audsley

This is a tough one. Rapid growth on the north, south and east sides of Ironwood poses a serious threat to the habitat and the mule deer and sheep. ATVs and sign-shooters have BLM and enviros rightly concerned, and we should be too. Part of the problem is illegal dumping. Then shooters come along and shoot up the debris and leave brass all over the place, and shooters get blamed for the whole mess. (I've been guilty myself of shooting at empty propane tanks, etc.; I no longer do it.) Unless the hunting and shooting community steps up and becomes part of the solution, we will be the object of the solution. BLM is clearly unable to provide adequate enforcement. Nothing we say or do will change that. Budgets are tight for all public lands agencies, and we aren't going to change that fact at any meeting. I suggest hunters and shooters living nearby form a "friends" group that cleans up the area periodically. (Note: There is already a Friends of Ironwood group that is made up of enviros, not hunters and shooters. Guess who BLM will likely view as being the "good guys"?) Also note that Tucson Rod & Gun Club recently did a cleanup at Redington Pass. That place is an embarrasment to the shooting sports. We don't need more places like that in the Ironwood Monument for the preservationists to use against us. I'd get directly involved myself, but I live 40 miles away and don't shoot at Ironwood. I have other places to worry about. The neighborhood sportsmen and gun aficianados are in the best position to take the reins. Final note: There is an urban myth in the neighborhood that poaching of mule deer is a huge problem at Ironwood. Recently I got an earful from a local while working on a habitat project up there, and he actually had me convinced. Got me wondering why I bother working my tail off to enhance the mule deer population if some jerks are going to come along and poach them as fast as they're born. But I subsequently learned that this story is greatly exaggerated, if not entirely untrue. I asked both the G&F unit manager and the BLM land manager how likely it is there's a deer poaching problem in the monument. Almost zero, I was told, simply because there is now so few deer in the monument that they could probably give each deer a name and keep them straight, and it's been that way for several years. I mention this because you may hear it at the meeting or from enviros speaking elsewhere. Many may believe it, but it isn't true. What is needed is more wildlife waters (which is being worked on) and fewer coyotes. So if shooters in the Ironwood neighborhood want to lend a hand with wildlife, learn to call and then get busy.

I just learned there is no truth whatsoever to the rumor that elk/antelope applications are down 40% this year. If anything, it appears the number of applications is actually up from 2006.

What other "looming issues" I wonder. Guns in bars? Reduced fees for CCW permits? I'm supportive of nearly everything the NRA wants to do, but I wouldn't want to see wildlife and game management issues used as political trading chits. Not saying that's happened, but the potential is there. That's why I don't want the NRA sitting alone at the political bargaining table trading away who-knows-what in exchange for gun rights. Sportsmen and wildlife need their own political voice, and both the NRA and sportsmen's groups should sing in harmony. One should not attempt to speak for the other as these are two distinctly separate sets of interests.

I have a real problem with this statement: "Opposition to a governor's nominee should generally be reserved for those rare occasions when some sort of conflicting ideology is unearthed--such as dogmatic subscription to the animal rights agenda--that could potentially negatively impact hunting or wildlife conservation in Arizona." This is setting the bar pretty low. I expect more of a commissioner than simply not having "a dogmatic subscription to the animal rights agenda." Would it be all right if a commissioner was merely a moderate animal rights advocate, if there is such a thing? Maybe the NRA wouldn't mind hunters voting for politicians who only want "sensible" gun regulations and only want to ban semi-automatic weapons that aren't used for hunting anyway. Unless the NRA in Arizona is willing to work with the conservation-sportsmen community as a team member, rather than a loose cannon, it has no business speaking for sportsmen on the subject of commission appointments.

As I understand it, there are two principal reasons for this program: (1)To get identifiable license plates on every vehicle in order to facilitate reporting violations. This makes it easier for authorities to locate and prosecute offenders. (2)To provide funding and legal tools for other agencies to do enforcement. Right now the laws are hard to enforce and off-road violations usually aren't enforced by sheriff's deputies because of there is no ARS governing off-road violations and because deputies have higher priorities. I believe there is an intent to share some of the proceeds with local law enforcement officials. They hope that will increase the enthusiasm of sheriff's departments for participating in OHV enforcement. But Game & Fish will continue to have major responsibility for OHV enforcement. They don't really want to be in that business, but they're the logical choice because they have jurisdiction on all public lands, already patrol rural areas and because off-road-driving damage usually means wildlife habitat damage. Thus they have an interest. The forest planning process and travel management plans now being developed for various national forests around Arizona will almost certainly result in a proliferation of numbered road signs, and all motorized travel will have to be on a signed road. Don't know how they're going to handle road signage on BLM or state trust lands where there is no travel management planning underway. I strongly support this program. And no, I don't own an ATV. But I feel like I'm already paying for ATV use - someone else's. I'm not accusing all ATV owners of bad behavior because I know the majority behave themselves. But the ATV community needs a wake-up slap. The TV commercials and magazine ads show people crashing through stream beds and racing cross-country through the forest without a care in the world. That's the image the industry is working to sell - that you can drive anywhere and run over anything on an ATV. But that doesn't work, folks, and this is the beginning of the end for that kind of fun. Public lands managers, game & fish biologists and other hunters have been seeing too much damage out there and are determined something will be done about it. Hopefully moderate measures will work. The idiots will get caught and fined, word will get around that deserts and forests aren't obstacle courses and ATV riders will figure out how to stay out of trouble. If it doesn't work that way, the alternative is road closures that affect everyone, including people like me who drive 4WD trucks.

I agree that the mini-14 is a fun gun to shoot, but they aren't accurate. I own one. Wouldn't shoot it at a coyote beyond 100 yards. The trigger is terrible, the front sight crude and the overall accuracy is about 5 M.O.A. under the best conditions off a bench. My coyote gun is a sporterized Swedish Mauser.

Regarding elk vs. mule deer, I think the idea that elk are the cause of declining mule deer herds on the Rim and White Mtns. is greatly oversold. I believe instead that changes to the forest and reduced browse are the principal culprits. I suspect elk play a role that varies in importance depending on what else is going on, but I don't think elk are the primary reason for Arizona's mule deer decline. Instead, try forest service policies, at least for the Rocky Mtn. mule deer. With desert mule deer, it's drought, overgrazing, habitat fragmentation and predator pressure in the face of all these other problems. It's true that elk have been spreading into areas where they didn't exist historically, but Game & Fish has been aggressively trying to extinguish pioneering elk herds before they can settle in. Parts of Unit 27 near the Rose Peak area is one example, and the Kaibab is another. Game & Fish does not want elk in every place in the state where elk might decide to re-locate. I've heard that the burned areas of the White Mtn. Apache reservation are experiencing a deer herd recovery. What we need is a lot of controlled burning to put the forest back in its former condition, and some rainfall to follow.

Correction: Should have said it's necessary to keep 3 bowhunters home for every two rifle cow hunters.

I recall reading a few years ago that Colorado had experimented with antler restrictions and found the desired results were not achieved. I'm absolutely against antler restrictions. Parothead brought up another subject that hasn't received sufficient discussion, though I'm not sure Coueswhitetail is necessarily the ideal forum for it. This year's reduction to 2007 cow elk permits was pretty anemic in my opinion. They should have reduced cow permits even further in order to help the herd recover. In March 2006, Arizona's post-hunt elk population was pegged at about 30% below AG&F's target level. We are currently short about 8,000 elk (actual of 17,000 vs. target of 25,000.) How did it get so low? I've been told G&F was downsizing the herd to meet drought conditions. (I also suspect many elk fled the national forests for the Apache reservations after the big fires of 2002 generated better food there, but I can't get anyone in G&F to confirm this theory.) Cutting next year's cow permits by a few hundred is lame. They should have reduced 2007 cow permits by 50% and tried to reach the target of 25,000 within 3 years. That's the best way I know to increase hunter opportunity, which I believe Parothead has already suggested. Also, I believe it was wrong to take virtually all of the reductions out of the archery sector. In order to keep the harvest the same, it's necessary to keep 3 bowhunters home for every rifle hunter you put in the field. This is due to the disparity in success rates between archery and rifle hunters for cow elk. That's inconsistent with AG&F's stated goal of increasing hunter opportunity. Next year we should press for further reductions to cow elk tags and all reductions should come from the rifle allocation.

Do like being able to drive 4WD roads around Ramanote and Peck Canyons in 36B? Or Rock Corrals or the Summit Motorway? How about the 2-tracks we've been using for years to reach good deer hunting spots in the Santa Ritas and Galiuros? If so, you should attend a meeting in Tucson tomorrow morning (Saturday.) Access to the Coronado National Forest is extremely important to Coues hunters. If forest officials close many of our roads, as some would like them to do, future Coues hunting will be under crowded conditions along the few roads that are left open. Tomorrow the forest service is holding an open house to hear public input on travel management planning for the forest. One of the things expected to come out of it is a reduction to the number of roads open to motorized travel as well as much stricter rules governing ATVs. Time and place of the meeting is 16 December 2006, Inn Suites City Center, 475 N. Granada Ave. 9am-Noon . This is a motel that is actually at Sixth Street and Main on the south side of the street. If you attend, expect to hear a lot of speeches from enviros about off-road driving and damage from vehicles. Many of us will agree that ATV use has gotten out of hand in many areas and that steps need to be taken to curb abuses. However, we don't want those steps to consist of locking up large portions of the forest so no one can access it for hunting and other legitimate purposes. The new rules will be strongly influenced by those who show up. Tomorrow's session will be saturated with environmentalists, some of whom have an anti-hunting agenda. Unless you're willing to live with whatever forest access the environmentalists and forest service decide to give you, you should strongly consider attending this meeting. Spending a Saturday morning with forest service bureaucrats and enviros isn't my idea of fun either, but we need to do these things once in a while. Don't take for granted that other agencies and organizations are protecting our access, because I've got news for you: it ain't happening. The forest service needs to see some hunters' faces at these meetings so they know that someone out there really wants to see these key roads kept open and even maintained to some extent. Otherwise, the forest service will take the path of least resistance which is to appease the enviros and simply close a lot roads that hunters need to get to the places we like to hunt.

Obviously we have much to talk about in the months ahead. By the way, if we hunters would re-establish our image with the public as conservationists, we'd have much better luck if a lion ban initiative came along. If the public sees hunters primarily as a bunch of self-centered guys who just like to gun down animals, they're likely to discout what we say about sound science in wildlife management. But if sportsmen would carry the flag for land conservation, we just might have a little credibility some day when we really need it. Seriously, guys, I must finish packing. But it's hard for me leave this subject.

I'm packing for a hunt and can't spend much time on this, but I think we need to look at the areas that were identified in 106 and see what can be done to save them. I believe the current process for trust land sales goes something like this: Someone makes an offer to the state land department for a piece of state trust land, then the land dept. decides whether to sell based on the amount of the offer and whether they believe it's the right time to sell. In other words, the state land department works about the same way land speculators work. They're looking to get the highest price possible. I'm not an expert, but I think that's how it's done. Now I'm concerned there will be a rush by speculators to buy some of those lands. Hopefully Napolitano and Winkleman (head of land dept.) will hold on to those pieces until we can get something going again, but I'm not sure they can. If hunters put together a different intiative that was worded right, we might get it to pass. If only hunters would pay as much attention to what's happening to our huntable land as they do to things like bonus points and out-of-state tags, we might re-gain our image as the nation's primo conservationists. As for 204, I think K Gaines has it pegged right. I'm glad the margin was no larger than it was because that encourages them.

Prop 106 was way too complicated and way too vague on sensitive points. It was too open to interpretation that would have had to come later in the courts. Most people, including many enviros as well as hunters, weren't comfortable with it. Personally, I think we should have passed it anyway and and then moved on to the fight over whether hunters would have access. As it is now, we'll have to hope the governor or legislature comes up with some way to save high-quality habitat from being sold for development. If that doesn't happen, we won't be hunting on that land anyway because someone will build on it.

Before CouesUnlimited drops the number on us, how about a "guess the score" contest? I'll swag it at 117.

I was about to say shoot whatever you and the rifle shoot best, but I see it's already been said. I started out using 150 gr ammo after having read that the '06 was designed around the 150 grain cartridge and that calibers tend to perform best with the bullet weights they were designed to. Might have been pure bunk, but that's what I read and took to heart. Later I read that 170 gr. bullets had also been part of the development process for the '06 at some point. Actually, I think they designed it shooting 150 grs but ended up issuing 170 gr to the troops when the rifle was finally introduced. Over the years I noticed that long range shooters tend to favor heavier bullets. I also discovered the concept of ballistic coefficiency which theoretically measures how well a bullet remains stable in flight, retains velocity and energy and bucks wind if there is any. Looking through tables in reloading manuals, I noticed the longer, heavier nosler-type bullets had the highest ballistic coefficients within the various bullet diameters. That influenced me to change to a heavier bullet. When I last hunted with an '06, I was using 165 gr. nosler ballistic tips from Federal (Premium) and handloads shooting 168 Sierra Gameking hollow point boattails. Both were very accurate. All things being equal, heavier bullets will increase recoil. That is another consideration. I'd say anything between 150 and 180 is just fine for Coues, but try to keep the recoil where it doesn't affect your accuracy. It's always been my understanding that 30 caliber rounds lighter than 150 grs aren't as accurate on the average as those in the 150-180 range.

For the record, the refuge people believe removing the fence will hamper the illegals since they use north-south fence alignments to guide them. Personally I think it works both ways since that practice also tells the BP where to look for them. I suspect they use east-west fences as distance markers. Azhunterswhocare mentioned the 300 illegals that came through the refuge in a week. That number is still lower than what it used to be. The main point of my post is that hunters shouldn't avoid the refuge because of the closure. I'm not saying we don't still have a big problem.

These reports are a bit exaggerated. I spent the weekend on Buenos Aires taking down fence as a volunteer. The illegal problem is better at the moment than it was a few months back. We camped about 2 miles due east of the refuge headquarters, then worked across the highway on Saturday. Encountered no illegals either place. No fresh footprints. Discarded clothing and other junk did not look especially fresh. I slept in the open bed of my pickup both Friday and Sat. night. People I was camping with brought two labs, and nothing set the dogs to barking either night. It's my understanding that the border patrol and reserve units saturated the southern edge of the refuge along the border for a couple of weeks. That might have stemmed the flow thru BANWR for a while. Patrol levels are now back to normal. Varmint callers should head down there. Coyotes are now legal on BANWR year round, and BANWR has more than it needs. Heard lots of coyotes. Put a stalk on one that wouldn't shut up but he never showed himself. Wished I'd brought a call.

Arizona sporstmen, You're about to lose many of your roads plus several other privileges you've come to think of as rights. Preservationists whose natural habitat is the public meeting room are about to take away 75% of the roads you've been using to hunt on. And they're getting considerable help from inside the forest service. The story below from the Flagstaff paper pertains to the Kaibab forest. But right now there are forest planning meetings going on all over the state, and resulting increased restrictions will soon be coming to a forest near you. Want to do something about it? Find out where your forest's planning meetings are being held, especially the travel management meetings. (My nearest forest, Coronado, has not yet announced the first travel meetings, but they're coming up soon.) Don't expect your game and fish department to win this fight for you. Forest Service listens to them, but they listen better to your Congressman and to members of the public who speak up. The preservationists are coordinating their efforts all over the state. Unless you're ready to experience the outdoors on their terms, you'd better get off your backsides and get involved. I'll post more in the future as I get specifics on travel meetings. Don't let me and a few Game & Fish folks be the only ones attending and fighting for your interests. Now read the story below to get a feel for what's coming. Forest road closures spark clash By CYNDY COLE Sun Staff Reporter Wednesday, October 11, 2006 11:05 AM CDT Game and Fish says a proposal to close hundreds of miles of forest roads southeast of Flagstaff is overblown The Coconino National Forest should propose 100,000 acres of new wilderness along Clear and Chevelon creeks and close hundreds of miles of dirt roads southeast of Flagstaff in a crucial bid to protect wildlife, one conservation group has said. Game and Fish officials say the concern for nonendangered wildlife is overblown. As forest planners weigh road closures amid a national directive and a $40.2 million road maintenance backlog, the Grand Canyon Wildlands Council has proposed setting aside 30 special reserves for mule deer, pronghorn antelope, black bears, mountain lions and prairie dogs. The group would like to see up to 75 percent of the dirt roads closed along some parts of the Mogollon Rim, including multiple routes that end at the same destination. They blame to roads for fragmenting the landscape, spreading invasive weeds and wildlife disturbance. "We're going to have to make some changes in how we manage public land if we want to continue to have pronghorn, mountain lion, antelope and bear," said Kim Crumbo, of the Wildlands Council. Local Game and Fish officials disagree with his dire assessment. Closing the smaller dirt roads won't likely do a lot to eliminate the road kill more common to larger highways and freeways, said Game and Fish Regional Supervisor Ron Sieg. "I really just don't see those little two-track roads being much of an impact," he said. And there are already driving and other restrictions in place for the few animals that have been deemed threatened or struggling -- northern goshawks, Mexican spotted owls and pronghorn antelope. The proposed wildlife reserves would dot Anderson Mesa and run southeast to the Tonto and Sitgreaves national forests, helping to establish statewide wildlife corridors from eastern Arizona to the Grand Canyon. "There's still a lot of roads for people to drive around on, but we say this is one of the most biologically diverse areas in the state," Crumbo said. Global tracking has shown the pronghorn to be more adversely impacted by roads than any other animal, local Game and Fish biologist Rick Miller has found. When a new fence goes up next to a highway, the pronghorn won't jump over, Miller said. Their migration patterns are believed to have changed as a result. The Kaibab and Coconino forests are both planning road restrictions for upcoming years. The Tusayan District of the Kaibab has gone first, but nothing's changed yet. Whatever is decided there could mean major changes for hunters, Sieg said. If hunters are limited to a few main roads and not allowed to allowed to drive cross-country, camping sites in popular areas could be packed. Cyndy Cole can be reached at 913-8607 or at ccole@azdailysun.com. If you go... Travel Management Planning Meeting Date: Saturday, Oct. 14 Where: Main Lobby of Coconino High School, Flagstaff Time: 1-4 p.m. What to expect: The October meetings will focus on informing the public about the Travel Management Rule and on how to effectively take part in the Travel Management process. On display: Maps of existing motorized trail system and initial suggestions for changes to that system; the major natural resource concerns related to motorized travel; and the fiscal and management constraints the Forest Service faces in maintaining the motorized routes.

To be truthful, Bruce is the one who sent me the story in the first place and filled me in on more details. I suggested he put it on the forums. When I didn't see them, I guessed he was up against too many other things he has going, so I hijacked his material and ran with it. We'll soon have our own story to tell down here in Tucson. When the travel management meetings are announced, I'll put out a schedule. And I expect to see some of you there! NOTE: Stand-up guys and gals who spoke for sportsmen at the Tucson Coronado Forest meetings in September included Jim Warren (NWTF State Director), Joe Sheehy of the Az Bighorn Sheep Society, various Game & Fish personnel, and Brian Murphy of Murphy's Guns who was there as a grazing lease holder as well as a hunter. Last but not least was ex-Game & Fish Commissioner Frances Werner who came in on newly replaced knees to fight for what she believes makes sense. That puts to shame those no-show hunters who expect AG&F to fight all their battles for them.

I don't mind a few roads being closed either, but 75%? That's what's being considered for some of the best hunting areas. Someone who has looked at the maps tells me the same thing Game & Fish is saying - that road closures of this magnitude would really impact hunters. You guys need to go to your forest's travel management meetings and look at the maps. Then see whether you like what's being done.

I can't promise you, but I think they have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. I wouldn't ask, I'd just do it but don't have the gun out where people see it. I have talked with some refuge personnel who believe the restrictions on sidearms should be lifted on at least two refuges in the Southwest. And as one official told me, carrying a handgun on a refuge is punishable as a misdemeanor; not carrying one and needing it could be punishable by death. For an idea of how refuge personnel view the personal safety situation down there, read this testimony from the refuge manager to Congressional committee: http://www.fws.gov/laws/Testimony/109th/20...15,%202006.html

Wednesday night in Tucson the Coronado National Forest will be wrapping up the public input on the Forest Management Plan. Environmentalists, 4-wheel enthusiasts, ranchers and sportsmen will weigh in with opposing views on how the Coronado Forest should be managed during the next 15 years. The winners will be the ones who show up. Tonight I attended the last forest-specific meeting which was for the Catalinas and Rincons. Fortunately there were several Game & Fish people attending and providing the input that ought to be provided by hunters. The anti-hunting, anti-access crowd was not that big tonight, but I expect a bigger turnout of greens at Wednesday's meeting. If you want continued access for hunting and wildlife activities, you'll want to show up and fight for it. There will be others there who want to close more roads and discourage "habitat manipulation" for sheep, deer and turkeys. The priorities that have emerged so far are: reasonable and adequate access, stronger enforcement especially regarding ATVs, public education especially with respect to OHV activity, retention of the multiple use concept and protection of resources. I'm having a hard time forcing wildlife restoration to the top of of the priority list. There just aren't enough sportsmen attending. The meeting is at the Sheraton Hotel in the 5100 East block of Grant Road from 6 to 8:30 p.m. Be there or be prepared to live with the forest rules the environmentalists and forest service decide to hand you.

BMF, you must not be putting Oct. WT as one of your first two choices. I don't believe any of the Oct WT hunts expend all tags in the first pass. The first pass is when everyone's 1st & 2nd choices get looked at. I suggest you either make sure one of your 1st choices is Oct WT or else look for an application error as the source of the problem. I can't imagine you not getting drawn for Oct WT 3 out of 3 times if you named an Oct WT as a 1st or 2nd choice and sent in a compliant application and payment.

I'm having lots of trouble with all this. I've hunted deer with a rifle every year except two since 1981. The two years I didn't hunt were my fault. One was a careless application error and the other was pushing my luck by making Dec. WT my 1st and 2nd choices in the late 1990s assuming I could always get a Nov. tag on a 3rd choice. It's not hard to get a deer tag if you'll take what is obtainable. Now if you really must have a mule deer tag, then I guess you do have a problem. But I can't feel too sorry for you. There's always bowhunting, and that's a much more interesting hunt anyway. You're out there during the rut when the leaves are gone, and you'll see more animals then than at any other time of year. Success for bowhunters in southern Arizona units is usually in the 3 to 6 per cent range, but they're fun hunts. You won't see a ton of other camps and hunters, and you can take along a shotgun and mix in other types of hunting. You just have to adapt to the opportunities that are there instead of sitting home complaining that you didn't get drawn again for that low-odds tag. Now let's talk elk. If you just have to be up in there in the rut and seeing tons of elk and big bulls running around, put in for an archery cow tag as a second choice. Cow hunting is still elk hunting and good for practice and experience. Furthermore, cows taste much, much better than bulls and you still get some of the excitement of the rut and seeing and hearing those big bulls. When you finally get your bull tag, you'll be a much more experienced elk hunter and far more likely to get that big bull you've dreamed of. Now let's talk access. Of you guys who spent all this time typing on this forum about how you're getting screwed out of quality hunts, how many have bothered to fill out the roadless rule survey on the Game & Fish website? This is a potential threat to your access that could leave you stacked up with a jillion other hunters on the few roads that are left open to hunters. The environmental community believes roads are the root of all evils and wants to close a lot of the forest service roads. If you look on the map on AG&F's website, you will notice that the Tumacacoris are shown as being largely in a roadless area and that the road connecting Sopori Ranch with the I-19 area is not shown. Does that mean this road will be closed? (The enviros want to make this area a Wilderness, so don't be surprised if that road gets closed.) And what about some other roads that are shown in the roadless areas? Will these be closed? We all need to be asking those kinds of questions. The national forest is currently working on a revised forest plan including a travel management plan. This could result in some road closures. Any of you guys been to any of the public meetings? If so, I was the angry guy you saw and heard kicking a$$ and taking names for hunter access, and you guys must have been the quiet ones that sat in the corner listening politely while enviros talked about how we need to close more roads and turn more of the forest into Wilderness. Now let's talk game populations. AG&F's long term target for elk populations on state-managed lands is 25,000 animals. At last March's Commission meeting (I took a half day off work, don't think I saw you guys there), the dept. reported that the current population is 16,000 to 17,000 elk, or about 2/3 of the target population. Why? What's being done about it? To their credit, the Commissioners noted the discrepancy and said it will be addressed next year. Presumably this means raising elk herd numbers, not lowering the target, but wait til the meeting is in Payson and the ranchers attend and tell them there still too many elk, more cow tags should be issued. I believe that's how our elk numbers declined in the first place - rancher appeasement while hunters were busy worrying that some out-of-state guy was going to get their elk tag. Arizona's hunters are like frogs slowly boiling in a pot and scarcely noticing it's starting to get warm. Their attention can be gained if somebody messes directly with their hunts or tag opportunities, such as the George Taulman/US Outfitters affair or AG&F increasing tag numbers, but major underlying issues that determine opportunity seemd to go unnoticed. Sorry, but I've had it. You people get worked up over the wrong things. Larry Audsley

Unless someone knows something I don't, I believe Lawson Gunsmithing in Tucson is still a going concern. Its founder, Harry Lawson, did pass away 3 or 4 years ago, but his son Frank just did a trigger job for me on a new BDL about last September. He charged me $40 to lighten the factory trigger to 3 lbs. He told me trigger jobs are unpredictable - some go real easy and some don't - and that it's only after a trigger job is done that the gunsmith knows whether he's charged too much or too little. As for Murphy's, I've had the same experiences others have complained about in this thread. On the other hand, I've also found them to be very helpful at times and very reasonable about prices.