AllPredatorCalls
Active member
Arizona's game & fish commission looking at it now..
link here regarding AZ outlawing coyote hunting contests
link here regarding AZ outlawing coyote hunting contests
Arizona next to outlaw coyote hunting contests?
- Thread starter AllPredatorCalls
- Start date
This was an email that I sent that was included in the comments at that meeting:
My name is Jason Mosler and I am a hunter, hunters ed instructor and a small business owner involved with the sport of hunting. I recently read the agenda for the Commission meeting that is to be held on March 15, 2019 in Bisbee, Az.
As the meeting is being held in Bisbee on a Friday I will not be able to personally attend so I wish to make my feeling known on this topic.
I am a predator hunter. I am a bit taken aback by the agenda's use of the terminology "killing" since it was my understanding that these were "hunting" competitions and it saddens me to see the Commission seemingly falling victim to the anti-hunter mentality of calling hunting, "killing." Of course as hunters we understand that hunting involves the potential killing of wildlife but the anti-hunting organizations politicize and weaponize the term "killing" in attempts to demonize hunters and the hunting community. For the Commission to adopt such language at a hearing is disturbing. I would like to think that our Commission is above this kind of politicizing.
That being said I wish to discuss the topic of hunting contests. Predators are regulated by the Commission with seasons and take limits established by science. Coyotes in particular have no season and no take limits and it is my understanding that the coyote is in no way a "threatened" species in the state of Arizona. If proof were given that the coyote is at risk of population collapse then by all means we should look at limiting or eliminating contests. But that just is not the case. Science, not emotion or politics, should drive this rule making.
I personally know several hunters and hunting groups who look forward to hunting coyotes in the state. Arizona has a great reputation as being hunter and gun friendly. To pass a rule against hunting contests would be a blow to this reputation. Hunting brings in funding to not only the Game and Fish Department but also local economies and eliminating hunting contests would be a blow to that income. I know that hunting contests are unpopular, but unless there is proof that the coyote is at risk, contests should not be banned.
Anti-hunters will claim that it is wrong to profit from hunting them but that is ridiculous since guiding is legal in Arizona and guides take out clients for money. If it is wrong to profit from hunting, then ANY business that "profits" from hunting should then be banned but that would also include AZGFD. There are many groups that profit from the support that hunting brings in and that should not be stopped because of the anti-hunting establishment. Anti-hunters hate and oppose ALL forms of hunting. They will stop at nothing to ban ALL forms of hunting. Meanwhile they bring NOTHING to the table in the form of support for projects like watering holes or trail maintenance or any other activities that they in turn participate in without lending support. Anti-hunting groups were defeated in their attempts to eliminate bobcat and mountain lion hunting so they are simply regrouping and trying another tack in their attempts to eliminate hunting altogether. Their claim that since hunters do not "use" the "entire" animal that this form of hunting is "trophy" hunting and therefore should be banned is also weak. Hunting is a well established form of population control. AZGFD has enacted several special hunting seasons and rule changes in order to support the population control of coyotes since they can have a devastating impact on other animal populations such as deer, antelope and others.
I would appreciate my comments being passed along to the Commission and I would hope that they are taken into consideration.
Thank you for your time,
This is what I sent them this morning:
My name is Jason Mosler and I am a small business owner that manufactures hunting equipment, I am a hunters ed instructor and I am a hunter.
I was disappointed to hear that the Commission has decided to move a rule forward banning predator hunting contests. In the past I have seen the Commission make science based decisions that ensured that hunting was going to be here for the foreseable future. I was saddened to read the comments that were made by the Commission: "To the extent, these contests reflect on the overall hunting community, public outrage with these events has the potential to threaten hunting as a legitimate wildlife management function,'' the agency says, in a notice of the proposed rule change. "Regulated hunting fundamentally supports wildlife conservation efforts in North America. The loss of hunting would equate to a measurable loss in conservation efforts, and would represent a failure of the Commission in its duty to preserve wildlife for the beneficial use of present and future generations."
This is not science. This is PURE politics. This is about losing funding. I am well aware of where the funding comes from for the Department. I can imagine how the department would suffer if hunting were to be impacted, but that is ALREADY happening. If the Department bans coyote contests, then you have already sacrificed those funds. So what is next? Anti-hunters are 100% opposed to ALL forms of hunting, regardless of what they may claim in public. Their goal is to abolish ALL forms of hunting. This was tried in the past with tragic results. So a successful hunter posts pictures of their hunt, and an anti group sees that and splashes it out to the media. Is the Department going to shy away from that form of hunting because of the bad publicity? I have news for you, that already happens. Anti's are always on the lookout for people posting pics, and they try to spread the bad publicity. So using the excuse that the way that these contests "reflect" on the hunting community is a cop out. I understand that anti's do not approve of these contest because they supposedly "monetize" the taking of wildlife. There are a wide number of ways that wildlife are monetized. Guides and outfitters make money from guiding and outfitting clients that are hunting. IS the Department worried about that "monetization" making hunting look bad? How about the outdoor expos and shows that make money from wildlife? Will the department look to ban these as well?
Anti-hunters claim that it is wasteful for these contests to leave behind the carcasses of the animals, that EVERY part of the animal should be used. I dare to say that there are FEW if ANY hunters that use 100% of EVERY animals that they take. There are plenty of bones and gut piles left behind from many different forms of hunting.
Hunting is a lot like firearms. Those of us who appreciate the Second Amendment cringe every single time ground is given up to the anti-gun establishment. Hunting is going down that very same slippery slope. Eventually there isn't going to be any more ground to give up. I can understand the Commission trying to pick and choose it's battles, but by giving ground on issues like this I have little faith that ultimately ALL of our "rights" are going to be given away through these same justifications.
I thank you for your time and consideration.
We have to stay vigilant to keep our rights!!
My name is Jason Mosler and I am a hunter, hunters ed instructor and a small business owner involved with the sport of hunting. I recently read the agenda for the Commission meeting that is to be held on March 15, 2019 in Bisbee, Az.
As the meeting is being held in Bisbee on a Friday I will not be able to personally attend so I wish to make my feeling known on this topic.
I am a predator hunter. I am a bit taken aback by the agenda's use of the terminology "killing" since it was my understanding that these were "hunting" competitions and it saddens me to see the Commission seemingly falling victim to the anti-hunter mentality of calling hunting, "killing." Of course as hunters we understand that hunting involves the potential killing of wildlife but the anti-hunting organizations politicize and weaponize the term "killing" in attempts to demonize hunters and the hunting community. For the Commission to adopt such language at a hearing is disturbing. I would like to think that our Commission is above this kind of politicizing.
That being said I wish to discuss the topic of hunting contests. Predators are regulated by the Commission with seasons and take limits established by science. Coyotes in particular have no season and no take limits and it is my understanding that the coyote is in no way a "threatened" species in the state of Arizona. If proof were given that the coyote is at risk of population collapse then by all means we should look at limiting or eliminating contests. But that just is not the case. Science, not emotion or politics, should drive this rule making.
I personally know several hunters and hunting groups who look forward to hunting coyotes in the state. Arizona has a great reputation as being hunter and gun friendly. To pass a rule against hunting contests would be a blow to this reputation. Hunting brings in funding to not only the Game and Fish Department but also local economies and eliminating hunting contests would be a blow to that income. I know that hunting contests are unpopular, but unless there is proof that the coyote is at risk, contests should not be banned.
Anti-hunters will claim that it is wrong to profit from hunting them but that is ridiculous since guiding is legal in Arizona and guides take out clients for money. If it is wrong to profit from hunting, then ANY business that "profits" from hunting should then be banned but that would also include AZGFD. There are many groups that profit from the support that hunting brings in and that should not be stopped because of the anti-hunting establishment. Anti-hunters hate and oppose ALL forms of hunting. They will stop at nothing to ban ALL forms of hunting. Meanwhile they bring NOTHING to the table in the form of support for projects like watering holes or trail maintenance or any other activities that they in turn participate in without lending support. Anti-hunting groups were defeated in their attempts to eliminate bobcat and mountain lion hunting so they are simply regrouping and trying another tack in their attempts to eliminate hunting altogether. Their claim that since hunters do not "use" the "entire" animal that this form of hunting is "trophy" hunting and therefore should be banned is also weak. Hunting is a well established form of population control. AZGFD has enacted several special hunting seasons and rule changes in order to support the population control of coyotes since they can have a devastating impact on other animal populations such as deer, antelope and others.
I would appreciate my comments being passed along to the Commission and I would hope that they are taken into consideration.
Thank you for your time,
This is what I sent them this morning:
My name is Jason Mosler and I am a small business owner that manufactures hunting equipment, I am a hunters ed instructor and I am a hunter.
I was disappointed to hear that the Commission has decided to move a rule forward banning predator hunting contests. In the past I have seen the Commission make science based decisions that ensured that hunting was going to be here for the foreseable future. I was saddened to read the comments that were made by the Commission: "To the extent, these contests reflect on the overall hunting community, public outrage with these events has the potential to threaten hunting as a legitimate wildlife management function,'' the agency says, in a notice of the proposed rule change. "Regulated hunting fundamentally supports wildlife conservation efforts in North America. The loss of hunting would equate to a measurable loss in conservation efforts, and would represent a failure of the Commission in its duty to preserve wildlife for the beneficial use of present and future generations."
This is not science. This is PURE politics. This is about losing funding. I am well aware of where the funding comes from for the Department. I can imagine how the department would suffer if hunting were to be impacted, but that is ALREADY happening. If the Department bans coyote contests, then you have already sacrificed those funds. So what is next? Anti-hunters are 100% opposed to ALL forms of hunting, regardless of what they may claim in public. Their goal is to abolish ALL forms of hunting. This was tried in the past with tragic results. So a successful hunter posts pictures of their hunt, and an anti group sees that and splashes it out to the media. Is the Department going to shy away from that form of hunting because of the bad publicity? I have news for you, that already happens. Anti's are always on the lookout for people posting pics, and they try to spread the bad publicity. So using the excuse that the way that these contests "reflect" on the hunting community is a cop out. I understand that anti's do not approve of these contest because they supposedly "monetize" the taking of wildlife. There are a wide number of ways that wildlife are monetized. Guides and outfitters make money from guiding and outfitting clients that are hunting. IS the Department worried about that "monetization" making hunting look bad? How about the outdoor expos and shows that make money from wildlife? Will the department look to ban these as well?
Anti-hunters claim that it is wasteful for these contests to leave behind the carcasses of the animals, that EVERY part of the animal should be used. I dare to say that there are FEW if ANY hunters that use 100% of EVERY animals that they take. There are plenty of bones and gut piles left behind from many different forms of hunting.
Hunting is a lot like firearms. Those of us who appreciate the Second Amendment cringe every single time ground is given up to the anti-gun establishment. Hunting is going down that very same slippery slope. Eventually there isn't going to be any more ground to give up. I can understand the Commission trying to pick and choose it's battles, but by giving ground on issues like this I have little faith that ultimately ALL of our "rights" are going to be given away through these same justifications.
I thank you for your time and consideration.
We have to stay vigilant to keep our rights!!
5194
Member
Jason,
With your permission, I’d like to use some of your points to include in my email to the commission.
I went to the meeting in Bisbee and it was very apparent to me, the commission has made up its mind to abolish contest hunting in Arizona. It maybe a mute point at this stage of the process to write, but I can’t in good conscience sit by and watch this happen. I hope that any and all hunters take a brief moment and send your comments to the commission.
It looks like Nevada is following suit with a senate bill that has felony penalties tied to contests which in its loosely worded content could affect the PM convention.
Kevin
With your permission, I’d like to use some of your points to include in my email to the commission.
I went to the meeting in Bisbee and it was very apparent to me, the commission has made up its mind to abolish contest hunting in Arizona. It maybe a mute point at this stage of the process to write, but I can’t in good conscience sit by and watch this happen. I hope that any and all hunters take a brief moment and send your comments to the commission.
It looks like Nevada is following suit with a senate bill that has felony penalties tied to contests which in its loosely worded content could affect the PM convention.
Kevin