AZGF will be back in to lawmaking in 2011

[youngbuck]

I think it's about time. Although many of my friends use bait and cameras - I think they should both be outlawed. If a "hunter" can't get his deer without them he might as well go buy one somewhere. Besides AzGFD has been managing our game for many years and have been hired to do their job - let them. It won't keep anybody from hunting.

 

 

 

Lobo,

One day you will learn that views like that is what is hurting hunting. There are lots things I don't agree with about hunting. I'm not about to list them. When they outlaw MY trail cameras, they will come after something you like and enjoy next. I'm not going to be there to help you in your fight at that time, neither will any of the other trail cam users. You will learn that outdoorsmen and women need to stick together no matter the issue. Ever heard of divide and conquer? You are doing the work for the anti's with those comments. I sure wish the trappers were still around to help us in our fight now, but they are gone. I was too young to help them in their fight, wish I could have.

Ryan

[Codywhi]

Great post youngbuck!

[Guest Lobo]

Well yougbuck you know what they say about opinions. Mine are no exception. I doubt that my views will sway any law one way or another. The big influence is money. And all of the manufacturers of trail cams and baits and such and everything that goes with it will lobby in favor of the market. If the govt were to say bait, cams and stuff are gone but so is hunting - then we have a big problem. But I doubt that will happen - at least not in our lifetime. Hunting is necessary for many reasons. It's wildlife management and that is bigger than hunting.

The job of AZGFD is to manage our wildlife not to cater to any one particular style or method of hunting - or market for that matter. How well they do it depends on who we ask.

If high power optics, and anything else, is outlawed and all that is allowed is spears slingshots and knives I'm pretty sure you and I will still be out there. Life isn't Burger King and neither is hunting.

I do however have a problem with anti-hunters. Although I respect their opinions I don't like some of the methods we read about. But they have to exist. There has to be an opposite for everything. It's just life.

I don't think it will happen (the ban on bait). It's too big to stop and as has been said how can it be enforced? It's not like the mgrs will be out looking for bait and cams. They have plenty to keep them busy. I hope anyway. Think of all the things (markets) that go with baits and such. It's a lot of money spent here.

Relax. it's gonna be ok.

Now what I would like to avoid is another little war over who's right. If that's the case then I'll remove my post and take back my statements. Sincerest apologies if I offended you or made it seem that I am "an anti".

Peace youngbuck.

[youngbuck]

Lobo,

I understand your post. I was in no way offended. I saw what happened to the trappers. I'll never be able to use a leg hold on public lands. I am learning with cages now. History is the best way to predict the future. There are other ways to regulate harvest rates than limiting equipment. If you don't think bait will be banned, you may be mistaken. I was around and folowed those discussions/meetings very closely. I believe Bowsniper is the guy w/ all that information. It was close to being banned once. It can be very close in the future. I promise that the battle will not end with the baiting issue. I don't know what could be next; calls, water, archery gear. No one knows. There will always be a percentage of the population who will do any and everything they can to reduce the amount of hunting. If we as outdoorsmen and women don't stand up and fight for what we believe in, they will get their wish. The reason I may seem fired up, is because I am. Once something is gone, it usually doesn't come back. AZGFD is pressured by animal rights groups and hunters. The squeeky wheel gets the grease. Ive spent thousands of dollars in fuel to use cameras. I've spent hundreds of days hauling salt and checking cameras. Ive spent probably months now, added up, in a stand or in a blind. I've got thousands of pictures of all kinds of crittes, mostly coues bucks. Ive got lots of pictures of nice bucks. I have yet to draw my bow on a coues buck. Baiting is anything but a slam dunk. Ask any of the guys who have tried and failed, or any of the guys who are very proficient at it. I have been unsuccessful to arrow a coues buck. That hasn't stopped me from trying. Running cameras and finding spots is my most enjoyable hobby that I can do year round. I won't let them take that from me without letting them hear my opinion. I don't like it when I'm hunting and a group of ATVers blast by. They have the the same rights I do to use the land though. I'll help them if their hobby is being taken from them, hoping that they would return the favor when I'm the one in the fight. Strength in numbers. The antis have learned how to use it effectively, so should we.

[bwakeling]

I can see that I've arrived at this thread a little late in the discussion, but let me add a few things.

 

Rules and rulemaking can be among the most misunderstood processes in government. One normally assumes that the legislative branch develops laws, with approval from the executive branch when the governor signs bills into law. The judicial branch then interprets these laws when law enforcement officers cite individuals and prosecuting attorneys present cases.

 

But each agency, like the Arizona Game and Fish Department, has the authority to promulgate rules that essentially interpret and implement the laws in their area of jurisdiction. This is called the Arizona Administrative Code (commonly refered to as rules), and has the effect of law developed by an executive branch agency, not the legislative. Rules cannot supersede laws. Rules can be adopted by commissions, but must have a public input phase (30-day window) after proposed rulemaking is approved by the Commission and is formally posted with the Secretary of State. Each comment must be responded to as part of the final rulemaking package, which the commission must then approve. Finally, the Governor's Regulatory Review Council (GRRC) must approve the final rulemaking before it can go into effect. The Arizona Game and Fish Department and Commission typically seek far more than the mandated 30-day public input.

 

A tricky thing about rules. Each rule must be formally reviewed at least once every five years. If it is not reviewed with action by the commission and GRRC, the rule simply goes away. But a review does nothing to change any rule. Rulemaking must follow rule review to establish, alter, or amend rules. The rule review process is not affected by the rulemaking moratorium, but agencies cannot move into rulemaking while the moratorium is in place.

 

When Governor Brewer took office upon Governor Napolitano's departure for Homeland Security Secretary, she established a moratorium on rulemaking. At the time that Governor Brewer took office, the Arizona Game and Fish Department had taken proposed rulemaking to the Arizona Game and Fish Commission on Article 3 rules, which included changes to baiting and harvest reporting. We were preparing for final rulemaking when the moratorium was placed in early 2009. We've not altered anything in Article 3 since that time.

 

Currently, there are several rule review processes ongoing because of the administrative requirement that we do so. At some point in the future, the rulemaking moratorium will be lifted and rulemaking will need to go forward. Rulemaking is necessary to eliminate restrictions or increase them. Rules cannot be amended without rulemaking.

 

Rest assured, no rulemaking will go forward without notices to the public on what the proposed changes are and how the public can influence change. Currently, the moratorium on rulemaking is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2011. It has been extended several times already, and it would not surprise me to see it extended yet again. The last time this Article was in front of the Commission (December 2008), it included the removal of mandatory harvest reporting for archery deer hunters and provisions for harvest objectives. When the Department makes a recommendation on rule review, that also will be public and presented at a public Commission meeting.

 

Hopefully, this information may be somewhat useful as you consider this discussion. The many different views posted in this thread are not unlike what the agency has heard from the public. Baiting has many benefits and challenges, but in addition to public input, the Department also tries to weigh the risks documented in the scientific literature. Salt was not going to be part of the proposed baiting ban last time. I am not on this team, so do not have first hand knowledge of their discussion currently, but as I said, it will be public and should not catch anyone by surprise. Watch for the rule review report. Rulemaking may or may not follow.

 

Brian Wakeling

Game Branch Chief

Arizona Game and Fish Department

[CouesWhitetail]

Thanks for the info Brian!

[Coues 'n' Sheep]

Mr. Wakeling,

 

Thank you for posting on this thread. It sheds light on anouther part of the issue that I have concerns about. You see for me personally at this moment as a younger,very able bodied hunter I really don't care if they pass the proposed rule. I have hunted with many different weapons and used many different methods to legally take game and loosing just one of them really is not a big deal to me right at this moment. However someday when my knees & shoulders are shot (and they will be) I will need every advantage I can get to harvest game. And although today you all will only ask to ban certain forms of "Bait", by your own admision this rule (if passed),this rule by law must be "reviewed" every 5 years in order to remain in effect. During the review process it can also be "amended" and this is a rule that can always be “added to”, if the AZGF deems that other hunters' "advantages" are affecting their objectives. Once this door is cracked open and it will swing wide, the special interest groups will be first in line with "Amended Additions" to this rule. For the youthful hunters taking one thing at a time does not affect them, for we all have our arrogant opinions of what "real hunting is"... and we will stand by that. But for parents who want to nurture a hunting heritage in their children every advantage they can get is great, for they are competing against X-Box and Wii. For the Elderly and Disabled they could use any help they can get to have any opportunity at all. By your own admission we are threatening ALL advances in method and technology with a rule like this because it can and likely will be “Amended every 5 years”… in Government terms that means “Added to” because the Government never gets smaller and never reduces laws.

 

I ask all my fellow hunters....What personal choices do you make in your hunting that they may want to attack next? It does not matter if you hate all "Baits", or some of them, or support them all... we all must stand together against infringement, or divide and conquer will be the fate of hunting as we know it.

 

 

Thank you all for you input here. If you are against this proposed rule please post here and show AZGF that there is a voice of hunters that must be heard.

[cw4192]

Ask U.S.O if Arizona has defended the flight rule, and I may say this with confidence that Arizona has hit U.S.O very hard on the flight rule

[Coues 'n' Sheep]

Ask U.S.O if Arizona has defended the flight rule, and I may say this with confidence that Arizona has hit U.S.O very hard on the flight rule

 

Yes and last year they let two guys go on a "we were flying for water sources, and saw no animals." defense... so that door is now wide open.

[bowhunter4life]

Hopefully, this information may be somewhat useful as you consider this discussion. The many different views posted in this thread are not unlike what the agency has heard from the public. Baiting has many benefits and challenges, but in addition to public input, the Department also tries to weigh the risks documented in the scientific literature. Salt was not going to be part of the proposed baiting ban last time. I am not on this team, so do not have first hand knowledge of their discussion currently, but as I said, it will be public and should not catch anyone by surprise. Watch for the rule review report. Rulemaking may or may not follow.

 

Brian Wakeling

Game Branch Chief

Arizona Game and Fish Department

 

Thank you Brian for your time,

 

Can you explain what "benefits and challenges baiting" has specifically for AZ?

 

What documented, “risks in the scientific literature” that have been performed specifically for Arizona big game animals?

 

Can you also explain,

 

All we have been told, preached over the last 8-10 years from the Az. G & F is “hunter recruitment, retention.” Many have us have adopted this philosophy and support this movement. Now the Department want to take away a key element of hunter retention by taking away a type of hunting style, method.

I know most people think this is strictly a bowhunting deer issue for certain units, but we all know this is a multitude issue for all types of hunters. Many youth, disabled hunters and new hunters will be affected by this type of rule change. As the Department has seen over the last 5-10 years tag application numbers continue to decrease due too many options to spend limited dollars. All these type of rule changes affect your Departments philosophy on “hunter recruitment, retention.” Why would you want to eliminate more future hunters or existing hunters from a decreasing sport?

 

Thanks, Mike

[bojangles]

I think it's about time. Although many of my friends use bait and cameras - I think they should both be outlawed. If a "hunter" can't get his deer without them he might as well go buy one somewhere. Besides AzGFD has been managing our game for many years and have been hired to do their job - let them. It won't keep anybody from hunting.

 

 

 

Lobo,

One day you will learn that views like that is what is hurting hunting. There are lots things I don't agree with about hunting. I'm not about to list them. When they outlaw MY trail cameras, they will come after something you like and enjoy next. I'm not going to be there to help you in your fight at that time, neither will any of the other trail cam users. You will learn that outdoorsmen and women need to stick together no matter the issue. Ever heard of divide and conquer? You are doing the work for the anti's with those comments. I sure wish the trappers were still around to help us in our fight now, but they are gone. I was too young to help them in their fight, wish I could have.

Ryan

 

thanks for saving me some typing!!!!!

[motoxno53]

The only new thing we need is an antler restriction! Sorry but JMO!

 

PS I would vote to shut down units for a year or two once in awhile.

[cw4192]

Hunt means Hunt. If I were pre-fishing for a tourney I would not be allowed TO leave buckets oF crawdads or shad to chum for a week prior to the tourney. WITH THAT SAID THINK

[bojangles]

Hunt means Hunt. If I were pre-fishing for a tourney I would not be allowed TO leave buckets oF crawdads or shad to chum for a week prior to the tourney. WITH THAT SAID THINK

 

 

there's a difference between fishing touneys and hunting to put food in the table. Think again.

[bojangles]

I think it's about time. Although many of my friends use bait and cameras - I think they should both be outlawed. If a "hunter" can't get his deer without them he might as well go buy one somewhere. Besides AzGFD has been managing our game for many years and have been hired to do their job - let them. It won't keep anybody from hunting.

 

 

 

what r u gonna do when they outlaw whatever it is that u use?

 

And what if i don't like the way AZGFD has been managing our game? I never hired anybody.

 

I always hear the old hunters talk about the good ol days when there were a lot of deer around. There's a difference between managing game and selling tags.