ARIZONA RESIDENT HUNTER ALERT

[Huntin'AZ]

ARIZONA RESIDENT HUNTER ALERT

 

In January, Representative Jerry Weiers introduced legislation that would cap nonresidents at no more than 10% of the hunts in any drawing. Insuring resident hunters (ourselves and our children ) would have at least 90% of this states hunting opportunities. This legislation strengthens a new Commission rule that was adopted last winter.

 

This could be a tremendous gain for resident hunters!

 

This legislation has moved through the House of Representatives and Senate with incredibly strong support. In the next few days, it will be sent to the Governor for signing.

 

The only glitch in this process has been a split vote of the Arizona Game & Fish Commission. Three members of the five member Commission do not believe this legislation is necessary. Those three Commissioners, believe the Commission, and only the Commission, should have any say on legislation relating to hunting, fishing, wildlife management and more importantly, who gets to hunt. Unfortunately, on Tuesday these three Commissioners asked the Governor to veto HB2127.

 

The reason this legislation was developed in the first place, is because of the failure of an existing Commission rule that capped nonresidents at 10%.

 

When challenged in federal court, by outfitter George Taulman, the Commission's 10% nonresident cap rule was found to be unconstitutional. This almost eight year legal battle, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars, ended with nonresidents being given equal status with residents in our hunt drawings.

 

In the last two drawings (2004 & 2005), nonresidents have been drawing many of our most coveted permits. I some instances they are even drawing more permits in a unit than residents.

 

The only thing that saved resident hunt opportunities, was a ground swell of concern from hunters throughout the west, combined with the strong support of western federal legislators, who rose to our defense and passed

 

legislation in Congress, once again giving states clear authority to regulate hunting and fishing. President Bush quickly signed the legislation into law and the states were once again in control.

 

As I mentioned earlier the Commission quickly adopted a new rule capping nonresident hunters, and we commend them for their action; but this time, after the past fiasco, we want even more protection.

 

This is why we have asked for statutory protection and why Representative Weiers introduced HB 2127. The Legislature has strongly supported this additional protection. Now we must ask the Governor to do the same.

 

We have a window of no more than a week to get our support for HB 2127 to the Governor.

 

Below is the Governors web address and phone number.

 

If resident sportsmen want this legislation signed by the Governor, they need to let her know they support it. Please don't delay do this now.

 

Ask Her to SIGN HB 2127 and protect resident hunting opportunities.

 

If the Governor does not want to go against her Commission she could always just let HB2127 become law without her signature. What would be tragic for resident hunters, and incredibly hard to understand, is if she would choose to veto HB2127.

 

Governor Janet Napolitano's website, http://www.governor.state.az.us/

 

Then go to the left side of the home page to: Contact the Governor.

 

Governor's office number 602-542-4331

 

Please do not delay, contact the Governor immediately. Protect resident opportunity to hunt in Arizona.

 

In support of HB2127:

 

Arizona Antelope Foundation

Arizona Deer Association

Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society

Arizona Elk Society

Mohave Sportsman Club

Yuma Valley Rod & Gun Club

and Others

[Outdoor Writer]

Better be careful what we wish for here.

 

While this particular enactment favors hunters, the next one proposed by a legislator symphatheic to anti-hunters might not. Letting the legislature get its nose under the tent flap in regards to writing rules regulating G&F matters is like the proverbial slippery slope. -TONY

[5yearcoueshunter]

Tony, I totally agree. Even though I think this one particular bill would be great for Arizona resident hunters, it might just open a "can of worms" when it comes to other Anti-hunter issues that could come to the Legislature. I think California hunters know all too well about that.

 

Travis

[Rembrant]

I agree.

I asked the Gov to sign the bill because people that I respect, Amanda, Allen, Az deer butt, etc., are supporting it.

It seems like Mike Golightly and crew might be stone-walling this for the wrong reasons, but I understand why they are against it.

Arizona's Game and Fish Commission is SEPERATE from our state government. Outdoor Writer sounds a wise warning. If legislators call the shots for the Dept., we're done. It don't matter how many people bad mouth the commission, it is set up in a very unique way that keeps the legislators out of it. This is good.

The downfall is that the govenor has the power to appoint the commissioners.

So, the attitude, or world view of the govenor can help or hurt the commission. Just like the world view of our president hurts or helps the supreme court. This bill is treading on some tricky ground. Precidents in government are important; I hope we're not setting a bad one.

Mike

[DesertBull]

I want the state government as far away from the G&F department and the Commision as possible. Don't forget, the G&F also have made overtures about accepting tax money for the first time ever. They are playing with fire.

[Outdoor Writer]

Also, perhaps 10 or 20 years down the road when more habitat disappears, the NR cap might need to be lowered even more, like to 5% of the permits. Soooo...with a law in place, rather than a somewhat easy change through the game commission's rule-making process, we'll be asking the legislature to do it -- maybe. -TONY

[KGAINES]

Rembrant I did the same thing, I respect those peoples opinion also and asked that the gov. support this bill, and I stated the reasons I thought it should be done as well, now if she reads it or even counts our votes is another matter. Its funny how we have to almost beg to preserve our hunting future, every time we win a fight another one starts, we are in a constant battle and it isn't going to get easier, people so easily forget their heritage, hopefully my kids and their kids will always have the freedom to hunt. Good Luck and God Bless

[CouesWhitetail]

The bill is set up so that the commission can change the NR cap if they feel they need to. But it requires a unanimous vote by the commission to do so.

 

Amanda

[dave]

I hope you folks spend a little more time thinking about this. I think some of you may not understand it.

 

Yes the state would have to pay to fight the lawsuit.

 

I was at the Commission meeting in Safford in 2004 when the assistant attorney general advised our Commissioners that they could be personally held liable and also sued. They all had to tuck their tails and hide and I don't blame them.

 

If this bill is signed into law, the State will bear the burden and the liability.

 

The other thing to consider is that the state would have the total resources of the Attorney Generals office and not just one appointed assistant. It would be the states money on the line.

 

What is totally mind boggling is that two of those Commissioners now oppose this? They got to run and hide back then while the hunters in this state lost our animals. They will run and hide in the future if put in the same situation. They want the power to control but won?t be there to fight for us when we lose our animals. They did not have to power to win the law suit and now they want the power they never had.

 

This is not taking any power away from the Commission. The Commission made the rule and we are making it law. They want to be able to switch the rule and offer more opportunity if they want to. I don't.

 

If there ever arises a condition that would warrant that action, the Commission still would have the power to change the rule if they were all in agreement and voted unanimously 5-0 for it.

[dave]

Better be careful what we wish for here.

 

While this particular enactment favors hunters, the next one proposed by a legislator symphatheic to anti-hunters might not. Letting the legislature get its nose under the tent flap in regards to writing rules regulating G&F matters is like the proverbial slippery slope. -TONY

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Tony makes a good point, we need to look at this one and get it done. We also need to look at everything everyday. This Commission this year is providing more opposition to hunters than all of the evironmentals and animal rights folk have in the last three years. Everything seems to be a fight with not much cooperation.

 

There is a time for everything. Now is the time to do this!

[migolito]

Brilliant move for Arizona hunters!! Unfortunately, I live in California. I'll be asking my state legislature to add a 10% tax to all products that move into our ports that are bound for Arizona.

 

Once you get it into your thick heads that its a divide and conquer tactic against hunters and that YOUR kids will not be hunting because of your boneheaded lack of forsight, it'll be too late. Ask Colorado what happened when they increased thier fees several years ago. Outta staters stopped hunting there in record numbers, the Colorado Div. of Wildlife lost massive revenue, therefore lost biologists, wardens, and money to litigate to stop anti's, etc. Thier attempt at PROTECTIONALISM was a costly(almost fatal) mistake. But, you go ahead and skip and whistle down that road too. Every single state that has limited Non-residents has lost massive amouts of revenue that has ultimately resulted in less habitat management, which resulted in less animals, which resulted in less hunters pursuing those less animals, which is resulting in yours kids not hunting.

For gods sake wake up!!!

 

M

[25-06]

.

[Guest Ernesto C]

You can ask Schwarzeneger all you want and why for Az only? how about the other states? and once you get that 10% from all the states with all that money please open some wet lands and hunting grounds for kids,adults and future generations or why you haven't done so?

 

Welcome to the CWT.com forum,your input will be always valuable here but there are two ways to do it...the right one and the wrong one.God bless you.

 

Ernesto C

 

Is so easy to be wise,just think of something stupid to say and then dont say it.

[az4life]

migolito

 

For every Out of state hunter who might be refused a tag, you can count 2 AZ hunters who would be in line waiting to fill them. I see no reason to force Arizonans to give more than 10% of our tags to anyone not a resident. Some NR's apply here because it is easier than getting a tag and then finding a place to hunt in their own state where some tree huggin, spotted owl kissin liberal will give you greif for chasing bambi. (Sound familiar) Sure every political hack knows how to raise money by increasding fees. Single out the ones who can afford it and if there is not enough money raised through managed NR tags, then more money will be pulled from residents in overall fee increases and premiums added whenever they can.

 

It Sounds like you're crying foul when the ball is in center field.

[DesertBull]

Brilliant move for Arizona hunters!! Unfortunately, I live in California. I'll be asking my state legislature to add a 10% tax to all products that move into our ports that are bound for Arizona.

 

Once you get it into your thick heads that its a divide and conquer tactic against hunters and that YOUR kids will not be hunting because of your boneheaded lack of forsight, it'll be too late. Ask Colorado what happened when they increased thier fees several years ago. Outta staters stopped hunting there in record numbers, the Colorado Div. of Wildlife lost massive revenue, therefore lost biologists, wardens, and money to litigate to stop anti's, etc. Thier attempt at PROTECTIONALISM was a costly(almost fatal) mistake. But, you go ahead and skip and whistle down that road too. Every single state that has limited Non-residents has lost massive amouts of revenue that has ultimately resulted in less habitat management, which resulted in less animals, which resulted in less hunters pursuing those less animals, which is resulting in yours kids not hunting.

For gods sake wake up!!!

 

M

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

While you are asking for the 10% tax, will ask them to let me apply in California for Tule Elk and Antelope? Oh, and ask them to give more than ONE NR sheep tag. We give 15% of sheep tags to NR's.

 

Thank you and have nice day.