krp

The argument about solely with the governor is my same argument about solely with a few special interests... Kent

So, because YVRGC agreed 90% with azsfw and the lobbyist, Townsend was put on the board by azsfw recommendation? That'd make it 5 of 5 hand picked. Or did he go independent to the Governor to be seated? Are all appointment boards so narrowly restricted to seating special interest requirements? Or are they an open seating? I'll discuss this with anyone, I'm right here. Kent

This is real politics, not some special interest board meeting of 400 members... Let me see if I can break this down by guessing and tell me how close I am... Gilstrap, excommissioner, azsfw linked in everything Chilton, excommissioner the same time as Gilstrap and asked to serve because of the connection and ranching Johnson, long time connections with the the same lobby group at least in association if not membership of azsfw, critter groups ect. Townsend, YVRGC were talked into supporting the legislation then reconsidered too late and were able put one of their own on the board. Stinson, a azsfwc director with obvious connections to the same group as Johnson. So 4 of the 5 were hand picked, Townsend and probably Clilton will listen to this new uproar from us and consider it, if we replace Stinson or Johnson with Taylor then we have a majority, maybe. Now this is a lot of trouble for a solution, to a problem, that was created with a built in self serving interests. Of the five sitting, how many folks do they represent by legislation, 2000 at most... they don't represent me and 300,000 other sportsmen who depend on the commission... let alone any general public who enjoy wildlife. It needs to be gone, not controlled. Kent

Well, I looked at the link again... http://www.azgfd.gov/govCommBoard/index2.html and though it says 2010 it goes to the 2011 meetings, I do remember the minutes from 2010 where they started with 4 sitting. Don't really have the energy to redo all my research I did two months ago. something else I found awhile ago. http://www.azgovernor.gov/bc/documents/GovAppointments.pdf Susan Elizabeth Chilton Brewer Term Expires 7/29/2012 Phillip Dale Townsend Brewer 7/29/2013 Donald R. Johnson Brewer 7/29/2014 William Hays Gilstrap Brewer 7/29/2015 Leonard Gary Stinson Brewer 7/29/2016 I don't take anything personal and always appreciate the conversation. I understand what is happening in this country as much or more than most... doing something unethical because the opposition works that way is playing right into their strategy... they like it, it legitimizes their philosophy. Kent

I went through the minutes a few months ago, I believe it was Stinson that wasn't on at the beginning but there in the minutes as present in the fall of 2010 and on. So it's been 5. Kent

The Commission Appointment Board is a political tool of special interests intended to reduce and/or replace the democratic process of public choice. It's not a conservation tool. Again the attempt to intermix conservation ethics with politics either organizationally or individually is non applicable. This is the political arena not a conservation project and those involved better have asbestos for skin. I will never support a reduction of our democratic foundation no matter the intentions or who is in control. Right now the sitting members need to A. hunker down and take heavy incoming flack B. step down gracefully now with a thank you C. make a public statement that they will watchdog our interests while working with the Governor and legislature in removing this board permanently... The, they're great people away from the political arena means nothing in this instance if they adopt A. Acting like a socialist within a selfserving selfproclaimed good intention is... exactly like every other socialist. Kent

It takes a lifetime to build a reputation and an instant to lose it... an unfortunate reality. If he was never confirmed he has a chance to step out gracefully and needs to take it. The continued mention of Jennifer Martin confirms the continued bitterness that started in 06 when she replaced Gilstrap on the commission and started all the hostilities that we are still dealing with today. She is long gone and the other players in this wound in our hunting community need to be gone also... along with their commission appointment board. Kent

We are taking significant federal hits, why because we lost the election to Obama, we allowed lobbyists to manipulate legislation removing our voting voice and constituency. We've lost the border and Rob Krentz, we enact 1070 and the feds fight 'us'. The feds, ATF, run guns to the cartels in a 2A restriction attempt and we lose Agent Terry. EPA throttles our economy and employment. Religious freedoms are for only NON'Christians. TSA gropes grandma and baby Tim at the airport. We have to win this election and hope Obama is distracted, we gave our voice away. azsfw is trying to Obama us, I'm keeping my voice this time. Kent

The dollar amount total of these 350 tags would be similar to the amount of the 30 auction and raffle tags now, but it will reduce the original tags value by 1/3rd at least. So the HPC will lose 1/3 and azsfw would negotiated with the G&F up to 30% of the new tags, so at best the HPC may collect as much for habitat. Of course if you stay with the 30 tags and add a 5.00 habitat stamp to all hunting and fishing licenses except youth. The habitat stamp will create more money than the 350 tags, and it will more than double the HPC fund for conservation. But that's too sensible and someone doesn't get a party and payday. Kent

Zim, I know you from MM and can say you are one of the good guys. Kent

Again, the issues of 2006 to 2009 we are still dealing with and I'm glad G&F are reversing some of them. It's not a coincidence that the Peak of the Nappy commission and the advent of a new path of supposed leadership of the orgs 'azsfw' had hostile clashes. Eventually having orgs like ADA asking unaffiliated folks to address the commission because they were effectively blackballed... for hostile personal statements of commission members it seems. I'm not blaming this commission or politics for that fiasco and they seem to be silently cleaning it up and we need to help on our end of 'Sportsmen groups and individuals'. Kent

Let me add this, I've noticed a pattern with azsfw... create a wedge between the dept/commission and hunters... bad commission/good commission... they want us to believe any commission is bad so they can justify taking over management of tags. They are now attempting to drive a wedge between us and our legislators and Governor... The same ones we applaud for sticking their finger in Obama's face and stand up for us on a federal level. That's not going to work either, I'm not going to fall for that and start cussing my Governor... we need to keep up the steady march forward and not get sidetracked. Kent

Couple of things... this commission isn't the Nappy commission of 08'. The hostilities of that commission can be directly related to the rise of azsfw and their tactics of relationship with that commission, especially the appointment of Martin. Statistics can be manipulated to support any view or stance. The depts numbers above are just to refute the premise of a specific stance of azsfw's. Here's my statistic with the same numbers of azsfw... in the last 20 years the chart indicates a dramatic decrease of wildlife and permits while there has been a continue increase in nonprofit wildlife organizations, members and fundraising. If you think mine is silly, think about azsfw's... Kent

George... who they should be comparing themselves to are Jesse Jackson and Acorn. Kent

If Weiers can walk the halls of the legislature and fight against this new push, as he said in the interview, he would fight it. That'll be hard to overcome politically as he was the original sponsor and main man for azsfw in the past. Kent

I myself am willing to give Weiers the benefit, we asked him to reconsider and he has publicly, what else can we except from a man. Now if it changes again in the future, so can we. Kent

Nice job Allen... figured they would keep it short. Kent

5500 is probably as many as all the state critter members total... there can't be 200 people that support this legislation that actually read it... counting their uncle fred who's 90 with dementia. Anyway, who else wonders how Allen did without a keyboard as a crutch... hope they at least let him use a teleprompter... I'm gett'n his autograph next time I see him, now that he's a TV star. can't wait to watch tonight amigo. Kent

Hope we do the Big'o'bbq before I have to go... I'd like to meet all these folks and thank them. Kent

John this is not colo and just less than 80% of Az, that's not rez, is public land. Include the metro areas in the 20% private and you are talking about a very small area of huntable private land. Access to public land blocked by private should be a state or federal resolved issue, that they won't seek compliance is just a reflection of our country's demise into socialism. Anyway, how many of these private areas that will hold 10 to 15 hunters are in the state? so we can have a better understanding of the cost to benefit ratio is if we have to pay ransom. How many can be accessed by foot same as a wilderness? how much of the 20% minus the metro hold huntable populations? You can't just talk generally, you have to bring some statistics. Then how is spending HPC monies on ransom going to increase the number of tags available? And for those in favor of these new tags and expo... how will that make a difference? Kent

It seems to me there was a system started by G&F to create some dollars for conservation, auction tags. Most of us didn't pay attention besides thinking if we won the lottery, hey it'd be fun. I couldn't have told you who bought a tag or if the same guy did multiple times, seems outrageous but a man's money is his to do spend. Now having been forced to look, the system has been taken over by a select few as far as purchase, but at least it was still G&F collecting the monies for the HPC. Now those same ones are now attempting to be the payers, collectors and spenders of the monies... cutting the G&F and HPC out. Kent

And the money comes right back to the organizations that he has part control of, pretty good gig.... bypassing G&F... who in reality are the ones 'raising' money for conservation by 'selling' tags... Another ethical dilemma... how can you be the seller and buyer of a 'public' resource. Kent

Yea... I'm just trying to wrap my brain around how AH paid for the project we've worked on. the examples of auction tags can't be right as he paid for a tag, that tag had value and would sell to someone, once the money exchanges hands then that money belongs to someone else to spend in the next cycle of purchases... that's how economy works. If he donated funds for a specific project without compensation, like we do on our unaffiliated jr hunts, then that's understandable and he should get credit. But that wasn't the way it was described in this thread... Buying a tag isn't doing anything but buying a tag and if a Rez tag/hunt is worth 40 grand then a 365 day anywhere tag is worth multiple times more on it own merit. Kent

I'm having a hard time finding where any of the auction or raffle tag monies are officially charity donations as in Tax deductible. If it is a purchase, then it's a transaction with both parties getting value, or in the raffle, a gamble for value same as the rez casino. If it's not tax deductible then throwing out the word donation is disingenuous. Kent

AH got a tag for his money, a tag he can only get with money... that's it. if he's also volunteered working on projects then he can claim that, same as the rest of us. If he donates money into the HPC direct with no reimbursement he can claim that. If he props up azsfw with money that's a political PAC lobby, he can't claim that as conservation. Kent