Prop 106

[Huntin'AZ]

I got this email from supporters of Proposition 106 in AZ. It appears to benefit hunters by conserving more of the State Trust Lands. In addition, it appears that the AZ Game and Fish is supporting the proposition. Does anyone have an opinion about how this will affect hunting opportunities in the state?

 

Prop 106

[dave]

This is a bad deal folks. It is an attempt by preservationists to create more wilderness that is not accessible to hunters. They are confusing people by using the term conservation when how it is really defined is preservation. It could also be argued that the animals within these areas should also be preserved rather than conserved.

Take a look at who is supporting this:

 

Center for Biological Diversity

Sky Island Alliance

 

I have not seen or heard that the Game & Fish Department supports this in any way.

It is a "feal good" thing that many people may vote for because they have no clue of how this could really hurt our future.

I won’t be one of them.

[billrquimby]

This is a bad deal folks. It is an attempt by preservationists to create more wilderness that is not accessible to hunters. They are confusing people by using the term conservation when how it is really defined is preservation. It could also be argued that the animals within these areas should also be preserved rather than conserved.

Take a look at who is supporting this:

 

Center for Biological Diversity

Sky Island Alliance

 

I have not seen or heard that the Game & Fish Department supports this in any way.

It is a "feal good" thing that many people may vote for because they have no clue of how this could really hurt our future.

I won’t be one of them.

 

Nor will I.

 

Bill Quimby

[Diamondbackaz]

I'm voting no

 

Go to: http://www.saveourtrust.org/

[bowsniper]

This is a bad deal folks. It is an attempt by preservationists to create more wilderness that is not accessible to hunters.

 

I have admit that I haven't read the proposition yet, but I'll chime in anyway. I always get a good laugh when some guys on this list go off half cocked and panicked against anything that might involve a tree hugger group. When are you guys going to figure out that the biggest threat to your hunting is loss of wildlife habitat. IT'S THE HABITAT, STUPID! (Not to call anyone stupid, but just to use the catch phrase) Most tree hugger groups are neutral on hunting. The only people I see worried about habitat are the so called preservationist tree huggers, who are different groups from the anti-hunting, "animal rights", or PETA groups.

 

Dave, unless someone is a road hunter not wanting to get out of his truck, since when is "wilderness not accessible to hunters"? I hear a lot of guys on this list gripe about "too many hunters in the field" and "some unethical hunter jumped my spot". I guarantee you that if you hike a few miles into a wilderness area, you'll have the place to yourself to hunt. More wilderness is a good thing, it conserves habitat and increases choices where guys can hunt to get away from the road and quad hunters.

 

Mark

[dave]

Mark,

 

I guess I missed you at some of the Commission meetings. I do take offense to what you just said. Sure, you are young and can get around. Good for you. Read all the stuff and then tell me you get a kick out of how you plan to presearve hunting and I will go hunting, stop fighting and leave it up to you.

 

This is not just about wilderness, it is also about how we define things and how a lawyer may define them.

 

I will copy and paste a couple of comments I have read for you all to read.

 

Begin first quote:

 

"What I don't like about Prop 106 based on the legislative council analysis.....

 

1. A board of educators whose costs will be paid out of the proceeds of sale of state lands. This gives these new political appointees an incentive to sell. And will they then be allowed to compensate themselves? Why are not sportsman's interests being represented by one or more members of the G&F commission on board or other selected members of the outdoor community. I don’t trust the AEA or the NEA and this would turn a great deal of power over "our" land to high placed members of that fraternity.

 

2. Who chooses the "conservation reserve?" And is the same board as above the ones who manage it? Some revenue from leases may be realized? Vague.....and where would it go...? What role does G&F and outdoor activists play in this?

 

3. The "conservation reserve" is not "required" to be accessible to the public. Why not?

 

May be conveyed to the Bd of Regents ... up to 50 acres

my be built on.....50 out of 640,000 or multiple 50 acre sites.

 

Why are the cattlemen protected from a conveyance and why to governmental agencies without payment? With no limits?

 

d. is vague and ambiguous, and could well be abused. Why should this provisional land not also have some permanent protection and who makes the decision vis a vis permanent vs provisional?

 

4. Why should the land be allowed to be sold for less than the highest return to the state trust? Unintended consequences could result from favoritism. Will this create another Abramoff type fiasco.

 

5. Creates an ability to deal with profit making ventures that may not lie with the intent of the preservation of this land for conservation purposes.

 

6. Talk about vague....

 

7. Confusing and I don’t like the part about not being accessible to the public.

 

8. And who is getting paid to administer, manage and dispose.....? The new Board?

 

 

This is a feel good measure, but with unpredictable consequences that, I believe, could create a political plum for some, and an open avenue for corruption. The public land is ill protected and the so called Board of Trustees is ill conceived with no real oversight until damage is done.

 

 

 

Prop 105 is equally as vague, without controls and bad.

Leases without auction.....? Who benefits from that?

Why reduce the public notice period?

What limits are there on what the county may then do with the land acquired?

4. appears reasonable....granting of public rights of way...

5. why without auction....who benefits from that...no one except the present lessees who may be abusing the land and not paying its fair value.

And on.....it offers little, if any, real protection of the land for conservation purposes, grants too much discretion to the land management agency, and can work to deny public access to land that has been used by the public for outdoor activities in the past. "

 

End first quote.

 

Begin second quote:

 

My read is that both are bad. 105 isn't really supportable in my mind. 106

seems better except it defines "conservation" as "preservation" and denies

access to the public. It further says wildlife, among other named resources,

are to be "conserved" (as defined in the definitions section) on those

designated lands. Read it yourself. I think if it got to court if passed, it

would be defined that those lands are not huntable because wildlife is to be

"preserved" on all of them and the public can be denied access to them

anyway. Everyone should look for the hook in this as two of the three groups

who authored it are not supporters of hunting. In fact it might be argued

they are against it. The hook is there if you read the definitions closely.

 

Unless enlighted, I am going to vote no to both. I agree that much needs to

be set aside but do we really need state legislated wilderness that can't be

hunted on top of those federal designations that preclude all but the able

bodied from use?

 

I think not.

[Diamondbackaz]

I have admit that I haven't read the proposition yet, but I'll chime in anyway. I always get a good laugh when some guys on this list go off half cocked and panicked against anything that might involve a tree hugger group. Mark

 

Not going half cocked like you since I least read the thing before submitting an opinion. This thing is rediculously long and vague. Congress would also have to get involved to make changes at the federal level.

 

If anyone is unsure of any proposition, the rule of thumb is to always vote against. Years ago, I remember one proposition that a "no" vote actually meant "yes". These things can be sleazzy...

[Huntin'AZ]

My interest in raising this topic was to get answers to the following questions:

 

Which one of these two props, if either, will conserve more land for hunting and will preserve access for hunters?

 

From the responses so far, it appears that those questions may not be easily answered. But if anyone can, I would appreciate it.

 

Thanks!

 

[wetmule]

Sniper you admitedly haven't read the proposal yet you call someone who has and is more informed than you "Stupid", that's a little wack IMO. I agree with Diamondback alot of these proposals that sound good on the surface have alot of very fine print that's tough to read and configured and worded to mislead and confuse and most people won't take the time to read and fully understand them. My vote is no, I don't beleive this will be a good deal for the hunting public.

[40-year-AZ-hunter]

I have not seen or heard that the Game & Fish Department supports this in any way.

 

Dave,

 

I talked to one of the Commissioners a few weeks ago and he happened to mention that the Commission had voted to support 106.

 

NOT ME!

 

Bruce

[bowsniper]

As I said in my post, I have not yet read the proposition. Re-read my post, and you will see that I also did not endorse or discount the proposition. I was trying to express my view that habitat conservation and wilderness are key factors for our hunting future. I do apologize if anyone thought that I was calling anyone stupid, that was not my intent at all. I was trying to use the catch phrase "It's the BLANK, stupid!", that is used to get attention, but not to call anyone stupid. Again, I was not trying calling anyone stupid, and I'm sorry if anyone took it that way.

 

I think that these propositions need to be carefully scrutinized to analyze their effect on hunting and wildlife habitat. I am concerned that some people immediately discount them as bad without researching them because they might be endorsed by a tree hugger group. This happens a lot on this forum as it did on this thread. Something is immediately condemned without analysis, just because it might be associated or supported by an environmental group.

 

Mark

[wetmule]

No offense taken Bow - Usually when someone prefaces their statement with "not to call anyone stupid", someone is about to get called stupid. The same with the preface "No Disrespect" as soon as that preface is uttered - someone is usually about to get disrespected. Back to Prop. 106, personally - "No Disrespect" to Mr. Bruce Babbitt but anything that guy supports, I am automatically against.

[redneck74]

I will say it, I think it is a really stupid move and that it is one more way that the left wingers can screw us...again. They are manipulating liberals.

[dave]

Michael,

The scary part is many conservatives are buying into this "feel good" crap.

 

Bruce,

If that is true, we are more screwed than I thought.

 

Mark,

Thanks for explaining, I understand what you mean. I would like to point out that the Center for Biological Diversity should not be classified as "tree huggers", they are ANTI-HUNTING.

 

Huntin' Az,

I have read everything I have been able to get my hands on about these two props., which includes over 25 pages of opinions pro and con. I have to say that while 105 may offer something for wildlife it still has cons and I wouldn't want to consider it. 106 like I said before is totally bad news.

[dave]

Bruce,

We had a meeting tonight attended by one of the Commissioners and I am sorry to say you are correct. They voted 4-1 to support prop 106 at the last Commission meeting. We are in for some interesting times with this Commission.