1uglydude

Let me know if you decide to discard your original stock. I have been looking for one I could cut down a bit for my daughter.

For four junior deer tags!

They reuse the tag number of the one that was rejected.

Make that a Savage Axis II Youth. $350 on Buds right now with a scope. What kind of a hunt is it? Coues hunt where longer shots are likely, or a mule deer hunt where you have a greater possibility of being close? If the latter, then the reduced 30-06 loads will be fine, or you can load up a Barnes bullet for that AR-15. If you've got a 1 in 7 twist you can load the 70gr tsx and it will do the job just fine inside of 250 yards.

Personally, I think 95% of the hits come the first day, and that any reports of hits after the fact are either 1) the result of the applicant's inability to tell when he or she has a pending charge on their account, so when it officially clears several days later they think they got a new hit; 2) the fact that credit unions and some other financial institutions appear to take up to several days to actually process the online charges; or 3) tags that are eventually reassigned after someone else's card fails and the Department has made the promised effort to contact them. Having now gone through at least a dozen online draw cycles (3 per year), my card has ALWAYS been hit within the first hour or two of the wave of credit card hits. I have instant notification of any activity. Of all those draws (often for more than one species in a single draw), I have never had a hit come after the fact. Always right away. Now someone is going to jump on and say "well my brother had X happen," or "my neighbor had a hit six days later," or "I know it came later for me once," etc....and to that I say see the first paragraph above, and I am willing to bet the farm that one of those three situations applied.

Yes...two non-resident hits.

...and now two regular deer tags.

Are you saying you were able to update your card on Monday, after the deadline? That shouldn't have been possible. I checked the system several times to see if it was letting people do that because I was curious to see if we would have the same fiasco that happened with the elk draw. Sure enough, they shut down the change your card option exactly when they said they would.

My truck was broken into a few months back and they took a pack with some equipment in it. A neighbor three streets down found the discarded pack with only the ammo left inside. The cops said that they probably knew they would look suspicious walking around with a backpack and just took what they stuff into their pockets...he also said that they probably had a record and didn't want to get caught with the ammo.

I have found that the only way I can quote another post is to right click the "quote" button and open it in a new tab or window. Annoying as heck.

Has anyone else not able to cut and paste text into a reply on this website? It's really annoying because it is nearly impossible to share links. I wonder if it's a bug from the stupid Windows 8 system?

The Valley is pretty full of 4064 lately. I have been seeing it everywhere it seems.

Wow. This is awesome. I'd probably screw it up though.

I have an unopened 8# jug that I am thinking of trading for something interesting. Top of my list would be a complete AR lower. Not really interested in selling.

Set up a tablet and show them reruns of American Idol until they strangle themselves.

Thanks for continuing to keep everyone honest on the use of the term "critical habitat." :-)

I guess that was kind of my point. A prohibition of both pro-religious and pro-atheist talk sends a message in itself. The common denominator is religion, and the implied message is "we don't talk about it, so it must be bad." Again, only my own opinion here. On the other hand, it's also kind of like when we don't talk to our kids about drugs, or sex, or pornography. At some point they are going to be faced with it, and they need a foundation to fall back on to make a rational decision, otherwise they are just going to follow whomever has their ear at the time, and you can only hope that they're making a good decision.

I hope you don't mind some unsolicited advice, and it's meant in the most respectful way possible, but as a guy who was once a child of divorced parents who had different religious viewpoints, I'd encourage you to listen to the kids and let the kids make the choice on their own. Maybe that's what you're already doing, but I would suggest against a blanket prohibition based on your own viewpoints on religion. Again, this is totally unsolicited, but just speaking from one father to another and as a person who was once in your kids' shoes. I was once a young kid who wanted to be baptized into a church. My father, who was the non-custodial parent and technically didn't have the legal right to keep me from doing it, was against it. The church, recognizing that even though the parent with primary physical custody technically has the legal right to determine religious instruction, concluded that I should not move forward without my father's blessing. It was a sincere desire on my part, and I was making the decision on my own, without any prompting from my mother (there is a difference between prompting and support). The whole situation caused me a lot of pain, and it wasn't really fair for my father to put me through that simply because he hated religion. It was just one more trial that I had to go through as a kid because my parents decided that divorce was better than toughing it out. Looking back on it, I think it was a combination of his hate of religion and a way to continue to exert control over our lives, but it damaged our relationship for a long time. Thankfully for him, it was the very religious instruction that he despised that taught me how important it is to forgive and show love and respect. That's basically what I'm doing. The only thing I'm prohibiting is a "brainwashing" of my kids before they know any better. My son is 5 and my daughter is 3. I want to wait until they are older before we have any religious discussions. But at the same time, I want them to have a somewhat clean slate when that time comes and I don't want a step-grand parent ruining that for his own satisfaction. I'm not against religion, I think it's a wonderful thing for literally BILLIONS of people, but it doesn't work for everyone and i am one of those that it doesnt work for. I find it too controlling and restrictive to a young mind that has a thrist for knowledge like I had and my kids have. (I swear I answer 800,000,000 questions daily...). Basically, I'm not pushing my views on them and I don't want anyone else pushing their views on them either. I can understand and respect that. My daughter has recently talked about baptism. When we asked her why she wanted it her response was "because all of my friends are doing it." Wrong answer. She's not ready yet. We'll continue to teach her and, if she shows a sincere desire when the time is right, we'll know. One counterpoint though...if the plan is to prohibit all religious talk whatsoever until a child reaches a certain age, then that sends a message to the child as well. They form their own opinion on subjects based upon whether or not adults are allowed to discuss it around them. One might say an outright prohibition of all things religious based upon an argument that it is "brainwashing" is its own kind of brainwashing in favor of the opposing viewpoint. In my own life, there was a time in my youth where I came to the conclusion that "well, Dad really hates this religious stuff, and he's going to be really disappointed in me if choose it. I know Mom loves me in spite of the status quo. So I'm going to do my best to please everyone I can at the moment and do nothing." On the flip side, I had siblings whose first discussions on religion were Dad's theories about how a certain sect was nothing more than a mind-controlling corporation with no intrinsic value, and that's what stuck with them. They were never open to any religious instruction or viewpoint and weren't willing to respect the beliefs of others. One sibling likes to use the term "brainwashed" to describe our devotion, but I feel as if he was the one who had his young mind brainwashed before he had a chance to make a decision for himself.

I hope you don't mind some unsolicited advice, and it's meant in the most respectful way possible, but as a guy who was once a child of divorced parents who had different religious viewpoints, I'd encourage you to listen to the kids and let the kids make the choice on their own. Maybe that's what you're already doing, but I would suggest against a blanket prohibition based on your own viewpoints on religion. Again, this is totally unsolicited, but just speaking from one father to another and as a person who was once in your kids' shoes. I was once a young kid who wanted to be baptized into a church. My father, who was the non-custodial parent and technically didn't have the legal right to keep me from doing it, was against it. The church, recognizing that even though the parent with primary physical custody technically has the legal right to determine religious instruction, concluded that I should not move forward without my father's blessing. It was a sincere desire on my part, and I was making the decision on my own, without any prompting from my mother (there is a difference between prompting and support). The whole situation caused me a lot of pain, and it wasn't really fair for my father to put me through that simply because he hated religion. It was just one more trial that I had to go through as a kid because my parents decided that divorce was better than toughing it out. Looking back on it, I think it was a combination of his hate of religion and a way to continue to exert control over our lives, but it damaged our relationship for a long time. Thankfully for him, it was the very religious instruction that he despised that taught me how important it is to forgive and show love and respect.

Thanks!

Does anyone have a Sierra loading manual and is willing to post up what Sierra suggests for a COAL for 30-06 shooting their 125gr Pro-hunter bullet? I'm working up a new reduced load, and I'm not particularly interested in winnowing down to the absolute smallest group possible, I just want to make sure that I'm seating it far enough in the neck for acceptable tension. In the past I have always fallen back on the rule of seating at least 1/2 the caliber size deep, but if Sierra has a suggested COAL, then I'd like to start there.

If you don't draw and want some help next year hit me up. Atleast I can make sure you are in the game. I ran out of time this year and did not run the odds. But typically I have a good handle on where not to put in. The tags that went to the bonus past last year got a little screwy given the new units added. The superstition wilderness hunt and the 37B hunt both had high demand from max point folks, which meant that a few units that normally would have all gone completely to the bonus pass had a tag fall into the 1/2 pass. It will be interesting to see what happens this year.

If you haven't already purchased the 140s, then don't overlook the 110 gr ttsx. Remember that the monolithic bullets need some extra umph to expand properly. We have taken a spike and two cows with the 150gr ttsx out of a 30-06 at 350 and 300 yards. It got the job done with one shot, but expansion was not what I would hope for. Figure out where your load drops below about 2000 fps, and that should be the far end of your range. The 110gr and 140gr might come back to the same speed once you reach out there a ways, but my experience has been that this doesn't typically happen until you get past 400-450 yards or so. If you're planning on shots under 200 yards though, then the 140 should still have enough speed to open without having to hit bone.

Those would be New Mexico landowner tags. They get a pretty penny for them. That's what happens when ranching interests take over a game and fish commission. The ranchers get them in exchange for letting public hunters on their land. Win win if you ask me. The alternative would be zero access for you or I on their land. Would that be better? I can only speak to how the similar program works in Utah, where large swaths of private land are not as big of an issue. There, tags that would otherwise go in the unit-wide quota are assigned to landowners based on the assumption that the habitat on their land benefits the herds. Some tolken tags are issued through the CWMP (to residents only), but landowners can fetch a bigger price for their tags if they completely shut their land down to everyone except their paying customers and the few lucky enough to draw a CWMP tag...and those folks they restrict as much as possible. In Utah, at least, there is plenty of public land to hunt, but the number of tags available to the public go down in order to give tags to ranchers under the guise of habitat improvement. New Mexico landowners had a huge part in changing the rules in NM so that it became nearly impossible for non-residents to draw tags. Why? Because then the market would be bigger for the tags they sell. The guides prefer it too. I don't know enough about New Mexico to know whether it actually increases public opportunity and access, but in Arizona at least AZGFD has been successful in obtaining access for us without selling out to large landholders. Just my two cents....but I'm open to reeducation.

Those would be New Mexico landowner tags. They get a pretty penny for them. That's what happens when ranching interests take over a game and fish commission.