Outdoor Writer

Doug, Yuppers. As written, I've always interpreted it to mean ONLY the actual discharge of a firearm must occur at that distance. When I read the GM's interpretation the incident with the elk shot in the subdivision last fall immediately came to mind. If his take on it is right, and that bull was less than 1/4-mile from any dwelling (I seem to recall it definitely was), a law was broken, even though the SHOOTER was supposedly more than 1/4-mile away. -TONY

Here are some pix from the trip I took last week to Lake Huites in Mexico. -TONY

Oh Kevin is OK. Just don't trust him around any of the family wimmin. -TONY

Kevin, Me thinks we should both plan our vacations at that older guy's place. Hey, Bill what weeks are open this year?? Do you have plenty of food and beer stocked up? -TONY

John, You're confused! I WISH I had a place in Greer, but I don't. That's Quimby -- the older guy. As for Kevin -- after knowing him for at least 20 years, I was eventually able to see through that nice-guy image he shows off at those first meetings. He's really a scoundrel. So don't turn your back on him. That welder he sold you is likely hot! -TONY

Man, he's sure got you snowed. -TONY

Gino, The two fish I'm holding are between 6 & 7 lb. ea. One is close to 7 and the other is closer to 6. My partner had one just at 6 lbs.. These were all weighed on a digital scale. The best trophy is actually the tilapia Bruce caught; it weighed 3.5 lb. We caught more than 320 bass over 3 days but many were last year's fish -- less than 10". We probably caught about 60 that weighed more than 2 lbs. and of those maybe a dozen topped 5 lb. Longshooter, That was my 4th trip to Terry's place at Huites. I've never been to Baccarac but plan to fish there either this fall or spring 2009. So far, Lake El Salto has produced the best fishing for me, both in numbers and quality fish. Catching a bass there under a pound is a rarity. -TONY

We were shut out again for both. Congrats to all those who got lucky. -TONY

Some more around the lodge. -TONY

One of you guys ought to go do some calling in my son's backyard. This was one of his visitor's a couple days ago. He lives at Tatum and Dynamite and has a wash that runs behind his house. There's a resident Gambel's quail population, and he often has javelina come by, as well. This is about the third bobcat to visit over the last few years. -TONY

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

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

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

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

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

Someone did a LOT of work on this. I believe you'll need the latest FLASH version to view it. Allow at least 5-8 minutes, too. -TONY We Didn't Start the Fire

Jason, I forgot to address the above. IF it were true, why would it be "just plain wrong?" -TONY

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

Gino, Yes, my source is quite a bit higher up than the WM, but that's not important. He did tell me there are at least 8 people involved in writing the rule at this time, however. Of course, salt occurs naturally and ranchers also put out salt blocks for cattle. The difference is in the details because words have meanings and meanings have words: neither qualifies under the words "placed for the purpose of hunting or taking any big game." I'm guessing, but I'll speculate the rule will also have "knowingly" or "intentionally" in it. My source stated just the opposite and even mentioned that someone recently emailed him several cam pix of game animals visiting salt licks that had been "placed for the purpose of hunting or taking any big game." He also said that most WMs are not stupid; they would know the difference between those and natural licks or salt blocks set out by ranchers because the majority of the WMs know what's going on their areas. He also made a comment about those hunters who wish to obey the law if/when it's enacted. If they have a doubt an area is/has been baited or not, then they should probably stay away from it. Maybe we need to do a poll and see who has the most success over bait -- those who use salt or those who use food stuffs. Then we can bestow the title of "Master Baiter" for the most successful of the bunch. -TONY

Welcome to the ranks of the "older" dudes, Tommy!!! -TONY HAPPY BIRTHDAY

German Shorthair Pointer Rescue of Arizona 1664 South Joplin Mesa, AZ 85208 (480)986-9199 www.petfinder.org/shelters/AZ201.html And this is a list of all the AZ RESCUE GROUPS. -TONY

If the ban goes into effect, it makes baiting illegal for EVERYONE, not only bowhunters. -TONY

For FYI purposes: The rulemaking process 1. Rulemaking officially begins when the Department submits a “Notice of Docket Opening.” This allows the process to start. 2. The Department then holds internal meetings to come up with a course of action and draft rule language. (the Baiting rule is now at this stage) 3. The Department notifies the public about opportunities to comment on the draft. The Department usually holds public meetings specifically to get input from the community that will be affected by the rule. These meetings are typically held at the Department’s regional offices across the state. 4. Once comments are received, the Department reconvenes to discuss the comments and the possibility of including them. 5. The Department then revises its draft language and also economic impact statements (EIS). The revised language and the EIS are submitted to the Arizona Game and Fish Commission for its approval. 6. If the Commission approves, the Department then notifies the public that the rules will be submitted to the Secretary of State to be published as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Arizona Administrative Register. Once the rules are published, the public has 30 days to submit further comments. 7.The Department reconvenes again internally to determine how to address the comments it has received, either by incorporating them into the rulemaking or not. 8. The rulemaking is then finalized, and the Department submits a “Notice of Final Rulemaking” to the Commission for its approval once more. If the Commission approves, the Department submits the package to the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council (GRRC). 9. GRRC holds a regularly scheduled public meeting to review the final rulemaking and determine whether to approve or reject it. The above rulemaking description is not comprehensive. It is meant only to provide a brief overview of the rulemaking process and is not binding on the Commission or Department. Furthermore, different types of rulemakings, such as emergency rulemaking or exempt rulemaking, require separate procedures for completion.

I just got off the phone with someone intimately involved with writing the rule, and as of now, SALT is still included in it just like any other substance -- "placed for the purpose of hunting or taking any big game." That said, the final wording is far from conclusive yet since it will go through a couple of different reviews by various internal mechanisms before it reaches the form for public input and eventual presentation to the commission. -TONY

I had the exact same feeling!!! -TONY