bowsniper

So what is this "the commission voted to civilly assess Malik $14,995 for the state’s loss of the 408-point" crap? The state didn't lose a 408" elk, the guy already had paid $130,000 for it. Not that the guy can't afford the fine, but to me it looks like the state got paid twice for the same elk. (Maybe they refunded the $130,000?) Mark

I have attached a printable, double sided information sheet about the bait rule. Feel free to print out stacks and leave them around places where you can get the word out for public input. Thanks, Mark Attention_Hunters.doc

Guys, Don't bother to write to G&F about this issue until January when it is officially opened up to public comment. It took me a 20 minute conversation and several specific exacting questions with Celeste Cook at G&F rules today, but after I finally asked the correct perfect question, she finally admitted that comments about a rule that are submitted before it is officially opened up to public comment, are only "tallied", and not included in the "preamble" (whatever the heck that is). It really does annoy me off that G&F has to be so evasive with their responses to questions. Bottom line, comments that you have already sent to G&F do not count as much as comments made after it is officially opened up to public comment, scheduled to be around January 2. So hold off you comments until then, and also resubmit the ones that you have already made then. One other factoid that I did manage to squeeeeeeeeze out of the friendly, but completely evasive G&F bureaucrat was that most of comments seemed to be from people on CWT.com. Great job guys! (although she refused to say if most were pro or con) Merry CHRISTmas Everyone! Mark

Nice bucks, but I gota say that posting pics of bucks over corn does not help our cause with the fish police monitoring our forum. Maybe you (and others) could do a little photoshop work before posting. Thanks, Mark

Since g&f limits you to a 6" barrel, I would carry one of these: Mark

April 17th is the date for the next commission meeting. Mark

Here are the email addresses: BWakeling@azgfd.gov (Brian Wakeling) AMunig@azgfd.gov (Amber Munig) ccook@azgfd.gov (Celeste Cook) Rulemaking@azgfd.gov Here is the link to send messages to the commissioners: http://www.azgfd.gov/inside_azgfd/commissi...rs.shtml#carter AZOnecam, you are exactly right, and I' trying to do my best to do that. If you or anyone else has any ideas about the best way to get something going, send me a PM and maybe we could get an organized effort going. Merry CHRISTmas everyone! Mark

Good points! Mark

I find myself asking "what unit" alot, but I never have the intention of going to hunt there. I think it's just a natural question for most people. The units are so big, even if someone does respond to the question, it's pretty worthless information anyway. Merry CHRISTmas Everyone! Mark

Guys, Don't bother to write to G&F about this issue until January when it is officially opened up to public comment. It took me a 20 minute conversation and several specific exacting questions with Celeste Cook at G&F rules today, but after I finally asked the correct perfect question, she finally admitted that comments about a rule that are submitted before it is officially opened up to public comment, are only "tallied", and not included in the "preamble" (whatever the heck that is). It really does annoy me off that G&F has to be so evasive with their responses to questions. Bottom line, comments that you have already sent to G&F do not count as much as comments made after it is officially opened up to public comment, scheduled to be around January 2. So hold off you comments until then, and also resubmit the ones that you have already made then. Mark

Who exactly do we send the email to i would like to send one or two. Here are some G&F email addresses to complain to (use them all): BWakeling@azgfd.gov (Brian Wakeling) AMunig@azgfd.gov (Amber Munig) ccook@azgfd.gov (Celeste Cook) Rulemaking@azgfd.gov Also, very important, please take a minute to send a message to each commissioner. It is very easy to cut and paste your complaint to each member. Here is a link to do that: http://www.azgfd.gov/inside_azgfd/commissi...rs.shtml#carter Mark

Very nice CHRISTmas decorations! Thank you! Mark

Good question. Several years ago, when I was still trying to teach myself to hunt, and had yet to take an animal, I hired Jim McLendon to take me out on December 31 in 6a for a coues. It was a last ditch effort, and $100 sure seemed like a lot of $$ at the time. I had been stumbling around the whole hunt pretty much learning everything not to do. I did not get a shot off, but I sure did learn a bunch from him. I'm sure that there will be those who scoff "that's not hunting!". Maybe the same guys who say about hunting with salt, "that's not hunting!" If you don't have a dad or a buddy to teach you how to hunt, you sure will waste a of of time tying to learn on you own. You could probably learn a lot from a guide. Mark

I spent a lot of time transposing this map to topo maps and then scouting the areas. So far, I would say that it has been maybe 50% accurate for the areas I have scouted. I was a little disappointed. I have looked for the original source of the map, but never found it. Amanda, any idea what G&F publication this map came from? Mark

Dark to dark, but I have seen the most waterhole activity from around 10am to 2pm. I would not even bother to sit it unless you are in a treestand or pop-up blind to control scent. If you are in a pop-up blind, make sure that only one window is open so you scent is contained. Good luck, Mark

Depends where your are hunting. If it has been pretty dry, go for it. There is suppose to be a lot of moisture hitting the state Sunday, so Friday and Saturday might be good, but I have found that if there are water pockets around, they will stay clear of the water holes. I'd try the water holes Friday and Saturday, and then spot and stalk after that if we get the moisture that they are forecasting. Good luck! Mark

Well, now that I have your attention.....they haven't proposed this yet, but gun hunters are next. Even if you don't agree with using salt or anything else, we as hunters need to stand together AGAINST G&F. The G&F agenda is about limiting success to increase tag sales (they call it opportunity). They already decreased rifle rut tags to increase the number of tag sales ("opportunity"), and they won't stop there. They will just keep taking away our tools, high power scopes, long range rifles, water holes, scents, calls, bait or anything else, to increase tag sales. Bait is just the first item on their agenda. A couple of factoids about hunting with bait: It's really not that easy as some would have you believe. It's a lot of work, with mixed results. I estimate it to be about as successful as hunting water, just a lot more work. I have used bait just so I don't have to share a water hole with other hunters. It is considered fair by Pope & Young, P&Y, and the Safari Club. I know a lot of gun hunters don't consider it fair, but it's just another tool bow hunters use to get closer to game, just like some rifle hunters use a high powered scope, a ballistics program, a high BC bullet, laser range finder, or whatever to "get closer" to an animal at long range. It's just another tool in your tool box, if you are willing to devote the time to it. If you haven't done so yet, please take just a minute to write a few lines to G&F opposing the proposed rule change on bait. All hunters need to stand together against G&F, or divided we will all eventually lose the hunting we enjoy so G&F can increase "opportunity". Here are the email addresses: Thanks, Mark PS: Sorry that I had to sucker you in on the thread with the topic. BWakeling@azgfd.gov (Brian Wakeling) AMunig@azgfd.gov (Amber Munig) ccook@azgfd.gov (Celeste Cook) Rulemaking@azgfd.gov

You are getting some great advice here! A couple of things jump out at me: Cherish the time in the field with your dad!! (quoted from someone else) You gotta go where the deer are. (quoted from someone else) The solution to that is to scout and scout and then scout some more. I would guess that I spend 3 days scouting for every day hunting. Hunting for most people is not instinctive, it is a skill gained from either your own experience or someone else's experience. My dad never hunted, and I taught myself to hunt as an adult. I stumbled around for 13 years all over Arizona before taking my first animal. That's a time consuming way to learn. Get a mentor if you can to help you along. If you can't, it might be worth hiring a guide for a hunt, with the condition that he mentor and teach you as well as guide you. At least for me, glassing is not a natural ability. I have a friend that after I pick out one deer on a hillside, he can pick out 9 more with the same binos. There was someone note worthy guide (Dwane Adams?) giving glassing lessons a while back. Maybe someone could remember the details. Good luck, keep at it, and keep us posted. Mark

You are right Amanda, we (I) have been harsh on G&F on this forum. I'm not saying that it is right, but I know for me it is an expression of frustration from what I feel is a lack of G&F willing to give even minor consideration to what hunters have to say. I keep thinking about a commission meeting last year when almost 100 hunters, mostly from Phoenix, traveled to Flagstaff give their input on a tag issue. Instead of listening to hunter comments, one commissioner whined, "I'm tired and I want to go home." Then there was the commission meeting where Dick King (the most diplomatic and polite person I know) was told by a commissioner to "sit down and shut up!" Episodes like these may not justify our harsh words to G&F employees, but it sure can explain our frustration with the agency. Mark

Walmart is having their annual archery clearance. Along with the cheap stuff there are some good deals on Limbsaver stuff and Muzzy broadheads. Mark

Usually I would agree with that, but I really believe that if enough of us complain, they won't be able to sleeze this through like they usually do. Don't give up! We can beat them on this one! Mark

Hey Ron, Thanks for stopping in and posting some bogus data. Stop by again when you can't stay so long (or can't post any answers to legitimate questions). Thanks again! Mark

Here are some interesting questions about obama's qualifications to be President: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=...mp;pageId=80710 Posted: November 11, 2008 1:00 am Eastern "Therefore do not fear them, 'For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known.'" –Matthew 10:26 Hold on. Just a minute. Not only was there no landslide and no mandate, there was no election. The Electoral College doesn't even vote until Dec. 15. And there's one thing that may stand in their way from affirming last Tuesday's popular vote: the Constitution. For the electors to uphold the Constitution that they're sworn to do with their upcoming vote, they must first know for sure that the candidates meet the basic constitutional requirements for the office of president. He must be a natural-born citizen, at least 35 years old, and have at least 14 years of residency in these United States. That's not a lot to ask. Pretty basic, really. And pretty easy. Either you are a natural born citizen or you aren't. Just deliver the original birth certificate and everyone can be on their way. That's just what Phillip J. Berg has asked the United States Supreme Court to do. And the Supreme Court has asked for a response from Barack Obama along with the Democratic National Committee and Federal Elections Commission. And they have until Dec. 1 to respond. Surely a guy couldn't get this far without meeting the basic requirements, could he? Turns out … he could. Especially if the political party whose job it is to verify that their candidate is qualified has a conflict of interest – they want their guy to win. That's why there's a clamor to see if those basic requirements are actually met. Not extreme. Not fringe. Just constitutional. Obama says he's qualified? Phil Berg, multiple legal suits and growing number of Americans say: "Prove it." Why is there any doubt? Exhibit A: The Grandmother's tape I was in the delivery room in [Mombosa,] Kenya, when he was born Aug. 4, 1961. – Obama's paternal grandmother This is the link where Obama's grandmother says Barack Obama is a native Kenyan. Here's the phone call where Obama's grandmother says Obama was born in Kenya. While politicians are known for it, grandmothers seldom lie. Exhibit B: No birth certificate Experts have called the Certificate of Live Birth posted online a forgery. Phil Berg reported on my Faith2Action radio program yesterday, "It's clearly been altered," which invalidates it, according to the document itself. Berg added that there is no indication even on this certificate as to specifically where the birth took place. And it turns out that Hawaiian law at the time allowed people to register for this non-hospital short form certificate (without a doctor's signature) up to one year from the date of the child's birth. Exhibit C: The matter of Indonesian citizenship Only Indonesian citizens could attend Indonesian schools at the time Barack Obama attended school in Indonesia where was registered as Barry Soetoro. His citizenship was listed as Indonesian and his religion as Islam. There was also no dual citizenship at the time. If he was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather, he would have forfeited any U.S. citizenship he may have had, just as when a child is adopted in America, he or she becomes an American. Exhibit D: Travel to Pakistan U.S. citizens were prohibited from traveling to Pakistan in 1981 when Barack Obama made his visit – likely with a passport other than a U.S. passport. Exhibit E: Immigration back to the U.S. According to Phillip Berg on my radio program yesterday, if Barack Obama went through immigration as he re-entered the United States, he would have become "naturalized," which also would not qualify him to become President. If he did not, said Berg, there is a likelihood that he is now an illegal alien – not even eligible to serve in the U.S. Senate. In fact, Berg suggested there has been no evidence that Barack Obama legally changed his name from Barry Soetoro. In addition, according to U.S. law, from "Dec. 24, 1952, to Nov. 13, 1986," a U.S. natural-born citizen at the time of Obama's birth must be: 1. A natural-born citizen; 2. Born to two U.S. citizen parents; OR 3. If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16. Since Barack Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen and Obama's mother was only 18 at the time of his birth, she failed to meet the legal requirements of U.S. residency for at least five years after the age of 16. Here's the bottom line: either the Constitution matters or it doesn't. And if we're willing to ignore the constitutional requirements for the highest office in the land, what else are we willing to forgo? That part about free speech? Freedom of the press? Freedom of religion? If we are willing to shred one part of the Constitution, brace yourself to lose the rest. Matthew 10:26 said it best: "Therefore do not fear them, 'There is nothing covered that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known.'" The question is whether it will come in time to avert a Constitutional crisis. If you are a Democrat or Republican elector who cares about the Constitution even more than your party, please email me directly at jfolger@wnd.com. You are sworn to uphold the Constitution with your vote next month, and making sure the constitutional requirements are met is vital for you to uphold that oath. Members of Congress also need to step up to the plate since they are the ones responsible to approve the vote of the Electoral College. They can be reached at: 202-224-3121. Seems to me a defender of the Constitution like Rep. Ron Paul would be a natural plaintiff in the case to verify that constitutional requirements have been met. Other members with courage to stand need to stand now or forever hold their peace. Our Founding Fathers were right; the Constitution is still worth defending. Rise up and speak up while there is still time. Go Phil Berg's www.ObamaCrimes.com and join the fight to defend the Constitution. Please forward this to everyone on your e-mail lists.

Guys, According to a source at G&F, as of this morning (Thursday), they had only received 10 emails/phone calls about the baiting issue. 8 were in favor of the ban, 2 were against. We definitely need more calls/emails into G&F voicing opposition against the new rule before tomorrow morning. Please drop everything and call or email Celeste Cook 623-236-7390 ccook@azgfd.gov and voice your opposition. The commissioners will considering this input tomorrow when they decide whether or not to proceed on the new rule. Please do it now!! Sorry for the duplicate post, this topic has really gotten scattered around several threads. Mark

Guys, According to a source at G&F, as of this morning (Thursday), they had only received 10 emails/phone calls about the baiting issue. 8 were in favor of the ban, 2 were against. We definitely need more calls/emails into G&F voicing opposition against the new rule before tomorrow morning. Please drop everything and call or email Celeste Cook 623-236-7390 ccook@azgfd.gov and voice your opposition. The commissioners will considering this input tomorrow when they decide whether or not to proceed on the new rule. Please do it now!! Mark