Leaderboard

I pulled up some boats for 6 pack charters. No particular order. I like Sauerfish and Cobalt as my 2 top picks. I booked early Aug with Sauerfish and my cousin is may book Cobalt for late Aug. https://www.elgatosportfishing.com/ http://seasonssportfishing.com/ http://www.fishingchartersofsandiego.com/ https://cobaltsportfishing.com/ https://www.sauerfishcharters.com/ https://www.invadersandiego.com/

If you are headed north. I will take it on I17 and 260

Sounds like a boat got into some yellowfin today. Up to 50#. Both alone and mixed with BF.. Let the chaos begin...

Hopefully I get their tag!

The the folks that travel to Mexico without any trouble consider yourself lucky, and may you continue to be lucky Brian. It’s not for me, I have lived in South America and just not my cup of tea. May the force be with you all that go down, I pray for you that you continue to be lucky.

What can you hunt there that you cannot hunt here? Eddie

At this point I guess we are beating a dead horse. But I think I’m going to start petitioning the commissioners to ban things I believe violates “fair chase”. It’s all subjective of course, I know some people who hunt with traditional archery equipment. To them everything else is cheating and not fair chase. Others I know who hunt with iron sights and scopes, range finders and spotting scopes are not fair chase. So with that in mind I am going to start pushing my subjective agenda and get things I feel are not in line with fair chase banned. Will probably fall on deaf ears but might as well try.

Game and fish thought they had problems with conflicts at water holes, just wait till guys start stealing or destroying cams to “help” enforce this ban. There will be violence. I see problems going way up.

just be careful of whose cam you take or smash... there are easily 4000 law enforcement cameras out in AZ right now. it won't be funny when you get caught stealing or vandalizing government property.

Yup, hard to blame cattlemen or ranchers for much of anything. The lack of respect for someone's land is disgusting. I've helped farmers burn brush just so I could get access to hunt their land. Those days are all but gone. Like with trailcams, bad apples cause everyone to lose freedoms.

A few thoughts come to mind on this subject. 1: Hunting over water is definitely next. Commissioner's mentioned it in their fair chase prepared statements. 2: Game & Fish has some responsibility in this as they are willing to allow Commissioner Tags to be sold at hundreds of thousands of dollars. Those who are affluent enough to purchase those tags will spare no expense to paying guides to find them that trophy animal. 3. As hunters are forced to change their hunting strategies, the quality of your hunt will suffer. How so? Well if i have to scout for my hunt next week and this is the week your hunting, i am sorry but i have to be in the field to be able to locate the game i am after. 4. When defining fair chase by a select few, there personal views and morals play into that decision. We can all argue different points of fair chase, but reality is the North American Wildlife Model is based on science not personal opinions and agendas. 5. As mentioned by others, the Cattleman's Association did not take a stance on this (why would they if you have one of the commissioners on your board and has owned multiple ranches). This commissioner should have excused himself from the vote as he clearly had conflicting interest. 6. Disappointed in some of our wildlife organizations as they supported the ban when the majority of their members were against the ban.

I made the decision yesterday not to comment anymore because at that point I felt it was a waste of time. There was another reason though. I was tired of arguing with people that I would agree with on nearly every other topic. Debate is good until it's destructive. At this point I feel like it's getting destructive. I'm commenting again because I feel like I can offer something positive, otherwise I wouldn't comment. Whenever you're dealing with an issue like this with two opposing sides, you have to ask yourself what each side stands to benefit. This is especially true if you're on the fence like I ended up being. That has been my approach. In this case there are really 3 sides if you add wildlife into the equation. Leading up to the commissions decision, I definitely leaned anti ban for three reasons. I don't believe in more laws, I didn't think it was enforceable and I worried about unintended consequences... which there are many. Before the meeting, both sides here made compelling arguments. As the debate progressed and considering how a ban would effect me, I drifted towards the middle. I still had concerns... (still do)... but they were less about trailcams and more about unintended consequences. Then I watched the meeting. At that point I could honestly say I was just an objective observer. The pro ban folks didn't pull me to their side or push me away. It was zero sum. Admittedly I get very worried anytime the anti's and hunters are on the same side. Especially the Humane Society. The pro ban hunters (the only ones on that side that matter to me) really don't stand to gain anything. One can question their motivation though and I think many want a ban simply because they hate guides. But in the end, they don't gain anything. The anti ban guys on the otherhand (some) TOTALLY turned me off. Some were respectful, made good arguments and were compelling. I was totally impressed with how Mike Ornoski handled himself. Russ Richardson was another I liked. Some on the otherhand were totally disrespectful, came off as totally self-serving and did nothing but hurt their cause. I know a few of them personally and want to maintain friendly relations so I won't name names. My advice to anyone interested in getting more involved in the political side of hunting would be to silence those guys and keep them from trying to represent you. They will ONLY hurt any cause they are involved in. I wish the outfitters and guides from both sides would have steered clear and not commented. No matter how pure their intentions might be, in a situation like this where guides are seen by many as the problem, they will appear corrupted by self interest. It's a sad fact but it's true. Finally the commission. They may have already had their minds made up. But I don't have an issue with that. Any chance of them voting on option 2 was shot to he!! by those who insulted them. It still blows my mind. It may have been a slim chance but after those comments... there was ZERO chance. The MOST important side in all of this is the wildlife. One can argue whether or not wildlife was helped by this. I think in most parts of the state wildlife will benefit. Especially where I hunt most in the desert. I worry about the "handful of units" because I think this will add human presence not lessen it. The most important thing is this didn't hurt wildlife in any way. That makes me happy. I think in the long run hunters will benefit. More time in the field makes you a better hunter. Theres no arguing that fact. Anyone that is forced out of the outdoors by this is only a benefit in the long run. If you can't get your butt out there and hunt without sitting water and using trailcams, you need to question why you hunt. Except of course those with mobility issues. I think they should make an exception for CHAMP hunters for sure. One thing that hasn't been talked about much is how the commission is keeping things like this out of the legislature and out the ballot box. There is no question that we want the legislature or non-hunting public out of wildlife management. They have no business making decisions about wildlife. That will benefit all of us. Sorry so long but that is my take. I think each of us needs to continue to question our own motives continually and remind ourselves that we always need to do what's best for wildlife and to preserve our hunting culture. Once the results come out, this will all calm down. Please remember that we are all on the same side in the end. Leave your animus on the thread when you walk away. Good luck to everyone in the draw!!!

It is not Sir! Not a rebel. Its standing against corruption in high places . They could have chosen to do some actually scientific research then come to the table with some reasonable proposals. We would have listened. There is always more options. But Chairman Davis had to get it done friday because this was his last meeting as chairman. It actually changed to Bill Brake that afternoon. Rarely when it starts out wrong does it end up right.

Should it worry us that there was significant opposition to the ban yet they voted unanimously? Why bother with comment periods? Seems eerily familiar to a presidential election where the outcome seems to be established before the voting began.

I'm going to add this and then I'm going to move on from this topic. It's a done deal regardless of the debate. It's kind of a waste of time at this point. I hope we can all move on from this. I'm finding there are some really smart guys on both sides of the debate. For the guys that I went back and forth with, I'm leaving all that here. I don't take any of it personal and I hope you don't. One positive that will come from this is guys are gonna have to scout and hunt harder. That's NEVER a bad thing. Good luck to all of you... argue with you later... lol.

They should talk to Dr Fauci

I believe this will actually cause guys to kill more deer. I know several guys who passed on bucks because they were obsessed by the “one” they had on camera. Now they will not be passing on bucks they normally wouldn’t because they won’t have the “one” on camera.

Thanks for the lesson. I decided to look into this further and it’s very scary. The problem seems to be congregation of animals to one area as the biggest contributor to the spread due to the prions being in the deers urine and fecal droppings as well as saliva. With the limited water in Arizona even without the salt licks, the water congregates deer and elk more so than the salt. It would run like wildfire through our herds if or when it gets here. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5931637/ The link is to a study done in Wisconsin. Long read but should scare the heck out of all Arizona sportsmen.

It was hard to watch 5 people who supposedly care about hunters explain how they came to their conclusions using only subjective evidence. Only non and anti hunting people would buy their story. Real conservationists were insulted and sold out. And this is not the first time and will not be the last.

That's an angle I hadn't thought of until someone at the commission meeting said it. There will be guys who don't buy hunting licenses, running cameras and selling the info. That's a little disturbing to me. The ones paying for the info will be the same ones that skirt every other game rule or law there is. The ban is happening and it is what it is. At this point my only concern are the unintended consequences.

I get alot of the arguments on both sides, but I never understood how they can argue that the existance and checking of cameras has a negative impact on behavior and habitat, but then at the same time say ANYONE is allowed to continue to use cameras EXCEPT hunters. It makes enforcement impossible and so easy for bad players to cheat and continue to do it. The next time I see a "nature observer's" trail camera on a beloved water tank out here in the desert, I'm going to have to really take a couple deep breathes.

With the scorching earth temps coming and the draw a ways off I thought I'd share some walk about photos from the early part of the year since I wont be going back in for awhile. While waiting for the fog to lift during a cold day in January, I glassed up this little treasure precariously perched on a small hillside. Being that is was a canyon over and I was standing in 8" of snow, I left it until the spring. Spring rolls around, it gets hot and sheer cliff shed hunting is way harder than it looks. We had an idea of its location but it took some doing to find it. Sneaky sucker this one.. Finally liberated it from its hillside prison...... Sadly, based on its condition, about five years too late. After the rescue mission, we noticed some gang signs from the OG hunters. A few more One of my favorites some obligatory ATLs to finish the trip Not a huge haul. Always find cool stuff in those hills. Daaamn sure wouldn't want to actually kill a bull in there without access to a Chinook and a seasoned pilot but, its nice to visit. Be safe out there and thanks for looking Dave

I had that tag and had a good hunt. After 3 scouting trips I came to realize it's a rough unit with NO roads I have hunted elk in NM, CO, Mont, Utah and AZ, that unit is as tough to hump in everyday My advice pay someone to pack in your camp and pack out your elk, it will be really hard to hike in from a truck everyday (sure luck could be on your side) I hired Tom Klumker, there are a few others, 2 of us paid $2400 (or something like that), packed in all of our gear for 7 days and packed out my elk- set us up near a spring and we had plenty of water - we were about 5 miles in and I shot my elk about 1.5 miles from camp- the bull was bugling in a recent burn. Good luck

The irony of trophy hunter trolling Tony about trolling. Dead!

Guy I know from New Mexico. Killed two years ago in the Gila wilderness on the archery hunt. Right around 400"