Thoughts on Baiting

[Coach]

I think Tonto Rim did an excellent job of providing some insight as to where these proposed policies come from. A lot of respondents have taken a defensive approach to his comments.

 

A word of advice -- don't shoot the messenger. He's already stated that he's retired - he's not in the position to move this issue one way or the other. He's simply stating the facts about how this topic has bubbled to the surface and what types of studies and objectives are behind it.

 

We don't have to agree with them, but we should all agree that we have to get our heads around the the motives, objectives and rationale behind this move if we want to either fight or support it.

 

We all have our perspectives about how this issue faces all of us. We can all talk about how great one unit was until the over-allocation of tags, the salt/corn hunters, high tech bows, wolves, mines, urban development, tree stands, ground blinds changed everything...it's endless.

 

Perception IS reality - and my perception or anyone else's on this forum isn't always going to be in line with the peception of those that make decisions about hunting. If the perception of the wildlife manager in unit XX, is that the bow harvest exceeds expectations, they are going to have to find ways to reduce that bow take, or reduce rifle permits that have more predictable annual harvest rate. It can't be any more simple than that.

 

This "balance sheet" perspective is reality in any government agency. There is no rationalizing that will change that fact. When bowhunting success excedes the forecasted "take" expectation, either fewer rifle permits can be allowed, or limits to archery take come into play.

 

That means:

 

1: Limit the access to bowhunters by instituting a "draw only" archery hunt.

2: Limit the success of archery hunters by regulating take methods (bait).

3: Reduce rifle tag permits, especially in the later season.

 

We've already seen #3 all over the state. That's a done deal.

#1 is also being experimented with in select units.

 

So here we are with #2 - like it or hate it, wildlife management is a numbers game.

 

Being successful by figuring out some tricks and tactics to "up our odds" has changed the way G&F has to manage wildlife.

 

There's no good guy/bad guy in this scenario, just the reality that the people who are trying to ensure a sustainable hunting future have to balance the wants and needs of current spotsmen/women with the objectives of ensuring that our sport will still be available to our kids and grandkids.

[PRDATR]

I think we have beat this horse enough that Amanda should lock this down.

[GotBowAz]

Coach you missed one.

 

4: Require mandatory harvest reporting and when the quota is met shut the area down for that hunt just like they do for bear.

 

GBA

[AZLance]

I think we have beat this horse enough that Amanda should lock this down.

 

This conversation is just beginning... When G&F drop this crazy idea, we can shut down this thread!

[bobbyo]

WOW not again. I still believe there is more to the ban than the harvest of deer. It is the harvest of trophy deer that is the driving force. Sadly I think it is driven by pure jealousy. Do you think anyone would care about baiting if you only harvested spikes and forkys using this method?

 

Tonto Rim: How do you bow hunt these rim units?

[Coach]

Coach you missed one.

 

4: Require mandatory harvest reporting and when the quota is met shut the area down for that hunt just like they do for bear.

 

GBA

 

I agree 100%. Without mandatory reporting, G&F has to extrapolate based on the respondents. I think it's a fair assumption that successful hunters are more likely to respond than unsuccesful hunters. That kind of voluntary reporting can skew the take statistics that the following year's management approach are based on.

 

I'd be fully supportive of any measure that requires mandatory harvest reporting. It imposes very little on the hunters and gives G&F a lot more accurate information to work from.

[Non-Typical Solutions]

Coach you missed one.

 

4: Require mandatory harvest reporting and when the quota is met shut the area down for that hunt just like they do for bear.

 

GBA

 

I agree 100%. Without mandatory reporting, G&F has to extrapolate based on the respondents. I think it's a fair assumption that successful hunters are more likely to respond than unsuccesful hunters. That kind of voluntary reporting can skew the take statistics that the following year's management approach are based on.

 

I'd be fully supportive of any measure that requires mandatory harvest reporting. It imposes very little on the hunters and gives G&F a lot more accurate information to work from.

 

Real curious about mandatory reporting, sounds like a great idea. I am sure it would be more accurate than our current setup. Is it such that if you don't report, you can't get drawn for the next hunt correct?

 

I have read many posts on this site about how people don't fill out the voluntary report, if they aren't willing to do that, why would they be honest in a mandatory survey report.

 

We all talk about not wanting more regulation and then jump on mandatory reporting......regulation............when we as hunters won't even fill out a voluntary survey report???

 

Sometimes I do think we are our own worst enemy................

[ForkHorn]

I think people would be forced to be honest. Killing a deer and then filling out that you didn't would be viewed as something similar to poaching.

 

It would be hard to lie and keep it hidden forever. Everyone takes pictures, shares news, etc. I strongly believe most people would be honest.

[GotBowAz]

NTS...I concur with what you’re saying but this would be reporting your harvest for your OTC tag, not a draw. You would be taking it in or calling it in to Fish and Game verses filling out a survey. I would then suspect that if you’re in violation (and of course got caught) it would be a pretty hefty ticket if not loss of license to hunt for a few years. I would bet most if not all hunters would turn in their harvest like they do for bear.

 

GBA

[ThomC]

I think that we need a discussion on baiting. Most of the nay sayers are just thinking about their method that they are using now. As more and better ways to bait animals are invented we need to get ahead of the game before it becomes normal and accepted.

 

I would imagine that we could all agree that we dont want to be like Texas. The shows that I see on TV are not the type of hunting that I would like for AZ.

[Snapshot]

I am surprised that nobody at G&F has figured out the baiting solution (Capitalize on it)............ SELL BAITING PERMITS.

 

SHhhhhhhhhhh. Don't tell anyone at G$F.

[THE RIFLEMAN]

Really "The Rifleman" ??? Resort to name calling. Have a discussion, do not insult, it makes all of us look bad.

 

Well here it is Tonto Rim - I used my smart phone to compose that last text and the auto editor feature added job to your name ... Ooops I didnt see this when I posted ....Didnt intend to call a bad name... This has gotten me in predicaments before .... LMAO I apologize ....! Still think you are wrong!!!!! LMAO

[swwildlife]

If I set up a stand and place this sign near by, will this keep me legal?

[PRDATR]

That picture has probably been posted 50 times in the last month.

[jamaro]

Ok.. Forgive me for getting into this but in NM we can't bait... but it is well known that hunting over a ranchers salt can be pretty effective... Question, salt stays in the ground for YEARS... How does G and F going to try and determine old mineral stations from new ones???