krp

I was born in '57, so I watched Wallace and Ladmo from infancy... loved Ladmo, hated Jerald, Wallace was the normal one. I never went to a show, My best friend in college moved to az from Buffalo ny, his family had moved to Mesa and his dad made, distributed the Ladmo waffle. If you remember them, in a jar on the counters of local businesses, sugary treats. They were either related to Ladmo somehow or their families were linked from NY. Anyway, one evening we were headed to ASU activity center to hang out, driving down Mill. My buddy says, 'I gotta make a stop first for my dad'. We go into the neighborhood just east of the campus, pull up to an average house, he gets out and walks through a screen door. I get out and am loitering around the front yard, my buddy yells through the screen door,' come on in'. Walking up I hear Ladmo's voice through the screen... my knees lock... I can't move... I'm 19 years old and my lifelong hero is just right there. My buddy comes out and gets in the car... 'why didn't you come in'... 'That was Ladmo'... ya? so... You're from New York, you wouldn't understand... I understand Spielberg's 'star struck' comment. RIP Wallace, a true icon. Kent

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVsWmqrfVj4 This is correct spine for a compound/release. It osculates up and down but stays level and straight on two nodes. Watch it a few times to get the sense of what's really happening. Underspined and the back end will kick even further down, possibly hitting the shelf or breaking, the nodes will not stay level and jump up and down. Overspined and the front end will kick sideways and stay sideways to the target. Even if you can micro adjust the rest to perfect center, any torque or form difference will cause the arrows to fly off. This is important when you are kneeling or leaning around a jack pine to shoot at an animal. Having your arrow sitting on the rest close to the front node helps a little also. I bought a used switchback on AT, will get it next week. Simple walkback... I'll eyeball the center and square the nock point. I have hay bales and targets at my dad's acreage, so I'll plumb a string down with a weight on the bottom. Put a bullseye about shoulder level under the string, sight my top pin on the bull at about 15 or 20 yards. Don't worry about exact distances. Walkback shooting one arrow at different distances, with the same top pin at the same bull, your arrows will get lower in the target shooting with the same pin at the same bull. Don't worry about distances, just stop before hitting dirt. If your arrows get farther away from the string in one direction as you go back, adjust the rest and walk back again. Do this enough times you are confident the center is correct. If the arrows will not come vertical by adjusting the rest... you are overspined. Have some different weight heads and redo. Now go to distances and set pins. If you have vertical stringing try adjusting the rest or nock a little, if that doesn't help try a lighter head to see if you are underspined. Once set, don't play with poundage, or arrow weight or head weight... if you change one you will have to change at least one other to get back in spine. I can walkback tune faster that it took me to write this. Kent

Your problem is typically an overspine issue, most tuning issues are spine. Try putting the next heavier weight field tips on and see if they hit square(er). That's a cheap test. A simple walk back tune would tell you alot if you have access to targets stacked vertical or a haystack. There is only one perfect spine for each setup... which is... bow poundage(energy), Arrow brand/spine/length, and head weight. There is a 'valley' that you can work in, the closer to the center the better. More weight on front reduces spine. Or more energy/poundage. Or longer arrows... but your bow is set and arrows cut. Think of a small car pulling a big trailer, the heavy trailer (arrow) will try to pass the car (tip) downhill and jackknife. The head is to light to pull the arrow straight back behind it... hitting sideways and losing penetration. Once an arrow is cut to xx length the spine is set. Every arrow flexes and it flexes the most on release. There are two nodes on the shaft, one in towards the back and one the front. While the arrow flexes you want to find the perfect flight of those nodes moving down range. So once an arrow is cut, the basic ways to change spine is head weight and energy (poundage). If I have a 5ft bamboo pole and two rocks on the ground, one two pound rock and one three pound. If I push the lighter rock the bamboo will flex before starting the inert rock rolling, as the rock gains it's own momentum the shaft flex less to keep it rolling. To start the heavier rock it must first flex more. When you release the string of a bow the arrow pushes on an inert tip and depending on weight will flex less or more. Also the bamboo will flex differently on the same weight rock depending on how hard I push... energy/poundage. Tuning is everything about getting as close to perfect flex of an arrow/head/poundage combo and to have those nodes fly downrange as harmonically as possible... hitting square and penetrating to the max. Kent

Just a couple of thoughts... The draw or changes to it isn't what's being proposed here, any connection is that Scott and the team will be free to create their own code and system from scratch... same as the Portal. The issues here are a new user friendly website, a possible members only and tag surrender. My opinion... Website is all good Members only has to have some real return value that has nothing to do with tags or special privileges with getting tags. Tag surrender must stand by itself, there are always consequences unseen (like the 20% bonus pass for premium hunts has become dominated by NRs, becoming an overloaded preference points system for them) anyway, there are consequences that need to be thought of first instead of jumping in and and finding out later. Kent

I'm not sure what you mean but the draw isn't involved with the portal or tag surrender, draw code will be written for the process we have now, since the contract is up next year for the IT the state required G&F to use, let's hope they can code a smooth running system. I haven't heard of any tweeks, just making it efficient... but I've been mostly working now that construction has picked up and spending time with my 2 year old granddaughter... caught myself humming nursery rhymes while humping sacks of cement up two flights of stairs today. Kent

Also when guys like Gary, Ryan, Lance and some others say something's wrong I listen, though it may not turn out to be the specific problem, their intuition usually shows something needs to be addressed. Kent

This is just another vernacular issue and not being clear in the definition. 501c3 in this case means the same donation avenues that exist now... children facing life threatening diseases, disabled veterans? others? just the same as now but you get your points back. Back during 2072 the azsfw folks were also heavily entrenched as officers in some of the other critter orgs. We used the term 501c3 to describe these orgs quite often and it almost became a negative term. So I can understand the concern over the term and possible implication... it has nothing to do with critter orgs getting tags. Kent

I'll say this also, once the tag transfer is removed from the club, it removes it from the whole Portal agenda. Then we can take on both separately. Tying them together was bad PR, just the ventricular of 'early draw results' was bad PR. Folks are mad about all the issues with the draw now. In house is supposed to fix this, lets get it running smooth, get the Portal up in jan and then possibly see what the customers want. That was a big theme and if folks go to the meetings can reiterate. Kent

Absolutely, the club thing is what we hammered last night at the meeting as it relates to tag transfer... it was no, no, and he'll no. Tag surrender I guess I'm ok with and realistically if it goes to the dept and not donated, as long as it's next in line policy, that tag will go to someone that was in the BP 20% pass or the next highest point holder, so it clears another high BP holder out. There is more work to be done to clamp down the tightest restrictions and still be fair. The feeling I'm getting for having the club is to increase the use of the new site.It's going to be kinda like your data phone that you can put apps on your front page. You will put the things you use the most on your personal page. It will increase online license sales if you get a reminder on your page when it's time to renew, paper apps cost much more money to process. That's just a small sample. fishing reports, stockings... All this is free. I'm not sure a club will generate any more traffic and you are absolutely right in they need to show us a working model before going there. These are some of the things discussed and I will say acknowledged by the G&F. I think the club thing will be pushed down the line with no real deadline and the new Portal, all free, started and then expanded. I'd rather see the new in house draw site ironed out before any club thing. Kent

Do you have facts and polls to show how few these people are? Kent

I imagine who's pushing this are those complaining to the dept that those being deployed or suddenly hurt or whatever should be able to return a tag and keep their points. Even in these threads the concern is more about having the surrender as a club benefit. Honestly, I was prepared to go into the meeting against the tag surrender completely, but after having guys call me upset about the club and tag involvement, reading on these websites. There just isn't a buzz about surrender by itself like we saw with 2072 and the premium tags... well until the last two pages of this thread. Use the process, drum up support and it may dissolve. Lance I'll put you and your friends down as disinters in my vibe poll... well except Casey... Kent

I have no problem with that personally, but the vibe I'm getting is most would like a surrender program, so I'm working within that agenda. Kent "Most would like a surrender program". Is there a poll, survey, or facts to back that up? survey and facts to backup up my vibe? dude, you need to read the black part of my post, disregard the blank parts, and don't project anything into it... funny stuff. Kent

I have no problem with that personally, but the vibe I'm getting is most would like a surrender program, so I'm working within that agenda. Kent

Yes, it was addressed at length last night and though Scott isn't in the regulation dept, he took notes to forward. Kent

You don't receive a BP for drawing in the first place, you stay at your BP level. Kent

Allen and Hector, good seeing you guys again and meeting the others. New website good... anything with tag and priority in the same phrase bad... Tag surrender with regulation ok... anything with early results and priority in thr same phrase bad... G&F as biologists good... G&F as marketing and PR wizards bad... lol But that's what these meetings are for and Scott obviously took notes from the first meeting and was better prepared and ready to change the tone of some issues. And he was scribling notes of other issues not presented yet and will work to be better prepared for the next meeting. I think that's what we want, a process like this the is amendable as it progresses. I agree with Allen that the hot button issues will be taken off the table and new ideas are being heard and added. Lance, one of the other guys presented the numbers from I want to say 10 western states on tag surrender, hopefully he puts them up here. It was quite a few states and few tags, he put a lot of effort getting the info and I can't do it justice off my faulty memory. I personally see AZ as ripe for abuse if not regulated strictly and expressed that last night and in emails to the team running the process. Kent

My dad is still alive at 83 and all his stuff is in his barn still. My mom passed and I have much of her glassware, tableware and cooking stuff. My grandmother I have an old yellow Pyrex mixing bowl that I grab first when cooking. My grandfather I have some old various tools, fence pliers, saws, bits... quite a few stuff. Probably the most used is an old coleman 413 stove I found behind the corrals in the junk pile on their property. It was rusted and obviously the tank didn't work. I asked if I could have it and granddad said 'sure, I was throwing it anyway', so I rattle can sprayed it green after cleaning the rust. That was about '78. I use it all the time still with a propane converter. Next would be the old butcher knives my grandmother had. Old carbon blades that would rust if you spit in their direction. The things were sharp though and Moms could butcher a deer lickity split. While going to MCC I was staying on their acreage in a Travel trailer and killed a couple deer. She'd cut it all into thin breakfast steaks, every little bit, and substitute it for bacon. She also made gravey with any meat and any meal. She'd make a deer last a long time that way... eggs, venison strips, biscuits and gravy every morning... granddad was in heaven and some of my older cousins would often stop by to snitch some too... if there wasn't any left they'd give me the evil stink eye, like I ate their first born. When we were butchering my dad's cow elk last season, we were in the barn and talking about Moms's breakfast meat. On a whim we cut all the loins into thin strips. I make eggs, elk, biscuits and gravy... I can see her smile. I have ten or so old carbon knives I've picked up over time, I really like them for preparing game and fish.

Bought my ticket online, not sure how the date works yet, hopefully I can attend. Kent

I know the effort Josh put in over the last years to accomplish this... great job buddy. Kent

If local mail in tomorrow midday to sat early morning. They dump all the envelopes onto a table and pick them out of the pile until all tags are gone. If you don't draw they put your stuff in another envelope and send it back. Kent

Either 23 dec muley or 24b dec coues. Kent

The Arizona Game and Fish Commission approved a draft hunting and fishing license structure and license/tag fees at its June 15 meeting in Payson, Ariz. The proposal will now be taken to the public for a 30-day comment period from June 20 to July 20, 2013. A webcast on the draft structure and fees will be conducted at 6 p.m. on Tuesday, June 25. The webcast can be viewed at www.azgfd.gov/webcast, or the public is welcome to view it at any of the Game and Fish offices. Members of the public who view the webcast at department offices will have the opportunity to ask questions of department staff at those offices after conclusion of the webcast. The ability to ask questions will not be available to those viewing the webcast online. In approving the draft, the commission took into consideration a variety of factors, including comments on the conceptual license structure and fees received during Phase 1 of the public input process in May and June. The Game and Fish Department received 658 comments from more than 200 people who attended 17 public meetings, and received more than 800 comments via e-mail. The department also conducted a science-based mail survey of hunters and anglers and received more than 1,480 responses. One of the most discussed concepts was that of a “premium” hunt structure for certain deer and elk hunts. Based on the public comment received -- predominantly against the premium concept -- the commission did not include a premium hunt structure in the draft proposal. Other factors the commission took into consideration in approving the draft were prior statutory fee caps, the opportunity to simplify the license structure and offer bundled privileges for more value, removal of barriers for the recruitment of new hunters and anglers, reduced cost for youth, and the need to maintain department revenue and services. Some of the key features of the new proposal are: The proposed license structure is simplified to nine license options and a migratory bird stamp, reduced from the current structure of more than 40 license and stamp options that often caused confusion among customers. The proposal would make a new hunting or fishing license valid for one year from the date of purchase. Currently, a license is valid only for the calendar year in which it was purchased, regardless of when it was purchased. Some licenses would have combined privileges (and eliminate the need for separate stamps) at a discount over what those privileges would cost if purchased separately. For example, the proposed price of a resident general fishing license would increase from the current $23.50 to $37, but the new license would include the privileges of a general license, trout stamp, two-pole stamp, a community (urban) fishing license, and Colorado River stamps for Arizona’s shared waters with California and Nevada (dependent on agreements under negotiation with those states). This is a savings of $32.75 over those licenses and stamps if purchased separately under the current structure, or a savings of $16 over the current “Super Fishing” license. The proposal creates a new “youth license” at a significantly reduced price of $5 each year for individuals from ages 10-17. The youth license includes hunting and migratory bird privileges (a tag for big game is still required) and fishing privileges (general, trout stamp, community license, and two-pole stamp, and Colorado River CA/NV stamps, depending on agreements with those states). Most tag fees would be increased under the proposal. For example, a deer tag would cost $45 for residents (up from the current $34.75) and $300 for nonresidents (up from $225.25). An elk tag would cost $135 for residents (up from the current $114) and $650 for nonresidents (up from $587.50). In all cases, the tag increases do not exceed the former fee caps under which the commission previously had authorization prior to passage of SB 1223, and in most cases the proposed tag fees are still less than the old caps. This would be the first increase in license and tag fees since 2007. At that time the Game and Fish Commission made a commitment to sportsmen/sportswomen that it wouldn’t raise fees again for at least five years. The commission and department have honored that commitment despite the challenges presented by the economy over the past several years. Any increases that may ultimately be approved through this proposal would not go into effect until 2014, or seven years since the last increase. Based on public input, the commission decided not to implement a “premium hunt structure” for certain deer and elk tags. The majority of the public comments were against the concept of a premium structure. The commission directed the department to propose an increase in the hunt permit-tag application fee to $13 for residents and $15 for nonresidents (up from the current $7.50), with $3 of the resident fee and $5 of the nonresident fee to be dedicated to hunter access and habitat enhancements. A summary sheet of the proposed draft license structure and fees, the department’s Draft Notice of Exempt Rulemaking, and the public comments received on the license and fee concepts presented in May-June, can be found at www.azgfd.gov/LicenseSimplification. Comment can be provided through July 20, 2013, via e-mail at LicenseSimplification@azgfd.gov or via U.S. mail to Arizona Game and Fish Department, License Simplification Comment, Attn: Ben Alteneder, 5000 W. Carefree Highway, Phoenix, AZ 85086. The commission will review and take into consideration the “Phase 2” public comments on the draft before approving a final license structure and fees, anticipated in August. The goal is to have a new structure and fees implemented by Jan. 1, 2014. The process for setting the new structure and fees was authorized by the recent passage of SB 1223, which allows the Arizona Game and Fish Commission to set future hunting and fishing license structure and fees directly through a streamlined, customer-focused process as opposed to the former complex and time-consuming legislative and regular rulemaking process. (The commission already had the ability to raise fees up to the fee cap under its previous authority). It gives the Game and Fish Department the ability to operate more like a business and react to changing market conditions and customer needs in a timely manner. The bill was signed by Gov. Brewer on May 7 and was supported by 24 sportsmen’s organizations. For more information, visit www.azgfd.gov/LicenseSimplification.

The reality is you can add tags to coues hunt units and there will be within + or - a negligible effect on harvest numbers. Success odds with go down as the same amount of deer are taken by a larger number of hunters. Why? Because there are only a set number of bucks within the average hunters radius from roads or access points. The bucks harvested from that radius will happen whether it's 500 hunters or 1000. The old saying of 90% of animals are taken by 10% of hunters plays into the equation... there are no more 10%ers being added, they already have tags. It's a little different with elk... someone waiting for a tag, finally getting one... has very little chance of success by themselves. But most know a 10%er that wants to go out and get them on an elk. The two main issues for animal numbers are groceries and predation. Can't do much about groceries but predation you can. Kill a lion and you just saved about 30 to 50 deer. Predation control primarily happens in the same radius. The issues with backcountry hunting aren't other hunters, I have only once seen another hunter in my backpacking areas. There are a bunch of lions. If you want to improve your trophy succes, invest the time patterning year to year and predator control... the average once a year weekend hunter is not your competiton. Kent

I asked that same question at the meeting... it would only be draw hunts not OTC... the draw achery hunts above the ditch would be a premium. Kent

There is no biological reason for a premium hunt... this was confirmed by G&F at the Mesa meeting. Changing the biology in units, even on a rotating platform, just to accomodate a minority of hunters... isn't sound management. We already have 'alternative managment units' I don't know what the term is off the top of my head... units that are managed for quality over quantity. There was a suggestion at the mesa meeting of having a habitat stamp for those units, same as the kaibab now... worth thinking about. The premium structure is all political and zero biological... it clashes with the NAM that the G&F tout in their 7 point core concept... especially 3 and 4... http://www.azgfd.gov/h_f/documents/NAM%20Brochure.pdf Hunting and Angling Laws are Created Through Public Process Hunting seasons, harvest limits and penalties imposed for violations are established through laws and regulations. Everyone has the opportunity to shape the laws and regulations applied in wildlife conservation. Hunting and Angling Opportunity for All Opportunity to participate in hunting, angling and wildlife conservation is guaranteed for all in good standing, not by social status or privilege, financial capacity or land ownership. This concept ensures a broad base of financial support and advocacy for research, monitoring, habitat conservation and law enforcement. We need to offer alternatives instead of just saying no to the premium proposal and the obvious is the the best. About 4500 premium elk tags at 55.00 extra or 10.00 across the board of 24,000 total elk tags equal the same... or increase the cow tags the same as bull. Deer there would be 3200 premium at 55.00 extra... a couple of bucks across the board would generate that. Elk right now is 121.00 with app fee... it would be 158.00 conceptional Deer now is 42.00 with app fee... 58.00 conceptional These increases seem steep but with the added app fee to all applications it would generate millions... the premium designation would only create 400,000 and cause all kinds of polorization of hunters and confict in the field... it also will put another wrinkle in the draw system that is already experiencing 'unintended' consequences with the 20% pass. All for a decmial point in the overall budget percentage. Kent