1uglydude

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.

I happen to be a lawyer, I hunt, and I have a 22 bear tag in my wallet. I sympathize with you, BUT: 1) Closed means closed. 2) Many of the same areas were closed last year (and most years in the last 10 years)...compared to last year, it stayed open 4 extra days. Next year get a tag in 23, they rarely close that part of the forest. 3) No one has hunting "rights"...they're privileges. 4) The season has been open since the first week of May. I've had bears on camera since that time, and made it out for four days. It never quite came together, but it was close. Sorry that you weren't able to make it out yet, but if someone had shot a sow the whole thing could have shut down weeks ago. That's the chance you take. 5) In fact, some of my close calls were on young sows, if I hadn't missed them by 15-30 minutes, and I had decided to take one, your season would have been over weeks ago...who would you complain to then? 6) I likely lost two cameras and a blind in the Sunflower fire, but such losses and safety closures are all part of hunting public land. Public land doesn't mean we have unfettered access. The federal government is the landlord, and although it can be managed under a quasi public trust, that doesn't mean we always get a final say in how it's done. Like you, I don't always agree with what they do, but there is a process set out for it and they stick to it. In theory, we have a voice when they set the forest management plans and other processes open to the public. Often, we don't agree with the final product, but the law is the law. Because the land has a landlord, we only have the privilege of hunting, hiking, camping, etc., on it...we have no right to do anything on land we don't own. Again, I sympathize with you. Take heart in knowing that these closures are usually lifted by mid-July (even though they say it could last into August). We need one or two soaking rains in the area, and it will open up. Your tag is good until July 31. Granted, the sows will probably be bred by then, and the bears will spread out, but you may still get a chance.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/...e-concerns.html I have never hunted the preserve, although I have plans to try it in the future. But even if you've never hunted there and don't plan to, this is something that we should all be concerned about. Safety issue? Please! We're talking about bowhunting on 33 square miles. Here's what really gets me. Scottsdale can't ban hunting, it needs action from AZGFD to do so. As I read ARS 13-3108 (F)(5)©, the director can ban hunting where it is deemed to be "unsafe." I don't think the department should be setting a precedent by deciding that bowhunting on 33 square miles of open country is "unsafe." For crying out loud, the freaking chairman of the preserve was "surprised" to learn that hunting even takes place there!" So, the conflicts with sportsmen must be really common (eyeroll)! Now, I can see why the department might want to appease other users in the park, but public perception is NOT grounds under the statute for closing it. I can understand that trespassing may be an issue when it comes to guys wandering onto private property. There's a solution to that, enforce the trespass laws. I'm usually one for compromise, but this situation doesn't warrant it. We can't keep rolling over. AND WHY IS THE MEETING SCHEDULED FOR 3PM ON A MONDAY?!?!

You drew whichever one you listed as a first choice. Utah doesn't run a 1st/2nd pass like Arizona. It runs a first pass, then any tags leftover from the first pass go to a second pass. Your second choice is meaningless for 99% of the LE hunts because they all go in the first pass. BTW - I also grew up on the Wasatch Front...in Lehi.

This maps doesn't have details, but identifies the general location of the fires. http://gacc.nifc.gov/swcc/predictive/intelligence/ytd_historical/ytd/wf/swa_fire_combined.htm Bull Flat fire is burning on both sides of the fence in 23N and the WMAT.

+1 I also had this tag last year. I passed on a small 5 and a willowy 6 the first weekend. I hunted 10 days total and never could quite get a shot at anything else. I got a long opportunity a good bull, but shot just underneath him. If you can get on a bull that looks pretty, and the shot is there, take him. The rut never really took off during the archery hunt last year. There aren't nearly as many cow in the unit as there used to be. Several hundred junior tags and several Sept/Oct cow hunts have taken their toll. That may have had something to do with the sporatic rutting activity.

Most hunters are. That's why I firmly believe that most "stolen" cameras are actually "confiscated" by the Forest Service.

From the book Javelina: Research and Management in Arizona by Gerald I. Day - "Occasionally javelina teeth become coated with a 'gold-like' appearing substance. These teeth have an accumulation of calculus or tartar that is deposited gradually by the reaction of saliva with food items. On some teeth the tartar forms a thick hard shell that can be chipped off in large flakes and this might be bright, or iridescent, with colors of gold, black, or brown. Skulls with gold-colored teeth make interesting conversation pieces, but do not have any value in the bullion market."

I use them with a heavy duty lock box. I haven't had anyone try to steal one yet, so I don't know how they'd hold up to abuse. It seems like it would take some effort to get through one. I'm sure the Forest Service has the right tools on hand though.