2010 Unit 10 December Archery deer hunt.

[hawkeye]

I have gone from being a strong supporter of the azgfd to a man who hates everything about them. Absolute power corrupts. I hunt in other states when I can and will do more from now on. I wouldn't help an agent if his hair was on fire. I hope to come across one broke down sometime. I wouldn't help him no matter what. They have turned it into an "us against them" situation. If you support the azgfd you support absulute corruption. I know I will catch heck for this post but after dealing with them for the last 45 years I am against everything they have become. And I will tell you that they don't give a dang about the hunter and sportsman, it's about their job and how much money they can pile up.

[elkaholik13]

Yea I'm just glad its all over its been a long 3 months.

[dusty]

I have gone from being a strong supporter of the azgfd to a man who hates everything about them. Absolute power corrupts. I hunt in other states when I can and will do more from now on. I wouldn't help an agent if his hair was on fire. I hope to come across one broke down sometime. I wouldn't help him no matter what. They have turned it into an "us against them" situation. If you support the azgfd you support absulute corruption. I know I will catch heck for this post but after dealing with them for the last 45 years I am against everything they have become. And I will tell you that they don't give a dang about the hunter and sportsman, it's about their job and how much money they can pile up.

+1 I agree with ya.

[D.F.M.]

So let me get this right if you shoot an animal and game and fish finds it first its there's. Now I am no brain sturgeon but something is wrong with that.You would think with all the intelligent people at G and F thats somebody could figure this out. Am I right or am I wrong.

[Coach]

In my opinion, it's important to separate the rules, the people who make those rules, the people charged with enforcing those rules and the underlying intent of the rules in the first place.

 

Like it or not, some "hunters" in this state have engaged in the act of "ground-checking". That means they shoot an animal, decide whether it met their goals and then decided whether to tag it or continue hunting until they shoot one they are more happy with. Often returning later to claim their "culled" kill. This is where the "intent" came about, as I understand it.

 

The guys who make the rules recognized this practice and felt they needed to do something about it - hence the rules. We would have bitched if we knew they knew about it and did nothing. The guys who enforce the rules really aren't empowered to make very broad judgment calls. They can actually be held criminally liable if they knowingly choose not to enforce the laws - not sure that many people understand that.

 

Where it gets a little sticky, is when someone actually follows the rules, then falls into a gray area, and wants G&F to look on it with more of a common sense approach than a letter-of-the-law approach. It's a lose-lose situation for G&F. They created the rules with a certain intent, and even if they know someone was not trying to break the rules, they feel compelled to enforce to the letter, or else the rule becomes meaningless and unenforceable.

 

Sometimes, the rules, because of their technicalities, make it tough to be totally honest - I get that. I've been on the bad side and back, trust me. But in close to 3 decades of hunting in Arizona, I wouldn't trade our "boots on the ground" G&F officers for those of any other state I've hunted. Almost 30 years of hunting all over this state, the actual guys and gals checking your license, etc. are some of the best in the country, in my opinion.

 

My point is, before you take on the "us vs. them" mentality, even if you think "they started it"...keep in mind that pretty much any G&F officer you encounter in the field will actually do whatever they can to be helpful, informative and do just about whatever the law allows them to do, to help you in a sticky situation. Clearly, there are a few who don't share that attitude, but from what I've seen, they are a very small minority compared to other states.

 

We're lucky here. While we might not agree with everything our G&F dept decides, the people you and I are most likely to encounter are overwhelmingly "on our side". Compare that with the abundance of other states where the presumptive attitude of any ward of state or federal fishing and hunting laws assumes everyone is guilty and treats them like poachers and criminals until they can prove their innocence.

 

Just my $.02

[1azbowhunter]

Game and Fish could have atleast let you put your 2011 tag on it and be done for the year.. Game and Fish are not for the hunters in my opinion. Its all about the money for them or power trips. I guess they forget us hunters are the ones that pay their salarys

 

Congrats on a awesome buck

very true just in it for the money

[Condor]

In my opinion, it's important to separate the rules, the people who make those rules, the people charged with enforcing those rules and the underlying intent of the rules in the first place.

 

Like it or not, some "hunters" in this state have engaged in the act of "ground-checking". That means they shoot an animal, decide whether it met their goals and then decided whether to tag it or continue hunting until they shoot one they are more happy with. Often returning later to claim their "culled" kill. This is where the "intent" came about, as I understand it.

 

The guys who make the rules recognized this practice and felt they needed to do something about it - hence the rules. We would have bitched if we knew they knew about it and did nothing. The guys who enforce the rules really aren't empowered to make very broad judgment calls. They can actually be held criminally liable if they knowingly choose not to enforce the laws - not sure that many people understand that.

 

Where it gets a little sticky, is when someone actually follows the rules, then falls into a gray area, and wants G&F to look on it with more of a common sense approach than a letter-of-the-law approach. It's a lose-lose situation for G&F. They created the rules with a certain intent, and even if they know someone was not trying to break the rules, they feel compelled to enforce to the letter, or else the rule becomes meaningless and unenforceable.

 

Sometimes, the rules, because of their technicalities, make it tough to be totally honest - I get that. I've been on the bad side and back, trust me. But in close to 3 decades of hunting in Arizona, I wouldn't trade our "boots on the ground" G&F officers for those of any other state I've hunted. Almost 30 years of hunting all over this state, the actual guys and gals checking your license, etc. are some of the best in the country, in my opinion.

 

My point is, before you take on the "us vs. them" mentality, even if you think "they started it"...keep in mind that pretty much any G&F officer you encounter in the field will actually do whatever they can to be helpful, informative and do just about whatever the law allows them to do, to help you in a sticky situation. Clearly, there are a few who don't share that attitude, but from what I've seen, they are a very small minority compared to other states.

 

We're lucky here. While we might not agree with everything our G&F dept decides, the people you and I are most likely to encounter are overwhelmingly "on our side". Compare that with the abundance of other states where the presumptive attitude of any ward of state or federal fishing and hunting laws assumes everyone is guilty and treats them like poachers and criminals until they can prove their innocence.

 

Just my $.02

 

 

+1