# Arizona bans coyote hunting contests...



## azpredatorhunter (Jul 24, 2012)

The antis won this battle... Now we need to police ourselves and STOP posting graphic, and distasteful photographs for them to use against us. Remember a picture is worth a thousand words...

Here's a link... https://www.knau.org/post/az-wildlife-officials-move-ban-coyote-killing-contests


----------



## Mo Mo (Sep 16, 2016)

Most anti hunting organizations gain information that is readily accessible from unsecured forums where pictures of kills and contest announcements fill the website and are open to the public......it's a free hand out to the antis. So who is really to blame for the bans?


----------



## Mark Steinmann (Jan 28, 2014)

The bigger issue is almost no hunters sent in comments to G&F during the comment period. They got thousands of emails from the anti's, only 550 from hunters. Until hunters can get off their butts and start educating and helping out, we're doomed.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## glenway (Mar 27, 2011)

So, what are the loopholes?


----------



## kiyote (Jun 15, 2014)

more sillyness from arizona.

most hunters really don't care about contests . it simply does not ,in their minds, affect them so most don't care enough to try and save them.

this is how freedom dies. it is the inevitable circle in the history of man.

From bondage to spiritual faith,
From spiritual faith to great courage,
From courage to liberty,
From liberty to abundance,
From abundance to selfishness,
From selfishness to complacency,
From complacency to apathy,
From apathy to dependency,
From dependency back again to bondage."


----------



## Mark Steinmann (Jan 28, 2014)

glenway said:


> So, what are the loopholes?


They cant take fees, registration, or hand out prizes/money. Get rid of 1 of those and it's legal still.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Mo Mo (Sep 16, 2016)

The organizers would simply need to state that in order to compete in the contest, "you will need to make a cash donation". If it's called a donation and not an entrance fee, it changes the dynamic of the contest legally.


----------



## kiyote (Jun 15, 2014)

so basically it's nothing but a feel good ban. no muss no fuss.


----------



## glenway (Mar 27, 2011)

Arizona Commission Finalizes Prohibition of Organized Predator Killing Contests

PHOENIX - The Arizona Game and Fish Commission today voted 4-0 to approve a Notice of Final Rulemaking that, if approved by the Governor's Regulatory Review Council (GRRC), would designate a predator or fur-bearing hunt contest, as defined by the rule, an unlawful manner and method of take for these species.

The Commission's intent in adopting this rule is to address social concerns over formally organized and publicized contests that award prizes to competitors that kill the largest number or variety of predators or fur-bearing animals, as these are the types of events that have caused the strongest public objection.

"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," said Kurt Davis, a member of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission. "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 to fulfill its duty to conserve wildlife for the beneficial use of current and future generations."

For the purposes of the rule, "contest" means a competition in which participants must register or record entry and pay a fee, and prizes or cash are awarded to winning or successful participants.

The rule would not apply to lawful, regulated hunting of predators and fur-bearing animals, which plays an important role in wildlife management, nor would it apply to events such as fishing tournaments.

The Commission proposed the rule at its March 15 meeting, and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was posted in the Arizona Administrative Register on April 12, opening a 30-day comment period. Game and Fish received more than 4,800 comments during the comment period.

Predatory animals as defined in A.R.S. § 17-101 are coyotes, bobcats, foxes and skunks. Fur-bearing animals are weasels, raccoons, beavers, badgers, ringtail cats, muskrats, otters and bobcats.

The rule next goes to the Governor's Regulatory Review Council (GRRC) for its review. If GRRC approves the rule, it could become effective Jan. 1, 2020.


----------



## fr3db3ar (Aug 6, 2011)

what the hell do they think the difference is between hunting and fishing?

I think I know. warm fuzzy puppies vs slime fish.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## kiyote (Jun 15, 2014)

I'm goin fishin this weekend and will wager I catch the first, most and biggest! :fishing: :teeth:


----------



## youngdon (Mar 10, 2010)

fr3db3ar said:


> what the hell do they think the difference is between hunting and fishing?
> 
> I think I know. warm fuzzy puppies vs slime fish.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Fish can't make puppy dog eyes.


----------



## glenway (Mar 27, 2011)

And HSUS knows that too well, YD. One of its best money makers is to use those puppy-dog eyes in its pleadings for cash. And, the whackos don't even run a single pet shelter.


----------



## Mo Mo (Sep 16, 2016)

fr3db3ar said:


> what the hell do they think the difference is between hunting and fishing?
> 
> I think I know. warm fuzzy puppies vs slime fish.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


I am not defending the decision, only explaining. This type of ban has happened in other states in the northeast. Simply put, 90% of all sanctioned fishing contests are strictly enforced "catch and release" where as there is no mortality to the animal. Other fishing contests, the other 10%, the fish are eaten at a fish fry after the contest. So yes, there is a huge difference between a fishing contest and a hunting (killing) contest. This is the hard factual truth that banned contests in Vermont.


----------



## azpredatorhunter (Jul 24, 2012)

Pansey... it used to be a flower.


----------



## azpredatorhunter (Jul 24, 2012)

Stop talking about the loopholes ????


----------



## youngdon (Mar 10, 2010)

Pansy... Pansey is a town in Alabama. I was there once, for about 3 minutes. Yikes !


----------



## glenway (Mar 27, 2011)

Be glad we are not in Switzerland...GW

The full story is reprinted below from 2008:

Catch and Release fishing will be banned in Switzerland from next year, it was revealed this week.

And anglers in the country will have to demonstrate their expertise by taking a course on humane methods of catching fish, under new legislation outlined by the Bundesrat - the Swiss Federal Parliament.

The new legislation states that fish caught should be killed immediately following their capture, with a sharp blow to the head from a blunt instrument. Under the new regulations, the use of livebait and barbed hooks is also prohibited except in certain situations.

The laws come into effect in 2009, but while the Swiss government does not mention catch and release specifically, it does say that "it is not permitted to go fishing with the 'intention' to release the fish."

EFTTA lobbyist Jan Kappel has been in contact with Martin Peter, Vice President of the Swiss Angling Federation, to see whether a joint approach to the Swiss government could persuade them to amend the legislation - which forms part of a much wider animal welfare program.

The law on the protection of animals was passed by the Swiss parliament in 2005 and officials have spent three years refining the details, taking into account the comments of interested parties.

Said Jan: "Catch and release is one of the most difficult issues we have to deal with, and one of the most important in my opinion. The new Swiss law doesn't make use of the term 'catch and release,' which is the same as in Germany, but I don't see how governments can enforce legislation which makes 'intent' illegal. And demanding that people kill the fish they catch gives no thought to the conservation benefits from releasing them.

"Angling codes of conduct with regards to proper handling and releases can be found for practically any fish species caught by anglers in Switzerland and the rest of the world. The new Swiss law makes it obligatory for anglers to take lessons before being granted a fishing license. So there is absolutely no need for an outright ban on the release of fish in Switzerland."

It's believed that the legislation could affect as many as 275,000 anglers in Switzerland, who generate around 30 million Euros in annual tackle sales.

EFTTA acting president, Pierangelo Zanetta, said: "EFTTA does not believe that forcing anglers to kill their catches is either good for nature or for recreational sportfishing - which makes a significant financial contribution to the EU economy. Making the killing of fish obligatory will simply reduce fish population and, at the same time, run the risk of having a negative impact on sport fishing.


----------



## knapper (Feb 5, 2010)

Some areas and some fish it mandatory to release some fish.


----------



## Mark Steinmann (Jan 28, 2014)

azpredatorhunter said:


> Stop talking about the loopholes


HSUS is fully aware of them and already wrote in about it to G&F. Talking about them here won't hurt anything IMO due to that. 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## youngdon (Mar 10, 2010)

They apparently threw my email in the recyclebin.


----------

