Arizona Commissioners......Help.....

[Bura Nut]

I went to a meeting last night for Arizona Deer Association. We spent alot of time discussing the current proposals in front of the AZGFD.....It is my understanding that the head honcho's like Steve Ferrell and Duane Schrouff are not standing up for us the sportsmen. The commissioners are riding the fence but not as bad as the game department. If everyone has read the 9 or so bullet items on the AZGFD website you will see one of the bullet items addressing 90% recreational tags and 10% commercial. WE NEED TO SEE THIS PORTION IMPLEMENTED or next year the draw will be a free for all......send emails to all the commissioners supporting the 90/10 issue that was presented to them by various sportsmen groups.....this is crucial, flood the commissioners and the AZGFD with emails or we will be screwed this next year........ Thanks, Allen Taylor......

 

[Someburro]

Can you explain it with a little detail? Just hearing the word "commercial tag" makes me cringe.
How is this better than just outlawing commercial sale of animal parts?

 

[azhunter79]

I explained it in another post but im happy to do it again as i support this proposal as well.
the basis of USOs lawsuit is that out of state hunters do not have the same opportunity to make money from the sale of hides and horns (which is perfectly legal). so USO said this violates an obscure "interstate commerce" law and is limiting non residents and not allowing them to make money. very obscure i know. this is the whole basis of their lawsuit. what the game and fish dept proposal would do is attack that very issue. the bottom line of the lawsuit. what they are saying is that they will take 10% of the hunts and make them "commercial" (poor choice of words but if you see what they are getting at it makes sense) from these 10% of hunts you can sell all the antlers, hides, videos of the hunt, etc you want. you can make all the money you want off of that hunt (without selling the hunt or tag itself). these hunts will be open to all people residents and non and it will be equal. the OTHER 90% of the hunts will be "non commercial" hunts these hunts will only be open to residents. these hunts you will NOT be allowed (by law) to make any money on the hunt you will have to keep your hide and horns (most do anyway) and you wont be able to proffit if you film it etc. these hunts will be for residents only! that way if griz or USO comes in they cant argue this obscure interstate commerce law and say "non residents dont have the ability to make money" because 90% of the hunts you cant make money off of. i beleive it is everystates rights to regulate the sale of horns/hides, like some states allow trapping for profit some dont. some states you can sell sheep horns, some you cant, etc. the ONLY draw back to this option is that it will take a change in legislation (change in the law) to impliment. this is a problem since the legislation doesnt meet util after next years regulations come out. so if it does go through itll go through for the season after next. the commision has already warned that next year could be a free for all draw due to the lengthy timeing involved in getting something implimented. this is a VERY well proposed well thought of plan that gets my full support, and it should be supported by all residents. dont let the "commercial" scare you, all it is refering to is the ability to profit in some way from your hunt....without selling the hunt, or the tag etc. only through hide/horn sale, selling your story to a magazine, etc. i think most residents will gladly trade their ability to sell their horns to the opportunity to tip the scales back in their favor.
az79

 

[Chef]

Can you guys post the e-mail addresses of all those we would benefit in e-mailing to?

Thanks,
Chef
"I Love Animals...They're Delicious!"

 

[azhunter79]

if you go to www.azgfd.com there is a link on there to put in your oppinions, those are going to commisioners and feild offices. i would also encourage everyone to attend next weeks meetings at the Game and Fish office near you. they will be dirrectly discussing this and the other 8 options, i attended the last meeting and it was very informative and interesting.
az79

 

[Gamekiller]

Azhunter79, I think I follow you, but let me throw this twist at you. Isn't the USO lawsuit saying that NR do not have the same chance as Residents to make money off the sale of hide and horns? If this is the case, and you try and push this proposal through, isn't USO simply going to say that nothing has changed, and that NR still do not have a fair chance to make money off of hides and horns? Wouldn't it be much simpler to just non-commercialize hide and horns and keep all the rules as they currently are (10% CAP, etc.). Then USO's deal about making money off the deal, and thus the jist of the entire lawsuit, goes out the window. Just seems to me this is a much simpler solution. Gamekiller

 

[Someburro]

So, if this is the legal way around the courts ruling, we shouldn't need to raise the fees through the roof for NR's.

That move, raising the fee's, would do more to sway public opinion against us than any other measure.

 

[azhunter79]

that is also an option that they are looking at, it goes hand and hand with the commercial/noncommercial option.

but to answer your first question, no it wouldnt still descriminate agains non residents. look at it this way, the courts say you cant impose a cap because then they dont have the right to sell the hides and horns. and since its legal to sell hides and horns we have to be fair. so ANY hunts that you allow the sale of hides/horns (or any kind of profit) have to open to all. if NO hunts, or a percentage of hunts you CANT sell hide/horns from they have no case, because the non residents cannot sell hide/horn.
so since each state can regulate the sale of their animals they are simply making it so USOs case has no ground anymore. all the hunts that you can make money from (10%) will be open to everyone (like USO wanted except before it was ALL hunts), and the hunts that you CANNOT make money from (90%) will be all resident hunts.
this link will tell you the other options on the table, youll see that the 90/10 option is the only one that significantly tips the scales back in the residents favor. the others are good as well, but this is the one we need implimented!
http://www.azgfd.com/artman/publish/article_155.shtml

 

[azhunter79]

your right burro, we wouldnt need to raise the NR prices at all. although some of the other options the comission is looking at would still be good to impliment. some of the points options.

 

[NVBighorn]

So the "non-commercial hunt" rules of not making money from the non-commercial tag would only apply to the tag owner themselves? They (residents with non-commercial tags) would still be allowed to hire a guide if they desired and the guide could make money from the hunt? Am I right on that? I think residents will still want to be able to hire a guide if they wanted like in the case of say sheep. A taxidermist would still be making money from them as would butchers, etc, etc. It would seem to me it would have to be pretty specific to the tag owner or you are still stifling commerce. Need to make sure it doesn't bite you and that it can't be considered discriminatory by the ninth circus. I like it though.

 

[Someburro]

LAST EDITED ON Aug-19-04 AT 01:09PM (MST)[p]And all the lawyer types are POSITIVE this would satisfy the courts? Nothing could be worse than to implement a change like that and have it struck down.

On a side note, I was hoping that they would consider mandating that tags only be mailed to the tag holders address, not some yahoo's address in Taos, NM.

*wink*

 

[azhunter79]

yes, as a hunter you could still hire a guide, and purchase services relating to the hunt. what you cant profit from as the tagholder is the sale of the animal or any parts of the animal, and i imagine any production of the hunt either video or writen. im not a lawyer and im not 100% positive of the finer details of the proposal. honestly all hte questions ya'll have would be great questions to ask at one of the g&f meetings next week. i will be at the monday night meeting in mesa and i'll have a print out of these questions to bring up. ill let you know what they tell me.
burro, a lot of people brought that up in the last meeting, however im not sure if it would work well, USO would just put in under a residents address, and it would limit a lot of the residents who actually use PO boxes, but i know it was brought up several times. also, i dont think the lawyers know what the courts will do with any desicion. the bad part of the 9th circuit is that they are unpredictable. just the fact that the proposal has made it this far would lead me to believe that it has been looked at closely and wouldnt violate the judges orders...but then again, when your working with lawyers and judges you never know what the outcome will be!
az79

 

[Bura Nut]

AZ79 answered right on track EXCEPT we still have time on our side to implement changes that will take place for this next year. The timeline as I understand it will be to have the commission make a recommendation on sept. 18th then this is forwarded to the AG who then it is on the legislative docket.......for approval in April/May......I may be wrong on some dates but as of last nights ADA meeting that was the general consensus......as to mailing tags to a Taos P.O. box, that issue has been put to bed. AZGFD will require a home address so no more mailing tags out to George...... Thanks, Allen Taylor......

 

[caelkhnter]

I think Gamekiller is correct. I think it will be discrimainating and if the same Judge looked at it he would disapprove. What is the rational basis to have 10% of tags be commercial and the rest not commercial. Moreover why can't a nonres. who is not interested in commercial be allowed to put in for the noncommercial tags. I think the Judge would say that something is wrong with preventing nonres. from trying to get a noncommercial tag. It would seem to me that if you want this to work just make all the tags noncommercial and then impose your 10% rule. I would be very careful not to do something that the Judge may get mad about and then issue even more difficult to deal with orders.

 

[azhunter79]

doing away with commercializing game and going back to the 10% cap is still an option they are looking at, it goes hand and hand with the 90/10 option.
bura, you could be right, but i think the legislation meets for 2 months starting in april, which would put that up for voting in april, but i think all decisions made by the legislatures dont go into effect until after the legislaters meet...two months from april. not sure if this is true or not...but i think thats the way it goes. will you be at any of the meetings next week? at the last g&F meeting i went to one of the commisioners was there and told us we could very well have an open draw next season because of time constraints, but hopefully all this will get straightened out before that.
will you be at any of the meetings next week?
az79

 

[Bura Nut]

I will be at the Mesa meeting monday barring any problems getting back from NM Antelope hunting this weekend. As to the timetable I am speaking from what we discussed last night at the ADA meeting. We spoke about Scott Bales (the attorney who specializes in commerce law). He is the person who presented the 90/10 option. In his opinion the 90/10 option would work. As most of you know this issue is deeper/more complex than it appears. In addition to the complexity, the timetable Mike spoke of is very very real or we wont affect change until 2006. Apparently if all goes well and the commission proposes what most sportsmen groups have backed then it will reach all the necessary channels to make Statute changes and make it on the books for next year. I sure know most people involved are pushing for this too happen for 2005....... Thanks, Allen Taylor......

 

[azhunter79]

Allen, good luck in NM, looking forward to meeting you in mesa.
Mike Medley

 

[RELH]

Allen;

Maybe I am being pessimistic about this issue, but I see possible trouble on the horizon. I am concerned about your statement that certain commissioners and the game dept. are riding the fence on this issue to turn around USO's lawsuit.
You need to find out if these people are more concerned about selling more high price NR tags, under the disguise of having to do so because of the lawsuit, or want to continue the tradition of resident hunters being able to buy the bulk of the tags at a much lower price, which means less money in their budgets.
After working for a goverment agency for 30 years and seeing first hand how local and state gov. agencies do business, I am lacking in trust for them to do the right thing when it comes to getting more money for their budgets. I call it "job preservation".
I mentioned in another forum that I would not be surprised if your own game dept. sought a back door to increasing the sale of high price NR tags over the cheaper resident tags in order to raise more money for their pet projects, which would include higher salaries for themselfs. Of course they would try to do it in a manner that would not bring "unbearable" heat on them, and USO winning that lawsuit could be their vessel for this change.
If these commissioners and your own game dept. shows lack of support in getting behind you and the other local hunters, you better start smelling a rat, and figure that they are more concerned with the "money issue" then they are with protecting their state rights and the rights of their own state hunters.
I hope that I am not right about this lack of trust, because all of us hunters will lose, resident and non-resident, over the long haul.
I guess that I am this way because I have seen my own state game commission and game dept. bow down to minority pressure and the money power. Are your game commissioners and head of game dept. appointed by state politicians, if so, be careful, this could go deeper then you may want to think.


RELH

 

[azhunter79]

i may be naive and too trusting but after going to some of the meetings and knowing that our game commisioners are sportsmen themselves i trust they are making desicions for the good of arizona hunters. im not sure if they are elected or appointed or how it works, but i believe they are all sportsmen first and commisioners second. this is just my opinion. i think the reason some may still be on the fence with this is that they dont want to go through the time, trouble and effort to impliment something that could get shot down by the judge and bring us back to square one. with such a HUGE responsibility and so much at stake you cant blame the commission for being hesitant about ANY proposal that is brought to the table. i have confidence in our commision to make a desicion.
az79

 

[Someburro]

Exactly!
We cannot afford to have a kneejerk reaction and get blown out of the water again. Don't try something you THINK MIGHT work, just to save next years draw. Get it right the firs time. I hope this lawyer is certain that this will be an acceptable solution.

 

[ElmerFudd]

How about changing it back to like it was before, but anyone can also enter the draw under "Commercially Licensed" status. A commercial license would require lengthy and costly classes, testing and permits, that not many would do. One in the draw under commercial licensed status would not be subject to the nonresident cap, but there would not be enough in that status to affect the draw much.

 

[RELH]

ElmerFudd;

Your idea may stop alot of non-residents from applying for those commercial license due to the added requirements and cost, but those added requirements and costs would also have to apply to any local state hunter applying for the same license. If this is not appled equally to all hunters, the 9th. Circuit Court would kick it out. Now do you really think that the local state hunters will be happy with a bunch of more requirements and paperwork with added fees, in order to get a license to hunt a deer, elk, or antelope in their own state. I don't think so.

RELH

 

[ElmerFudd]

Why? They have commercial and non commercial fishing licenses for the ocean. The same resource, different rules, costs, etc. Commercial fisherman are quitting because licenses are getting too tough to get. The draw would be the same, but unless you held a comercial license, nonresidents would be restricted to the cap.

 

[BigAZB]

All we have to do in AZ is find the least discriminatory method of issuing tags, it can actually be less then 10%. I have no clue how to accomplish this, but with all of the efforts being displayed on this forum, there must be a way. What we also need to do is hire the same lawyer that kicked our butts in AZ. You do know that this lawyer that spanked us in AZ is the same lawyer that represented an az res to have NM game and fish change the method they used to distributed their tags several years ago, he won that one too!. Does anybody know his name??
Brian in AZ