Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The ADA board was given very little information and only briefed once shortly before the bill was dropped.

 

Sounds like the ADA got JACK SQUAT for their $10,000

 

 

Or maybe the ADA almost got exactly what it wanted?

 

 

I'll stand by this idea since BPJ has not really answered any of the real questions asked in these two threads. And now he complains that the ADA could not get names from a former governor. BPJ you have been asked for names multiple times in these two threads and you have not given them either.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John, I believe I am still a member of ADA. I know I would appreciate a response on what ADA's position was on the bill. I fully understand it is a "moot point". Let me mention that ADA did not make it a moot point to my understanding so please state what ADA's position was on this bill. You have so eloquently mentioned that we are not aware of "the big picture" and as such we rely on ADA and other wildlife organizations to keep us aware of this big picture. This last situation with AZSW and its political lobbying arm has caused a major stir amongst us "unaware" folks and now we would like to know info ahead of the plan instead of at the last minute. I have always supported ADA through banquets, fundraisers, volunteer efforts etc. Please support me as one of the members and state ADA's position...........respectfully.....Allen Taylor.........480-258-3726..........

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John, endangered species are Federal under the USF&W...

Kent..... I would suggest that you review the operations of the AZGFD. There are boatloads of time and money that the department gives to the ES. Care to guess how much was spent on the Mexican gray wolf?... The department is focused on ALL wildlife in AZ... and that includes EA....They do not hand over the operations to the feds.....J

Kent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we please see the minutes of the ADA Board meeting at which they were briefed on HB2072? Those minutes should reveal who was there from AzSFW and ADA.

 

Amanda? BPJ?

First and foremost, there was never a vote on the issue. There was never a member of the AZSFW at any of our recent meetings. If an item has not been voted on, it will not appear in the minutes. Just curious 40... do you belong to any organizations?... Have you ever worked a banquet?...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John, I believe I am still a member of ADA. I know I would appreciate a response on what ADA's position was on the bill. I fully understand it is a "moot point". Let me mention that ADA did not make it a moot point to my understanding so please state what ADA's position was on this bill. You have so eloquently mentioned that we are not aware of "the big picture" and as such we rely on ADA and other wildlife organizations to keep us aware of this big picture. This last situation with AZSW and its political lobbying arm has caused a major stir amongst us "unaware" folks and now we would like to know info ahead of the plan instead of at the last minute. I have always supported ADA through banquets, fundraisers, volunteer efforts etc. Please support me as one of the members and state ADA's position...........respectfully.....Allen Taylor.........480-258-3726..........

Thank you for the conversation this morning. I appreciate all you have done for the ADA, and I am glad that we had the chance to talk. I will be carrying your message to our board. J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is the ADA going to take stance on this bill? They are either for it or against it. And is the ADA going to keep bowing down to AZSFW and paying them dues?

 

If we want to cut AZSFW out, we need to cut their cash flow, starting with all of the groups that are members of AZSFW...

 

So let's get board members of all the wildlife groups to come on here and let us know where their group stands on this.

The ADA has not taken a stance on the bill. We were given a preliminary overview of what the bill was and what it would accomplish. The board asked for more information and the "devil in the details". Since we did not see the bill prior to the dropping in the state legislature and since there was a response that mandated not moving it forward, there will be no vote on an item that is moot. As far as membership, the ADA is not a member of the AZSFW. We are however a member of the AZSFWC. The purpose of the "C" is to have a forum for sportsmen, meet monthly to discuss items of interest, meet with the AZGFD (They come every month and brief us on what is current) and then review proposals for the spending of the wildlife plate monies. The ADA, the AES, the AAF and the ADBSS have in the past funded the lobbyist efforts of Capitol Consulting (Suzanne Gilstrap). That process will be up for review, pending any decisions as to the future of the AZSFW. Please feel free to ask any more questions.

 

So who gave the preliminary overview of the bill?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we please see the minutes of the ADA Board meeting at which they were briefed on HB2072? Those minutes should reveal who was there from AzSFW and ADA.

 

Amanda? BPJ?

First and foremost, there was never a vote on the issue. There was never a member of the AZSFW at any of our recent meetings. If an item has not been voted on, it will not appear in the minutes. Just curious 40... do you belong to any organizations?... Have you ever worked a banquet?...

 

 

Mr. Koleszar,

 

Convenient that we will never know who from ADA knew about this stealth issue before it erupted on these forums. At least I guess we can surmise that the ADA did not back it (no vote) and you are speaking for yourself rather than as their president.

 

As far as the personal questions go - yes I belong to organizations and no I have never worked a banquet. Would you like my tax return too? Needless to say, we have very different views on many issues.

 

Bruce Johnson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John, endangered species are Federal under the USF&W...

Kent..... I would suggest that you review the operations of the AZGFD. There are boatloads of time and money that the department gives to the ES. Care to guess how much was spent on the Mexican gray wolf?... The department is focused on ALL wildlife in AZ... and that includes EA....They do not hand over the operations to the feds.....J

Kent

 

John... The wolf recovery program is mandated by the ESA of 1973, a federally mandated program not state voluntary. after many years and changes, Canadian wolves were released in Yellowstone and Idaho in 1995 and Then mexican wolves in AZ/NM 1998.

 

The AZG&F have no choice on the matter and neither does the commission, they deal with the mandate best they can under federal guidelines.

 

 

From G&F...

The Arizona Game and Fish Department has been actively involved in reintroducing Mexican wolves to portions of their historical range for many years.

 

In the 1980s, the reintroduction effort focused mainly on public processes necessary to reach a decision for or against reintroduction.

 

Management activities during the 1990s included public opinion surveys, public meetings, site feasibility studies and surveys along both sides of the Mexican border for naturally occurring wolves. In addition, there was intensive coordination with cooperating agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish and the USDA Forest Service.

 

As a result of these activities and a Federal mandate from the Endangered Species Act of 1973, a Federal decision was made to release captive Mexican wolves in east-central Arizona. In March 1998, 11 captive-reared Mexican wolves were released into the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area (BRWRA) in eastern Arizona. Additional releases have occurred since the initial release.

 

With the birth of the first wild-born litter from a wild-born parent in 2002, the Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Project entered into a new phase, whereby natural reproduction began to replace reintroductions from captive populations.

 

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

 

read the bold

 

Between the Feds and our own local special interest groups, our vote is being silenced...

 

Kent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coues Whitetail Forum Members

 

My name is Mark Bool, I am a former President of the ADA and still active with the organization.

 

I am writing to tell my side of why the ADA would not have supported HB 2072.

 

Shortly before the legislation was introduced, during a fundraising meeting this subject came up. We were only given a very rough concept of what the bill might have in it. It immediately raised concerns from virtually all of us at the meeting. Many very good questions were talked over and I can say I do not believe one of us would have supported the legislation.

 

As has already been stated the ADA never did take a vote on this issue. In fact we did not even have a board meeting during the explosion of HB 2072. It was dropped on a Friday and pulled early the following week. We never voted because it was pulled off the table and we were told it would not be reintroduced. For the ADA the issue was a moot point.

 

We were never given the courtesy of seeing the legislation before it was dropped and obviously never gave any input. This is wrong, flat wrong, and something you do not do to someone who is supposed to be your partner.

 

What is sad is that AZSFW is the type of organization that sportsmen need, and now they have damaged themselves, perhaps irreparably.

 

The ADA had contributed significant funds to aid AZSFW. While not nearly as much as AES or ADBSS, it was still a lot of money to the ADA. We felt we had received solid value for our contributions. The Commission Recommendation Board, millions of dollars for habitat work, and ten percent cap on non-resident hunters are just some of the benefits all sportsmen received.

 

Those who are talking about supporting Daniel Patterson by repealing the Commission Recommendation Board need to be very careful about what you are advocating. Sandy Bahr and Stephanie Nichols Young are loving this discussion. AZSFW had neutered them, now who will be there to speak of for wildlife and sportsmen? This is a sad time for all of those who love hunting, fishing, and wildlife.

 

As many of you know I am not a regular on this forum. Like it or not, I thought you deserved an answer! This is a one time post for me.

 

In closing, I encourage everyone to come to an ADA Board meeting. Bring your thoughts, make your voice heard, and help shape policy. The organization is ALWAYS looking for volunteers that have a genuine passion for wildlife conservation.

 

Thanks,

 

Mark

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark,

 

Thank you for your candid post and I respect your decision to make it a "one time post".

 

I, and probably others, would still like someone, anyone, to say who provided such briefings. Clearly the person providing the briefings is being protected and that's a darn shame. People would not have been any more irate about HB2072 if Sandy Bahr or Stephanie Nichols Young were behind it. In fact, I would be less upset seeing it from them than from someone or some group that we thought were our allies. Trust is hard to restore once it is lost.

 

Bruce

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you for the ADA update--

 

the question about the review board - it has a chairman for 5 yrs (3 more) who is at the heart of azsfw - that is what is disturbing - this person and his wife are undoubtably the same people who are reponsable for - helped weiers to sponsor and lobbyed for bill 2072 - its hard not to think they are on this commission board for a reason - we've just seen the way they want to represent the wildlife organizations and sportsman of Arizona - to futher themselves $$$$$$ why do we want to trust anything associated with these same individuals? like they say there are many ways to skin a cat - some of us seem to feel this is a way of eventually controlling the game and fish commission .

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure others have seen this, but if you haven't look below.

 

http://azgfd.net/artman/publish/NewsMedia/Commission-to-meet-on-Jan-25.shtml

 

"The commission will be briefed on the status of state and federal legislation. It may also be asked to review the current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the commission and the organization Arizona Sportsmen for Wildlife Conservation. The commission may vote to take action or provide the department direction on these items. "

 

 

I am still waiting for the designers of this bill to come out and say what their point is, and if this was so good for AZ Sportsmen why all the other groups that used to support AZSFW weren't notified of it's dire need and it's potential impact to "Johnny Dickweed" (who must wait in line for tags like me and the rest of us)...

 

Bret Mattausch.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BPJ I believe from your post quizzing 40 Year Az Hunter about whether he is member of any organizations or has ever worked on any banquets is disturbing. One has to assume that you are insinuating that unless a person has done these things they are of less stature as a hunter or wildlife conservationist in this state than you are!!! This is very wrong BPJ. Just because you may have done these things does not make you any better or any more qualified to have opinions on any issue. I do remember 40 year Az Hunter coming to Commission meetings during my term and speaking to the Commission, he is a good man and always had good comments he brought to us. I have a respect for him as an Arizonan who has concerns! He and many others who have made comments since 2072 was dropped are some of the silent majority that Chairman Freeman has talked about at Commission meetings many times! BPJ the silent majority is entitled to be heard even though they may not meet your criteria of being qualified. I know you do not believe the silent majority is out there because of meetings with you and others with you who basically blow off what Chair Freeman says about the silent majority. Well some of them are asking you questions and you still fail to answer them! A good debate is always good but all debaters should reindeer in a truthful manner but you still continue to not answer questions and treat folks in disrespectful ways! Shame on you!!! Personally I subscribe to Chair Freeman's way of doing things that ALL citizens are qualified to express their concerns and should be treated with respect!!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×