salt and feed no more in 2009

[KGAINES]

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.

Bob

 

You are right and it may be discussed at meetings prior to any proposals, but we have so few hunters that show up at meetings the information just doesn't get out, I don't know. I don't go to a lot of the meetings, but I try to get to the hunt reccomendation meeting every year, but even then as you said we are two steps behind. The commission has over the last few years listened to the hunters when the outcry is enough, except for the ADA survey which a few of the commissioners disregarded completely. Get to the meetings and fill out the card so you can have your say, be polite and let them know how you see it.

[wardsoutfitters]

You know I think most of the people on this site are for salt and feed. If not then oh well, we as hunters need to look after each other and stand behind one another. I'll be the first to say that I do not gun hunt for big game. I haven't since I was 14 years old BUTI will also be the first to say that I will defend anything that effects any of my fellow hunter friends

we all must stick together no matter how we feel about certain issues.

The bottom line is we as hunters must stick together on even the smallest issues at hand, united we stand, devided we will fall!!!

I will ask all of you that attend the commision meetings to ask about this issue. Please print out the harvest data and take that with you in defence of archers over harvesting.

[coueskiller]

Call me an OUTLAW or what ever you want, if they decide to outlaw salt then let them try to enforce that....hahaha. our G&F is a JOKE. I will keep on keeping on and if they want to find me and write me a ticket for hunting over salt then so be it. We have to stand up for what we want and if that takes me getting a ticket and or fine then so be it!! I will not lay down for this B.S. guess I will change my screen name to "outlawcoueskiller" Why make laws they can't enforce????? If things keep up on this pace it won't be long before we can't even go into the woods let alone hunt.

 

Geoff

[TLH]

Cousekiller,

 

I asked Leonard how they will be able to enforce the law if it came to be and he said that "believe it or not the WM's do get out of their trucks and you will be surprised where they may be watching you from."

 

I am not sure if the proposal goes into law that it would be worth loosing your hunting rights over--but that is just me.

 

Lets just hope we can keep new laws from happening----

[AzTrapper]

You know I think most of the people on this site are for salt and feed. If not then oh well, we as hunters need to look after each other and stand behind one another. I'll be the first to say that I do not gun hunt for big game. I haven't since I was 14 years old BUTI will also be the first to say that I will defend anything that effects any of my fellow hunter friends

we all must stick together no matter how we feel about certain issues.

The bottom line is we as hunters must stick together on even the smallest issues at hand, united we stand, devided we will fall!!!

I will ask all of you that attend the commision meetings to ask about this issue. Please print out the harvest data and take that with you in defence of archers over harvesting.

Your so right about hunters and how they or we must stick together. But how can we expect support from rifle hunters when so many posts are blaming them or slamming them! Would you support someone or a group who did this to YOU You know as well as I do that the anti's are saving these posts and jumpimg up and down with joy seeing how divided hunters are and will use many of these posts on others lists to divide even more. I was around when they came after trapping both times in fact I was President of the Arizona Trapper Assoc. the first time it came up to vote. I remember talking to so many groups who at first didn't care because they didn't trap, BUT many of them did come around in time and the Trappers won the first time and lost the second. We won support from many groups because we showed them how we had supported them in the past on issues that didn't effect us! NOT by slamming the other groups in any way, What I am again saying quick blaming any groups or ways of harvest because you may need those people to save your way of harvest. The Anti's I bet are loving some of these posts and will use them agains't you at some time and date, Been there seen that too many times

 

AzTrapper

[wardsoutfitters]

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

I talked to Leonard Ordaway today form Game And Fish. I asked him about the salt and baiting issue at hand. He seemed suprised that I would even have knowldge of what was going on. He stated that the issue of baiting has been submited thru the rule review process and will go back to the commision eairly summer for the final rule making process. I expressed that we as hunters of az should be made aware of the rule changes, He stated that it will be posted on the web site two weeks before it goes for final say. I also said that it needs to be readly available and we as hunters need to be notified if something was going to be changed that effects us hunters, he disagreed with me and said it would be on the web site and It's Up to us to look these things up. He also said that the proposed rule would read to this effest " intentionally placed substances to atract animals are illegal" , Kind of broad to me. He also said that the commision will look for the publics input on this matter , But as we all know I think their minds are made up. Also sounds to me from what I got form the conversation units 22 and 23 might be closed just like unit 27 this year. but dont quote me. basically we have two weeks to express how we feel about this whenit comes to the table.

Thanks STEVEN

[longshooter]

Call me dumb or uneducated but why would they close off unit 22 and 23 ? Closed off from all hunting ?

[KGAINES]

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

I talked to Leonard Ordaway today form Game And Fish. I asked him about the salt and baiting issue at hand. He seemed suprised that I would even have knowldge of what was going on. He stated that the issue of baiting has been submited thru the rule review process and will go back to the commision eairly summer for the final rule making process. I expressed that we as hunters of az should be made aware of the rule changes, He stated that it will be posted on the web site two weeks before it goes for final say. I also said that it needs to be readly available and we as hunters need to be notified if something was going to be changed that effects us hunters, he disagreed with me and said it would be on the web site and It's Up to us to look these things up. He also said that the proposed rule would read to this effest " intentionally placed substances to atract animals are illegal" , Kind of broad to me. He also said that the commision will look for the publics input on this matter , But as we all know I think their minds are made up. Also sounds to me from what I got form the conversation units 22 and 23 might be closed just like unit 27 this year. but dont quote me. basically we have two weeks to express how we feel about this whenit comes to the table.

Thanks STEVEN

 

How you knew and started the topic may have surprised him, but he has kept track of this thread for sure.

Leonard had mentioned this last year at an ADA meeting as something that was being looked at then. I don't think anyone is bashing rifle hunters as much as just saying that if it is salt today it could be something they use exclusively next. We need to stick together on this and show up to that April meeting, I will say it again this year the commioners would be hard pressed to pass something when there are a few hundred hunters standing in the room opposing the decision.

[crazy4COUES]

So a little "mock scrape" dripper would then be "illegal"?? What about those water projects that are always going on to help wildlife have readily available water? They are intentionally built and or maintained to atract wildlife......Also in what way is or was 27 closed?

[DesertBull]

So a little "mock scrape" dripper would then be "illegal"?? What about those water projects that are always going on to help wildlife have readily available water? They are intentionally built and or maintained to atract wildlife......Also in what way is or was 27 closed?

 

 

HAHA! Good point!

[wardsoutfitters]

What leonard said Is that if archers harvest over 20% in any given unit then we will loose the December season in that unit. Didn't we loose december 27 last year?

[Coues 'n' Sheep]

How you knew and started the topic may have surprised him, but he has kept track of this thread for sure.

Leonard had mentioned this last year at an ADA meeting as something that was being looked at then. I don't think anyone is bashing rifle hunters as much as just saying that if it is salt today it could be something they use exclusively next. We need to stick together on this and show up to that April meeting, I will say it again this year the commioners would be hard pressed to pass something when there are a few hundred hunters standing in the room opposing the decision.

 

 

The question is, reguardless if there was 5 or 500 hunters standing together as one at those meeting would they really listen??? I agree that it is worth every effort, but they sound as if it is and has been a done deal from the beginning. I am against them taking anything else from us. We should all stand together and we should all quit shoving our noses in the air about this and other topics! If any of the methods that are used by hunters in this state are unethical then they are unethical in Texas, accross the Midwest, Canada, Africa, and Everywhere else that anyone has hunted!! But I don't think this topic is unethical in ANY of those places or illegal, for that matter. We are not hunting behind high fences..... That is unethical!!!

They make more rules to "help management"???.... Why not use what they have??? If they can predict the annual harvest every year, would it not then be easier to "manage" the herd??? They seem to do a good job with Bears on a Harvest Objective System... it is a proven management tool. So why, I ask, do they need more rules and more paper work to manage deer (specifically archery deer)????? First they put deer to a draw... more units to follow.... then they outlaw "attractants"..... do they inforce it just on hunters or on all the home owners in rural AZ that feed the deer, elk, pigs, Squirrels, & Birds???? They "Create" all this Extra work just so that it "appears" that they are proactively managing the herds. I am sorry, but this is a JOKE.... another example of Big Government, Over Governing. It will next be how to limit the use of certain power optics, Double Bull blinds, Trail Cams, compound bows, rifle scopes.... yada, yada, yada..... They are already working to take the ability to recover game with a 4-Wheeler.... but don't waist that game meat!!!! Wake up!!! We have to STAND TOGETHER!!!!

 

 

CnS

[crazy4COUES]

What leonard said Is that if archers harvest over 20% in any given unit then we will loose the December season in that unit. Didn't we loose december 27 last year?

 

No we couldn't hunt 27 in dec. but we could hunt it in aug. and jan. But we did loose OTC archery in unit 1 to the best of my knowledge it will be a draw. I hope we don't loose 27 that would really SUCK!

[wardsoutfitters]

What leonard said Is that if archers harvest over 20% in any given unit then we will loose the December season in that unit. Didn't we loose december 27 last year?

 

No we couldn't hunt 27 in dec. but we could hunt it in aug. and jan. But we did loose OTC archery in unit 1 to the best of my knowledge it will be a draw. I hope we don't loose 27 that would really SUCK!

you see if we harvest 20% we loose the december hunt in that unit !!!! This is where it all begins!!!!!!!!!!!

[tjhunt2]

I am sorry, but this is a JOKE.... another example of Big Government, Over Governing. It will next be how to limit the use of certain power optics, Double Bull blinds, Trail Cams, compound bows, rifle scopes.... yada, yada, yada..... They are already working to take the ability to recover game with a 4-Wheeler.... but don't waist that game meat!!!! Wake up!!! We have to STAND TOGETHER!!!!

 

 

CnS

 

Well put CnS!

 

Little by little they want to take from us and what we lose we WON'T get back.

 

TJ