javihammer

This is 100% correct. Although I appreciate the initiative someone took to setup this poll it is about as unscientific as it gets. As Delw said, the key stakeholders in this are the resident Arizona big game hunters, who knows where these votes are coming from or whether someone has voted more than once. AZGFD has the complete list of Arizona hunters and could make sure the right population is polled. The only representative poll would be one conducted by a third party firm with polling expertise. There is a whole lot of statistical modeling and psychology that goes into creating a good pool and all of them have some degree of inherent bias in the way the questions are asked even when the poller tries to minimize it. Third party firms are there to help minimize the bias, polls that come from companies directly are usually assumed to support a pre-conceived agenda. As far as this poll, Several guys have mentioned they would like seasons minimally but also don’t like bans. The choice related to permitting is a stand alone choice but would likely be necessary for tracking violators if there were seasons. I find it interesting that the zero ban choice was around 12% most of the day yesterday but is now over 30%. Wondering if there is some thumb on the scale going on as that is quite a jump. It is promising to know that even on a site with dedicated named forums for outfitters and trail camera content all over the place there is still a huge segment that supports a complete ban of memory card trail cameras for hunting in Arizona. Imagine the overwhelming landslide in ban supporters there would be if the playing field was more level. Ryan

I didn’t provide commentary on the 2018 camera regulation meeting because I like to play Perry Mason. I was trying to show that beyond the crying guide antics the meeting as related to trail cameras was a smoke show that was thin on regular hunters, thick on commercial interests and seasoned with dubious claims made by a fellow commissioner if the meeting minutes are to be believed. If I were Kurt Davis I would have been pretty ticked by the final outcome and memory card trail cameras would be in my crosshairs when I finally got into a position to get things done. I bring this up because several people in this thread have mentioned that Arizona Hunters have already spoken on this issue in 2018 which I disagree with since that meeting only had a few token hunters in attendance. The Commissioners have been known to read these threads and I plan to direct them here when I send them each a note about my feelings on this issue. Sir Royal, you are probably a great old school guide and I cannot fathom how you can honestly support the status quo on trail cameras but all I can say is that I disagree with you. One thing I can promise is that as long as we finally have real independent minded Commissioners I will share my thoughts and hope to see good things happen. As long as the ship is headed in the right direction I plan to hang on despite your generous offer for an early dismissal. Ryan

MAHGA — Make Arizona Hunting Great Again. Love it!

I agree 100%, a survey by AZGFD would show the real sentiment about trail cameras in Arizona. I did a simple google search of the people that were listed as being at the meeting where Commissioner Sparks advocated for them in 2018 (it was posted earlier today by trophyseeker). The people were listed as members of the public in the meeting notes. I did a google search with their name followed by arizona hunting. Out of the 16 pro camera attendees, here is what my simple search revealed. - Three were advisory members of a Bighorn sheep Committee (probably not your average hunters if they are focused on Bighorns, they may have been at the meeting for some other reason or ?) - Eight were guides, most affilliated with the big outfitter that flaunts their camera inventory on facebook (someone posted pictures of it in an earlier reply to this thread) - One was an Arizona attorney, he could have been a hunter or representing the pro camera side or possibly both. - One was the leader of an outdoor 501c3 that probably has a cozy relationship with the guides that help with donated tags. - Three of them were mysteries, at least using my simple search. If the Commission honestly considered the pro camera attendees to be simple public citizen hunters they were mislead. A few more thoughts on that meeting. A fairly reliable senior member of this forum doubted the claim that all of the trophy groups were contacted as Sparks claimed back then. He is in a pretty good position to make that judgement since he would have been the primary contact for one of the groups. Since one of the basis for trail camera regulation was that they violated fair chase this claim would likely have been taken into serious consideration by the Commission at the time. I also found the claim that trail cameras assist disabled hunters to be curious, I am guessing most disabled hunters are thrilled to shoot a mature animal and have little need to scrutinize their racks on a trail camera first. Maybe the guides are looking for trophies to post in their marketing photos but I doubt trail cameras really add that much to the experience for disabled people. I think that was another formulaic baseless line of crap. Bottom line, if the pro camera guys approach this like they did they did the last time they are going to get steamrolled this time. That weak bullcrap isnt going to hold water the next time. And one more note for the guys claiming they will fail to comply. If you have or have had an Arizona hunting license in the past few years you are going to have a heck of a time claiming you arent using your cameras for hunting in the future. You will be forced to choose whether you are a criminal, a hunter or a wildlife photographer. Only two of those are law abiding citizens so the turning law abiding citizens into criminals line is also a load as well. Ryan - -

2020 has been a crappy year but the prospect of a trail camera ban in Arizona is truly a bright spot. It is proof that we might just have a game commission made up of hunters instead of bobble head dolls for business interests. Trail camera regulation has been discussed in Arizona for a long time, even before Nevada put their rules in place. Even though we didnt beat Nevada to the punch on regulation it is great that we seem to have Commissioners with integrity and the backbone for leadership. And lets be really honest, this isnt about cameras for the guides, it is about data. Cameras are simply a cheap tool that allows outfitters to send teams of young inexperienced wanna be guides into the field to collect data for outfitting syndicates, some controlled outside the state of Arizona. Also, many of the pictures collected are used to market expo and auction tags for people that view the hunt as the wasted time between when they get off the plane and the time they pull the trigger. Trail cameras are turning some large outfitters in multi national Walmarts when the citizens of Arizona would be much better served by keeping the guide businesses local. Outfitters should be hired based on skill, not by their level of access to some trophy hunting database. And the thought of not having a guide walk into a wallow at 10 AM to check a camera on my 5BS archery bull elk hunt while I was sitting in a ground blind with my 8 year old son in 2016 would be great. The thought of a team of camera checkers not running the camera circuit all day long on my Kaibab archery deer hunt in 2018 would also be nice. Even nicer would have been the ability to take a leak virtually anywhere on the strip in 2012 during my archery deer hunt , that place was covered up with camera.s then I cannot imagine it now. And like I said above., getting cameras off of public land will reduce the number of fresh juicy marketing pictures that fuels the engine that drives the shift of more tags to expos, raffles and other circuses., a total win win for 99% of us. And like someone mentioned above, if we must register the cameras they could be tagged with color coded annual registration stickers purchased online and linked to each hunters hunting license. A limit of 10 cameras per license, the first 3 cameras are 10 bucks, the next 7 are 50 bucks each. If cameras will be used for commercial purposes they will need to capture device serial numbers in the metadata for each photo in order to make sure the device is properly registered.in Arizona . Cameras would not be allowed from aug-dec and there would be no special loopholes for guides to use more than the established personal camera limits. Unregistered cameras would be viewed as empty beers cans and other trash and responsible hunters would be encouraged to clean them up which should take the burden off of the Wildlife managers. I am looking forward to the public meeting about this, I will be on the ban side of the room. It is exciting to think some parts of hunting could be like they were when I started almost 40 years ago. Ryan

Okay, I read the great big article one write-up and some things stood out as concerning. Bottom line is that the Arizona Game and Fish gets a lot of “marketing” power from the article one changes, all in the name of “running things like a business”. In most cases running things like a business is fine, but the Arizona Game and Fish department isn’t a business. Businesses are evaluated based on revenue, government agencies are evaluated based on how well they serve their customers, not by how many dollars they generate or how well they market themselves on TV and billboards through public awareness campaigns. The largest customer for AZGFD is resident hunters of average means and their children who will be advocates in the future. The Game and Fish Department needs to preserve opportunity for their largest customers. This is a function of keeping the sport affordable and minimizing complexity that serves as a barrier to entry for new hunters. I also attended the information sessions last year about the membership program tag surrender idea, I can also vouch for the fact that there was very little support in the room for tag surrenders based on a membership of any kind. I read through the changes and took notes since I know few other people would be inclined read them. If my understanding of the changes are wrong please feel free to correct me. http://www.azgfd.gov/pdfs/fishing/article1NPRM.pdf R12-4-104 – Amendment to no longer send refunds for overpayments of less than $5.00. Spending $3.00 to send a $5.00 check that probably won’t be cashed is dumb. GOOD CHANGE R12-4-107 – Provides some relief from losing loyalty point for a slight underpayment. Stipulates that loyalty point is preserved if the fee paid covers the license and application fee. Also clarifies which hunter education course qualifies for hunter ED point. GOOD CHANGE R12-4-108 - Amendment to update Management Unit boundaries to incorporate future changes to management unit boundaries. I was wondering if this is laying the foundation to redistrict for private property hunt units similar to the CWMU program in Utah. That would be extremely unpopular with Arizona hunters. Maybe I am just paranoid since I heard there was a survey that went out within the past year with questions related to private property access for a fee. TO BE DETERMINED R12-4-110 – Seems to give additional discretion to the Commission to control roads on State Land. As long as ranching and commercial interests aren’t lobbying the commissioners too hard this could be a good thing. TO BE DETERMINED R12-4-111 – Department IDs as primary ID instead of SSN numbers. This is long overdue considering fraud concerns. GOOD CHANGE R12-4-114 – This is the change to keep half the non-resident bonus pass tags for the random draw. This is probably the biggest change for non-residents, it gives most non-residents a chance at some currently unavailable tags. GOOD CHANGE FOR MOST NON-RESIDENTS R12-4-118 – This is the amendment to allow for tag surrenders with bonus point re-instatement based on a new “membership” program on the AZGFD portal. The fact that the summary of this change required 2 ½ pages of single spaced lines to describe it raises flags on its own. Despite the fact that the write-up suggests that applicants are eligible to get surrendered tags at all membership levels, the reinstatement process establishes priority for those at the highest level of membership levels first. People buying entry level memberships may be thinking they are in the running for surrendered tags when in reality they may not be. The write-up of this program also mentions that the number of tag surrenders allowed per person will also be dictated by membership level. There are so many potential doors to abuse with this process that it defies any attempt at logic. Especially after public comments last year were against tag surrenders with bonus point reinstatement based on membership. If implemented this will be the first step toward separating hunters into classes in Arizona. A TERRIBLE IDEA THAT ESTABLISHES A TERRIBLE PRECEDENT R12-4-121 – This allows the surrender of a tag and reinstatement of bonus points (with a membership) by surrendering a tag to a non-profit organization that provides hunt opportunities to terminally ill kids and veterans with a service related disability. Unlike the general tag surrender process, there were few details about how priority would be established for the recipients of the tags or what would happen to the tags if there were more tags available than eligible applicants. There is also an internal 501c3 qualification process that might leave some of the larger and more established veteran and sick kid non-profits out of the running if they aren’t paying attention. I believe that If we want to give tags to veterans or terminally ill kids, establish an allocation in the primary draw and price the tags at a minimal cost. That would ensure that opportunities are fairly distributed to all deserving parties and that the tags aren’t used to pull people through the door for banquets. AN EVEN WORSE IDEA THAN R12-4-118….TERRIBLE IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT R12-4-125 – Provides more latitude to AZGFD staff management to approve solicitations or event details on department property. The only item of note is that there is now language that covers requirements for serving of alcohol on department property. My first thought was a beer garden at the Ben Avery Outdoor Expo or some raffle or auction for tags at headquarters. Neither would be a welcome addition. Hopefully Game and Fish continues to manage all events on their property and don’t farm it out to some new 501c3 group like they did with the Big Game Raffle. I don’t know who is in a position (maybe the AZGFD Commission Chairman) to pull the e-brake on this membership tag thing but they ought to have a plaque in the lobby memorializing the fact that they were the person to change hunting for the worse in Arizona if this turd of an idea is deployed. Ryan

+1 Kent.....Last I checked every single elk tag is sold at full price currently. I would rather see all 24,000 elk tags go up around 10-15 bucks and let people continue to pay the difference in TIME. That would provide far more value to hunters than creating a premium structure. One more thought. I noticed the powerpoint presentation showed that Utah had nearly three times the number of elk tags than Arizona does. I checked this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population and discovered that Utah has less than half the population of people than Arizona does. My back of the envelope math shows Utah has a 6:1 advantage in terms of tags to people. Even if a premium structure had merit, using Utah as a basis for comparison is completely wrong. Arizona has low quantity and good quality, to strip the quality from the overall tag pool is not giving Arizona hunters a fair shake. Ryan

I cannot argue with the last round of comments from kent and gjmauro and most of the other respondents. Operations costs have gone up over the last 7 years and there will need to be some increases to tag prices. I am of the opinion that spreading the increases equally for all tags within the species is far more desirable than establishing a premium structure. Some people will look at the premium increases superficially and think it will reduce competition and increase their odds. This may be true in the very short term but the difference in price will almost certainly widen (the new bill removes price caps) over time and the draw advantages will become less meaningful. Like I said before, the proponents of the premium structure will at some point lobby for separate bonus point pools and drawings which will add a whole new layer of application fees and transaction costs. They also tend to argue for tag reductions for "premium" units and in some rare cases moving tags from one weapon to another. Setting these tags aside also makes it easier to divert them into auctions and raffles. I am kind of interested in the questions about the premium hunt structure on the survey that was sent out. Would one of the special people that got the golden ticket be willing to post the survey questions? I think someone mentioned the "time" they already have invested in premium tags and the fact that they may not be able to afford to apply in the future. I think that is a very important point because most economists will agree that time has value assocated with it and to make decisions without consideration of that value is not considering all of the information. Anyway, there are no bad guys when it comes to the people willing to show up to meetings. We all have busy lives and competing priorities, even if you disagree with my opinions I respect that you were willing to make your voice heard. Two thumbs up to the guys that were at the meeting last night and the guys that will be at the rest of the meetings....even Wickenburg . If you cannot make the meetings you should send your comments to the license simplification email box, there is a link on the AZGFD license simplification page. Ryan

Motoxno53 - glad to hear you will be at the Tucson meeting, please post up a summary of how it goes and bring some friends with you if you can. For the guy that claims this to be "whining", you amuse me. If you knew many of the guys that have posted on this thread you woulkd know they do alot more than whine when they dont like things.

I was at the Phoenix meeting tonight. The turnout wasn't great but there was plenty of input given, My observations... - The 365 day tag - Still on the fence with this, apparently they have had input that more tags would be bought if people got the full 365 days of use from the point of purchase. My gut tells me this is a bad idea but I could probably be swayed if the argument was strong enough. - A couple fisherman liked the reduced prices for fishing. - Noone spoke in favor of the premium hunt structure, not a soul. About five people spoke against it and some of them were even outfitters. - One guy liked the application fee increase but then commented that all of the other states listed on the powerpoint presentation sent him a "unsuccessful" notice this year. It was no surprise that he didnt mind the higher application fee proposal. - The speaker indicated that AZGFD sent out a random survey to solicit feedback from a sample of Arizona hunters. If you were one of the people lucky enough to get a survey and you dislike the impacts of a premium hunt structure, please send in your survey and let them know your thoughts. You are special and you have the golden ticket. Like I said, tonights meeting was low turnout but the important meetings are the commission meetings, I believe there will be one in June and July. The meetings that have the commisioners present will be the best forum to speak about the things you dont like. As usual I found the AZ Game and Fish guys to be pretty straight shooters, they get input from so many stakeholders that it is a balancing act. The commision (four people) is kind of a separate entity from the AZGFD leadership and they wield alot of power in this case and it is important they get balanced input from everyone, not just the usual squeaky wheels from the wildlife groups and commercial interests. Even if you dont hunt premium units, you will be impacted by premium hunters jumping into your "general" unit. People need to understand that this will impact them even more than the auction/raffle tag grab attempt that happened last year. There are thousands of big game hunters in Arizona and the little posse that forms to protect the interests of the average joes could use some reinforcements at the next commission meeting. Ryan

I wouldnt give up so easy. These fees are conceptual and really lack any basis in logic. If AZGFD needs more money they can raise fees on all tags rather than try to separate hunters into classes. Before these changes take place the department must show that they have properly solicited the thoughts of all hunters, not just input from a handful of critter group board members (that guide on the side). AZGFD has a website, they should provide a link to a survey so all hunters can provide input. Some survey questions could include.....Would you be willing to see all tags go up a little $30-40 or see the very best tags go up $80 and others go for $20 more? Do you agree with Arizona hunters having to identify as either trophy or general hunters? Would you be willing to pay a little more for all tags instead of having the best tags pulled into separate buckets that provide more opportunity to those with greater financial resources? With the stuff that happened last year with AZSFW and auction tags, the recent story about the officer that let his elk be tagged while he was away, and the Husted story, it is vital that the commission proceed cautiously in order to maintain credibility. The commision would be foolish to believe that hunters in Arizona would sit idley by while four guys change the culture in Arizona by allowing hunters to be split into trophy classes by species. The only State that actively does this crap is Utah, and Utah is kind of the joke of the West with how biased they are toward hunters with money. I could write a couple pages about issues with the powerpoint presentation but the funniest part is how most of the higher costs are related to fishing but the cost for fishing privileges are being reduced in most cases. It almost seems like someone is trying to create a shortfall on one side in order to justify price increases on the other (hunting) side. I recomend others send their thoughts into AZGFD on this issue or attend the meeting on Monday.

I stand by my "keys to the kingdom" reference in regard to youth tags. I agree youth tags should be discounted, but at five bucks a pop they are practically free. I also fail to understand why resident youth and non-resident youth are the exact same price (yes I understand it is that way currently)There are also no restrictions as to which hunts these tags can be used to apply for. If they were for youth hunts only, my views would be different, Since youth bonus points are the same as adult bonus points these kids can essentially be "used" to increase opportunity for their mommies and daddies on group applications. The powerpoint shows AZGFD needs more money, how is decreasing the cost of a youth tag to $5.00 going to fix that problem. I point this out as a father of three children under seven years of age. This is kind of like the 20% bonus pass rule implemented a long time ago. It sounds good until you start to look at the impacts, the 20% bonus pass essentially turned some units into preference units for non-residents. The 20% bonus pass was dumb. The existing bonus point process at the time provided better incremental odds for applicants with the most points. Another "feel good" but dumb rule is the one that allows fathers, mothers, grandfathers and grandmothers to sign tags over to kids. The language of the original rule allowed this with the person that signed over the tag to be in the field close to the child. The current language does not include that requirement. We now have many "straw man" applicants that have no interest in hunting that apply so that some kid can essentially move quicker through the line. Mark my words, if the premium pricing thing flies the next step will be that they want to make bonus points specific to categories within a specific species. That will really screw things up. Hunters need to contact AZGFD and voice their concerns, this could get really ugly and hunters need to look past the "feel good" candy coating.

This is extremely serious.. Some thoughts after looking at the powerpoint presentation. - The bill is called license simplification but the real impacts to the public are in how hunting tags are classified.....this doesn't seem honest to me. - I do not understand how a 365 day license helps anyone.....you still need to buy a license every year and now Arizona Game and Fish would need to track an anniversary date for each hunter. Seems like this could be also be abused to affect residency for people that live in different states part of the year. I do not get it. I feel like there is a rotten aspect to this that I still havent figured out. - $5.00 keys to the kingdom licenses for resident and non-resident youth. I hope point averaging on group applications will be addressed as part of this. I can also see some shady group claiming that more NR licenses purchased means higher NR demand and use it to challenge the 10% tag allocation for non-residents. - Premium pricing within a species will push hunters into separate buckets. It will be difficult to apply for trophy hunts and back them up with easier to draw hunts. Right now hunters pay with TIME and MONEY. This is just a thinly veiled way of weeding people out of a line they have been standing in for years. It will also push some of the trophy hunters into the mid-tier hunts. These concepts look alot like how Utah handles their tags. Utah hunters hate their system. AZGFD will lose all credibility if they support this. - Premium hunt designations also make it easier to funnel tags into raflle and auction programs. It also makes it easier to justify future prices increases for these tags. People need to show up to the meeting on Monday or write game and fish and tell them they would rather pay a little more for all tags than have tags broken into VALUE categories. Breaking tags into different price points within a species is the first step toward surrendering control of who hunts where and will push Arizona into a place where outfitters rather than families hunt. Ryan

I just had a chance to check this post and my IM mailbox and there were a couple tips and offer to chat with my uncle. Way more than I expected and an indication that there are some pretty good people on this website. My uncle doesnt deserve the help but he could certainly use it. The ball is now in his court to execute. Thanks and I will certainly try to make an effort to reciprocate whenever I can. Good luck out there, Ryan

Hello, My uncle Jeff just turned 60 last month. He usually applies in the 5 and 6 units with my Dad and I but decided to apply solo this year and drew a 23N archery bull tag (crazy huh? – there are only 15 tags). Unit 23 is not a unit that my family knows much about. I have no idea what possessed him to go off the program and apply for 23. He has been bowhunting for a long time with little success and is in pretty good hiking shape. He will likely be hunting solo or with my 63 year old Dad this year. He is a good guy and is usually the person that shows up to pull everyone else out of mudholes in the middle of the night. The term “give you the shirt off his back” definitely applies to him. Anyway, my Dad just called and told me that my uncle has been scouting fairly hard but is still a little lost. He would probably be elated to kill just about any legal bull, a mature bull would probably put him on overload. If anyone has some info that could help him out or will be in the unit and could keep an eye out for him please pm me (or I could give you his number or ??). I guess he plans to camp on the 109 road south of highway 260, he will be in a small Carson toyhauler. I know asking for help days before a hunt is lame but this is probably the best chance he will ever have to kill an elk and I just found out he was struggling. Good luck to all the other elk hunters out there. Thanks, Ryan

Feel free to insert your own group name, I think this letter would cover the bases. Dear Members, Our critter group has recently attended several meetings with hunters and members of the Arizona Game and Fish Department. We have also sent surveys to gauge support for tags being pulled from the general Arizona draw for auction or raffle. Although a few of our members have expressed support, most have expressed strong feelings against this concept. Our leadership has determined that by partnering with groups like AZSFW/AZSFWC we are supporting future threats against hunt opportunity for most hunters in Arizona. Our group has decided to break ties with these groups until we get a wrtitten promise that these groups will end any future attempts at public tag grabs (or expos) through legislation or other means. By "breaking ties" we mean ending any relationship with these groups that provides funding or allowing our good name to be used or listed on their website to support things we view as inconsistent with the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. We also feel the AZSFW and AZSFWC share some common roots (and naming conventions) with a group in Utah that has a very poor reputation in the National conservation arena, we do not want to give the slightest implication that we support or are affiliated with this group. Our critter group has been around a long time and it is important to us that we have the trust of our membership, most of our members are average family hunters that view hunting as a recreational opporunity and not a business proposition. Our wildlife group supports healthy wildlife populations and opportunity for all of our members, not business and trophy opportunities for our wealthiest members. Our leadership believes hunting tags are opportunties owned by the citizens of Arizona, they should never be used to to enrich anyone or anything other than wildlife or given against the wishes of the Arizona hunting majority. Thanks again for hanging in there with us while took a deliberative approach to this situation, we promise to proactively communicate and be good stewards of our members trust as we partner with you in the future. . Thanks again for your support, J Doe

Yep, there are threats in Arizona. We need to unite and fight against them. I would encourage the critter groups that have had THREE MONTHS to solicit feedback from their members to help address the biggest threat to hunters in Arizona and break ties from any of the AZSFW related special interests. The AZSFW has no business in Arizona or anywhere else. I also noticed the Capitol Consulting website seems to be touting their "event planning" services now (I don't remember seeing that before). I wonder if they hire "consultants" to consult and work on things like expos? I wonder who those people would be....hmmm. Where does the Arizona Deer Association, Arizona Antelope Foundation and Mohave Sportsman Club stand on separation from the AZSFW/AZSFWC? We all remember (and always will) the arrogant letters, the questionable backdoor tactics, the carefully worded "don't blame me" posts (and yes, we know the AZSFW and AZSFWC are separate entities with the same people and we don't need a hunt education instructor from Northwestern Arizona to tiptoe around that point in any more). Many of us also remember the Game and Fish meeting where not a single person stood up to support HB 2072, it would be hard to believe that many people would support orgs that push a bill no one liked, even people in the ADA, AAF, and MSC. The time for critter groups to get honest about the feelings of their members is right now.....you have had plenty of time. The AZSFW and AZSFWC need to be a great big SUNK COST. Guys like me will do everything possible to see that happen, even if there are other threats out there that need attention. There are some young motivated guys that want to get some good stuff done, groups like AZSFW/AZSFWC are a big waste of energy that would be better spent helping wildlife. If all of these old school people are as well meaning as they claim, they will help us clear the field of the AZSFW and AZSFWC, until they are gone there will be a Grand Canyon sized canyon between us. And one more thing.....HB 2072 had NO redeeming qualities, nada, zero. It was a completely stupid bill introduced in a completely stupid way. There is nothing there worth rewriting or revisiting. TOTAL GARBAGE. Any claim to the contrary is laughable. The language of the bill was dumb, the concepts of the bill were even dumber, the economic claims were so inflated as to be a joke. Ryan

There are two guys that know the game and have been on the good guy bus since before any of us ever knew about HB 2072. They both have amazing energy and insight into the Arizona wildlife conservation, way beyond what most of the rest of us good guys have. The two guys I am talking about are George Reiners and Steve Clark. These guys have credibility in spades. Even a big mouth livewire like me stops and listens when these guys point out teachable moments. The next phase of this process is going to be focused on the clean-up. No one wants to fight this again next year so obviously the AZSFW and AZSFWC have to go. I would imagine the fence sitting critter groups will begin their mass exodus next week, the AZSFW/AZSFWC will have less money for these groups so there is no reason for them to damage their reputation any further by having anything to do with them. Once enough additional critter groups have their names removed from AZSFWC they will have lost their power base and will probably self destruct. We will be monitoring the critter group exodus daily. Hopefully we can get that process done sooner than later (well before the end of the year). If I were running a critter group with ties to the AZSFWC I would reach out to Steve or George for direction on your exit strategy. I would imagine most already have though. I think a side task to the clean-up is to define a process for publicly recognizing businesses that support the interests of average joe hunters and which ones dont (maybe something like rotten tomatoes for movies, or maybe a site where the public can vote red or green based on details about how a company behaves or which expos they attend). There are businesses that blatantly provide products and backend administrative support to organizations that are out to squeeze out the 99%ers. As stupid as this is, these companies havent gotten the message that their actions are being watched. Average Joe hunters shouldnt have to wonder if supporting a business by buying a product will ultimately support forces working to take away their hunting opportunities. There isnt a single outdoor manufacturing company out there that would survive if average joes were to drop them. I would be willing to meet-up with a group of like minded people to vet through some options, PM me if interested. I have already compiled a good bit of data, we just need to determine the appropriate forum. Some of the people that have supported us Arizonans on HB 2072 are average joe hunters from Utah, I think we have a moral obligation to lend a hand to these guys at some point since many of these businesses are based in Utah (after this legislative session and after we wipe out the evil forces in Arizona). Another phase is going to be the walk the talk phase. The public needs to step up and get involved with the good critter groups, and the AZGFD constituent group. As Donnie mentioned, we are forming a new one (southwest sportsmens alliance) and I cannot tell you enough about the kind of quality people that are interested in joining us. All of the old-schoolers (from groups like the AZSFWC) are predicting a sudden wave of apathy sooner than later, it would be great if we could prove them wrong. I have sat and eaten burritos with lots of good guys from Game and Fish, the AZGFD commission, individuals, and good guy Arizona businesses. There are enough good people out there that we can seal the cracks against future attacks, the last few months have kind of shown the rest of the States that Arizona people tend to be independent minded and willing to push back. I grew up in Arizona and have kind of taken it for granted, I thought the best part was the smell of the desert after it rained, little did I know the best part might just be the people. We all need to keep contacting legislators, we cannot take a break until after 4/11/12 (the last day of the legislative session this year). There is lots of money at stake and the people pushing for expo tags have done nothing to prove they can trusted….zero. The snake head is still dangerous until someone kicks it into the campfire, we still have more kicking to do. Ryan

My hat is off to Crystal Cruz. Given the short amount of time for the interview and the large amount of documentation she was given she managed to get all the important parts in. Allen and Bill did a great job as well (including some others behind the scenes). Oh, and thanks to Zim from MM, without him this interview may have been an after the fact kind of thing. Thanks a bunch sir, you have a spot at the good guy campfire . Ryan

Too funny.... Big Johnson gets on here and calls people out and fails to recognize all of the assumptions he made himself. All I said was... "I think it is important to contrast the differences in how auction tag hunters hunt compared to how Average Joe meat in the freezer hunters hunt. The people I have spoken with have responded very well to this information." He "assumes" I am pitting one hunter against the next. I didn't say it, he did. I didn't even criticize one over the other, why would the general public be critical of auction tag hunters when they keep so many teams of outfitters employed all year long chasing the big ones through the forest? He then extends my comment to include existing auction tags auctioned by legitimate wildlife groups and tries to infer I am against these tags as well. Once again, another assumption. Let me make it clear. I have no real position on current auction tags distributed by legitimate wildlife groups as long as the auction occurs in ARIZONA. I do not buy auction tags personally and know they have their pros and cons. As long as they sell for CRAZY big money and represent a very small population (no more than 2-3 tags per species total) I am not too worried about them. If these tags present a gateway for the acquisition or abuse of future auction tags I would not have a problem seeing them go away, that said, I am neutral to them right now. Let me address one thing about raffle tags. The raffle tags being requested for these expos (like the 300 tags mentioned in HB 2072) generate very little money. I calculated the average gross generated for these tags in the Utah expo and it is clear these tags only exist to support the claims by SFW that their expos draw people other than a handful of wealthy auction bidders and the outfitters to guide them. The Utah expo raffle tags required applicants to verify their hunting license onsite at the expo in order to apply for the raffle which allowed the SFW to claim higher expo attendance and participation. The SFW then makes wild swag projections about travel and fuel costs in the counties surrounding the expo so that they can support ridiculous economic impact claims to justify future expos. THE PURPOSE OF THE RAFFLE TAGS IS TO TRY TO SHOW THE WORLD THE REGULAR PEOPLE SUPPORT THE EXPO, the problem is that regular guys in Utah have been so ripped off they have almost no choice but to buy the stupid raffle tickets. The really crazy part is SFW gets the locals to think they are doing them a favor to get another "chance" at a tag. That would be like me asking you to buy a one dollar lottery ticket to win $1000 and then lowering the big jackpot to $900 so that I could sell you another $1 ticket for a $100 side raffle. There are people in Utah that think the SFW is actually doing them a favor by collecting extra entry fees to get a shot at tags that should already be part of the big jackpot (otherwise known as the public drawing). The SFW then claims all that gas that the locals had to burn to get to the expo for the raffle is a positive impact to the economy and the locals hardly realize they have been pickpocketed even further by this group. Kind of like a shell game, put money under a shell and try to figure out where it ends up after a bookie shuffles it around...I hate those games. The SFW has lots of shells and very few have any prizes underneath them. The expo in Utah is so worthless, less than 10% of the outfitters (and half the exhibitors there are outfitters) come from the four corner states that surround Utah. Without forced raffle tags the Utah expo would be a room full of outfitters watching their own bugle videos. There are lots of other problems with the CONCEPTS behind the HB 2072 raffle tags for private expos, the primary one being what it would do to the non-resident tag allocation, it would be hard to keep the 10% max in check with 300 raffle tags. I think 300 raffle tags would also drive down non-resident hunting license revenue which would directly impact the AZGFD budget. Bottom line, raffle tags for expos are bad for hunters and conservation opportunities for wildlife. That said, I fully support the Big Game Raffle offered by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. The tickets for the Big Game Raffle are attainable by most Average Joes and are still expensive enough that the odds to draw are somewhat realistic. This raffle is also run by AZGFD and there is no risk of funny business with the proceeds from a private organization. That said, I don't think adding many more tags to this raffle would generate much more money and wouldn't support a significant increase in tags for this program either. So BJ, it is nice to see a counterpoint every once in a while and I did get a chuckle out of your intentional misspelling of my website handle (that was a good one....honestly). I am going to take the high road since dueling with you on this thread would be like holding a basketball over my head and watching a five year old try to jump up and swat at it. Good luck in the PUBLIC draw, results should be out soon, unlike your buddies at the SFW, I don't need to see your W2 to wish you the best in the draw. Ryan

Really! You think any good can from you going on TV, into the livingrooms of the public and talk about Auction Hunters vs Regular Hunters?? It is one thing to discuss the division us hunters have amongst ourselves on a forum like this one, but to publically bash any form of legal hunting on National television is completely insane!!!! Think about it!!!! Guys, bigjohnson123 is a big supporter of 2072. Me thinks we are on the right track! He has only one previous post from 2 weeks ago when he said "I am 100% percent fully for the passing and implementation of hb2072 ..... ...... How many of you bitchers have ever done one thing to perpetuate, improve and conserve AZ wildlife for future young hunters? So few of you that it is pathetic, just like your argument against this bill....Get off your self rightous high horses.." http://forums.coueswhitetail.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=30998&st=45&p=298234entry298234 I sure would not be taking advice from him! Perhaps they are not happy about the light of day being shined on this mess. They have been against any transparency from the beginning! Good work guys! Bruce Yuuuuuuup....the bottom line is that there are options for Average Joes should the people behind this choose to continue their crusade agaist hunt opportunities for Avergae Joe. The concerns of "Big Johnson" only affirm my feelings that this may be worth sharing. Oh, and by the way, I am planning to attend the interview. Ryan

There is another local station that has expressed interest in this story as well. I am in talks with them. Allen, please PM me with the details of where you will be meeting KTVK if you would like another guy there. I think it is important to contrast the differences in how auction tag hunters hunt compared to how Average Joe meat in the freezer hunters hunt. The people I have spoken with have responded very well to this information. Ryan

Thumbs up to our first three good guy org members, who will be next? Our small group of "almost every hunter in the Western United States" is looking forward to supporting you in the future. Hope you stop by and stay for a while. The jury is still out for the orgs listed in black, we hope to see an entire list of good guys in the near future. I added a few more critter groups to the list. I didn’t add these groups initially because some aren’t really hunting groups but I think there are some that should be credited with good guy (green status). I would ask the membership of CW.com to update this post regularly and provide supporting evidence if we need to update the status of a particular group. If you are a board member of a group, feel free to update this thread directly. I will own updating this thread to reflect any new “green” guys. Please support the good orgs, at least send them a nice note if you are strapped for time or money. If you have some money, consider becoming a member or attending one of their functions. The criteria for green status is as follows. • The group does not support AZSFW and has made a public statement confirming as such. • The group has made a public statement that AZSFW/AZSFWC does not speak to the interests of their organization and/or their membership • The group does not believe in the concept of HB 2072 or any other bill that espouses similar principles Anglers United - http://anglersunited.org/directors___committees.html Arizona Antelope Foundation - http://azantelope.org/About_Us/about_us.html - no response at all yet Arizona Bass Federation Nation - http://azbfn.com/az-club-info.html Arizona Bowhunters Association - http://www.arizonabowhunters.org/1BdMem.html - Will be green pending proof of separation from AZSFWC Arizona Chapter SCI - http://azsci.com/contact.htm Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society - http://adbss.org/board_of_directors.html - Will be green with proof of separation from AZSFWC Arizona Deer Association - http://azdeer.org/board_of_directors.htm Arizona Ducks Unlimited - http://www.ducks.org/arizona/az-content/area-contacts Arizona Flycasters Club - http://www.azflycasters.org/Pages/Board.html Arizona Houndsmans Association - I could not find information for this group Arizona Trappers Association - http://www.angelfire.com/az2/ATA/3.html Coconino Sportsman - info to follow Hunt of a Lifetime - http://www.hoalarizona.org/contactus.php Mohave Sportsman Club - http://mohavesportsmanclub.com/Officers.html National Wild Turkey Federation - AZ Chapter - http://www.nwtf.org/in_your_state/lists.php?STATE=AZ Outdoor Experience For All - http://www.outdoorexperienceforall.org/contact_us.html Southwest Walleye Anglers - http://swwalleye.org/events.htm Arizona Trout Unlimited Council - http://az-tu.org/chapters.html AZ Elk Society - http://arizonaelksociety.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=55&Itemid=57 Yuma Valley Rod and Gun Club - https://sites.google.com/a/yumarodandgun.org/home/

I have received several legislator updates, great job guys. We need some help from the Average Joes in the Tucson area. If you are down there, take ownership of the two House members and one senator in your district. Make sure they know you live in their district and refer to the concepts of HB 2072 rather than the actual bill number. I remember back when I was in college at ASU and I took an economics class with a professor (Happel I believe). One of the concepts he drilled into us was the concept of identifying the actual cost for various things, one of the examples he always used was tickets to sporting events. The value of a ticket to an event may be far more or far less than the face value depending on many variables. Much of the value is time dependent, most tickets are worth the most earlier as people have more time to plan for the event. Market scarcity can cause tickets to go up in price but the prices go down as people have less and less time to plan for the event. Many ticket scalpers hire homeless people to stand in line at the box office because there are usually limits to the number of tickets that can be purchased in a single transaction. As far as the scalper is concerned, standing in line is a bad use of his time. The homeless people earn a couple bucks for standing in line and the scalpers acquire many tickets at face value. Wealthy people with limited time gladly pay scalpers much higher than face value for the tickets because they have limited time and no desire to stand in line. For every homeless person or scalper, there are always plenty of average people standing in line to acquire tickets for their own personal use because they believe the event justifies the TIME and the MONEY spent to obtain the tickets. Understanding the monetary value of a ticket isnt always easy. Is the value of the ticket the face value or the value the scalper received when he sold it to the end user (which begs the questions, value to who?)? Does a ticket sold by a scalper have the same economic impact as a ticket sold over the counter (do scalpers pay taxes?). At what point does a ticket go from very valuable to less valuable (15 minutes before the events begins...who knows?). The one thing that is certain is that someone had to stand in line and put in the time to obtain the tickets needed to exercise the privilige to attend the event. That time has a monetary value associated with it. The importance of that position in line is so important that many companies or box offices pass out a number to document where a person stands in the line. The value isnt just in the ticket, each spot in the line also has a value associated with it. The TIME in line is part of the cost of obtaining the ticket. As we look at bills like HB 2072, the most outrageous and unacceptable part of the story is the fact that the TIME cost is not fully understood by the general public. The time cost of some big game tags can be measured in decades...a huge cost. What is the cost to a guy that pays to apply for an elk tag for 15 years and dies before he is lucky enough to draw the tag? What is the opportunity cost to a person that has chosen to apply for a trophy hunt for a decades while giving up opportunities to hunt easier hunts over that time? How much is the lost opportunity for a couple of grandkids who would like to hunt with their grandfather but never will because the hunt their grandfather has been applying for decades for a hunt with only a handful of tags and now the hunt takes a couple more years to draw as grandpas health deteriorates? I am of the opinion that Arizona hunters have already paid a big deposit on ALL of our public game tags in terms of TIME and MONEY (public draw application fees). The deposit on the tags the AZSFW is seeking has already been paid for in TIME, these tags are already reserved for public draw hunters and should not be available for auction at any price...they might as well have a red "SOLD" sign on them. If you put a value on the TIME that all Average Joe hunters have already paid, the true value of these cream of the crop tags would be astronomical and well outside the range of what even wealthy tag buyers would be willing to pay in an auction. When the AZSFW pitches these tags to legislators they focus on the face value of the tags relative to what the auction price will be. The face value of the tags does not include the TIME cost (which is always way above face value), and the auction price is grossly inflated since it doesnt reflect the true net value once transaction costs are factored in. The other often misunderstood component is the value of the lost control to AZGFD and the risk in allowing a private organizations to manage the gross receipts for the sale of public assets. Whether you think the risk is high or low, there is a monetary value associated with that risk and the cost of that risk must be written off against the proceeds of any auction. As we educate legislators about why auction tags for expos are bad, we need to explain to them that the people behind HB 2072 are ultimately wanting to distribute these tags at below market values (Actual value = Money + Time). Even the highest priced tag at the auction will sell for less than what it should if it needed to cover the TIME cost associated with it. Arizona shouldnt have to pay for a big outfitter party and offer training wheel auction tags (365 day tags - the only tags some outfitters can fill) to make money rain down for outdoor businesses in other states. We also dont need to provide tags owned by Average Joe hunters to organizations that view Average Joes with contempt. As Robbie Woodhouse said, if an organization wants an expo they can pay for it themselves. Leave the public tags that Arizona Hunters have already paid for over many years alone. This is going to make a great news story regardless of the outcome, all the ingredients are there. Abuse of the public trust, national protagonists/antagonists, organizations making public statements against the interests of the middle class, businesses supporting these organizations, local and national politics in an election year.....lots of ingredients in this stew. If I were a politician, critter group or business I wouldn't touch this with a 20 foot pole. Ryan

We have several new very green legislators but at this point posting them publicly would be counter strategic. If you know of new ones, please send me a PM with their name. I would like to recognize them publicly in about a month. I think it would be great if there was something in place that ensured that all of the active members against the CONCEPTS of HB 2072 were coordinated in such a way that all of the legislative districts were covered by at least one point person (who would hopefully also live in that district). It would also be great if we had someone behind the scenes tracking this information like a scorekeeper so we knew where we stand on the numbers. On another note, there was a pretty convincing letter posted by the Mule Deer Foundation (MDF) opposing HB 2072 and the AZSFW (it is part of a thread on TheArizonaHunter.com). I applaud them for taking a position but would like to see them put some distance between themselves and the SFW. I am of the opinion that the AZSFW is DOA in a month, they will either have met their objective on an HB 2072 type bill or they will fail miserably and fade away. Unless a group is one of the wildlife groups that is a member of the AZSFWC, taking a position against the AZSFW is a somewhat soft position at this point. We all know the AZSFW is just one flush away from spinning down the bowl with the rest of the turds. I THINK WE NEED TO BE FOCUSED ON EACH AND EVERY LEGISLATOR AND KNOW WHERE THEY STAND. WE HAVE THE NUMBERS AND WE HAVE THE TRUTH AND FACTS THAT PROVE THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC TAGS DISTRIBUTED THROUGH EXPOS IS AN ECONOMIC LOSER AND VIOLATES THE TRUST OF EVERYONE THAT LIVES IN ARIZONA, NOT JUST HUNTERS. MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN WORKING HARD AGAINST THIS FOR THE LAST TWO MONTHS, NOW WE NEED TO ALSO MAKE SURE WE ARE ALSO WORKING SMARTER AND IN A MORE COORDINATED FASHION. BTW - I am not a leader of this movement, Arizona hunters have found their own niche on this and I have found myself positioned in the center of the private and public communication on this issue. I think I am getting more information than alot of people so I am passing it along so that other people can better plan their personal approach. I am just a regular guy that refuses to let bullies take tags from my Arizona family (literally and figuratively). Ryan