salt and feed no more in 2009

[Outdoor Writer]

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

^

^

 

Tony made a TypeO

 

JK Bud

 

Actually, I was outta of the room for a bit, and when I came back Sasha (my pup) was sitting at the keyboard. Bet she added that line. Her typing isn't too hot because of her big paws and long nails. -TONY

[GameHauler]

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

^

^

 

Tony made a TypeO

 

JK Bud

 

Actually, I was outta of the room for a bit, and when I came back Sasha (my pup) was sitting at the keyboard. Bet she added that line. Her typing isn't too hot because of her big paws and long nails. -TONY

 

I should have figured that out on my own.

Sorry

[Coach]

Tony,

To answer your question, I would only consider it underhanded if the person calling had any additional "pull" than any other caller.

[Outdoor Writer]

Tony,

To answer your question, I would only consider it underhanded if the person calling had any additional "pull" than any other caller.

 

You mean like if that person is the president of the ADA, a noted outfitter or some such person who doesn't want bait banned??

 

I can tell you that lowly outdoor writers don't have much pull. I've been trying to convince several people at G&F that I should get an early rifle elk tag and a bighorn sheep permit because of my profession and age. Unfortunately, it has all fallen on deaf ears.

 

Even my wife ignores me. Well, not completely. She does allow me to make all the major decisions, such as bombing China, how to reduce the national debt, etc. In turn, she makes all the minor ones such as buying a new vehicle or house, where we go on vacation and how much my allowance is. -TONY

[bobbyo]

What is the rationale for the bait ban again?

 

Maybe it is because Baiting is not fair chase. What about Rifle Antelope hunting? Talk about not fair chase. An absolute guarantee that you will get an animal. A near 100% success rate is not fair chase under any definition. How is that fair. How about a ban on all rifle hunting Antelope tags. GF could make the 504 rifle tags into 5000 archery tags where antelope hunting is truly fair-chase with the 10% archery success rate. 500 hunters or 5000 hunters still only 500 dead Antelope bucks. Now that is increasing opportunity and eliminating hunting tactics that are absolutely unfair.

 

Maybe it is because of public perception. All those letters to the editor. Those TV. ads from the humane society. The presidential debate questions about deer baiting. Sorry I missed the public outcry against baiting for deer. I believe they are even suspending the federal ban on waterfowl baiting due to the over population.

 

How many people actually bait anyway? I am sure it is in the hundreds not thousands. Baiting with corn or any food substance in 95% of Arizona public land is laughable. You would be spending thousands of dollars feeding cows on our beautiful cow pie decorated open range before a deer would even show. This brings us to salt and CW.COM. The members have been tracking them and whacking them and doing it on the 23rd ranked hunting web site. People see the trophy deer on this sight. They get jealous. Spot and stalk outfitters get nervous. When Ward outfitters clients' fill over 80% of their archery tags while drinking beer and martini's in a blind. It makes rifle hunting outfitters furious! I am FAT CAT deer hunter from the east. Gee I could climb 1000' vertical and sit with a redneck glassing for countless boring hours or I could sit in a comfy chair, watch Bruce Willis on a lap top, have some pops and whack a Coues with a bow. Hard decision.

 

I don't believe this law is not going to be instituted for some higher order reason. It is not a better sportsmanship law. It is not about fair chase. It is about two things greed and fear. The greedy ones don't want baiters shooting all their trophy deer and outfitters are fearful they will lose some clients. Like I said in an earlier post. Would there be a law against baiting if you only got spikes and forkys over them.

Bob

[bowhunter4life]

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.

 

 

 

somebody needs to set up a poll on this site like "azot" to do the tracking I'm 100% against any more changes from g-f. They have done more damage the last 3 years then any any other time i can recall in the 35 years i have lived in az. we all know 2 years from now they will be looking to take 50% of our sept bull tags and put them in nov. since mr. lenard took our g-f over from tice, there have been a sure outlash from them to slowly take away our rights.elk tags, rifle dec. tags. archery tags,moving all seasons,dates,and now baiting, were does it end? there was a ton of $'s spent by our az. sportsmens club to fight and keep us informed. they need our support. it is time to stand, join our clubs, "wcc, elk, deer,az.bowhunter,bear, hoondsmens, preditorcallers,antelope, yuma rod-gun, desert christian archers. there are many more out there. they are only as stong as there membership and there members going to the meetings and showing the g-f. that we are there paying customers,without us they are no longer needed! if baiting is banned, I would think there is 10-15 million dollars loss spent in az alone, " gas, wear, tear of trucks, buying all the needed items for baiting, just my 2 cents. mike

[ThomC]

I am against baiting with a machine or specially prepared food. I am not against salt because salt is everywhere now and not that effective. One of the problems with deer food is that some people are using a big pile of deer food with molasses to lure in bears. It is always the scofflaws that create more restictive rules. The scofflaws are always looking for loop holes to take an unfair advantage.

 

It is supposed to be hunting not shooting.

[NOFX]

A couple nights ago I started and posted a poll like this in the hunting AZ forum. I woke in the morning and immediately deleted it. I felt that a poll would cause finger pointing and further divide the hunting community. I am curious to see a poll, but maybe it is not the right thing to do.

[450Dakota]

Arizona hunting is not what it used to be. I grew up in AZ and hunted Coues deer before it was all the rage. I joined the military and have been gone for 22 years. I am in Colorado and go back frequently. The state has probably shrunk in available hunting land by 30 % since the mid 70's. They are building houses out in Willow Springs that used to have write-ups by well known writers raving about the quail hunting. Houses in Oracle, Catalina, Payson, Flagstaff, etc. in places we used to hunt. If the G&F can cut December tags and increase them two fold for the hot weather hunts with little impact to the deer herd then they have increased revenue without depleting resources. It has become all about money to them over the last 15 years. As far as placing minerals/feed out to attract game it used to be against the law there in the mid 80's. It is against the law in Colorado and Alaska that I personally know of. The muzzleloader and bow hunts were initially established as primitive weapons hunts. The more innovative and further reaching the weapons become the more restrictions there are going to be. If someone develops a bow with a 150 yd range I can bet you will have to draw for archery tags. I have to buy a non-resident license to even put in for a tag there, what kind of crap is that?? I can tell you I am going to kill something for that price, even if it is jack rabbits and I have to shoot between houses to do it. To each their own on hunting over feed, salt, McDonalds whatever. Personally, I watch the outdoor channel and see all of these deer being hunted on private property, with food plots, and or feeders, with absolutely no outside pressure for 300-340 days out of the year and then the people act like they really did something taking a buck that has sat and watched trucks drive within 100 yds for most of the year. That isn't hunting in my book, it is ranching and plenty of it goes on in Colorado. As for the numbers of deer harvested of archery vs rifle it needs to be broken down further in buck to doe ratio to see the real impact on the herd. G&F letting the Lion population get out of control hasn't helped the numbers any either. There are still some great places to hunt there if you can get drawn but enjoy it while you can. At 13 years to get drawn for an Elk tag I am approaching 50, you do the math and tell me how many Bulls I am going to get out of that state. I wish they would do away with the bonus points because everyone has them now and at least if you stand a chance of getting drawn is more hope than knowing you need 7 more bonus points. There is no easy solution but keep trying to get the G&F dept to go with the hunters majority and not the pocket book and politics. Might lose some battles but can't afford to lose the war.

[DesertBull]

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

 

I know of no ballot initiatives to stop hunting water, bait or salt either, so evidently there is a whole school of red herring swimming in these waters.

[AZcoues_addict]

So, maybe "IF" this was to happen, they'd be better off omitting the Salt from baiting in general, it is everywhere. I know many places I hunt, salt is there almost year round from other hunters, and I'd have to personally move it to hunt there, then I'd probably get spotted moving the salt and get busted anyway. From looking at the general responses of this thread, it seems that Salt is one of the highest factors in the equation! Maybe I'm jumping the gun here, maybe not.

 

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.

 

I don't think so. Forums not only get the word out and get us talking with our peers, but get our thoughts and plans organized. For every person who talks about this on the forum, there are probably 3 reading who don't respond, and 5 more of our hunting acquaintances that we discuss this with outside of the forum. I think your influence on this forum is more than the influence at the meeting and this is why.

 

I've been in a room full of sportsmen, every one of which was opposing moving tags from the early archery elk season into a late archery elk season; every one of which was opposing moving rifle coues tags from december to october; every one of which opposed moving archery deer tags to a draw.

 

Our opinion seemingly made no difference at any of these meetings, and the attitude conveyed from the AZG&F at these meetings portrayed this. I assure you, they were not convincing toward any of the proposed changes, but they still acted like the proposals were a sure thing to happen.

 

The problem now is, I feel that once we see the proposal, their minds are already made up and even though the discussion takes place, it makes little difference on the outcome. I fear many of us have this feeling as well.

 

If they don't value our opinions at the meetings, then we can only resort to these types of forums to give our opinions to influence others to show up to these meetings and oppose these types of changes, or to express our opinions BEFORE we see it in writing. That is what this is about, the prevention, or getting the word out and all sides of the issue presented before the decision arises. When the meetings come up, many show up with little understanding, info, or with no organized plan of action or argument. This is a good place to voice our concerns and discuss it amonst ourselves, to plan and think things through. Then to get the support or join a group like the ADA to back our initiative.

 

I respect your opinion Tony, you always have good factual information or relevant data to shed the light on these topics, but I feel that many of us oppose this hypothetical change in some form or another, depending on the specifics. I feel "IF" we feel this is an issue, it is good to discuss it here before the meetings, where it may be too late. Personally, I fee that we have enough laws, I don't think we need any new laws at this time. If baiting is generally stated as presented by Tony then I oppose it, although I don't totally disagree with all of its intent, I disagree with the complete package due to small inclusions; its too broad for me.

 

Now that I've spilled the beans, that some low writer on this board (or however you said it) may influence more people than he thinks, don't go getting a big head.

[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.

 

"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. "

 

 

Are you being serious or just being a funny man?

 

A great majority of water sources in AZ has salt on it or near it placed by ranchers so if I choose to sit water with

salt present that doesn't mean I placed it for the SOLE purpouse of hunting. There is naturall salt all over the dadgum place so I guess I can't hunt those areas as well. I guess if I kill a buck and there is salt within a mile of me

I better get my buck and get out of there before they ticket me.

 

Well officer I am sorry this is my first year hunting and I didn't know that there hole in the dirt was chuck full of

salt and minerals! Why are you giving me a ticket?

 

No when I shot that buck from 200 yards ( first time hunting this unit) I did not realize or KNOW that someone had placed salt there on that ridge that I HAVE NEVER HUNTED BEFORE!!! NO I AM NOT A LIAR! Why are you giving me a ticket???

 

O shucks my physically handicap friend can't sit that water hole with easy access because there is salt on it or near it.

 

Yes officer I know my tree stand is over this water source because I placed it here but I did not put that salt out that

has all those cattle track around it. Why am I getting a ticket.

 

So I guess maybe you can sit the naturall salt and the salt put out by ranchers but just don't put out salt under a tree stand

off a game trail.

 

They won't have a hard time proving/enforcing the Apache corn though.

 

Like I said 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. "

 

 

Are you being serious or just being a funny man?

 

off a game trail.

 

They won't have a hard time proving/enforcing the Apache corn though.

 

Like I said way to many variables! IMO

 

 

I was trying to be funny, but the point is once you get a ticket the burden is on you to prove yourself innocent. You have the ticket. You have to go to court. How are you going to prove yourself innocent? There were many incidences in the midwest when the waterfowl baiting ban went into effect of people getting ticketed for baiting waterfowl when they are hunting on working farms. where there is stuff like corn grown on it. Where can you hunt in Iowa and not be over corn? You can be completely innocent. There could be many variables, but if the Game Warden dosen't like the way you hold your mouth, you are screwed.

Bob

[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. "

 

 

Are you being serious or just being a funny man?

 

A great majority of water sources in AZ has salt on it or near it placed by ranchers so if I choose to sit water with

salt present that doesn't mean I placed it for the SOLE purpouse of hunting. There is naturall salt all over the dadgum place so I guess I can't hunt those areas as well. heck I guess if I kill a buck and there is salt within a mile of me

I better get my buck and get the heck out of there before they ticket me.

 

Well officer I am sorry this is my first year hunting and I didn't know that there hole in the dirt was chuck full of

salt and minerals! Why are you giving me a ticket?

 

No when I shot that buck from 200 yards ( first time hunting this unit) I did not realize or KNOW that someone had placed salt there on that ridge that I HAVE NEVER HUNTED BEFORE!!! NO I AM NOT A LIAR! Why are you giving me a ticket???

 

O shucks my physically handicap friend can't sit that water hole with easy access because there is salt on it or near it.

 

Yes officer I know my tree stand is over this water source because I placed it here but I did not put that salt out that

has all those cattle track around it. Why am I getting a ticket.

 

So I guess maybe you can sit the naturall salt and the salt put out by ranchers but just don't put out salt under a tree stand

off a game trail.

 

They won't have a hard time proving/enforcing the Apache corn though.

 

Like I said way to many variables! IMO

 

 

You don't think they know that? In 2-3 years they will start the process of stopping us from hunting water too. That's what I'm talking about. I could give two rips about corn or salt, it's the progressive regulations that have me deeply concerned.

[wardsoutfitters]

I would suggest that we all start getting petitions signed. We have to take these signed petitions to the meetings and read the names of every person who is against this issue. Tony you gave a list of things that the game and fish have to do to get a new law passed. When I talked to leonard at game and fish he said that this issue was going to be presented to the commission for the final rule making sometime in april. this would mean the again they have kept the wool pulled over our eyes and went thru a bunch of steps without letting the public know that this was a issue.

Leonard also stated to me that I as ward's Outfitters wouldn't want to be on the fronT page of the new york times telling people that my hunters harvest animals over bait. I then informed leonard that I do not care what the general public thinks about how I hunt as long as I am doing it within the laws. Do they not care that we are the ones paying their pay checks with hunting license and tag sales!!!!

Man I dont have much more to say WE HAVE TO SPEEK UP FOR OUR RIGHTS AS HUNTERS AND KEEP GAME AND FISH FROM HURTING US EVEN MORE.