AZGFD Rule Changes

[Jbird]

Yeah nobody should be " hunting" at a waterhole either. You already fight and cry over them. Next you'll be reserving them or buying permits for the.

Yeah Gino you should run for president man. You already have at least 2 votes. Hghntr can be your Vice President. You guys are soo smart!

 

[ForkHorn]

I imagine Jbird must only hunt blindfolded with a knife, all the while yelling "Hey Deer!"

 

That seems reasonable to me.

 

 

More than likely he is a rifle hunter than takes long shots on deer that are unable to use any of their senses to evade him. Probably glassing from an atv or truck because god forbid walking was involved.

 

 

Although there is also a possibility that he is a hardcore bivvy hunter that backpacks in, hunts his butt off, and takes a reasonable and ethical shot.

 

My point is that this "elitism" being portrayed here by some is ridiculous.

 

 

The only person that may have any even inkling of an opportunity to turn up his or her nose is someone that spot and stalks and consistently takes a deer at less than 20 yards with a longbow made by hand.

 

I sure don't know anyone that does that...

 

However, I do know tons of people with atvs, high powered optics, state of the art rifles, gps, etc. that kill a deer every year. More power to them. It's not easy even then. If that's how they want to do it then cool.

 

I also know lots of people who bowhunt and even some that bait. None of them take a deer every year. None of them have a problem with how "others" hunt.

 

 

I am continually dumbfounded by the attitude by some. Everyone hunts in their own way. It's part of the fun. Hunting should be encouraged, not sneered at because you don't do it the same way as the next guy.

[reganranch]

Yeah nobody should be " hunting" at a waterhole either. You already fight and cry over them. Next you'll be reserving them or buying permits for the.

Yeah Gino you should run for president man. You already have at least 2 votes. Hghntr can be your Vice President. You guys are soo smart!

 

Jbird you must be the Ultimate Hunter who uses nothing but a handmade long bow, and obsidian arrowheads, I doubt it though probably just trolling CW and talking yourself up, and others down.

[Jbird]

I set up ten cameras near a waterhole, put out a bunch of corn and other stuff and hide in blind I set up in a tree. When a buck comes by I pounce on him and wrastle him down and break his neck. AGFD wants to outlaw ME.

Hey why did you put your name under my picture?

Im fixing to get to hunting so I'll be outta the net for a while.

Go hunt something and quit whining about things you obviously know little about.

[reganranch]

Ha! I know little about? I'm a semester away from having a B.S. in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. Don't tell me I know nothing about what I'm talking about. Who in their right mind knows what your talking about? It's just ranting do you have any legitimate reasons why baiting should be ban? Do you know what the minimal sustainable yield is for the deer herds in 22 and 23 are? Do you know how many deer can be taken through a sport hunting harvest without disturbing the equilibrium of the births to death rate which is essential in protecting a herd. What's the predator prey ratio? How fast is the turn around for the lions in 22/23 to harvest another deer, what is their likelihood of harvest ( harvest coefficient), do you happen to know what the annual growth rate is for lions in 22/23? How does the lion growth rate and likelihood of harvest coefficient and lag time coincide with the Coues and Muley growth rates annually in a low fawn recruitment year and a high one?

 

When you figure all that out and have a leg to stand on you can tell me I don't know my right from left.

[Jbird]

Ok

[bowhunter4life]

Make sure to read all the poposed rule changes,

 

 

http://www.azgfd.gov/inside_azgfd/rules/documents/Article3NPRM.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 3:02 PM

To: MIKE

Subject: Game and Fish seeks public comment on proposed rulemakings

 

 

 

 

 

Game and Fish seeks public comment on proposed rulemakings

Oct. 13, 2012

 

Comments being accepted through Nov. 5, 2012

The Arizona Game and Fish Department is accepting comments on proposed amendments to Arizona Game and Fish Commission rules. The proposed rulemakings fall under the following Articles:

• Article 3 (Taking and Handling of Wildlife). Rules are amended to incorporate recent legislative changes and implement amendments proposed in the most recent five-year review. View the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to see the proposed amended rules.
  
• Article 5 (Boating and Water Sports). Rules are amended to incorporate recent changes made to state and federal laws and implement amendments proposed in the most recent five-year review. View the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to see the proposed amended rules.
  
• Article 7 (Heritage Grants) and Article 9 (Arizona Wildlife Conservation Fund Grants). Rules are amended to implement recommendations made by the Heritage Grants Team and to implement amendments proposed in the most recent five-year review. View the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to see the proposed amended rules.
  

Notices of Proposed Rulemakings were published in the Arizona Administrative Register on Oct. 5.

Comments on any or all three rulemakings can be submitted to Rulemaking@azgfd.gov through Nov. 5, 2012.

[Coues 'n' Sheep]

kinda sneaky to slip it inbetween a paragraph talking about "will call" hunts dont ya think !

 

the fact remains the commission doesnt want baiting ! Whats alarming is the wording of the new admendments so - it can be up to the discression of the wardens to interpit it as they see.

 

whats a bait pile without a camera to show you whats there - is that blind affecting the way the animals approach or use a water hole etc!!

 

next you will not be allowed to hunt within 100 yrds ofa waterhole - unfair adbvantage !

 

More over as your post points out... the wording could affect the use of trail cameras on water if it is "determined" that, say your flash scared an animal off the water??? ...and they also slipped a few jabs at hound hunters... just nails in the coffin. Sad actually that some folks would rather play "Joe Biden", laughing and sneering all the way, than to see the noose tighten around all we do. Why is it so hard to support others who do not do it like you do, and why is that Government as a whole seems perfectly content to forever take more. The funny part is that there is NO wording at all that is really definitive... It is vague so they have the power to site you based on their interpretation of those couple of phrases.... and some are just nodding their heads "Yup, sign it!"... I say PROVE IT AZGFD... Show us some hard data... show us some facts... show us a shred proof that any of this holds ANY water at all!! They cannot and will not, because a very select few are pushing a personal agenda. I know some of them and have spent time discussing this issue, as individuals I like these people, but their predetermined "take" on this topic has been set in stone for years and they don't care which Malarkey reason they have to use to justify it, they just want it stopped. i never have gotten a straight answer from them as to "Why" it has to be stopped, just that it has to end... every time I have pinned them down on a "reason" and debated it to a standstill they would abandon that "point" and pick a new one... IT ISALL BS, and even some of their own friends are raising eyebrows now because we are grasping at straws and feeding BS to the Commission to try to get this passed during hunting season “on the low down”... The Commissioners know that there is strong opposition to this rule change, they are smart and articulate people and they are just waiting to hear the other side... Don't be a Joe Biden.... Pitch in and stop this rule! There are far more reasons to stop it than there are to let it pass!

[elkhunter]

Never been a baiter, never plan on baiting, sure the heck don't wanna see my fellow friends lose their rights to any method of hunting wheather it increase or decrease odds.

 

 

heck I bought swarovskis to increase my success rate, sure don't want to see game and fish take away anything to reduce success rates

[naturebob]

Simple. Baiting isn't hunting. Thats why its called hunting. Some of You guys ought to try hunting some day, You might like it. 22 and 23 are getting hammered and some thing has to be done. G&F don't do a great job on management but killin all the big bucks over bait aint helpin either.....BOB!

[reganranch]

Hey Bob how about offering a solution to the problem. Have you even read the 79 pages of rule changes??? There are a lot of things on there that is getting slipped right under your nose that you want to give G and F a hand shake on. I don't bait, but I don't condemn those who do, but i use trail cameras and the new rules ban those indirectly. How do you know that 22 and 23 have problems? Have you seen the data to prove it? Maybe it has something to do with giving every "real hunter" and their brother rifle tags that clearly overstep the harvest objectives as a whole before Archery season is even brought up. Do you fully believe that there are 1225 mule deer bucks to be killed in 23, and this would support a healthy fawn recruitment next year and keep the stable age distribution? Lets use 33 as an example of how much of a genius G and F is when practicing sound conservation. There are 2325 rifle tags for whitetail in two mountain ranges the Rincons and Catalinas. Now you cant stand there and tell me offering that many tags is practicing sound conservation. Do some research before you conduct what's fair and sound and what areas need revision and adjustment.

[Jbird]

I have a solution Tyler - OUTLAW BAITING. :-)

 

[Str8Shot]

Hey Bob how about offering a solution to the problem. Have you even read the 79 pages of rule changes??? There are a lot of things on there that is getting slipped right under your nose that you want to give G and F a hand shake on. I don't bait, but I don't condemn those who do, but i use trail cameras and the new rules ban those indirectly. How do you know that 22 and 23 have problems? Have you seen the data to prove it? Maybe it has something to do with giving every "real hunter" and their brother rifle tags that clearly overstep the harvest objectives as a whole before Archery season is even brought up. Do you fully believe that there are 1225 mule deer bucks to be killed in 23, and this would support a healthy fawn recruitment next year and keep the stable age distribution? Lets use 33 as an example of how much of a genius G and F is when practicing sound conservation. There are 2325 rifle tags for whitetail in two mountain ranges the Rincons and Catalinas. Now you cant stand there and tell me offering that many tags is practicing sound conservation. Do some research before you conduct what's fair and sound and what areas need revision and adjustment.

 

Tyler .... Since you know it all, at least more than the G&F people that have been doing it for decades .... Please share with all of us, all your Data that disproves all of their numbers .... I mean you are basing it off actual data and not just a theory.... right ? Seriously .... you know that tag numbers have always been based off historical harvest data and heard studies and many times in many units G&F has had to drastically change tag numbers available after unusually high success rate in certain years.

 

Not sure where you are getting 79 pages of rule changes but sounds like Obama math ... The page count for all articles is 49 which is does not constitute new law or changes, but however the previous articles with amendments ... parts stricken out or changes added( as with the baiting) ...

 

You talk about almost having Your B.S., I would love to see all of your studies and sources for the work you have done through the education process, as I am certain you did not use any sources or studies not specific to Arizona since, as others and yourself have stated, they are not valid for G&F to use in their decision making process at least to satisfy your beliefs.

 

Those individuals that bait, feel that those individuals, who do not agree with the practice, should change to support their cause.... yet not the other way around ... kind of hypocritical if you ask me.

[reganranch]

What are you wanting to see Str8tshot, the research I've done throughout my Jr. and Sr. year? Are you going to go through my major and minor class list to see if I deserve a degree in the spring? Where is your firsthand knowledge on the subject? I just see people holding Game and Fish's hand, and what they say is Law. They did a good Job managing Macho B didn't they? Ha what did he last like 4-5 days? I don't know where you are interpreting I have data, do you have secret data that you would like to share? I just want to see the data. You don't need any type of education to walk into a unit your familiar with and see that deer numbers have decreased. I can interpret most of the data, and would like to know if the numbers match the data set or the dollar signs dictate the overall objectives? Don't even bring up Obamas name in this thread that is unpatriotic and doesn't belong here. So you believe everything the Government tells you without question? Wheres the harm in asking to look at data? I study the subject of Ecology thoroughly and brought what i know to the table, since it has not been brought up yet. I have not conducted research concerning game, only harris hawks, and desert pupfish since your so interested in my undergraduate life.

[Str8Shot]

Tyler .... I was making the statement because You and I both know that when doing research and papers, use of validated sources are an important part of the process, and studying ecology that there is a good chance that you have used sources and studies that were based in different states ,or even countries because through an educated consensus they have been validated. This type of validation is the case with pretty much all the studies that are out there when it comes to forms of transmission of disease in wildlife as well as livestock though ongoing research should be done. I have read much on the subject and the majority of findings by many states and counties that have done the research and do not feel that one can claim the research and studies as non valid. I do not agree with G&F on everything but would not go so far as many on this website to belittle the department as a whole and disparage them the way many do. This type of BS does not help anyone's case and creates fear in the less educated. The wording in the amendments are not as gray as many here like to Say... When it comes to access and waterholes the word "intentionally " is used, common sense would say that use of blinds, trail cams, and tree stands would by in no way an intentional attempt for a hunter to restrict access as this would defeat the reason and purpose for the device being there, also would be pretty hard for a G&F department to show that the use was in an explicit attempt to intentionally restrict access. As for decreased populations what solution are you going to offer that is not going to stir up as much controversy... Less general tags, cutting out archery hunt dates, going to draw for archery in a majority of units or whitetail units since they are the majority of deer that baiting is impacting? There is no one solution that would not have hunters up at arms and blaming G&F for taking away something, while they are doing their job trying to maintain herds and our rights to harvest from our lands. For me the change in behaviors and limiting the forage areas and movement of deer ( especially in hunting hours by making many nocturnal feeders) is the primary reason I do not support the practice, and I have first hand knowledge of a couple natural feeding areas that harvested quality deer for decades then a few years back it seemed the numbers were way down and nothing was coming in ... after the second year of seeing the same type of activity, it only a few miles of hiking the surrounding area to find a number of bait sites a bit further out( less than 1/4 mile circling the original spot), most sites were set on or near game trails and travel corridors that could be tracked into the original area... These sites also had a very arrogant small group of hunters who attempted to muscle and chase off any other hunters, they claimed they had been baiting the area for the last four years and do not want others hunting their area. That is when the line was drawn for me when it comes to baiting ... it is just as much about hunters whom do bait trying to affect the hunters who don't mentality and it seems much the same by many on this site... I have posted many times studies to not show much of an increase in success if any at all, but they do show the impact on limiting forage areas, amount of foraging during hunting hours and an increase in nocturnal feeding...

 

As hunters we are a part of a bigger process.A process that has seen many changes since the days of Teddy Roosevelt, some for the betterment, some that have been questionable, and some that have been plain wrong, but when it is an attempt to conserve our herds and preserve our privilege to hunt as a part of that process, I am not going to disparage those who know more about the data than any single on of us do on this site.