dave

Bruce, We had a meeting tonight attended by one of the Commissioners and I am sorry to say you are correct. They voted 4-1 to support prop 106 at the last Commission meeting. We are in for some interesting times with this Commission.

Michael, The scary part is many conservatives are buying into this "feel good" crap. Bruce, If that is true, we are more screwed than I thought. Mark, Thanks for explaining, I understand what you mean. I would like to point out that the Center for Biological Diversity should not be classified as "tree huggers", they are ANTI-HUNTING. Huntin' Az, I have read everything I have been able to get my hands on about these two props., which includes over 25 pages of opinions pro and con. I have to say that while 105 may offer something for wildlife it still has cons and I wouldn't want to consider it. 106 like I said before is totally bad news.

Mark, I guess I missed you at some of the Commission meetings. I do take offense to what you just said. Sure, you are young and can get around. Good for you. Read all the stuff and then tell me you get a kick out of how you plan to presearve hunting and I will go hunting, stop fighting and leave it up to you. This is not just about wilderness, it is also about how we define things and how a lawyer may define them. I will copy and paste a couple of comments I have read for you all to read. Begin first quote: "What I don't like about Prop 106 based on the legislative council analysis..... 1. A board of educators whose costs will be paid out of the proceeds of sale of state lands. This gives these new political appointees an incentive to sell. And will they then be allowed to compensate themselves? Why are not sportsman's interests being represented by one or more members of the G&F commission on board or other selected members of the outdoor community. I don’t trust the AEA or the NEA and this would turn a great deal of power over "our" land to high placed members of that fraternity. 2. Who chooses the "conservation reserve?" And is the same board as above the ones who manage it? Some revenue from leases may be realized? Vague.....and where would it go...? What role does G&F and outdoor activists play in this? 3. The "conservation reserve" is not "required" to be accessible to the public. Why not? May be conveyed to the Bd of Regents ... up to 50 acres my be built on.....50 out of 640,000 or multiple 50 acre sites. Why are the cattlemen protected from a conveyance and why to governmental agencies without payment? With no limits? d. is vague and ambiguous, and could well be abused. Why should this provisional land not also have some permanent protection and who makes the decision vis a vis permanent vs provisional? 4. Why should the land be allowed to be sold for less than the highest return to the state trust? Unintended consequences could result from favoritism. Will this create another Abramoff type fiasco. 5. Creates an ability to deal with profit making ventures that may not lie with the intent of the preservation of this land for conservation purposes. 6. Talk about vague.... 7. Confusing and I don’t like the part about not being accessible to the public. 8. And who is getting paid to administer, manage and dispose.....? The new Board? This is a feel good measure, but with unpredictable consequences that, I believe, could create a political plum for some, and an open avenue for corruption. The public land is ill protected and the so called Board of Trustees is ill conceived with no real oversight until damage is done. Prop 105 is equally as vague, without controls and bad. Leases without auction.....? Who benefits from that? Why reduce the public notice period? What limits are there on what the county may then do with the land acquired? 4. appears reasonable....granting of public rights of way... 5. why without auction....who benefits from that...no one except the present lessees who may be abusing the land and not paying its fair value. And on.....it offers little, if any, real protection of the land for conservation purposes, grants too much discretion to the land management agency, and can work to deny public access to land that has been used by the public for outdoor activities in the past. " End first quote. Begin second quote: My read is that both are bad. 105 isn't really supportable in my mind. 106 seems better except it defines "conservation" as "preservation" and denies access to the public. It further says wildlife, among other named resources, are to be "conserved" (as defined in the definitions section) on those designated lands. Read it yourself. I think if it got to court if passed, it would be defined that those lands are not huntable because wildlife is to be "preserved" on all of them and the public can be denied access to them anyway. Everyone should look for the hook in this as two of the three groups who authored it are not supporters of hunting. In fact it might be argued they are against it. The hook is there if you read the definitions closely. Unless enlighted, I am going to vote no to both. I agree that much needs to be set aside but do we really need state legislated wilderness that can't be hunted on top of those federal designations that preclude all but the able bodied from use? I think not.

This is a bad deal folks. It is an attempt by preservationists to create more wilderness that is not accessible to hunters. They are confusing people by using the term conservation when how it is really defined is preservation. It could also be argued that the animals within these areas should also be preserved rather than conserved. Take a look at who is supporting this: Center for Biological Diversity Sky Island Alliance I have not seen or heard that the Game & Fish Department supports this in any way. It is a "feal good" thing that many people may vote for because they have no clue of how this could really hurt our future. I won’t be one of them.

Bruce, I think they are talking about how big a rug it would make like 6'x6-1/2'. Not sure, I don't know that much about it either. I do think any bear that looks grown should find an arrow. Skull measurements are the recognized measurements, like antlers with deer.

It is kinda funny. My pa is 78 years old and has a Pioneer license. He has to go down and buy a city fishing license if he wants to fish in one of our sewer ponds. Sweet.

You are right on Josh. It really is about the animal and it is an amazing animal.

O.K. where do you draw the line? The feeder? The farm? The tree stand? The blind? The picture? The fence? I guess every one has to decide how they want to hunt and choose their friends. As one that likes to spot and stalk, most people I usta know hauled arse and so does the game. I don't mind the solitude.

That is a fantastic acorn crop. Havent seen one like that since 2003. When those turn yellow you will have that bear and all his bros, sis', cousins, lapping them up off the ground all day long. I think I might have to go off the program and go bear hunting.

elmer, Are you saying the PSE (AR) bows have too many moving parts and can get wacked out easily???

I just got some Duravane Predators. They are Duravanes answer to Bohnings 2" Blazer. They are one grain lighter per vane and have a little smoother texture so I would say they would be a little quieter. They are almost as stiff. The instructions say no base cleaning or prep. and to use Duraloc adhesive. Has anyone used the Duraloc adhesive before? Has anyone tryed fastset gel or goat tuff on these vanes?

I thought they only used Denatured Alcohol in hospitals where illegals couldn't pay their bills? I also heard that one major bow manufature in my area uses the same stuff. My garage is not regulated by the united health care of Arizona, thus my vanes stick. As I said, use a well ventalated area.

Young hunter, Everthing Bownut says is the truth. I wished I lived in Phoenix and could go straighten him out Fletch tite is kinda slow but I can tell you I have never had a vane go away that was glued on with that. That glue takes time as does a btzenberger. Use a well ventalated area. Old school remedy: Scrub the shafts with cleaser (comet or ajax) rense them clean. Don't matter if they are carbon or aluminum. Take a Q tip and dip it in laquer thinner and gentle wipe the vane with it. Whoops, did I say acetone? It will evap in a couple seconds. Then apply the glue ( ). There is no way a wiskerbisquet or any other crapy rest will take a vane away. Bottom line is...if the vane is glued on correctly, nothing can take it off.

I have never shot either one of those bows. I do know what they are. I just wonder myself how you call something a velocity bow? Since I am getting a little older, I can't pull the weight I use to. Now I shoot this: 59.75 lbs. 369 gr. arrow 293 fps. 12% F.O.C. with a 100gr. field point or broadhead.

The reason I ask is that I and some others have had trouble with a certain 2" vane coming off that fastset gel does not work well with. If you are buying glue, I would suggest to buy goat tuff glue. I learned something from you, I didn't know Sportsmens and Cabela's had archery people

Like coueshunter84 said the Bitzenberger is adjustable so you can put different angles on your vanes. You can also use a straight or helical clamp with it. With the faster setting glues we have now days you also have more control of how you are gluing the fletches on over some other jigs. It is slower than an ezfletch but you have better control and more options. Do you know what brand and type of fletch you are using that is coming off?

I don't buy it but it was kind of a kick to watch.

Well, I guess we can change the wall or what we chose to shoot at. If you have the opportunity to collect a target that will stop your arrows, that is the one you should shoot at. Thanks to all of you for your good words of encouragement. I just hope this helps new shooters that may take the wrong step in their ideas of shooting. Thanks Bownut for all your help and direction.

Just wanted to give a little update. I am at 10 yards now, still. It is hard to correct 30 years of bad shooting in 21 days or 3 or 4 weeks. I feel really good about starting this shooting program. There is nothing sweeter than to feel everything go off right. I may be at ten yards for a while. One thing I am learning is that I wished I was still 30 years old and had not screwed my brain up with shooting the wrong way. You young folks, please try to learn how to shoot the bow right. Don't end up like me at 50 years old lost in space. Well, I am not exactly lost in space. I am working on what I need to work on. It is a work in progress.

No, just curious. I harvested one in 2002. I can still buy super raffle tickets though. Hope the deer hunters are listening.

Rojo, Quite the story and pic's. Very impressive. You didn't happen to see any big brown furry creatures looking down at the Cocks Combs below did you? Dave

When I saw this yesterday I thought, oh no, what will be said on here. So good to find so many good words here. Every good gift comes from God. I consider hunting as walking with Him, and every harvest a gift from Him. As the deer pants for the water brooks, So my soul pants for Thee, O God.

Congrats on your new found love. You appear to be canting. Maybe it is just the angle of the picture. Do you have a bubble on your sight? The only reason I ask about this is the last friend I shot with was canting and I never mentioned it to him. Then someone else did and he asked me if I knew he was canting and I said yes. He got kinda pissed at me for not telling him. I have shot with many people that cant and I never thought anything about it. You can compensate with your pins to correct it but I think the best thing is to get use to using a bubble level and be vertical. It is good to see a new archer excited about the sport.

That is fantastic Mark! Congrats to you and Mike. It was good to meet you at the Bowhunting in Arizona awards banquet also.

Well the cobwebs are starting to clear out for me now. It is hard to connect a first name with a face after 23 years or so. This is an awesome buck and it couldn’t have happened to a more awesome guy. The day heaven smiled down. Congrats Marty!!!