AZGFD Rule Changes

[rossislider]

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

 

Couldn't agree with you more that everyone is entitled to their opinion. The difference between us is that I do not believe others should be forced by law to adhere to my opinion.

[DCS]

I totally agree with Casey,this is just the tip of the iceberg.I don't bait myself,but I can if I see fit.I have cattle,but I don't set the salt that I have put out for them.I don't have a problem with baiting,any more than using dogs to hunt.I don't get it,I guess we just live too close to California!!!!

[naturegirl]

like it or not as technology and hunting ways change over the years, there will be adjustments made to rules or new rules made. there has to be limits somewhere.

 

I personally don't hunt over edibles. I cant sit still long enough. I have hunted water but me personally my personal ethics play on my mind some when I have sat water because to ME i feel like im kinda cheating. no judgement to anyone. to each their own.

 

anyhow, I'm a realist...there will need to be changes made at some point or go to a draw for everything . I personally would not like that since I primarily hunt archery.

[Str8Shot]

http://www.azgfd.gov...rticle3NPRM.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.

 

If you are going to put numbers you should put facts ...

 

6 - States allow baiting year round on public land and allow hunting over bait ( with minimal restriction of national monuments and/or National wildlife Refuge), this includes Az ( possible plus 1 since Wyoming has no specific written info)

 

12- states allow baiting on private land or with heavy regulation of types of bait, area/units, and dates

 

10 - additional states Allow Feeding but not baiting and all bait must be removed either within 10 days of hunt open or is only allowed through specific Calender dates i.e. No bait from Sept 1st - Dec 31st

 

here is the link if you want more details and numbers http://www.lucky-buc...aitinglaws.html Info was accurate as of 08/2012

 

The fact is you would not be baiting and using supplements if it did not improve your success and quality of hunts that you offer a client, but even with a change that would not make you any less of a guide or outfitter or any less valuable... but making a blanket statement that 20 states offer the same type of baiting as AZ does is absolutely false.

 

P.S. February 2012 field and Stream had a survey where 51 % of hunters, even some that admitted to using bait said they even believed that hunting over bait was not fair Chase

[ready2hunt]

Can anyone give some reasons why they are so against baiting? There are a few people here that seem to be pretty adamant about their position. I would like to hear your reasoning.

[bowhunter4life]

Like all things just another loss of freedom, without factual data.

 

I would ask why this rule change is being done without factual scientific data.

• What is official reason from AZGFD , why they are asking for this rule change?
  
• What Arizona studies have been performed on our big game animals with the effect of baiting?
  
• List factual data collected by department and what the results?
  
• If CWD and other types of disease is of concern. Again what factual data has been performed within Arizona?
  

My concern with this hunting method loss, It is being done without AZGFD giving the public, it customer sound scientific data to support such a rule change.

 

Just remember just a few short years ago we almost lost ½ of our September archery bull hunts in the name of opportunity. It was not until you the public, “customer” showed up and voiced your concern with such a rule change without factual data. Then, AZGFD decided that it was not in the best interest to remove them just to make 3 times the number of tags by placing them in November

[DesertBull]

It is not about disease. Water drinkers are far more likely to spread disease that is transmitted through saliva than corn on the ground.

 

But like anything political the public cannot be trusted with facts. We have to be "sold" on the disease issue because we are too stupid to just be told the truth.

 

Remember, government smart. Public dumb.

[123456]

Even if AGFD told you it was about too high of harvest for bowhunters, you would not be happy. So what is the difference on the reason? No matter how they sell it, you are not buying. Just like they outlawed too small of broad heads, camping next to water holes, pitfall traps, hunting with the aid of artificial light ( with a few exceptions) and countless other laws, they need to be made to meet their management needs. I use bait, but would not care if they took it. Why not protest the bait ban on migratory birds and bears? Seems everyone got used to it, and figured out other means of harvesting.

[coueshunter]

if azgfd is looking to ban salts/attractants because of cwd/fair chase infringement and too high success rate then we need to see the data that supports their case. allen taylor....

[bowhunter4life]

Even if AGFD told you it was about too high of harvest for bowhunters, you would not be happy. So what is the difference on the reason? No matter how they sell it, you are not buying. Just like they outlawed too small of broad heads, camping next to water holes, pitfall traps, hunting with the aid of artificial light ( with a few exceptions) and countless other laws, they need to be made to meet their management needs. I use bait, but would not care if they took it. Why not protest the bait ban on migratory birds and bears? Seems everyone got used to it, and figured out other means of harvesting.

 

Because it is not about success, they already control success by only having mandatory reporting by bowunters. They removed December hunts and made others by going to a draw. If they were truly concerned with success, all species would have a mandatory reporting for harvest, not just bowhunters.

 

Just look back a few more years ago; another method was removed, trapping. Now just look how our pronghorn antelope, the mighty coyote has single handily kills over 50% of the young before they are a week old. Kind of funny we never had those issues before the loss of trapping. Again a knee jerk reaction to satisfy the old left wings Ainti

 

 

You are wrong my friend, if it was truly for the good with sound scientific data to back it up. I would support it!

[naturegirl]

Can anyone give some reasons why they are so against baiting? There are a few people here that seem to be pretty adamant about their position. I would like to hear your reasoning.

 

I'm not completely adamant but I believe that they are making an educated decision. I personally wonder why people are so adamant about keeping baiting. Can't you hunt without it? It would mean your success rate (kills & shots) would go down I'm pretty sure. Are you feeding the animals for their nutritional benefit just curious?

 

I think nature/animals can survive without the benefits from baits etc. I don't believe they can survive without water. I don't believe that one change to the rules will lead to the end of the hunting world as we know it. Maybe the animals will actually do better. just my 2 cents.

 

PS- as times change, rule changes will have to follow.

[AZ8]

Even if AGFD told you it was about too high of harvest for bowhunters, you would not be happy. So what is the difference on the reason? No matter how they sell it, you are not buying. Just like they outlawed too small of broad heads, camping next to water holes, pitfall traps, hunting with the aid of artificial light ( with a few exceptions) and countless other laws, they need to be made to meet their management needs. I use bait, but would not care if they took it. Why not protest the bait ban on migratory birds and bears? Seems everyone got used to it, and figured out other means of harvesting.

 

Because it is not about success, they already control success by only having mandatory reporting by bowunters. They removed December hunts and made others by going to a draw. If they were truly concerned with success, all species would have a mandatory reporting for harvest, not just bowhunters.

 

Just look back a few more years ago; another method was removed, trapping. Now just look how our pronghorn antelope, the mighty coyote has single handily kills over 50% of the young before they are a week old. Kind of funny we never had those issues before the loss of trapping. Again a knee jerk reaction to satisfy the old left wings Ainti

 

 

You are wrong my friend, if it was truly for the good with sound scientific data to back it up. I would support it!

 

Theres more to that story than this: The trapping initiative, Prop 201(ban trapping), passed because the hunting and fishing groups that pulled together to defeat Prop 200(ban hunting, fishing, trapping), abandoned the ATA(Arizona Trappers Association) the following year when Prop 201 was introduced. All the various hunting groups were simply out of money fighting Prop 200. So when the initiative was changed to just trapping, it was over. It wasn't their(hunters,fishers) problem anymore since Prop 200 failed, and the ATA was left alone to fight Prop 201. The ATA was hung out to dry, but now every hunting group uses Prop 201 as their rally cry! Seems hypocritcal if you ask me. Too little, too late.

 

Anyhow, the AZGF Department isnt trying to end hunting all together. Rifle or archery. No units are being shut down. OTC tags are still being sold. No one is preventing you from loading up your truck, pack and cooler and hitting the hills. Just leave the corn at home. Thats it. Simple. Nothing else changes in your hunting routine.

 

Arizona's coues deer population is what...85,000+/-, mule deer 100,000+/-.....unless you can convince God to change Arizona from an arid, desert climate to a humid, subtropical climate....nothing wrong with trying to manage a limited resource.

[123456]

Even if AGFD told you it was about too high of harvest for bowhunters, you would not be happy. So what is the difference on the reason? No matter how they sell it, you are not buying. Just like they outlawed too small of broad heads, camping next to water holes, pitfall traps, hunting with the aid of artificial light ( with a few exceptions) and countless other laws, they need to be made to meet their management needs. I use bait, but would not care if they took it. Why not protest the bait ban on migratory birds and bears? Seems everyone got used to it, and figured out other means of harvesting.

 

Because it is not about success, they already control success by only having mandatory reporting by bowunters. They removed December hunts and made others by going to a draw. If they were truly concerned with success, all species would have a mandatory reporting for harvest, not just bowhunters.

 

Just look back a few more years ago; another method was removed, trapping. Now just look how our pronghorn antelope, the mighty coyote has single handily kills over 50% of the young before they are a week old. Kind of funny we never had those issues before the loss of trapping. Again a knee jerk reaction to satisfy the old left wings Ainti

 

 

You are wrong my friend, if it was truly for the good with sound scientific data to back it up. I would support it!

 

Go read the statistics on game and fish's website. It's called hunt Arizona. They do show an alarming increase on average of whitetail deer killed with archery equipment. From 2003 to now, the increse is almost double on average. This is not solely because of baiting, (baiting may only be less than 1% of the reason). Point is, game and fish sees a trend, and they feel that this is a very minimaly invasive way to curb that. They could just be jerks and simply say, draw only, and eliminate opportunity days of hunting. That seems even easier than banning baiting. I think taking away baiting is very minor and would rather not be able to bait and hunt the same amount, rather than be able to bait, but have a lot less time to hunt.

[bowsniper]

PS- as times change, rule changes will have to follow.

 

Spoken like a true sheeple.

[DesertBull]

Pretty weak argument when the dept gives out 775 WT rifle deer tags in unit 22 and 660 tags in 23 but yet feels the need to get rid of December bow hunts in the same units because the bowhunts are "too successful".