Swivelhead

Looks as if the only salvage going on is along the right of ways.

In the past I have been a proponent of AZSFW. Sent money and endorsed the cause. I encouraged friends to do the same, after all,sportsmen need representation in the legislature. Prior to the formation of AZSFW I was at the Boquillas ranch clean up where Chris Denham and others called an impromptu meeting to discuss the formation of AZSFW. The focus of the new group was to be sportsman representation at the legislature, a worthy endeavor. HB2072 has revealed the mentality of the movers & shakers behind AZSFW, these people have an agenda and it is not mine. Ultimately, the groups that AZSFW claims to represent at the legislature will determine AZSFW's future. YVRGC and AES have apparently renounced their affiliation. If and when other groups follow that lead AZSFW will sink. In the end AZSFW will probably represent the ADA at the legislature. LOL AZ sportsmen need a lobbying organization that is controlled and directed by the various outdoor/hunting organizations in our state. We must start this process over. Where do we start?

Me, I won't do the class III thing. It would be nice if the laws would allow devices that could take firearm noise levels from 110 db+ down to say 85 db WITHOUT the need for a class III stamp.

How low can it go?

Sent you a pm.

Kent, you have your opinion. Me, I will NEVER allign myself with Patterson, PEER, Sierra Club etc. NEVER!!!!!!!!

Kent, why do you suppose Rep. Patterson has introduced his bill to repeal ARS 17-202? Do you suppose he is looking out for the average hunter?

Nope, the 501c3 or 501c4 status does not concern me, most clubs are 501c4's. It would be interesting to know the make up of the board that recently convened. Anybody? What I gather from the language of ARS 17-202 the board would consist of the following: 1 - AZSFW board member. 2 - Board member from ADBSS, ADA, AES, etc. 3 - Board member from YVRGC, Mohave Sportsmans, etc. 4 - Board member from AZ Cattlemens Association. 5 - Board member from Sierra Club, CBD, the usual suspects. Suspect AZSFW may be gone soon depending on how many current wildlife/sportsmen organizations renounce their affiliation with the group. That being said I think the recommendation board as it is will provide qualified commissioners.

I'll jump in on this thread hijack. Support Rep. Patterson? You're kidding, right? Posted below is the specific language of the commission recommendation board make-up. Works for me. 17-202. Arizona game and fish commission appointment recommendation board A. The Arizona game and fish commission appointment recommendation board is established consisting of members appointed by the governor pursuant to this section and section 38-211. The board shall consist of one person who has been a resident of this state for at least five years from each of the following qualifying groups: 1. One member designated by the board of directors of an organization that is qualified pursuant to section 501©(3) or 501©(4) of the internal revenue code, whose membership consists of a significant cross-section of wildlife conservation and sportsmen organizations from throughout the state, that does not have an affiliation or charter with a national wildlife conservation or sportsman's organization and that has been in existence for at least five years. 2. One member designated by the board of directors of an organization that is qualified pursuant to section 501©(3) or 501©(4) of the internal revenue code whose articles of incorporation or bylaws stipulate that the mission or purpose of the organization is to increase, sustain or otherwise conserve wild turkey, deer, elk, pronghorn (antelope), bighorn sheep, ducks, quail or fish and that has been in existence for at least five years. 3. One member designated by the board of directors of an organization that is qualified pursuant to section 501©(3) or 501©(4) of the internal revenue code whose articles of incorporation or bylaws define it as a sportsman's organization whose membership is primarily confined to a specific geographic area or region of the state or an organization described in paragraph 2 of this subsection or is a chapter or affiliate of a national sportsman's conservation or shooting organization and that has been in existence for at least five years. 4. One member designated by the board of directors of an organization that is qualified pursuant to section 501©(3) or 501©(4) of the internal revenue code that is statewide, whose membership is comprised of cattlemen or ranchers and that has been in existence for at least five years. 5. One member of the general public or one member of a nongame organization that is qualified pursuant to section 501©(3) or 501©(4) of the internal revenue code. B. Except as otherwise provided by law, members of the board serve five year terms of office. A board member must maintain continuous membership in the organization the member represented when appointed during the entire term of office. The governor may remove a member of the board for inefficiency, conflict of interest, neglect of duty or misconduct in office and replace the member with an individual from the same organization represented by the former member. If a board member dies, resigns or is removed from office, the governor shall appoint an individual to fill the vacancy within thirty days from the same organization represented by the former member. C. Three members of the board constitute a quorum. Meetings of the board shall be held at the Arizona game and fish department main office or at a regional office as determined by the board. The department shall issue a public notice at least one week before the meeting. D. Members of the board are not eligible for compensation for their services or reimbursement of expenses. E. The board shall assist the governor by interviewing, evaluating and recommending candidates to fill vacancies on the Arizona game and fish commission as follows: 1. After the governor's call for applications for an open position on the commission and the application period is closed, the governor shall deliver a final list of the applicants to the board within five days after the close of the application period. The board shall review the list of applicants and the application submitted by each applicant and proceed to interview, evaluate and recommend candidates as provided by this subsection. 2. If the board is considering candidates to fill the office of a commission member whose designated term is about to expire: (a) On or before November 15 of each year, the board shall host a public forum to interview the commission candidates. The department shall issue a notice of the public forum at least five days before the scheduled date of the forum. ( On or before November 25, the board shall recommend at least two, but no more than five, candidates from the governor's final list of candidates. © The governor must select and appoint a commissioner from the list submitted by the board. 3. If the board is considering candidates for a vacancy resulting from a commission member's death, resignation or removal from office: (a) Not later than two weeks after receipt of the final list of commission candidates from the governor, the board shall host a public forum to interview the candidates. The department shall issue a notice of the public forum at least five days before the scheduled date of the forum. ( Within one week after the public forum, the board shall recommend at least two, but no more than five, candidates from the governor's final list of candidates. © The governor must select and appoint a commissioner from the list submitted by the board. F. The board shall assist the governor to identify commission applicants.

Got an email from Rep. Weiers today. Apparently only uninformed/ignorant people would dare oppose this legislation. I believe Rep Weiers and AZSFW are out of touch with Arizona Sportsmen. I find myself extremely pleased that AZ sportsmen rapidly expressed their disdain for ANY group that would advocate privatizing hunting permits. Hopefully this "trip to the woodshed" will reform any group considering such action. Thank goodness for the internet and forums such as this.

Sad day. AZ hunters need an organization like AZSFW, lobbyist's and all. Sportsmen need representation at the legislature, AZSFW had some wins in that venue. However, HB 2072 was blatant attempt to privatize 350 coveted hunting permits. As written, the bill had zero checks & balances. Had HB 2072 been enacted, a very powerful (rich) "non-profit" would have been created. The men & women involved are intelligent and articulate. Principals knew EXACTLY what they were doing. No amount of rationalization by backers/authors will convince me otherwise. That's the way I see it. AZ has plenty of high dollar tags, we've go raffle tags too. Enough already! Everybody else is on equal footing for the quest of drawing tags. Lets keep it that way.

Sent my comments opposing HB 2072 to the commissioners. Nick, thanks for the clarification. I agree AZSFW has done good things in the past. On this particular issue it appears to be a self righteous move. I am not pleased and do not want AZ to do "carnival" like Utah's Sportmans Expo.

Contacted my legislators and voiced my opposition to HB 2072. Need to let AZ G&F Commissioners how I feel too.

Don't need this scheme. Outfitters and the wealthy want tags. AZSFW apparently is willing to do their part to get them. This stinks! AZSFW and USFW are different entities? USFW has control of Utah auction tags, it would appear AZSFW seeks the same. Where doe AZDBSS, AES, ADA, etc. think of this? I'd be willing pay more for a tag to stop this BS.

Anybody got one?

PM'd back.

My dream set up for day hiking & longer would be 12X50 EL's and 65 MM Swaro scope with the 25-50 WA eyepeice. Eventually I'll have it, probably gonna be a while though. I really think the EL's at 35 ounces are the ticket. Currently I've got 10X50 SLC's and really like them but .......

Get serious!

That's why I've avoided looking through a set.

Sent you a PM

The great thing about a scattergun is versatality. Having different loads available for varied conditions is a good thing. Me, if the brush is thick and there is no way a shot is going to be beyond 50 yards I'd opt for 00 buckshot. Heavy shot will "dig em out" of this brush very well. Dropping a fast moving dog veiled by brush pleases me. That is the shotguns realm.

Not too worried about our predator populations. Mt. lions are the most successful large cat in the modern world. Currently their range is expanding. 1080, "getters" and trapping are no longer legal. Houndsmen are the only viable control mechanism that is currently legal. Anti's know this and therefore I would'nt be surprised if the next hunting related ballot initiative in this state deals specifically with houndsmen, lions & bears. Hope it never happens. Doubt anybody posting on this site would advocate the extinction of mt. lions. I believe lions have it better now than ever. Limited prey base in the wild? Lions will utilize the urban interface or a ranchers livestock till things get better. Lion populations are artificially high IMO. Public land managers have lost most viable methods of predator control via policy. Hunting depends on surplus animals, uncontrolled predation reduces or eliminates the huntable surplus. So ....... please don't pass up an opportunity to reduce a burgeoning predator population. Don't EVEN get me started on coyotes!

http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=36560 Feds have proposed a substantial change to current road system in the Coronado forest. I'd recommend we as a group give our input, there is a map showing proposed changes. A comment period is currently open till 2/28/2012. Check your areas and speak your mind. It appears many areas will become effectively roadless. Good for the young & strong ....... not so good for oldtimers who may no longer be able to access their traditional spots.

Sportsmans Warehouse had the Federal PS BBB's in stock, give'em a call. Supposedly Federal makes the P-Storm in T shot but I've never seen it stocked anywhere. Regarding chokes for buckshot: Open chokes do work better as stated above. Flight control wads do better with mod/full chokes, extra full chokes apparently hinder the wad design. National Wild Turkey Federation forums have extensive discussion about shotgun patterning but it's geared toward lighter shot.

which insurance co do you have? X10!