Str8Shot Report post Posted October 7, 2012 I find it outright silly when so many complain about G&F doing their job , hunting and the rights to do so have always been centered around conservation and management of our herds. This means as time changes so may the rules and regulations. For those that constantly cry foul and blame environmentalist I believe you are self diluted. A large percentage of hunters in this state understand such changes and their roles in the process of conservation and do not feel that baiting during the open season is necessary nor needed ... Fact ... of the top 15 hunting destinations in the US only 2 allow baiting on public lands during the open season and while hunting ( Arizona and Utah) and one, Texas only allows baiting on private land with owners permission... the other 12 it is illegal to bait period or any type of bait must be removed a minimum of 10 days prior to hunting season. I am no environmentalist, and I support This move as I am sure many hunters out there do... Hey at least you can still have livestock salt licks still if it passes 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Str8Shot Report post Posted October 7, 2012 I see no problem either. God forbid someone have to actually go hunt an animal to kill it. What people like you fail to see is the BIG picture. Your, and others narrow mindedness on the situation will only negatively effect other hunters. What I mean by that is when you start opening doors for them to banning things, they (who ever the purposing entity might be) will never be happy. For instance, if WE allow liberals,government whom ever ban automatic weapons next thing you know they are going after 30 round mags, then 20 round mags eventually leading to all AR-15 having to be shot as single shot rifles, one bullet at a time. Basically, if you let them get their foot in the door WHO KNOWS if/when they will be content with what they have been banned! Even if baiting isn't your thing (it's not mine but I have NOTHING against it), the fact of the matter is it is a form of hunting so we ALL should support it no matter what! Show me details or facts about top US hunting destinations where baiting has been illegal ( many states for decades) where an attempt to take away the rights to hunt ? p.s. it is narrow minded to assume so much that everything that the g& f does as some future attack on civil liberties and not about them doing their jobs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JakeL Report post Posted October 7, 2012 The slippery slope argument many on here are using is a completely misleading form of argument. It is too commonly used to deflect attention from actual issues, it clouds the current debate, and it works on the emotions of fear and uncertainty to make a point. Baiting has been banned in many states for decades. Since bait bans were initiated in those states it has not been found that hunting has been banned there. Gun rights have not correspondingly come under attack. Public land rights have not become more limited as a result of baiting laws. Audio calls for game species have not come under attack in these states either. In fact, in most of these states the only direct result of the banning of baiting has been a reduction in hunters using edible attractants to take game animals. Lets keep the discussion based on logical pro's and con's of the current issue, baiting. Its just nonsense and fear mongering when you use any argument that follows the form of "Well if they take this, then the next thing they will want is to take that, and then we are just a hop skip and a jump away from Obama becoming Our Dear Leader." This is called the slippery slope fallacy, and it has no place in intelligent discussion. It is only useful in presidential debates and political commercials. On the other hand, certain actions do have definite reactions. If something is a direct result of a given action, or if an action creates an atmosphere where an undesirable outcome becomes significantly more likely, then it is perfectly relevant to discuss. For example, "If baiting is ruled illegal, would it create excessive hunting pressure on water sources?" Lets keep this discussion classy. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThomC Report post Posted October 7, 2012 Here is my comment in the last thread on baiting Most of this discussion is about the politics of baiting but there is some science to the subject. I read somewhere that because of the way that the Deer stomach works that corn etc does not digest the same way that natural food does. Does anyone know if the feed that everyone is throwing out is helping or hindering the Deer population? Are you stunting the growth of the Deer? Are you decreasing the fawn survival? Is all this stuff such as Deer Cain junk food for the Deer? What happens to the Deer that depend on your feed after the season is over and winter comes? Do you think that Lions would be smart enough to use a baiting spot to ambush the Deer? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AZ8 Report post Posted October 7, 2012 Im just one lone hunter, but feel this is a good rule change. Long overdue. Arizona native, lifelong hunter. I've killed a few, missed a few and flat out got out played most of the time by my quarry. It's be fun! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DesertBull Report post Posted October 7, 2012 I can't wait until they start talking about long range shooting bans, waiting periods for tags, land owner tags, dog bans, lead ammo bans, cougar and bear hunting bans, banning scopes on muzzle loaders, sabot bullet ML bans, mechanical broad head bans, I'm sure all of the real hunters will be all for these. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wardsoutfitters Report post Posted October 7, 2012 http://www.azgfd.gov/inside_azgfd/rules/documents/Article3NPRM.pdf Above is the link to the rule changes. Everyone here has their own opinion on this matter. 20 states allow hunting over bait, numerous others allow supplemental feeding but it has to be stopped 10 days prior to hunting season. I have contacted most of the states that allow supplemental feeding and they are not concerned with the transmission of disease by animals congregating. The ones I have contacted all stated that animals will naturally congregate and have for thousands of years, through Migration, at water sources, at mineral sites, at food sources, at scrapes, licking branches, and during mating season. I'm sure most of you are aware that Ward's Outfitters has been supplemental feeding for years, I have not noticed a reduction of fawns as a matter of fact in some areas I have noticed a small increase. I have not noticed predators hanging around the area; we get very few pictures of predators at sites. We are able to be more selective on the age class animals we harvest, animals go into the dry season in better shape than they would in areas we are not supplimenting.Please send an e-mail opposing this ban to all the commission members. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DesertBull Report post Posted October 7, 2012 The slippery slope argument many on here are using is a completely misleading form of argument. It is too commonly used to deflect attention from actual issues, it clouds the current debate, and it works on the emotions of fear and uncertainty to make a point. You mean like guys standing up in front of the commission and telling them they need to "SELL" the bait ban as a diseases issue when really know it is not about that. If it was about disease the G&F would not put out drinkers in the desert where every animal within 2 miles stick their face into the same water trough on a daily basis. That kind of deflection? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wardsoutfitters Report post Posted October 7, 2012 In addition, the Commission believes that R12-4-303 exists to prohibit devices and methods that either compromise the spirit of fair chase or adversely impact hunter success rates. The recent increase in the use of baiting has resulted in disproportionally high harvest rates among those using this method of hunting. Consequently, the Commission is offering fewer hunting opportunities, which negatively impacts hunter recruitment and retention. This is also stated in the memo. THE fact is HUNTERS IN AZ CAN ONLY HARVEST 1 DEER PER YEAR, WEATHER IT BE SHOOTING THEM AT 1000 YARDS OR AT 10 YARDS WITH A BOW.SO SAYING THAT ARCHERS ARE BECOMING TO SUCCESSIFUL SHOULD HAVE NO BEARING ON THE MATTER. now the commission is trying to tell us as the hunters what fair chase is???? im telling you its only the begining if this passes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rossislider Report post Posted October 7, 2012 Amazing how many people are lining up on here to get more of their freedoms and right stripped away just because it is not how they like to do things. I've only ever hunted over bait once in my life so really don't stand much to lose from this new law... OTHER THAN MY FREEDOM AND RIGHT TO CHOSE! I don't have an RV and think that "real hunters" should be required to sleep out in tents or on the ground. Perhaps I will propose a rule to ban RVs from hunting. After all why should I not be allowed to impose my opinions and belief on others. Everyone should be obligated to do things just like I do...... THINK ABOUT IT PEOPLE!!!! Is there anything you enjoy doing that others might disagree with? Perhaps we should do away with everything someone else does not like. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AverageJoe Report post Posted October 7, 2012 I see no problem either. God forbid someone have to actually go hunt an animal to kill it. what's stopping anyone from doing that with the current rules? 50 piles of corn per square mile of public land and a blind or treestand at every pile! where the heck do you see this? I sure as heck don't see any corn piles in the units I hunt. Take a walk around unit 23 in august. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rossislider Report post Posted October 7, 2012 I see no problem either. God forbid someone have to actually go hunt an animal to kill it. what's stopping anyone from doing that with the current rules? 50 piles of corn per square mile of public land and a blind or treestand at every pile! where the heck do you see this? I sure as heck don't see any corn piles in the units I hunt. Take a walk around unit 23 in august. I hunted 23 North in August and didn't see 50 corn piles. Come to think of it, I didn't see any. I am sure there were some there, but not 50 per square mile. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SirRoyal Report post Posted October 7, 2012 I agree its about freedoms! I chose not or I chose to! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
firstcoueswas80 Report post Posted October 7, 2012 I can't wait until they start talking about long range shooting bans, waiting periods for tags, land owner tags, dog bans, lead ammo bans, cougar and bear hunting bans, banning scopes on muzzle loaders, sabot bullet ML bans, mechanical broad head bans, I'm sure all of the real hunters will be all for these. What are you talking about Jeff... You're being narrow minded about allowing them to take one of our hunting styles so they will then there go after others. It wont happen and lets remember "This is called the slippery slope fallacy, and it has no place in intelligent discussion. It is only useful in presidential debates and political commercials." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AverageJoe Report post Posted October 7, 2012 Too many thoughts to type. I will not change my view of baiting but i do support hunting as a whole. I would not expect aNyone else to change their way of thinking either. Dont give me some long reply about how narrow minded i am and think it did any good. Glad you got your opinion out though, that is what internet forums are for. Just realize not everyone thinks the same and is entitled to their own opinion. Happy Hunting Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
