Str8Shot

Lets see... in the last year, game and fish, has created daylong shooting of coyotes, and mountain lions in many problem units, they have lifted the restriction on magazine capacity, are trying to lift the restriction on suppressors and fighting the federal government to not steal state sportsman's dollars. Sounds like they are just trying to screw hunters... hmm really? I could care less if it is about disease or not... there are plenty of studies (and why some think that studies from other areas do not pertain to behaviors of deer in Az is beyond me) that clearly show that baiting creates a more limited feeding range and limits movement of deer through traditional home habitats and increases nocturnal feeding habits. If you pro baiters have studies that show these guys are wrong please share them because in a state with a population such as Az changing feeding,home/migration habits do negatively effect other hunters. If it did not there would not be so many who get pissed off when they find others in their baited honey holes. Let them do their jobs and quit crying foul. I would be more worried of the federal government and what may happen in the next 4 years

Well based on your reply.... I will scrutinize you... why do you feel the need to point out another members views (CNS) on a totally different topic and then speak for him? That's bush league man... Redman ... I am not speaking for him " If it is legal it is also ethical" are his own words as it pertains to Ethics and hunting (this type of thought can not be exclusive) . This does not constitute a grey area and if truly believed does not allow for one to think the opposite when he or she chooses. I brought up the comment because the key point of the OP was on ethical killing and it seems to be that many( not all) individuals here believe the same way as this highly looked up to member of the site, and they only seem to associate ethics with legality versus the moral practices and beliefs of the majority of people around them.

eth·ic (thk) n. 1. a. A set of principles of right conduct. b. A theory or a system of moral values: "An ethic of service is at war with a craving for gain" (Gregg Easterbrook). 2. ethics (used with a sing. verb) The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy. 3. ethics (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession: medical ethics. mor·al (môrl, mr-)adj. 1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary. 2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson. 3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life. 4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation. 5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support. 6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral Many people like to attach ethics with only principles of law, but ethics are just as much about moral actions... My reference was to the OP and using a recent example of a member who stated that legality constitutes ethical choice, a notion i disagree with. As a group we have a responsibility to police ourselves and try to influence moral/ethical choices of a group as a whole. An individual who advertises his kill with the specific reference to being a very long shot ( 1200+ yards) and tries to say it was not about the posturing and gloating of such a feat is full of BS... That kill was about the distance and the fact that pictures where taken to authenticate the action proves there was a premeditation to accomplishing such a feat and sharing with the internet world. If it was a 125" buck killed, the highlight would still be about the distance of the shot versus the quality of the kill. I disagree with this kind of long shot mentality as much as I do baiting game... neither is ethical nor moral in my opinion, and I am not afraid to say so.

According to, Coues-n-Sheep, per his letter to G&F on baiting ban " if it is legal it is ethical" so minus breaking a law there can be no breach of ethics... I am sure, C-n-S thinks completely the same way about the banks and mortgage companies, and that they were being ethical when they screwed Americans, since what they were doing was not against the law... Of course, I believe this notion to be absolutely absurd, and inaccurate ( too many examples of legal behaviors, that go far beyond being remotely close to ethical). I believe ethics, and moral responsibility go far beyond just laws, and though measured on an individual scale, they deserve scrutiny from those in this world, whom may be affected by one's choice.

Casey .. what are the measurements of that Rack ?

Bobby O' Bobby ... not defensive just my opinion ... you have yours ... it is all good

And a guy that uses an Ultramag to hunt a 60 pound animal is some how Angelic? I said it a couple years ago and even though it caused a little outcry so I will say it again. A hunter using an ultramag is compensating for other inadequacies if you know what I mean. Same could be said for guys who need bait bobbyo ... and it is less about the gun and more about the load ... 165 gr ... never a shot over 200 yards and no meat loss ... but seems pretty humane to see them drop right in their tracks with no suffering ..un-like running 50 yards with a rage cut through you ...

Bowhunterforlife may want a new handle ... maybe like baithunterforlife or MasterbaiterforLife.... and I will say it again even though it caused a little out cry a couple years ago when I said it " a hunter using bait is no different than a pediophile using an ice creme truck to hunt his prey "

My apology ... Tyler ... I did not see the post from bowhunerforever prior to yours .... Well Obama might be proud he has one supporter on this site Totally cool man! The RUM is doing good thanks to you man way back when! Waiting for it to put a few more couseys on the wall (we'll see come friday) and burn out the remington barrel so we can get down to some real tach pushing. Those Remington Barrels do not burn out that fast unless your pushing a lot of hot loads in short sittings ... what unit this year you hunting ?

My apology ... Tyler ... I did not see the post from bowhunerforever prior to yours .... Well Obama might be proud he has one supporter on this site

Tyler ... go back and look .... whoever 123456 is he or she had input on that thread too... I just supplied this information since it was asked and I had already supplied it ... not interested in debating the issue any further on a second thread hence why I only gave the direct info asked about ... to imply that I and 123456 may be one in the same is a bit narrow minded remember over 50 % of hunters do not support baiting or hunting over bait ... so you are taking a simpleton approach to make us who do not care a small minority ... funny, that you had no issues soliciting information from me when you first got your 300 RUM and had questions on the gun, bullets and loads

Huntlines ... Here is the info on those states and the link I posted for all states from the previous discussion ... Illinois NOT legal to feed or bait anything for deer. Kansas Legal to feed and bait deer except state land. Bait must be removed 10 days prior to hunting. Liquid scents and sprays are exempt. Maryland No restrictions on private land. It is legal to feed deer anything, anytime on private land with the exception of the CWD management zone in Allegany County. Michigan (lower) From Oct. 1 to Jan. 1. hunters may place any type of bait, no more than two gallons at a time, across a 10-foot by 10-foot area per hunting location. Recreational Feeding: Property owners may place two gallons of bait on their property within 100 yards of their residence year-round. Baiting and feeding will still be prohibited in Deer Management Unit 487 which includes Alcona, Alpena, Iosco, Montmorency, Oscoda and Presque Isle Counties. 517-373-2329 Regulation (pgs 3-4) Michigan (upper) Legal to bait deer with less than 2 gallons. You can feed deer the rest of the year with in 100 yards of a house. Lucky Buck Mineral is legal as either feed or bait. 517-373-2329 Regulation (pgs 3-4) Nebraska Legal to feed deer. Cannot hunt over anything within 200 yards that was placed within 60 days. 402-471-5442 Regulation New York Not legal to feed deer or bait deer. 518-402-8883 Regulation (pg 20) West Virginia It is legal to feed deer anything with the exception of parts of Hardy & Hampshire County north of State Highway 55. This is a CWD containment area and it is not legal to feed or bait in this area. The rest of the state is legal to feed deer on private land anything including Lucky Buck Mineral. On public land feed/bait must be removed from September 1st - December 31st. 304-558-2784 Regulation (pg 12) Wisconsin It is legal to feed and bait deer with anything including Lucky Buck Mineral (with a 2 gallon limit), in all counties EXCEPT the following: Adams, Barron, Burnett, Calumet, Columbia, Crawford, Dane, Dodge, Grant, Green, Iowa, Jefferson, Juneau, Kenosha, Lafayette, Manitowoc, Marathon, Marquette, Milwaukee, Polk, Portage, Racine, Richland, Rock, Sauk, Sheboygan, Vernon, Walworth, Washburn, Waukesha, Waushara, and Wood. National forest areas usually follow local state regulations on baiting. Check with your local DNR office for more information. 888-936-7463 Regulation (pg 30-34) if you want to find out more on all states ... http://www.lucky-buck.com/baitinglaws.html

Safe travels ... and have a heck of a good hunt ... I will be helping my Bro and friends in 23 this year for some Muleys

Sorry what I meant to say was you can hunt Archery OTC and still hunt Rifle Draw but you are only allowed 1 deer a year... In NM, we don't have OTC tags so you need to choose your weapon and season.. you can't hunt with different weapons until you kill... I bet this really contributes to the overall harvest... Of course it contributes, but it would be pretty hard to figure out exactly how much the impact is. Plain common sense tells you, that the more time you spend in the field with a tag and weapon allowing you take game the greater your individual odds of success will be . It is still no guarantee but neither is using BAIT ... but Bait does improve odds at quantity of game, quality of game, and quality of shots, if it did not then far fewer people including guides and outfitters would not be so vocal... I do not think Steve really thinks this is the beginning of the end of hunting ( easy to plant the seeds of fear in those who may not agree with the practice) , but he does realize it can have an impact on his business and he has a right to be vocal about his opposition to it... I respect his stand regardless if I support it or not.

Jamaro ... as it is now you can only take 1 deer per calender year ... January 1st - Dec. 31st .... with archery, what many individuals seem to get confused about, is when someone takes a Buck in Dec, and then another in Jan. this is two deer in two separate years and results in a a long wait until the next Jan. ...

Tyler .... I was making the statement because You and I both know that when doing research and papers, use of validated sources are an important part of the process, and studying ecology that there is a good chance that you have used sources and studies that were based in different states ,or even countries because through an educated consensus they have been validated. This type of validation is the case with pretty much all the studies that are out there when it comes to forms of transmission of disease in wildlife as well as livestock though ongoing research should be done. I have read much on the subject and the majority of findings by many states and counties that have done the research and do not feel that one can claim the research and studies as non valid. I do not agree with G&F on everything but would not go so far as many on this website to belittle the department as a whole and disparage them the way many do. This type of BS does not help anyone's case and creates fear in the less educated. The wording in the amendments are not as gray as many here like to Say... When it comes to access and waterholes the word "intentionally " is used, common sense would say that use of blinds, trail cams, and tree stands would by in no way an intentional attempt for a hunter to restrict access as this would defeat the reason and purpose for the device being there, also would be pretty hard for a G&F department to show that the use was in an explicit attempt to intentionally restrict access. As for decreased populations what solution are you going to offer that is not going to stir up as much controversy... Less general tags, cutting out archery hunt dates, going to draw for archery in a majority of units or whitetail units since they are the majority of deer that baiting is impacting? There is no one solution that would not have hunters up at arms and blaming G&F for taking away something, while they are doing their job trying to maintain herds and our rights to harvest from our lands. For me the change in behaviors and limiting the forage areas and movement of deer ( especially in hunting hours by making many nocturnal feeders) is the primary reason I do not support the practice, and I have first hand knowledge of a couple natural feeding areas that harvested quality deer for decades then a few years back it seemed the numbers were way down and nothing was coming in ... after the second year of seeing the same type of activity, it only a few miles of hiking the surrounding area to find a number of bait sites a bit further out( less than 1/4 mile circling the original spot), most sites were set on or near game trails and travel corridors that could be tracked into the original area... These sites also had a very arrogant small group of hunters who attempted to muscle and chase off any other hunters, they claimed they had been baiting the area for the last four years and do not want others hunting their area. That is when the line was drawn for me when it comes to baiting ... it is just as much about hunters whom do bait trying to affect the hunters who don't mentality and it seems much the same by many on this site... I have posted many times studies to not show much of an increase in success if any at all, but they do show the impact on limiting forage areas, amount of foraging during hunting hours and an increase in nocturnal feeding... As hunters we are a part of a bigger process.A process that has seen many changes since the days of Teddy Roosevelt, some for the betterment, some that have been questionable, and some that have been plain wrong, but when it is an attempt to conserve our herds and preserve our privilege to hunt as a part of that process, I am not going to disparage those who know more about the data than any single on of us do on this site.

Tyler .... Since you know it all, at least more than the G&F people that have been doing it for decades .... Please share with all of us, all your Data that disproves all of their numbers .... I mean you are basing it off actual data and not just a theory.... right ? Seriously .... you know that tag numbers have always been based off historical harvest data and heard studies and many times in many units G&F has had to drastically change tag numbers available after unusually high success rate in certain years. Not sure where you are getting 79 pages of rule changes but sounds like Obama math ... The page count for all articles is 49 which is does not constitute new law or changes, but however the previous articles with amendments ... parts stricken out or changes added( as with the baiting) ... You talk about almost having Your B.S., I would love to see all of your studies and sources for the work you have done through the education process, as I am certain you did not use any sources or studies not specific to Arizona since, as others and yourself have stated, they are not valid for G&F to use in their decision making process at least to satisfy your beliefs. Those individuals that bait, feel that those individuals, who do not agree with the practice, should change to support their cause.... yet not the other way around ... kind of hypocritical if you ask me.

The 300 savage is still available $325... it is posted for my Brother who may also be interested in trade for a good predator call or shotgun

I am putting up a few rifles for sale... message me with contact details or if requesting additional information... Not looking for trades and I am located in the East Valley Mesa/Queen Creek... Will listen to reasonable offers, but will give a first come-first gets priority at listed prices ... (480) 262- 0409 #1 Remington .300 RUM 700 BDL ... black synthetic stock and stainless steel barrel with Nikon buckmaster 3-9x40... minimal wear - SOLD #2 Remington 722 in 300 Sav ... Nice vintage good shooting gun, has weaver k4 ( El Paso) scope with pivot mount system good condition with working compass still in stock - $325 obo #3 Marlin 30as in .30/.30 ... great little gun and in good condition - $200 SOLD

After 6 posts I am sure the feeling is farily mutual.............we buy beef, well, at least me and the mouse in my pocket. I think most have stated that if there was substanial information, data, etc regarding this measure here in the state of Az they would listen to the proposal. From your post it is more of a "have it your way." approach. I suspect tat Jbird and Str8snot are related .... Posibly cousins! Two tools sharing a box! Wow! another almost intellectual comment from from even a bigger, rusted tool, and a dull one at that ... Sorry to inform you< Riflemanwannabe... I have no relatives on this thread, but you see other hunters who do not share the same support for baiting as you and other baiters may have ... keep in mind this is an issue that nation wide has hunters spit almost right down the middle on ... I even posted a field and stream poll from Feb of this year on baiting being Fair chase in which 51% did not believe it was fair chase... Like it or not that is the way it is but and your shallow BS remarks do nothing to help your side gain any empathy or support ... If I am a tool I am a much stronger and sharper tool than your dull lame butt... Tyler it is cool that you like this ... just keep in mind this tool helped you out when you needed help and had questions on your RUM and loads ... Shows a bit of Hypocrisy on your part, but it is all good , I may have a different position than you on this topic, but I am not going to hold that against you If you can not use a search engine to find reports and studies on this topic (and yes, maybe none specific from AZ G&F, but there is plenty of data out there on the topic) ... it is no surprise that you need bait to find deer ... keep up the good fight and like I said several times before If it passes... no big deal to me, if it does not pass ... no big deal to me either...

And we may have little disease and no CWD in our herds now ..... But What if????? What if they never transplanted Elk from Yellow Stone in 1913 after hunting Took out the last of the Native Elk in AZ..... I am sorry but I have a little more faith that the majority of those in G&F that they are trying to their job to manage our herds and keep our sport and right to harvest for meat Alive... That does not mean I agree with everything, and many things that have happened within the political realm of commission when it comes to revenue, the general fund, to the wolf program I disagree with... But if regulations were not put in place in the early 1900's the then current trends in hunting would have destroyed most big game herds and we would all be playing golf today and not enjoying the ability to harvest from our beautiful forest lands. PLEEZ GO PLAY GOLF YOU FIT IN THERE!!!!! Wow... I am sure it is too much to ask for a smart intellectual commit from someone as ignorant as you come off to be, and not for just this one thread... It is this kind of ignorant arrogance that is as much as a disease in the Hunting community as the idea that a new regulation and ban might create a divide amongst hunters... I am sure that you would be a better bowler .... bigger ball and a much shorter lane .... kind of the same reason you probably need Bait ... not so good at long shots and smaller target

And we may have little disease and no CWD in our herds now ..... But What if????? What if they never transplanted Elk from Yellow Stone in 1913 after hunting Took out the last of the Native Elk in AZ..... I am sorry but I have a little more faith that the majority of those in G&F that they are trying to their job to manage our herds and keep our sport and right to harvest for meat Alive... That does not mean I agree with everything, and many things that have happened within the political realm of commission when it comes to revenue, the general fund, to the wolf program I disagree with... But if regulations were not put in place in the early 1900's the then current trends in hunting would have destroyed most big game herds and we would all be playing golf today and not enjoying the ability to harvest from our beautiful forest lands.

# 1 there are plenty of published studies from many other states, biologist and federal DNR , that baiting does increase the spread of disease , and not just CWD ... just because we do not worry about CWD in AZ yet does not mean we wont or that there will not be some other disease we do have to deal with in the future, Plenty of studies that show that baiting limits Range, migration patterns, Forage behaviors , and leads to less Hunting light foraging making herds and Mature Bucks primary nocturnal feeders... Most these studies also show little correlation to increased success rate. ... Would like Amanda to refute this if there is data that she knows of that does not support, since she is the only wildlife biologist I know on the site #2 ... read your statement and tell me again you do not deal with What ifs... You do not check your tires before long road trips? You do not have life insurance to protect your family of a tree falls you out in the field leaving them to fend for themselves , If you have teenage kids, you are good with them having unprotected sex and do not worry talking to them about drug use ? Come on every decision is a what if , that is if you take any responsibility for the choices you make in life ( maybe your an Obama supporter thus making the latter an accurate representation of how you think ) Teddy Roosevelt created the ideals of conservation in this country that allow us to practice the sport of hunting today in a manner that protects our freedom to be part of a system that also protects our herds... Dealing with what ifs may have kept Mirriam Elk from being hunted to extinction (the only native ELK to AZ) ... Or the buffalo herds being hunted to near extinction ... With out rules and regulations through a managing agency that makes necessary changes ( such as bringing Elk from Yellow Stone in 1913) as the herds change and the sport changes, we may not even be able to hunt as we do today. A state record Bass was taken from Canyon lake in the 80's with the use of dynamite ... Maybe that bass record should stand and everyone should be able fish with dynamite and nets ... I may not like everything the G&F has done ( such as the Wolves) but they are there to do a job and a good majority Hunt and/or fish , and know much more about the status of our herds and populations than the us Hunters and they do have a job to do... They are not taking away hunting and this idea is not the first step to do so... And the fact that so many here take personally and attack hunters who do not agree with baiting and thus do not support their opposing of the ban shows what you are real morals and ideals are made of... I do not oppose the ban ... I do not support baiting ( main reason for me, I have seen areas where baiting has changed long time foraging sites and decreased daytime movement while increasing nocturnal behaviors) .... I do not think any less if you do oppose and do bait (it is still a form of legal hunting in this state) ... But I am not going to be fearful nor upset if this passes .... some of the top hunting states either out right Ban or Ban hunting over/.during season but none have passed significant laws restricting the sport and practice of hunting

try finding others that may be in small group ... if you are going to be absolute Solo ... try upper yellow jacket road right off Ruby road .. Always good number of camps several that will usually stay through Hunt duration ... Open area with good BP concentration ... may get a bit of road noise and dust but not too bad... should not see any issues .... plus good ranges to hunt not too far from you

Not sure who you are talking to when referring to the statement above... But, can you please supply us official statements or documents with individuals that support your above statement and what gives you the ability to know what others believe when it comes to intent. oh and answer a simple question ? If baiting deer did not improve you chance at all for quality and quantity ... would you do it ? I for one would love to have access back to some large areas of Public land ( that Arizona hunters once had open access too) that has been land locked by private land owners and ranchers whom shut off access to a majority but allow access to a select small few of their friends and such (guides and outfitters who worked out deals) in some good areas of some good units, units where hunters are denied access to public lands " by a small group or an individual stating it is about land owners rights" ... I am pretty sure you are familiar with such areas, and do you not feel that this is even a smaller group (some even fellow hunters, guides, and outfitters) infringing the rights of access to public hunting lands? Talk to any game biologist in southern AZ and they will tell you that deer numbers are down and every year they ask for tag reductions. It rarely happens. As for your question. The answer is yes I would continue supplementing the animals. As for access in southern AZ it is a major issue!!! In some cases I agree with the land owner and in others I don’t. Please supply us with the findings of these few Biologist that disprove the numerous other findings and actual published researched by numerous Biologist through out the country that , baiting can spread disease ( though, I too think this is being over sold as the primary issue, but one that could be a factor in the future), baiting leads to changes in migration patterns and range, Baiting increases nocturnal feeding and limits both foraging range and daytime foraging activity... As for you spending $$$$ on feeding and supplementing I do not believe you are being honest, but it is my right to believe so and I base it off the fact that it is an intricate part of your Business model in helping you maximize your success rates to maintain clients and gain new ... I also do not completely believe you about the land locked public land since it is something that you personally benefit from as well in UNIT 32 which you highly promote for hunters ... I will share from your own site the information that I base my decision to not believe off of. On success and quality and opportunity.... "Our firearms success rate On Coues Deer is 100% with most animals scoring 95 inches or better. Hunters can expect to see four to eight Coues bucks a day." "We specialize in archery hunting and have very high success rates. • 99% archery and 100% rifle mule deer • 100% archery elk and 99% rifle elk • 100% opportunity on archery Coues and 99% rifle coues" quotes courtesy of http://www.wardsoutfitters.com Now to actually be 99% success that would mean first it would have to be on over 100 hunts , now if you round up then maybe you have gone 67 out of 68 which would get just over that 98.5 needed to round up either way if you are going to claim that using private plus land locked Public lands plus bait to achieve such numbers I and probably the majority of other hunters who have hunted this state for any time will call BS on it ... On land locked public lands "This year was different. We had no problem obtaining Oct. tags for Unit 32 and made our way down to AZ again in search of those little gray ghosts of the desert mountains. Through Ward's Outfitters (Steven Ward) We managed to gain access to several sections of landlocked forest service land via a private ranch with extremely limited access....sorry, I can't give any more details on location...sworn to secrecy. " Quote courtesy of http://www.wardsoutf...ng-stories.html This shows you utilize the benefits of using Public lands as a guide that we all should have equal access to , but do not ... I understand you are defending your business model but you have no place talking about taking away hunters rights when you benefit from Use of lands our rights have been taken from by a smaller number of people who are restricting where on OUR public lands we can hunt by restricting access that was open to all when I was a young kid, teen and young adult. You are saying pay me the $$$$ and I will get you the access to low pressure high quality Coues wilderness Also using the " slippery slope" and fear tactics about changing a regulation as being the catalyst of ending all hunting is absurd at the best and also unsupported by any proof from the states that have had banning restrictions and laws for many many years ... Amanda is a wildlife biologist , maybe she has the data to refute or at least openly voice whether or not all the others are wrong that baiting can spread disease , baiting leads to changes in migration patterns and range, Baiting increases nocturnal feeding and limits both foraging range and daytime foraging activity...