MT_Sourdough

To expand on my point. The Humane society is the threat from the left and the one the commision recognizes. What's an equal and even greater threat is the many schemes on the right to confiscate and sale off our public lands. The humane society issue has been pushed back, but the Republicans effort to take out public lands has not been thwarted and is a greater threat to future hunting right now. So while the effen commision says look over here, do realize, it's deception.

Once again, the political bias of the commision prevents me from supporting their efforts. I am an independendant ans=d I have a great disdain for today's extreme political bias sucking the air and life out of everything I care about. The rich guys first, trickle down economics mindset that was at the root of so much of his rhetorical sales pitch and that makes me angry. Since I have been in Arizona, I have seen the Commision outright lie and be otherwise deceptive to the very people they serve. I can't trust them, Period.

Protesteth too much? That's funny. Maybe. I don't think it makes me a bad guy when I feel like Christmas morning everytime I pull cards. I do not think it gives me any advantage, but I hear some of your points and think if a guy ran that many cams, then it could be very helpful and completely ridiculous. Anyways, I will comply and keep my cams away from the water sources. I will tell you the biggest advantage I have over other hunters, if any at all, is the fact I live in Chino Valley. HA, ha!

I think youth and physical fitness are unfair advantages.

So, I have a question. Do turkeys tear into rotten logs in search of grubs. I am seeing plenty of rotten wood being ripped open. I have been assuming that this was bear sign, but I am not seeing any other bear sign with it. Could this be evidence of turkeys going after grubs?

Here I go again. We are mixing things up. Fair chase is one issue. OK, I never bought a cellular or remotely accessed camera, because that is a true violation in the notion of fair chase. So I actually agree with this part of the law. I do not believe that cams on tanks or within a quarter mile of a water source has given me any advantage at all. I can clear an area of soft dirt when I leave my cam in an area. When I come back to the cam, I look at the tracks in the dirt and know exactly what's on the cam before I pull the card. Maybe, in some situations, a cam might be used to pattern an animal, but in my circumstances, the only animals I have yet to pattern are foxes. If you are close to their den, you can set your clock by the fox just after nightfall. All the other critters are so random, that there is no way I can predict when any particular animal is going to revisit an area. Not any day, any week or even any month. I have yet to see a tank with more than one or two cams. I am not saying that the issue doesn't exist, but that issue seems to be specific to certain areas. Could they not address the issue where the problem exists as opposed to some broad reaching law imposed on everybody. I think this commissioner has his opinions and is like all political people, hoping the people get lost in the muddy waters of his rhetorical B.S. Anyways, all my cams are now in compliance.

Sounds to me like the voices of "hunters against hunters" are the voices that are winning the day. ATVs are the biggest violators endangering hunter access and rights, but offer incarceration for taking pictures. Hmmmm?

Lefties want our guns. Right wingers want our public lands. Hunters defend themselves by forming a circular firing line. BRILLIANT!!!

I don't read as much about "getting around the rules" as much as I am hearing people trying to make this rule something that it isn't. It is not a ban on trail cams. It's not even a ban on using cams for hunting. It is a ban on two very specific things. First, there is now a ban on cameras that relay any real time data. meaning "live". The other is a ban on using cams within 1/4 mile of developed water source for the use of taking game. What it sounds like to me, there are people who don't like the use of trail cams, that want to act stupid and interpret this rule to falsely give permission to mess with somebody else's property. Using, that twisted logic, I should carry a pound of sugar with me to put in gas tanks of ATV's that I find in a place they are not allowed.

not me

Don't think we can't read between the lines.

I acknowledge that I have one camera set-up I will need to pull cams. I have a set-up that has salt lick and blind in addition to the cams. I have done a lot of work on the set-up and it has paid off as it has daily activity with elk and deer. In that scenario, it is an open and shut case. The trail cam plus salt and blind leaves no room for imagination about the intended purpose. (meaning: intended for taking of game) So, what I will do is pull the cams from that area. The cam site is 330 yards from the nearest tank. I'll take those cams and locate them on trails outside the 1/4 mile radius. All my other cams are already compliant. In the end, I'll still run six to a dozen cams at a time, but it's going to be more work.

Why does this always happen? I just bought a rifle. When I finish paying FFL fees, the cost of that rifle is the same as your Winchester, but your Winchester is twice the rifle. I'd still grab this, but things are too tight for me right now. Anyways, good luck. it's a beautiful rifle.

Good ol' old school answer - 22 long rifle with targeted animal in headlights of my jeep Not condoning poaching by no means, but that answer has always cracked me up.

Man, you should be embarrassed. If you can't shoot that rifle to quarter moa than you should give it away to somebody who is already familiar with such embarrassment. Somebody, like me for example, who's fat and funny looking so people don't even notice the big groups.

Wow cool gun. I'd be interested if I didn't just get a S&W model 69. good luck

way to go! congrats

I'm above average. weight for my height that is.

Reread the statute again. There is nothing about a "particular successful hunter" mentioned. Pay specific attention to the words in RED and then refer to the game laws for the definitions of "taking" and "aiding." Also note that the wording says "wildlife," i.e. that's not just deer and elk. That can include quail, waterfowl or even predators. So a "tag" is not a prequisite for a citation. 5. A person shall not use any trail camera, or images from a trail camera, for the purpose of taking or aiding in the take of wildlife within one-fourth mile (440 yards) of the outer perimeter of a developed water source. Reread the statute again. There is nothing about a "particular successful hunter" mentioned. Pay specific attention to the words in RED and then refer to the game laws for the definitions of "taking" and "aiding." Also note that the wording says "wildlife," i.e. that's not just deer and elk. That can include quail, waterfowl or even predators. So a "tag" is not a prequisite for a citation. 5. A person shall not use any trail camera, or images from a trail camera, for the purpose of taking or aiding in the take of wildlife within one-fourth mile (440 yards) of the outer perimeter of a developed water source. Whatever. I think you are interpreting the law the way you want without considering the scenario in which an official connects a hunter to a camera. It doesn't say no cameras at water holes. Just not for the taking or aiding in taking game. So the official would need to know that a person is using a camera for taking game or any other purpose. That would require more than s just busting people for hanging cameras at water holes. I think this law will allow officials to target certain individuals.

The more I consider this rule, the more I realize how it doesn't mean much. As I interpret things, it doesn't say using the cams on water is entirely illegal unless they can prove that a camera belongs to a particular successful hunter. It's written in a way that suggests they have certain violators in their sights. If the fish n'game put in the time and effort they can get violators whom they target.

Offensive guard, Pugh, signed away from giants. He's a 5 year vet that'll be a plug and play upgrade for the line. Things just got a bit more interesting.

Well, like I said, I am no expert. I was just looking through some recent cam pics and the toms are with the hens and they are in in full strutt.

Well, after two more visits it seems my report may be premature as it has been silent since. I have turkey tracks all over the place, but no more sounding off. For whatever it's worth.

Those Marlin X7 rifles are ridiculous. Consistent MOA rifles with proven track record for so cheap. It's a good thing Remington stopped production. I have three of them myself.

Manning was damaged goods before he went to Denver. If the components of the team are sound, there is great potential if Bradford could avoid injury. It' far from perfect, but it's probably the best choice that the Cards are left with.