boycott the harvest survey post card!!!!

[dave]

"This is what they do not do:

1. Respect the opinions of the public.

2. Grow animals.

3. Grow habitat.

4. Grow access."

 

 

 

Sorry guys, but our game and fish department has neither the ability to "grow animals" nor the authority to "grow habitat." They can "grow access," but historically the AGFD has not done so for some reason I cannot fathom. As for "respect the opinions of the public," be careful. We hunters are vastly outnumbered by other members of the public.

 

Bill Quimby

 

Mr. Qimby,

 

Thanks for the observations Bill. I do need to clarify the points I was making.

 

1. Respect the opinions of the sportsmen’s groups and hunters that support you, drive 200 miles to a Commission meeting @ $3.00 a gallon for gas and get arrogantly asked by the Chairman if they are DONE YET???

 

2. They most certainly have the power to grow animals by the actions they take to harvest (KILL) them. When the ranchers were complaining about too many elk, they killed the heck out of cows and made major changes in elk population. They have just changed the buck-doe ratios for deer. I expect they will do the same for elk. They can't make it rain but they can sure grow more animals by the way they manage them. This might include arial gunning of coyotes and stronger predator management policies.

 

3 & 4. If they worked with the Sportspeople in this state, they may have support for an initiative that would supplement revenue by 50 million dollars a year. This could buy accessible habitat and access if it is allowed to. The average resident hunter in this state has been majorly impacted by the fact the Commission and Department was not able to protect them from Mr. Taulman. When the average resident hunter had the opportunity to request that the 10% NR cap be made a statute to further protect them, three of our current Commissioners lobbied against it. One of them felt it was not necessary to protect us, O.K. so what is wrong with doing it??? Not sure exactly why the other two opposed it. EGO, CONTROL, ETC...

 

If I am incorrect about any of this, I will gladly apologize for having an incorrect impression from all I have observed.

 

Garth,

 

Thanks for pointing out the 20% ratio between all weapons and archery correctly.

[dave]

There are ways to conduct mandatory reporting that are simple. Some will cost more than others.

Many of you are familiar with the way New Mexico does it and if you do not report, you are done hunting. That is a fairly good system. What would it cost for Arizona to do it that way? This type of method only makes people report and does not make them tell the truth.

I had this idea a while back that no one I have ever talked to likes: what if each tag had to be surrendered back to the Department with a report after the hunt. If you did not surrender (send) your tag back with a report, used or unused, you are done. When you get your tag, you also receive a return envelope postage paid to return the tag and report after the hunt. This could apply to all species and every weapons group. Not just permits that were drawn and mailed out but also to over the counter tags issued. How much would it cost to know the truth? Who wants to know the truth?

[Outdoor Writer]

The average resident hunter in this state has been majorly impacted by the fact the Commission and Department was not able to protect them from Mr. Taulman. When the average resident hunter had the opportunity to request that the 10% NR cap be made a statute to further protect them, three of our current Commissioners lobbied against it. One of them felt it was not necessary to protect us, O.K. so what is wrong with doing it??? Not sure exactly why the other two opposed it. EGO, CONTROL, ETC...

 

Hmmm, sounds like a different scenario than what I recall. G&F did all it could to protect us and even WON it's case in the U.S District court. On appeal, the 9th Circuit court overturned that ruling, finding that the cap was unconstitutional because of the Commerce clause. That would have happened even if it was a statute, and it would still be that way were it not for the new federal legislation passed last year, which gives all authority to manage wildlfe to each state.

 

So, it appears passing a separate statute in AZ was unnecessary.

 

That said, I would guess the main opposition to passing a law had to do with the fact that any changes to it, unlike a G&F rule, would then require action by the state legislature. So if G&F wanted to reduce the cap to 5% at some future time, they would have to get the legislature to do that. As it is now -- and should be -- the game department can do as it pleases in regards to the cap. -TONY

[dave]

It sure didn't feel like we had won and were protected when approximately 50% of our premium tags went to NR's in 2005.

 

Do you think Taulman would have even began his suit if the 10% cap had of been a statute?

 

If it had of been a statute, would the appeal judge still have ruled the same way?

 

What benefit is it to us now?

[Outdoor Writer]

It sure didn't feel like we had won and were protected when approximately 50% of our premium tags went to NR's in 2005.

 

Do you think Taulman would have even began his suit if the 10% cap had of been a statute?

 

If it had of been a statute, would the appeal judge still have ruled the same way?

 

What benefit is it to us now?

 

The G&F department had little control of what occurred in 2005 once the 9th Circuit court ruled ANY NON-RESIDENT cap as UNCONSTITUTIONAL. G&F even appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which opted to not to hear the appeal. That ruling by the 9th Circuit Court would have applied to ANY rule or any STATUTE. Thus, Taulman would have sued regardless. In fact, declaring a statute unconstitutional is usually easier than doing so with a rule.

 

>>What benefit is it to us now?<<

 

I'm not sure what you're asking here, since it's all now a moot point once the U.S. CONGRESS enacted the federal law in regards to wildlife management. The "benefit" of that law is quite obvious -- G&F has the right to regulate who gets to hunt where and when, and the only way that can change is if Congress someday acts to alter that federal law. If G&F now decides to lower the cap or alter other aspects of it, it can do so quite easily with a simple rule change. If a statute had been enacted, every little tweak would require legislative action. And once we start allowing the legislature to approve or disapprove wildlife management issues, you start sliding down the slippery slope to disaster.

 

Below is just one of several articles I wrote about this issue. -TONY

 

Appeal Planned

 

It all started on Feb. 10, 1998 when Conservation Force, Inc. and several outfitters and guides from New Mexico filed suit in the United States District Court in Arizona against the members of the Arizona Game & Fish Commission who were in office at that time.

 

The plaintiffs, including United States Outfitters (USO) of Taos, N. Mex., claimed the 10-percent cap on nonresident permits for bull elk (statewide) and for deer north of the Colorado River (North Kaibab) violates the Commerce, Privileges and Immunities and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. They requested "a declaration of invalidity as well as damages."

 

When the case eventually came before the federal district court in Arizona, the judge granted the Arizona Game and Fish Department's (AGFD) cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the commerce clause claim as a matter of law.

 

Subsequently, Conservation Force, Inc. dropped out, and the other plaintiffs-- Lawrence Montoya, Filberto Valerio and Carole Jean Taulman, wife of George Taulman who owns USO -- appealed the decision as individuals to take advantage of the commerce law. The case moved to the 9th District Court of Appeals in California.

 

It was argued and submitted in Dec., 2001.

 

Lawyers for the commission pointed out that Arizona is home to what is considered by many hunters to be some of the best deer and elk hunting in the world, exemplified by the world-record animals harvested from its lands.

 

"The quality of the hunting in Arizona is in large part a result of the conservation efforts supported by Arizona citizens and administered by the Arizona Game and Fish Department," the court files state.

 

It also states, "In early 1990, the department conducted a poll of resident big-game hunters and found that nearly 75 percent favored restricting the number of hunting tags issued to nonresidents, many expressing the opinion that nonresidents should be excluded from hunting in Arizona entirely".

 

For many years, Arizona distributed the limited hunt tags for antlered deer and bull elk through a lottery without regard to the residence of the applicant. In the late 1980s, however, the AGFD began to receive vocal complaints by Arizona hunters objecting to competition with nonresidents. Many felt that nonresidents were getting more than their fair share of the hunt opportunities, especially for premium hunts. To better meet the overwhelming desires of the resident hunting public, in 1991 the game commission amended Rule 12-4-114 of the Arizona Administrative Code. It placed a 10-percent cap on the number of tags that could be awarded to nonresidents for the hunting of bull elk throughout the state and for antlered deer in the area north of the Colorado River.

 

The AGFD attorney explained that the continued management of Arizona's big game "is dependent on the continued support of Arizona residents" and that Arizona residents should be afforded the opportunity "to hunt Arizona's best."

 

On the other side of the aisle, the plaintiffs, who are all professional guides who apply for hunting tags around the country for their clients, claimed that profit making is their sole purpose in hunting these animals in Arizona, and that they do not hunt for recreational enjoyment. Instead, they argued that they hunt to "obtain the meat of the animals, their hide, their ivories, and especially their head and rack of antlers to profit from the sale and use of the non-edible parts."

 

Judge Raymond C. Fisher of the 9th District Court wrote the following conclusion for the majority opinion on August 20, 2002:

 

"We hold that Arizona's cap on nonresident hunting substantially affects and discriminates against interstate commerce and therefore is subject to strict scrutiny under the dormant Commerce Clause. Arizona has legitimate interests in regulating hunting to conserve its population of game and maintain recreational opportunities for its citizens. We remand for further proceedings to determine whether Arizona has met its burden of showing that it has no other means to advance its legitimate interests."

 

In effect, the 9th Circuit Court overturned the Arizona court's decision, thus finding in favor of the plaintiffs. The rationale behind the decision involved the sale of elk and deer antlers, as allowed under state law in Arizona. In other words, the plaintiffs convinced the appeals court that their purpose for applying for permits was obtaining these antlers to sell and not for the recreational hunting provided.

 

The decision forced the AGFD to pick one of several options available:

 

* Dump the nonresident cap

* Outlaw the sale of deer & elk antlers by anyone

* Raise the cost of nonresident permits high enough for a de facto cap

* Appeal the decision to the U. S. Supreme Court

 

The Arizona Game and Fish Commission voted unanimously last October to choose door #4 -- an appeal to the Supreme Court, which will have the option to hear the case and rule or simply decline hearing it altogether.

 

On almost the same day the game commission voted for the appeal, U.S. Attorney Paul K. Charlton's office in Phoenix indicted two individuals on charges stemming from an investigation known "Operation Navajo Buck (ONB)." One of them happens to be George Taulman, owner of USO.

 

Conducted during 1998 and 1999, the ONB investigation led to the arrest and conviction of several big-game guides based in Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico. They unlawfully used aircraft prior to and during hunting seasons to locate deer and elk for hunting clients on the Navajo Indian Reservation in northeast Arizona. As a result, 12 individuals have paid fines of $85,000 and have forfeited one aircraft and unlawfully taken wildlife.

 

Taulman's indictment charges him with one felony violation of the Lacey Act, two felony violations of conspiracy to violate the Lacey Act, and two misdemeanor violations of the Airborne Hunting Act.

 

The felony violation of the Lacey Act alleges one of Taulman's clients killed an elk with the aid of an aircraft in 1999. The felony conspiracy counts allege that Taulman conspired to use aircraft to aid hunting clients in the taking of elk in Arizona during 1998 and 1999. Taulman's business, USO, is also under indictment on three felony counts related to the 1998 and 1999 hunts. The indictment also seeks the forfeiture of the outfitter's Cessna 182 aircraft, which he allegedly used during the hunts.

 

Another indictment cited David Holton III, of Lake Montezuma, Ariz., who is listed as an employee of USO. He is charged with one felony violation of the Lacey Act, one felony violation of conspiracy to violate the Lacey Act, and one misdemeanor violation of the Airborne Hunting Act. All violations relate to aiding a client with an aircraft so he could kill an elk in 1998 near Payson, Ariz.

 

The federal Lacey Act makes it unlawful to transport, sell, receive, acquire or purchase wildlife which was taken, transported, possessed, or sold in violation of state, federal, or indian tribal laws or regulations. Violations carry maximum fines of up to $250,000 for a person, $500,000 for a corporation, and up to five years in prison. All vehicles and aircraft used in violation of the Lacey Act are subject to forfeiture.

 

The federal Airborne Hunting Act makes it unlawful to shoot animals from an aircraft or to harass animals with an aircraft. The Airborne Hunting Act Regulations prohibits a person, while on the ground, from taking or attempting to take wildlife by means, aid, or use of an aircraft. Maximum penalty for violations of the Airborne Hunting Act include fines of up to $100,000 for a person, and $200,000 for a corporation, and one year in prison.

[dave]

I must be mixed up. I thought it did become a statute.

[Outdoor Writer]

I must be mixed up. I thought it did become a statute.

 

Nope. The federal statute, introduced by Nevada Senator Harry Reid, made that unnecessary. It effectively removed the commerce clause from the equation. See what I wrote about it below. -TONY

 

BACK TO NORMAL

After several years of court battles, resident hunters in a couple of Rocky Mountain states are a bit giddy as result of federal legislation that put to rest an ongoing battle between one New Mexico outfitter and the states. The legal wrangling came to a boil in Arizona during 2004 when the outfitter plaintiffs argued that their only reason for hunting animals in Arizona involved interstate commerce. The court filing stated the reason as, "to obtain the meat of the animals, their hide, their ivories, and especially their head and rack of antlers to profit from the sale and use of the non-edible parts."

 

The original court case before U.S. District Court Judge Robert C. Broomfield found in favor of Arizona, but in July 2004, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the Broomfield’s verdict and ruled in favor of the outfitters. The court cited the Commerce Clause of the federal Constitution, which was designed to promote unity of economic opportunity within the states. In its review, the court stated: "…the foregoing testimony does not explain why a 10 percent cap, as opposed to some other less discriminatory cap, is necessary to achieve the state's interest in conserving hunting opportunities."

 

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case, allowing the 9th Circuit ruling to stand. As a result, Broomfield ordered the Arizona Game & fish Department to eliminate the 10 percent cap on nonresident hunters for the 2004 big-game tag lottery drawing. The change required issuing more than 800 additional elk and deer tags in 2004 and disregarding any nonresident cap for the 2005 seasons. To compensate somewhat, the game department removed the ability to apply online and also mandated the purchase of hunting license before applying.

 

Bolstered by the success in Arizona, the New Mexico outfitters filed suit in Nevada over its nonresident caps. The plaintiffs also had other states in their sights.

 

Enter U.S. Senator Harry Reid, D-Nevada, who successfully co-sponsored a bill with Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, Senator Max Baucus of Montana, Senator Conrad Burns of Montana, Senator John Ensign of Nevada, Senator Benjamin Nelson of Nebraska, and Senator John McCain of Arizona that short stopped any current or future lawsuits by the plaintiffs. Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colorado sponsored a similar bill (HR 731) in the House. In August 2005, President George Bush signed the bill into law.

 

****

 

Congressman Jim Matheson said legislation acknowledging the traditional rights of states to manage hunting and fishing within their borders is included in the emergency supplemental spending bill that passed the House this week. The Senate is expected to pass the measure next week. Matheson cosponsored the original bill—HR 731.

 

The bipartisan legislation was introduced after a federal appeals court decision overturned Arizona’s limits on non-resident hunting permits. Matheson noted that for decades, state wildlife agencies have set the rules for issuing resident and non-resident licenses as part of their wildlife management plans.

 

“Sportsmen and hunters play a critical role in protecting wildlife habitat and wildlife populations,” said Matheson. “They work cooperatively with state wildlife agencies so that the time-honored tradition of family hunting and fishing in the West will continue. Messing with that success doesn’t make sense.”

 

Matheson said the legislation declares that it is Congressional policy that it is in the public interest for each state to continue to regulate the taking of fish and wildlife within its boundaries. It provides that the courts should not use Congressional silence as a reason to impose any commerce-clause barrier to a state’s or tribe’s regulation of hunting or fishing.

 

****

The relevant text of the Reid bill says:

 

(a) In General- It is the policy of Congress that it is in the public interest for each State to continue to regulate the taking for any purpose of fish and wildlife within its boundaries, including by means of laws or regulations that differentiate between residents and nonresidents of such State with respect to the availability of licenses or permits for taking of particular species of fish or wildlife, the kind and numbers of fish and wildlife that may be taken, or the fees charged in connection with issuance of licenses or permits for hunting or fishing.

 

( Construction of Congressional Silence- Silence on the part of Congress shall not be construed to impose any barrier under clause 3 of Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution (commonly referred to as the `commerce clause') to the regulation of hunting or fishing by a State or Indian tribe.

[billrquimby]

Garth:

 

We agree that AGFD should listen to sportsmen more and immediately remove the locks and barriers blocking our access to public land. Our differences in opinion have to do with "growing" game and habitat.

 

I'll take habitat first. Game and Fish HAS been buying habitat formerly in private ownership, for example the Sipes Ranch and the grasslands near Round Valley in the White Mountains. This is wonderful. However, private land comprises less than 18% of our entire state. Even if the agency bought every square inch of private land that doesn't now have a house, office building, service station, highway or shopping mall on it and managed that land for wildlife, it would have little impact. The vast majority of Arizona is in some form of state, federal or tribal ownership. AGFD has no authority to manage habitat on these lands. It can make recommendations, but the responsibility belongs to the land managing agencies.

 

As for "growing game," Yes, the AGF Commission can manipulate the number of animals killed by reducing or increasing hunting permits. But it apparently cannot "grow" game. If it could, wouldn't it follow that we should have a heck of a lot more deer after steadily reducing permit numbers from 108,000 in 1970 to fewer than 40,000 today? Please don't scream "IT'S THE DROUGHT!" because it only supports my thesis: AGFD can't grow game because it can't make it rain. If you were to say the problem is predation, I'd agree with you. However, there is no way the public would allow wholesale reduction of predators by a public agency today. It became politically incorrect at least thirty years ago, and this also supports my thesis.

 

Bill Quimby

[Outdoor Writer]

Hey Bill,

 

I planted several deer seeds in my front yard a couple months ago and watered them as regular as clockwork. Just as they were sprouting, though, the neighbor's dog came along and dug them up. Other than putting up a fence, do you have any suggestions to keep this from happening again ? -TONY

[Outdoor Writer]

Dave,

 

You were correct.

 

I found where the AZ legislature did actually pass a statute making the 10% cap law. It was passed in 2006 as House Bill 2127, which is the law that allowed the tranfer of big-game licenses to minors. It's now part of the Title 17 revised statutes as 17-332.

 

The wording does allow the commission to change the cap in an emerency situtaion, but only if they INCREASE the NR licenses. So any other change will now need to go through the legislature. -TONY

 

 

 

17-332. Form and contents of license; duplicate licenses; period of validity

 

A. Licenses and license materials shall be prepared by the department and furnished and charged to dealers authorized to issue licenses. The license shall be issued in the name of the department and countersigned by an issuing dealer. Except as provided by rule adopted by the commission, each license shall be signed by the licensee in ink on the face of the license and any license not signed is invalid. With each license authorizing the taking of big game the department shall provide such tags as the commission may prescribe, which the licensee shall attach to the big game animal in such manner as prescribed by the commission. The commission shall limit the number of big game permits issued to nonresidents in a random drawing to ten per cent or fewer of the total hunt permits, but in extraordinary circumstances, at a public meeting the commission may increase the number of permits issued to nonresidents in a random drawing if, on separate roll call votes, the members of the commission unanimously:

1. Support the finding of a specifically described extraordinary circumstance.

 

2. Adopt the increased number of nonresident permits for the hunt.

[dave]

Thanks Tony, I don't know how you found it. It being attached to another law. I looked for a while and gave up.

[Outdoor Writer]

Thanks Tony, I don't know how you found it. It being attached to another law. I looked for a while and gave up.

 

I just googled 2006 HB 2127 Arizona, then went to Arizona Revised Statutes Title 17 -TONY

[billrquimby]

Hey Bill,

 

I planted several deer seeds in my front yard a couple months ago and watered them as regular as clockwork. Just as they were sprouting, though, the neighbor's dog came along and dug them up. Other than putting up a fence, do you have any suggestions to keep this from happening again ? -TONY

 

Dear Tony:

 

Shoot the dog.

 

Bill Quimby

[Outdoor Writer]

Dear Tony:

 

Shoot the dog.

 

Bill Quimby

 

Now why didn't I think of that!! Thanks.

 

I'll use a cat to bait it in. Any caliber suggestions?? -TONY

[GodIsGood]

Seems to me, and maybe I'm just spit-balling here... but G&F is gonna do whatever they please - especially whatever they feel is fiscally beneficial to pay for their new multi-million dollar facility out at Ben Avery.

 

Are there any states where game management is not coues-a-nostra?