1uglydude

Lately, if you actually show up to the hearing and plead for mercy, they have been less likely to hand out the 5 year penalty. For example, at the meeting a couple weeks ago there was a guy who shot a previously wounded bull elk (so he says) on a cow elk hunt. He took it home, had it butchered, and put antlers on his shed. TWO YEARS LATER he gets turned in by someone. When asked about it, he confesses. His excuse was that he didn't have cell service to report the wounded bull he found and thought it best to put it out of its misery. I can't remember if they stuck with the $8k fine or not (doesn't look like the final reports are online yet either), but they ended up giving him a one year suspension of just hunting privileges...he can still fish. Another guy shot a bear on his deer hunt, let the meat spoil, and then went to town to buy a bear tag. He was reported, and LIED to the officers the first few times until his friend cracked. He came to plead for mercy and got a fine plus 3 years of suspensions. An elderly gentleman from California was charnged with obtaining a resident license without bona fide residency. He harvested a javelina with a resident tag. He owned property in Yuma and thought that was enough. He came in with an attorney and friends/family to speak on his behalf. They emphasized his character, the fact that he has been a hunters ed volunteer in California for many years, and that he is now a permanent resident of Yuma. They gave him a small fine for the javelina, no suspension whatsoever (he had already voluntarily not hunted during the previous year), and asked that he volunteer to teach hunters ed in Yuma. In contrast, another guy killed a javelina out of season, but didn't bother to show up for the hearing. He got five years.

That is also on the agenda. As part of the same revisions to the rules, you'll now have to have all cervid meat boned out or "packaged" before bringing it into the state. Also, any skull coming in has to be completely free of "soft tissue." As for your earlier points, I totally agree that the areas people are baiting are areas that are not, and probably would not, otherwise be hunted. I hear people complain that X number of deer were shot off a certain bait site each year, yet no one seems to care when 10-15 bucks are killed out of a single canyon during the rifle hunt.

From what I understand, mule deer numbers are down, but not whitetail. From what I've been told (and to a lesser extent, from my own experience), mule deer are not susceptible to baiting. If you bait, you're baiting for whitetail. Here's, what bothers me about how this is happening. They say that fair chase and ethics are not the primary reason, saying the focus is CWD. But, the fact that they aren't willing to ban salt tells me that they're not being honest with us. How is a salt lick any less likely to spread disease than bait? So, it really IS about fair chase and ethics. Then, in the same presentation, they tell us that the will no longer require mandatory reporting of archery deer kills. Wonder why? They won't say it, but it's probably because they think banning bait will make archery success rates plumet. I don't agree with legislating (or in this case, rulemaking) away a historically acceptable methods of take simply because you don't agree with it. Next, we will see a ban on the use of radios while hunting, laser rangefinders, or trail cameras (all things that have been banned in other states). You don't think a method you like to employ is in someone's sites? Ask the trappers how the feel about outsiders regulating their practices. But, if it really is about fair chase and ethics, then JUST SAY SO. Don't use CWD as your excuse. As my grandpa was fond of saying, "don't pi ss on me and tell me it's raining!"

I'll apologize for using the word "sold," because that was my word, not yours...and it's a loaded word. As for the context, you really didn't have time to provide any, so I just reported what I heard. You certainly didn't provide the context you've given here. But, if I missed it, I also apologize for that. Why should an unnatural concentration of animals around an artificial salt lick be treated any differently than a concentration of animals around bait? Concerning the ban of urine products and transport of meat regulations...I was answering a specific question about baiting. I didn't hear them say anything about a licensed processor. They said "packaged." If there was more said behind the scenes about what that means, I'd be interested to hear it.

Uglydude, can you give us anymore details? I hope that since it does not include salt, the rest of you who don't use food supplements will stay on board to help those who do - primarily archery hunters I think. Your method of hunting - game cams, high power optics or guns, electronic calls, cover sents, anything, could be next. Mark The rule hasn't been written yet, but the committee said that they are working with a definition that would ban "ingestible substances" except for water, salt, or minerals. Ranchers will also be allowed to put out whatever supplement they want.

Primary reason is worry about CWD, with "lesser" reasons of fair chance and hunter ethics concerns. As I recall, two people spoke on it (could have been three...can't remember if Koleszar spoke on that issue or not). NWTF said they would support bait ban as far as turkeys are concerned. Steve Clark spoke for himself, and not for AES, in support of the bait ban and expressed a desire that it be sold as a wildlife management concern and not an attempt to limit how people hunt. They are also proposing lifting the mandatory reporting requirement for archery. Not sure where they're going with that. How can they justify closing some units down in December if they don't have the reporting to support it? Personally, I'd like to see it go the other way and see mandatory reporting for all species and all weapons.

At the meeting yesterday they said the proposed rule would not include salt or water.

The Commission approved the proposal this morning.

Yes, you could also get an over the counter tag.

It's never going to happen again with leftover deer tags...unless the demand for deer tags overall goes way down (or maybe if deer numbers go sky high?) The difference between leftover deer and pig tags is obvious. By the time of the hunt, ALL (or all but a small handful) of the leftover deer tags are sold. In contrast, roughly a couple thousand leftover pig tags go unsold each year. The demand for those tags isn't there, and AZGFD misses out on potential revenue. With deer, they get all the money they expect without having to allow double harvest. Under the proposed rule, AZGFD would sell many pig tags that normally go unclaimed. In turn, they will get an additional $30k-$60k each year. That's enough for one or two extra employees.

There shouldn't be any concern about extra harvest because these tags have already been approved as biologically justified. I do, however, share the concern that guys will harvest from the same herd in the same year (on different hunts). I think that could be solved by requiring the second tag come from a different unit, not just a different hunt number.

There is no reason to do it for deer too. The purpose of this is to sell tags that would otherwise go unsold. The leftover deer tags are all typically sold eventually. As for the concerns about more harvest, there shouldn't be any concern because they tags have already been approved as biologically justified. I do, however, share the concern that guys will harvest from the same herd in the same year (on different hunts). I think that could be solved by requiring the second tag come from a different unit, not just a different hunt number.

Check out the recommendation for javelina: http://www.azgfd.gov/h_f/documents/S-3springHuntRecommend.pdf If you hunt on a leftover in a different hunt, you can take another pig. That's one way to sell some leftovers!

This is going to free up some time for a few extra gals I know to attend the women's pig camp this coming year too.

You've never tried to use your card at the store and had it not go through the first time, even though there was nothing wrong with the card or funds? Then, when the cashier ran it one more time it worked? It happens. Data lines get clogged...connections time out....the process isn't perfect.

Were you watching the available funds balance the whole time (even on the 17th?). If it's dated the 18th, then in all likelihood the funds actually left the acount on that date, but weren't reflected in a listed charge. Did you select the option that specifically identifies "pending only" charges?

Tonto closures are being lifted tomorrow...they're just waiting for the signed order to issue a press release. All fire restrictions will remain in place...which should include shooting.

Because many of the FS are anti-hunter, and even more don't like to see "abandoned" property left on trees in the forest. It happens more than you think.

Here you go, http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5380309.pdf . They really had me sweating about my "within 24 hours" promise. Now, about that spring...

Had a new hit about five minutes ago. Little sis in law drew a 16A Dec. Muzzy tag. She'll have a companion pig tag coming with it. She's already got a 3AC early rifle bull tag for this year. One lucky little gal.

You will see a new press release in the next 24 hours saying that it's opening up again. I'm not talking about yesterday's release. And, yes, fire restrictions will still be in place; Sunflower fire related closures will remain in effect; and the bear closure areas will open up for day use only.

Tonto closures are being lifted tomorrow...they're just waiting for the signed order to issue a press release. All fire restrictions will remain in place...which should include shooting.

Based on the date stamps, you're finding bears outside of the fire closure areas, that's a feat in and of itself this time of year. Good luck.

crazy...he's not even trying to hide, but still blends so well

Here's his Facebook page...a coues hunter and "likes" the AZGFD page http://www.facebook.com/#!/craig.shiflet.3