Arkansas Hunting banner
1 - 20 of 50 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,940 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Looks like this is getting close to happening. The AG did reject it again for the 3rd time, but now it is for only technicial issues which can be took care of with little effort. If I were a betting man I would guess we will see something on the ballot about this in the near future, be it for the best or worst in the long run. IMO, the people having a say who is on there would not be all bad, but on the flip side one takes a chance of some anti group getting them someone on there which would be bad. All I know is the way things are going some sort of change is going to happen, either this, the legislature will take control, not because they are worried about the resources, they only want control of the $$$$, or my hopes are the G&F will wake up from their dream world state they seem to be living in and fix their problems in house and we can get back to doing what we were suppose to do before either happened would be the best for all conserned, but as it stands now the chances of that happening is about as good as hitting the lottery!

LITTLE ROCK — Attorney General Dustin McDaniel today rejected proposed constitutional amendments that would change how state Game and Fish Commission members are selected and reduce the agency’s conservation tax.

Both proposals were filed on behalf of a group called Sportsmen 2010. One would require commissioners to be elected and paid like legislators. The other would reduce the sales tax that benefits the agency and others from 1/8-cent to 1/14-cent.

Both proposals were filed by Jimmy White of Manila, chairman of the Sportsmen 2010.

The Game and Fish Commission was created as an independent state agency in 1944 when voters approved Amendment 35 to the Arkansas Constitution. The seven members are appointed by the governor.

In rejecting the proposal that would require commission members be elected and paid like members of the General Assembly, McDaniel said the measure was ambiguous.

“First, it appears unclear whether you intend … to impose a limitation on the total number of four-year terms a commissioner may serve, regardless of whether the commissioner is succeeding himself or herself, and regardless of whether the terms are successive,” McDaniel said.

Among several other problems cited, McDaniel said the proposal was not clear whether the commissioners would receive annual salary increases based on the Consumer Price Index, like the General Assembly, or whether they could receive expense reimbursements.

“I cannot certify a ballot title for your proposed amendment in the face of these ambiguities,” McDaniel said. “These confusing and ambiguous points must be remedied before I can perform my statutory duty.”

In rejecting the proposal to reduce the 1/8-cent conservation tax to 1/14-cent, McDaniel said he could not certify it “because the text of the proposed constitutional amendment you seek to have adopted” was not submitted.
“Instead, you have a submitted a line-edited copy of Amendment 75 — a document that can best be described as a work-in-progress preliminary to a finished product.”

The conservation sales tax was approved as Amendment 75 by voters in 1996. The commission receives 45 percent of the revenue, as does the Arkansas state parks. The Arkansas Heritage Commission receives 9 percent and 1 percent goes to the keep Arkansas Beautiful Commission.

White did not immediately return a telephone call seeking comment today.
 

·
Select Member<br>2014-2015 Deer Hunting Contest W
Joined
·
4,188 Posts
I've felt for years that something needed to be done about the way commissioners were selected. But, like you, I feel that changing it may be opening a can of worms, and we'll have some regrets.

On the Conservation Sales Tax, I'll not vote to change it, or for anything changing it's attached to.
 

·
Super Moderator<br>2012-13 Deer Hunting Contest Wi
Joined
·
11,017 Posts
Well put someone in the Govs chair who doesn't hunt and have the anti nominate for his selection, by popular vote, anti's each time until that is who is running things. Crying shame someones duck blind is where this started and now it will end up at public vote. How whiney can you get.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,940 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 · (Edited)
As I said over on the Waterfowl thread about this topic, all was good until we (us hunters & fishermen) got Who-Doo'ed into helping them get Admendment 76 passed. Before that, it was all about the hunters & fishermen, for the hunter & fishermen and the bills were totally paid for by the hunters & fishermen. Heck, 90% of the land assets they have today was aquirred during those times, with nothing but what they got from us. The moment it was approved the Game & Fish went from that to the Game & Fish & Everyone else! And now looking back, if one had it to do over again, just what more benifits do we (hunters & fishermen) have that we really didn't have before! Before it was past we were their total world, now we are just part, and getting to be a smaller part of their overall deal with each passing year. Folks need to go back & mark that day on your calender cause it was the day the beginning of all this started! Scary part of this is the anti's are now part of the system like it or not. Their $$$$'s are took & spent right along side of our. Just look at what is being spent on non-hunting issues by the G&F now and it will only keep growing as time moves forward.
 

·
Super Moderator<br>2012-13 Deer Hunting Contest Wi
Joined
·
11,017 Posts
I don't think the answer is in electing commissioners. The answer is in the commissioners having oversite to insuring the biologist concenous is followed and nothing more. As it is they have the stroke and never should have. They are all businessmen and successful ones but that doesn't mean they know squat about wildlife, as many of them have shown. It is politics and politics has no place in the management of our wildlife.
 

·
Member<br>2010 Deer Hunting Contest Winner
Joined
·
1,902 Posts
How many registered voters are in Arkansas? How many of those registered voters buy a hunting or fishing license? Think about it, if there are more non-sportsman voters than sportsman voters, do you really think it will change for the better?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,039 Posts
I don't think the answer is in electing commissioners. The answer is in the commissioners having oversite to insuring the biologist concenous is followed and nothing more. As it is they have the stroke and never should have. They are all businessmen and successful ones but that doesn't mean they know squat about wildlife, as many of them have shown. It is politics and politics has no place in the management of our wildlife.
Well said!

Most appointees are rewards for campaign contributions or work in the campaign. Bad way to choose someone for something as important as this.

I also agree the sales tax was the worst thing to happen to us in a long time. I have seen nothing positive from it and now the AGFC is no longer soley beholding to hunters and fishermen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,349 Posts
Well said!

Most appointees are rewards for campaign contributions or work in the campaign. Bad way to choose someone for something as important as this.

I also agree the sales tax was the worst thing to happen to us in a long time. I have seen nothing positive from it and now the AGFC is no longer soley beholding to hunters and fishermen.

How would ya'll feel about a hunter driven movement to have the conservation tax funds removed from the AGFC revenue stream (without the election component)?


I'm more than a little tired of run ins with Game Wardens driving trucks 10 years newer than mine.........and if they are talking to me they don't have much to do.......
 
1 - 20 of 50 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top