Jump to content
Tonto Rim

Thoughts on Baiting

Recommended Posts

123456: "one of them managed to arrow 2 coues deer in 4 months in Arizona."

 

Did these guys know there is a bag limit of "1" in a calendar year?? Sounds like baiting is not his problem :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To start off I do not hunt over bait and I do hunt in 23 and though I am not that old I have seen changes in the WT population in that unit over the last 10 years. The fact is Az and the world is in constant flux and changing. One of those changes for us here in AZ is that the madrean(think No. Mex.) ecosystem is moving north and so is the Rocky mountain ecosystem(out of state). Species like the Coati Mundi, Collared Peccary and Coues WT have all expanded their range in the last century along with all kinds of other critters and plants.

 

I grew up spending every summer in the north half of 5A. We never saw WT or Javelina. Now we see them quite often up there. It took a while for coatis to get there, but they are now on top of the rim as well(second hand info from a WM). This is global warming or a natural progression of ecotypes or what ever else you want to believe, but it is happening. This could explain the increase in harvest of WT in the northern units, there are just more deer. Also it goes without saying that the technology is also helping out.

 

G&F uses bunk science. Mandatory harvest reports would put an end to the bunk science. Also someone mentioned the heritage fund and the new look dept. I truly believe there is an internal struggle right now between the old guard(WM's that hunt and grew up in the hunting community) and the new highly educated and opinionated faction of liberal leaning personnel. When TR was there it might have been more about the hunter but that is changing, along with the general public opinion of hunting and hunters. What their biggest dilemma now is how can they keep us from doing the things we love and enjoy(hunting) and still take our money to use in projects that save non game animals with no economic value from habitat loss etc.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 diff. years. I arrowed 2 bucks in 5 days a fews years back. Read the regs, it's possible. hunt december, then january

 

haha touche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I come from a state that has a bait ban- there's still lots of deer, and you can shoot 5 (2 bucks and 3 does) per year! I really don't have a dog in this fight- but I've hunted over bait in Texas, and I threw a mineral brick out in front of my blind in 30B last year... I have NEVER tagged out over bait. What I fail to understand in this State's policy is the complete and utter disregard for a doe harvest. What the heck? How can you seriously manage deer herds with no doe harvest? I just don't understand why you cannot select either sex for at least an archery tag. seriously. I know AZGFD's ideal buck/doe ratio is 1:10... But that is a ridiculous number. A single buck cannot mate with that many does each year. Maybe 4-5, but certainly not 10. You wanna stop CWD and all those other nasty diseases??? Maintain a HEALTHY population- not just a big population. This is the only state I know of that makes a buck fight 10 does for food and water. AZ has no antler restrictions, so people shooting spikes is ok??? Think about it- you shoot a doe and there's still 9 others for the buck to mate with. You shoot that 1 buck and 10 does don't get preggo. Baiting ain't the issue- it's the buck/doe ratio that is gonna hurt the deer numbers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we used to be able to hunt does in January, that went away. In 12a, they really need to get a handle on buck to doe ratio's. There is no competion for does. It is not uncommon to see a half horned forkie breeding 15 does. He doesn't have to fight off any deer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info Tonto, but is awful quiet all sudden.

 

If you go back just a simple 20 years ago, just shear population of this state was different.

 

I have felt in recent years that the population change, which I believe statistics show are heavy Californites.....have a strong influence on what this state is faced with in many ways.

 

Another thing that has changed in 20 years is the growth of vegetation in this state.

 

We used to hunt 20 years ago unit 27(rifle, any antlered deer) down by smoothing iron and maple.

 

We would ride our horses in, pick us a ridge, do some walking hoping to jump a buck. No sneeking, just a prayer that we ran into something and had a clear shot.

There was some thick areas but you could almost always count on being able to find shooting lanes and plenty of deer.

 

We recently went back in there to check the area out after many years absence. It was so dang thick we couldn't hardly get our horses in there. Thick, thick undergrowth and little to no shooting lanes.

 

May as well put the rifle away and grab a bow, get quiet, find a water hole.................or, put out some bait, lick, something.

 

My point is, many factors come into play with the wildlife in this state, CWD I don't think that is one of them. You want to run a statistic, just check out the increase in mountain lion over the last 30-50 years.

Ranchers used to be pretty vigilant in trying to keep them at a minimum, but with the reduction of cows on the range, law put into place in favor of the cat, now lions are seen more often than ever and they take a pretty serious toll on deer population in particular.

 

Just sayin, theres lots of factors, lets just talk about the real ones.................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 2 cents,

 

I still think a mandatory harvest, and a quota system similar to the bear hunts is the way to go!!!! Of course this is if the real reason behind all of this is DEER NUMBERS. This simple plan would take all the fight out of it. Archery success would be limited to the percentage, a set number of deer. Once it is met close the unit. Changing them to the draw seems way more complicated than putting in place a mandatory reporting and having a quota for the units. I would highly doubt that many units would even hit the harvest quota!!! Opening day comes everyone still gets to go that wants to, G and F still makes all their money, everyone is happy!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info Tonto, but is awful quiet all sudden.

 

If you go back just a simple 20 years ago, just shear population of this state was different.

 

I have felt in recent years that the population change, which I believe statistics show are heavy Californites.....have a strong influence on what this state is faced with in many ways.

 

Another thing that has changed in 20 years is the growth of vegetation in this state.

 

We used to hunt 20 years ago unit 27(rifle, any antlered deer) down by smoothing iron and maple.

 

We would ride our horses in, pick us a ridge, do some walking hoping to jump a buck. No sneeking, just a prayer that we ran into something and had a clear shot.

There was some thick areas but you could almost always count on being able to find shooting lanes and plenty of deer.

 

We recently went back in there to check the area out after many years absence. It was so dang thick we couldn't hardly get our horses in there. Thick, thick undergrowth and little to no shooting lanes.

 

May as well put the rifle away and grab a bow, get quiet, find a water hole.................or, put out some bait, lick, something.

 

My point is, many factors come into play with the wildlife in this state, CWD I don't think that is one of them. You want to run a statistic, just check out the increase in mountain lion over the last 30-50 years.

Ranchers used to be pretty vigilant in trying to keep them at a minimum, but with the reduction of cows on the range, law put into place in favor of the cat, now lions are seen more often than ever and they take a pretty serious toll on deer population in particular.

 

Just sayin, theres lots of factors, lets just talk about the real ones.................

 

I remember the "Good ole days" in unit 27, and the any antlered tags (Lots of them). I remember many hunting trips, and never saw a whitetail for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Thanks for the info Tonto, but is awful quiet all sudden."

 

I dont know who Tonto is but he said he was a WM and what he posted was his opinion based on a few years experience. What really bugs me is all the "experts" who only have their experience which was not as extensive. Even if you are a biologist you will know that every expert has an opinion. Wise people are not going to get in a debate on the internet with all of you experts. I try not to but sometimes I just cannot resist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoa there! I thought there’d be a hornet’s nest under the rock I just kicked, but I didn’t realize how big the nest would be. Ouch!

 

In all seriousness, my post was simply my thoughts on the issue. The beautiful thing about being retired is I can now express my personal thoughts regarding wildlife management (like you all do) without having back everything up with peer-reviewed scientific data or having the position blessed by a chain of command. So if you don’t agree with my opinions, great. I was simply offering another perspective to think about as you kick this hot topic about.

 

I am not going to try to answer all of the questions that were posted – I used to do that for a living and it really wasn’t that fun. But I will respond to some themes that I believe deserve further discussion.

 

Firstly, I am not personally opposed to baiting. I have friends and close family who bait. And no they don’t kill a deer every season. I do think they have better chances than other hunters who don’t sit bait sites.

 

Secondly I agree with all of the following: harvest reporting should be mandatory, the distribution of archery and rifle opportunity should not be based on past questionnaire preferences, target buck to doe ratios should never be managed below 20:100 (one buck to five does), archery javelina tags should be over-the-counter again and tag revenue is definitely a driving factor hunt recommendation considerations. Agreed.

 

On to the question of is the bait ban consideration really a matter of disease prevention or limiting hunter success. I believe it is both, however if you reread my original post you will note I spent only one paragraph on disease and several on hunter success. That was intentional. I believe the hunt success enhancement effect of using bait is the main focus, although the disease issue is real.

 

Yes transmissible diseases can be spread innumerable ways including direct animal-animal contact; saliva on forage vegetation, scrapes, single source-point waters and many others. It is real easy for all of us to say – the additional risk to disease transmission presented by the use of edible baits is insignificant in light of the above – so it’s not a problem. Now put yourself in the shoes of the Department’s veterinarian, big game chief or even director. Your job, your mission is first and foremost to look out for the well-being of wildlife populations and not necessarily worry about whether the AZLance’s of the world are happy campers. Are you so willing to stick your neck out and say baiting absolutely won’t cause additional risk of disease transmission and therefore should be permissible? Deer diseases are real, just ask the folks in eastern Montana about EHD and blue tongue. Just because we’ve been blessed not to have an epizootic doesn’t mean we won’t. It’s like saying if you regularly use the restroom at McDonalds, touching various surfaces and not washing your hands, and then munch into your big mac and fries you probably won’t pick up smallpox. But it’s still not a safe practice and you might get something nasty. So why take the chance?

 

Anyhow, the disease issue is the Department’s fight to justify and not mine. I’m done with it.

 

My personal issue is the potential for lost archery deer hunting opportunity if baiting is allowed to remain. I firmly believe that the use of edible baits is the reason for the increased archery whitetail hunter success and harvest. I have no research studies to back that up – it is simply my opinion based on my experience.

 

I also believe that when push comes to shove with distribution of harvests – archers will lose. Why? Economics. Go to hunt Arizona 2012 on the Department’s web site and look at the historical sale of archery and general deer tags from 1990 to now. All except for a couple of years the Department sold between 20,000 and 24,000 archery deer tags with no long term trend of increasing or decreasing. Archery tag sales are essentially flat over that time period. Now look at general tags issued for the same time period. They go from 76,000 down to 36,000 in 2004 and back up to 43,000 in 2011. Don’t you think the Department would like to get back the revenue from the extra 33,000 tags issued in 1990 and not issued last year? You bet they would. If deer populations continue to slowly increase like they seem to be doing, do you really think the Department wants to give those extra bucks to archers whose growth potential for tag sales is essentially zero? No, they want those general rifle hunters back in the field. Hence my premise, if we as archers continue to be more successful and take significant numbers of whitetail bucks, the Department will reduce our opportunity and therefore our harvests so that general tags may be increased. Bet on it. The only way to counteract the future loss of our opportunity is to reduce our effectiveness. What’s the best way to be less effective at killing whitetail bucks (IMO) – don’t bait.

 

So there you have it. I get to have an opinion. I love archery deer hunting for whitetails. I love buying a tag over the counter. I used to love hunting in Aug-Sept, December and January. Now I only get to hunt in Aug-Sept and January. I don’t want to lose any more season days. In fact I would love to get December back. The only way I think (again my opinion) that will happen is if baiting is prohibited. I know there are many other ways to control harvest other than simply banning bait, but I don’t think the Department will recommend them. I think it is an either/or situation. Continue to bait and lose opportunity. Or give up bait and maintain opportunity or even get some back. I’ve said my piece. You decide for yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally have no desire to hunt over bait or, for that matter, from a blind. I've done it in other states,though, and have no problems with others using bait and blinds.

 

However, at age 76, my ability to walk is rapidly disappearing and as much as I dislike that style of hunting, baiting and hunting from a blind may be something I'll be forced to do soon -- if it remains legal.

 

However, if the reason banning baiting is being considered is because it's believed that it is raising bowhunting success rates on whitetails in certain areas, why not just limit baiting for that species and those units?

Why ban baiting entirely?

 

Bill Quimby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think no one, particularily those on this site, understand what's really causing G&F to consider this. I'll let you guys figure it out.

 

I will say this: It would behoove the administrator of this site to remove the Trail Cam sub-forum. You guys are your own worse enemy. ;)

 

How does the old idiom go? Out of sight, out of mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×