salt and feed no more in 2009

[Muley62]

Great point!

 

This whole thing really irks me, mostly because it is born out of pure jealousy. Every time I ask department personnel why they are doing this I am told it is due to “public outcry.” How many publics have been crying? Or how many crying publics does it take to create a rule?

 

The other thing I often hear is “the non hunting public would not support this type of activity.” Well, the “non-hunting” public, by definition, does not hunt! So desertbull is asking a very real question. Which form of hunting will get thrown under the bus next?!

 

I am betting it will be hound hunting, then varmint hunting, and then I guess bowhunting would be next.

[Outdoor Writer]

Because what Gino had posted was contrary to what I had been already told a couple days ago, I made the call merely to keep everything as factual as possible -- or to at least present differing "facts" from more than one source.

 

That's what I do for a living, and in so doing I attempt to not base anything on emotional aspects or issues unrelated to the topic at hand -- which will likely be a PROPOSED rule banning baiting and nothing more. Those who made that decision at the AGFD didn't need or ask for my help. -TONY

[DesertBull]

Great point!

 

This whole thing really irks me, mostly because it is born out of pure jealousy. Every time I ask department personnel why they are doing this I am told it is due to “public outcry.” How many publics have been crying? Or how many crying publics does it take to create a rule?

 

The other thing I often hear is “the non hunting public would not support this type of activity.” Well, the “non-hunting” public, by definition, does not hunt! So desertbull is asking a very real question. Which form of hunting will get thrown under the bus next?!

 

I am betting it will be hound hunting, then varmint hunting, and then I guess bowhunting would be next.

 

Public outcry my ***.

 

And how many tags and hunting licenses do the "non-hunting" public buy? ZERO! We are asked to pay more and more for tags and licences, and continually get less and less in return. Unless you call getting kicked in the sack or stabbed in the back something in return.

[Outdoor Writer]

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

 

Jason,

 

I forgot to address the above.

 

IF it were true, why would it be "just plain wrong?" -TONY

[Hunting6]

One good thing..... Man is extremely resourceful, and all of us use some type of method whether it's mechanical, a so called substance (bait), knowledge of animal habitat, or our legs to get into inaccessible honey holes.

I am pretty sure we will always figure out legal ways that will enhance our opportunity to harvest game, thats our nature. I should say for most .

 

Someone in the G&F defenitely has a bug somewhere in or near their posterior on this issue. This had to start somewhere, and if they are basing this on "public perception" Which seems like its becoming the norm for sheeple in this country, then it is wrong.

If they can "CLEARLY" demonstrate a "significant" imbalance in harvest rate on this issue, which doesn't seem to be the case at this juncture, then I might be for a change, doubt it, but might. Things like this seem to have a snowball affect, and our fine public perception people will not stop here. The old saying goes "crap rolls down hill" Hunters & Hunting are at the bottom on this one. If you took a hundred random people and asked them to describe "Unethical" scenarios, you would be surprised at the myriad of results you would get back.

The only thing we can do when we really believe in something is to voice our fight to the G&F leadership, and then let God do the rest.

[Coach]

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

 

Jason,

 

I forgot to address the above.

 

IF it were true, why would it be "just plain wrong?" -TONY

 

 

LOL. Well, to begin with, leveraging a personal relationship with the "boys in the club" to push a political agenda in the name of "ethics" is probably as close to the definition of irony as you can get. If you don't like salt licks and trail cameras (and you obviously don't based on the number of posts you've created blasting them as unfair), then don't use them.

 

No single license holder in this state should have any more power in influencing policy than any other. Too bad that is not the reality - but choosing to take advantage of that situation just because you can't seem to convince other hunters to adopt YOUR brand ethics is beyond arrogant. Most of us only get one voice in terms of public input, and even that is usually ignored. A bunch of old buddies making the rules however they see fit with complete disregard for the will of the hunting public and lack of scientific basis for those rules is not a functional game management agency - it's an out-of-control club playing loose and free with the rights (and dollars) of Arizona's sportsmen. (Of course - this is all based on the hypothetical IF )

 

There are a LOT of people who consider all hunting unethical. How long will it be before they get the ear of the person in charge and the end casualty are YOUR rights?

[missedagain]

Thomas Jefferson's "A little revolution now and then is a good thing"

[Outdoor Writer]

LOL. Well, to begin with, leveraging a personal relationship with the "boys in the club" to push a political agenda in the name of "ethics" is probably as close to the definition of irony as you can get. If you don't like salt licks and trail cameras (and you obviously don't based on the number of posts you've created blasting them as unfair), then don't use them.

 

No single licesnse holder in this state should have any more power in influencing policy than any other. Too bad that is not the reality - but choosing to take advantage of that situation just because you can't seem to convince other hunters to adopt YOUR brand ethics is beyond arrogant. Most of us only get one voice in terms of public input, and even that is usually ignored. A bunch of old buddies making the rules however they see fit with complete disregard for the will of the huntering public and lack of scientific basis for those rules is not a functional game management agency - it's an out-of-control club playing loose and free with the rights (and dollars) of Arizona's sportsmen. (Of course - this is all based on the hypothetical IF )

 

There are a LOT of people who consider all hunting unethical. How long will it be before they get the ear of the person in charge and the end casualty are YOUR rights?

 

Well, since you chose to turn this personal....

 

 

First off, I have no "personal" relationships with anyone at G&F. In fact, I've met the person I cited as a source face-to-face only once, and that was years ago. Any other contact with him has been via phone for research purposes either for management questions or issues such as this. If anything, you should be dang thankful that I try to provide as much FACTUAL information as possible.

 

And I certainly have no "political agenda" that needs to be "leveraged." I leave that sort of stuff to politicians.

 

There is absolutely nothing arrogant about trying to convince anyone of something. If there was, those here trying to convince others that baiting is a wholesome family activity to be enjoyed by all are no less arrogant. If you wish to support baiting, knock yourself out.

 

Second, it seems you're saying that you're allowed that "one voice," but I'm not allowed my "one voice." If so, that is arrogance at its finest. I have bought hunting/fishing licenses every year over the last 45 and many tags in this state. That alone qualifies me to have as much say on any issue as you do.

 

The members of this forum are but one VERY small segment of total hunters in this state and a minuscule segment of the general population. That's something to keep in mind when suggesting that hunting rules/laws should be passed only with the majority's blessing. Other states have already discovered the results of that foolhardy notion. Remember that, especially if G&F doesn't put the bait ban in effect; it could be coming to ballot near you as an initiative soon thereafter and be a LOT more restrictive than one G&F puts on the books. And you can bet more than 50% of the voters -- including those "nonhunters" who aren't supposed to have a say -- will pass it.

 

Pogo once said..."We have met the enemy... and he is us."

 

Have a great day! -TONY

[DesertBull]

LOL. Well, to begin with, leveraging a personal relationship with the "boys in the club" to push a political agenda in the name of "ethics" is probably as close to the definition of irony as you can get. If you don't like salt licks and trail cameras (and you obviously don't based on the number of posts you've created blasting them as unfair), then don't use them.

 

No single licesnse holder in this state should have any more power in influencing policy than any other. Too bad that is not the reality - but choosing to take advantage of that situation just because you can't seem to convince other hunters to adopt YOUR brand ethics is beyond arrogant. Most of us only get one voice in terms of public input, and even that is usually ignored. A bunch of old buddies making the rules however they see fit with complete disregard for the will of the huntering public and lack of scientific basis for those rules is not a functional game management agency - it's an out-of-control club playing loose and free with the rights (and dollars) of Arizona's sportsmen. (Of course - this is all based on the hypothetical IF )

 

There are a LOT of people who consider all hunting unethical. How long will it be before they get the ear of the person in charge and the end casualty are YOUR rights?

 

Well, since you chose to turn this personal....

 

 

First off, I have no "personal" relationships with anyone at G&F. In fact, I've met the person I cited as a source face-to-face only once, and that was years ago. Any other contact with him has been via phone for research purposes either for management or issues such as this. If anything, you should be dang thankful that I try to provide as much FACTUAL information as possible.

 

And I certainly have no "political agenda" that needs to be "leveraged." I leave that sort of stuff to politicians.

 

There is absolutely nothing arrogant about trying to convince anyone of something. If there was, those here trying to convince others that baiting is a wholesome family activity to be enjoyed by all are no less arrogant. If you wish to support baiting, knock yourself out.

 

Second, it seems you're saying that you're allowed that "one voice," but I'm not allowed my "one voice." If so, thatis arrogance at its finest. I have bought hunting/fishing licenses every year over the last 45 and many tags in this state. That alone qualifies me to have as much say on any issue as you do.

 

The members of this forum are but one VERY small segment of total hunters in this state and a minuscule segment of the general population. That's something to keep in mind when suggesting that hunting rules/laws should be passed only with the majority's blessing. Other states have already discovered the results of that foolhardy notion. Remember that, especially if G&F doesn't put the bait ban in effect; it could be coming to ballot near you as an initiative soon thereafter and be a LOT more restrictive than one G&F puts on the books. And you can bet more than 50% of the voters -- including those "nonhunters" who aren't supposed to have a say -- will pass it.

 

Pogo once said..."We have met the enemy... and he is us."

 

Have a great day! -TONY

 

So, what you are saying is that it is better for us to take it away from ourselves than to let others take it away from us?

Well then, why don't we just go ahead and turn in our guns and hounds too and save us all a bunch of time and money?

 

And how can an outright ban of any substance used to attract game be anymore restrictive?

 

I agree with the quote you gave. We are our own worst enemy. We give away our rights and priviledges too easy for fear it might offend someone.

[Outdoor Writer]

So, what you are saying is that it is better for us to take it away from ourselves than to let others take it away from us?

Well then, why don't we just go ahead and turn in our guns and hounds too and save us all a bunch of time and money?

 

I'll leave the inference on the issue of baiting up to you. More restrictive can include a ban on hunting within 1/4 mile of man-made water, etc. It could ban all scent attractants as the NM law does, etc., etc.

 

Let's put it this way, the antis in Colorado not only got rid of bear baiting and the use of hounds, but they also got the spring bear season shut down. That is exactly why AGFD preempted an initiative by banning bear baiting here in the mid-1990s right after the Colorado fiasco. The handwriting was on the wall. So note that the spring bear season is still on the books here.

 

As for the 2nd sentence, it's a red herring. Unless you know something I don't, there are NO proposals being made about hounds or guns. Such comments made at G&F meetings are probably one reason the commissioners ignore a lot of the input. Best to stay on topic; this one is about baiting.

 

-TONY

[Coach]

LOL. Well, to begin with, leveraging a personal relationship with the "boys in the club" to push a political agenda in the name of "ethics" is probably as close to the definition of irony as you can get. If you don't like salt licks and trail cameras (and you obviously don't based on the number of posts you've created blasting them as unfair), then don't use them.

 

No single licesnse holder in this state should have any more power in influencing policy than any other. Too bad that is not the reality - but choosing to take advantage of that situation just because you can't seem to convince other hunters to adopt YOUR brand ethics is beyond arrogant. Most of us only get one voice in terms of public input, and even that is usually ignored. A bunch of old buddies making the rules however they see fit with complete disregard for the will of the huntering public and lack of scientific basis for those rules is not a functional game management agency - it's an out-of-control club playing loose and free with the rights (and dollars) of Arizona's sportsmen. (Of course - this is all based on the hypothetical IF )

 

There are a LOT of people who consider all hunting unethical. How long will it be before they get the ear of the person in charge and the end casualty are YOUR rights?

 

Well, since you chose to turn this personal....

 

 

First off, I have no "personal" relationships with anyone at G&F. In fact, I've met the person I cited as a source face-to-face only once, and that was years ago. Any other contact with him has been via phone for research purposes either for management questions or issues such as this. If anything, you should be dang thankful that I try to provide as much FACTUAL information as possible.

 

And I certainly have no "political agenda" that needs to be "leveraged." I leave that sort of stuff to politicians.

 

There is absolutely nothing arrogant about trying to convince anyone of something. If there was, those here trying to convince others that baiting is a wholesome family activity to be enjoyed by all are no less arrogant. If you wish to support baiting, knock yourself out.

 

Second, it seems you're saying that you're allowed that "one voice," but I'm not allowed my "one voice." If so, thatis arrogance at its finest. I have bought hunting/fishing licenses every year over the last 45 and many tags in this state. That alone qualifies me to have as much say on any issue as you do.

 

The members of this forum are but one VERY small segment of total hunters in this state and a minuscule segment of the general population. That's something to keep in mind when suggesting that hunting rules/laws should be passed only with the majority's blessing. Other states have already discovered the results of that foolhardy notion. Remember that, especially if G&F doesn't put the bait ban in effect; it could be coming to ballot near you as an initiative soon thereafter and be a LOT more restrictive than one G&F puts on the books. And you can bet more than 50% of the voters -- including those "nonhunters" who aren't supposed to have a say -- will pass it.

 

Pogo once said..."We have met the enemy... and he is us."

 

Have a great day! -TONY

 

Tony,

Let's take a quick breath and a step back here. I did not intend to make it personal beyond expressing my opinion in my original post that you seemed to have a vested interest in seeing this thing passed. You asked me why I thought it would be wrong IF somebody was using a personal influence to circumvent the system to push their agenda. Based on that hypothetical situation, I gave you my answer - again clarifying that it was based on the hypothetical IF - and I stand by my answer. The YOU and YOUR only apply if the hypothetical fits YOU. Sorry for not clarifying that and it coming across as an attack.

 

However, based on your responses, it doesn't seem like you really even read what was written there. For instance, no where did I say you should not be allowed a voice - only that no single license holder's voice should carry more weight than another's . I also never implied that there is anything arrogant about trying to convince someone about something. I said it would be beyond arrogant to try to slip a rule in the back door to FORCE your ethics on someone else via a law when your efforts to convince them have failed, just because you could.

 

I respect your opinion and input on this forum, but I really think you might have misread my post. It truly was meant to answer the question you asked, and I opologize that it came across as an attack on you personally. For the record, I don't have any salt licks and have never killed a deer (or any other animal)over a salt lick. I am just tired of seeing OUR rights and hunting opportunities eroding more and more every year based on emotion and politics (and money). I too have hunted and fished here for decades and I certainly don't like the direction we are heading.

[Outdoor Writer]

Tony,

Let's take a quick breath and a step back here. I did not intend to make it personal beyond expressing my opinion in my original post that you seemed to have a vested interest in seeing this thing passed. You asked me why I thought it would be wrong IF somebody was using a personal influence to circumvent the system to push their agenda. Based on that hypothetical situation, I gave you my answer - again clarifying that it was based on the hypothetical IF - and I stand by my answer. The YOU and YOUR only apply if the hypothetical fits YOU. Sorry for not clarifying that and it coming across as an attack.

 

However, based on your responses, it doesn't seem like you really even read what was written there. For instance, no where did I say you should not be allowed a voice - only that no single license holder's voice should carry more weight than another's . I also never implied that there is anything arrogant about trying to convince someone about something. I said it would be beyond arrogant to try to slip a rule in the back door to FORCE your ethics on someone else via a law when your efforts to convince them have failed, just because you could.

 

I respect your opinion and input on this forum, but I really think you might have misread my post. It truly was meant to answer the question you asked, and I opologize that it came across as an attack on you personally. For the record, I don't have any salt licks and have never killed a deer (or any other animal)over a salt lick. I am just tired of seeing OUR rights and hunting opportunities eroding more and more every year based on emotion and politics (and money). I too have hunted and fished here for decades and I certainly don't like the direction we are heading.

 

Fair enough.

 

Here's the problem with what it seems you're saying here. Now correct me if I'm again misunderstanding you, but it APPEARS you're linking "using a personal influence to circumvent the system" to talking to someone at G&F by phone as something underhanded, when in effect ANYONE can do the same just by calling the main number and asking to speak to someone involved with the issue. Or anyone can freely send email messages to the department and express their concerns.

 

In the grand scheme of things, any one of the above is actually less effective than showing up at a commission meeting to voice those concerns directly to them.

 

No onward and upward! -TONY

[GameHauler]

nothing personal against anyone here. just wondering if people could post if they were for or against the ban. I am against it. I was looking for a simple yes or no. sorry if i rubbed anyone wrong but i will say i am AGAINST THIS. what do you all feel? a simple YES or NO.

 

 

I do not think a poll is a good idea at THIS time.

[Coueser]

I'm for it.

[GameHauler]

"No onward and upward! wink.gif -TONY"

^

^

 

Tony made a TypeO

 

JK Bud