Sportsmans Input Sought by ConserveandProtectAZ.org-Unit wide Raffle and Auction Tags

[AZDirtyTaco]

FWIW:

 

 

http://sportsafield.com/telling-our-story/

 

Telling Our Story

 

By: Diana Rupp

 

Hunters in two states are funding pro-hunting public relations campaigns in an effort to beat the antis at their own game.

 

Back in the 1990s, hunters in Colorado were smarting from a series of anti-hunting ballot initiatives that had recently passed in their state, including one that banned spring bear hunting. A few of them realized that the majority of the voting public didn’t know squat about hunting’s contributions to wildlife management and conservation, nor about the positive impact that hunting has on the economy.

 

They saw that public sentiment was being shaped by media campaigns run by well-funded anti-hunters and decided it was time to strike back with a PR campaign of their own. These sportsmen banded together with a mission to develop an ongoing media-based program to educate the urban, non-hunting public about the scientific, economic, and conservation benefits of hunting and fishing.

 

 

In a recent article (http://sportsafield.com/hug-a-hunter/), I wrote about what those forward-thinking Coloradoans came up with—legislation establishing a Wildlife Council with a long-term funding mechanism, via a license surcharge, fully dedicated to a pro-hunting mass-media campaign. This resulted in the “Hug a Hunter” ads you might have seen if you’ve been in Colorado recently—friendly, pro-hunting ads geared toward the non-hunting public that run on regular TV and radio channels and appear on billboards.

 

Watch them at https://hugahunter.com/watch-our-videos

 

This proactive public education program has transformed the hunting landscape in Colorado. Since the “Hug a Hunter” campaign has been running, surveys show that seven out of ten people say they would vote against any new hunting restrictions—a huge change from the 1990s. Further, 30 percent of non-hunters say they are more supportive of sportsmen than they were before they saw the ads. And perhaps most important, since the campaign started, not a single anti-hunting ballot measure has been introduced in Colorado.

 

Alan Taylor of Michigan, a successful businessman and avid hunter, heard about the Colorado program and thought it was such a good idea he decided to launch a similar initiative in his home state. He formed a group called The Nimrod Society to do just that, and they were successful. In 2013, Michigan governor Rick Snyder signed legislation establishing a surcharge of $1 per hunting and fishing license as a dedicated fund for a PR campaign aimed at educating Michigan’s urban, non-sporting public about the benefits of hunting, fishing, and wildlife management. The Council hired a professional ad agency and launched its own pro-sportsman PR campaign (see it at https://hereformioutdoors.org/

“That’s two states down, forty-eight more to go,” said Taylor.

 

Think about it: If hunters and anglers could get pro-hunting PR campaigns like Colorado’s and Michigan’s started in every state, it could make a huge difference in ensuring the future of wildlife populations and our hunting heritage. Best of all, there is now a proven model in place, and The Nimrod Society is eager to help sportsmen in other states start a program of their own. Learn more at https://nimrodsociety.org/

This is an awesome find! Nice work trophyseeker! Has anyone reached out to this organization by chance?

[Ohthatguy]

Is the sky falling?

If it was, how would you know?

[azelkhunter2]

A great deal of this post has already been stated by others but I an going to try and condense it and maybe just add a little too it.

 

The recent Idea sounds great....It is doing for those states exactly what needs to be done here. But as you hopefully gathered from the article it did not happen overnight and it took a great deal off effort....( But in the end was well worth it )

 

As someone who has worked with the department behind the scenes on a wide range of issues some small and some rather large I will say this....YOU/ WE will face obstacles....The Department just spent a great deal of time effort and money simplifying and streamlining the licensing structure.... They dont like going backwards....But WE as sportsman have a very large voice...If ALL of us let the department know that this an absolute necessity it can be done...

 

It will obviously take legislative action.....Again this is the state government we are talking about....The more things make sense the more difficult it is to get governmental approval.....But again a loud and large push from all sportsman can make a difference....

 

At some point and time it will require a group of sportsman along with the department to administer the funds...( I would think something like the HPC program ) So start thinking about how and who and what you might want that group to look like...

 

And obviously a great PR firm...You dont want the department or a group of sportsman deciding how to get the message across to 70 plus percent of Az residents.

 

And last but not least....The second part...Let us not forget that we need a fund to fight the political battles that will certainly come....Come up with ideas...Find solutions.....dont leave it to someone else....Lets not make the mistake of only wiping half our as#

[trophyseeker]

A great deal of this post has already been stated by others but I an going to try and condense it and maybe just add a little too it.

 

The recent Idea sounds great....It is doing for those states exactly what needs to be done here. But as you hopefully gathered from the article it did not happen overnight and it took a great deal off effort....( But in the end was well worth it )

 

As someone who has worked with the department behind the scenes on a wide range of issues some small and some rather large I will say this....YOU/ WE will face obstacles....The Department just spent a great deal of time effort and money simplifying and streamlining the licensing structure.... They dont like going backwards....But WE as sportsman have a very large voice...If ALL of us let the department know that this an absolute necessity it can be done...

 

It will obviously take legislative action.....Again this is the state government we are talking about....The more things make sense the more difficult it is to get governmental approval.....But again a loud and large push from all sportsman can make a difference....

 

At some point and time it will require a group of sportsman along with the department to administer the funds...( I would think something like the HPC program ) So start thinking about how and who and what you might want that group to look like...

 

And obviously a great PR firm...You dont want the department or a group of sportsman deciding how to get the message across to 70 plus percent of Az residents.

 

And last but not least....The second part...Let us not forget that we need a fund to fight the political battles that will certainly come....Come up with ideas...Find solutions.....dont leave it to someone else....Lets not make the mistake of only wiping half our as#

Dead on with your take on it. That's especially true of the last paragraph. While educating the general public will supposedly result in a vote in the sportsmen's favor, there is absolutely no guarantee of that happening. And political campaigns are very high-dollar affairs, given the need for a blitz of media advertising. HSUS, PETA, CBD and other AR groups already generate millions for such endeavors, and you can bet the farm they will be back here.

[trophyseeker]

I've read through this entire thread and some may find value in an outside view of what I've seen go on for a long time in other states in regard to raffle/governors/commission and other set aside tags.

 

When I started hunting in 1979, to my knowledge there wasn't a set aside of tags in any state, no governors tags, no raffle tags. Everyone that wanted to hunt applied just like everyone else. With the revenue generated through that, combined with TRUE donations of time and money from the hunting public, we built wildlife populations to what we have today. We didn't need to be peddling our wildlife resources to the fat wallet guys, or raffle our best opportunities away. IMO, and my experience, we still don't need to do so. There's been this line of thought being promoted that money solves every issue. I think that's all BS...money can solve some problems, but it wont fix everything. Money cant buy support for hunting from the vast majority of the non-hunting public that are neutral on hunting. What's going to win that battle is each of us...be an ambassador for the Sport. Make it YOUR priority to talk to your neighbors, friends, co-workers, relatives about the value in hunting, fishing, outdoor recreation, etc. Arm yourself with the facts, the economics of hunting, the past successes and also the path forward. Let them be part of that path forward.

 

I can also say that these raffle and auction tags have created a monster, a monster that literally feeds on itself and does nothing but continue to grow. I look at a lot of good NGO's that, IMO, have sold out the North American Model so they can profit from raffle and auction tags. These are groups that do an incredible amount of good work, but they've become reliant and addicted to the money these tags make them. The GF Agencies, along with the various State legislatures also seem to be equally reliant on peddling some of our best wildlife resources and opportunities away to the highest bidder. They point to the "good" these tags and money do, but never point out the lost opportunity to the guys that created the wildlife we have today. Never explain how commercializing our wildlife and creating a system that favors one group of hunter over another...all things that are in total defiance of the North American Model.

 

Trust me, it will get to the point that these additional "few" tags will turn into many tags. Those tags will cause management problems and the GF agencies have to manage around them. Here in Wyoming, we're (average hunters) losing not only the opportunity through the direct sale of commission/governors tags, but also through seasons and quotas being kept lower or not happening to address these tags. I just attended a meeting where a 25 tag proposed late mule deer season was rejected by the local hunters. The reason? Because that same season was shot down by locals because there were 17-22 commissioners and governor tag hunters also killing deer the last time the season was open. I know one of the better sheep areas is being kept at 8 tags, not because we couldn't afford to kill 10-12 sheep, but if the quota is raised past 8, then 7 more governors and raffle tag hunters will be pounding that unit.

 

Not saying you'll get to the same point in Arizona, but its been my experience over the last 40 years, that these tags have done nothing but increase in number once they get a foot hold...Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Idaho. These tags didn't exist 40 years ago, now there's hundreds and hundreds of them. I cant name a single state that has LESS of these tags, or reduced them in number...not a one.

 

I've always been impressed with Arizona that you all have kept this crap out of your State...I highly encourage you to stay the course on that and draw the hard line. Its the best example of a slippery slope that I can come up with and putting that genie back in the bottle is about impossible.

 

If you really do need to raise revenue to fight things, I suggest we all dig a bit deeper and make it happen. Don't peddle your State Wildlife assets to do it.

 

Good luck.

Some good points, but one needs to use the broad-brush approach carefully.

 

For example, not one of the groups in AZ makes a "profit" off the gift tags and neither does the game dept. Second, even though tags have been removed from the general draw over the years, the money raised has probably added more tags to the general draw for certain species because of projects and transplants. That's a win-win.

 

A while back, there was a thread on another site about bighorn auction tags in the West. Tony Mandile, who once posted here on a regular basis, put up some very pertinent info on the program here in AZ from articles he did years ago. Another member of that site posted the positive aspects of what has gone on in Montana. I don't want to repost them here without permission, and in deference to Amanda, I won't post the site URL.

 

Does this mean I'm for the present tag grab? Not necessarily. And I won't decide one way or another until I see the proposal actually fleshed out in its entirety. If it looks anything like the abomination in Utah, though, it's a non-starter for me.

[Ringer]

AZkiller- when you say you know the AZG&F is on board what does that mean? Is the commission already in the tank for the auction tag idea or are you referring to a general agreement on the need for funding? I know the new group will be at the commission meeting on May 4th so hope someone can attend that meeting and report back to us.

[AZkiller]

AZkiller- when you say you know the AZG&F is on board what does that mean? Is the commission already in the tank for the auction tag idea or are you referring to a general agreement on the need for funding? I know the new group will be at the commission meeting on May 4th so hope someone can attend that meeting and report back to us.

I know that they welcome any group wanting to legitimately help them fight the antis and right now there is one so..

[bonecollector777]

 

AZkiller- when you say you know the AZG&F is on board what does that mean? Is the commission already in the tank for the auction tag idea or are you referring to a general agreement on the need for funding? I know the new group will be at the commission meeting on May 4th so hope someone can attend that meeting and report back to us.

I know that they welcome any group wanting to legitimately help them fight the antis and right now there is one so..

So that's the answer? The first and only group that has approached them in the week since HSUS pulled out is the golden ticket to saving us all? The one group that can't think of anything but using our tags? Or can I start up one and get some auction tags too?

[AZkiller]

 

 

AZkiller- when you say you know the AZG&F is on board what does that mean? Is the commission already in the tank for the auction tag idea or are you referring to a general agreement on the need for funding? I know the new group will be at the commission meeting on May 4th so hope someone can attend that meeting and report back to us.

I know that they welcome any group wanting to legitimately help them fight the antis and right now there is one so..

So that's the answer? The first and only group that has approached them in the week since HSUS pulled out is the golden ticket to saving us all? The one group that can't think of anything but using our tags? Or can I start up one and get some auction tags too?

I bet you could but remember that they don't get any auction tags. They are auctioned

[BuzzH]

Trophyseeker,

 

I hear you, painting with a broad brush is not something that I do. But, in this case, I've never seen any set aside, raffle, governor tags, etc. decline in number once they start being issued. Not once.

 

I also, very reluctantly agree that these tags can do some good things if used in a very specific way. There has to be very prudent over-sight...and rules can change regarding those tags, with very little to no public input.

 

As to your reference regarding Montana...nearly all the sheep herds there were relocated using nothing but license dollars long before a governors tag or raffle tag existed. Also, the number of sheep tags issued in Montana is lower now than when I left there in 2000, and probably lower than when I started hunting there in 1979. Wyoming is the same way, 249 sheep tags issued in 2007...this year we will issue 200. So, when sheep decline, the reduction to quotas is all done on the backs of the average joe. Care to guess how many raffle and Gov tags have been reduced? Yeah, NONE. We issue 5 governors tags and 2 more through the raffle...or 3.5% of the total available sheep tags.

 

It comes down to this for me, and many others, is it worth giving up 140 sheep tags over the next 20 years to the highest bidder? Or would I rather see 140 average guys have the opportunity? Is the North American Model important, or just a punch-line?

 

The question you have to ask, is it worth letting the genie out of the bottle in Arizona because you need some money? Will this trend continue every time there's a funding issue? Will it stop at just a couple tags?

 

IMO, too many states have been wayyy too quick to do the easy thing of auctioning off and raffling tags...I strongly suggest you really think about this one before you go down that road. It wont stop, you heard it here first.

 

I have very little voice in Arizona, and I'm the last to tell another State what to do with its State Wildlife Resources. That said, I've been very fortunate in Arizona as a NR hunter, having drawn 4 bull elk rifle tags, desert sheep, 3 great coues tags, and multiple javelina. What you guys/gals have there is something special...and I wouldn't just give it away over money. Like I said, Arizona has always impressed me because you've kept these raffle/auction tags to a minimum.

 

Good luck with whatever you decide.

[25-06]

I sure wish Lark was still on this site...

[Flatlander]

 

I've read through this entire thread and some may find value in an outside view of what I've seen go on for a long time in other states in regard to raffle/governors/commission and other set aside tags.

 

When I started hunting in 1979, to my knowledge there wasn't a set aside of tags in any state, no governors tags, no raffle tags. Everyone that wanted to hunt applied just like everyone else. With the revenue generated through that, combined with TRUE donations of time and money from the hunting public, we built wildlife populations to what we have today. We didn't need to be peddling our wildlife resources to the fat wallet guys, or raffle our best opportunities away. IMO, and my experience, we still don't need to do so. There's been this line of thought being promoted that money solves every issue. I think that's all BS...money can solve some problems, but it wont fix everything. Money cant buy support for hunting from the vast majority of the non-hunting public that are neutral on hunting. What's going to win that battle is each of us...be an ambassador for the Sport. Make it YOUR priority to talk to your neighbors, friends, co-workers, relatives about the value in hunting, fishing, outdoor recreation, etc. Arm yourself with the facts, the economics of hunting, the past successes and also the path forward. Let them be part of that path forward.

 

I can also say that these raffle and auction tags have created a monster, a monster that literally feeds on itself and does nothing but continue to grow. I look at a lot of good NGO's that, IMO, have sold out the North American Model so they can profit from raffle and auction tags. These are groups that do an incredible amount of good work, but they've become reliant and addicted to the money these tags make them. The GF Agencies, along with the various State legislatures also seem to be equally reliant on peddling some of our best wildlife resources and opportunities away to the highest bidder. They point to the "good" these tags and money do, but never point out the lost opportunity to the guys that created the wildlife we have today. Never explain how commercializing our wildlife and creating a system that favors one group of hunter over another...all things that are in total defiance of the North American Model.

 

Trust me, it will get to the point that these additional "few" tags will turn into many tags. Those tags will cause management problems and the GF agencies have to manage around them. Here in Wyoming, we're (average hunters) losing not only the opportunity through the direct sale of commission/governors tags, but also through seasons and quotas being kept lower or not happening to address these tags. I just attended a meeting where a 25 tag proposed late mule deer season was rejected by the local hunters. The reason? Because that same season was shot down by locals because there were 17-22 commissioners and governor tag hunters also killing deer the last time the season was open. I know one of the better sheep areas is being kept at 8 tags, not because we couldn't afford to kill 10-12 sheep, but if the quota is raised past 8, then 7 more governors and raffle tag hunters will be pounding that unit.

 

Not saying you'll get to the same point in Arizona, but its been my experience over the last 40 years, that these tags have done nothing but increase in number once they get a foot hold...Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Idaho. These tags didn't exist 40 years ago, now there's hundreds and hundreds of them. I cant name a single state that has LESS of these tags, or reduced them in number...not a one.

 

I've always been impressed with Arizona that you all have kept this crap out of your State...I highly encourage you to stay the course on that and draw the hard line. Its the best example of a slippery slope that I can come up with and putting that genie back in the bottle is about impossible.

 

If you really do need to raise revenue to fight things, I suggest we all dig a bit deeper and make it happen. Don't peddle your State Wildlife assets to do it.

 

Good luck.

Some good points, but one needs to use the broad-brush approach carefully.

 

For example, not one of the groups in AZ makes a "profit" off the gift tags and neither does the game dept. Second, even those tags have been removed from the general draw over the years, the money raised has probably added more tags to the general draw for certain species because of projects and transplants. That's a win-win.

 

A while back, there was a thread on another site about bighorn auction tags in the West. Tony Mandile, who once posted here on a regular basis, put up some very pertinent info on the program here in AZ from articles he did years ago. Another member of that site posted the positive aspects of what has gone on in Montana. I don't want to repost them here without permission, and in deference to Amanda, I won't post the site URL.

 

Does this mean I'm for the present tag grab? Not necessarily. And I won't decide one way or another until I see the proposal actually fleshed out in its entirety. If it looks anything like the abomination in Utah, though, it's a non-starter for me.

Buzz - Thanks for the input, you took the words right out of my mouth. This proposal simply doesnt align with the North American Model.

 

TS - I do not believe anywhere that these special commissioners tags are allowed that they are sold for a Profit per se, all of them do support wildlife and conservation to some extent. The fact remains, we could certainly raise far more money if every tag was sold to the highest bidder. But thats not how the model works, look to Africa or Europe if youd like to see how turns out.

 

I do have an idea for raising funds, perhaps for education or for the proverbial war chest political fund. Will post that later on a separate fund.

 

Just a reminder, there is a meeting Monday at 6:30 at BPS. CAPAZ has said they will

Not move forward with this if they do not have the support of the sportsmen, lets give them the chance to make good on that and show up to let them know our thoughts.

[OpticNerd]

Don't know if this has been answered yet but did the CAP guys ever explain how they plan on generating money? I remember reading something a few pages back something to the effect that there would be two separate accounts one for the AZGF and the other for the CAP but I don't recall seeing how they plan on making money for the CAP. I'm still at a loss on how they plan on making the millions they said they needed to fight off the anti groups if they are giving 100% of the tag monies back to the G&F.

[Delw]

 

 

I've read through this entire thread and some may find value in an outside view of what I've seen go on for a long time in other states in regard to raffle/governors/commission and other set aside tags.

 

When I started hunting in 1979, to my knowledge there wasn't a set aside of tags in any state, no governors tags, no raffle tags. Everyone that wanted to hunt applied just like everyone else. With the revenue generated through that, combined with TRUE donations of time and money from the hunting public, we built wildlife populations to what we have today. We didn't need to be peddling our wildlife resources to the fat wallet guys, or raffle our best opportunities away. IMO, and my experience, we still don't need to do so. There's been this line of thought being promoted that money solves every issue. I think that's all BS...money can solve some problems, but it wont fix everything. Money cant buy support for hunting from the vast majority of the non-hunting public that are neutral on hunting. What's going to win that battle is each of us...be an ambassador for the Sport. Make it YOUR priority to talk to your neighbors, friends, co-workers, relatives about the value in hunting, fishing, outdoor recreation, etc. Arm yourself with the facts, the economics of hunting, the past successes and also the path forward. Let them be part of that path forward.

 

I can also say that these raffle and auction tags have created a monster, a monster that literally feeds on itself and does nothing but continue to grow. I look at a lot of good NGO's that, IMO, have sold out the North American Model so they can profit from raffle and auction tags. These are groups that do an incredible amount of good work, but they've become reliant and addicted to the money these tags make them. The GF Agencies, along with the various State legislatures also seem to be equally reliant on peddling some of our best wildlife resources and opportunities away to the highest bidder. They point to the "good" these tags and money do, but never point out the lost opportunity to the guys that created the wildlife we have today. Never explain how commercializing our wildlife and creating a system that favors one group of hunter over another...all things that are in total defiance of the North American Model.

 

Trust me, it will get to the point that these additional "few" tags will turn into many tags. Those tags will cause management problems and the GF agencies have to manage around them. Here in Wyoming, we're (average hunters) losing not only the opportunity through the direct sale of commission/governors tags, but also through seasons and quotas being kept lower or not happening to address these tags. I just attended a meeting where a 25 tag proposed late mule deer season was rejected by the local hunters. The reason? Because that same season was shot down by locals because there were 17-22 commissioners and governor tag hunters also killing deer the last time the season was open. I know one of the better sheep areas is being kept at 8 tags, not because we couldn't afford to kill 10-12 sheep, but if the quota is raised past 8, then 7 more governors and raffle tag hunters will be pounding that unit.

 

Not saying you'll get to the same point in Arizona, but its been my experience over the last 40 years, that these tags have done nothing but increase in number once they get a foot hold...Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Idaho. These tags didn't exist 40 years ago, now there's hundreds and hundreds of them. I cant name a single state that has LESS of these tags, or reduced them in number...not a one.

 

I've always been impressed with Arizona that you all have kept this crap out of your State...I highly encourage you to stay the course on that and draw the hard line. Its the best example of a slippery slope that I can come up with and putting that genie back in the bottle is about impossible.

 

If you really do need to raise revenue to fight things, I suggest we all dig a bit deeper and make it happen. Don't peddle your State Wildlife assets to do it.

 

Good luck.

Some good points, but one needs to use the broad-brush approach carefully.

 

For example, not one of the groups in AZ makes a "profit" off the gift tags and neither does the game dept. Second, even those tags have been removed from the general draw over the years, the money raised has probably added more tags to the general draw for certain species because of projects and transplants. That's a win-win.

 

A while back, there was a thread on another site about bighorn auction tags in the West. Tony Mandile, who once posted here on a regular basis, put up some very pertinent info on the program here in AZ from articles he did years ago. Another member of that site posted the positive aspects of what has gone on in Montana. I don't want to repost them here without permission, and in deference to Amanda, I won't post the site URL.

 

Does this mean I'm for the present tag grab? Not necessarily. And I won't decide one way or another until I see the proposal actually fleshed out in its entirety. If it looks anything like the abomination in Utah, though, it's a non-starter for me.

Buzz - Thanks for the input, you took the words right out of my mouth. This proposal simply doesnt align with the North American Model.

 

TS - I do not believe anywhere that these special commissioners tags are allowed that they are sold for a Profit per se, all of them do support wildlife and conservation to some extent. The fact remains, we could certainly raise far more money if every tag was sold to the highest bidder. But thats not how the model works, look to Africa or Europe if youd like to see how turns out.

 

I do have an idea for raising funds, perhaps for education or for the proverbial war chest political fund. Will post that later on a separate fund.

 

Just a reminder, there is a meeting Monday at 6:30 at BPS. CAPAZ has said they will

Not move forward with this if they do not have the support of the sportsmen, lets give them the chance to make good on that and show up to let them know our thoughts.

 

Buzz has been around for a long butt time. always liked to hear what he has to say especially on tag give aways.

[ThomC]

Why are all of these meetings avoiding Tucson?