audsley

The Greenies are coming after Sarah Palin with everything they've got... or think they have. Check out this ad from Defenders of Wildlife. Here's what Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game says about its wolf control program. Wolves and bears are very effective and efficient predators on caribou, moose, deer and other wildlife. In most of Alaska, humans also rely on the same species for food. In Alaska's Interior, predators kill more than 80 percent of the moose and caribou that die during an average year, while humans kill less than 10 percent. In most of the state, predation holds prey populations at levels far below what could be supported by the habitat in the area. Predation is an important part of the ecosystem, and all ADF&G wolf management programs, including control programs, are designed to sustain wolf populations in the future. The Alaska Board of Game approves wildlife regulations through a public participation process. When the Board determines that people need more moose and/or caribou in a particular area, and restrictions on hunting aren't enough to allow prey populations to increase, predator control programs may be needed. Wolf hunting and trapping rarely reduces wolf numbers enough to increase prey numbers or harvests. Currently, five wolf control programs are underway that comprises about 9.4% of Alaska's land area. The programs use a closely controlled permit system allowing aerial or same day airborne methods to remove wolves in designated areas. In these areas, wolf numbers will be temporarily reduced, but wolves will not be permanently eliminated from any area. Successful programs allow humans to take more moose, and healthy populations of wolves to continue to thrive in Alaska.

This has been one heckuva good thread. I'd wondered how far MSNBC would be allowed to go. Today's action suggests there is still some hope that American journalism might continue to its unique tradition of valuing objectivity, at least in concept. Over the past year the wild-eyed Obamacrats in the media had abandoned all pretense of objectivity. I was becoming disappointed in Joe Scarborough for not resigning in protest. He was getting a lot less air time than he used to, and I suspect it was because he was too effective in keeping the liberal commentators honest. Same with Tucker Carlson. Glad to learn there was some guiding hand behind the scenes that could save these people from themselves.

Serious omission in earlier posts. You guys who have seen "deer" still coming in to water holes even during the wet season didn't say whether they were desert mule deer, rocky mountain muleys or Coues. I don't know if there's a difference, but better fidelity on the data is always useful.

Guess I missed a good one. The extremely important things that needed to be said (and some that didn't) have already been said, and someone could take this thread, cull a bit of garbage, and write a really good article that hits all the important points about ranching and wildlife. The Federal wildlife biologist is right that most of the Federal lands are in pretty good shape. I believe there are two reasons. First, there are far fewer cattle on Arizona's rangelands today than since maybe the 1880s. Second, ranchers and land management agencies are more conscientious about taking care of the land, having been hammered for past abuses and negligence. State trust lands are still a problem, but it's not just due to understaffing. Not all allotment managers are equally conscientious. A few still allow lessees to get away with murder. In surveying range conditions to determine acceptable cattle numbers, some allotment managers allow browse to be factored into the equation. I believe this is wrong. The browse belong to the deer. Cattle numbers shouldn't exceed what the grasses alone can support. There are also some BLM and national forest lands where individual allotment managers in the agencies seem to be in the hip pockets of the ranchers. Unit 4B in the Black Mesa Ranger District is a good example. It's tempting to blame cattle for the low desert mule deer numbers in southern Arizona. Willow Springs and Falcon Valley ranches in 37B are examples of state trust land that hasn't had especially good stewardship in recent years, and there are very few mule deer left there. But Las Cienegas Conservation Area and King's Anvil are in splendid condition, and their mule deer numbers are down too. I don't know why we're losing our mule deer. Although I've often read that only 2% of the nation's beef comes from public lands grazing, I don't believe it's accurate. I believe that 2% reflects only what goes directly to market from public lands. A lot of the cattle that go to the slaugherhouse from Iowa or Ohio were born on public lands in the West, then sold as calves or yearlings and moved to the Midwest. I believe Western cattle are an important source of the nation's beef and leather.

A masterful piece of work. Thanks.

AGFD has scheduled a "Meet and Greet" with the agency director Larry Voyles at 6:30pm tonight (Wednesday, May 28th) in the conference room of the Tucson Office at 555 N. Greasewood. This is an opportunity for sportsmen and women to talk to the new director and learn about him and his experiences. Also, we can make the director aware of any questions or concerns we may have about wildlife policy and management in Arizona. Coffee and water will be provided.

You'll notice the foreground in the second picture above, apparently at a stock tank, shows a mesquite. However, it's my understanding that Goulds will tend to hang out in the oaks. (This being southern Az., think oaks rather than pinyon-juniper, although there are plenty of pinyon-juniper around here as well. But PJs tend to have low branches; turkeys don't like to roost in trees with branches too near the ground.) Also, I believe Goulds will follow riparian areas out of the mountains and into lower elevation desert areas. A friend of mine shot one next to a palm tree at the foot of some mountains in Mexico.

They look like true wild turkeys. In fact, they look like Merriams except they're taller because their legs are longer. Here's a picture http://www.nwtf.org/all_about_turkeys/hist...ild_turkey.html

There have been at least two, possibly more, transplants of Gould's turkeys into the Santa Ritas in the past couple of years. I helped catch some in the Canelo Hills that went to the Catalinas. In the following couple of weeks some more were caught at the same location and set free in the Santa Ritas to join a flock that had been transplanted spring of 2007. The National Wild Turkey Federation, Az Game & Fish and lots of volunteers made this happen. As for the Catalinas, this year's birds were released at Rose Canyon Lake. No telling where they are now. Earlier in the year a bunch were seen in the Agua Caliente Hill area off Redington Rd. These were from a transplant a year ago. Turkeys go where they want to go.

Arizona's hunters and AG&F have been down this road with ranchers many times, and I don't feel like going there again until I have to. In other words, when they make their next charge seeking landowner tags. I should refrain from picking on some of the weakest and most ridiculous statements quoted in the minutes. After all, you'll hear ridiculous things said in a roomful of complaining hunters too. But elk dangerous to people in the rut? Guess I should stop hunting them with a compound bow, which makes a poor self-defense weapon. Elk and deer can't be fenced out? Then how does the forest service manage to successfully fence them out of aspen enclosures? A rancher encourages archery hunters to hunt on his ranch, but hunters only want to go after bull elk? Would that include the many who purchase cow tags, often as their first choice? But I said I shouldn't pick them, so I'll stop. AG&F has bent over backwards trying to accommodate ranchers and farmers through its landowner and lessee program. That's why we have depredation tags being sold over the counter nowadays, and why we're hunting elk in July. G&F and sportsmen's conservation groups offer programs that benefit ranchers as well as wildlife. But for some of them, it's never enough. Most of the ranchers' rhetoric involves economic impacts, but talk to them long enough and you'll find there's really something deeper and more abstract behind all this rage and fury. I believe it's more a matter of principle and their freedom to control their own destiny. They want the right to fix a problem any time they perceive one. People I know in elk advocacy organizations have actually offered to pay ranchers the same money they make growing cattle to grow elk instead, but still they refuse. Economics isn't the whole issue. It's more about power and control. And yet Arizona ranchers don't recognize any inherent obligation to take reasonable measures to protect their own property. Adequate fences could be built around fields, but they don't want to spend the money. What about dogs kept inside a crop enclosure? I guess they feel they shouldn't have to do that. After all, it's Game & Fish's elk that's causing the problem, and G&F should either fix it or allow them to resolves matters as cheaply as possible. In my home state of Missouri, a farmer is liable for property damage if his hog or steer gets off his own property and damages someone else's crops or vehicle. Now there's a controversial bill to require the Missouri Conservation Dept. to compensate any driver whose car hits a deer on the highway. The underlying theory is that the owner of the deer - in this case, the people or the state - is responsible for the damage. While controversial, at least Missouri's thinking is being consistent. Around here, the state is held responsible for the damage its wildlife does, but our open range law holds the people responsible for damages to privately owned livestock. And if you think our state isn't held legally responsible for the behavior of our wildlife, check into some of the damage judgments AG&F has paid with our sportsmen's dollars. Some Western traditions need to be re-evaluated.

Actually, I did read the entire article. But if a state constitution were to specify that wildlife belongs to the people of the state, legislatures probably wouldn't feel so free pass such laws. And if they did, I'd think a constitutionality challenge might prove successful. Here in Arizona, the state constitution does not address ownership of wildlife. Ownership by the people is instead conferred by statute, and it's not unusual to have statutes that are seemingly incompatible or contradictory. In other words, this could happen here, too. Ironically, if an Arizona rancher's steer gets out on the highway and you hit it with your truck, the rancher is not liable for damage to your truck, but you are liable for the loss of his steer. Sound fair? Protection of one's crops from the elements, whether it's weather, pests or disease, should be a cost of doing business, and ranchers should have to compensate the people of their state any time they take wildlife deemed to have value. That's my position if anyone ever attempts to bring such a law here.

I have a question about New Mexico game laws. Doesn't the wildlife belong to the people of New Mexico? Does New Mexico's constitution address wildlife? If not, maybe it should. As others have pointed out, the problem is not in providing the rancher with relief from depredation. That's fair. The problem is New Mexico ranchers are apparently free to treat the state's wildlife as if wildlife was their own private property. I was also puzzled a few months back when New Mexico's game & fish director was cited for taking an antelope on private land, and the citation was for taking the rancher's antelope, not for trespassing. Do any of you New Mexico guys know the legal status of your state's wildlife?

In reality, I suspect the responses in this thread are fairly representative of the sportsmen community at large - about two global warming skeptics for every believer. But I'm not real worried about it. For some time now I've observed an organized effort by environmentalists and ivory tower types to project hunters and anglers as being aligned with environmentalists on a number of issues. This often causes me great concern, but in this case I'm not sure it's a bad thing. Considering that environmentalists are usually working hard to portray hunters as short-sighted, self-centered hogs concerned only with feeding our own egos and appetites, a public campaign that portrays hunters as protectors of the natural world is probably good for our image with the non-hunting public, even if we don't necessarily deserve it. What concerns me more is that none of these groups will ever take on the Green Machine on issues where they are clearly wrong-headed. Just once I'd like to see the Wildlife Management Institute, Izaak Walton, Trout Unlimited or the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership oppose the Sierra Club, Wilderness Society or Center for Biological Diversity when they sue to stop sportsmen and wildlife managers from carrying out active management for conservation. But they are too politically correct, as well as downright green in some cases, to side with the sportsmen and wildlife they claim to represent against the anti-hunting, anti-management interests in the Green Machine.

Last post about the .243 was interesting. My experience with one son many years ago is that ballistic tips are also out when hunting Coues with that caliber. I should have known better, but BTs were fairly new at that time. I'd say Nosler Partitions if you're determined to hunt Coues with a .243, but a larger caliber at 6.5 and up is probably an even better solution. Can't imagine why anyone would doubt the 7-.08. I've never owned one, but on paper they look like they oughta work just fine.

Now that you've used Tru-Oil and lightly sanded the final coat with fine steel wood, there's nothing left to do. You're done. Wish I'd seen this thread sooner. I did quite a bit of stock refinishing about 10-12 years ago. Tru-Oil was probably a good choice in this case since it gives a good result, though not the very best, with a minimum of work. Other oils which I believe give a better result seem to dry more slowly and require considerable effort to rub into the wood using your hands. As I recall, Tru-oil is simply wiped on and is therefore much quicker and less work. However, Tru-Oil is a little like a combination of oil and polyurethane. True oil sits on top of the wood and builds up on the surface faster. If I remember correctly, I only used about three coats, and the second and third coats were pretty thin. I believe other materials like Flecto-Verithane and Tung Oil penetrate more deeply into the wood, and give the wood a richer look. Although it's hard to compare results from different finishes on different stocks since the wood is never the same, there's definitely a difference between a "Tru-Oil" finish and a "true oil finish," and I much prefer the latter. I doubt there are any professional custom stockmakers using Tru-Oil. A Tru-Oil finish will give a look more like a factory gun with a high-gloss finish from the 1970s or 80s. If you do another stock and are willing to put in more time and effort, consider using Flecto-Verithane. When I was doing this I did a lot of reading and talked to a couple of the best stockmakers in Tucson. One put me on to Flecto-Verithane, and I liked it best of all. As for filler, you can use a mixture of oil and sanding dust from the stock to make your own filler. Put on a thin coat of oil, then quickly sand with wet sandpaper while the oil is still wet until the stock is coated with a mud consisting of sanding dust and oil. Let it dry. Then sand down to bare wood again and you've filled the openings in the grain with oil and wood dust from the stock. What could be a better filler than that?

When regulated, controlled hunting is allowed in national parks, I'll do volunteer work in national parks. Until then, the preservationists can do it. It's their place, not mine. They've made that clear. In recent times the news has been full of stories about national park wildlife over-populating to the point something needs to be done. Buffalo in Yellowstone, elk in Rocky Mtn. Nat. Park, and even buffalo in Grand Canyon Nat. Park. But the Park Service refuses to distinguish between the unregulated hunting of a century ago, which helped create a need for national parks to protect remnant populations from subsistence and market hunting, and the carefully regulated hunting we have today. Someone needs to help the park service start thinking outside their traditional, comfortable box and truly become stewards of the land as opposed to dogmatic preservationists.

Good question. I once shot a large, heavy-bodied buck at first light and didn't get it on ice until around noon the following day. I had to travel down a deep canyon too rugged to allow carrying everything, so I carried half the deer and half the gear to a point where the going got easier, hung the meat from some nylon cord tied to a tree trunk and lowered it down a cliff face (with a human-scented shirt wrapped around it), then went back for the rest. Because it was simply too dangerous to stumble over treacherous terrain in the dark (this was the kind of country where you have to use your hands to climb up and down in places), I spent the night in the canyon bottom still not having caught up to the first load. Surprisingly, the meat I had left hanging unattended on the cliff had fared better than the half I slept next to. The hanging meat had not been molested, but the 2nd load (hindquarters) suffered repeated visits from a ringtail during the night. Fortunately, the ringtail ate only in the one small spot where he'd gnawed a hole through the cloth game bag. Temperatures out on the nearby desert were probably mid to high 70s, but the canyon bottom was completely shaded all day and stayed cool, probably never gettng above 65. This is due to cooler air sinking as well as the shade factor. During the night temperatures in the canyon bottom probably got down to about 40 which chilled the meat very nicely in advance of the next day's mile-long trek through mesquites and palo verdes. In the end, the meat was just fine. As I see it, the whole purpose of a backpack hunt is to get into country you could not otherwise reach by first light or return from after dusk. That can mean country that is extremely rugged, remote or both. I spent much of the 80s searching for a mythical Lost Canyon of the Monster Bucks that I'd convinced myself must exist, a place where no one goes because it can only be reached by three or four hours of rough bushwhacking, and where the buck-doe ratio is 50-50 and the ground is littered with huge sheds, and the deer have scarcely seen humans before. Such settings do exist in abundance in southern Arizona, although I'm no longer certain they produce deer in the quantities or qualities I'd imagined. But for a few years it was like searching for a lost mine, and I had fun and certainly saw a lot of interesting stuff along the way, including some nice bucks. That said, I vote for going as light as possible and for thinking through in advance just what you're going to do if you get a big deer, taking into considerating the weather, terrain and whether or not the area is remote enough that you could even stash some non-essential belongings and come back later. Backpacking in extremely rugged places is already hard enough before the deer hits the ground.

I maintain that AC Guy gave you some great advice. Lose the "nice-to-have" stuff. Fuel? I always use either mesquite or oak, and I don't haul any with me. For light in the evening, I just use an old mountain man's device called a campfire. And try to find a way to avoid hauling water. That stuff is heavy. Hunter4Life's estimate of 40 lbs of meat with the hindquarter bones left in is a good one for Coues whitetail. If going alone, I wouldn't want to go in burdened with any more than 30 lbs including my rifle unless it's an antelope hunt (flat ground). For backpack hunting, a two-man operation with only one being an armed hunter and the other being just a spotter, pack mule and companion would work best.

The most I've ever seen in one pack is 18 - 14 juveniles and 4 mommas. This bunch was coming down the bottom of a wash and talking up a storm, so I just stood there in camo trying to impersonate a stump. Worked pretty well until one of the lead coatis got within about 20 feet. Suddenly she started screaming her lungs out and the whole bunch took off up the side of the wash and out. I've seen and heard them numerous times. The females and their young stay together and can be very vocal. The males are solitary. I've glassed up males and sometimes the only thing you see is a tail sticking straight up in the air and moving along. Never occurred to me to shoot one. I guess it would be cool to have one mounted. I believe their hides are worth nothing.

Not sure where you're going or when, but I'd try to do this where there's stream water so you don't have to carry more than a quart. I use tablets instead of a filter. Tablets work for about everything except Giardia, and that one doesn't hit you until you're back home anyway. Takes a week or more in the body, I think, before it starts causing problems. I also recommend a collapsible water bag to fill at the stream and hang in camp. If the place you're going doesn't have water, consider packing some in the weekend before. Lose the spotting scope. That's a luxury you really don't need if you have 15x56 Swarovskis. And definitely find a lighter tripod. If you're hunting deer, you don't want to carry much more than 30 lbs unless you plan to eat the deer while you're in there. It's not that hard to get down to 30 lbs. If you take a deer, have a plan for cutting it up to pack it out. I believe in light tents because they add another 10 degrees when you need it most - at night.

I'm a believer in the Bushnell Elite 3200. I bought 3 a few years back after a model change and after reading an article on testing that was done on the Elite, Leupold and several others. The Elite came close to Leupold on sharpness and clarity, brightness under low light conditions and, most importantly, shock and vibe tests. Durability is a prime consideration. I believe the best optics belong in your binoculars, not your scope, but durability matters for every piece of equipment you actually need. Many may be put off by the association with Bushnell's lower-priced, lower-quality products under the same brand name, but remember that Bushell's upper end used to be marketed as Bausch and Lomb. It's upper end is still a class act. I have one on a .30-.338 which is essentially a .300 Win Mag or .308 Norma Magnum, and it seems to be taking the punishment just fine.

What does everyone think about changing So. Az whitetail hunts from 10 days to only 7? In other words, eliminating the 2nd weekend of the November hunt?

This ought to eliminate any doubts about killing power at 500 yds. My Nosler reloading book says 150 gr. loads from a 30-30 Winchester would give you roughly 2000 fps and 1000 or ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle. A .270 shooting 130 gr ballistic tips at 3100 out the muzzle will easily deliver 1000 ft-lbs at 500 yards. So at 500 yards your .270 is roughly similar to shoving a 30-30 into the deer's ribs and squeezing the trigger. I know a 30-30 is pretty much a joke out West, but they will kill deer. Nuff said about that. Like the guys said, it's all about hitting the vitals at 500 yds. That's really hard to do and should be preceded by much practice on the bench and at coyotes in the field.

Sorry, I'm doing a project on Buenos Aires Refuge. Otherwise I'd likely go.

I believe all the BANWR hogs are gone now. I heard one on the Buenos Aires about 10 years ago. How do I know it was a hog? Because I'm from Missouri where the sound of hogs rooting is as common as the sound of wind. Now I have a question. I've heard feral hogs are not good to eat. I can't imagine why that would be true. But you might recall that huge "hogzilla" someone killed a couple of years ago back east and there was speculation it was a hoax until someone dug it up and took pictures. It was explained that feral hogs aren't good to eat. Keep in mind that this was not even a desert hog but one that should have had plenty of green stuff (though hogs will eat anything include dead humans.) Anyone ever eat a feral hog?