PROP 109 SHOT DOWN BEWARE

[Boskee]

LAST EDITED ON Nov-03-10 AT 10:03AM (MST)[p]BEWARE Prop 109 goes down in flames BEWARE


Well maybe with this loss of protective legislation in AZ. all sportsmen will become aware of the forces opposing us. Our opponent is a well funded machine that clearly takes the gloves off and uses any tool in the box to promote their cause. While we had a Republican mandate throughout our state we managed to lose this battle even with their support! It's time for all sportsmen to wake up and realize that this is a warning shot across our bow. It's time to get up and get involved in order to preserve your right to hunt and fish. This initiative was on the ballot in 4 states and only in AZ did we manage to lose. We now have 13 states where the people actually were astute enough to understand how essential this piece of legislation has become.

In our battle to garner votes the opponents managed to out perform us based on deceit, censorship, and promoting their agenda, through a very biased press and media outlets with unlimited funding running deceptive articles and TV ads. Make no mistake about this boys they're very savvy on how to use these vehicles to distort their message and trick the voters into thinking that they are stopping increased taxes, losing their vote and just stopping short of telling you that approval would legalize immigration in your state!

The thing that's most difficult to accept in this matter is that we had many sportsmen that were opposed to this because they got tricked by actually believing their ads. We had people on sites telling other sportsmen that passage would put the legislature in control ( when they already were here), that they could steal our department's revenues which legally they can't ( already supported by courts because it's not tax revenue) and the false idea that the States Game and Fish department wouldn't manage nongame species which they have done forever. We even had examples of legislators running around the mountains in high heels to manage our game because the legislature would have control.

Misinformation runs rampant on matter such as these and in many cases our posting misinformation actually contributed to our demise. We had sportsmen saying that approval would result in landowner tags, hunting and fishing licenses doubling! Wild assumptions fostered in the deep recesses of an uninformed mind because they don't understand how the system works and clearly haven't made an effort to learn. Suspicions about how government will rip you off thrown about as reasons, to further add fuel to the fire. Then we have the biggie??WE DON?T NEED TO CHANGE OUR CONSTITUTION TO PROTECT MY RIGHT TO HUNT AND FISH!!

The thing that's most frustrating in things like this is that some pretty informed organizations and individuals that have taken the time to obtain legal opinion, write the proposed change and made sure it would stand up to legal challenge . When you have the NRA, NSSF, the Governor, US & State Senators, US & State Representatives, former Attorney Generals, and more than 30 Sportsmen?s groups local and national supporting a cause they may actually know something. They aren't doing this to write books, make money, improve their health, or garner political favor they're doing so because they know all to well, just how much your right to do these things is diminished every single week.CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION MAKES IT HARDER TO CHANGE THINGS BOYS AND THAT WORKS FOR YOU NOT AGAINST YOU!! That's why they opposed it so heavily! The ultimate form of protection would be federal legislation to protect hunting and fishing!


Our rights are being compromised by those that don't participate in these activities, yet are working hard to take these things away. When you're involved in issues like these you learn that protecting them is essential to their survival. So while I realize that some out there feel compelled to question why and feel they know more than the individuals that deal with this every day, please take the time to educate yourself and understand that once you actually get involved in the issues only then will you fully understand how essential this is. Let's not lose sight of the one fact that remains in all this, they're actually working to PROTECT YOUR RIGHT to do these things so why in the hell would you oppose that?

Stop drinking THEIR Koolaid boys and understand that the HSUS , Sierra Club, Animals Defense League are OPPOSED to you doing these things so why in the hell would you vote for them when they're spending huge sums of money to OPPOSE YOUR RIGHT TO HUNT AND FISH! Every day nationally, they work to eliminate hunting dogs, stop types of fishing, keep you off federal lands, fight any kind of predator control, fish stocking of nonnative species in our waters, eliminate hunting seasons, tear down dams that help fishing and power generation, and remove your kids and grandkids chances to participate in these activities??.. NOW THAT?S A POSITION THAT WE REALLY NEED TO PONDOR?..BECAUSE THEY?RE GETTING US TO VOTE AGAINST WHAT WE LIKE TO DO???WAKE UP BOYS THEY PULLED THE STATUE OF LIBERTY PLAY ON US AND WE HELPED THEM SCORE BY CATCHING THE BALL AND RUNNING THE WRONG WAY FOR A TOUCHDOWN!!

 

[Tworay]

+1 Boskee; I feel sorry for your fella's down there. Getting it back on a ballot and passed on the 2nd round will be a big task.

 

[Delw]

This prop wasnt even worded correctly I for one am glad it didnt pass as it leaves too many open doors, more than we in AZ have now.
Lets talk about the monies that game and fish gets in this state.
the legislature has and partly been trying to take money from the heritage fund. whats to keep them from getting al of that and putting it in the general fund? You knwo they had props in this election that took monies from the "sin tax" aka smoking tax they were suppose to give to the "Children" and want to put it in the general fund. whats to keep them from doing the same here?

Also our game and fish dept. would not be able to do most of the work they do if they didnt get matching federal funds, do you really think the state is going to sit by and let that money go to animals? remember they had a prop to steal the Childrens money that was earmarked 4+ years ago.

The prop while maybe had good INTENT for AZ hunters wasnt worded worth a crap to protect anyone, and it gave power to the legislature which they DONT have now. When was the last time you trusted your legislatur in AZ?

heres a few questions I asked someone else can you answer these as he cant or doesnt want to.


Was our prop 109 worded exactly like those in other states?( this is very important.)

Did they have the same type of game and fish set-up like we have?
how does failing to pass prop 109 "just gives the radicals an in now"
can you prove that voting NO on this prop will hurt hunters in AZ?
Can you prove that voting YES on this prop would help hunters in AZ?
the last 2 questions cant be answered by anyone but the 1st 2 can and they make all the difference on HOW our PROP was worded compared to there's.
I would love to hear your explaination on how all of a sudden "Failing to pass the bill just gives the radicals an in now" this could be quite educational.

and JUST because the NRA and other outdoor groups are in favor for it doesnt mean anything. alot of those groups I dont trust as far as I can throw them.
Also you do realize that Game and Fish works with more Wildlife than we are allowed to hunt, hunting is a small part of it. SO just because some animals rights group is against it doesnt mean they are attcking hunters.


trust me I dislike Animal rights groups just like most hunters do, However I dont trust the HUNTERS groups you mentioned either. I didnt base my decesion off of either or the post you have put on the forums promoting this prop. I read it and thought about it for a long time and came to my decision which was VOTE NO. I know a ton fo hunters who voted NO also due to the wording.

But please answer the above questions if you can as I am willing to listen to someone who may or maynot be able to change my position on it.

Delw

 

[Boskee]

LAST EDITED ON Nov-04-10 AT 05:50PM (MST)[p]
Delw, are you smarter than a couple of former attorney generals when it comes to legalize? Are you smarter than the legal team from the NRA which has managed to fight many legal challenges on the 2nd amendment and prevail? I know I'm not! Most recently some of the same organizations that oppose hunting and fishing donated to help bring that suit against the City that was being sued because of restrictive handgun laws. That test stood the challenge in the supreme court on the strength of the 2nd amendment and it protected your right to bear arms! To make sure the verbage ON PROP 109 was OK they had a few other firms review the legal language to make sure it would stand up to legal challenges. So yes then I think they did their due diligence on the matter. Now could our wording be the same as the other states NO because every states constitution and how they handle management of their wildlife may be different than ours so no it would be impossible to have the same language because they may have different applications in order to accomplish the same task and you can't use the same language to accomplish two entirely differnt application. Your blender and washing machine are two different appliances yet you turn both of them on and off and you can't use the same instruction on both for the same reason.

Voting no on the proposition makes it easier for any party to get an injunction to stop anything.See Taulman paragraph above.


The forces opposing prop 109 also wanted to limit mountain lion hunting in our state. They went before the commission and got them to reduce the season. The commission voted to do just that, then immediately after getting that approved they asked them to ban mountain lion hunting statewide altogether. Lions if not controlled like any predator seriously impact our deer numbers along with other game species. Lions have taken our big horn sheep herd in the KOFAs from 800+ animals down to around 400 because it's a wildlife refuge and they only allow 1 lion per year to be taken and they have fought to keep it that way knowing that the sheep are being decimated.

These people fought against putting water sources for all wildlife in the KOFAS and it went to court and the state won and they resumed building the water catchments Why would any group oppose putting water for wildlife in the desert? They want to ban lion hunting here just like they did in California and it really ruined the deer hunting there comparitively. They also fight the state when it comes to coyote control. Del we used to have thousands more antelope than we do today but we controlled them better these groups fought the control methods and got some banned and it has seriouly hurt our antelope populations across the state.

Del all predators need control look what stripers do to a lake when they get released in there to the other types of fish. They're bigger and eat more and eventually unless the AZ G&F removes the bag limit they will damage the fishing in a good lake and that's been proven time and again.

Now to your money issue, the state did try to take funds away from the department and because they weren't from the states tax fund the court told them they couldn't touch them! If the state would have given them the money they could grab the funds like they did with the heritage fund. Look I'm probably never going to change your mind but think about this. Federal protection is the ultimate when it comes to how to protect a right but offering protection to hunting and fishing with the states constitution is the next best alternative and it makes it much harder for special interest groups to interfere. These groups are the major offenders of filing suits to get things the way they want them regardless of how you or I or anyones else feels about it. If you do a little research and look and see how many times the Sierra club, Center for Biological Diversity, and Animals Defense League and Humane Society of the United States have brought suit against any state or federal agency it should open your eyes. They are the ones telling you to vote NO.

You have been able to hunt and fish in Az because of quality management for generations and it's only recently we've seen these types of lawsuits wanting to change things and special interst groups want to go to their Natural-Resource management plan. In the natural resource plan Nature manages itself we don't stock trout or catfish for the kids to catch, we don't plant Bighorns in other mountain ranges, we don't control anything because that's opposed to how they want things managed. Think not do a search on the internet and look at how many different ways they try to stop bird hunting, hunting dog usage, predator control etc. Go look at US Sportsmans alliance and how many things they fight to protect.

del, it's as simple as this the States Game and Fish departments are teaching youth programs offering junior hunts, fishing clinics, archery in the schools programs etc. They have managed all species in AZ for years and still worked to comply with the endangered specie act. They're in effect putting that fishing rod and gun in your hand and managing things so you get to use it!

The people that wanted you to vote NO are working very hard to eliminate your participation in a lot of those things.They're working 24/7 to take that rod and that gun out of your hand and since you seem to like doing some of these things it seems kind of foolish to vote for the force that wants to take them away....but that's just my opinion. How many times in your life have you gone to anything where they promoted hunting and/or fishing... I'll bet you could count them on less than one finger! How many times have you seen them sonsor a fishing tournament or a biggest buck contest? NEVER I can't make it any clearer than that and sometimes you have to believe in the system especially when they're doing things for the greater good.

 

[Delw]

The Predator part of your arguement is pretty much False, and myths especially on Antelope.
the #1 reason why our antelope herds are down is due to encroachment, population of people, land being sold to developers and illegal immigration for the sonoran Antelope and POACHING then we will throw in predators.
I been here since 1982 and hunted since 1982 hard (except for the last 2 years, Antelope have always been my favorite since day 1 and 3 tags later they still are.

The antelope herd that used to be up on sunset off I-17 was poached pretty much into exticntion, along with the one off dugas ormes road. they been down to next to nothing since the late 90's

the ones west of casa grand southwest of south mountain was due to poaching, illegals comeing across that corridor and yes Coyotes.

any unit close to prescott or flagstaff and or phoenix poaching is a big issue.

Units 8 9 10 the main reason is developement, units 12 13 "A's" and "B's" some poaching from the locals these heards do get pounded by yotes and lions, HOwever there is a 1 lion a day in some of those areas not to mention the standard 1 lion a year.

Remember a LION is considered a big Game animal thats why there is a 1 per year limit, unless population control is needed like in units north fo the rim.
north of the canyon is hard to hunt predators due to the drive times. Not many people want to do it just to shoot yotes and cats.
Since I lived in this state LION hunting has always been attacked, this isnt new and it will always be attacked wether the prop passed or not. yote tournaments were always fun I enjoyed them. that was stopped in what 1995? Remember that big old fight in mesa. it would have had the same outcome if prop 109 would have passed as well.
reguardless of which way prop 109 went they still would have attacked hunting thats the way it is and always will be.

bighorns.
Aside from Lions having a snack there are other factors that you failed to mention that is the cause of there numbers being low.
poaching is one, however diesease and wild burros is the main one. Wild burros destroy water holes, Wild burros should be nothing more than GODS Ballistic Jelly for testing rifles with, they have no purpose other than to make life misserable for everyone in this state.

your striper anology is all wrong and not true nor is there any factual data that proves so in arizona, its a fishermens myth in this state and always has been. they have not hurt fishing in lake pleasant NOR have they hurt fishing in Lake havasue, I know what your thinking you going to say lake mead and lake powell, however you really cant use those 2 lakes as examples because they have NO structure. Look at the landscape around them then you will understand were I am going from.
You also need to remember that SM and LM BASS, WHITE BASS and CRAPPIE are predator fish as well and in pleasant those WHITE BASS populations are huge and always have been.
years ago everyone Blamed the STripers for the demise of Lake Havasu, it had nothing to do with Stripers it all had to do with Habitat and Structure, once groups started building Habitat and structure that lake is one of the best small mouth fisheries on the west coast and not bad for large mouth either.

What I am getting at is on your predator hunting analogy and the antis, its been going on sence I been in AZ the prop would have never changed that, its going to get worse and the prop still wouldnt have helped it.



pretty much your whole argument is based on these anti groups and what they have done in the past. if this prop passed it wouldnt have changed a thing, they will still do it. thats why lawyers are so popular they don't loose either way, they get paid wether they loose a case or not.
as far as your lawyer and attorny general arguement, I hope your kidding and they didnt write this prop, cause if they did they are absolute idiots and Incompetant. its was a 6-8 line long prop, there wasnt much thought into that one at all, my 10 year old could have done a better job.If lawyers wrote it then the full wording of the prop never showed or it was one big lie now you see why people were confused.
the question about am I as smart as a lawyer thats kinda dumb but if your talking about the 6-8 line prop they drew up then I would have to answer YES I am a hell of alot smarter than those lawyers that drew prop109 up and I can't even spell.

Heres my view on this prop 109( the one in Arizona) it was nothing more than a money grab by the NRA and a few other huting groups that were so addimiment(sp) about it.
what they did was make a feel good prop that sounded good on the outside so the general hunter would think there hunting world as we know it is going to become non existant tomorrow. With the ecconomy being exreamly poor in AZ let alone around the US these groups havent been getting monies in donations and from hunters like they have been over the years, this was one way for them to get some very quick and alot of working capitol.
I do believe prop109 would ahve opened the door for LAND OWNER TAGS IN AZ. and OPENED THE door for MORE TAGS TO NON RESIDENTS( which BTW I am all for more tags to non residents as long as they DONT allocate MORE tags just to satisfy that number.

Our biggest Problem in Arizona is our Hunters and I have been saying this or years, Arizona has some of the greediest hunters out there. and hear me out before you all start crying about that statement.
in Arizona as you know we have a lottery system, becuase we only have so many animals in certain areas that will only supply xxx amount of tags. if we had no lottery than pretty much every one would be hunting in just a few areas compelety wiping out that units big game population. because of the drawing, not everyone gets drawn its a lottery and it 100% fair no ifs Ans or butts about it. just liek any lottery there are winners and Loosers.
but people just cant get used to not getting a tag every year or every other year. it took me 20 years to get my 1st elk tag( and I dont like hunting elk). I never complained once why? cause I knew it was a lottery. Dont get me wrong I can undertsnad guys complaining, but to throw the hunting future and the next guy under the bus thats kinda rediculous.
after the USO fiasco, there were guys trying to manipulate the system, extra bonus point for this extra bonus point for that all to improve there own personal ODDS at drawing a tag. a group also went to the commision and demanded more tags and I think they got new seasons and tags. Less Animals but more tags? WTF that doesnt make sence at all.



bottom line when was the last time you trusted your legislature? then why on earth would you trust them with your hunting rights?

 

[Boskee]

Del I can t begin to tell you how misinformed you are. Anderson Mesa suffers from little to no encroachment and has a huge problem with coyotes eating the antelope fawns right after they drop! That's not poaching that's predation! That same issue is found in many other units. Look I've attended well over 100 meetings at the department and I can assure you that what you believe to be true and the truth are a ways apart. Attend a few hunt set meetings and you'll get it first hand out of the biologists mouth. I have a friend that specialized in Antelope that retired a couple of years ago and did many studies for them. The hardest thing to change is a closed mind and if you attended a few meetings and watched these groups going before the commission and requesting changes after change and closure after closure you would have a better understanding. The lion issue is well documented by the department and the USF&WS so it's a matter of public record.

Del how can the NRA do a money grab on AZ they don't have any vested interest and the state owes them nothing and there's no contract where the state would be obligated. Del I don't know where you're getting your information but I can tell you that somebody is misinforming you about quite a few things. Prop 109 can't open the door for landowner tags Del because too many people in the department and on the commission and in the legislature are against it. Taulman tried and he failed to get landowner tags so i don't see that happening either.

Del the striper analogy is pretty sound how can you put a larger fish into any lake that eats fish and not affect the existing species? That's impossible! Their diet is made up of other fish and it has to effect the balance in the food chain.

Del you have to trust somebody at some point and the current commission is made up of some pretty decent individuals and they voted in favor of this 4 to 1 and they voted 5 to 0 in favor of putting prop 109 on the ballot. These people don't make a dime in salary they volunteer their time and understand all too well about the forces that are working against us. These are people you would share a campfire with or go fishing with they aren't out to damage the system or bring it financial ruin. They're trying to preserve the outdoor experience for future generations and you certainly can't say that for the organizations that opposed prop 109. I'm sorry you and I can't agree on this but go to a few meetings and watch them in action and then you may see things a little differently. In any case I respect your decision and your right to vote the way you did and I wish you the best.

 

[Delw]

I quite going to hunting meetings shortly after the USO deal because of all the selfisness and BS.

I used to goto fishing meetings up until 3 years ago almost every single one of them from the very begining.
btw you still are way off on the striper deal. just because SOME get big doesnt mean the all do, most are 1-3 lbs just liek the whitebass and bass. there is NO shortage of shad or bait fish in any of the lakes I mentioned above. so far stripers havenot made a impact like thse who thought they would said so.
people want smallmouth bass in the lake as well and they are very heavy eaters of shad.
however the fishing topic is a whole nother story. you been on the website so if you want to talk fishing stop on by.

NOT every Commissioner agreed on the prop and that was stated on the game and fish website, just like quite a few people I know at game and fish some didnt like it either especially in the way it was worded.and a few old commisioners disagreed with it as well. some of those old commissioners I would trust before the new ones.
besides commissioners can be swayed one way or another, I have seen it happen with someone from game and fish feeding the proper information to a certain group to get there way. I always thoguht the commisioners were a little higher up and had more balls than the legislature. if the prop ever does make to the ballot the next time and wins wait till you get a room full of those people and all the anti groups fghting them.


I forgot about the anderson mesa herd unfortunatly thats a small herd and alsways has been. your right lots of yotes eat them right when being born. I should have mentioned that. what I am saying is there is NO restrictions on yote hunter, never has been. you can kill as many as you want. and they still eat lopes. so why is the herd smaler due to anti's? this is your assumption and a rightfully so one, but it has no bearing on thsi prop.

Maybe Money grab wasnt a good word to use, However with the emails from the NRA calling doom and gloom like usual the they pretty much said we need you to join to help fight this. Just cant figure the correct word to use.

BTW what group are you part of you sound like a spokes peron for some hunting group. I highly doubt your just a hunter with no group affiliation, if you are I commend you, there rare wether they are right or wrong.

the whole thing boils down to your opinion vs mine, you still gave me NO FACTUAL evidence that with out this prop we are screwed. Maybe you have the full version if you do I would love to read it, I searched far and wide for it and never found it and had to base my judgement off of what the prop said. There was NOT 1 Person that could answer any of the questions I asked trust me I was for against for and against and willing to change my mind. but with the only answers of " well the hunting groups are for it" and " the non hunting groups are against it" so that means its the right thing to do. someone basing there decision to vote because this person says that and that person says that is making the wrong choice which everway they choose.

Like I said I want facts NOT what this person says or that person Says. I want to know exactly how it will work and see the wording, I want to know what the legislatures will do with the money on ALL species etc etc. until then I wont change my mind.

one more thing California Game and fish is set up like a DNR through the legislature right? ( i am not sure) they couldnt stop fight the lion hunting bann so how do you think we can if we changed.

Delw

 

[Delw]

Oh Dont get me wrong I am not trying to prove you wrong in your opinion of that prop.
What I am trying to say is that the prop was messed up and NOT specific not even close, If I would have thought it would have guarenteed my hunting rights or my kids hunting rights I would have voted for it in the first place. I just dont base my vote on what the NRA says and especially what AZSFW says, as the same for the antigroups.
if I think there is a problem with something that wants to be changed I will asks for facts if I dont get those I vote to keep it the way it was.


Delw

 

[Boskee]

Del when lawyers making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in several different firms say that legislation will protect yours and my right to hunt and fish I believe them. They got paid to do a job and the language change was so minimal that I tend to believe them. Nothing else would change and things would still be handled the same by the legislature, commission, and the department. That little change that Harry Reid made to let the states allocate tags has never been challenged in any court of law in the land since. So based on that I tend to believe them and the fact the antis spent $600,000- $750,000 fighting that change seems to support the fact those professionals did their job. By the way del I'm not an active member of any sportsmens group or conservation organization just a sportsmen like you that cares.

 

[OutdoorWriter]

LAST EDITED ON Nov-06-10 AT 11:27AM (MST)[p]>>bottom line when was the last time you trusted your legislature? then why on earth would you trust them with your hunting rights?<<

Del,

With all due respect, you obviously don't know a lot about the CURRENT set-up in regards to the legislature, the game commission and the game department. What you have done is listen to the misinformation from the folks who were opposed to the passage of 109 when they claimed it was a "power grab by the legislature."

As it has been for decades, the LEGISLATURE ALREADY has SOLE control of all LAWS in regards to wildlife, hunting and fishing in AZ. That control is stated in Title 17, which ONLY the legislature can amend.

Under those LAWS, which the legislature writes and passes, that same legislature designates the game commission as the body that makes RULES -- these are what sets seasons, permit numbers, etc.
For any LAW change, the commission MUST NOW go through the legislature. That includes setting the cost of licenses, tags, etc.

Title 17, which the legislature controls, also designates the game department as the state agency that manages the state's wildlife. And under Title 17, the legislature NOW HAS THE POWER, to completely abolish both the game commission and the game department. NOTHING in Prop 109 as written would have changed any of the above!

AND...for the most part the game department actually supported the passage of 109 but couldn't publically state such because as a state agency, it is prohibited from "political activity." See "17-213 Prohibition on political activity" in Title 17.

Take a few minutes and actually read Title 17; it will be enlightening.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?Title=17

Pay particular attention to the wording included in these sections below and also scroll down and read the Fiscal provisions and other money-related issues that follow, which the LEGISLATURE also now controls. These will provide the "details" you're looking for concerning the financial aspects.

Article 1 Definitions and Authority of the State
17-101 Definitions
17-102 Wildlife as state property; exceptions
17-103 Duties of county attorneys
17-104 Duties of peace officers as special game rangers
17-105 Immunity of witnesses
Chapter 2 GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT AND GAME AND FISH COMMISSION
Article 1 Membership
17-201 Game and fish department and game and fish commission members; appointment; removal; meetings
17-202 Arizona game and fish commission appointment recommendation board
Article 2 Director and Employees
17-211 Director; selection; removal; powers and duties; employees
17-212 Director's seal; authentication of records
17-213 Prohibition on political activity
17-214 Arizona game and fish department reserve; members; powers and duties; compensation
Article 3 Powers and Duties
17-231 General powers and duties of the commission

Now here is what 109 would have done...

It would have made it very difficult for the animal-rights groups to change anything in regards to hunting and fishing through the voter initiative process, as they have done here with the trapping bill and in CA with the lion hunting ban.

Right now, all it takes to get an initiative on the ballot is just over 150,000 signatures. If the 109 had passed -- an amendment to the state constitution -- an initiative to change that would require more than 250,000 signatures -- a steep hill to climb.

Now guess why the AR groups were opposed to it.

So what's ahead??

Stay tuned because one of the first things on the AR agenda will likely soon be a voter initiative to ban lion hunting in AZ. And there will be more following.

Here's an item I wrote a couple weeks ago. Note especially the quotes from Pacelle -- HSUS CEO. All the hunters who voted "no" on 109 will help him do what he aims to do.


Vote YES on Prop 109

The election ballot this year includes Proposition 109, which would guarantee the right to hunt and fish in Arizona. It also will keep the status of wildlife management with the state legislature and Arizona Game & Fish Department (AGFD) just as it has been for many decades under Arizona's Title 17 statutes.

The nation's leading extremist anti-hunting group, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), in conjunction with other advocacy organizations such as the Sierra Club and Center for Biological Diversity, is working to defeat Prop 109. None of these three groups directly contributes a penny to the actual management of wildlife in Arizona. In reality, they annually cost this state and others millions of dollars because of the various, often frivolous lawsuits they file.

While these groups represent the ballot proposition as a "power grab," nothing could be more untrue. In reality, Prop 109 will not change a thing. It will instead guarantee everything remains intact under Title 17: the legislature makes the laws and under those laws, they designate the AGFD as the caretaker of Arizona's wildlife. As such, the AGFD makes rules and regulations and enforces those and the laws in regards to hunting and fishing.

The agency's nongame branch, using revenue mostly contributed by hunters and anglers through license sales and the federal excise taxes on the equipment they use, also manages myriad unhunted species with similar rules and regulations. Those rules often address the complete protection and preservation of many species, including endangered and threatened species.

Informed voters should also be aware of the deceptively-named HSUS that has nothing to do with local animal shelters or organizations. HSUS is a self-avowed national anti-hunting group with an annual budget of over $100 million. In the past, HSUS has worked to ban specific hunting seasons, the hunting of specific species and even traditional methods of hunting. This anti-hunting organization has funded the successful campaign to close the dove hunting season in Michigan without any scientific reason to do so. And now HSUS has set its sights on Arizona.

HSUS president, Wayne Pacelle, once claimed his goal is to create ?a National Rifle Association of the animal rights movement.? He also said, "We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States" and "we will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state."

If Pacelle has his way, it will signal the end of sound wildlife management in this state. The relentless efforts of the anti-hunting movement are exactly why Prop 109 is needed. It is specifically written to pre-empt anti-hunting groups from attempting to restrict the right of Arizonans to hunt and fish ? the key reason why HSUS and the others oppose it.

Prop 109, as written, will not only help protect and preserve the right to hunt and fish, it will also ensure that all of Arizona's wildlife, including that which is NOT hunted, will be managed with long-tested and sound scientific principles rather than by emotions that sometimes have disastrous consequences.

Any voter concerned about the future of all of Arizona's wildlife should not allow it to be managed by the anti-hunting emotions of extremists. That means a "yes" vote on Prop 109.


TONY MANDILE

How To Hunt Coues Deer

 

[OutdoorWriter]

Below is the most pertinent part of Title 17. ONLY the LEGISLATURE now has the ability to bend, staple, spindle or mutilate any of it, and doesn't need the blessing of anyone, including the game commission or department.

******************************************************

17-231. General powers and duties of the commission

A. The commission shall:

1. Make rules and establish services it deems necessary to carry out the provisions and purposes of this title.

2. Establish broad policies and long-range programs for the management, preservation and harvest of wildlife.

3. Establish hunting, trapping and fishing rules and prescribe the manner and methods which may be used in taking wildlife.

4. Be responsible for the enforcement of laws for the protection of wildlife.

5. Prescribe grades, qualifications and salary schedules for department employees.

6. Provide for the assembling and distribution of information to the public relating to wildlife and activities of the department.

7. Prescribe rules for the expenditure, by or under the control of the director, of all funds arising from appropriation, licenses, gifts or other sources.

8. Exercise such powers and duties necessary to carry out fully the provisions of this title and in general exercise powers and duties which relate to adopting and carrying out policies of the department and control of its financial affairs.

9. Prescribe procedures for use of department personnel, facilities, equipment, supplies and other resources in assisting search or rescue operations on request of the director of the division of emergency management.

10. Cooperate with the Arizona-Mexico commission in the governor's office and with researchers at universities in this state to collect data and conduct projects in the United States and Mexico on issues that are within the scope of the department's duties and that relate to quality of life, trade and economic development in this state in a manner that will help the Arizona-Mexico commission to assess and enhance the economic competitiveness of this state and of the Arizona-Mexico region.

B. The commission may:

1. Conduct investigations, inquiries or hearings in the performance of its powers and duties.

2. Establish game management units or refuges for the preservation and management of wildlife.

3. Construct and operate game farms, fish hatcheries, fishing lakes or other facilities for or relating to the preservation or propagation of wildlife.

4. Expend funds to provide training in the safe handling and use of firearms and safe hunting practices.

5. Remove or permit to be removed from public or private waters fish which hinder or prevent propagation of game or food fish and dispose of such fish in such manner as it may designate.

6. Purchase, sell or barter wildlife for the purpose of stocking public or private lands and waters and take at any time in any manner wildlife for research, propagation and restocking purposes or for use at a game farm or fish hatchery and declare wildlife salable when in the public interest or the interest of conservation.

7. Enter into agreements with the federal government, with other states or political subdivisions of the state and with private organizations for the construction and operation of facilities and for management studies, measures or procedures for or relating to the preservation and propagation of wildlife and expend funds for carrying out such agreements.

8. Prescribe rules for the sale, trade, importation, exportation or possession of wildlife.

9. Expend monies for the purpose of producing publications relating to wildlife and activities of the department for sale to the public and establish the price to be paid for annual subscriptions and single copies of such publications. All monies received from the sale of such publications shall be deposited in the game and fish publications revolving fund.

10. Contract with any person or entity to design and produce artwork on terms which, in the commission's judgment, will produce an original and valuable work of art relating to wildlife or wildlife habitat.

11. Sell or distribute the artwork authorized under paragraph 10 of this subsection on such terms and for such price as it deems acceptable.

12. Consider the adverse and beneficial short-term and long-term economic impacts on resource dependent communities, small businesses and the state of Arizona, of policies and programs for the management, preservation and harvest of wildlife by holding a public hearing to receive and consider written comments and public testimony from interested persons.

C. The commission shall confer and coordinate with the director of water resources with respect to the commission's activities, plans and negotiations relating to water development and use, restoration projects under the restoration acts pursuant to chapter 4, article 1 of this title, where water development and use are involved, the abatement of pollution injurious to wildlife and in the formulation of fish and wildlife aspects of the director of water resources' plans to develop and utilize water resources of the state and shall have jurisdiction over fish and wildlife resources and fish and wildlife activities of projects constructed for the state under or pursuant to the jurisdiction of the director of water resources.

D. The commission may enter into one or more agreements with a multi-county water conservation district and other parties for participation in the lower Colorado river multispecies conservation program under section 48-3713.03, including the collection and payment of any monies authorized by law for the purposes of the lower Colorado river multispecies conservation program.


TONY MANDILE

How To Hunt Coues Deer

 

[OutdoorWriter]

Below is the wording for the three amendments passed inother states. They join about a dozen other states that have added such to their constitutions. Only Arizona's sportsmen failed to garner enough votes to pass 109.

***************

Arkansas:

AMENDING THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO

CREATE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO HUNT,

FISH, TRAP, AND HARVEST GAME.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE OF THE EIGHTY-SIXTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS AND BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, A MAJORITY OF ALL MEMBERS ELECTED TO EACH HOUSE AGREEING THERETO:

That the following is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Arkansas, and upon being submitted to the electors of the state for approval or rejection at the next general election for Senators and Representatives, if a majority of the electors voting thereon at the election adopt the amendment, the amendment shall become a part of the Constitution of the State of Arkansas, to wit:



SECTION 1. Residents of the State of Arkansas have the right to hunt, fish, trap, and harvest game as a legitimate management tool and recreational pursuit, subject only to regulations and restrictions consistent with Amendment 35 to the Arkansas Constitution.

(b) Nothing in this amendment shall be construed to alter, repeal, or modify:

(1) Any provision of Amendment 35 to the Arkansas Constitution;

(2) Any common law or statutes relating to trespass, eminent domain, or any other public or private property rights;

(3) Any laws concerning firearms;

(4) The legislative powers of municipalities and counties; or

(5) The sovereign immunity of the State of Arkansas.

***********

South Carolina:


Must Article I of the Constitution of this State, relating to the declaration of rights under the state?s Constitution, be amended by adding Section 25 so as to provide that hunting and fishing are valuable parts of the state?s heritage, important for conservation, and a protected means of managing nonthreatened wildlife; to provide that the citizens of South Carolina shall have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife traditionally pursued, subject to laws and regulations promoting sound wildlife conservation and management as prescribed by the General Assembly; and to specify that this section must not be construed to abrogate any private property rights, existing state laws or regulations, or the state?s sovereignty over its natural resources??

*******

Tennessee:

Shall Article XI, Section 13 of the Constitution of the State of Tennessee be amended by adding the following sentences at the end of the section:

The citizens of this state shall have the personal right to hunt and fish, subject to reasonable regulations and restrictions prescribed by law. The recognition of this right does not abrogate any private or public property rights, nor does it limit the state's power to regulate commercial activity. Traditional manners and means may be used to take non-threatened species.


TONY MANDILE

How To Hunt Coues Deer

 

[dkpeay]

NRA is for it, PETA and HSUS against it, don't need to know anymore. I am for Prop 109

To bad it didn't pass.

don

 

[Boskee]

Nice job Tony!! This clearly illustrates why you ( as opposed to any of us) made a living writing about fishing and hunting and are so well informed. I Hope this those with doubts will take the time to read your message and see what was intended was in their best interest. Thanks and very well done!!