Outdoor Writer

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

Already covered that; the opportunity is there for anyone who wants to pay for it. No LO vouchers -- NO opportunity for anyone unless the state mandates LOs must allow hunting on their private property with a standard permit with no additional fees. The latter doesn't seem too likely. -TONY

Need to keep our eye on the ball here. When someone buys a landowner tag, they are not purchasing only the game animal but are also purchasing the access to hunt that private property. Plus -- and someone can correct me if this is wrong -- I believe hunters must also purchase a state permit from NM G&F even if they use a LO voucher, thus paying the "people" for the value of the 'lope just as if it was a public land license. -TONY

Residents can bring that percentage down a bunch by merely buying the LO tags for the going price. -TONY

USFWS Press Release February 21 Interior Department Removes Northern Rocky Mountain Wolves from Endangered Species List The gray wolf population in the Northern Rocky Mountains is thriving and no longer requires the protection of the Endangered Species Act, Deputy Secretary of the Interior Lynn Scarlett announced today. As a result, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will remove the species from the federal list of threatened and endangered species. "The wolf population in the Northern Rockies has far exceeded its recovery goal and continues to expand its size and range. States, tribes, conservation groups, federal agencies and citizens of both regions can be proud of their roles in this remarkable conservation success story," said Scarlett, noting that there are currently more than 1,500 wolves and at least 100 breeding pairs in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Service-approved state management plans will provide a secure future for the wolf population once Endangered Species Act protections are removed and the states assume full management of wolf populations within their borders. The northern Rocky Mountain DPS includes all of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, as well as the eastern one-third of Washington and Oregon, and a small part of north-central Utah. "With hundreds of trained professional managers, educators, wardens and biologists, state wildlife agencies have strong working relationships with local landowners and the ability to manage wolves for the long-term," said Lyle Laverty, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. "We're confident the wolf has a secure future in the northern Rocky Mountains and look forward to continuing to work closely with the states as we monitor the wolf population for the next five years." The minimum recovery goal for wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains was set at a minimum of 30 breeding pairs (a breeding pair represents a successfully reproducing wolf pack) and a minimum of 300 individual wolves for at least three consecutive years. This goal was achieved in 2002, and the wolf population has expanded in size and range every year since. "These wolves have shown an impressive ability to breed and expand - they just needed an opportunity to establish themselves in the Rockies. The Service and its partners provided that opportunity, and now it's time to integrate wolves into the states' overall wildlife management efforts," said Service Director H. Dale Hall. Gray wolves were previously listed as endangered in the lower 48 states, except in Minnesota, where they were listed as threatened. The wolf population in the western Great Lakes was delisted in early 2007. When the delisting of the Rocky Mountain population takes effect 30 days from its publication in the Federal Register on February 27th, the Service will oversee the only remaining gray wolf recovery program, for the southwestern U.S. wolf population. The delisting announced today affects only the northern Rocky Mountain population of gray wolves. Gray wolves found outside of the Rocky Mountain and Midwest recovery areas, including the southwest wolf population, remain protected under the Endangered Species Act and are not affected by actions taken today. For more information on northern Rocky Mountain gray wolves, visit www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/

Im quite aware of what the Colorado ballot measure involved since I did extensive coverage of it before and after it was passed. I even did an interview of the Colorado bear biologist AND AVID HUNTER Tom Beck for an article in Rocky Mt. Game & Fish magazine. You might recall he had written an article for Outdoor Life in which he stated his support of the ban. Neither of those initiatives the antis pushed and got passed mentioned using bait for OTHER big game. They specially addressed the issues noted below. -TONY 1992 Colorado prohibit spring, bait, and hound hunting of black bears Amendment 10 Approved 70% 30% 1994 Oregon ban bear baiting and hound hunting of mountain lions Measure 18 Approved 52% 48% Here's some interesting after-the-fact analysis: Political Environment Bear hunting has become a national issue for animal rights activists. Animal rights activists were successful in bringing a referendum (Amendment 10) to the statewide ballot in Colorado in 1992 which prohibited certain types of bear hunting. The referendum was supported by 70% of the voters (Loker & Decker, 1995). **** Opponents of bait hunting for bears claim it is unfair and inconsistent with the principle of "fair chase" applied to other game species (Beck et al. 1994). The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (1992) found that only 29% of survey respondents who said they hunted and only 8 % of nonhunters approved of hunting bears with bait. There apparently was little difference in disapproval for hunting bears with bait or dogs in Idaho. As with dog hunting, 70% of survey respondents expressed opposition to hunting black bears with bait in Colorado (Standage Accureach, Inc. and Ciruli Associates, Inc. 1991). AND.. a few more states with laws against baiting big-game animals: California 257.5. Prohibition Against Taking Resident Game Birds and Mammals by the Aid of Bait. Except as otherwise provided in these regulations or in the Fish and Game Code, resident game birds and mammals may not be taken within 400 yards of any baited area. (a) Definition of Baited Area. As used in this regulation, “baited area” shall mean any area where shelled, shucked or unshucked corn, wheat or other grains, salt, or other feed whatsoever capable of luring, attracting, or enticing such birds or mammals is directly or indirectly placed, exposed, deposited, distributed, or scattered, and such area shall remain a baited area for ten days following complete removal of all such corn, wheat or other grains, salt, or other feed. Exceptions: (1) The taking of domestically reared and released game birds on licensed pheasant clubs and other licensed game bird clubs; General Provisions And Definitions (2) The taking of resident game birds and mammals on or over standing crops, flooded standing crops (including aquatics), flooded harvested croplands, grain crops properly shocked on the field where grown, or grains found scattered solely as the result of normal agricultural planting or harvesting; (3) The taking of resident game birds and mammals on or over any lands where shelled, shucked or unshucked corn, wheat or other grain, salt, or other feed have been distributed or scattered as the result of bona fide agricultural operations or procedures, or as a result of manipulation of a crop or other feed on the land where grown for wildlife management purposes: provided that manipulation for wildlife management purposes does not include the distributing or scattering of grain or other feed once it has been removed from or stored on the field where grown. Alaska 5 AAC 92.230. Feeding of game Except under the terms of a permit issued by the department, a person may not intentionally feed a moose, deer, elk, bear, wolf, coyote, fox, or wolverine, or negligently leave human food, animal food, or garbage in a manner that attracts these animals. However, this prohibition does not apply to use of bait for trapping furbearers or hunting black bears, wolf, fox, or wolverine under 5 AAC 84 - 5 AAC 92. Wisconsin No person may place, use or hunt over bait or feed material for the purpose of hunting any wild animals (except deer as provided below and for bear, see Wisconsin Bear Hunting Regulations) unless authorized by a special permit or license issued by the department. Scents: Scent may be used for hunting deer or other wild animals, but the scent may not be placed or deposited in a manner that it is accessible for consumption by deer, and scents shall be removed daily at the end of hunting hours established for deer. However, two ounces or less of scent may be placed, used or deposited in any manner for hunting game and does not need to be removed daily at the end of hunting hours. Natural Vegetation and Plantings: You may hunt with the aid of material deposited by natural vegetation or material found solely as a result of normal agricultural or gardening practices, or with the aid of crops planted and left standing as wildlife food plots. South Dakota It is illegal: To use salt blocks, licks or bait station to attract big game. “Bait station” is a place where edible foodstuffs or minerals are placed or maintained as an attractant to game animals. Use of scent alone does not constitute a bait station. Massachusetts (f) A person shall not make, set, or use any bait, decoy, torchlight or spotlight, trap, or other like device for the purpose of attracting, ensnaring, taking, injuring, or killing a deer, nor hunt by baiting or within any baited area, nor hunt, drive, worry, or disturb any deer with or by the aid of any noise-making device, provided that nothing in 321 CMR 3.02(4)(f) shall be deemed to prohibit the use of scents or of deer antlers or replicas thereof or of grunt tubes as callers or attractants by persons otherwise lawfully hunting deer. Bait means any natural or artificial substance, including but not restricted to, shucked or unshucked corn, wheat or other grains, hay, silage, apples or other fruits or vegetables, and salt or other chemical compounds of a like nature which may be fed upon, ingested by or which otherwise constitute a nutritive attraction or enticement to deer. Baited area means any area where baiting has taken place and such area shall remain a baited area for the period from ten days prior to the opening of the exclusive archery season as provided in 321 CMR 3.02(4)(2. to 12:00 P.M. on the day following the close of the exclusive primitive firearms season as provided in 321 CMR 3.02(4)(4., all dates inclusive. Kentucky Bait: a substance composed of grains, minerals, salt, fruits, vegetables, hay or any other food materials, whether natural or manufactured, which may lure, entice or attract wildlife. Baiting: to place, deposit, tend, distribute or scatter bait. 12. A person shall not distribute or place bait, hunt over bait or otherwise participate in baiting wildlife on a wildlife management area. And... Baiting is prohibited on state parks. Baiting is also prohibited in: GREEN RIVER STATE FOREST Henderson County JEFFERSON NATIONAL FOREST Letcher & Pike cos. KENTENIA STATE FOREST Harlan County KENTUCKY RIDGE STATE FOREST Bell County TYGARTS STATE FOREST Carter County New York Baiting—It is illegal to hunt with the aid of bait, or over any baited area when hunting big game, upland game birds, turkey or waterfowl. Artificial Lights—It is illegal to hunt deer This is just one that I found a bit humorous: Oregon 2. Shooting at wild animals or wild birds while they are on any utility line, pole, its crossarm or insulator is prohibited.

Great shots. Love that airborne one. -TONY

"A wise man does not know everything, A wise man knows where to find the answer to everything" Bingo, Mike! -TONY

No, but I read and keep track of what goes on because I normally write about major rule/law changes quite often, not only for AZ but for all of the Rocky Mt. states. After 45 years of reading rules/laws, I have absorbed most of the older ones and only need to keep up to date on newer ones. In reality, it's a good idea for ALL hunters to be aware of the rules/laws or at least to consult them when questions arise. It could save both money and hunting privileges sometime down the road. -TONY

The "huh" doesn't apply. See below in bold. -TONY R12-4-319 A. For the purposes of this Section, the following definitions apply: 1. “Aircraft” means any contrivance used for flight in the air or any lighter-than-air contrivance. 2. “Locate” means any act or activity that does not take or harass wildlife and is directed at locating or finding wildlife in a hunt area. B. An individual shall not take or assist in taking wildlife from or with the aid of aircraft. C. Except in hunt units with Commission-ordered special seasons under R12-4-115 and R12-4-120 and hunt units with seasons only for mountain lion and no other concurrent big game season, an individual shall not locate or assist in locating wildlife from or with the aid of an aircraft in a hunt unit with an open big game season. This restriction begins 48 hours before the opening of a big game season in a hunt unit and extends until the close of the big game season for that hunt unit. D. An individual who possesses a special big game license tag for a special season under R12-4-115 or R12-4-120 or an individual who assists or will assist such a licensee shall not use an aircraft to locate wildlife beginning 48 hours before and during a Commission-ordered special season. E. This Section does not apply to any individual acting within the scope of official duties as an employee or authorized agent of the state or the United States to administer or protect or aid in the administration or protection of land, water, wildlife, livestock, domesticated animals, human life, or crops.

Well here is another play on "substance", what about scents? It seems most scent-type attractants would be banned? It is not the actual bottle that attracts them, it is the smell not the substance? Are sound and smell so different? They are both physical in my mind. According to my logic, if calls are O.K. then scents should be too as long as they are on your person, and as long as a bottle isn't physically left in the field? Also decoys? I'd have a big argument with you if you can't use decoys. What are decoy manufacturers going to think of this? I know bird hunting is more specific, but how will this apply to big game as an "attractant". My point is just be careful with how you word things that might hang many of your fellow hunters, who have used attractants as hunting tactics for "eons", in your wording. The general intent might be good, but the overall result might not be such. Where do you guys come with this stuff? Something physical is visible. Can you see an elk bugle -- the sound -- not the bugle or mouthcall? It is the liquid, powder or whatever in the bottle that is physical and is a substance! So if that attracts wildlife and is not EXCEPTED under the rule, it would be banned, just as it is in NM. That means scent drippers, etc. However, as it is in NM, substances on your body to MASK your scent -- not too attract game -- are fine. RE: decoys They do not come under the description of bait or attracting scents. So you can still dress up like a doe. Just be careful during the rut. There are a lot of things hunters did for eons that are now illegal here and elsewhere. For example, it was not too long ago where guides could keep a lion treed overnight so they could call their "hunter" to come kill it. I already mentioned chute planes. And we know baiting bears here is also now illegal, which probably saved the spring season, unlike in Colorado where the antis got an initiative passed outlawing both. By law, that initative is irreversible just as it would be here. In contrast, the bear baiting rule here is just that and can be easily changed back the way it was if G&F chooses to do so. I doubt they ever will because it would make an easy target for the antis, but it is possible. -TONY