ADA statement

[Showmethemoney]

nosajpo;

first i am no more important than the anyone else on this sight. I just find it funny that for over three weeks the same statements are being said over and over. I am just reiteriating what all of you have called yourselves "average Joes". I find it important to state that the commission is lying to you and if we as hunters think they have our best interest at heart then we will be sadly disappointed. Did SFW do hunters wrong; well the way they proceeded with this bill and not including all organizations and gaining support was a tragic mistake on their part. Do i agree that there needs to be representation at the legislature yes. Is the money that has been mentioned on all these blogs nearly enough? NO!!!! Am i willing to have the commission add some tags to be auctioned for money to use to help us support hunting and have a say in the legislature. Yes!!! Notice i said add tags, mathmetically it is nonrelevant to the resource if we added some tags to auction off or raffle off to help sportsman fund a legislative represntative. meaning a lobbyist. We need one, no matter what side of the fence you stand we need representation. All the antis have it and in fact use our dollars to support their legal battles. So go ahead and ask me do i agree with the AZSFW on this bill. My answer is mixed; i do not agree with how it was proposed and the accountability of the funding. However i do think that the idea of using tags for money is not far fetched and could be beneficial for all sportsman and most importantly "FUTURE SPORTSMAN". We lose battles every day that seem irrelevant until it affects you personally. I can not understand how this has become so huge when just a few years back the forest service implemented TMP's and as hunters we stood by and let the antis dictate to us how to use the forest. I attended those meetings, we as hunters were outnumbered 20 to 1. Hence now we no longer can travel across the forest to retrieve down game except for elk. Which is one trip in and one trip out. But hunters sat back and allowed this to occur? Why; because those who are able to pack their game out never were concerned about those who could not. We only get mad when we think that we are going to lose a tag and diminish our chances to draw. No one is screaming about the proposal in the congress that will restrict access on public land in game management units 44A, 42, 41 and 39. Essentially this will take large tracts of public land and make them designated wildenress. Again we will sit back and allow this to happen because it does not affect us personally. Several times i have watched different users try and turn these threads into constructive forums to unite us as hunters. Instead we continue to look for blood and crucify anyone who disagrees. BPJ indicated in one of his post that he was threatened along with others. Really, some one threaten bodily harm on person because they did not agree with them. Why would anyone want to be on board of any organization if this is what it has come down too. I just wonder what we have won?

[krp]

I am breaking my own vow because of the direction that your post has taken Kent. 1) The SFW controls the commission?... nothing could be further from the truth. The Governor has appointed her choices... well before the review board came in. The SFW has no control of the tags that are given to the MDF. That call is by the commission and has been for years. I have no clue what relationship the MDF and Utah SFW have... but it does not involve anything in AZ. The license plate money is controlled by the 18 members of the AZSFWC board. They are representatives from the 18 member organization. 4 of which are on the AZSFW board and the rest from sportsmen's groups. You should really attempt to come to the ADA board meeting. Your conspiracy theories and statements are not even close to being on target. If you wish to do a service to those on this site, come to the meeting and lets have a civil discussion face to face. Regards BPJ...

 

They control the commission review board, I didn't say the commission, they control the choice the governor has.

 

SFW is the leader of the orgs, the control they have is addressing this issue with the commission, you and the other orgs put them there, by them not going to the new commission that Brewer built and advocating for these tags to be brought back to Az, they support by nonaction. Instead they worked on legislation to convert 350 tags into the same type of SFW/MDF system with 2072. This is fact not speculation.

 

That you haven't spent an hour researching how MDF became the sponsoring conservation group of Western hunting and conservation expo through SFW doesn't mean I'm wrong... I believe I even put links up.

 

SFW is the namesake of the controlling organization of the license money, that is control.

 

So, you and I will debate for the entire hour on these issues and still not scratch the surface... I will bring a stack of evidence, more than I've brought up here... you will lecture me... I will rebut with evidence... The azsfw issue will be confusing for your members, believe me with evidence or you as their leader... nothing will be accomplished, no progress made... that's a good plan John... for sfw.

 

If Amanda or the other ADA leaders want this for the meeting, If there is still a question that SFW needs to be gone and me spending the next weeks amassing the evidence in a structural timeline for your members, then I'll do it. My presentation will take the entire meeting, I won't put the effort in if I'm cutoff after a couple minutes.

 

If the meeting is about moving past sfw and getting back on track on some important issues... I will come with my coffee can and you can lecture me in private, I will listen, shake your hand and not even comment.

 

Kent

[Chef]

I think it would be a good thing to have Kent and John meet and talk for a while before the ADA meeting.

I know your schedules are busy, so I am not expecting anything. I just know that we would benefit from you

two being on the same page, whether on opposite sides, but on the same page non the less.

[runningbird]

I did not see where BPJ was threatened. If I missed that post than I apologize. I have asked repeatedly who gave a preliminary talk about this bill. That answer has been avoided. I did not ask because I want to cause more problems, I asked because I like many average Joe's am trying to figure out who to trust. By avoiding some questions and answering others it is, in my opinion making it hard to trust BPJ or the ADA. I also do understand that we need lobbyist, but after hearing Gistrap speak I can not support her.

 

I hope to attended the meeting, not to cause problems but to move foreword with a good working trusting relationship.

[.270]

the truth is always threatening to guys like pbj. maybe that's what he means. Lark.

[Chef]

Showmethemoney has some very valuable insight and for those that want to listen, he brings some enlightenment to the table. My biggest issue is that all the orgs knew that the commission was being infiltrated heavily by the greenies. They knew, by name, who was on our side and who wasn't. Yet it seemed to me that everything was hush hush, as to not offend anyone. That is why I urged people a long time ago, to become members, to attend a meeting, so they could gain some insight on the war that has been waged against us.

 

Same thing goes here, things are kept quiet on who proposed this bill etc. People are too afraid to damage relationships and in my opinion, they need to ask themselves who they have in their best interest. Remember, AZSFW surprised you with the pushing of this bill before you or the commission could detail it, now tell me who is on your side?

 

I do understand we have a severe need of having lobbyists and people that have the connections to represent us sportsmen. There needs to be more checks and balances, more communication within the orgs and with the public.

 

I'm rambling now so I'll stop here...

[krp]

I don't have a problem meeting with John and listening.

 

But if this is a public trial of sfw and I'm then expected to address the members, that will take a much different effort on my part to prepare, than just going and making a public showing with my 10.00 solicitation can that I support ADA'a new direction.

 

What is the purpose of this meeting now? John and I debating or moving past sfw? honest question.

 

I will continue to pound the sfw issue until it is not relevant and then switch gears to the next step without further thought of sfw. I'd like to address the commission on the Utah tag sell issue and see where they stand on bringing it back. Can't if we are still unsure where the orgs stand on supporting sfw and they looking over the commissions back with the review board.

 

So it's relevant for me to know how the meeting stands before I walk in and what role I'll be playing.

 

Kent

[runningbird]

"Same thing goes here, things are kept quiet on who proposed this bill etc. People are too afraid to damage relationships and in my opinion, they need to ask themselves who they have in their best interest. Remember, AZSFW surprised you with the pushing of this bill before you or the commission could detail it, now tell me who is on your side? "

 

 

This is my point exactly. The ADA knew this was comming, supposedly did not support it, but still did not let others know about it. Also they won't give up the name of the person that presented the issue to them. Why are they protecting this person, I wonder if it is one of there own?

[Chef]

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.

[runningbird]

I did not realize that all the others were given the spiel. Thanks for the help!

[AZLance]

PBJ has lost all credibility, and if he is going to be speaking at this meeting or any other forum, it is not worth our time. If PBJ wants to take the ADA down with AZSFW on their sinking ship so be it. I think the ADA is better than this, but PBJ is going to need to step aside so they can get back on the right track.

[CouesWhitetail]

Ok, runningbird and others, I tried to track down the answer to your question.

 

Here is the info as I understand it.

 

AZSFW presented the idea to the AZSFWC board. The AZSFWC board is made up of a variety of people from many of the sportsmens groups. John Koleszar is on the AZSFWC board and so after he heard the proposal from the AZSFW he later passed on some information to the ADA board. I wasn't there at the time so I don't have all the details of when and how that was presented. As stated in the post from Mark Bool, the ADA board had serious problems with the plan and said there was no way they could support it at the time. They essentially had no details and asked John to let the AZSFW know that if AZSFW had an idea that they want the ADA to support they needed to present the idea completely with the all the details. The bill was never presented and no one from the AZSFW ever came to the ADA board to present this. As I have posted before, the ADA did not have the details of the proposal and never received the bill before it was dropped.

[AZLance]

Ok, runningbird and others, I tried to track down the answer to your question.

 

Here is the info as I understand it.

 

AZSFW presented the idea to the AZSFWC board. The AZSFWC board is made up of a variety of people from many of the sportsmens groups. John Koleszar is on the AZSFWC board and so after he heard the proposal from the AZSFW he later passed on some information to the ADA board. I wasn't there at the time so I don't have all the details of when and how that was presented. As stated in the post from Mark Bool, the ADA board had serious problems with the plan and said there was no way they could support it at the time. They essentially had no details and asked John to let the AZSFW know that if AZSFW had an idea that they want the ADA to support they needed to present the idea completely with the all the details. The bill was never presented and no one from the AZSFW ever came to the ADA board to present this. As I have posted before, the ADA did not have the details of the proposal and never received the bill before it was dropped.

 

This is good information Amanda. Now it looks like John didn't communicate with the rest of the board, and AZSFW basically said to the ADA, we want your money, but we don't care what you think. Time for the ADA to give AZSFW the boot. ADA can rise up out of this to be the leader for wildlife, but they have to take a stand, not hide behind the concept that they too were in the dark and didn't know.

[AZLance]

BPJ indicated in one of his post that he was threatened along with others. Really, some one threaten bodily harm on person because they did not agree with them. Why would anyone want to be on board of any organization if this is what it has come down too. I just wonder what we have won?

 

Do you have examples of where PBJ was threatened? I have been watching this forum pretty closley, and dont remember this? PBJ made a lot of things up, and just wondering if this is one more thing... Please show examples...

[CouesWhitetail]

Ok, runningbird and others, I tried to track down the answer to your question.

 

Here is the info as I understand it.

 

AZSFW presented the idea to the AZSFWC board. The AZSFWC board is made up of a variety of people from many of the sportsmens groups. John Koleszar is on the AZSFWC board and so after he heard the proposal from the AZSFW he later passed on some information to the ADA board. I wasn't there at the time so I don't have all the details of when and how that was presented. As stated in the post from Mark Bool, the ADA board had serious problems with the plan and said there was no way they could support it at the time. They essentially had no details and asked John to let the AZSFW know that if AZSFW had an idea that they want the ADA to support they needed to present the idea completely with the all the details. The bill was never presented and no one from the AZSFW ever came to the ADA board to present this. As I have posted before, the ADA did not have the details of the proposal and never received the bill before it was dropped.

 

This is good information Amanda. Now it looks like John didn't communicate with the rest of the board, and AZSFW basically said to the ADA, we want your money, but we don't care what you think. Time for the ADA to give AZSFW the boot. ADA can rise up out of this to be the leader for wildlife, but they have to take a stand, not hide behind the concept that they too were in the dark and didn't know.

 

 

I am not sure it's fair to say John didn't communicate with the board, since he did pass on information and did then go back to AZSFW and specifically ask to see the bill before it was dropped (that didn't happen), but I agree with you that AZSFW did not act in a way that honors the relationship the ADA thought we had with AZSFW. It is obvious that AZSFW did not value ADA input for this idea and I know many board members feel that way. We haven't yet had a board meeting to discuss the course of action we will take regarding AZSWF in the future.