Game Cameras- G&F Agenda

[bowhunter4life]

Let your voices be heard through emails to each commissioner and rulemaking emails as they will become official documentation. 

I have heard their will be a number of public records request after the February deadline of the 30 day open comment period. This will bring factual data of true numbers for and against the complete proposed ban. 

Rulemaking@azgfd.gov

AZGFD

[Delw]

On 12/7/2020 at 6:55 AM, trophyseeker said:

It wasn't meant to do either. It was meant to conserve wildlife by removing the competition aspect that has so badly infiltrated so much of what was once the moral practice of hunting. That is why the predators are still harvested. 

Offering prizes for mass killings harkens back to the days when commercial hunting led us to the laws and regulations we now have to conserve ALL wildlife. And that is the job of AZ G&F; to deal with all of the state's wildlife, not just that with targets painted on them. 

But then, I think you already knew all that. 😉

 

On 12/7/2020 at 7:11 AM, 654321 said:

If it wasn't for some bad publicity headed the departments way from public opinion there would still be predator calling contests the decision to ban predator contests had nothing to do with conserving wildlife.

 

On 12/7/2020 at 7:23 AM, trophyseeker said:

And that public opinion was based on my 2nd paragraph -- wanton slaughter fueled by the commercialism of cash prizes for such. A lot of hunters supported the ban too. 

We've gone astray of the topic, so you can have the last word if you choose to use it. 😃 

In case a few of you dont remember or might still have been in diapers  the predator hunting bans started back in the early 90's at the G&F meetings. thanks to a group called Earth First out of Tucson. They hammered the mesa office during one of the meetings it was pretty ugly a few fights broke out and alot of protesting about 1 mile south of the mesa office. I had my Daughter with me who was maybe 5 at the time as I went to all the meetings back then and this one was the board were asking for input I didnt have a baby sitter so took her. Had I known it was going to be ugly I would have never went. it was all over the news back then.

Earth 1st was basically and antifa organization back then for lack of another term. They were a bunch of young yuppies, some with weapons and even some with explosives cut down/ or tried to cut down the big metal power line towers in the desert, shot at hunters while deer hunting in the Kaibab, damaged camps and vehicles when hunters were out hunting, put out road spike on the logging roads etc etc. out in seligman during the summer prarie dog shooting they would drive out in the flats right in front of you honking there horns and such. they were just Batshit Crazy.

They ended up banning contest back then but mainly due to the tv coverage. then they allowed prizes to be giving away as raffle tickets. Don Martin( think it was don out of  kingman) should remember that they had the best yote contest ever ie antelope eaters..

it seems to all slow down after that then came along the dog lovers and Jo arpio and his animal group Deputies they hooked up with the human society on animal abuse and the anti hunting predator  thing started up again. and has been getting bigger and bigger. Not Blaming or saying that Arpio had anything to do with it but the TV stations started running all the poor poor animal storys about that time. someolder guys will remember the Term " its for the children" that was switched to the Term  "its for the dogs/animals" no body cared about kids anymore it was all about pets and mean hunters. Because of all this the people aka HUMAN SOCIETY who used to BURN excess puppies and kittens down on 35th ave the old pound got huge and pretty much control everything with the public, not to mention a ton of political power. These dumbass's went after bass fishermen in the late 90s and early 2000s saying that catch and release was to painful, and cruel to the fish.

Theres some history on how the predator contest ended incase some didnt know.

 

 

[biglakejake]

 

6 hours ago, Delw said:

Theres some history on how the predator contest ended incase some didnt know.

methinks the dates involved were the leghold trap ban.  the predator contests were still going strong until 2019.  a friend Brian Brooks in Jo City held two or three big ones each year.

the trapping ban happened when i was off hunting tuna and don't know all the details.

lee

[knothead]

Leg trap band occurred in 1994.  Soon afterwards the decline of Mule deer populations in AZ started.

[Outdoor Writer]

3 hours ago, Delw said:

 

 

In case a few of you dont remember or might still have been in diapers  the predator hunting bans started back in the early 90's at the G&F meetings. thanks to a group called Earth First out of Tucson. They hammered the mesa office during one of the meetings it was pretty ugly a few fights broke out and alot of protesting about 1 mile south of the mesa office. I had my Daughter with me who was maybe 5 at the time as I went to all the meetings back then and this one was the board were asking for input I didnt have a baby sitter so took her. Had I known it was going to be ugly I would have never went. it was all over the news back then.

Earth 1st was basically and antifa organization back then for lack of another term. They were a bunch of young yuppies, some with weapons and even some with explosives cut down/ or tried to cut down the big metal power line towers in the desert, shot at hunters while deer hunting in the Kaibab, damaged camps and vehicles when hunters were out hunting, put out road spike on the logging roads etc etc. out in seligman during the summer prarie dog shooting they would drive out in the flats right in front of you honking there horns and such. they were just Batshit Crazy.

They ended up banning contest back then but mainly due to the tv coverage. then they allowed prizes to be giving away as raffle tickets. Don Martin( think it was don out of  kingman) should remember that they had the best yote contest ever ie antelope eaters..

it seems to all slow down after that then came along the dog lovers and Jo arpio and his animal group Deputies they hooked up with the human society on animal abuse and the anti hunting predator  thing started up again. and has been getting bigger and bigger. Not Blaming or saying that Arpio had anything to do with it but the TV stations started running all the poor poor animal storys about that time. someolder guys will remember the Term " its for the children" that was switched to the Term  "its for the dogs/animals" no body cared about kids anymore it was all about pets and mean hunters. Because of all this the people aka HUMAN SOCIETY who used to BURN excess puppies and kittens down on 35th ave the old pound got huge and pretty much control everything with the public, not to mention a ton of political power. These dumbass's went after bass fishermen in the late 90s and early 2000s saying that catch and release was to painful, and cruel to the fish.

Theres some history on how the predator contest ended incase some didnt know.

 

 

Many of the "facts" in the above are out of whack. 

[ThomC]

It sounds to me that the G&F doesnt like anybody making money by killing animals.  Sounds like the first step of the antis to ban hunting.  Use the evil money card.  How many earth first and the like are infiltrated into the G&F now. 

So, why not just say nobody shall charge money to help hunters hunt.  Everyone knows it is the guides for profit that are the problem with cameras.  

[knothead]

3 minutes ago, ThomC said:

It sounds to me that the G&F doesnt like anybody making money by killing animals.  Sounds like the first step of the antis to ban hunting.  Use the evil money card.  How many earth first and the like are infiltrated into the G&F now. 

So, why not just say nobody shall charge money to help hunters hunt.  Everyone knows it is the guides for profit that are the problem with cameras.  

Notice who will be the biggest and loudest complainers at the G&F hearings.  It will be the guides or the wealthy clients of the guides. 

I wish some sort of compromise could be reached instead of a total ban.  That is why a camera season made the most sense to me.  If the only two options are living with them or going back to the days when we didn't have them, I choose banning them.  Outfitters/Guides in a handful of units have nobody else to blame but themselves for this mess.

[Outdoor Writer]

9 hours ago, biglakejake said:

 

methinks the dates involved were the leghold trap ban.  the predator contests were still going strong until 2019.  a friend Brian Brooks in Jo City held two or three big ones each year.

the trapping ban happened when i was off hunting tuna and don't know all the details.

lee

Leghold trap ban on PUBLIC land came about through a voter initiative -- Proposition 201 -- that passed with 58% in Nov., 1994. Thus the AGFD had nothing to do with it. By law, as a state agency, they weren't even allowed to comment on it one way or another.  A similar proposition (200) failed to pass by 62% in 1992

Right on with predator contest ban. It was passed by the G&F Commission & Governor’s Regulatory Review Council in Sept. 2019 and went into effect 60 days later. The G&F commission had voted 3-2 for a ban in 1999, but the Review Council voted it down.

[Delw]

9 hours ago, biglakejake said:

 

methinks the dates involved were the leghold trap ban.  the predator contests were still going strong until 2019.  a friend Brian Brooks in Jo City held two or three big ones each year.

the trapping ban happened when i was off hunting tuna and don't know all the details.

lee

Leghold traps were also banned around that time. not at same meeting

Predator contest were banned for using money prizes. They uses to be like a bass tourny, most yote wins  they had payouts just like bass tournys as well. it all depended on how many people put it to what they paid out.

, but as resourceful as people are they found legal ways to keep having contest. using the raffle ticket way. guys with most raffles won.  They had to quit calling them contests. later on as well.

I'm really surprised some dont remember this. I'll see if I hacn find some old info I may even have a old antelope eaters flier

[Delw]

Wife was thinking it was in the latter 90's. like 96-98. looked on the web still cant find any flier or info from the Mohave gun clubs early antelope eaters contest.

[Outdoor Writer]

Posted by Trophyseeker in this thread from 2019: 
https://www.coueswhitetail.com/forums/topic/84897-gf-talking-about-banning-calling-contest/?tab=comments#comment-843955

**************************************************************************
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. 

[Outdoor Writer]

I broke my promise again. And now I'm done with this thread. 

[Delw]

40 minutes ago, Outdoor Writer said:

Posted by Trophyseeker in this thread from 2019: 
https://www.coueswhitetail.com/forums/topic/84897-gf-talking-about-banning-calling-contest/?tab=comments#comment-843955

**************************************************************************
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. 

Thanks

Thats when it was. it started 2 years prior by the predator master guys flier.  that mesa meeting was the last game and fish meeting I ever attended from the hunting side.,  I could have sworn it was option 2 as thats when every yote shoot went to the raffle ticket deal. Maybe that was in 1998? then went to the option 1 in 2000.

the late 80's to 2002 were some wild years with the anti hunters

[Outdoor Writer]

Whatever...

[MT_Sourdough]

Cameras heck! They've been talking about banning blinds on water holes. What's next?

Tell you what,  Why don't we all stand arms length apart  and then form a circle.  Next we can shoulder our firearms and open fire.   Same difference,