G&F opposes Constitutional right to hunt

[DesertBull]

News from the Arizona Game and Fish Commission

 

Arizona Game and Fish Commission concerned that

proposed legislation could impede wildlife management, bring lawsuits

 

PHOENIX — The Arizona Game and Fish Commission has expressed concern to House Concurrent Resolution 2037, a proposed amendment that would create a new constitutional right to hunt and fish in Arizona.

 

The Game and Fish Commission voted on Feb. 21 to oppose the bill as written, after a legal review by the Attorney General’s office advised that elevating hunting and fishing to a constitutional right could potentially hurt the state’s ability to enforce wildlife laws or take wildlife management actions, and could open the door to lawsuits from individuals who feel their rights to hunt and fish have been adversely affected.

 

“We understand the desire of the bill’s supporters to protect the ability of people to hunt and fish in Arizona into the future,” said Commission Chairman William McLean. “While the concept sounds appealing on the surface, the language of this bill as currently written could contain many pitfalls for wildlife management and law enforcement.”

 

The commission and the bill’s supporters worked extensively over the past week in an attempt to reach a compromise on the bill’s wording. But in a public commission meeting on Monday, the sides could not come to an agreement.

 

“Both sides made a diligent, good-faith effort to try to arrive at language that would satisfy the bill’s supporters and alleviate our concerns, but in the end, we couldn’t arrive at mutually acceptable language,” said McLean.

 

Under current Arizona law, hunting and fishing are considered privileges, not constitutional rights. Making them constitutional rights could subject Game and Fish laws and regulations to a more stringent legal standard and increase disputes over whether those laws and regulations overly restrict someone’s right to fish and hunt.

 

As an example, certain laws that regulate hunting and fishing, as well as the commission’s decisions to revoke a person’s hunting and fishing license privileges, would likely be subject to a strict scrutiny standard because they would interfere with a person’s constitutional right to hunt and fish.

 

Yet another example, the commission is likely to face more legal challenges to its decisions on matters such as issuing a certain number of big game tags, establishing bag limits, and closing or limiting access to certain areas to protect wildlife habitat or benefit protected species, because these actions might interfere with the constitutional right to hunt and fish.

 

“In addition to the high expense of defending the lawsuits, the State could potentially face large damage awards, injunctions blocking the enforcement of hunt orders, challenges to road or land closures protecting wildlife habitat, court decisions declaring state wildlife laws unconstitutional, reversal of criminal convictions and revocation orders on constitutional grounds, and above all, the diversion of vital agency resources to defend the litigation instead of managing wildlife,” said McLean.

 

The bill passed through the House Committee on Natural Resources and Public Safety yesterday by a 6-3 vote (and one committee member voting as present).

 

If ultimately approved by the Legislature, HCR 2037 would go to voters as a ballot referendum this fall.

 

 

Ok, so what is your take on this stance and who is pushing this amendment?

[KGAINES]

HCR_2037_Right_to_Hunt___Fish_1_.pdf

[donniedent]

I think it will force G&F to be a little more carefull about how they do things. Pretty simple language but it also leaves alot of room for dispute. Overall I think the authors are trying to establish hunting and fishing as a right and not a privledge but I can see a real mess brewing. "I'm sueing g&f because I haven't been drawn in 10 years".... kinda stupid! On the other hand it will absolutly force G&F to really manage wildlife the right way and not the helter skelter way they've been doing it.

 

heck, I don't even care.... I'm moving to Wyoming in 2 months. Can anyone say "over the counter deer and elk tags"!!!! To heck with this mismanaged, over populated, over priced state!!!!!

 

 

Donnie

[DesertBull]

Does anyone know if there was a group such as SFW, ADA, RMEF, etc that started this push for the amendment and which groups support / oppose it?

[cjw2222]

I think it will force G&F to be a little more carefull about how they do things. Pretty simple language but it also leaves alot of room for dispute. Overall I think the authors are trying to establish hunting and fishing as a right and not a privledge but I can see a real mess brewing. "I'm sueing g&f because I haven't been drawn in 10 years".... kinda stupid! On the other hand it will absolutly force G&F to really manage wildlife the right way and not the helter skelter way they've been doing it.

 

heck, I don't even care.... I'm moving to Wyoming in 2 months. Can anyone say "over the counter deer and elk tags"!!!! To heck with this mismanaged, over populated, over priced state!!!!!

 

 

Donnie

 

Well i am sure they would think of such a basic lawsuit as i havent been drawn in x amount of years. While our politicians and G&F may not always side with the hunter mentallity, they are still smart enough to cover the basics.

 

Without reading the proposed bill, I cannot really say much except i am sure there are reasons other than those cited in the article. Maybe it would cut into their pockets as well I have no idea. I do, however, feel safer with our hunting in the hands of AZ G%F and not the Arizona Legislature...

 

 

Oh and congrats on the OTC tags, I will just have to suck it up and continue to hunt and help hunt world class elk and deer during our mild winters :P

[peloncillo]

I hadn't even heard of this until now. I think I like it.

 

Keven

[DesertBull]

I know the Commission was not happy when the the 10% NR cap was made a state law instead of a G&F rule.

[KGAINES]

I am trying to find more info on this, there was a meeting earlier this month with both groups expressing their point of views on this bill. This is part of the message I got on the meeting it was on Feb. 26th.

Mr. Todd Rathner of the NRA, Rep. Jerry Weiers, and Commission Chairman Bill McLean. They will be their to discuss both positions on HCR 2037. I didn't go and don't know who did, maybe someone can let us all know.

[couesdiehard]

I have a huge problem with this bill. Read Section 36A. "The rights of citizens to hunt, fish and harvest game animals........shall not be impaired and is subject ONLY TO REASONABLE REGULATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS SPECIFICALLY PRESCRIBED BY THE LEGISLATURE."

I don't want those idiots making the rules! You shouldn't even be able to use the words "reasonable" and "legislature" in the same sentence.

[donniedent]

"Oh and congrats on the OTC tags, I will just have to suck it up and continue to hunt and help hunt world class elk and deer during our mild winters"

 

LOL.... hmmmm. 300" bull (and cow) every year or 350" bull every 7 to 10 years. I dunno... tough choice. LOL!!!! I will miss coues deer but there are plenty of WT's up there to make up for it.

 

Seriously, I will miss winters but I dang sure won't miss working outdoors all summer. The other thing is that I'm the 7th generation of my family to live in AZ... Loooong roots to pull in order to move. I'm gonna miss it.

 

Donnie

[NRS]

I took a look at the proposed language and it is VERRRY SCARRRY!!!!!!!!! having 30 years of reading and interpreting laws, rules and regulations, i have learned that the legal system has very well defined set of rules for interpretation's laws.

 

The way this one reads, you can hunt and fish, but you can only harvest GAME ANIMALS, you can not harvest fur bearing animals, predators or aquatic wildlife (fish not listed as "game fish"). This is taking the definitions of game animals straight out of the G&F reg's. The second part says you can only take game using "traditional methods....traditionally pursued" This can be legally determined in court to mean only "traditional" bows can be used, No compounds allowed. Traditional rifles could be defined as black powder firearms with open sights, no scopes. No binoculars, no spotting scopes, no rangefinders, no GPS, no ATV, No Rhino's or Rangers....

 

Finally the most scary part is that the legislature would be managing the wildlife in this state. They have been trying to do that ever since 1935 when the sportsmen of this state created the Game and Fish Commission with the rules that they did to keep politics out of game management in this state.

 

I think the G&F is right to oppose this piece of legislation.

[Coues 'n' Sheep]

I took a look at the proposed language and it is VERRRY SCARRRY!!!!!!!!! having 30 years of reading and interpreting laws, rules and regulations, i have learned that the legal system has very well defined set of rules for interpretation's laws.

 

The way this one reads, you can hunt and fish, but you can only harvest GAME ANIMALS, you can not harvest fur bearing animals, predators or aquatic wildlife (fish not listed as "game fish"). This is taking the definitions of game animals straight out of the G&F reg's. The second part says you can only take game using "traditional methods....traditionally pursued" This can be legally determined in court to mean only "traditional" bows can be used, No compounds allowed. Traditional rifles could be defined as black powder firearms with open sights, no scopes. No binoculars, no spotting scopes, no rangefinders, no GPS, no ATV, No Rhino's or Rangers....

 

Finally the most scary part is that the legislature would be managing the wildlife in this state. They have been trying to do that ever since 1935 when the sportsmen of this state created the Game and Fish Commission with the rules that they did to keep politics out of game management in this state.

 

I think the G&F is right to oppose this piece of legislation.

 

 

Based on that info I am with you NRS!

[cjw2222]

I took a look at the proposed language and it is VERRRY SCARRRY!!!!!!!!! having 30 years of reading and interpreting laws, rules and regulations, i have learned that the legal system has very well defined set of rules for interpretation's laws.

 

The way this one reads, you can hunt and fish, but you can only harvest GAME ANIMALS, you can not harvest fur bearing animals, predators or aquatic wildlife (fish not listed as "game fish"). This is taking the definitions of game animals straight out of the G&F reg's. The second part says you can only take game using "traditional methods....traditionally pursued" This can be legally determined in court to mean only "traditional" bows can be used, No compounds allowed. Traditional rifles could be defined as black powder firearms with open sights, no scopes. No binoculars, no spotting scopes, no rangefinders, no GPS, no ATV, No Rhino's or Rangers....

 

Finally the most scary part is that the legislature would be managing the wildlife in this state. They have been trying to do that ever since 1935 when the sportsmen of this state created the Game and Fish Commission with the rules that they did to keep politics out of game management in this state.

 

I think the G&F is right to oppose this piece of legislation.

 

 

Based on that info I am with you NRS!

 

+1

[wetmule]

While the idea of a constitutional amendment protecting hunting in AZ sounds appealing from the outside, once you open up the book and read a little, it's something I don't think we want any part of. I think this will just open up a can of worms that none of us wants open and theres really no reason to open it up anyways. Bad idea, IMO

[az4life]

"Oh and congrats on the OTC tags, I will just have to suck it up and continue to hunt and help hunt world class elk and deer during our mild winters"

 

LOL.... hmmmm. 300" bull (and cow) every year or 350" bull every 7 to 10 years. I dunno... tough choice. LOL!!!! I will miss coues deer but there are plenty of WT's up there to make up for it.

 

Seriously, I will miss winters but I dang sure won't miss working outdoors all summer. The other thing is that I'm the 7th generation of my family to live in AZ... Loooong roots to pull in order to move. I'm gonna miss it.

 

Donnie

 

There are not really that many tags up here in Wyoming. Hunting is getting sooo bad and over regulated here that people are leaving to move to montana.

Hey, I don't want everyone moving here!

 

Seriously you missed the Moose, Bighorn sheep applications this year and you will even have to be here for a full year before you can get a resident tag. CWD in the SE part of the state was the heaviest in the country a few years ago so. Antelope are getting overhunted by all the NR's coming from all around and private land makes it hard to find a place to hunt. OTC tags are still fairly plentiful in certain zones so if you can find a good spot on public land you have a shot.

 

All the BS aside, it's windy here and sometimes it gets bitter cold, but not for that long at any one time, besides Cabelas has warm winter clothes so it is quite tolerable . I've played golf here in Feb and November so it is not that bad... Hunting has seasons Sept-Oct through Dec and buy a tag, it includes the license.

On the other hand, Spring, summers and Falls are GREAT with a 100 degree day about as rare as a 20 degree night in Phx.

We actually do have 4 seasons and sometimes in the same day!

 

I was a lifelong (over 4 decades) AZ native and I never looked back after moving to WY about 18 months ago. AZ was a nice place but about 15 years ago it started sliding south and it was time for a change. Sure miss hunting Coues, and the monster Tension that builds waiting to see if I can draw a tag. (half true) but hopefully I can draw one of those NR tags back to my former home someday.

 

Good Luck on your move.