azdave

I guess when someone repeats things like PERIOD! PERIOD! PERIOD! and embolden's whole sentences---I take that as "shouting" and arguing on the internet...............I was wrong The reason MINES came up is because this turned into a "general" discussion of ACCESS-----AND my point is that MINES contributed to a HUGE portion of the access trails we ALL enjoy----pull out a FS map of the Santa Rita's, Patagonia, Arivaca areas and look at the "existing" FS roads, same with a bunch in the Dos Cabeza's----guess who's responsible for those roads. MINES. Or, do this... take out a few FS and BLM maps---honestly Hi-lite all roads that "obviously" are there because of a ranching or mining interest.... then look at whats left. Remember, the rancher didn't "place" a windmill...then the FS pushed a road to it for him...HE built the road, to then place a windmill. Same with the mines....I'll bet they didn't just "happen" to place their mines next to existing roads that FS made....they found a good "prospect" then BUILT a road to them. This was done by THEM, for THEIR livelihood.....not you or I. I'm thankful for the ones I am allowed to use.....think FS or BLM would have put them in for us? YOUR claim was that YOUR tax dollars pay for this access------my claim is this access was MADE by ranchers and mining interests. Your tax dollars had NOTHING to do with it. You obviously feel an "entitlement" to drive on someones personal, private property---on a NON-public roadway. DON'T you think that if this WAS a PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, payed for with TAX DOLLARS and BUILT by the GOV. that there would be a "forced opening" of access?????????? This has been "tested" for legality---guess what, because these AREN'T public roadways, WEREN'T built with taxpayer dollars or BUILT by any gov. agency, there is NO legal foot to stand on---and land managers KNOW this. I acknowledged your frustration several times, and said I SHARED it for a long time!!! I understand this problem---I've scouted an area years ago HARD---knew right where I was going opening day---just to show up at 4 AM to find a locked gate---wasn't locked for MONTHS prior. Want to talk frustration?? What did I do? Altered my locations to NOT have to deal with this crap. That was a"last time" for me---and yes, I was bitter and frustrated---but I adapted, by reason that there is PLENTY of places to go that I don't have to cross private land . YES---there are ranchers that take this stuff to far---just like the "outdoor" crowd that take things to far. YES---there are asshole ranchers that have done things "unnecessarily"---but there are many more who have done things for a REASON. WE all pay for the actions of other, unfortunately---and that ADDS to the frustration around here--because my "guess" is that anyone frequenting a board like this takes his hunting serious and is most likely VERY ethical, respectful of property and honest----therefore he is "losing" the most in this. I worked for a HUGE rancher (turned developer) in the late 80's--early 90's---this guy owned most of the Sonoita hill country, huge portions of the Empire mtn's and several ranches in the Sasabe area----he was locking gates way back then, but I didn't listen to the reasons---I just argued that he was an butt, and we would have heated discussions over this. But after I discussed things with Mike Ware, I started to understand and see the problem for what it is. I don't quite understand your statement that "I should have followed my own advice" by NOT posting this here----I DON'T recall saying "I shouldn't have posted my perspective"------I said I knew this would be "UNPOPULAR"-----big difference----I figured we are all adult men here and can discuss such things without it getting out of hand-----obviously some people can't listen to differing opinions or perspectives and respect them. Whatever. You can say I "chimed in with fault finding and defense"---WOW----I looked at it as sharing info---in a polite way, also. I've always invited new, worthy perspectives from people. But thats me. Go back and look at my post to you, then look at yours under it....was I being argumentive? WOW...sorry you took it that way And, if I hear something that makes sense, i'm better for it, if I don't, I leave it there----"take what you can use and leave the rest" with the internet. If you think there is not "more" to the story on what went on with the feds vs. the Klumps, fine---that is your belief. I trust the MANY people that I know in the area that shared info with me---and it was very enlightening to here all sides of the story. I guess you look at it as I was "defending" the klumps----No, I think in a nutshell, I was pointing to there being "2 sides" to it----years ago I thought they were "bad guys" too. As a hunter, and its potential impact on me, I was quick to believe that. Are they innocent angels? I doubt it---none of us are---but I do understand them better now. Thanks for the 'good luck' on my hunt-----I will be going to the exact same place I've gone for the last 5 years, and had great success. And I wish you luck too----there is at least ONE big Coues buck back in there, I saw him last Jan.(yes, I "wandered" off my property for a long hike--I was "trespassing")---but as I said before, all i see on my land and on the way there is Mulies, bummer----hope you have a great time---thats what its all about

Excellent---congratulations. Someday I hope to do an Antelope hunt.

OK, I guess my statement of it being a "different" perspective and not wanting to argue doesn't matter---you obviously, by the nature of your post---DO want to argue. WHO do you think made 90% of the two-tracks/trails IN THIS STATE?????? RANCHERS and the early MINERS!! THATS WHO!!! Can you imagine what access would be like WITHOUT the trails THEY built??? YOUR taxpayer dollars didn't fund this!! I'm speaking of S. Az---in the north logging companies also built the access roads. From the 1870's to the 1940's, ranchers and mining interests trying to eek out an existence in S. Az were allowed, and even encouraged to "make whatever improvements" necessary to facilitate that---AND NOT with taxpayer funds. Ranches like the Klumps were going BEFORE the "public land managers" began deviding things UP in the first few decades of the 1900's!!! Ranchers MADE these roads to access different parts of there ranches, AND public lands, for various reasons----the same two-tracks you may drive on is probably the same one THE original rancher rode on 100 years ago!!! Notice how so many of the trails we enjoy driving on in the hills end at windmills, corrals, cattle tanks, mine shafts, prospect holes, etc., THAT's because the RANCHER's and MINING INTERESTS needed to get there and BUILT a road----IT has nothing to do with YOUR TAX DOLLARS or some public land administrator WANTING to give US ACCESS!!!! In fact, THEY would rather that many of the existing roads NOT BE there now, so they could designate more as "ROADLESS WILDERNESS"---it's much easier to "manage" public lands that see less visitors. Only G&F cares about hunter access--because its their livelyhood---the other land depts would rather see less people in there remote areas--believe me. CALL a FS or BLM office-----talk to someone that KNOWS their history---ASK how many rodes that they have "CONSTRUCTED"!!!!!! Bet you find out that its VERY, VERY FEW-----they may MAINTAIN many roads----but not CONSTRUCT them. They have historically relied on EXISTING roadways!!! Thats why some areas have NO roads close by---ranchers and miners had NO NEED or desire to get in that particular area, so one was NEVER BUILT! One of thier(public land agencies) selling points to SOME ranchers is that if a rancher allows access across his land----the "dept." will maintain it--therefore he gets free road maintanence. To some the tradeoff is worth it, to some it is not. The whole "roadsign issue" is this----the FS (or whichever) placed signs on an EXISTING roadways WHEN access WASN'T an issue!!! Then it BECAME an ISSUE---AND, the rancher LEGALLY closed it----thats why there are signs on roads with NO access---there presence DOESN'T mean THEY MADE THE ROAD---they simply USED it as long as they LEGALLY COULD!!! About the different dept.'s NOT being able to "make things happen" together---bullshit---when THEY WANT things to happen----it is AMAZING how much "red tape" gets skipped over or 'expedited thru'. I've seen it done. Now if YOU try to make anything happen with them---pack a lunch! It is NOT a huge task, and actually pretty inexpensive to push a "usable" two-track---WHEN THEY want to do it---i've seen it done---when they DON'T want to do it---they claim "environmental impact" issues I agree wholeheartedly about the "lease land" issue and some ranchers attitude---I've asked "is this deeded land we're standing on???" to more than one------but thats a whole different topic. PLEASE show me how many roads across ranches to public land that the TAXPAYER payed for. If you can show me 100 miles that THEY built and payed for with taxpayer dollars---I'll show you 10,000 miles that ranchers and mining interests payed for! This road going to the top of the Dos Cabezas----please research WHO made it & WHEN it was made, I honestly know nothing about it, but I bet "we didn't" help flip the bill, you might be surprised at what you find. So lets say your neighbor says "I'm going to cut thru your backyard to get to MY house from now on"-----I'm sure your reaction would be "sure, why not, how DARE I deny you access to YOUR place"----go ahead and say its not the same thing. WE either HAVE private property rights in this country or we DON'T----Just because some landowner EXERTS his property rights and its NOT CONVENIENT to you---DOESN'T make their RIGHT any LESS VALID or legal-----and thank God that the courts and law of the land AGREES----that is WHY they can do it! PERIOD!!!!!! If these "roads" WERE built with taxpayer dollars and WERE legal "easement's"---believe me, the gov. would enact "emminent domain" and MAKE IT public roadway---but they KNOW that these roads wouldn't even BE THERE if it wasn't for the ranchers and miners! I knew MY perspective and OPINION wouldn't be popular---but, unfortunately I BELIEVE its quite truthful. I was bitter for many years over it AS I SAID------But after having ASSHOLES damage MY property that i can't stay there full time to guard, I understand. And I diverted my bitterness to the "REAL" problem behind all this---SLOB hunters and campers, CRIMINAL idiots with guns that shoot up windmills and watertanks, Idiots on quads that think its OK to leave the trail and tear up the countryside, etc, etc, etc. PERIOD!!!!! I simply tried to give some possible reasons why one particular rancher cut off access---but this turned into a rancher vs. access debate. I respect your opinion, but don't share it.

Sun Devil----I haven't hunted the unit, so won't comment on the hunting----nor have I tried to access the "peaks" area. But, I will say that I use to feel the same way you do about ranchers "locking out" access to public land--it use to infuriate me. Now that I own property that borders public land, and Klump land---and have EXPERIENCED what people DO to your private property---I understand their point of view much better. Years ago, people didn't feel a "NEED" to destroy things, steal things, etc.-----thatt is why they could leave access open and not worry. When the Ware ranch closed access back in th 90's, making the FS reroute roads around their deeded property, I was mad---but then discussed it with him---and that was my first 'enlightenment'. I lived in the area at that time. The Klump issue goes WAY beyond what is generally known and written about it---it turned into a "big gov" against the small citizen rancher war---and cutting off access was part of their tactics in that war----I know people in law enforcement in the area that all agree it was the FEDS fault for all these problems. The bottom line is that it is a shame that the FEDS don't make/secure routes AROUND certain private property to access public land. WHY should a private land owner HAVE to let people drive thru his property? The gov is capable of creating new routes!!! But no one seems to question WHY THEY DON'T. Maybe this plays into THE GOV's tactics. The mining issue started with people trespassing on their "PATENTED" mining claim land---meaning they OWN the land, not just Mineral rights. Some of their mine locations were in "pristine" shape from a historical standpoint---and people were STEALING/DESTROYING every type of mining relic they could----to the point of trying to take out ore cars! About them letting some in and not others---well, I suppose whether he lets everyone in, keeps everyone out--or in the middle is their right---IT IS their property. I will let "some" people on my property in urban Tucson, and keep "others" off. Just because it is rural land--some people think they have a right to use/cross private land--but if you "hopped" the wall at THEIR 'city' house----you may be greeted with a 357 or the police on their way. guess thats different. I moved from Graham county in 96', just when the Klump issue was getting fired up---so I lost touch with the people that live in the area. When I first found out that the land i bought bordered theirs, I was apprehensive----having heard/read all the internet chatter. After being back in the area for a while and having MANY discussions with others and them, I feel sorry that they are made out to be the "bad guys" here. Again, question WHY the FED's don't create other access routes---It IS doable---I gaurantee it. I'm sure that most all the members on this board are true sportsmen, thats why they're here, and don't go out there shooting up peoples property, littering the countryside, and generally giving US ALL a bad name---but it is the morons that DO these things that are going to cost us more and more access denials. If everyone here scraped, saved and worked hard to buy some rural property, then had it "HARMED" by others----I think this would be better understood concerning ranchers cutting off access. Now consider a family trying to create an existance for almost 100 years on this same property----and between the FED's trying to change a way of life and the "new breed" of people PURPOSEFULLY harming what your family sweated over, what would your attitude be? This is my 2 cents on the issue---not wanting to argue it, just give it a different perspective ETA: I still hunt on FS land ONLY----just to avoid private property issues---I use to do it with a grudge---now I do it with an understanding.

No, the stories about Dos Cabeza access IS true. All I will say is respect private property and "KNOW" where you are hunting. Unfortunately, having a hunting license gives some guys the idea that its a "trespassing" permit. I own property bordering Klump land, and have met some of them. Having had recent "tresspassing/vandal" issues on MY property---I can understand their position. There is plenty of BLM land in the range, buy good maps (and know how to read them) and again, KNOW where you're at. There are some big Coues in there. Unfortunately, my land is Mulie territory---they taunt me every weekend because they know I can't seem to give up Coues in 31.

You have to start with a rational approach---unless your retired, have NO life, or are just obsessed---you WILL NOT have enough time to try every possible combination. At least not before "this" season is here At this point is where some reading should come into play. Research should be your focus right now. Go to Sportmans Warehouse and thumb thru loading books. Better yet---buy some. So, simply "PICK" one type of brass, then "PICK" one type of appropriate primer----"PICK" a powder that has a reasonable track record with THAT caliber, THEN "PICK" your bullet(s). Now it's time to build some loads---like previously described---then test them. If you find that dream load in there, well, there you go---time to go kill a Coues with it. IF.......you don't get anything acceptable out of that, time to "shake" up the combination. I have had to "shake" up the combo. before because no "acceptional" loads stood out in a first "run thru"---but only had to change bullet brand/type----finding the right load isn't that hard if you are paying attention to what you're doing. Loading is a very "personal" thing for guys, there are many "right" ways of doing things (of course plenty of wrong ways too--be safe)---and you will develop your own methods and techniques. Have patience and don't get distracted. Record everything. really make a commitment to it before dumping a bunch of money into equipment---otherwise you will be selling it at half price later. Now get out there! And win one for the CWT team!

Yes---two separate 3 shot groups for each load----I do it like this: load #1, then 2, 3, 4, 5-----A Quick clean--then reverse it---Load #5 first, then 4, 3, 2, 1. Not that reversing it really matters---just a pet peve thing, thinking i'm being equally fair to the loads ---they can tell, ya know I always bring a couple guns with me when testing loads in a rifle, and will ONLY test loads in one rifle at an outing---that way, after I run a 3 shot string through the rifle being "tested"---I can set it aside to cool and pick up another gun just to leisurely shoot. I save the "high concentration" shooting for the rifle with the "test loads"----and after a few minutes of relaxed shooting, i'm ready for another go with the "testing". these are things that have worked for me.

Personally, I will always stick to doing two, 3 shot groups for load testing. Here is why I do that---It eliminates "operator error" to a degree. If you shoot one 5 shot group, and YOU blow it, but don't realize it, you may scratch a load off the list that was actually good. With the two 3 shot groups, chances of blowing both groups is minimal----so if the first one is 1", and the second is 4"----it might be worthy to try it again, because the 1" group shows potential. If both are 1", you KNOW its good-----if both are 4", you know to scratch it. Time and materials is also a factor---so doing two, five shot groups is out of the question---if you are to load enough for this---now you have a BUNCH invested in loads that aren't worthy----for me, usually only one load stands out----so all the others are "target" fodder. I simply don't want to waste bullets and powder on more rounds than necessary during "experiment" stage. plus 5 shot strings will really warm your barrel up for this task, skewing results. Just some thoughts I go by, that might help, or may not everyones mileage varies when it comes to this

First, what kind of groups were you getting before the MB installation? And you may NOT be able to keep using one specific bullet, if you're looking for a "best" load. Sometimes you can run from the "min" to the "max" working up a load with one bullet, and NONE shoot well----just an incompatability between THAT rifle and THAT bullet type/weight. Even if the gun liked that load before MB installation, doesn't mean it still does. I start right around "min", and load 6 rds, bump up a little, another 6.......until I get to about 1/4 below "max"---I personally never go to max---and have found the "accuracy" load to usually be around 1/4 below max---or 3/4 above min (depends how you like to look at it). Others probably have different results. Then I hit the range, shooting one 3 shot group in each load---letting the barrel cool between each group. Do a quick clean of the barrel---then run thru the second 3 shot groups, in reverse order of the loads. Do fouling shot before any group work--beginning and after the 'quick clean'. I think I said in a PM with you, that in my experience---MB's are a funny thing-----some help only with muzzle jump/recoil, and have no effect on accuracy, some help both....and on some rifles they actually hurt accuracy and/or intensify recoil....I had one once on a rifle that actually got a reputation on some gun forums and was jokingly called the "RID"---recoil intesification device(made by Hesse)---this was on a FAL semi-auto---changed it out to an FSE, and recoil diminished and groups tightened up. Another was plainly just improperly installed at the factory---removed it and all was well. No doubt that installing a MB changes barrel harmonics, and will change the guns "personality"---in other words, loads it liked BEFORE installation may not be the same loads it likes AFTER. As far as finding a load, consider it a "whole new rifle" from that standpoint---because installing a MB essentially does that. They will ALWAYS change point of impact, what they do to 'groups' is unpredictable until you try it. good luck, and just my take on it.

all sold---thanks

Sent an e-mail back, thanks

Bear are common in the Pinaleno Mtn's

Years ago, the G&F Hunting Reg. book use to have a 'warning' for hunters in that range---had to do with an ongoing 'dispute' with the tribe over where the actual boundary was and recommended hunters avoid it. The tribe must have been getting hunters with trespass issues. Obviously it must be resolved, because that was years ago and haven't seen it since. Now I think the only warning in the reg's is for the Dos Cabeza's---30A ETA: I think it is very lightly hunted

I'm in Tucson----but willing to meet/drive within reason in s. Az.

31 is a great, yet under-rated unit, in my opinion---which is good for people like me Get some good boots, good bino's and get in shape---rougher the terrain and farther off the roads, the better.