Arizona Game & Fish Commission Folds to Political

[GameHauler]

At the April 18 Arizona Game & Fish Commission Meeting, the Commission agreed 5-0 to support proposed amendments to HR 3287, the Tumacacori Highlands Wilderness Act. As many of you will recall, Congressman Grijalva (D) Arizona Congressional District 7, introduced HR 3287 on August 1, 2007. Since that time a great deal of debate has occurred over the merits of creating another wilderness area in Arizona.

 

 

 

The Arizona Game & Fish Department (AGFD) is on record stating its concerns about the Tumacacori Highlands proposed wilderness designation. AGFD made it clear in a letter to Senator John McCain in June 2005, that creation of additional wilderness areas in the state are not in the best interest of wildlife and encouraged alternative management allocations other than a Wilderness designation. In the letter the former director of AGFD Duane Shroufe said " ... it is our experience that wilderness designation will not ensure the continued well being of fish and wildlife populations nor eliminate the impacts that outside factors will have on fish and wildlife resources in the Tumacacori Highlands. Instead, it will unnecessarily limit the resource agencies' ability to proactively address and mitigate these impacts." The letter and accompanying attachment provided a a long list of issues the AGFD has experienced over the years in managing fish and wildlife in wilderness areas - none of which are beneficial to Arizona's wildlife resource.

 

 

 

In a recent issue of NRA's American Hunter magazine Darren LaSorte authored an article "Too Much of a Good Thing" about this very issue. Mr. LaSorte is NRA-ILA Manager for Hunting Policy. His article is right on point about the pitfalls of wilderness designations. He cites how wilderness takes a toll on wildlife by prohibiting state game agencies from conducting the most basic of wildlife management practices in Wilderness areas and goes on to say" Arizona's bighorn sheep population has been an unfortunate victim."

 

 

 

"With this recent action the Commission really lost an opportunity to parlay their support for some real meaningful reforms in the prohibitive and litigious manner in which wilderness is errantly administered in Arizona and to assert that wildlife management activities are allowed and not prohibited in wilderness" noted Brian Dolan of Tucson. "The Commission basically voted to support another island of no active wildlife management and restricted access in Arizona in exchange for a politician's promise to attend to a problem he doesn't fully understand or appreciate"

 

 

 

Larry Audsley, President of Southern Arizona Sportsmen's Alliance, agrees saying that "the Commissioners are telling themselves they got the best deal they could get but the proposed language will only increase the stranglehold wilderness law already has on wildlife management. I'll always believe the Commissioners could have fixed the bill or killed it, if only they would have had the will to do so."

 

 

 

Jonny Fugate of the Yuma Valley Rod and Gun Club expressed disappointment in the Commission's action, but was unavailable for a more detailed comment as he is on a turkey hunt in New Mexico.

 

 

 

So why did the Commission agree to supporting HR 3287 without a commitment from the bill sponsor to address the four concerns previously identified at the September 7, 2007 Commission meeting? One can only speculate as the decision, at least from the sportsmen's perspective, is not in the best interest of wildlife. Perhaps the Commission thought it was the best they could do and that some change was better than nothing. Perhaps some of the Commission members let their philosophical bent and support of wilderness designations overshadow their good judgement as to what is best for wildlife. Perhaps the political pressure from environmental activists made it too difficult and some members felt they had to bow to being "politically correct".

 

 

 

It's easy to say" they should have done this" or "I would have done that" but if you have ever served on an elected or appointed Board, you know some decisions are not easy. Don't get me wrong, I am not apologizing for the Commission or condoning their action. Sometimes you just have to take the road less traveled and stand up for what you know in your heart is the right decision. I don't think the Commission did that. I believe they rationalized a decision that in the end will not bring about a solution to wilderness management issues, but it will give at least one Arizona Congressman a backdrop and support for creating one more wilderness in Arizona. In the end, the Commission should have done the right thing for wildlife. It is their duty and their mission to maintain and enhance wildlife populations. I for one think they fell short on this mandate.

 

 

 

For a copy of the AGFD June 5 letter to Senator Mc Cain http://www.arizonasportsmenforwildlife.org...to%20McCain.pdf

[DesertBull]

You know why this Grijalva guy is trying to get this new wilderness area right? It's right on the border and a wilderness area will keep border patrol out.

[Red Rabbit]

DB,

Correctomundo!

[.270]

zakly. sure gonna make cleanin' up the garbage they leave harder. be the only wilderness area that looks like a landfill. Lark.

[DesertBull]

http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/Grijalva-Raul.html