salt and feed no more in 2009

[tjhunt2]

Pretty easy to get better info.

 

Either return the survey or the unused tag one or the other. Not completely fail safe but better then what we have. And no survey or tag you dont hunt for a while.

 

Ok, how about if we were to all say we were unsuccessful. What then? Just a thought and not like I have ever done that.

 

TJ

[Traveler]

I got with Game and Fish yeasterday and would have posted this sooner but my computer took a crap and I just got it fixed. I asked the game and fish to send me harvest data form the 2007 seasons Archery and Rifle.

Here are The Facts

 

unit Archery Rifle

1 15 17

2b 1 37

3b/3c 16 68

4a/4b 4 20

5a/5b 3 79

6a 12 74

6b 15 37

7/e/w 24 199

8 7 135

9 4 119

10 5 105

11m 10 0

12a 70 0

12ae 3 118

12aw 16 464

12b/bw 3 199

13a 7 37

15a 3 0

15b 8 0

16a 5 127

17a 2 61

17b 7 67

18b 12 123

19a 8 147

19b 8 46

20a 28 167

20b 5 61

20c 2 144

21 14 104

22 45 99

23 65 121

24a 22 87

24b 10 207

26m 4 0

27 37 239

28 1 203

29 23 202

30a 5 336

30b 6 263

31 14 342

32 19 577

33 49 691

34a 26 336

34b 3 154

35a 10 161

35b 8 198

36a 10 354

36b 10 559

36c 8 256

37a 3 7

37b 7 87

38m 7 0

39-40 2 95

41 7 140

42 14 90

42m 1 0

44a 1 159

45b 1 54

47m 1 0

 

 

 

These are numbers from game and fish I had them send me the harvest data

Keep this in mind

 

Archery hunters reported 741 kills in 2007 manditory reportation

 

Firearm hunters harvested 10,835 deer in 2007 " this is what has been reported.

 

39,517 deer survays were sent out in 2007

19,108 deer survays were returned.

20,409 deer survays were not returned

HOW CAN AZGFD SAY ARCHERS ARE KILLING TO MANY DEER

 

Where is the ACLU to defend this minority called bowhunters??? We are being singled out!

[.270]

i'm still a little nuetral on this. but i'll put my 2 cents in anyway. back when compound bows became popular, recurve and longbow purists looked down their noses at them. to them, it took away from the hunt. and it does, to some extent. when was the last time you saw someone with a recurve in the field? and why? because they aren't nearly as effective and have a very short range. about half what a compound has. but a compound is still a lot less than even a .22. but i was a guy that shot a nice muley at 82 yards not long ago with his compound. drilled him in the heart. i've shot a lotta bucks closer than that with a rifle. killed a few with a bow, but they were real close. i love to shoot long ranges and see what i can hit. but not particularly when i'm hunting. i'll take a long shot when i can't get any closer. i shot a buck at over 500 yards this past november. no range finder or anything, just kentucky windage and know how. ranged it the next day just to see how far it was. i watched my son shoot a bull elk last december that was 804 yards away. he had the equipment to do it and it wasn't that big o' deal. i don't even feel like walking 804 yards to an animal after it's shot. just gettin' to the buck i shot and draggin' it out about killed me. here's my drift, everything we do that stretches the range we can shoot or shortens the range we have to shoot, i.e. bait, takes away from the actual hunting experience. it requires less actual hunting skill to shoot extreme ranges or to bait in animals. still takes a lotta work. maybe even more, if you factor in all the practice and load development and equipment cost for long range shooting and if you factor in all the work and expense of baiting. and it is baiting, it isn't feeding starving animals. you're just making it easier and more convenient for the animal to eat. sorta like domesticating them. but it is all legal, therefore, in my eyes, it is ethical. remember, legal=ethical. you can't legislate ethics. but i can see where the azgfd might be concerned here. (somebody kick me, i'm sorta agreein' with the game and fish) they have a situation that has been brought to their attention, that maybe someone is (maybe) turning a small group of public owned deer, on public land, into texas style, feeder dependent, semi domesticated animals. apparantly there has been a lot of discussion about this situation somewhere, or this wouldn't even be mentioned. the only way they can legislate anything like is, is to shotgun it. they can't limit specific people or specific situations, so they have to either ignore it, or outlaw it, or put more restrctions on it. looks like there is a pretty fare chance they're going to outlaw it. and they're going to do it because maybe a few folks, no idea who they are, have taken the privilage, to what sounds like the extreme, and some other folks have complained about it. look at what the azgfd has done in the past decade or so: lined up with anti's to outlaw trapping, tucked tail on the lion problem in sabino canyon, (and there was a real problem there), ignored their own bought and paid for studies that show the predator population of this state is out of control so they don't offend anti's, allowed non-native species like asiatic doves and crayfish to thrive and have put limits and restrictions on how you can take them, lined up with huggers on stuff like wolves and condors, tried to outlaw predator calling contests because of screaming anti's, appointed do nothing, glad handing politicians and closet anti hunters to the commission, kid glove treated illegal hunters, let the uso lawsuit get so out of hand it's a literal miracle we can even get a tag, etc, etc. and you guys are suprised by this little deal? when i said keep the big picture in sight, that's what i mean. the big picture meaning we are allowed to hunt. hunters need to decide what is ok with them, as a whole, not as fractured little groups within the set, and work toward it. the main thing is that we can get out in the country and hunt. and hunting is the goal. not numbers or scores. not body counts. hunting. being able to enjoy wild places with folks you like to be with. see how close you can get. learn how to outsmart mr buck. hunters need to decide what it is they want, as a body, and draw a line, close ranks, and defend it. and defend everyone. not a bunch of little splinter groups fighting each other and defending their own specific interests. all the time we spend fighting each other and the azgfd and anybody we decide is "unethical" or against us, is time the anti's have to sneak in a little closer. for years it was against the law to bait in anything except bears. now it's just the opposite. i don't know the answer, but we best find the answer for ourselves, or someone will find one for us. i've put out salt. i've never shot one thing on it. my kids do it and have had some success with it. and they'll cuss heck outta me for what i just wrote. but we ain't doin' it in order to guide a buncha folks. but personally, i can live without it. won't be even a speck of a loss to me. but how much is it going to hurt or help the big picture? that's the question that needs answered. Lark.

[bobbyo]

I feel this issue is unique in that it is really not anti hunters vs. hunters, but is obviously brought on by rifle hunters vs bowhunters. Let me be more specific. This is trophy rifle Coues hunters vs. trophy Coues bowhunters. This would be a non-issue unless someone was complaining about this method. Who might that be? Possibly Rifle hunters that are seeing all these out-sized Coues being taken over salt. The 741 number is proof. Bowhunting and salting don't seem to be putting undue pressure on the deer population, yet there is controversy. It is obvious to the rifle hunters and to myself, that if salting continued the bowhunters would rewrite the record books. The majority of B.C. deer will be taken with a bow. The horror! Would there be a problem with salting if you could only get a forky or a spike over salt. You know the answer.

Bob

Ps. Lark that is the first time I have ever read a post from you that was so thoughtful, balanced, with the ability to see both sides of the argument while still supporting your side. Great job. I give you an A on your essay. You haven't been taking a coarse at that Scumdevil community college have you?

[.270]

no, you gotta have at least a g.e.d. to get in there. i think this is more a public land and public animal sorta deal. i really don't think it is a bowhunter/rifle hunter deal. rifle hunters can improve the heck outta their already better odds by using the same tactics. if the truth was known, i'd bet that it's a bowhunter/bowhunter deal. if it's on private land, no big deal. folks can do what they want. if baiting is unchecked, it will become a real problem. it seems we have a case where a small group has taken a legal thing to the extreme and it has upset others, maybe not even other hunters, and it has caused some hard feelings. even now, there are guys using other guys set ups, stealing cameras and stands. etc. it's just a matter of time before there is some sort of really unfortunate situation over things like this. plus it is turning truly wild animals on public land into animals that are semi dependent on the bait. the best thing about Az. is the abundance of public land that can be joint used by everyone. but i can see where there has to be a line somewhere. my dad killed several coues bucks in the 50's and 60's with a recurve. no camo, no bait, just his bow and cedar arrows fletched with chicken feathers. and he hated bowhunting. he did it because then you could get 2 deer a year, if one was with a bow. he was just sneaky and knew how to hunt. and he knew how to call em in with a varmint call. there wasn't the competition then that there is now and you didn't have to worry about other hunters at all during archery season. but a guy can still shoot a buck without bait. it's just harder. from what i can gather, if it was just individuals using salt and feed just for themselves and in only a place or 2, this would be a nonissue. but it appears that there has been some really large scale opertations that have shot up a flare for everyone to see and now we have this situation. Lark.

[DesertBull]

I feel this issue is unique in that it is really not anti hunters vs. hunters, but is obviously brought on by rifle hunters vs bowhunters. Let me be more specific. This is trophy rifle Coues hunters vs. trophy Coues bowhunters. This would be a non-issue unless someone was complaining about this method. Who might that be? Possibly Rifle hunters that are seeing all these out-sized Coues being taken over salt. The 741 number is proof. Bowhunting and salting don't seem to be putting undue pressure on the deer population, yet there is controversy. It is obvious to the rifle hunters and to myself, that if salting continued the bowhunters would rewrite the record books. The majority of B.C. deer will be taken with a bow. The horror! Would there be a problem with salting if you could only get a forky or a spike over salt. You know the answer.

Bob

Ps. Lark that is the first time I have ever read a post from you that was so thoughtful, balanced, with the ability to see both sides of the argument while still supporting your side. Great job. I give you an A on your essay. You haven't been taking a coarse at that Scumdevil community college have you?

 

When Mr Ordway 1st brought this up last year, I believe he said it was because he feared bad publicity in the non-hunting public over baiting, as the main reason.

[KGAINES]

Right now this is in the early stages of the rule making process, this and several other proposals are being looked at and this may or may not be part of the final proposal. The final proposal will be posted on azgfd for public input, that is the more formal public input not what they are reading here and on other sites, and yes it is being read. After that it will be presented to the commission at the April meeting to be accepted, rejected, or changed as directed by the commission. If I missed something or am wrong on this feel free to correct me.

[TLH]

You got it Keith--but, there are several other changes that will be on the list along with the baiting proposal. Leonard also said that when there is public input that they have to address it--

 

He also stated that we need to be vocal if we oppose it--public input is the only way to sway the commission (i know what you are all thinking--whats the use? well, it is like a lot of things, if you don't speak up you have no reason to complain later). Leonard stated that he is neither for or against and he will go with the final decision as law--he has no choice but we do. If you oppose this then speak up--if you support it then speak up--if you don't give a dang what others will do to your hunting then sit back and watch it fall apart in front of your eyes.

 

My biggest concern about this whole deal is we hunters are attacking each other--it isn't the Anti's, it isn't the non hunters it is us against us and that really is scary to me--we may not all agree on hunting styles or tactics but we should at least support the right to have those styles and tactics and not try to take it away from someone else.

 

Keep taking away from all of us and we will have nothing to keep----just my .02 cents

[TREESTANDMAN]

I kind of hope they outlaw grain/corn/sweet feed, but not salt if they do opt to do anything. As some people have stated previously, salt would be pretty much impossible to regulate as it is still good for 6-8 months after it has seeped into the ground. You can buy deer cocaine which is basically liquid salt and many other sorts of liquid salts. Deer also don't hit salt as frequently as they do corn or sweet feed.

 

I disagree that this is a large issue as the rifle areas and archery (heavy timer) areas tend to be separate in each unit. For instance in Unit 22/23 Rifle hunters tend to hunt the pinon/juniper more open glassable areas than archery hunters who are concentrated north/northeast of Payson in the thicker pines.

 

No factual data has been presented that these practices are hurting the deer herds. Yes, higher success ratios seem to have come as a result but I view that as a positive not a negative.

 

From what I have read and heard from this site and different sites the opinions of the hunters in general are OVERWHELMINGLY in opposition to touching the issue. I don't know how to do it but someone should open up a poll for us to vote just to see how many are opposed/in favor/ or oblivious.

 

I am very Passionate about hunting over salt with the use of Trail Cameras. I love watching, finding the sheds, getting pictures of etc the same trophy bucks year after year. It is very challenging, mentally, physically, and emotionally. I also enjoy spotting and stalking in different types of terrain, both archery and rifle.

 

I don't see any valid reason to take away hunting over salt.

[DesertBull]

I kind of hope they outlaw grain/corn/sweet feed, but not salt if they do opt to do anything. As some people have stated previously, salt would be pretty much impossible to regulate as it is still good for 6-8 months after it has seeped into the ground. You can buy deer cocaine which is basically liquid salt and many other sorts of liquid salts. Deer also don't hit salt as frequently as they do corn or sweet feed.

 

I disagree that this is a large issue as the rifle areas and archery (heavy timer) areas tend to be separate in each unit. For instance in Unit 22/23 Rifle hunters tend to hunt the pinon/juniper more open glassable areas than archery hunters who are concentrated north/northeast of Payson in the thicker pines.

 

No factual data has been presented that these practices are hurting the deer herds. Yes, higher success ratios seem to have come as a result but I view that as a positive not a negative.

 

From what I have read and heard from this site and different sites the opinions of the hunters in general are OVERWHELMINGLY in opposition to touching the issue. I don't know how to do it but someone should open up a poll for us to vote just to see how many are opposed/in favor/ or oblivious.

 

I am very Passionate about hunting over salt with the use of Trail Cameras. I love watching, finding the sheds, getting pictures of etc the same trophy bucks year after year. It is very challenging, mentally, physically, and emotionally. I also enjoy spotting and stalking in different types of terrain, both archery and rifle.

 

I don't see any valid reason to take away hunting over salt.

 

 

The fear is, if you give up something that seems insignificant, like the corn, next year they will want to take something else, then the following year something else. We've already seen it. Move rifle tags to October was the 1st step. Then move archery elk tags to Nov. Now we are facing a draw for archery deer tags and have lost some December archery hunts. It won't stop at outlawing corn or salt.

[KGAINES]

It is salt and baiting, it isn't one or the other, food plots are a different issue the same with any seeding that may occur from certain feeds, if the planting of any non certified invasive species is found that is a problem beyond the AZGFD rules. I feel that if they make these rules that we will have a lot more problems, ranchers can do what they want, so they can still salt and "feed their livestock" however they see fit, they can also charge trespass fees for an individual to hunt their property, or worse. I am not saying that will happen or already does, but when the individual can't do it and will be held more accountable then there is a problem. I see no problems with the way it is right now, if there is some scientific evidence that says we shouldn't do it then I might listen, but if it is to limit archers, then I think it is wrong, if it is jeolously over the quality bucks taken by the archers, I have a problem with that too, because the next law they pass may affect me, or the next one after that, you never know, and every time we argue and divide over this we make it easier for these rule changes. As Terry stated there are other proposals out there too some may be good, we will have to wait and see and fight for whatever we feel is best.

[wklman]

The only problem i see with it is that it groups deer together and if 1 of them were sick it would spread that desease more quickly because of all the contact with the same food. Thats why a lot of states ban feeding, to keep animals more dispersed and less seceptable to the spreading of deseases.

 

 

Wade

[KGAINES]

CWD was mentioned, but from everything we are being told there has never been a case in AZ yet, with our sparse water supplies would they outlaw building the water catchments and drinkers, I believe there is probaly going to be way more congregation at these spots than at a salt lick. Another thing is most of the guys that are using the salt and baits are also using trail cams and if they notice a sick or weird acting deer while they are in the area or if they have pictures someone could be notified of the problem.

[TREESTANDMAN]

don't understand why people are against the use of salt/feed and trail cameras. people that don't use them seem to think those that do are at a huge advantage. TO WHAT, I say? bottom line is a hunter can only harvest one deer/yr. those that go through all the effort to put out salt and cameras would probably kill a deer with or without them, so might as well let them enjoy scouting in these ways and let them find the most mature animals in the areas they are hunting and have at it. putting out salt isn't a ticket to success. some people put expend more time packing salt and cameras into areas on a yearly basis than most hunters spend scouting and hunting combined in that same yr. there is no difference bt. tactical scopes, big ultra mags, german binoculars, blah! blah! blah!. to each their own.

 

 

Well said.

[bobbyo]

You got it Keith--but, there are several other changes that will be on the list along with the baiting proposal. Leonard also said that when there is public input that they have to address it--

 

He also stated that we need to be vocal if we oppose it--public input is the only way to sway the commission (i know what you are all thinking--whats the use?

 

Great the commission needs to address public input. What I don't understand is how A PROPOSAL IS ORIGINATED TO BEGIN WITH? WHO DOES THE ORIGINAL INPUT THAT ACTUALLY CREATES A PROPOSAL? Once a proposal is made anyone that is against it is two steps behind. People against the proposal need to get info out and motivate people to go to meetings ect, but the proverbial cat is out of the bag and unless there is an overwhelming outcry proposals usually become policy. I see the real power is in the actual creation of the proposal. What are the guidelines, scientific basis, need analysis or political connections that are needed for a proposal. Who has the commissions ear? Probably not a bow hunter. In other words who is yanking the chain of game and fish to MAKE CHANGES to any policy. I believe their needs to be more transparency at the beginning of the proposal. Does the GF and the commission have a top down approach; have a desired policy and then come up with reasons for it. "Gee those guys are whacking all our trophy deer over salt. What reason can we come up with to outlaw salt." Or is it bottom up, "Our scientific studies have proven without a doubt that the deer cocaine is effecting the sperm count in all the deer on the rim. Maybe we should outlaw salting." Which method is most likely.

Bob