baiting, salting

[bowhunter4life]

This Saturday Dec. 6th in Casa Grand our Game and Fish dept will present the new artical 3 amendment to the public. This new wording will stop ALL BAITING, USING SALT, OR CONSUMIBLE APLLICATIONS FOR ALL BIG GAME IN AZ. Please send an e-mail or make a phone call to Celestle Cook 623-236-7390 ccook@azgfd.gov. or go to the meeting to voice your veiw of this change. This is the next step of them taking away a hunting right of all hunters, If this goes through this will include but not limit any substance that is CONSUMIBLE or EATIBLE. Per Brian wakling of AZGFD game branch supervisor, the only person that will be legal to put out SALTS, SUPLIMENTS will be ranchers. Guys this is the next step to taking our rights away. Slowly they have been chipping away from hunters by decreasing many dec. rifle hunts, taking away our sept. bull hunts, "Again the A.B.A is fighting this as I type this". Loosing lion hunting 3 months out of the year to make PETA happy, no more trapping, no more money hunts to save our antelope fawns during the spring. Only time will tell what is on there agenda for the next take away. We all have to remember they are here to serve the public customer, the paying hunters and fishermen of this great state! mike

[hunterdude]

Where at in Casa Grande is this meeting suppose to take place?

[Coach]

I posted this quote on the 19 page super-thread about this topic, but thought I'd put it here as well. If this passes, I think G&F is going to lose quite a few friends and allies in the bowhunting community, as well as convert many previously staunch law-abiding hunters into law breakers. I think most hunters are willing to go along the majority of legislation so long as it benefits wildlife, wildlands and hunting as a whole. When it becomes nothing more than a tool to push politics and play nice for the anti-hunters, they lose respect and more importantly, authority in the minds of the hunters being bullied by these useless proposals.

 

 

"...For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced."

 

- Albert Einstein, 1921 on Prohibition

[azgfd]

Good Afternoon,

 

I recently heard there was a thread on this site relating to a proposed rule change that would prohibit baiting. I am in charge of the Article III rulemaking process and would like to address a few of the issues listed in this thread. The Game and Fish Department, as part of its 5 year rule review process, is proposing an amendment to rule R12-4-303 that would prohibit baiting. As part of the rule making process, public input is not only welcome but encouraged. The Commission Meeting will open the rule making docket for Article III. Once the Commission approves this rule package it will be filed with the Secretary of State and opened to the public for a 30 day comment period. The proposed rulemaking is scheduled to return to the Commission for final approval in April of 2009. The proposed rule language is as follows:

 

R12-4-303. 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.

 

This language is intended to prohibit the placement or use of any type of bait, including salt, to attract big game for hunting purposes.

 

This language does not prohibit hunting over water, the use of game calls, the use of cover scents or the time of day an individual may hunt.

 

This language is intended to reduce the number of big game animals taken with the aid of bait. Permit numbers, regardless of whether they are issued through the draw or over-the-counter, are issued based upon an anticipated harvest. If that harvest is exceeded either the permit numbers are reduced or, in this case, the method used is changed.

 

This change has been recommended as a result of an increase in the number of individuals who archery hunt using bait. Baiting is a very effective way to attract big game, particularly white-tailed deer, to a specific location. The below table shows the white-tailed deer harvest in game management unit 22 from 2001 to 2007. You will see the reported archery harvest increased until in 2006 more white-tailed deer were taken during the archery season than during the general firearms hunt.

 

GAME MANAGEMENT UNIT 22 WHITE-TAILED DEER HARVEST

 

Year Archery Harvest General Harvest Total Archery % of Total Harvest

2001 25 139 164 15%

2002 47 129 176 27%

2003 47 155 202 23%

2004 27 129 156 17%

2005 67 117 184 36%

2006 97 96 193 50%

2007 53 158 211 25%

 

This type of harvest exceeds the anticipated archery harvest and the Department, in an effort to adjust the archery harvest to pre-bait levels, is recommending a rule change prohibiting the use of baiting. There are other methods available to the Department to adjust this disproportionate harvest downward including placing more archery units into the draw or significantly shortening the season.

 

In addition to the increase in harvest attributed to the use of bait, the Department queried many states regarding baiting. Of the 12 states that have responded to date, 10 including New Mexico, Colorado, and California, prohibit baiting in one form or another. Only Utah and Kansas do not restrict baiting. One of the reasons responding states have cited as to why they prohibit baiting is to prevent the spread of diseases including Chronic Wasting Disease. Although we have not detected CWD in Arizona, the spread and transmission of wildlife diseases is in itself, enough reason to be concerned over the increase in the use of baits.

 

In addition, I noticed that you have the wrong date posted when this agenda item will be presented to the Commission. The correct date is this Friday afternoon, December 5, following the 2:00 PM Revocation Hearings.

 

Ron Day

Small Game, Predator and Furbearer Biologist

Arizona Game and Fish Department

 

[tjhunt2]

Ron, thank you for the information and clearing up some things here on coueswhitetail.com. Although I disagree with the way things have gone down I due appreciate you taking the time to comment on the issue and letting us know the facts as you determine them. Please keeep us informed on this issue if you don't mind.

 

TJ

[CouesWhitetail]

Thanks for the info Ron. I have been trying to get the wording on this rule for awhile now.

 

Does AGFD have any idea how many archers hunt over bait? Or even if hunting over bait is actually more successful than hunting over water?

 

Amanda

[Coach]

AZGFD,

With all due respect, is it possible that the numbers are, at least in part, a result of mandatory reporting for archery hunters but not rifle hunters? It's hard to compare harvests when one method requires reporting and the other does not.

 

Also, I would think that bowhunting over salt (or water), especially in AZ, would result in shorter shots, and naturally higher recovery rates and fewer wounded and lost animals.

 

Obviously, this forum is not where this topic will be resolved, but I think it's fair to say, that there are a lot of hunters who feel that the "public input" meetings are not productive. Hunters were overwhelmingly opposed to moving December tags into October and November hunts in increased numbers to support "increased opportunity" but it happened anyway. Many of us feel that the survey used to justify the changes was misleading at best.

 

For the record, I don't have or maintain a single salt lick but I have sat in a treestand over salt and it is far from a slam dunk. Archery harvests are historically low and while sitting an active salt lick is potentially much more productive than spot-and-stalk bowhunting Arizona deer, we're still talking about relatively low success rates.

 

Wouldn't it be more productive to talk about ways that hunters and AZ G&F can work together to increase herd sizes to closer to carrying capacity than finding ways to make it harder to harvest big game? I think you would find an overwhelming volunteer force in the hunting community to enhance wildlife habitat across the state.

 

There is no reason that our antelope and mule deer populations should be as low as they are across the state, given the resources provided by our hunters. If we are really serious about increasing hunting opportunities in Arizona, I truly believe the solution lies in increasing the strength of big game herds- not in decreasing the harvest rates - especially for those hunts that already have very low success rates such as archery deer hunts.

 

Thank you for taking the time to monitor this type of informal input. I have hunted AZ for over 20 years and I feel we are at a crossroads. I have the upmost respect for AZGFD employees, particularly the men and women in the field working with hunters. I would hate to see that relationship sour, as it has in our neighboring states. As I said before, the ethical hunters I know are currently in the corner of AZGFD, but haphazard legislation that does not enhance wildlife, wildlands or hunting as a whole, only serve to create barriers between us.

 

It is time to start realizing that we only have a finite amount of hunting resources in this state. Diluting hunts by moving them to less productive times of the year or limiting the means of harvests only buys so much. The real solution is to find ways to strengthen and increase our game populations through sound management. This state is capable of producing some of the best hunting to be found in North America and I truly believe that G&F working WITH hunters can accomplish this goal. Eliminating salt and moving hunts around can not.

 

 

 

[dds]

Ron, thanks for the info.

 

I have a question for you though. If I am reading the AZGF Deer Hunt Data correctly, it was 2006 when the department changed the hunt in 22 from a strictly a December hunt to a October/December hunt, with the majority of tags in October. The number of tags was increased from a total of 450 in 2005 to a total of 550 in 2006. If this is true, you would expect the success for the general hunt to be lower; this is the (AZGF's) quantity over quality at work -- high hunter numbers/low success rates. I can also speculate that the higher number of unsuccessful rifle hunters turned to the archery hunt since their tags were not used; thus, a skewed archery success rate. Am I way off base?

 

I do understand your points about the spread of disease and such, but I am against the rule change for these reasons.

 

1. It is not enforceable. If we make a rule change it needs to be enforceable not just a means to fix an issue, but cause other problems. The chance of a WM stumbling across someone hunting over bait is basically zero. What if someone puts bait out (illegally) in an area around where you want to hunt. How far away do you have to be from the bait to be legal or how do you know it has been created illegally?

2. As you mentioned, you can still hunt over water. We currently have enough problems when it comes to our "first-come-first-served" rules. If baiting stops, I feel that more hunters will hunt over water, and there will be even more problems. Now we have created more work for our law enforcement officers.

3. I have hunted over salt for several days in a season and only had a few deer come in, like 4 deer, the same 2 bucks twice.

 

My $.02, anyway.

 

I would appreciate your comments. Thanks.

[Basser15]

Thanks for your input.

 

The hard thing for me to understand is that the average total percentage of the archery harvest rate is only about 12% higher than that of the first year mentioned, even with the abnormally high 2006 year. And until the department comes up with a steadfast way to get accurate accounting to compare the rates of harvest between rifle and deer hunters I don't think that it's just to find ways to help decrease the success of archery hunters. If archery hunters must report harvests then it should be mandatory for rifle hunters to report their harvests, that way the department can compare oranges to oranges.

 

Unfortunately I cannot make the meeting but have found in the past that it does not seem to help since the department already has its mind set when they come into the meetings and are not ready to entertain open conversations.

[DesertBull]

When is the Dept going to GIVE us something instead of continually taking away?

[JMP]

how does it go? "lies, dang lies, and statistics"

[25-06]

Heck, all this time I thought salt was only good for the trail cams in the summer months. Never ever hunted over it. Does it really work?

[DesertBull]

how does it go? "lies, dang lies, and statistics"

 

 

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics. - Mark Twain

[KGAINES]

I appreciate the response as well from azgfd.

I do however have a problem when the rule process appears to limit the success so that more tags may be issued. What I see happening is the department claiming they are limiting numbers by making this rule, and out of the other side of the commisioners mouths they are issuing more rifle draw tags in october or november. They may also make the units where this is happening draw for archery, and again they will raise the october and november tag numbers. The commission might throw someone a bone and raise the dec. tags by two or three since they know those will be put in for, and not be on the leftover list. I understand that right now it is only baiting, but what happens when it is determined that 15x binoculars are helping to kill more deer than anything, are they next in the new 5 year rule making objectives on how to provide more tags. I don't use bait, but I could care less if someone else does, as long as they put the time and effort into hunting and do it legally they shouldn't be penalized for being successful, because the more the rules are made under that notion, the more we will all be affected. I can't make these meetings, but over the last two years or so it seems aside fromt he late cabelas apps. deal, the commission (two in particular) are all about limiting success, limiting quality, and providing opportunity, and even the opportunity they are proving is not wanted by most.

[Coueser]

Ron,

 

Thank-you for taking the time to post here. I think we can all agree that when it comes to hunting we want more hunts and better hunts. Unfortunately, we are dealing with a limited resource that seems to be becoming more limited each year.

 

I for one don't understand how every hunting magazine I read states that hunting is dying away when in Arizona it sure seems tougher each year to draw. I remember 20 years ago it was pretty easy to draw an archery bull tag. Today, it takes quite a few years and a lot of luck.

 

I appreciate the opportunity to hunt as much as anybody else. Having said that, if these are changes that need to be made to keep that opportunity to hunt available than I will support them. I think we all wish that we didn't have these restrictions, however, it seems obvious that archery tackle and hunters have become more proficient and numerous and something needs to be done to maintain deer herd numbers.

 

Thanks again.