twigsnapper

If we all send comments to the commission and we get 200 people to the meeting we will make a Difference. The commissioners will listen if we speak but you can choose to not do anything and accept the rule as written, then talk about how their mind was already made up. It easier to stay home and complain anyway.

Here is my first letter, I will be drafting another after listening to the webcast... AZGFD Rulemaking Team, I offer the following concerns pertaining to the Article 3 Proposed Rulemaking and specifically the proposed restrictions on the use of trail cameras under R12-4-303. 1) The proposed restrictions are an over-reaction to problem of trail camera abuses for elk and deer hunts in the northern part of the state. These abuses tend to exist in the high demand and extremely competitive premium elk and deer hunt areas in GMUs 9, 10, 12A, 12B, 13A and 13B. 2) There does not appear to be any scientific data that supports trail camera use on developed water negatively effects wildlife. There is also no data that supports cameras used away from waters negatively effects wildlife. 3) The department is underestimating the recruitment value of trail cameras for todays youth. My kids love to set and use trail cameras. Using them around water is much more effective for capturing images. I personally like to use trail cameras in 6a and unit 21 with my kids throughout the summer. I have been applying a family of youth hunters in for 6a for three years. They finally drew tags this year. If the proposed rule was in place, I would be forced to choose between using the cameras to educate my kids and being able to assist on a youth hunt. Both actions are very important to hunter recruitment. I have the exact same situation with a friend who is a new adult hunter in unit 21. 4) If a WM is using trail cameras for a research project and has their cameras on waters, they would not be allowed to hunt the unit(s) they are researching in. This seems a bit unfair to the WMs. This situation also may cause a Regional Supervisor to be put in the same predicament. Who will oversee that the department is inforcing this rule on themselves? I do support that the department take action on trail cameras as I have seen the abuses first hand. I offer a couple of alternative ideas on to the current rule as written. 1) Have a trail camera season. Montana has a similar rule. Perhaps being able to run trail cameras from February 1st to July 31st. From August 1st to January 31st no trail cameras on develop waters could be used by a license Arizona hunter or guide. Most folks want to run trail cameras in the summer months when water usage is highest. The frequency of checking cameras is less in the summer than it is during the hunting seasons. 2) Trail camera restrictions (standard, live action and gps) only apply to cervid wildlife in the northern part of the state. It makes little sense to have a wholesale restriction on the use of trail cameras. We need all the tools available to manage predators and keep our game herds vibrant.​​​​​​​​​ Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me should you have any concerns. Andy St. John

They haven’t passed anything yet. The way to make a difference now is to email each of the commissioners with your concerns before the June 8th meeting. Then show up on Jun 8th and express your concern or support in person. There were over 200 people on the webcast tonight. If we all show up in Payson they will get the picture. They are required to allow you to speak if you fill out a card. Only 4 people spoke at the last meeting and the vote was 2-2. If 200+ show up in Payson our message will be delivered. Don’t make an excuse about work, take the day off or call in sick. 1) email each commissioner now - be respectful but express your concerns or support Jim Ammons, Chairman jammons@azgfd.gov No Department issued cell phone, no direct line. Jim Zieler jzieler@azgfd.gov No Department issued cell phone, no direct line. Eric Sparks e.sparks@azgfd.gov 602-309-7311 cell phone, no direct line. Kurt Davis k.davis@azgfd.gov No Department issued cell phone, no direct line. Bill Bake b.brake@azgfd.gov 832-693-0572 cell phone, no direct line. 2) show up in Payson on June 8th and speak. Be respectful but be honest and make your voice heard.

Everyone who has an interest needs to be on the webinar for sure...

Very cool!!! Kids need teachers like you...

Docters are great glasss but its all about the warranty, or lack there of. Buy a pair of Kaibabs for $800 with a full warranty or Docters with no warranty... The price on used Docters reflects over all value, not just optical quality. Glad these sold.

Friday bump, still looking

It didnt pass, it is still open for comment.

This is the very reason we need to take action. The G&F chooses to spend money on all kinds of things that dont benefit big game. They would rather spend money on studying minnows and frogs instead of educating the general public on how the system works... youre actually supporting the reasoning of CAPAZ...

I am off to celebrate mothers day. I'll do some more digging later......

Interesting stuff on this page.... https://wildlife.utah.gov/utah-expo-permits-faq.html#q4 Q22: Why was SFW awarded the expo permit contract when RMEF offered to give a higher percentage of revenue back to Utah for conservation? The RMEF proposal scored very highly on its commitment to return revenue to the DWR for wildlife conservation in Utah. Its score in that category was much higher than SFW’s score. However, the State Purchasing committee was not evaluating the proposals on just that category. Committee members had to examine all of the details submitted for each of the evaluation categories. SFW’s proposal contained much more detail in the business plan and data-security categories. Only the SFW proposal provided sufficient detail in explaining how the organization planned to secure customers’ identities and credit card information.

Doing a little digging on the Utah game and fish website: Q4: Which conservation groups have held the expo permit contract? Since the Wildlife Expo Permit Program began in 2007, three separate expo permit contracts have been awarded. The first contract went to the Foundation for North American Wild Sheep in 2007, and the second one went to the Mule Deer Foundation (MDF) in 2011. The most recent expo permit contract — which will run from 2017–2021 — was awarded to Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife (SFW) in December 2015. SFW will partner with MDF and the Utah Foundation for North American Wild Sheep (UFNAWS) during this contract period.

I read that article in the previous thread. Looks like lack of transparency with the system but not one fact in there about how hunting opportunities have been negatively affected....

Do you mind providing a few examples of how the average hunter has been negatively effected in Utah? I keeping hearing that the Utah system has been hindered by the tags but Im not hearing any facts such as lower tags, decreased opportunity for youth, higher predator numbers, tag price increases above the norm...... i dont know much about Utah, thanks.

Ttt

Curious how this effects Hunters.... https://www.azpm.org/p/home-articles-news/2018/5/7/129055-environmental-groups-plan-to-sue-to-protect-moth-found-in-arizona/ The Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife and the Patagonia Area Resource Alliance have filed a notice that they intend to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over a decision to not extend endangered species protection to the Patagonia eyed silkmoth. The moth's habitat is in the sky islands that straddle the Arizona-Mexico border, with its lone known habitat on the U.S. side in the Santa Rita Mountains. A lawyer for the Center for Biological Diversity said there are three groups who have filed exploratory mining claims that could prove detrimental to the species. "Future hard rock mining exploration and development is a concern that the Endangered Species Act could address," said Brian Segee. He also noted that the Patagonia eyed silkmoth has been found in an abandoned cemetery near the ghost town of Harshaw. The groups think the fact that the species is found in a gated area shows another possible cause of habitat destruction. "It's one of the few areas in the local vicinity that has been protected from livestock grazing, where this sole population, currently the only known U.S. population is found," he said. The notice gives the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 60 days to re-evaluate its decision to not protect the moth before the groups can file a lawsuit.

Is it the old style frame or the neeer one? Maybe a pic of the other side?

Thanks for the heads up, Ill call over there. 👍🏻

Good stuff right here

Weekend bump, $850 obo

Friday bump

Inside width is 60 and it has a 3500lb axle and springs

Well what do the results say?

What size is frame and waist belt?

Its very important that we have elk guys, sheep guys, deer guys, on the appointment committee. The last thing we want are folks with non big game agendas on that committee. If the C&P thing doesnt get off the ground, we dont want Tucson Cat lady appointing our commissioners. Thats an extreme example.. but.. Just my opinion.