bwakeling

SD Hunter: Bonecollector is correct. The Department used to require archers to report their harvest. But last year, new rules were promulgated that removed that requirement. Unfortunately, we have yet to correct that on the over the counter tags. So, thank you for actually reading the tag and trying to comply, but there is no longer a requirement for archers to report. We may send you a post card at the end of the season, and we would appreciate your response to that should you receive it. In the meantime, we will get the tag printing corrected for next year. Thank you and I apologize for the confusion! Brian Wakeling Game Branch Chief

Workman is correct on all points regarding bonus points (pun intended), except what trphyhntr corrected on loyalty points. Brian Wakeling Game Branch Chief

All of this can be quite confusing, and there are numerous regulations that cover these topics depending on which critter you may be hunting. There are federal regulations that are rather broad regarding baiting waterfowl or migratory birds. Don't even think about it. You can hunt around normal agricultural practices or food plots. Bears have had a prohibition on baiting for quite a while. Again, don't even think about it. These are state regulations, but again preclude virtually any baiting of bears. During the last year, additional state rules were promulgated that regulate the placement of bait for other big game. There are 4 things that are exempted. Those things are: (1) water (so you can place water out to bait in deer), (2) salt (you can use water softener salt or white salt blocks, or even organic sea salt if you wish), or (3) salt-based products manufactured for the livestock industry (so you can use a trace mineral salt block). Finally, you can hunt over a nutritional supplement that has been placed by a livestock producer for his livestock (so you can hunt over a molasses wheel, but you can't place the molasses wheel yourself). Cervid urine is another recent change (prohibition). The recent rules were intended to address potential CWD issues in part, and the cervid urine is that entirely. You can use a synthetic, but not the real stuff. If you use the real stuff, you are spreading urine from captive game farm cervids. Urine carries prions, which are involved in CWD transmission. Consequently, you are spreading captive cervid urine, which is where the most likely source of CWD may come from, around Arizona where no CWD currently occurs. Synthetics won't spread the prions or CWD. Hopefully this clears up some of this confusion. Brian Wakeling Game Branch Chief

Thanks for the great ideas. Here is a little feedback. We haven't completely resurected the fruit salad hunts. But archery elk hunters in our best turkey units can now purchase the companion turkey tag - check to see if your elk unit is one of those. Our deer populations are not at levels they were at when the archers could hunt elk, turkey, and deer at the same time, so we are a little reluctant to go there right now. Archery doe hunts were also offered at a time when we far more deer than we do now. Again, we are reluctant to go there just yet. We would like to see deer populations rebound substantially first. Brian Wakeling Game Branch Chief

Amanda nudged me to engage on this one. But you guys have touched on many of the reasons why the early season is when it is. Moving the season later in the year will result in an overlap with another season. We have tried to avoid overlapping seasons to the extent possible. Trying to find a free week during the fall is just about impossible. There is always a hunt going on somewhere. And this is largely a good thing (lots of chances to participate), but it makes it challenging to move things around. If you don't find the buck you want during the early season, you can always come back during December. Or start early in January. When compared with a lot of other states, Arizona actually has a longer period during which you can hunt deer with archery tackle than a lot of other western states! And we are looking at ways to get some of those seasons added back in that have been removed. No promises, but we are looking at harvest to see if it drops now that a lot of baits are no longer lawful. Brian Wakeling Game Branch Chief

You know, I think every possible loophole gets tested within about 3 days of a rule being passed! And believe me, we sure try to test them as much as possible before we even run them out as drafts. OK, hogs are not wildlife. So you can use bait for hogs. But if you placed bait for hogs, then you cannot hunt deer over that bait. In fact, if you know someone else placed the bait for hogs, you cannot hunt deer over it. Big game is defined in statute (A.R.S. 17-101((3)). They include wild turkey, deer, elk, pronghorn, bighorn sheep, bison, peccary, bear and mountain lion. Salt is no better at killing CWD prions than anything else to my knowledge. But salt is so prevalent in the environment, that eliminating its use by hunters probably would do little to influence its distribution. Further, if you add more salt (just as with water), the crowding at existing salt (or water) is diminished. Wildlife need salt and water - they don't need other baits. By the way, one of the other rule changes eliminates the need for archery deer hunters to report via telephone if they are successful. There are unscrupulous hunters out there that have, in some instances, placed covers or deterents at waters when they knew that they were using only a couple of waters based on their camera photos, and they wanted to be sure that they could increase their odds of taking a deer at a given water source. So it isn't the blind or the trail camera, it is a physical or chemical deterrent placed to get deer (or other species) to come to a specific source to increase the probability of take that we are concerned with and the rule was designed to regulate. There was discussion regarding regulating blinds and cameras, but until we can demonstrate an effect on wildlife, we tend to avoid promulgation of rules on those topics. We really believe that most hunters are ethical and responsible enough to avoid that level of regulation. We need to be self-policing on the ethics so as to avoid population-level influences on wildlife. These are great questions, and I hope these answers are helpful! Brian Wakeling Game Branch Chief

All: I know this is a bit confusing, and I'm not the last word on this topic, but if you look at the final rule language it does try to provide clarity. Any time I read any legal contract, I'm amazed at how unclear it is in the process of keeping the legal profession afloat. The last time I rented a car, I think I signed my name more often than when I bought my first house. Nevertheless, in this instance: The rule specific exempts salt. It doesn't say that salt has to be for the livestock industry, but any type of salt is ok. If it is table salt, it is salt. If it is water softener salt, it is salt. If it is a salt-based product, then it has to be manufactored for the livestock industry. Mineral licks fall into this category. Finally, if it is a nutritional supplement that is not a salt-based product for the livestock industry or plain old salt, then it must be placed in the process of the agricultural operation. You can hunt over a molasses wheel if the livestock producer put it out for his cattle. This was intended to to balance the risks associated with disease transmission and methods that are already in use or practiced for many decades. Salt is quite prevalent on the landscape. Adding more salt simply reduces any concentrations already in existence and already in use. Water and salt are naturallyl occurring. Other baits are not. I hope this offers some help in interpreting the final rules adopted by the Commission. Brian Wakeling Game Branch Chief

Non-Typical brought up a point made by Sundevil. Unfortunately, I don't believe what was described was possible to authorize with existing rules - I see no reference to anything but permanent disabilities. It is impossible to verify that this occurred in fact without knowing names and datas. At the Department, we hear all the time about "My wife's sister's hairdresser's husband's best buddy always" ... fill in the blank. Sometimes it happened, but it may not have occurred the way it was described. I have no way to verify or dispute that this individual received a permit for crosssbow use, but it doesn't sound correct to me. Brian Wakeling Game Branch Chief

You know, I believe you have identified some great points that need to be considered. Crossbow permits and Challlenged Hunter Access/Mobility Permit are both governed by Article 2 rules (R12-4-216 and 217). When the governor and legislature do not limit rulemaking through moratorium, each rule is reviewed and revised at least once every 5 years by law. If you take your suggested changes and considerations and email them to rulemaking@azgfd.gov, they will be on file for the next rule review. Unfortunately (or fortunately), we cannot simply amend rules without following the processes. It is a public process designed to provide the public with an opportunity to comment and review, and prevents decisions to be made without transparency. Because these are codified in rule, the Department's "deal" is that we have to follow the rule consistently. We don't have the ability to selectively apply the rules. When you submit your comments, rulemaking can tell you when the next scheduled review of Article 2 rules will be. Discussion forums are a great place to kick ideas around, but if you don't submit the comments, no one will know you've had the discussion. Brian Wakeling Game Branch Chief

There have been a lot of excellent responses to your post already, and I'm coming to the party a little bit late. I did want you to know that the Department does care about youth and the important role they will play in the future management of wildlife. The way the Department has to manage our processes are generally spelled out in statute, rule, order, or policy. And we have to interpret them consistently to the best of our ability. Sometimes it doesn't seem right, but it is interpreted fairly. What I mean by that is it is interpreted consistently so that everyone is treated the same. Maybe that doesn't always feel good, but we have to do it that way. When we can, we generally try to use our discretion to the individual's favor. Unfortunately for you, there is a statute and rule that says we cannot return money or bonus points if it is not our error. We are investigating potential changes to rule that might be more flexible, but we are not there yet. Let me give you another example. The rule that specifically addresses "juniors-only" hunts is R12-4-318. By statute, rules must be reviewed at least once every 5 years. We had a series of modifications to that rule scheduled for revision, and in fact had presented proposed rulemaking to the Commission in December 2008. When Governor Brewer took office in January 2009, she placed a moratorium on rulemaking that was subsequently extended several times by the legislature. The rulemaking package expired, and only last year due to additional legislation introduced by Senator Antenori regarding hunting in counties and municipalities (SB 1334), we were able to address some of the proposed changes in R12-4-318. That rule was amended and effective January 1, 2013, juniors-only hunts will now be available to any youth up to their 18th birthday. So long as you do not turn 18 before the hunt begins, you will be eligible. By the way, for most government agencies, there is still a moratorium in place for rulemaking. It has been there since January 2009. Arizona Game and Fish is regaining some rulemaking ability, but it is slow and we are trying to remain consistent with the governor and legislature's intents. This example is to demonstrate how complex the system is and how difficult changes can be even if they seem simple or obvious. We are not trying to be hardnosed or obstinate - we simply have to live with what the rules are. And there are many people that have expressed frustration with the 20% bonus pass (which is in Article 1 rules) and leftover tags. The rule was adopted originally because of public input. The implications and effect on those applicants when there were leftover tags was never fully considered, but the system works exactly as designed. Truth to tell, there are probably a number of times when people draw their second choice during the bonus pass when they would probably have received their first choice had they not received a tag in the bonus pass, but this is generally not detected because all the tags are issued through the draw. I hope you get to enjoy some time in the field hunting with your family this year. I know systems are rarely flawless. But also recognize that the people that have to implement the process are rarely the source of the perceived problem. We will continue to improve processes. Processes are changed through the public forum to protect the public and ensure transparency in our decision making. I hope this explanation helps you to understand this complexity to some degree. Good luck. Brian Wakeling Game Branch Chief

I learned of this thread earlier today, and I wanted to clarify a few points that have been brought up regarding the sale of Special Big Game License Tags (Commissioner's Tags) and the organizations that market them. While I realize that this thread has touched on many topics, this one seems to resurface. Current Arizona statute allows the Arizona Game and Fish Commission to award up to 3 Special Big Game License Tags for each big game species. The Commission does so annually in June, and a number of wildlife conservation organizations request the ability to market those tags. Statute requires that 100% of the proceeds are returned to the Commission, and those tag funds are allocated to projects in coordination with those groups and the Habitat Partnership Committee, currently chaired by Commissioner J. W. Harris. About a year and a half ago, the Commission worked with the various groups to develop a sales agreement that would ensure greater transparency and accountability for these sales, be they raffle or auction. Commissioner Harris chaired that committee, many wildlife conservation organizations participated, and the Commission approved the new agreement. This year at the Wild Sheep Foundation auction, the auctioneer noted on the slides that a 5% buyers premium would be added to the sale of any state tag that was being sold IF ALLOWED BY STATE LAWS OR RULES. When I returned from the convention, I consulted our attorneys to determine if a buyer's premium was lawful, and I was assured that it was NOT. I immediately contacted WSF and they assured me that NO buyer's premium would be levied on the Arizona tag sales. At no time am I aware of any buyer's premium being levied on an Arizona tag. The Commission has tried very hard to ensure that this program could not be misused. Tags have been sold by national groups and by local groups, to include the Arizona Deer Association, the Mule Deer Foundation, and many others. So far as the tags are concerned, I am unaware of any of these groups being anything other than truly great fundraising partners. Yes, Commissioner's tags helps these organizations by bringing clients to their banquets, but they have always bore the administrative costs of these sales. Both the Department and the wildlife conservation organizations benefits. And the benefits get passed on to the wildlife resources of Arizona. Arizona has a great program because of the partnership among the Commission, the great wildlife conservation organizations that sponsor the tags (both national and local), and the sportsmen that have interest in participating in the raffles and auctions for these tags. Brian Wakeling Game Branch Chief Arizona Game and Fish Department

There have been quite a number of comments and ideas shared since I posted some information on what the Arizona Game and Fish Department does, and I'll try to respond to some of the thoughts. One comment stated that we raise fees and tag numbers. Well, the last time we raised fees was in 2007. So we are going into our fifth year without any change to licenses and tags. And the increase before that was in 2001. So yes, we do raise fees, but we try to keep those fees in line with cost of doing business, and we try not to do so too often. A resident general hunting license was $25.50 in 2001 and it costs $32.25 today. It had been at $18.00 since 1991. So the general license fee for resident hunting has increased $14.25 in a little over 20 years. Yes there have been fee increases in other tags and permits, but I haven't seen a lot of rampant fee increases. A license is still cheaper than a tank of gas. Increases in permits was something else that was mentioned. In 2010, we issued 43,993 general deer permits. The lowest number issued was in 2004 when we issued 36,665. In 1986 we issued 94,871. Yes we had more deer at that time. We also have more deer today than we had in 2004. Deer populations fluctuate, and the harvest of bucks doesn't influence recruitment or survival of the reproductive segment of the population. So while hunting can influence the number of mature bucks and the abundance of bucks, the trajectory of the overall population is influenced by other things like weather, habitat conditions, habitat development and fragmentation, water availability, and predation. In case you missed it in my first post, the Commission has now provided the Department direction to manage for higher buck to doe and bull to cow ratios. That will mean fewer tags will be issued next year. We dropped just over 1,000 elk tags next year when compared to this past fall. And as for the nostalgic memories of Units 23, 24A, and 27 - in 1986 there were 2 hunts in Unit 23 with 2,300 and 900 permits; there were 2 hunts in 24A West with 800 permits each, 1 hunt in 24A East with 1,500 permits, and 1 hunt in 24A East and West combined with 600 permits; and there were 3 hunts in Unit 27 with 2,600, 3,200, and 200 permits. Hunter crowding must have been better tolerated when there were more deer. Someone made a comment about increasing the number of trophy (or what we call Alternative Management Units) areas in the state, at least one for each Region. The guidelines that were adopted by the Commission include mule alternative units in 3A/3C, 12A, 12B, 13A, 13B, 45A, 45B, and 45C. White-tailed deer alternative units include Units 6A, 23, 30B, 31, and 36C. Alternative elk Units are 1, 9, 10, and 23. Additionally, the Commission directed the Department to offer up to 10 late season mule deer hunts with up to 40 permits each, so there will be more late season opportunity around the state for mule deer as well. So why have deer populations declined. The Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies formed the Mule Deer Working Group to help find solutions to this dilema. While there are lots of potential causes, the most likely deal with changes to the habitat occupied by deer. This can be a result of fire suppression, fragmentation by urbanization and road development, brushier habitats that favor stalking predators like mountain lions, or denied access to waters or high quality habitat. Solar arrays and wind generating power sources are continuing to develop more habitat. Junipers are encroaching into what once were productive areas. Things are changing and many of them are not favorable. We have seen deer rebound following fires in some habitats (like the Rodeo-Chedeski and hopefully following the Wallow Fire), but not so well in others (like the Bridger Knoll on the Kaibab). Quail management is a popular theme this year. Improving quail populations is really dependent on improving habitat, which can be done through active land management activities or through favorable rainfall patterns and quantities. We are not the land management agency and we don't determine the acceptable grazing levels on quail habitat. We do coordinate with BLM and USFS, but we are not always in complete agreement with their determinations. That said, cattle grazing is far better managed today than it was just a decade ago, and ranchers and land managers are working to improve landscapes in coordination with our wildlife managers and habitat specialists. Little of what influences quail populations is in our direct control. Again, the influence of hunting has been demonstrated in repeated research studies to have little influence in next season's population levels. Why do we partner with wildlife conservation organizations and land management agencies rather than just doing it ourselves? Frankly, I see two primary reasons. One, we don't have jurisdiction over all aspects of natural resource management. And two, it greatly expands our reach and influence. We can't do nearly as much without partnering, and neither can our partners. We get more done working together. Should anyone have any trouble with misconduct of an employee of this agency, please report the specifics of the misconduct to our Department offices. Call any office and ask to report employee misconduct. We will initiate a formal investigation. We cannot handle this type of information through a post on a web site, but we do take these seriously and they are formally investigated. Finally, someone said their 12-year-old son could do a better job managing wildlife than we do. You might be right. But I would also suggest that there is a lot more to managing Arizona's wildlife than what meets the eye. Again, I believe this is a healthy discussion. But little of what we do is obvious. We are required to comply with strict purchasing procedures to keep government from favoring friends or special interests. Those same procedures require minimum specifications that to ensure quality and protect the public. Our intent is to keep costs low by keeping a fleet of vehicles that remains within warranty to the extent possible. Vehicles that are not used substantially do not get replaced. Most of the professionals that I work with are far more dedicated to what they do than most people realize. They don't get into this work because they plan to get rich. They do it because it is a passion for them. Obviously, this is a passion for many of you as well. We know that you all aren't poachers - please keep in mind that we aren't all government hacks feeding at the public trough. We need each other. I hope everyone has a great holiday season, and also wish the elk tag of your dreams to be in your pocket next fall. There is still time to apply... Brian Wakeling Game Branch Chief

This is an interesting post and a very valid question. Red Rabbit provided the link to our website, and there is a lot there. My guess, based on the remainder of the first post is that the real interest here lies with game management, and probably primarily deer and elk. Deer populations are admittedly low right now, but the low point was probably reached around 2002. Since that time, statewide we have been seeing a cautious increase. It is nothing like it was in the early 1980s, and I'm not claiming that we can just sit back and watch things improve. But the Department and Commission have been struggling with several concepts that consider both improving wildlife and wildlife habitat and keeping as many hunters engaged as possible. That was the "opportunity" phase that many hunters seemed to dislike. And despite our efforts to put more people afield, statewide buck to doe ratios increased. This year, the Commission listened very closely to what hunters had to say and they adopted new hunt guidelines that direct the Department to manage for higher buck to doe and bull to cow ratios. In the short term, managing for higher ratios will generate fewer tags and fewer hunters in the field, but should provide more older age class animals and probably a better quality hunt for more people. The Commission followed that action in August with a reduction of over 1,000 elk tags at the December meeting. We have yet to set the deer tags for fall 2012, but I expect to see permit reductions there as well when we address them in April 2012. Permit reductions certainly do reduce the revenue that the Department receives. And the Department is primarily funded by hunter (and angler) dollars, either through license fees or federal excise taxes. This is a double edged sword - hunters and anglers do fund most conservation, but conservation is not always cheap. We work with several wildlife conservation organizations, including the Arizona Elk Society, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Arizona Deer Association, Mule Deer Foundation, National Wild Turkey Federation, Arizona Antelope Foundation, and the Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society just to name a few. These groups raise money in a variety of ways that we then put on the ground to benefit wildlife. Each year, they raise between $1.2 and $1.5 million through special license tag sales that they have to market. But we jointly decide on how we can best enhance game habitat through the Habitat Partnership Committee. Some of these groups work to raise additional funds through their banquets (the National Wild Turkey Federation routinely contributes as much to habitat work through fundraising banquets as they do through tag sales) or other grants (the Arizona Antelope Foundation recently secured a National Fish and Wildlife Foundation grant to benefit pronghorn in southern Arizona). This is work that we jointly pursue. Joining one of these organizations can be a great way to get involved, make a difference, and assist with solving management problems. The Commission has recently liberalized mountain lion and coyote seasons in those units where predation may be influencing prey population declines. Mountain lions and coyotes may now be pursued with artificial light during daylong seasons in specific areas and specific times so that hunters may be more involved in assisting with predation management. This isn't statewide, but it is designed to help in specific areas. For instance, hunters can harvest multiple lions within Unit 16A South, and even do so using artificial light after dark, and we just released 20 bighorn sheep in this area with funding provided by the Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society. If you have questions about why the Commission makes the decisions that they do, please attend the meetings. They are publicly noticed and you may address the Commission on any noticed agenda topic. I have only scratched the surface on what the Department does. I am not suggesting that we are perfect, nor that we cannot improve. Our goal is to constantly keep improving. If you have suggestions, please send them our way. If you have specific questions, feel free to contact me directly at bwakeling@azgfd.gov. Like I said, this is an important question. There are a number of subjects on which I am not well informed, so if there is a topic for which you have a question that I cannot answer, I can probably find someone that can address that topic. Brian Wakeling Game Branch Chief

OK, that link doesn't seem to work. http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/fire_impacts_on_wildlife.shtml If this one doesn't, I'll find another way to list this. Brian Wakeling

I'm glad to hear some people are taking advantage of our web casts. Amanda asked that I share the presentation with anyone that might be interested. It has now been posted on our web site at http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/fire_impacts_on_wildlife.shtml. On the right side of the page is a linik to the "Fire and Game" commission presentation. Hope some of the visuals are better this way than through our web cast. As I mentioned when I presented this to the Commission, all of our data is based on preliminary analyses at this point in time. Brian Wakeling Game Branch Chief

Wow! Check in once a week, and you may feel like you've entered a new discussion thread! At the risk of following Coues and Sheep's direction and trying to find the fairway again, let me add a few more thoughts on baits, rulemaking, and other issues. Right after my last post, a question was asked about what scientific data might the Commission consider during a rulemaking phase (which again, I must remind you, we are not in). To be fair, they also would consider this during a rule review, but no changes are made during this phase. There are 3 types of risks associated with with placing bait on the ground for wildlife. The first is the chance for a ruminant animal (like a deer or an elk) to consume too much high protein feed and result in direct mortality. This has been documented many times throughout the country. For anyone with livestock, consider when your horse (not a ruminant) gets into the grain bin or if your prize bull (this is a ruminant) gets unrestricted access to grain. I have a friend that borrowed a neighbor's ram to breed his sheep, and while it was in his possession, the ram got into his chicken feed and ate too much grain. The ram (ruminant animal) died, and he had to explain that to his neighbor (plus I believe there was some financial restitution involved). The same thing can happen when wildife, living on relatively low quality feed, gains access to corn or some other grain. Ruminant animals have complex disgestive systems and they take a while to change diets; abrupt changes can be bad for them. The second type of risk is for poisoning from other aspects of the feed. Aflatoxin is a primary concern. Apparently, feed provided to wildlife does not fall under the same scrutiny that livestock feeds are subjected to, because a study looking at wildlife feed in Texas (if memory serves) found that over half of the feed bags tested had unsafe levels of aflatoxin. This could not have been fed to livestock. The toxicity of aflatoxin tends to be greater for birds than for mammals, and even perfectly safe feed can develop unsafe levels of aflatoxin if it gets wet. Finally, the increased risk of disease transmission is probably the best known concern. And while chronic wasting disease is perhaps the most oft cited concern, other diseases may be transmitted at concentration areas as well. Arizona does not have CWD at this time, but should it arrive, baiting may increase the rate of spread. The benefits of baiting are certainly numerous. If you need a deer or turkey to come to a particular place so that you can shoot it, this approach can really help. In my opinion, this benefit doesn't outweigh the risks associated with it. Yes, the Department wants more people to be involved in hunting and fishing. Again, in my opinion, making harvesting a game animal easier is not the only way to increase hunter recruitment and retention. Let me say again, I am not on the rule review team and the Commission is the decision making body on this issue. Should the moratorium on rulemaking get lifted, there will be more public debate on this topic before any decision is made. I appreciate this dialogue, and while I may not personally agree with some of the sentiments shared, this is exactly why our system works. At least better than it does in Libya. Brian Wakeling Game Branch Chief Arizona Game and Fish Department

I can see that I've arrived at this thread a little late in the discussion, but let me add a few things. Rules and rulemaking can be among the most misunderstood processes in government. One normally assumes that the legislative branch develops laws, with approval from the executive branch when the governor signs bills into law. The judicial branch then interprets these laws when law enforcement officers cite individuals and prosecuting attorneys present cases. But each agency, like the Arizona Game and Fish Department, has the authority to promulgate rules that essentially interpret and implement the laws in their area of jurisdiction. This is called the Arizona Administrative Code (commonly refered to as rules), and has the effect of law developed by an executive branch agency, not the legislative. Rules cannot supersede laws. Rules can be adopted by commissions, but must have a public input phase (30-day window) after proposed rulemaking is approved by the Commission and is formally posted with the Secretary of State. Each comment must be responded to as part of the final rulemaking package, which the commission must then approve. Finally, the Governor's Regulatory Review Council (GRRC) must approve the final rulemaking before it can go into effect. The Arizona Game and Fish Department and Commission typically seek far more than the mandated 30-day public input. A tricky thing about rules. Each rule must be formally reviewed at least once every five years. If it is not reviewed with action by the commission and GRRC, the rule simply goes away. But a review does nothing to change any rule. Rulemaking must follow rule review to establish, alter, or amend rules. The rule review process is not affected by the rulemaking moratorium, but agencies cannot move into rulemaking while the moratorium is in place. When Governor Brewer took office upon Governor Napolitano's departure for Homeland Security Secretary, she established a moratorium on rulemaking. At the time that Governor Brewer took office, the Arizona Game and Fish Department had taken proposed rulemaking to the Arizona Game and Fish Commission on Article 3 rules, which included changes to baiting and harvest reporting. We were preparing for final rulemaking when the moratorium was placed in early 2009. We've not altered anything in Article 3 since that time. Currently, there are several rule review processes ongoing because of the administrative requirement that we do so. At some point in the future, the rulemaking moratorium will be lifted and rulemaking will need to go forward. Rulemaking is necessary to eliminate restrictions or increase them. Rules cannot be amended without rulemaking. Rest assured, no rulemaking will go forward without notices to the public on what the proposed changes are and how the public can influence change. Currently, the moratorium on rulemaking is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2011. It has been extended several times already, and it would not surprise me to see it extended yet again. The last time this Article was in front of the Commission (December 2008), it included the removal of mandatory harvest reporting for archery deer hunters and provisions for harvest objectives. When the Department makes a recommendation on rule review, that also will be public and presented at a public Commission meeting. Hopefully, this information may be somewhat useful as you consider this discussion. The many different views posted in this thread are not unlike what the agency has heard from the public. Baiting has many benefits and challenges, but in addition to public input, the Department also tries to weigh the risks documented in the scientific literature. Salt was not going to be part of the proposed baiting ban last time. I am not on this team, so do not have first hand knowledge of their discussion currently, but as I said, it will be public and should not catch anyone by surprise. Watch for the rule review report. Rulemaking may or may not follow. Brian Wakeling Game Branch Chief Arizona Game and Fish Department

Legal shooting light for most critters in Arizona not governed by federal law is "daylight hours." What this means in practice most of the time is "when you don't need to use artificial light." This may seem more arbitrary than using a specific time (e.g., sunset), but when you look at sunset tables for Mountain Standard Time, a specific time in relation to where the sun is on the horizon can vary up to about 15-20 minutes across the time zone. I actually prefer the daylight hours as I can tell if I can shoot without light or not. Some people push the envelope. And just like in everything else, when you push the limits, you often get into trouble. Use common sense and you should be on solid ground. Brian Wakeling Game Branch Chief

Surveys are an essential part of what the Arizona Game and Fish Department does to index populations and make hunt recommendations in a biologically appropriate fashion. If you want to review some of the rationale and process we use, I refer you to the post that Jim Hinkle, who was the Big Game Management Supervisor at the time (he has since retired), made on this website on March 6 of this year under discussion forum/hunting and fishing forum/Coues deer hunting in Arizona/Ever wonder how AGFD does surveys. I just learned of this post via email from Amanda. I was unable to contact anyone in the Region at this time to confirm the report, but the basic observations are plausible. This is the survey period for elk and pronghorn, the Department tries to conduct surveys during the week to avoid weekends and later in the hunt to avoid as many hunters as possible, and circling the herd is plausible because of the need to classify wildlife into age and sex categories. Hinkle's post describes why we need to do surveys when we do, but essentially we need to get the males and females in the visible at the same time, which means we need to survey near the rut. Buck to doe and fawn to doe ratios are critical to understanding available bucks for next year and the likely recruitment. Surveying in late winter makes it more difficult to accurately classify fawns, which are then underrepresented. Trying to avoid hunts can be very challenging. A quick look at the fall schedule in Unit 10 indicates that there is not much available time. Pronghorn seasons August 20 to September 2 September 3-12 Elk seasons September 10-23 September 24-30 October 15-21 November 26 to December 2 December 3-12 Deer seasons August 20 to September 9 October 8-17 October 22-31 Of lesser concern Sheep season October 1 to December 31 Bear October 1 to December 31 Lion August 20 to May 19 Keep in mind that we have several hundred thousand acres of pronghorn habitat to survey across the state and about 2 aircraft that we can use to conduct these surveys. It is impossible to conduct the surveys that we do without flying during some hunt. We try to avoid this to the extent possible, but sometimes we cannot avoid it. I have heard instances in which the survey may have helped some hunters and those in which it hurt them. We are not trying to create problems for hunters, but we need the data to make the hunt recommendations. I will be out of the office tomorrow on one of our mandated furlough days and at a meeting all day on Monday, but I will try to find out some additional information about this incident. We appreciate hearing of these incidents and we do try to minimize their occurrence. I'll let you know what I learn. Brian Wakeling Game Branch Chief

Yes, you can carry a rifle for someone else that has a tag. BUT, and this is where things get a little tricky for everyone, you don't want to act in any way as though you are hunting for them. While it is not explicitly illegal to look through their scope at an animal to determine if it is a possible buck or even a possible shot, an officer watching you might believe you are about to shoot. If you can, carry an unloaded firearm. You can do a lot that can be very convincing that you were not trying to fill someone else's tag, and you can also do a lot that makes it look like you intend to do it without doing something illegal. As always, our officers are faced with the preponderence of evidence and judges make final determinations. Carry someone else's rifle if they need help. If they are capable of carrying their own rifle, that is always the best bet. I have often carried my wife's rifle when the going gets a little steep or long. When I'm a doddering old gink, I'll expect my sons to do that for me. Just try to keep the confusion to a minimum so that any officer that is trying to keep things legal can easily understand what is happening. We have to keep our behavior responsible and ethical, because you never know who might be watching. All those wildlife watchers, who may not be wildlife officers or hunters, also have the right to vote. If you behave responsibly, and they see that, they think more favorably about hunters and wildlife management the next time they go to the polls. Brian Wakeling Game Branch Chief

Carrying the rifle for the child does not create any issues. You want to be certain that you don't give the impression that you are trying to shoot the deer for the child. You can't finish off the deer, even if it looks like it might get away. That is the tag holder's job. But there is nothing inherently wrong with carrying the rifle for your grandchild. Brian Wakeling Game Branch Chief

I asked our wildlife veterinarian to look at the photos, and she concluded, similar to several of you, that this was likely due to a vehicle collision, although it may have been from some other sort of trauma. To quote her: "There are at least two things wrong with the animal the left rear leg is either broken or dislocated near the hock or the Achilles tendon is disrupted or both and there is a large swelling in left axillary area that extends to the ventral chest. My bet is that she has been hit by a vehicle but there could be some other source of injury." You can tell she is a vet because she uses big words like axillary and ventral that makes me use the dictionary. Brian Wakeling Game Branch Chief

Jake: I intentionally dodged the online application issue in my earlier post, but you bring up an important point. You are absolutely correct, if it is up and working, errors are reduced by about 75%. And the errors that remain, by and large, are those that are the applicant's fault. When we had it in place before, you could review your application before you hit submit. The online application isn't simple. We've tried to start this up twice, with less than desireable results. We are in the process of getting back up and running again, but it will take us a while to get there. By reducing error rates, we should further reduce the incidence of issuing the wrong tag to someone, which will exclude someone else from getting the tag they applied for. Until then, write clearly on your application, and have someone else review it before you submit it. And get your application in before the correction period is over. That saved my bacon this year. Thanks for everyone's positive comments. Brian Wakeling Game Branch Chief

Getting what you perceive to be the wrong tag can certainly be frustrating, but don't panic. First, verify that you truly have the right information (I mean you are referencing the right year's regulations), and then if you still believe the tag you were issued is in error, give us a call at the Phoenix office. Call 602-942-3000 and ask to speak with someone in the Draw Section. They can pull your application up and determine if the tag in your hand was issued in error. If it was, it will take them a little while to research your random number and determine if you would have been drawn for your correct choice. If you would not have been drawn, you will probably be offered the choice of keeping the tag you were issued, or, if you would rather return it, having your bonus points restored. If your random number indicates that you would have been drawn for another hunt, then we need to determine if the issuance of another tag in the correct unit would cause any biological concern (and in most deer hunts this isn't much of an issue, although in a sheep hunt this may be a big issue). If it is no problem, then we may be able to issue that tag by following a simple administrative process. The folks in the Draw Section can walk you through the steps when you contact them. Keep in mind, we generally have somewhere in the neighborhood of just over 100,000 applications that must be key entered, and mistakes are made. We will do everything within our power to make things right. When the draw results came out last year, I was reviewing my kids draw results and was certain the Department had goofed by giving them deer tags in a unit I hadn't put them in for. After lamenting for about 20 minutes about the error, a coworker sat down at my desk and listened to me tell the story yet again. He then reached across my desk, flipped over the copy of the regs I was looking at, and said something like "You knuckle-headed moron, you are looking at last year's regulations. Good thing you don't work in Game Management." I was sufficiently humiliated. Give us a call if you think we made a mistake. Brian Wakeling Game Branch Chief

The information that has been shared on this post is correct. Two wildlife managers from the Tucson Region were able to locate and investigate the doe that NitroAZ videotaped on Sunday. The doe did indeed have a stillborn fawn, which likely lead to infection and the symptoms that NitroAZ observed. Our annual CWD testing has yet to find any evidence of the disease in Arizona, and it certainly helps us with targeted surveillance when we hear about any sick deer or elk. The Department makes every effort to investigate any potential cases of CWD, and it helps to be able to get this information from those of you that spend time afield. It increases the eyes watching wildlife. I really appreciate NitroAZ and Amanda for taking the time to contact the Department with good information that we can follow up on. While the Department tries to stay up to date on these discussions, we can sometimes miss threads that are developing. Amanda took the time to share this directly with me when she saw the sensitive issue. If someone should discover something that is potentially time sensitive, please don't hesitate to phone a Department office (as NitroAZ did) or submit an email through our Send Comments link on our web site (www.azgfd.gov). Again, I really appreciate everyone's help. And while this individual doe and fawn may not see this as a success, our ability to rule out CWD is favorable for Arizona. Just as in the case of illegal take of wildlife or a water development that may have failed, sportsmen and women and wildlife viewers routinely assist the Department to manage the wildlife we all value. Not trying to get melodramatic here, but hunters and anglers remain the backbone of much wildlife management success, not only because they still pay for most wildlife managementa activities, but because they also volunteer a lot of hours to get work done. Something as simple as sharing this information with the Department sure helps us stay on top of potential disease issues. Thanks again. Brian Wakeling Game Branch Chief