krp

§ 80.50 What activities are eligible for funding under the Pittman-RobertsonWildlife Restoration Act? The following activities are eligible for funding under the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act: (a)Wildlife Restoration program. (1) Restore and manage wildlife for the benefit of the public. (2) Conduct research on the problems of managing wildlife and its habitat if necessary to administer wildliferesources efficiently. (3) Obtain data to guide and direct the regulation of hunting. (4) Acquire real property suitable or capable of being made suitable for: (i) Wildlife habitat; or (ii) Public access for hunting or other wildlife-oriented recreation. (5) Restore, rehabilitate, improve, or manage areas of lands or waters as wildlife habitat. (6) Build structures or acquire equipment, goods, and services to: (i) Restore, rehabilitate, or improve lands or waters as wildlife habitat; or (ii) Provide public access for hunting or other wildlife-oriented recreation. (7) Operate or maintain: (i) Projects that the State fish and wildlife agency completed under the Pittman-Robertson WildlifeRestoration Act; or (ii) Facilities that the agency acquired or constructed with funds other than those authorized under the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act if these facilities are necessary to carry out activities authorized by the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act. (8) Coordinate grants in the Wildlife Restoration program and related programs and subprograms. (Wildlife Restoration - Basic Hunter Education and Safety subprogram. (1) Teach the skills, knowledge, and attitudes necessary to be a responsible hunter. (2) Construct, operate, or maintain firearm and archery ranges for public use. ©Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety program. (1) Enhance programs for hunter education, hunter development, and firearm and archery safety. Hunter-development programs introduce individuals to and recruit them to take part in hunting, bow hunting, target shooting, or archery. (2) Enhance interstate coordination of hunter-education and firearm- and archery-range programs. (3) Enhance programs for education, safety, or development of bow hunters, archers, and shooters. (4) Enhance construction and development of firearm and archery ranges. (5) Update safety features of firearm and archery ranges.

Are they claiming exclusive access to the educational funds through tag sales vs education license/application fee? Kent

I suggested here that a 5 dollar added fee per application, education fee, at around 300,000 apps could raise the money. But a 2 or 3 dollar license fee increase adding fishing would also do it. Pittman Robinson funds should be the first look. Kent

I truly try to make specific statements of fact or reasonable logic, and try not to single one post or person out, though Dave pressed some issues so it was more of a one on one with him. I don't expect everyone to understand what I'm saying but I'm not asking questions, I'm putting a very specific line of thought out for others to think about. I also expect to pissoff some folks and don't care. Kent

I never referenced a 6 year old post on this thread, go back and read my posts on this thread, I have laid out and referenced why this is a bad idea and alternate funding if it is necessary. I'm only answerable to the black part of my posts, anything you read in the white part is on you. Kent

Weird, I make statements on this issue that haven't been refuted. Only sneaky thing may be that it was me that asked Pete at the ADA meeting but that's all history on this site. Kent

At the 2012 ADA meeting someone pinned Pete down for an answer on whether the tag grab was ethical and right, with his head down he answered no... wonder who that person was... Kent

Problem I see this time... last time it was a legislative move to allow the sell of tags and the group keep the money to spend as they see fit, admin costs/salaries, expo, ect... stealing funds from G&F and G&F was against it... this time they are wanting to sell tags and give the money to G&F, hey do you want more money for 'education'? I don't think we have the allies we had last time. Kent

Well I know that they were still active during the original Portal/tag return/paid premium membership proposal by the G&F. I was contacted for an opinion of the proposal before the Mesa G&F meeting and saw them at the meeting and talked with them after. As far as I remember they were a watchdog group of legislative bills harmful to G&F and hunters. They weren't funded or soliciting funds to fight these bills, just make them public and not get under the radar as HB2072 almost did in 2012. Saying they were supposed to do what this group is wanting to do is wrong... if they had, all the critter orgs would have been asked to join and fund... right. Kent

I'm here but seldom post on this website anymore, I'll scan through the classifieds occasionally. When I was told what was going on again I knew I shouldn't have looked, even held off for a couple days. Kent

Dave you said this... "Absolutely no monies raised from tag and or permit fees can go to fight a political agenda. It would take a change to the state constitution. .....Please look into the money, time and effort required to do so. Also the slim chance it would be approved Pittman - Robertson monies would require a complete change to the system country wide." Now it's an educational program funded from the G&F not political. I've already addressed this in previous posts without calling out any specific posters quotes. An educational campaign can be funded conventionally and most probably with P/R funds. Kent

What group? I already linked the g&f site for hpc explaining their structure whitch doesn't match your description of what you were told of a board of individuals foot this new fund. I'm strictly addressing your words. Kent

I already understand the hpc process and if I wished to bring a proposal I could, but not to a board of individuals. Though I was invited to meetings and attended I was never a part of the constituency group, as far as I know they still exist and your description of their policies isn't correct and I dont remember them looking to create funds, they are a watchdog group against those wanting to screw the average hunter. You need to ask Allen Taylor, been a few years since I saw him at a g&f meeting. They might be looking into this fight now. There's be a bunch of misinformation in this thread, I can't go back and address it all again on my phone out of town. Kent

First thing I'd ask the g&f rep is can Pittman Robinson money be used as it's earmarked for hunter/prospective hunter education.

Sorry for any misspelling as I'm on my phone working out of town. Hoc not hoc.

I get my info from the azgfd website and reading the minutes of previous meetings. You said board of individuals. Are you a member of the hoc board of individuals? Or a representative of an org running a local committee? Kent

What you are describing is not similar to the HPC. There is no HPC board of individuals, there are local committees. AZGFD approves all funding proposals. This is a blatant attempt to piggyback off a successful and popular program. Who is feeding you this info and staying behind the scenes? Let me given you some advice, last time I was point man in 2012, my phone bill was 300 bucks from all the org leaders and others that wanted give me info to put out publicly.. you need to vet any info you relay as it's on you if it's wrong... don't let someone feed you soundbites and then sit back anonymous to see how it plays. Kent

Yes. I was hoping folks could connect the dots themselves. The only thing money like this can be used for educational wise would be a campaign like the boater safety commercials. This would not be a war chest for political activism. Because of legal liabilities these monies would be absorbed into G&F revenues same as all others. Ultimately it's about selling tags only. Kent

They can read this thread and if they wish to clarify their issue to the readers for support they can readily do that. Kent

Well, I really don't have any question for them. They want to sell tags for some ambiguous education fund that can't be utilized for their stated goal of combating anti hunting political initiatives. I'm just addressing that and also some misinformation on how funding for education can be done besides selling tags. Kent

An 'Education' fund, EPC, education partnership committee, could be created with any number of revenue sources. And available equally to all prospective applicants including the anti's. And this in no way addresses the issue of funding to combat the anti's in the political arena. Any funding for political issues cannot come from a public resource it must come from private sources. This whole thing makes no sense in how it's being proposed. Kent

HPC... this should not be compared to how a war chest to counter political attacks from anti hunters can be used. Established by the Arizona Game and Fish Commission in 1992, the Arizona Elk Habitat Partnership Committee and affiliated Local Habitat Partnership Committees were created to address and reduce elk and livestock conflicts and to promote partnerships through cooperative projects. In January 1996, the program concept expanded beyond elk and livestock conflicts and was renamed the Arizona Habitat Partnership Committee to better reflect an ecosystem approach to wildlife habitat management and related projects. Active local Habitat Partnership Committees (HPCs) meet in Springerville-Alpine, Winslow, Show Low, Williams-Flagstaff, Prescott, Yuma, Safford, Tucson, Sierra Vista, and Payson. The Forage Resource Study Group in Coconino County also participates as an affiliate member. There are currently 13 Local Habitat Partnership Committees (LHPC) and one affiliate member across the state, which comprise the Arizona Habitat Partnership Committee (AHPC). All of these committees focus on putting money on the ground to improve habitat or management for big game species, although many projects benefit other wildlife and livestock as well. The State HPC Committee meets twice a year. The program’s primary funding source is Special Big Game License-Tag funds, although the HPC strives to incorporate multiple funding sources to bring the maximum benefit to wildlife. The Commission annually awards 3 special big game license-tags per big game species to nonprofit wildlife conservation organizations that auction or raffle these tags to raise funding that is used to benefit the wildlife species for which the license-tag is issued. The sponsoring wildlife conservation organizations must cover all marketing and administrative costs for the license tag sales, and 100% of the money raised is returned to the state of Arizona. These funds are allocated through the HPC Program by collaboration between the Department and the wildlife conservation organizations that market and sell the tags. Once project proposals are submitted, the Department coordinates with these wildlife conservation organizations and funding is allocated to the projects that provide the most benefit to big game species in Arizona.

Another 5 bucks during application would generate over 1 million. But the problem remains that these monies can't be used to challenge political initiatives. Kent

No money generated by selling tags could be used to oppose political initiatives. The 'need' for this money is being misrepresented. Kent

Excellent, we don't have to be at all places all the time, just enough to get the job done, and enough of us to do it. I had plenty of average hunters who debated antis on my facebook feed, which in turn is seen by many others just watching. Social media is a much bigger avenue to get the word out than hunting forums or a web page. It seems to be overlooked as a free pulpit. Kent