salt and feed no more in 2009

[Outdoor Writer]

I spoke at great length to a WM in the field this weekend and, come to find out, he is one of the four AZGF guys that are writing the new rule.... The NEW RULE will be very much like the bear baiting rule, but more broad. Water and Salt will still be ok..... However, any other bait substance placed for the purpose of hunting or taking any big game will be Illegal. Probably as soon as Jan. 2009 and there is no stopping this new rule. Done deal, end of story, it will not be up for any discussion.

 

CnS

 

I just got off the phone with someone intimately involved with writing the rule, and as of now, SALT is still included in it just like any other substance -- "placed for the purpose of hunting or taking any big game."

 

That said, the final wording is far from conclusive yet since it will go through a couple of different reviews by various internal mechanisms before it reaches the form for public input and eventual presentation to the commission. -TONY

[Outdoor Writer]

For FYI purposes:

 

The rulemaking process

 

1. Rulemaking officially begins when the Department submits a “Notice of Docket Opening.” This allows the process to start.

 

2. The Department then holds internal meetings to come up with a course of action and draft rule language. (the Baiting rule is now at this stage)

 

3. The Department notifies the public about opportunities to comment on the draft. The Department usually holds public meetings specifically to get input from the community that will be affected by the rule. These meetings are typically held at the Department’s regional offices across the state.

 

4. Once comments are received, the Department reconvenes to discuss the comments and the possibility of including them.

 

5. The Department then revises its draft language and also economic impact statements (EIS). The revised language and the EIS are submitted to the Arizona Game and Fish Commission for its approval.

 

6. If the Commission approves, the Department then notifies the public that the rules will be submitted to the Secretary of State to be published as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Arizona Administrative Register. Once the rules are published, the public has 30 days to submit further comments.

 

7.The Department reconvenes again internally to determine how to address the comments it has received, either by incorporating them into the rulemaking or not.

 

8. The rulemaking is then finalized, and the Department submits a “Notice of Final Rulemaking” to the Commission for its approval once more. If the Commission approves, the Department submits the package to the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council (GRRC).

 

9. GRRC holds a regularly scheduled public meeting to review the final rulemaking and determine whether to approve or reject it.

 

The above rulemaking description is not comprehensive. It is meant only to provide a brief overview of the rulemaking process and is not binding on the Commission or Department. Furthermore, different types of rulemakings, such as emergency rulemaking or exempt rulemaking, require separate procedures for completion.

[Halibuthead]

I have read this entire forum and really feel for you guys. I deal with this crap all the time in our fisheries. Fish and Game forgets their responsibility is to make decisions based on biology and what is right for the resource. To me it doesnt sound like the number of deer being taken by archers is effecting the population so it should be a non issue. Sounds like someone has a hair up their butt about baiting and rather that find ways to give or allow hunters opportunities they are looking for ways to take them away!

 

My best advice is strength in numbers. Letter writing campaigns and showing up in huge numbers at every meeting that addresses the issue. Representatives who are well spoken meeting with the comish in person would be a good thing. I will be watching what you guys do and am happy to write letters from my end.

 

I hate big bro and their screwing over of the little guy. Good luck.

[TLH]

I put a poll up on AZOD if you all want to go there here is the link

 

http://azodchat.com/forum/index.php

[Outdoor Writer]

To me it doesnt sound like the number of deer being taken by archers is effecting the population so it should be a non issue.

 

If the ban goes into effect, it makes baiting illegal for EVERYONE, not only bowhunters. -TONY

[DesertBull]

Doug,

 

Leonard said they were basing the increased success rate on info from field personnel. He didn't mention having data on the diff success rates on sitting a water hole vs salt. I don't think they have hard data on it, but I doubt any of us would argue that hunting over salt isn't effective. I don't think the use of bait issue is based solely on hunter success. One of the issues that Leonard mentioned was that there is an ethical or public perception issue with the use of baits. Baits are banned for many other species, so the public is wondering why not deer? Of course I asked him if sitting a waterhole would constitute sitting over bait since I can't imagine a better bait than life-giving water. But he said no, that wouldn't be considered bait because it's not put there by the hunter.

 

Amanda

 

 

http://forums.coueswhitetail.com/forums/in...c=5618&st=0

 

Just as I thought.

[Huntn coues]

Dollar to a doughnut salt will not be banned (according to one of the four guy's leading the way on this issue).

Salt is every where naturally and there is a boat load placed by cattle ranchers. So it will be extremely difficult

to put the wammy on a hunter sitting over it. ie...... Who placed it? Was it placed for the sole purpouse of hunting?

Way to many variables IMO.

[bobbyo]

Dollar to a doughnut salt will not be banned (according to one of the four guy's leading the way on this issue).

Salt is every where naturally and there is a boat load placed by cattle ranchers. So it will be extremely difficult

to put the wammy on a hunter sitting over it. ie...... Who placed it? Was it placed for the sole purpouse of hunting?

Way to many variables IMO.

 

"Ya officer that white crater in the ground that my stand is exactly 20 yards from is one of those naturally occurring salt craters. Yea it is right next to that naturally occurring Apache corn. "

[DesertBull]

Dollar to a doughnut salt will not be banned (according to one of the four guy's leading the way on this issue).

Salt is every where naturally and there is a boat load placed by cattle ranchers. So it will be extremely difficult

to put the wammy on a hunter sitting over it. ie...... Who placed it? Was it placed for the sole purpouse of hunting?

Way to many variables IMO.

 

"Ya officer that white crater in the ground that my stand is exactly 20 yards from is one of those naturally occurring salt craters. Yea it is right next to that naturally occurring Apache corn. "

 

and 30 yards from the unnatural water source placed here by the game and fish department that attracts, habituates, and domesticates game animals every bit as much as a friggen salt brick.

[GRONG]

Way funny desertbull!!!!!!

[Coues 'n' Sheep]

I spoke at great length to a WM in the field this weekend and, come to find out, he is one of the four AZGF guys that are writing the new rule.... The NEW RULE will be very much like the bear baiting rule, but more broad. Water and Salt will still be ok..... However, any other bait substance placed for the purpose of hunting or taking any big game will be Illegal. Probably as soon as Jan. 2009 and there is no stopping this new rule. Done deal, end of story, it will not be up for any discussion.

 

CnS

 

I just got off the phone with someone intimately involved with writing the rule, and as of now, SALT is still included in it just like any other substance -- "placed for the purpose of hunting or taking any big game."

 

That said, the final wording is far from conclusive yet since it will go through a couple of different reviews by various internal mechanisms before it reaches the form for public input and eventual presentation to the commission. -TONY

 

 

Tony,

 

I am not arguing your source or that your source is higher up the ladder than mine. However, there are 4 people writing this new rule and they are not done yet and they, at this time, have no intention of incuding salt for a couple of reasons.... First: it occurs natually all over the state as well as everywhere cattle graze. Second: they do not believe that it "alters" the daily habits of game animals.... or cause them to change thier travel patterns. They believe that food type "baits" do alter the natural travel patterns and therefore increasing success and leading to the "need" for a new rule. From my understanding they will make the final wording so that their are NO loop holes. I am quite certain that if this rule does not reduce the harvest numbers ans they think it will..... they will find something else help to reduce success and then something else... until the numbers are where they want them...IMO.

 

CnS

[Coach]

"I am quite certain that if this rule does not reduce the harvest numbers ans they think it will..... they will find something else help to reduce success and then something else... until the numbers are where they want them...IMO."

 

Maybe they need to replace rifle and archery hunts with paintball-only hunts. I would love to hear them rationalize how issuing hundreds of rifle tags OVER what an area can support is supposed to be offset by preventing a handful of archery kills. This "increased opportunity" nonsense is killing the credibility of G&F, IMO.

[Outdoor Writer]

I am not arguing your source or that your source is higher up the ladder than mine. However, there are 4 people writing this new rule and they are not done yet and they, at this time, have no intention of incuding salt for a couple of reasons....

CnS

 

Gino,

 

Yes, my source is quite a bit higher up than the WM, but that's not important. He did tell me there are at least 8 people involved in writing the rule at this time, however.

 

First: it occurs natually all over the state as well as everywhere cattle graze. Second: they do not believe that it "alters" the daily habits of game animals.... or cause them to change thier travel patterns.

 

Of course, salt occurs naturally and ranchers also put out salt blocks for cattle. The difference is in the details because words have meanings and meanings have words: neither qualifies under the words "placed for the purpose of hunting or taking any big game." I'm guessing, but I'll speculate the rule will also have "knowingly" or "intentionally" in it.

 

Second: they do not believe that it "alters" the daily habits of game animals.... or cause them to change thier travel patterns. They believe that food type "baits" do alter the natural travel patterns and therefore increasing success and leading to the "need" for a new rule.

CnS

 

My source stated just the opposite and even mentioned that someone recently emailed him several cam pix of game animals visiting salt licks that had been "placed for the purpose of hunting or taking any big game." He also said that most WMs are not stupid; they would know the difference between those and natural licks or salt blocks set out by ranchers because the majority of the WMs know what's going on their areas. He also made a comment about those hunters who wish to obey the law if/when it's enacted. If they have a doubt an area is/has been baited or not, then they should probably stay away from it.

 

Maybe we need to do a poll and see who has the most success over bait -- those who use salt or those who use food stuffs. Then we can bestow the title of "Master Baiter" for the most successful of the bunch. -TONY

[DesertBull]

I have a poll for ya.

 

After they force this through, what will they go after next?

 

1. Hunting man made water sources.

2. Hunting with hounds.

3. Outlaw ultra-mags and other super long range rifles.

5. all electronic devices, including radios, range finders, cameras, etc

4. All of the above.

 

Have you noticed that the same people that are all gung ho on telling others what are ethical hunting practices are also the ones that have no problem keeping every two track and goat road open so they they can drive right into their hunting areas instead of having to walk? What gives with that? If you pack a 5 lb bag of salt and a camera 3 miles off the road and check it 2 times per month, you are cheating, but if you drive your F250 10 miles off the main road and right up to the ridge you plan on hunting opening morning, you're a true sportsman.

[Coach]

Tony,

Am I wrong in assuming you are one of the very vocal proponents of this bill actively pushing it along? It appeared from the flow of this thread that as soon as you heard Gino report that he heard salt was not going to be included you got right on the phone with your contact to make sure that wasn't the case. If I've read this wrong, then I apologize for reading to much into it. But if you are in fact leveraging your relationship with someone high up in G&F to push your personal ethics onto the rest of us, I think that is just plain wrong.

 

Jason