Why Arizona Game and Fish Needs Reform
Preordained and Denied: Arizona Fish and Game Commission Rejects Calls to End Hounding
Image by Outdoor Adventure Specialists.
Yesterday, the Arizona Game and Fish Commission held its long-awaited meeting to consider our petition to ban the use of hounds in the hunting of mountain lions and black bears. The outcome was expected: a unanimous vote to deny the petition. But for all its predictability, the experience illuminated the deep dysfunction within Arizona’s wildlife governance system and only reaffirmed why this work is so necessary.
The day began at 8 a.m. and stretched well into the afternoon. Our petition—articulate, evidence-based, and focused on science, public safety, and wildlife ethics—was misrepresented not just by opponents, but by the Arizona Game and Fish Department itself. The agency’s presentation by staff biologist Jim Heffelfinger (which was given immediately following our presentation, we might add) dismissed published studies, minimized the risks to endangered species like jaguars and ocelots, and wielded graphs without confidence intervals to claim that hounding bans in other states had backfired. Heffelfinger flatly denied public safety concerns, brushing off the fact that attacks haven’t happened in Arizona as if that should be the standard and despite evidence to the contrary.
Still, our team showed up with strength and grace. Every one of our supporters who testified did so with clarity and conviction, even as the opposition was allowed to speak out of turn, Zoom in from remote locations, and clap after every statement—sometimes joined by the Chair himself. We heard slanderous accusations against our side: claims of fraud, entrapment, hatred for veterans, and wanting children to “rot on the couch.” (What?!)
One hound hunter bragged about targeting mature male animals to avoid females—a textbook definition of trophy hunting that exacerbates human-wildlife conflict. Others insisted collars keep dogs safe, misrepresenting the petition as an attack on safety rather than a challenge to the ethics and ecological impact of hounding. There was repeated denial that Arizona is habitat for ocelots or jaguars, despite data to the contrary.
In the end, the Commission voted without discussion to deny both petitions. The Chair closed by calling hound hunters “conservationists of the highest order.”
Let’s be clear: this decision was not rooted in science, public will, or the best interest of Arizona’s ecosystems. It was rooted in loyalty to a narrow set of special interests who benefit from the status quo. The Commission had already signaled their intent when they supported legislation earlier this year that would have blocked our petition outright had it been passed.
We were never going to win this vote. But we are still winning the long game.
Every time we raise this issue, more people begin to question the legitimacy of recreational carnivore killing. More people learn that Arizona’s wildlife is governed not by science or public values, but by a rigged system that prioritizes a narrow constituency. And every time we show up, we plant seeds for the future.
Our opponents have to win every time. We only have to win once. And we’re not going anywhere.
We are deeply proud of our team, our community, and everyone who testified with truth and courage. The science is on our side. The public is on our side. And eventually, policy will catch up.
Until then, we fight on.
