Jump to content

javihammer

Members
  • Content Count

    83
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by javihammer

  1. Rthrbhunting – Thank you for clarifying the one raffle ticket per person per hunt. It looks like there are about 106 flavors of hunts and the maximum number of raffle tickets that could be purchased would depend on whether a person were a resident or non-resident. With one ticket per hunt I would say the odds of abuse are quite low. I think the EXPO FAQ should have clarified that point. I also re-ran the numbers and the average gross per tag is more like $4,900 for 2011. I still think the “onsite license validation” is a scam though. Whether the actual average money raised per tag is 2k, 3k, 4k or 5k, that is still chump change and far too low to justify pulling these tags from an Average Joe that may have decades and thousands invested in hunting license fees. Most Utah Average Joes probably think these raffle tags are generating 20k or more per tag (like the auction tags do) when reality is quite different. Arizona should still bring our muley tag home, the SFW is using the public tags to make money to leverage even more public tags. The more tags they control the more tags they can potentially control, someone called it a ponzi scheme, I couldn’t agree more. Alot of the crown jewel tags of the hunting world reside in Arizona and we do have more power than most states to push through the SFW headwind. The SFW is only powerful if they are given the tags to be powerful, if western states pulled their expo auction tags the power of the SFW would go waaaaaaaay down. I am pretty proud of our current Game and Fish Commission, they are doing a great job. Kent – I feel like we had a good window table at a restaurant and were moved to the back of the restaurant because we told the waitress we found a hair in our soup. We didn’t put the hair in our soup, someone in their kitchen probably did. I guess it is easier to hush the diners than fish the big ball of hair out of the pot in the kitchen. The public would probably be better off if someone just got rid of the hairball. Who cares how it got there, just get it out…..or go fishin’ and eat some crappie instead . Ryan "Starve the SFW tag monster, keep Arizona tags local"
  2. javihammer

    ADA statement

    Great input from Buzz, his history with SFW seems to align pretty well with our experience with AZSFW. Same tactics, similar name...if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck. Here is a link to an opinion poll that was posted on bowsite.....there was some really good balanced feedback on the history of the SFW and its impacts on Utah. It was a pretty good educational read. Here is the link http://forums.bowsite.com/tf/bgforums/thread-print.cfm?threadid=382931&forum=36 Kent, I would be open to a meeting with you and John and Amanda (and anyone else you see fit). I would be a little leaguer among big leaguers but I will provide whatever support I can. Amanda asked the fair question about what could be done to replace the AZSFW, I think it is a good question and I would encourage Audsley to expound on his internet idea. I am asking for constructive reasons, not to shoot holes in it. With Arizona hunters on high alert for the time being, the timing could not be any better to wash away the AZSFW and replace them with people that can be trusted. One more thing. I came across the prepared written statement that Commissioner Freeman read when HB 2072 was presented to the Commission in early January. Most people may have read it already, I hadnt read it until yesterday. His statement was nice and concise and shows he really gets it. I sure hope the other Commissioners are as good as he is. I suspect he may be the person the Gowen bill may be trying to target. I pulled this link from another site, thanks cmc. http://www.cmccotter.org/azuho/Freeman2072.pdf Ryan Starve the SFW tag monster, keep tags in Arizona
  3. javihammer

    ADA statement

    I ran across this on a blog...it is around six months old. Check out the picture, and the writing on it. http://blog.outdoorsmansresourceguide.com/2011/07/1-outdoorsmans-honest-perspective-of.html I found most of Pine Donkeys thoughts to be okay, my problem is with the context in which it was used. I cannot for the life of me understand why a business would find it necessary to post a blog in support of auction tags and the people who buy them. Unless…oh never mind. On a positive note, Brian Wakeling is pretty darn good at responding and clarifying issues. I think AZGFD and us hunters are pretty lucky to have him and most of the current commissioners. Even most of the ADA people seem to have their heart in the right place and I do not support beating them up for sport. It is no secret that there are roots that run between the ADA and the AZSFW and the divorce will be uncomfortable. The ADA just needs to grab the band-aid and rip it off, we all know who the good guys are (and aren’t). Kent –you are an amazing well of knowledge, I wish I knew 10% of what you know on these issues. If you think it would make sense for the anti-AZSFW crowd to meet before the meeting I will go out of my way to meet you and assist with coordination and logistics. I would prefer to be hunting but I think this issue justifies the effort (and quail and archery deer just closed ). Not looking for a gripe session, just want to make sure there is a data driven plan in place since the pro-AZSFW crowd will almost certainly have a plan of their own. I am not a political guy but reading that crappy bill really fired me up. I am in the Phoenix area. One more thing – the “Smack” post was HILARIOUS, it made my eyes water, what do I need to do to earn one of those? Lark, you should feel honored. Ryan
  4. javihammer

    ADA statement

    I applaud the ADA for setting up this meeting. I am also going to try to make it. With three kids, brother, brother in laws, uncles, cousins, friends, wife, father, father in law…..it would be pretty lame of me to not make it. Even allowing a 5-10% loss in hunt opportunity means a couple less opportunities in my lifetime to do my favorite thing with my favorite people. My great-grandfather started hunting in Arizona with my aunts and uncles in the 1940s. If I were running this meeting, here is how I would structure it to ensure maximum effectiveness. Before some ADA member gets snippy, this is merely a suggestion from an Average Joe. 1. Make sure no AZSFW members are present (their presence will ensure ADA members bite their tongues and hold back their real feelings about the HB 2072 thing)..this wont sit well with the Average Joes. 2. Ask the audience to refrain from discussing the details (language) of HB2072. A third grader could tell that thing lacked any redeeming value and it will just present people like me with an opportunity to make the supporters sound really stupid. I think we all have a common understanding that the bill and the group that presented it are pretty worthless. (like Kent, I also did some research and found most of the “accomplishments” of AZSFW were mostly procedural…I stand by my worthless comment) 3. Start off the meeting with “The ADA has decided to terminate their relationship and all financial support with the AZSFW and any future conservation relationships that include any of the people on the board at the time HB2072 was presented”. Have someone explain why it took so much longer for the ADA to make this move than the Yuma and AES groups. (allow about 2 minutes for clapping) 4. Follow this up with an update about whatever the ADA knows about the special news that the AZSFW is supposed to present next week (John K insinuated he knew something). Since we have established the AZSFW is really not a friend of anyone, there is no harm in sharing this information as early as possible. Hopefully this update will be that the AZSFW is disbanding (more clapping). If so, it could save some of the other critter groups a meeting. 5. Have someone that knows the impacts of the AZSFW termination speak to any impacts. How do we fill the wormholes created and (unfortunately filled) by this group (like the commissioner review board). 6. Have someone from the ADA reiterate that there are no secret partnerships with the SFW or any other entities outside the state of Arizona. Have them stress that resident hunt opportunity is a top priority for the ADA and that they will make every effort to disassociate themselves from anyone or any group that makes a play to steal it. 7. Once the elephant in the room has been addressed, healthy discussion can ensue. Some topics could include… 7a. Auction tags - Does it make sense for them to be auctioned off in Utah? Does this put future “conservation” groups at risk of going rogue from excessive exposure to weasels. 7b. The 90% club – Could the ADA do a better job of managing communication with Average Joes? An example – advocating for tag reductions for “hunt quality” at every opportunity…as an Average Joe I think that this is a bit out of hand. That said, I do support tag reduction when it makes sense for habitat reasons. 7c. Revenue – How do we generate revenue without having to rely on potentially corrupt big money donors. (would Cabelas or Bass pro pitch in a dollar for every hour donated toward habitat conservation projects) 7d. 20% bonus pass – was stupid from day one and is a poster child for what can happen when HB2072-like bills get passed and mathematically challenged people are allowed to get too much airtime. This is causing most of the desperation with non-residents and fuels them to band together for tag thefts. 7e. Group application point averaging – If we made sure all group applicants were allotted no more than 4 points more than the lowest point holder, there would be less abuse and better odds for Average Joe (some guys are applying with their bonus point rich wives/kids/buddies that have little interest in actually hunting). 7f. Clarification of signing tags over to kids – Need to make it clear that the signer must be in the field – people are submitting applications for their 90 year old great-grandmothers, this is an abuse of the system. I encourage anyone that cares about this issue or hunt opportunity in the future to attend this meeting. I would argue that mule deer are the most exclusive species in Arizona, other states offer comparable quality on some of our other species but our mule deer country is where the big battles are fought and are at the highest risk of corruption. The direction the ADA takes on this issue will lay the foundation for other things down the road and that will affect you and the other people you care about. We all need to support the ADA while they put the smackdown on the AZSFW. Sorry for another long post… Ryan
  5. javihammer

    Where do we go from here?

    Kent or John or whoever knows the answer. I noticed many non-profit organizations have lots of “for profit” people on their boards and part of their leadership. AZGFD charges “for profit” businesses a significant amount of money for draw applicant data (could be $500-1000 a year). Non-profits are not charged for this information. Does anyone know how AZGFD makes sure non-profits secure their data in such a way that members with “for profit” interests are unable to access it or pass it along to others. I realize there are probably laws in place that restrict this but I was curious if anyone knew of any specific controls that are in place to prevent it. I would think that it would raise a flag if some of the more prominent hunting related businesses weren’t requesting this information on a regular basis, especially if they have people with ties to non-profit groups. I guess this is probably a Brian Wakeling question. John, I disagree with you on just about everything but respect your diligence in being the human shield for AZSFW. I think the fact that noone from the AZSFW has come forward to help you publicly speak to these issues when things got hot shows a lack of character on their part. There is only one guy on the AZSFW board that understands the intricacies of the draw process well enough to craft a bill with the number of landmines that HB2072 had. That guy was smart enough to jump out of this debate early (he has ALL kinds of financial interests at stake) and have Amanda pull his comments in support of the bill. That guy and the rest of the AZSFW crew aren’t worth the abuse and it is sad to see a nice guy absorb shots on their behalf. Ryan
  6. javihammer

    Where do we go from here?

    Some great ideas from Kent and the rest of you all. I agree ALIS is the first alarm for future attacks. Just some food for thought. The most exclusive chunk of hunting land in Arizona is probably the strip between the North rim of the Grand Canyon and the Utah and Nevada borders (including the Kaibab). This area is actually much closer to Utah, Nevada and even some parts of California than Phoenix (and even Flagstaff in terms of road miles). Most of the guides for this area are actually based out of St George, Utah. I can think of at least one critter group that is very active on the Strip and seem to be an exhuberant supporter of AZSFW. Could there be a link between AZSFW, this critter group and some group in Utah…..coincidence? Could an Arizona critter group actually be more supportive of the hunting community outside of Arizona than inside Arizona? Wierd.......... Kingman is also closer to California, Utah and Nevada than the major population centers in Arizona. Some enterprising person should start offering non-resident hunter education classes in Kingman, if they got a guide license they could tap into a nice supply of non-resident clients. They could even refer some of those clients out to other guides if they couldn’t accommodate them themselves. Imagine the influence I would have if I were “this person”. If I were this person I would have a hard time being critical of initiatives or groups that promote non-resident opportunity at the cost of resident opportunity. If I were this person, I would probably join some wildlife organization in Kingman and ask the resident general members what they thought about supporting a “partner” group that tried to steal tags from them. I bet that less than 50% of these residents would vote to maintain a relationship and provide financial support to tag thieves. How about a show of hands Kingman hunters…who wants their tag stolen? I bet the hunters in Kingman would prefer to keep their tags. Letting this situation blow over is exactly what the AZSFW wants, if this happens they (and others) will be emboldened to try this again. We need to bleed the money out of the AZSFW and make it very unpopular for anyone (people or groups) to have anything to do with them. Any critter group that rides the fence might as well publicly endorse AZSFW….and that would be a weak display of Arizona pride. Average Joes need to vote with their checkbooks and leverage the fact that we have the numbers. We should organize a camo flash mob (using social networking sites and other hunting sites – maybe even pass out nametags that say “Average Joe”) at the AZGFD office the next time the AZSFW memo of understanding is discussed by the Arizona Game and Fish commission. We need to make it clear who the majority is and that this crap aint gonna fly in our state. Who’s in?
  7. javihammer

    Weiers memo

    I was unable to catch the webcast of the last AZGFD meeting. I read the notes and the section about the “Memo of Understanding”, I didn’t see any discussion of AZSFW problems, platforms or warnings (the stuff BPJ alluded to). I got the gist from some of the Hernbrode, Martin, Voyles comments that they are keeping an eye on AZSFW . My concern is that the AZSFW issues may have been downplayed as “poorly executed communication” rather than the over the top tag heist attempt that it clearly was. Poor communication is forgiveable, what the AZSFW tried to do to the residents of Arizona is not. I would also like to see the actual memo of understanding between AZGFD and AZSFW and the start and end dates of the agreement (and who wrote it, the meeting notes suggest it came from AZSFW since the attorney general was asked to review it) Not being an attorney or a politician, I Googled “memo of understanding” and this is what I found. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) is a document describing a bilateral or multilateral agreement between parties. It expresses a convergence of will between the parties, indicating an intended common line of action. It is often used in cases where parties either do not imply a legal commitment or in situations where the parties cannot create a legally enforceable agreement. It is a more formal alternative to a gentlemen's agreement. In some cases depending on the exact wording, MOUs can have the binding power of a contract; as a matter of law, contracts do not need to be labeled as such to be legally binding.[citation needed] Whether or not a document constitutes a binding contract depends only on the presence or absence of well-defined legal elements in the text proper of the document (the so-called "four corners"). This can include express disclaimers of legal effect, or failure of the MOU to fulfill the elements required for a valid contract (such as lack of consideration in common law jurisdictions). It seems to me that it is in the best interests of AZGFD and the state to keep future MOU agreements as short as possible with AZSFW in order to ensure that regular reviews of the relationship are done. BPJ (President of the Arizona Deer Association) seems pleased that the latest MOU marriage was codified by a 5-0 vote by the commission. He clearly sees this as an endorsement of these jokers by AZGFD. I hope the Attorney General’s office suggests some changes to the current MOU that keep the marriage as short as possible (might I suggest 30 days). People really need to write their legislators, the governor and take a hard look at the Directors of AZSFW and decide whether they want to continue to support their businesses. The sad truth is that Arizona residents support this group indirectly because AZSFW is given money by other wildlife organizations that derive money from the sale of the existing auction tags. The other wildlife organizations would be wise to follow the Yuma group and publicly disassociate themselves from AZSFW, there are some smart and politically astute Average Joes that will be following things very closely in the near future. One more thing, I may be a newbie on this board but I am a committed hunter (belly crawled through a hundred yards of cactus and rocks yesterday trying to get within bow range of a little buck in unit 21 – too open, couldn’t get closer than 80 yards – it was still a blast). I love Arizona! Ryan
  8. javihammer

    Weiers memo

    I expect legislators to read and understand every bill they submit and be able to do SIMPLE math, it is clear this guy does neither. Even if he has the heart to support Arizona sportsman, he clearly lacks the horsepower and understanding to support the interests of Arizona resident hunters. He would have been far more credible if he would have just admitted that he didn't have a full understanding of the bill and submitted it in haste. Instead he tries to reframe this garbage and actually talks down to his constituents in the process...nice. Anyone that is inclined to cut Weirs or AZSFW some slack should just read the bill, you wont feel sympathetic to them after you read it. They didnt pitch this bill because of some imminent budget emergency, they pitched this bill because they were arrogant enough to think they could get away with it.....dont let the smokescreen about the bad economy and land access steer your attention away from the real issue. Here are a couple of additional lightly discussed problems I found when I read the bill. •The bill stipulated that "raffle" tags could be purchased and hunting licenses would only be required after the person actually wins the tag. I would imagine that some non-residents would choose raffle tickets over the "regular" public drawing to avoid the upfront cost of a NR hunting license (which could actually drive down license revenue generated through the public drawing - thereby shifting control of the tag revenue from AZGFD to AZSFW). Some people may scoff at this suggestion but if I were a non-resident and could spend $25 on one of many raffle tickets for an elk or sheep at .01% odds, why would I spend $160.00 a year (and 20 years of my life) to have .03% odds in the regular draw. Adding hundreds more raffle tags would make this scenario even more likely. Also, even if every raffle tag winner was a non-resident, the projected numbers for net new hunting license revenue is way overstated, by at least 300-400% by my calculations. •Also, as many others have stated, adding to the supply of auction tags would also drive down the value of each new auction tag which essentially discounts the price of these valuable tags for the rich guys. Arizona tags are VERY valuable and EVERYONE needs to pay with time or money...no coupons no fire sales. When you consider the opportunity cost Arizona residents have paid for many decades to limit our consumption of the resource, the cost of these trophy "auction" tags seems downright reasonable. When you consider the tax saving implications for the auction winners, even a $100,000 tag can be a real bargain for them. •According to the bill, these "special" tags would not count against yearly bag limits. This is Arizona, we ALWAYS have bag limits, that's why we have world class wildlife in the first place. If you want an all you can shoot buffet, head east a thousand miles or so. •I don't understand how more money for land access will do anything. Common sense says that every dollar in the "land access budget" will be gone almost immediately as even the nice guy landowners will want to get a piece of that piggie bank. Arizona just needs to sue people that block public land or blow a hole the size of a swimming pool in the public road in front of each locked gate and assess a fine each and every time the private landowners go "cross country" to travel around it. After a couple dozen holes I am sure more landowners would be willing to negotiate access to OUR landlocked public land. •Apparently Weirs also failed to read the game regs, if he had he would know about mentor, youth and scout licenses...newsflash, they already exist. Mentor licenses are free and youth licenses are steeply discounted (even for non-residents). We don't need some Obombish welfare program to get more kids into the public tag drawing. I suspect many of these kids are just bonus point banks for their fathers anyway (kids are put in for bonus points each year and Daddy adds himself to the kids group application when the kid becomes a young adult with lots of bonus points they can share - the group application averaging rule needs to be changed but that is another issue). •I also noticed the bill broke the tags into three categories....governor, sportsman...and ???. I suspect this was to make it more difficult for outside groups to challenge ownership of the entire tag pool in the future. I also found it interesting that the bill asked for AT LEAST a specific number of tags for each unit regardless of how many actual tags are approved for that unit by the Commission each year. This "make sure we get ours" mentality is further evidence of greed and proves their altruistic claims for conservation were a crock of bull. I find Weirs suggestion that the opposition to this bill is just selfish or misinformed to be condescending. We don't need political puppets like him "saving us from ourselves". Us dumb Arizona residents recognize this bill was a way to worm away a valuable Arizona asset and a creative way to bypass the 10% cap on tags for non-residents and fatten the wallets of the big name guides and the groups and businesses that profit from them. I found this passage from your response "And for this reason I ultimately decided that the bill in its present form will not move forward" to be quite alarming. Okay dude, we got it, you and your cronies are going to lob another bag of puke over the fence at some point in the future...good luck with that (I hope it hits the top of the fence and bounces back at ya). You kicked the hive and the bees are angry, I suggest you quietly walk away and think twice before submitting any more self-serving trash. BTW - After reading Wiers response and some other members of Arizona Sportsman for Wildlife, it is clear which member helped him craft this rebuttal. I will not be patronizing his business any longer, I have other things to read in the bathroom. Thanks to people like Amanda and the quiet contributors that work hard behind the scenes to keep all of us informed. We should view this as a fire drill and use this as motivation to be alert for future attacks on our hunting opportunity. My bumper has plenty of room for another sticker. Ryan
×