proposed ban on salt and feed

[gotcoues]

MY LETTER TO G AND F ONLY TOOK A FEW MINUTES, WE NEED TO STICK TOGETHER AND VOICE OUR OPINIONS.

I BELIEVE I CUT AND COPIED THESE EMAIL ADDRESSES FROM A POST BY BOWSNIPER. PLEASE TAKE TIME TO VOICE YOUR OPINION.

 

 

BWakeling@azgfd.gov

AMunig@azgfd.gov

ccook@azgfd.gov

Rulemaking@azgfd.gov

 

 

 

To Whom it may concern,

 

I'm writing in to voice my opinion on the new proposed salt/mineral and feed ban. I hope you will reconsider this new law. I believe the direction the department is going is bad for hunters in general. I see the new law is a piece of legislation added the what appears to be an bad agenda for the Game and Fish of Arizona (strangulate success & increase opportunity).

 

I personally have attempted to take game over salt and feed for the last three or four years and have yet to be successful. I would like to continue to hunt over salt/minerals as I believe, eventually things will come together and I will harvest a coues buck over salt.

 

I have endless amounts of my personal time and have added revenue to our AZ Economy from my attempts with salt/minerals and feed over the years.

 

I ask you to not put the new law into effect and let hunters enjoy continued success and heartache through their attempts at using salt/minerals to their advantage.

 

 

Thanks,

Justin Leitner

 

[bowsniper]

I haven't submitted mine yet, I'm still trying to edit out all of my anger and sound semi-professional.

 

Don't forget to also send your comments directly to the commissioners through this link:

 

http://www.azgfd.gov/inside_azgfd/commissi...rs.shtml#carter

 

Mark

[Coues 'n' Sheep]

 

 

Here is a copy of the letter I am drafting.... I am almost done... still may do a bit of tweekin' on it.... but I tried to be objective.

 

 

To whom it may concern,

 

As an Arizona sportsman and outdoor enthusiast I spend countless hours in the woods of this great state. I also spend as much of my hard earned dollars as I can in outdoor related ways. Not just for myself but for other, specifically children, women, and first time hunters. I have hunted big game in many different parts of this state using just about every legal method to harvest game or help someone else harvest game. I am opposed to the “Banning of Baiting” law that is up for consideration at this time. I would like to share with you an outline of why this “Blanket” law is bad for the AZGF and any sportsman/woman who ever plans to hunt in Arizona.

 

1) The issue of banning mineral based attractants is a logistical nightmare! It lasts for years. Many existing salt/mineral sights have been used for decades and will remain for decades. Why include items that naturally occur in this state anyway, why create more hoops for our wildlife managers and our hunters to jump through.

2) How as a hunter are you suppose to be accountable for where the animal is standing when you shoot him. Was the animal standing on an old mineral lick or near where a rancher dumped feed for livestock?

3) Who placed the minerals/salt? A rancher, a hunter, a non-hunter trying to stop hunting at a water sources or other place? Ranchers will have to prove it is their salt that an unknowing hunter’s elk fell on?

4) Supplements that contain minerals/salt are not habit changing; they are more a benefit to the animals than a real advantage to a hunter, and hunters spend tens of thousands of dollars per year on these supplements that benefit the herds.

5) The real drive behind this movement is most probably the archery success in the over the counter deer hunts, and we can manage those harvest numbers to any level we wish without this law and without affecting hunter opportunity, or the rest of the hunts, or the people of this state. If the real issue at hand is hunter success in the archery deer hunts, then why not implement harvest objectives similar to the bear seasons. We are half way there with mandatory reporting and we keep one more law off the books, one more “unproductive law” that costs us more to enforce than it will help.

6) Our state has plenty of monetary issues to hurdle without creating a red tape law that will complicate the lives/and jobs of wildlife managers, ranchers, hunters, and other outdoor enthusiasts.

7) There are many young hunters, disabled/disadvantaged hunters, elderly hunters, and woman hunters that will be forced out of bow hunting with the passing of this law. That in itself is a direct hit on the Opportunity objective that the commission has laid out.

8) This law, as worded could also be interpreted to include man made water sources. Is that also on the agenda of the commission?

9) If we need a law, then let’s look at the real red flag in this issue, food sources (feed type baits like grains, corn, and hay) placed by hunters for the purpose of taking game.

 

I feel that this list is probably incomplete when considering why Arizona should Not adopt the current rule that is proposed as it is written. We may need a Baiting law, but we certainly do not need the one that is currently proposed. I believe that we have other resources to exercise, before we jump to adding more laws or affecting hunter opportunity. And if we are to outlaw “Baiting”, then we need a common sense approach, not a blanket law that is a logistical night mare to navigate and enforce in a Free Range state.

Please dismiss this rule as written and let’s work toward a common sense solution!

 

Sincerely,

[bowhunter4life]

You hit the Nail on the Head! nice job Geno!

[gotcoues]

I received a response in a matter of an hour or so from one of the recipients. Semi generic, but never the less was assured it would be passed on for review.

[azhunter23]

What do you think...still working on it

 

 

To Whom It May Concern:

 

 

 

I’m writing to voice my opinion on the proposed salt/mineral ban. I am a dedicated father and avid archery hunter who enjoys time spent in the outdoors with my family. As an archery hunter I do not use minerals or salt. Mostly we sit water and/or spot and stalk. My concerns are primarily directed towards my wife and children having the choice to use these products since they aren’t experienced hunters and would enjoy hunting more if successful in seeing wildlife.

 

I spend a lot of my hard earned money in this great state for hunting and fishing and feel this state is making every attempt to make it nearly impossible for archery hunters to harvest ANY game here! One example: archery elk hunts timed to avoid the rut. The proposed banning of salts/mineral is another example.

 

Recently I purchased archery equipment for both of my children to use to expose them to the sport. Additionally, I also recently purchased a family hunting license and look forward to spending time in the outdoors. The use of salt/minerals increases the opportunity for our family to view wildlife. As you know hunting unfortunately is a sport on the brink of disappearing and I hope you decide not to pass this law not only for the sake of the future hunters but for the sake of the wildlife and the opportunity for all of us to enjoy their beauty in their natural environment. I believe that because of the amount of money annually pumped into the economy by archery hunters, it would be a travesty to continue to attack the sport in the attempt to eliminate high success rates.

 

Please consider our opinion when making your decision.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

[Coues 'n' Sheep]

 

 

I have recieved engaging responses from Commissioners' McLean & Woodhouse. I also recieved a response Ms. Cook.

[bowsniper]

Here is my letter to G&F. Come on, let's see a few more letters posted.

 

Dear Arizona Game and Fish,

 

I am a long time Arizona state resident, and also a long time gun and archery hunter. I'm writing to voice my opposition to the Article 3 rule change that would prohibit the use of “edible or ingestible substances” in the taking of big game. Please consider my comments and address my concerns and questions as a part of the rule making process. I respectfully request that you do not institute this rule change for the reasons outlined below.

 

1) Part of the departments rationale in prohibiting the use of “edible or ingestible substances” (also known as “bait”), is that bait “compromises the spirit of fair chase”. Consider hunters using high power scopes and long range rifles to shoot game past 1000 yards; hunters using scents and calls to lure rutting animals; or hunters using dogs and radio collars to hunt lions and bears? Are these methods ethical or unethical? Are they fair chase or not? How can shooting a trapped animal that has been treed by dogs be considered “fair chase”, but trying to take a coues deer with a bow and arrow over feed be considered as a “compromise to the spirit of fair chase”? Consider rifle Antelope hunting? Is an almost absolute guarantee that you will harvest an animal fair chase? Can a near 100% success rate be considered fair chase under any definition? Why is using “edible or ingestible substances” being singled out as not being fair chase? All are just different tools used depending on the type of weapon and the kind of animal being pursued. How can the department rationalize the ethical decision that all of these methods are “fair chase” except “baiting”? Using “edible or ingestible substances” is sanctioned as fair chase by Boone & Crockett, Pope & Young, and the Safari Club.

 

2) Another of the departments rationale in prohibiting the use of “edible or ingestible substances” is that “baiting results in high harvest success rates." What data does the AZ Game and Fish Department have to substantiate this claim? Mandatory or voluntary survey data submitted to the department does not include this data. There is a popular misconception that using food bait significantly increases the chance to take an animal. While animals in AZ usually have a very limited choice of water sources, there can be a wide range of natural food sources available other than hunter placed food. Also, with hunters starting new salt licks every season, an animal could have his choice of many different salt licks in a particular area.

 

I know hunters who have great luck using food bait, and other hunters who have no better luck than without it. Like any hunting tool, it depends how it is used and how hard you work at it. But the idea that a hunter can go out one week and dump corn, and return the next week and then automatically take a coues buck is completely false. There is at least one outfitter that has turned food baiting into a science and has unusually good success with it. This is a commercial enterprise, and certainly not the norm for the average hunter. In general, I believe that using bait can be about as effective as sitting at a water hole. The benefit of the bait stand over the water stand is that a hunter does not have a conflict in sharing the bait stand with other hunters . If using bait were prohibited by this rule, the water holes could potentially become much more crowded than they already are, as hunters using bait would return to water sources to hunt.

 

3) I believe that the rule change is written ambiguously such that it could be interpreted to apply to game drinkers and possibly other un-natural water sources. The new rule states: “An individual shall not take big game with the aid of edible or ingestible substances, including salt or salt based products, placed for the purpose of attracting a big game animal to a specific location.” Water is certainly an ingestible substance, and a game drinker has the effect of attracting big game. Strictly interpreted, could this rule prohibit taking game at a game drinker? Or could this rule potentially affect hunting over un-natural water sources, such as a stock tank? While the department intent may not be to include water in the rule, the rule is ambiguous and if approved, needs to be clarified in the wording of the rule.

 

4) Salts licks currently exist all over Arizona, including at most stock tanks. Long after the salt melts, the salt stays in the ground and attracts animals. Under this new rule, hunting at these sites would be illegal. A hunter would be responsible to know if a salt lick were present, even if it were not visible. Enforcement of this rule would be difficult and inconsistent, and open to the interpretation of the Game Officer, reallocating the officer’s responsibility of law enforcement to include law interpretation, a judicial function.

 

5) With this new rule, anti-hunting groups or individuals could, under the false pretense of animal photography, legally dump corn, sweet feed, or any other “edible or ingestible substance” at water sources and other popular hunting sites thereby making them illegal to hunt. Many of these “edible or ingestible substance” would be nearly impossible to remove, and could take months to dissipate or be consumed.

 

Please address the following questions as part of your official process concerning the Article III Rule Changes to R12-4-303:

 

A) How did the department make the ethical decision that all of the methods outlined in item one above are “fair chase” except bait?

B ) What specific data does the AZ Game and Fish Department have to substantiate the claim that the use of “edible or ingestible substances” by the general, non-commercial hunting public results in high harvest success rates?

C) Why is only “bait” being considered to reduce archery hunter deer success, when other tools such as high magnification optics, high powered rifles, high speed compound bows, electronic game calls, and various audible and olfactory lures also can also produce high harvest success rates for other species and weapons? Why are these other tools not being considered as game management tools as is bait?

D) What other methods are available to reduce the archery deer harvest, and why are they not being considered?

E) Has the department studied the possibility that hunter competition for use of water holes could increase significantly if this rule were passed? If so, what were the conclusions and how would the problem be addressed?

F) Is this rule change intended to prohibit the taking of wildlife over un-natural water sources?

G) If this rule were approved as written, what will preclude Law Enforcement Officers from writing citations for hunting at game drinkers or other un-natural water sources? What will stop courts from misinterpreting Arizona Game and Fish Department’s intent of the rule?

H) How will existing salt licks be affected by this rule change? If a salt lick were not visible, but leached into the ground, can an unknowing hunter be cited for hunting near it?

I) How can the department prevent “anti-hunting” groups or individuals from distributing feed and salt at water sources and other popular hunting sites thereby making them illegal to hunt?

 

Thank you for considering my comments and addressing my questions and concerns as part of the Article III rule making process. I look forward to reviewing you responses.

 

Respectfully,

[catclaw]

MY LETTER TO G AND F ONLY TOOK A FEW MINUTES, WE NEED TO STICK TOGETHER AND VOICE OUR OPINIONS.

I BELIEVE I CUT AND COPIED THESE EMAIL ADDRESSES FROM A POST BY BOWSNIPER. PLEASE TAKE TIME TO VOICE YOUR OPINION.

 

 

BWakeling@azgfd.gov

AMunig@azgfd.gov

ccook@azgfd.gov

Rulemaking@azgfd.gov

 

Why are we sending letters to Brian Wakeling and A Munig? I understand Celeste Cook and the rulemaking committee but not the other two? Any answers?

[bowsniper]

 

Why are we sending letters to Brian Wakeling and A Munig? I understand Celeste Cook and the rulemaking committee but not the other two? Any answers?

 

 

I just thought it would be good to email as many as possible. Let Brian hear it directly from the hunters, instead of just stats from the rulemaking committee. I'd send it to the whole department if I had the email addresses.

 

Mark

[GameHauler]

I mailed mine early last week and have not gotten an acknowledgment

 

I used the above links, hope they worked.

I did not get any returned mail?

[KGAINES]

I e-mailed mine and received responses from two commissioners. My letter was pretty short and stated my position to oppose the ban. Everyone needs to let the commissioner's know how they feel.

[TREESTANDMAN]

Great responses Mark and Gino!!!!

 

"Comment deleted"

 

Email Celeste Cook. She is the one that records your email.

[catclaw]

I totally disagree with you and this is exactly what they want to happen. It's no different that stating that you don't care if they take away semi-auto rifles as long as they leave the bolts actions alone (because you don't hunt with semi-autos).

 

When it comes to things like this, it's better all or nothing. The corn isn't hurting a dang thing. It is FAR from a guarantee that you will even have a buck hit it. I know several guys who have been putting corn out all fall and NOTHING has touched it- even though we found deer tracks in the snow not 30 feet away. Next they will outlaw radios, then laser range finders, then tree stands- it will never end if we don't make a strong stand now. Even if you don't use corn and salt- you should be manning up for the rights of hunter collectively.

 

Look what happened to Jim Zumbo when he made his dumb comments about AR-15s and hunting. It cost him his job and his endorsements and rightly so. This is a very divisive issue and if you don't have a dog in the fight- you should support the rights of your fellow hunters too!

 

 

My original question was why these other two guys- they have basically NO say in this issue. I think we are wasting our time unless we go to the commission meetings with a well planned out agenda and address the commission directly. I have stood in front of them a number of times and even called for Shrouf's resignation over the way the USO lawsuit was handled. I got some good head nods from the commission when I said that.

 

We are ranting and raving here on this forum but we should be doing it at the commission meeting. I got a response from the Chairman but he didn't like me calling this an attack on archery hunter - which is blatantly is. How many rifle hunters put out feeders etc? I think we need to quit trying to legislate ethics and let the other sportsmen handle their own.

 

If someone doesn't like to put out corn- then they shouldn't do it- plain and simple. If someone doesn't like to hunt with a scope on their muzzleloader- then don't. If you think radios are unethical- don't use them. If you think 80% let-off compound bows are unethical, don't buy one. This all comes down to the individual. I don't like them making laws to govern what should be ethics- not criminal behavior. I have never put a pile of corn out in my life and never hunted over a salt block, but I will fight for the right to be ABLE to do this should a situation suggest it!

 

 

[bowsniper]

I agree with you catclaw, I was disappointed to see Mike's post. G&F will "divide and conquer" us.

 

Mark