AZGFD Rule Changes

[wardsoutfitters]

We Need Facts Period... How can the game branch make adjustments to the number of tags if they have no idea how many animals are being harvested. How can the department make rule changes If they have no factual data to support that decision!!! Show us the facts AZGFD.

 

The only way you are going to even get close to this is by going to a draw. What is your opinion on going to a strict draw for all archery hunts? Also, what is your opinion on one deer a calender year archery or draw tag?

Mr Ward me thinks that you protest to much.

 

The facts that outfitters dont want you to know are: they kill lots of deer over bait. Unlimited non resident hunters can pay them big bucks to kill a deer on their bait piles. Everyone that says that they dont care dont know how many deer are killed over bait. Any outfitter want to volunteer those stats? How about a manaditory success report from all outfitters that use bait.

What are those checks and balances??? I am serious... Just trying to figure it out... If there are OTC what are they?

 

In NM we are required to submit a harvest report, but even our dept claims that is is not 100% accurate... In the end it only excludes hunters who forget to put in the harvest info... and even then for a small fee they can get back into the draw without reporting in a timely manner.

 

Sorry I probably wasn't clear do you think people should be able to hunt the rifle draws and otc archery in the same year? In NM, you need to choose, you can't hunt both your draw tags and your OTC... I am sure this contributes to the high overall harvest...

Jamaro ... as it is now you can only take 1 deer per calender year ... January 1st - Dec. 31st .... with archery, what many individuals seem to get confused about, is when someone takes a Buck in Dec, and then another in Jan. this is two deer in two separate years and results in a a long wait until the next Jan. ...

 

Sorry what I meant to say was you can hunt Archery OTC and still hunt Rifle Draw but you are only allowed 1 deer a year... In NM, we don't have OTC tags so you need to choose your weapon and season.. you can't hunt with different weapons until you kill... I bet this really contributes to the overall harvest...

 

Of course it contributes, but it would be pretty hard to figure out exactly how much the impact is. Plain common sense tells you, that the more time you spend in the field with a tag and weapon allowing you take game the greater your individual odds of success will be . It is still no guarantee but neither is using BAIT ... but Bait does improve odds at quantity of game, quality of game, and quality of shots, if it did not then far fewer people including guides and outfitters would not be so vocal... I do not think Steve really thinks this is the beginning of the end of hunting ( easy to plant the seeds of fear in those who may not agree with the practice) , but he does realize it can have an impact on his business and he has a right to be vocal about his opposition to it... I respect his stand regardless if I support it or not.

Ok to answer the questions

1. I do not think the department should go to a draw for archery deer, mainly because it would be a waste of time, they would issue so many tags that there would be left over’s anyways.

2 I don’t believe the department would ever make it a pick your weapon state because they would lose too much money, lots of hunters get over the counter tags and also apply for hunts.

3. I really don’t care if you all know how we harvest deer, I can tell you it is by legal means. If it's legal we do it!!

4 I agree with mandatory success reports, not only for outfitters but all hunters in the state.

5 The fact is no one knows how many animals are harvested over bait; it really doesn’t matter if the animals are harvested legally.

6. The checks and balances are when a unit gets shut for the December hunt, because archers harvested over 20%

7. I really don’t feel this is the beginning of the end to hunting, but I will say that if they outlaw hunting over bait our success rate will be maintained as it is. We know where to hunt; we are in the field all the time and know the animals better than most. Heck we will just sit water and whack every buck that comes in there, I will say we will be unable to spread out the harvested animals, for example at any one of our bait sites and depending on the site and how many different bucks are hitting that site, we set a quota for each area, some might be 1 buck and others 3. when that quota is meet then we no longer hunt that area. this is why we are so successful , we never over harvest any one given area.

 

[PRDATR]

5 The fact is no one knows how many animals are harvested over bait; it really doesn’t matter if the animals are harvested legally

 

+1

[Coues 'n' Sheep]

I just want to say thanks to guys like Tyler and Steven (Champions of Hunter's rights, IMHO), and all the other guys that do and don't bait that see this topic for what it is... not an opportunity to bash one another but a time to stand up to a bold power grab... This is not a rule change we "Need" or one our wildlife "Need".... There is ZERO DATA to prove that we do need such changes... it is plain and simple a control issue and a lack of effort on t6he part of the AZGFD personnel who are pushing this agenda... Bravo to those who are using fact and not emotion in their opinion on these issues!

[firstcoueswas80]

I just want to say thanks to guys like Tyler and Steven (Champions of Hunter's rights, IMHO), and all the other guys that do and don't bait that see this topic for what it is... not an opportunity to bash one another but a time to stand up to a bold power grab... This is not a rule change we "Need" or one our wildlife "Need".... There is ZERO DATA to prove that we do need such changes... it is plain and simple a control issue and a lack of effort on t6he part of the AZGFD personnel who are pushing this agenda... Bravo to those who are using fact and not emotion in their opinion on these issues!

 

That right there (bolded part) is the backbone to this argument. This is basically government doing what they want because they want. Not because of need.

[4Falls]

Yesterday I sent an email to those involved at AZG&F expressing my concerns over a myriad of issues that I had with the proposed rule change document.

I was surprised that I received a return response this late this morning. Hopefully they will do as they say and take our concerns into consideration.

[Coues 'n' Sheep]

Here is my letter. I have stollen key points and words form others, Please feel free to do the same....

 

 

To whom it may concern,

 

As a 37 year resident of the great state of Arizona, and having spent nearly ½ my life in the outdoors in some way shape or form, I wish to convey my opinions in regards to the proposed Article 3 rule change. I am opposed to this rule change, I am opposed to the verbiage, and I am disappointed in the group that is pushing this open ended and discriminatory agenda, and here is why:

 

The Facts....

 

1) There is NO data collected in the state of AZ to support a ban on baiting or anything of the sort.

2) Members of AZGFD are taking a fast track approach to this issue (during hunting season) with very little effort to inform those most affected about the “new rule” ramifications.

3) All the “data” AZGFD claims to be using is from states that have 20+ deer per square mile. Fact: Other than a few residential areas there are no deer numbers that approach this in AZ.

4) Water sources concentrate game in Arizona FAR more than any bait source PERIOD… water is our rarest commodity, yet we are site bait as a danger?

5) We do not have the winters that CWD states have, we don’t have “deer yards”, and we do not have major migration routes that concentrate hundreds of animals per sq. mile.

6) We as hunters must realize that supporting “how” others hunt and their personal right to do so is a good thing… especially if it has little effect on you as a hunter. This agenda most affects those we wish to recruit and retain as hunters: Children, Women, Elderly, and Handicapped hunters.

7) The fact is no one knows how many animals are harvested over bait; it really doesn’t matter if harvest objectives are in place to insure a consistent management model. The checks and balances of this are when a unit gets shut for the August or December hunts, because archers harvested the predetermined objective.

8) Opportunity… The AZGFD (in recent years) dumped tons of tags into the hunts in order to boost “hunter recruitment” and “hunter opportunity”, so why with NO REAL data would we as hunters support a rule that removes opportunity and recruitment for many hunters???? Specifically: youth, women, elderly, and handicapped… WHY!!!??

9) Economic impacts: How many $$$ are generated for the AZGFD, local businesses, and households in AZ due to resident and NON-Resident hunters who use this method?? This number is HUGE… Every small, local archery shop, feed store, Sportsman’s Warehouse, Cabela’s, Bass Pro Shop, Wal-Mart, etc will take a hit as well. Check out the “bait” isle at any of these places and you will see how it will affect the especially the Small Mom & Pops shops…. And I know many are also anti-guide, but many folks feed families & pay mortgages by working in the outdoors and some of those guys will also take a hit, so doesn’t this rule touch on our right to commerce?

10) AZGFD must do its “Due Diligence” when making a rule change that affects this many different facets of the hunting community. The small group that pushes this agenda has changed their stance on why this rule should be in place every time we hit them with a bullet point that they can’t defend. A rule like this requires DATA, and they have provided NONE that applies specifically to our state and our herd numbers.

 

My personal thoughts about things that must happen before a rule change like this is discussed in earnest:

1. I do think the department should implement a Harvest objective for Archery deer hunting in each unit similar to how the bear hunts are operated and that we should not go to a draw for archery deer, mainly because it would be a loss of opportunity and revenue, as well as a waste of resources.
   
2. I do believe the department should make every effort to stop CWD and other disease at the borders of our state, first and foremost.
   
3. I really don’t care how folks harvest deer, if it's legal it is also ethical. We should all exercise our rights and freedom of choice!! There is No True Data that suggests that any of the proposed rule changes are unethical or impractical for use here in Arizona.
   
4. I agree with mandatory success reports for ALL HUNTERS, not only for outfitters, or bow hunters, but all hunters in the state.
   
5. I do believe AZGFD must perform studies within Arizona in order to formulate consistent data for our deer numbers. This includes hunter reporting, disease studies, and economic studies before the true merit of such a rule change will be presentable.
   
6. I do believe that many factors in our changing environment and evolution of hunting can affect the herds. However, there is no data to suggest that the ingestible substances being used by hunters are not beneficial to all wildlife and over all to hunting.
   
7. I having seen bait in use, and also have witnessed that truly Wild Deer show very little interested in any “bait” that does not occur naturally in the wild. However, in locations where deer coexist with humans and local homeowners feed the deer, there is a higher success rate. Moreover, these “urban deer” are being concentrated, more so, by the public and not hunters. The “urban deer” are not legally or productively hunted by rifle hunters, therefore the data collected in mandatory harvest numbers is currently skewed because many of these deer are not even harvested where rifle hunters are hunting.
   
8. Having hunted my whole life, using every advancement in technology, every advantage legally afforded to mankind as the top predator in the food chain, I see no greater advantage in baits, than I do in trail cameras, high powered optics, high powered rifles, super accurate muzzleloaders, high tech archery equipment, cross bows, or any other technological advancement… and there is NO PROOF that bait causes more success than any other method.
   
9. Although I am never in support of more laws and rules (as we have too many) the AZGFD must not write/propose changes that leave it open to “interpretation”. This current verbiage can and will be miss interpreted to include many other facets of hunting including: the use of trail cameras, ground blinds, hunting water sources as a whole, agriculture vs. hunting, and commerce.
   

 

 

I hold objection to these sorts of power grabs, by using vague verbiage that can and will leave the door wide open to more changes to the rules, and more infringement on freedom of choice. The two excerpts from the proposed rule change exemplify this:

 

“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 Commission should believe nothing of the kind. This not only sets hunters against one another it depletes the strength and unity between hunters and the AZGFD. Such a concept applied to day-to-day life would lead to the government telling us which autos we are “allowed” to purchase with our own money. AZGFD should manage our herds, not hunters.

 

“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.”

 

There has never been a less accurate statement by the AZGFD, because there is ZERO DATA to support such. They have not asked a single hunter if he harvested his animal over bait, and I am not sure that they have a right too. The Commission is offering the same or more opportunity today to deer hunters than ever before and lower success rates have never been posted due to more hunting pressure week in and week out in the woods. More hunters are harvesting deer in a spot and stalk method with archery equipment than ever before and there are no stats to support this either.

 

I really don’t feel this is the beginning of the end to hunting, but I will say that if Arizona outlaws hunting over bait our success rate will be maintained as it is. We know where to hunt; we are in the field all the time and know the animals better than most. Hunters will just sit water and whack every buck that comes in there, we will be unable to spread out the harvested animals and the concentration of hunting pressure.

 

I do not want to see any changes to the current laws pertaining to R12-4-303. I would like to ask for data pertaining to the fact that the department feels that hunters utilizing the method of hunting has affected the deer numbers and the harvest rates.

 

In closing, can anyone currently answer all the following questions that I have pertaining to this issue, as a Taxpayer, as a member of the base that provides income to the AZGFD, and as an avid hunter and conservationist (if not we must have these answers before such drastic changes are made.) .

 

Here are my questions:

 

Provide scientific data gathered in Arizona showing the transmission of disease at water sources, Bait sites, Mineral sites, Licking Branches, Scrapes, Natural food sources.

 

Provide the number of Archery deer tags sold over the past 10 years. Year by year.

 

Provide factual data pertaining to the number of deer harvested by the archers over the past 10 years, year by year.

 

Provide the number of rifle deer tags sold over the past 10 years. Year by year.

 

Provide factual data pertaining to the number of deer harvested by gun hunters over the past 10 years, (Year by Year).

 

Provide factual data showing with what method archers have utilized to harvested their animal for the past 10 years, “Example” Spot and Stalk, Water Holes, Salt based Products, Bait sites, Scent Products, Tree stands, Ground Blinds, Calling.

 

Provide factual data during deer surveys for the past 10 years,

 

Why deer survey numbers are down but the rifle hunter success is still high.

 

Why Archery are the only hunters that have to report deer harvests.

 

Does anyone think if all Arizona hunters were required to report their harvest the Arizona Game and Fish Department would have better data to manage the game?

 

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.

 

Sincerely,

[reganranch]

Very well said Gino!!! I am going to sit down long and hard after the whitetail opener is over and write my letter of concern before the November comment period is over.

[abovethecoues]

Thats how you debate!

 

Thanks CnS

[jnobleinaz]

Here is my letter. I have stollen key points and words form others, Please feel free to do the same....

 

 

To whom it may concern,

 

As a 37 year resident of the great state of Arizona, and having spent nearly ½ my life in the outdoors in some way shape or form, I wish to convey my opinions in regards to the proposed Article 3 rule change. I am opposed to this rule change, I am opposed to the verbiage, and I am disappointed in the group that is pushing this open ended and discriminatory agenda, and here is why:

 

The Facts....

 

1) There is NO data collected in the state of AZ to support a ban on baiting or anything of the sort.

2) Members of AZGFD are taking a fast track approach to this issue (during hunting season) with very little effort to inform those most affected about the “new rule” ramifications.

3) All the “data” AZGFD claims to be using is from states that have 20+ deer per square mile. Fact: Other than a few residential areas there are no deer numbers that approach this in AZ.

4) Water sources concentrate game in Arizona FAR more than any bait source PERIOD… water is our rarest commodity, yet we are site bait as a danger?

5) We do not have the winters that CWD states have, we don’t have “deer yards”, and we do not have major migration routes that concentrate hundreds of animals per sq. mile.

6) We as hunters must realize that supporting “how” others hunt and their personal right to do so is a good thing… especially if it has little effect on you as a hunter. This agenda most affects those we wish to recruit and retain as hunters: Children, Women, Elderly, and Handicapped hunters.

7) The fact is no one knows how many animals are harvested over bait; it really doesn’t matter if harvest objectives are in place to insure a consistent management model. The checks and balances of this are when a unit gets shut for the August or December hunts, because archers harvested the predetermined objective.

8) Opportunity… The AZGFD (in recent years) dumped tons of tags into the hunts in order to boost “hunter recruitment” and “hunter opportunity”, so why with NO REAL data would we as hunters support a rule that removes opportunity and recruitment for many hunters???? Specifically: youth, women, elderly, and handicapped… WHY!!!??

9) Economic impacts: How many $$$ are generated for the AZGFD, local businesses, and households in AZ due to resident and NON-Resident hunters who use this method?? This number is HUGE… Every small, local archery shop, feed store, Sportsman’s Warehouse, Cabela’s, Bass Pro Shop, Wal-Mart, etc will take a hit as well. Check out the “bait” isle at any of these places and you will see how it will affect the especially the Small Mom & Pops shops…. And I know many are also anti-guide, but many folks feed families & pay mortgages by working in the outdoors and some of those guys will also take a hit, so doesn’t this rule touch on our right to commerce?

10) AZGFD must do its “Due Diligence” when making a rule change that affects this many different facets of the hunting community. The small group that pushes this agenda has changed their stance on why this rule should be in place every time we hit them with a bullet point that they can’t defend. A rule like this requires DATA, and they have provided NONE that applies specifically to our state and our herd numbers.

 

My personal thoughts about things that must happen before a rule change like this is discussed in earnest:

1. I do think the department should implement a Harvest objective for Archery deer hunting in each unit similar to how the bear hunts are operated and that we should not go to a draw for archery deer, mainly because it would be a loss of opportunity and revenue, as well as a waste of resources.
   
2. I do believe the department should make every effort to stop CWD and other disease at the borders of our state, first and foremost.
   
3. I really don’t care how folks harvest deer, if it's legal it is also ethical. We should all exercise our rights and freedom of choice!! There is No True Data that suggests that any of the proposed rule changes are unethical or impractical for use here in Arizona.
   
4. I agree with mandatory success reports for ALL HUNTERS, not only for outfitters, or bow hunters, but all hunters in the state.
   
5. I do believe AZGFD must perform studies within Arizona in order to formulate consistent data for our deer numbers. This includes hunter reporting, disease studies, and economic studies before the true merit of such a rule change will be presentable.
   
6. I do believe that many factors in our changing environment and evolution of hunting can affect the herds. However, there is no data to suggest that the ingestible substances being used by hunters are not beneficial to all wildlife and over all to hunting.
   
7. I having seen bait in use, and also have witnessed that truly Wild Deer show very little interested in any “bait” that does not occur naturally in the wild. However, in locations where deer coexist with humans and local homeowners feed the deer, there is a higher success rate. Moreover, these “urban deer” are being concentrated, more so, by the public and not hunters. The “urban deer” are not legally or productively hunted by rifle hunters, therefore the data collected in mandatory harvest numbers is currently skewed because many of these deer are not even harvested where rifle hunters are hunting.
   
8. Having hunted my whole life, using every advancement in technology, every advantage legally afforded to mankind as the top predator in the food chain, I see no greater advantage in baits, than I do in trail cameras, high powered optics, high powered rifles, super accurate muzzleloaders, high tech archery equipment, cross bows, or any other technological advancement… and there is NO PROOF that bait causes more success than any other method.
   
9. Although I am never in support of more laws and rules (as we have too many) the AZGFD must not write/propose changes that leave it open to “interpretation”. This current verbiage can and will be miss interpreted to include many other facets of hunting including: the use of trail cameras, ground blinds, hunting water sources as a whole, agriculture vs. hunting, and commerce.
   

 

 

I hold objection to these sorts of power grabs, by using vague verbiage that can and will leave the door wide open to more changes to the rules, and more infringement on freedom of choice. The two excerpts from the proposed rule change exemplify this:

 

“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 Commission should believe nothing of the kind. This not only sets hunters against one another it depletes the strength and unity between hunters and the AZGFD. Such a concept applied to day-to-day life would lead to the government telling us which autos we are “allowed” to purchase with our own money. AZGFD should manage our herds, not hunters.

 

“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.”

 

There has never been a less accurate statement by the AZGFD, because there is ZERO DATA to support such. They have not asked a single hunter if he harvested his animal over bait, and I am not sure that they have a right too. The Commission is offering the same or more opportunity today to deer hunters than ever before and lower success rates have never been posted due to more hunting pressure week in and week out in the woods. More hunters are harvesting deer in a spot and stalk method with archery equipment than ever before and there are no stats to support this either.

 

I really don’t feel this is the beginning of the end to hunting, but I will say that if Arizona outlaws hunting over bait our success rate will be maintained as it is. We know where to hunt; we are in the field all the time and know the animals better than most. Hunters will just sit water and whack every buck that comes in there, we will be unable to spread out the harvested animals and the concentration of hunting pressure.

 

I do not want to see any changes to the current laws pertaining to R12-4-303. I would like to ask for data pertaining to the fact that the department feels that hunters utilizing the method of hunting has affected the deer numbers and the harvest rates.

 

In closing, can anyone currently answer all the following questions that I have pertaining to this issue, as a Taxpayer, as a member of the base that provides income to the AZGFD, and as an avid hunter and conservationist (if not we must have these answers before such drastic changes are made.) .

 

Here are my questions:

 

Provide scientific data gathered in Arizona showing the transmission of disease at water sources, Bait sites, Mineral sites, Licking Branches, Scrapes, Natural food sources.

 

Provide the number of Archery deer tags sold over the past 10 years. Year by year.

 

Provide factual data pertaining to the number of deer harvested by the archers over the past 10 years, year by year.

 

Provide the number of rifle deer tags sold over the past 10 years. Year by year.

 

Provide factual data pertaining to the number of deer harvested by gun hunters over the past 10 years, (Year by Year).

 

Provide factual data showing with what method archers have utilized to harvested their animal for the past 10 years, “Example” Spot and Stalk, Water Holes, Salt based Products, Bait sites, Scent Products, Tree stands, Ground Blinds, Calling.

 

Provide factual data during deer surveys for the past 10 years,

 

Why deer survey numbers are down but the rifle hunter success is still high.

 

Why Archery are the only hunters that have to report deer harvests.

 

Does anyone think if all Arizona hunters were required to report their harvest the Arizona Game and Fish Department would have better data to manage the game?

 

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.

 

Sincerely,

solid!

[Coues 'n' Sheep]

Thanks guys... I have been away for a while and I hope you all got your letters in... Please also plan on going to the commision meeting and speaking on ONE talking point for 3 minutes... just pick the one topic that you are most pashionate about and give them your best 3 minutes... that is all you get.

[elkaholic]

scuttle butt goin around - its already a done deal - we can show up - we can comment we can talk till we are blue in the face - it will pass the commission vote 5-0 you watch!!

[JLW]

Arizona's 7-Core Concepts of Conservation:

• Wildlife is Held in the Public Trust
  
• Regulated Commerce in Wildlife
  
• Hunting and Angling Laws are Created Through
  Public Process
  
• Hunting and Angling Opportunity for All
  
• Hunters and Anglers Fund Conservation
  
• Wildlife is an International Resource
  
• Science is the Basis for Wildlife Policy
  

[bonecollector777]

I'm with the guys that are saying no matter what we argue or do it's gonna pass. I think we can try and should argue with them about it but as some have said already: if they brought it up for comment they are going to pass it. They only let us comment on it to make us feel better and know they have to. Other than that they are gonna do what they want and we're not gonna do anything about it. And they know they have that power to do what they want so we're subject to whatever crazy, ridiculous laws and rules they want to pass. It has happened too much in the past to change now.

[AZLance]

I just started preparing for this... I went and bought a whole pallet of salt blocks... Going to spend tomorrow in unit 33 putting at least 100 pounds of salt at each of my salt licks. This should keep them going for a while if they ban the placing of salt out.

[SDHNTR]

So what became of this? Did the ban pass, and if so, when does it become effective? Any updated info. No debate, just a status report please.