Conserve and Protect Meeting 4/23/2018

[Flatlander]

Below is a series of emails I exchanged with Commissioner Davis who has been noted by CAPAZ as being an ally. I reached out to all of the commissioners with a similar message to ensure they knew my thoughts on the matter. Commissioner Davis was the only one who responded. I will allow you to draw your own conclusions:

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Davis,

 

I am writing you to express my concern over an initiative that has begun to arise among the members of the Conserve and Protect AZ organization. Their initiative proposes to allocate special tags for auction and raffle to raise funds for education of the public regarding the contribution makes to conservation. I know that this a group with which you have had association, and I am grateful for any guidance you may have provided during the HSUS defense. While I whole-heartedly agree that such a fund is critical to the perpetuity of hunting, I could not disagree more with the mechanism for raising those funds. My concern has nothing to do with the organization, its members, or its purpose. Rather, I see that the use of tags in such a way clearly contradicts the North American Model. I understand that there are some tags being used in a similar way already through the HPC program, and I see the benefit that those tags have brought for wildlife but my question is; Where does the practice stop? First it was the Auction/Raffle tags, then it was the HPC, now it is CAPAZ. If the intent of tags is to simply raise as much money as possible, then we could certainly sell every tag to the highest bidder. But rather than go the way of Africa and Europe, it is my opinion that the responsibility for protecting our privilege of hunting and fishing lies with the sportsmen. Hunting and Fishing nationally is a $58 billion industry, certainly through other revenue streams we can gather enough money to protect the future of our lifestyle. I believe that there are a number of options available which have not been explored or vetted that do not require us to compromise the model under which our wildlife is managed. Out of respect to your time I will not list or detail some of the ideas that have been discussed among like-minded sportsmen, but should you want to explore that conversation I would be happy to provide some proposals. Thank you for your time and for your dedicated service to AZ's wildlife.

 

Andrew Gillett

 

 

Thanks for your email. The Commission has received no proposal for auction tags. Thank you, Kurt Davis

Thanks for the response Mr. Commissioner. Have you received a proposal for the use of raffle or other special tags?

It is my personal belief, and admittedly not the viewpoint of all sportsmen, that any special tags separates us further from the ideals of the North American Model that have benefitted wildlife in this country for more than a century.

Further, it is also mathematically challenging to see how raffle tags would provide anywhere near the amount of funds required for education of the non-hunting public.

If for instance 200 tags were to be assigned to this raffle, and they varied in desirability from premium to average, and if those tags more or less aligned with current seasons then I see the numbers shaking out roughly this way:

500 tickets per application (a limited number of tickets is part of the arrangement I have heard in meetings), at a cost of $5 per ticket, then that only raises $500k. That is only 25% of the cost that CAPAZ has suggested is required for the outreach.

Instead the entire amount could be raised via other methods that do not require legislation. We have emailed a copy of this method to all of the commissioners.

I am a concerned sportsmen who is here to help and willing to act, but I must express my total opposition to auction or raffle tags.

Andrew Gillett

 

No proposal. However, 500,000 would do substantial assistance for education. Earnest people have lots of ideas. The Commission hasn't done anything in my six years to harm the North American Model and I am sure wouldnt now. The current department Conserve and Protect effort is highly effective and it is my hope will grow more robust over time so that the second most urbanized state in the nation has an educated citizenry about the North American model and the power of how conservation is funded. Thx again, Kurt Davis

 

I think every sportsman in the state would agree that educating the non-hunting community is necessary. We are all on the same page for that.

However, decreasing opportunity for the general public and re-allocating those tags to be more accessible to those with more means is exactly the opposite of the North American Model.

Sportsman need to bear the burden of educating those in our communities, but I feel strongly that tags is not the way to do it.

Andrew Gillett

I have never heard anyone proposing decreasing opportunities, tags,;etc...ever. kurt

 

 

 

[Nefarious Red]

What I interpret from those emails is that the Commission, Conserve and Protect Arizona, and "every sportsman in the State" sees the need for the type of educational outreach these funds will provide.

 

There are genuine concerns about how the funds will be raised. Let's all keep up the thought process of coming up with solutions.

[40-year-AZ-hunter]

From the last sentence of Flatlander's email exchange with Commissioner Davis when Andrew mentioned opposition to removing tags from the regular draw process and re-allocating them to auction/raffle;

 

"I have never heard anyone proposing decreasing opportunities, tags,;etc...ever. kurt"

 

If you believe that nobody has proposed that, PLEASE listen to Pete C. answer a question at 23:05 of Jay Scott's first podcast (linked at the beginning of the other long thread). The question is would the new auction and/or raffle tags come out of the existing tags in the regular draw. The short answer from Pete is YES, the Dept would have to pull the tags from the existing allocation so you are going to lose some tags. He says "so they would obviously taken away from the general draw".

 

Now, perhaps Commissioner Davis has not heard this from Conserve and Protect, but it is their idea. Just listen to Pete, not me.

 

There may be more going on here than Commissioner Davis is saying. Someone tried to (for lack of a better term) secretly increase the special tag limit of 3 in ARS 17-346 to 4 per species in this year's omnibus G&F bill. When the Chairman found out about it he was not happy and quickly removed that proposed change.

 

Also, in Jay's first podcast at time 1:14;58 one of the attendees, and I could not identify the voice, talked about a conversation he had with Commissioner Ammons (the Chair) a week prior to the podcast. So it may be strictly true that the Commission has formally received "no proposal", at least some of them have had discussions about additional auction/raffle tags with one or more people from Conserve and Protect.

 

Semantics matter.

 

This may or may not be a more open process than we had in 2012, but we should all be alert.

[MT_Sourdough]

WEAK SAUCE! It seems through these threads. it is blatantly obvious that most of us refuse the notion of taking tags, especially the high value tags, from the draw and auction them to the privileged rich.

Despite the empirical evidence screaming "NO!", the same ol' lame'o salesmen keep trying to re-interpret what they are hearing from us to push their predetermined agenda.

[AZkiller]

Yyeeaaaa,,,, sooo as has been said if you would actually read the threads there may be raffle tags but I as with others got the impression that auction ags are not going to happen. Thanks though for your contribution to the conversation.

[MT_Sourdough]

Even if auction tags are no longer on the table, raffle tags from the general allotment of tags is not much better. It still ia an act that takes from one process where all is equal and turn it over to a process that still favors the rich.

Second, This is a discussion about the commision circumventing the spirit of the law. The commision is supposed to remain an a-political organization. This is an effort of the commision to blur those lines.

As a political independent as I am, I have been repeatedly alarmed by the commision broadly abusing their authority to interject into political issues. The commision has outright lied and has been deceptive in a way that prevents me from having any trust or faith in their agenda.

Among my highest concern with the commision lately is their expressed "interest" in what Utah is doing. The right wing agenda to sale off public lands is every bit or greater threat to my future hunting heritage than any HSUS ballot initiative.

[idgaf]

May 4th is the day we find out their next move. May 5th those opposed to the tag grab can use that facebook thing to either put them on blast or pat their back for the good work they do.

[krp]

So far without the G&F weighing in publicly or at the meetings, it's all in limbo.

 

Last time they didn't support increased tag auctioning because it was a legislative bill that took tags from them and gave them to an outside group along with the funds generated to that group to use. This time it's to sell tags and return the money to G&F, they may be for this. But we need to hear that from them.

 

We need specifics not generalities on why this education fund is necessary and how it could legally be implemented.

 

Only part of the fund that could be modeled after the HPC is the selling of tags and returning all monies to the G&F.

 

The actual application of these funds cannot follow the HPC model as required by legislature for use per species, the local committee process, the process of application per project by anyone. HPC stands for Habitat Partnership Committee, it's the application of funds in partnership development and communication between private, state, and federal entities.

 

This will have to be a new type of fund, selling of tags would still be under the 'per species' legislation requirement.

 

We need to hear specifically how G&F will utilize these funds, with real examples on how they can educate the nonhunting public and do it legally within law.

 

A tag sell fund would be the least effective source and almost unusable as intended, under current legislation.

 

Kent

[ThomC]

I do not see anything on the G&F agenda except the budget, where they are talking about the tag grab. I would like the to G&F sell one tag for a million dollars. It could be a Bighorn or Elk or squirrel what ever the millionaire wants. For a 2 week period that is not during the regular season. The commission would make it a policy that it would go only for education. Also the new efficiency program will identify wasteful people and procedures, that too is more money for ED.

 

PS the meeting is in Kingman on Friday. Watch the podcast it starts at 8am. Right after the opening ceremonies will be call to the audience. I expect Pepe or Red speaking.

[Nefarious Red]

I will not be at this meeting.

[ThomC]

Got a quarter?

[Nefarious Red]

Got a quarter?

does who have a quarter?

[Guest akaspecials]

Got a quarter?

 

I doubt the problem is the quarter, he clearly has money to spend on our tags. It's a matter of finding someone who cares....

[300RUM]

I dont trust Pete one bit. I think he showed his true cards when he started calling people he didnt even know as FOOLS.

 

I spoke with several other board members and appreciated their thoughts, input and dialogue. I think most of them are very interested in coming up with as many ideas as possible.

 

I think Pete is a snake and I think that he unwaveringly committed to getting tags. I dont think thats the case for everyone on that board.

So how do you remove Pete? It sounds like maybe some ideas are needed there.

[Nefarious Red]

An interesting article

 

https://www.outdoorlife.com/changes-to-pittman-robertson-funds-are-designed-to-save-next-endangered-species-hunters

Note that HR 2591 would amend Pittman Robertson funds to allow as follows:

(A) using social media, marketing, advertising, surveying, television spots,print,and media

(D) providing education to the public about the role of hunting and recreational shooting in funding wildlife conservation.

 

Sounds like this Bill is exactly what we need.