AZSFW denies it's behind HB2072

C

cfree

Active member
Joined
Jan 1, 2003
Messages
225
Latest message from AZSFWC (AZSFW is one in the same):

Some of our members recently expressed concern with some proposed legislation, HB 2072. However, AZSFWC did not sponsor HB 2072, nor introduce HB 2072. We did hear an overview of the bill at our December Board meeting, and the Board voted to support the concept. We viewed the benefits as presented for sportsmen and women, youth, access and wildlife, not to mention Arizona's economy, as very positive.

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=hhjq8ccab&v=001uhMSa17EQAcRsYZpF26RxMw05ZhQTnKoBYrbEFYCDc7rLtyNRKMG3eiOwMYIypAIozSuu_BILU5lYq7cBcunK7kqh-vvTx9aRSYzvSx-WqHmC58nQLV90A%3D%3D

Technically he is right. They did not sponsor or introduce HB2072 because none of them are legislators! They did, however, undoubtedly draft the bill in question, and paid Rep. Weiers $6187 during their December 16th meeting to sponsor/introduce it for them. They are not fooling anyone.

AZSFWC Council
President/Chairman - Jim Unmacht
Secretary/Treasurer - Alan Hamberlin
Director - Eddy Corona
Director - Joe Del Re
Director - Floyd Green
Director - Charlie Kelly
Director - John Koleszar
Director - Jerry Nelson
Director - Mark Nuessle
Director - Art Pearce
Director - Brian Pinney
Director - Shane Stewart
Director - Gary Stinson
Director - Robert Thomas

AZSFW council
CHAIRMAN: Alan Hamberlin
Chris Denham
Brian Dolan
Randy Gaskill
Hays Gilstrap
Floyd Green
Todd Hulm
Nick Heatwole
Mark Nuessle
Art Pearce
Trent Swanson
LOBBYIST: Suzanne Gilstrap

The AZ Secretary of State keeps records on all political contributions. This is from the Jerry Weiers 2012 political committee. The same Jerry Weiers who sponsored HB2072. These contributions totalling over $6000 were all made on December 16, 2011. 3 weeks before this emergency bill was created/made public. Coincidence? Maybe some of these names look familiar?

CORONA, EDWARD
12/16/2011 $100.00
DENHAM, CHRISTOPHER
12/16/2011 $250.00
Evenson, Jared
12/16/2011 $424.00
GILSTRAP, HAYS
12/16/2011 $200.00
GREEN, FLOYD
12/16/2011 $400.00
HAMBERLIN, ALAN
12/16/2011 $174.00
HAMBERLIN, DEBORAH
12/16/2011 $424.00
Hamberlin, Ryan
12/16/2011 $424.00
HICKMAN, BILL
12/16/2011 $200.00
HICKMAN, CLINTON
12/16/2011 $200.00
HICKMAN, GLENN
12/16/2011 $200.00
HICKMAN, LISA
12/16/2011 $200.00
HICKMAN SILVA, SHARMAN
12/16/2011 $200.00
HULM, TODD
12/16/2011 $50.00
Katz, Andy
12/16/2011 $424.00
KELLY, CHARLES
12/16/2011 $150.00
KING, RHONDA
12/16/2011 $35.00
KINNEY, DONNA
12/16/2011 $424.00
KOLESZAR, JOHN
12/16/2011 $100.00
MAGURA, JACK
12/16/2011 $410.00
MARVIN, J.W.
12/16/2011 $100.00
Mings, Brian
12/16/2011 $424.00
NELSON, KAREN
12/16/2011 $50.00
Pearce, Arthur
12/16/2011 $424.00
Stinson, L Gary
12/16/2011 $50.00
Thomas, Bob
12/16/2011 $50.00
UNMACHT, JAMES
12/16/2011 $100.00

Verifiable here ( 2012 - January 31st Report) http://www.azsos.gov/cfs/FilerSearch.aspx?id=200693346#

Its time these clowns just go away...
 
If you post that over on MM, the guy who goes by Birdman will argue that they are two completely different groups. He will tell you he knows for a fact, though he will post no fact. Even with what you have provided here, he will find some way to try deny it.

Not sure how guys have the tolerance to continue the argument with that guy.

It is humorous to read the stuff over there, as it is a demonstration of just how far people will go to deny the truth or manufacturer their own facts to support a previously taken position.
 
That's funny. I just got this via email today. If you read the very first line, you'll see both sides of their mouth working at the same time.

OPEN LETTER FROM ARIZONA SPORTSMAN FOR WILDLIFE

In our effort to improve things that we see as very problematic for sportsmen and wildlife, we made a significant error in not providing information to the Sportsmen community on HB 2072 before introducing it at the Legislature. We apologize for our mistake. Below is an explanation of HB 2072 and the issues we were attempting to address. We ask that you have an open mind as you review the issues we see as being critically important to protecting our hunting and fishing heritage for future generations.



For the record, AZSFW is not a chapter nor an affiliate of Utah SFW. Having said that, we do believe they have had very positive impacts on improving wildlife habitat and increasing tags for hunters.



Problem # 3. Access to Public Lands: Access to public land is becoming more, not less, difficult. Several factors contribute to this problem including landowners closing access across private lands, increased forest road closures and increased wilderness designations.



Arizona is home to more than 4.5 million acres of wilderness, one of five states with the most wilderness areas and acres. Another 800,000 plus acres is currently being evaluated for wilderness designation. More wilderness designation will mean fewer access points and more challenges for AZGFD to manage our wildlife unimpeded by wilderness use restrictions.



Pressure is being continuously applied to the U. S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management by extreme environmental groups to close more roads. The most recent proposed travel management plans for forests in Arizona call for more restrictions on camping and closure of more roads.



Southeastern Arizona is one of the more challenging areas when it comes to access as private land closures are preventing access to adjacent public lands. Checkerboard patterns of land ownership create their own problem and preclude sportsmen from accessing thousands of acres of public land in other parts of the state.



AZGFD has identified access as a growing problem in its strategic plan and just last year was forced to close thousands of acres to antelope hunting in Unit 19B (resulting in a loss of 65 tags) because a landowner would not allow access across their private land to adjacent public lands with no other access.






The next referendum to ban mountain lion hunting is coming. The Center for Biological Diversity is holding a seminar on the ecological role of bears, wolves and lions and "how their indiscriminate killing by humans - whether hunters or government agencies-disrupts predator's social relationships, sparking more conflicts with people". The AZGFD's inability to manage mountain lions will be just another and possible final nail in the coffin. Do you know how many deer a lion eats a year? We must be ready to respond when the next issue presents itself.



The legislation, HB 2072, is meant to create a 3-4 day Sportsmen Expo annually in Arizona. The Expo would generate significant revenues that would be invested in programs specially designed to start bending the trend lines discussed above in a positive direction. It is a big deal - Bigger than anything contemplated so far in Arizona. It would generate about $25 million in new economic activity for our State and her economy. It would also generate significant dollars for Sportsmen. This would empower them to directly and at their choice come up with their own solutions to augment those of AZGFD.



1. Special Draw Tags (Defined as Sportsmen Tags): Most of the tags described in the legislation (about 276) are existing draw tags and would remain as draw tags but would have special rules beneficial to sportsmen and would only be available at the Expo. Each application for the draw would only cost $5 (compared to the Department's cost of $7.50) and applicants could apply for any or all of the hunts for which they have an interest. If you are successful, the tag costs you nothing. Special rules for draw tags include the following:



All tags would be exempt from the bag limits. In other words, you could get drawn for one of these tags and also get drawn for a draw tag in the AZGFD's annual draw.
Mule deer and Coues deer would be treated as separate species. This means you could (if you are lucky) buy a raffle tag for both Mule Deer and Coues Deer hunts and if you are drawn for both, you get both tags.
The AZGFD would be precluded from not letting you participate in the Department's annual draw if you were successful at the Expo.
No preference would be given. All $5 applications would be treated equally.
You would still need to prioritize your hunts (1st, 2nd, choice and so forth).



The special draw program was designed to provide the Sportsmen with a "stand alone" broad-based draw independent from and with fewer restrictions than the AZGFD's annual draw. While the special draw tags are not designed to be the big money maker we believe they will generate a lot of interest and thus increase the number of attendees at the Expo. These draw tags are comprised of the following:

Mule Deer and Coues Deer: There are about 156 tags available to draw which includes one tag for each hunt number for archery, muzzle loader and rifle hunts. Youth and HAM hunts are excluded.
Elk: There are 50 cow elk tags, 21 bull elk tags (for early elk hunts to include archery, muzzle loader and rifle hunts) and 10 late rifle bull tags
Javelina: 25 Javelina tags; Turkey: 14 turkey tags; Antelope: 2 antelope tags


Remember these are not new permits. They are existing tags allocated to a special drawing.


2. Auction Tags: The legislation contains two separate and distinct types of auction tags, each type meant to appeal to different kinds of buyers or buyer profiles. Auction tags are necessary to generate the bulk of money needed to accomplish the goals of the legislation. They are an investment to grow more wildlife in the future. Remember we are currently loosing 2,000 tags a year on average so these 54 tags should be looked at as a means to generate more tags over time. The two types of Auction tags are described as follows:



Governor Tags: There are 16 Governor tags including 2 sheep (one Desert and one Rocky), 2 Elk, 2 Mule Deer, 2 Coues Deer, 2 buffalo, 1 Antelope, 2 Bear and 3 Turkey. These tags are 360 day tags.
Legislator Tags: There are 38 Legislator tags of which 21 are Coues Deer, 7 Mule Deer, 10 Elk and 2 Antelope. These tags are for seasons only. For example, if you hunt the archery hunt and are unsuccessful you can continue to hunt in that unit during the following season using the current allowed weapon.



3. Use of Funds: While the legislation is silent on the structure a qualifying organization would use to best allocate the funds, it was our intent that committees would be formed comprised of organization member representatives to determine the most effective, efficient and beneficial use of tag proceeds in each of the three primary areas : #1 Increasing Wildlife Herds; #2 Improving Access; and #3 Hunter and Angler Recruitment and Retention.



Example: If Arizona Sportsmen for Wildlife Conservation (AZSFWC) were to be selected as the qualifying organization to create and manage the EXPO, it is not just a single organization, rather it is an organization of its parts (there are 17 member organizations that comprise AZSFWC). Regarding the Increasing Wildlife Herds Committee, we would expect to see members of the various species groups sitting on this committee and making the decisions on use of these funds. We would expect predator management to play heavily in this. The Access committee would most likely be comprised of individuals from areas where we have the biggest problems with access like the southeastern part of the state and so on. The Hunter and Angler Recruitment and Retention Committee would be comprised of organization member representatives interested in and best equipped to deal with this issue. Each committee would be expected to define metrics to measure its success. Ten percent would be allocated for administrative costs.



Then, if we are threatened by enviro-litigants or their initiatives that have a detrimental impact on wildlife herds, then we would react by allocating the money to deal with it at the time. What is important here is that we would have a stable source of funding so we could plan accordingly. As we see it no one issue is more important than another except our primary goal is to increase our wildlife herds and do everything we can to further our hunting and angling heritage for future generations to enjoy.



4.Summary Most of the tags (about 276 of the total) are existing draw tags with special rules giving sportsmen a second opportunity to get drawn separate and apart from the AZGFD draw. Only 54 tags would be reserved for auction, without which we could not raise the money necessary to accomplish the objectives specified in the legislation. In other words, we would be investing in 54 tags a year to help increase our wildlife herd numbers by several thousand. Or we can keep the status quo and continue to reduce the number of permits for sportsmen by approximately 2,000 a year. We respectfully ask for your support in this endeavor.



Suzanne Gilstrap

Executive Director/Government Affairs Consultant for AZSFW
 
I had to remove a significant portion of the letter to get it to post. Essentially they say that they blame AZGF for everything from declining numbers of animals to the enviromental lobby to the crowded freeways and that they have a solid plan to fix everything. All we have to do is support their organization at the sacrifice of all of the other sportsmen's orgainzations. Sorry. I call bullshit on this. They are a thinly veiled who are trying to impose land owner tags and outfitter tags in Arizona and I, for one, am not going for it.
 
Funny how they talk about the importance of public land access, yet their MT and national group is promoting another one of the guys who previously voted for a bill to sell off the public lands - Denny Rehberg.

I can't tell you how refreshing it is to see you AZ guys get on top of this. Like I said before, kick in the teeth, kick in the crotch, and kick 'em there every chance you get. If they look tired and sore, kick 'em again for good measure.

This site is open to anyone posting facts about the groups who are trying to pull this crap.

I wish I could share my PMs and emails with all of you. Let's just say that since I posted the orginal thread over the weekend and it got re-posted on other sites, my mail has been pretty interesting. You guys staying on top of this stuff as you are doing in AZ is very helpful to informing all these lurkers as to the extent of this problem and showing them why western hunters are so worked up about it.

Go get' em guys.
 
azhunter42 said:
DENHAM, CHRISTOPHER
12/16/2011 $250.00
He and all the others just want this to go away.
Click to expand...

I disagree, based on the letter they sent out this week. It looks like they plan on trying it again.

danr55 said:
4.Summary Most of the tags (about 276 of the total) are existing draw tags with special rules giving sportsmen a second opportunity to get drawn separate and apart from the AZGFD draw. Only 54 tags would be reserved for auction, without which we could not raise the money necessary to accomplish the objectives specified in the legislation. In other words, we would be investing in 54 tags a year to help increase our wildlife herd numbers by several thousand. Or we can keep the status quo and continue to reduce the number of permits for sportsmen by approximately 2,000 a year. We respectfully ask for your support in this endeavor.
Click to expand...
 
As a businessman I have to remain politically correct.. so I made just a short letter back to the sender of the "open letter" Here is a copy.

Dear Susan, I wish I could donate money to your cause but I really I hope you get kicked out of AZ for the back door crap you tried to pull off.

UT SFW is like a cancer that spread to AK and now AZ. Your back door tactics to try and grab tags and make a phony plea stating you can manage wildlife better than the F&G is pathetic to say the least. Pound sand, take me off your mailing list, and I wish you the worst of luck trying to make hunting in AZ go the route of UT....
 
My letter:

Dear Suzanne,
While you may claim your organization is not affiliated with UT SFW, your actions state otherwise. I do not, nor will I ever support taking public draw tags to auction off to the highest bidder. It starts out as a few tags and within a few years there will be hundreds. Philosophically I do not support allowing those with means to avoid the regular draw and buy a tag that many will never get. There are other ways that are more fair to support wildlife. I truly hope your organization sees no success as you try and steal tags from the residents of AZ and those of us non residents privileged enough to hunt in AZ.

Please remove me from your mailing list as I do not associate with charlatans and thieves.
 
All this makes me wonder if Utah will ever be able to undo the stranglehold SFW has on the state....
 
All western states should be worried.Just see how they raped Utah and told them it was what they needed.All of us hunters should stand as one,not just worry about our home state.I for one had no idea what happend in Utah till they tried to do this in my state of AZ,my bad what they are still trying to do here.We are not going to stand idle and let them pass any bill like that.One voice does count...
 
I read these comments from Amanda Moors owner of CouesWhitetail.com & it was almost as if I was writing them down. I am a member of several wildlife orgs & yes I had contributed to the AZSFW. I felt like we were losing the battle with antis & still do! I (like you all) was hit smack in the back of the head with this deal & well Amanda's comments say it all, for me at this point.

"Hey Guys,

I really would appreciate it if everyone would just focus on the facts and the questions regarding this issue. I don't think personal attacks get us anywhere....and please make sure you have correct facts before posting information or allegations against anyone.

I also challenge you all to think more about the solutions to this problem. It seems to me we are spending too much time looking backwards. If AZSFW is not the group that will represent all the sportsmens groups, then we need another solution. Personally I supported AZSFW and I felt for a long time they were working for the good of sportsmen in the state. I take extreme offense at this bill and the way it was created and pushed forward. I think AZSFW has crippled itself beyond repair. But I think we need to have representation/lobbying power to push a pro-hunting agenda."

Where do we go from here? We are loosing access, we are loosing animals (tags), the pro-wolf (predator) agenda is coming, so where do we go from here? I absolutely did not, don't & won't agree with this bill, but I still believe these are 3 major issues we MUST address.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,547
Messages
2,024,638
Members
36,226
Latest member
Byrova

Share this page

Back
Top