KGAINES

How could we be assured that the legislature would not take the money and use it for the deficit instead of law enforcement, they are already trying to take the 2.8 million from the azgfd they were to receive from the johnson settlement, plus other funds which will jeopardize 15+ million in federal funds for the azgfd.

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/us-to-shoot-d...S00010000000001

Most of the people on here agree that to be proficient you need to practice, those other countries are worried that the U.S. could shoot down all of their spy stuff, and take out any of their long range or ICBM missiles. Usually what we see or are allowed to see is quite a few years behind what we really have. God Bless the U.S. and our troops.

Great the commission needs to address public input. What I don't understand is how A PROPOSAL IS ORIGINATED TO BEGIN WITH? WHO DOES THE ORIGINAL INPUT THAT ACTUALLY CREATES A PROPOSAL? Once a proposal is made anyone that is against it is two steps behind. People against the proposal need to get info out and motivate people to go to meetings ect, but the proverbial cat is out of the bag and unless there is an overwhelming outcry proposals usually become policy. I see the real power is in the actual creation of the proposal. What are the guidelines, scientific basis, need analysis or political connections that are needed for a proposal. Who has the commissions ear? Probably not a bow hunter. In other words who is yanking the chain of game and fish to MAKE CHANGES to any policy. I believe their needs to be more transparency at the beginning of the proposal. Does the GF and the commission have a top down approach; have a desired policy and then come up with reasons for it. "Gee those guys are whacking all our trophy deer over salt. What reason can we come up with to outlaw salt." Or is it bottom up, "Our scientific studies have proven without a doubt that the deer cocaine is effecting the sperm count in all the deer on the rim. Maybe we should outlaw salting." Which method is most likely. Bob I talked to Leonard Ordaway today form Game And Fish. I asked him about the salt and baiting issue at hand. He seemed suprised that I would even have knowldge of what was going on. He stated that the issue of baiting has been submited thru the rule review process and will go back to the commision eairly summer for the final rule making process. I expressed that we as hunters of az should be made aware of the rule changes, He stated that it will be posted on the web site two weeks before it goes for final say. I also said that it needs to be readly available and we as hunters need to be notified if something was going to be changed that effects us hunters, he disagreed with me and said it would be on the web site and It's Up to us to look these things up. He also said that the proposed rule would read to this effest " intentionally placed substances to atract animals are illegal" , Kind of broad to me. He also said that the commision will look for the publics input on this matter , But as we all know I think their minds are made up. Also sounds to me from what I got form the conversation units 22 and 23 might be closed just like unit 27 this year. but dont quote me. basically we have two weeks to express how we feel about this whenit comes to the table. Thanks STEVEN How you knew and started the topic may have surprised him, but he has kept track of this thread for sure. Leonard had mentioned this last year at an ADA meeting as something that was being looked at then. I don't think anyone is bashing rifle hunters as much as just saying that if it is salt today it could be something they use exclusively next. We need to stick together on this and show up to that April meeting, I will say it again this year the commioners would be hard pressed to pass something when there are a few hundred hunters standing in the room opposing the decision.

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/military-says...S00010000000001

Great the commission needs to address public input. What I don't understand is how A PROPOSAL IS ORIGINATED TO BEGIN WITH? WHO DOES THE ORIGINAL INPUT THAT ACTUALLY CREATES A PROPOSAL? Once a proposal is made anyone that is against it is two steps behind. People against the proposal need to get info out and motivate people to go to meetings ect, but the proverbial cat is out of the bag and unless there is an overwhelming outcry proposals usually become policy. I see the real power is in the actual creation of the proposal. What are the guidelines, scientific basis, need analysis or political connections that are needed for a proposal. Who has the commissions ear? Probably not a bow hunter. In other words who is yanking the chain of game and fish to MAKE CHANGES to any policy. I believe their needs to be more transparency at the beginning of the proposal. Bob You are right and it may be discussed at meetings prior to any proposals, but we have so few hunters that show up at meetings the information just doesn't get out, I don't know. I don't go to a lot of the meetings, but I try to get to the hunt reccomendation meeting every year, but even then as you said we are two steps behind. The commission has over the last few years listened to the hunters when the outcry is enough, except for the ADA survey which a few of the commissioners disregarded completely. Get to the meetings and fill out the card so you can have your say, be polite and let them know how you see it.

Glory is fleeting, but a .270 is forever.- Napoleon Bonaparte Hey does that thing got a hemi and a .270 Old soldiers with .270s never die; they just fade away. -Douglas MacArthur I shall return with my .270 - Douglas MacArthur

CWD was mentioned, but from everything we are being told there has never been a case in AZ yet, with our sparse water supplies would they outlaw building the water catchments and drinkers, I believe there is probaly going to be way more congregation at these spots than at a salt lick. Another thing is most of the guys that are using the salt and baits are also using trail cams and if they notice a sick or weird acting deer while they are in the area or if they have pictures someone could be notified of the problem.

I thought you were talking about the Shaq eclipse during the Suns game. JK I was looking for the time to watch it earlier and didn't see it, I will get the kids out to take a look at it, Thanks Amanda.

It is salt and baiting, it isn't one or the other, food plots are a different issue the same with any seeding that may occur from certain feeds, if the planting of any non certified invasive species is found that is a problem beyond the AZGFD rules. I feel that if they make these rules that we will have a lot more problems, ranchers can do what they want, so they can still salt and "feed their livestock" however they see fit, they can also charge trespass fees for an individual to hunt their property, or worse. I am not saying that will happen or already does, but when the individual can't do it and will be held more accountable then there is a problem. I see no problems with the way it is right now, if there is some scientific evidence that says we shouldn't do it then I might listen, but if it is to limit archers, then I think it is wrong, if it is jeolously over the quality bucks taken by the archers, I have a problem with that too, because the next law they pass may affect me, or the next one after that, you never know, and every time we argue and divide over this we make it easier for these rule changes. As Terry stated there are other proposals out there too some may be good, we will have to wait and see and fight for whatever we feel is best.

Keith, I haven't finished it yet!! I'm about 1/2-way thru it but need to get it done by Fri. when it's due back at the library. Gonna go have some wine and read a bit more now before dinner. Of course, I'll have to quit to watch Shaq's debut. So far, it's a decent read, tho. -TONY I will be watching that as well.

How did you like the book Tony.

I have six yellow lab pups that will be available on Feb. 1st, they will be six weeks old. I will get pictures up in the next day or so, if you are interested send me a PM or email me.

The sire is around 115lbs and the dam is about 70lbs. I will try to get some pictures posted tonight.

Three left two males and a female. $350.00 each

Right now this is in the early stages of the rule making process, this and several other proposals are being looked at and this may or may not be part of the final proposal. The final proposal will be posted on azgfd for public input, that is the more formal public input not what they are reading here and on other sites, and yes it is being read. After that it will be presented to the commission at the April meeting to be accepted, rejected, or changed as directed by the commission. If I missed something or am wrong on this feel free to correct me.

Mark my prayers are with you and your family, my prayers are also with your sons girlfriend and her family.

DesertBull I had it done about about seven years ago and it was well worth the money for me, I haven't had one problem since either, I know of a few people that have had dry eye problems and have to use drops alot. I think prices have changed and so have the techniques for the procedure. This is where I had mine done http://lasikvisioninstitute.com/locator/re...?id=1&dist=

Return the survey penalties could be sit out a year or pay a decent fine to apply. They should be able to make the survey available online with your hunter ID and tag numbers and that would probably create a much higher compliance. Hopefully animal rights groups wouldn't purchase a hunge amount of tags OTC and then claim success on all of them.

I was thinking the same thing. We might want to watch what we say though there will be someone out there with some of our jackrabbits and some bleach .

I still have four available.

Welcome to CouesWhitetail.com

Amanda you might want to Unpin this topic.

I think when a law is passed in a sneaky and underhanded way then the enforcement of the law will be the same, what are the prerequisites for getting a ticket. If it is simply hunting over salt then there will be a lot of innocent people getting tickets, and that in itself is not going to endear anyone to the AZGFD. I read this a while back and I could see where this sort of scenario could play out. One morning the husband returns after several hours of fishing and decides to take a nap. Although not familiar with the lake, the wife decides to take the boat out. She motors out a short distance, anchors, and reads her book. Along comes a Game Warden in his boat. He pulls up alongside the woman and says, "Good morning, Ma'am. What are you doing?" "Reading a book," she replies, (thinking, "Isn't that obvious?") "You're in a Restricted Fishing Area," he informs her. "I'm sorry, officer, but I'm not fishing. I'm reading." "Yes, but you have all the equipment. For all I know you could start at any moment. I'll have to take you in and write you up." "If you do that, I'll have to charge you with sexual assault," says the woman. "But I haven't even touched you," says the game warden. "That's true, but you have all the equipment. For all I know you could start at any moment." "Have a nice day ma'am," and he left. The law is the law and we should all respect it, but it's funny when we are driving we all know the speed limit and disrespect the heck out of it; this is apples to oranges, but we all get upset when the cop says do you know what you did wrong and at that point just as Lark says we lie or play dumb. Until we see factual data that supports their claim about salt and baiting and the percentages we should fight this.

Outlaw scopes and binos, don't allow no hunts in Dec. or Jan., make compound bows only legal in the general seasons just like the crossbow, no salt or bait, no hunting within a quarter of a mile of water, no calls at all for any game, outlaw the use of hounds, outlaw trail cameras, and since we can't allow hunting over bait we can give all private landowners a percentage of tags that they can sell to allow you to hunt on their property, if we are going to outlaw hounds for small game we might as well outlaw bird dogs because that gives others a distinct advantage over someone who just kicks the birds up as they walk, I am sure I am missing a lot of extremely stupid rules that game and fish could pass that would lower success, but would not hurt opportunity. It's funny how when they go to make a law that doens't affect an individual personally they usually don't care, but when it is going to affect them they want to rally everyone to their cause. Well the way I see it, we should each support one another when it comes to taking away what we already have.