trophyseeker

Got this in email today: *************************************************** Groups aim to boost non-lead ammo for ecosystem health Posted July 9, 2018 ** This news release was issued jointly by the North American Non-Lead Partnership, of which the Arizona Game and Fish Department is a member. ** Wildlife agencies and sportsmen’s groups join coalition encouraging hunters to choose non-lead ammo when hunting The North American Non-Lead Partnership — formed late last year by the Oregon Zoo, The Peregrine Fund and the Institute for Wildlife Studies — seeks to expand the coalition of hunters, anglers and other conservationists dedicated to improving ecosystem and wildlife health by choosing non-lead options. “This is a long-term, multi-organization effort to help North America’s wildlife,” said Leland Brown, the Oregon Zoo’s non-lead hunting education coordinator and a lifelong outdoorsman. “Many of us are hunters ourselves, so we have a personal connection to this project. We’re proud of the contributions we’ve made to conservation, and we hope to inspire more outdoor enthusiasts and organizations to lend their support and help realize this vision in the months and years to come.” Three state wildlife agencies — the Arizona Game and Fish Department, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife — have recently joined the partnership, and at least five sports groups have pledged their support. One, the Arizona chapter of the National Wild Turkey Federation, even committed to an annual donation to support the efforts. “ODFW supports a voluntary strategy to increase the use of non-lead ammunition among hunters in Oregon,” said Curt Melcher, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Director. “We’re pleased to join the North American Non-Lead Partnership so we can increase our efforts to educate and encourage hunters to voluntarily switch to non-lead ammunition.” “We’re excited about the partnership and confident that working with stakeholders — on all sides of the lead issue — is necessary to ensure the long-term health of Utah’s wildlife and their habitats,” said Mike Fowlks, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Director. “We recognize the role that stakeholder engagement has in wildlife management and look forward to working cooperatively with the program partners.” “The Arizona Game and Fish Department is committed to conserving and protecting Arizona’s diverse wildlife, which is why we are lending our support to the North American Non-Lead Partnership,” said Jim deVos, Arizona Department of Game and Fish Assistant Director for Wildlife Management. “Our department has placed non-lead ammunition into the hands of our hunters and worked to inform the public to consider switching to non-lead ammunition to better protect our wildlife and human health.” Since the 1980s, people have worked to remove lead from paint, gasoline and plumbing, but it still can pose a threat to wildlife. When scavenging birds and mammals eat the remains of carcasses shot with lead ammunition, tiny fragments of the heavy metal can be ingested and then absorbed into their bloodstream, often causing long-term side effects and sometimes even death. Non-lead ammunition options, such as high performance solid copper bullets, help prevent lead poisoning in scavengers like bald eagles, golden eagles and other birds of prey. The North American Non-Lead Partnership works to engage hunters and other wildlife enthusiasts by: Designing and promoting voluntary measures to increase the use of non-lead ammunition Supporting the continued long-term viability of scientifically managed hunting and the associated conservation culture by providing programs that encourage sports-men and -women participation in conservation actions Supporting continued efforts to conduct scientific research into the relative risk associated with specific lead exposure pathways between use of lead ammunition and wildlife Using scientific evaluation to assess and improve programs “Voluntary lead-reduction programs in Arizona and Utah have been very successful,” said Chris Parish, The Peregrine Fund’s director of conservation. “We want to see these voluntary efforts expanded across North America. We are confident that as this partnership expands, more hunters and organizations will join.” The three founding organizations that launched the new partnership were inspired by the success of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, recognizing a long tradition of conservation among America’s outdoor sports enthusiasts. ###

Ya think?

Lots of studies already done. They do indeed die, just as millions of waterfowl have died from lead shot ingestion. Just google it. The difference is they are not constantly monitored 24/7 by radio collars like the condors are.

Is the above, such as this passage below supposed to be "research?" One such noted exposure to an alternative source of lead in the environment was discovered at Pinnacles National Monument, where condors # 317 and 318 were observed ingesting lead paint fragments from the North Chalone Fire Lookout Tower. In turn, these parents fed the regurgitated lead paint fragments to their fledgling (# 550). Condors # 317, 318 and 550 were all tested and found to have high blood-lead levels, while # 550 had to be evacuated to the Los Angeles Zoo for intense treatment for lead poisoning. And this: Rarely, if ever, has an actual projectile fragment been found in the digestive tract of a California condor. Figure 1. Condor #318 on his nest at Pinnacles National Park. Photo by Gavin Emmons Figure 2. Lead object found in condor #318, confirmed to be .22 caliber bullet. Figure 3. .22 caliber lead bullet recovered from condor #318. Photo by Zeka Kuspa

The topic of lead bullets and condors was debated here a few years ago. I would bet many of the studies you found contained the same information Tony Mandile brought up in those debates. He was flamed for providing the info. Below is one of them. Probably can find a few more with a search using "condor" as a key word and "outdoor writer" as author. http://www.coueswhitetail.com/forums/topic/7002-condors-vs-nra/?hl=condors&do=findComment&comment=77799

I posted a press release about the new Nev. regulation in this thread: http://www.coueswhitetail.com/forums/topic/78730-no-cams-on-water-by-g-fcoming-soon/page-7?do=findComment&comment=804679 Here it is again with the exemptions added at the bottom: __________________________________________________________ From Nevada Department of Wildlife: ******************* The Nevada Department of Wildlife wants to ensure that all outdoor enthusiasts are aware of the new seasonal restrictions on the use of trail cameras. Since 2010, trail cameras have been a topic of discussion in Nevada. The regulation was discussed in dozens of open meetings, including County Advisory Boards to Manage Wildlife, the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commission, and the Legislative Commission. The use of trail cameras, the technology associated with them, and the issues surrounding the use of them have all continued to escalate. Proponents of the regulation raised several significant issues of concern including the growing commercialization of animal location data. New internet businesses have begun buying and selling GPS location data of animals captured on trail cameras. Also, saturating all or most available water sources with trail cameras in a hunt unit not only disrupts the animals ability to obtain water as camera owners come and go from waters that have as many as 25 or more cameras, but also creates hunter congestion and hunter competition issues. The accessibility to our public lands combined with our wildlife’s dependence on our extremely limited water sources make for some real challenges for both wildlife and outdoor enthusiasts. Proponents of the regulation were quick to point out that whether enhanced, protected, or human created water sources (guzzlers), the waters’ primary purpose is to assist in herd health and herd growth, not for placement of a technological device at an animal concentration site that potentially makes it easier to kill trophy animals. The new trail camera regulation states that a person shall not place, maintain, or use a trail camera or similar device on public land, or private land without permission from the land owner, from August 1 to December 31 of each year, or if the camera is capable of transmitting the images or video, it shall not be used from July 1 to December 31. The regulation does provide some limited exemptions for livestock monitoring, research, and other miscellaneous uses. NDOW recognizes that there are wholesome and legitimate uses of trail cameras, and unfortunately the use of cameras have been exploited far beyond most sportsmen’s definition of reasonable. If you come across a trail camera on public land from August 1 to December 31, NDOW is asking that you leave the camera alone, and consider calling an NDOW office to report its location. Sincerely, Nevada Department of Wildlife ************************************************************************** These are the only exemptions written in the actual regulation: 2. The provisions of subsection 1 do not apply to: (a) A person who is acting within the scope of his or her official duties, has clearly marked each trail camera or similar device to be used to indicate ownership and is: (1) An employee or authorized agent of this State; (2) An employee of a municipal or county government of this State; (3) An employee of the Federal Government; or (4) An employee of any industry or any other person who uses the trail camera or similar device in consultation with the Department. (b ) A trail camera or similar device placed, maintained or used on private property with the permission of the landowner. (c ) A trail camera or similar device placed, maintained or used to monitor the use by livestock of any water source described in paragraph (b ) of subsection 1 if the owner of the trail camera or similar device is the holder of a permit to appropriate water issued by the State Engineer for the purpose of watering livestock.

Echo Bill's comments. These are the only exemptions written in the actual regulation: 2. The provisions of subsection 1 do not apply to: (a) A person who is acting within the scope of his or her official duties, has clearly marked each trail camera or similar device to be used to indicate ownership and is: (1) An employee or authorized agent of this State; (2) An employee of a municipal or county government of this State; (3) An employee of the Federal Government; or (4) An employee of any industry or any other person who uses the trail camera or similar device in consultation with the Department. (b ) A trail camera or similar device placed, maintained or used on private property with the permission of the landowner. (c ) A trail camera or similar device placed, maintained or used to monitor the use by livestock of any water source described in paragraph (b ) of subsection 1 if the owner of the trail camera or similar device is the holder of a permit to appropriate water issued by the State Engineer for the purpose of watering livestock.

From Nevada Department of Wildlife: ******************* The Nevada Department of Wildlife wants to ensure that all outdoor enthusiasts are aware of the new seasonal restrictions on the use of trail cameras. Since 2010, trail cameras have been a topic of discussion in Nevada. The regulation was discussed in dozens of open meetings, including County Advisory Boards to Manage Wildlife, the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commission, and the Legislative Commission. The use of trail cameras, the technology associated with them, and the issues surrounding the use of them have all continued to escalate. Proponents of the regulation raised several significant issues of concern including the growing commercialization of animal location data. New internet businesses have begun buying and selling GPS location data of animals captured on trail cameras. Also, saturating all or most available water sources with trail cameras in a hunt unit not only disrupts the animals ability to obtain water as camera owners come and go from waters that have as many as 25 or more cameras, but also creates hunter congestion and hunter competition issues. The accessibility to our public lands combined with our wildlife’s dependence on our extremely limited water sources make for some real challenges for both wildlife and outdoor enthusiasts. Proponents of the regulation were quick to point out that whether enhanced, protected, or human created water sources (guzzlers), the waters’ primary purpose is to assist in herd health and herd growth, not for placement of a technological device at an animal concentration site that potentially makes it easier to kill trophy animals. The new trail camera regulation states that a person shall not place, maintain, or use a trail camera or similar device on public land, or private land without permission from the land owner, from August 1 to December 31 of each year, or if the camera is capable of transmitting the images or video, it shall not be used from July 1 to December 31. The regulation does provide some limited exemptions for livestock monitoring, research, and other miscellaneous uses. NDOW recognizes that there are wholesome and legitimate uses of trail cameras, and unfortunately the use of cameras have been exploited far beyond most sportsmen’s definition of reasonable. If you come across a trail camera on public land from August 1 to December 31, NDOW is asking that you leave the camera alone, and consider calling an NDOW office to report its location. Sincerely, Nevada Department of Wildlife

"Brand doesn't matter to me. I'll take whatever I can find. Your friend, Blake O"

One other thing. I believe there's now a rule that you have to use barbless hooks within the park. I'm not sure, however, if that is for all waters. The rule book will outline it all, though.

I don't think G&F has anything more it can do in regards to the DISMISSED state charges. They can't punish someone if they haven't been found guilty of a violation. That could all change if USF&W filed federal charges, however. They would likely mete out the criminal fines, etc. and G&F might still be able squeeze out the civil punishment, i.e. Sampson rule and license suspension.

Bring waders and be sure to stop at the gate for a license (7-day @ $25) and a copy of the fishing rules. There are areas that are only C&R and others where you can keep certain specie. Lake trout from Yellowstone Lake are a "please kill them" specie, but it's tough fishing without a boat. The Yellowstone River is big water, but some of the smaller streams also provide quality fishing. I always enjoyed the Madison on the west side of the park but only fished any of it in the fall. So I'm not sure where would be the best spots for summer angling. Also, expect lots and lots of water at this time of year because of the snowmelt up high. It goes without saying, but I will anyway. Watch out for bears and do not approach bison too close either. IOW, be careful.

My condolences to Bill's family.

Rather than provide any more input to this thread and future ones on the CPAZ matter, I'm opting out of all of it on this site. It seems every thread here degrades into name calling and denigrating of people. That's usually the sign of not having anything worthwhile to add. If someone wants their opinion respected, they need to reciprocate by respecting the opinions of others. Have fun.

One observation: I watched the live broadcast of last week's commission meeting and one thing that stood out was when Comm. Davis made it a point to tell everyone that any increase in license costs at this time is completely off the table. So it seems any proposal that puts that forth, including a heritage/conservation/education stamp which in effect is a license increase, will get very short consideration. I don't know this to be fact, but I'm guessing they don't want to mandate this sort of increase for everyone who buys a license/tag. Instead, they are leaning toward the raffle idea because people have the choice to spend their money or not and could get something valuable in return.

Thank you. I had found that yesterday as well but was also looking for some of the nuances that aren't covered in that. Stay tuned.

I should have added to my reply above: In reality, the odds for the proposed raffle(s) are much like the regular draw in that someone with one bonus point is competing with others who have many more for any specific hunt, including those who have 10 points or more. The only difference is everyone pays the same application fee each year while those who want more "points" in the raffle(s) will have to fork over more money in application fees, thus adding the revenue for "education." Also, I spent two hours yesterday going through related threads on MM to ferret out some of the details of the "Utah model." I'll start a new thread here when I get more time later today or tomorrow.

You could argue that, but you would be lying to yourself. If 300 tags are given to the raffle and tickets are sold for $10 and a 10 ticket per person limit were imposed then that would mean if someone were to max out on all of the rafffles it would cost him $30k. For his investment he would have 3000x more chance of drawing a tag than someone who bought a single ticket. That is the definition of disparity. Even for a single hunt anyone can purchase 10x more opportunity than another for $90 more investment. This is exactly my concern with these systems. They are built to exploit economic disparity among sportsmen. So will anyone please for crying out loud tell me why it HAS to be tags. Why is that the only option a certain group of people will advocate for? Your math is wrong. That's not how odds work. I thought you were the odds guyMy point isnt that your odds would be better, my point is that offering a chance at a tag for $5 makes it more accessible for some people than having to pay $13. Flatlander keeps arguing that the North American model is at being violated beacuase of the proposed raffle tags but its not. The North American Model doesnt say anything about keeping draw odds at a particular level. Auctioning tags is a different argument but a raffle is no different than a lottery tag through a normal draw system.I was talking about Andrew's math If the math is wrong feel free to fix it. I put it right there for everyone to see and understand. If you do it will be the first meaningful contribution you have ever made to this site. Would be a refreshing change from your vague posts and hiding behind someone elses ideas. Well, this might not be a meaningful contribution, but I'll offer it up anyway. The problem with the 3000-1 odds is pretty simple. It ignores every other entry in the raffle(s). And in reality, if the limit is 10 entries in each of the 300 separate raffles, then the odds for any raffled specie tag between two INDIVIDUALS would be 10 to 1 (the person who bought only one chance). But then again, there would be many more ttan those two individuals entered in each raffle. So the odds of those buying 10 chances go down dramatically with every other entry.

IF raffle tags are used, and that's still an IF, a new program similar to the Big Game Super Raffle would be created. The current Big Game Super Raffle is mandated by legislation to disperse its funds to HPC. This one would be similar except funds would be Game and Fish. No outside organization would get any money. Who get's the HPC money? I am pretty sure its the critter groups and they guys that run the critter are the same people on CPAZ. In the above, I'm pretty positive ALL of the money from any auction/raffle tags is returned to the AGFD by law. That money is earmarked as HPC funds per species accordingly and is meted out for projects as determined by dept. and critter group committees for each game species. In short, the critter groups reap no financial benefit from any of it. The groups gain their owm operating revenue from dues, banquets and the other items that are auctioned or raffled during the year. And while we're at it, there appears to be a bit of misinformation that has pervaded this threads on the subject. It has to do with the "Utah model." Over the years I have followed most of the threads at MM on that topic. The set-up in Utah is quite different than the proposal here. Off the top of my head, I can't recall the percentage, but Peay's group keeps a large percentage of the money it raises from the raffles/auctions and offers little in the way of accounting for what his organization does with that money other than enrich the administrators. It's pretty much a mess. In contrast, the proposal here is for AGFD to receive and control 100% of the funds from any raffle/auction tags for the purpose of "educating the publc," akin to how it is now with HPC. And if that comes to pass, funds to battle the antis supposedly would come from other "sources" as was done this year with the lion initiative. Now, I'm guessing here, but other sources might include some sort of expo, banquets and private donors. In any case, it seems to be quite different than Peay's mess. Of course, a concrete proposal needs to be thoroughly put forth because the "devil in in the details." AZGFD receives 100% of the funds I understand that completely. I am asking who uses the HPC money after it goes back to AZGFD? I am surmising that its the critter groups. It is used for habitat projects as selected by the HPC. That could include a combination of critter group volunteers for the designated specie and AGFD personnel. Regardless, 100% of it gets used on the ground as it was intended when the legislation was drawn up.

IF raffle tags are used, and that's still an IF, a new program similar to the Big Game Super Raffle would be created. The current Big Game Super Raffle is mandated by legislation to disperse its funds to HPC. This one would be similar except funds would be Game and Fish. No outside organization would get any money. Who get's the HPC money? I am pretty sure its the critter groups and they guys that run the critter are the same people on CPAZ. In the above, I'm pretty positive ALL of the money from any auction/raffle tags is returned to the AGFD by law. That money is earmarked as HPC funds per species accordingly and is meted out for projects as determined by dept. and critter group committees for each game species. In short, the critter groups reap no financial benefit from any of it. The groups gain their owm operating revenue from dues, banquets and the other items that are auctioned or raffled during the year. And while we're at it, there appears to be a bit of misinformation that has pervaded this threads on the subject. It has to do with the "Utah model." Over the years I have followed most of the threads at MM on that topic. The set-up in Utah is quite different than the proposal here. Off the top of my head, I can't recall the percentage, but Peay's group keeps a large percentage of the money it raises from the raffles/auctions and offers little in the way of accounting for what his organization does with that money other than enrich the administrators. It's pretty much a mess. In contrast, the proposal here is for AGFD to receive and control 100% of the funds from any raffle/auction tags for the purpose of "educating the publc," akin to how it is now with HPC. And if that comes to pass, funds to battle the antis supposedly would come from other "sources" as was done this year with the lion initiative. Now, I'm guessing here, but other sources might include some sort of expo, banquets and private donors. In any case, it seems to be quite different than Peay's mess. Of course, a concrete proposal needs to be thoroughly put forth because the "devil in in the details." The references to the Utah Model are stemming from Petes comments on the podcast and at other meetings. He referred to it explicitly in several of the podcasts. And in the first podcast which was a recording of the CAPAZ kickoff meeting for the initiative he talked about how beautiful Peays system was and how when people raised concerns he shut them down right there on the spot. He discussed the importance of controlling the narrative around the initiative and the importance of having people engaged on all the social media platforms to refute any one who opposed the idea. This is how we came to know Dustin (nefarious red) as a regular poster. Thats the reason folks keep referencing the Utah Model because Pete keeps bringing it up. As I stated. the the devil is in the details. Currently, the details on the revenue stream that have been proposed are much different than what Peay has going on. Now, is it possible Pete meant that the idea of the raffle tags in conjunction with an expo is working good?

IF raffle tags are used, and that's still an IF, a new program similar to the Big Game Super Raffle would be created. The current Big Game Super Raffle is mandated by legislation to disperse its funds to HPC. This one would be similar except funds would be Game and Fish. No outside organization would get any money. Who get's the HPC money? I am pretty sure its the critter groups and they guys that run the critter are the same people on CPAZ. In the above, I'm pretty positive ALL of the money from any auction/raffle tags is returned to the AGFD by law. That money is earmarked as HPC funds per species accordingly and is meted out for projects as determined by dept. and critter group committees for each game species. In short, the critter groups reap no financial benefit from any of it. The groups gain their owm operating revenue from dues, banquets and the other items that are auctioned or raffled during the year. And while we're at it, there appears to be a bit of misinformation that has pervaded this threads on the subject. It has to do with the "Utah model." Over the years I have followed most of the threads at MM on that topic. The set-up in Utah is quite different than the proposal here. Off the top of my head, I can't recall the percentage, but Peay's group keeps a large percentage of the money it raises from the raffles/auctions and offers little in the way of accounting for what his organization does with that money other than enrich the administrators. It's pretty much a mess. In contrast, the proposal here is for AGFD to receive and control 100% of the funds from any raffle/auction tags for the purpose of "educating the publc," akin to how it is now with HPC. And if that comes to pass, funds to battle the antis supposedly would come from other "sources" as was done this year with the lion initiative. Now, I'm guessing here, but other sources might include some sort of expo, banquets and private donors. In any case, it seems to be quite different than Peay's mess. Of course, a concrete proposal needs to be thoroughly put forth because the "devil in in the details."

And it appears beginning in 2019, the season will actually be closed from JUNE 1 until Aug. 24

I doubt the first question would be an actual result here. A "raffle" entails selling many chances for a SINGLE tag. Thus the answer to second question. Hypothetically, if raffle chances are $5 each and they sell 1000 for one tag, the revenue is $5,000, which would be more than enough to cover the regular cost of that tag. Your other questions would be determined if this would come to pass.

http://www.coueswhitetail.com/forums/topic/79897-does-everyone-have-their-popcorn-ready/

Though I have used arc and acetylene welders over the years for minor projects, I'm not an experienced welder so have no knowledge of which ones are better for specific tasks, etc. but... A while back, I had a couple of gates built for the yard. When the guy came to install them, he discovered the shop had put the hinges of one on the wrong side. So he used a grinder to cut the welds. He then went to his truck and grabbed one of the HF cheapie 120A mig welders (usually on sale for about $90). He also had one of HF's $40 self-darkening helmets. He plugged a long extention cord into a 110 outlet on my front porch about 40 feet from the action. It took him all of about 15 minutes to reweld the hinges on the right side of the gate, clean the weld with a wire brush and touch up the paint with a spray can. It looked as good as the original welds to my uneducated welding eyes. So since I was thinking of buying a mig welder for minor tasks, I asked him about it. He told me he had been using the HF model for three years and never had a hiccup with it. Thus, I bought one about a year ago when it was on sale. I have yet to open the box, however.