of the commission. The reality is that the legislature is - and always has been - the supreme legal authority over wildlife in Arizona. The legislature created the Az Game & Fish Commission 80 years ago, delegated specific authority and can take that authority back any time it wants. The legislature could dissolve the commission tomorrow and take over all its functions.

 

The actions of certain parties to take wildlife and hunting issues to the legislature, by-passing the commission, is against the long-term interests of sportsmen and wildlife. State wildlife commissions were established across the nation after experience showed that politics and wildlife don't mix well. Somebody is always working the issue to their advantage. The proper route to recovering and maintaining healthy wildlife populations was deemed to be the independent game commission guided by a staff of professionals trained in law enforcement and the biological sciences. That system is critical to what has made America's wildlife conservation program great.

 

Now we're seeing people who have no apparent understanding or respect for that system wanting to tear it down and replace it with something that works better for them. While the commission-agency system is rooted in science and logic, politics runs on emotion and competition for resources. AZSFW wants to manage wildlife and hunting policy through the legislature, which means backroom deals brokered by compromise and collusion with other special interests. And it's a private organization that does not need to reveal its finances or be answerable in any way to the Arizona sportsmen. That's why it needs to go.

[rthrbhntng]

+1000

 

Excellent post Larry, thanks for putting this info out.

 

I was briefed on a way that the this tag grab could be attached to another bill in the following weeks and still get through if not caught and aggressively fought.

Do you have any info on how they can attach this circus to another bill as an amendment and the time frames for doing so?

Steve

[audsley]

I understand there are several tricks that can be played, striker amendments being only one. AZSFW's inner circle knows the various mechanic's tricks that can be used, and I expect we will see one or more tried. What is needed are eyes and ears around the legislature who can spot one of these moves in its early stages and alert everyone. We do have some eyes and ears in place, but we'll all have to act fast when word gets out.

 

I would suggest people write their emails and phone call scripts in advance and have them ready. I'd also suggest using a generic term such as "Elite Wildlife Tags Bill" that would cover any future variation of 2072 but under a different bill number. I would put that in emails titles and refer to any new bill number in the body of the message.

 

Phone calls are also important.