audsley Report post Posted February 5, 2012 If the non-ADA attendees bring such an extensive list of issues to this meeting, you won't get much accomplished. I suggest sticking to basics. Who makes the decisions at AZSFW? How is AZSFW accountable to the state's sportsmen and the organizations it represents? What is the protocol for approving actions and communication to member groups? Until those issues are satisfactorily resolved, nothing will be accomplished. Finally, how is the organization to be funded? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
runningbird Report post Posted February 5, 2012 Thanks Amanda for digging up the info. I look forword to the meeting on the 21st. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DesertBull Report post Posted February 6, 2012 The ADA paid their $10,000 SFW membership fee then got back doored? I would demand a refund. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.270 Report post Posted February 6, 2012 Some of the ada's leaders new about it. The lack of an official statement saying they are against it is really a problem to me. All I have seen so far is that they didn't like it but I don't see where they tried to stop it or made an effort to publicize it. And then pbj and all his pr work for sfw and this bill while being in the ada leadership is real bs. Hopefully there will be a lotta hellraisers at this meeting and the Ada leadership will make some adjustments and also tell sfw to go to he ll. Hopefully their "banquet" attendance will a wake up. Lark. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
krp Report post Posted February 6, 2012 If this meeting is a 2072 review for the members before the board meets in the future to decide on support of azsfw, most of us are way past this. I don't think there is anything fresh to say about 2072 that hasn't been detailed here. For some reason I figured the board would listen and then make a decision before the meeting broke. I have no interest in going to a meeting not ending with a conclusion. Kent 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
archerycrazy Report post Posted February 6, 2012 I am hopeing that Amanda may be able to contact her fellow board members and provide some reasurance that this meeting will not be a waste of our time. I for one do not want this to turn into a crucify Kolezar event. Everyone must be prepared to listen and perhaps provide short meaningful items of concern. If we only have one hour, our comments must be clear and concise. A shouting match won't get us anywhere. George Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
krp Report post Posted February 6, 2012 It's best if ADA gets itself on the same page before they turn to the public... and I personally will not get in a shouting match, those that know me know I am analytical and will bring evidence into a discussion and will not be sidetracked by emotion. John has made some statements that have me questioning whether he will listen to reality... like ADA doesn't pay dues to azsfw and they are a part of azsfwc instead... also that no group gets to keep money from the sale of tags when I brought up MDF and how they get 10% of the Utah tag money, seems they do or were getting 5% of the AZ tag money. There are more and I'd have to go back through these threads. What's the scoop on these issues and if I'm challenged by John like this it's hard not to get personal with him and I haven't. I've pounded sfw and he has challenged me in defense of sfw, and his rebuttals don't make sense. They won't make more sense if he tells me to my face but if ADA decides to not support azsfw before the meeting and it is a meeting to move forward positively. I will come and listen to whatever is said to me and voice an idea or two to move forward. Kent 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elkaholic Report post Posted February 6, 2012 there should be only one question asked or discussed at the meeting Will the ADA continue to support the azsfw- azsfwc- or anyone associated with ideals of the sfw way of controling/manipulating the rights of Arizona's Sportsmen for the benifit of a private org. as far as most of us are concerned they are all one and the same = no difference enity crap - same people in the same groups - gilstrps - pearce -hamberlin etc. we all know 2072 is why this question is being rasised "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." do you want to continue letting someone use the ADA name to represent Arizona sportsmens values in reguards to decisions for Arizona and the wildlife - when they do not value your imput! Please concider who supports you! You know how we feel - how about a poll thread - for or against any groups supporting azsfw the topic of bringing back the utah tag should be discussed also . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bonuspointjohn Report post Posted February 6, 2012 It's best if ADA gets itself on the same page before they turn to the public... and I personally will not get in a shouting match, those that know me know I am analytical and will bring evidence into a discussion and will not be sidetracked by emotion. John has made some statements that have me questioning whether he will listen to reality... like ADA doesn't pay dues to azsfw and they are a part of azsfwc instead... also that no group gets to keep money from the sale of tags when I brought up MDF and how they get 10% of the Utah tag money, seems they do or were getting 5% of the AZ tag money. There are more and I'd have to go back through these threads. What's the scoop on these issues and if I'm challenged by John like this it's hard not to get personal with him and I haven't. I've pounded sfw and he has challenged me in defense of sfw, and his rebuttals don't make sense. They won't make more sense if he tells me to my face but if ADA decides to not support azsfw before the meeting and it is a meeting to move forward positively. I will come and listen to whatever is said to me and voice an idea or two to move forward. Kent I think it would be best if you and I had some time to discuss issues prior to the meeting. Amanda has my contact info. I would be willing to talk or meet earlier that day. BPJ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
coueshunter Report post Posted February 6, 2012 John, has ADA removed its support of AZSFW? I think that this issue is a very big issue after the 2072 bill. I for one would like to know..........Allen........... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
runningbird Report post Posted February 6, 2012 Runningbird, all of the orgs that are on the board were presented the same spiel in regards to this bill. There are other people you can go to and find out your requested information. I would start with contacting the orgs that pulled their support of AZSFW first. I think you will be surprised at how easy the process is. I have made a few contacts. In fact not all the orgs that are on the board were given the spiel. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chef Report post Posted February 6, 2012 I have made a few contacts. In fact not all the orgs that are on the board were given the spiel. Runningbird, I have been told that this is not true. All the orgs that sit on the AZSFWC board were in the loop. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
runningbird Report post Posted February 6, 2012 I have made a few contacts. In fact not all the orgs that are on the board were given the spiel. Very interesting news. So not all the orgs on the AZSFWC board even knew this was even a consideration as a proposed bill? Seems like AZSFW didn't care about hurting peoples feelings with their introduction of this bill. I should also note that most of the groups or people that responded to my question where very professional and understanding. I think all in all most of our groups are organized by people who really care and are not self serving. This is my impression from the limited contact I had this weekend. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThomC Report post Posted February 7, 2012 It's best if ADA gets itself on the same page before they turn to the public... and I personally will not get in a shouting match, those that know me know I am analytical and will bring evidence into a discussion and will not be sidetracked by emotion. John has made some statements that have me questioning whether he will listen to reality... like ADA doesn't pay dues to azsfw and they are a part of azsfwc instead... also that no group gets to keep money from the sale of tags when I brought up MDF and how they get 10% of the Utah tag money, seems they do or were getting 5% of the AZ tag money. There are more and I'd have to go back through these threads. What's the scoop on these issues and if I'm challenged by John like this it's hard not to get personal with him and I haven't. I've pounded sfw and he has challenged me in defense of sfw, and his rebuttals don't make sense. They won't make more sense if he tells me to my face but if ADA decides to not support azsfw before the meeting and it is a meeting to move forward positively. I will come and listen to whatever is said to me and voice an idea or two to move forward. Kent I think it would be best if you and I had some time to discuss issues prior to the meeting. Amanda has my contact info. I would be willing to talk or meet earlier that day. BPJ You can bet old bogus points will be scrambling to do damage control before the meeting. If the ADA doesnt roll some heads then I will call them bogus deer association. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
archerycrazy Report post Posted February 7, 2012 After several days of digging, it is now time for me to raise the BS flag on the comments made by Showmethemoney. I spoke with 2 current Commissions, 1 former Commissioner and Brian Wakeling himself regarding the 5% premium for the MDF on the auction tags. The MDF has never been allowed to keep any money. The claims made by Showmethemoney are absolutely false. All monies garnered from the auction or raffle of all tags go to the department. It is illegal for any funds to go to an organization other than the Game and Fish Department. The Commission and Department consulted with the Attorney General's representative on this scenario several years ago and received wise counsel. For anyone on this or any other forum to post completely false and disparaging comments about the Commission, the Department or any other organziation is lower than dirt. If Showmethemoney has facts that will back up his claims then he should take them to the Attorney General for investigation. I wonder if there is an ulterior motive in play here. George 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
