WhtMtnHunter

Flatlander, what do you suggest be done? The AZ stakeholders tried to compromise and allow the wolf population to expand into new areas and their population to increase at least 3 fold. The feds didn't even think it was a serious enough proposal to discuss. I would like to know what the best path froward is. Idaho is a bad example because delisting of the grey wolf was held up by Wyoming. Meanwhile Idaho and Montana were devastated, while Wyoming game and fish said they wouldn't enforce the ESA outside of Yellowstone, the Grand Tetons, and in very limited areas elsewhere. Should we follow Wyoming's example and say that any wolf outside the Apache-Sitgreaves is treated like a coyote with year round hunting with no bag limit? Or would it be better to be like Idaho and fully comply with the feds regardless of the outcome? Seems to me that Wyoming is the only state with a "predator" zone for wolves, and has the best management plan in place despite being the original site for their reintroduction. Please advise as to the best course from here since we sportsmen have no say in the process.

Now this is friggen funny! http://youtu.be/kBb7KReY6Eg (squirrel launcher)

We have Coues deer! It's like running over a squirrel!

Let's compare Wyoming and Arizona Number of wolves in WY = 300 Number of proposed wolves in AZ = 300 - 1000 Number of elk in WY = 100,000 Number of elk in AZ = 35,000 Number of deer in WY = 450,000 Number of deer in AZ = 150,000 Number of antelope in WY = 520,000 Number of antelope in AZ = 7,500 Can someone please explain to me how with 1/3 the prey base that Arizona is capable of supporting the same amount, or three times more, the amount of wolves that Wyoming has? Here is the "stakeholder" proposal and my response from the previous page. As I see it there is no middle ground, either the AZGFD (pressured by the alleged "stakeholders") pulls out from the recovery program like Wyoming did and lets the feds administer and police the recovery, or they accelerate the 1000 wolf goal(release all the captive wolves) so they can be hunted next year. Proposing 300 wolves is only extending the feds control of the situation. Sadly this is no longer about the wolf itself, it has become a political football that will change with every future national administration. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The only group I am not surprised to see on that list is Big Game Forever. The northern wolf has been a huge cash cow for them and delisting has been a serious drain on their fundraising. Looks like the Mexican Wolf is their new money maker. Maybe the remaining groups needs some education on the art of negotiation. Simply put, negotiation is imposing your will on the other party and gaining an advantage. This seems to be more of a compromise, if not a complete surrender. Point by point. Allowing up to triple the target number of Mexican wolves in the Southwest from the 1982 recovery plan's goal of not less than 100 wolves to achieve a self-sustaining population. A HUGE loss for hunters and those who call themselves their representatives. This is clearly a win for wolf advocates who want 1000+ wolves in this state. Wolf advocates always believe the ends justify the means and simply cannot be trusted to adhere to any agreement. Does anyone really believe that once the Mexican Wolf numbers 300 or more that the wolf advocates will simply agree to state management? This is incredibly naive given the fact that they are still taking Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming to court over the 2000 wolves there when they agreed to just having about 500-700. If they could work into the agreement a lawyer proof statement that when the Mexican wolf numbers 301 then there will be 1 hunting tag, and when they number 350 then there will be 50 hunting tags we might have some teeth in the agreement. As it stands now it is simply a surrender to wolf advocates. Some may argue that Wyoming's stance on the wolf caused extensive delays in overall delisting, but look at who has the least amount of wolves and the most aggressive management. Wyoming only has 300 wolves and a predator zone where they are on the same level as coyotes, Idaho and Montana both have 700-1000 wolves in each state and more tightly controlled hunts for wolves. I would rather see Arizona take the Wyoming position. Major expansion of the area where wolves can be released to include the Secondary Recovery Zone. Another HUGE loss for hunters and exactly what the pro-wolf advocates want. Wolf advocates want Mexican wolves to expand into the Kaibab plateau, Southern Utah, Colorado, and all of New Mexico. They desire "connectivity" with the larger wolves in Wyoming and Idaho. Acquiescing for an expansion of the recovery zone is exactly what the wolf advocates desire. And the "stakeholders" apparently are giving them everything they want. Expansion of the area where Mexican wolves can disperse and establish territories. Wyoming allowed the wolf to expand to limited areas outside Yellowstone National Park. Everywhere else was considered to be the predator zone and wolves are treated like coyotes, year round hunting with no bag limit. Arizona should adopt this stance. Any wolf that leaves the Apache Sitgreaves is considered the same as a coyote with a year round season and no bag limit. This would be in the spirit of the original plan agreed upon with the wolf advocates of 100 wolves. This would force their dispersal in a southward direction towards their historical range in Mexico. Furthermore, wolf advocates should live up to the original agreement before they are trusted to negotiate a new one. Establishment of a connectivity corridor for wolves to disperse to the species' core historical range in Mexico. According to Game and Fish about 75+% of the Mexican wolf diet is elk. How many elk are there in Mexico? Pretending that Mexican wolves will move south to Mexico is ridiculous when every documented movement of the species has been northwest across Arizona in the direction of Flagstaff, basically in the zone where the majority of elk live. I would like to see one documented discovery of Mexican wolves moving south of the Apache Sitgreaves and making a living on coues deer and javelina. Recognition of the importance of Mexico as a primary element to successful Mexican wolf recovery. I am sure the wolf advocates would happily agree to this. Why wouldn't they? They have no control over Mexico and know that 1000 wolves in Arizona is just as good as 5 wolves in Mexico. Recognition of the Mexican wolves historical range has little impact on the Endangered Species Act since it can only be enforced in the United States. Not even a symbolic victory for hunters. I'm glad the RMEF didn't sign up for this garbage; I'll probably donate to that organization from now on.

The only group I am not surprised to see on that list is Big Game Forever. The northern wolf has been a huge cash cow for them and delisting has been a serious drain on their fundraising. Looks like the Mexican Wolf is their new money maker. Maybe the remaining groups needs some education on the art of negotiation. Simply put, negotiation is imposing your will on the other party and gaining an advantage. This seems to be more of a compromise, if not a complete surrender. Point by point. Allowing up to triple the target number of Mexican wolves in the Southwest from the 1982 recovery plan's goal of not less than 100 wolves to achieve a self-sustaining population. A HUGE loss for hunters and those who call themselves their representatives. This is clearly a win for wolf advocates who want 1000+ wolves in this state. Wolf advocates always believe the ends justify the means and simply cannot be trusted to adhere to any agreement. Does anyone really believe that once the Mexican Wolf numbers 300 or more that the wolf advocates will simply agree to state management? This is incredibly naive given the fact that they are still taking Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming to court over the 2000 wolves there when they agreed to just having about 500-700. If they could work into the agreement a lawyer proof statement that when the Mexican wolf numbers 301 then there will be 1 hunting tag, and when they number 350 then there will be 50 hunting tags we might have some teeth in the agreement. As it stands now it is simply a surrender to wolf advocates. Some may argue that Wyoming's stance on the wolf caused extensive delays in overall delisting, but look at who has the least amount of wolves and the most aggressive management. Wyoming only has 300 wolves and a predator zone where they are on the same level as coyotes, Idaho and Montana both have 700-1000 wolves in each state and more tightly controlled hunts for wolves. I would rather see Arizona take the Wyoming position. Major expansion of the area where wolves can be released to include the Secondary Recovery Zone. Another HUGE loss for hunters and exactly what the pro-wolf advocates want. Wolf advocates want Mexican wolves to expand into the Kaibab plateau, Southern Utah, Colorado, and all of New Mexico. They desire "connectivity" with the larger wolves in Wyoming and Idaho. Acquiescing for an expansion of the recovery zone is exactly what the wolf advocates desire. And the "stakeholders" apparently are giving them everything they want. Expansion of the area where Mexican wolves can disperse and establish territories. Wyoming allowed the wolf to expand to limited areas outside Yellowstone National Park. Everywhere else was considered to be the predator zone and wolves are treated like coyotes, year round hunting with no bag limit. Arizona should adopt this stance. Any wolf that leaves the Apache Sitgreaves is considered the same as a coyote with a year round season and no bag limit. This would be in the spirit of the original plan agreed upon with the wolf advocates of 100 wolves. This would force their dispersal in a southward direction towards their historical range in Mexico. Furthermore, wolf advocates should live up to the original agreement before they are trusted to negotiate a new one. Establishment of a connectivity corridor for wolves to disperse to the species' core historical range in Mexico. According to Game and Fish about 75+% of the Mexican wolf diet is elk. How many elk are there in Mexico? Pretending that Mexican wolves will move south to Mexico is ridiculous when every documented movement of the species has been northwest across Arizona in the direction of Flagstaff, basically in the zone where the majority of elk live. I would like to see one documented discovery of Mexican wolves moving south of the Apache Sitgreaves and making a living on coues deer and javelina. Recognition of the importance of Mexico as a primary element to successful Mexican wolf recovery. I am sure the wolf advocates would happily agree to this. Why wouldn't they? They have no control over Mexico and know that 1000 wolves in Arizona is just as good as 5 wolves in Mexico. Recognition of the Mexican wolves historical range has little impact on the Endangered Species Act since it can only be enforced in the United States. Not even a symbolic victory for hunters. I'm glad the RMEF didn't sign up for this garbage; I'll probably donate to that organization from now on.

The best part about leftover tags is that they consider all 5 choices before moving on to the next app. I've been lucky to draw my 5th choice about 3 out of 5 years, however it is usually coon canyon with an exceptionally low success rate.

It's a good idea. But it has to come with some revisions to the current system. 1. Square points. The hunter who has put in for 10 years(100 points) is much more likely to draw than the guy who has put in for 4 years (16 points), but the 4 point applicant still has a chance. 2. Drop the bonus pass round. 100% of the tags go to the random draw. 3. Increase the NR allocation to 15%. This will attract more NR to apply in the current unfriendly NR climate and push them through the system faster, while keeping resident tag costs on a gentle slope with an insignificant impact on draw odds.

The thing that I believe the Dept didn't take into account was the resulting negative public sentiment about the lethal removal of lions. This transplant could very easily turn public sentiment against the hunting/removal of lions. We could end up with no sheep in the Catalinas and also a California type ballot initiative to eliminate lion hunting in the state. Just look at the comment sections of the newspaper articles and it is obvious that there is more concern for the lions than the sheep. No sheep and no ability to control lions would spell disaster. Sometimes the best intentions end up having the worst effects.

I would have to agree with this. I live literally in the heart of 3B in Pinetop. Given the choice I would choose 1 just about every time. The pros and cons that I can see are as follows. 3B is a primitive weapon unit. No rifle hunts in the unit which can help to increase the overall age class. 3B prime elk habitat is also surrounded by unit 1, the Apache reservation, and 3A/3C so it has incredible potential. The 3B early archery hunts, since they have increased tags from 25 to 75, have generally had a fairly low success rate probably in the 12-30% range. If not very familiar with the unit it is an extremely tough hunt in AZ terms. I think just as many bulls were shot when we had 25 archery tags as they now do with 75 tags. It was a high quality hunt with 25 tags, not so much anymore. The best hunt in 3B is definitely the early muzzleloader hunt as it seems that most of the best bulls don't show up until the last week of September. Unit 1 is an alternative management hunt and has a much higher proportion of bulls overall. It is a larger unit and also surrounded by excellent elk units. The burn is a great place to hunt however the areas north of the 260 have been overlooked by many hunters this year and also has a high density of great bulls. The increase of tags will probably take its toll in the long run but i think the next 3-5 years will provide a very high quality hunt. I like the alternative hunt guidelines of 40 bulls per 100 cows and in my personal experience it is a much better unit in the rut than 3B. Unit 1 usually has the best and most predictable yearly precipitation in the state and coupled with great genetics provides the most consistent quantity of high end bulls. If I was a non-resident I would stick to the unit 1 hunts. Whatever you choose, good luck!

Another black eye for the department. Just sad and disgusting. There is excellent cell phone reception in 3B, especially in the areas where there are junipers. Are you telling me no one called or texted Shawn Wagner in the morning and told him his bull was still alive? I just don't believe it.

Can anyone name the states with a prairie dog season? I'll bet AZ is the only one. I understand they want to feed their pet black footed ferrets, but the prairie dog protection should only extend to the ferrets home range(ie, unit 10, or the Seligman area). The closed season is during praire dog breeding season. If Mr. Husted was hunting this nuisance in eastern AZ then he should not have been cited. I see prairie dogs all over snowflake, taylor, vernon, and the round valley area. There arent any black footed ferrets around there. It is merely a problem with the hunting regulations that should be corrected.

Great hunt! I was lucky enough to draw 8 years ago and had a blast. Have been trying to get back ever since. My buddy drew this year so I finally get to return. The best write up I have seen is here http://www.monstermuleys.info/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.pl?az=show_thread&om=2026&forum=DCForumID34&archive=yes

74 to 1! I knew this was unpopular but I didn't know it was that unpopular!

Please comment about your opinions.

3-27-2012 11:15 am

Did the ADA poll their membership about HB2072 yet? I'm guessing its gonna be real tough to say the ADA supports AZSFW when 90% of their members oppose it. Maybe they are waiting to run the poll after it passes? Maybe someone should start a poll here, I'd be curious to see what percentage is against this.

Audsley, thanks for your heads up on this matter. Thousands of sportsmen depend on this kind of timely and valuable information. Unfortunately, the group we thought would be providing it to us, AZSFW, has turned against us. Dedicated sportsmen like you really make the difference. I think AZSFW is at a crossroads. If this bill fails to go through then AZSFW basically ceases to exist. Their reputation is so damaged it is unlikely they will be able to maintain the 500 members necessary to keep their SUPER PAC status by 2013. However is this bill passes, then their "expo" will have thousands of people show up, tons of out of state money, and the average sportsman won't know they are being taken advantage of. Board members of AZSFW will make hundreds of thousands on "consulting fees" every year, and its unlikely even one acre of access will be improved, or that one youth will suddenly become a hunter. I sent my emails and will be making calls tomorrow. I sure wish another political action committee would spring up as I would be willing to send them a nice check. I want to see the same opportunities my grandfather passed on to me, to be passed on to my kids.

That's the first thing I noticed. Why do they refer to a dead bill in the present tense? Shouldn't they be talking about HB 2072 in the past tense(ie. HB2072 WAS...). I'd be willing to bet that this gets resurrected in the next 30-60 days. They didn't say they were going to re-evaluate or re-assess the bill. They didn't say they wanted or were interested in any public input. They didn't say they were gonna tweak it a little due to overwhelming pressure. They said they want our support now. I'm afraid it's too late for that after they promised never to attempt a tag grab. They have irreparably damaged their reputation. Secondly, who wrote this letter? You would think they would have the courtesy to add their name to the end. This cuts to the compete lack of accountability with this organization. Who are they? Do they have biologists or ex game and fish employees on staff? They mention the CBD. Well the CBD has dozens, perhaps hundreds, of lawyers on staff, how many lawyers does the AZSFW have? They want hundreds of tags for animals that belong in trust to the entire state of Arizona, and they wont even tell us who they are? How are we supposed to trust them? I want to know who the buck stops with in this organization. Are they just a bunch of wannabe politicians? We are all aware of the 4 issues they have brought up. I don't think anyone has confidence in this organization to do anything about them. Money isn't going to buy more deer. I remember a commissioner meeting not to long ago where a rancher had decided to cut off access for hunting. One of the commissioners made a phone call during the meeting and the rancher reversed his stance. That didn't even cost a quarter for the call. The only access I see the AZSFW securing is for themselves. I'd rather leave that up to the AZ Game and Fish Dept and the commission. The decrease in sportsmen and women is a societal trend, what can be done? I'm sure most of us are willing to have our tag fees increased to make up for it. Certainly if this is the alternative. And fighting the environmentalist is not something I have ever seen the AZSFW do. I'd like to see their track record on that. The CBD sues for a living, what is their plan to counter that? I could support an effort similar to this with some serious changes. First, 90% of the tag sales go directly back to the Game and Fish. Give the hard working and underpaid employees at the Game and Fish a boost. Second, there are too many tags. Cut the raffle tags to 50 or less and the Legislator tags down to 10. If I understand correctly, the Governor tags are the ones we already have. Otherwise, no more of those.Its not fair to those who have waited for decades to draw a coveted tag, only to have 3+ rich guys with huge posses out hunting their unit before the season opens.Third, I would demand complete transparency and accountability. They report within 45 days of every detail of where and how our tags were sold. I want everything down to the check register. Fourth, they have a performance clause. They claim to be able to increase deer herds by 10%, then they will have to prove they have done so or the expo is shut down or transferred to a competent group. Fifth, and most importantly, the task of running the expo goes to a group other than the AZSFW/AZSFWC as they have already proven they cannot be trusted.

PBJ, it is called being upfront and honest... you would have been wise to also be upfront and honest about your $100 payoff to Weiers... This is why the faith in the ADA is gone, because of people like you. This will be my last post til Tuesday next week. Gee Lance, I assume from your post that you have never given a contribution to a political candidate...That is the reason for the record. A payoff??? Fairly insulting to anyone who is aware of how campaign contributions work. I have donated to several different candidates, and each year there has been cause to do so. I respect Weiers and all he has done for wildlife in AZ. So I made a contribution to his campaign for the future... Big deal. I was not aware that I was required to post everything I have ever done in my whole life to appease the crowd that only keyboards and is not involved in the process of attempting to work on wildlife. JK According to the Secretary of State, your political contributions are as follows. Please correct me if I am wrong but the only candidate your have ever contributed to since the reporting year 2000 was Jerry Weiers. I hate to say it but your integrity is in question... JERRY WEIERS 2012 12/16/2011 $100 2012 January 31st Report * Arizona Sportsmen for Wildlife Political Action Committee 02/26/2011 $10 2012 Pre-Recall Election Report * Arizona Sportsmen for Wildlife Political Action Committee 03/20/2011 $10 2012 Pre-Recall Election Report * Arizona Sportsmen for Wildlife Political Action Committee 03/21/2009 $10 2010 January 31st Report * Arizona Sportsmen for Wildlife Political Action Committee 06/27/2009 $10 2010 January 31st Report * JERRY WEIERS 2012 11/13/2007 $100 2008 January 31st Report Again this all researchable at the AZ Secretary of State website http://www.azsos.gov/cfs/ContributorSummarySearch.aspx (on the right hand side, enter any of the names mentioned above for a history of their political contributions)

I find it interesting that there are some who are "demanding" a position of the ADA.Lance has specified that he has never been a member...and yet he "demands" a position. Really? The process that any organization should follow is to carefully review their policies as well as their support on a continuing basis. I have invited folks to attend our meeting, but instead it appears that we (ADA) have to state our position first and then you "Might" come to our meeting. For the record, the ADA will not be pulling out of the AZSFWC. That group had no dog in the HB2072 fight and it would not be wise to remove ourselves from that group. There are 13 other groups that have not pulled out and some are waiting to hear more before a determination is made. As far as the AZSFW is concerned, that group has done what I consider to be some good solid work on behalf of sportsmen over the years. Your opinion may be different... that is your right. When the board has had an opportunity to listen to all the people who want to speak, and heard the response from the AZSFW, then and only then should we as a board make a decision. The tactics that have been utilized from the select group on the CWT have been more bullying than anything else. Most of the readers have no idea what work the ADA does. I am responding at a request from Amanda regarding the "demands". Show up on Tuesday. make a point and then see where the ADA goes from there. JK So Bryan Waitman, Can you tell us all, does the ADA still support the AZSFW and their lobbyist? I think it would be helpful to know this before the meeting?? Really? Look like a pretty big dog ($6187) to me. Board of Directors on the AZSFWC: President/Chairman - Jim Unmacht Secretary/Treasurer - Alan Hamberlin Director - Eddy Corona Director - Joe Del Re Director - Floyd Green Director - Charlie Kelly Director - John Koleszar Director - Jerry Nelson Director - Mark Nuessle Director - Art Pearce Director - Brian Pinney Director - Shane Stewart Director - Gary Stinson Director - Robert Thomas The AZ Secretary of State keeps records on all political contributions. This is from the Jerry Weiers 2012 political committee. The same Jerry Weiers who proposed HB2072. These contributions totalling over $6000 were all made on December 16, 2011. 3 weeks before this emergency bill was created/made public. Coincidence? Maybe some of these names look familiar? CORONA, EDWARD 12/16/2011 $100.00 DENHAM, CHRISTOPHER 12/16/2011 $250.00 Evenson, Jared 12/16/2011 $424.00 GILSTRAP, HAYS 12/16/2011 $200.00 GREEN, FLOYD 12/16/2011 $400.00 HAMBERLIN, ALAN 12/16/2011 $174.00 HAMBERLIN, DEBORAH 12/16/2011 $424.00 Hamberlin, Ryan 12/16/2011 $424.00 HICKMAN, BILL 12/16/2011 $200.00 HICKMAN, CLINTON 12/16/2011 $200.00 HICKMAN, GLENN 12/16/2011 $200.00 HICKMAN, LISA 12/16/2011 $200.00 HICKMAN SILVA, SHARMAN 12/16/2011 $200.00 HULM, TODD 12/16/2011 $50.00 Katz, Andy 12/16/2011 $424.00 KELLY, CHARLES 12/16/2011 $150.00 KING, RHONDA 12/16/2011 $35.00 KINNEY, DONNA 12/16/2011 $424.00 KOLESZAR, JOHN 12/16/2011 $100.00 MAGURA, JACK 12/16/2011 $410.00 MARVIN, J.W. 12/16/2011 $100.00 Mings, Brian 12/16/2011 $424.00 NELSON, KAREN 12/16/2011 $50.00 Pearce, Arthur 12/16/2011 $424.00 Stinson, L Gary 12/16/2011 $50.00 Thomas, Bob 12/16/2011 $50.00 UNMACHT, JAMES 12/16/2011 $100.00 I removed addresses and occupations $6187 to buy off a politician for millions in tags every year for perpetuity. Quite resourceful! I wonder if they will get their money back, or demand performance? Did you ask for you $100 back?

Hello, A friend suggested i post here. I just had 2 game cameras stolen. There were taken since Saturday when I was last out to check them and replace the SD cards. They were both securely locked with python locks so someone had to come prepared to get them. Both are StealthCam model STC-WD1. Both were located along a fenceline about 1/2 mile apart approximately 1.5 miles into the roadless Woolhouse Habitat area. I dont expect to get them back but would like to inform everyone that the cameras in that area are not safe. I have run across a few while out there, most much nicer than my cheap $50 stealth cams. Furthermore, I would never steal someone elses property and cant understand the mindset of a common thief. If anyone does have information about these cameras I would be willing to offer $100 reward. Thanks HL