Leftover Hopi tags should be distributed by raffle or auction

[javihammer]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-30-10 AT 09:10PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Mar-30-10 AT 09:09?PM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON Mar-30-10 AT 09:06?PM (MST)

Am I the only one that finds the leftover tag process concerning this year. Normally leftover tags are truly ?surplus? tags that were unworthy of a 3rd, 4th or 5th draw position. This year there are some tags that are leftover as part of the Hopi allocation. According to Game and Fish (I spoke to them on the phone), they are now available to everyone through the mail in leftover tag process. There are some great tags on the list this year and it makes me sick to think they will be given out through such an easily abused process. I think this is a special situation and that AZGFD would be better off setting up a random raffle or auction rather than having to spend the time and dollars to handle what will certainly be an unprecedented flood of requests for these incredibly special and limited permits. They would probably generate more money per tag and the public could feel better about a more equitable and transparent assignment process. Time is limited to setup a raffle but I can just imagine the public uproar if these tags are processed the way they are currently slated to be processed . At a minimum the successful applicants should be publicly posted on the AZGFD website so everyone can see if the successful applicants share the same last name as the AZGFD mailroom staff. Am I being paranoid?

 

[ruthunter]

Do the leftover tags allow to hunt anywhere in that unit or is there designated areas??????

 

[javihammer]

My understanding is that these tags hold the same hunting privileges as the permits in the regular draw (which means access to the entire unit). I would imagine that people can just apply for these tags using the Hopi hunt number (that it what the Game and Fish telephone rep seemed to suggest).

I know there may be people that think I am a jerk for sharing the details on a public forum but I honestly don't think any of us regular Joes have a chance at the antelope or bull tags unless we know someone inside Game and Fish. The right thing to do is distribute these tags completely randomly; the first in/first out mail process is too easy to rig when it comes to tags of this caliber.

 

[spcheuvront]

Javihammer;

At a boy!

Now is your time. Get the facts, see how they distrubute
these tags. If there is a problem, let them know ,and us, then
work to correct the problem.

Javihammer, this is how the good folks get involved. They see a wrong and work to correct it. Unfortunately, each time I dig into an obvious problem concerning the AZG&FD it turns into a giant can of worms.

You can fix problems, all it takes is the truth. No one can
fight the truth for very long!

Go get them bud, I'm with you.

Steve Cheuvront
p.s. loved the cream soda!!!

 

[javihammer]

Thanks Steve. I sent a note of concern to each commission member yesterday within a couple hours of the draw results being posted. There should be no excuse for inaction on this issue in my opinion, they do have time to change plans. I would encourage anyone else with a concern to send a note to the commissioners as well. The link to them is http://www.azgfd.gov/inside_azgfd/commission.shtml

Since I didn't get drawn for elk or antelope I will have
plenty of time to fill weasel holes this year. ;-)

We need to catch up over IBCs in the future, I finally found my way around P Mesa and my nephew is still talking about the petroglyphs.

 

[spcheuvront]

Javihammer;

There is a AZGFD comission meeting coming up real soon, this is a good opportunity for you to see how it all works.

Come and say a few words about your beliefs.

You will sign a " BLUE CARD " that lets you speak in the " Call To Public " segement of the meeting. You will have a 3 minute time limit and the commission can not make a decision on your comments at the meeting, but if you are correct with what you say, it will get the ball rolling, and that is what you really want.

Your buddy
Steve
p.s.
hows the little man with his belly sticking out? just love that picture. spc

 

[ElmerFudd]

They should have just given the leftover Hopi tags in order of lowest random draw number to unsuccessful applicants for the equivilant regular hunt..a pretty simple line or two to add to the draw program....

 

[longhorns26]

Does anyone know what the Hopi Tribe is receiving in return for allowing us to hunt on their reservation?

 

[CouesFanatic]

They should be given to people who put in for that same unit and species. Like Me! The leftover antelope tag is for the same unit I put in for.

 

[DonMartin]

You fellas might want to find out who the private landowners are on lands that you will be hunting in the Hopi areas.

Yep the Hopi tribe owns them, however they are NOT reservation lands as only Congress can designate them as RESERVATION lands.

They are in effect private lands that just happen to be owned by the Hopi Tribe.

I believe this is part of the "deal" that G&F made with the tribe to keep the lands open for public access.

I'm sure if you call G&F in Flagstaff, they can give you the scoop.

Don Martin
AWO

 

[javihammer]

The back-story behind the Hopi tag allocation isn't really the point of this. The point is that the Hopis WERE allocated a small slice of tags and those tags have all the privileges that the regular tags have. The recipients of these tags CAN HUNT EVERYWHERE THE GENERAL TAGHOLDERS can. The Hopis didn't make use of their full allocation so now these tags are available to everyone through the mail in leftover tag process and they wont cost the lucky person that gets one any bonus points (which makes them even more valuable). They are tags that many non-Hopis (myself included) applied for as a first or second choice in the regular draw (only we applied with the non-Hopi draw numbers since they were unavailable to us in the regular draw). The 5A rifle antelope tag is a once in a lifetime tag for most guys (and the bull elk permits also could be for some non-residents). This is a perfect storm for abuse and I think they need to distribute them through a more controlled process than the mailroom stack shuffle. There are only a handful of really exceptional tags and it is way too easy for the mailman or mailroom staff to stack the deck in order to put certain applications on top of the stack. If Game and Fish has controls in place to ensure this doesn't happen I would encourage them to post those controls publicly.

There seems to be a lot of misinformation about these tags and people that are draw savvy are probably hoping the misinformation persists until after the mail-in deadline. I consider myself draw savvy but I don't think I have a shot at these tags as long as they are distributed the way they are currently set to be distributed. Don?t get me wrong, if these tags are distributed through the back-door mailroom process my application will be in there, I just don't think I will end up with a tag. I know how the US Mail process works and I can get my tag there on 4/26, but that wont matter if there are weasels reshuffling the deck.

The reality is that there will be hundreds if not thousands of applications for about 20 antelope and bull permits (probably several hundred for the 5A rifle antelope tag alone) and there will be a fair amount of processing required to return the checks, field phone inquiries about status and address conspiracy theories or legal challenges. Game and Fish should just setup a raffle; allow the tickets to be purchased online or through their offices between now and April 26th (the day when mail in applications need to arrive). They can then post the lucky winners on their website and we can all celebrate their luck (as opposed to speculate on how these people were able to game the mailroom system). I have to believe a raffle would be a win for game and fish as well as generate more money per tag. Maybe they could just offer the bull and antelope tags in the raffle and allow the rest (the ?real? leftovers) to go through the mail-in process. It seems like a no-brainer to me, they could probably even hire a vendor to setup the raffle for them if they don't think they have the resources to do it in-house.

The people that work for AZGFD are a pretty honest group for the most part; my concern is that in light of this years caliber of leftover tags there is way too much room in the process for a few bad apples to game the system. I don't want to take the time to send in an application if the best tags are skimmed off the top by some sneaky insiders. The due date for mail-in apps is still almost a month away so there is plenty of time to make the necessary changes. I am confident Game and Fish will do the right thing and share their existing controls with us or find a truly random way to distribute the tags. Once again, this isn't about Hopis, or agency corruption. It is about a really bad process that needs to be addressed proactively PRIOR to 4/26 as opposed to reactively later.

 

[javihammer]

Hello,

I received an email from Brian Wakeling responding to my concern this afternoon. His email seemed to include some decision makers so I feel confident they have given the issue some attention. Considering the short timeframe and the other competing priorities that were going on this week at AZGFD (draw results/Expo cleanup), I am impressed with the speed of response to say the least. I would advise anyone that questions the value of raising a concern and it falling on deaf ears to read the following play by play. I realize the story isn't over on this issue but things seem to be moving along at this point. I will continue to keep everyone posted if/when I get more updates. By the way, I am just a grunt hunter like everyone else. I drive a 5-year old truck, shoot a 6-year old bow, and wear 10-year old camo, just a regular guy.

Anyway?here is the play by play so far?.

Monday 3/29/10, checked my draw results, no antelope or elk this year, ANGER followed by acceptance?.oh well, lets look at the leftovers. Wow, those are SOME leftovers. Called Game and Fish, yep, confirmed that even non-Hopis can use a leftover Hopi tag. Sure is fishy that they are going out via the mail in process, this isn't good. I stewed most of the afternoon and couldn't focus on work.

Monday, 3/29/10, about 3:30-4PM. I sent the following note of concern to all of the AZGFD Commissioners (this was still the day the results came out)


Name: Ryan K
City: Peoria
State: AZ


Subject: Leftover Permits
Comment: There are several quality tags on the 2010 Elk & Antelope leftover list as a result of undersubscribed hunts for the Hopis. This is a unique situation that will almost certainly not be duplicated next year. I would strongly recommend the AZGFD Dept to post the successful applicants for the leftover tags publicly as it will looks very fishy if these extremely high demand tags are allocated through the standard mail in process. The public list should include the full last name, first initial and the hunt number. I would also put a notice on your website prior to the due date of 4/26/10 that reminds those applying for these tags that the successful applicants will be publicly posted. Besides improving customer experience, and maintaining the credibility of the department, it will also prevent sneaky people from trying to game the system in the first place. The quality of these tags is unprecedented. These tags are worth big bucks and the fact that they are available with no bonus point impact is sure to put a public microscope on the process and the provoke interest of those that are inclined to abuse the process. I think the Game and Fish Dept is an honest group and I think a little proactive transparency would prevent future bad publicity and public mistrust.



Tuesday, 3/30/10, about 9 PM. After some deliberation, I decided start this thread on Monster Muleys. My new thought was to have these permits issued by raffle since my original thought of publicly posting the names of the successful permitees didn't pass the ?sleep on it? test from the night before. I must have still been grumpy from not drawing an elk tag when I demanded the public list.

Wednesday 3/31/10, stomped on a cricket in the backyard, no other action or long winded posts.

Thursday 4/1/10, about 3:25 PM. Frustrated by a sense that my point was unclear on the thread, I posted another long winded post for clarification.

Friday 4/2/10 (Today), about 12:46 PM, I received the following response from Brian Wakeling at AZGFD.


From: Brian Wakeling <[email protected]>
Add to Contacts
To: [email protected]
Cc: Jennifer L. Martin <[email protected]>; Mike Senn <[email protected]>; Robert Woodhouse <[email protected]>; Leonard Ordway <[email protected]>; Rulemaking <[email protected]>; John Bullington <[email protected]>... more
________________________________________
Ryan:

Commission Chair Martin forwarded your idea to me and asked that I respond to you on her behalf.

The leftover tags that you referenced in your email are primarily those permits allocated first to the Hopi Tribal members in the Commission?s agreement to collaborate with the Hopi Tribe on Hopi Trust Lands. This was a very innovative arrangement that allowed the general populace continued access to sovereign Hopi Trust lands, and provided Hopi Tribal members with an allocated proportion of the permitted hunting opportunity within Units 4A, 5A, and 5B.

Any permits left unissued to Hopi Tribal members became available to the general populace through the first come, first serve process by this agreement.

The first come, first serve process is governed by Arizona Administrative Code R12-4-114 (specifically subsection C.2.d), which describes the first come, first served process. It follows a schedule approved by the Arizona Game and Fish Commission at the December 2009 meeting, which identifies an acceptance date by mail of April 26, 2010 for first come, first served applicants. Any remaining permits may be acquired at a Department office (as well as by mail) beginning on May 3, 2010.

Any applications received prior to that date are returned to the applicant (no fees deducted), and any applications received after all the permits are issued are also returned to the applicant (no fees deducted).

This is the system governed by Commission Rule (Arizona Administrative Code) and Commission-approved application schedule, which the Department must adhere to. The system has worked well in the past, and we believe it will meet our needs for this application period.

Because you have suggested some ideas that may worthy of further analysis, I am also copying our rulemaking section so that your comments will be part of the next Article 1 rulemaking review.

Should you wish to know specifically who draws these permits after the first come, first served assignment of permits, this information is available simply by making a public records request. We do not routinely post this information on our web site because some individuals may be sensitive to releasing their names.

Let me know if you have any further questions.

Brian Wakeling
Game Branch Chief
623-236-7385




Friday 4/2/10 (Today), about 5PM (didn't notice Brian?s response until late this afternoon), I replied to Brian and the rest of his distribution list with the following.



To: Brian Wakeling <[email protected]>
Cc: Jennifer L. Martin <[email protected]>; Mike Senn <[email protected]>; Robert Woodhouse <[email protected]>; Leonard Ordway <[email protected]>; Rulemaking <[email protected]>; John Bullington <[email protected]>... more
________________________________________
Brian,

Thank you for your timely and considerate response. My initial input was a little knee-jerk and I have since revised my position to be more supportive of changing the process to issue these permits through a raffle. I now believe the best option (barring any legal or regulatory conflicts) would be to add these tags to the Arizona Big Game Super Raffle. This would generate more interest in ticket sales and would seem to require very little additional work to implement on your end in my opinion (and probably result in far more dollars and far less processing). I realize these permits reside in separate allocation pools and this is almost certainly more complex than I probably realize. I hope the rulemaking committee meeting occurs in the near future as this situation is almost certainly a fluke and unlikely to occur again in the future (and April 26th is coming up fast). I still believe the mail-in process is still a bad option for these valuable permits under any circumstances.

I am documenting my communications with you guys on a public forum called monstermuleys.com in the Arizona section. I have no connection with this website other than the fact that it tends to attract a pretty sophisticated group of AZ hunters and I was looking for input from some of the heavy hitters. I have not shared this concern anywhere else on the internet. The name of the thread is ?Leftover Hopi tags should be distributed through raffle or auction?. The discussion board does not require membership or registration to read a response or thread. I have only had positive experiences with AZGFD in the past and I had a feeling early on that there would be solid resolution of this. You definitely exceeded my expectations by responding this quickly during what is probably a pretty busy week for you guys (draw result week and the week following the Expo). Thanks again and please feel free to contact me directly or respond to my discussion thread if you feel it would be worthwhile.

Best regards,
Ryan


Just a regular guy, 4 days in......AND NOW WE WAIT

 

[azbuster]

Why was this deal ever made in the first place with the Hopi tribe?

 

[spcheuvront]

Ryan;

After carefully reading your post, I do agree on one thing.

You do need some new camo!

No wait there's more.

I can't tell you how proud of you I am for not only bit-hing
about a problem, we all do that , but you took it upon yourself
to follow thru.

You kept after it , and made your comments known. Now who knows
if what you said and did will make a positive change. It may and it may not. The important thing is that you fought for what you believe in.

So many people bit-h, and blam every body else, and wait for somebody, yea somebody, but not them , to get the job done.

I know people can now see that one man, in ratty old camo, can make a difference.

Again, I will say , I AM PROUD OF YOU, my friend.

Steve Cheuvront

 

[mike111]

I agree 100% with you Javihammer. Something else needs to be done, there's no way to put such high quality tags through a mail in process!

 

[OutdoorWriter]

Ryan,

The only problem with any raffle is the hurdle of LAW. A quick look at Title 17 will show that the legislature MUST designate the permits that may be raffled or auctioned.

As for some make-shift rulemaking, it generally is a drawn out process. To make it worse, I believe the governor still has a hold on any new rules being proposed. With that, I doubt it could be done for this year.

Lastly, although your heart is in the right place, the comments carry some contradiction. While you state the AGFD is an "honest group," you seem to imply the doling out of the permits by the first-come, first-served system, which has been used for eons, will be rigged this time. So much for the department's honesty.

TONY MANDILE

How To Hunt Coues Deer

 

[spcheuvront]

Tony, (smiley face goes here)

I am glad you pointed out the reality of changing a rule.

But, you and I both know it can be done.
I'll bet if that's what it takes to satisfy
young Ryan, he will follow thru, and get it done.

As far as questioning the integerity of the AZG&FD, well---

I have been doing that for years, and for good cause.

I would be glad to start a post titled " Do you think the AZG&FD is honest" , ya know, I have to thank you for bringing
it up.

That's a post that is long over due. Tony, thanks again for giving me a gentle nudge. You are good at that.

By golly, yes, I will take your advise, and get ready to bring
the truth we all feel to the light of day.

Thanks Tony!

Steve Cheuvront

 

[OutdoorWriter]

>>But, you and I both know it can be done.
I'll bet if that's what it takes to satisfy
young Ryan, he will follow thru, and get it done.<<

Yup, but likely not in time to dole out the permits left this year.

I'll leave the AGFD bashing up to you.




TONY MANDILE

How To Hunt Coues Deer

 

[AZStickman]

"Yep the Hopi tribe owns them, however they are NOT reservation lands as only Congress can designate them as RESERVATION lands.

They are in effect private lands that just happen to be owned by the Hopi Tribe."

What's the difference between these tags and landowner tags? .... Terry

 

[azbuster]

Azstickman, you make a very good point. Everyone wants these leftover tags and with good reason. I think we are all getting lost in the real change that will happen in Arizona with these tags. It is more than how they will distribute the the tags, but how it will change our current system. The deal that was struck between the the Hopi tribe and Game and Fish has started us down a path to land owner tags in Arizona. Everyone that hunts unit 10 in Arizona should watch how this plays out. I ask again why did AZGFD make the deal, and quote AZstickman "What's the difference between these and landowner tags"?

 

[OutdoorWriter]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-05-10 AT 08:19AM (MST)[p]From AGFD:

In 1996, Congress passed the Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute Settlement Act to resolve long-standing issues regarding Navajo families living on Hopi partition lands. Among the provisions in this act was authorization for the Hopi Tribe to purchase up to 500,000 acres of ranch lands in northern Arizona and put them eventually into trust status. The act also authorized the Secretary of the Interior to, by condemnation, acquire State Lands lying within the private lands purchased by the Hopi Tribe and compensate the state at fair market value with funds provided by the tribe.

In 1997-98, under the authority of the act, Hopi purchased five ranches (Clear Creek, Hart, 10X, Drye and Aja) in Game Management Units 4A, 5A and 5B, covering approximately 173,000 acres of deeded land with a comparable amount of interspersed ?checkerboard? State Land. Up until December 2008, these ranch lands were treated as any other ranch. In December 2008, about 160,000 acres of these deeded lands were placed into federal trust status for the benefit of the Hopi Tribe. Trust status, for all practical purposes, has the effect of making the Hopi Trust Lands become part of the Hopi Reservation as sovereign land.

There are about 157,000 acres of interspersed checkerboard State Land within the Hopi Trust Land boundaries. There has been no change in the interspersed State Lands at this time. These interspersed lands make it difficult for either Hopi or Game and Fish to independently manage habitat, wildlife and hunting on these lands. The department has been working collaboratively with the Hopi Tribe for 10 years on these issues.

The Arizona Game and Fish Commission was briefed on this situation last spring during a public meeting. Since then, the department has continued to work with Hopi on access, habitat and wildlife management issues. The proposed Cooperative Agreement provides for a process under which Hopi will be able to issue a certain number of permits for Hopis to hunt these lands. A separate Stewardship Agreement allows continued access to these lands for elk and antelope hunters during the 2010 season.

Keep in mind that the Hopi Trust Lands are sovereign lands, and continued hunter access is dependent on cooperative agreements such as this. Hopi has affirmed that the tribe values its relationship with the Arizona Game and Fish Department, and the tribe and department will continue to work cooperatively on access, habitat and wildlife management issues.





TONY MANDILE

How To Hunt Coues Deer

 

[spcheuvront]

Tony;

Thamks , as always, for providing us with the facts.

Steve

 

[OutdoorWriter]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-05-10 AT 11:14AM (MST)[p]>>...and quote AZstickman "What's the difference between these and landowner tags"?<<<

The difference is no single landowner got any of the permits.

The permits were available THROUGH THE DRAW to only members of the Hopi tribe. Thus, the reason why there were leftovers; not enough tribal members applied for those available.

In exchange for those few tags, the Hopi will allow ANY hunter who draws a regular permit to hunt on what is now their sovereign lands or to access the state lands mixed in with the tribe's land.

Sounds like a pretty good trade, eh? Or would it be better if it was like the White Mt., Hualapai, Navajo & San Carlos reservations?


TONY MANDILE

How To Hunt Coues Deer

 

[DonMartin]

Terry:

I think your point is interesting.

I'm gonna send an e-mail to Brian Wakeling and ask for a clarification on this.

This could have a huge impact on how this might affect sportsmen on the Boquillas Ranch, if it the same deal as the Hopi.

I was not aware that the Hopi lands in question were in fact sovereign lands, and thus having a similar status as reservation lands.

I'll let you all know what I find.

Don

"170+ days and counting..."

 

[maddglasser]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-05-10 AT 11:39AM (MST)[p]Don,
Sorry we missed you. Troy and I were headed back out later but got up in a small project for my dad, you can guess how that turned out.

Will the Hopi's be held to the same requirements as us to hunt and camp on the checkerboard state lands within this hunt? I find it interresting that AZ state lands can belong to another soveriegn nation. If they are entitled to "trespass" onto stateland, what will this do to so many other areas? How then will we trespass thru their rez to access statelands within their boundaries in the future, you know, when they actually sell their tags and hunts like the San Carlos, white Mtn and so on?

 

[OutdoorWriter]

Hopi Tribe Press Release of 12/21/09
KYKOTSMOVI, Ariz. ? The Hopi Tribe, the state and the Arizona Game and Fish Department have agreed to a plan that will allow hunters to have access to Hopi trust lands ? Hopi Three Canyon Ranches in the vicinity of Winslow.

In approving the agreement, the Hopi Tribal Council noted that because Hopi trust lands are ?checker boarded? with state trust lands in the area, it is hard for law enforcement officers and the public to figure out whose land they might be on.

The agreement allows hunting by those with state licenses and permits. The main purpose of the agreement is to develop collaborative and shared wildlife management programs; to provide for seamless wildlife surveys, season dates and permit numbers; to provide an effective hunt permit draw administration process; and to develop an appropriate hunting permit fee basis.

The tribe will see about $36,500 in revenue from the deal ? an amount equal to the revenue from the tags and one-half of the resident hunting license fees ? to use for wildlife management.

According to terms of the Nov. 24 agreement, Hopi staff will be offered a chance to participate in elk and pronghorn surveys with Game and Fish, which will establish the number of hunt permits to be issued. Those permits will be valid on Hopi trust lands, and there will be a specific percentage allocated to the tribe for Hopi hunters.

A separate hunt number will be set for the Hopi portion of the permits. Hunters who want to submit an application for the Hopi portion must obtain the hunt number from the Hopi. That number must be included in the hunt application submitted to Game and Fish. The tribe will have the authority to review and approve or disapprove an applicant's eligibility for the Hopi permits.

In 1996, Congress passed the Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute Settlement Act to handle issues regarding Navajo families living on Hopi partition lands. Among provisions of the act was the authorization for the Hopi Tribe to buy up to 500,000 acres of ranch lands in northern Arizona to eventually put them in trust. In 1997-98, the tribe bought ranches covering about 173,000 acres. A comparable amount of state-owned land was interspersed, or checker boarded, in the area.

A year ago, about 160,000 acres of these lands were placed into federal trust status for the benefit of the Hopi Tribe. Because of the interspersed state lands, it has been difficult for either the tribe or Game and Fish to manage habitat, wildlife and hunting on the lands. So, the tribe, the state and Game and Fish had been working together to come up with a management plan that would suit all parties involved.

Game and Fish noted that the Hopi affirmed that it values its relationship with the department and wants to continue to working cooperatively on access, habitat and wildlife management issues.




TONY MANDILE

How To Hunt Coues Deer

 

[OutdoorWriter]

From AZ G&F on Nov 20, 2009:

The Arizona Game and Fish Commission took action yesterday (Nov. 19) that will facilitate continued efforts toward ensuring hunter access and cooperative wildlife management in Hopi Trust Lands located within Game Management Units 4A, 5A and 5B.

The commission voted unanimously to accept the Arizona Game and Fish Department's recommendation to amend the hunt guidelines for the 2010-11 and 2011-12 hunting seasons with language that would authorize the department to enter into a reciprocal agreement with the Hopi Tribe. This agreement, which would need to be approved by both the Arizona Game and Fish Department and the Hopi Tribe, would allow hunter access by the general populace to Hopi Trust Lands within those units for the 2010 elk and antelope hunts, and would allocate an equitable proportion of applicable big game permits in those units to Hopi tribal members based on the proportion of habitat and estimated wildlife populations within those habitats. Deer permits may be considered in the future.

As was described in the department's Nov. 17 e-news communication providing background information, the Hopi Tribe in 1997-98 purchased several private ranches in Game Management Units 4A, 5A and 5B in accordance with the Congressionally approved Navajo-Hopi Settlement Dispute Act of 1996. About 160,000 acres of that land went into Trust Status in December 2008. Trust Status, for all practical purposes, makes these sovereign lands similar to reservation lands. These Hopi Trust Lands are interspersed with about 157,000 acres of checkerboard Arizona State Trust Lands.

The department has been in discussions with the Hopi Tribe regarding cooperative management of wildlife and hunter access on Hopi Trust Lands, which has led to the draft Cooperative Agreement. Department and Hopi staff have been developing estimates of equitable allocations to Hopi tribal members. As an example, based on the draft hunt recommendations that will be presented to the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, about 3 percent of the general/juniors/archery elk tags (105 of 3,195 tags), 20 percent of the pronghorn tags (14 of 70 tags), and 50 percent of the limited opportunity elk tags (138 of 275 tags) in these units would be allocated to Hopis under the agreement. The permit numbers in the hunt recommendations have not yet been approved by the Arizona Game and Fish Commission but will be considered in public session at the Dec. 5 commission meeting in Phoenix.

The proposed agreement stipulates how revenue would be shared between the department and Hopi. An amount equal to the revenue from the tags and one-half of the resident hunting license fee would go to Hopi to aid their wildlife management. This would equal approximately $36,500 in the scenario described above. Hunters from the general populace would have access to Hopi Trust Lands under the draft cooperative agreement.

Under the agreement, the Arizona Game and Fish Department would conduct the draw for these hunts, and all state statutes, commission rules and commission orders, including fees, would apply to all hunters. All hunters on these lands would need to be properly licensed and have drawn the appropriate tags. A portion of the tags would be allocated for Hopi hunters, and these would be handled similarly to how the department handles hunts on military lands. Hunters interested in applying would have to contact the Hopi Wildlife Program to get the hunt number to apply.

The Hopi Tribal Council is scheduled to meet on Nov. 24 to vote on giving the Tribe the authority to enter into this agreement with the Arizona Game and Fish Department.

The department's proposed hunt recommendations to the Arizona Game and Fish Commission for the 2010 elk and pronghorn hunts (including the proposed tag allocation for Hopi tribal members) will be presented to the commission for consideration at its Dec. 5 meeting. The hunt recommendations will be posted Nov. 23 at www.azgfd.gov/huntguidelines.


TONY MANDILE

How To Hunt Coues Deer

 

[maddglasser]

Tony
That really clears most of my question. What about those wishing to guide/outfit these hunts? Will they only be tribal outfitters, or can state guides access these lands as well?

 

[OutdoorWriter]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-05-10 AT 12:09PM (MST)[p]MG,

From reading all of the information, it appears the hunts in these units will be NO different than any of the other state-run units. The only stipulation was the permit allocation to the Hopi tribe members.

TONY MANDILE

How To Hunt Coues Deer

 

[azbuster]

>From AZ G&F on Nov 20,
>2009:

>The proposed agreement stipulates how revenue
>would be shared between the
>department and Hopi. An amount
>equal to the revenue from
>the tags and one-half of
>the resident hunting license fee
>would go to Hopi to
>aid their wildlife management. This
>would equal approximately $36,500 in
>the scenario described above. Hunters
>from the general populace would
>have access to Hopi Trust
>Lands under the draft cooperative
>agreement.
>
Tony my concerns are in the long term. The short term agreement is a win for hunters on the Hopi lands. I do fear this could open legal action by lawyers representing other tribes in additional areas of the state.

The money as described above, will as it often does, make lawyers representing tribes in Arizona consider simular agreements.

The lawyers and courts because of this agreement could have a long term effect on Arizona hunters and tag allocation.

All of the tribes in Arizona have very good legal representation as seen in the Glendale casino litigation.

I hope I am wrong.

Thom Howell

 

[javihammer]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-05-10 AT 06:00PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Apr-05-10 AT 05:46?PM (MST)

Hello,
I was tied up dealing with holiday festivities over the weekend. I received this email from Brian Wakeling early Saturday morning.


From: Brian Wakeling <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: Jennifer L. Martin <[email protected]>; Mike Senn <[email protected]>; Robert Woodhouse <[email protected]>; Leonard Ordway <[email protected]>; Rulemaking <[email protected]>; John Bullington <[email protected]>; Gary R. Hovatter <[email protected]>; Chantal OBrien <[email protected]>
Sent: Sat, April 3, 2010 7:29:09 AM
Subject: RE: Leftover Permits

Ryan:

Another innovative solution. I am afraid that there are not only rule (Arizona Administrative Code) issues with this one, but also a statutory one.

Arizona Revised Statue (A.R.S. 17-346) requires the Commission to award special license tags (the type sold through the super raffle) to give them to a nonprofit (like Arizona Big Game Super Raffle), but limits the number of tags to no more than 3 per year. Those three are awarded annually in June by the Commission. We are unable to pursue this recommendation with changing state law and Commission rule.

Rulemaking is also impossible to address prior to April 26 as well. Currently (and since January 2009), the Governor and state legislature have placed a number of restrictions on rulemaking. Rules for most things (excepting public safety and health issues primarily) can not be revised until after June of 2010, should no further moratoriums on rulemaking be established.

Rulemaking itself is not a simple matter, and requires review, development of proposed rulemaking (presentation to the Commission), and 30-day public comment window, Department response to each comment in final packet, and final rulemaking (presentation to the Commission), and finally to the Governors Regulatory Review Council. If all works appropriately, rules take effect 60 days after GRRC approves final rulemaking. Generally, it will take 1-2 years to compete a rule revision and adoption.

It remains our intent to follow our established system for issuing these tags this year. I appreciate your interest, and taking the time to share this with others. These processes are not simple.

Let me know if there are other questions I can answer for you.

Brian Wakeling
Game Branch Chief









I guess it is safe to say that the crusade to distribute these tags through a raffle or auction is out for this year. After reading Brian?s explanation I can see how it would be impossible given regulatory limitations to implement a better process prior to 4/26/10 (the mail in application deadline). I think it is the end of the road for this issue for this application period however I am hopeful that the following things will come out of this.

?Extra care and attention will be paid to the mail-in process this year (a low tech solution would be to stir up all the applications in one of those big mail carts). If it were me, I would videotape the process this year as well (however some government lawyer probably has privacy concerns with that?.I say zoom out then)
?Guys that were considering applying for a top-tier Hopi tag but may not have due to concern over the process should feel at least a little better about submitting an application that has a fighting chance at being filled.
?The rulemaking committee will consider a better process for the future (however I would have to believe these tags will be gobbled up by the Hopis next year and well into the future).
?Other hunters like me now understand that you don't need to be the president of a special interest group to bring attention to issues that are worthy of attention.
?It doesn't take weeks or months to get an issue seriously considered; if it has merit it will get the attention it deserves fairly quickly. (This issue was reviewed in a matter of days).
?People with good ideas now understand that change can be complicated and that if they have an idea worthy of consideration it is important that they submit it as quickly as possible since it may require some time for implementation.
?Anyone with a good idea should do their homework and submit the issue to one or all of the Commissioners. Commissioner Martin obviously reads the submissions since she was the person that forwarded this issue to Brian.

Tony pointed out that I contradicted myself by making an issue of this while still professing AZGFD to be an honest organization. My posts have been long winded but I think that careful review will support the fact that I think AZGFD is by and large an honest organization. I believe that even HONEST organizations hire bad apples, I don't care what organization it is. Smart organizations develop processes with tight controls that make it difficult for the bad apples to game the system. I think the way AZGFD responded to my concern over this issue lends support to my assertion that they are a pretty honest organization (and also pretty smart). Worst case scenario is that they are an honest organization with a bad process this year; hopefully it will be different in the future.

Tony also pointed out that the mail-in process has been used for eons. I understand that point and can vouch for the process working for myself in the past. My issue with the process THIS YEAR is that the quality of the tags is much different than at any time in recent history. When was the last time a rifle antelope tag in a ?real? antelope unit made it's way onto the leftover list? I doubt there are very many of us that can remember back that far. The businessman in me says that there will be a lot of lower salary mailroom employees that are at risk of being offered ?reshuffle fees? if you know what I mean. Once again, it is what it is and AZGFD will almost certainly keep a sharp eye on it this year.

I don't have a problem with well-informed guys capitalizing on little known tag opportunities. I don't post every edge I encounter on a public forum because it would be counter-productive to my own interests. I only shared this opportunity because I felt it wasn?t an opportunity available to everyone. My point to this entire thread and communication with AZGFD was to ensure that the playing field is fair and that everyone has legitimate shot at these premium Hopi tags, not just some insiders. If that happens this year it will be mission accomplished. If I didn't think AZGFD was an honest organization and that this issue was actionable I wouldn't have taken the time to send them a note in the first place.

PS ? This is the second of two issues I have submitted over the last 2 years. Both issues were handled in a timely manner and the first issue actually resulted in a clarification to the regulations. I think this is more of a credit to AZGFD than it is to me. There is no reason to sit on the sidelines, if you have a concern you should take action. Once again, I am just a regular guy.

Cheers,
Ryan

 

[DonMartin]

Travis:

I spoke with Mr. Wakeling, who as always was very peasant and informative.

There will be no problem with guiding on these lands providing one is already a licensed Arizona guide.

The Boquillas Ranch owned by the Navajo tribe is a different deal, according to Mr. Wakeling.

The private lands on the Boquillas are NOT sovereign lands and thus not in the same situation as the Hopi lands.

Tony, you are right on, concerning the Hopi situation. Those lands were designated as SOVEREIGN and thus the tribe can do with as they wish. G&F is giving them half of the money that is generated from the tags on their private lands, which amounts to about $39,000 this year. However, that is probably a good deal for sportsmen, considering the alternatives.

Don Martin

 

[OutdoorWriter]

>>The businessman in me says that there will be a lot of lower salary mailroom employees that are at risk of being offered ?reshuffle fees? if you know what I mean. <<

Yeah, we certainly need to keep our eyes trained on those corrupt mailroom people. Before we know it, they could grow up to be politicians and run for the U.S. Congress.


TONY MANDILE

How To Hunt Coues Deer

 

[spcheuvront]

Tony;

Thats a cheap shot and you know it!

I thought the matter was settled.

Steve

 

[Bates7]

Wheeew! I need a cigarette and a cold beer after reading all that. Very intense and passionate words here. I love to see this from the AZ sportsmen. Ryan, I must agree with Steve, I as well am very proud of you for spearheading this whole thing. Keep it rockin' man. This is awesome.


"Vegetarians are cool. All I eat are vegetarians - except for the occasional mountain lion steak."
-Ted Nugent-

 

[OutdoorWriter]

Actually, Steve, it was meant to be a bank shot, but that's what happens when one forgets to chalk the cue tip.

Btw, although my mother is 86, she's still very healthy. So I'm not quite ready for a replacement yet. ;-)


TONY MANDILE

How To Hunt Coues Deer

 

[spcheuvront]

Tony;

You will find this funny.

I read your post, and went into a cold panic, really!

I couldn't figure what I had said about your mother.

Then it hit me---

You are telling me you don't need me to be your mother because yours is alive and well.

You are a lot better at writting than me, and it looks like a whole lot smarter, than me also. Your comment went right over my head.

Don't you think it's time to quit nit picking the kid?

And, why are you trying so hard to defend the honor of the AZG&FD?

Steve Cheuvront

 

[javihammer]

Tony,
I re-read all of your replies to this thread and with the exception of the post on April 3rd I fail to see a point other than to blindly defend AZGFD. Once again, MY point was that the AZGFD organization is good but this mail-in process is bad (at least I think it is, if anyone has evidence to prove otherwise I would encourage them to share). So far I have yet to see a reasonable challenge to any of my points. I honestly think AZGFD appreciates the input. If I can clue them into a potential problem before it becomes a real problem I can hardly see the harm in it. I never challenged the Indian tag allocation, just the process to distribute the leftover tags associated with it.

I am not an outdoor ?writer?, I am an outdoor ?player?, also known as a ?hunter?. I don't do the verbal tango for fun (at least not very often). I think the risk to too much devils advocacy is that some guys that might take action will fear the peanut gallery on the sidelines. I think it is bad policy to do anything that would prevent some well-meaning guy with a good idea from nuttin? up and jumping in the game. There are a lot of hard working plumbers, truck drivers and other guys with good ideas and major insecurities about initiating change.

My objectives for this thread were to draw attention to a bad process (to ensure we all have a shot at a rare tag opportunity) AND show regular guys they can get treated seriously if they present an issue with substance. I think Brian and AZGFD did a FINE job of responding to this issue and they don't really need any of us to be their cheerleaders. I can assure you that if they would have blown me off I would have had a much different take on the situation. I would imagine Brian would even admit that there are processes in his organization that could benefit from some improvement. I think Arizona hunters should be proud that the people supporting the wildlife in their state actually take input into consideration, I suspect there are other states wildlife agencies that would have been far less responsive.

Steve and I share a common problem. We have a hard time sleeping at night knowing there are opportunities to improve things. Steve advocates for mule deer and I advocate against tag loopholes (or anything else that stands between quality tags and regular guys). We don't always make it to our destination but we always make an effort to make the trip. There would be no animals and little structure if every guy that came before us chose to go with the status quo. We need to encourage people to get off the sideline and not stay on it. I feel like the world is made up of lots of timid short guys hiding in jacked up F350 trucks, real men have the stones to step out of the truck and take a stand when they need to. If you don't want to be on the tip of the spear on an issue at least lend some support to guys like Steve and I who are crazy enough migrate toward the sharp end. Thanks to all the guys that have stepped out of their trucks on this issue so far.

Git R Done
Ryan

 

[OutdoorWriter]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-07-10 AT 08:38AM (MST)[p]>>Once again, MY point was that the AZGFD organization is good but this mail-in process is bad (at least I think it is, if anyone has evidence to prove otherwise I would encourage them to share). So far I have yet to see a reasonable challenge to any of my points.<<

Here's the problem:

You are ASSUMING the mail-in process is bad because someone MIGHT be dishonest. IOW, there is nothing to show any of that is true. So absent that evidence, it can't be bad unless one applies nefarious motives to dishonest employees.

So you're asking someone to prove a negative that is nothing more than an assumption by you! Or do you have actual proof of dishonest G&F employees that make the mail-process bad?

Obviously, if the mail-in drawing can be manipulated by dishonesty, the initial computer drawing could also be manipulated. But neither process takes place with a sole employee isolated in a dark closet somewhere.

In reality, absent the presumed dishonesty, the first-come, first serve mail-in process is little different than the actual drawing, i.e. the result depends on nothing more than luck.

When the applications arrive, they are in one big pile. Since they remain sealed, they are not sorted as to species or units. So no one knows what is on any one application UNTIL it gets opened. When that happens, if a permit is available for the hunt number on that application, the applicant gets it. If not, they get a refund minus the application fee. Then it's on to the next application.

Thus, everyone has a chance to be the first envelope that gets opened for any specific permit. And that process continues until all 394 leftovers are dispensed. So those cherished elk or 'lope permits might be the first or the 394th permits to go. It depends on who applied for what and where in the process someone's envelope gets opened. And because of that, it might take 394 or 2,000 applications to be opened before they are all gone.

The moral: get your application there on time and you have as much chance as anyone else at getting lucky. Unless, of course, one of those perceived dishonest mail-room folks stack the deck. ;-)

As for Brian, he's a class act, and along with tact, he always exercises good patience. That's his job and he does it well. Note that his last e-mail to you merely repeated what I had typed -- about the law and rule-making process --in one of my early replies in this thread.




TONY MANDILE

How To Hunt Coues Deer

 

[redrabbit]

Ryan and Steve,

You question the motives of Tony for defending the department without presenting evidence of corruption in the draw? You assume that since there are "valuable" elk and antelope permits involved, a lowly mailroom employee will take a bribe and shuttle a hunter's envelope among thousands to the top? If this were to actually occur, would not the integrity and honesty of we hunters also come under scrutiny for presenting a bribe?

So basically, as was seen in Ryan's original unedited first post, you are publically questioning the integrity and honesty of the G&F employees involved in the leftover draw. If I were one of those employees, I would not take kindly towards your accusations about my integrity.

Doug~RR



You are welcome to visit my Photo Gallery here http://dougkoepsel.smugmug.com/

 

[spcheuvront]

RR,

I am just saying the AZG&FD has lied about many things in the past.

As I see it, perception is truth, what people think is true,
in their opinion, is true.

Many thing of question, the AZG&FD , has sponsered a field day, if you will, to face to face show us old nea sayers in person what the process is and live how they do it.

If you want to say that the AZG&FD isn't schrowded in secrecery,
I will debate that one with you.

RR, you are a good guy, everyone knows it. I personelly don't think any hanky panky is going on in the mail room, and never said so.

But if you asked me how many times I've looked into a problem area, and hit a brick wall, with no information forth coming,
I would have to say more times than not, sad but true.

I think they are debating a " heat of the moment " feeling and not his final impression on the whole situation.

Just my opinion

RR, Your pictures make me GREEN with envy

Steve Cheuvront

 

[redrabbit]

Steve,
I think this whole issue would have been better served by just using the premium leftover tags as an impetus to revamp the leftover draw process so it is not so dependendent upon the USPS being timely. Instead, the OP started by suggesting the draw department lacked honesty and integrity. That part should have been left unsaid and the focus being on improvement of the leftover draw.

Doug

You are welcome to visit my Photo Gallery here http://dougkoepsel.smugmug.com/

 

[OutdoorWriter]

>>I am just saying the AZG&FD has lied about many things in the past.

As I see it, perception is truth, what people think is true,
in their opinion, is true.

But if you asked me how many times I've looked into a problem area, and hit a brick wall, with no information forth coming,
I would have to say more times than not, sad but true.<<

Perhaps G&F would be more forthcoming with your requests if you called them a bunch of liars a few more times.


TONY MANDILE

How To Hunt Coues Deer

 

[DonMartin]

I'll weigh in on this conversation.

Brian Wakeling is a class act as are MOST of the folks at G&F that I've ever dealt with.

To make accusations, without proof, is totally irresponsible and surely not called for.

The idea of changing the process of the distribution of left over tags in a different manner is, in my opinion very worthwhile.

Work on that, but be very careful about calling out folks and/or attacking their credibility.

That boys, does no good for anyone.

Doug and Tony, well said!

Don Martin

 

[spcheuvront]

RR;

I don't disagree with you, but it was the first post and he was hot.

You see by reading his further posts how smart a kid he is and how much he appreciates the co-operation he received.

It should have been read, learned from, and we should have gone on to other matters. But Tony wanted to pick at that scab one more time. Why not leave it alone.

I've always looked people in the eye, when I say they are lying.

I don't make idle threats just to here myself talk. All the people who know me know that.

Tony, I didn't say all the employees of the AZG&FD are liars.

I said The AZG&FD had lied many times in the past, and they have.

I always back up what I say. Other wise I, with the help of many good sportsman, would never have been able to make the changes, to benifite wildlife, as we have.

If any one takes heat for what I said let it be me, of course.
( dumb phrasing, I admit )

So, what do you say, just leave it lay. O.K. ?

Steve Cheuvront

 

[OutdoorWriter]

>> I don't disagree with you, but it was the first post and he was hot.<<

Steve,

You need to be more observant.

This from Ryan in post #30 in ths thread:

>>The businessman in me says that there will be a lot of lower salary mailroom employees that are at risk of being offered ?reshuffle fees? if you know what I mean. <<

This from me after quoting the above in post #32:

>>Yeah, we certainly need to keep our eyes trained on those corrupt mailroom people. Before we know it, they could grow up to be politicians and run for the U.S. Congress. <<


Looks to me as if he was still hot on the corruption bandwagon in #30 -- sorta more like a festering wound rather than a scab, eh?




TONY MANDILE

How To Hunt Coues Deer

 

[OutdoorWriter]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-07-10 AT 04:24PM (MST)[p]BTW, as a point of information only, at one time there was more than one computer drawing. Here's a bit of the history.

The first application fee of $3 came into being in 1982 when there were only TWO hunt choices on the applications. After the first computer drawing, a second -- with reapplication -- was always held. Then it was the first-come, first-serve by mail only, with over the counter sales as the very last alternative.

In 1984, the choices on an application went to five, which basically amounted to two drawings with one application. Then the rest was just like the above -- another application for 2nd computer drawing, and on to the mail-only FC, FS, etc., etc. In effect, this amounted to THREE computer drawings.

In 1986, the second application computer drawing was eliminated altogether and became the system as it is today.




TONY MANDILE

How To Hunt Coues Deer

 

[spcheuvront]

Tony;

Thanks for the info.

Can we now let it rest?

Steve

p.s. you can write back with o.k. and get the last word on the subject, I am finished--- S.

 

[OutdoorWriter]

Ok, mom.

TONY MANDILE

How To Hunt Coues Deer

 

[bubbas]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-08-10 AT 03:43PM (MST)[p] I did not see where anyone called anyone a "liar" as that term generally has a personal attack attached to it. Insinuating or even stating that an organization has been less than honest in past dealings is perfectly acceptable and positive if it is said objectively with a factual basis, which it sounds like the case here. Sounds like the individuals could list those facts or personal dealings but then they would just be accused of not being positive, etc, etc. But individuals and especially organizations and businesses are not above reproach and in actuality should be questioned and threatened in order to try and dissuade immoral governing.

"As I see it, perception is truth, what people think is true,
in their opinion, is true."

Perception is not truth. Perception is an individuals belief as to what reality is but that individual's reality may be false. See Ayn Rand's writings on Objectivism. I only mention this because when anyone is trying to make decisions regarding others or influence others in a way that affects many then I feel it is our moral obligation to make sure we are using PROVABLE, REPRODUCIBLE, and FACTUAL knowledge for our basis and argument. Perception and beliefs are not adequate as they can be false. You ever wonder why there are so many Religious Wars throughout history. They happen when differing religions, which are based on nonfactual beliefs and perceptions, and governing bodies try to enact policy or their will on the other based on NONFACTUAL beliefs.

I respect the "plumbers" of the world and their opinions are inherently as equal as the next but they need to have the ability to formulate and/or communicate those opinions or ideas in a FACTUAL manner in order to influence public policy for the better. Or have a friend like Javi to communicate it for them.

Thanks for recommending and carrying a good idea to the AZGFD. I hope they take the steps necessary to make that change in the future for any potential cases similar to this. I do not like luck the mail in process either but really is that any different than the whole draw process? The infrastructure is there to be corrupt from square one. So I would suspect that Javi would be suspect from the beginning. A point that history shows the individuals on here don't want to address.

 

[OutdoorWriter]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-09-10 AT 08:46AM (MST)[p]>>I did not see where anyone called anyone a "liar" as that term generally has a personal attack attached to it.<<

Words have meanings and meaning have words.

li?ar (lr) n. - One that tells lies.

Since the "AZG&FD" as a non-personal entity cannot write or speak, the "lies" in the quote below had to originate from some individual(s). So please use YOUR proper term to define someone who has "LIED" about many things, as is written in the following:

"I am just saying the AZG&FD has lied about many things in the past."

Lastly, "less than honest" and "did not tell the truth" are usually nothing more than PC weasel words to say someone LIED.

P.S. Sorry I lied in my last reply to you, mom.


TONY MANDILE

How To Hunt Coues Deer

 

[bubbas]

That was exactly my point, Tony. You have to understand what connotation words mean in certain situations. Some words are reserved to get a point across. In the strictest sense everyone could be defined by many negative words. It is not just a matter of being PC but rather using the English verbiage correctly under correct circumstances. The term "liar" is the noun form that in the strictest sense is merely assigning a term to one who has told a lie. However, since we all have at one time or another, regardless of how frequent, told a lie we could all be called "liars". Do we go around calling everyone a liar? No. Could we say in a conversation with our friend, "hey, I was there with you on that hunt and that was not how the events unfolded, that isn't exactly the truth." Yes. Would we most likely call them a liar....not unless you were really good friends and you had a relationship that could withstand the sarcasm. Would your mom refer to you as "liar" because of all those times you lied to your mom growing up, I hope not. Most likely, most of if not all of us have taken something that was not ours from someone else. Should we refer to each other as criminals? In the strictest definition we would under your reasoning. I do not think I need to further explain this. As one who made a profession in the use of the English language this SHOULD be apparent.

We can say someone has done an act without having that act define them as a person or organization.

 

[OutdoorWriter]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-09-10 AT 12:00PM (MST)[p]<<However, since we all have at one time or another, regardless of how frequent, told a lie we could all be called "liars". Do we go around calling everyone a liar? No. Could we say in a conversation with our friend, "hey, I was there with you on that hunt and that was not how the events unfolded, that isn't exactly the truth."<<

Aaah, but now you go to intent.

Did the person relating the hunt just not remember the events or did he intentionally LIE about the events for some reason? If the latter, that person is indeed a liar. And...depending on his motive, I would certainly refer to him as a liar.

Of course, even when we merely say someone lies, the only possible implication of that is that he or she is a liar. A truthful person wouldn't be telling lies.

There is no splitting hairs, so to speak.

As for my mother, did you mean my REAL one or Steve?

Seriously, she would indeed call me a liar if it applied, and I even remember a time it happened when I was in the 4th grade and lied about where I had been after school let out for the day. It resulted in the worst whipping of my life.

After she called my cousin, who had been the "alibi" for my lie, she turned to me and said, "You are a liar. Phillip said you weren't with him."

An hour later, when my dad came home from work, she pretty much repeated those words to him, and I quickly learned a lesson with a good ol' spanking.

Now, to speak to how Steve used "lies." If he knew they were lies, than he also must know what the truths were. If that wasn't the case, however, he might not have meant it as such. That is what he typed nonetheless. Thus, my reply to what was actually written and not to what he might have intended.

That said, as to the subject of what are lies and what aren't in regards to the AGFD.

Obviously, without hearing what was said, who said it and why, I'm only guessing here. But...too often what might be referred to as a "lie" is nothing more than an answer the questioner doesn't like or doesn't want to hear. Or perhaps it's not as complete or thorough an answer to the question. That doesn't make it a lie, per se.

>>Most likely, most of if not all of us have taken something that was not ours from someone else. Should we refer to each other as criminals? <<

If it was intentional theft, then yes, that person would be both a thief and a criminal. Of course, the degree of criminality would be akin to the degree of difference between someone who shoplifts a pack of gum to someone who steals a vehicle or robs a bank. Regardless, by definition stealing is stealing, and stealing IS a crime.

TONY MANDILE

How To Hunt Coues Deer

 

[TheGunClaw]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-09-10 AT 12:09PM (MST)[p] Yes you were a liar at that point in time but , personally,I would not keep referring to you as a "liar" because of past transgressions.

I would say that by Javi or Steve referring to past "lies" made by the AZGFD does not mean that he was throwing a blanket statement to the Department by calling them "Liars". I also believe it is in the intent of reference.

 

[OutdoorWriter]

I played golf Tues. with several friends and badly sliced my first drive into the lake, resulting in a penalty stroke. So I teed up another ball and smacked it about 250 yards down the center of the fairway.

I turned to my partners and said, "I should have hit my second ball first."

The moral:

You should have done the same with your now edited message, perhaps resulting in a respectful reply.

Have a nice day.

Signed,

Mr. Liar, Mr. Criminal, Mr. Thief, Mr. Pervert, Mr. Hypocrit and Mr. Sloth.


TONY MANDILE

How To Hunt Coues Deer

 

[TheGunClaw]

No prob, Tony. The first message was edited because it was meant as an extreme example to illustrate a point but over the internet those rarely go over well when it is not face to face in a discussion with the benefit of tone and nonverbal communication, which is why I edited it. Same point was made but with more explanation. I respect you as a writer. Really, I was just chiming in because I agree with Bubbas that there was no "intention" by the previous posters to cast the Department as "liars", meaning a goup that purposefully and consistently lies as a manner of conducting business but rather pointing out that there have been occasions where lies have been noted and this was a case where less than honest conduct could be taken, which I agree, it is possible. Either way I will let them clarify for themselves. Was just a matter of discussion. I hope you have a good day as well.

Sincerely,
Mr Liar, Thief, Criminal, etc, etc. LOL

 

[huntandfish]

I hate to beat a dead horse down,but I called Game and fish yesterday and they said that you do not get your process fee back.I thought I read on one of these posts that if you did not draw then you would get it back.