AZGFD Rule Changes

[Str8Shot]

So pertaining to your statment above.

 

The Commission believes that R12-4-303 exists to prohibit devices and methods that either compromise the spirit of fair chase or adversely impact hunter success rates. The recent increase in the use of baiting has resulted in disproportionally high harvest rates among those using this method of hunting. Consequently, the Commission is offering fewer hunting opportunities, which negatively impacts hunter recruitment and retention.

 

The don’t mention the higher success rates due to Rangefinders, turreted scopes, long range shooting. And those stating they are offering fewer tags because of Baiting are also not correct. Again as Arizona hunters we can only harvest one deer a year. They say "Methods the either compromise the spirit of fair chase" If you think Game and fish should tell you how to hunt then, I feel for you. I think they need to look into the fact that deer numbers are going down but harvest percentages for rifle hunters keep climbing if they are truly concerned with managing game then they need to figure that out. We all know the answer but because they are afraid to loose revenue they will never reduce rifle tags, and if they reduce them in one unit they raise them in another

Sorry for getting upset on the previous posts.

 

Not sure who you are talking to when referring to the statement above...

 

But, can you please supply us official statements or documents with individuals that support your above statement and what gives you the ability to know what others believe when it comes to intent.

 

oh and answer a simple question ?

 

If baiting deer did not improve you chance at all for quality and quantity ... would you do it ?

 

 

I for one would love to have access back to some large areas of Public land ( that Arizona hunters once had open access too) that has been land locked by private land owners and ranchers whom shut off access to a majority but allow access to a select small few of their friends and such (guides and outfitters who worked out deals) in some good areas of some good units, units where hunters are denied access to public lands " by a small group or an individual stating it is about land owners rights" ... I am pretty sure you are familiar with such areas, and do you not feel that this is even a smaller group (some even fellow hunters, guides, and outfitters) infringing the rights of access to public hunting lands?

[AZ8]

wardsoutfitters: Anyone that helps wounded soldiers is A+ in my book! Kudos to you.

 

The fact of the matter is, you know it, I know it and everyone that's lived in this state long enough knows it: The Deptarment/Commision has already made up they're mind, this is just fluff. However, as you can tell by this thread, there is a split in the hunting community regarding this issue. Always has been, always will be. Like naturegirl stated above...we have to be realist.

 

This is not Arizona, circa 1983. As an Arizona native I've seen this glorious state change, for better or for worse. We all have to adapt.

 

Do a search of this topic. Every one of them was started by someone in favor of baiting. Not the other way around. You and others have to accept the fact that there are fellow hunters that don't agree with your reasoning.

 

As I've said before, expect a reaction on a public forum.

[ThomC]

Mr Ward I think that you should admit that you and your clients in fact kill many( do yu want to admit how many?) deer over bait or near bait and you make money by baiting. And you are just one outfitter. How many outfitters are baiting for money? You say that everyone can only kill one per person but you entice many eastern hunters with the unlimited over the counter tags and yours and their success is enhanced by baiting. Which you call supplementary feeding.

[GotBowAz]

I guess I don’t understand weather it’s gun hunting or with a bow why they have the need to take current hunting methods away “IF” and only if the argument is about how successful we are at harvesting animals now.

 

Bottom line, If F&G feel there is a need to control it then why not have a mandatory harvest report like they do with bear in each unit. Once the quota or objective is met then close that particular area down. But that still leaves hunters to hunt another unit if it hasn’t met the harvest objective. There is no need to stop baiting or any other method legally used today. With a call in method and mandatory reporting there also is no justification of going to a draw system either. I hate that they did that with Javelina, it was not necessary.

 

For those of you that feel baiting needs to stop, here is a question I have for you from maybe a different perspective. How many more hunters are you willing to have sharing the open country with you in hopes of spot and stalking a good buck? I don’t know anyone who baits for Muleys but I do know a few folks that bait for Whitetail because of where they live. I don’t know of any Coue’s hunter that spot and stalks in the thick nasty stuff. So if baiting is out the window you open terrain hunters should expect a big jump of hunters out in your areas right beside you. It’s a whole lot easier to sit and glass the open areas then it is to sit a tree stand for hours without attractants/bait only looking at the same terrain with no more than 40 yards to see in each direction.

 

IMO, right now I think hunters are much more dispersed in a unit then they would be if baiting is banned. I personally used to be out there spot and stalk more than any other method. After years of trying it on Coue's my success rate is zero. I went into the deep nasty stuff and now Salt/bait. I have only taken 1 deer this way over a few years but baiting was/is fun and a lot of work. I am also out in the field 3 times as much as I was when I was open glassing which is also part of that thrill. I respect those that glass the open country sides and put on successful spot and stalks. I have found good bucks with that methiod but just cannot get within bow range. I will be right back out there with you though if they make baiting illegal. And F&G really needs to keep it legal for those less fortunate than we are that cannot hump the mountains.

 

GBA

[Jbird]

It's about time. It's cheating.

Guides get access to lands that others don't. I know because I'm close to it. I see it every year. They outta outlaw guides. I hope cameras are next. I'm tired of going out and worrying about being on youtube when I go take care of business.

Anybody can help wounded soldiers. It's a good thing. I question the motives. Most people use it to get attention.

[123456]

So pertaining to your statment above.

 

The Commission believes that R12-4-303 exists to prohibit devices and methods that either compromise the spirit of fair chase or adversely impact hunter success rates. The recent increase in the use of baiting has resulted in disproportionally high harvest rates among those using this method of hunting. Consequently, the Commission is offering fewer hunting opportunities, which negatively impacts hunter recruitment and retention.

 

The don’t mention the higher success rates due to Rangefinders, turreted scopes, long range shooting. And those stating they are offering fewer tags because of Baiting are also not correct. Again as Arizona hunters we can only harvest one deer a year. They say "Methods the either compromise the spirit of fair chase" If you think Game and fish should tell you how to hunt then, I feel for you. I think they need to look into the fact that deer numbers are going down but harvest percentages for rifle hunters keep climbing if they are truly concerned with managing game then they need to figure that out. We all know the answer but because they are afraid to loose revenue they will never reduce rifle tags, and if they reduce them in one unit they raise them in another

Sorry for getting upset on the previous posts.

 

Good call, Give them more stuff to take away. That argument is terrible. Line has to be drawn somewhere, they chose to draw it on baiting. I think it is a great place to draw it.

[123456]

Maybe you should argue with G&F to allow baiting only for champ hunters. This would eliminate your argument about helping the disabled. Seems after they pass this ban, you ought to try to get this passed to help out the physicaly challenged hunter.

[Jbird]

CHAMPs are different. They are not able to haul blinds and stands the many many miles and set them up after cutting tree branches and throwing others blinds into the water. They can't carry the sacks of hydraulic cement mix into the canyons and the heavy chains used to secure the cameras to trees and such. I guess they can contract a guide who has it all in place. But what if he can't afford the dozen "guides" who find game months in advance.

[4Falls]

I havent shot anything off of bait but only because I dont have the time to maintain such a thing. For those of you that do I think its awesome.

 

So today we lose the baiting thing. Then cameras are next (which I do use, when they aren't being stolen). Then something else and something else.

 

This is only an ethics issue amongst us hunters. The reason the govt agencies want it gone is a slow creep towards ending ALL hunting. The NF agencies and our own G&F are chock full of anti-hunters.

 

We need to stick together.

[wardsoutfitters]

So pertaining to your statment above.

 

The Commission believes that R12-4-303 exists to prohibit devices and methods that either compromise the spirit of fair chase or adversely impact hunter success rates. The recent increase in the use of baiting has resulted in disproportionally high harvest rates among those using this method of hunting. Consequently, the Commission is offering fewer hunting opportunities, which negatively impacts hunter recruitment and retention.

 

The don’t mention the higher success rates due to Rangefinders, turreted scopes, long range shooting. And those stating they are offering fewer tags because of Baiting are also not correct. Again as Arizona hunters we can only harvest one deer a year. They say "Methods the either compromise the spirit of fair chase" If you think Game and fish should tell you how to hunt then, I feel for you. I think they need to look into the fact that deer numbers are going down but harvest percentages for rifle hunters keep climbing if they are truly concerned with managing game then they need to figure that out. We all know the answer but because they are afraid to loose revenue they will never reduce rifle tags, and if they reduce them in one unit they raise them in another

Sorry for getting upset on the previous posts.

 

Not sure who you are talking to when referring to the statement above...

 

But, can you please supply us official statements or documents with individuals that support your above statement and what gives you the ability to know what others believe when it comes to intent.

 

oh and answer a simple question ?

 

If baiting deer did not improve you chance at all for quality and quantity ... would you do it ?

 

 

I for one would love to have access back to some large areas of Public land ( that Arizona hunters once had open access too) that has been land locked by private land owners and ranchers whom shut off access to a majority but allow access to a select small few of their friends and such (guides and outfitters who worked out deals) in some good areas of some good units, units where hunters are denied access to public lands " by a small group or an individual stating it is about land owners rights" ... I am pretty sure you are familiar with such areas, and do you not feel that this is even a smaller group (some even fellow hunters, guides, and outfitters) infringing the rights of access to public hunting lands?

Talk to any game biologist in southern AZ and they will tell you that deer numbers are down and every year they ask for tag reductions. It rarely happens. As for your question. The answer is yes I would continue supplementing the animals.

As for access in southern AZ it is a major issue!!! In some cases I agree with the land owner and in others I don’t.

 

[Str8Shot]

So pertaining to your statment above.

 

The Commission believes that R12-4-303 exists to prohibit devices and methods that either compromise the spirit of fair chase or adversely impact hunter success rates. The recent increase in the use of baiting has resulted in disproportionally high harvest rates among those using this method of hunting. Consequently, the Commission is offering fewer hunting opportunities, which negatively impacts hunter recruitment and retention.

 

The don’t mention the higher success rates due to Rangefinders, turreted scopes, long range shooting. And those stating they are offering fewer tags because of Baiting are also not correct. Again as Arizona hunters we can only harvest one deer a year. They say "Methods the either compromise the spirit of fair chase" If you think Game and fish should tell you how to hunt then, I feel for you. I think they need to look into the fact that deer numbers are going down but harvest percentages for rifle hunters keep climbing if they are truly concerned with managing game then they need to figure that out. We all know the answer but because they are afraid to loose revenue they will never reduce rifle tags, and if they reduce them in one unit they raise them in another

Sorry for getting upset on the previous posts.

 

Not sure who you are talking to when referring to the statement above...

 

But, can you please supply us official statements or documents with individuals that support your above statement and what gives you the ability to know what others believe when it comes to intent.

 

oh and answer a simple question ?

 

If baiting deer did not improve you chance at all for quality and quantity ... would you do it ?

 

 

I for one would love to have access back to some large areas of Public land ( that Arizona hunters once had open access too) that has been land locked by private land owners and ranchers whom shut off access to a majority but allow access to a select small few of their friends and such (guides and outfitters who worked out deals) in some good areas of some good units, units where hunters are denied access to public lands " by a small group or an individual stating it is about land owners rights" ... I am pretty sure you are familiar with such areas, and do you not feel that this is even a smaller group (some even fellow hunters, guides, and outfitters) infringing the rights of access to public hunting lands?

Talk to any game biologist in southern AZ and they will tell you that deer numbers are down and every year they ask for tag reductions. It rarely happens. As for your question. The answer is yes I would continue supplementing the animals.

As for access in southern AZ it is a major issue!!! In some cases I agree with the land owner and in others I don’t.

 

Please supply us with the findings of these few Biologist that disprove the numerous other findings and actual published researched by numerous Biologist through out the country that , baiting can spread disease ( though, I too think this is being over sold as the primary issue, but one that could be a factor in the future), baiting leads to changes in migration patterns and range, Baiting increases nocturnal feeding and limits both foraging range and daytime foraging activity...

 

As for you spending $$$$ on feeding and supplementing I do not believe you are being honest, but it is my right to believe so and I base it off the fact that it is an intricate part of your Business model in helping you maximize your success rates to maintain clients and gain new ... I also do not completely believe you about the land locked public land since it is something that you personally benefit from as well in UNIT 32 which you highly promote for hunters ... I will share from your own site the information that I base my decision to not believe off of.

 

On success and quality and opportunity....

 

"Our firearms success rate On Coues Deer is 100% with most animals scoring 95 inches or better. Hunters can expect to see four to eight Coues bucks a day."

 

"We specialize in archery hunting and have very high success rates.

• 99% archery and 100% rifle mule deer

• 100% archery elk and 99% rifle elk

• 100% opportunity on archery Coues and 99% rifle coues" quotes courtesy of

http://www.wardsoutfitters.com

Now to actually be 99% success that would mean first it would have to be on over 100 hunts , now if you round up then maybe you have gone 67 out of 68 which would get just over that 98.5 needed to round up either way if you are going to claim that using private plus land locked Public lands plus bait to achieve such numbers I and probably the majority of other hunters who have hunted this state for any time will call BS on it ...

 

On land locked public lands

"This year was different. We had no problem obtaining Oct. tags for Unit 32 and made our way down to AZ again in search of those little gray ghosts of the desert mountains. Through Ward's Outfitters (Steven Ward) We managed to gain access to several sections of landlocked forest service land via a private ranch with extremely limited access....sorry, I can't give any more details on location...sworn to secrecy. "

 

Quote courtesy of http://www.wardsoutf...ng-stories.html

 

This shows you utilize the benefits of using Public lands as a guide that we all should have equal access to , but do not ...

 

I understand you are defending your business model but you have no place talking about taking away hunters rights when you benefit from Use of lands our rights have been taken from by a smaller number of people who are restricting where on OUR public lands we can hunt by restricting access that was open to all when I was a young kid, teen and young adult. You are saying pay me the $$$$ and I will get you the access to low pressure high quality Coues wilderness

 

Also using the " slippery slope" and fear tactics about changing a regulation as being the catalyst of ending all hunting is absurd at the best and also unsupported by any proof from the states that have had banning restrictions and laws for many many years ...

 

Amanda is a wildlife biologist , maybe she has the data to refute or at least openly voice whether or not all the others are wrong that baiting can spread disease , baiting leads to changes in migration patterns and range, Baiting increases nocturnal feeding and limits both foraging range and daytime foraging activity...

[Non-Typical Solutions]

One thing is for certain................you can go ahead and draw the line today......but the shifting sands will change where the line is drawn next time.............not a fear tactic.....................just as others have mentioned...............a reality...............

[ForkHorn]

I personally believe that the reason for the large increase in archery success over the last ten years isn't bait. It's technology. How many had range finders 10 years ago? 300 fps + bows? Trail cams? Side by side utvs? There are tons of things that have contributed greatly to archery success that aren't baiting.

 

I also find it absolutely ironic and slightly ignorant when someone says that baiting is "cheating" and then puffs out their chest and grabs a rifle to take a 300 + yard shot at an animal that quite simply never had a chance.

 

In fact many would argue it takes much more skill to shoot a coues over bait at 20 yards than on the side of a hill at 320. That's a whole different discussion though.

 

The point here is that just because you don't do it doesn't mean it's wrong.

[coueshunter]

Once again, I would like to see the statistics that support "high archery success". I still havent seen any actual data from AZGFD that is showing where archery is harvesting too many deer. I need to see some data showing this to be the case before I would support banning salt/minerals..........Allen Taylor..........p.s. I also would like to see statistical data showing where there is an increase in CWD due to salt/minerals.........

[wardsoutfitters]

So pertaining to your statment above.

 

The Commission believes that R12-4-303 exists to prohibit devices and methods that either compromise the spirit of fair chase or adversely impact hunter success rates. The recent increase in the use of baiting has resulted in disproportionally high harvest rates among those using this method of hunting. Consequently, the Commission is offering fewer hunting opportunities, which negatively impacts hunter recruitment and retention.

 

The don’t mention the higher success rates due to Rangefinders, turreted scopes, long range shooting. And those stating they are offering fewer tags because of Baiting are also not correct. Again as Arizona hunters we can only harvest one deer a year. They say "Methods the either compromise the spirit of fair chase" If you think Game and fish should tell you how to hunt then, I feel for you. I think they need to look into the fact that deer numbers are going down but harvest percentages for rifle hunters keep climbing if they are truly concerned with managing game then they need to figure that out. We all know the answer but because they are afraid to loose revenue they will never reduce rifle tags, and if they reduce them in one unit they raise them in another

Sorry for getting upset on the previous posts.

 

Not sure who you are talking to when referring to the statement above...

 

But, can you please supply us official statements or documents with individuals that support your above statement and what gives you the ability to know what others believe when it comes to intent.

 

oh and answer a simple question ?

 

If baiting deer did not improve you chance at all for quality and quantity ... would you do it ?

 

 

I for one would love to have access back to some large areas of Public land ( that Arizona hunters once had open access too) that has been land locked by private land owners and ranchers whom shut off access to a majority but allow access to a select small few of their friends and such (guides and outfitters who worked out deals) in some good areas of some good units, units where hunters are denied access to public lands " by a small group or an individual stating it is about land owners rights" ... I am pretty sure you are familiar with such areas, and do you not feel that this is even a smaller group (some even fellow hunters, guides, and outfitters) infringing the rights of access to public hunting lands?

Talk to any game biologist in southern AZ and they will tell you that deer numbers are down and every year they ask for tag reductions. It rarely happens. As for your question. The answer is yes I would continue supplementing the animals.

As for access in southern AZ it is a major issue!!! In some cases I agree with the land owner and in others I don’t.

 

Please supply us with the findings of these few Biologist that disprove the numerous other findings and actual published researched by numerous Biologist through out the country that , baiting can spread disease ( though, I too think this is being over sold as the primary issue, but one that could be a factor in the future), baiting leads to changes in migration patterns and range, Baiting increases nocturnal feeding and limits both foraging range and daytime foraging activity...

 

As for you spending $$$$ on feeding and supplementing I do not believe you are being honest, but it is my right to believe so and I base it off the fact that it is an intricate part of your Business model in helping you maximize your success rates to maintain clients and gain new ... I also do not completely believe you about the land locked public land since it is something that you personally benefit from as well in UNIT 32 which you highly promote for hunters ... I will share from your own site the information that I base my decision to not believe off of.

 

On success and quality and opportunity....

 

"Our firearms success rate On Coues Deer is 100% with most animals scoring 95 inches or better. Hunters can expect to see four to eight Coues bucks a day."

 

"We specialize in archery hunting and have very high success rates.

• 99% archery and 100% rifle mule deer

• 100% archery elk and 99% rifle elk

• 100% opportunity on archery Coues and 99% rifle coues" quotes courtesy of

http://www.wardsoutfitters.com

Now to actually be 99% success that would mean first it would have to be on over 100 hunts , now if you round up then maybe you have gone 67 out of 68 which would get just over that 98.5 needed to round up either way if you are going to claim that using private plus land locked Public lands plus bait to achieve such numbers I and probably the majority of other hunters who have hunted this state for any time will call BS on it ...

 

On land locked public lands

"This year was different. We had no problem obtaining Oct. tags for Unit 32 and made our way down to AZ again in search of those little gray ghosts of the desert mountains. Through Ward's Outfitters (Steven Ward) We managed to gain access to several sections of landlocked forest service land via a private ranch with extremely limited access....sorry, I can't give any more details on location...sworn to secrecy. "

 

Quote courtesy of http://www.wardsoutf...ng-stories.html

 

This shows you utilize the benefits of using Public lands as a guide that we all should have equal access to , but do not ...

 

I understand you are defending your business model but you have no place talking about taking away hunters rights when you benefit from Use of lands our rights have been taken from by a smaller number of people who are restricting where on OUR public lands we can hunt by restricting access that was open to all when I was a young kid, teen and young adult. You are saying pay me the $$$$ and I will get you the access to low pressure high quality Coues wilderness

 

Also using the " slippery slope" and fear tactics about changing a regulation as being the catalyst of ending all hunting is absurd at the best and also unsupported by any proof from the states that have had banning restrictions and laws for many many years ...

 

Amanda is a wildlife biologist , maybe she has the data to refute or at least openly voice whether or not all the others are wrong that baiting can spread disease , baiting leads to changes in migration patterns and range, Baiting increases nocturnal feeding and limits both foraging range and daytime foraging activity...

Ok Let’s talk about private land, the area we hunt is not restricted to anyone, anyone can walk into the areas we hunt but they would be restricted from hunting the 28 sections of deeded land that most of the Coues deer hunting is conducted on in unit 32!! And for your information we have only had access to this area for one year now.

As for success if you must know our archers have harvested 187 Coues deer in the past 9 years, we utilize all legal hunting methods to include, Rattling, calling, spot and stalk, spot and ambush, tree stands, ground blinds, water holes, mineral sites, feed sites, hunting scrapes, hunting bedding areas, hunting rub lines, to many tactics to include all of them. Because we do less rifle hunts our clients have only harvested 82 Coues deer. Please keep in mind this is what I do for a living I’m in the field more than most and know the animals better in the areas we hunt. We take this very serious and I support 4 children with my career choice. Leasing property really has no bearing on this matter, unless you’re just trying to make me look like the bad guy.