salt and feed no more in 2009

[SouthernCouesHunter]

They require a mandatory reporting on all archery deer. Aren't they worried that if they go to a 20% = draw method that reporting numbers are going to plummet? Just a thought

[Outdoor Writer]

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!!!

 

Oh, the webs we weave and the slippery slopes we build.

 

Geez, I think hunting behind high-fences is a real kick. Beats the heck out of stomping around on public land with only minimal chances of success.

 

In every location cited above, high-fence hunting is legal and widely practiced. In fact , in most areas of South Africa it is illegal to have game animals available to hunters that aren't within high fences. So how can it be "unethical" if it's legal, as it is here, as well?

 

 

 

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????

 

From the AZ statutes:

 

13-2927. Unlawful feeding of wildlife; classification

 

A. A person commits unlawful feeding of wildlife by intentionally, knowingly or recklessly feeding, attracting or otherwise enticing wildlife into an area, except for:

 

1. Persons lawfully taking or holding wildlife pursuant to title 17 or pursuant to rules or orders of the Arizona game and fish commission.

 

2. Public employees or authorized agents acting within the scope of their authority for public safety or for wildlife management purposes.

 

3. Normal agricultural or livestock operational practices.

 

4. Tree squirrels or birds.

 

B. This section applies in a county with a population of more than two hundred eighty thousand persons.

 

C. Unlawful feeding of wildlife is a petty offense.

 

 

Addressing another concern in regards to the wording of a ban for using bait and such, it would no doubt be similar to the one now written for bear and/or migratory birds. Pretty simple in reality. Basically, it addresses the HUNTER who knowingly and intentionally attempts to alter a critter's natural habits. That's why sitting over a stock tank a rancher built is fine, while a HUNTER carting in a kid's swimming pool and filling it with water on a regular basis before & during a hunting season would be illegal.

 

1. No person shall knowingly use any substance as bait at

any time to attract or take bear.

 

i.e. -- No person shall knowingly use any substance as bait at

any time to attract or take deer ( and maybe elk!).

 

As for enforcement, laws are mostly designed as deterrents. So it will take the form exactly as it is for every other G&F statute or rule -- depending on the 99% of those hunters who obey the laws that are in place and leaving the discretion to cite or not up to a WM and the final decision of guilt or innocence to the courts.

 

The other 1% -- the "outlaws," so to speak -- can merely do as any other poacher does - take the chance of not getting caught. They can figure like some do that the majority of WMs never leave their trucks and hope any that do pass them by. Sorta like Russian roulette.

 

It's kinda like a perp entering a house with a sign in the window that says, "This property protected by a Smith & Wesson." So he asks himself, "Do I take the chance of getting shot?"

 

The moral: Break laws at one's own risk and peril. -TONY

[KGAINES]

The wording will not be deer or elk it will be cervids. Any of various hoofed mammals of the family Cervidae, which includes the deer and elk.

 

The department was set on having the deer and elk season overlap last year, but it was changed at the meeting. It seems like every year the recommendation is changed for the doe permits on the Kaibab, the dept. knows this and usually has alternative plans ready at the meeting or they will change on the fly as per the commissions directive. Don't assume that it won't matter whether you go to the meeting or not, you could be the one to sway them, but if you are not there you don't have a chance.

[Outdoor Writer]

>>The wording will not be deer or elk it will be cervids. <<

 

Oh, I can just hear it now when a WM is about to cite someone for hunting a cervid over salt.

 

"But...but... Sir, I wasn't hunting for a cervid. I don't have a permit/tag for that species and have no idea what one even looks like. I was deer hunting."

 

-TONY

[ThomC]

Now that is funny Tony.

 

Please give us your definition of "bait".

[Outdoor Writer]

Please give us your definition of "bait".

 

Any substance a hunter intentionally places to attract ______ (fill in your species of choice). Probably the better definition is: a WM will know it when he sees it. -TONY

[crazy4COUES]

Addressing another concern in regards to the wording of a ban for using bait and such, it would no doubt be similar to the one now written for bear and/or migratory birds. Pretty simple in reality. Basically, it addresses the HUNTER who knowingly and intentionally attempts to alter a critter's natural habits. That's why sitting over a stock tank a rancher built is fine, while a HUNTER carting in a kid's swimming pool and filling it with water on a regular basis before & during a hunting season would be illegal.

 

-TONY

 

Now tell me why is it an issue of concern if a guy/gal wants to utilize a kids swimming pool filled with water to hunt and kill deer? How and why is it different than using the ranchers stock tank...that happens to have a ranchers salt block next to it?! Is it the belief that it was not placed or built by the hunter that makes it acceptable? Also if the ranchers have salt, man made water tanks, wells etc. why is it considered natural if they are hunted over it? I fail to see any sense in this whole thing.

[crazy4COUES]

Please give us your definition of "bait".

 

Any substance a hunter intentionally places to attract ______ (fill in your species of choice). Probably the better definition is: a WM will know it when he sees it. -TONY

 

That narrows it down.......maybe an elk bugle or something.....give me a break! Attracting animals is ALL a part of hunting.

[Outdoor Writer]

Perhaps a quick perusal of all the rules pertaining to hunting/baiting migratory birds might help you understand the differences and nuances of what is natural and what isn't. These rules have been in place for eons. -TONY

[Outdoor Writer]

Please give us your definition of "bait".

 

Any substance a hunter intentionally places to attract ______ (fill in your species of choice). Probably the better definition is: a WM will know it when he sees it. -TONY

 

That narrows it down.......maybe an elk bugle or something.....give me a break! Attracting animals is ALL a part of hunting.

 

If you consider an elk bugle a "substance," then yes, it's bait. -TONY

[crazy4COUES]

substance: physical material from which something is made

 

A mouthcall (bugle) is physical material and the sound is made from it.

[Outdoor Writer]

substance: physical material from which something is made

 

A mouthcall (bugle) is physical and the sound is made from it.

 

Then it's obvious, no? If you interpret placing that "physical material" somewhere will attract game, then it is baiting, which you should avoid or risk a citation.

 

Me thinks most folks would interpret it with more common sense, however, realizing that the attractant FROM a mouthcall is a sound and not a substance. Plus, that sound doesn't habituate and alter the natural habits of game over time as bait does. In fact, it often does just opposite. -TONY

[crazy4COUES]

Just a little play on words....I understand your point. The kids and myself enjoy hiking around to the salt licks and placing cameras, checking the pictures. To think it would be considered illegal is upsetting to me.

[Outdoor Writer]

Just a little play on words....I understand your point. The kids and myself enjoy hiking around to the salt licks and placing cameras, checking the pictures. To think it would be considered illegal is upsetting to me.

 

Your kids can still enjoy that; the law doesn't cover taking photos. You and they just won't be able to HUNT over the same salt licks. -TONY

[Outdoor Writer]

I believe everyone as an outdoorsman is guilty of attracting something or using other setups to aid in killing or catching something. The double standard thing is ridiculous bt. our hunters.

 

1. salt/garlic impregnated lures

2. fish finders

3. underwater cameras to locate fish

4. calling animals

5. bows that shoot 300+ ft./sec.

6. hauling water b/c game and fish and other organizations don't and animals start to die

8. building drinkers in secret spots

9. making wallows

10. Inline muzzleloaders that shoot 300 yds.

11. blah blah blah

 

The bottom line is the majority of the hunters should get to decide what they have to abide by in the field.

 

That "blah blah blah" is really unethical and should be banned. -TONY