1uglydude

Because many of the FS are anti-hunter, and even more don't like to see "abandoned" property left on trees in the forest. It happens more than you think.

Here you go, http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5380309.pdf . They really had me sweating about my "within 24 hours" promise. Now, about that spring...

Had a new hit about five minutes ago. Little sis in law drew a 16A Dec. Muzzy tag. She'll have a companion pig tag coming with it. She's already got a 3AC early rifle bull tag for this year. One lucky little gal.

You will see a new press release in the next 24 hours saying that it's opening up again. I'm not talking about yesterday's release. And, yes, fire restrictions will still be in place; Sunflower fire related closures will remain in effect; and the bear closure areas will open up for day use only.

Tonto closures are being lifted tomorrow...they're just waiting for the signed order to issue a press release. All fire restrictions will remain in place...which should include shooting.

Based on the date stamps, you're finding bears outside of the fire closure areas, that's a feat in and of itself this time of year. Good luck.

crazy...he's not even trying to hide, but still blends so well

Here's his Facebook page...a coues hunter and "likes" the AZGFD page http://www.facebook.com/#!/craig.shiflet.3

Here's his facebook page http://www.facebook.com/#!/craig.shiflet.3

http://www.facebook.com/#!/craig.shiflet.3

I'll have to see where I can find a source. The "campers" were two guys out with their bear/lion hounds. They left the dogs in camp to go out and look for sign. Their fire got out of control while they were gone and started the fire....the first casualties were their dogs. This is what I was told by the locals, so they could have been adding flavor to the story. This is from the indictment filed in federal court describing the scene, it doesn't prove they were hunting, but it sure sounds like the kind of equipment (badlands pack, pistol, and 30-30) many of us on here would take into the woods if we had some dogs with us: 　 "In addition, Caleb listed a Badlands Pack, Garmin GPS, sleeping bag, Thermarest, Smith sunglasses, Ruger .22 pistol, and other miscellaneous items as property that he left behind in camp. David also listed items that he left behind in camp, which included his dog, Olympus camera, a backpack, 30-30 Marlin rifle, sleeping bag, air mattress, a lighter, water filter, headlamp, inflatable pillow, and food. " But, it also says the dogs were blue heelers....not exactly the bear hounds folks have said they were.

I'll have to see where I can find a source. The "campers" were two guys out with their bear/lion hounds. They left the dogs in camp to go out and look for sign. Their fire got out of control while they were gone and started the fire....the first casualties were their dogs. This is what I was told by the locals, so they could have been adding flavor to the story.

Sorry, didn't see this until just now. I sold it this afternoon.

SOLD

Sorry, didn't see this until just now. I sold it this afternoon.

Here, you go...and I'm guessing you'd be hard pressed to find a government employee anywhere that can charge $300. If you know of such a position, please let me know. http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/wgfd-1000363.aspx The folks at the facility know what they're doing, and unlike a revolving team of grad students, they probably don't have to be taught from scratch every few years. Also, given the potential legal liability (the USFS has been successfully sued for preventable bear attacks in the fast), I'm sure the powers that be want the work done quickly, efficiently, and reliably.

I never said anything about friends, just that I had asked these same questions (which means I once had the exact same concerns as you) of those in the know. Welcome to the world of laws, rules, and regulations...they're often poorly drafted and you end up having to rely on how those with authority choose to enforce them. There's a reason they say lawmaking is akin to making sausage.

+1 Also, to the complaints about the "nanny" state...well...the USFS is the nanny over the federal lands under its care. They're not limiting our personal rights, only our recreational privileges, and it's doing so to protect the land from a clear and present danger. Let's not forget, the Wallow Fire was started by hunters who thought they were being responsible.

+1 Also, to the complaints about the "nanny" state...well...the USFS is the nanny over the federal lands under its care. They're not limiting our personal rights, only our recreational privileges, and it's doing so to protect the land from a clear and present danger. Let's not forget, the Wallow Fire was started by hunters who thought they were being responsible.

Your initial quesiton made it sound like you wanted to know whether you could shoehorn hunting as an approved activity within the current closure language. I was responding to say that it can't be. We're not talking about "state" land here. It's land owned an operated by the federal government. Although we liked to say that "the people" own it, it's managed for long-term benefit and multiple uses in federal trust. Now, if they had said hiking is okay, but hunting is not, then we'd have someting to complain about. If they hadn't closed it and some jackwad had done something stupid to start a fire, we'd all be on here complaining about how the forest is mismanaged. I also wanted to point out that we shouldn't be surprised by the closure. It happens nearly every year in 22, especially around Mt. Ord...they have expensive communication towers to protect. I don't expect to find out about my equipment for quite a while. Who knows when they'll open the area. The danger of flooding will linger for some time.

I appreciate the deference...I guess...but I'm not offerring anything that would require agreement or disagreement, only an observation on how the Department actually handles it from the mouth of the decisionmaker himself. Hopefully when you see that the season doesn't close down tomorrow your mind will be put at ease because you'll have some hard evidence founded in precedent.

Yes, the sow was killed in 22...22S to be exact. I'm not basing it on my interpretation, but on what I was told by one of the supervisors in Region VI. Again, the annual quotas allow for Department to take some sows before it affects hunters. They have to take several sows before it affects us. Not only that, no one killed a sow in 22 during the spring rifle season, so the annual quota already has one sow to give to the Department total. But, if this were going to close it down, then it would close tomorrow at dark. They haven't updated the recording yet, so I guess tomorrow morning you'll know for sure.

No, it won't. The sow comes off of the annual quota, rather than an individual hunt quota. In theory, Department harvests could affect hunts, but if so it would be the last hunt of the year. I've had a long talk with a Department employee about this.

But they also build some breathing room into the quota for these situations. If you add up all of the individual hunt quotas for 22, for instance, it doesn't quite add up to the annual quote. This allows the Department to take some sows without affecting hunting seasons.

You have to love the ethics of Game and Fish ...kill first and ask questions later. They obviously treed the bears with hounds. Couldn't they just have knocked them out with a little anesthesia and kept the bears in their infamous culvert traps until the DNA analysis was complete? And VERY inefficient and untimely ---sending the samples out to Wyoming. What a joke! As if we, the State of Arizona can not perform that procedure? Any grad student in biochemistry at ASU could have amplified that DNA and analyzed it using electrophoresis in 24 hours. Such a standard and easy procedure. My 14 year old sister in law could probably change the brakes on my car too, but I'd rather pay a professional to make sure it's done efficiently and correctly. The lab in Wyoming processes nearly all the DNA related to bear attacks in the United States. They know what they're doing, and they put a rush on this type of request. Not only that, I'm sure the various wildlife agencies (both state and federal) fund it with some sort of cost sharing agreement. As for inviting a sportsman to harvest a problem bear, the Department does do that on ocassion, but NEVER when there has been an active mauling or where there is a high probability of disease.