The purpose of the Arizona Trails 2015 Plan is to gather information and recommendations to guide Arizona State Parks and other land management agencies in the management of motorized and non­‐motorized trails, and guide the distribution and expenditures of the Off‐Highway Vehicle Recreation Fund and the Federal Recreational Trails Program. The Arizona Trails Plan is updated every five years.

This planning document details the results of extensive surveys of Arizonans’ thoughts, preferences and priorities regarding trails and off-highway vehicle routes. Throughout the year 2008, staff at Arizona State Parks and faculty at Arizona State University partnered to solicit information from more than 5,500 Arizonans about what types of motorized or non-motorized trails they use, how often they use trails, what they like or don’t like about trails, and what trail managers should focus their time and dollars on to make the trail experience better.

The report states that the State Parks system is in imminent danger of complete collapse as a result of financial starvation during most of this decade. A chronic lack of capital funding has led to the devastation of Parks infrastructure. In addition, budget cuts in Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010 so far have forced the closure of several parks and reduced hours at 17 other sites. The Task Force's chief recommendation is that the State should implement a Sustainable State Parks Fund, which would be financed by a $14 to $15 annual contribution to be collected from owners of non-commercial vehicles as a part of the vehicle registration process. The proceeds would be dedicated to the operation, maintenance and capital needs of State Parks. In return, private vehicles bearing Arizona license plates would be admitted free to State Parks.

The Jaguar Conservation Agreement provides opportunities and incentives for interested parties to become involved with conservation activities. These activities include collection of biological information (to provide a sound scientific basis for decisions); consideration of relevant cultural, economic, and political factors; design and implementation of a comprehensive approach to conservation (including public education); and monitoring, evaluation, and feedback. This summary will focus on the mapping efforts and make recommendations to the Jaguar Conservation Team on conservation measures for potential jaguar habitat.

In March 1997, the Arizona Game and Fish Department and New Mexico Department of Game and Fish entered into a Conservation Agreement with other state, local, and federal cooperators, with voluntary participation by many private individuals, to conserve the jaguar (Panthera onca) along borderlands of Arizona and New Mexico and to stimulate parallel efforts in Mexico. Under the Conservation Agreement, an annual evaluation and progress report must be submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The first of these reports was completed in July 1998 and the second in June 2000. This third report is a comprehensive review of all Jaguar Conservation Agreement activities from March 1997 through December 2003. We compiled the information herein with assistance from members of the Jaguar Conservation Team and Jaguar Working Group, to help ensure that objectives outlined in the Conservation Agreement are being accomplished and that any deficiencies identified are addressed and corrective measures are implemented. In this report, we will identify progress, or lack thereof, in accomplishing the goals and objectives set forth by and for the JAGCT for the last 6 years.

Report takes a look at the pros and cons of three propositions that will be on the November 2014 ballot.
* Prop 122: a constitutional amendment to allow the Legislature to ignore any federal law or action they think is unconstitutional.
* Prop 304: would increase legislator's salaries to $35,000/year.
* Prop 303: would permit a manufacturer to give or sell investigational drugs, biological products, and medical devices to terminally ill patients even though the FDA has not cleared them for general use.

Dark money. The name itself carries ominous undertones, undertones that critics of this relatively new campaign-finance phenomenon claim reflect a genuine threat to democracy. Its defenders, on the other hand, argue that the dark money approach to funding political campaigns is merely an extension of Americans’ basic right to free speech. In other words, the issues at hand could hardly be more profound.

The author writes about Arizona's longstanding belief in direct democracy via referendum, initiative and recall. The Legislature continues to grapple with election reform and strike a balance of how much binding authority should remain in the hands of voters in terms of initiative, referendum and recall, but Arizona’s penchant for people power has been demonstrated since before statehood. In the midst of his campaign for Congress in 1911, for example, Arizona’s Carl Hayden noted that everywhere he went he found voters eager to take control. "The people want their own kind of government,” Hayden told reporters. “They want to be the dictators.”

Since statehood in 1912, Arizona has been among the nation’s leaders in using the initiative process to either adopt a statute or amend the state constitution by placing a measure on the ballot. But such efforts are anything but easy. In fact, organizers have found it to be an expensive, time-consuming and exhausting process – and one that is unlikely to end successfully.