AZ Commission Meeting

The only info I have seen has been on Bowsite's AZ forum. This is pasted from there.

http://www.bowsite.com/bowsite/tf/regional/thread.cfm?threadid=98736&MESSAGES=29&state=AZ

"14. The online draw process has been eliminated for the next year only and the commission is requiring the department to find a way to bring it back at the end of one year.

15a. The loyalty bonus point passed with five years of consecutive application. The bonus point pass percentage was raised to 20%.

15b. All big game applicants will have to buy a license to apply for a permit subject to further examination by the AG?s office.

15c. The conservation bonus point will go forward in this format: 48hrs earns one bonus point, you may earn unlimited bonus points, points are lost when drawn, you may only earn one point per year.

15d. There will be a $10 administrative fee charged for each bonus point you earn.

15e. The 10% set-aside idea was scrapped.

15f. The 90% non-commercial, 10% commercial idea was scrapped. A change was made that will apply only to sheep and will make all sheep permits non-commercial and outlaw the sale of sheep parts. 90% of sheep tags will go to residents and 10 to 15 percent may be set-aside for non-residents. The non-resident set-aside may be adjusted up or down depending upon how the state can justify the impact made by non-residents upon resident hunt opportunities. This is also subject to examination by the AG?s office. This seems to be a trial run?

15g. Non-commercial only, for sheep only.

16. Yes, the smart plan was chosen. Junior hunters will have no fee increases.

All caps or % have been done away with except for sheep, that includes buffalo. Residents and non-residents will have the same opportunity to draw all species except for sheep. Sheep was the only species that they made non-commercial and banned the sale of parts. The 10% of tags being set-aside for non-resident sheep are non-commercial just the same as the resident tags.

let me explain what agenda item 16, "smart pricing" is. These fee increases for permits are based more on the value of the animal. They have added two new categories. They have split deer and bull elk into two categories, "deer" and "premium deer (N. of the Colorado)". "Bull elk" and "premium bull elk (early bull)". On an average the resident to non-resident pricing will be 1/9 or non-residents being nine times higher than residents. This seems to be consistent with other states nation wide. I will give you some examples of what the new pricing may be. Keep in mind these prices are cap prices submitted to the governor and legislature, the actual prices will be lower.
Deer: res. $50, non-resident $200
Premium deer: res. $150, non-resident $1200
Bull elk: res. $150, non-resident $775
Premium bull elk: res. $350, non-resident $3200
Sheep: res. $335, non-res. $3000
Bull buffalo: res. $1000, non-res. $5000
Antelope: res. $90, non-res. $630
What will probably happen is that resident fees will be below the stated caps and non-resident fees will be very close to the stated caps." (end cut-n-paste)


What dismays me personally is the high cost of nonresident permits(yes, I am a non resident hunter in other states and don't like the direction this road may be headed)and the non-preference that residents will receive in the draw.
I also find it interesting that after all the interest in the original court decisions, USO and their sponsorships, and the G&F survey meetings, that very little has been said about the commissioners' meeting and their decisions.

Doug/RedRabbit
 
Doug-Thanks for the post. We were out at a bass tourney for a few days. It looks like some good, some bad. It will help to get rid of the stupid $5 computer draw and raise the costs a bit. I also hope that NR are not at the top even though I live here. I am glad about the volunteer points. It looks like the AG is conservative and will test the water before pushing the caps too hard. It will be interesting to see how this affects our hunting.
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-19-04 AT 06:38PM (MST)[p]I also have the Online Survey results, in anyone wants to have a look. They are in .pdf format, so hard to post here. (I'm too lazy to extract the info) There were a few surprises.

Even more surprising was that many of the Commission's decisions countered the recommendations (majority-wise) of the Online Survey.....

Marshall MacFarlane


www.parchedmuskrat.com
 
I just got back from bow elk so I have been out of pocket. It looks like the commissioners wussed out and now the "average hunter" resident and non-resident alike is being priced out of hunting opportunities. I am not surprised the commissioners went against the survey reports from the public. If what is posted above about tag fees etc. is true, then we need to get rid of AZGFD top management and the wussy commissioners........p.s. ZZZZZZZZZIM this is our legal system you so love. Let me know if you love this pricing system now??????? Allen Taylor......
 
I have problem with such a hike in the resident fees I live in Arizona I pay approx. 700 dollars in vehicle registraion I have payed aprrox.800 dollars in state taxes already and now they want to get more money out of me. This is one of the highest taxed states around they already pull enough out of my pockets.

Brian
 
Those are not the prices of next years tags. Those are the legal MAXIMUMS they can charge.
 
I don't know what to think. Here we are , trying to be as vocal and supportive for our resident hunter's rights and the commission does what they think is best in complete disregard to public opinion. Like I said, I don't know what to think at this moment. It's hard for me to comprehend right now that the commission went against the public's wishes.

Why did they ask in the first place?

Regards,
PO'd Chef
 
On September 11, 2001, one man pulled off his plan.

I don't know what to think?

On July 13th of this year, one judge announced the victory of one mans plan against public wishes. What I do know is that this man is not satisfied and he will be bring his attorney to your state. It is not hard to understand. I understand it very clear. Hope you do to.
 
I fully agree with Res. Hunters should have preference in drawing a tag! The pricing listed above is just what I thought this bull ##### would turn into. Now who can afford to put in for an elk, tag USO clients! Not the average guys!!!!!!! I don't mind buying the hunt license before the draw I have three this year from other states but close to $3000 for a tag is only playing into USO hands. His clients can afford it. George wins again!!!

buckshot
 
GREED GREED GREED GREED wait til next year when the other states raise there prices. I bet PETA is having a ball. There probally saying, let this type of price war continue and there will be no hunting. These stupid states and hunters are doing it to themselves. They win!!!!! WE LOSE!!!! Is this how we want this resolved?
 
Allen-What is the next step for us? I am upset with the politics as usual crap. Between Taulman, the judge and our own weak kneed department it looks like the money won here and all our efforts to attend the metings was a waste of time. Do we start a campaign to the legislators? Do we march on the capitol? Do we find out the USO camp locations and set up within five feet of them? I can see that my grandson may never be able to hunt in his own state if we let this one go. There is nothing worse than a lawyer rubbing our noses in the dung and we need to flex our muscle here if we have any left. Sad day IMO.

Glen Harwell
 
I believe they have a camp in unit 7w by potatoe hill. Stop by and tell them hi.... I dont know where they have other camps. The residents should go after the AZGFD for not protecting the resident hunting opportunities. They are right at the same level with Taulman IMO.
 
not sure where to go from here....
at the very bottom of the az game and fish website
( www.azgfd.com )
there is a "comments" link, I encourage all of you to email them your displeasure in the way this was handled and how they went against the public's wishes. let them know how you feel, remember they are here to serve us and the wildlife...and if you feel they are not doing either of these to the best of their ability let them know it!
mike medley
 
I was not in attendance at the meeting but I do know that George sent his attorney in to tell them that any caps they put in place wouldn't work. I know that one of the commissioners did tell Taulmans lawyer that a change in his attitude was warranted or he could leave the meeting. I can't believe the arrogance displayed as he sent his minion to the meeting to try to negotiate something for his benefit.
The commissioners serve and can be held liable personally if they come up with solutions that are opposed or circumventing the judges ruling so things aren't quite as clear as they seem.
Residents and nonresidents alike will lose as a result of Taulman's action. Some things are better left alone. His pursuit of greed will leave all of us picking up the tab. The commission by law must protect the rights of the residents of the state of AZ and afford them the opportunity to hunt for recreation. Every state has similiar laws in place that I know of. Our Gov. and the AG have not supported the Game and Fish department and it's commissioners in a forthright manner in my opinion to render enough legal support. Yes, things are a mess right now but they are not the fault of the AZ Game & Fish department. They are the result of George Taulman and USO. Cause and effect gentlemen at it's finest. Your frustrations with the changing hunting regulation and fee structure need to be directed towards USO because without their need for a larger share of the all permits none of this would have been made possible. We owe them a real debt of gratitude don't we. But let's keep it civil to avoid any negative press that could damage us in the long run. We need to beat him ethicly, morally and legally at his own game.
 
Chris, I agree with you on many things but I must point out one issue you must not be aware of. Back a couple years ago when this all started, our own AZGFD turned down the opportunity to negotiate an actual 10% cap versus the "up to 10%" draw. This is common knowledge and to add fuel to the fire, our own legal beagles told USO that AZGFD was basically untouchable. I believe the AZ assistant AG was the pompus person who without the sportsmen's voice told USO to go to H#LL and sent this issue much further than we would have wanted. I know most residents would have been fine with 10% non-res. If you come to a few of the ADA meetings you can find out alot of internal information that would make you throw up. I witnessed Steve Ferrell stand up in front of ADA and speak like Bill Clinton. He was not willing to stand up for residents and was more concerned about his position and what his next promotion might be. I also have watched in utter amazement how one commissioner, Golightly who is a self proclaimed hunter who is not backing our sportsmen at all. I understand this is a complicated process that is exactly why I have tried to go to each meeting and talk with as many AZGFD people as well as concerned sportsmen. I just think that with all the conservation groups that help support the AZGFD through financing many non-funded projects that they would have listened to one of our common themes that we did not want to price people out of hunting. Allen Taylor......
 
I heard from a couple of landowners in small towns that if the state messes this one up and they lose their opportunity to hunt at a fair price they would consider poaching. I just about fell off my chair as I hate poachers. After thinking about it if things get ridiculous due to this lawsuit and our heritage is destroyed then will reasonable men become criminals as an act of protest? Now that would be a sad day for our sport.
 
I do not know the details of the decision or whether a final decision has yet been made but based on what is reported in this post I must say I have grave concerns. It seems to me that the big winner may be USO! I guess George will get the last laugh. I am sure most of George's clients can pay $3200 to hunt elk. I doubt that many average hunters can. I was in favor of Az. raising it fees but ten-fold?? I think if this keeps going the average will just have another reason not to hunt and it won't be long before the antis will suceed with legislation outlawing all hunting. I do not want to over react but I really do think the state may have gone to far to punish USO and in reality hurt the average hunters without ever having any effect on USO. I just hope it is not as bad as the info on the posts seems to indicate.
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-20-04 AT 07:38PM (MST)[p]Allen I have attended quite a few meetings over the years and even more recently and while I agree with the we got sold up the river idea in principle it was never Mr. Taulmans intent to settle for 10% of the tags unless he could cut a deal to get a portion for himself as he did in NM. He knew the cap idea was weak and the real mistake we made here was not banning the sale of wildlife parts in Az IMO. Hunting then is for only receational purposes and his argument is gone. California already has the same law on the books and it has been challenged in the 9th circut court on 3 occassions and in each instance it was found to be legal. I for the life of me can't understand why they can do it there but we can't here? Our commission in attempting to be fair to all people some of which derive a portion of their income for antler sales wanted to go another direction so as to not impact the resident. When the 90/10 thing came about Georges mouth was watering in so much as plain and simple they were passing a law that would restrict commerce the very vehicle he has used to defeat the state in the first place. He sent his minion to Az to inform them of just that and to let them know that caps in any way wouldn't work so let's negotiate. Kind of fortuitous timing that private lands started to get locked up right about the start of the hunt and a more pronounced request for landowner tags was made. I'm sure they will find a way to kick his a$$ but it's going to take some time and money. Least not we forget in Nevada he wants more then 10% and legal damages since they have harmed his income as well. Will this nightmare ever end. I am in complete agreement with you about the AG office but let's not forget they serve the governor who really hasn't demonstrated she's pro hunting in any fashion. This is one huge mess and all of us will be paying the bill for years to come.I like you am disappointed with the way they chose not to abide by the results of the survey but I have to feel there were some weak legal arguments in the content and they felt if safer to stand down. That's a battle that can be fought later. Politics run amuck and Taulmans greed to the forefront.
 
Right on Skeets!

Why does everyone keep saying the hunter is the loser and taulman is the winner? It's not over yet. If you for greed rip the heart out of the average hunter of America, does that make you the winner? For how long? If the NRA gets off their butt and boycotts him and every American boycotts him, why would he want to sue anyone? He will have no clients. Alas, he is marlin fishing in Mexico. If the average hunter boycotts anyone that supports or even talks to him, the message will win in the end. Hasta
 
Why does everyone think that those are the actual amounts for tags. The prices listed are the Maximum amounts the state could charge. Besides, those amounts still have to be voted on. The law currently says the max is like $400 for an elk tag. They can't raise the fee one cent above that until the law is changed.
 
Cody,
While I agree with your thought process in theory, giving a politician a free new source of revenue so they can fund one program and take away from another is more than their little wallets and careers can bear. Our Gov. has been working on getting a portion of the heritage funds diverted from the AZ G & fish for some time now and now she may have the vehicle to do it. Think of this, I can hear it now we were able to increase the income stream of the AZ G & F in such a manner that the revenues of the program were funded by the end users only allowing us to recieve a windfall of money from the blank blank program to help fund a health care program for illegal aliens. This will save the state $$$ in health care costs. Yes Cody they are approximate figures for now and there will be differences but retool your budget to hunt next year as it's going to cost more. I hope they do put a lid on it to make it a little more affordable for the average guy. We can only hope.
 
Chris, I understand what you are saying. But, it was stated that people wanted to use pricing as a way to lower the non-resident number of applicants. This is how they raise the price. In the end I hope your scenario does not happen. However, this what the general public asked for. Is your Dad on a hunt right now? If he is I hope he does good. Word is the bulls are rippin. CDN
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-21-04 AT 04:17PM (MST)[p] Is an archery tag considered the 3000$?? If so i see more lawsuits coming. From those of us who patiently waited and bought almost 1000$ in bonus points. If we cannot afford that bullshit price is AZ going to refund our money for those points?
Like I said, AZ will be like Great Britton soon..... only the rich will be hunting.
This is price gouging, and the AZ commision screwing up again. I was once in favor of the AZ res guys because of USO's action. I am going out on a limb and will say i think a lot of nonres will start backing GT if this is the kind of action the commision will take.
Other states raise prices, but this is insane, and I would bet a price gouging lawsuit is next. Fricking unbelievable that AZ F&G has their heads so far up thier asses they are losing support from those who gave it in all of this. If this is the price i WILL NOT SUPPORT AZ anymore against USO. this is exactly what USO wanted and i saw it coming. USO wins, fat rich republicans will be out with thier babysitters while we sit and watch it on TV. My advice to you AZ res guys, fight for us DIY guys a little in return.
 
schmalts,
UT, CO, NV have all raised NR fees since I started collecting points in those states. Is anyone suing them?
HOW ABOUT WE JUST SUE ALL THESE BASTAGES THAT HAVE SCREWED OUR HUNTING UP? USO, G&F, NRA, SWAROVSKI FOR SUPPORTING THEM ALL!
What a mess, thanks George!
 
The archery elk would be regular price, and the premium applies to the early rifle bull tags, from what I have heard.
 
Cody if I understand what you are asking one fully supports the other. They accomplish the rate hike and increase the revenue base since they don't have to fund the program. I hope this is what you were looking for. Thanks for the good wishes Cody my father isn't living any more. But you enjoy your hunts with your family as well!
 
Redrabbit, You are correct. In addition there is some discussion about muzzleloader tags early hunt only at the higher fee as well but nothing definate on that. The deer hunts in the Kaibab and the Strip will be effected but I'm not sure if early Kaibab hunts will be at higher fee structure.
 
Schmalts, Don't think for a moment that we haven't been fighting the good fight on everyone's behalf except Boy George and USO! We have been attending meetings talking to congressman, writing sponsors, hell Schmalts I even wrote a letter to old GW himself to attempt to help. We don't have issues with nonresident hunters per say just nonresidents that think they can tell us how to distribute the tags for inventory reduction of our resource. We welcome the non resident hunters but this action has caused hard feelings on both sides. You guys (NR) are upsetand rightfully so, and don't think the residents are happy about this either many have gone without hunting for years and years to get a chance to hunt in their own state. Now it's going to cost all of us more to hunt! Arizona has managed their game herds so that hunters have a quality hunting experience. If we didn't have people killing world record animals out here and we just had a herd of dinks none of this would have happened. It's really sad one man's greed has divided the hunting community. Don't be frustrated with us Schmalts direct your frustration at the instigator George Smallman & USO. Pricing would be EXACTLY the same as this year had this not have happened. But if you want to bring suit against the state right now the going price is around $300,000.00. But I bet you could sue George on a personal level for a lot less, because of his actions the fees were raised and his actions damaged you by violating your rights to hunt for recreation and at a more reasonable cost!
 
schmaltz, take it easy, most of us residents dont agree with what they did, if you look above they went AGAINST the wishes of the resident hunters. we wanted them to outlaw the sale of horns and hides and go back to the way it was, or even better impliment the 90/10. maybe you havent read the rest of the posts on this thread, but i didnt notice anyone (especially residents) congradulating the commission on a job well done. the hostility you seem to have for residents needs to be directed towards the people that made these rules and brought on this lawsuit. just like the judges decision, we can complain about the commissions decision all we want, but its done, so now its time to try and do something about it. write letters to G&F, the governor, the legislater, etc.
OR you can come on monster muley and be pissed off at everything and tell us residents to fight for you DIY guys (as if we arent DIY guys ourselves).....that will solve a lot of problems.
mike medley
 
Chris/Boskee, I am sorry to here about your father. I got you confused with someone else. I am not sure we are communicating clearly. In my last post all I said was that the public wanted higher prices to deter non-residents from putting in and to compete with other states current fees. Nowhere does it state that the maximums listed are the actual prices charged. They are simply setting the Maximum they can charge for future increases whether near or distant. Currently the maximum amount the G&F can charge for a non-resident elk tag is $400. This was the maximum set years ago. It has slowly crept to the amount it is today at $371. However naive my view, I refuse to jump to conclusions that the they are going to actually charge those high prices. That would be tragic for the average hunter and hunting's future. Thanks, CDN
 
Cody, I hope you are right but if they could charge $10,000.00 for an elk tag and get it, those congressmen will be licking their chops. Where it shakes out Cody nobody really knows at this time it's just proposed you are correct, but it can happen in a flash because it's not effecting the residents as much and non residents won't have much say. I feel it will be something less than the proposed for residents and probably as stated for premium hunts and hopefully lower for non premium hunts.I hope you are correct but let's both watch and learn together. Another way to look at it Cody is that there are limited numbers of premium permits and they are for premium animals so you gotta pay to play. This will impact the serious trophy hunter more than the average guy.
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-21-04 AT 07:57PM (MST)[p]My hostility is against the AZ F&G and whoever will not stand up against this price gougeing (including the residents). My only point is this, USO is sitting back with a mix drink celebrating another victory knowing that if the idiots on the commision dont change this he will have most of the tags from now on. There was a lot of other ways to handle this, this is not the answer. Like I said, The nonres DIY guys will no longer support you cause if this is the way it will be.
If those arrogant morons didnt have thier heads up their asses they would have swallowed some pride and went back to USO's lawyers and made some kind of fair tag allotment, but no, lets F##k it all up instead over pride. BTW, Yes i know it needs to go through legislation, but the time to voice is now.... like we did for you resident guys about the uso thing. See what i am saying?
 
So what is your plan schmalts? What are you going to do about this situation?
 
no schmalts i dont see what your saying. we are all hunters first and residents and non-residents second. when you say "non residents DIY guys will no longer support YOUR cause if thats the way it will be..." you are flat wrong. it is not
the residents cause or the non residents cause, its the HUNTERS cause. you and me are the same person with the same goals. saying you wont support my cause because im a resident is dumb because my cause should be the same as yours. we are all Non residents of somewhere. by you splitting everything up "us and them" "res and non res" your making it worse. we all want to hunt...we want to hunt our state, and other states. price hikes, and outfitter lawsuites effect ME just as much as they effect YOU. so our (my) point is quit making it out like the residents are all against the non residents. i agree with your stance on the game and fish (for the most part from what i have read) so how would you not support me...i agree with you??? you say the time to voice is now..."like we did for you resident guys about the USO thing"...if you did that for us residents you did it for the wrong reason...you should have been doing it for all hunters, res or non res...cause it effected us all..res and non res.
if what im saying seems outta line im sorry, someone put me in my place, but i dont think im at all out of line.
mike medley
 
Schmalts, I understand your frustration with the department and the fact they didn't negotiate right up front as Taulman wanted. Are you aware he lost his case in the Arizona State court? How a judge will rule in any case is subject to the arguments presented and his interpretation of the law. The same court that found for Taulman in AZ ruled against other litigants 3 times previously in the state of California on the merits of their prohibiting the sale of animal parts as being illegal, when the commerce clause was litigated there. Why would any commission appointed to protect the rights of it's citizens negotiate on that basis and with a private nonresident to boot. Factor in that Mr. Taulman appearing to want only 10% of the tags when in reality had other goals (Landowner tags) (illegal cap argument) and other self promoting objectives in mind as evidenced with his further litigation in other western states to get more tags again. If you owned a business and he walked in and asked you for a % of your business and he threaten to sue you to get it would you give it to him. Of course not! Also factor in the fact that the Fish and Wildlife agencies in multiple western states have had a few disagreements with Mr. Taulman and his ethics in the past and the picture gets a little clearer.
I couldn't agree more with Mike in the previous post about the need for all of us to stick together at this time. Sometimes these things take a little time to get sorted out and we don't want to fall prey to the old divide and conquer routine. We need to present a united front now more than ever so we can send a message that will be heard. Doing nothing will change nothing except jeopardize the chances of the common man to hunt in the future. You've heard the old saying money talks and bull$hit walks, well right now money is having it's say and it's day. If we band together we will have more money, a bigger voice, a larger presence (the vote) and will make enough noise so that the voice of morality will prevail. All of us know this ruling isn't right. Hell George knows it's really not right as well but he doesn't believe that it's not right because he's in it for profit only. We just need a little time and effort to enact change to right the ship again.
 
AZ79, you do see my point, that is what i am saying. what i am saying is if you dont stand up to the price hike YOU are the one not sticking together. We stood by You residents through this USO deal and now YOu need to do the same for the NONres guys so we can still afford to hunt.
And i never said we are turning on you, but that we WILL if we dont get the same consideration we gave the residents on the USO deal. So go and write letters to your commission about the price hike like we did to USO sponsers, tell them this isnt the answer.
 
>So what is your plan schmalts?
> What are you going
>to do about this situation?
>
Read my other post, i told you what AZ should have done.... JMHO
Now they are in a trick bag. USO has the upper hand, and this price increase will take out the DIY guys and leave all the nonres tags for the outfitter boys.
 
I would NEVER support the AZ Game and Fish Dept.negotiating resident hunting rights with that p.o.s. George Taulman under any circumstances. That includes when they initially approached the Dept regarding changing the 10% cap to a 10 % draw.

Taulman won in court only because he perverted what hunting is all about in the first place. When he sent his attorney to the Safford meeting you can be sure it was only to better position himself for ongoing legal arguments in the future. He knew the Commission was not going to negotiate anything with him.

I was unable to attend the Safford meeting but I hope that this is not over. I would certainly prefer protecting resident hunting rights thru any other legal means other than pricing the typical working man N/R out of his opportunity to hunt.
If the Commissioners were afraid to proceed with the decommercialization of hunting and retention of the 10% cap due to a personal legal liability, then steps should be able to be taken to indemnify them. As Boskee stated if California can do it why can't we? We are both subject to the 9th Circuit Courts rulings. At this point it will probably require getting legislative action. I am hopeful that the Arizona Spoprtsman for Wildlife will step up and start an initiative. This is the group that hired the attorney to propose the decommercialization of hunting response to the Commissioners at the Flagstaff meeting. Realistically however it will be an uphill and lenghthy battle at this point. Especially with a liberal governor who has made it obvious that she doesnt give a hoot about hunting or hunters.
 
I don't have any problem with the price increase. Hunting is the only thing I do, and the price of the tag is really slight in comparison to the real expenses of a hunt. The loyalty point is ridiculus. It's a feel good point, but really won't help because it's a mathmaticl wash. I was against the conservation point, because I believe it's open to abuse. It's placing a bonus point in the hands of a few people that can dole them out as they see fit.
However, I still think out game department did everything they could to preserve priority for residence' short of a quota, which is obviously not an option any more.
Our department has been placed in the uninviable position of fighting the battle, while all the other western states sit back and watch. Once they see what works, they can adopt our program without the expense of the fight.
The bottom line is, the only person to blame is George Smallman. His motives are greed. His actions are effecting all of us.
My biggest fear is that our department will start to manage for quantity, rather than quality. That will solve the problem for sure. Who wants to go to the effort and expense of an out of state hunt for the opportunity to kill a raghorn?
 
Why should the AZGFD negotiate with USO on anything? I thought this was a Constitutional issue? Just because USO and AZGFD come to terms on the tag alloaction, doesn't mean that it's legal.
 
I sent a letter to John McCain, John Kyle and J.D. Hayworth today pleading with them to join together to sponsor national legislation to outlaw commercialization of state owned wildlife to the detriment of the citizens of the state. I am hoping that if everyone starts to focus on the politicians and flexes our muscle we can get a final solution on this important issue. This would allow states to run their game programs without worrying about Taulman and there would be nothing his fudgepacker lawyers could do about it. Scmalts you old coot I spoke out at the meetings against screwing th NR fees up too high and most everyone in the room agreed that the average Joe NR hunter is our freind. Go write to your congressmen for some help.
 
I have read all your words. Seems I have also heard them in my ear almost word for word within this past week.

I seem to have a disconnect trying to figure out how I as an Arizona native owe you something. Even a bigger disconnect seeing how you have contributed to helping our state or how your current posture will help anything.
 
I think emotions are driving this post and yet the real problem solving can only come from what Glen and others are trying to do and that is contact the people that either are compasionate about hunting or scared to lose political support for their positions. I know Boskee and others are relatively informed and care about animals but until I see them spending time at meetings or on the ground, I will not spend time on "brain debates". I hunt and have hunts coming up and dont have the time to just discuss, I need to spend time that may make a difference. I have three internal emails that question why AZGFD and the Commission did not support the groundswell we sportsmen supported. I also am totally surprised that all the conservation groups that spent so much time and money are not flooding people with emails slamming the AZGFD and Commissioners. As far as I understood, nobody wanted huge increases in non-res or resident fees. I also understood from Pete Cimellaro and the other supporting wildlife conservation groups that fee increases were not what the AZGFD and Commission supported. I have not seen, heard or anything from those that wussed out and proposed this last round of "public opinion". The public did not want nor does it support what the commission proposed in Safford. I also think it is really a coincidence that the final outcome of the commission occured during hunting season when alot of us are out pursuing our passion and cant speak out. something is stinky in AZ............ Thanks, Allen Taylor......
 
What meetings and work projects should I attend Allen so that I will know what is going on and have the right to have a voice here?
 
I unlike you Allen only got drawn for 1 hunt this year. So I have a little more free time on my hands to try to step up and help make a difference and work to preserve our rights. We won't always share the same viewpoint but our intentions are the same to preserve hunting in AZ. Good luck on your hunts.
 
Dave and Boskee, I apologize. we now are all fighting and I am sorry, that just makes this whole mess even worse when fellow sportsmen bicker. I will back off. As to the hunts Boskee, I am just helping out with other hunters and their tags so I can at least get out in the field and enjoy. I am tagless as is my wife and two sons...... Allen Taylor......
 
Bura Nut no apology is necessary. This damn mess gets everyone going. No need to back off either. Like I said we won't always share the same viewpoint that's life, but we all do share a love for hunting and are working to try to make something positive happen.
I do have a point of contention with you Allen... you seem to have better looking legs than me if that little number in the berry outfit with the wig I saw on here somewhere is you! (just kidding)
 
As hairy legs just said, no apology needed Allen. I was just trying to understand. Good luck and enjoy the hunt.

Boskee, maybe if you shaved you would be in the running :)
 
It,s a real bad situation however you deal the cards
I heard that the commisioners were told by the assistant attorney general that they could be sued personally others stated that this could not happen legally so I'm shure the comissioners did not know the correct road to go But I bet if the commisioners could legally stick it to USO they would of.
On the price increase Arizona needed one maybe not so high but a increase was needed just compare other states and their quality of animals and you will understand to hunt quality animals you have to pay a quality price.
You don't go to Red Lobster expecting to have dinner and get out with a price tag of Burger King.
Another thing I bet Arizona Game and Fish will be looking into is lets just see how many applicants we have next year with the price increase and the manual mailing of applications I bet it will be substantually lower.
So until next years regs come upon us we will have to see and read between all the lines before applying
 
If I recall correctly, about a month ago there was a thread about the opinion poll on the AZGFD website. In trying to make an informed decision, I asked for some clarification on a couple of items because I did not feel they were long term solutions as written, just loopholes. I was told "trust us, this is what they really mean". Doesn't look like it was as black and white as you said when you laughed me off of that thread. Well time is precious on this issue and now a very critical month during the decision period has been wasted. The average hunter is suffering from these decision from the AZGFD and other states are lining up.
 
I tried to warn several of you about not trusting your own Fish & Game Admin. people, and several of you stated that they were behind the local hunters instead of the money issue,and I was wrong about trusting them to make the right decisions. Now we all known that they can not be fully trusted and big money ends up getting the last word in. They appeared to not take in the survey results and went the way that was probably planned in the first place.
Your only recourse is to put pressure on the elected officials that appoints the fish and game commissors and let them know that you will start a "grass roots" action to force them to modify the game commission decisions, or will try to vote them out of office next election. To do this you will need the support of almost every hunter in your state, or you will fail to sway them to come around and will end up taking it in the shorts and pay the "Big Bucks" Good luck, because you will need every bit of luck to get any where with this issue.

RELH
 
These items are not set for next year yet........we have several input meetings and the hunt set meeting. If you dont like it, then get it changed.
 
Pruney, look back in the archives, what you didnt understand and what i was trying to make you understand was the "commercial/non commercial" propossal, that propossal would have been the best way to go. it is what the USO attorney said he would challange if put in place(cause it truly would have put the residents back in favor). what i was trying to make you understand was that it didnt have anything to do with "commercial" hunting. and in fact they were trying to use a different word so as not to scare off people....unfortunatly the proposal didnt go through as i would have liked for it to. instead they chose to raise prices and here we are. i cant say why the 90/10 proposal didnt go through, but possibly if more hunters weren't scared off by the word "commercial", as you were, it might have been adopted....but thats just speculation, nobody except the commission knows why they scrapped that idea. i didnt vote to raise prices...and agree with you that it doesnt fix teh problem at all...the 90/10 would have.
 
Mike,

First off...the "laughed off the thread comment" was not directed at you, but to a couple of highly intelligent individuals that sent quality email to my MM inbox.

Secondly, I reviewed the thread and I did reply to you that I understood the comm/nocomm did not involve guides (although I still think it opens the door for that next step). My concern then was that the opinion poll was very general (no details in black and white). It left too much room for interpretation. I have a fair amount of experience in writing surveys and I can tell you that if you want to know what people really think/want, then you provide as much detail as possible and write very specific questions. I think their new proposals show that on some of the issues, they either did not care what the survey results were or they had good reason to go a different direction.

Sorry, but IMO, one that they did get right was the 90/10 proposal. I am very much in favor of a 90% resident 10% nonresident allocation, but not the commercial/noncommercial weighting. I believe others have opined that if the F&G had eliminated the "up to" 10% language years ago, AZ would not be in this position today. This proposal is just a fancy way of saying up to 10%.

By allowing NRs to only apply for a commercial tag and having residents in the same pool, there is nothing to prevent NRs from getting completly shut out in the draw. Doesn't that just open up another round of litigation?
 
pruney, it could open the door for more litigation, but it would eliminate their argument that non residents dont have the same oportunity at income made from selling hides and horns. so they would have to find another way to take us to court. to me it seems like no matter what the guy is going to find some way to take us to court, all we can do is keep eliminating his "reasons".
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

20230508_185658.jpg
IMG_3337.jpeg
8BE5BE15-97D2-4E35-BEA0-04501ECBE4B0.jpeg
Deer.jpg
_AAX6014-Edit.jpg
Mr Handsome 004.JPG
Heavy Stud-of-a-Buck
73FA0F58-FE81-4317-B7ED-D55F18231BAE.jpeg
672CFE2C-3963-4F85-BF93-0A24FC0AD8E3.jpeg
IMG_4437.JPG
IMG_0841.PNG
A5CEB17A-B60A-4213-BB6B-AA459EF5727D.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom