.270

heck, i don't know, i thought we'd have a contest. Lark.

hahahaha fellers, guess who got a sheep tag????? Lark.

hate to tell ya this dude, but them little fellers look a lot like bullwidgeon. definitely curs. , Lark.

if ya drink enough corn squeezin's, you'll sleep. i already got a couple primo colorado tags, so anything in Az. will be frostin' on the cake. Lark.

only way you can tell for sure is to taste em. lotsa things smell like weewee. ever been around bullwidgeon? anyway, give em a good lickin' and let us know what they taste like and i'll tell ya for sure what's on em. Lark.

i heard that the leftover deer tags would be available as "scratcher" tickets at the circle k. Lark.

i bought a new mule. Lark.

i'd tell ya'll to call 1-800-DEERHUNT, like i did last year, but my ears are still burnin'. it'll happen when it happens. same thing every year. "this guy said". "my friend at the game and fish said". etc. but it is like waitin' for xmas. hope i don't get no switches this year. a guy i know(sound familiar?) had a problem with his application, seems they charged him the $5 application fee, 15 times. the game and fish gave him a number to call. seems our stuff, at least the part he had problems with, is done in tennesee. and according to him, by a buncha hillbillies. he had a heck of a time getting the $5 deal fixed and then they withdrew his stuff from draw. he caught that and got it fixed, but he said tryin' to understand the hillbilly accent was worse than dealin' with some pakistani customer service agent from the phone company. i know in years past, convicts in prison did the actual downloading. now we have hillbillies. i told him next time to call me and i'll talk to em. i talk fluent hillbilly. i can't wait to see the comments on the computer "sorry feller, ya'll dint draw nothin' this year", or, "ya'll wuz drood fer havuhlina, no wait, half o' leena, no wait, ya'll know, them little pig lookin' thangs". Lark.

didja get a new banjo fer yer berfday? Lark.

you fellers really need to get some different animals. how you gonna glass from one o' them buckin' suckers? how you even gonna know where your rifle landed? Lark.

i talked to my buddy shrouffe and he said i was gettin' all my first choices. i told him i changed my mind on the sheep tag and he said that was ok, just let him know and he'd take care of it. but bad news for the rest o' ya. he said all you were gonna draw was flies. Lark.

started rainin' hard at about midnight at the rancho neglecto in creen queek. still rainin' good when i left @ 5:15. looks like we got around an inch. by the time i made it to higley road tho, it was quite dry. didn't look like much had happened. looked like it is really raining to the east. pray fer rain boys, it's the only difference between the desert and a rain forest. Lark.

you forgot the last part of my last statement. doesn't really matter to me what anyone else's opinion of the wolf/dog introduction is. only opinion that matters to me is mine. agree or disagree. doesn't matter. i've convinced myself that it isn't a good thing and that it is based of falacy and administered by liars. i've witnessed it first hand, in field discussion and in the field. that's enough for me. boy, for a guy who doesn't take sides, it sure seems like you are on the wolf/dogs side here. ain't no way whatever it is they are turning loose can ever be a wild animal when they are handled from birth till death by people. Lark. i'm gettin' bored with the whole deal. believe what ya want to believe. i believe the mexican gray wolf program is a stupid program administered by liars. i'm done. i got huntin' season to get ready for. rifles to sight in, livestock to shoe, saddles to fix, all that neat stuff. so who's goin' huntin' this year? i am. see ya there. Lark.

goats are ok, but your feet drag. the mule i bought last week came from central texas. southeast of abilene a couple hundred miles. horses or mules are both good, if they're good. i've had horses that will go anywhere and do anything, same as mules. just depends on the animal and it's temperament and experience. for punchin' cattle, a good horse is hard to beat. for huntin' and packin', a mule might be a little better. Lark.

wolves ain't the problem. the people that dreamed this crap up and administer it are. so tell me this, why did all the articles in the paper and why did the bioligists i talked to say that wolves were impervious to parvo? did the wolf folks just forget to innoculate the "wolves" for parvo? they shot em up for everything else. why did they make all the excuses about why they didn't know why parvo hit em like it did? it was a big deal when it happened and the folks in charge were sure surprised by it. and why does it say in black and white in the usfw documentation that they all have dog dna? get it and read it. why did they not try this in country that traditionally held wolves in substantial numbers? instead of the blue and gila wilderness, where there never were very many? whatever your take on it, scientist or layman, this wolf program is a joke and it's being played on us by folks with agendas other than science, biology, or endangered species. just a couple years ago the usfw got caught planting lynx hairs in an area that did not have any lynx, in order to further their "agenda". and the guys that got caught were given bonuses and promotions, among other accolades for it. and wolves will completely wipe out everything in an area to the point that they starve themselves or move elsewhere. it's happened in canada and alaska enough that there is good documentation to back it up. that's why the ariel shooting takes place. to lower the wolf numbers before they wipe everything out. every wild animal has to be managed. there it soo much civilization dispersed intermittently around the world to just let nature take it's course. and it has to be managed for the good of everything that has survived this long. i may not be a trained scientist, but i've got a brain that works fairly well and can form it's own opinions and have enough experience with wildlife and people to know what's bs and what ain't. this wolf program and everyone who champions it is pure bs. in my opinion. i'm gettin' bored with the whole deal. believe what ya want to believe. i believe the mexican gray wolf program is a stupid program administered by liars. i'm done. i got huntin' season to get ready for. rifles to sight in, livestock to shoe, saddles to fix, all that neat stuff. so who's goin' huntin' this year? i am. see ya there. Lark.

bullwidgeon-inflatable sheep casey-inflatable banjo me-inflatable .270

in the original documentation, buried deep, there is a paragraph that states that there are no mexican grey wolves that do not have dog dna. only reason i ever found it was because my daughter did a research paper in college on this very subject and an azgfd biologist showed it to her. i've had usfw and "wolf" people tell me they are all pure wolf too and when i showed em that paragraph they try real hard to change the subject. had one guy try to steal the info from me. he "mistakenly" shuffled it in with some other papers he had. i watched him do it, just to see if he would. i got one usfw guy at a meeting to admit, in front of other folks, that they all had dog dna. he swore and swore they were pure wolf until i told him i had in my hand usfw documents stating otherwise and he told him he had one more chance to tell the truth before i showed it to everyone else. he got redfaced and said they were pure wolf as far as the amount that was set by the usfw, but that they were all part dog. pure wolf and pure wolf as far as the usfw is concerned is two different things. a couple years after the first releases they had to gather up everyone one of, all of em, and give em parvo shots because parvo was wipin' em out. wolves don't get parvo. dogs do. and there have been many litters of pups that have been bred with domestic dogs, the one litter they destroyed and made news about doing it, they tried real hard to supress that also. anymore whenever they see one that they are sure is half dog, they whack it, but there are quite a few out there that are. they tried to blame it on people releasing wolf hybrids, like all the sudden that was a big problem. tried to spin it like this had been going on for a long time. remember one thing, you're not dealing with folks who tell the truth. in other words, liars. they spin, hide, manipulate, change and flat our lie about the true facts. some of the crap that Gary has dealt with at the 4 drag would blow your mind. Billy Marks has seen females trying to breed with his cowdogs in his yard before. this wolf deal, especially what we have going on in the southwest, is not good, for anyone except the guys that get off thinking they have screwed over someone who lives a lifestyle they don't agree with. and as far as wolfs running off coyotes, ya need to think that one over real good. that's sorta like sayin' that lung cancer cures smokin' or that dynamite does a good job at wart removal. at least with coyotes, when you see one you can shoot it. you can't even throw a rock at a "wolf". don't be drawn into the touchy feely part of this. it ain't about wolves. it's about doing away with hunting, fishing, trail riding, ranching, farming, etc. take calculator and use the usfw numbers for "wolf" recovery". their own statistics. there are not enough deer and elk or other game animals alive right now to sustain the number of "wolves" they want in the areas the have chosen. if and when they ever get the numbers there, who's gonna lose out? if there aren't enough deer and elk for hunters and "wolves", who's not gettin' a tag? think hard on this one boys. Lark.

while i do not mind the fact that they don't want to build any new roads, and are going to remove some old roads, i do have to look, with some jaundice, at the list of organizations that back it. roadless areas don't bother me. i just drove 2000 miles and spent a fair amount of cash for a new mule to get me into roadless areas. but i don't like it when pro hunter groups line up with anti's on anything. if all they do is not build any new roads, ok. but that ain't where it will end. i guarantee there are things detrimental to hunting and fishing hidden in the agenda somewhere. logging in areas that could use it is a good deal. for everyone and everything. this will just make it harder to ever log anywhere. but logging on public land is about dead anyway. most all lumber comes from tree farming now. i don't know exactly where to stand. no new roads doesn't bother me. the folks that support it, well, they scare the $h!t outta me. Lark.

corky, i shoot a 140 gr btsp hornadys with as much h4350 as it'll handle. and i load the bullet really long. i shoot an old model 70 and it allows for that kinda load. it won't work in most newer rifles. throat is too short. i'm sure there are some better powders now, but it works good for me. Lark.

i copied this off another real popular site. it's real long, but read it anyway. i mean it. i'm sure azpy and a few others will call me liar, but oh well, i do like to fish. read this real good and pay a lot of attention to the next to the last paragraph. if you like to hunt, you oughta think real hard about wolves. Lark. T. R. Mader is Research Director for Abundant Wildlife Society of North America (AWS), a private wildlife research organization dedicated to the preservation of the Great North American Traditions of Hunting, Fishing and Trapping. WOLVES AND HUNTING By T. R. Mader, Research Director Abundant Wildlife Society of North America I'm convinced, based on several years of wolf research, hunters will bear the brunt of wolf recovery/protection regardless of location. There is no language written in any wolf recovery plan to protect the hunter's privilege to hunt. Wolves are well known to cause wild game population declines which are so drastic hunting is either eliminated or severely curtailed. And there is no provision for recovery of wild game populations for the purposes of hunting. It simply will not be allowed. Example: A few years ago, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) agreed the state should take over the responsibility of wolf management. The DNR felt wolves were impacting their deer populations and wanted to open a short trapping season on the wolf. The environmentalists sued and won. The USFWS could not give wolf management back to Minnesota in spite of a desire to do so. The problem with wolf recovery is that most people, especially hunters, have not looked "beyond press releases and into the heart of the wolf issue." It must be stated clearly that the wolf is the best tool for shutting down hunting. The anti-hunters know this. Most hunters don't. Thus, wolf recovery is not opposed by the people who will be impacted most. In order to understand the impacts wolves have on hunting, let's look at some biological factors of the wolf and compare some hunting facts. The wolf is an efficient predator of wild game and domestic livestock. Due to its ability as a predator, the wolf was removed from areas of the U.S. where man settled. There is no such thing as peaceful coexistence between man and wolf - one has to give to the other since both prey/hunt the same wildlife/ungulate populations. Did the removal of the wolf cause it to become endangered? No, there are 40,000 to 60,000 wolves on the North American continent. The animal is doing quite well. During the years of wolf control, the wolf's territory was eliminated throughout most of the lower 48 states. That factor is the reason the wolf is on the Endangered Species Act (ESA). A wolf requires five to ten pounds of meat per day for survival, thus the wolf requires a considerable amount of meat in one year - nearly a ton of meat per year per wolf. A wolf is capable of consuming great quantities of meat, up to one fifth of its body weight, at one time. Thus, a wolf does not have to kill each day to survive. Wolves hunt year around - 365 days a year. Wolf predation is not limited to two weeks, one month or whatever a hunting season length may be, it is year around. Wolves are opportunistic hunters, meaning they kill what is available and convenient. For years, hunters have been fed the line, "Wolves kill only the weak, sick and old." Worse yet, hunters have believed it. It is true, wolves do kill old animals, but so do hunters. Those are the big bulls or bucks prized by many who hunt. In fact, biological studies have shown wolves kill older male animals more than any other adult member of a wild game population. Regarding sick animals, there are not many sick wild animals today. Hunters and trappers are directly responsible for healthy wild game herds today. In the cyclic "balance of nature" of years past (no hunting by man), ungulate populations would thrive until they overgrazed their habitat and starved. This malnutrition made ungulate populations susceptible to disease. Consequently, disease was more common. Lewis and Clark wrote of such herds. (The other major factor contributing to the decline in wildlife populations was predation.) Hunting controls this cycle so that herds are kept at proper levels for habitat, preventing malnutrition and susceptibility to disease. Hunting dollars went to habitat improvement and biological studies which, in turn, help maintain healthier herds of ungulates. Even agriculture plays a part in the dispersal of salt and other minerals to domestic livestock. Wild animals access these nutrients as well. Thus, disease is not as rampant as when nature regulates it naturally. It is also interesting to note that where disease is a problem today, such as Yellowstone National Park, hunting is not allowed. Trapping completes the cycle of game management by controlling the predator. The predator is to wildlife what weeds are to a garden. They must be controlled or they will take over. Additionally, predators are disease carriers. Some people are aware predators carry rabies since reports of rabid animals or some person being bitten by a rabid animal are often in the news, but few realize predators also carry other deadly diseases, i.e. raccoons carry a deadly fowl cholera. And finally, trapping benefits the predator by keeping their numbers in check. This keeps the population healthy. If predators do overpopulate, they become more susceptible to rabies, mange and other diseases. Wolves do not eat sick animals unless forced to do so. We have found this true in many cases. Example: A Conservation Officer for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) found a moose with brain worm. Brain worm completely destroys an animal's instinctive and natural behavior. This moose had wandered out on a frozen lake in winter and was slowly starving to death. Wolves came by, checked the moose out and went their way. Tracks in the snow verified it. They did not kill it even though it would have been extremely easy to do so. Wolves do kill the weak. Weak animals are not sick animals, they are simply the "less strong" of the herd. Wolves target these animals - the young and pregnant - due to their inability to escape. This is an important factor in limiting wildlife population numbers. Wolves prey directly on the recruitment and reproductive segments of ungulate populations. While doing research in British Colombia, a wolf biologist from the British Colombia Ministry of Environment took the time to show me how wolves could impact hunting so severely. Here's his example. In this particular example he used a number of 300 females in a herd of elk. In his region, wolf predation is often 90% on the young (100% mortality rates due to predation are common in the north). If 300 females gave birth in an area of wolves, the approximate loss would be about 270 young calves killed during the summer months, leaving 30 yearlings to serve as replacements. A regular die-off rate on such a herd is about 10%. So the 30 yearlings would balance out the regular mortality rate of the female segment of the herd. But overall there is a decline in the elk herd due to the fact that the 30 yearlings are usually sexually split in half (15 females and 15 males), thus the reproductive segment of the herd declines although the numbers appear to balance out. Without some form of wolf control, the rate of decline will increase within a few years. There were approximately 100 males in this herd of elk. Figuring the regular mortality rate and compensating with the surviving young leaves 5 animals (males only) that could be harvested by man. Now if this herd of elk were in an area of no wolves, there would be approximately 60 - 70% successful reproduction (calves making it to yearlings) or 200 young. Half of those surviving young would be male (100 animals). After figuring a 10% mortality rate, 90 older animals could be harvested without impact to the overall herd numbers. In fact, the herd would increase due to additional numbers of the reproductive segment (females) of the herd. Now you have some insight of the impacts wolves can have on hunting. In spite of the negative publicity generated by the anti-hunting, anti-trapping movements, hunting and trapping are some of the best wildlife management tools. Hunters' harvest can be limited through numbers of licenses issued, bag limits, length of seasons, and specification of sex of the animal harvested. Thus, only the surplus of an ungulate population is generally hunted. If the need arises that an ungulate population needs reduction, it is easily accomplished by allowing an "any sex" hunt and increasing license numbers. Additionally, hunters will pay for the opportunity to hunt which in turn pays for wildlife management. Wolves do none of the above. They simply kill to survive and for the sake of killing. Studies have shown that ungulate populations cannot withstand hunting by man and uncontrolled predation by wolves for any length of time. One has to give to the other. In this day and age, the wolf will be the winner, the hunter the loser. A point which should be stressed is "wolves kill for the sake of killing," not just to survive. Many are convinced wolves kill only what they need to eat. That simply isn't true. Remember the moose with brain worm the wolves didn't eat? In the same area, the same winter and only a couple of months later, the same Conservation Officer followed two wolves after a spring snow storm and found the wolves had killed 21 deer. Only two were partially eaten. The snow gave the wolves the advantage. These deer were autopsied and many were found to be pregnant. The total number of deer killed in 2 days by these 2 wolves was 36. Such incidents of surplus killing are common. For example, Canadian biologists came upon an area where a pack of wolves have killed 34 caribou calves in one area. Another example came from Alaska. In the Wrangell Mountains, a pack of five wolves came upon 20 Dall rams crossing a snow-covered plateau. All 20 rams were killed by the wolves. Only six were partially eaten by the wolves. Dr. Charles E. Kay, PH.D. has lectured on the impacts of wolf recovery. To illustrate the impacts of wolves on hunting, he did a comparison of moose populations in British Colombia versus Sweden and Finland. Both areas have a comparable amount of moose habitat. Dr. Kay stated, "During the 1980s in Sweden and Finland, the pre-calf or the wintering population of moose was approximately 400,000 animals and was increasing. While in British Colombia, it was 240,000 animals and decreasing. "In British Colombia where they have a population of 240,000 animals and after a calving season they killed only 12,000 animals which is a 5% off take. In Sweden and Finland, on the other hand, they have 400,000 moose and guess how many they killed in the fall? They killed 240,000 moose in the fall which is a 57% off take rate. "Now the two main differences, I don't want to imply that there's not vegetation difference and other things, but the two main differences is that British Colombia has somewhere between 5,000 and 6,000 wolves, all sorts of bears, grizzly bears and black bears which are also important predators, and mountain lions. Sweden and Finland have none of the above." Veteran wolf biologist, John Gunson, Alberta Ministry of Environment, summed it up when he said, "Really, there isn't any room for harvest by man if you have a healthy wolf population." Hunters, please understand the impacts of wolf recovery on hunting and the role wolf recovery plays in the anti-hunters' agenda. Natural predation, especially wolf predation, can replace your privilege to hunt.

at least the dude in charge has a last name that fits the cause. Lark.

i don't know a whole lot about this, but i sorta like it that at least a little attention was paid to the nomination and it wasn't just rubber stamped. as far as her being a nonhunter, what have the "hunters" on the commission done that is good? just the fact that mr. napalitano appointed her is enough for me to not like her. i don't care what anybody says, she has an agenda and it ain't good for us. but some of cimalleros comments are about as stupid as they can get. she can't be a commissioner because she has a kid? i mean i'm glad that what happened, happened, no way i wanted her on the commission, but dang, lets use some real stuff here. and the fact that the NRA said she was cool is another reason to not want her. the NRA does some great stuff nationally, but they don't need to have any input whatsoever into Az. wildlife management. them or sci or the sierra club or peta or anyone. the NRA really rode the fence in the uso deal, along with sci, too. but the thing that really jumped out at me is that gilstrap's wife is a lobbyist representing outdoors interests? is this a conflict of interest or what? good night, i wonder what the heck is really going on in those commission meetings? http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/l...nsider0622.html

it rained enough in creen queek sunday eve to settle the dust a little. that was after a big dust storm that knocked out the power and muddied up my cement pond. there have been some substantial rains in the white mountains and along the rim in a few places, but fairly localized. Lark.

two things that really bother me. she doesn't hunt and wants folks to know it, and she's the 2nd nominee in a row that is an ex game warden. i think the other dude was ex azgfd, too. sounds like jammit is sorta settin' up a real azgfd friendly commission. one thing we don't need right now. need some folks who will put their foot down and keep it down. not someone with ties and friendships with the azgfd. as far as i'm concerned, noone that jammit nominates is good for us. it's going to be a calculated politicaly motivated move. she hates the commission. look a the things she said and did when they were gonna get rid on some lions by tucson. she wants easily manipulated folks. and she's gettin' em. Lark.

i remember when i was a kid everyone was predicting that hunting wouldn't last but a few more years and the same things that have been said on this thread were said then. opportunity to hunt has become a premium, but it ain't dead. more and more hunters, less and less opportunity. doesn't matter what condition the range is in or what the animal numbers are, when the population keeps increasing and Az. keeps producing big animals that attract nonresidents, opportunity is gonna decrease. but as long as there are good folks who want to get involved and hold management's feet to the fire and as long as dads teach their kids what a great thing the outdoors is, this rite will survive. hunting is bigger than any politician's agenda and bigger than any game manager. my only advice to young hunters is to hunt. hunt every chance you get. be passionate about it. and when there are no hunting seasons open, then fish. and when you get old you can carry the torch for the kids that come after you. Lark.