HB 2072 Sale of big game tags

[40-year-AZ-hunter]

Nick,

 

Sorry if anyone was misled about your involvment. The list of Directors was taken from the AzSFW website today. Looks like they cant even keep their own stuff up to date. How the heck should we trust them with a proposal like this is beyond me.

 

Glad to hear you dont favor this stuff and thanks for the clarification.

[dustyb0]

If it looks like a turd... Smells like a turd... Tastes like a turd... Then there is no doubt IT'S A TURD!!!

If you are a outfitter,guide ,expo vender,landowner,It looks like money...Smells like money...Tastes like money.A minority with money buying what they want.

[Swivelhead]

Sent my comments opposing HB 2072 to the commissioners.

 

Nick, thanks for the clarification. I agree AZSFW has done good things in the past. On this particular issue it appears to be a self righteous move. I am not pleased and do not want AZ to do "carnival" like Utah's Sportmans Expo.

[AZLance]

Nick, You were about 10 minutes away from getting a nasty email from me... I couldn't believe that you would be behind something like this..

Glad to hear it's not true!!

 

Now we just need to convince Amanda not to drink SFW's koolaid!

[billrquimby]

I don't like the idea of giving tags to private organizations. If auctions or raffles are to be held for big game hunting tags, it should be our state's wildlife agency that reaps the profits and not private groups.

 

If one of the purposes of the present bill is to provide more access to public land, I submit that the best way to get that is through lawsuits and threats of lawsuits.

 

A three-decades-old attorney general's opinion has said the Arizona Game and Fish Department should be the lead agency in providing access to state lands for hunters and anglers who buy state licenses, yet it has never really done an acceptable job in that role. It continues to negotiate with landowners and lessees who block access. The time for negotiating is long past.

 

The U.S. Interior and Agriculture departments need to comply with George W. Bush's executive order that ordered the Forest Service and other federal agencies to consider the effects of any and all of their actions on sportsmen. That order was not specifically rescinded by the Obama Administration, so it still is in effect. Those who lease federal lands should not allowed to block historic access routes to multiple-use public lands. If access guarantees are not written into grazing, logging and mining leases, they should be. The effect on us of agency-proposed road closures should be considered and steps need to be taken to mitigate it.

 

If state and federal wildlife and land management agencies do not act to provide access for us, sue them. If landowners block access to public lands, sue them.

 

Groups such as Defenders of Wildlife and the Center for Biological Diversity have long known how to recapture the cost of litigation. (Believe it or not, the money they use to fight us in the courts comes from taxpayers!)

 

Sportsmen only need to follow their example and sue the b@$%#&ds who are keeping us from using our public lands!

 

Bill Quimby

[Outdoor Writer]

During Janet Napolitanos term the money in the AZGFD was lumped into the general fund

 

 

This is the second time you have posted this. Do you have a reference for EXACTLY when and where this occurred?

[bonuspointjohn]

I have read the "informed opinions" that are begging all to say "NO" to this bill. I am curious about several things however. 1) without any additional funding from somewhere, how will we as sportsmen address the issue of access to public lands through private lands? As president of the ADA for the past 3 years, I have had countless calls and discussions regarding access. I read the assertions by some that there "are no access issues"... Really?... Do you think I make this stuff up? Have any of you experts talked to anyone within the AZGFD who works south of Phoenix? 2) There will be a Democratic Governor in this state at some point in the future. The last time we had appointments of commissioners from a Democratic governor they were people that all of us would like to forget. Who do you think arranged the bill so that sportsmen had a say in who would be the next commissioner? Who do you think arranged for $3.5 million dollars for habitat projects all across the state when there was money to be had in the legislature? There are always issues that need to be addressed in any bill. Condemning it to the point that all here have seemed to do is not productive. Constructive work on the bill would be a good start. Reading the bill and asking intelligent questions would be a great step. Calling members of the SFW "turds" shows a lack of class.

[gearsnagger]

During Janet Napolitanos term the money in the AZGFD was lumped into the general fund

 

 

This is the second time you have posted this. Do you have a reference for EXACTLY when and where this occurred?

 

OK Tony M you just had to make me dig didn't ya? Here is an article about this!

In case you did not see this...From Arizona Sportsmen for Wildlife Conservation:

 

"Arizona Sportsmen Send Petition to Arizona Game & Fish Commission Urging Commission to Oppose Sweeps of Sportsmen's Dollars"

 

 

"The Legislature and Governor's Office swept $7,560,695 from the Arizona Game & Fish Department (AGFD) to balance the 2008 budget deficit. The funding sweeps included $4,732,700 from the Watercraft License Fund, $395,000 from Off Highway Vehicle Recreation Fund and $2,827,600 from the Game and Fish Fund (La Osa Sheep Settlement money). In addition, another $5,600,000 ( $1,500,000 from the Off-highway Vehicle Recreation Fund and $4,100,000 from the State Lake Improvement Fund) were swept from the State Parks Department.

 

The Legislature is now struggling with an enormous budget deficit for 2009 estimated to be in the range of $2.2 to $2.5 Billion. Where will the money come from? That is the $64 question.

 

Arizona's sportsmen feel strongly that "No Money be Swept from the Arizona Game & Fish Department". Why should these funds be held harmless? First and foremost, AGFD monies are not general fund money. The primary source of AGFD funds is sportsmen's dollars. Except for $10 Million annually from Heritage Fund (funding source for Heritage Fund is Lottery Revenues); $7-8 Million annually in Wildlife Conservation Funds (funding source is the Indian Gaming Initiative) and $300,000 from the Non-game Fund (Source is an income tax check-off) virtually all other AGFD money comes directly from sportsmen's pocketbooks through license and permit fees, sure charges, and excise tax on hunting and fishing equipment and ammunition.

 

Aproximately 80% of AGFD's revenue in any given year is generated by sportsmen. Sportsmen have time and again asked the legislature to increase the fees that they pay. The Joint Legislative Budget Committee estimated that the most recent fee increase in 2005 would yield a 30% increase in revenues to the AGFD by 2009. A similar amount was generated from the previous fee increase in 1999. And these fee increases were not easy to obtain as both increases required a super majority vote of the legislature.

 

Sportsmen know just how difficult it is to get the state to repay swept funds for Arizona's wildlife. In 2006, AZSFW asked the Legislature to repay $15 million in funds that had been swept over the prior four years. Mind you this was a time when the state was flush with dollars and voted to increase their total budget expenditures by approximately 9%. After an aggressive campaign, AZSFW felt fortunate to obtain a general fund appropriation of $3.5 million for critical wildlife habitat projects.

 

It is time for the Legislature to stand tall and cut general fund programs and require that general fund agencies live within their means rather than stealing money from agencies that do not receive dedicated non-general fund revenue dollars.

 

Sportsmen are asking the Arizona Game & Fish Commission to support them in their effort to keep AGFD funds from being swept. While the Commission has been asked twice to pass a motion opposing all game & fish fund sweeps, they have yet to act on this important issue.

 

Sportsmen's groups including Arizona Sportsmen for Wildlife, Wildlife Conservation Council, National Rifle Association-ILA, Arizona Wildlife Federation, Arizona Deer Association, Arizona Elk Society, Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society, Arizona Antelope Foundation, Anglers United, Arizona Chapter Safari Club International, Arizona Flycasters Club, Arizona Bowhunter's Association, Christian Bowhunter's Association, Arizona Trappers Association, Yuma Valley Rod & Gun Club, Navajo County Sportsmen's Club, Southeastern Arizona Sportsmen's Club, Southern Arizona Sportsmen's Alliance, Mohave Sportsmen's Club, Arizona Predator Callers, Southern Arizona Wildlife Callers and Xtreme Predator Callers LLC have all signed onto the petition.

 

Arizona's wildlife does not have a voice at the Legislature or the Governor's Office. It is only through sportsmen that the case for wildlife can be voiced. With drought conditions and habitat reduction it is imperative that Sportsmen advocate for wildlife. The Arizona Game & Fish Commission should also advocate on behalf of wildlife by strongly opposing all sweeps of AGFD revenue. Failure to do so brings into question a legitimate concern that must be answered. Is the Arizona Game & Fish Commission fulfilling its fiduciary duty to protect and maintain Arizona's wildlife and its habitat?

 

Not only must the Commission do its part, sportsmen must act today to save wildlife dollars from being swept. You can help by contacting your legislator and the Governor's Office and asking them not to sweep any Arizona Game & Fish Department funds. Ask them to hold general fund agencies accountable and not allow them to steal wildlife dollars. Your help is needed today. To find out how you can help click here:"

 

http://www.arizonasportsmenforwildl...lltoaction.html

__________________

Jim Warren

Pinetop, AZ

520-237-5824 ©

928-358-1233 (h)

oldgobbler@flash.net

 

"The government cannot give to anyone anything that it does not first take from someone else" -

 

"Rich men save and spend what's left. Poor men spend and save what's left!"

 

Authors Unknown

[Outdoor Writer]

Reading the bill and asking intelligent questions would be a great step.

 

 

One more try....

 

From my earlier message:

 

Can we assume that these 54 auction permits will be in ADDITION to the 30 or so that are already allocated through another state law?

 

Also, did either Weiers or AZSFWC run this by the game commission before going forward with it? If so, what did the commission think of the idea?

[Outdoor Writer]

 

"Arizona Sportsmen Send Petition to Arizona Game & Fish Commission Urging Commission to Oppose Sweeps of Sportsmen's Dollars"

 

 

"The Legislature and Governor's Office swept $7,560,695 from the Arizona Game & Fish Department (AGFD) to balance the 2008 budget deficit. The funding sweeps included $4,732,700 from the Watercraft License Fund, $395,000 from Off Highway Vehicle Recreation Fund and $2,827,600 from the Game and Fish Fund (La Osa Sheep Settlement money). In addition, another $5,600,000 ( $1,500,000 from the Off-highway Vehicle Recreation Fund and $4,100,000 from the State Lake Improvement Fund) were swept from the State Parks Department.

 

 

 

Yup, I was aware of all that. When did the G&F go in the red and what did those funds have to do with this?

 

"Prior to this the AZGFD was the only state agency operating in the black , this is because of the xtra sales tax hunters and fishermen pay every time they by gear ... We voted to have this tax under the conditions the money be spent on wildlife conservation , the politicians did the same thing then - Declaring an emergency so the money could be swept into the general fund to pay off Arizona's deficit!"

[bonuspointjohn]

I don't like the idea of giving tags to private organizations. If auctions or raffles are to be held for big game hunting tags, it should be our state's wildlife agency that reaps the profits and not private groups.

 

If one of the purposes of the present bill is to provide more access to public land, I submit that the best way to get that is through lawsuits and threats of lawsuits.

 

A three-decades-old attorney general's opinion has said the Arizona Game and Fish Department should be the lead agency in providing access to state lands for hunters and anglers who buy state licenses, yet it has never really done an acceptable job in that role. It continues to negotiate with landowners and lessees who block access. The time for negotiating is long past.

 

The U.S. Interior and Agriculture departments need to comply with George W. Bush's executive order that ordered the Forest Service and other federal agencies to consider the effects of any and all of their actions on sportsmen. That order was not specifically rescinded by the Obama Administration, so it still is in effect. Those who lease federal lands should not allowed to block historic access routes to multiple-use public lands. If access guarantees are not written into grazing, logging and mining leases, they should be. The effect on us of agency-proposed road closures should be considered and steps need to be taken to mitigate it.

 

If state and federal wildlife and land management agencies do not act to provide access for us, sue them. If landowners block access to public lands, sue them.

 

Groups such as Defenders of Wildlife and the Center for Biological Diversity have long known how to recapture the cost of litigation. (Believe it or not, the money they use to fight us in the courts comes from taxpayers!)

 

Sportsmen only need to follow their example and sue the b@$%#&ds who are keeping us from using our public lands!

 

Bill Quimby

Thanks for a valid response Bill. There was a case a few years back in Arivipa Canyon. Guess who was there to help?... The AZSFW...Lawsuits are tricky business and should be the last resort. Otherwise we become that which we already detest... the CBD, the Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club....

[Outdoor Writer]

"We voted to have this tax under the conditions the money be spent on wildlife conservation"

 

Whoops, forgot to ask about this one. Which tax on gear was it that the "we" personally voted on?

[bonuspointjohn]

Reading the bill and asking intelligent questions would be a great step.

 

 

One more try....

 

From my earlier message:

 

Can we assume that these 54 auction permits will be in ADDITION to the 30 or so that are already allocated through another state law?

 

Also, did either Weiers or AZSFWC run this by the game commission before going forward with it? If so, what did the commission think of the idea?

These tags will be in addition to the current auction tags. The current commissioners were briefed prior to the dropping of the bill. conceptually most of them agreed to the bill, but were significantly upset that they never saw it prior to dropping. They will oppose the bill today by a 5-0 vote.

[bonuspointjohn]

"We voted to have this tax under the conditions the money be spent on wildlife conservation"

 

Whoops, forgot to ask about this one. Which tax on gear was it that the "we" personally voted on?

My assumption is that he is referring to Pittman Robinson/ Dingell Johnson money that was passed back in the 1930's

[Outdoor Writer]

These tags will be in addition to the current auction tags. The current commissioners were briefed prior to the dropping of the bill. conceptually most of them agreed to the bill, but were significantly upset that they never saw it prior to dropping. They will oppose the bill today by a 5-0 vote.

 

 

I assume "dropping" means AFTER it was written and formally introduced by Weiers, i.e with no consultation with either the department or the commission?

 

Glad to hear the vote is unanimous.