AZGFD DOES IT AGAIN

[Red Sparky]

I don't think that G&F can pass laws of that nature without it going through the State Legislature. if so why have we not heard about it

 

ARTICLE 3. POWERS AND DUTIES

17-231. General powers and duties of the com- mission

A. The commission shall:

1. Make rules and establish services it deems neces- sary to carry out the provisions and purposes of this title.

2. Establish broad policies and long-range programs for the management, preservation and harvest of wild- life.

3. Establish hunting, trapping and fishing rules and prescribe the manner and methods which may be used in taking wildlife.

 

I am not a lawyer but this came out of the laws of AZ and it goes to #9 I just copied the first three.. NM has the same laws as it would take forever to get anything through our legislature.

[wardsoutfitters]

I will call the department to get more details in the morning , Please do the same. My concern is we pack into public lands that all the roads leading to this land is private, what they are saying is they will close that public land if they are not granted access to check for game violations. If you know anyone that leases large parcels of land , or even if you have a friend that allows you to hunt his land locked areas then you better wake up because they will close those areas to hunting. this is what I was told , again i will try to get better details tomorrow.

[mbiewer]

this is already been in place for a number of years. but by default.... the public land "behind" the private land is still technically open... it is unhuntable because it does not have any access.

 

Case in point is unit 32. In and around Mammoth. there are large tracts of land that are inaccessible because landowners have revoked the rights of crossing due to lack of respect for the landowner (littering, harassing livestock, damage of roads and property)

[Guest J Hinkle]

Mr. Ward,

I apologize for any confusion regarding this newly adopted commission policy. This policy just received final approval by the Commission last Friday at the Safford Commission meeting. Perhaps the information you received was less than clear or accurate. Please let me clarify.

 

First of all, this is a commission policy - not a statute or rule and does not carry the weight of law. Commission policies are adopted to establish and communicate a position, and to direct the Department on how to address a given issue. In this case the policy communicates the expectation that all areas of the state where wildlife is taken be accessible to department officers for the purposes of ensuring compliance with the statutes, rules and orders that the Commission is bound by law to enforce. The policy also directs the Department to proactively seek that access. If access for department officers is denied, the policy communicates that the Commission will consider all options, up to and including closing the area to the take of wildlife. The consideration of closing an area would likely only occur in very limited situations and only after all other reasonable options have failed.

 

The attached PDF document includes the Commission Memo that publicly announced the first hearing of this policy at the February commission meeting in Wickenburg as well as the policy itself. After the first read at Wickenburg, the policy was brought back and approved during the consent agenda last week in Safford. Below is Chairman Robert Mansell's prepared statement regarding this policy that he read into the public record during the February commission meeting.

 

"I have a few comments regarding this policy that I would like to state for the public record.

First of all, I believe this policy is long overdue and I am pleased to be the chair of the commission that approves it.

The members of this commission take our statutory and public trust obligation very seriously. To abdicate our responsibility to ensure that wildlife is taken lawfully and under sound scientific management to private interests is simply not acceptable. Permitting the take of the public's wildlife in areas where department game rangers are denied access is tantamount to abdicating that responsibility.

It is because of my solemn belief in the commission's public trust responsibility that I strongly support the adoption of this policy.

Lastly, I would like to affirm that I and my fellow commissioners are all strong supporters of private property rights and absolutely support the right of a land owner to control who enters their property and what activities occur there. That being said, I believe if a private property owner chooses to take, or allows his or her guests or clients to take the State's wildlife on property under their control, they have an obligation to provide access to wildlife officers to ensure that wildlife is taken lawfully.

I truly hope that landowners will enjoy hunting and fishing on their property and allow their guests to do so as well - but along with that enjoyment of a public resource is the good-neighbor responsibility to allow our game rangers access to conduct law enforcement patrols and field checks."

I hope the above and attached clarifies the purpose and intent of this policy.

 

Jim Hinkle

Assistant Director for Field Operations

F8 A2.3 Commission Handout.pdf

[missedagain]

I'm doubting a rule of this nature would withstand litigation however I think this would be a great law for Arizona and would slow the trend of Arizona following the rest of the country in commercializing hunting. If land owners can't profit from locking up access to public land then oh shucks.

[Alpinebullwinkle]

Thanks for communicating and posting this response Jim.

[oldguy123]

If the Game and Fish cant pass this.. they are certainly within their rights to close any area they feel necessary to hunting.

 

Sounds good to me, allow legal hunters to access public land. sounds like the people that have their own personal public locked land are upset.

 

Put it to a vote and explain what they are trying to do and it will pass easily. Allow the public access to their lands what's wrong with that?

 

What's going on now with Vaquero is a perfect example of why they need access to these areas as does all the public

[Flingingarrowsbro]

I suggest if G&F want private landowners to allow access to public land, they should pay the private landowners more. I only say this because formerly being an employee of Arizona State Land Department I have seen what ASLD charges to allow access through right-of-ways, and in some cases its MILLIONS.

 

I believe private landowners shouldn't be made to allow access soley for wildlife management , whether it's hunter or LEO access.

 

If G&F wants to close public land that is landlocked, let them. Those areas will probably get hunted anyway since there is no fear of being caught (since LEO has no access).

 

Seems like G&F is trying to strong arm ranchers, good luck , those are the most stubborn people you will meet.

[oldguy123]

I suggest if G&F want private landowners to allow access to public land, they should pay the private landowners more. I only say this because formerly being an employee of Arizona State Land Department I have seen what ASLD charges to allow access through right-of-ways, and in some cases its MILLIONS.

 

I believe private landowners shouldn't be made to allow access soley for wildlife management , whether it's hunter or LEO access.

 

If G&F wants to close public land that is landlocked, let them. Those areas will probably get hunted anyway since there is no fear of being caught (since LEO has no access).

 

Seems like G&F is trying to strong arm ranchers, good luck , those are the most stubborn people you will meet.

 

So a landowner should be able to block the public and government from thousands of acres public lands. I guess they are now...

 

I disagree,

 

Strong arm the ranchers for what? access to public land?

 

If all that happens is that they close those portions locked by ranchers to hunting its a good thing.

 

you know they could close all of the ranches to hunting too....

 

Maybe the animals will get bigger, one might wander out of locked up and closed to hunting public land, wander through private land and I might get it.

 

Unless its herded back by a helicopter.

 

normal hunters if we get drawn are screwed

[Str8Shot]

I say use eminent domain to take enough land for easements to be built for access to public lands ... I understand bad apples have been reason for some individuals to close access, but just as many have been closed in order to secure public lands and charge for access utilizing outfitters and guides. I am all for Rules restricting the taking of wildlife on public lands that are not open to the Entire public. The greed of few hurt the many ....

[Flingingarrowsbro]

 

 

I suggest if G&F want private landowners to allow access to public land, they should pay the private landowners more. I only say this because formerly being an employee of Arizona State Land Department I have seen what ASLD charges to allow access through right-of-ways, and in some cases its MILLIONS.

 

I believe private landowners shouldn't be made to allow access soley for wildlife management , whether it's hunter or LEO access.

 

If G&F wants to close public land that is landlocked, let them. Those areas will probably get hunted anyway since there is no fear of being caught (since LEO has no access).

 

Seems like G&F is trying to strong arm ranchers, good luck , those are the most stubborn people you will meet.

So a landowner should be able to block the public and government from thousands of acres public lands. I guess they are now...

 

I disagree,

 

Strong arm the ranchers for what? access to public land?

 

If all that happens is that they close those portions locked by ranchers to hunting its a good thing.

 

you know they could close all of the ranches to hunting too....

 

Maybe the animals will get bigger, one might wander out of locked up and closed to hunting public land, wander through private land and I might get it.

 

Unless its herded back by a helicopter.

 

normal hunters if we get drawn are screwed

[1uglydude]

The policy doesn't aim to do what many of you think they are trying to do (and what might be the best thing to do). That is, it does NOT require that landowners allow the public to access their lands, it would only require that they landowners allow Department representatives on the land--presumably to ensure compliance with game laws and to confirm biological management of wildlife. It sounds like there are ranches who won't allow officers to check in on the hunting taking place there. Seeing as the wildlife being harvested is not part of a private herd, but instead state-managed and owned, I don't see how anyone could say that this would be a bad thing.

 

Personally, I'd love to see something that went much farther. If you don't allow the public to access landlocked lands through your property, then the Department should be able to "remove" your property from the hunt unit. All such units would be considered part of the new "DB" hunt unit (you decide what DB should stand for), for which no tags would be issued.

[1uglydude]

 

I guess I'm against closing ANY public land for hunting and I am even more against forcing landowners to allow access to public land across their private land.

 

This policy doesn't do either of those things. It would close private lands to hunting where the landowner does not allow Game and Fish to enter for enforcement purposes.

[Flingingarrowsbro]

In the end who does this hurt most? Hunters.

Who does it hurt second? AZGFD , why?

 

Let's say theoretically majority of landowners don't profit from letting hunters or outfitters hunt their land ( which is more realistic than theoretical) and deny LEO access. AZGFD then in turn denies hunting in these areas. Tags in each unit is drastically reduced and AZGFD loses a ton of revenue generated each year.

 

Landowners no longer have to worry about hunters on their land or trespass issues and G&F will now help them enforce what they wanted in the first place

[Flingingarrowsbro]

It will hurt some landowners who own ranches and sell exclusive hunting rights. But they are more likey to comply anyways. I see more harm done than good