Conserve and Protect AZ SURVEY/

[MULEPACKHUNTER]

As I stated in previous comments what about updating the Dated Pittman Roberts and Dingle Johnson acts? along with hunting and fishing we have issues with attacks on public lands and access. I believe its time for all multi use individuals to start paying their way. New self imposed tax on products related to all users not just hunting and fishing, I.E. hiking, biking, climbing, camping, all things outdoors. Lets call it the multi use act, an all new organization fighting for all and uniting us as well.

Even if we just updated the current models to match the times.

[ThomC]

The state should kick in a dedicated amount to the G&F for the work that they have to do for those other groups that are getting a free ride now. For example the endangered species section should be funded entirely by taxpayers.

[MULEPACKHUNTER]

I Just had a thought for a new law to be brought by us to help inform the public on these groups that seem to want to stick their nose in everyone elses business I.E. HSUS, PETA, and others.

What if we could pen a law that forces such charity company to have to inform any donation of basic financial disclosure.

Here is an example,

 

Susan G Coleman ,,,,,

1 year revenue of 258 mil

180 mil goes to charitable causes such as research grants

34 mil goes to fundraising

24 mil goes to management

20 mil is a surplus

in order for any charity to receive funds they have to inform the donor of this information, I feel this would help some not so great charities do better in deciding where to spend donations.

And possibly help donors understand some charities spend money on issues they may not want to be involved in.

If a New Jersey cat lady sees 60 percent of all donations to HSUS go to lawyers pushing the charities agenda and not supporting the animals that need it?? Who knows??

After doing some research on this issue I have seen some bad numbers, mostly some of the CEO salerys. 1.2 mil a year to run a charity kind of defeats the purpose??

[ThomC]

Yes, any org such as you state should stand naked in front of the whole country. LOL But, roaches don't like the light shown on them.

[Delw]

 

You should have left option 4 not required. as it stands right now you have to answer it in order to complete the vote on the other questions.

option 4 has the capability of being used for the benefit of any group to mislead.

So far that answer has been overwhelmingly (75%) leaning towards having regular citizens on the board as well. 11 have answered other and give different answers and why. Only three have suggested leaving it as is. Total of 54 responses right now. Hoping to get into the hundreds tomorrow.

 

I'll try to clarify it a little better.

 

with question number 4 being required to click on something in order to have your vote counted, I wont do the survey just because of that question.

heres why.

 

 

If this does pass, should the board be made up of current members or should a few members be citizens with a passion to protect hunting that don't have any affiliation to any of the current wildlife organizations on board?

Only current board members

Add a few citizens without any affiliation to current wildlife organizations currently on the board.

Other (please specify)

 

groups will over look the questions that are negitive to there case, but will use these answers to help there case. by manipulating it.

sneaky pete and his band of merry men will come up with something like. " in recent polls we have found that xxx amount of hunters prefer to Add a few citizens without any affiliation to current wildlife organizations currently on the board. "

or xxx amount of hunters prefer to use "Only current board members "

 

polls are a dangerous tool to use if not worded directly and to the point. and they can still be skewed to benefit the group that people may not want.

If seen this done many times with the AZG&F commission over the years on the fisheries side trying to get something through that normal people didnt want . but yet the group manipulated the questions and answers to mean something else.

a close EX friend used MY fishing board to do the very same thing in a poll and at the G&F meetings showed the papers of said poll to show the commission that most people were in favor of it. which they werent cause of the way it was worded.

 

not saying you did this intentionally.

[bonecollector777]

 

 

 

You should have left option 4 not required. as it stands right now you have to answer it in order to complete the vote on the other questions.

option 4 has the capability of being used for the benefit of any group to mislead.

So far that answer has been overwhelmingly (75%) leaning towards having regular citizens on the board as well. 11 have answered other and give different answers and why. Only three have suggested leaving it as is. Total of 54 responses right now. Hoping to get into the hundreds tomorrow.

I'll try to clarify it a little better.

 

with question number 4 being required to click on something in order to have your vote counted, I wont do the survey just because of that question.

heres why.

If this does pass, should the board be made up of current members or should a few members be citizens with a passion to protect hunting that don't have any affiliation to any of the current wildlife organizations on board?

 

 

 

Only current board members

 

Add a few citizens without any affiliation to current wildlife organizations currently on the board.

 

Other (please specify)

groups will over look the questions that are negitive to there case, but will use these answers to help there case. by manipulating it.

sneaky pete and his band of merry men will come up with something like. " in recent polls we have found that xxx amount of hunters prefer to Add a few citizens without any affiliation to current wildlife organizations currently on the board. "

or xxx amount of hunters prefer to use "Only current board members "

 

polls are a dangerous tool to use if not worded directly and to the point. and they can still be skewed to benefit the group that people may not want.

If seen this done many times with the AZG&F commission over the years on the fisheries side trying to get something through that normal people didnt want . but yet the group manipulated the questions and answers to mean something else.

a close EX friend used MY fishing board to do the very same thing in a poll and at the G&F meetings showed the papers of said poll to show the commission that most people were in favor of it. which they werent cause of the way it was worded.

 

not saying you did this intentionally.

I see where you're coming from but I felt the option for other would offset anything people didnt like about the no and yes answers. Today it's at 83 people and still 85%+ saying we need some sort of normal citizen with a proven history of hunting.

 

I could have worded the question better but was trying to get an idea if most people trust these 8 current people on board to make the decisions of where the money goes or if they thought a couple of outsiders maybe just two or three would help balance out any mishandling of funds or going overboard on tag numbers.

[Delw]

I understand

[The Last Wood]

If you don't want to answer a question just select "other" and you can put anything you want

[dusty]

TT

[PRDATR]

TT

 

69 posts since 2009 and that's all you got? Shirley you can troll us a little better now, c'mon give it a shot. Knock the dust off.

[bonecollector777]

 

 

TT

69 posts since 2009 and that's all you got? Shirley you can troll us a little better now, c'mon give it a shot. Knock the dust off.

Huh?

[Ringer]

I like TT's. You got a problem with that?

[bonecollector]

41 now

Is that total from all the facebook groups as well or just on here?

[stanley]

I just completed the survey.

 

Who is going to the ADA meeting tomorrow?? I think I'm going to try to make it....

 

S.

[dusty]

 

TT To the top.Just making this go to back to the top of the posts.

 

69 posts since 2009 and that's all you got? Shirley you can troll us a little better now, c'mon give it a shot. Knock the dust off.