Filtering by
- Resource Type: Text
Amendments to the bill establishing the Grand Canyon a National Monument. Circa 1908.
Letter from Carl Hayden to W. W. Bass concerning the passing of the national park bill. Hayden states that he will try to make the bill as advantageous to Arizona miners and farmers as possible, but the land will either remain as a national monument or become a national park. A postscript is added concerning the land allocated for the Havasupai Tribe.
Letter from W. W. Bass to Carl Hayden requesting the boundaries of the park be reconsidered as a large portion of the land is suitable for mining and farming.
Wildlife 20/20 provides broad strategic guidance for all department programs. It is intended to be a living document that conveys policy direction that the Arizona Game and Fish Commission has provided to the department to guide its work into the future. It will be complemented by additional plans designed to provide more specific direction, as needed.
This strategic plan reflects the references of Arizona's citizens as they relate to management of Arizona's wildlife-oriented recreation. It also reflects the biological principles involved in managing Arizona's wildlife.
To facilitate development of the Environmental Impact Statement which must accompany the Section 10 multi-species conservation proposal, a series of issue papers were prepared. In Pima County, ranching is uniquely able to preserve the integrity of vast tracts of connected and unfragmented open space and wildlife habitat. This study reviews the effect of five alternative permit strategies on the County's ability to preserve unfragmented landscapes through conserving ranch lands.
With the passage of the Federal Endangered Species Act in 1973, the stage was set for a confrontation between urban development and the provisions of Federal Law. Language was amended to the Act that established standards that a plan would have to meet before the Fish and Wildlife Service could approve it and issue a permit for the take of a listed species. In those jurisdictions that have adopted this approach, conservation of natural resources is no longer an afterthought but a major element that has to be considered during the regular land use permitting process.
What has been developed in Orange and San Diego County, Calif. are blueprints for other urbanizing communities committed to striking a balance between growth and development and environmental quality and its notion of livability. These plans successfully put in place conservation measures unprecedented in their scope and breadth and yet do so without compromising the economic vitality of the region.
This strategic plan identifies the management direction that the Arizona Game and Fish Commission has provided to the Department for the next six years. The plan discusses the most important issues facing the Department, including the recruitment and retention of hunters, anglers and shooting sports participants, and explains how the Department plans to respond to those issues.
Prior strategic plans focused on just one of the programmatic areas for which the Department is responsible; for example, Wildlife 2006 was solely a wildlife strategic plan. In contrast, Wildlife 2012 provides strategic guidance for all programs within the Arizona Game and Fish Department. It emphasizes wildlife management, which is the Department’s primary focus. However, Wildlife 2012 also addresses off-highway vehicle and watercraft recreation beyond their impacts to wildlife resources, as well as the administration of the Department.
The Arizona Game and Fish Department held four Wildlife Summits to obtain input from their stakeholders into the development of the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Stakeholder groups invited to participate in the Summits included Department constituency groups, special interests, local governments, Native American tribes, interagency cooperators, and the general public. This report combines the votes from each of the four Summits into one database for analysis. The results for each individual Summit are attached as separate reports. Comparisons are made in this combined report to show differences between the results of individual Summits. The combined results have also been analyzed to determine if there were any significant differences in opinions of the various stakeholder groups. Demographic breakdowns of the individual Summit results are not included in the separate reports because they would not be statistically valid given the small number of participants at each Summit. Participant comments are included in the
individual Summit reports.