Great News on the Wyoming Wolf Fight

As reported on Bowsite,

This morning, we found out that we have won in court when it comes to wolves and wolf delisting. The ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco clearly supported the legality of the Congressional action to delist wolves in the Northern Rockies. The opinion, written by Judge Schroeder, dated March 14, 2012, ruled that Section 1731 (the wolf bill) was constitutional and that this action by Congress to delist wolves in the Northern Rockies was fully legal. This is a huge victory for wildlife conservation and will allow wolf management to continue in Montana and Idaho. It also protects Wyoming's legal victory and leaves the door open for a Wyoming delisting later this year.

As many of you are aware, Big Game Forever and other conservation organizations, including partner organizations Sportsmen for Fish and Widllife and Mule Deer Foundation are parties to this litigation.

Detailed Analysis

This particular legal challenge attacked various aspects of the constitutionality of the wolf bill in Congress. This particular case began last year in Judge Molloy's court in the Western District of Montana. Judge Molloy ruled that Congress has full authority to amend its own laws, including the Endangered Species Act, and that the delisting by Congress was constitutional. The case was appealed to the 9th circuit, where the constitutionality of Section 1731 was once again challenged. The court also ruled that Congress did amend the endangered species act through this action to the extent it was inconsistent with the Congressional delisting language. While it is entirely possible that this case may be appealed to the Supreme Court, the victories at the district court level and at the 9th circuit are a great sign. We have believed throughout this process in the strength of our position and the legal arguments supporting that position. To this point, the courts have agreed with our position.

Here is a quote from the ruling: Appellants’ arguments that Section 1713 is a repeal rather than an amendment must fail for a similar reason. Congress did not repeal any part of the ESA. Rather, Congress effectively provided that no statute, and this must include the ESA, would apply to the 2009 rule. Congress thus amended the law applicable to the agency action. Appellants also contend that the meaning and effect of the 2009 Rule as reissued under Section 1713 are unclear, and that ambiguity prevents the court from finding an amendment. We cannot agree. The meaning and intended effect of Section 1713 are perfectly clear. The partial delisting was to take effect within 60 days, with no court review or interference.... ...Finally, we observe that while Section 1713 bars judicial review of the reissuance of the 2009 Rule, the 2009 Rule does provide standards by which the agency is to evaluate the continuing viability of wolves in Montana and Idaho. See, e.g., 74 Fed. Reg. 15,123 at 15,186. Review of any regulations issued pursuant to the Rule or of agency compliance with the standards, does not appear to be restricted. Section 1713 itself, however, ordering the Rule to issue without regard to the laws that might otherwise apply, is entitled to be enforced. The bottom line is that once again, the courts have ruled in favor of wolf delisting. Wolf management will continue in the Northern Rockies by state fish and game agencies including regulated hunting by sportsmen. Thank you for your ongoing support. We will continue to keep you apprised of developments as they arise. A great victory for healthy wildlife populations and for our outdoor heritage. -- Ryan Benson


This is a major step in being able to establish a Wolf season in Wyoming! My self along with other question the true extent of envolment that Big Game Forever played in this litigation but regardless this is a victory for hunters everywhere.

I don't know about you but my Rem. 280 is itching for a little Wolf blood!

Cubcrafters CarbonCub SS Launch

Cub Crafters takes STOL to a new level!

The New GoPro Hero2 Promo

All we need now is a Wing Suit!

Arizona and HB 2072 Selling Your Opprotunity to Hunt To the Highest Bidder

Below is an excellent commentary on Arizona Bill HB2072 which would remove 350 of the states trophy tags from the general draw and allocate them towards auction tags

To see the full article also the link to download the full economic impact study linked to HB 2072.

Visit Arizona HB 2072

The documents above include the language of HB2072 and a document drafted by proponents of HB2072.

By now, we all know the concept.  Some 350 big game tags diverted from the random draw to be auctioned to the highest bidder, which won’t be me … or, probably, you.  Additionally, these big game tags will come with less restrictive harvest rules, making them premium big game tags. 

Proponents of HB2072 say that the tags are not diverted because, despite the fact that the tags have been made premium and may bring in millions at auction, the club to which they are awarded will pay AZGFD the face value of the tag had it been drawn by the hunting public.  Thus, the Department gets the same revenue. 

Well, I’m not the Department.  I’m a guy who wants a fair shot at a trophy tag.  What I know is that I have zero chance of being the high bidder on one of these tags at auction.  I also know that the richest guy at the banquet who wants the tag has 100% chance of winning it.  In the random draw, I have a least some chance of winning the tag … the same chance as the rich guy.  If you take 350 trophy tags out of the random draw and put them in an auction, my chances decrease.  “Changing the course of a thing” is the very dictionary definition of diversion.

But proponents claim that many good things will come from the diversion, upgrade, and auction of these tags.  “Jobs will be created.” “A sportsman’s expo will be produced.” “Twenty five million dollars will be generated.”  There is an economic impact study purchased by the proponents that tells us Yuma County will get $332,000!  Yavapai County will get $539,000!  (I wonder how much extra it would cost to have the economist round up?)

I’m a simple guy.  I’m not a legislator … not a commissioner … not a lawyer … and not an economics professor (though I have to admit I am skeptical of those given the faulty projections of the federal Council of Economic Advisers … but I’ll put that bias aside for the moment).  So, I thought, “How can I best understand this complex legislative proposal?”  Well, maybe I could look at it as if I wanted to start a club myself.  Maybe I would call it the “Bubba Valley Rod and Gun Club.”  I could solicit memberships … maybe charge a membership fee of some $30 per year.  If I got, oh, let’s say 500 members, that would be $15,000 per year.  And with that money our club would do all sorts of good things.  At the end of the year I would hold a banquet to recap the good things we did and have fun with my friends.  We might have to pay a little extra, say $30, to attend the banquet in order to make it a nice event.  That adds another $15,000 to the budget. 

Sounds great, doesn’t it?!  But then HB2072 comes along.  It says that premium tags can be awarded to clubs that qualify and that the qualified clubs may auction the tags and use proceeds to pay for, among other things, banquets and “administrative” costs.  As a club administrator, that piques my interest!  How does the Bubba Valley Rod and Gun Club get qualified? According to the Bill, the club has to be a 501(c)(3) with the IRS … ok, I can do that … and “its membership must include a significant cross-section of species-specific wildlife conservation and sportsmen organizations from throughout this state.”  Hmmm, that’s a little harder.  What is “significant”?  What is a “cross-section”?  I guess I could ask my buddies at the other Rod and Gun Club here in the Valley, the Yuma Valley Rod and Gun Club, to join my club … but wait, they are not “species-specific” … so I guess they don’t count.  And my club can’t ‘be a member or hold a charter or be a chapter of a national wildlife conservation or sportsman’s organization’ … why is that, I wonder?  Oh, and the club has to be in existence at least five years.  I’m out of luck there. 

Don’t these qualifications seem very tailored?  I can think of only one organization in Arizona that meets the criteria in the Bill.  That is Arizona Sportsman for Wildlife Conservation.  If you can think of another, please let me know.  And isn’t it interesting that the lobbyist for that group floated this concept to the legislature in the first place.  But I am sure that she did not intend to leave out an opportunity for the Bubba Valley Rod and Gun Club to qualify for the financial benefits of the Bill … so let’s pretend for a moment that the Bubba Club qualifies.  What do we get?!

We get an exclusive right to resell tags that have been set aside by the Department just for us.  These tags will be diverted from the regular draw and will be super-sized- also, just for us.  They will become special tags with special harvest provisions and special fancy names, like “governor” tags.  Governor tags provide the winner with an opportunity to hunt a specific species in any hunt area with any legal weapon for three hundred sixty-five days beginning August 15 of each year.  Two governor’s tags for each of the following species: elk, mule deer, whitetail deer, bison (buffalo) and bear.  One tag for each of the following species: desert bighorn sheep, rocky mountain bighorn sheep, pronghorn (antelope), Merriam's turkey, Rio Grande turkey and Gould's turkey. 

We don’t want legislators to feel left out, so we will name some tags after them too.  We’ll call them “legislator” tags … Legislator tags are also species specific and are valid for any open season for that species for a specific hunt area with the legal weapon allowed for that season.  Legislator tags are issued as follows: (a) at least ten tags, and at least one tag for each hunt area, for bull elk in hunt areas that offer all of the following three types of hunts: (i) early archery bull elk hunts. (ii) either early muzzleloader bull elk hunts or early rifle bull elk hunts. (iii) late bull elk hunts. (b) one tag for whitetail deer for each hunt area that offers late hunts. (c) one tag for mule deer for each hunt area that offers a general season hunt and is located north of the Colorado river. (d) two tags for antelope valid for all hunt numbers as the commission specifies in any of regions 1, 2, 3 and 5 as in existence on January 1, 2012, except that both tags shall not be from the same region.  Then there is a raffle for the sportsmen.  Hey, that sounds like a good idea … kind of like the draw we already have.

This could generate a lot of money!  Where will it all go?  The Bill says it will first go to … the qualified organization!  That’s the Bubba Valley Rod and Gun Club!  Under paragraph H of the Bill, Bubba Valley must then first apply proceeds to cover the costs associated with “the annual sportsmen exposition” in this state.  Do they mean Bubba has to give money to the International Sportsman’s Exposition … aren’t they the annual sportsmen exposition in this State?  Or does Bubba give it the Arizona Game and Fish Expo … the other exposition in this state?  Well, I think the Bill says under paragraph A that Bubba is supposed to make a new exposition.  But paragraph H doesn’t reference paragraph A.  Bubba must also give money to cover costs of any County Chapter Banquet at which the tags are auctioned or raffled.  I couldn’t find a definition of a County Chapter … I guess we don’t want to be too specific about these things, it’s only money.

That’s cool.  Bubba Valley will put on a new expo and get all of its costs paid for by tags diverted from Arizona Game and Fish.  The Bubba Valley Annual Arizona Sportsman’s Expo will sell vendor space and get sponsors … maybe even charge admission!  That will generate even more money for Bubba Valley.  I can see my Bubba budget growing!  And, certainly, Bubba Valley and all its friends will participate in producing the expo, so they will all get some money when the “costs” are paid.  But wait, there’s more, administrative fees get paid too!  And there is no definition of “administrative.”  I would argue that lobbying the legislature is administrative, wouldn’t you?   

In fact, just about every expense I can think of fits in the categories of “costs” or “administration.”  Nevertheless, the Bill says that any money I couldn’t cram into one of those categories will go toward some warm and fuzzy if not ill-defined and amorphous objectives like “promoting sportsmen heritage.” (which seems to me might be better promoted if there was more rather than less opportunity for common folk to get a trophy tag).

Since Bubba Valley will assuredly auction some tags at its own banquet, the costs of that banquet must be covered as well.  Think of how this could increase Bubba Valley’s $15,000 projected budget for a banquet.  How big of a banquet could we have?  Champagne and caviar!  Too bad for the Yuma Valley Rod and Gun Club- which didn’t qualify for anything.  SpaghettiOs for them!

I wish it was Bubba Valley Rod and Gun Club that would be the lucky beneficiary of this wonderful legislative windfall.  I could keep myself busy raking in the bucks for the rest of my career “administering” this fine section of our beloved Arizona Revised Statutes …

No, actually, I have a conscience.  I find this dirty back-room deal disgusting.  I believe in fair play, fair chase and fair opportunity.  As a commissioner I tried the route of ethics, diplomacy and compromise.  I have since showered.  You cannot be diplomatic with those who themselves have no ethics or diplomacy.  You cannot compromise with those who have no intention whatsoever of holding up their end of the bargain.  You cannot make a fair deal with people who do not care about fairness.  You cannot work with someone to resolve a problem when that person makes money by creating problems! 

How about fair opportunity for the International Sportsman’s Exposition?  Now they have to compete against a group that is given start-up and operational money from State assets?   What if this was YOUR private business?  How would you feel if the government funded your competitor? 

How about the very proposition of public assets being funneled to private entities?  How many of you support federal assets being funneled to companies like Solyndra, LightSquared and the like … or ACORN or Planned Parenthood?  What makes me mad is that the proponents of HB2072 call themselves conservatives and would protest the diversion of assets if it were proposed by liberals, but have found ways to justify this!

So- the proponents have come back again … they want a “stakeholder” meeting.  Really?!  Everybody in Arizona is a stakeholder, but they have not invited everybody.  You can be assured that the current Chair of the Commission will not be invited.  He is a volunteer who has been an advocate for the common guy.  No matter how they spin it, this idea is NOT for the common guy. 

Proponents want to “compromise.”  The only compromise is: if you want a new expo, pay for one yourself.  Put your own assets at risk.  If you want a bigger banquet, pay for one yourself.  If you want your club’s costs and administrative fees paid, pay for them yourself.  And if you want your lobbyist paid- PAY YOURSELF!  There- we don’t need a bill for that.

-Robert Woodhouse

Please follow this link -Arizona Governor to send emails opposing HB 2072 to protect your right and opportunity hunt.