salt and feed no more in 2009

[SilentButDeadly]

Time to stand up. they are going to present it at the game and fish meeting in casa grand 5th of december. this is another target attemp at bowhunters, we are already limited by 20% harvest based on rifle success. removal of key december hunts. putting units to draws. making mandatory harvest report, " archery deer is the only one". Our success rates statewide are typically 4-6% compared to rifle 18-24% statewide.guys you need to call brian waklin big game chief and voice your fustration, send daily e-mails. to him and the govenor since they have to approve it. Pretty shocking that he is pushing this, since a few months ago he stated it was at the back burner and since the department was in a budget crunch it was not a top priority since the secratary that was doing the reseach was transfered and his former boss Leonard transfered to tuscon. remember. this effects all hunters. No more salt! They are still trying to take away our september bull tags and make them all nov. hunts. the ABA is in the process of fighting this as we speak. next year it will be since they took the rifle dec. tags from us. THEY WILL ONLY ALLOW YOU TO HUNT FROM 10:00am to 12:00pm and again from 2:00 pm to 4:00pm due to high success of rifle hunter tag teaming there hunts with 6 guys glassing for that shooter buck. but if you want to hunt during morning hours you will have to buy a special permit for $300 to do this. guys this is just the beginning to remove all hunting from us! again we are only as strong as our voices are heard. remember we are the PAYING CUSTOMERS!

 

How do you enforce 10-12 2-4 hunt hours law? It is impossible. How do you prove 'hunting' vs 'glassing', use of radios, team hunting'? HOW DO YOU PROVE SALTING OR FEEDING THE GAME?! I call BS on all of this. Unless a G&F ranger catches you pouring salt on the ground how the heck are they going to prosecute? What kind of fine? $500? $5000? You could salt the land for 20 years and get caught once and it would still have been cost effective for the number of bucks you'd filmed off it.

 

I do believe they can change the seasons, that is totally possible and probable.

 

I agree (with the others) that Sportsmen need a voice; independent of the NRA and the other groups that go beyond hunting and conservation of land and game.

 

How many hunters have gone beyond the law, breaking a law they felt was unfair (even overturned eventually)? More than a few of you have skeletons in your closet. Have you never picked up a lion kill without calling G&F?

 

Aldo Leopold was right. "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise." "We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect. "

 

T

 

 

[bowhunter4life]

I have contacted numerous feed and supplement companies across the United States, and have asked for their support in this matter. We also need to fight for the removal of the 20% rule. Decisions are being made that affect archers without factual data. As I am sure you are aware, archery hunters are mandated to report their kills and rifle hunters are not.

he is right! great Idea. look at the economic turn down it will cause. there are millions of dollars spent every year with this one aspect in az! And yes they are making decions based on survey cards and what they think is good. Just like the wildlife manager of 5a that just retired he would never let a bowhunt for antelope but now that he is gone it appears we may finally get a hunt.

[Lance]

I hate how veague they write the G&F rules! They can enturpit them how they like and apply them to who they like. Ever use watter as an attractant for your hunt? Animals take in watter so No more setting watter either! The snowball is roling and they just keep taking and taking and they have to be stoped some where!

 

Why don't they stop taking and start giving. Do hunters need to give more? Is this caused by both sides and not just one?

 

" Don't put hunters against hunters" ? Why does it have to be anybody against anybody?

 

Why does it seam that it is always hunters against the Game and Fish? Is this what the G&F wants?

 

The way the snowball is roling is not going to work out for anyone.

 

I have been to many G&F public meetings and it has never seemed like they were realy listening but just preforming public lip service by hugging orphans and kissing babies. I know that is not a nice thing to say but that is what they have all been like. Why is that G&F? Why do they even hold those meetings?

 

Lance

[dobbs07]

Time to stand up. they are going to present it at the game and fish meeting in casa grand 5th of december. this is another target attemp at bowhunters, we are already limited by 20% harvest based on rifle success. removal of key december hunts. putting units to draws. making mandatory harvest report, " archery deer is the only one". Our success rates statewide are typically 4-6% compared to rifle 18-24% statewide.guys you need to call brian waklin big game chief and voice your fustration, send daily e-mails. to him and the govenor since they have to approve it. Pretty shocking that he is pushing this, since a few months ago he stated it was at the back burner and since the department was in a budget crunch it was not a top priority since the secratary that was doing the reseach was transfered and his former boss Leonard transfered to tuscon. remember. this effects all hunters. No more salt! They are still trying to take away our september bull tags and make them all nov. hunts. the ABA is in the process of fighting this as we speak. next year it will be since they took the rifle dec. tags from us. THEY WILL ONLY ALLOW YOU TO HUNT FROM 10:00am to 12:00pm and again from 2:00 pm to 4:00pm due to high success of rifle hunter tag teaming there hunts with 6 guys glassing for that shooter buck. but if you want to hunt during morning hours you will have to buy a special permit for $300 to do this. guys this is just the beginning to remove all hunting from us! again we are only as strong as our voices are heard. remember we are the PAYING CUSTOMERS!

 

 

does anybody have this guys email address? I will send emails, and let others know as well.

[Coach]

"...For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced."

 

- Albert Einstein, 1921 on Prohibition

[DesertBull]

I should go put 300 lbs of salt in a 3' hole right now and it would probably last me 5-7 years if on a flat spot.

[eagarcoues]

How about the salt that rancher put down and all of the old salt lick that have been around for years, a lot rancher up here

Jeff

[azgfd]

Good Afternoon,

 

I recently heard there was a thread on this site relating to a proposed rule change that would prohibit baiting. I am in charge of the Article III rulemaking process and would like to address a few of the issues listed in this thread. The Game and Fish Department, as part of its 5 year rule review process, is proposing an amendment to rule R12-4-303 that would prohibit baiting. As part of the rule making process, public input is not only welcome but encouraged. The Commission Meeting will open the rule making docket for Article III. Once the Commission approves this rule package it will be filed with the Secretary of State and opened to the public for a 30 day comment period. The proposed rulemaking is scheduled to return to the Commission for final approval in April of 2009. The proposed rule language is as follows:

 

R12-4-303. B.Except for the use of nutritional supplements, salt, or salt-based materials produced and manufactured for the livestock industry and placed by individuals raising livestock or the Department for the benefit of wildlife, the following uses of edible or ingestible substances to aid in taking big game are unlawful.

1.An individual shall not place edible or ingestible substances, including salt or salt based products, to attract big game for the purpose of taking big game.

2.An individual shall not take big game with the aid of edible or ingestible substances, including salt or salt based products, placed for the purpose of attracting a big game animal to a specific location.

 

This language is intended to prohibit the placement or use of any type of bait, including salt, to attract big game for hunting purposes.

 

This language does not prohibit hunting over water, the use of game calls, the use of cover scents or the time of day an individual may hunt.

 

This language is intended to reduce the number of big game animals taken with the aid of bait. Permit numbers, regardless of whether they are issued through the draw or over-the-counter, are issued based upon an anticipated harvest. If that harvest is exceeded either the permit numbers are reduced or, in this case, the method used is changed.

 

This change has been recommended as a result of an increase in the number of individuals who archery hunt using bait. Baiting is a very effective way to attract big game, particularly white-tailed deer, to a specific location. The below table shows the white-tailed deer harvest in game management unit 22 from 2001 to 2007. You will see the reported archery harvest increased until in 2006 more white-tailed deer were taken during the archery season than during the general firearms hunt.

 

GAME MANAGEMENT UNIT 22 WHITE-TAILED DEER HARVEST

 

Year Archery Harvest General Harvest Total Archery % of Total Harvest

2001 25 139 164 15%

2002 47 129 176 27%

2003 47 155 202 23%

2004 27 129 156 17%

2005 67 117 184 36%

2006 97 96 193 50%

2007 53 158 211 25%

 

This type of harvest exceeds the anticipated archery harvest and the Department, in an effort to adjust the archery harvest to pre-bait levels, is recommending a rule change prohibiting the use of baiting. There are other methods available to the Department to adjust this disproportionate harvest downward including placing more archery units into the draw or significantly shortening the season.

 

In addition to the increase in harvest attributed to the use of bait, the Department queried many states regarding baiting. Of the 12 states that have responded to date, 10 including New Mexico, Colorado, and California, prohibit baiting in one form or another. Only Utah and Kansas do not restrict baiting. One of the reasons responding states have cited as to why they prohibit baiting is to prevent the spread of diseases including Chronic Wasting Disease. Although we have not detected CWD in Arizona, the spread and transmission of wildlife diseases is in itself, enough reason to be concerned over the increase in the use of baits.

 

In addition, I noticed that you have the wrong date posted when this agenda item will be presented to the Commission. The correct date is this Friday afternoon, December 5, following the 2:00 PM Revocation Hearings.

 

Ron Day

Small Game, Predator and Furbearer Biologist

Arizona Game and Fish Department

[TAM]

Mr. Day

 

Thank you for your response to our concerns. However your data seems to only indicate that success in unit 22 is on the rise. Where does it show or indicate that the increased success is linked to salt or bait? Seems to me that there could be any number of reasons for increased success rates in a given unit including increased numbers of game, decreased predator populations, favorable weather patterns, etc. Has G&F taken the time to research this data to determine if other factors may be responsible or perhaps even partly responsible for these results?

 

Just like manditory hunter check in on the Kaibab, I think it is prudent that G&F completes the research on there data before they start writing new laws which effect the way we hunt.

 

With regards to CWD, you mentioned it has not been discovered in Arizona at this point in time. If CWD was a threat in Arizona wouldn't G&F be just as concerned if not more so with the thousands upon thousands of ranchers that put out feed troughs and water licks across the state? Has G&F conducted any research to estimate just how many hunter salt or bait sites exist versus cattle feed troughs and salt licks? If G&F was really that concerned with the transmission of CWD wouldn't they be lobbying against the use of feeders and salt in the cattle industry across Arizona?

 

With all due respect Mr. Day your concerns sound good, but I've yet to see any real facts, proof, or studies to back them up. I can't speak for all hunters but to me it seems like the AZG&F is on a witch hunt and they're planning on burning salt at the stake!

 

Regards,

Tim Maddock

 

[SilentButDeadly]

Mr. Day,

 

Thanks for your input.

 

I have to agree with Tim M. on the question of whether or not G&F has conducted any significance testing to show that baiting has caused the increase in archery take in 22. Is there a place where this data is available to the public? I'd be more than willing to explore the stats that you have.

 

There have been many advancements in archery over the last 10 years (digital range finders being one of them). In my opinion, as an ecological scientist and statistical analyst, the devil is in the details. Unless the harvest data show that hunters sitting over bait are taking a statistically significant number of bucks over spot-n-stalk and other stand/blind hunters it is invalid for G&F to do away with baiting/salt.

 

Additionally, I do not believe that this law is enforceable and any attempt to enforce it would be a burden on already overworked field men.

 

Again, thanks for your input -- I believe it is critical for our public servants to have a voice on this forum, as it is a pinnacle of the hunting community in our state.

 

Tyson Swetnam

 

[jim]

Ron

How are they going to enforce what is already out there in salt licks ?

[Redman]

Good Afternoon,

 

I recently heard there was a thread on this site relating to a proposed rule change that would prohibit baiting. I am in charge of the Article III rulemaking process and would like to address a few of the issues listed in this thread. The Game and Fish Department, as part of its 5 year rule review process, is proposing an amendment to rule R12-4-303 that would prohibit baiting. As part of the rule making process, public input is not only welcome but encouraged. The Commission Meeting will open the rule making docket for Article III. Once the Commission approves this rule package it will be filed with the Secretary of State and opened to the public for a 30 day comment period. The proposed rulemaking is scheduled to return to the Commission for final approval in April of 2009. The proposed rule language is as follows:

 

R12-4-303. B.Except for the use of nutritional supplements, salt, or salt-based materials produced and manufactured for the livestock industry and placed by individuals raising livestock or the Department for the benefit of wildlife, the following uses of edible or ingestible substances to aid in taking big game are unlawful.

1.An individual shall not place edible or ingestible substances, including salt or salt based products, to attract big game for the purpose of taking big game.

2.An individual shall not take big game with the aid of edible or ingestible substances, including salt or salt based products, placed for the purpose of attracting a big game animal to a specific location.

 

This language is intended to prohibit the placement or use of any type of bait, including salt, to attract big game for hunting purposes.

 

This language does not prohibit hunting over water, the use of game calls, the use of cover scents or the time of day an individual may hunt.

 

This language is intended to reduce the number of big game animals taken with the aid of bait. Permit numbers, regardless of whether they are issued through the draw or over-the-counter, are issued based upon an anticipated harvest. If that harvest is exceeded either the permit numbers are reduced or, in this case, the method used is changed.

 

This change has been recommended as a result of an increase in the number of individuals who archery hunt using bait. Baiting is a very effective way to attract big game, particularly white-tailed deer, to a specific location. The below table shows the white-tailed deer harvest in game management unit 22 from 2001 to 2007. You will see the reported archery harvest increased until in 2006 more white-tailed deer were taken during the archery season than during the general firearms hunt.

 

GAME MANAGEMENT UNIT 22 WHITE-TAILED DEER HARVEST

 

Year Archery Harvest General Harvest Total Archery % of Total Harvest

2001 25 139 164 15%

2002 47 129 176 27%

2003 47 155 202 23%

2004 27 129 156 17%

2005 67 117 184 36%

2006 97 96 193 50%

2007 53 158 211 25%

 

This type of harvest exceeds the anticipated archery harvest and the Department, in an effort to adjust the archery harvest to pre-bait levels, is recommending a rule change prohibiting the use of baiting. There are other methods available to the Department to adjust this disproportionate harvest downward including placing more archery units into the draw or significantly shortening the season.

 

In addition to the increase in harvest attributed to the use of bait, the Department queried many states regarding baiting. Of the 12 states that have responded to date, 10 including New Mexico, Colorado, and California, prohibit baiting in one form or another. Only Utah and Kansas do not restrict baiting. One of the reasons responding states have cited as to why they prohibit baiting is to prevent the spread of diseases including Chronic Wasting Disease. Although we have not detected CWD in Arizona, the spread and transmission of wildlife diseases is in itself, enough reason to be concerned over the increase in the use of baits.

 

In addition, I noticed that you have the wrong date posted when this agenda item will be presented to the Commission. The correct date is this Friday afternoon, December 5, following the 2:00 PM Revocation Hearings.

 

Ron Day

Small Game, Predator and Furbearer Biologist

Arizona Game and Fish Department

 

Hi Ron,

 

Thanks for the info, however as my statistics teacher taught me, you don't have a thing, without that swing...what he meant by that, is you only presented one set of numbers. Can you please present the number of archery hunters and hunting days during the same period? Was there a shift a hunters from another unit to 22, how many archery tags were sold in those years, how many general harvest tag numbers were there and hunting days?

 

A quick statistical analysis shows there was an upward shift in 2002, but since then, the harvest has been statically insignificant and within two standard deviation. Plus there are so many other variables (no mandatory harvest reporting for rifle hunters, equipment improvements, etc). How can the increase in harvest only be attributed to baiting? What was the data like in previous years?

 

Very few entities would make rash decisions (laws) while presenting such little data (well maybe in the finical world today), you may have the data, but it has not been presented. Imagine if the FDA or another healthcare entity made changes on such a little sample population? We would all be eating tofu for all three meals.

 

The problem is, we have seen this train a coming for a while, it appears this is something that is going to happen no matter what (based on science or a hunch)....if you don't get the answer you wanted the first time, ask the question again in a different way....that seems to be the way. Also add another varible like CWD.

 

 

Respectfully Redman

[DesertBull]

This is the 1st year with no December archery hunt in 22, yet we are not even going to allow the effect of that change to be evaluated before instituting this rule? What if the archery harvest drops 30% just because of the no December hunting change? Hunters are a lot more selective in Jan as opposed to December.

 

In December, the tag is getting close to expiring and "any deer will do" mentallity takes over. In Jan, you still have the fall hunts and the deer tag drawing to take into account before deciding if the deer in front of you is worth a full year of no deer hunting.

 

Also, there is much crowding of deer at Game and Fish built water tanks, especially in the desert units, as there is at a salt block, don't you think? So, how does the CWD issue effect salt/bait but not water?

 

The fact that G&F has spent all this time and effort writing this new rule BEFORE asking for comment, tells me it's a done deal and the public input phase is just a dog and pony show.

[azpackhorse]

R12-4-303. B.Except for the use of nutritional supplements, salt, or salt-based materials produced and manufactured for the livestock industry and placed by individuals raising livestock or the Department for the benefit of wildlife, the following uses of edible or ingestible substances to aid in taking big game are unlawful.

1.An individual shall not place edible or ingestible substances, including salt or salt based products, to attract big game for the purpose of taking big game.

2.An individual shall not take big game with the aid of edible or ingestible substances, including salt or salt based products, placed for the purpose of attracting a big game animal to a specific location.

 

 

So the way I read this is that it's fine to place salt for photographing wildlife, as long as you are not using it as an aid to "take" big game animals. If this is not the case then you will have big problems on your hands.

How is it that you can prove that my trail cam is being used to aid me in taking big game? How close to a trail cam site that has been salted can I hunt? Can't hunters also be photographers? Or because we are hunters is that all we do?

How do trail cam sites in July fit into this rule? How can someone prove that a trail cam site "baited" with salt "aided" me in taking a big game animal? Would they have to be eating from the salt pile when they were shot?

[coueskiller]

Mr. Day

 

Can you please provide us, the public hunters that spend our hard earned money every year hunting this great state and paying your wages with the data that you have collected on big game that has been harvested by means of hunting over salt VS other methods. I dont think you can because I know you dont have that data. As Redman has stated let's see some more numbers and data that has been collected. This is just another stab at limiting our harvest so you can allow more tags to generate more $$$, that the cold hard truth. The AZGFD is doing a great job of increasing hunting oppertunity while decreasing the quality of hunting we were once proud to say we had in this state, a few more years of the yearling deer slaughter on the numerous rifle hunts and we will see where we end up. I think us hunters need to take a strong stand on what we believe in and I'm sick and tired of attending meetings with the comission that will not listen to the public. Where would the department be with out us hunters that spend our hard earned money hunting in AZ??? I wish that every resident and nonresident hunter in the AZ hunt pool would come together and boycot buying and licenses or tags for 2 years in the state and maybe then with all that money lost the AZGFD would listen to what we have to say. Whats next... no range finders, no binoculars, no scoped rifles, no compound bows because I hate to say it but the equipment we have avaliable today is what is getting these animals killed not some salt lick.

 

Geoff