G&F talking about banning Calling contest

[missedagain]

https://s3.amazonaws.com/azgfd-portal-wordpress/azgfd.wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/01193529/2019.03.15-Agenda.pdf

 

Item 9 on their agenda, please let the commissioners know what you think.

[BeardownAZ]

Game and fish is not a friend of hunters. They pretend like they are, but they are not. 

[trophyseeker]

This is basically revisiting an old issue that took place around 1999-2000. In fact, I believe AGFD had actually passed a  rule that banned the contests, and that rule was later eliminated. I bet either Bill Quimby or Tony Mandile could fill in the blanks if they were still around. 

[jdown]

I feel like it was eliminated for cash prizes, however the work-around was for anything but cash... or maybe it was just eliminated all together. 

[ThomC]

The commissioners are hiding their meeting in Bisbee.  Then they will all crawl in a hole together.  How much money are they spending to assemble all of the beaurats in Bisbee?👹

[ThomC]

Wow did the Hunters make a strong scientific and logical case for not opening this can of worms at the commission meeting today.  The antis didnt even show up.  They passed the rule study anyway.  It makes you wonder if the antis know that they already have the G&F in their pockets.  Odenkirk their lawyer lied about whether it would affect the little club and small group events.  

[bonecollector]

I tried to watch but kept getting errors. So what are they doing?

[BeardownAZ]

5 hours ago, ThomC said:

Wow did the Hunters make a strong scientific and logical case for not opening this can of worms at the commission meeting today.  The antis didnt even show up.  They passed the rule study anyway.  It makes you wonder if the antis know that they already have the G&F in their pockets.  Odenkirk their lawyer lied about whether it would affect the little club and small group events.  

Ot course the Antis are in there pockets. Have been for awhile. Why do you think they didn't want hunting passed as a constitutional right in this state.  Maybe some will wake up on this forum after hearing of this. 

[KoosCrazy]

Just passed a bill to ban coyote contest in NM.  Gov will sign, anti dems in charge here.

Guess we will have rabbit calling now.  

Before you bash AZ game and fish think about what a study will do.  It will show the calling contest do not harm nor affect the population.   They will have science to back them. Best method to fight antis.  Don’t know your commission but They might be helping more than you think.

[wildwoody]

So why call it a contest, just go out there and wipe them out. G&f is a big joke, we are California bond. Take your kids hunting as much as you can, I give it 10yrs and hunting will be a thing of the past. Jmo

[BeardownAZ]

1 hour ago, KoosCrazy said:

Just passed a bill to ban coyote contest in NM.  Gov will sign, anti dems in charge here.

Guess we will have rabbit calling now.  

Before you bash AZ game and fish think about what a study will do.  It will show the calling contest do not harm nor affect the population.   They will have science to back them. Best method to fight antis.  Don’t know your commission but They might be helping more than you think.

Since when has liberals cared about facts? That's were you underestimate them. It's about agendas driven but illogical emotion. They are nuts and they are running this country into the ground, one state at a time.

[ThomC]

10 hours ago, wildwoody said:

So why call it a contest, just go out there and wipe them out. G&f is a big joke, we are California bond. Take your kids hunting as much as you can, I give it 10yrs and hunting will be a thing of the past. Jmo

Yes, call it a survey,  or a scientific experiment.  The average public doesnt have a clue.  The antis are calling it a killing contest to get the clueless on board to ban hunting.  It is all about PR.  G&F should be stating the benefits of wildlife management not just pandering to headlines created by people who want eliminate hunting or want to eliminate hunting for the average guy.  😒

[trophyseeker]

I emailed Tony Mandile, and he sent me the following: 

___________________________________________________

These are snippets from my IN THE FIELD column in Rocky Mt. G&F magazine. Feel free to repost with my permission. 

Circa 1999 
NO GO ON PREDATOR RULING

The months-long saga over the predator hunt contest issue continued unresolved when the Arizona Game and Fish Commission met in March. 

After months of meetings and public comment, the five-member commission had three proposed rule changes to consider. The choices were: institute a ban on predator hunting contests; ban predator hunting contests for economic gain; take no action on the issue and close the rule-making process.

Instead, with a 3-to-2 vote, the commission rejected all three and opted to reconsider a proposal it already had rejected at its December meeting. 

The ongoing issue began last fall when two Mesa, Ariz. men organized Predator Hunt Extreme and offered a $10,000 first-place prize to the person who killed the most predators. The body-count contest immediately raised the hackles of both the animal rights crowd and many of the state’s sportsmen’s groups. 
Of course, the anti-hunters wanted an immediate ban on ALL predator hunting, while the sportsmen preferred a somewhat moderate approach more in the realm of limiting the size of the prizes or other such controls. 

When the issue came up for discussion for the first time at the fall commission meeting, both sides made their thoughts known. Because there was a vast discrepancy in the proposals, the commission tabled the issue and asked the two factions to see if they could work out a compromise.
 
Working through the Arizona Attorney General's Office, sportsmen's groups and animal welfare organizations mediated a compromise. It reads:

"A. A person or group shall not participate in, promote, or solicit participation in any hunting contest for killing predatory animals, furbearing animals, or nongame animals.
B. There shall be an exception to section (A) for hunting contests meeting the following criteria;
1. The hunting contest is limited to participation by five or fewer persons; or
2. a. The maximum length for the hunting contest is three days, not including days canceled because of inclement weather; and, 
   b. The maximum aggregate economic benefit awarded to all participants in the hunting contest is not more than $1,000; and
   c. The hunting contest is limited to not more than 300 participants per hunting contest; and,
   d. The hunting contest is limited to the killing of predatory and furbearing animals only.
C. A person or group holding a hunting contest which is lawful pursuant to section (B) (2) of this rule shall submit a written report to the department by July 1 for the immediate preceding one year period ending May 30. The report shall be in a format provided by the department and shall specify the name of the person or group reporting, the number of participants, the dates of the contest, and the number of each species killed from each game management unit during each hunting contest. The reporting requirement shall terminate three years after the effective date of the adoption of this rule."

When the December meeting rolled around, the commission rejected the above. Since that meeting, however, two new commissioners came on board, and in March they joined veteran Commissioner Dennis Manning of Alpine, thereby voting to pursue the mediated rule language again.

The result:
A new period of public comment had to occur, which basically extended the rule-making process for at least another 90 days. So it’s unlikely the issue will make the commission agenda until this month’s (August) meeting in Pinetop or next month when the commission meets in Flagstaff. 

And the way this issue has been going, it’s good bet the language could change because not all of the animal rights or the sportsmen’s groups even agree on it. 

Stayed tuned. 

Circa 2000
PREDATOR RULING REVISITED

After nearly two years of wrangling and rhetoric tossing between hunters and animal-rights organizations, the Arizona Game and Fish Commission finally ended the saga of the predator-hunting contest controversy. In fact, by a three-to-two vote, the commission ended ALL organized predator-hunting contests. 

As adopted, Commission Rule R12-4-317 reads, "A person or group shall not participate in, promote, or solicit participation in any organized hunting contest for killing predatory animals, fur-bearing animals, or nongame mammals." 
 
 The issue started way back at the beginning of 1998 with the proposed and advertised the "Predator Hunt Extreme" contest that would award the winner a $10,000 prize. Within days, however, adverse public opinion caused the promoters to cancel the hunt.  

 Following the aborted high-dollar, state-wide predator hunt, a consortium of sportsmen’s conservation organizations and a combination of several animal-welfare groups petitioned the game commission. The groups requested the 5-member board begin the rule-making process to adopt legislation to regulate predator contest hunts. 

During the lengthy public process on the commission rule, the department received 11,927 letters, with 11,824 of them supporting a total ban on predator hunting contests. While thousands were "form" letters, more than a thousand were not, including ones from school children asking the commission to ban "body count contests."  

 The commission began the formal rule-making process on June 20, 1998 and had both factions meet to work out proposed language as a starting ground for the public process. While public meetings occurred, the game department entered the fray with hopes it might mediate a compromise with the two opposing sides. 

 At its Dec. 11, 1998 meeting the commission turned down the proposed rule and instead directed the department to file notices of supplemental proposed rule making so it could take public comment on two alternative rules.  Months later, the two alternative rules also never came to a vote. This time the commission directed the department to include into the mediated rule, as well. that had been mediated by the Attorney General’s Office. The three options became:

Proposed Alternative Rule 1 - Prohibit hunting contests for killing predator animals, furbearing animals, or nongame mammals.

Proposed Alternative Rule 2 - Would prohibit hunting contests for killing predatory animals, furbearing animals, or nongame mammals for economic benefit or gain.

Proposed Alternative Rule 3 - Would prohibit hunting contests for killing nongame animals and allow hunting contests for killing predatory animals and furbearing animals only when participation is limited to five or fewer persons or with all of the following limitations: maximum time allowed is three days; maximum aggregate economic benefit is $1,000; maximum participants is 300; and a report to be submitted to the Game and Fish Department.

The winner was Alternative 1, with Joe Carter casting the deciding vote. Commissioners Bill Berlat and Michael Golightly also voted “yea” for the complete ban, while Commissioners Dennis Manning and Hays Gilstrap cast dissenting votes. 

The new rule went into effect on January, 1, 2000.

Circa late 2000
Predator Hunt -- Again

Like an epic movie, it has been more than two years in the making, but in this case, it’s still not in your local theater. 
A proposal from the Arizona Game & Fish Commission to ban certain types of predator hunting contests went before the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council at a meeting in September for a second time. 

After more than three hours of testimony, the council shot the draft plan full of holes with an outright, unanimous rejection. At the same time, the members even questioned whether the game commission can legally manage Arizona’s wildlife. 

Arizona Game & Fish Department (AGFD) officials who attended the meeting left shaking their heads and trying to figure out what the council’s action meant.

The draft of the proposal would have banned predator hunting contests where participants paid to compete and received prizes based on the number of animals they tallied. It would not have affected predator hunting in general. 

During the time the department was taking input to hone the plan, a poll of Arizona residents showed more than 70 percent of those responding, including thousands of hunters, were in favor of the ban on these contests. 

As they did when they rejected the proposal in February, 2000, members of the review board cited vague wording. But this time, they also questioned the lack of a legislative mandate to the game commission to make the law. The opinion on the latter was based on those of the state’s attorneys who claimed the issue is a social one and not a biological one, thus does not come under the game commission’s duties of managing wildlife. 

Game department officials argued unsuccessfully that Arizona’s Legislature appointed the commission members to manage all wildlife in the state. They pointed to seasons, weapon choices and shooting from vehicles as all basically falling within “social” issues. The objections failed to change the outcome, however. 

Game commission member Joe Carter testified and voiced strong concern for the future because of the councils comments on the management scheme.

“The Arizona Game & Fish Commission has never said these contests have a biological impact. What it said is they have tremendous, tremendous social impact. No one doubts the authority of the commission to manage wildlife in Arizona. Without the ability to manage social impacts of wildlife, this commission’s ability to manage wildlife at all will be impacted.”

The debate was often heated to the point where council member Chuck Roach left the room after an angry exchange with a department biologist. 

Roach didn’t pull any punches in his rebuke and suggestion that it go back to the commissioners. “Find another way of doing it without an outright ban. And get clear and convincing evidence from the Legislature in the form of a legislative initiative, that you have the power to do this.” 

Council chairman Tim Bancosky adjourned the session, but not before adding his own zinger. “The public needs to know the rulemaking process does not end with a commission or at the Attorney General’s office That’s why we’re here.” 

Although the dejected game department staff left with lots of questions, AGFD Deputy Director Steve Farrell tried to put a different spin on it. “You have to look at this as a process. This part of it is done.”

Stay tuned for the ongoing saga. 
 

[KoosCrazy]

14 hours ago, BeardownAZ said:

Since when has liberals cared about facts? That's were you underestimate them. It's about agendas driven but illogical emotion. They are nuts and they are running this country into the ground, one state at a time.

I agree they don’t care. They are all about stirring up emotion from the in educated.

I know N.M. has won several law suits and avoided others by the anti’s and liberals.  They were able to do it because they had science to back up what they are doing.  I’m just hoping your State game and fish is going about it smartly.

All this happened in N.M. because a group held a contest then piled all the dead out on BLM where anti/ non hunters found them.  Gave hunters a heck of a black eye that ended up costing us.