ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

22A-0002-AH-AZGFD · Arizona Game and Fish Department · 2022-11-18

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

In the Matter of:

John Ray,

Respondent

No. 22A-0002-AH-AZGFD

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

DECISION

HEARING: September 15, 2022, with further hearing on November 3, 2022

APPEARANCES: Assistant Attorney General Linda Pollock represented the Arizona Game and Fish Department. Thomas Baker, Esq. represented Respondent John Ray, who was present for both hearing settings. Officer Alicia Nemlowill and Letitia Mee appeared as witnesses for the Arizona Game and Fish Department.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On August 23, 2022, the Arizona Game and Fish Department (“Department”) issued an Amended Notice of Hearing setting the above-entitled matter for hearing on September 15, 2022, pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) § 17-340(G).

2. Pursuant to the Amended Notice of Hearing, the Department made the following allegations against John Ray (“Respondent”):

On or before June 13, 2017, [Respondent], an Arizona resident, knowingly applied for and purchased by fraud or misrepresentation an Arizona non-resident deer tag to take a mule deer in Game Management Unit 13B of the Arizona Strip District, in violation of A.R.S. 17-341(A).

On or about November 16, 2017, [Respondent] unlawfully took a mule deer in Game Management Unit 13B of the Arizona Strip District without a valid tag, in violation of A.R.S. §§ 17-309(A)(2), 17-331 and Arizona Administrative Code R12-4-302(A) and (B).

On or about November 16, 2017, [Respondent] unlawfully possessed the unlawfully-taken mule deer without a valid tag attached, in violation of A.R.S. §§ 17-309(A)(16) and 17-309(A)(17).

Respondent is responsible for the loss of one (1) mule deer to the State of Arizona.

Arizona Revised Statutes § 17-314(A) and Commission Rule R12-4-127 authorize the Arizona Game and Fish Commission to impose a civil penalty up to $3,571.74 for the unlawfully taking, wounding, killing or possession of a deer in order to compensate the State of Arizona for the value of lost wildlife.

A.R.S. § 17-314(B) further authorizes the Commission to seek possession and recovery of any wildlife or part thereof unlawfully taken, wounded, killed or possessed.

Emphasis in original.

3. Also pursuant to the Amended Notice of Hearing, the Department notified Respondent of its request that the Administrative Law Judge make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

[Respondent] Knowingly applied for and purchased by fraud or misrepresentation a big game tag to take a mule deer in Game Management Unit 13B, in violation of A.R.S. 17- 341(A).

[Respondent] Unlawfully took one mule deer in Game Management Unit 13B without a valid tag, in violation of A.R.S. §§ 17-309(A)(2), 17-331 and A.A.C. R12-4-302(A) and (B);

[Respondent] Unlawfully possessed the unlawfully-taken mule deer without a valid tag attached, in violation of A.R.S. §§17-309(A)(16) and 17-309(A)(17);

A civil penalty is authorized for the unlawfully-taken mule deer pursuant to § 17-314(A) and Commission Rule R12-4-127; and

That possession of the antlers and the deer hide of the unlawfully-taken mule deer should be surrendered to the Arizona Game and Fish Department pursuant to A.R.S. § 17-314(B).

Emphasis in original.

4. A hearing was held on September 15, 2022, with further hearing on November 3, 2022.

5. At hearing, the Department presented the testimony of Officer Alicia Nemlowill and Letitia Mee. Respondent did not testify and did not call any witnesses. The Department submitted several exhibits, some of which only certain pages were submitted. Respondent submitted two exhibits.

Officer Alicia Nemlowill’s Testimony

6. Officer Alicia Nemlowill testified as to her background and experience in law enforcement. Currently, Officer Nemlowill investigates fraud for the Department. Officer Nemlowill explained the process that enables an individual to hunt big game in Arizona. In order to hunt big game in Arizona, an individual must possess both an Arizona hunting license and a separately purchased permit or non-permit game tag from the Department.

7. In this case, Respondent had a lawfully obtained Arizona lifetime hunting license. A lifetime license allows an Arizona resident to purchase a hunting license that will last for the lifetime of the licensee and even if the lifetime licensee later moves to another state, the Arizona lifetime license remains valid. If the lifetime licensee moves out of Arizona, the lifetime licensee may still apply for Arizona hunts by paying the higher non-resident fees for tags, but the lifetime licensee still enjoys access to the 90% or better draw pool reserved for Arizona residents.

8. In his application for a lifetime license, Respondent indicated he was a resident of Arizona with an Avondale address, and that he had been a resident of Arizona for seven years preceding the application date.

9. Prior to 2015, Respondent had been consistently applying for permits with the Department as an Arizona resident.

10. Beginning in 2015, Respondent began to apply for Arizona permit tags for various big game species through the Department’s on-line computer draw application process. In the applications from 2015 onward, Respondent identified himself as a non-resident of Arizona, provided his Avondale, Arizona address, and paid the non-resident fee for the application.

11. Respondent’s wife, Adrienne Ray, who lived with Respondent in Avondale, Arizona, also applied for Arizona on-line draws for various big game species in 2017. Ms. Ray’s applications identified herself as an Arizona resident.

12. Also beginning in 2015, Respondent applied for resident hunting licenses and tags from the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (“New Mexico Department”), claiming residency in New Mexico.

13. Beginning in 2016, Respondent also began applying for renewals of his New Mexico Registered Guide license with the New Mexico Department, claiming he was a New Mexico resident, avowing his physical address as 36 CR 3520, Flora Vista, New Mexico and the date he established residency in New Mexico as September 26, 2014, which is the same day Respondent obtained a New Mexico driver license.

14. Respondent also applied for resident New Mexico hunting licenses and tags on behalf of his then eight-year old son, Dylan, who lived with Respondent and his wife in Avondale, Arizona. Dylan’s applications to the New Mexico Department also indicated that Dylan was a resident of New Mexico.

15. Respondent applied for hunts in other states as well and identified himself as a resident of Arizona in his non-resident applications for licenses and permits in the States of Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, and Utah.

16. In or about June 2017, Respondent applied for a permit tag for a mule deer in Game Management Unit (“GMU”) 13B, located in northern Arizona above the Grand Canyon.

17. The Department’s on-line application process for big game permit tags requires the applicant to identify themselves as a resident or non-resident of Arizona. The Department allocates 90% or more of the available big game permit tags to residents, and not more than 10% of the tags to non-residents. Respondent identified himself in his on-line application as a non-resident of Arizona, however placed his Avondale, Arizona address on the application. Respondent was successful in the computer draw and the Department issued to Respondent a non-resident mule deer tag.

18. Respondent harvested a mule deer in GMU 13B using his non-resident permit tag.

19. Officer Nemlowill, on behalf of the Department, began investigating Respondent’s residency status when she received an inquiry from the New Mexico Department. Officer Nemlowill explained that the New Mexico Department did not believe that Respondent was a resident of New Mexico.

20. Officer Nemlowill testified that during her investigation of Respondent, she discovered a 2016 draw receipt for a Fall turkey application in which Respondent paid the non-resident application fee, as well as several receipts for 2016, 2017, and 2018 big game tags wherein Respondent applied as a non-resident. Officer Nemlowill testified that for the receipts referenced, the billing address was an Arizona address and the zip code matched with the credit card company verification code. As such, Respondent’s non-resident applications were verified with an Arizona billing address. Officer Nemlowill testified that Respondent had been applying for tags as a non-resident for over four years.

21. During the course of her investigation, Officer Nemlowill reviewed Respondent’s property records. The Warranty Deed recorded on July 29, 2016, for the property located at 317 S. 122nd Lane, Avondale, Arizona 85323, indicates that Respondent and his wife are the owners of that property.

22. The Affidavit of Property Value, also recorded with the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office on July 29, 2016, indicates that the Avondale residence would be used as Respondent’s primary residence.

23. The Department’s certified record for Respondent’s wife shows that she was using the same Arizona address as Respondent, and that while Respondent was indicating a non-resident status on his applications, Ms. Ray’s applications indicated she was a resident of Arizona, and they were utilizing the same Arizona address from January 4, 2016 on. Officer Nemlowill specifically testified regarding Ms. Ray’s two applications for Fall 2017 draws, during the same timeframe the Department received applications from Respondent, and Ms. Ray’s applications stated she was a resident of Arizona, while Respondent’s claimed non-resident status.

24. Officer Nemlowill obtained a copy of Respondent’s driver license record and testified that Respondent had a valid Arizona driver license at the time of his lifetime application, but subsequently canceled the license. At the time Respondent canceled his Arizona driver license due to obtaining an out of state driver license, Respondent’s address was listed as 317 S. 122nd Lane, Avondale, Arizona. Respondent obtained a New Mexico driver license on September 26, 2014 (seven (7) days after Respondent obtained his Arizona lifetime hunting license). Officer Nemlowill testified that Respondent’s Arizona driver license was not canceled for many years after Respondent obtained a New Mexico driver license, and therefore, both driver licenses were active for several years.

25. Officer Nemlowill testified that the address Respondent used for his New Mexico driver license is significant because it is associated with Respondent’s parents’ address.

26. Following both states’ joint investigation, the New Mexico Department cited Respondent for fraudulent statements on his hunting and fishing applications. The Department cited Respondent for obtaining the 2017 Arizona GMU 13B mule deer tag by fraud or misrepresentation in the Desert Ridge Justice Court in Phoenix. The citations in both states were later dismissed on procedural grounds. Neither citation was heard on the merits.

27. Officer Nemlowill testified that she searched for hunting licenses issued to Respondent in other states given that Respondent is a “prolific hunter.” Officer Nemlowill testified that the address an individual provides to other states is indicative of the individual’s “true residence,” because that individual would want to ensure that the tags for which the individual applied are received at the individual’s true address.

28. Officer Nemlowill obtained the Certification of Big Game Licenses, Applications and/or Records pertaining to Respondent from the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Department of Natural Resources (“Colorado Department”). Officer Nemlowill testified that Respondent’s address on file with the Colorado Department shows a physical and mailing address of 317 S. 122nd Lane, Avondale, Arizona as of March 25, 2018, and is actively being used.

29. Officer Nemlowill obtained from the Idaho Department of Fish and Game the Certification pertaining to Respondent’s license sales history and that record indicates that in April 2016, Respondent applied for Super Hunts as a non-resident of Idaho with the address of 317 S. 122nd Lane, Avondale, Arizona.

30. Officer Nemlowill also obtained licensing records pertaining to Respondent from the Nevada Department of Wildlife showing that Respondent used the address of 317 S. 122nd Lane, in Avondale, Arizona for two non-resident applications in April 2017 and April 2018, which was the same period of time Respondent was applying for permits/tags in Arizona as a non-resident.

31. Officer Nemlowill also obtained licensing records pertaining to Respondent from the State of Utah Department of Natural Resources which shows Respondent’s applications as a non-resident of Utah with an Arizona address, specifically the 317 S. 122nd Lane address, as of January 30, 2016. That record also shows that Respondent used his New Mexico driver license, his Arizona address, and his email address that Officer Nemlowill testified belongs to an Arizona employer.

32. Officer Nemlowill also obtained Respondent’s hunting license record from the New Mexico Department. In addition to his hunting license, Respondent is also a licensed hunting guide in New Mexico and Respondent’s guide license was renewed on May 3, 2017. The renewal guide application, dated March 17, 2017, indicates that Respondent is a resident of New Mexico with a date of September 26, 2014, as Respondent’s residency date which is the date that Respondent obtained his New Mexico driver license. Officer Nemlowill testified that the email address listed on the application is associated with an Arizona employer.

33. Officer Nemlowill obtained Respondent’s Resident Personal Tax records from the Arizona Department of Revenue for the years 2014 through 2017. Respondent’s 2016 tax return that was prepared in 2017 and dated March 24, 2017, shows Respondent’s home address as 317 S. 122nd Lane in Avondale, Arizona, and that he has two dependents who have lived in the home for the full twelve (12) months of 2016. Respondent’s 2016 W-2 contains the 317 S. 122nd Lane in Avondale, Arizona address and shows that Respondent’s employer, Capital Lumber Co., is located in Phoenix, Arizona. Respondent’s Miscellaneous Income for 2016, in the amount of $1,500.00, from working as a hunting guide in New Mexico, was reported on Respondent’s Arizona tax return. Respondent’s wife’s 2016 W-2 shows her address as 317 S. 122nd Lane in Avondale, Arizona and shows that her employer is the Cartwright School District in Phoenix, Arizona.

34. Respondent’s 2017 Resident Personal Income Tax Return is dated March 10, 2018, was prepared by a tax preparer in Arizona, shows Respondent’s home address as 317 S. 122nd Lane in Avondale, Arizona, and that he has two dependents who have lived in the home for the full twelve (12) months of 2017. Respondent’s 2017 W-2 contains the 317 S. 122nd Lane in Avondale, Arizona address and shows that Respondent’s employer, Capital Lumber Co., is located in Phoenix, Arizona. Respondent’s Miscellaneous Income for 2017, in the amount of $1,750.00, from working as a hunting guide in New Mexico, was reported on Respondent’s Arizona tax return. Respondent’s wife’s 2017 W-2 shows her address as 317 S. 122nd Lane in Avondale, Arizona and shows that her employer is the Cartwright School District in Phoenix, Arizona.

35. Officer Nemlowill obtained Respondent’s voting records from the Maricopa County Office of the Recorder and those records show that Respondent is registered to vote in Arizona and voted in Arizona on November 7, 2017. Officer Nemlowill testified that upon investigation, she could find no voting record for Respondent in New Mexico.

36. Officer Nemlowill testified that Respondent’s vehicle, a 2012 Toyota Tacoma, is registered in Arizona.

37. Officer Nemlowill interviewed Respondent on October 22, 2018, at his home address of 317 S. 122nd Lane, Avondale, Arizona. Respondent’s vehicle was in the driveway of the residence. Officer Nemlowill testified that during the course of the interview, Respondent’s wife came home and his two children were present at the home.

38. Officer Nemlowill explained to Respondent the purpose of the interview. Officer Nemlowill disclosed to Respondent the information she obtained concerning his driver license records, voter registration records, property records, tax records, and employer information. Respondent told Officer Nemlowill that he was registered to vote in New Mexico and received a summons for jury duty at his New Mexico address. Respondent told Officer Nemlowill that he is employed by Capital Lumber, frequently travels to New Mexico for work, and thought he would be relocated to New Mexico, and that is why he obtained a New Mexico driver license. Respondent stated that his parents reside in Flora Vista, New Mexico and that he stays with them for work related travel. However, Respondent could not substantiate his travel to Officer Nemlowill. Officer Nemlowill testified that the information she obtained showed that Respondent was in New Mexico overnight once, that he had minimal work travel, and was not relocated. Officer Nemlowill verified that most of Respondent’s travel for work was in Eastern Arizona. Officer Nemlowill testified that Respondent’s cell phone records show that there are no records for calls from Flora Vista, New Mexico. At that point during the interview, Respondent requested an attorney and Officer Nemlowill ceased her questioning of Respondent.

39. Officer Nemlowill testified that as soon as she went inside of the residence, she observed a pedestal mount of the mule deer from the 2017 GMU 13B hunt. Officer Nemlowill described the wood structure shoulder mount with replica antlers and the original hide. The original antlers and skull were located in a back bedroom of the residence. Officer Nemlowill seized the antlers and skull and they are currently in the Department’s possession, however, the pedestal was “seized in place.”

40. Officer Nemlowill also seized antlers from Respondent that Respondent took on an October 22, 2018 hunt in GMU 23 using a non-resident Arizona archery deer tag. The Department cited Respondent for purchasing by fraud or misrepresentation a 2018 over-the-counter archery deer tag that he used to hunt a white-tailed deer in GMU 23 (Gila County). Respondent had claimed in his application to the Department that he was a resident of New Mexico. Following a bench trial in the Country Meadows Justice Court in Phoenix, Respondent was found guilty of violating A.R.S. § 17-341(M). Respondent later pled guilty in the Globe Regional Justice Court of taking the white-tailed deer without a valid tag attached.

41. Officer Nemlowill testified that she located a Facebook page for Mossback Guides that contained photos dated November 24, 2017, that depict Respondent with the deer that was seized. Respondent stipulated that the date he took the deer was November 16, 2017.

42. Officer Nemlowill testified that there is a vehicle registered in New Mexico to Respondent’s mother and to Respondent. However, Officer Nemlowill explained that vehicle registration is not indicative of residence as registration is based upon where the vehicle is primarily used.

Letitia Mee’s Testimony

43. Letitia Mee is a Program Manager for the New Mexico Department. Ms. Mee testified that in May 2012, Respondent applied for a New Mexico Hunting Guide License as a non-resident of New Mexico, and placed an Arizona address on the application. Ms. Mee testified that in order to obtain a New Mexico Hunting Guide License, Respondent had to pass a test demonstrating his knowledge of New Mexico’s hunting and fishing rules and laws. Ms. Mee specified that those laws and rules include what it means to be a resident of New Mexico.

44. Ms. Mee testified that in March 2013, Respondent submitted a renewal for his Hunting Guide License and that form contains a different Arizona address. In May 2014, Respondent submitted a renewal for his Hunting Guide License and that form also contains another Arizona address. Respondent’s 2015 renewal contains the 317 S. 122nd Lane in Avondale, Arizona address.

45. Ms. Mee testified that Respondent’s 2016 renewal contained the Flora Vista, New Mexico address and that Respondent indicated his date of residency as September 26, 2014, the date be obtained his New Mexico driver license. Respondent signed the application attesting to having been a resident of New Mexico for the previous ninety (90) days immediately preceding the date of the application.

46. Respondent’s 2017 renewal application also indicated that Respondent had been a resident of New Mexico since September 26, 2014.

47. Ms. Mee explained that during the course of a renewal, the New Mexico Department is required to run a background check, including a criminal background check which includes criminal information, address information, and license history. During the course of this process, Ms. Mee noticed that Respondent’s residences were located in Arizona, which made her question whether Respondent was truly a resident of New Mexico.

48. Ms. Mee testified that she Googled Respondent’s email address and discovered that Capital Lumber was based in Arizona, and that Respondent was an Arizona employee. Ms. Mee referred the matter to a local law enforcement officer for further investigation.

49. Ms. Mee explained that 84% of New Mexico’s hunting tags are awarded to its residents and that in 2017, Respondent applied for several big hunts as a New Mexico resident, including elk, ibex, antelope, deer, barbary sheep, and big horn sheep. Ms. Mee further explained that one of the advantages of applying as a resident is the fee structure, in that non-New Mexico residents pay full fees up front.

50. Ms. Mee testified that in 2018, Respondent applied for hunting tags as a resident of New Mexico.

51. Ms. Mee testified regarding the New Mexico Department’s records for Dylan Ray, Respondent’s then eight-year old son. Dylan Ray’s record was created on March 4, 2017, by a private individual, and it was modified on January 7, 2018. The Post Office Box, phone number, and email address on Dylan Ray’s record is the same as Respondent’s. Dylan Ray’s record also states that he is a resident of New Mexico with a date of residency of September 26, 2014. Ms. Mee testified that in 2017, Dylan Ray applied for all big game tags as a youth resident of New Mexico, which is advantageous because youth receive a further discount on licenses.

52. Ms. Mee testified regarding New Mexico’s residency requirements, specifically, that to claim residency, an individual must be in New Mexico for the ninety (90) days prior, and that seasonal or temporary homeowners do not qualify for residency.

53. Respondent did not testify or call any witnesses to testify. Respondent argued that the Department’s Complaint is based upon Respondent “paying too much” for the tag at issue. Respondent asserted through counsel, that after he obtained an Arizona Lifetime License, that he can apply as a resident for purposes of a draw pool regardless of whether he lives in Arizona, and thus the benefit of a lifetime license. Respondent contended through counsel that the only difference is the amount of money paid as the odds of drawing a tag are identical whether you live in or out of Arizona. Respondent’s counsel also argued that Respondent was a resident of New Mexico due to the obtaining of a New Mexico driver license and Respondent’s name appearing on a New Mexico vehicle registration. Respondent’s counsel also argued that Respondent did not face any consequences in New Mexico, that Respondent’s cell phone records “can’t be accurate,” that a child’s residency depends upon a parent’s residency, and that the justice court case is irrelevant because it concerned an over-the-counter tag with different evidence.

54. Respondent argued that this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to order the surrender of the antlers and cape because Respondent was not criminally convicted of an offense relating to the mule deer mount and cape at issue in this matter. Respondent’s counsel further argued that the Department has failed to follow any of the required procedures for the forfeiture of personal property as set forth in A.R.S. §13-4301 et seq. and that changing the word “forfeiture” to “surrendered” does not suffice.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Department’s jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 17-201.

The Department bears the burden of proof and must establish that Respondent violated Department laws and/or rules by a preponderance of the evidence.

“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” A preponderance of the evidence is “evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 17-341(A), “[i]t is unlawful for a person to knowingly purchase, apply for, accept, obtain or use, by fraud or misrepresentation a license, permit, tag or stamp to take wildlife and a license or permit so obtained is void and of no effect from the date of issuance thereof.” The credible, probative, and substantial evidence presented at hearing, including Officer Nemlowill’s testimony regarding her interview of Respondent, her investigation, which included Respondent’s tax returns, employment, cell phone records, voting records, his wife’s employment, his home ownership in Arizona, and other hunting applications in various states, established that at a minimum, Respondent knowingly misrepresented his residency when he applied for and purchased a big game tag to take a mule deer in GMU 13B, in violation of A.R.S. § 17- 341(A).

A.R.S. § 17- 309(A)(2) provides that it is unlawful for a person to take or possess wildlife except as expressly permitted.

A.R.S. § 17- 331(A) prohibits a person from taking “any wildlife in this state without a valid license or a commission approved proof of purchase.” A.A.C. R12-4-302 provides that “[i]n addition to meeting requirements prescribed under A.R.S. § 17-331, a person who takes wildlife shall have in possession any tag required for the particular season or hunt area” and “[a] tag obtained in violation of statute or rule is invalid and shall not be used to take, transport, or possess wildlife.” Because Respondent unlawfully took one mule deer in GMU 13B without a valid tag as the tag was obtained by misrepresenting Respondent’s residency, Respondent violated A.R.S. §§ 17-309(A)(2), 17-331 and A.A.C. R12-4-302(A) and (B).

Pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 17-309(A)(16) and (17), it is unlawful for a person to: “[p]ossess or transport any wildlife or parts of the wildlife that was unlawfully taken” and “[p]ossess or transport the carcass of big game without a valid tag being attached.” In this case, because Respondent unlawfully possessed the unlawfully-taken mule deer without a valid tag attached, Respondent violated A.R.S. §§17-309(A)(16) and (A)(17).

A.R.S. § 17-314(A) authorizes the Department to impose a civil penalty against any person for unlawfully taking, wounding, killing or possessing a deer in the minimum amount of $1,500.00. Pursuant to A.A.C. R12-4-127(A), “[i]n order to compensate the state for the value of lost or injured wildlife, the Commission may, pursuant to A.R.S. § 17-314, impose a civil penalty against any person for unlawfully taking, wounding, killing or possessing wildlife. Any civil penalties so imposed shall be equal to or greater than the applicable statutory-minimum sums found in A.R.S. § 17-314(A). The Commission may impose a civil penalty above the statutory minimum sums where it has determined that the value of the lost or injured wildlife exceeds the statutory-minimum sums.” In this case, the Department is seeking a civil penalty in the amount of $3,571.74. At hearing, Respondent did not dispute the imposition of a civil penalty or the amount requested.

A.R.S. § 17-314(B) authorizes the Department to bring a civil action to enforce the civil penalty and such action may be joined with an action for possession and recovery had for the possession as well as the civil penalty.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that possession of the antlers and cape of the unlawfully-taken Mule deer should be granted to the Department on the effective date of the Order.

It is further recommended that the Department require Respondent to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $3,571.74 for the unlawful taking, transporting and possessing of a mule deer from GMU 13B.

In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be forty (40) days from the date of that certification.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, November 18, 2022.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically or by mail to:

Ty Gray, Director

Arizona Game and Fish Department

Thomas M. Baker, Esq.

9034 N. 23rd Avenue #5

Phoenix, Arizona 85021

[email redacted]

Linda J. Pollock, Esq.

Attorney General's Office

1275 West Washington

Phoenix, Arizona 85007

[email redacted]

John Ray

27319 N 64th

Phoenix, Arizona

By Miranda Alvarez

Legal Secretary

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000