GET OUT AND VOTE! Protect Our Sport .

[audsley]

Obviously we have much to talk about in the months ahead.

 

By the way, if we hunters would re-establish our image with the public as conservationists, we'd have much better luck if a lion ban initiative came along. If the public sees hunters primarily as a bunch of self-centered guys who just like to gun down animals, they're likely to discout what we say about sound science in wildlife management. But if sportsmen would carry the flag for land conservation, we just might have a little credibility some day when we really need it.

 

Seriously, guys, I must finish packing. But it's hard for me leave this subject.

[coueshunter84]

I am not sure how the State Land Dept. sells the land. But I do know that the majority of the monies that come from from State land, Come from those leasing the land. ie Ranchers. That is the day to day and year to year monies that are always there. An dwill be until they get ranching abolished here. Which is what Prop 204 was about. And like stated above, its the Humane Society of the US, and Peta behind that one. Not anywhere on paper that I was able to find. But that what happened in Florida. thats the initial stepping stone of this round. They started with trapping now they are back. Add that to the Props dealing with the state trust lands, and you have quite the conspiracy going.

 

 

 

Think of it this way. Most of the lands we hunt here in AZ are leased by ranchers. What happens when the ranchers are gone, and The Nature Conservency owns the whole state. If I remember correctly only about 10% of the state is currently private Not counting the Reservations or goverment land.. The rest is forest, state, federal. We cant hunt on Goverment,BIA, or Federal ( the national monuments) so they dont have to worry about those lands. But if they can run the ranchers off the lands they lease, and get the rest sold off to developers. Then we're out. They are attacking from several angles. Until we can get everyone on the same page, they will continue. And if they can attack each segment one at a time, we're doomed.

 

 

And the real fun thing about all of this is they have 10 and 20 year plans. They are way to patient with things. ONe at a time. Attack on a different front each time. With the same overall goal the whole time. its all about being Vegans, and outsourcing ever natural resource we use here in the U.S.A.

 

 

BE afraid very very afraid.

[mattys281]

I agree that this movement is something to be fought, regardless of the motive. I know that the humane society was behind the 204, but from what I've heard &/or read I was under the impression that 105 & 106 were aimed more at devolpers making money off of public lands than as a push against hunting or trapping. Could be wrong though. The radical anti's are devious and very good at sneaking in where they don't want to be seen. If you want to see the mentality of what we're up agains, just go to the link below & look at the supporting statement by Jackie Winsor, of Phoenix. I don't know who this person is or if they are an elected official, but everyone who reads this should watch for that name on ballots & keep her out of office. Who knows though, probably just some overbearing, self-righteous college coed with nothing better to do than eat soybeans & blast those who don't share her views. She's nutty, at any rate!

 

http://www.azsos.gov/election/2006/Info/Pu...ish/Prop204.htm

[mattys281]

dave & kgaines:

I've often wondered too, why it seems like we're always voting down initiatives attacking hunting, but it never seems that we're voting to support pro-hunting legislation. Maybe we need to start organinzing a letter writing campaign to our state house? Everyone bring it up to you local archery/shooting clubs? I paid more attention to this election than I ever have before, so honestly don't really know where to start. It does seem, though, that hunters have been more reactive than proactive in the past, and as long as we let them minority of people be louder than us, they will continue to get their way. Any suggestions people? I'm willing to do whatever I can to keep hunting alive. I think a simply worded prop that states any public lands open to outdoor recreationists must remain open to them regardless of transfer of leasing rights or ownership. That way even if someone did buy the land, they can't build because they have to leave it open to hunting (one of the recreation groups) and in this state it is illegal to shoot w/in 1/4 mile of an occupied structure. Seems way to simplistic, but does something like that have a prayer? Everyone in here brings up great points & you guys really've got me thinking on things now (& worrying! ). Take care.

[Rembrant]

I don't know how all the land deals work either but I do know that there is a ton of state land - everything we hunt on that ain't forest, and that from time to time the state trades/swaps/sells some off and the proceeds usually go to education.

When ever you see a proposition that says they're gonna set some aside for preservation, it usually means the rest of it will be up for grabs - which it is anyway.

700,000 acres would be a gigantic forest fire, but not even a drop in the bucket campared to the lands we stand to - and eventually will - lose.

How do we save it? Beats me, but we should always be concerned about any proposition concerning state land, even the ones that sound good.

Mike

[DesertBull]

Usually, you just need to look at who is suporting the initiative to see the intentions behind it.

 

If it supported by developers, home builders, etc it is most likely designed to get the most land developed for smallest amount of money and/or the least amount of red tape.

 

Hint: If you see the name George Johnson supporting ANY land bill or initiative, vote no, then get your mom, dad, sister, gerbil, and grandma to the polls and make sure they vote no too!

[mattys281]

I noticed that on 105 & 106. Neither were supported by the Arizona Education Assoc. or the Az League Of Conservation Voters. I don't know a lot of specifics on either of those groups, but one represents our education system (who the sale of these lands is supposed to benefit) and the other's goal is to preserve our open spaces, so if they don't support it, I don't see how it can be good for either of those ends.