Jbird Report post Posted October 9, 2012 Wah wah wah I can't use bait. Hopefully they'll outlaw cameras too. Go hunt! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bowhunter4life Report post Posted October 9, 2012 Is there a link to the Game and Fish website where this issue is discussed? Also, is there a specific email address that our comments need to be sent to? Any of this information would be appreciated. Thanks see page 14 http://www.azgfd.gov...rticle3NPRM.pdf Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bowhunter4life Report post Posted October 9, 2012 I also sent to: rulemaking@azgfd.gov and CCook@azgfd.gov see page 14 http://www.azgfd.gov/inside_azgfd/rules/documents/Article3NPRM.pdf Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scooter Report post Posted October 9, 2012 Wah wah wah I can't use bait. Hopefully they'll outlaw cameras too. Go hunt! 5th post and all of them I have read are negative "troll" type posts... Now why would cameras get banned? Cameras don't attract deer to an area, they don't hold deer in an area, and often times they flash and scare game away from a spot or at least make them a bit more wary. The fact is, baiting is a method of hunting. It has been for centuries especially with trappers. Food plots for the most part are a form of baiting. Salt and mineral licks (intended for the deer and not livestock) are baiting. Tinks #69 or whatever you use during the rut is baiting. Gathering up acorns on the ground and piling them up in front of a treestand is baiting. You know what? It's all HUNTING!!! I personally do not bait areas, but if someone wants to use their superior human intellect to their advantage, LET THEM! My gosh this is worse than some elitist fly-fishermen that want their own special sections of public rivers to themselves. Banning the use of bait will not take hunters out of the woods- nor do I believe it will make any difference in the deer population either way. I think if anything- that there is a distinct possibility it will invite more people to take more questionable shots (especially with archery equipment) than when they could use a bait pile and see calm, feeding animals broadside within their comfortable shooting range. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gotcoues Report post Posted October 9, 2012 I'm pretty surprised about the I don't like it, so everybody else should go without attitude. What happens if the use of dogs is next to be on the table? Will it only be the houndsmen that cry foul or we will unite as hunters and hopefully avoid new rules and regulations telling us how we can't hunt? Heard a story about a couple of young archers with bull elk tags this year. They had trouble closing the distance and resorted to long range arrows (60 yard pin & 80 plus yard shots) to try and get the job done. Last I had heard they had wounded and lost three bulls. I can find out if that number increased. Perhaps the "master baiter" should cry foul on long range archery and rifle shots? It would seem reasonable to assume archers who choose to bait are trying to set up shots for 15 to 30 yards providing a very "ethical" shot range most likely resulting in fewer lost animals than a spot and stalk method. I hunt as hard or harder than any other average guy out there period. I hunt with my three kids, my friends and will be hunting or assisting in all the whitetail hunts this year archery and rifle including a four day pack in hunt for Oct. It pains me to hear these self righteous better than thou hunters who would agree to have something taken away from "other guy" due to they don't like it or don't agree with it. You people are pathetic, probably lousy hunters to boot. Probably the same type of hunter that is jealous over another hunter's success. Live and let live, to each his own my friends. 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
naturegirl Report post Posted October 9, 2012 i havent read quite everyone's posts but I was at g&f today. what I'm getting out of it is its more related to the potential to spread disease. what if that is the case? what if eliminating baiting helps decrease the chance or at least prolong that our herds get CWD? I know some people will call BS. someone always does, but if the underlying concern is animal health then yes I support it. it makes sense. I've tried salt before and literally had animals sleeping on it. yes they congregate at licks / feeders differently than they do around a water hole or natural trees/bushes. typically their feet and mouths touch a smaller area on licks/ feeders than if they are grazing for acorns from tree to tree or drinking out of tanks/holes where typically they are in and out. this is just my brain telling me it makes sense that yes licks/ feeders could increase the spread of disease. I'm not sure why licks are being looked at differently except I'm sure its got to do with cattle. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JLW Report post Posted October 9, 2012 we don't make decisions on what if, unless the government tells us we have to! wouldn't you want evidence to support their claims? If the dog didn't stop to take a leak he would have caught the rabbit! James Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Str8Shot Report post Posted October 10, 2012 we don't make decisions on what if, unless the government tells us we have to! wouldn't you want evidence to support their claims? If the dog didn't stop to take a leak he would have caught the rabbit! James # 1 there are plenty of published studies from many other states, biologist and federal DNR , that baiting does increase the spread of disease , and not just CWD ... just because we do not worry about CWD in AZ yet does not mean we wont or that there will not be some other disease we do have to deal with in the future, Plenty of studies that show that baiting limits Range, migration patterns, Forage behaviors , and leads to less Hunting light foraging making herds and Mature Bucks primary nocturnal feeders... Most these studies also show little correlation to increased success rate. ... Would like Amanda to refute this if there is data that she knows of that does not support, since she is the only wildlife biologist I know on the site #2 ... read your statement and tell me again you do not deal with What ifs... You do not check your tires before long road trips? You do not have life insurance to protect your family of a tree falls you out in the field leaving them to fend for themselves , If you have teenage kids, you are good with them having unprotected sex and do not worry talking to them about drug use ? Come on every decision is a what if , that is if you take any responsibility for the choices you make in life ( maybe your an Obama supporter thus making the latter an accurate representation of how you think ) Teddy Roosevelt created the ideals of conservation in this country that allow us to practice the sport of hunting today in a manner that protects our freedom to be part of a system that also protects our herds... Dealing with what ifs may have kept Mirriam Elk from being hunted to extinction (the only native ELK to AZ) ... Or the buffalo herds being hunted to near extinction ... With out rules and regulations through a managing agency that makes necessary changes ( such as bringing Elk from Yellow Stone in 1913) as the herds change and the sport changes, we may not even be able to hunt as we do today. A state record Bass was taken from Canyon lake in the 80's with the use of dynamite ... Maybe that bass record should stand and everyone should be able fish with dynamite and nets ... I may not like everything the G&F has done ( such as the Wolves) but they are there to do a job and a good majority Hunt and/or fish , and know much more about the status of our herds and populations than the us Hunters and they do have a job to do... They are not taking away hunting and this idea is not the first step to do so... And the fact that so many here take personally and attack hunters who do not agree with baiting and thus do not support their opposing of the ban shows what you are real morals and ideals are made of... I do not oppose the ban ... I do not support baiting ( main reason for me, I have seen areas where baiting has changed long time foraging sites and decreased daytime movement while increasing nocturnal behaviors) .... I do not think any less if you do oppose and do bait (it is still a form of legal hunting in this state) ... But I am not going to be fearful nor upset if this passes .... some of the top hunting states either out right Ban or Ban hunting over/.during season but none have passed significant laws restricting the sport and practice of hunting Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ForkHorn Report post Posted October 10, 2012 The CWD and other disease claims are walking a thin line. The problem is that Ranchers will still be allowed to put minerals out. You're trying to tell me that deer/any other ungulate will ignore these minerals because "they're meant for cattle "?? The problem is that water catchments have been built and will continue to be built. There are a ton of water catchments on the strip, and if cwd shows up in our state it will most likely be from a deer up there on the utah border. AZGFD has CWD check stations every year in that area because it is a risk area. It seems like a double standard to me. If you're gonna preach disease control then you better actually do it. The rules proposed will do little if any to prevent disease in the state of AZ.. Trail cameras will be next to go with the claim of "wildlife harrassment". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
devilincatcountry Report post Posted October 10, 2012 As hunters whether you hunt archery or by rifle, WE as sportsmen need to STICK TOGETHER!!! Plain and simple!! Take the time and write to game and fish! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
devilincatcountry Report post Posted October 10, 2012 Your right might be next!!!!!!!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loco4coues Report post Posted October 10, 2012 This is the email that I received back: "Thank you for your message. Your comment will be shared with the rulemaking team and the Commission. The team will review all comments received in regards to the proposed rule and generate recommendations for the Commission. The Department anticipates presenting the final rulemaking to the Commission at the January 11, 2013 Commission Meeting. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any further assistance. Thank you again for your comment on the proposed rules. Sincerely, Celeste Cook" There is a process. You can make your opinion known. Sending an email or multiple emails will do more good than arguing with each other on this forum. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Non-Typical Solutions Report post Posted October 10, 2012 Straight Shot quote: They are not taking away hunting this idea is not the first step to do so............ But what if????? Granted might not be the first step.......but it is something that can legally be done now, and can be taken away.......so it is a step.......of taking away........... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Str8Shot Report post Posted October 10, 2012 Straight Shot quote: They are not taking away hunting this idea is not the first step to do so............ But what if????? Granted might not be the first step.......but it is something that can legally be done now, and can be taken away.......so it is a step.......of taking away........... And we may have little disease and no CWD in our herds now ..... But What if????? What if they never transplanted Elk from Yellow Stone in 1913 after hunting Took out the last of the Native Elk in AZ..... I am sorry but I have a little more faith that the majority of those in G&F that they are trying to their job to manage our herds and keep our sport and right to harvest for meat Alive... That does not mean I agree with everything, and many things that have happened within the political realm of commission when it comes to revenue, the general fund, to the wolf program I disagree with... But if regulations were not put in place in the early 1900's the then current trends in hunting would have destroyed most big game herds and we would all be playing golf today and not enjoying the ability to harvest from our beautiful forest lands. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
THE RIFLEMAN Report post Posted October 10, 2012 Most of the baiting is done on private land in just a few units.... The counties in these units already have laws prohibiting the feeding of deer,javalina and predators .... Why make new laws when the the law dogs cant inforce the existing laws???? The baiters will still keep on baiting especially if its on their private property!!!! And jhonny law won't be able to do much about it! Just a buch of wind blowin through the mindless heads of folks who think they are in charge! Most of the deer and elk in the "baiting units" 22 & 23 are poached any how !!!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
