AZGF to ban salt/baiting

[123456]

This is off the G&F website under "Facts Behind Proposed Baiting Prohibition"?????? Looks like salts are going to be ok!

 

 

What is “bait”?

 

For the purposes of this rulemaking, the Commission considers bait to include any food-stuff or ingestible material that has been deposited, scattered, piled, or delivered by a passive or active feeder or feed delivery system so as to constitute an attractant, lure or enticement to wildlife and to influence the movement of these animals for the purpose of harvest by hunters.

“Bait” does not include:

• Water
  
• Salt or salt-based materials produced and manufactured for the livestock industry
  
• Nutritional supplements produced and manufactured for the livestock industry and placed during the course of livestock or agricultural operations
  
• Decoys
  
• Scent lures provided they do not contain cervid urine
  
• Chemical attractants provided they are not ingestible
  
• Food plots planted within accepted local or regional agricultural guidelines
  

 

In other words "You" can't put it out... The words are there and they are how you read them... Grey areas....

 

 

I do not understand your interpretation of the law. It clearly states that salt is not considered bait. So then the above rule about hunters does not apply to you. Please explain your interpretation.

[Willyhunts2]

Dosnt most bait have salt in it? One could argue that it is ment for live stock. Just like mentioned before the gray area and will be up to the GM if it passes. It could come down to " I didn't put that down the rancher did". I know the usually put out salt blocks but who knows, the rancher might like to spoil his cows.

[Coues 'n' Sheep]

Dosnt most bait have salt in it? One could argue that it is ment for live stock. Just like mentioned before the gray area and will be up to the GM if it passes. It could come down to " I didn't put that down the rancher did". I know the usually put out salt blocks but who knows, the rancher might like to spoil his cows.

 

One can argue with the Judge cuz they are just gunna write tickets... Sad but true...

[azpredator@work]

"the Commission considers bait to include any food-stuff or ingestible material that has been deposited, scattered, piled, or delivered by a passive or active feeder or feed delivery system so as to constitute an attractant, lure or enticement to wildlife and to influence the movement of these animals for the purpose of harvest by hunters."

 

It's clear to me the G&F is saying anything spread out to alter the natural movement of wildlife and kill them is considered baiting with a salt exception.

 

I read the salt exception rule as if I use water softener type salt or Deer cane type salt to entice an animal to kill him I will be illegal, however if I use a salt block or other livestock type salt products I will be legal.

 

As a current "baiter" this law will literally eliminate thousands of my dollars each year from the AZ economy which is fine by me. I'll take my money and buy a couple out of state tags and kill a couple extra deer each year with it. I'm sure Utah and Wisconsin will appreciate it.

[Coues 'n' Sheep]

Here is the letter I am sending to AZGDF and everyone else I can think of... I have plagerized some good points of Steven Ward and others and hope that you all find lots in here to use in your own letters feel free to copy and paste the whole thin if you like....

 

 

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,

[Willyhunts2]

It will all come down to the game manager in the unit you are hunting. It's a lot like the DUI law. All the cop needs is suspicion of Inparment even if you blow under legal limit. Same thing will happen with a GM over bait I'm guessing.

[123456]

Do you not believe the #'s in hunt Arizona? This publication that is public info, shows the amount of deer tags for last 10 years. It also shows the amount of deer killed during archery hunts, since the mandatory reporting began. If shows #'s further back, but I am sure you do not trust the survey card results. (neither do I). Since you and I agree on mandatory harvest reporting, you have to belive their #'s from the last 5 years.

[reganranch]

+1 on mandatory harvest reporting. Its not asking that much of us hunters, to contribute > 5 minutes of our time to contribute a huge role in sound conservation. Until that happens all the numbers for rifle are speculative.

[123456]

Seems that everyone who says that there is no facts, doesn't want to answer the question of why the Hunt Arizona facts do not count? Their is factual data on most every question they ask, but seem not to want to acknowledge it.

[Nontypical183]

I would say corn feeders ,hay,grains,and such items would be a grey area but water and salt or salt based products i dont see your grey area.

[Nontypical183]

I would say corn feeders ,hay,grains,and such items would be a grey area but water and salt or salt based products i dont see your grey area.

[PRDATR]

I would say corn feeders ,hay,grains,and such items would be a grey area but water and salt or salt based products i dont see your grey area.

 

"the Commission considers bait to include any food-stuff or ingestible material that has been deposited, scattered, piled, or delivered by a passive or active feeder or feed delivery system,,,,"

 

Gray area, really? Not sure I understand your post. If this passes I believe 99% of us will comply. Should someone put out bait and I happen to shoot a deer over or near it I have no doubt that a WM will be writing a citation and it will be up to me to show I didn't know it (the smoking gun) was there and didn't put it there. Hunting over bait will be illegal, no matter how it got there. No doubt some will spin it every which way.

[huntlines]

The last time G&F tried this it was shot down due to the amount of people and hunting clubs that were against it. This is why we must all get involved and be proactive. Don't just post comments here, use the link provided and say something. Also if your a member of a club have them as a club provide input.

[huntlines]

Seems that everyone who says that there is no facts, doesn't want to answer the question of why the Hunt Arizona facts do not count? Their is factual data on most every question they ask, but seem not to want to acknowledge it.

 

123456,

 

You are probably one of the G&F employees who troll this web site and like to throw "facts" around. I will guarantee the harvest number by archery hunters will not go down if this law is passed. For some reason the thinkers in game and fish area believe it is due to baiting but never think it is possibly due to other factors like bow technology, better optics, time in the field and hunters studying the game more than ever before. Why are we not limiting the size/power of optics, feet per second shot by a bow, range finders and scent lures? Or are the game and fish getting ready to look into these issues too?

 

All the studies done on diseases due to baiting have been done in states that have far greater deer/elk populations than Arizona. The harvest numbers you are referring too are in my opinion due to many other factors stated above than to baiting. But I’m sure in five years when the hunt success is still on the rise for archery hunters even after the baiting ban, laws will be put into place or hunting seasons limited for archery hunter to make sure it fits the G&F puzzle.

 

G&F wonders why hunter participation numbers are down, all they have to do is look into the mirror. Stupid laws like this will just make it worse not to mention hurt the hunting revenue generated from the archery hunters. I’ve been considering moving to another state and this will be a motivator to take my money elsewhere as will many others.

 

[520HUNT]

Seems that everyone who says that there is no facts, doesn't want to answer the question of why the Hunt Arizona facts do not count? Their is factual data on most every question they ask, but seem not to want to acknowledge it.

 

Don't you have Wildlife surveys to do or poachers to catch?