commercialization

[.270]

just got through with the new azgfd survey. does anyone know exactly what the commercial tag deal is about? is that a seperate permit? could you apply for a general permit and that permit? does it allow for sale of meat and stuff or what? i voted no, because i felt it needed more explanation. anyway, any word with more than 4 letters is sorta confusing to me, so somebody help me. Lark.

[azpackhorse]

The way I understand it that all of the previously capped hunts would be divided into 90% non commercial and 10% commercial , residents would have a choice of applying for either and non residents could only apply for the commercial tags. The commercial tag would allow the sale of non-edible parts and the non would not. I am a little fuzzy on the whole concept also but that is what I know.

[Rembrant]

The whole problem with the 10% non-resident cap is that it is unconstitutional to for any state to not share the wealth within that state. It must be open for trade with all the other states.

There were two options on the survey: Offer a limited number of commercial tags OR illiminate all commercial tags. Either way, the idea is to limit the ability to sell animal parts to EVERYONE, residents and non-residents alike. I think it would be best to illiminate them all together for everyone. Then we wouldn't be discriminating against non-residents, because NOBODY would be able to sell animal body parts.

I am not convinced this would work because the Taulman types would argue that, body parts aside, the money to be made is in the hunt itself, outfitting, guiding etc. Maybe the "commerce" is considered to be a saleable item (body parts), and not the service (guiding). I like the creative effort from the Dept, and I think it's worth a try.

Mike

[coueshunter]

The creative solutions were devised by a consolidation of conservation groups like ADA, Sheep Society etc......these groups came up with legally workable solutions by using a very reputable attorney by the name of Scott Bales. His specialty is commerce law and he helped draft the 90/10 option which in his professional estimation will satisfy judge bloomfield who ruled in the 9th circuit. Without this seperation of tags, next years draw will be a free for all. The present problem all of us face now is AZGFD total lack of backing or supporting the 90/10 rule. Steve Ferrel and Duane Schrouf definitely dont want to deal with any future problems, Duane just is short timing it looking to retire while Ferrel just wants to take Schrouf's job. The commissioners Gilstrap & Melton support the 90/10 while the other three are on the fence. Word is Golightly will not support the 90/10 for personal reasons. If we dont get one or more additional commissioners to support this issue then the AZGFD will let us hunters down once again by letting this next years draw be equal footing between non-res and residents...........I sure hope some people show up at the Phoenix public meeting tonight and voice there opinions...........AT.......

[wetmule]

To all,

I was at the Phx G&F meeting last night, along with about 50 others. The 90% recreational and 10% commercial proposal may sound confusing but is is NOT. It is real simple, it is the only proposal that will have any measurable effect among all the other proposals. It is basically the only legal solution around the non-res cap issue. By making 10% of those permits commercial it would retain the cap that we had in prior years. Don't get hung up on the word Commercial, there just isn't another word to describe it. Non- residents can only apply for those permits 10%.

Residents can apply for both the comm. and the recreational permits if they want and can even mix them on their application in their first or second choice. Virtually everyone at the meeting last night was in favor of the Proposal, there were maybe two or three out of fifty that were not. As Allen stated Scott Bales is an attorney (the finest constitutional lawyer in the state). He was hired by a newly formed group, Sportsman For Wildlife, basically a couple of fantastic local guys who put up alot of their own money to fight this and come up with a legal solution that is defenseable in court. These guys have ties to several of the local conservation groups - ADA, Elk Society, Antelope Foundation and ADBSS, and board members within those groups are involved as well. We all owe these guys a big pat on the back for stepping up with their time and talent, passion and mostly their money, TO FIGHT ALL ON OUR BEHALF. Back to the attorney, he is far more versed, exponentially, in constitutional law than the G & F attorneys. He says that this IS a legal way around the non-res cap issue and is defenseable in the courts. The problem the G & F has with this proposal is they don't want to get sued again. To those of us in favor of the proposal we are saying that is not a good enough reason at all not to move forward with a solution, and that being afraid of getting sued even though chances are that we would win this time, is not acceptable. Period. What we are saying is bring it on USO we want to fight this and as a matter of fact we think if George brings another suit against us that this time we will win. The two commissioners in favor of it are Commissioners - Gilstrap & The new guy ?,can't think of his name right now. Golightly is against it because he is the one that started the program of the Dept's that sells confiscated horns, antlers etc. at auction to the highest bidders. This program makes the Dept. about 20 -30 thousand bucks a year. That is why he is against it. The other two commissioners are on the fence.

All the other proposals that are on the table are basically bandaids and although they will help to some degree they will not really give residents that much of a preference over non-res. To me they are no brainers and many of them should have been enacted years ago. The commercial & recreational permit proposal is the only one that protects our resident status and preference. If you are in favor of having a preference over non-res. in the draw process, I suggest you support it and take the survey.

[.270]

good info. thanks for the note. i have a hypothetical question. a guy goes out and kills the new world record typical elk. cabelas or some other outfit offers him a million bucks for it. can he sell it under this proposal? just wonderin'. Lark.

[awoltoday]

As I understood it, no, he could not sell any part of the animal. However, they also mentioned "exceptions" that may be placed into the rules. That might be one of them.

 

What if you toted the head to Nebraska?

 

One thing about this proposal, is it doesn't seem even remotely enforcable. But, I don't hear anybody complaining about that (including myself). I don't think anybody could determine that the Elk ivory ring I sold on Ebay came from a non-commercially tagged critter.

[wetmule]

Lark,

Under this proposal.

If a guy kills a world record and is offered a million bucks for it by Cabelas, he cannot legally sell it to them, if the permit he had when he took that animal was one of the recreational permits. If however it was a commercial permit that he drew, he would be able to sell the animal or parts thereof. This proposal would not prevent a guy with a recreational permit from selling his replicas of the antlers. It would also not prevent him from selling his story to a magazine or pictures etc., etc. It only applies to parts of that animal. This proposal also has nothing to do with being a windfall for guides or outfitters or being labeled (outfitters permits) as some have indicated. Even though I think this proposal is fairly simple it is harder to describe it than I thought. If you have any questions please call Dana Yost @ G & F, 602-942-3000, I'm sure he can explain it better than I, and I'm sure he would be happy to talk to anyone about it. There has been some talk about how taxidermists fit into this and how it affects them. Same rules apply, they won't be able to sell or buy antlers or capes to or from hunters if the animal in question was taken with a recreational permit. They can with an animal taken with a commercial permit. They can still buy capes etc. from out of state and from Indian Reservations. It is a good point to consider, however the taxidermists I have talked to say that it would hurt them a little but feel that if it will preserve resident status they would go along with it. I have to admit I've only talked to a couple of them. The only problem I can see with this is how are they going to enforce people selling capes antlers etc. ?

Anyways, hope this helps.

Later, Wetmule

[coueshunter]

Thanks Kevin for posting this stuff. Please everyone send out the survey to all your friends and make sure they understand and support the 90/10 portion of the proposal. Basically without it we will have a FREE FOR ALL DRAW next year. Anyone that knows the commissioners or can post an email address so we can hammer them with emails would be great. I CANT EMPHASIZE ENOUGH how important this 90/10 support is for YOU AND YOUR KIDS FUTURE. Also dont try and figure out if it is CONSTITUTIONAL, the hunter supported Lawyer does this for a living and he sees this option as being acceptable to the courts. In addition to this, my personal feeling about "future lawsuits" would be that conservation groups start planning on saving money for the lawsuit (if USO can stay in business that long) and we as conservation groups/hunters support the AZGFD financially if we have to fight. To me this is cheaper and protects the herds from a huge influx of additional hunters. It will cost us for our herds but we will still have our herds.........Thanks to everyone for the support.......Allen......

[Chef]

If anything, the 90/10 "commercial" option goes through, then it's probably back to court. By then, we will have other states involved as well. Then we will all learn from eachother as opposed to everyone watching what AZ does. USO needs to get what they have coming, and HARD.

 

Good luck to everyone this year.

 

Chef

[az4life]

Thanks for the "simple" description. I get it and agree with the plan. If I could ask for anything, it would be a few exceptions to allow individuals to do what they want to with their legally harvested animals. Such a shame that Taulman has frogged it up for everyone!

 

Also interesting to note that the lawyers are essentially trying to figure out a way around the wording and keep things the way they are, or the way they should be. Basically they are closing a legal loophole that another lawyer tried to exploit on behalf of a scumbag. Lawyers are benefitting and we the people are the ones in the panic.

 

I remember the old ad that said "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". Sets me in mind of one for lawyers. "Laws don't screw people, Lawyers screw people!"

 

Don't get me wrong, I am sure there are some lawyers that have ethics and scruples, but from what I have seen, the most of them try to exploit and manipulate those with ethics and ultimately manipulate the system.

 

Think about this... Most polititcians are Lawyers first. I would rather have a military man in politics thatn a lawyer anyday!

 

Soapbox is now put away! Thanks for letting me vent!