What B.S. They asked not to impliment Judge Bloomfield's orders due to "Hardship" and delaying the draw. That is just a plain lie. They knew who was in/out either way, and had the numbers for the meeting at 12:00. Rersults were posted within hours. Tey just plain lied to the Honorable Judge Broomfield. I may be a bit more upset, because my name is on the alternate list, but resorting to lies is just plain wrong.
AZ Comission- Liars
- Thread starter ElmerFudd
- Start date
A
AZbowhntr
Guest
What are you talking about a alternate list? If your name is Thixton B Miller you drew a unit 27 bull tag. Those are the extra tags that they are giving to comply with the no 10% cap.
This is the B.S. excuse they wanted to take my tag on:
State asks court permission to continue current hunt draw process
Wildlife News
July 16, 2004
PHOENIX ? The Arizona Game and Fish Commission is asking a federal court to allow it to continue the fall hunt permit drawing?with the nonresident cap intact.
At a public meeting of the commission today, Assistant Attorney General Jim Odenkirk informed the public that the Game and Fish Department has filed a motion for temporary relief from a court order imposed July 13. That order, by U.S. District Judge Robert Broomfield, declared Arizona?s 10 percent cap on nonresident hunt permits unconstitutional and directed the department to refrain from enforcing the cap.
In the midst of the commission meeting, Broomfield?s office responded to the motion by scheduling a teleconference with plaintiffs? and department attorneys the morning of July 19. The teleconference will be held at 10 a.m.
Following the teleconference, the Game and Fish Commission will hold another public meeting to take further action. The commission meeting will be held at noon, Monday, July 19, at the Wildlife Building on the Arizona State Fairgrounds, 1826 W. McDowell Rd.
The motion for temporary relief asks the judge to allow the department to finish the fall hunt draw already begun. In the motion, Odenkirk calls the judge?s injunction ?an extraordinary circumstance that will lead to unexpected hardship? and says the department had almost completed the process of issuing hunt permits. The motion also says the order jeopardizes the department's ability to issue permits before the first hunt on Aug. 6.
Meantime, the commission has ordered the department to release the names of applicants who have been drawn for species not affected by the court ruling: buffalo, bighorn sheep, turkey and antelope. That information will be released by 5 p.m. on July 20.
The court ruling directly affects those hunters who applied for a bull elk permit or who applied for a permit to hunt antlered deer in Hunt Units 12A, 12B, 13A and 13B (north of the Colorado River), and delays draw results for all deer and elk hunt applicants.
More than 270,000 people applied for big game permits for the fall hunt.
More than 120 of those applicants turned out for today?s Game and Fish Commission meeting, many of them to implore the commission and the department to find new ways to protect residents? opportunities to hunt.
Game and Fish Director Duane Shroufe says they intend to do just that.
?This court decision does not mean that the department will abandon its efforts to maintain the highest possible level of resident hunting opportunity,? he says.
The department's deputy director, Steve Ferrell, says it's critical that Arizonans have a fair opportunity to benefit from, and protect, the state?s wildlife resources.
?We are very disappointed with the ruling,? says Ferrell. ?We believe that maintaining resident opportunity is the best way to support conservation. Engaged residents are crucial in the support of wildlife management, by way of volunteerism, guardianship, and by financial and political means. Anything that diminishes resident interest in their wildlife resources ultimately threatens the support Arizona residents are uniquely positioned to provide.?
Montoya vs. Shroufe began in 2000, when Lawrence Montoya, a self-described professional hunter from New Mexico who also runs a guide service, sued the Game and Fish Department claiming that Commission Rule 12-4-114E, which established the 10 percent cap on nonresident hunt permits, violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
In the July 13 ruling, Judge Broomfield agreed and said it was up to the state to demonstrate the cap was the least discriminatory means available to protect its interests, which the judge said the state failed to do.
However, Broomfield also left the door open for the Game and Fish Department to find another method. Citing an earlier decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Broomfield said that ?Arizona has complete freedom to craft a rule which adequately serves its legitimate interests so long as it does not violate the Constitution.?
The Game and Fish Commission will discuss long-term options at a meeting to be held in Flagstaff, Aug. 13-14.
The department will keep hunters informed about the situation by posting news about the fall draw on its Web site, azgfd.com.
State asks court permission to continue current hunt draw process
Wildlife News
July 16, 2004
PHOENIX ? The Arizona Game and Fish Commission is asking a federal court to allow it to continue the fall hunt permit drawing?with the nonresident cap intact.
At a public meeting of the commission today, Assistant Attorney General Jim Odenkirk informed the public that the Game and Fish Department has filed a motion for temporary relief from a court order imposed July 13. That order, by U.S. District Judge Robert Broomfield, declared Arizona?s 10 percent cap on nonresident hunt permits unconstitutional and directed the department to refrain from enforcing the cap.
In the midst of the commission meeting, Broomfield?s office responded to the motion by scheduling a teleconference with plaintiffs? and department attorneys the morning of July 19. The teleconference will be held at 10 a.m.
Following the teleconference, the Game and Fish Commission will hold another public meeting to take further action. The commission meeting will be held at noon, Monday, July 19, at the Wildlife Building on the Arizona State Fairgrounds, 1826 W. McDowell Rd.
The motion for temporary relief asks the judge to allow the department to finish the fall hunt draw already begun. In the motion, Odenkirk calls the judge?s injunction ?an extraordinary circumstance that will lead to unexpected hardship? and says the department had almost completed the process of issuing hunt permits. The motion also says the order jeopardizes the department's ability to issue permits before the first hunt on Aug. 6.
Meantime, the commission has ordered the department to release the names of applicants who have been drawn for species not affected by the court ruling: buffalo, bighorn sheep, turkey and antelope. That information will be released by 5 p.m. on July 20.
The court ruling directly affects those hunters who applied for a bull elk permit or who applied for a permit to hunt antlered deer in Hunt Units 12A, 12B, 13A and 13B (north of the Colorado River), and delays draw results for all deer and elk hunt applicants.
More than 270,000 people applied for big game permits for the fall hunt.
More than 120 of those applicants turned out for today?s Game and Fish Commission meeting, many of them to implore the commission and the department to find new ways to protect residents? opportunities to hunt.
Game and Fish Director Duane Shroufe says they intend to do just that.
?This court decision does not mean that the department will abandon its efforts to maintain the highest possible level of resident hunting opportunity,? he says.
The department's deputy director, Steve Ferrell, says it's critical that Arizonans have a fair opportunity to benefit from, and protect, the state?s wildlife resources.
?We are very disappointed with the ruling,? says Ferrell. ?We believe that maintaining resident opportunity is the best way to support conservation. Engaged residents are crucial in the support of wildlife management, by way of volunteerism, guardianship, and by financial and political means. Anything that diminishes resident interest in their wildlife resources ultimately threatens the support Arizona residents are uniquely positioned to provide.?
Montoya vs. Shroufe began in 2000, when Lawrence Montoya, a self-described professional hunter from New Mexico who also runs a guide service, sued the Game and Fish Department claiming that Commission Rule 12-4-114E, which established the 10 percent cap on nonresident hunt permits, violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
In the July 13 ruling, Judge Broomfield agreed and said it was up to the state to demonstrate the cap was the least discriminatory means available to protect its interests, which the judge said the state failed to do.
However, Broomfield also left the door open for the Game and Fish Department to find another method. Citing an earlier decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Broomfield said that ?Arizona has complete freedom to craft a rule which adequately serves its legitimate interests so long as it does not violate the Constitution.?
The Game and Fish Commission will discuss long-term options at a meeting to be held in Flagstaff, Aug. 13-14.
The department will keep hunters informed about the situation by posting news about the fall draw on its Web site, azgfd.com.
A
AZbowhntr
Guest
Are you telling me that you drew a tag and your still not happy. And yes we have all read that. I think that if I had just drawn a unit 27 bull tag with only 25 total tags I wouldn't be posting messages about how the G&F is a bunch of liars. I don't know, that's just me.
No. I am extremely happy. Probabally celebrated too much, and I can become a mean drunk. Miller is not my real name either. Got to thinking that they wanted to take my tag, and the additional tags are really the ones that would have been removed from the first draw due to the order. Just semantics. Anyway, happy for all who drew and wish the best to the rest next year.
Zim
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,291
I am not a fan of any states that use NR's to subsidize hunting welfare for residents (that includes dam near all of'em), but I would not say enforcing the ruling this year did not cause a hardship. Because of the timing, AZF&G had two choices. Either redo the entire draw, pushing back the issuing of all the game tags. AZ already is way last in the US schedule-wise for issuing tags to begin with. Some of these hunts start in 3 weeks. - Or go back and issue the extra tags in the supplemental draw, throwing game mangement out the back door. Both suck. To me that qualifies as a hardship.
Zim from NW Indiana
Zim from NW Indiana
Get serious. They had all scenarios worked out. How else could they come up with results so quick. It was just all resorting random #'s. They could have just resorted, not reissued new random numbers. I was not upset, kind of hard to get upset after drawing an awesome tag. I admit I was being wise ass, not convincing myself I am a millionaire and have a mansion and yacht. But still, good one, Schmalts.
S
Someburro
Guest
Ya wanna know what is REALLY BS. Claiming that the reason AZ should be forced to give out more tags to NR's is because there is a thriving market for horns, hides, and ivory. Claiming that the reason he and his clients hunt is to obtain these items for re-sale. THAT'S THE REAL BS!
