SFW-Az. Tag Grab Update

PleaseDear

Long Time Member
Messages
10,433
It seems that AZSFW-AZSFWC have gone directly to the Governor in an attempt to take your AZ tags for their financial gain.

"Memorandum To: Arizona Sportsmen and Conservation Organization Board of Directors

FROM: Alan Hamberlin, Chairman AZSFW

RE: Response to Organization Concerns about HB 2072

DATE: February 29, 2012

In our continuing effort to communicate with sportsmen and conservation organizations, we wanted to bring you up to date on the status of HB 2072. Earlier today we met with representatives from the Governor?s office and two of the five commissioners primarily to see if there is an opportunity for continuing dialogue on the bill. We agreed to continue to communicate with them as we progress to let them know what changes we are making to the bill. We appreciate the responses and feedback that we have received relative to the introduced version of the bill and our responses to those concerns are listed below. It is our desire to solicit any additional concerns you may have. We respectfully request that this memo be disseminated to all members of your respective Boards of Directors asking them to identify additional issues that they may have. We will seriously evaluate and respond to any legitimate concerns. There are at least four items that we agree to modify in response to concerns and issues that have been raised thus far as follows:

1. The original bill had no cap on administrative fees; we will cap those fees at 10%

2. While the original bill had a reporting requirement for the qualifying organization to adopt a Board resolution and submit it to the Arizona Game and Fish Department specifying the amount of proceeds received from the sale of tags from the auction and raffle and sold at the EXPO and Banquets and the costs associated with same and the monies paid for each of the six purposes listed in the bill and the cost of administration. We will add a new provision requiring an annual outside independent audit of the proceeds received from tag sales and the expenditure of those proceeds by a certified public accountant.

3. We have been asked to cap the number of tags that will be available as a result of the legislation in the future to 350 tags. We agree to cap the number of tags at 350.

(This is a real gem:)

4. Concern has been raised by some that none of the monies flow directly back to the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD). We are willing to negotiate with Game and Fish and are prepared to offer them up to 30% of the net proceeds to augment their hunter recruitment program if they support the legislation.

Please communicate any additional concerns to Suzanne Gilstrap at 602-390-4518 or preferably communicate via email to [email protected] ."

A cpl of the Board members behind this tag grab:

Chris Denham, Floyd Green of:

ELK HUNTER mag

Western Hunter mag

Outdoorsmans

Wilderness Athlete



Robb
 
Robb, you might want to dig around and see if Mr. Denham and Mr. Green are still members of AZSFW before you go about draggin them down any more.
 
What?

They cant stand the heat???

Maybe they should have stayed out of the kitchen to start with.
 
Why don't they come on here and tell the hunting public where they stand on the issue? They were clearly involved before but if they have seen the light then speak up us tell us. On the other hand, if these individuals truly think this tag grab is in the best interests of the hunting public then stand up and say so.


Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
Mike

Simple public record cut and past.

Nice 1st post for ya though......but why would it drag them down?

Robb
 
MFP... the damage is already done. Whisky- Tango- Foxtrot... they didn't do the killin they just drove the get away car ?
 
i don't see what everybody is crying about. this for-said "tag-grab" is ridiculous. seriously, what are the true complaints. doesn't anybody understand the money it costs to fight and or create legislation that will help grown wildlife herds therefor resulting in a net gain for hunters alike?

i don't get why or how sportmen think they are going to combat the feds on wolf reintroduction, get rid of worthless/habitat destroying burros, build life supporting drinkers, improve habitat, etc. w/o the money to do it. please enlighten me.

sounds like a bunch of people crying out against a few "rich" people that will purchase these tags.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-04-12 AT 06:20AM (MST)[p]"We are willing" to negotiate with Game and Fish.

Talk about a sense of entitlement! Arrogant white collar thieves.
 
Looks like the Names of Floyd Green and Chris Denham are on this current letter that this post is all about. Nobody is dragging them dowm but them selves.
And whats wrong with our wildlife boards putting out drink tanks etc. for themselves like they always have before there ever was an SFW. We know how to manage the game its just a matter of doing it. Selling 350 tags, 350 tags, 350 tags, did I get it right, 350 tags is totally outrageous! This reminds me of when USO, United States Outfitters, tried to change the tag quota system to benefit outfitters and thier bussinesses. The quota systems were designed to give every man woman and child the same chance at obtaining a tag no matter how rich, poor, regardless of religion, sex, ethnic background etc. Why do people need loopholes to bypass the tag allocation. I am not jealous of the rich who can buy tags, I pity them. I'm jealous of the man or woman who can obtain thier tag through the existing tag allocation system in a fair and square manner, and then this person goes out on public land and kills a nice trophy animal with friends or alone. These kind of people are my hunting heros and are true sportsmen.
In the past I have supported The Outdoorsmans and have purchased thier products, not to mention two tripods of thiers. I've even convinced a couple of people to buy thier tripods and have suggested on this website as well as others to other people to buy thier tripods. I've even put up many pictures of thier tripods explaining how they work and the attachments that go with them and I've recieved thier magazine. Since this issue has come up they have had ample time to come on this website to give thier opinion and explain thier views about this tag grab which they have made no attempt to do. I do not like SFW or the companies that support it and therefore am pulling my support from the Outdoorsmans. I will buy a new tripod system and refrain from using thier products and will stop my subscription to thier magazine. I am a passionate hunter who believes in fair chance and I do not appreciate the tag grab scenario geared for the rich. There are plenty of other ways to raise money to help wildlife. Drew Edwards aka fatrooster and sometimes fatbantyrooster.
 
>i don't see what everybody is
>crying about. seriously,
>what are the true complaints.

I don't get why or how
>sportmen think they are going
>to combat the feds on
>wolf reintroduction, get rid of
>worthless/habitat destroying burros, build life
>supporting drinkers, improve habitat, etc.
>w/o the money to do
>it. please enlighten me.


Um please enlighten us, what's the AZFG job? Do we not pay license and tag fee's so the Dept. can manage the herds?
 
haha you guys crack me up. look at the data. you are apparently naive to the lack of leadership, money allocation to big game betterment, and overall declining numbers of wildlife in az.

some of you say that this is an elitist, white collar, arrogant "tag-grab" for the rich snobs. couldn't be further from the truth. one of you guys mentioned that why can't we just sit back and let the other wildlife organizations keep doing the habitat improvements. uh, 1. the way the AES, MDF, and other wildlife organizations get their monies to do such projects is through high dollar tag sales at auctions. so they are doing the same thing on a micro level as the proposed AZSFW. 2. their monies raised off the 2-3 tags they get to sell isn't enough. they can't keep up with the need to improve habitat to sustain the resource. hence we see a decline in overall numbers of big-game statewide. i would trust an outside organization over such as the SFW over the AZGFD to help improve the matters that mean the most to me. The AZGFD want to protect the wolves and burros that reek havoc on big game populations and the habitat they live in. AZSFW wants to fight this and eliminate the propensity people/government have to protect such species.

it's a hard pill to swallow, I know. 350 tags might be obsessive. i see the need for money to fight these important battles and the only way to raise it in the quantities needed to fight a good fight is to give up a little of your most prized resource, Wildlife. in the end the opposition will be the ultimate benefactors.

talk about entitlement, most of the opposition are the true ones that have a sense of entitlement. they want a handout of more tags year after year w/o giving up anything in trade and show little willingness to fight the fight that is dragging az. big-game down. you can't get something for nothing.

maybe you need a "large-doner" like warren buffet to write a big check to support the other wildlife groups so they can fund the projects needed to fight the fight. until then, i stick with a model based off proven business tactics.... it's really not as far out as you guys might think.

please explain to me how the current MDF, AES, RMEF, and others have fought a good enough fight for a net gain in big-game opportunity over the past 10 years. they all do great but it's not enough. if it's not the SFW getting the monies from auction type tags it needs to be another organization that the people trust enough to utilize the revenue generated from such sales for the betterment of our wildlife. fact is we are short of money and loosing the fight.
 
Billy, you don't get it. They start with this, then take more, and more, and more.... and it never ends. Funding problems for any state F&G is real simple, one way is to raise fees and tag prices across the board. When we rely on the rich to bail us out we lose out because we also lose our political voice. If you think UT is a great model for the way a state should run it's wildlife maybe you should look at some other states instead.
 
I'll bet I know billythekid's favorite drink, LOL! He's either been completely snookered or is DP in disguise!!!
 
Billy thinks all that tag grab money is actually going to hit the ground. Oh wouldn't it be nice to be young and naive.
 
>Billy, you don't get it. They
>start with this, then take
>more, and more, and more....
>and it never ends. Funding
>problems for any state F&G
>is real simple, one way
>is to raise fees and
>tag prices across the board.
>When we rely on the
>rich to bail us out
>we lose out because we
>also lose our political voice.
>If you think UT is
>a great model for the
>way a state should run
>it's wildlife maybe you should
>look at some other states
>instead.

what don't i get schmalts? this isn't a funding problem for a government agency i am talking about. this is a funding issue for the public that are willing to take on those who have failed over and over again. the fish and game don't really give a crap about using their funds for the betterment of big game. they are more worried about protecting burro's, perpetuating a lousy wolf reintroduction effort, etc. that's what i get. so what don't i get that you do?

i also get that SFW might have their problems. maybe 350 tags as you say is quite obsessive. i agree. but at some point you anti SFW folks must come to the realization that it takes money to fight a good fight and insure that you are hunting with your grandkids 40 yrs. down the road. if it's not SFW, give the tags to the MDF, AES, or another approved organization as long as their is accountability.

the idea that we can rely on the gov agencies such as the game and fish to preserve your right to hunt, insure their management objectives are in the best interest of that right, and stand against the antis when it comes to predator management, burro control, wolf recoveries, etc. is out of touch.

please enlighten me, how do you plan to preserve out rights to hunt and the quality experience thereof? more money for the game and fish won't do squat... put that money back into the hand of capable people/groups via tag sales and go to work.. i get the jealousy issue but at some point you have to give a little to take a lot.

i couldn't care less about peay or others. don't live in az. i am just not afraid to put my opinion out there that we are trending down a path with entitlement hunters that is not sustainable.
 
Billy the tag grab hasnt done squat in Ut besides divide the hunters. Tell us how successfull these tags have been in Ut??
 
Spin this one as pure victim material lil billy....

Link to the story:

http://tinyurl.com/6s8n5hb

Reads like the last tag grab in Idaho-----


Hunting rights for landowners weighed

Large landowners would get special permits to big game.

By RICHARD MAUER Anchorage Daily News By RICHARD MAUER Anchorage Daily News

Published: March 3rd, 2012 10:50 PM Last Modified: March 3rd, 2012 10:51 PM

Six weeks before he learned he was under criminal investigation for violating his department's hunting rules, state Wildlife Division Director Corey Rossi told his staff about a pet project -- unprecedented in Alaska -- to give private landowners special rights to hunt big game, even out of season, and to be able to sell those rights to whomever they want.

Rossi lost his job in January with the filing of a criminal complaint that cited him for 12 misdemeanor violations during a 2008 bear hunt. He has pleaded not guilty and his case is moving through District Court in Anchorage.

But his project to privatize some of Alaska's game lives on in the Parnell administration. At least one deputy commissioner is still working on the landowner permit project. Rossi's replacement, Doug Vincent-Lang, says it remains under active consideration, though he needs time to review it.

"We don't waste time on ideas that have absolutely no merit," Vincent-Lang said.

The idea that wild game is a public resource and not the property of a landowner is a long-held doctrine in Alaska and most of North America. But that idea is being challenged, at least on a limited basis, by advocates of intensive game management, who argue that granting special game rights to property owners will encourage them to make life easier for big game on their land. One of the leading advocates of that position is the organization Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, in which Rossi was an active member before taking over the Wildlife Division.

According to Rossi's minutes of the Nov. 1-2 meeting of Wildlife Division leaders and others in Fish and Game, the attorney general's office was already drafting a new law that would implement the project. A budget was under development to manage the project with new staff positions, Rossi wrote.

"There is initial draft language, and the governor's office has asked for a full legal review," Rossi wrote.

Rossi's minutes were distributed this month by Vincent-Lang. A copy was leaked to the Daily News.

Owning hunting rights

The proposal would encourage owners of large private tracts to increase "public-interest benefits" on their land. They could do that by allowing access to hunters, improving habitat for species such as moose, or killing predators, Rossi wrote.

In return, landowners would get special hunting permits "that the landowner would be allowed to use or sell, perhaps with special authorizations such as the ability to hunt outside normal hunting seasons on their lands."

The proposal is modeled on similar programs in western states like Utah and Colorado, where it has been promoted by chapters of the advocacy group Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife and its sister organization Sportsmen for Habitat. The organization has a big expo in Salt Lake City every year where it auctions special permits.

In the West, large landowners are mainly ranchers. In Alaska, Rossi noted in his minutes, they are Alaska Native corporations.

Mark Richards, co-chairman of the grassroots organization Alaska Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, said Alaska hunters wouldn't be the beneficiaries of Rossi's proposal.

"It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who would win by privatizing more hunts in Alaska," Richards said in an email from his remote Interior cabin some 60 miles north of Eagle. "It would be the orgs that get the permits to auction off, and the wealthy hunters who could afford to buy them."

Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife and similar organizations would also get "more power and influence to further game the system," Richards asserted.

Rossi has a strong connection to Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife. In 2007, he was one of three founders of its Alaska chapter.

He was also a big-game guide. He was working as a guide for three out-of-state bear hunters in 2008 when he lied on his post-hunt reports to the state and failed to properly seal bear hides, according to the charges.

The June bear hunt took place about six months before he was brought into the Fish and Game department by then-Gov. Sarah Palin. She created a new position for him, assistant commissioner for "abundance management" -- the idea of managing moose and caribou to provide the greatest possible number of animals for hunters.

In 2010, Gov. Sean Parnell elevated Rossi to wildlife director, the official in charge of managing hunting and big-game habitat in Alaska. It was a controversial appointment because Rossi lacked a college degree and scientific training. But he was an expert at killing predators and vermin and had the backing of hunters who wanted fewer bears and wolves and more moose.

"With Director Rossi at the wheel, we at SFW look forward to some real positive changes within the Department that are long overdue!" executive director Dane Crowley of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife Alaska wrote at the time.

Constitution an obstacle?

In the minutes from the meeting in November, Rossi said the private-hunting project would require the Legislature to create a new kind of "landowner permit." He wanted the authority to dole out such permits at the department's discretion.

"Some discussions have occurred with various Native groups who have expressed strong interest in the concept, though at least one has firmly said it is not interested in providing hunter access," he wrote. "It is expected that for the program to move forward, the legislature would need to provide specific funding for the program, and new staff positions would be needed. There are many details still to be worked out, but the idea is moving forward."

One obstacle could be the Alaska Constitution. The Constitution provides that all resources, including wildlife, are "reserved to the people for common use." In the landmark 1989 McDowell decision, the Alaska Supreme Court threw out a law that violated the equal access provision by giving rural residents priority over urban dwellers to fish and game.

Given that history, would it be possible for landowners to get more rights to game than others?

"Could a constitutional law be written? Yeah, sure it could," said Kevin Saxby, a senior assistant attorney general who advises the department on hunting issues. "The goal of the law would be to open up more access for more Alaskans, I presume, so that would serve the common use and the equal access provisions in Article 8 of the Constitution."

Saxby said he has only done "a tiny bit of work" on the initiative and wouldn't say whether that included writing a draft version of a bill. "Anything more is confidential until the governor makes a decision" to take the issue to the Legislature, he said.

Byron Bateman, president of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife in South Weber, Utah, said in a telephone interview that landowner permits in his state have "increased the opportunity for the ordinary citizen to be able to hunt some of these private lands that they would not have been able to afford."

He described Utah's hunting and landowner programs as an example for other states to follow.

"Utah has been a model as to we how we manage all of our wildlife in the West. We've increased a lot of different populations," he said.

Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, along with the like-minded Mule Deer Foundation, hosts the Western Hunting and Conservation Expo in Salt Lake City, where special permits from around the West are auctioned. Among the hundreds auctioned over the weekend of Feb. 9-12 were about a dozen private landowner permits from Utah.

Bateman said those permits sold in the range of $9,000 to $18,500 each. Another indication of the value of permits appeared on Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife's 2010 nonprofit tax returns, the most recent available. The returns show the organization raised $2.4 million from selling permits, though it didn't break down how much of those were landowner permits. It did report how much it spent buying landowner permits: $563,000.

The returns show Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife spent $1.1 million on conventions and conferences -- nearly as much as the $1.4 million it spent on big-game habitat improvements, conservation, moving wildlife and studies.

To end hunting 'socialism'

Rossi's move to give landowners special rights to the wildlife on their property coincides with the ideology of Don Peay, a Utah guide and founder of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife.

== And a real gem from Peay himself ==

Peay, who stressed that the Utah chapter isn't trying to push its view in Alaska or even with the Alaska chapter, said it's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource. Peay described that egalitarian doctrine, found in Alaska's state constitution and laws throughout the West, as "socialism." It offers no economic incentive for landowners to kill predators, improve big game habitat and even provide food and water for target species.

"We understand the North American model where wildlife belongs to the people, but we're also seeing dramatic reductions in game populations in the western United States under that model," he said. Population pressure, habitat loss from development and the rise of environmental organizations opposed to predator control have put pressure on game herds that weren't envisioned when the laws were written a century or more ago, he said.

"When wildlife is a very highly valued asset, people want more of it and they'll invest additional funds to make sure it's abundant," Peay said.

The same is true of professional guides and outfitters, he added. "They tend to be more involved to make sure there's abundant game herds than a lot of guys who just buy their license the day before the hunt starts and then, when game disappears, the masses tend to complain -- but what did they do to allow that situation to happen and why weren't they more involved to fix it?"

Valerie Conner, conservation director for the Alaska Center for the Environment, said she doubted most Alaskans were ready to abandon or modify the concept of wildlife as a public resource. And managing wildlife to promote just moose and caribou for the benefit of guides and some sportsmen "is draconian," she said.

"It's an ecosystem out there, and the bears and wolves and other predators play a really vital role. They're just leading us down this path to eliminate as many predators as they can and create a game farm," she said. "If you're really concerned about managing on an ecosystem-wide basis, you wouldn't be taking out all the bears and wolves and incentivizing landowners to kill all the predators on their land. It's insane."

With the Alaska Board of Game and, increasingly, the Department of Fish and Game, representing primarily trappers, guides and abundance hunters, Conner said, there's almost no one speaking out for tourism and wildlife viewing in an official capacity.

"Diversity is equally as important as abundance," she said. "There's nobody on that board who represents the thousands of Alaskans who simply appreciate wildlife for its intrinsic value or to go look at it."

Reach Richard Mauer at [email protected] or 257-4345.




Robb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
that was off topic pleasedeer and others.

answer the following questions or keep beating around the bush looking for more entitlement handouts:

1. do you believe there are problems with wolves, wild burros, underdevelopment of habitat, and generally speaking are against wildlife populations declining?

2. if you answer yes to any or all of above, do you believe the government agencies are "looking out for you as hunters?" (ie. game and fish).

3. if you answer no to #2, do you believe a publicly owned or non-profit entity could better appropriate monies towards eliminating any or all of the above than the government agency?

4. if you answer yes to #3, do you feel money is required to lobby against, legislatively fight, and overcome these government bureaucrats?

5. if you answer yest to #4, how would you recommend you "raise" money to be used to support your cause?

6. what group/organization would you recommend get these monies raised from in this case "auction tags."

simple questions i think. for me this isn't a battle of sfw vs. the hunters. it's government vs. the hunters. the only way to fight the government bureaucracies is with money and the only way to raise money in any reasonable amount is to give offer for auction something of value.

i know, i know. all you entitled hunters think that it's a god given right to have a "fair" chance at that trophy buck or bull as the "rich" non-deserving hunter who purchases these type tags yr. in and yr. out. i agree for the most part, but then again there is reality and the reality is screaming at you more than ever that if you don't give a little in the way of a few tags, you might be left with nothing in the future.

argue all you want against the SFW. that is not what i am debating. i don't care about the SFW. i am debating the "naive" sense of entitlement hunters think they have to wildlife when really the wolves, predators, burros, and poor habitat are sucking more out of the tag pool than all these auction tags combined x 10.....

maybe the SFW doesn't dot their I's and cross their T's an have no transparency or public accountability. like i said before, i don't claim to know. it's not the "tags" that are the problem or the "money" raised from them. it's how the money is spent. if spent wisely, the return on investment for you entitled type will be much more in your favor than you think.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-04-12 AT 07:38PM (MST)[p]Dang Billy that hole just got bigger. Being a spin doctor isn't your day job I hope. Give out a list of all the good you and SFW will do for the AZ wildlife, I think Obama already beat you guys to that one YOU know the one with all the empty promises.

TELL us how much good the SFW has did for all the muledeer in Utah with all that money they get for the tags they steal from the public hunter. Lets see that list.
WAIT they aren't the same group. LOL now that was funny.

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]
 
>LAST EDITED ON Mar-04-12
>AT 07:38?PM (MST)

>
>Dang Billy that hole just got
>bigger. Being a spin doctor
>isn't your day job I
>hope. Give out a list
>of all the good you
>and SFW will do for
>the AZ wildlife, I think
>Obama already beat you guys
>to that one YOU know
>the one with all the
>empty promises.
>
>TELL us how much good the
>SFW has did for all
>the muledeer in Utah with
>all that money they get
>for the tags they steal
>from the public hunter. Lets
>see that list.
>WAIT they aren't the same group.
>LOL now that was funny.
>
>
>"I have found if you go
>the extra mile it's Never
>crowded".
>>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>>the MM green signature club.[font/]

like i said before gator, i don't give a crap about the SFW, am not a member, don't live in UT or Az., and don't really care about much else. i have no idea what the SFW has or has not done in UT or Az. but their philosophy of raising money to combat problems we face as hunters today or will in the future is right on par. you have it all backwards gator, you must be one of those entitled hunters that want their cake and icing to. good luck with that. sometimes it takes a little sacrifice on the for-end in exchange for rewards on the latter.
 
You don't give a crap about SFW, and don't really care about much else. But you agree with their philosophy. Yet you defend them. I'm confused.

Their model of tag grabbing, privatization of public lands should make you concerned if you are truly a hunter and not just a troll on here. Much of the money they raise is used in administration not to help wildlife.
 
>You don't give a crap about
>SFW, and don't really care
>about much else. But
>you agree with their philosophy.
>Yet you defend them.
>I'm confused.
>
>Their model of tag grabbing, privatization
>of public lands should make
>you concerned if you are
>truly a hunter and not
>just a troll on here.
> Much of the money
>they raise is used in
>administration not to help wildlife.
>

YOU ARE WRONG. I HAVE STATED SEVERAL TIMES BEFORE AND WILL AGAIN, I 110% SUPPORT THE IDEA OF FORMING AN ENTITY THAT WILL USE MONIES GENERATED FROM AUCTION TAGS TO FIGHT THE ANTIS, IMPROVE HABITAT, AND HAVE ACTIVE PREDATOR MANAGEMENT PLANS, WOLF DELISTING PLANS, AND BURRO EXTERMINATION PLANS. what do you not understand?

whether it's SFW or MDF or AES, i don't really care, as long as there is transparency and accountability to how the money is spent and data to back up a net gain in harvest-able big game for generations to come...

nothing will happen with the current government bureaucracies and or fish and game to increase hunter opportunity w/o sacrificing quality. i put my stock in an organization rising up that is ready to tackle these bureaucrats head on with proper funding.
 
Well, no doubt I'll get spanked hard if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the percentage of funds raised by these SFW-sponsored tag auctions that actually goes into on-the-ground wildlife improvement is very LOW, and the percentage that goes into SFW 'administrative' costs is very HIGH.

I believe there may be a post specifying these numbers on the AZ forum?

If true, that greatly compounds the issue with the tag-grab as it would indicate no meaningful improvement in game populations, or opportunity for the average hunter (ala Utah), even over many years.
 
>Well, no doubt I'll get spanked
>hard if I'm wrong, but
>my understanding is that the
>percentage of funds raised by
>these SFW-sponsored tag auctions that
>actually goes into on-the-ground wildlife
>improvement is very LOW, and
>the percentage that goes into
>SFW 'administrative' costs is very
>HIGH.
>
>I believe there may be a
>post specifying these numbers on
>the AZ forum?
>
>If true, that greatly compounds the
>issue with the tag-grab as
>it would indicate no meaningful
>improvement in game populations, or
>opportunity for the average hunter
>(ala Utah), even over many
>years.

Agree with you 2Tuna. I read that the AZSFW would cap administrative costs at 10% and have a mandatory non-biased audit done by a certified CPA. is this not true?

why haven't ya'll answered any of my questions? weird.
 
I'm pretty sure everyone would agree the more money raised the better but there's a right and wrong way of doing it and the right way is normally the hard way. Taking a good number of primo tags for the AZ hunting public and whoring them out to the highest bidder is going to be a tough pill to swallow for the hunting community no matter how you do it. But the way AZSFW tried going about it by slipping the AZ hunting public a "Mikey" no wonder it failed. Why on earth did AZSFW chose to do it this way? Seems like if it was such a good idea AZSFW would have be more open about it.

Look at the SFW tag grab situation in Utah. It doesn't seem to be working out the way SFW said it would but who knows maybe it's doing better then what I've heard. How bout it Utah? Would a SFW tag grab a good idea for us to do in AZ?
 
Fixed your statement for you Billy

"sometimes it takes a little sacrifice on the ""back-end"" in exchange for rewards on the latter."
 
"Agree with you 2Tuna. I read that the AZSFW would cap administrative costs at 10% and have a mandatory non-biased audit done by a certified CPA. is this not true?"

I would recommend you read the commentary by Mr. Woodhouse in the link below on how the tag auction / raffle / convention business works.


http://www.azgfc.org/guest1.htm
 
Billy,

When the bill was first introduced, liitle if any monies would actually be used to benefit wildlife. The difference between what the other orgs sell and what SFW wanted, the other orgs give all the auction revenue back to the state. SFW would give what was left. They have now changed the amount but its still not even close to the others.
 
Billy,

On Feb 15 you said on this site,

".... as i support the sfw."

Now you say'

"i don't give a crap about the SFW"

Bruce
 
i support the idea of raising money to preserve the hunting quality and quantity through auction tag sales. how that money is allocated and used is a different story.

i agree the way the SFW went around or behind the hunting publics back was rather strange.

nobody has answered any of the five questions yet. strange as well.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-05-12 AT 12:37PM (MST)[p]When the SFW went behind the backs of hunters it was just par for the course the way they seem to do business and not too strange at all. If you agree with that outfit getting all those tags, then you are in the minority by a long shot in this debate. A tag or two is one thing, but the numbers they TAKE and what they want to TAKE in AZ is ridiculous!!! Then there is the fact that they wanted the original AZ Bill to have no dedicated payback to the G&F. Now they're going to be real generous and only TAKE 10% off the top for administration costs and then will be happy to "negotiate" to give back to the G&F up to 30% of the money that doesn't belong to them in the first place. Do you know how to spell THIEF, LOL!!!

You asked SIX questions! Here are my answers:
1---Yes
2---Yes
3-5-N/A based on your questions and the answers I gave in #1 and #2
6---Any other reputable group after we sack SFW and BGF.


There, are you happy now!!!
 
This group has a agenda and they are moving forward trying to make it happen.

Problem is, do you think you could grab a handful of random folks off this sight and get them to agree on anything and reach a point to achieve anything positive for hunting?

My answer is no, just read any thread on this sight (or start with this one) and look at the petty things everyone finds to argue about.

Example, if I answered any of the questions, I would have a barrage of folks letting me know how stupid and wrong I am.
 
under hb 2072 and its revised format, there is only 1 organization the tags could go to....azsfwc. secondly under the revised hb2072 Alan hamberlin proposes to negotiate a 30% return to. azgfd. neither of these are acceptable. using their math, we would not bring in more than 2-3 million to azgfd off an increase of 350 tags......... Thanks, Allen Taylor......
 
"you must be one of those entitled hunters that want their cake and icing to. good luck with that. sometimes it takes a little sacrifice on the for-end in exchange for rewards on the latter".
I guess I'm, would you please have them send me my tag that they was going to auction off after waiting 13 years to draw, I sure would hate for them to take more tags out of the draw.

I guess you haven't seen how the gov. works they will use that tag money and whatever more money they can suck out of us hunters and still have a hand out. Wait did I just described SFW. LOL


"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]
 
Just beginning to follow this debacle, so don't 'kill me' for throwing in.

As I see it, when did sportsmen start using a secondary entity to do their stewardship? Is this the same mentality that a citizen can't do anything but rely on their bureaucratic government to accomplish anything?

Stewardship begins and ends with ones self. If you can pack your trash in- you can pack it out. If you can waste $15 and three hours at a movie, why can't you spend that money and time going to game department meetings? And when our elected officials don't listen, why do we keep voting for them and sending them back to the capital to screw us over again?

Apathy, on the sportsman's part is what allows these sorts of things to transpire!

Is the AZG&F strapped for monies? Why use a middle man to do what you could do yourself!
 
It really sucks that Hunters are fighting on 2 fronts now:

1: The anti Hunters

2: The Special interest groups that are trying to take our tags.


The special interest groups are in it for THEMSELVES!
-They want the revenue to share with each other.
-They want the tags so their outfitter friends do not have to work to aquire their clients.
-They are too lazy and feel too entitled to wait in the draw system.

IT IS A JOKE, and OUT OF CONTROL.

They hide behind: "Well look at the habitat we improved" BS
 
>Just beginning to follow this debacle,
>so don't 'kill me' for
>throwing in.
>
>As I see it, when did
>sportsmen start using a secondary
>entity to do their stewardship?
> Is this the same
>mentality that a citizen can't
>do anything but rely on
>their bureaucratic government to accomplish
>anything?
>
>Stewardship begins and ends with ones
>self. If you can pack
>your trash in- you can
>pack it out. If you
>can waste $15 and three
>hours at a movie, why
>can't you spend that money
>and time going to game
>department meetings? And when
>our elected officials don't listen,
>why do we keep voting
>for them and sending them
>back to the capital to
>screw us over again?
>
>Apathy, on the sportsman's part is
>what allows these sorts of
>things to transpire!
>
>Is the AZG&F strapped for monies?
>Why use a middle man
>to do what you could
>do yourself!


you really think the AZGFD is going to fight the wolves, eradicate destructive wild burros, improve habitat, etc. HECK NO. you guys have your blinders on. they put more money and effort into minnows, frogs, wolves, and other "non-huntable" critters than they do the BIG GAME that we all cherish. BTW, there aren't any other GOV agencies looking out for the folks as well.
 
Billy the topic here is SFW tag grab, and that's all it is! They have no intentions of putting the money back into the wildlife. They want these tags for their special interest and that's it! Now I do believe that the tags are well worth it in the right hands and that a lot of good and money can come from them. Just the money people would bring into the state of AZ would be tremendous at an expo. Just not with these idiots!

Now as far as your argument on what's best for the wildlife, tell me you think that we should just wipe out a species off the face of the earth just so "you" can hunt??? Seems pretty hypocritical to me!!! The game n fish is to protect ALL wildlife to the best of their ability, wolves, burros and even a damn minnow that no one could find if they wanted too!!! Its people like you that Teddy Roosevelt started working to protect wildlife from, not just the ones YOU like!!!

As a sportsman and woman now days we all have to start acting like conservationist and environmentalist or were going to end up losing all our hunting rights! The kill em all attitude just don't fly anymore! How do you think CA got the way it is??? Hunters giving the anti's ammo!!!!!


I just call em as I see em!
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-06-12 AT 03:16PM (MST)[p]BTK,

A couple points...number one quit drinking the BGF/SFW kool-aid, you're a poster boy for their worn out lies.

Secondly, its more than obvious from your posts you havent the first clue about wildlife management, states rights, federal regulations, what agencies acutally control what, etc.

Thats for starters...you need to do a lot more research, I do appreciate you're asking questions and sounds like you want to be engaged at some level on many of the problems we have. But before you can engage in any type of meaningful solution you have to fully understand the problem. You're blaming the wrong people in this issue on many of your points.

Now, on to your questions, that you feel nobody can answer.

1. do you believe there are problems with wolves, wild burros, underdevelopment of habitat, and generally speaking are against wildlife populations declining?

Yes, and if you think sportsmen or the various G&F agencies are not addressing this...you've drank too much SFW kool-aid. For starters, each state, along with its G&F agency is able to write a wolf management plan for their states. Most have done so, MT, ID, WY, MI, WI...etc and MT an ID each have hunting seasons on wolves. That is despite efforts by SFW and BGF to derail the mechanism that got each of those states their right to implement state control. Thats a pro-active approach to how each states Citizenship and G&F agency is going to manage wolves once they are off the list. In the case of wolves and wolf populations prior to delisting, that falls under the ESA and the controlling agency is the USFWS. The states typically work in cooperation with the USFWS, but the states have very little statutory authority on the decisions regarding T&E species.

Wild burros...again check out the wild horse and burro act of 1971. Very little that any G&F agency can do, other than work within the side-boards of the Act. Its that simple, the G&F can not trump federal authority...cant do it. Not saying its right, but its also unfair and ignorant to blame the states for things they have no control of. Write your congressmen, but lay off the G&F as you're entirely pi$$ing up a rope blaming a state agency for a federal problem.

Underdevelopment of habitat is again something the various states and state agencies have very little control of. The Federal Government is not bound by law to improve habitat for elk, deer, pronghorn, sheep etc. Further, the only thing that State Agencies can do is make suggestions and hope that the various Federal Agencies cooperate with them and make decisions to benefit wildlife. The G&F does not have any control of a vast majority of wildlife habitat, at least nothing that is in federal or private control. Thankfully, many of the various Federal Agencies try to cooperate with State G&F Agencies to help wildlife. While it may seem like a simple process to you to just do this or that project, nothing could be further from the truth in many cases. The States have NO authority to trump federal land management agencies.

2. if you answer yes to any or all of above, do you believe the government agencies are "looking out for you as hunters?" (ie. game and fish).

Absolutely they are. If they werent, Montana and Idaho would not have a wolf management plan in place or seasons. No state would have hunting regulations, bag limits, poaching penalties, enforcement...etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Also, who do you think is responsible for all the great hunting that we enjoy, and fight about today? The various State G&F Agencies are to thank for what we have today. Until very recently, there was no such thing as a Governors tag, a raffle tag, a landowner tag...none of that at all. The average hunter, in cooperation with many great sporting groups, and the G&F agencies are 100% responsible for the abundant game we have today. There was nobody else that has taken the reins, hunters stepped up, hunting organizations stepped up, G&F agencies stepped up...and they accomplished it all without a single wealth tag.

Now that the heavy lifting is done and theres abundant wildlife, you have SFW/BGF type groups that slam every other sporting group, every G&F Agency, and even slam the average guy...the ONE group that has given the most and accomplished the most. Thats just a fact, plain and simple fact.

So, I think its a bit disengenious of you to claim that the very people who have the most flesh in the game, and who've done the most feel "entitled". They dont feel entitled, they just want equal access to all wildlife by everyone...no more, no less. Those with the "entitlement" mentality are those that swoop in like a flock of vultures to reap the rewards of others hard work and then ask to cut in line for a tag every year.

3. if you answer no to #2, do you believe a publicly owned or non-profit entity could better appropriate monies towards eliminating any or all of the above than the government agency?

No they couldnt, please explain how a publically owned or non-profit is going to have any better luck changing the wild horse and burro act or the Endangered Species Act. There is over 40 years of case law that has upheld the ESA. Good luck to any non-profit or publically owned company who wants to tackle that monster...they're going to need it.

4. if you answer yes to #3, do you feel money is required to lobby against, legislatively fight, and overcome these government bureaucrats?

It never hurts to have some money to lobby. But let me also say that you dont have to be wealthy to lobby. I've lobbied D.C., I've lobbied State Legislatures...on a very small budget. The thing that most dont realize, is that if you truly want YOUR concerns heard, the best person do that is YOU. There is nothing that will get the attention of the legislature more than a mob of sportsmen in camo packing hearings.

5. if you answer yest to #4, how would you recommend you "raise" money to be used to support your cause?

I dont think most Sportsmen are afraid to open their wallets if they KNOW exactly where there money is going. Sporstmen have almost single-handedly funded wildlife since day one...they truly put their money where there mouths are.

6. what group/organization would you recommend get these monies raised from in this case "auction tags."

Keep it in house with the State G&F Agencies...along with over-sight.
 
>Billy the topic here is SFW
>tag grab, and that's all
>it is! They have no
>intentions of putting the money
>back into the wildlife. They
>want these tags for their
>special interest and that's it!
>Now I do believe that
>the tags are well worth
>it in the right hands
>and that a lot of
>good and money can come
>from them. Just the money
>people would bring into the
>state of AZ would be
>tremendous at an expo. Just
>not with these idiots!
>
>Now as far as your argument
>on what's best for the
>wildlife, tell me you think
>that we should just wipe
>out a species off the
>face of the earth just
>so "you" can hunt??? Seems
>pretty hypocritical to me!!! The
>game n fish is to
>protect ALL wildlife to the
>best of their ability, wolves,
>burros and even a damn
>minnow that no one could
>find if they wanted too!!!
>Its people like you that
>Teddy Roosevelt started working to
>protect wildlife from, not just
>the ones YOU like!!!
>
>As a sportsman and woman now
>days we all have to
>start acting like conservationist and
>environmentalist or were going to
>end up losing all our
>hunting rights! The kill em
>all attitude just don't fly
>anymore! How do you think
>CA got the way it
>is??? Hunters giving the anti's
>ammo!!!!!
>
>
>I just call em as I
>see em!


oh my, you have to be kidding about california. it was never and still isn't the "hunters" fault. give them an inch and they take a mile. BTW, those damn burros shouldn't be there in the first place. they are considered an invasive species and in most places invasive species are on a shoot on site bag limit, which is you need no license and their is no bag limit. you don't know WTH you're talking about. Az. has this rule with wild hogs that aren't javelina.

BTW, i really don't think allen hamberlin gives a rats about being able to buy more tags. he could buy all the tags in every state, every year, year after year and it wouldn't dent his bank account. in addition, b/c of his wealth, do you really think money laundering from a wildlife organization is in his best interest when once again it wouldn't make a dang bit of difference in his bank account. if he laundered all the money raised off all 54 auction tags it wouldn't make a difference in his finances. you don't know WTH you are talking about.
 
>Dang Billy sounds like you know
>Hamberlin well?? I thought
>you didn't live in Az???
>

grew up in az. have not lived in az. for 8 years. any other rhetorical questions?

and no i don't live in utah or anywhere in the lower 48. i don't know don peay or anyone on the ut SFW. i put in for a lot of of hunts all over the place and am an everyday hard working american. what are you confused about?
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-06-12 AT 09:38PM (MST)[p]>I noticed you didn't say a
>word when BuzzH put you
>in your place either, LOL!
>


give me a day or two. watching elections. you have a big mouth topgun.

from a quick look it seems as though you and buzzy think government is the answer. lol! that's funny right there.

what strikes me is that you guys consistently think that this is a discussion about SFW. it's not. it's the idea of raising money and transferring it to organizations who put that money to better use than the AZGFD. whether its the MDF, AES, or others.
 
We The People Billy, We The People!

Aside from that, there have been some good things discussed the last couple of days regarding AZ and how to raise some funds and distribute them. There are ways, without selling tags, to generate a lot of money. And there are ways to distribute the funds to organizations that truly care about habitat for big game, organizations that will put the money on the ground. And there are ways to make sure that they are held accountable for the public money they are issued. This is all We The People are asking for.
 
>from a quick look it seems
>as though you and buzzy
>think government is the answer.
> lol! that's funny
>right there.
>
>what strikes me is that you
>guys consistently think that this
>is a discussion about SFW.
> it's not. it's
>the idea of raising money
>and transferring it to organizations
>who put that money to
>better use than the AZGFD.
> whether its the MDF,
>AES, or others.

Quite the spin you are putting out there billy... You wouldn't happen to be a paid lobbyist or board member of SFW would you? Especially considering you are advocating for a group that uses the word "socialism" to describe laws that provide public land hunting opportunities to average joe Americans. Seems like SFW is benefitting from essentially privatizing the very public resources it decries.

Also, let's see some public disclosure from SFW and see exactly where the funds raised by SFW are going. That would speak volumes to your critiques.

How about some expenditure reports as well as a breakdown of what salary/compensation (if any) the board members of this not-for-profit may or may not be taking home. What amounts are currently being spent on lobbyists pushing this very issue in AZ versus for the issues you have raised such as anti wolf and burro lobbying?

Just because an organization purports to represent a group's best interests does not mean it actually does so. There's too many self-interested individuals in these days and times and something about SFW stinks.
 
>>from a quick look it seems
>>as though you and buzzy
>>think government is the answer.
>> lol! that's funny
>>right there.
>>
>>what strikes me is that you
>>guys consistently think that this
>>is a discussion about SFW.
>> it's not. it's
>>the idea of raising money
>>and transferring it to organizations
>>who put that money to
>>better use than the AZGFD.
>> whether its the MDF,
>>AES, or others.
>
>Quite the spin you are putting
>out there billy... You wouldn't
>happen to be a paid
>lobbyist or board member of
>SFW would you? Especially
>considering you are advocating for
>a group that uses the
>word "socialism" to describe laws
>that provide public land hunting
>opportunities to average joe Americans.
> Seems like SFW is
>benefitting from essentially privatizing the
>very public resources it decries.
>
>
>Also, let's see some public disclosure
>from SFW and see exactly
>where the funds raised by
>SFW are going. That
>would speak volumes to your
>critiques.
>
>How about some expenditure reports as
>well as a breakdown of
>what salary/compensation (if any) the
>board members of this not-for-profit
>may or may not be
>taking home. What amounts
>are currently being spent on
>lobbyists pushing this very issue
>in AZ versus for the
>issues you have raised such
>as anti wolf and burro
>lobbying?
>
>Just because an organization purports to
>represent a group's best interests
>does not mean it actually
>does so. There's too
>many self-interested individuals in these
>days and times and something
>about SFW stinks.


WTH trout, you can't read?? i said this isn't a discussion about SFW. i to would like to see what you just explained. if SFW comes out looking like a beached whale, then, leave them lay and move on. it's about the idea of all organizations being able to raise money to fight the issues. i know from my experience than the MDF, AES, and a few others in az. do a lot more with a lot less compared to AZGFD.
 
>We The People Billy, We The
>People!
>
>Aside from that, there have been
>some good things discussed the
>last couple of days regarding
>AZ and how to raise
>some funds and distribute them.
>There are ways, without selling
>tags, to generate a lot
>of money. And there are
>ways to distribute the funds
>to organizations that truly care
>about habitat for big game,
>organizations that will put the
>money on the ground. And
>there are ways to make
>sure that they are held
>accountable for the public money
>they are issued. This is
>all We The People are
>asking for.

ok, what are the ways mentioned to raise money besides tag sales? let me know...
 
If you would get off your highhorse and actually digest what is being recommended, instead of just coming back on each thread and making smartazz remarks, we might get somewhere! If you think I'm for Government controls, you are so far off base you stink, LOL! I'm about as conserative as you can get on a good share of things and it's about time the Lib's take a hike, including DP and his band of merry men and woman. Cripes, look at the big bucks they are paying Suzanne Gilstrap out of the money that EXPO takes in! That's really putting good money on the ground for deer habitat, LOL! Actually, if you aren't aware of it, she is the main cog going to the Governor right now and trying to get that Bill back into the AZ Legislature to rape the citizens of hundreds of big game tags!
 
In further support of TOPGUN's comment above, I have included a link to Suzanne Gilstrap's lobbying firm, which is no doubt charging big bucks for their efforts. This is what I call conservation money being well spent:

http://www.capitolconsultingaz.com/experience.html

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
Billy from the little time I've known you've always had a healthy distaste for the AZG&F. Unfortunately the G&F can't just concentrate on improving Elk and deer habitat. They have to worry about all habitat for all species in the entire state which leaves very little time and money for the elk and deer. With that being said I agree with you that more auction tags would greatly benefit Az's elk and deer. My only concern about auction tags is that too many of these tags could be issued. As long auction tag numbers stay low and in check then I'm OK with it.

I'd say no more then 5 year round gov type tags per species seems fair maybe not for sheep though. Also maybe something to the effect of 1 tag per unit per species auctioned off that would allow the highest bidder to hunt year round for that given species in that given unit. Any more tags then this I think would be too much. The most important part of all this is that all money generated from these tags goes directly into helping AZ game species and their habitat. Absolutely no executive fees or anything of the sort. Every penny generated goes into the conservation of AZ's game animals.

Too bad the AZSFW handled this the way they did. Things might have been different if they would have been upfront about this whole thing. Due to the way AZSFW handled this diabolical I like many others will probably never be able to trust anything else that comes from this organization or it's members.
 
>Billy from the little time I've
>known you've always had a
>healthy distaste for the AZG&F.
> Unfortunately the G&F can't
>just concentrate on improving Elk
>and deer habitat. They
>have to worry about all
>habitat for all species in
>the entire state which leaves
>very little time and money
>for the elk and deer.
> With that being said
>I agree with you that
>more auction tags would greatly
>benefit Az's elk and deer.
> My only concern about
>auction tags is that too
>many of these tags could
>be issued. As long
>auction tag numbers stay low
>and in check then I'm
>OK with it.
>
>I'd say no more then 5
>year round gov type tags
>per species seems fair maybe
>not for sheep though.
>Also maybe something to the
>effect of 1 tag per
>unit per species auctioned off
>that would allow the highest
>bidder to hunt year round
>for that given species in
>that given unit. Any
>more tags then this I
>think would be too much.
> The most important part
>of all this is that
>all money generated from these
>tags goes directly into helping
>AZ game species and their
>habitat. Absolutely no executive
>fees or anything of the
>sort. Every penny generated
>goes into the conservation of
>AZ's game animals.
>
>Too bad the AZSFW handled this
>the way they did.
>Things might have been different
>if they would have been
>upfront about this whole thing.
> Due to the way
>AZSFW handled this diabolical I
>like many others will probably
>never be able to trust
>anything else that comes from
>this organization or it's members.
>


you're right. i believe the game and fish has been infiltrated by so many liberal college grads that they no longer can serve the "hunting public" in a way that they once did. they now consider other agendas that don't really pertain to hunting. this rubs me wrong when big game raises A LOT more money than any minnow, frog, burro, wolf, etc. ever imagined. they are trending down a path of no return with the hunting public IMO.
 
>WTH trout, you can't read??
>i said this isn't a
>discussion about SFW. i
>to would like to see
>what you just explained.
>if SFW comes out looking
>like a beached whale, then,
>leave them lay and move
>on. it's about the
>idea of all organizations being
>able to raise money to
>fight the issues. i
>know from my experience than
>the MDF, AES, and a
>few others in az. do
>a lot more with a
>lot less compared to AZGFD.
>

No worries man and yes, I can read. My problem is the fact I get paid to read between the lines as a profession...

You raise a good point in this post regarding allocation of funds. However, SFW is NOT the answer better management or distribution of funds. Their structure is flawed and too self-interested to truly benefit the interests of the general hunting public. Too much money spent on garnering tags and not enough spent in the field. SFW would have a leg to stand on if they would put their money in the field and show some significant results BEFORE lobbying for mass amounts of public tags.
-Cody
 
That is excatly what gets me very time I read a post by BTK! He has a real hard on for the G&F, but doesn't seem to realize that unless we are real careful an organization like SFW can come in under the guise of doing a great job, only to rape the average Joe a lot more that hte G&F ever will. I have to believe that BTK has special interests in this (ie. is a guide or friends with guides or outfitters like Mossback, etc.) who would gain from going the route he proposes.
 
Topgun

Or, he is really passionate about the future of Wildlife and he doens't truly understand how it works.

I too was once a supporter of SFW and through a lot of research of my own finally came to understand the truth.

For me it was when I realized there was no accountability for the money gained from the "tag grab".

I whole-heartedly believe the same things BTK does as far as things need to change and money has to be raised, but there are better ways of doing it than through a crooked organization that has no accountability for what they do.

Just my $0.02


"The problem with quotes on Internet Forums is that it is often difficult to verify their authenticity." - Abraham Lincoln
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-12-12 AT 01:26PM (MST)[p]http://www.monstermuleys.info/photos/user_photos/8932david-allen-1.jpg

345david-allen-2.jpg
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom