audsley

OK, I was just yankin' on you guys. And yes, also punishing those who didn't show up and didn't have a good excuse. Some Hernbrode supporters actually drove all the way down here from Mesa. Health issues are understandable, although frankly there were moments last night when I'd rather have been getting my foot operated on than hearing some of the things I was hearing. I'm not sure I'm supposed to disclose the voting results. Let's just say some did better than others, but I think most who attended would agree that we have some excellent prospects. Two didn't show due to prior commitments. Don Deybus was working the polls on election day and veterinarian Ted Noone was in Las Cruces. We don't know much about Deybus. Noone is a hunter, does some ranching around Arivaca. A source I trust knows him and likes him, but we didn't get to meet him and take his measure. Harris, the Sahuarita police chief, believes he can perform the commissioner's duties while working a full time job, although he plans to retire in three years and would have his final two years free. Same with Greg Lucero, who is County Administrator for Santa Cruz County (Nogales.) Jack Williams and Bob Hernbrode are fully retired. John Harris is a past president of ADBSS (late 80s, I believe) and has been involved with various other sportsmen's conservation groups including FNAWS (now the Wild Sheep Society). He was among those who put on the first RMEF banquet in Tucson. Harris has been more involved with these kinds of groups than any of the others. Hunts with every legal weapon including muzzleloader and bow. Was born in Wyoming, still has ties there and goes there to hunt. Cited his experience in dealing with elected officials as police chief and head of police associations. Familiar with budgets. Sees urban encroachment as a major concern. Would like to see wildcat shooting eliminated in some places such as Redington Pass. Believes hunters have the right to a safe border environment. On predator management cites Jim Heffelfinger's book Deer of the Southwest and believes predator control efforts should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Jack Williams, who was Graham County's attorney for 17 years, is an avid Coues hunter who often lurks on this forum but seldom posts. He's also an avid fly fisherman and travels out of state to do it. In his lifetime he's taken about 40 Coues including 3 over 100 points. He has grown sons who hunt and grandkids who are just starting in the outdoors. Always carries a lion tag and has taken two. Cited his experience prosecuting wildlife cases, serving on Cochise County's public lands issues committee, and a public lands access committee. Before becoming Graham County attorney, he served on Graham County's planning and zoning commission and thus is knowledgeable about land use law, property rights and similar issues related to hunter access. He believes major challenges facing us today include hunter access (a large and growing problem in southern Arizona), predator management, and current Grijalva-sponsored legislation backed by horse lovers that would allow feral horses and burros to run any and everywhere on BLM lands and national forests. He believes we need to broaden the funding base for wildlife management and recruit and retain more hunters. Greg Lucero is an avid Coues hunter and guide, and has hunted all over the state. As a U of A student he worked summers for the forest service in Coronado and Apache-Sitgreaves. He's been a V.P. in an engineering firm in Mesa. Is familiar with finances and budgets. Applied to be southern Arizona's commissioner five years ago but was blocked by Tucson's environmentalists, who had considerable influence with Napolitano. That experience sobered him with the realization that the enviros are far better organized and more politically savvy than sportsmen. He sees apathy among sportsmen as one of our major problems. Would like to see performance-based management applied to Game & Fish. Recognizes access as another major problem. As a county administrator, he's especially aware of subdivision approval processes and advised that hunters pay attention to new developments to make sure new subdivisions don't block historic access routes to public lands. Unlike the others, who were telling us what they stand for and would do, Bob Hernbrode has been showing us for four and half years and his record should speak louder than anything said in front of an audience largely comprised of trophy hunters. Nevertheless, he made some interesting statements that bear reporting. He was the only applicant who favors wolf reintroduction. However, he believes efforts in Arizona and New Mexico will not be the key to whether the Mexican wolf survives as a species. He believes the wolf's future will be determined in Mexico where a similar reintroduction effort is underway. On predator management, he believes coyote reductions may be appropriate in some situations but only after research in a specific area has shown that coyotes have been suppressing deer or antelope populations by preying on fawns. He now believes that was the case with sheep on the Kofa and supports removal of offending lions there. He believes predator management includes conservation and recovery of predators, as well control where research indicates control is needed. He is especially focused on hunter retention and recruitment. Believes ATVs have no place in hunting. All applicants except Hernbrode opposed the wolf reintroduction. All applicants except Herbrode opposed prairie dog reintroductions. Williams felt the money spent on prairie dogs could be better spent for other purposes. Hernbrode believes PDs are an important prey species for raptors, ferrets and other predators and should be returned to the eco-system. Harris and Williams are particularly concerned about the potential for raids on Game & Fish funds by a legislature desperate to solve its budget problems. Williams believes the Heritage Fund is especially vulnerable to raiding even though the voters stated their intentions for those monies when the Act was passed. Only one applicant stepped on a land mine. In discussing the need for new tools to gain hunter access, Lucero made passing mention of landowner tags. Someone asked if he would consider approving landowner tags and he said yes, he would. Apparently no one ever told him that speaking favorably about landowner tags is very nearly a hanging offense in Arizona, at least among hunters. The other three quickly condemned the idea. Hernbrode said he'd seen it introduced in Colorado and that it has been nothing but headaches since inception. The current commission is made up of 2 Republicans, 2 Democrats and one independent, which means Gov. Brewer can appoint from any party this time. (By statute, no more than 3 commissioners can be from the same party.) Of the six applicants, only one is a registered Republican. That would be Ted Noone. Deybus, Harris and Williams are registered as independents. Hernbrode and Lucero are Democrats. For what it's worth, I would not rule out Lucero in the future. If our next governor is Terry Goddard or some other Democrat, and if that governor decides the commission needs a Democrat from southern Arizona, I would personally drive down to Nogales and try to persuade him to apply again. I'd just want to make sure he knew why Arizona's hunters are adamantly opposed to landowner tags. Could be he just hasn't thought about it much. Believe me, if the Dems get the governorship again, I'd be praying for someone like Lucero. That's my summary. It's only a fraction of what was said over two and half hours, and the applicants or any friends of theirs are certainly welcome to supplement or correct if necessary what I've said here. The sportsmen turnout was somewhere around 35. Should have been 75.

Sorry Packhorse, I missed your earlier post. I'll try to get off some comments later this evening.

Packhorse, I thought you were coming last night. Were you there?

Very surprising outcome. An awesome-looking lady from the Mountain Lion Foundation applied at the last minute and turned out to be great! She fully understands our problems with predators and promises to bring us a win-win solution. Most of the guys voted for her as their first choice and that's the only name we're forwarding to the governor. Too bad you guys couldn't make it.

Bill, Thanks for your historical perspective and wisdom. I'd heard it was Babbit's appointment of Tom Woods broke the tradition, but that's only what I heard. Again, I was too much like most of the guys inhabiting this board nowadays - pre-occupied with career and raising a family and not really paying much attention. Lark, Here's what you got right. Yes, wildlife need to be managed and wilderness designations are threatening the future of some of our wildlife, stream fishing is in danger of being phased out and our commission has become too political. Ironically, the people who were career wildlife biologists before being appointed to the commission seem to be most receptive to increasing the role of politics in wildlife management. CMC, Thanks for posting the links to Shane Mahoney's address. But I fear there isn't going to be any "third wave" of conservation by America's sportsmen because everybody's too busy looking at pictures of each others' bucks and generally taking for granted what may soon disappear. I'd like to develop that last item some more, but I need to get ready for tonight's forum.

I hardly know what to say about .270's remarks. He points to Jack Husted as the only commissioner whose appointment was not "a 100% political favor." While Husted is well-qualified and so far promises to be one of our better commissioners, it's hard to make a case that he's the sole, shining example of a non-political appointee. He's served as a town councilman in Eager, ran unsuccessfully for Apache County board of supervisors in 2008, was a delegate to the Republican national convention and has been chairman of the state transportation board, a governor-appointed position. This probably amounts to more prior government service than all the other commissioners combined. But politics and wildlife advocacy are not mutually exclusive. He's also an avid hunter, has been a reserve G&F officer and has shown astuteness about the political forces currently working to re-shape Arizona's wildlife and land use policy in ways most of us wouldn't like. My knowledge of the current applicants is uneven and very incomplete. I know much more about some than others. However, I can tell you that the list .270 doesn't approve of contains the following: - At least two avid Coues hunters who have hunted southern Arizona all their lives, have taken trophy Coues and have sons they'd like to keep this tradition alive for. - One avid bowhunter who has been active with sportsmen conservation groups over the years, having once served as president of the Az Desert Bighorn Sheep Society. - One individual who has volunteered hundreds of hours advocating for hunter access. This includes working to keep landowners from closing access roads to national forest and BLM lands and advocating for sportsmen in travel management and forest plans. This is hardly the work of a glory hound, but rather is behind-the-scenes effort most sportsmen aren't even aware of. I suggest that rather than dismiss the applicants for having performed too much public service, both appointed and elected, that folks like .270 take the trouble to show up next Tuesday and get the basis for an informed opinion. Then share your impressions on this forum. You might find that while there could be one or two duds, there are probably at least three or four really good men competing for one position. -

I go against the tide of majority opinion on this one. Taking them camping and scouting to get them exposed is great, but I wouldn't be in a hurry to get real weapons in their hands. I had my son backpacking a few times when he was four. Skunks coming into camp and othe wildlife sightings were enough adventure for him at the time. I suggest starting a kid fishing as soon as he's able to reel one in. Fishing and target shooting should come before hunting. Introduce a BB or pellet gun when he's 8 or 9, explain and model the safety rules and see how his judgment and self-discipline develops. Kids make occasional safety mistakes and learn from those mistakes. I know I did. (I.e., shooting at a soft target that had a hard perpendicular surface behind it once gave me a sore lip and a wiser mind. Shooting at a squirrel in a tree and then realizing there's a house back there somewhere gave me something to worry about for a few seconds. Sore fingers from leaving the lever in the down position on my BB gun made me aware of what my gun was doing.) Better to make your mistakes with a BB or a pellet than a lead bullet. After he's acquired some proficiency and judgment, go to small game like cottontails with the pellet gun. There he gets to deal with death, including popping the heads off wounded animals and gutting and skinning. Gradually transition to the .22. Somewhere between 11 and 13 he can probably handle a shotgun and can shoot clay birds and game birds with bird shot. Quail and dove hunts are well-suited to that age. Shotguns are dangerous weapons, so I wouldn't rush things by getting a 20 gauge when he's 9 or 10. A 20 gauge makes it physically easier to shoot a shotgun, but it doesn't speed up mental development. I believe 14 or 15 is the appropriate age to start big game hunting. Most people won't agree with me, but that's my opinion based on experience and observations of youngsters. Young minds are often somewhere else, usually 2 or 3 jumps ahead of where you are. And yes, an 8-year-old can shoot a deer or elk, but I don't believe they experience the activity the same way they will later on An 8-year-old's world - and his mind - is nothing like ours. Youngsters were imbued with great imaginations for a reason. It's because they aren't yet ready to actually do everything adults do.

Important things to look for? There are different opinions. I'll give you mine. Knowledge about wildlife is listed in the statute as an eligibility requirement. Lots of ways to get that. And anyone can study up, get some coaching and sound like they know something. Some feel all G&F commissioners should be hunters. Others want to see active membership in conservation groups like RMEF, ADBSS, SCI and similar organizations. However, I've heard that years before I was paying much attention, governors were appointing people from business and political circles who had hunted very little if at all and had little knowledge about hunting, and that these people gradually learned to appreciate and respect hunters for our contributions. Eventually they became highly effective spokespeople for sportsmen and wildlife because of their connections and status in other circles. Or so I've been told. (Where's Bill Quimby when you need him? He was there and could probably corroborate or refute this.) A hunter who speaks out on behalf of hunters is perceived by the press, public and other public officials as speaking for his own interests. But a non-hunter speaking out for hunting doesn't have that baggage and might have more credibility. This could be a moot point this time around because most if not all the applicants I know of are hunters. But I don't think you want to base your vote on who is the most avid hunter. I've known some avid hunters I wouldn't want anywhere near the commission. I've also known some casual hunters I think might make excellent commissioners. Unless you're a rich guy who is happy to buy his way into exclusive hunting areas, look for someone who respects the idea of public lands hunting and hunting opportunities for all. Commissioners have to deal with inter-agency relations. Forest Service, BLM, US Fish & Wildlife and the state land dept., for example. Someone who understands what makes government agencies tick the way they do will be more effective than one who makes a show of telling govt. agencies what they should be doing. Commissioners also have to understand the impacts of proposed federal and state legislation and whether to support or oppose such legislation. Recent examples are bills creating federal wilderness designations, the American Wildlife Heritage Act that would give the forest service and BLM increased authority over wildlife, and a recent Grijalva-co-sponsored bill that would allow tens of thousands of feral horses and burros to spread over our public lands tearing the heck out of the place. Commissioners need to know which bills to support or oppose, and what is the best strategy for advancing or slaying them. Commissioners may also have to make decisions about the many lawsuits being filed against AGFD and other agencies these days. They get guidance from the attorneys assigned by the attorney general, but commissioners need to know how to push the buttons to make those attorneys perform. Sometimes state-furnished attorneys seem inclined to pursue low-risk, low-effort options when giving the department legal advice. (Just my opinion.) That might be in the best interests of the state's salaried attorneys, but not necessarily for wildlife or for sportsmen. Sometimes the commission needs to play a little offense. Obviously there's a lot of legal and political calculating required, but you also want someone who deeply cares about hunting and wildlife, and is willing to fight for it. Ideally I'd like a Justice John Roberts wearing a coonskin cap and itching to whip his weight in mountain lions. But something else is needed too. Hunting needs a Great Communicator, someone who fully grasps North American Conservation ideology and can take to the bully pulpit with it, inspiring others and persuading skeptics. If you haven't already seen Shane Mahoney's "third wave" speech to Dallas Safari Club on Youtube, you need to google it and watch. Arizona needs its own plain-speaking verion of Shane Mahoney on the commission being followed around by the press. Someone interesting enough to compete for media attention with Sheriff Joe. Today's outdoorsman is on the brink of extinction and barely realizes it. Public attitudes are shifting toward the belief that humans should simply leave wildlife alone. That goes for biologists as well as sportsmen. In his recent essay "The Myth of Eden" Shane Mahoney wrote "For many people who have not had our (hunters) experiences, the notion that man should withdraw from nature (or only passively engage it as a voyeur) will resonate as a sort of 'return to Eden' vision... Driven by an understandable love and fascination for wild creatures - but with life experiences that have no connection to the birth-and-death drama of the planet's natural systems - many in the public will simply wish that animals remain untouched." The American sportsmen's ideology and accomplishmdnts are superior to that of the restriction-loving preservationist. Now we need a messianic messenger who can jumpstart efforts to get our story to the rest of America.

Do believe what's been said about it being a nice buck. Probably fewer than 3% of all Coues hunters will take a better one this year. Whereas most of us do spot and stalk, you seem to be doing spot and shoot. That's what I was doing 25-30 years ago - glassing only out to 400 or 500 yards . That cuts down your odds considerably, especially since Coues bucks are pretty aware of their surroundings within about a 600-yard radius. Nowadays I'm usually glassing 500 to 1,000 yards out, which is outside their awareness zone as long you aren't running around in a white sweatshirt (which I've seen people do) or making a lot of racket. Often I have to walk a few steps to pick up my rifle when I find one I want to go after because at long distances it doesn't matter. Not keeping your rifle handy isn't a good idea, but that's what I often find myself doing because I start moving around glassing from different places and don't take my rifle with me. And yes, I've missed a couple of opportunities because I wasn't ready to shoot when a big one suddenly showed up within range. Now that your appetite for Coues has really been whetted, consider getting some higher power binoculars. You can find deer in the sunlight at 1,000 yards with those, but it will be hard to see antlers, especially in the shade. I often have trouble seeing antlers in the shade at 1,000 yards with 15X. Optics quality, size of the objective lens and the age of the hunter have a lot to do with seeing bucks in the shade, which is where they'll usually be after it warms up. I once read that if a 60-year-old wants to see something as well as he saw it when he was 16, he'll need three times as much light. Patience and persistence is indeed the key. It's great that you've mastered that part. That's earning it.

Where I hunt there's usually big rocks around. Have long backpack that I lay on the rocks and shoot off that. Sometimes I put a wadded up jacket under the stock.

All I can say about SW New Mexico is this. Evidently the Peloncillos is a highly valued drug transport route that smugglers have to pay big bucks for permission to use. The area is thinly populated and smugglers have a high probability of getting through. However, I have a contact in BP admin who tells me the BP recently put several dozen agents in tents in the Peloncillos with the idea that they would shut off most of the drug traffic there. For all I know that might still have agents camping there. If it were me, I'd make a personal visit to a BP office and tell them what I planned to do and where I would be. I probably wouldn't ask too many questions about where the BP is.

I don't think Hoppes #9 is effective for copper. My use of Hoppes #9 is restricted to shotguns and quick cleaning on the range. I also use Shooter's Choice for cleaning on the range after 15 or 20 rounds, and for handguns. For giving a gun a good thorough cleaning, I use either Barnes CR-10 or Sweets. Both work on copper. Hoppes also makes a copper solvent just for copper. I'd guess using Hoppes #9 and their copper solvent afterward would probably work just fine.

I have a phobia about taking cameras in boats. I once ruined a cell phone because I forgot I'd put it in a bottom pocket. Not taking a camera in the boat doesn't work so well if you release your catch.

Thought this was interesting. http://regulus2.azstarnet.com/blogs/desert...lion-free-zones

We need to get busy educating conservative commentators about hunting. Some of them are turning against us. Besides Rush Limbaugh, there's also ESPN columnist Rick Reilly, Executive Editor of The Weekly Standard Fred Barnes, Republican speechwriter Mathew Scully and Bill O'Reilly. There's quite a bit of information about this in a column entitled "The Animal Right" by Thomas McIntire in the October issue of Sports Afield. When someone defended Robert Vick's dogfighting bust by saying it's no different from deer hunting, the New York City-born O'Reilly had Rob Sexton (U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance) on his show to refute that remark. Sexton came unprepared to deal with the question at any depth and O'Reilly seemed to take the lack of any credible defense from someone who ought to know as confirmation that the comparison is valid. Not that it matters any more, but Paul Harvey was also an animal sentimentalist who harbored a dislike for hunters. We need to get our story out, especially to influential people who just might believe us if given the facts, but somehow we just can't seem to get it done.

Personally, I'm all for G&F keeping expenses down. On the other hand, they could have gone to just a wee bit more effort to avoid confusing and alarming the citizenry. Next time how about a bag or two of lime and a shallow grave?

These "farming" operations worry me. How long before somebody starts breeding Texas or even Kansas whitetails to Coues deer? The first generation might not fool anybody, but the offspring bred back to another Coues just might work. I also worry that here in southern Arizona certain ranches that cater to guided hunts could decide to buy some south Texas whitetails and turn them loose for clients from back East who wouldn't know the difference. Then they'd get into the wild breeding population and eventually we'd lose the separate classification status of the Coues. I'm hoping there's an adequate DNA bank to help discourage this, but I don't know if that's possible.

I agree with Coues79. When I'm hunting or fishing, I like to simplify the cooking chores so as to maximize campfire and sack time. Meals that require elaborate preparation, such as smoked pork shoulder cooked slow for several hours over a water pan, or whole chickens or pork roasts grilled and spiced with cilantro, tarragon and Old Bay Seasoning, are strictly backyard and patio fare. Quick and simple is the rule in a hunting camp. Unless it's a backpack hunt, my ice chest always includes frozen ribeye steaks for one night, and a can of ranch style beans that I open and heat right on the coals. Saves dirtying a pan. A can of chili can be heated the same way, and hot dogs are easy to cook over a fire, so chili dogs are usually on the menu for one night. I use grilling baskets. They're good for grilling just about anything, even hot dogs. Frozen chicken quarters, pork chops or ribs with barbecue sauce in ziplock bags is another main dish favorite. You can make garlic mashed potatos just by adding boiling water, or there are bags of cooked and flavored rice that can be heated in a pan or skillet. I also like eggs, bacon or sausage and potatoes that have been pre-cooked in a microwave. That makes a good last-day brunch on a hunting trip, or on just about any day of a trout-fishing trip. (With bass, we don't bother coming back to camp for breakfast.) During the day it's salami, cheese, Wheat Thins, apples, oranges, granola or Nutri-Grain bars, and jerky.

The antelope program in 36B has been a dismal failure up to now. Don't hold your breath waiting for tags. In the late 80s they did two transplants, one for 85 animals and another for 87. Today they probably don't have more than 30. Part of the problem is questionable suitability of the habitat. The Buenos Aires Wildlife Refuge is supposed to be the core pronghorn habitat, but it suffers from increased woody plants, non-native grasses and the somewhat small acreage involved (some believe 100,000 acres is needed to sustain large antelope herds long term). There are probably as many antelope off the refuge and on nearby ranch lands as there are on the refuge. If anyone is interested in joining me to help get the BANWR antelope program back on track, PM me and I'll give you more information.

CW guys, Just talked to her, she's staying at her dad's cabin and he's with her and has his car, so her situation isn't extremely desperate. A couple other guys had called her before I did and gave her mechanics' referrals, so I think she'll get it taken care of tomorrow. Worst part is the Jeep stalls at times, which could be a problem if it stalls on a narrow curve on Mt. Lemmon where there's no good place to pull off.

I'll see you there, but I won't know who you are unless you wear a name tag that says Scottboy. And I don't recall any sportsmen's banquets where they hand out name tags.

From today's Arizona Daily Star: Killing lions to save sheep faulted By Tony Davis Arizona Daily Star Tucson, Arizona | Published: 06.22.2009 The Kofa National Wildlife refuge, 665,000 acres of rugged mountains and desert plains in Western Arizona, made a national environmental group's top 10 list of imperiled wildlife refuges for this year. Charging that the Kofa is being run as a game farm, the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility said in its new report that the refuge is managed to help desert bighorn sheep at the expense of other species, particularly mountain lions. But since so many other refuges on PEER's list are troubled by climate change, urban sprawl and other outside influences, the Kofa "seems oddly out of place" on this list, said Mitch Ellis, project leader for a complex of Southwestern Arizona wildlife refuges, including the Kofa. "At the Kofa it's a little bit more complex" than other refuges on this list, Ellis said on Friday. "It's a bit of scientific controversy on the best way to manage the refuge." The environmental group singled out two particular actions: • The capturing and killing of two mountain lions living on the refuge by the Arizona Game and Fish Department out of concern that the lions were contributing to a serious decline in sheep populations there. Public concerns about those killings — which occurred off the refuge — led to a one-year moratorium on lion shootings in that area. It recently was extended until the end of July. The Wildlife Service's draft plan calls for killing mountain lions known to be eating sheep if sheep populations fall below or stay below certain levels. This plan is under review by service officials in Washington, D.C. A draft environmental analysis of the plan is due for release by the end of July. • The construction of two concrete watering troughs, 2 feet wide by 4 feet long by 4 feet deep, for bighorn sheep and other wildlife within federally proclaimed wilderness areas on the refuge back in 2007. The Arizona Wilderness Coalition has filed suit on the grounds that these projects violated the Wilderness Act and the National Environmental Policy Act by putting man-made structures in a protected area. A federal district court upheld the service's action. Environmentalists have appealed that ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. "The Kofa is being run as a bighorn game farm, with state and federal agencies doing everything they can to 'grow' more sheep," said Daniel Patterrson, PEER's Southwest director. "We will be working to make the moratorium on cougar eradication permanent." The refuge is trying to conserve sheep — the driving force behind the refuge's formation in 1939 — but not at other species' expense, Ellis said. "We do anticipate there will be some differences of opinion on how we manage sheep and lions on the Kofa," Ellis said. "There's a balance we have to make between a hands-off wilderness stewardship approach versus wildlife management. It gets very sticky." Contact reporter Tony Davis at 806-7746 or tdavis@azstarnet Link to the article and readers comments http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/298025 Link to AGFD website that provides the other side of the story, which is quite different from what you're hearing from the mainstream press. http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/bhsheep/index.shtml __________________ LJA

Dogman68, I think the issue about lions in the Kofa is this: The Kofa sheep herd is declining for one or more reasons, and regardless of what other problems they may be having, they don't need to be suffering from lion predation too. I believe AGFD and USFWS are working to find out if there are any other problems such as disease. In the meantime, they need to be controlling the one thing they can control to some extent: predation. My reason for posting the story is to illustrate the difficulty of managing wildlife in the current social and political environment. Stories like these don't bother to tell you that the Kofa Wildlife Refuge was established mainly for the purpose of preserving sheep habitat. It was not established to protect lion habitat. Speaking of lions, you ask where the lions would be coming from. One of the basic facts about mountain lions is that their young usually need to leave the area where they were born and find new territory. Mothers run them off when they're ready to breed again, and older males don't tolerate younger lions, especially younger males. Young lions wander until they either find some territory to claim or get killed by an older lion. No doubt lions have wandered into the Kofas and stayed there. The interesting thing about mountain lions right now is that concurrent with all the hysteria about protecting them, lions are actually expanding their range while the desert bighorn is struggling to maintain viable populations within a limited portion of its historic range. It doesn't take many lions to make a dent in a sheep population that is already spiraling downward. The best approach would be to get all the lions out of there, continue investigating for other possible causes of population decline, establish a few food plots in particularly dry years (that's right, farming for sheep, there's nothing wrong with that when the population is dropping toward dangerous levels) and let them recover to 1,000 sheep. Under the arrangement USFWS has now, I believe they can only take lions that are known to have taken more than one sheep in a specified period of time. This is ridiculous, but it's done to appease the animal protection lobby, which doesn't know the first thing about wildlife.

I keep reading that these trail cams have slow triggers, meaning that often the animal is out of the camera's field of view before it goes off, so you get pictures of nothing or maybe a tail. How are the CovertII and Moultrie I40 or D40 for that?

Wonder how much their tag for a no-kill hunt will bring at auction. My guess is quite a bit the first year because it's a novelty. But Sierra Club probably plans to advertise their good deed to help with fundraising for their own organization.