Note from Chris Denham

M

Muley62

Guest
Gentlemen,
First of all, I appreciate all your comments, both good and bad, that you have posted over the past couple months. I have remained silent for a period of time while I've tried to intelligently digest these opinions and views, and ultimately address you with a clear mind. This has also been a very busy time for me, so I appreciate your patience.

As many of you may know, I have given a large portion of my time, effort, and money to wildlife over the past couple of decades. I feel very strongly about a hunter?s obligation to conservation. Over these many years, I feel like I have proven that by putting my effort, time, and money where my mouth is. Here are a few things I've done in that time:

? Co-founder of Outdoor Experience 4 All ? OE4A?s mission is to take kids with terminal diagnoses, physical disabilities, and children of our fallen heroes on outdoor experiences.
? Arizona Big Game Super Raffle - Founding member and current Secretary
? Arizona Elk Society ? Founding member
? Arizona Sportsmen for Wildlife Conservation ? Founding member
? Arizona Deer Association ? Past President, Vice President, and Board Member
? Arizona Bowhunters Association ? Past Treasurer
? Arizona Wildlife Federation ? Past Board Member
? Life Member of B&C
? Member of RMEF
? Life Member of NRA
? Member of Wild Sheep Foundation
? Member of Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society

Recently, I was involved with the controversy in regard to a bill that was proposed in Arizona. Without going into a 400-page novel here because now it's all a moot point and an ever-changing conversation, there were a lot of projects and goals in Arizona that were (and still are) in need of serious help ? some very ?big picture? items and many specific ones as well. After trying for years to raise awareness and funds for these projects and not generating what we felt we needed for these important issues, the decision was made to try alternate funding, and that included additional governor and raffle tags.
Looking back, this all boils down to whether or not ?the end justified the means?. Obviously, at the time, I felt the projects were important enough that yes, the end did justify the means. If ultimately I misjudged the wishes of Arizona sportsmen, and in their view the end did not justify the means, then you all have my most sincere apology.

This may be a surprise to some, but I do not like auction tags in any form, they shouldn't have to exist. I believe that all sportsmen should step up and cover 100% of the cost of any program or project necessary to ensure our sporting heritage, kind of like a flat tax. Sadly, between the gross mismanagement of license revenue and general apathy amongst the majority of sportsmen, this has never happened. Auction tag revenues (I can only speak for Arizona) have been used to substantially improve wildlife habitat and increase wildlife populations across the state. For instance, the vast majority of the wild sheep herds around Arizona owe their existence to the revenue derived from auction tags. The rejuvenation of the Kaibab deer herd is a direct result of a massive amount of research instigated by the Arizona Deer Association with the use of tag revenues. Many of the people opposed to auction tags are either philosophically opposed and/or just not willing to forego one tag if it means their odds of drawing a tag are affected in any way. I can't and won't argue with the former; in fact I admire anyone who will ?take a bullet? in defense of his principles and integrity.
I had absolutely nothing to gain personally by being a part of this, and as you can see from what I mentioned above in my past work, I would never want to do anything to A) tarnish my own good name, or B) be a part of anything that would not benefit Arizona sportsmen. Have I made mistakes? Heck yes! Were there mistakes made in the introduction of HB2072? Absolutely, and once I had a better understanding of the problems, I reached a point where I could no longer support the bill.

By making this statement, I don't expect to change everyone?s mind. I fully expect that there will be those who won't either listen or care, and that's fine. I just want to let anyone who does care, to know the score. I won't come out and say that I don't support any number of auction tags; I do feel they have a place in a limited number that sportsmen can support.

I also am not going to throw any person or organization under the bus. Of all the organizations listed above, I could easily find something that I don't like about each one. However, I'm just not in the business of condemning any group or organization of volunteers and conservationists who are working hard in some way for wildlife and/or hunters? rights.

I'm well aware that coming onto these forums is not always in the best interest of an industry ?target?, since there are those out there who have no intention of having civil discussion or getting past a bump in the road. Too many times the internet becomes a place for people to take out every frustration in their lives via the anonymity of a computer screen. However, I feel with the events of the last few months, I do want to take this opportunity to let you know what's on my mind about it, as well as letting you all know that I respect you enough to address you, since you have asked me to. Please do know, though, that I have no plans in dragging this out any further than this message. There is simply no more to say.

Finally, for those of you on the fence about Elk Hunter and/or Western Hunter Magazines, I'd like to say a few things. First, there's a reason we brought Ryan Hatfield on board as our Editor. My opinion is that Ryan is the best hunting magazine editor out there, and hunters should be glad that someone like him is in this important position. His vision for these magazines, as well as the quality and standards he wants to send to all our readers, is second to none. If I didn't believe that he had the skills and ideals to ultimately make these magazines the best out there, we wouldn't have joined forces with him. Ryan is selective about what he allows in the magazine, because he takes very seriously the obligation of his job and the magazine itself to set a good example with reverence for the wildlife we cherish and for the hunt itself. I highly urge you all to consider taking a good hard look at what we're going to be bringing to the table. I truly believe that it will be in line with what you all would expect a western big game publication should be.

This is not a ploy to sell subscriptions. I simply feel that you all deserve to be addressed respectfully and told the truth. A few people on internet forums have chosen to attack some of our editors with childish threats that would embarrass the entire sporting community. Please leave them out of this. If you have a beef with me, then bring it to me. My email is [email protected].

I've decided that over the next few months, I'm going to slow down significantly in the conservation realm, which has been a goal of mine for two years. I've done my share or maybe a little more, and I think it's time for a break to focus more on family and doing my part, along with our editorial staff, to give people the best product we possibly can, and something you'll all be exceptionally proud of. Thank you all so much for your time.

Thank You

Chris Denham
 
Chris once told me that AZ SFW would never support wealth tags. In the end it only took a few short years. I am still at a loss in regards to the reasoning behind this bill. If there was a "bigger picture", than why not guarantee the money, like the current AZ system? To me, this was a smoke screen from the start. The money would not have gotten to the "big picture" projects. Now that things have turned south there was more at play than the average guy can nunderstand. Seems very self serving to me.

This also seems like a stab at helping the magazine. Why take so long to post a response? What about the new push for the bill by Alan Hamberlin? I wish the magazine the best but I want nothing to do with Denham or anybody else associated with AZ SFW.
 
>Chris once told me that AZ
>SFW would never support wealth
>tags. In the end
>it only took a few
>short years. I am
>still at a loss in
>regards to the reasoning behind
>this bill. If there
>was a "bigger picture", than
>why not guarantee the money,
>like the current AZ system?
> To me, this was
>a smoke screen from the
>start. The money would
>not have gotten to the
>"big picture" projects. Now
>that things have turned south
>there was more at play
>than the average guy can
>nunderstand. Seems very self
>serving to me.
>
>This also seems like a stab
>at helping the magazine.
>Why take so long to
>post a response? What
>about the new push for
>the bill by Alan Hamberlin?
> I wish the magazine
>the best but I want
>nothing to do with Denham
>or anybody else associated with
>AZ SFW.
>
>

i see this as a backwards step in the betterment of big game in the state of arizona b/c non of those "projects" will see the light of day w/o funding. i am not sure why chris or others aren't willing to stick their neck out.
 
Thanks for coming on and giving your side of the story/take Chris.

I know we (you and I) went the rounds 6-7 years ago over on the bowsite when this SFW-AZ was getting steam to start up.

I certainly feel the sportsmans voice has been well heard on this tag grab in Az. by SFW-Az.

Once again--thanks for sharing your side of the issue.

Robb
 
I have known Chris through the outdoor industry for over 25 years! You would be hard pressed to find anybody in the country that devotes more personal time and energy without any gain to the effort of protecting and promoting hunting and our hunting priveledges here in AZ as well as the country! For anyone to think there is any kind of hidden agenda truly has not met and talked with him face to face. Too many of us are on the sidelines complaining about how things are done, without actually getting in there to offer our own time and resources to protect what we hold dear. If AZ needs to "sell" a few more animals to raise more money to preserve our hunting heritage here in AZ, than so be it. I would rather have Chris Denham in charge, and overseeing it than anyone else! You will not find a more stand up guy! His priorities are straight and true!


Check out my blog for more hunting stories, pics and videos.
www.sneekfreaktv.com
 
I appreciate your post but.....IMO this AZ tag grab has stirred up more emotions in the outdoorsmen than any thing I can remember it shows a big split between us now. I feel that if AZGF has the wildlife in such bad shape and they don't know how to fix it without selling tags most of us have been paying and waiting for for many years I'd hate to think of what shape other states are in because people from all over the USA dream of hunting elk in the rut or muleys on the strip or antelope in Arizona. Actions speak louder than words and SFW's actions almost cost the AZ sportmen several hundred hard to obtain coveted big game tags and I will never get over the fact it almost happened without any of us knowing about it...then what ? My question to Mr Dunham would be ....What would you be telling us right now if your/SFW bill had been introduced and passed ? When it comes to hunting this isn't Europe this is America !! We all want a fair chance!
 
"If AZ needs to "sell" a few more animals to raise more money to preserve our hunting heritage here in AZ, than so be it."

Apparently you didn't read the bill. By the time it came for any programs to receive money from these new auction tags, there wouldn't be any left. If they really wanted to raise money for wildlife with these auction tags, they would give ALL proceeds from the auction back to wildlife. Not just what is left.

If AZSFW was really wanting to help wildlife, why is it the bill was written to benefit just them? Why not distribute the auction tags evenly to all sportsmen groups in AZ?
 
And it was not limited to a "few" tags. The latest revised proposal that AZSFW is promoting has limited the number of tags to 350. That is a very generous concession.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
sremin, you make good points IMO. last i heard, they were going to cap their administrative costs at a maximum of 10% of revenue leaving 90% for wildlife. what do you think?

it's idea of raising money through tags that i support. i think the net effect in the long term would be in favor of the general public. "those who waited in line for their turn."
 
>And it was not limited to
>a "few" tags. The
>latest revised proposal that AZSFW
>is promoting has limited the
>number of tags to 350.
> That is a very
>generous concession.
>
>Hawkeye
>
>Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
>Winchester Apex .50 Cal
>Mathews Drenalin LD


i thought it was 54 or 52. something like that. a far stretch from 350. not sure. do you have info to back your statement.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-05-12 AT 01:10PM (MST)[p]btk---You better go back to the drawing board and read the new proposal. They would agree now to cap the admin. fees at 10% when in the beignning it was not even addressed. Then they will "negotiate" to give back "up to 30%" of what isn't even their money to begin with to the G&F, LOL! The remaining money would be kept to pay off all kinds of listed crap before a single cent would go to habitat or similar stuff if there was even one cent left, LOL! Does that not sound similar to the UTAH EXPO tag theft that is ongoing? IMO, you really need to get into the real world and look a lot closer at things than it appears you are doing!
 
Billy-

Is this information good enough to support my prior statement? You are correct in stating that 52 tags is a far stretch from 350 tags. Please do some research before you spout off on topics. See point #3:

"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.

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]."


Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
>LAST EDITED ON Mar-05-12
>AT 01:10?PM (MST)

>
>btk---You better go back to the
>drawing board and read the
>new proposal. They would
>agree now to cap the
>admin. fees at 10% when
>in the beignning it was
>not even addressed. Then
>they will "negotiate" to give
>back "up to 30%" of
>what isn't even their money
>to begin with to the
>G&F, LOL! The remaining
>money would be kept to
>pay off all kinds of
>listed crap before a single
>cent would go to habitat
>or similar stuff if there
>was even one cent left,
>LOL! Does that not
>sound similar to the UTAH
>EXPO tag theft that is
>ongoing? IMO, you really
>need to get into the
>real world and look a
>lot closer at things than
>it appears you are doing!
>


so what you are saying topgun is:

1. admin fees capped at 10%

2. 30% back to game and fish (IMO i wish G and F wouldn't get a dime b/c they are terrible at effectively appropriating money towards projects that benefit BIG GAME. They are really good at taking "Big Game" monies and using them for underfunded projects such as wolf recoveries, minnows, and frogs.)

3. ALL other monies (potentially 60%)would be kept to pay off all kinds of listed crap before a single cent would go to habitat or similar stuffies."

4. IMO you are saying there won't be a dime spent on fighting wolf recovery efforts, predator management, burro management, habitat improvements, etc.? Is this what you are saying?

Please answer. You still haven't answered the five questions i posed before. Are the to difficult?
 
Billy---I answered your questions on the other thread and if you can't understand plain English that I, and others, have posted you need to go back and reread the threads.
 
Chris, thanks for posting your position. as you know, the current form of this bill is not acceptable to me either. I know something must be done to raise more money but how the revised bill is written is still unacceptable.......as discussed with you, input from all AZ hunters/communication with us to come up with solutions is partially what is needed......... Thanks, Allen Taylor......
 
>LAST EDITED ON Mar-05-12
>AT 04:27?PM (MST)

>
>Are you a representative of SFW
>Billy?


NO... i am somebody who realizes that hunters need a voice with money to combat issues such as wolf control, burro control, wildlife improvement, etc... the best way to raise quick money is to sell off some tags. i think the net effect, if the money is spent appropriately, is more tags and better quality for ALL hunters.

what don't you guys understand? i see it as most of you thinking because wildlife is public property, you are entitled to a "handout" in the way of the best hunts, more frequently, w/o giving something up.

maybe the bill as written needs to be revised. i show my stance with SFW by the fact that "i don't care" what they currently support. I am saying what I support. If they support what i support than great. if not, i wish the MDF or AES would come up with a solution to combating wolves, burros, poor management, habitat improvements. facts are that you can't fight these issues without funding and you can't get funding w/o giving something up.
 
haha, topgun. must be my education. might need your help. or better yet. your stance might be, i am entitled to read and understand english b/c i went to lots of college.
 
>Billy---I answered your questions on the
>other thread and if you
>can't understand plain English that
>I, and others, have posted
>you need to go back
>and reread the threads.


you might have answered the other questions i had on the other thread. however, you might need to learn how to read and understand english... you clearly haven't answered four simple questions posted above you ridiculous response.

do you need multiple choice?
 
Chris,

First let me say that you have my respect for your dedication to wildlife and hunting as you've demonstrated by "walking the walk". I'll be the first to say that I've put priorities on other things in life such as family and in no way even come close to your conservation efforts.

That being said, I have to say that even after your lengthy post I still don't think I can support your magazine or the other associated organizations. Here's why. A magazine like yours has the potential to influence a large group of people and it bothers me when you say that you "don't like auction tags in any form" but then later you state "I won't come out and say that I don't support any number of auction tags; I do feel they have a place in a limited number that sportsmen can support". I have to respectfully disagree with you on this. I fully understand the points you are trying to make about funding via auction tags but I just don't believe the ends justify the means. In my opinion, it's just not right to whore out the public's wildlife to a select few who can afford it in the name of fundraising. Instead the time and effort should be put into figuring out how to raise the revenue while making the chance of opportunity available to everyone. An example is the Arizona super raffle. Look at the money it raises while still allowing everyone an affordable chance. I just think we need to figure out other ways to raise the revenue associated with tags besides taking the easy path of offering them to the people with the most money. As long as you support auction tags, I will have to respectfully disagree and just can not support you or a magazine that thinks the same. Auction tags are a slippery slope as we have seen in Utah and now this Arizona uproar. Once started, it just doesn't seem to end.

With all that, I understand your frustration, it seems like we hunters have no problem dropping money on the latest bow, gun, or gear but hesitate to open our checkbooks when it comes to supporting conservation. But again, let's not take the easy way out and turn hunting into a sport for the elite upperclass. There has to be a better all inclusive way. Maybe more raffle tags. Maybe a push for hunting equipment associated conservation taxes at the state level.

In closing, as long as you support auction tags, we will just have to agree to disagree. And in case some think I'm just someone complaining about others with more money, my stance on auctions tags has nothing to do with money as I could easily afford to spend $20,000 a year on an auction tag if I was so inclined..... but I just can not get myself to support such a system.
 
"NO... i am somebody who realizes that hunters need a voice with money to combat issues such as wolf control, burro control, wildlife improvement, etc... the best way to raise quick money is to sell off some tags. i think the net effect, if the money is spent appropriately, is more tags and better quality for ALL hunters.

what don't you guys understand?"

Billy,

It's you who doesn't understand. The money raised by this particular situation would not be spent appropriately to benefit wildlife.
 
>"NO... i am somebody who realizes
>that hunters need a voice
>with money to combat issues
>such as wolf control, burro
>control, wildlife improvement, etc... the
>best way to raise quick
>money is to sell off
>some tags. i think the
>net effect, if the money
>is spent appropriately, is more
>tags and better quality for
>ALL hunters.
>
>what don't you guys understand?"
>
>Billy,
>
>It's you who doesn't understand. The
>money raised by this particular
>situation would not be spent
>appropriately to benefit wildlife.

SREMIN, if you think the money raised by this group would not be spent appropriately to benefit wildlife than that is an entirely different argument. I have said and will say it again. This is not a plug for the SFW. I don't know their agenda entirely or their budget. However, their idea to raise money via auction tag sales (1/trophy unit, approximately 54 total tags) is a great way to raise money to be used to fight the "issues." Whether this money is used in appropriately is an entirely different debate.

IMO, with the few auction tags that exist now, the AES, MDF, and other groups put that money to good use. All you have to do is see who is sponsoring/funding drinker projects, who is hauling water to drinker in the heat of the summer, who is really making an impact? money in the game and fish's hand is money not well spent. transfer that same amount of money into a "reponsible" organization and see how far it goes.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-06-12 AT 06:38PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Mar-06-12 AT 06:36?PM (MST)

billy boy :

that 2072 listed above is the second attempt that is not the first bill

START_STATUTE17-347. Big game tags; sale in bulk to qualified nonprofit organization; definitions

A. Each year the department shall reserve certain hunt tags for taking big game species as specified in subsection b of this section for a qualified organization to resell rights to the reserved tags by auction and raffle at an annual sportsmen exposition in this state under the auspices of the qualified organization and at annual banquets in this state of any of its chapters. The proceeds of resale shall be used as authorized in this section. Within thirty days after the effective date of this section, the department shall contract with the qualified organization that has made the requisite payment and advance deposit under subsection C of this section. The original contract shall specify the terms and conditions consistent with this section for sale in bulk of rights to reserved tags, for the qualified organization to exercise its authority to resell rights to the tags at the annual sportsmen exposition and county banquets and for the department to issue the reserved tags after resale.

B. Tags whose rights are sold for resale by auction or raffle and that are reserved for issue by the department after resale shall be known as governor tags, legislator tags and sportsmen tags as follows:

1. Governor tags shall be reserved for resale by auction, shall be species specific and shall be valid for that species for any hunt area with any legal weapon for three hundred sixty-five days beginning August 15 of each year. Governor tags shall be issued in the following numbers for all of the following big game species:

(a) Two tags for each of the following species: elk, mule deer, whitetail deer, bison (buffalo) and bear.

( B ) One tag for each of the following species: desert bighorn sheep, rocky mountain bighorn sheep, pronghorn (antelope), merriam's turkey, rio grande turkey and gould's turkey.

2. Legislator tags shall be reserved for resale by auction, shall be species specific and shall be valid for any open season for that species for a specific hunt area with the legal weapon allowed for that season. Legislator tags shall be issued in the following numbers for all of the following big game species and apply to all of the following hunt areas:

(a) At least ten tags, and at least one tag for each hunt area, for bull elk in hunt areas that offer all of the following three types of hunts:

(i) Early archery bull elk hunts.

(ii) Either early muzzleloader bull elk hunts or early rifle bull elk hunts.

(iii) Late bull elk hunts.

( B ) One tag for whitetail deer for each hunt area that offers late hunts.

? One tag for mule deer for each hunt area that offers a general season hunt and is located north of the Colorado river.

(d) Two tags for antelope valid for all hunt numbers as the commission specifies in any of regions 1, 2, 3 and 5 as in existence on January 1, 2012, except that both tags shall not be from the same region.

3. Sportsmen tags shall be reserved for resale by raffle and shall be valid for a specific hunt number. Sportsmen tags shall be issued in the following numbers for all of the following big game species and apply to all of the following hunt numbers:

(a) One tag for each hunt number for mule deer and one tag for each hunt number for whitetail deer.

( B ) At least twenty-one bull elk tags for early bull elk hunts as follows:

(i) At least eight tags for rifle bull elk hunts with at least one tag for each hunt number.

(ii) At least five tags for muzzleloader bull elk hunts comprising at least one tag for each bull elk hunt number.

(iii) Eight tags for archery-only bull elk hunts comprising one tag for each of the following eight hunt areas as in existence on January 1, 2012: 1, 3a/3c, 8, 9, 10, 22, 23 and 27.

? Ten tags for late bull elk hunts from the general season with not more than one tag in any hunt number as the commission specifies.

(d) Two pronghorn (antelope) tags from the general season comprising one tag for each of hunt areas 10 and 19a as in existence on January 1, 2012.

(e) Fourteen spring Merriam's turkey tags with not more than two tags for each hunt area as the commission specifies and with hunt dates occurring in April or May.

(f) Twenty-five peccary (javelina) tags comprising ten tags from the general season, ten tags from the archery season and five tags from the ham season as the commission specifies. Not more than two of the twenty-five tags shall be for the same hunt area.

(g) Fifty antlerless elk tags as the commission specifies.

(h) Except as provided by subdivision (f) of this paragraph, the department shall reserve no legislator or sportsmen tags for hunt numbers that are exclusively for C.H.A.M.P. hunts, ham hunts or juniors hunts as designated by the department or for hunts assigned by the department only for bonus points.

C. The department and the qualified organization must enter into the original contract within thirty days after the effective date of this section. The original contract shall provide that the department shall sell in bulk to the qualified organization the rights to resell all the tags specified in subsection B of this section not later than September 1 of each year beginning in 2013. The date in the original contract for the first sale in bulk shall not be later than October 1, 2012, unless the parties mutually agree on a later date. For the original contract and each contract thereafter, the governor tags sold in bulk shall be for the three hundred sixty-five day period beginning the following august 15, and the legislator and sportsmen tags sold in bulk shall be for hunt seasons as specified by the department that are in the one-year period beginning the following July 1. As a condition to negotiating the original contract between the department and the qualified organization under subsection A of this section, a qualified organization shall pay the department:

1. A nonrefundable one-time fee of ten thousand dollars for the cost to the department to implement and administer this section.

2. For the first bulk sale of rights to resell tags an advance deposit of twenty-five thousand dollars, which shall be applied as a credit toward the amount due from the qualified organization under subsection D, paragraph 2 of this section.

D. Not later than September 1 of each year beginning in 2013, the department and the qualified organization shall enter into an addendum to the original contract to conform the contract to the current fees for tags. The original contract and the annual addenda are subject to the following conditions:

1. The rights to the tags shall be sold to the qualified organization at the generally applicable resident fee for those hunt tags as specified and published for the applicable season.

2. The right to resell the rights to the tags for issuance by the department after resale vests in the qualified organization on payment in full of the total resident fees for all tags rights to which are sold to it in bulk.

E. Notwithstanding section 17-332, subsection D, the rights to tags may be resold by auction and raffle as provided by this section. The qualified organization shall only designate to the department for issuance of a tag individuals who have presented to the qualified organization a valid hunting or combination license, except a three-day class H license.

F. Under the rules of the department and as provided by the original contract between the department and qualified organization, the department shall issue the reserved tags to individuals whom the qualified organization designates as having purchased the right to a specific reserved tag by auction or raffle, subject to the following conditions:

1. Nothing in this section, including subsection D, paragraph 2 of this section, requires the department to issue a legislator or sportsmen tag if a hunt is not established for the species and hunt area for which the tag was reserved.

2. If a nonresident individual purchases the rights to a tag by auction or raffle, the department shall not issue the tag until the nonresident pays to the department the difference between the published resident fee and published nonresident fee for the tag.

3. Except for payment as required by paragraph 2 of this subsection, a nonresident who purchases a tag by auction or raffle at the annual sportsmen exposition is not subject to any otherwise applicable restriction on issuance of the tag to a nonresident.

4. An individual to whom the department issues a tag may later transfer the tag only as department allows by rule.

G. The tag is valid for the year and season of the hunt that the commission prescribes, except for governor and legislator tags as prescribed in subsection B, paragraphs 1 and 2 of this section. The qualified organization shall not re-sell to an individual by raffle the rights to more than one tag per species per year, except that for the purposes of this limitation mule deer and whitetail deer are considered separate species.


**** Big game taken under tags issued under this section do not count toward normal bag limits for the species that the commission establishes.****

The department shall not in any manner restrict participation by any individual in the department's annual draws for tags based on the individual's possession of, or participation in the process to purchase rights to reserved tags under this section.

H.******* The qualified organization shall first apply the proceeds from the resale by auction and raffle of the rights to tags to cover all costs associated with the annual sportsmen exposition in this state and any county chapter banquets at which rights to tags are auctioned or raffled. The qualified organization shall apply the remaining proceeds from the resale by auction and raffle of the rights to tags in this state for programs to achieve any of the following purposes, including the qualified organization's costs of administration:*******

1. To sustain or create sportsmen education and outdoor programs for youth of this state.

2. To facilitate access for sportsmen to cross private lands onto public lands.

3. To sustain or enhance habitat in this state and to increase targeted species populations for deer, sheep, elk, pronghorn (antelope) and turkey in this state.

4. To facilitate public education and communications programs relating to sportsmen and wildlife issues.

5. To protect sportsmen heritage.

6. To conduct other programs or activities that promote concepts consistent with the north american model of wildlife conservation.

I. The legislature finds that all of the purposes in subsection h, paragraphs 1 through 6 of this section complement and enhance the department's management of wildlife in the public trust under this title to include current and future programs in the department's strategic plan and comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy. For the purposes listed in subsection h of this section, the qualified organization may use the proceeds, solely or in conjunction with other organizations, to make matching or other grants to the department and to organizations that are qualified pursuant to section 501?(3) of the internal revenue code and whose articles of incorporation or bylaws stipulate that the mission or purpose of the organization is to increase, sustain or otherwise conserve specific species of wildlife. Beginning in 2014, not later than march 31 of each year the qualified organization shall file with the department a report adopted by resolution of its board of directors that specifies for the preceding calendar year the amounts of the proceeds from the sale by auction and raffle of rights to tags at the exposition and annual banquets, of the costs associated with the exposition and annual banquets, of the monies paid for each of the six purposes listed under subsection h of this section and of the costs of administration. For the purposes of this subsection, "strategic plan and comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy" means the department's "wildlife 2012: strategic plan for the years 2007‑2012" and "arizona's comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy: 2005‑2015" and their respective successor and modified plans and strategies.

J. Unless defined in this subsection or for the purposes of this title, the terms used in this section have the meanings prescribed by the department by rule. For the purposes of this section:

1. "Early bull elk hunts" means hunts for elk with hunt dates occurring during weeks 37, 38, 39 or 40.

2. "Hunt area" means an area as defined by the commission as of january 1, 2012 or as later redefined but pertaining to the same or similar area.

3. "Hunt number" means the number assigned by commission order to any hunt area where a limited number of hunt tags is available.

4. "Late bull elk hunts" means hunts for bull elk with hunt dates occurring during weeks 47, 48 or 49.

5. "Late whitetail deer hunts" means hunts for whitetail deer with hunt dates occurring during weeks 50, 51 or 52.

6. "Qualified organization" means an organization that is qualified pursuant to section 501?(3) of the internal revenue code and that meets all of the following conditions:

(a) Its membership includes a significant cross-section of species‑specific wildlife conservation and sportsmen organizations from throughout this state.

( B ) It is not a member of, does not hold a charter from and is not a chapter of a national wildlife conservation or sportsmen organization.

? It has been in existence for at least five years.

7. "Tag" means the applicable hunt permit-tag as defined by rule. END_STATUTE

Sec. 2. Implementation; exemption from rule making

A. Within thirty days after the effective date of this act, the Arizona game and fish commission shall adopt any rules that are necessary for the department to timely enter into the original contract and make the sale in bulk of rights to tags for the hunt seasons beginning July 1, 2013 for legislator and sportsmen tags and for the hunting period beginning August 15, 2013 for governor tags.

B. Except as provided by subsection A of this section, for the purposes of this act the Arizona game and fish commission is exempt from the rule making requirements of title 41, chapter 6, Arizona Revised Statutes, for six months after the effective date of this act.


KEY ISSUE IN ***** ******


they want a no limit per yr on special tags so them rich folks can kill all they want

they then try to bribe the g&f with the 30
you missed the first 1/2 the fight over on the az thread

they wanted it all no guidelines paid in full not 10%

we stopped it from goin the first time, they betrayed organizations they were suppose to represent ,they do not care about anyone or anything but themselves


chris statement says ***** WE decided **** so they really do not care about the sprostman or the different organizations ****** IT is all about the $$$ in the pocket
the rest is a SCAM !*******

chris knew !
 
I am actually not aware of the exact bill other than what I have read in the previouse comments on this thread. I do not necessarily care for auction tags myself specially when you consider I could never have enough money to buy one ha ha. Anyway I will say as crazy as it seems the fact is an extrememly large amount of money gets raised by the killing of one animal, I think that the money given back to areas through the auction tag and the raffle tag is great! Does as much of it get spent where it should?....who knows. However I would point out that out of say 150k for one mule deer probably a lot more than the $17.50 or whatever it is we residents pay for a deer tag is given back to the wildlife. I definitly would not be glad to see 350 of them out there but the 3 per year per species that we currently have does not bother me a bit. Regardless of what happened with this bill (and I dont consider myself to be educated in regards to the exacts of this bill, therefore please note that I am not commenting on the bill itself) I will stand out and say that I personally know Chris, not through any tie economically but just as a mutual friend of a friend. I have sat around a wall tent with him many many times and will say he is as honest and sincere of a guy as they come. Rather he made a mistake in this bill I have no idea but I will personally say that I honestly believe he would never do anything without wildlife and sportsmans best interest in mind. That being said everyone makes mistakes rather this was one of them or not of coarse is a matter of opinion.

I will tell you about the time I first met chris though, he was doing a hunt in Arizona with a disabled young boy who was wheelchair bound and very unmobile....They brought the boy in from back east because he wanted to kill an elk. In a tougher area of Arizona Chris along with some other noble volunteers carried not only the boys medical necesities, along with a shooting setup, and Chris himself carried the boy on his back ! (dont remember but I want to say the young man was 12 years old so he was not small!)They set up on a bull and ended up providing the kid an opportunity to shoot a 340 class bull. The kid shot it (a process in its own that had to have some devine intervention in my opinion) and he was able to experience something the rest of us take for granted! They stopped by or camp on the way out that day and I stood there at the ripe age of 18 years old at that time and listened to the kids dad tell the story and litterally cry the whole time about the men standing with them who had just litterally carried his son so that he could kill a elk, I have never seen a smile as big as was on that little boys face that day and I will never forget it! What Chris and those other men did for that family on that day is nothing short of amazing in my opinion.

Once again I do not care to discuss the bill as I dont consider myslef in a properly informed position to, but I will stand here and say that in my opinion Chris Denham is a honest, nice, sincere gentlemen who I would trust to the end. If the bill was as bad as it sounds then it was definitly a mistake, but it was a mistake made with the best intentions and I dont know about the rest of you buy I can honestly say I have made my fair share of mistakes as well.
 
I've said on here before that Elk Hunter Magazine has the perfect forum to speak out against auction/raffle tags. I hope they do.

But after reading Chris' post which sounded sincere, and the quality of the magazine I received, I guess I have to subscribe. If for no reason other to monitor any editorial type comments they make.
 
It still makes me wonder why organizations other than state F&G departments need to auction off tags. If its such a great way to make money let F&G do it, seems simple to me.
The back and forth with hating/liking auction tags seems a little fishy,especially if he took so long to intelligently digest these opinions and views before replying. I still wont hold any of this against the magazine and plan to subscribe, but in my opinion hes still for the tags being auctioned off to the highest bidder.
 

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