Vote for Your Right to Hunt and Fish in Arizona On November 2nd (Phoenix: income, income tax)

[kdog]

Originally Posted by .45acp

bunny huggers united

"Where?"

[roundball]

Originally Posted by .45acp

bunny huggers united

Or...maybe they just don't want our legislature to privatize hunting. Say there are 3000 tags sold for does....do you want AZ selling the rights to a private company to resell the 250 or so that didn't get tagged, to some private company to resell for a special/extended season?

It may seem a bit far fetched....I can honestly say that I can see this happening.

[.45acp]

Did you bother to read the Prop?

Anytime the Bunny Hugger/Enviro-Nazi Mafia protest a bill... it's all about their 'agenda'. This 'riight' is to be recognized in Arizona, for 'Zonies. This radical animal rights cabal seems not to be AZ based for the most part. At any rate, I suspect there are more NRA members in AZ than the membership of all of these groups combined. (Ohhh... the EVIL NRA!) While I don't subscribe to many of the NRA's stances on all issues... I believe they've got it right on this one. November will tell.

'Funny kdog should post a pix of a Jack... which is considered a pest. I don't shoot 'em... or coyotes either. (The local coyotes have taken over their old grounds to the south of me... indicating the wolves have moved on. They get together about 4 times a day for their 15-20 second sing-along. 'Gives me a grin.

[observer53]

I don't want to put the Legislature solely in charge of anything they haven't already got authority over. It's not as if I trust their judgment with what they're already charged with taking care of. Why give them more, especially over something this proposition calls a constitutional right???

[123.DieselBenz]

I hunt, and I'll vote Yes - Twice!

I also shoot jack rabbits . . . but I do eat them!

[.45acp]

Originally Posted by observer53

I don't want to put the Legislature solely in charge of anything they haven't already got authority over. It's not as if I trust their judgment with what they're already charged with taking care of. Why give them more, especially over something this proposition calls a constitutional right???

Calls? It will be. AzC Section 2 (to be added) Art 36

Article 36

A. The citizens of this State have a right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife lawfully. Wildlife belongs to this State and is held in trust for the benefit of the citizens of this State.

B. Exclusive authority to enact laws to regulate the manner, methods or seasons for hunting, fishing and harvesting wildlife is vested in the Legislature, which may delegate rule making authority to a game and fish commission. (That's reasonable enuff... states what the government can do. No dynamite fishing forinstance...)

No law shall be enacted and no rule shall be adopted that unreasonably restricts hunting, fishing and harvesting wildlife or the use of traditional means and methods. Laws and rules authorized under this section shall have the purpose of wildlife conservation and management and preserving the future of hunting and fishing.

C. Lawful public hunting and fishing shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife. (Which is what the bunny huggers and enviro-nazis don't want at all... anywhere... ever.)

D. This section shall not be CONSTRUED to modify any provision of common law or statutes relating to trespass or property rights. (Fair enuff!)

[observer53]

Originally Posted by .45acp

Calls? It will be. AzC Section 2 (to be added) Art 36

Article 36

A. The citizens of this State have a right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife lawfully. Wildlife belongs to this State and is held in trust for the benefit of the citizens of this State.

B. Exclusive authority to enact laws to regulate the manner, methods or seasons for hunting, fishing and harvesting wildlife is vested in the Legislature, which may delegate rule making authority to a game and fish commission. (That's reasonable enuff... states what the government can do. No dynamite fishing forinstance...)

No law shall be enacted and no rule shall be adopted that unreasonably restricts hunting, fishing and harvesting wildlife or the use of traditional means and methods. Laws and rules authorized under this section shall have the purpose of wildlife conservation and management and preserving the future of hunting and fishing.

C. Lawful public hunting and fishing shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife. (Which is what the bunny huggers and enviro-nazis don't want at all... anywhere... ever.)

D. This section shall not be CONSTRUED to modify any provision of common law or statutes relating to trespass or property rights. (Fair enuff!)

Well, it will be if it passes. My use of the word calls was just referring to the proposition's intent to put that right in the constitution.

[Valley Native]

After pondering this, I have decided to vote NO on this initiative. I'm completely supportive of hunting & fishing ... as a matter of fact, I fish quite often in Woods Canyon Lake, and some of the lakes near Flagstaff during the spring & summer months. However, I agree with some of the posters on this thread that the problem with this initiative is how it will involve the LEGISLATURE. I don't want a higher branch of government sticking their noses in something that has done well as it is. Hunting & fishing are not threatened at this time, so I see no need to change it and have a pompous higher authority regulate it.

[kdog]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

After pondering this, I have decided to vote NO on this initiative. I'm completely supportive of hunting & fishing ... as a matter of fact, I fish quite often in Woods Canyon Lake, and some of the lakes near Flagstaff during the spring & summer months. However, I agree with some of the posters on this thread that the problem with this initiative is how it will involve the LEGISLATURE. I don't want a higher branch of government sticking their noses in something that has done well as it is. Hunting & fishing are not threatened at this time, so I see no need to change it and have a pompous higher authority regulate it.

Well stated and I feel the same way.

I was waiting for somebody to tell me I was anti-gun, so that I could mention that I have active carry permits from three states. But nobody did.

[observer53]

There's a lot of signs springing up around Phoenix advising people to vote no on several propositions affecting the Constitution, including this one. I have to study my pamphlet some more, but that may work for me.