audsley

Gentlemen, Cheap labor isn't the only thing that's been coming in from Mexico lately. The National Wild Turkey Federation is in the process of a massive transplant of Goulds. They trap them in Mexico, hold them in quarantine for a few weeks and then bring them across for release. The Santa Ritas, Rincons and Catalinas recently received transplants, and I believe Goulds are also in the works for the Atascosas, Pajaritas and possibly the Tumacacoris as well. Thank Jim Warren, Chris Kaputa and the rest of the NWTF people who held the turkey fundraisers and got it done. I believe all of the Merriams that were transplanted into the Catalinas have been gone for years. It is believed that the Goulds will do much better here. The Huachucas are already full of them. These are amazing birds. They're a lot taller than Merriams and make an impressive trophy. If I'm ever lucky enough to take one, I'll have it mounted.

I got 33 Nov. WT. Zilch on everything else. Wish I had taken the time to urge everyone to boycott the fall javelina hunts. I think it's a poor time to hunt pigs and I don't need the extra commotion during my WT hunt. Also, pigs are hard enough to find without having the leaves still on the trees. January thru early March was perfect. Don't know why they messed with it.

Outdoor Writer, For all the reasons you cited plus some more, I'll actually say it never will happen. But I'm convinced that in the meantime our forest management plans are being pushed in the direction of preparing 36B for wolves, jaguars and all the other critters that give greenies goose bumps all over. At the forest management planning meetings for Coronado, I heard a lot of talk about roadlessness and wilderness. Returning predators to the "wildlands" is a major objective of the green machine, and these people aren't especially well acquainted with reality. It's not the return of the wolf I'm really worried about. Rather it's the concerted efforts of wolf lovers and their impact on access and management policy that concerns me. At the roadless meeting at G&F headquarters last Thursday, I would guess only about five of the 30 or so non-governmental attendees were licensed hunters. There were a few 4WD enthusiasts and the rest, more than half, were professional environmentalists from Sky Island Alliance, Center for Biodiversity, etc., plus some of the regular faces from Sierra Club. Their intention is to protect the "biological core" from "recreation abuse" by people and then give it back to the predators. That's what they say. I take them at their word. The first step to winning is showing up. Greenies do that a lot better than hunters.

I came late to this thread and hope everyone isn't entirely burnt out yet. It's an important topic. First, I want to thank Outdoor Writer for enriching the discussion with good facts and logic. Next I'll say I don't much care about the genetic purity debate either. I attended the same presentation TLH heard and can confirm that we were sure enough told there has been no doggie DNA found in the reintro wolves. However, the same presenter told us two female wolves around Snowflake managed to get themselves in a family way with local dogs and had to be captured taken to the wolf abortion clinic. Am I to believe wolves and dogs have never crossed in Arizona or Mexico before? Question: If a wolf's a wolf and a dog's a dog, what's a Husky? I'm not sure I know what a purebred wolf really is and don't much care. Now for the important stuff. We were also told that Mexican gray wolves require 6 to 8 lbs of meat per day. If they live exclusively on elk, that works out to about one elk a month. If you have 100 wolves in the non-reservation part of the state, that means 1200 elk a year would be devoted to supporting wolves. That sounds like a lot until you figure we have a target elk population (set by AG&F) for non-reservation parts of the state of 25,000 elk. An annual take of 1,200 would amount to 4.8% which again might sound like a lot until you remember that Arizona elk have the potential to increase their population by almost 50% each year due to little or no winter kill here. That said, I think there's room for wolves as long as they stick to the elk country. Unfortunately, we (TLH, myself and some other people) also heard the wolf expert say that the wolf lobby would love to have wolves in unit 36B along the border west of Nogales. That's because 36B is part of the wolf's historic range, would connect Arizona wolves to wolf habitat in Mexico and would match the wolves to their preferred prey animal - the Coues Whitetail. Presently they are waiting to see what will happen with the border fence before pursuing it further. Now this is a proposition of absurb proportions given the inadequate prey base in 36B. Using the data I discussed above, a wolf pack of eight would need to take more whitetails than hunters kill in that unit on an annual basis, and wolves don't restrict their kills to antlered deer only. I'm sure AG&F and USFWS would never actually try to put wolves in 36B once the impracticalities start being identified. Unfortunately, wild-eyed wolf-loving greenies don't know that, and I believe they have wolves in their plans for the Tumacacori, Pajarito and Atascosa Mtns. in 36B. For some time now Tucson enviros have been trying to get Congressman Raul Grijalva to introduce a bill to make this area into another Wilderness. I believe wolves are part of their vision for southern Arizona's future.

If Dave was thirty, it would be 1962 and we wouldn't have the kinds of problems we have today.

I have talked with her some and am happy to say I have a pretty good feeling about her. I thought a little more experience might have helped, but I don't think we'll have many problems with her ideologically. One of the things I liked is her independence. She has acquired a set of beliefs about wildlife management and the principles related thereto, and I don't think she'll budge easily from those principles. I'd rather have someone like that than a commissioner who is chiefly concerned with pleasing certain factions. At least her opinions can be understood, and I know she can be reasoned with. I've heard a lot of hunters say they want another hunter for a commissioner. That sounds like a good idea until you get a commissioner who doesn't hunt the same way you do. If you're a bowhunter, a commissioner who only hunts with a rifle and listens to friends who think bowhunters get too many tags might not make you very happy. The unfortunate thing about the young mother remark is the way Sierra Club and others try to make it a sexism thing. I told her pretty much the same, that I wasn't sure it was the best way for someone her age to spend time since it doesn't pay anything and the current commissioners say they don't get all their expenses reimbursed. I don't see how anyone who isn't retired or self-employed can afford to be on the commission because it's a major time and travel commitment. That goes for 30-year-old men as well as 30-year-old women.

I believe the survey skeptics have a weak argument. Granted, you don't get a representative survey using the methods ADA used. But the department had ample opportunity to survey by other means. I suggested this to several people both on the commission and in the department. For example, they could have set up tables at Sportsman's Warehouse and Cabelas, or other places deer hunters are likely to frequent. They could have avoided the "rallying the troops" factor by only keeping the table up an hour at a time in any one place so as to avoid letting word get around. Obviously they chose not to do this. I suspect it's because they didn't want to risk getting a survey showing that randomly selected hunters also opposed the changes. They believed they could dismiss the ADA's survey as invalid and wanted to quit while they were ahead. It is my opinion that the commission and department were determined to make the changes in central Arizona because they believe it is the best thing to do regardless of how people feel about it now. That's just my opinion, but I'm fairly confident that's what happened. Time will tell whether they were right.

I agree with everything my friend Dave said, and I share some of his discouragement. But like he said in the beginning, it's possible the commission might trim a couple of the changes. Major flaws in the recommendations stem from two things: The commission's failure to understand that hunting in hot weather is neither productive nor fun, and Archery has such a small impact on deer populations that there is no reason to shorten seasons. This hardly encourages participation which is what AG&F says they're trying to do. Like Dave, I believe the rim country hunters should be more open-minded about November hunts. But I share his reluctance to say how others should hunt as I'm a southern Az. hunter. I hope Arizona's sportsmen ignore the hot weather javelina hunts, as I will. Nothing sends a message better than a pile of unsold merchandise, in this case tags. September and October are not great hunting times in southern Arizona. Deer and javelina are less active in the daylight, and rattlers are in their peak activity and movement phase. Sometimes it's humid and buggy. But the commission ignored local experts with decades of southern Arizona hunting experience and shifted some of our hunting opportunities to these undesirable months. Again, I hope the market speaks to them in a language they can understand.

Regarding javelina breeding seasons, the reason we currently hunt them in the winter is because young born December - February have the lowest survival rates anyway. If you hunt javelinas in September or November like the Commission is proposing, you risk orphaning more pigs than if they were hunted in mid-winter. I believe the marketing department has taken over at Game & Fish.

Thanks for the explanation, Bill. I wasn't considering bullet drop. However, I've been shooting 165 and 168 grain projectiles, Nosler BTs and Sierra hollowpoint boattails, from a 24-inch barrel (pre-64 Winchester Model 70), and I actually got much more drop than you described. I would sight in at 200 yards, then aim 10 inches high at 300. That worked just fine. If I had needed to go 350, I would have aimed 15 inches high. I personally have a self-imposed limit of 350 yards, but that's based on my own marksmanship under field conditions and the groups I got at 300 yards which are typically around four inches. Maybe I need to practice more. Recently I acquired a 7mm SAUM, the one that Remington put out and then quickly discontinued because everyone who wanted a short action 7mm had already bought Winchester's WSM because it reached the market sooner. This is the first barrel I've owned that was manufactured in this millenium, and everyone tells me today's barrels are a lot better than they were 20 years ago. So maybe this new rifle and I can tighten up the groups a bit. And I'll do what you suggest with a .300 Weatherby - stuff six or seven pounds of lead in the stock, but only if you'll carry it for me.

My second choice --- if you keep most of your shooting under 300 yards --- would be the .30-06. BillQ This puzzles me. I know military marksmen use the 30.06 to bang away at 1,000 yard targets, or at least they used to, and I know a fellow who shoots 500-600 yards at coyotes fairly regularly using 190 grain bullets. This man works at a gun store and is fairly well known to shooters around Tucson. I don't think he's pulling my leg. I thought calibers 6.5 and up, shooting bullets weighing 140 grains or more, and with ballistic coefficients in the very high 400s or better, were roughly equal in potential for long range accuracy. I understand that some people prefer heavier bullets and higher velocities for long range shooting, but I always believed that was intended to reduce wind effects. Some of the top Coues hunters use .300 Win Mag and .300 Weatherby Mag. But I recently read about one long distance competitive shooter who uses a 6mm because he believes light recoil promotes accuracy. So why is the 30.06 just a 300-yard gun?

I believe it is tactically unwise to select any particular candidate. It is my understanding that the Arizona Deer Association has selected Art Pearce. I think this was a mistake, not because Art Pearce wouldn't make a good commissioner, but because it's the first step in dividing hunters. Groups who chose only Nancy Lewis or Mary Jo Miller have done the same thing. I think most sportsmen could agree that any of those three would be at least marginally acceptable. There is no way you're going to get all of the sportsmen's groups to agree on any one of those three. The best we could do is agree on a list. When sportsmen's groups back more than one candidate, the governor is free to say the sportsmen don't even agree among themselves.

IFOOTMATT, I strongly agree with your entire first paragraph and most of what you said afterward. However, an important clarification is in order. In Arizona, Game & Fish is operated as something like an enterprise fund where it receives only the money it brings in from sportsmen and from Federal funds that are based on the money derived from sportsmen. Game & Fish receives no General Fund money. Consequently, politicians really don't care about G & F's revenues since they can't get their hands on any of it. (Let's not go into the Heritage Fund just now.) That could change, however, in a couple of years. Game & Fish is looking to put an initiative on the ballot that would add a 1/20 of a cent sales tax for Game & Fish. I have some problems with this initiative as it is currently envisioned, but I'll not go into that now. This would be similar to the conservation sales tax Missouri has had for many years, but a smaller percentage and wouldn't raise nearly as much money. By the way, IFOOTMATT, when I grew up in Missouri - and I'm dating myself here - there were NO deer to hunt in many parts of the state. There was an occasional deer, but not enough to hunt. Deer hunting wasn't widespread in the state until about the late '60s or early 70's when I was in college. None of my hunting friends in college ever talked about hunting deer. I grew up hunting squirrels, rabbits and Bobwhite quail, and was happy as could be to do it. In 1971 I witnessed the release of five turkeys in Andrew County where they had not existed for 100 years. Then I went west and found all this wonderful , uncrowded public land and interesting ways to hunt them. When I went back in the late 70s and 80s, I found my farm relatives were doing deer drives and sitting in elevated blinds. Thank God I'm an Arizona hunter!

I have the same concern, but I'll have that concern about anyone appointed by this governor as long as the appointments are handled by the same staff she's been using the past three years. I'm trying to keep an open mind about this. Unlike the governor's first choice last year, I don't think this one was hand-picked. I think she came on her own. I also know there were other names in the pot who would have been worse. However, you have to wonder what promises are extracted from ANY applicant as a condition of appointment. It's the governor's staff that you need to worry about, since the governor herself probably doesn't care all that much about game, fish or anything else related to wildlife management. She has bigger things to worry about. If I had any trust in the staff handling the appointments, I'd have fewer worries about this one. Given the troubled relationship the governor's staff created with the state's sportsmen during the mountain lion fiasco and on other occasions as well, I think it would have been wiser to have appointed someone with whom sportsmen are acquainted and somewhat comfortable with. Obviously the governor's office sees no need to make appointments with which the state's sportsmen are comfortable. That part really bothers me. There is no effective communication between this state's sportsmen and the governor's office. That also bothers me, and it's something the governor needs to change.

I hope the Az Deer Association gives this issue a high priority. For alternatives, I suggest looking here: 1. Habitat management. Forest conditions have changed for the worse for deer. The controlled burns being carried out in Unit 27, which I believe the ADA is helping to fund, should improve deer habitat and help restore permit numbers. We need more projects like this. Today Unit 27's deer permit numbers are a fraction of what they were in the 1980s. Also, some of our western units used to have a lot more mule deer. 2. Predator management to restore game species. That doesn't mean predator annihilation, just temporary reductions while game species recover. The results of a recent Three-Bar study, which every licensed hunter should know about, proved that deer reproduction can remain high even during drought. 3. Access. In southern Arizona, more Coues tags have been cut back due to loss of access to public lands than to the drought. We need a legislative solution to stop the practice of closing off roads through private property in order to deny access to public lands beyond. This is something the Arizona Deer Association and other hunting-oriented conservation groups should take on this year. If one or more of these groups took the initiative, maybe the Commission would get a little more aggressive about it. Hunter numbers are going down, and the Commission is taking the easiest solution they can find. If we let them do this, it's our own fault.

The worst thing we can do is have a defeatist attitude. I don't believe these changes are a done deal. Regarding these changes to the hunt structure, I'm not sure organizations have more influence than independent hunters. That's generally been true in the past, but there are signs that some of the commissioners want to change that. For one thing, all the organizations are against the changes, but they aren't having much effect. The commission seems to think it is helping the independent hunter, and they're telling the organizations to just chill out, this whole thing isn't just for them. At the December commission meeting in Casa Grande, one of the commissioners stated that the hunters who typically attend commission meetings are not representative of the hunting public at large. If we want the commission to reconsider these changes, independent hunters need to attend the public meetings on the changes as well as the commission meetings. I believe the principal thing driving these changes is a misguided attempt to get more people hunting. The department surveyed more than 6,000 hunters and asked them why they didn't hunt more often. The most common reason they received was "didn't draw a tag." If you think about it, that's probably what all of us would have said. After all, if I'd drawn a sheep tag last year, I would have hunted more. Aside from that, I probably hunted just about all I wanted to within the limits imposed by marriage and employment. I believe the department and commission misinterpreted the results of the survey. They should have also asked whether we would prefer to have all of our hunts more crowded and with lower probability of success, or would we rather continue to hunt slightly less often and have better quality hunts when we do go. I'd prefer the latter, as I believe most of us would. A couple of the changes might actually be good. For example, a bighorn sheep authority I know tells me he's sure more trophy rams die of old age than are killed by hunters. That's a waste. His opinion is based on skulls found in the course of doing projects with the sheep society. It's also possible that a few more deer tags are in order, but not many. The department needs to be working on bringing back the mule deer statewide. Some of the problem is drought, but much of it is predation and changes to vegetation. I do not believe the principal motivation is money. That's an easy answer, but there is ample evidence that other issues are driving these proposals to get more hunters in the field.

JVS, If you're in Morenci and not already acquainted with the Southeastern Arizona Sportsen, I suggest you get in touch with them. I'm sure they would be glad to have your help with this issue. East of the San Pedro, whitetail tags have declined 21% since 1992. The decrease in units west of the San Pedro was only 4% during that time. Cochise and Graham Counties have experienced a lot of land closures by private owners. I believe a legislative solution will ultimately be required, but that's going to be tough. In the meantime, there are some other things we can do. Anyone who is seriously interested in working sportsmen's access problems in southern Arizona should contact me at laudsley@aol.com. I'm part of a group that does that, and we could use more help from interested sportsmen who would be willing to attend some of the meetings held by BLM, Forest Service and US Fish & Wildlife, and which are currently dominated by enviros and anti-hunters (if you'll pardon the redundancy.) And yes, development is a real problem. Unfortunately, the early settlers claimed the best land as private and left the worst for the government. Now the ranchettes and subdivisions are going in where the water is. Get ready to lose the Willow Springs Ranch and probably the Falcon Valley as well. Ranches, even ones with houses down in the draw next to the cottonwoods, could support large animals. Subdivisions cannot. And if you think ranchers are touchy about people hunting around the house, try hunting around a subdivision full of soccer moms.

In addition to shrinking in number, AWF made a hard left turn somewhere along the way and lost the support of many in the hunting community. (Maybe those two events are related - ya think?) That's a shame because single species groups aren't set up to do what AWF used to do. But recently there have been some encouraging signs. I'm watching to see whether hard-core hunters like TLH continue trying to shape AWF's direction. If he doesn't stomp off in disgust pretty soon, I'll have to take another look at that group. If AWF could return to being a statewide voice for hunters, a huge hole would get filled.

Bill, Thanks for the interesting story. That's a reminder of the games that can be played, and why we need to examine all change proposals carefully. I still oppose dramatic increases to the number of Southern Arizona whitetail permits. Right now the deer country is as filled with hunters in October and November as I'd ever want it to be. You say there didn't used to be hunters on every rock. Well, there must have been more rocks out there when you were younger. Doubling the number of whitetail hunters we currently have would make it crowded enough that I'd want to let someone else have my rock while I did something else. Conditions like that would probably drive me, however reluctantly, to become a full-time bowhunter. It's my belief that most people who want to hunt Southern Arizona whitetail can do so right now if they're willing to include October hunts among their choices, and if they fill out their applications correctly. In the past three years, the number of people selecting whitetail hunts as their first choice was only 98% of the available tags. Larry

Bill, I'm actively opposing - and I do mean actively- the changes to the hunt structure for Coues deer. However, I'm grateful to you for the most articulate rationale I've seen to date for the opposing side. Hope you don't mind that I copied three of your posts and forwarded them to several people, including one official who is supporting the tag number increases. Now I'm extremely interested in the details behind why we went to the permit system in the first place. I didn't get here until 1973, so I missed that episode. Did you ever know why this state senator wanted a permit system? My guess is that it had something to do with limiting the number of hunters pounding the landscape every fall, and that ranching interests were behind it. Is that a good guess? Or was it public land management agencies? Or both? Larry Audsley

I don't agree that tags should be increased. Yes, we used to have more hunters in the field than today. But the old days were not the good old days in my book. Used to be we had no October hunt, and in November there were 10,000 whitetail hunters falling over each other. Canyons like Gardner, Peppersauce and Pinery were circuses in November. I had to work harder to get away from the crowds. Today we have far more access problems. Not all of the areas that could be hunted 20 years ago are still accessible. The front side of the Catalinas is pretty well locked up, and the Santa Ritas are increasingly being subdivided and ranchetted. Part of the Tumacocoris near I-19 is now lost. But the worst of it has been in Cochise and Graham Counties. Read the Hunt Unit Reports on AG&F's website. There are serious access problems in Units 29, 30A, 30B, 31 and 32, and they're getting worse every year. I compared total Southern Az. whitetail permits for 1992 and 2004. East of the San Pedro, permit numbers have declined 21%. West of the San Pedro, permit numbers declined only 4%. Presumably we've experienced the same drought on both sides of the river. I believe the difference is in loss of access. AG&F does issue permits for deer that cannot be accessed by hunters. I'm told the Winchester Mtns. have pretty well become one family's private hunting preserve because they control the only access. Roads that cross private land are blocked off and used to deprive the public of access to public lands. Remember John Long Canyon in the Chiricahuas? It was closed off to most people for years before AG&F acquired a right-of way. Anyone hunted the Swisshelms lately? How about the Dragoons? Or the San Rafael Valley, or Sonoita? I noticed that in the last three years, 98.4% of those appying for any S. Az. whitetail tag as a first choice got to go hunting. Is that a bad draw success rate? As for the higher harvest, I believe that's partly the result of better hunting skills and equipment. The cowboy-style hunter is pretty much gone. You can blame John Doyle for teaching us not to just walk around the hills the way Jack O'Connor used to do, but to sit and glass with optics O'Connor couldn't have even dreamed of. We now have rangefinders, spotting scopes, more accurate rifles and better riflescopes. These developments alone could be enough to take success rates from the 18-20% Bill Quimby remembers to the 23% experienced statewide the last three years. The casual hunter seems to be a vanishing breed. That's a problem in some respects, but it's also a blessing. I believe the casual hunter, the guy who just wanted to be out with the boys and boozed it up in camp and wasn't all that serious about his hunting, had looser ethics than the serious guy, and he made more mistakes. I can't prove all that, it's just my feeling. Note the fact that hunting accidents have been steadily declining over the years. I believe we are now experiencing the golden years of southern Arizona whitetail hunting. Let's keep them as long as we can, and in the meantime start working on our access issues. (Suggestion: A state law requiring all grazing leaseholders to grant hunting access to all leased public lands. You'll be hearing more from me on this subject in the coming months.) Larry Audsley

The important thing is that we do as venadoslayer just suggested - get to the commissioners and dept. officials with those emails , phone calls and any other way you can reach them. I do believe there were a lot of good intentions in these proposals, but they misinterpreted the results of their survey. Now the commission and dept. have some explaining to do because many hunters are misinterpreting their actions. Almost anyone will say they would hunt more if there were more tags and they got drawn more often. However, that does not mean any of us are willing to sacrifice hunt quality in order to increase chances of getting a tag. That's where they jump to an erroneous conclusion. The commissioners have also indicated that those who show up at commission meetings - many of whom are members or leaders of hunting organizations, serious trophy hunters, guides, etc. - aren't necessarily representative of all hunters. I believe that's true for some issues. However, I believe those same individuals, even though they might be special interests and hunter-elites, nevertheless share the feelings of most hunters with respect to hunt quality. If enough different hunters contact AG&F, they'll get the message that degradation of hunt quality in favor of quantity is a non-starter with virtually everyone.

SDRHUNTER, I stand corrected. What I meant to say is they aren't planning to increase the harvest. Since success rates in December are higher than October's, they can increase hunter days afield in October, decrease hunter days in December, and actually increase the number of permits without increasing the harvest. A wildlife biologist I know who doesn't like the idea has said he doesn't think it will cause any more deer to be taken. It will just make for less successful hunting.

Let's not get everyone confused. AG&F isn't suggesting an increase to tags or expanding the number of days afield. That's why they're tying an increase for October days to a decrease in December days.

Fellow Coues hunters, Tell me if you agree with this. The November whitetail hunts are decent quality hunts and not unacceptably crowded. It's cool enough that there is usually a decent amount of deer activity, and some pretty decent bucks can usually be found if you know how to look. If you hunt during the week you'll see very few other hunters. On the second weekend hunter density typically drops to less than half what you saw opening weekend. I'm surprised people say they want a December hunt or nothing. I don't feel that position is justified. The October hunts are much poorer quality hunts - warmer weather and less daylight deer activity, and higher hunter density. However, October offers a major opportunity for trophy hunters and guides: they can scout September and October, locate a big buck and learn his feeding and bedding locations. Come the start of the October hunt, this buck can often be found and taken before he's spooked. But adding another six days to the October hunt wouldn't help them much because after a day or two of a hunting season, the deer have been alerted, some have abandoned their routines, and in many cases re-located. Also, some people seem to want to hunt only one weekend as evidenced by the drop in hunter activity on the second weekend of the November hunts. These people wouldn't benefit much from stretching the season longer either. Consequently, October Coues hunters probably consist mainly of (1)a few serious hunters who did their homework, (2)hunters who were unlucky in the draw and got their 4th or 5th choice, (3)hunters who only want to hunt one weekend anyway and want to go first, (4)hunters who hope to have something else to do in November (like hunt elk), and (5)hunters who simply don't know any better than to apply for October. Is that about right? Because I'm planning to explain it this way to a couple of commissioners so hopefully they will see that their plan to stretch the October hunt won't really make October much better, but will seriously damage the quality of the November and December hunts.