AZGF to ban salt/baiting

[ForkHorn]

I'm not sure how harvest numbers can ever be fairly compared when one set is mandatory and the other (rifle) is not... but then again they want to do away with mandatory archery reporting? How does that make any sense? Seems like good science to me.

Independent research has and is being done that disputes some of G&F numbers. Just look at the kaibab herd and the ADA..

 

The explanation has been very lackadaisical

and the "data" porous. It seems to me that the people that pay for tags, and licenses, the very same people that fund the game branch, deserve a better service.

 

I also doubt that they care about the impact this will have on several small businesses (archery shops) that sell lots of fancy deer bait products.

 

And as far the salt being a grey area it seems pretty grey to me. Who decides what salt is "produced and manufactured for the livestock industry"?

 

Salt "cattle" blocks are fine? But bags of pool salt aren't?

[Nontypical183]

The rules clearly state that salt is not bait but i agree with the prior the governor needs the hunters votes in this state and it will probably get shot downthere and if it does go through hunt trails and scrapes they are more productive anyways

[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.

 

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.

I simply stated that lots of arguments on this site seem to be that they want to know #'s. Read Coues n Sheep's post. He actually puts his questions in a bullet style presentation. The answer to 70 % of his questions are present in Hunt Arizona. As far as doing #'s on our present herd vs. other states, this is not a very intelligent statement. You see in order to have research, the problem has to be present. We do not have CWD, they are trying to be proactive, not reactive.

 

If this law makes you move to another state, I would suggest it be one of the other states that allow baiting. When you arrive at your new state, I'm sure you will have stuff to complain about there too. If I were you, I would start packing and looking at real estate outside of AZ. Good luck in your travels.

[520HUNT]

Hunt Arizona is a "guide", it is Not a scientific study! And as far as numbers in there being correct, says who? You have a un reliable source, who is not even required to report or report the correct numbers. Then you have Game Wardens who are pressured to squew their wildlife survey numbers to justify adding tags in a unit to "offer more oppurtunity" and of course bring in more revenue. Remember these are Government employees! You can make numbers look like anything you want... just look at the most recent Jobless numbers released by the whitehouse.

 

And most hunters are slowly learning that just because they have a badge or a wildlife degree, dosent make what they say "Scientific fact". I have known people.in the department for years, and they will tell you off record that they are pressured costantly to make the outcomes "department friendly". They have been pressured to reccomend higher tag numbers in their unit even though they saw fewer animals on their air surveys. And they have to come up with some reason as to why they see fewer animals to back up their junk science.

 

Just think before you bow down to the Game & Fish and their "facts".

[123456]

So what you are saying is: No matter what #'s they come up with, you do not believe them anyway. So you ask for #'s and then when they give them to you, you do not believe them. Sounds like there is no pleasing some of you. Oh yeah and yes the Archery #'s are correct. Many ask for mandatory reporting for accurate #'s. Well us archers have had to mandatory report for years. Even tho, the #'s in Hunt Arizona are our mandatory report #'s, they still are not true? So why ask for mandatory reporting, if you are not going to believe the #'s they put forth based on our Mandatory reporting.

 

Enough with the conspiracy theories. I do not vote right down party lines, and I am not going to vote for this solely because I am a hunter as well. Voting because it is what your "suppose to" shows a real sign of ignorance. I am republican, but I do not always vote yes on anything a republican puts forward. You see, that is the beauty of being an American. If you believe in something vote for it, if you do not, do not vote for it. As I have said before, Make sure you write your letter to Game and fish and stand for what you believe.

[JLW]

I'm not sure how harvest numbers can ever be fairly compared when one set is mandatory and the other (rifle) is not... but then again they want to do away with mandatory archery reporting? How does that make any sense? Seems like good science to me.

Independent research has and is being done that disputes some of G&F numbers. Just look at the kaibab herd and the ADA..

 

The explanation has been very lackadaisical

and the "data" porous. It seems to me that the people that pay for tags, and licenses, the very same people that fund the game branch, deserve a better service.

 

I also doubt that they care about the impact this will have on several small businesses (archery shops) that sell lots of fancy deer bait products.

 

And as far the salt being a grey area it seems pretty grey to me. Who decides what salt is "produced and manufactured for the livestock industry"?

 

Salt "cattle" blocks are fine? But bags of pool salt aren't?

not only that it is manufactured for cattle but put out (intended) for cattle. I'm sure it'll be up to the discretion of the warden rather than make it black and white! It's probably that way because someone will say I didn't put that out the rancher must have. This is gonna get interesting.

No one will post up pics anymore.. (1 of my favorite parts of this site)

so water softner/pool salt is probably a no no

very grey for sure!

remember to put small piles in lots of places so they all don't congregate in 1 area

 

James

[bowhunter.forever]

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.

I simply stated that lots of arguments on this site seem to be that they want to know #'s. Read Coues n Sheep's post. He actually puts his questions in a bullet style presentation. The answer to 70 % of his questions are present in Hunt Arizona. As far as doing #'s on our present herd vs. other states, this is not a very intelligent statement. You see in order to have research, the problem has to be present. We do not have CWD, they are trying to be proactive, not reactive.

 

If this law makes you move to another state, I would suggest it be one of the other states that allow baiting. When you arrive at your new state, I'm sure you will have stuff to complain about there too. If I were you, I would start packing and looking at real estate outside of AZ. Good luck in your travels.

 

123456,

 

I find it interesting you do not deny to being a G&F troller. Also I think you are not intelligent when saying there can’t be any studies when there isn’t any CWD in AZ. This has to be the dumbest statement I’ve ever heard but doesn’t surprise me coming from some pencil pusher or a warden that never gets out of his truck to do any research. One doesn’t need CWD to be in AZ in order to study how it spreads. Again there are good arguments to why it isn’t here.

 

States that have CWD are primarily states that have high elk populations that are forced into small areas due to hard winters. We have nether and with the high number of tags being issued every year we will never have high populations. Also there is no proof that baiting causes the spread of CWD.

 

Also I don’t find it surprising that you are glad to hear a hunter wants to leave the state due to dumb game regulations. This has been a huge problem in G&F that they just don’t care. All they care about is selling tags and to heck with the hunters. To prove a point here I point to the fact that G&F is trying to put a lid on high archery harvest numbers. Why doesn’t G&F highlight this as a proud point and use it to increase hunter participation. This should be a positive issue and not a negative! But with G&F high harvest numbers is always a negative. I also agree with huntlines that even if you ban the baiting thing the archery harvest will not go down, then what? Ban archery hunting? Reduce archery tags and increase rifle tags(which is what they have been doing by increasing rifle tags).

 

Go troll somewhere else because your ignorance is just proving everything we already know about G&F

 

[bowhunter.forever]

So what you are saying is: No matter what #'s they come up with, you do not believe them anyway. So you ask for #'s and then when they give them to you, you do not believe them. Sounds like there is no pleasing some of you. Oh yeah and yes the Archery #'s are correct. Many ask for mandatory reporting for accurate #'s. Well us archers have had to mandatory report for years. Even tho, the #'s in Hunt Arizona are our mandatory report #'s, they still are not true? So why ask for mandatory reporting, if you are not going to believe the #'s they put forth based on our Mandatory reporting.

 

Enough with the conspiracy theories. I do not vote right down party lines, and I am not going to vote for this solely because I am a hunter as well. Voting because it is what your "suppose to" shows a real sign of ignorance. I am republican, but I do not always vote yes on anything a republican puts forward. You see, that is the beauty of being an American. If you believe in something vote for it, if you do not, do not vote for it. As I have said before, Make sure you write your letter to Game and fish and stand for what you believe.

 

By not voting you are part of the problem. The exact reason Obama got elected is because of people like you. You stay on the fence to keep your job. This also adds to what was said earlier about GW making up junk science in order to make recommendations to raise tags to keep the higher ups happy. Stay on the fence and eventually you fall off. This will effect you too when one day they decide to ban something you use but others don't and they sit the fence like an idiot.

[AZ8]

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.

I simply stated that lots of arguments on this site seem to be that they want to know #'s. Read Coues n Sheep's post. He actually puts his questions in a bullet style presentation. The answer to 70 % of his questions are present in Hunt Arizona. As far as doing #'s on our present herd vs. other states, this is not a very intelligent statement. You see in order to have research, the problem has to be present. We do not have CWD, they are trying to be proactive, not reactive.

 

If this law makes you move to another state, I would suggest it be one of the other states that allow baiting. When you arrive at your new state, I'm sure you will have stuff to complain about there too. If I were you, I would start packing and looking at real estate outside of AZ. Good luck in your travels.

 

123456,

 

I find it interesting you do not deny to being a G&F troller. Also I think you are not intelligent when saying there can’t be any studies when there isn’t any CWD in AZ. This has to be the dumbest statement I’ve ever heard but doesn’t surprise me coming from some pencil pusher or a warden that never gets out of his truck to do any research. One doesn’t need CWD to be in AZ in order to study how it spreads. Again there are good arguments to why it isn’t here.

 

States that have CWD are primarily states that have high elk populations that are forced into small areas due to hard winters. We have nether and with the high number of tags being issued every year we will never have high populations. Also there is no proof that baiting causes the spread of CWD.

 

Also I don’t find it surprising that you are glad to hear a hunter wants to leave the state due to dumb game regulations. This has been a huge problem in G&F that they just don’t care. All they care about is selling tags and to heck with the hunters. To prove a point here I point to the fact that G&F is trying to put a lid on high archery harvest numbers. Why doesn’t G&F highlight this as a proud point and use it to increase hunter participation. This should be a positive issue and not a negative! But with G&F high harvest numbers is always a negative. I also agree with huntlines that even if you ban the baiting thing the archery harvest will not go down, then what? Ban archery hunting? Reduce archery tags and increase rifle tags(which is what they have been doing by increasing rifle tags).

 

Go troll somewhere else because your ignorance is just proving everything we already know about G&F

 

That statement is not entirely correct. States that have free ranging CWD include, but not limited to: Wisconsin, Illinios, New York, West Virginia, Michigan, Maryland, Nebraska and Kansas.

 

Last I checked...there isn't a large elk population in any of the listed states.

[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.

I simply stated that lots of arguments on this site seem to be that they want to know #'s. Read Coues n Sheep's post. He actually puts his questions in a bullet style presentation. The answer to 70 % of his questions are present in Hunt Arizona. As far as doing #'s on our present herd vs. other states, this is not a very intelligent statement. You see in order to have research, the problem has to be present. We do not have CWD, they are trying to be proactive, not reactive.

 

If this law makes you move to another state, I would suggest it be one of the other states that allow baiting. When you arrive at your new state, I'm sure you will have stuff to complain about there too. If I were you, I would start packing and looking at real estate outside of AZ. Good luck in your travels.

 

123456,

 

I find it interesting you do not deny to being a G&F troller. Also I think you are not intelligent when saying there can't be any studies when there isn't any CWD in AZ. This has to be the dumbest statement I've ever heard but doesn't surprise me coming from some pencil pusher or a warden that never gets out of his truck to do any research. One doesn't need CWD to be in AZ in order to study how it spreads. Again there are good arguments to why it isn't here.

 

States that have CWD are primarily states that have high elk populations that are forced into small areas due to hard winters. We have nether and with the high number of tags being issued every year we will never have high populations. Also there is no proof that baiting causes the spread of CWD.

 

Also I don't find it surprising that you are glad to hear a hunter wants to leave the state due to dumb game regulations. This has been a huge problem in G&F that they just don't care. All they care about is selling tags and to heck with the hunters. To prove a point here I point to the fact that G&F is trying to put a lid on high archery harvest numbers. Why doesn't G&F highlight this as a proud point and use it to increase hunter participation. This should be a positive issue and not a negative! But with G&F high harvest numbers is always a negative. I also agree with huntlines that even if you ban the baiting thing the archery harvest will not go down, then what? Ban archery hunting? Reduce archery tags and increase rifle tags(which is what they have been doing by increasing rifle tags).

 

Go troll somewhere else because your ignorance is just proving everything we already know about G&F

 

That statement is not entirely correct. States that have free ranging CWD include, but not limited to: Wisconsin, Illinios, New York, West Virginia, Michigan, Maryland, Nebraska and Kansas.

 

Last I checked...there isn't a large elk population in any of the listed states.

 

Your right Forlorn Hope they don't have large elk populations and bowhunter.forever used a poor example. All those states though do have very high deer populations per square mile and that is more than likely the cause of the spread not baiting. I would like to know if any of the states you mentioned have banned baiting and still have problems with these illnesses. Common sense tells you if you have high populations of any species there will be issues with diseases.

[123456]

I find it comical that I am a troll for disagreeing with most of you on this topic. Makes me smile at your ignorance. Good 5th and 6th post. Seems like you may be another member on here that is just embarassed to show their true identity. I would say my 275 posts show that I am not a troller and your 6 might mean you are more like a troller. As I said before go let your AzGFD know about your opposition if you have some. Do not become a keyboard tough guy.

[idgaf]

I am not voting because either way it has little effect on me. I do not like bait, so I do not do it, but I do not oppose anybody that does. In my opinion and my opinion only baiting is turning our sport into another sport. We call it fishing. This is a lot like the antler restriction rules that come up once in a while. People want to have antler restrictions rules in place. I do not shoot small animals and do not need regulations to tell me that. Once again I do not begrudge anybody that does that is their option and we do not need gov't to tell us which way is right or wrong if we have personal responsibility to do what we believe. Honestly, bowhunt forever, you may be the biggest Obama supporter ever, by comparing a referendum on baiting animals to the running of our country

[AZ8]

huntlines,

 

I don't have that data. You would have to email the individual DNR departments to get that information.

[huntlines]

I find it comical that I am a troll for disagreeing with most of you on this topic. Makes me smile at your ignorance. Good 5th and 6th post. Seems like you may be another member on here that is just embarassed to show their true identity. I would say my 275 posts show that I am not a troller and your 6 might mean you are more like a troller. As I said before go let your AzGFD know about your opposition if you have some. Do not become a keyboard tough guy.

 

You call bowhunter.forever someone that is embarassed to show their true identity but yet you do the same thing. No pictures and no personal information, the pot calling the kettle black? Keyboard tough guy?

 

From your other post I'm gathering you disagree with baiting because of the high harvest ratio? Again I find it ignorant to think it is from baiting? So what will you say when this gets banned and the archery hunters are still more successful? Or is it that you are an archery hunter that just can't harvest deer and feel that everyone else that does must be baiting? Like I said before this was attempted by G&F before and was shot down by the hunting groups whom banded together to fight it.

 

I don't bait(food plots or feeders) but don't think it is right to ban it just because someone feels it is causing a higher success rate. Salt is another issue and I don't see an issue with it. The problem here is salt is being lumped into baiting. Salt and mineral licks were something I learned about over twenty years ago by a G&F warden! He taught me a lot about hunting whitetail. I have many friends whom work in the G&F department and most of them use something during their archery hunting.

 

Again if your using the argument for keeping CWD out of the state then provide the research, if your doing it for high harvest ratios then again provide the proof before just banning it.

[Str8Shot]

Huntlines ... Here is the info on those states and the link I posted for all states from the previous discussion ...

 

Illinois NOT legal to feed or bait anything for deer.

 

Kansas Legal to feed and bait deer except state land. Bait must be removed 10 days prior to hunting. Liquid scents and sprays are exempt.

 

Maryland No restrictions on private land. It is legal to feed deer anything, anytime on private land with the exception of the CWD management zone in Allegany County.

Michigan (lower) From Oct. 1 to Jan. 1. hunters may place any type of bait, no more than two gallons at a time, across a 10-foot by 10-foot area per hunting location. Recreational Feeding: Property owners may place two gallons of bait on their property within 100 yards of their residence year-round. Baiting and feeding will still be prohibited in Deer Management Unit 487 which includes Alcona, Alpena, Iosco, Montmorency, Oscoda and Presque Isle Counties. 517-373-2329

Regulation

(pgs 3-4) Michigan (upper) Legal to bait deer with less than 2 gallons. You can feed deer the rest of the year with in 100 yards of a house. Lucky Buck Mineral is legal as either feed or bait.

517-373-2329

Regulation

(pgs 3-4)

Nebraska Legal to feed deer. Cannot hunt over anything within 200 yards that was placed within 60 days. 402-471-5442

Regulation

 

New York

Not legal to feed deer or bait deer. 518-402-8883

Regulation

(pg 20)

West Virginia It is legal to feed deer anything with the exception of parts of Hardy & Hampshire County north of State Highway 55. This is a CWD containment area and it is not legal to feed or bait in this area. The rest of the state is legal to feed deer on private land anything including Lucky Buck Mineral. On public land feed/bait must be removed from September 1st - December 31st. 304-558-2784

Regulation

(pg 12)

Wisconsin It is legal to feed and bait deer with anything including Lucky Buck Mineral (with a 2 gallon limit), in all counties EXCEPT the following: Adams, Barron, Burnett, Calumet, Columbia, Crawford, Dane, Dodge, Grant, Green, Iowa, Jefferson, Juneau, Kenosha, Lafayette, Manitowoc, Marathon, Marquette, Milwaukee, Polk, Portage, Racine, Richland, Rock, Sauk, Sheboygan, Vernon, Walworth, Washburn, Waukesha, Waushara, and Wood. National forest areas usually follow local state regulations on baiting. Check with your local DNR office for more information. 888-936-7463

Regulation

(pg 30-34)

 

 

if you want to find out more on all states ... http://www.lucky-buck.com/baitinglaws.html