HB 2072 Sale of big game tags

[DesertBull]

CouesWhitetail, on 09 January 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:

 

from Chris Denham:

Friends:

 

I am heading out the door to the first trade show of the year but I wanted to weigh in HB 2072.

 

You are probably hearing a lot about HB 2072, which was introduced in the state legislature last week. Most of what I read is a poor interpretation of the actual bill. I encourage you to read it all and make an informed decision.

 

Let me give you a very brief synopsis of the bill. HB 2072 allows a qualifying organization to purchase about 300 big game tags from the Arizona Game and Fish Department and re-issue them via auction and raffle. The majority of the tags will be sold through a raffle to be held at an annual sportsman's expo to be held in Arizona. There are six purposes for which this money can be spent, and they are written into the law! Here they are:

 

 

1. TO SUSTAIN OR CREATE SPORTSMEN EDUCATION AND OUTDOOR PROGRAMS FOR

YOUTH OF THIS STATE.

 

2. TO FACILITATE ACCESS FOR SPORTSMEN TO CROSS PRIVATE LANDS ONTO

PUBLIC LANDS.

 

3. TO SUSTAIN OR ENHANCE HABITAT IN THIS STATE AND TO INCREASE

TARGETED SPECIES POPULATIONS FOR DEER, SHEEP, ELK, PRONGHORN (ANTELOPE) AND

TURKEY IN THIS STATE.

 

4. TO FACILITATE PUBLIC EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATIONS PROGRAMS RELATING

TO SPORTSMEN AND WILDLIFE ISSUES.

 

5. TO PROTECT SPORTSMEN HERITAGE.

 

6. TO CONDUCT OTHER PROGRAMS OR ACTIVITIES THAT PROMOTE CONCEPTS

CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH AMERICAN MODEL OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION.

I. THE LEGISLATURE FINDS THAT ALL OF THE PURPOSES IN SUBSECTION H,

PARAGRAPHS 1 THROUGH 6 OF THIS SECTION COMPLEMENT AND ENHANCE THE

DEPARTMENT'S MANAGEMENT OF WILDLIFE IN THE PUBLIC TRUST UNDER THIS TITLE TO

INCLUDE CURRENT AND FUTURE PROGRAMS IN THE DEPARTMENT'S STRATEGIC PLAN AND

COMPREHENSIVE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION STRATEGY. FOR THE PURPOSES LISTED IN

SUBSECTION H OF THIS SECTION, THE QUALIFIED ORGANIZATION MAY USE THE

PROCEEDS, SOLELY OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, TO MAKE MATCHING

OR OTHER GRANTS TO THE DEPARTMENT AND TO ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE QUALIFIED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 501©(3) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE AND WHOSE ARTICLES

 

 

I seriously doubt that anybody would testify that these specific causes are not worthy, or that they are already being adequately managed by a government agency.

 

I have read multiple e-mails that raise false concerns or are simply incorrect. Here are some examples:

 

1. This will affect how auction tags are currently distributed. False. HB2072 specifically avoids the subject of special auction tag and will have no bearing on how those tags are distributed.

 

2. These tags can be resold. False. These tags can only be transferred under the current rules that regulate tag transfers.

 

3. These tags are being taken away from the average hunter. True, in the short run. Of course we are talking about 0.2 of 1 percent of the tags, the change in drawing odds is so small that it cannot be calculated. Besides, how difficult will it be to increase our big game herds by 0.2 of one percent with a serious cash infusion? These tags will improve the average hunter's odds of drawing a tag within a very short period of time.

 

I have read some concerns that are very accurate, such as, "there are very few groups who could qualify for these tags". This is very true, the bill is limiting in this regard. But, given the strict controls on how this money is to be spent, what benefit can be derived from splitting the money and further diluting its effectiveness?

 

I encourage you to read the bill for yourself. I am confident that once you have done that, you will join me in support of this bill.

 

 

 

--

Chris Denham

Marketing Director,

Elk Hunter Magazine

Western Hunter Magazine

480-993-8627

www.westernhuntermagazine.net

www.elkhuntermagazine.com

 

 

 

 

What happened to this post? It's no longer in the thread.

[CouesWhitetail]

CouesWhitetail, on 09 January 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:

 

from Chris Denham:

Friends:

 

I am heading out the door to the first trade show of the year but I wanted to weigh in HB 2072.

 

You are probably hearing a lot about HB 2072, which was introduced in the state legislature last week. Most of what I read is a poor interpretation of the actual bill. I encourage you to read it all and make an informed decision.

 

Let me give you a very brief synopsis of the bill. HB 2072 allows a qualifying organization to purchase about 300 big game tags from the Arizona Game and Fish Department and re-issue them via auction and raffle. The majority of the tags will be sold through a raffle to be held at an annual sportsman's expo to be held in Arizona. There are six purposes for which this money can be spent, and they are written into the law! Here they are:

 

 

1. TO SUSTAIN OR CREATE SPORTSMEN EDUCATION AND OUTDOOR PROGRAMS FOR

YOUTH OF THIS STATE.

 

2. TO FACILITATE ACCESS FOR SPORTSMEN TO CROSS PRIVATE LANDS ONTO

PUBLIC LANDS.

 

3. TO SUSTAIN OR ENHANCE HABITAT IN THIS STATE AND TO INCREASE

TARGETED SPECIES POPULATIONS FOR DEER, SHEEP, ELK, PRONGHORN (ANTELOPE) AND

TURKEY IN THIS STATE.

 

4. TO FACILITATE PUBLIC EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATIONS PROGRAMS RELATING

TO SPORTSMEN AND WILDLIFE ISSUES.

 

5. TO PROTECT SPORTSMEN HERITAGE.

 

6. TO CONDUCT OTHER PROGRAMS OR ACTIVITIES THAT PROMOTE CONCEPTS

CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH AMERICAN MODEL OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION.

I. THE LEGISLATURE FINDS THAT ALL OF THE PURPOSES IN SUBSECTION H,

PARAGRAPHS 1 THROUGH 6 OF THIS SECTION COMPLEMENT AND ENHANCE THE

DEPARTMENT'S MANAGEMENT OF WILDLIFE IN THE PUBLIC TRUST UNDER THIS TITLE TO

INCLUDE CURRENT AND FUTURE PROGRAMS IN THE DEPARTMENT'S STRATEGIC PLAN AND

COMPREHENSIVE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION STRATEGY. FOR THE PURPOSES LISTED IN

SUBSECTION H OF THIS SECTION, THE QUALIFIED ORGANIZATION MAY USE THE

PROCEEDS, SOLELY OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, TO MAKE MATCHING

OR OTHER GRANTS TO THE DEPARTMENT AND TO ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE QUALIFIED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 501©(3) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE AND WHOSE ARTICLES

 

 

I seriously doubt that anybody would testify that these specific causes are not worthy, or that they are already being adequately managed by a government agency.

 

I have read multiple e-mails that raise false concerns or are simply incorrect. Here are some examples:

 

1. This will affect how auction tags are currently distributed. False. HB2072 specifically avoids the subject of special auction tag and will have no bearing on how those tags are distributed.

 

2. These tags can be resold. False. These tags can only be transferred under the current rules that regulate tag transfers.

 

3. These tags are being taken away from the average hunter. True, in the short run. Of course we are talking about 0.2 of 1 percent of the tags, the change in drawing odds is so small that it cannot be calculated. Besides, how difficult will it be to increase our big game herds by 0.2 of one percent with a serious cash infusion? These tags will improve the average hunter's odds of drawing a tag within a very short period of time.

 

I have read some concerns that are very accurate, such as, "there are very few groups who could qualify for these tags". This is very true, the bill is limiting in this regard. But, given the strict controls on how this money is to be spent, what benefit can be derived from splitting the money and further diluting its effectiveness?

 

I encourage you to read the bill for yourself. I am confident that once you have done that, you will join me in support of this bill.

 

 

 

--

Chris Denham

Marketing Director,

Elk Hunter Magazine

Western Hunter Magazine

480-993-8627

www.westernhuntermagazine.net

www.elkhuntermagazine.com

 

 

 

 

What happened to this post? It's no longer in the thread.

 

 

I was asked to remove it and since I posted it without Chris' permission I obliged and removed it. I think his partners at Elk Hunter Magazine didn't agree with his email and thought he should not have signed it as if it came from the magazine. It apparently doesn't represent the opinion of the majority of partners in the magazine.

[ThomC]

Another thing that is bothering me is that it appears that the legislature ie politicians are micro managing the Game & Fish Department. The commission was set up so the department would NOT be run by politicians. We need to tell our legislators to leave the operation of the G&F to the commission.

[.270]

not micro manage, flat out take it over. this bill is really dangerous and the fact that their toady keeps hammering on all the 'good' it will do and keeps telling us how we just don't want to or can't understand it, and ignore the tag grab part, really shows what the real deal is. i have nothing against a rich guy. i wish i was rich instead o' so good lookin'. i mean i like bein' good lookin', but a little more money would be nice. a lot more would be nicer. but i really resent guys that can go anywhere and buy anything trying to take away something that i spend a lotta my money and time trying to do. and i can't believe that the only excuse they can throw out is that we're too stupid to get it. and i don't believe the story that were was no input from not even one outfitter. i guarantee you there are more than one outfitter that was privy to this info while it was being formulated and there is a chance for a select few to make a buncha bucks having their posse sitting on a big animal for the guys with the tags they took away. i don't care what bpj says. he probably believes it, but i don't. this backroom, backdoor, secret, emergency session, hide it from everyone including the azgfd, paying a board memeber's wife a pile for lobby fees garbage, really makes folks wonder what the heck is goin' on. and it ain't good. well, not for us anyway. it woulda been good for a few guys. Lark.

[elkaholic]

maybe someone else can answer this question

 

does it stop a guide from buying an auction tag and then reselling it to a hunter for a profit ?

[bonuspointjohn]

maybe someone else can answer this question

 

does it stop a guide from buying an auction tag and then reselling it to a hunter for a profit ?

yes. They have to follow the guidelines of tag transfers that are currently in place.

[elkaholic]

just another quick run down of finances

 

08- management services fees- 101,405

 

07- management services fees - 72,999

 

06- professional fees - 80,335

 

at a glance - add 94

 

------------------------------------------

 

 

ok thats 348,000 dollar from 06 thru 09 wnder what 10 and 11 will show ??

[Devil Diver Down]

yeah...let's run the guy out of office so he can be replaced with a gun grabbing, bunny hugging, wolf lovin, condor petting, granola muncher.

 

Unbelievable.

 

Exactly. I'm as anti this bill as anyone else but if we ran every legislator out on a rail as soon as they supported or introduced a bill we didn't like, we'd have an empty government. Hmm, maybe that's not such a bad idea

 

Weiers seems to have a decent track record of supporting Arizona hunters. People make mistakes and we'll see if he 'hears' the feedback we've given. If he starts down this same road again, that's twice too many and probably earns him a permanent vacation. Maybe he'll end up being a positive force in solving some of the issues that threaten the future of hunting in AZ.

 

For those that think there aren't significant access problems in AZ--how many inaccessible acres of PUBLIC land is okay? Zero sounds like a good number to me.

[40-year-AZ-hunter]

To Bonuspointjohn,

 

You have conveniently ignored (or tried to cover up) the main reason for the emergency clause. The emergency clause causes a bill to go into effect immediatly upon signature by the govenment. It is NOT subject to referendum. Claiming (as you have throughout this discussion) that is is merely so the expo can proceed is BS as you said in post #76 and others. It would preclude any group that disageed with the law from challenging it at the ballot box.

 

From the State's 2011/2012 bill drafting manual

 

"A measure that is enacted by the legislature is not operative for a period of ninety

days after the adjournment of the session (unless it is enacted under special circumstances

that allow it to be effective immediately). During this ninety-day period five percent of the

qualified electors may file a petition with the secretary of state to have the measure referred

to the people for approval or rejection. The number of qualified electors required is

calculated by determining the total number of votes cast for all candidates for governor at the

general election preceding the filing of the referendum. The measure is approved by a

majority of those voting.

Note: The following enactments are not subject to referendum by the people because

they become effective immediately on the governor's signature:

23

1. An emergency measure that is passed by a "supermajority" vote of the legislature."

 

http://www.azleg.gov/alisPDFs/council/2011-2012%20Bill%20Drafting%20Manual.pdf

 

I'm also still waiting to hear from you the answer to the questions posed in post #139. Since the email sent to the "contact" link at AzSFW ( suzanne@capitolconsultingaz.com ) does not seem to be very forthcoming. Who votes the Board in? I see from their site that you have to donate $1000/year to even be eligible to be a Board member "For an individual who wants to make a special commitment to the AZSFW Mission and who may be eligible to serve on the Board of Directors.

Annual Fee $ 1,000 Three Years $2,500" So much for representation by the average hunter!

 

We are all still waiting to hear if we will be welcome to discuss this bill at the meeting next Tuesday. By the way Amanda, Rep. Weiers is well enough to attend that meeting is he not? It's funny he can't find the strength to type a few sentences to reply to the hunters on your forum.

[Jeff Welker]

By the way Amanda, Rep. Weiers is well enough to attend that meeting is he not? It's funny he can't find the strength to type a few sentences to reply to the hunters on your forum.

 

Seriously, after all the vitriolic name calling and finger pointing, why would Rep. Weiers want to discuss this issue with folks on this forum? I mean really, is there any chance he could change your mind? Unless you're just hoping to conduct a public flogging, the opportunity for civil discourse is long gone. The majority of individuals posting to this thread are not supportive. Continuing to rehash conspiracy theories and nasty accusations is not going to solve anything one way or another. I hope Amanda will lock this thread off as I don't see anything positive to be accomplished. Once future meetings are held with Rep. Weiers, AZSFWC and others, then Amanda could start a new thread to provide updates and where we could (hopefully) discuss this issue with a greater level of respect for one another.

[40-year-AZ-hunter]

By the way Amanda, Rep. Weiers is well enough to attend that meeting is he not? It's funny he can't find the strength to type a few sentences to reply to the hunters on your forum.

 

Seriously, after all the vitriolic name calling and finger pointing, why would Rep. Weiers want to discuss this issue with folks on this forum? I mean really, is there any chance he could change your mind? Unless you're just hoping to conduct a public flogging, the opportunity for civil discourse is long gone. The majority of individuals posting to this thread are not supportive. Continuing to rehash conspiracy theories and nasty accusations is not going to solve anything one way or another. I hope Amanda will lock this thread off as I don't see anything positive to be accomplished. Once future meetings are held with Rep. Weiers, AZSFWC and others, then Amanda could start a new thread to provide updates and where we could (hopefully) discuss this issue with a greater level of respect for one another.

 

Gee, by all means let's hide this topic as best we can before those behind it provide any real answers. That would fit right in with the way the whole issue was started by those behind the scenes.

[Heat]

To Bonuspointjohn,

 

You have conveniently ignored (or tried to cover up) the main reason for the emergency clause. The emergency clause causes a bill to go into effect immediatly upon signature by the govenment. It is NOT subject to referendum. Claiming (as you have throughout this discussion) that is is merely so the expo can proceed is BS as you said in post #76 and others. It would preclude any group that disageed with the law from challenging it at the ballot box.

 

From the State's 2011/2012 bill drafting manual

 

"A measure that is enacted by the legislature is not operative for a period of ninety

days after the adjournment of the session (unless it is enacted under special circumstances

that allow it to be effective immediately). During this ninety-day period five percent of the

qualified electors may file a petition with the secretary of state to have the measure referred

to the people for approval or rejection. The number of qualified electors required is

calculated by determining the total number of votes cast for all candidates for governor at the

general election preceding the filing of the referendum. The measure is approved by a

majority of those voting.

Note: The following enactments are not subject to referendum by the people because

they become effective immediately on the governor's signature:

23

1. An emergency measure that is passed by a "supermajority" vote of the legislature."

 

http://www.azleg.gov/alisPDFs/council/2011-2012%20Bill%20Drafting%20Manual.pdf

 

I'm also still waiting to hear from you the answer to the questions posed in post #139. Since the email sent to the "contact" link at AzSFW ( suzanne@capitolconsultingaz.com ) does not seem to be very forthcoming. Who votes the Board in? I see from their site that you have to donate $1000/year to even be eligible to be a Board member "For an individual who wants to make a special commitment to the AZSFW Mission and who may be eligible to serve on the Board of Directors.

Annual Fee $ 1,000 Three Years $2,500" So much for representation by the average hunter!

 

We are all still waiting to hear if we will be welcome to discuss this bill at the meeting next Tuesday. By the way Amanda, Rep. Weiers is well enough to attend that meeting is he not? It's funny he can't find the strength to type a few sentences to reply to the hunters on your forum.

 

I think I paid a $50 membership fee per year. I never paid $1000 to be a Board Member so I consider that information bunk!

 

This thing got set up with 6 Regular Joes and 6 of the Money guys. You can guess where I fit in. Someone from our Club was asked to serve and I volunteered. AZSFW has done a lot of good things, however I have real problems with the whole premise of this bill.

 

Nick

[AZLance]

CouesWhitetail, on 09 January 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:

 

from Chris Denham:

Friends:

 

I am heading out the door to the first trade show of the year but I wanted to weigh in HB 2072.

 

You are probably hearing a lot about HB 2072, which was introduced in the state legislature last week. Most of what I read is a poor interpretation of the actual bill. I encourage you to read it all and make an informed decision.

 

Let me give you a very brief synopsis of the bill. HB 2072 allows a qualifying organization to purchase about 300 big game tags from the Arizona Game and Fish Department and re-issue them via auction and raffle. The majority of the tags will be sold through a raffle to be held at an annual sportsman's expo to be held in Arizona. There are six purposes for which this money can be spent, and they are written into the law! Here they are:

 

 

1. TO SUSTAIN OR CREATE SPORTSMEN EDUCATION AND OUTDOOR PROGRAMS FOR

YOUTH OF THIS STATE.

 

2. TO FACILITATE ACCESS FOR SPORTSMEN TO CROSS PRIVATE LANDS ONTO

PUBLIC LANDS.

 

3. TO SUSTAIN OR ENHANCE HABITAT IN THIS STATE AND TO INCREASE

TARGETED SPECIES POPULATIONS FOR DEER, SHEEP, ELK, PRONGHORN (ANTELOPE) AND

TURKEY IN THIS STATE.

 

4. TO FACILITATE PUBLIC EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATIONS PROGRAMS RELATING

TO SPORTSMEN AND WILDLIFE ISSUES.

 

5. TO PROTECT SPORTSMEN HERITAGE.

 

6. TO CONDUCT OTHER PROGRAMS OR ACTIVITIES THAT PROMOTE CONCEPTS

CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH AMERICAN MODEL OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION.

I. THE LEGISLATURE FINDS THAT ALL OF THE PURPOSES IN SUBSECTION H,

PARAGRAPHS 1 THROUGH 6 OF THIS SECTION COMPLEMENT AND ENHANCE THE

DEPARTMENT'S MANAGEMENT OF WILDLIFE IN THE PUBLIC TRUST UNDER THIS TITLE TO

INCLUDE CURRENT AND FUTURE PROGRAMS IN THE DEPARTMENT'S STRATEGIC PLAN AND

COMPREHENSIVE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION STRATEGY. FOR THE PURPOSES LISTED IN

SUBSECTION H OF THIS SECTION, THE QUALIFIED ORGANIZATION MAY USE THE

PROCEEDS, SOLELY OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, TO MAKE MATCHING

OR OTHER GRANTS TO THE DEPARTMENT AND TO ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE QUALIFIED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 501©(3) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE AND WHOSE ARTICLES

 

 

I seriously doubt that anybody would testify that these specific causes are not worthy, or that they are already being adequately managed by a government agency.

 

I have read multiple e-mails that raise false concerns or are simply incorrect. Here are some examples:

 

1. This will affect how auction tags are currently distributed. False. HB2072 specifically avoids the subject of special auction tag and will have no bearing on how those tags are distributed.

 

2. These tags can be resold. False. These tags can only be transferred under the current rules that regulate tag transfers.

 

3. These tags are being taken away from the average hunter. True, in the short run. Of course we are talking about 0.2 of 1 percent of the tags, the change in drawing odds is so small that it cannot be calculated. Besides, how difficult will it be to increase our big game herds by 0.2 of one percent with a serious cash infusion? These tags will improve the average hunter's odds of drawing a tag within a very short period of time.

 

I have read some concerns that are very accurate, such as, "there are very few groups who could qualify for these tags". This is very true, the bill is limiting in this regard. But, given the strict controls on how this money is to be spent, what benefit can be derived from splitting the money and further diluting its effectiveness?

 

I encourage you to read the bill for yourself. I am confident that once you have done that, you will join me in support of this bill.

 

 

 

--

Chris Denham

Marketing Director,

Elk Hunter Magazine

Western Hunter Magazine

480-993-8627

www.westernhuntermagazine.net

www.elkhuntermagazine.com

 

 

 

 

What happened to this post? It's no longer in the thread.

 

 

I was asked to remove it and since I posted it without Chris' permission I obliged and removed it. I think his partners at Elk Hunter Magazine didn't agree with his email and thought he should not have signed it as if it came from the magazine. It apparently doesn't represent the opinion of the majority of partners in the magazine.

 

Sounds like its getting HOT in the the kitchen...

[AZLance]

I stated he needs a wake up call -if my comments single out weiers - well his name is on the bill

 

Jerry Weiers is the ONLY legislator who we have been successful working with. As an avid outdoorsman, he tries his best to see the positive aspects of anything that is presented to him. He asks intelligent questions and he viewed the current bill as 300 raffle tags for everyman and 50 auction tags that would pay for access, education, our lobbyist and youth programs. BUT...

 

those are great points - ok - I agree with you- BUT- the negatives out weigh the positives in this bill

 

which have been pointed out in numerous responces --

 

 

John - do you see the negatives in this bill as it was presented and how it was handled?

 

why are you speaking for him - isn't it possible for him to address us here?

Rep Weiers did remove the bill, but he is scheduled for surgery in a few days. I will ask that he respond, but I would suggest a modicum of respect for him. Trashing me is fine, but Jerry is a really good guy who has guaranteed a lot of good things for sportsmen. I would hope that he could get a measure of respect and let him explain his position on the bill.

 

I had shoulder surgery last year and was back at work the next day...

[40-year-AZ-hunter]

Nick,

 

With all due respect, it is not "bunk" but taken directly from their web page. Go to their site and click the tab "about AZSFW" and "membership"

 

http://arizonasportsmenforwildlife.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=134&Itemid=78

 

It lists 4 types of membership - General, Business, Organization, and "Sportsmen Circle Member". Only the last 3 are listed as eligible to serve on the Board and those memberships start at $1000. You were probably on the Board as a representative of YRGC which I suspect paid the $1000.

 

The "regular joes" that you served with were all members of organizations that ponied up the money.

 

Please go check their website before you decide something is "bunk".