Thanks USO

[sremim]

This is off the AZGFD website. They have "budget" reasons for doing this but we all know it is because of what USO did. It is not a coincidence that USO won and they want to do this. Read below:

Public meetings set for Game and Fish Department legislation proposal

Call for Comments
November 10, 2004

Department proposes increase to statutory ceiling for license and permit fees

PHOENIX ? The Arizona Game and Fish Department will conduct a series of public meetings on a proposal for an increase to the statutory ceiling for license and tag fees.


?It's important to remember that this proposal only sets the ceiling for fees. Any increase in fees for our customers would have to go through the rulemaking process, including another public comment period,? says Director Duane Shroufe. ?Sales of hunting and fishing licenses fell 16 percent from 1988 through 2003. Without an increase in statutory fee ceilings, the department will be forced to make service and program reductions.?


?It's also important to remember that the last statutory fee increase in 1998 only provided for the maintenance of existing department programs. The current proposal, in addition to meeting budget shortfalls, would allow us to increase wildlife surveys, enhance law enforcement presence in the field, and improve our fish hatchery and fish stocking programs, in addition to improving other important services to our customers,? says Shroufe.


The meetings will give the public the opportunity to discuss and provide comment on the proposal. They will be held on the following dates:

Nov. 15, 6 p.m., Arizona Game and Fish Department's Flagstaff regional office, 3500 S. Lake Mary Road, Flagstaff.

Nov. 16, 6 p.m., Arizona Game and Fish Department's Pinetop regional office, 2878 E. White Mountain Blvd., Pinetop.

Nov. 18, 6 p.m., Arizona Game and Fish Department's Kingman regional office, 5325 N. Stockton Hill Road, Kingman.

Nov. 23, 6 p.m., Arizona Game and Fish Department's Mesa regional office, 7200 E. University Drive, Mesa.

Nov. 29, 7 p.m., Graham County Health Annex, Community Meeting Room, 820 W. Main St., Safford.

Dec. 1, 6 p.m., Arizona Game and Fish Department's Tucson regional office, 555 N. Greasewood Road, Tucson.

Dec. 2, 6:30 p.m., La Quinta Inn, 2510 W. Greenway Road, Phoenix.

Dec. 4, 1 p.m., Arizona Game and Fish Department's Yuma regional office, 9140 E. 28th St., Yuma.
- View the proposed fee ceiling table [PDF, 282kb]
- Examples of what fees would be used for [PDF, 37kb

 

[D13er]

Do people really get on here and only go to one topic and possibly miss these USO posts??

JB

 

[RockyMtnOyster]

Give the power back to the people! The judicial system has run amuck . . .

Please support Senate Bill 2978!!

November 10, 2004

As a response to a recent decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Senate Bill 2978 has been introduced by Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada. This bill would allow states, rather than the courts, to regulate hunting and fishing.

The Arizona Game and Fish Department's ability to regulate hunting and fishing, and maintain resident advantage was recently abridged by the unprecedented decision of the 9th Circuit in Montoya v. Shroufe. The department's biggest asset in accomplishing its mission is the public support that engaged residents are uniquely positioned to provide. While the department welcomes nonresident hunters, maintaining resident hunting opportunities is one of the best ways to support conservation.

If you have an opinion regarding this legislation, please contact your Arizona senators.

We appreciate your continued support of the department's wildlife conservation efforts.

 

[rost495]

Again I want to start this with the fact I'm totally against USO and what they've done.

But, if they sued for more non resident tags by percentage, then it seems to me that there would be a substantial increase in fees recieved.

Am I missing something?

 

[Bura Nut]

I have a couple form letters that have been emailed to me that anyone who wants to can attach their support and send to McCain etc..All concerned parties. email me at [email protected] and I will forward this email. It came from various concerned groups here in AZ that want to rally the support for this bill in hopes that no other state has to go through the financial and emotional turmoil our AZGFD just allowed us citizens......email me here or at the address above and I will forward the email to you if you want to get involved.........thanks...... Allen Taylor......

 

[Bura Nut]

Rost, no offense intended, but you are way way behind the times. You need to have already read the 9th circuit ruling, contacted AZGFD and found out how clueless they are on accountability with their own budget let alone being able to accurately account for where the non-profit dollars have went, the Heritage funds have went, the federal dollars have went etc. etc. etc. The lawsuit did not concern an "increased percentage" it concerned eliminating the cap. Therefore the public record for you would show specifically if more money came in or not, but then you would be missing the point. Naturally more money is wanted by an inefficiently run organization and they may get that in the short run but in the long run what all of us have sacrificed for years in not obtaining tags for the good of herd health is now being sacrificed to corporate hunting. Again I am not venting at you, but there have been numerous Commission meeting, discussions here on MM and at organizations like Arizona Deer Association, RMEF, SCI etc...and to bring you up to speed when time is of the essence will require you to do the research and math or we miss the window of opportunity by Nov. 16 in Washington D.C. As a resident, I dont feel we need increased fees, I think the voice of the general population of outdoorspeople needs to be listened to here. AZGFD ignored most of our public commments and chose a path most sportspeople did not want. To make matters worse, they had to dole out alot of money to USO attorneys and if all of us dont back the above initiative, the face of hunting primarily in the West will change at a time of muledeer declines previously unknown. We must do something now or revenues may go up for a couple years then dramatically fall because there wont be anything worth paying a premium to hunt......respectfully... Allen Taylor......

 

[sremim]

AMEN!!!!

 

[ktg]

Holy Crapoly! $1200 for premium deer and $3200 for premium elk! Am I reading that right?

 

[rost495]

Bura

Excellent info. I just get a few minutes here and there to pop in and read.

I'll have to make time to find the whole thing and read it some weekend.

PS no offense taken, I wanted a direct answer, its why I asked. You can figure that there was something else involved.

Being way out of state, this site is the only one that made me aware of what happened with USO. Didnt know that you had inner problems with AZ to boot.

Jeff

 

[Phantom Hunter]

Bura,

Do you know where the NRA stands on this issue? I have tried to contact the NRA main office, the NRA-ILA, and Free Hunters with no luck. Seems like no one knows about USO and the lawsuit. As a longtime NRA member and one of the first members of Free Hunters I want them to weigh in on this issue and add some muscle. As a non-resident elk hunter I can't stand anymore fee increases or I will have to stay home and let the elite be the only ones to hunt. My son is wanting to go but if fees continue to go up I won't be able to afford to take him. Where will the DNR budgets be when most of us drop out due to cost, and there are no younger hunters because we could't afford to teach them. Just my vent.

Phantom Hunter

 

[gleninaz]

I also want to know where the RMEF stands. I have been thinking I should join again after a few years away. I used to spend thousands every year on corporate tables and goodies. If they are not taking a stand I may try the AZ elk society instead.

 

[txhunter58]

Rost said:

"But, if they sued for more non resident tags by percentage, then it seems to me that there would be a substantial increase in fees recieved."

The short answer is that you are correct, if this stands they will probably receive MORE money at current rates, BUT that won't limit nonresidents which is their REAL agenda. If they raise the prices high enough, they essentially put a cap on nonresidents (i.e. only the rich need apply)

Glen: I doubt that the RMEF will take a stand either way on this issue. Not because most members aren't against what USO is doing, but because RMEF is esentially a nonpolitical organization. Their mission is to preserve habitat for elk and other wildlife. Yes, they have some members and even higher ups that print policatal statements/articles in Bugle, but they do not take a stand officially either way. Bottom line is that they spend 90% plus of the monies they take in on HABITAT. As far as I know, they don't spend one dime for ANY political purpose. I think this is the best course for them to take.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

 

[fatrooster]

Hmmmm, I was just getting ready to sign up for Bugle magazine but if RMEF cannot help us make a political stand then I cannot support thier organization. I believe the RMEF does many wonderful things for wildlife but too many people and organizations are afraid to make a stand or give thier view points because it may hurt them or thier bussiness in some way. Or it may help them. But thier afraid to take a chance so they stay in the middle and ride the freakin' fence. Hunters and lovers of wildlife need to unite and ban together. If you cannot make a stand and if you have no backbone to make yourself be heard, then you are hurting us just as if you were against us. I'm sorry for venting off but I am so damned tired of people not standing up for what they believe in because they are afraid of the consequences. Example: If a bully is picking on you do you just let him get away with it? If you let him push you around you might not get beat up. But degraded over and over again. But if you fight back you might get beat up. You might not though. Either way, you took a stand and the bully will not be so quick to pick on you. If you keep fighting, sooner or later the bully will get tired of you and leave you alone. I say to hell with RMEF if they do not want to support the sportsmen who support thier organization. We people who live in the West that hunt and love Elk are the people who have made RMEF what it is. Now we need them. Where are they?
fatrooster.

 

[Bura Nut]

I dont have concrete factual info on NRA or RMEF and their position on this so I cannot say for sure. What I do know is that neither of these "pro hunting, pro wildlife" organizations have come forward with any Public position so I can only assume they want to try and stay out of what they can easily call a "political" situation. I call these types woosy's.......they should not hide behind the scenes and just hope everything works out. I also ask both of these organizations that continually mail me requests to help them, to step up to the plate and help me NOW. I have supported them but probably dont send as much money as Georgie does. I dont give them free guided hunts to get airtime in their magazines so more than likely they will not step forward for what is obviously the right thing to do for Wildlife. I really would like to see if economics are involved with both of these organizations regarding USO. I would even forgive them if in the past they have recieved funds but right now when they are needed, step up to the plate and stop supporting USO and what affect their actions will have on wildlife. We must all support Reid and Nevada with the current legislation to hand back states rights.................... Allen Taylor......

 

[txhunter58]

I would have to respectfully dissagree. I believe it is in their charter that they can not spend money on political causes. Anyway, I know that they don't. There stated purpose is to preserve and protect habitat. I think too many organizations try to do too many things and end up shortchanging their main mission. How can you find fault with an organization that spends over 90 cents of every dollar it takes in on habitat projects?? Once they go down that path (spend money on a particular cause), then there are many other causes that are "worthy" too. Soon, they would be just spending 20 cents on habitat. The organization itself does not need to take a stand, however, its members are free to take any stand they desire and many of them do.

I could also be wrong. They may take sides in this issue. However, I know that they won't spend any money on a "lobbist" to back up this stand. Call and ask them, or write them a letter to the editor to get some conversation started.

I think the present cause of "defeat USO" is noble, and I am in the thick of it trying to help in any way I can, but I also think it is noble to do what the RMEF does. For a relatively small amount ($30), you are contributing to preserving elk's shrinking habitat and get a pretty good magazine to boot. I consider that a pretty good investment any way you look at it.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

 

[txhunter58]

Bura:

You make some very good points, espicially about whether or not they receive any money from USO. As a member, I will ask them about that, and request that "WE" (the RMEF) sever any ties to Georgie and USO.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)