SB 1223?

[Mountainman99]

Does anyone really know what this is about or is it to make it easier for them to raise tag fees? I keep getting emails that everyone supports it under the pretense that the current licensing system is too hard to understand. Seems like if you can't understand the different fees you probably shouldn't be handling a weapon... I wish they would give some example of how they can make it easier. For some reason I feel they just want to make it easier for them to change the prices which usually means up with the government.

[Couzer]

I read the email as well and it also sounded like they could increase license.

Where are the lawyers at on this site? Maybe they could chime in

[metau]

SB 1223

 

In a nut shell, it would give the commission the ability to change the fees for both watercraft and hunting/fishing licenses, as well as the dates of an annual license. Fees collected cannot exceed 50% greater than the total collected in fiscal year 2012-2013.

 

A few things to think about:

 

1-The commission would be able to drop fees on leftover tags near the start of the season, possibly even making them free, in an effort to get people out, possibly in connection with promoting youth hunters, etc.

 

2-The commission could change fees, up or down, at anytime, including after the printing of the regulations, and/or right before a deadline.

 

3-All future budgets of the AZGFD would effectively be capped. As it's main source of funding is from the sale of licenses, tags and stamps, the wording on the limitations would limit any future budgets for the department to a max of 50% greater than this(past?) fiscal year.

 

4-Unlicensed youth under 14 would no longer be able to hunt with a licensed hunter over 18.

 

5-Removes the requirement for hunters under 14 to have gone through hunter education.

 

My thoughts- I am all for the flexibility to offer discounted fees on leftover tags, especially for the purpose of getting new/youth hunters out in the field. However, I also realize that times change and costs rise, not to mention inflation, and accept the fact that the cost of of hunting and fishing will only go up with time. I love taking out young hunters, and forcing them to buy a license first would keep most of them out of the field. Also, I'm all for more hunter education, not less. My biggest concern is actually with the limitations clause. While I see it as an intent to keep the commission in check from 'jacking' up prices, which is a good thing, I ultimately believe that the wording in it will hurt both the department and our shared public resources, the animals we all love to hunt and fish for. I would venture to guess that the current budget is 50% more than what it was 20 or 30 years ago. Would that mean we start losing biologists and managers within a generation or two? How would the loss of personnel effect the management of our herds? If less people apply, do they raise prices? If too many people apply, do they lower prices? What happens if the funds they receive exceed the 150% cap? Do they stop selling licenses and tags? Do they issues partial refunds? Is everything the rest of the year free?

 

Unfortunately, this bill is very poorly written. I believe that there were(are) good intentions behind this bill, but as written I personally cannot support this bill.

[Stimie]

I'd suggest reading the bill- http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/1r/bills/sb1223s.pdf

In response to metau

1. Agreed - only requires one commission meeting but director has to recommend to the commission

2. Other than as mentioned in #1 this requires a number of public meetings comment periods and 2 or more commission meetings.

3. Close enough. The bill has a specific year however.

4. ? Where do you get this? The commission has to se the age of who needs a license in rule. As I understand it there was 13 definitions of youth and now there is one

5. ? List a page and line number

 

At the very least read the bill.....

[metau]

Stimie,

17-335 Subection B and C have been proposed to be stricken from this section of Arizona Revised Statute. I am unaware of this verbiage being present in any other statute.

 

Sec. 17. Section 17-335, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

17-335. Blind resident; fishing license exemption

A. A blind resident or a resident or nonresident under the age of fourteen years may fish without a license and shall be IS entitled to the same privileges as the holder of a valid license. , except that such person shall be entitled only to one‑half the legal bag and possession limit of trout.

B. A resident or nonresident under the age of fourteen years may, without a license, when accompanied by a person eighteen years of age or older holding a valid Arizona hunting license, take wildlife, except big game species, during open season, but not more than two such children shall accompany a person holding such a license.

C. No child under the age of fourteen may take big game unless the child has satisfactorily completed the Arizona hunter education course or another comparable hunter education course that is approved by the director.

 

On the link you provided, it would be page 12, line 39 through page 13, line 3. While I did not read everything, I did read everything in blue being added and everything in red being stricken, plus about half of the stuff in black not being altered. I could have missed something. If you read something to the contrary that I missed would you please list it? Thank you.

[1uglydude]

Stimie,

17-335 Subection B and C have been proposed to be stricken from this section of Arizona Revised Statute. I am unaware of this verbiage being present in any other statute.

 

Sec. 17. Section 17-335, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

17-335. Blind resident; fishing license exemption

A. A blind resident or a resident or nonresident under the age of fourteen years may fish without a license and shall be IS entitled to the same privileges as the holder of a valid license. , except that such person shall be entitled only to one‑half the legal bag and possession limit of trout.

B. A resident or nonresident under the age of fourteen years may, without a license, when accompanied by a person eighteen years of age or older holding a valid Arizona hunting license, take wildlife, except big game species, during open season, but not more than two such children shall accompany a person holding such a license.

C. No child under the age of fourteen may take big game unless the child has satisfactorily completed the Arizona hunter education course or another comparable hunter education course that is approved by the director.

 

On the link you provided, it would be page 12, line 39 through page 13, line 3. While I did not read everything, I did read everything in blue being added and everything in red being stricken, plus about half of the stuff in black not being altered. I could have missed something. If you read something to the contrary that I missed would you please list it? Thank you.

 

The reason you see some of those items stricken is because they would now be handled by Commission order or rule, rather than by statute. Note that the transfer of tags still requires children under 14 to have hunters education. You'll likely see a Commission rule that keeps that requirement in place for all big game hunters under 14 years old.

 

One of the goals of the legislation is to make it easier to get kids involved, but there is no way they would completely eliminate the education requirement.

[Stimie]

See 17-101 definitions:

12. "LICENSE CLASSIFICATION" MEANS A TYPE OF LICENSE, PERMIT, TAG OR STAMP AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS TITLE AND PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSION BY RULE TO TAKE, HANDLE OR POSSESS WILDLIFE.

 

The commission in rule would prescribe who is eligible for the license, age requirements, what the privileges are etc

 

As for unlicensed youth because it is simply struck from statute the statute is silent therefore it is permissible (don't need an adult with you). Of course there are other statutes governing firearms and youth that may dictate if a youth can be by themselves with a rifle....,

[CouesWhitetail]

AGFD asked me to post this information to help people understand this bill.

 

 

 

For those who may not have been following SB 1223 (the license simplification bill), we encourage you to read the informational brochure and the FAQs on the Arizona Game and Fish website at www.azgfd.gov/LicenseSimplification. A link to the bill language is also posted on that web page. Those materials will hopefully give you a better understanding of the bill and its benefits, dispel some misconceptions, and answer most of your questions.

 

The Department has been engaging with the public on this since last October. The bill is supported by 24 sportsmen’s organizations. It passed the Arizona Senate on March 6 and the Arizona House on April 15 and is due to be transmitted to the Governor for her consideration.

 

If the Governor signs the bill, the next step will be that the Arizona Game and Fish Department will present a conceptual license structure and fee schedule to the Arizona Game and Fish Commission for its consideration at a publicly noticed meeting. The Department will then present it to the public at various public meetings held around the state. We encourage everyone to attend these meetings, ask questions and provide input. Keep in mind that the concepts will just be a starting point for discussion. We’ll want to know what you think.

 

More information and a meeting schedule will be posted at www.azgfd.gov/LicenseSimplification as they become available, and notifications will also be sent out via our e-news.

 

To correct one misconception mentioned in this thread, the bill does not change the requirement for those under 14 (ages 10-13) to complete hunter education to hunt big game. That requirement stays the same and is currently in Game and Fish rule – see R12-4-104(.

[Hornhunter247]

I am excited that this finally made it through! The azgfd does need to be flexible to some point on what they can do as far as raising and lower fee's for different needs. And I am praying that they finally change the license year to a set up like nm has. 4-1 thru 3-31 of each year.

[1uglydude]

I am excited that this finally made it through! The azgfd does need to be flexible to some point on what they can do as far as raising and lower fee's for different needs. And I am praying that they finally change the license year to a set up like nm has. 4-1 thru 3-31 of each year.

 

 

The current proposal being kicked around would be for a license that is good for 365 days from the date you buy it...like they do in Utah.

[Mountainman99]

Thanks for the link and the other comments. They helped understand what's going on.

[StickFlicker]

I would like to see the big game bag limits changed to something other than a calendar year (for exampble 7/01-6/30. It sucks taking a deer in January and then not being able to hunt again all through the fall (since most years won't yield a drawn tag for any other species). If the bag limits went from mid-year to mid-year, a person could take one deer in the winter hunts (Dec-Jan) and then could still hunt deer again after the long hot summer ends and the fall hunting seasons come around.