bowsniper Report post Posted January 9, 2009 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hunterjohnny Report post Posted January 9, 2009 Pandora has opened her box. My first thought is that is not the intention, but could be interpreted that way very easily. So with general wording it will depend on who feels like writing more tickets. This will be crazy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ernesto C Report post Posted January 9, 2009 I say water is not edible, it is drinkable.......my two cents? Ernesto C Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
4Falls Report post Posted January 9, 2009 Here we go. This is something thats been coming for a long time. I think the rule was written to apply to salt and minerals and alfalfa and corn and apples. However now it will be a rule, open to interpretation and change. And with the "greening" of the G&F that has been going on for some time now. Im sure some ponytailed vegan animal cop would use this to write you a ticket as you sit happily in your treestand. Then its your responsibility to go to court and fight it. Good luck. And as a side note. Interpreted broadly this rule would not allow to take any game that is actively feeding or drinking. Even if its on a natural substance. Who writes these rules? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GHOSTLUVR Report post Posted January 9, 2009 This is on the AzGFD's reply on page 20 of the Salt and Feed no more forum. "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." So as I read it, water sorces of any kind, man made or natural will be ok! However, dump a bunch of apple juice in it and maybe you'll have a problem! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bowsniper Report post Posted January 9, 2009 This is on the AzGFD's reply on page 20 of the Salt and Feed no more forum. "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." So as I read it, water sorces of any kind, man made or natural will be ok! However, dump a bunch of apple juice in it and maybe you'll have a problem! 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!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stanley Report post Posted January 9, 2009 Do you really think you're going to get a ticket for hunting over water Mark????? Seriously, are you worried about it? Or are you just stirring the pot on the baiting topic??? S. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
firstcoueswas80 Report post Posted January 9, 2009 Sounds to me like it is going to be up to the officer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bowsniper Report post Posted January 9, 2009 Do you really think you're going to get a ticket for hunting over water Mark????? Seriously, are you worried about it? Or are you just stirring the pot on the baiting topic??? S. 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stanley Report post Posted January 9, 2009 I still think there is a 'Chicken Little' thing going on here.... I personally don't think the sky is falling..... I would have to think that most drinkers are not placed for the 'sole purpose of attracting a big game animal', so much as placed for the purpose of 'helping a big game animal, by providing a water source....'. I'm sure that to some extent, I'm ignorant. But it seems to me that the spirit of the new baiting legislation/laws is to keep people from baiting (whether by salt, grain, corn, or water) for the sole purpose of HUNTING the animal, as opposed to placing a drinker to allow an animal to drink! When a hunter sets-up a salt lick, in general, it is for the purpose of attracting animals so they can be killed. When the G&F (or a rancher...) sets-up a water source, it is generally for the purpose of helping the animals survive by providing them a water source. Yes??? Do you agree?? How many drinkers (or tanks, troughs, etc.) are placed there for the specific purpose of hunting over them? I don't expect the G&F to be 'nice guys'. I expect them to be 'reasonable guys', and I sinerely think that most WM Officers are just that. I think we all understand the spirit of this new law, and I think we know that it has nothing to do with drinkers, tanks, troughs, etc... To answer your question; YES, I expect that the average G&F Wildlife Manager will make a good decision as to whether he is going to site someone for hunting over a tank/drinker, as apposed to hunting over salt that he (the hunter) placed specifically for the purpose of attracting the animal to kill it. S. Do you really think you're going to get a ticket for hunting over water Mark????? Seriously, are you worried about it? Or are you just stirring the pot on the baiting topic??? S. 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
4Falls Report post Posted January 9, 2009 I think the pot needs to be stirred. I wish everyone would get fired up about issues that relate to the sport we all claim to love. What will happen is the same thing that always happens. G&F will pass another rule, we'll sit there and complain about after the fact. As time goes on the Dept. gets more "green" and less hunter friendly. As that happens, things will continue to get worse for us. I'd be curious to know how many Dept employees consider themselves sportsmen as to how many consider themselves environmentalists. The salt rule will go into effect. Then whats next? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Huntn coues Report post Posted January 9, 2009 What if your hunting near where a rancher placed salt? Is it up to the G&F officer to ticket you or not? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GameHauler Report post Posted January 10, 2009 Man I try to stay out of these Stanley, Rather you hunt by means of an attractant or not I do not understand why you would make a post that sounds like you think the purposed law is OK. If you do not hunt that way it is fine but please do not climb to the top of the fence as I am not sure your balance is that good and you fell on the wrong side I think I recall you making a post or two about sticking together even if our views differ. For the last few years I have helped take care of some tanks since the AZGFD funds are lacking as is every agency's and most of us. The Forest Circus and AZGFD has provided the 50# salt blocks for us to take to their (our) drinkers BECAUSE they know it is a benefit to the animals just like the drinkers WE as hunters have paid for. I am doing a balancing act on a fence right now myself as to why they want to ban it. Is it the Greenies or the the people we have in the Commission right now? I have always had the greatest respect for our Commission but am having a real hard time with them the last few years. I unfortunately feel it is our Commission and pray that the upcoming Governor has a Lot more since than Janet. I wrote two more paragraphs but will not go on venting right now Rather you us attractants or not. Shoot 100yds with a bow or not. Shoot 600yds with a rifle or not. Spend 2 or 200 days in the field. Pack in 5 miles or road hunt. ON and ON and On WE NEED TO STICK TOGETHER or loose our hunting privileges forever Sorry, No disrespect meant and thank you for letting me vent. Signed, Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewp45 Report post Posted January 10, 2009 I know as far as migratory birds go it is already illegal to hunt in baited areas. We hunt off of our existing milo and wheat fields for dove and the fish and wildlife and G&F say that it is not baiting because it is there for a reason other than feeding the dove. So I would say anything a rancher puts out for his cows (including water) would be legal to hunt over. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bobbyo Report post Posted January 10, 2009 Mike, I don't hunt over salt or any attractant, but I am strongly opposed to this rule. I see it as anti bowhunting brought on by our rifle hunting brothers. The reason is the huge coues deer bowhunters are shooting over salt. The rifle hunters look at it as bowhunters stealing their trophy's. Would this ban be at all proposed if salt could only attract young immature bucks. I think not. I also fear this ban is a done deal. HOW MANY HUNTERS ARE TAKING THE OTHER SIDE WITH THEIR CALLS. Besides the fix is in. If you could bet in Vegas on whether this will pass or not, you know which side all the smart money will be on. I can already see it. Once the ban passes every time a great buck is taken with a bow there will be the whispers and stigma. He must of been shot over salt. Heck, I say that to myself now. Salt hunters are the victims of their own success. I will keep sending G+F my opinion. Maybe there is a chance they will do the right thing. Bob Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
