1uofacat

The rut, by most accounts, does not depend on the phase of the moon, the temperature, or the weather for that matter. While I'm not a biologist (although almost made that choice some 40 years ago), I've learned rut occurs when cows come into estrus and the bulls bugle to warn other bulls to stay away. It's been postulated that cows come into heat based on the "length of day" more than other factors. That said, the rut depends on the cows, not the bulls. The bulls may be bugling to locate other bulls and advertise themselves to cows that may or may not come into heat regardless, but the intensity of the rut depends on cows... imo... When other factors like hunting pressure or rain come into the mix, it can certainly change things and put a damper on activity, but that has no bearing on when cows come into estrus. Note that cows are only "in heat" for 12-24 hours I believe, so that's something to keep in mind. When a bull has a "hot cow" in his harem on one day, it's likely that the next day it's over for her. That doesn't mean bulls won't be talking to each other to keep tabs on whereabouts, but the herd bull's "tolerance" to other bulls change with his cow's state. I also am a subscriber to the idea that a cow in estrus will be bread by more than one bull during her cycle. Also, she may have more than one cycle/year if she doesn't become pregnant the first "go-round". That explains why satellite bulls hang around a herd bull's cows... in the hopes that they too may get a chance to breed with the bull's cows when they come into heat. This would explain why a rut appears to be GREAT some years when we're in on herds over a period of time when several cows come into their cycle over a few different days or week or two. The bulls will be going crazy because it's "prolonged" especially if several different cows are going in and out of heat. For that same reason, if more cows than not DO NOT go into estrus that year, for whatever reason, or perhaps we're not within earshot of those herds during the time their cows are in heat, then the bugling activity appears to be less because we simply missed it. That would be sad for a bull if all his cows came into heat at the same time... it'd be great for a day, than nothing for 3 or 4 weeks! hahaha (as I recall, cows can have a cycle every 3 or 4 weeks if not pregnant). My 2 cents...

I was in 8 this past weekend and some of the roads that are typically impassible are "finally" that way again (wasn't the case 2 weeks ago). It only takes a week or two of dry weather for them all to open up again, so access shouldn't be a concern soon. We also had hail/rain Saturday too.

Awesome! hunt there... a lot! BTW, I know of one buck that was standing guard over his herd of does this past weekend when another smaller buck came near.

well, I did say I thought it was funny, the other part was due to me not having a lot of experience with you. Not that it matters, but it's all good...

Either you're a first class smart***, or there is something wrong with you. Obviously, (almost) nobody is going to give a second thought to what other's think during their antelope hunt, so I personally found that comment pretty funny. If it's the second... well, that's possible too as you seem to come across as fairly crass at times... but I don't really know you. If that's the case I don't really care either... 6-1/2 days!

AZ Eco Development LLC

Is it just me or is this new forum layout as annoying to others as it is to myself? Awesome site, great discussions & feedback, etc., and all the rest..., but this new BLAZING WHITE LAYOUT is ANNOYING AS ALL-GET-OUT! Please Please Please go back to what you had... it was "soothing/comforting to the eyes to read, but now we need sunglasses just to log on and read the forums! I'm sure it will also use more battery power on cells with all the white background. It was a great thing, but IMHO, this is not a good move. While CWT can certainly do whatever they want, I dare say that if a vote was taken on this CWT would be surprised on just how much appreciated the old layout was compared to this. Good try, not-so-good result... imho.

The theme choice was not present when I wrote this! It's significantly better now.

Signs are being posted on one owner's "property" as of yesterday stating no hunting etc. on land that a week ago had no signage. I also found out that this particular owner is only allowing 2 people to hunt an entire season on 26 square miles of land that they effectively control... Has anyone EVER had 13 square miles to hunt knowing you have it all to yourself? Are you freaking kidding me??? While I'm "thankful" that they are allowing some access, that decision to limit it to only two for an entire season just seems CRAZY to me. BTW, there is no charge for this access either... I can only hope that those two individuals hunt on that land (& for the most part only) instead of making it harder for the rest of us on limited state land etc. I get that they have the right to hunt on state land too, but in this particular situation, in this particular unit, when someone "wins a lottery" please have the decency to understand where the rest are coming from (regarding hunting pressure in a very limited area). my two cents...

good! 8 was still "wanting" and it looks like the "drier" areas are getting rain now.

I personally prefer another 150 gr total weight (minimum), tapered shafts, and single bevel broadheads. Also, tanto tips prove to be better on solid bone hits as the points can fold back. You'll have more momentum than most others however that shoot lighweight arrows though. David mentioned an 80 yd shot which seems a bit extreme, but we don't know the circumstances, and I'm not going to get into that discussion as each of us have to make those decisions for ourselves. Also, we all know ribs are one thing, but a scapula is different. 5 weeks and a day!

Took a short drive last night off the 700 road in 6A and found 3 bulls at dusk in a meadow40 yds from the road. I couldn't get pics as it was too dark (brown shadows only), but there were 3 bulls, 2 of which are 6xs &^ still growing, one was a 7x that was taller, wider, more mass, and longer than the other two. He had a larger body/frame too. All were B&C class bulls, but the 7x was especially nice! There is no shortage of water in that area!

OK, I was mostly10-15 miles NE of that tank & up on the rim. 1-1/2 weeks ago we did get on the Perkinsville Rd, and it was raining there then, but not a lot. Everything was basically wet, but tanks were by no means full. That was near the Whitehorse Lk/Perkinsville rd/jctn.

Fling, We are going to have to “agree to disagree” as you seem to want to force your personal opinions, based apparently on what you’ve seen or read, onto my personal observations. I'm not surprised to learn you work for a state agency and you appear come across as though your opinions, or those of perhaps the AZGFD, or other state or federal agencies, are the only ones that matter. For the record, those outside some of these agencies are not as “ignorant” as you imply or that we don’t look at the “whole picture”. Simply because we don’t agree with your opinions does not mean our comments are based on misinformation, or that we’re simply ignorant. I grew up in Tucson learning from the late great John Doyle and the Levy brothers, who taught us to love to hunt and fish, appreciate wildlife, and the privilege we have to do so. They also taught us to “pay attention” to everything that affects what we love to do (& not only outdoors, but as it relates life in general). One of my career options was to become a biologist/WM for the AZGFD, however those who I personally knew and hunted with (in Tucson) helped me decide that a career with the AZGFD was not in my best interest as for many WMs the outdoors became their job and stopped being their “love”. Regarding coues habitat, I grew up hunting those beautiful little deer in southern Arizona including the Santa Ritas, Whetstones, Ceinega Creek, a small area near “The Narrows”, Huachucas, San Cayetanos, Baboquivaris, Rincons, Catalinas, Sierritas, Patagonias, Canelo Hills (to name some of them), and more recently hunting whitetails in Coconino and Kaibab counties in Northern AZ. I've either passed up on or taken deer from all of them dating back to the early 70s. Congratulations on your recent successes on some coues, they are great fun to hunt! For the record, I don't believe livestock affects coues habitat much, nor did I ever mention coues habitat because of where coues live in comparison to elk. My opinion is that their habitat is just too rough for significant cattle ranching operations in many of those areas. I cannot imagine having to manage fence lines, much less round up cattle in some of that country. In "coues country", cattle may be at times a nuisance, but never more than that as far as I’m concerned. BTW, the data you referenced on cactus and mice is great, but has nothing to do with what I was referring to. Besides, deer are browsers whereas cattle are grazers. Deer and cattle feed on different plants for the most part. While deer can eat grasses, their stomachs cannot digest the vast amounts of grasses that cattle can. Deer actually prefer forbs to the most indigestible and fibrous of plants, which are the grasses that elk and cattle digest regularly. I believe it has to do with how their stomachs work, but I’m not a biologist, I’m only an engineer (that sometimes pays attention). My experience hunting elk started in the late 70s and I’m still learning today. As stated earlier, I have seen the effects from what (clearly) appeared to be overgrazing many times in my life, in both Arizona and New Mexico, and for the record those areas were primarily elk habitat (central/northern AZ and in northern NM). I have not personally seen overgrazing issues during my Colorado hunts, however I’m not surprised by that given the different habitat as well as many other factors. Yes, I’ve seen cattle “overgraze” areas in southern AZ as well, but knowing they aren’t competing for the same feed as deer I largely ignored them. I at times “felt sorry” for the cattle given their apparent plight. I'm glad to read what you stated, assuming it's accurate, regarding the ASLD and how they are currently viewing this issue overall. What I’ve seen over the decades has led me to believe that it wasn't always the case. That’s fine too, if we learn from our mistakes and move forward. Regarding cattle and elk however, when cattle move into an area, elk largely move elsewhere or seem to avoid that area all together. Can cattle therefore “ruin” a hunt? That depends on the size of the “pasture” they’ve been moved into. I’m referring to the effort that has gone into a particular area such as scouting, setting up blinds or treestands on trails and/or water be that natural or not, numerous trips etc., only to find that cattle have been moved into that same area making all of that effort/time/money spent wasted. Can we hunt elsewhere? Sure, we have to go elsewhere as the cattle can essentially take over an area. Just because we can hunt elsewhere does not mean that cattle moved into "favorite hunting locations" haven't ruined someone’s hard work and/or even adversely affect their overall hunt. For that, we can disagree. If by chance, the “cattle gods” approve & move significant numbers of cattle, right before your hunt, into the same areas you’ve spent substantial time and effort on scouting, setting up blinds or treestands, where you’ve seen a high concentration of elk for weeks or even months (and sometimes years), you may feel otherwise regarding cattle “ruining” a hunt, indirectly or otherwise.

I was in the southeast part of 8 yesterday. There has been some moisture there over the past few days, and some of the roads had standing water in them from the Friday/Saturday storms that passed through the area. Overall though some parts in the south half have still had very little rain compared to the north half. As an example, a road that is typically almost impassible at this point (due to monsoons) was basically dry. I did watch a small rain cell move right through the SE area yesterday evening online though. The good news is most of the south area is getting some rain and there is a lot of green out there unlike a month and a half ago. The tank I spoke of earlier in 8 now has a few feet of water in it too, but that's in the NE part of 8. The best news I had yesterday was seeing a pic of a bull in one of the dry areas that has what looks like 16" 3s, very massive, and still growing. His T5s were also very long (12"+) and still growing. It wasn't my camera so I don't have the pic, but was shown the pic by the camera owner. Still could use a lot more rain though... Friday was the last time I was in 8. At that time, it was still dry and Bear Tank, for example, was just cracked dry mud. I was home around noon. Later that day, the dopler radar showed some heavy rain in the area. I was in 8 two days a week for months, but as we approach prime time, I am backing off. For that reason, I wont go up this week. Thanks for the update. Did you get to look at Bear tank when you were up there? That's my primary indicator for the area. not exactly sure where bear tank is...

Fling, I was referring to NM where primary lease holders can (evidently) prevent access and/or camping for those who hunt. Ignore the "State BLM" reference, it was used incorrectly. Yes, there is a difference between State Trust Land and BLM land... sorry if my comment on that was confusing, most probably knew what I was getting at. As far as the financial data I was using, it was from simple/quick searches that yielded those numbers... i.e. $6/mo charge for a cow/calf MU (month unit) in New Mexico from a cpl years ago (an increase in 2016 as I recall). I also read where beef prices have fallen in recent years as well, but had nothing to compare what others said cattle was worth given "recent" price drops. Your data is likely much more accurate. That said, grazing fees would then account for 20% of the animal's "worth" as opposed to 10% in a two year period. Regarding over-grazing... it is a problem, in MY opinion, in some areas... not always, but it happens more often than not as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps not to the point of permanent/long-term damage (soil and/or erosion), but it certainly affects wild animals naturally living in the area. That said, I have a hard time believing that those who issue grazing permits actually get away from their desks to see if over-grazing is a problem as I've seen it a lot in the 40+ years I've hunted deer and elk in Arizona. Back in my early days it was a widespread problem regardless of the garbage we would hear about additional benefits from grazing rights... The damage never seemed to equate to the "stated" benefits. ...and for the record, that's not "misinformation", that's looking at one side of a fence that has significantly more vegetation (grasses and forbes) than the other side where the cattle were. I have no idea why you thought I couldn't or wasn't seeing it for myself. This was about seeing it happen for decades and hoping every year that cattle aren't moved into specific areas every season when I'm fortunate enough to have a tag. For some, this is their livelihood, and I get that. I don't personally like it really, but I get it. As far as I'm concerned, the worse thing that can happen to a favorite hunting location is to have a large herd of cattle moved into it before or during a hunting season. They eat everything in sight and crap everywhere, including in tanks or on mineral licks, because that's what they do. When that happens, one often has to move/hunt somewhere else, because cattle can and typically do "ruin" an area for any given season as they're left there for a several months... until it approaches "overgrazing", but hopefully not too long as it would then start cutting into profits... and I get that too. & yes, I like eating beef, just wish they weren't allowed to graze where I hunt. It's a business for both the rancher as well as the state where the almighty $ takes precedence over wildlife every time. Do you deny that? I don't want to hijack this thread to get into an overgrazing argument, but it's not surprising that people on either side of the fence feel opposite about livestock and grazing rights. Keep in mind that there are many studies that show that elk and heavy cattle use are not compatible, period. As far as your last comment and not wanting camping where "my" cattle were, if I had some; I'd probably not have any issues hunters being nearby because I know that "true hunters" do not leave trash everywhere, nor do they harass wildlife or livestock. They respect the entire outdoor experience, and what's more they'll report any violations they see to authorities! Just like I am comforted by others that have CCW permit and carry in public places, I too would welcome "hunters" if I owned cattle. The people you speak of are not true "hunters" IMHO, they are vandals and lawbreakers so please don't lump them in with us. It's unfortunate that those types of people are associated with hunters, but just because they can and do hunt, I do not refer to them as hunters, I refer to them as SCUM that spends time outdoors that shoot at things, sometimes legally, but often not.

OK, back up a moment. Are you referring to NM or AZ? Is it the same for both states? I'm assuming you are referring to NM given the oil/gas lease comment and whiile living in NM gas and oil leases were "everywhere" in northern NM. I also am aware that in AZ anyone can purchase a SLD access permit, which was not very much as I recall (like $15/year?). While some do purchase a permit, I've personally never heard of anyone buying a SLD access permit in AZ. Regardless, what I was responding to was that I disagreed with a rancher, who pays as little as 10-15% of his profits/animal, having the right to tell those who hunt whether or not we have his permission to camp on state land, which he is using for profit. I'm was not talking about where the state makes their money from, although what you said was not surprising. In Arizona, hunters do not have to ask a rancher his permission if we were to camp on state BLM land. To me, that's ludicrous. I'm not a proponent of transferring fed land to state as I saw it too often in AZ growing up where the BLM would purchase/trade prime hunting habitat for checkerboard and basically useless tracks of land elsewhere and then pat themselves on the back for doing it! Who knows what other "deals" were going on when some of those discussions were taking place. As far as the policy comment, well, yes I agree that elections DO matter, a lot. I've never thought about who would enforce a policy given it's not law, which I recall was a discussion when the whole SLO starting to charge for access came up in AZ many years ago. I do recall that the AZGFD stated immediately that those who carry a valid hunting and/or fishing license have access to all AZ State BLM land.

I was in the southeast part of 8 yesterday. There has been some moisture there over the past few days, and some of the roads had standing water in them from the Friday/Saturday storms that passed through the area. Overall though some parts in the south half have still had very little rain compared to the north half. As an example, a road that is typically almost impassible at this point (due to monsoons) was basically dry. I did watch a small rain cell move right through the SE area yesterday evening online though. The good news is most of the south area is getting some rain and there is a lot of green out there unlike a month and a half ago. The tank I spoke of earlier in 8 now has a few feet of water in it too, but that's in the NE part of 8. The best news I had yesterday was seeing a pic of a bull in one of the dry areas that has what looks like 16" 3s, very massive, and still growing. His T5s were also very long (12"+) and still growing. It wasn't my camera so I don't have the pic, but was shown the pic by the camera owner. Still could use a lot more rain though...

Well, among others, I too one disagree with you. The law they proposed wasn't based on any facts, study, or trying to learn from other states that made the same mistake (namely Montana). It was clear to me that this proposed law was more like a "Knee-jerk" reaction to isolated cases. I'm glad the commission saw through this. Should there be changes? I think so... but an all-out ban to 1/4 mile from any developed water source? To me, that's as ridiculous as what adicted said he did in this thread!

While true remember that if you choose to camp on State Land you have to have permission from the lands lesee (usually this would be the rancher leasing the land for his cattle). Am I alone here feeling about how that sounds? That seems so wrong to me... a rancher pays a fee to the state to let his cattle graze on "my grass" so he can sell me his cattle/beef (indirectly), and I have to ask him permission? That's total BS! I'm glad I moved out of NM years ago and back to AZ. But it's not the public's grass, it is the state's grass. State trust land is not public land. Who owns the grass is not the point. The state is the agency/body that manages the resources be those animals, other recreation opportunities, range grass, what have you. In Arizona since I have a hunting license I have rights to access all Arizona BLM land, by law, as I too "pay a fee" to "use the land who's 'resources' are managed by the State. Why should any hunter have to ask a rancher permission to camp on state land? What if a rancher says no? Ranchers are in it for their own profit. Ranchers don't manage the land, they just use it and often times abuse it. In NM, it costs about $6/mo for a cow/calf pair to graze on state land. If it takes 2 years for a calf to grow to "mature/market" status, for about $200 in grazing costs (2-3/4 years fee) you can have a cow get pregnant, have a calf, let it mature, then sell it after it's 2 years old. Aren't full-grown cattle work $1500 - $2,000? You do the math... of course there's other costs, but bottom line is not about the work or profit to ranchers or the state, but this is about our access/land use rights. How often do we see over-grazed lands in our pursuits in the field? While every rancher is different and some actually do care, my opinion is that most don't care about overgrazing other than how overgrazing affects profits. While I agree to a point that state trust land is not simply "public land", I disagree with you if you are suggesting that a hunting license does not provide additional rights to use for the lawful pursuit/use, or that a rancher has more rights than I do in this case. Besides, where does the agency that manages state land get their $s from? I'm guessing that mostly their $s come from residents and taxes. As a resident of any state we inherently pay taxes. For those of us who who hunt we pay more than those who do not and probably why AZ agreed that having a valid hunting license affords hunting license holders access to AZ BLM land. IMHO, giving ranchers (businessmen) the right to deny a hunter a camping location is wrong, period! Besides, we don't typically want to camp where there's a lot of cattle around, or have them walk by/through our camp crapping all over. I really don't see any point to that law/requirement as it only gives a rancher the right to deny a lawful hunter his rights. I've often moved camp or camped elsewhere because of the cattle in an area. To me, that's a totally BS law that should be removed. Just because that is a law doesn't mean it's a good law either. my 3 cents worth...

pretty good rain and thunderstorm rolling through 6A right now... too bad it isn't in the southern part of 8!

While true remember that if you choose to camp on State Land you have to have permission from the land’s lesee (usually this would be the rancher leasing the land for his cattle). Am I alone here feeling about how that sounds? That seems so wrong to me... a rancher pays a fee to the state to let his cattle graze on "my grass" so he can sell me his cattle/beef (indirectly), and I have to ask him permission? That's total BS! I'm glad I moved out of NM years ago and back to AZ.

Well said. I'm a firm believer in "getting what you pay for." Having said that however, the "good enough" comment was key here for me when I picked up the Badlands. Let me clarify why I like the 2200 and don't need something like a Kifaru. The Badlands 2200 pack, when I picked it up 10 years ago, was about half-off the regular price, and given I only needed a "day pack", it was what I needed at the time. After using if for a cpl years, I realized it was worth full-price as I really like the features, size, and material the old 2200s had on them (quiet when brushing up against something). For carrying a lot of weight I have different choices however. For starters, I have an "old" Gerry internal frame pack, purchased almost 40 years ago, which is still very comfortable, & zippers still work good too! Note I've carried an extreme amount of weight in the Gerry over the years with as much "adjustability and comfort" that one could reasonably expect (carrying in excess of 150# at one time on one hunt). I also use an external packframe (welded Kelty) for packing out as it's easy to strap things on (I installed a "shelf" on it) yet still relatively comfortable. Note I started doing this in the late 70s, and Kelty/Gerry were the best to meet hunting/backpacking needs IMO at the time. North Face back then was primarily backpacking and not as easily adaptable to hunting needs. Whatever you do, rest assured that you're going to get what you pay for. With the three packs that I have, I don't need a single do-all pack however. Funny, now that I think about it, I've spent more $s on my 3 backpacks combined as I'd spend nowadays on one Kifaru or Stone Glacier backpack! So, in the end... either buy a few packs to meet different uses/needs, one great pack to meet all your needs, or hunt with others that have great backpacks and let them carry all the weight when you kill something! You may have to listen to them brag, but that'd probably be worth it! haha

Clearly, to each his own, whether you carry a full backpack or just a knife in your pocket, but I carry a mid-sized hunting backpack anticipating needing/wanting everything in it, or not wanting to be out in the woods w/out it. Like Recurve"dude" I too have a badlands 2200, however mine is the original/old style (unlike those we see for sale today). I really like it for day hunts, but I typically carry enough to stay out the entire day if my morning's "escapades" have taken me far enough away from the truck that it makes sense to stay put for the evening hunt. That said, I also carry just enough to stay the night if an emergency/tracking etc. takes me there, which it has several times... and having the right stuff to bivy a night in the forest is cool! & it doesn't have to weigh that much either. So, here's my list: tag/license/driver license in it's own "orange" separate pouch as I do not carry a wallet phone (on "airplane mode") compass GPS Garmin Inreach (I finally picked one up because I'm usually not in cell service range where I hunt) "blood-trailing" flashlight and small headlamp, perhaps extra batteries matches/lighter knife and small steel plastic gloves TP (don't leave your truck without it!) first aid "stuff" water (2L CamelBak, plus a small water bottle). I also "hydrate" before I leave the truck, especially in the morning. For an evening hunt I may not refill the CamelBak and often pull the water bottle out. a lunch (i.e. bagel/ham sandwich perhaps, fruit, granola bar-type stuff, chips or something salty, and an "evening snack" that typically stays there for days) small 5x5 "tarp" and/or lightweight rain jacket, but only if weather is predicted some rope, perhaps 10-20' one large deer-sized game bag to help w/hanging quarters (weighs basically nothing, but is a huge help,,,,,, 2 large (hefty 6mil) trash bags (can be used for many things) flagging tape This may look like a lot, but it's actually lighter than my bow & arrows when you remove the water and food "stuff", which is depleted as the day wears on. The 2200 leaves a lot of room for clothes I shed as it gets warmer outside, plus you can carry out backstraps etc. with all of the rest when you're out for the day. I didn't include my calls, small binocks, rangefinder, or bow etc., but that goes w/out saying and I carry that on me outside of my pack. Few other minor things too... Back in my "kill bag", next to my external frame pack, I keep more rope, a small come-along and heavy duty game bags (cotton/canvas style), another knife, bone saw, and a cpl cheesecloth-type game bags (used/washed from previous years). The champagne is on ice along with bacon for the elk steaks back in the trailer! This is what works for myself, but to each his own.

Now see, I read it entirely differently... Since he was "deprived" of a traditional tag in the draw, it naturally become his "deprivation" tag! (& yes I'm bored...)