Governor appoints commisioner after opposition from hunting organizations

[hawkeye]

It goes to show that all of you who thought that this game and fish crap is on the up and up are full of crap. After not getting confirmation in the legislature, our wonderful governor has appointed a non hunter with no experience in such matters as a game commisioner. If you think that letting your left wing tree hugging governor appoint your game and fish commisioners is better than electing them yourself, well I guess I'll be running into to you, while hunting in some other state. After opposition from most of the states hunting organizations our tree hugging governor ignored those concerns and appointed Jennifer Martin to the Game and Fish Commision.

[1couesfanatic]

I started researching Jennifer Martin after reading your post, and I came across this article posted by the NRA that you should read. I have not been able to find anything negative on this individual, but the NRA article doesn't mean she's on the up and up either. I would like to see more history on Jennifer Martin, and I am going to be watching her legislative acitons closely.

 

http://www.asrpa.com/2006_Alerts/02-15-06_JenniferMartin.htm

[KGAINES]

I missed this one, did she get nominated again this year. The issue I have with the nra supporting her is that it just seems fishy, I am not saying she is a bad person, but I do think there are much better candidates out there that are getting overlooked for some reason.

[audsley]

I have a real problem with this statement:

 

"Opposition to a governor's nominee should generally be reserved for those rare occasions when some sort of conflicting ideology is unearthed--such as dogmatic subscription to the animal rights agenda--that could potentially negatively impact hunting or wildlife conservation in Arizona."

 

This is setting the bar pretty low. I expect more of a commissioner than simply not having "a dogmatic subscription to the animal rights agenda." Would it be all right if a commissioner was merely a moderate animal rights advocate, if there is such a thing? Maybe the NRA wouldn't mind hunters voting for politicians who only want "sensible" gun regulations and only want to ban semi-automatic weapons that aren't used for hunting anyway.

 

Unless the NRA in Arizona is willing to work with the conservation-sportsmen community as a team member, rather than a loose cannon, it has no business speaking for sportsmen on the subject of commission appointments.

[couestaxi]

One of the NRA Rep's said the support for nomination was a tradeoff for other looming issues. I think that is a nice way of saying "sellout"

[az4life]

Sellout or quid pro quo ... Politics

[audsley]

What other "looming issues" I wonder. Guns in bars? Reduced fees for CCW permits?

 

I'm supportive of nearly everything the NRA wants to do, but I wouldn't want to see wildlife and game management issues used as political trading chits. Not saying that's happened, but the potential is there. That's why I don't want the NRA sitting alone at the political bargaining table trading away who-knows-what in exchange for gun rights. Sportsmen and wildlife need their own political voice, and both the NRA and sportsmen's groups should sing in harmony. One should not attempt to speak for the other as these are two distinctly separate sets of interests.