trophyseeker

Sounds as if you have some experience on the other side of the fence.

Glad to see the photos. I can see what you meant about them being old. You have moved quite a few mounts and added several since they were taken. Surprised no one has commented on the unusual one showing in one of the photos. I remember telling you it might be the only such mount like that in the whole state. 🤣

I went to Outdoor Writer's place a couple months ago to pick up something I bought from him. He has an impressive array of animals spread over a couple rooms. Maybe he doesn't have photos.

Whoops!! I must have made a wrong turn. I was looking for the principal's office, but it appears I wound up on the 1st grade playground at recess.

The only member here that I've ever put on ignore.

I was searching for something else and found this topic. What a great thread. We need more like this one.

I saw where you did just that on MM. After reading that, it's easy to understand why 9/11 is an emotional day for you. As one of the other members there said, "Great post." 👍

Curious -- What do you want to be when you grow up??

Agree completely. Although I didn't see this thread before he cancelled it, I think the reason he did it was because the first two replies had already started it down the side track of politics and conspiracy theories. From there it would become even worse. Earlier today I read the messages about the buck in the newspaper and saw where Tony mentioned starting a topic about legends and stories from way back. I think he called it a trip down memory lane. He decided against it because of exactly what you said -- the idiocy that seems to crop up in almost every message thread now. That's unfortunate. I would really enjoy hearing some of his stories from those bygone days when most members here weren't even born yet. In other words, we're the losers, not him.

Hang in there, Tony. Illegitimi non carborundum

I thought sponsors had their own sections and the classified section to advertise. 🤑

Kurt Rambo used to guide. Not sure if he's still around, though. Good guy and knows what he's doing. If you're interested, I can probably chase down his old phone number.

No. This guy had a small storefront and did nothing but gunsmithing work. No retail products for sale.

Camelback was owned by Tom Barrett in 1970s. The daughter's name was Betsy, right? Knew him well and did lots of business there before he closed up. His no. 1 helper was a guy named Dave. He had a spotting scope set up to peer into the windows in the hotel across the street. LOL There was also another big shop that opened a bit farther to east, but I can't recall the name. I do remember purchasing some clay birds there, though. It might have been Shooter's Haven, which Forepaw mentioned.

You gotta be kidding, right? 😁 That was nearly 50 yrs. ago, and I can't recall what happened last week. What I do recall, though, is that he was somewhere on Camelback Rd. or Indian School Rd. in Phoenix close to 7th Ave. He was fairly old then, so I'm guessing he's passed by now. And now that I'm thinking about it, it seems his first name might have been Harold.

I bought one for $19.95 in the early 70s and completely sporterized it. I had a gunsmith cut and crown the barrel, work over the bolt handle and reblue the entire thing. I bought a Fajan already-shaped wood stock blank and did all the work on it myself. It turned out really well and shot great. The 7x57 is a nice round for deer and other game in that class, especially if one handloads. It killed my second buck and a couple more before I traded it 15 years later..

Threads like this recently resurrected one that have some substance to them without the barrage of insults, name-calling and personal attacks that have become all too common here lately.

You know what they say -- the customer is always right. LOL Black would have been great, as well.

Nice job. Outer appears to be oak, eh? As nice as that is, i.e. non-rustic, I probably would have used more formal-type handles, maybe in brushed brass or such. But it still looks great with those.

Nice photo, though. 😉

Greg Holland is it, as of today.

Wow, talk about resurrecting an old thread! 😲 I was still a lurker here back in 2010 when this was started but remember reading it. Back then a lot of good stuff was discussed on this site. Now -- not so much. A lot of the members from then have either left all together or just quit posting because of direction many of the threads now take. That's too bad.

I emailed Tony Mandile, and he sent me the following: ___________________________________________________ These are snippets from my IN THE FIELD column in Rocky Mt. G&F magazine. Feel free to repost with my permission. Circa 1999 NO GO ON PREDATOR RULING The months-long saga over the predator hunt contest issue continued unresolved when the Arizona Game and Fish Commission met in March. After months of meetings and public comment, the five-member commission had three proposed rule changes to consider. The choices were: institute a ban on predator hunting contests; ban predator hunting contests for economic gain; take no action on the issue and close the rule-making process. Instead, with a 3-to-2 vote, the commission rejected all three and opted to reconsider a proposal it already had rejected at its December meeting. The ongoing issue began last fall when two Mesa, Ariz. men organized Predator Hunt Extreme and offered a $10,000 first-place prize to the person who killed the most predators. The body-count contest immediately raised the hackles of both the animal rights crowd and many of the state’s sportsmen’s groups. Of course, the anti-hunters wanted an immediate ban on ALL predator hunting, while the sportsmen preferred a somewhat moderate approach more in the realm of limiting the size of the prizes or other such controls. When the issue came up for discussion for the first time at the fall commission meeting, both sides made their thoughts known. Because there was a vast discrepancy in the proposals, the commission tabled the issue and asked the two factions to see if they could work out a compromise. Working through the Arizona Attorney General's Office, sportsmen's groups and animal welfare organizations mediated a compromise. It reads: "A. A person or group shall not participate in, promote, or solicit participation in any hunting contest for killing predatory animals, furbearing animals, or nongame animals. B. There shall be an exception to section (A) for hunting contests meeting the following criteria; 1. The hunting contest is limited to participation by five or fewer persons; or 2. a. The maximum length for the hunting contest is three days, not including days canceled because of inclement weather; and, b. The maximum aggregate economic benefit awarded to all participants in the hunting contest is not more than $1,000; and c. The hunting contest is limited to not more than 300 participants per hunting contest; and, d. The hunting contest is limited to the killing of predatory and furbearing animals only. C. A person or group holding a hunting contest which is lawful pursuant to section (B) (2) of this rule shall submit a written report to the department by July 1 for the immediate preceding one year period ending May 30. The report shall be in a format provided by the department and shall specify the name of the person or group reporting, the number of participants, the dates of the contest, and the number of each species killed from each game management unit during each hunting contest. The reporting requirement shall terminate three years after the effective date of the adoption of this rule." When the December meeting rolled around, the commission rejected the above. Since that meeting, however, two new commissioners came on board, and in March they joined veteran Commissioner Dennis Manning of Alpine, thereby voting to pursue the mediated rule language again. The result: A new period of public comment had to occur, which basically extended the rule-making process for at least another 90 days. So it’s unlikely the issue will make the commission agenda until this month’s (August) meeting in Pinetop or next month when the commission meets in Flagstaff. And the way this issue has been going, it’s good bet the language could change because not all of the animal rights or the sportsmen’s groups even agree on it. Stayed tuned. Circa 2000 PREDATOR RULING REVISITED After nearly two years of wrangling and rhetoric tossing between hunters and animal-rights organizations, the Arizona Game and Fish Commission finally ended the saga of the predator-hunting contest controversy. In fact, by a three-to-two vote, the commission ended ALL organized predator-hunting contests. As adopted, Commission Rule R12-4-317 reads, "A person or group shall not participate in, promote, or solicit participation in any organized hunting contest for killing predatory animals, fur-bearing animals, or nongame mammals." The issue started way back at the beginning of 1998 with the proposed and advertised the "Predator Hunt Extreme" contest that would award the winner a $10,000 prize. Within days, however, adverse public opinion caused the promoters to cancel the hunt. Following the aborted high-dollar, state-wide predator hunt, a consortium of sportsmen’s conservation organizations and a combination of several animal-welfare groups petitioned the game commission. The groups requested the 5-member board begin the rule-making process to adopt legislation to regulate predator contest hunts. During the lengthy public process on the commission rule, the department received 11,927 letters, with 11,824 of them supporting a total ban on predator hunting contests. While thousands were "form" letters, more than a thousand were not, including ones from school children asking the commission to ban "body count contests." The commission began the formal rule-making process on June 20, 1998 and had both factions meet to work out proposed language as a starting ground for the public process. While public meetings occurred, the game department entered the fray with hopes it might mediate a compromise with the two opposing sides. At its Dec. 11, 1998 meeting the commission turned down the proposed rule and instead directed the department to file notices of supplemental proposed rule making so it could take public comment on two alternative rules. Months later, the two alternative rules also never came to a vote. This time the commission directed the department to include into the mediated rule, as well. that had been mediated by the Attorney General’s Office. The three options became: Proposed Alternative Rule 1 - Prohibit hunting contests for killing predator animals, furbearing animals, or nongame mammals. Proposed Alternative Rule 2 - Would prohibit hunting contests for killing predatory animals, furbearing animals, or nongame mammals for economic benefit or gain. Proposed Alternative Rule 3 - Would prohibit hunting contests for killing nongame animals and allow hunting contests for killing predatory animals and furbearing animals only when participation is limited to five or fewer persons or with all of the following limitations: maximum time allowed is three days; maximum aggregate economic benefit is $1,000; maximum participants is 300; and a report to be submitted to the Game and Fish Department. The winner was Alternative 1, with Joe Carter casting the deciding vote. Commissioners Bill Berlat and Michael Golightly also voted “yea” for the complete ban, while Commissioners Dennis Manning and Hays Gilstrap cast dissenting votes. The new rule went into effect on January, 1, 2000. Circa late 2000 Predator Hunt -- Again Like an epic movie, it has been more than two years in the making, but in this case, it’s still not in your local theater. A proposal from the Arizona Game & Fish Commission to ban certain types of predator hunting contests went before the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council at a meeting in September for a second time. After more than three hours of testimony, the council shot the draft plan full of holes with an outright, unanimous rejection. At the same time, the members even questioned whether the game commission can legally manage Arizona’s wildlife. Arizona Game & Fish Department (AGFD) officials who attended the meeting left shaking their heads and trying to figure out what the council’s action meant. The draft of the proposal would have banned predator hunting contests where participants paid to compete and received prizes based on the number of animals they tallied. It would not have affected predator hunting in general. During the time the department was taking input to hone the plan, a poll of Arizona residents showed more than 70 percent of those responding, including thousands of hunters, were in favor of the ban on these contests. As they did when they rejected the proposal in February, 2000, members of the review board cited vague wording. But this time, they also questioned the lack of a legislative mandate to the game commission to make the law. The opinion on the latter was based on those of the state’s attorneys who claimed the issue is a social one and not a biological one, thus does not come under the game commission’s duties of managing wildlife. Game department officials argued unsuccessfully that Arizona’s Legislature appointed the commission members to manage all wildlife in the state. They pointed to seasons, weapon choices and shooting from vehicles as all basically falling within “social” issues. The objections failed to change the outcome, however. Game commission member Joe Carter testified and voiced strong concern for the future because of the councils comments on the management scheme. “The Arizona Game & Fish Commission has never said these contests have a biological impact. What it said is they have tremendous, tremendous social impact. No one doubts the authority of the commission to manage wildlife in Arizona. Without the ability to manage social impacts of wildlife, this commission’s ability to manage wildlife at all will be impacted.” The debate was often heated to the point where council member Chuck Roach left the room after an angry exchange with a department biologist. Roach didn’t pull any punches in his rebuke and suggestion that it go back to the commissioners. “Find another way of doing it without an outright ban. And get clear and convincing evidence from the Legislature in the form of a legislative initiative, that you have the power to do this.” Council chairman Tim Bancosky adjourned the session, but not before adding his own zinger. “The public needs to know the rulemaking process does not end with a commission or at the Attorney General’s office That’s why we’re here.” Although the dejected game department staff left with lots of questions, AGFD Deputy Director Steve Farrell tried to put a different spin on it. “You have to look at this as a process. This part of it is done.” Stay tuned for the ongoing saga.

This is basically revisiting an old issue that took place around 1999-2000. In fact, I believe AGFD had actually passed a rule that banned the contests, and that rule was later eliminated. I bet either Bill Quimby or Tony Mandile could fill in the blanks if they were still around.

Sorta. But I thought you were referring to the way the current system is -- supposedly imperfect. And what I meant was that even in a supposedly PERFECT one, it would still produce unhappy folks.