salt and feed no more in 2009

[AZcoues_addict]

Trying to outlaw salt is going to be extremely difficult and I personally feel it should be allowed anyway. Its allowed in many other states, has been for years, feed too.

 

Why do we suddenly need to reduce archery hunt succes even more? We've already instituted a draw for the high percentage archery kill units, itsn't that enough!? It should be all they need to properly manage their numbers. Discussion of reducing the season is also being planned for other units to further reduce archery success.

 

The real question is what is the target, and where should we draw the line. 15% average success? 10%? I think its fine where it is and here's why:

 

The numbers I'm seeing in the Hunt Arizona book show a consistent average of approximately 85000 rifle deer applicants over the last 3 decades. There aren't any more people applying for rifle, just less deer!!! The number of tags has decreased in about 3 decades from around 85000 to 37000. Meanwhile the number of archery tags has gone from somewhere in the 10000 range to 23000! That means archery demand is 21.3% and has increased 130% in 3 decades while rifle demand has remained nearly constant! The stats show approximately 12% of the total harvest is archery. They claim not everyone reports their deer, but even if we doubled their number of archery kills, it would only then equal the demand of 21%. This is with NO changes, and the archery draw is already on its way!!! Don't be blind, they want to confuse you and make you think too many deer are being killed archery, but its BS to me. More rifle hunters switched to archery for the "opportunity", and now they want to take away "opportunity" when it seems below the demand or right on target in the worst case scenario! The bottom line is tag sales are down and they want to bring them up. BS. Archery success is below or with skewed numbers just meeting the statewide "demand" that it should according to their philosophy.

 

Surely some areas get more deer killed with a bow, and less with a gun, and the draw is in place to take care of those units. But what about the others? Should we cut the # of rifle tags in the other units and allow archery hunters to use crossbows to bring those archery kills averages up! Or reduce the rifle season to one day in those units and allow archery year-round? It ridiculous, just manage the heard according to best practices you know and stop trying to create computer model to show you how to maximize profits.

 

OW, your example is exactly what they want, and its scary, more than triple the # of hunters in the field with nearly 1/2 of the deer of 3 decades ago? Think about it before you buy into it so quickly. We did have 2-3 times more hunters in the field a few decades ago, but there twice as many deer and the buck to doe ratios were slightly higher. There were doe hunts and archery doe was allowed too, but those are gone now because our heards are so stressed that we can't hunt doe anylonger (with the exception of limited youth tags).

 

I'm so fed up with all conflicting information they're trying to feed us. Leave the hunts alone for the love of God!!!

[TAM]

I think if the G&F is going to make a rule change they should make it on the basis of good solid information and scientific facts. Not just assumptions or hear say. At this point I don't think they've done any research to see what the bottom line impact of hunting over salt has contributed to hunting in Arizona. Right now they have no proof or scientific evidence one way or the other that hunting over salt or bait has a good or bad impact on hunting success. How hard would it be to take a year or two to conduct some research or surveys to gather some hard evidence before they make there decision?

 

When is G&F going to start using real life data to manage the herds instead of a bunch of political agendas?!!!

[DesertBull]

I think if the G&F is going to make a rule change they should make it on the basis of good solid information and scientific facts. Not just assumptions or hear say. At this point I don't think they've done any research to see what the bottom line impact of hunting over salt has contributed to hunting in Arizona. Right now they have no proof or scientific evidence one way or the other that hunting over salt or bait has a good or bad impact on hunting success. How hard would it be to take a year or two to conduct some research or surveys to gather some hard evidence before they make there decision?

 

When is G&F going to start using real life data to manage the herds instead of a bunch of political agendas?!!!

 

Probably when that info is free instead of costly.

[jamaro]

I really don't have a horse in this race but.. TAM is right on.. Decisions need to made with solid science.. Not political pressure.

 

For me the bottom line is that it is currently legal, hunters should be supporting each other rather than taking sides. My concern is that today it is feed, then tomorrow it is salt then the day after that it is water, then..... Then we aren't allowed to hunt anymore.

 

J-

[Noel Arnold]

Come on People,

The department already told us that we said we want more hunter opporutunity.(ALTHOUGH I NEVER GOT THAT SURVEY)

[Coach]

I definately agree that G&F is going off the deep end as of late. First they destroy any reasonable chance of drawing a December tag while at the same time obliterating the herds by over-issuing tags for November. This of course *pushed* many hunters to start sitting treestands over salt since that was about the only way left to hunt trophy coues. Now they plan to take that away???

 

Others have hit on another really good point. If they do enact this, there will be A LOT of previously law-abiding hunters who finally decide that their own code of ethics are more palatable than a series of senseless, contradictory rules put fourth by a money hungry organization that is either trying to destroy hunting in Arizona or just doing so out of sheer incompetence.

[DesertBull]

Why don't we all just carry a camera in the field instead of a bow or rifle? Then all tags can be over the counter and everyone is happy.

 

[SouthernCouesHunter]

Then there will be a restriction on the size lens you put on your camera

 

[DesertBull]

Then there will be a restriction on the size lens you put on your camera

 

 

 

[KGAINES]

At this time we still haven't seen anything that says this is going to happen, all we have is a rumor. I personally and it looks like many of us on here believe this rumor, but that doesn't mean it's true. It could also be the AZGFD throwing the rumor out there to get a response, they could be looking for positive or negative feedback, that way when they say that rumor is totally unfounded and we never planned this they look good, or they can say that we have had a lot of public input requesting the dept. to do something about this problem, they could use it any way they want.

[TLH]

I think it is hear say at best. I also believe that we have a new director that will listen to hunters and will listen to his WM's out in the field. I would hit some of the ADA meetings over the next couple of months and ask a few questions to our game and fish guru--he is usually there every time we meet and he can give you some insight to this rumor.

[billrquimby]

I put a deer block and a salt block outside my cabin in Greer three years ago. The squirrels and blue jays work on the deer block, but nothing touches the salt. I've watched mule deer and elk walk past both blocks without even looking at them. The mule deer eat our wild rosebushes; the elk eat the grass and nibble on the bark on our aspens. After this limited research it wouldn't bother me if salt and deer blocks were banned.

[HUNTMUP]

Except that archery hunts now have mandatory reporting and the other other hunts do not. To me, that skews the numbers right from the start.

 

My point was, I do not see one tactic as being advatageous over the other. In fact, I would be willing to bet that the guy glassing for deer SEES more bucks per day than he guy sitting in a tree stand, but we want to further limit the sitter.

 

I do not really have a problem with banning it per se, but to me it's a stepping stone to other things that will limit all us further.

 

What's next? No shooting after 12:00 noon like they do with the dove hunts? No tree stands? No ..fill in the blank...?

 

It's the progressive restrictions that I fear most.

 

How about we let the new opportunity philosophy take hold and evaluate the results in a few years instead of just piling on more and more restrictions every year?

 

We've discussed the reporting methods and whether it should be mandatory here several times. So rehashing it all isn't something I have time to do right now. In fact, I was even reluctant to get into this thread because of that. That' said, I AGREE everyone should have to report, but it probably won't be any more accurate than the old method because lots of people will fib.

 

In fact, the only SURE way to get accurate harvest stats is the way it has been done in many states -- a mandatory PHYSICAL checkout of a kill that gets a seal similar to one used on bighorn sheep. But then the same chronic complainers would bitch about it because of more regulations and inconvenience.

 

The unfortunate fact is regulations become necessary for two reasons:

 

1. To protect the resource

2. to eliminate practices that provide unfair or seemingly unethical advantages in regards to #1.

 

Sometimes those practices start on a very small scale and then grow into much larger and more detrimental numbers. The regulation about flying just prior to or during a season came under #2 and mostly as a result of the growing use of chute planes.

 

The dove regulation resulted because too many "hunters" took advantage and literally became poachers by repeatedly breaking the law about daily limits on doves.

 

The use of bait -- whether salt or food stuffs -- along with trail cams is one of the growing ones. All one needs to do is consistently look at this site to see that.

 

Me thinks part of the problem is an inability to police our own ranks when it comes to questionable issues, and the mentality that every hunter should march along in lockstep is the wrong road to take. I will NEVER support something that *I* believe is wrong regardless if it is legal or not. To do otherwise would be a compromise and betrayal of my own ethics.

 

Do I favor every regulation or rule that is made? Nope, far from it. But I also don't see some grand conspiracy behind them being made. And it gets real tiresome reading all the "game department is out to get us" like comments. That's likely because I'm a bit jaded since I talk to the folks at AZ G&F several times a week, and some of the conversations are off-the-record, so to speak. The long and short of it is I put more stock in what the professionals think and do than I put on the opinions of the common folk, and the latter includes me, despite my education in things wildlife related. Why? Because I'm not on the ground so to speak in the everyday management of the state' wildlife.

 

More folks need to realize that the department's focus is two-fold -- managing wildlife (that's ALL OF THE WILDLIFE, not only those animals with targets on them ) and managing people. Both are intertwined, and when it comes to managing people...well you probably know the adage about opinions. -TONY

 

Wow OW, I usually enjoy and appreciate your posts, However this one seems to leave me feeling quite the opposite, almost somewhat below you.... Reading "Between The Lines" and paying attention to your BOLD and CAPITALIZED words seems to me that you, much like some of us have formed your own opinions of what is right or wrong. I respect you for what you believe is "ethical" or not but you are the same as those complaining (THAT WOULD BE ME) just maybe a bit more eloquent with the way you arrrange your words. YOU do not consider baiting or trail cameras ethical, I do.. So here we are both disagreeing with each other. I agree with most, we need to stick together and stand up for what we believe in, that is the American way. We voice our opinions and show our desire then usually accept the outcome some times with disgust. I for one would not discount anybody for hunting and or harvesting any animal in any way that is legal. Not trying to start an arguement or anything, just wanted to add my .02 and thank you for YOUR TIME. FYI, I have NEVER harvested an animal of any kind from a bait station of any type, sure wouldn't mind the OPPORTUNITY though...... -BILL

[Coueser]

I'm definitely the minority here, but as a hunter who loves to be in the field as much as anyone else, I for one would not mind seeing salt and definitely feed outlawed. I do think that it is ethically wrong, and I know that that's a can of worms that don't need to be opened right now. However, I can't understand how so many can say on the one hand that salt/feed does not offer a distinct advantage, and then in the same post gripe about how Game & Fish keeps trying to keep handicapping them. The two statements are an obvious contradiction. No; I'm not a PETA lover or anything like that, however, I personally feel like we should try to harvest these animals without baiting them in any way. In my mind it cheapens the hunt. No; I'm not trying to degrade all those who hunt over salt. I think with the law how it is now, everybody has that right. I'm just saying that if the law were to change, that I would support it. I think more of us should support Game & Fish. I tend to agree with Tony's opinion earlier, I think Game & Fish really is trying to do the best thing to manage the animals and the people. They're dealing with limited resources and doing their best to provide opportunity for all to enjoy them, whether they just want a chance to hunt or a chance to harvest a trophy animal. I think the fact that we would all like to see more animals in the field is testimony to the fact that the harvest numbers might be too high right now, and doing something to help lower them while still maintaining hunter opportunity is a step in the right direction in my opinion.

 

Thanks

[KGAINES]

Outlaw scopes and binos, don't allow no hunts in Dec. or Jan., make compound bows only legal in the general seasons just like the crossbow, no salt or bait, no hunting within a quarter of a mile of water, no calls at all for any game, outlaw the use of hounds, outlaw trail cameras, and since we can't allow hunting over bait we can give all private landowners a percentage of tags that they can sell to allow you to hunt on their property, if we are going to outlaw hounds for small game we might as well outlaw bird dogs because that gives others a distinct advantage over someone who just kicks the birds up as they walk, I am sure I am missing a lot of extremely stupid rules that game and fish could pass that would lower success, but would not hurt opportunity.

 

It's funny how when they go to make a law that doens't affect an individual personally they usually don't care, but when it is going to affect them they want to rally everyone to their cause. Well the way I see it, we should each support one another when it comes to taking away what we already have.