bowsniper

Governor Brewer’s Management Directive will do 2 things: 1) The baiting issue will be moved from the April 17 G&F meeting agenda to the June meeting agenda . 2) It will give us two more months to write letters to the commissioners! The public comment period for the rule is over, but I think it is even more effective to write the commissioners! We can keep writing them up until the June commission meeting. Keep it up. One commissioner has already said that he has received comments on this issue than any other issue during his term. Lets get them all so they can say that! If you haven't written them yet, it is very easy to do on the G&F website (link below). If you have already written to all of them, do it again in March, April, May, and June! Lets not let this issue die out until the June meeting. I saw one email from a commissioner saying that this no baiting rule was not initiated by the commissioners, but by G&F enforcement officers. If this is true, the commissioners are getting lots of heat about an issue they may not care too much about. Keep up the heat so the squeaky wheels get greased. http://www.azgfd.gov/inside_azgfd/commission_members.shtml Mark

I was going to leave my son alone bowhunting in a blind for a while. As long as a youth has a valid hunting license, I don't see anywhere in the regs that a youth needs to be accompanied by an adult when hunting. As side from any firearm laws, are there and G&F regs about a youth hunting without an adult? Thanks, Mark

Thanks Doug, that's what I saw also. Someone had told me that a youth needs to be accompanied by an adult, so I was thinking that I missed something in the regs. Mark

Congrats Jakob!! Way cool! Great video! Mark

What a shot!! Congrats!!! Mark

In the G&F preamble to the rule change, G&F makes no attempt to justify the rule with the threat of CWD. I would have to assume that there is no basis for the threat of CWD, otherwise I'm sure that G&F would be all over it to help justify the rule. Their justification for the rule is "fair chase" and hunter success. It will be interesting to see where they get their data for hunter success, other than hearsay. Using feed can be effective, but it is not easy as many people would have you believe. Like any hunting tool, it depends how you use it and how hard you work at it. It also depends on location in the state, weather, precipitation, luck, and who knows what else. The does might be all over it, but good luck with the bucks. Also, most of the time deer only feed at night. Just dumping corn somewhere and coming back a few weeks later to just "pick up" your buck is probably not going to happen. Mike, with negotiations, you should always ask for more than you want, and I think that as hunters, we really need to stick together and watch out for each other. No hard feelings. Mark

I agree with you catclaw, I was disappointed to see Mike's post. G&F will "divide and conquer" us. Mark

Why are we sending letters to Brian Wakeling and A Munig? I understand Celeste Cook and the rulemaking committee but not the other two? Any answers? I just thought it would be good to email as many as possible. Let Brian hear it directly from the hunters, instead of just stats from the rulemaking committee. I'd send it to the whole department if I had the email addresses. Mark

Here is my letter to G&F. Come on, let's see a few more letters posted. Dear Arizona Game and Fish, I am a long time Arizona state resident, and also a long time gun and archery hunter. I'm writing to voice my opposition to the Article 3 rule change that would prohibit the use of “edible or ingestible substances” in the taking of big game. Please consider my comments and address my concerns and questions as a part of the rule making process. I respectfully request that you do not institute this rule change for the reasons outlined below. 1) Part of the departments rationale in prohibiting the use of “edible or ingestible substances” (also known as “bait”), is that bait “compromises the spirit of fair chase”. Consider hunters using high power scopes and long range rifles to shoot game past 1000 yards; hunters using scents and calls to lure rutting animals; or hunters using dogs and radio collars to hunt lions and bears? Are these methods ethical or unethical? Are they fair chase or not? How can shooting a trapped animal that has been treed by dogs be considered “fair chase”, but trying to take a coues deer with a bow and arrow over feed be considered as a “compromise to the spirit of fair chase”? Consider rifle Antelope hunting? Is an almost absolute guarantee that you will harvest an animal fair chase? Can a near 100% success rate be considered fair chase under any definition? Why is using “edible or ingestible substances” being singled out as not being fair chase? All are just different tools used depending on the type of weapon and the kind of animal being pursued. How can the department rationalize the ethical decision that all of these methods are “fair chase” except “baiting”? Using “edible or ingestible substances” is sanctioned as fair chase by Boone & Crockett, Pope & Young, and the Safari Club. 2) Another of the departments rationale in prohibiting the use of “edible or ingestible substances” is that “baiting results in high harvest success rates." What data does the AZ Game and Fish Department have to substantiate this claim? Mandatory or voluntary survey data submitted to the department does not include this data. There is a popular misconception that using food bait significantly increases the chance to take an animal. While animals in AZ usually have a very limited choice of water sources, there can be a wide range of natural food sources available other than hunter placed food. Also, with hunters starting new salt licks every season, an animal could have his choice of many different salt licks in a particular area. I know hunters who have great luck using food bait, and other hunters who have no better luck than without it. Like any hunting tool, it depends how it is used and how hard you work at it. But the idea that a hunter can go out one week and dump corn, and return the next week and then automatically take a coues buck is completely false. There is at least one outfitter that has turned food baiting into a science and has unusually good success with it. This is a commercial enterprise, and certainly not the norm for the average hunter. In general, I believe that using bait can be about as effective as sitting at a water hole. The benefit of the bait stand over the water stand is that a hunter does not have a conflict in sharing the bait stand with other hunters . If using bait were prohibited by this rule, the water holes could potentially become much more crowded than they already are, as hunters using bait would return to water sources to hunt. 3) I believe that the rule change is written ambiguously such that it could be interpreted to apply to game drinkers and possibly other un-natural water sources. The new rule states: “An individual shall not take big game with the aid of edible or ingestible substances, including salt or salt based products, placed for the purpose of attracting a big game animal to a specific location.” Water is certainly an ingestible substance, and a game drinker has the effect of attracting big game. Strictly interpreted, could this rule prohibit taking game at a game drinker? Or could this rule potentially affect hunting over un-natural water sources, such as a stock tank? While the department intent may not be to include water in the rule, the rule is ambiguous and if approved, needs to be clarified in the wording of the rule. 4) Salts licks currently exist all over Arizona, including at most stock tanks. Long after the salt melts, the salt stays in the ground and attracts animals. Under this new rule, hunting at these sites would be illegal. A hunter would be responsible to know if a salt lick were present, even if it were not visible. Enforcement of this rule would be difficult and inconsistent, and open to the interpretation of the Game Officer, reallocating the officer’s responsibility of law enforcement to include law interpretation, a judicial function. 5) With this new rule, anti-hunting groups or individuals could, under the false pretense of animal photography, legally dump corn, sweet feed, or any other “edible or ingestible substance” at water sources and other popular hunting sites thereby making them illegal to hunt. Many of these “edible or ingestible substance” would be nearly impossible to remove, and could take months to dissipate or be consumed. Please address the following questions as part of your official process concerning the Article III Rule Changes to R12-4-303: A) How did the department make the ethical decision that all of the methods outlined in item one above are “fair chase” except bait? B ) What specific data does the AZ Game and Fish Department have to substantiate the claim that the use of “edible or ingestible substances” by the general, non-commercial hunting public results in high harvest success rates? C) Why is only “bait” being considered to reduce archery hunter deer success, when other tools such as high magnification optics, high powered rifles, high speed compound bows, electronic game calls, and various audible and olfactory lures also can also produce high harvest success rates for other species and weapons? Why are these other tools not being considered as game management tools as is bait? D) What other methods are available to reduce the archery deer harvest, and why are they not being considered? E) Has the department studied the possibility that hunter competition for use of water holes could increase significantly if this rule were passed? If so, what were the conclusions and how would the problem be addressed? F) Is this rule change intended to prohibit the taking of wildlife over un-natural water sources? G) If this rule were approved as written, what will preclude Law Enforcement Officers from writing citations for hunting at game drinkers or other un-natural water sources? What will stop courts from misinterpreting Arizona Game and Fish Department’s intent of the rule? H) How will existing salt licks be affected by this rule change? If a salt lick were not visible, but leached into the ground, can an unknowing hunter be cited for hunting near it? I) How can the department prevent “anti-hunting” groups or individuals from distributing feed and salt at water sources and other popular hunting sites thereby making them illegal to hunt? Thank you for considering my comments and addressing my questions and concerns as part of the Article III rule making process. I look forward to reviewing you responses. Respectfully,

cpugsie, you are a smart, experienced treestand hunter. Very good advice. Mark

Just as well, I didn't want to move to Colorado City anyway! Mark

I know the guy in the first pic, a real nice guy, Nate. I don't know if he wants any attention. I will email him about the thread and leave the rest up to him. I'm still waiting to find out if the "guy" in the second pic has any sisters! Mark

My only comment is DO NOT USE A GORILLA "SAFETY" HARNESSSSSSSssssssss.......... My Gorilla "Safety" harness failed, I fell 25 ft onto my wrist. 2 surgeries and much pain later, I need a wrist fusion and I'm still trying to reach a settlement with Gorilla. Mark

The answer is yes. I am concerned with both the new rule and the wording about water. I'll be posting my letter on the other thread as soon as I get it finished. Respectfully, Mark

Part of the new rule on bait reads: "An individual shall not take big game with the aid of edible or ingestible substances, including salt or salt based products, placed for the purpose of attracting a big game animal to a specific location." Somebody set me straight on this, but drinkers were built to attract big game, and is water an ingestible substance? The way I read this is that you could no longer hunt over a drinker. I'm not sure about a tank or water hole built to water cows. What do you guys think? Mark

Adam, Congrats on a fine buck and especially for sticking with him. Don't let a few bad apples ruin the experience for you, blow them off! I know how you feel. Four years ago, a few un-named individuals who are still on this site rained on the parade of my first buck too. They are simply expressing their jealousy through their childish criticism. Someone made the comment of being careful what you post on the internet. I am sorry to say this but I think your only mistake was being honest and looking for support on a public forum. Best of luck to you, Mark

Sorry to have missed out on most of this thread. I have been out hunting over “ingestible substances” (salt). I sure wish someone would tell the coues bucks that they are so easy to kill over salt, because they don’t seem to know. All I saw was a doe, and she didn’t even stop for a lick. Anyway, back to the thread…. Stan, I’m not asking anyone to get in line behind me. I think as hunters we need to be aware of all rules and their potential impacts, and I am very concerned that this rule may have unintended consequences, that are written plain as day. No! I do not agree! Ranchers build “tanks” for the sole purpose of providing water for cows. Ranchers do not care about providing water to wildlife. G&F build “game drinkers” to provide water to wildlife. They are built to attract wildlife, otherwise they would not be effective as drinkers. Now read the rule again: "An individual shall not take big game with the aid of edible or ingestible substances, including salt or salt based products, placed for the purpose of attracting a big game animal to a specific location." Water is certainly an “ingestible substances”, and it is not difficult to conclude that the drinkers were placed to attract “a big game animal to a specific location." Unless G&F and an underlying agenda to sneak this through and start writing tickets for hunting on drinkers, the rule is obviously poorly thought out and needs to re-written. Maybe they do have a hidden agenda to keep us from hunting on water? Why pass an ambiguous regulation for Game Officers to interpret? Their job is to enforce the law, not interpret “the spirit of law”. Letting officers have the power to interpret laws turns Game Officers into judges and juries. I also have concerns about the anti-hunters using this new rule against hunters. All they would have to do is dump a bag of salt or grain at a water hole to make the water hole illegal. If you showed up to hunt your water hole and saw grain or salt dumped, would you go ahead and hunt it hoping that the G&F officer would interpret “the spirit of law”, or otherwise convince him that some anti dumped the stuff, not you? Here is the “entire proposal”. It’s not that long. You can also find it buried on the G&F web site. Read it and let us know what you decide. R12-4-303. Unlawful Devices, Methods, and Ammunition B. Except for the use of nutritional supplements, salt, or salt-based materials produced and manufactured for the livestock industry and placed by individuals raising livestock or the Department for the benefit of wildlife, the following uses of edible or ingestible substances to aid in taking big game are unlawful. 1. An individual shall not place edible or ingestible substances, including salt or salt based products, to attract big game for the purpose of taking big game. 2. An individual shall not take big game with the aid of edible or indigestible substances, including salt or salt based products, placed for the purpose of attracting a big game animal to a specific location. Mark

I haven't submitted mine yet, I'm still trying to edit out all of my anger and sound semi-professional. Don't forget to also send your comments directly to the commissioners through this link: http://www.azgfd.gov/inside_azgfd/commissi...rs.shtml#carter Mark

Read the proposed rule: "An individual shall not take big game with the aid of edible or ingestible substances, including salt or salt based products, placed for the purpose of attracting a big game animal to a specific location." Water is ingestible substance and and a drinker is definitely "placed for the purpose of attracting a big game animal to a specific location". (Could a cow tank be included with a drinker? I don't know) If a ticket were issued, if a judge could read this rule and easily convict you. Your only protection is the officer deciding not issue a ticket. Do you really trust G&F to pass a rule and then to be nice guys and only selectively enforce it? Mark

OK, no problem. When G&F writes you a ticket for hunting over water, just refer them to page 20 of the long post on ctw.com, and everything will be just fine!!

The Public Input period started on January 2 and continues through January 30 on a new AZ G&F rule that would ban the use of Edible or Ingestible Substances, also known as bait. This would include the use of salt. Only public input received during this time will be considered. If you have already submitted your comments, please re-send them so G&F will actually consider your input. This issue mostly effects bow hunters, but as hunters we all really need to stick together. So even if it does not directly affect you, please consider making some comments to G&F in support of your fellow hunters. If hunters stand up to G&F on this change, possibly G&F may be less likely in the future to ban a hunting tool that you use. A few weeks ago while I was at a Mesa gunshop, I was casually introduced to a well fed, chain smoking AZ Game and Fish wildlife biologist named John Clifford. I played dumb (not hard for me!) about current G&F topics, and gradually steered the conversation around to the new bait rule. Mr. Clifford was having a good laugh about some of the public input that had already been received about the bait rule change. He told me that many of the letters had stated that baiting was not effective. He laughed and said to me, “well if baiting is not effective, why do they care about it being banned”. I was more than a little disappointed that Arizona Game and Fish was publicly mocking the public input that they had received. He also stated the CWT.com forum was very vocal and “hostile” towards G&F. Here are a few thoughts about comments to G&F about the new bait “Edible or Ingestible Substance” rule: 1) Give a few reasons about your position. This is not a vote. If you just say yes or no, good or bad, G&F really doesn’t care. If you state reasons why you are against it, G&F must address those concerns. 2) Based on what Mr. Clifford told me, it’s probably not very effective to state that baiting does not work. I have found that baiting can (not is ) be about as effective as sitting a water hole. The benefit of the bait situation would be that you don’t have to try to share a water hole with other hunters. If bait were banned, the water holes could get much more crowded than they already are. It is complete a myth that using bait is a sure way to take an animal. While animals in AZ usually have a very limited choice of water sources, there can be a wide range of natural food sources. And with hunters starting new salt licks every season, an animal could have his choice of a lot of salt licks is a particular area. 3) Would this new rule be enforceable? What about existing salt licks? Long after (years?) the salt melts, the salt stays in the ground and attracts animals. 4) Is using bait ethical? What about using high power scopes to shoot 600 yards, using scents and calls to trick sex crazed animals, using dogs and radio collars to hunt lions and bears? Are these methods ethical? All are just different tools used depending on your type of weapon and animal. Using edible substances (bait) is sanctioned as fair chase by Boone & Crockett, Pope & Young, and the Safari Club. Below are the email addresses to send your comments to. Also, please send your comments to each commissioner using the link below on the AZ G&F website. It is easy to cut and paste your comments in for each commissioner. The email comments will be filtered and then presented to the commissioners, so also submitting your comments directly to the commissioners could be very effective in getting their attention. Brian Wakeling, email address: BWakeling@azgfd.gov Amber Munig, email address: AMunig@azgfd.gov Celeste Cook, email address: CCook@azgfd.gov and rulemaking committee, email address: Rulemaking@azgfd.gov Link to send commissioners a message: http://www.azgfd.gov/inside_azgfd/commissi...rs.shtml#carter Below is the new rule. You can also find it buried on the G&F website at: http://www.azgfd.gov/inside_azgfd/rules/do...dRulemaking.pdf see page 12 R12-4-303. Unlawful Devices, Methods, and Ammunition B. Except for the use of nutritional supplements, salt, or salt-based materials produced and manufactured for the livestock industry and placed by individuals raising livestock or the Department for the benefit of wildlife, the following uses of edible or ingestible substances to aid in taking big game are unlawful. 1. An individual shall not place edible or ingestible substances, including salt or salt based products, to attract big game for the purpose of taking big game. 2. An individual shall not take big game with the aid of edible or ingestible substances, including salt or salt based products, placed for the purpose of attracting a big game animal to a specific location. Thanks, Mark

Coueskiller, I sent a test email to each of the 4 email addresses and they were delivered. Double check the addresses: BWakeling@azgfd.gov AMunig@azgfd.gov CCook@azgfd.gov Rulemaking@azgfd.gov Mark

I can no longer afford kidbowhunter's taxidermist bill! If he wants this one stuffed he's going to have to drop out of 7th grade and go to taxidermery school and do it himself! kidbowhunter's Dad

It worked for me using firefox. It came back with a message saying "Thank You". Maybe try different browser? Any other suggestions? Mark

Mike, You are the ultimate coues killer. Beautiful buck, congratulations! I won't guess on the size, but I will guess on your kill rate: 3 trophy archery bucks, plus one rifle trophy, all in 16 months!!! (Maybe I missed one or two?) You think I could get your wife to talk to mine? Way to go buddy, you are the most dedicated and deserving coues hunter on the forum! Mark PS: I want your bucks but not your taxidermy bill!