New G&F Rule would ban hunting over water?

[stanley]

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

 

 

Absolutely no disrespect taken Mike! Venting is good! Opinions are good! Silence is not.....

 

I definitely agree that sticking together is important, but that doesn't mean that we should all just simply get in line behind Mark (or any other person who is passionate about this topic) because we are both hunters. Sticking together as a hunting family clealy is important, but lively debate and differing points of view are also critical IMO.

 

Maybe my post made it sound like I thought the proposed law was OK, but my intent was simply to voice my opinion that I think it's a bit extreme to think that it would lead to someone getting a ticket for hunting over a stock tank. I never said whether I supported the law or not, I just wanted to comment on the likelihood of people getting tickets for hunting over tanks as a result....

 

As to whether I agree with the proposed law (or rule, or what ever they call them...), I'm not sure. I haven't read the entire proposal yet.

 

Best regards,

S.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[tjhunt2]

?

 

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.

 

 

Well put Stanley.

 

Everyone does have an opinion, as they should, but we do indeed need to stick together even though we have different styles and metheds of hunting. The end result is we are all hunters and I don't want to see any method of hunting taken away.

 

I for one have always had the most respect for Game Wardens and still feel, as Stanley does, that they will be fair in their judgement as most of them are hunters to. IMO

 

TJ

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[GameHauler]

This has nothing to do with the Wardens as most of them are great.

This has to do with the Commission wanting to decrease harvest

so they can increase opportunity for financial gain.

This is a stupid, unenforceable law that I am afraid will

turn some honest hunters into law breakers and the ones that

already do not respect the law will continue to do it and unfairly

have an advantage over the law abiding hunters.

 

How many water sources out there have had salt on them?

better yet and easier to answer, haven't?

That salt has leached into the ground and will be an attractant

for many years to come.

When will it be OK to hunt these water sources with out

the fear of being ticketed for hunting over an attractant?

 

The Commission still has not figured out that THEY can not recruit hunters

only hunters can recruit hunters and by angering hunters they are

getting the opposite of what they want.

[thunderbolt]

I do think its partly about money, so why don't we purpose a " SALT STAMP" for your hunting license. It'll generate money !!! I think they'd jump all over it.

[4Falls]

Bobbyo nailed it. It is a done deal. And there will be a big stigma attached to every big buck a bowhunter kills.

 

I also want to add that most G&F officers are not also hunters. Most are just working there way onto another branch of law enforcement and the G&F is merely a stepping stone.

[Apatkelley]

As for me and my house (as someone once said) I will sit the tank!!

[bowsniper]

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….

 

I definitely agree that sticking together is important, but that doesn't mean that we should all just simply get in line behind Mark

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.

 

 

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??

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?

 

 

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...

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?

 

As to whether I agree with the proposed law (or rule, or what ever they call them...), I'm not sure. I haven't read the entire proposal yet.

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

[AZantlerhead]

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.

Bob

 

I 'm sure the g&f supports Big buck hunting. I'm sure they know a thing or two about management and I really think you are stepping on toes by calling out rifle hunters . I was unaware that a rifle hunter muzzleloader or bow hunter were any different. I'm all three. I must hunt three times as much as you then huh ? jk man. But really there is no diff. and yes the ban will happen , you're right. I don't like it either.I wish they would explain they're reason for it too!!!!!!!!!! And reading the proposal I think water would be clearly stated if they intented to include that in the ban. They would not beat around the bush about it. Least that's what I'm seeing. For an average hillbilly. Ingestible substances is a big word!

[KGAINES]

With the new rules will mouse traps be illegal.

[stanley]

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….

 

I definitely agree that sticking together is important, but that doesn't mean that we should all just simply get in line behind Mark

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.

 

 

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??

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?

 

 

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...

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?

 

As to whether I agree with the proposed law (or rule, or what ever they call them...), I'm not sure. I haven't read the entire proposal yet.

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

 

 

 

So Mark, at the end of the day, are you more concerned with whether this new rule will ban you from hunting over water or salt/bait? If you truly just have a problem with the wording, as opposed to the 'spirit' of the proposed rule then why don't you lobby the commission to simply change the wording to allow hunting over/on/near man made water sources? That way the G&F can get their rule passed, and you will have the rules spelled-out specifically so you don't have to worry about getting a ticket for hunting a water source.

 

Are you concerned with the wording or the rule?

 

My only point for joining this thread was the comment made about G&F WM's issuing tickets for hunting over water. I just can't imagine that happening....

 

If you're concerned with the banning of hunting over salt/bait, then say it. But if your only concern is the lack of clarification of what is an 'ingestible' substance, then say that! Seems like you're trying to shoot down the rule due to the poor wording (technicality), as opposed to making a good argument for hunting over salt/bait?

 

Thanks for posting the specific wording on the rule. Hard to disagree with you that the wording leaves some interpretation!

 

Respectfully,

Stan

 

 

PS: I truly love a good debate!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bowsniper]

So Mark, at the end of the day, are you more concerned with whether this new rule will ban you from hunting over water or salt/bait? If you truly just have a problem with the wording, as opposed to the 'spirit' of the proposed rule then why don't you lobby the commission to simply change the wording to allow hunting over/on/near man made water sources? That way the G&F can get their rule passed, and you will have the rules spelled-out specifically so you don't have to worry about getting a ticket for hunting a water source.

 

Are you concerned with the wording or the rule?

 

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