Packer

Wow! that is awesome. What a huge bear. Congratulations to the hunter and those that were along for the ride. Packer

That's a good looking bear congratulations. Packer

Awsome bull, congratulations to the hunter. Packer

Great looking buck Congratulations. Packer

That's a great looking goat, I am glad all your hard work paid off. I am always happy when someone who puts in alot of work gets the payoff. I am also looking forward to the days I can take my kids hunting with me. Packer

Congratulations on the goat.

That's a good looking buck. I hope you enjoy him for years to come. Packer

Awesome pics!! Some day I would love to make a hunt up in that part of the world. Those are truely magnificient trophies. Packer

Wow!! What an awesome buck. Can you help me harvest my first archery Coues? Packer

Moqui, I guess i have not read the literature and have just based my comments on observations through the years. Also, like I said these observations are in areas that I frequent and not statewide. I know that the KOFA is having problems now that they didn't in the past but I have never been to the KOFA. I am mostly talking about areas where we currently have wolves. Hey with that in mind maybe both the literature and I am correct in saying that in these areas, where there are other top predators, there are fewer lions than there were say 10 years ago. I will leave it at that as I don't want to get into an agrument over this but don't make generalizations statewide that may, or may not be 100% accurate. Packer

BigMoqui, To answer a few of your comments. The G&F was going to have all the archery hunts start at the same time until us archers realized that there was an overlap with elk. That oversight caused them to move the archery deer and turkey forward. They did not move bear or squirrel with them as once you start moving things other things start dominoing and pretty soon they would have every season changed. I would also disagree with the statement that there are more lions now than ever. This may be the case in some areas but in the areas I hunt this is not the case. I have talked to many long time lion hunters around here and many of them say that there are less lions now than there used to be. They feel, and I concur, that the lion population is finally dropping off to match the prey population in that never ending cycle of the predator/prey relationship. As for trphyhtr's comment, I agree with everyone else's statements and think that this kind of attitude that definately does not need to be passed on. Packer

Not a bad looking bull, but I agree give him a day or two to clean those antlers up and we would be in business.

Awesome!! Way to help out the local wildlife. At least some of the wildlife, I guess the coyote wouldn't see it that way. Packer

Great looking buck!! Where did you say he was hunting again?

That is a big bear for sure. I would definately like to get a crack at something like that, although I prefer cinnamon coats to solid black.;p

I agree with 300, alot of hound hunters roam those hills. You could bump over to unit 1 as I don't think is has closed yet. Other than that good luck on the hunt. Packer

Great looking lope. I can't wait to draw a tag myself, although with only 2 bonus points it could be a while.

That's a great buck. I hope he cooperates whenever you decide to go after him. Packer

I agree with Tines, I think the G&F would like to know the location of the doe. Also glad you had a good day out. Packer

Good looking buck, I would have stuck him too.

That's an awesome looking buck!! Is he going to get it mounted, and if so by who? Packer

Awsome pics and it sounds like an awsome hunt. Congrats. Packer

I agree, can't wait!! Although I wouldn't shoot at a lion until the middle of the second weekend if I were you.

It doesn't really matter to me what they score all I know is that those are some awsome bucks. I would shoot whichever gave me the first opportunity. Packer

"That is the problem I have is the G&F manages for MONEY PERIOD. If they want to help arizona residents with increased hunter opportunity then eliminate more non-resident hunts." crazy$COUES, If you read this statement you made and really look at it for what it is you will see that it makes very little sense. I have not done any hunting out of state as of yet and have only begun to look at those opportunities that exist elsewhere. I have noticed however that there are many states that are way more liberal at granting us "non-residents" tags than Arizona is. Take for instance Colorado; there are many units that have upwards of 30% of the tags allocated to non-residents. This means that they are basically set aside and residents do not even have a chance at them. Arizona on the other hand allows a max of 10% of the tags in any specific hunt to go to non-residents. This does not mean that they are guaranteed this many, this is just the max. I think we should count ourselves lucky to have the limits we do on how many non-residents are allowed to hunt here. "Now they want to take our OTC deer hunts that account for 6% of harvest objectives and make them a draw. Meanwhile the rifle tags can account for 2/3 rds the objective with no changes. Why don't they look at it like this: total harvest objective 20%, right? Archery hunters (OTC) 6%, rifle hunters 17%. OOPs we need to reduce the rifle tags because our harvest objective was exceeded. Get it? It is because of money!" I thought I answered this with my first post but will try to clarify it again. OTC deer hunts do not account for 6% of the harvest objective but they average 6% harvest. So for every 100 hunters about 6 deer are killed. Rifle tags account for about 80% of the harvest, as they want the remaining 20% for the archers. This is based off the survey that said a majority of the hunters in the state are rifle hunters (I am assuming about 80% or so). The total harvest objective is 100% so the last part of your statement makes no sense. Also just as a side note; the reason that they have not adjusted permits in unit 1 is because the hunt success has remained steady at just above 20% for the last five years, according to the hunt Arizona book. I don't even know why I have been compelled to join this post as it is getting off track and is not accomplishing anything, other than getting people's blood pressure to rise. I think at this point people have their minds made up and may not be looking at things with an open mind. I do beleive that at some point WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT does come down to managing people. I think that way back in hunter ed when I was 10 or so I learned that hunting was a tool that was used to regulate game animal populations. If we did not have hunting as a tool there would obviously be some major negative consequences as a result. Without being able to manage hunting, by allowing more opportunity (ie OTC tags) or by limiting that opportunity (ie going to a draw) then we are tying the hands of the managers. Now if all of you that are saying that the department is doing this without wildlife in mind would put your biological background forward and give some good scientific advice on how to limit harvest in a state with an ever increasing population of hunters, I am sure that all of us here and the department would be all ears. However, if you are just making statements that seem to "sound good" on the computer screen but have no scientific basis then maybe we should not make so many comments. After all, not using science is what we have accused the department of so why should we hold them to any higher standard than ourselves. Anyway, before my blood pressure rises any more I will let you all mull over that and fire away. Packer