Outdoor Writer

My wife was driving to work on I-10 yesterday morning and noted a red truck with a Coueswhitetail.com sticker on it. It was somewehere between 59th where she gets on and either 43rd or 35th Ave. where the truck left the freeway. She said it was a full-size truck and thought it was either a Ford or Chevy. Who's the owner??? -TONY

Hmmm, I don't see how that is possible. Third thru 5th choices are a COMPLETELY different drawing that starts anew for any leftover tags after the first draw. The first draw considers ONLY 1st and 2nd choices. So if the guys had the unit you drew as their 1st choice and all the tags weren't accounted for before their number was pulled, they would have had to draw one. IOW, as long as anyone has the 1st or 2nd choice for a unit, there is NO way they wouldn't be drawn if there are tags left to go into the 2nd draw. About the only way they wouldn't get a tag if their CC was bad. -TONY

audsley, Of course, I can't say it will NEVER happen, but I doubt we'll see any wolves in 36B for a long, long time -- if ever. First off, they would have to wait a minimum of 10 years for the final review of the Blue experiment in regards to its success or failure. And then in order to expand the range to 36B, it would take another whole new process, starting with the initial EIS, etc. Lastly, there are too many suburban areas within easy striking distance for wandering wolves down there. While 36B -- one of my favs for Coues hunting -- is relatively wild to the west, that's not the case to the east and northeast. But hey, having wolves prowling and perhaps discouraging the illegals from passing through there might not be all that bad. -TONY

DB, Hadn't heard any such meanderings. Perhaps you can illuminate further? -TONY

It's not real difficult to survey a stream/river to see what's living in it by either netting or electroshocking. Indigenous species in one stream are only of any import if they do not exist elsehere in significant numbers, i.e. a species that might be threatened or endangered overall. I think I addressed the stream closure for the Gila trout in the previous reply. Self-sustaining populations do not come about instantly like adding water to a cup of Ramin noodles. The Apache trout reintro waters were also closed to fishing for several years, just as elk hunting seasons were when they first attempted to reestablish them in AZ. -TONY

It often takes a couple generations before a species can reestablish a genuine self-sustaining population when most of the plants involved captive-bred critters. Sometimes that even occurs with animals captured in the wild. The first few plants of Gould's turkey from Mexico to AZ during the 1980s were also complete failures, with most of them becoming coyote fodder. Now there are several thriving populations in various areas to allow limited hunting opportunities. As for the controls being used on the wolves, they are more SOCIALLY related, not biologically related. The EIS set up a designated area for the experimental population and also outlined all the controls that would occur for the specifc circumstances, especially when it comes to killing domestic livestock. The two instances of killing packs for "interbreeding" involved a female wolf breeding with a domestic dog AFTER release into the recovery area. It would seem fairly obvious to most folks that allowing them to promulgate further would completely defeat the purpose of the entire experiment -- establishing a pure strain of the Mexican gray wolf. So what's going on shouldn't be a surrpise in the way of control. If you care to read the original EIS and lots of other info, check out Mexican Wolf Recovery Program. Generally they poison the water to remove all the non-native species BEFORE they restock it with native fish. The chemical they use -- often rotenone -- has a short "shelf" life in the water. The Gila trout program is fairly new, as far as reestablishing entire wild fisheries goes. The same types of closures and poisoning operations occurred when the Apache trout program began many, many years back. Today, the places that were closed to fishing are no longer, and the Apache is no longer on the ES list. In fact, most fisheries on the White Mt. Res. contain Apache trout now. BTW, even the elk populations here had to beefed up after the initial introduction. Here's a bit of historical background from an article I wrote about 15 years ago. Note more thn 20 years passed before the first hunt occurred. -TONY For instance, uncontrolled and abusive hunting practices in the late 19th century took its toll on the native Merriam?s elk. By the early 20th century, this species was extinct in both states. In Arizona, members of the Winslow B.P.O.E (ELk) Club obtained 86 elk in 1913 from Yellowstone National Park, one of the few places in the country where elk still flourished then. They transported the animals to Arizona by train and released then on the Mogollon Rim, where the Merriam's elk once lived. Over time, more Yellowstone elk supplemented the original bunch on the Rim, and other areas near Clifton, Cutter, Kingman, Williams and Alpine received transplanted elk. Even Mt. Graham near Safford received a small number, but the animals never took hold there. By 1935, when the first regulated hunt occurred, the various herds in the state had found a niche and were multiplying at a respectable rate. Of the 276 who hunted that year, 145 killed elk. The annual hunts started in 1950, and more than 4,000 hunters harvested 1,500 bulls and cows that year.

If recall some reading I did, the Mexican gray actually ranged as far north as the Colorado/Utah borders, though you're right in that the major population was concentrated from mid-AZ and NM to the south, including part of TX and of course, Mexico. I doubt any actual jaguar plants have occurred, but they are doing quit a bit of monitoring with cameras and such down there. -TONY

Jim, The condition of that hide is why I like hunting bear very early in the season when the boars first leave the dens and don't have a chance to get all rubbed up. The two big ones I killed up there back in the mid 1980s also had primo hides, but they were both coal black. Killed them all the first week of the BC season. As for articles, I always have a few slots open each fall for elk, mule and Coues deer for AZ, NM and other RM states from the previous seasons. So if you guide clients to any this coming fall, let me know. Just be sure to take some good photos -- digital preferred if you can. USE fill flash, too! -TONY

No doubt anyone who knows about the history of fish and wildlife in AZ won't want to step out on that slippery slope. Otherwise, someone might mention the stocking of non-native Rocky Mt. elk in AZ in the early 1900s to replace the extinct Merriam's species, promulgating the spread of desert sheep or the planting of RM sheep and reestablishing a Gould's turkey population. In the great scheme of things, NONE of these helped the "ecological system function better." In fact, some might argue all of the above took place merely to provide hunters with more targets. On the fishy side of things, we might even include bringing back the Apache trout (now working on the Gila!) and planting non-native fish in streams and lakes, such as the rainbow trout at Lee's Ferry. Now, if the wolf does as many believe it will -- keep big-game numbers down -- it's possible to point at that as making the "ecological system function better," because it would be working within the natural scheme of things. To the great dismay of hunters, the wolf would be then filling the same niche in nature where it did before humans mucked up the ecological system by wiping out the wolf here. -TONY

Sorry. Usually when I see a ? at the end of the sentence, I consider it a question and try to answer such as best I can with the information I have or can readily get. In any case, I don't recall adding my "opinion" about the wolf introduction program to any of the answers to those questions. Have a good night. -TONY

No question: my cigarettes. Now I always carry a spare pack or two even when I think I'll be back in camp in a couple hours. Now seriously, for me, having the ability to build a fire was most important. It would have been a long chilly night without it. Of course, if I was lost, per se, something else such as a GPS or compass or map would have mattered more. But I still would have needed the fire, regardless. -TONY

Lark, Forgot to include the following in my other reply in regards to the DNA. -TONY The evolution of the domestic dog The earliest remains of the domestic dog date from 10 to15 thousand years ago21; the diversity of these remains suggests multiple domestication events at different times and places. Dogs may be derived from several different ancestral gray wolf populations, and many dog breeds and wild wolf populations must be analysed in order to tease apart the genetic sources of the domestic dog gene pool. A limited mtDNA restriction fragment analysis of seven dog breeds and 26 gray wolf populations from different locations around the world has shown that the genotypes of dogs and wolves are either identical or differ by the loss or gain of only one or two restriction sites22. The domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the gray wolf, differing from it by at most 0.2% of mtDNA sequence15,22,23. In comparrison, the gray wolf differs from its closest wild relative, the coyote, by about 4% of mitochondrial DNA sequence14 (Fig. 4). Therefore, the molecular genetic evidence does not support theories that domestic dogs arose from jackal ancestors24. Dogs are gray wolves, despite their diversity in size and proportion; the wide variation in their adult morphology probably results from simple changes in developmental rate and timing25.

Lark, Not sure I can answer all your questions to your satisfaction, especially since I would need to do some research on some. But I'll give a couple a stab, anyway. >>so tell me this, why did all the articles in the paper and why did the bioligists i talked to say that wolves were impervious to parvo? << I've yet to find anyone anywhere that has put something like that in writing. Most comments I've read concerning the connection between parvo and wolves have been just the opposite. The only caveat I've read is that the ADULTS are pretty much immune to parvo. Obviously, in a weakened condition, even adults MIGHT be susceptable to parvo. Built up immunity to anything is never a sure thing across an entire population of any species, including Man. That brings us to the next question, of course. >>did the wolf folks just forget to innoculate the "wolves" for parvo? they shot em up for everything else. << As stated above, the general thought is that ADULT wolves, just as domestic dogs do, eventually build an immunity to parvo. If my research is correct, the only RELEASES of wolves into the wild has involved adults. Thus, supposedly no need to innoculate for parvo. That said, wolf pups do not have that same immunity, and has been stated in many of the research papers I've seen, are indeed susceptable to the parvo virus. Soooooo.... innoculating the part of the wolf population affected by parvo the most would amount to capturing every wolf pup born in the wild. I doubt that would be feasible. >>and why does it say in black and white in the usfw documentation that they all have dog dna?<< Maybe you can point me to it? So far, everything I've found in the USF&WS documentation for the program states just the opposite. Below are a couple of snippets from the service's various EIS statements and such. Of course, they're probably lying again. **** "Recent analyses of allele frequencies at ten nuclear microsatellite loci (gene locations) in Mexican wolves from the three different lineages, other gray wolves, red wolves, coyotes, and domestic dogs provide the most definitive information on the ancestry and genetic purity of the three captive wolf lineages (Garc?a-Moreno et al., 1996 and Hedrick, 1995). From these and other studies, the Genetics Committee of the Mexican Wolf Recovery Team concluded that wolves in the three lineages are all Mexican wolves and that there is no indication of any past cross-breeding with coyotes, dogs, or northern gray wolves (Hedrick, 1995). These studies also provided convincing evidence that two of the four founders of the certified lineage were probably mother and son, reducing the number of unrelated founders for this population to three. Thus the total captive population of Mexican wolves stems from seven founders. Captive breeding efforts truly have rescued this endangered subspecies from the brink of extinction." **** CASE STUDY: THE MEXICAN WOLF Abstract The Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) is the southern-most occurring and most endangered subspecies of gray wolf (Canis lupus) in North America, historically occupying montane woodlands in the southwestern United States (U.S.) and central and northern Mexico. It was extirpated from the wild in the U.S. by private and government control campaigns and was listed as an endangered species in 1976. The Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan recommends the establishment and maintenance of a captive population and the re-establishment of a wild population. Captive propagation was initiated with 5 wild wolves captured in Mexico from 1977 to 1980. In 1995, two additional captive populations were determined to be pure through molecular genetic (DNA) analyses. Currently, there are 150 living wolves in the captive population; and none are known to exist in the wild. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has proposed the reintroduction of a nonessential, experimental population of Mexican wolves. A draft Environmental Impact Statement addresses relevant issues and concerns associated with the proposal. There is broad public support for the recovery and preservation of the Mexican wolf. Most people affiliated with or sympathetic to the livestock industry are opposed. This case study demonstrates the diversity and complexity of scientific and policy issues involved in the conservation and restoration of large carnivores. **** 5. Reported wolf sightings from the Blue area have been followed up, but none have been confirmed. Even if the occasional lone wolf existed in the area, the reintroduction effort could proceed so long as there was not a ?population? (i.e., at least two successful breeding pairs for at least two years). If in fact a wild Mexican wolf existed in the area and interbred with the reintroduced Mexican wolf population, it would not destroy the genetic purity of the reintroduced wolves, but it could enhance their genetic diversity. **** >>every wild animal has to be managed. there it soo much civilization dispersed intermittently around the world to just let nature take it's course.<< You won't get any disagreement from me on either. BUT...I think that management will occur when the time is right, even though it might not be timely enough for some. If some folks in WY weren't being pigheaded, management of the wolves would be already implemented there for all three states, and the wolf would be delisted. But because WY wants it listed as a "predator" with no regulations in place for control, i.e. open season, the USF&WS turned it down. -TONY

Amen, brother. When I do take sides, it's never as a reporter but as someone writing an editorial with my opinion(s). And I try to make that plain. Yet even then, I try to have the actual facts of the issue in plain view, too. -TONY

Keith, My college background is biology and journalism, and one thing I learned is science is never an exact science. There's always certain disagreement and yes, it's often skewed by the "sides." Just take note of the arguments in regards to global warming. Can you decide which side is right and which one has an agenda? As a journalist, when I REPORT on an issue, controversial or not, it's not my job to take sides but merely REPORT the facts that are out there. And the more unbiased the sources, the odds of getting the REAL facts -- not some emotional claptrap from folks with an agenda -- are much better. That's why I posted the two snippets about the parvo and the DNA in that last message that were taken from sources that had no connection to the wolf introductions in this country. When it comes to SCIENCE, emotion and agendas are evil intruders. If I was reporting on the wolf issue, I'd probably disregard most of Mader's "facts" because his agenda is quite clear from his background. He is the son of a rancher who tried to monkey-wrench the wolf introduction from the get-go. Now, that doesn't mean I might not speak with HIS sources to see if what he purports was as actually told to Mader or had a spin on it to suit his agenda. But if I did use any of his "fact," I would sure make it clear on what sides he falls, despite his title of "Research Director for Abundant Wildlife Society of North America (AWS)," which I'm guessing is a self-appointed position. Now, I'm curious if anyone has any figures about how much the wolf introduction here in AZ is actually costing the game department, i.e. hunters???

Well of course, it is only suspected when that was written. But here's the question to ask: If wolves are IMMUNE to parvo, then how can one even suspect it? Here's another, this from AK with the opinion of a NON-GOVERMENT employee, those guys that do nothing but lie. ***** The family lineage of the Toklat wolves is documented in the field notes of Gordon Haber, an independent biologist who studies wolves across the state with funding from Friends of Animals. Haber?s something of a thorn in the side of government biologists. He?s made headlines by accusing them of bad science, and of unnecessary cruelty while implementing wolf control measures; several years ago, he provided videotape to news media and environmental groups of a botched wolf killing that was anything but humane. Haber says he?s confident that the Toklat wolves descend from a pack first studied by National Park Service biologist Adolph Murie from 1939 to 1941. (Murie referred to them as the East Fork pack, after the East Fork of the Toklat river. Haber refers to them as ?the Toklat family group.? He says that?s the ?accepted biological model,? while the term ?pack? promotes prejudice because it conjures images of marauding killers.) Government biologists are skeptical of Haber?s claim. Layne Adams heads up a team of researchers who work for the US Geological Survey?s Biological Resources division. He cites genetic research from the last 15 years that he says proves that wolves don?t in-breed enough to provide a 60-year unbroken lineage. In fact, he says, wolves purposefully avoid in-breeding. ?By and large we?ve found that most packs are short lived,? he says. ?Statewide, we?ve studied around 40 packs over the course of 14 years and the East Fork pack is the only one that?s been there the entire time.? Adams says the normal life span of a wolf pack is five or six years, and that government studies show that wolf packs tend to stay together just as long in areas where hunting and trapping are heavy as in areas where they aren?t. Haber?s theory, based on personal observations over the last 30 years, may be impossible to disprove, but it?s not much easier to prove. Finding a 60-year lineage would require not just six decades of blood sampling, but an area of protection larger than anything Denali Park has to offer. All of Denali?s wolves are susceptible to subsistence hunting inside the park, and all of the known packs venture outside the park into sport-hunting territory. Haber also disagrees with the government biologists about the cause of the Toklat wolves? decline. He says the wolves have been fed well over the last few years, and describes hunting and trapping as ?the overwhelming candidate? for the population drop. Haber also suspects that Parvo virus and other canine viral diseases might be to blame. Pups are particularly susceptible to Parvo; he says Denali?s wolves may have picked up infections from domestic dogs. ?It?s dog heaven up there.? Haber says he?s watched wolves following sled dog trails, sniffing at scat along the way. Viral diseases, he says, are ?a major possibility... that?s being ignored.? And this is something else a Google search produced concerning the DNA facts. Wolf Dog Coalition - Pierotti, Ph.D. letter to Chief Staff Veterinarian Biotechnology, Biologics, and Environmental Protection U. S. Department of Agriculture Dr. Robert B. Miller Chief Staff Veterinarian Biotechnology, Biologics, and Environmental Protection U. S. Department of Agriculture 4700 River Road, Unit 148 Riverdale, Maryland 20737-1237 Dear Dr. Miller: I have just finished reading your report concerning your consideration of the information presented at the meeting of 4 April, 1996 on usefulness of rabies vaccines in wolves and wolf-dog crosses. I am disappointed in your report, for it seems to ignore virtually all of the important information presented at that meeting and to hinge largely on contrived issues that are not really relevant to the major points. First, you ignore the unanimous opinion of the scientists who participated in the meeting that wolves and dogs are each other's closest relatives. The two are so close in fact that they cannot be distinguished at the physiological or genetic level, which means that from the perspective of medical treatment and vaccines they are identical. The issue of interbreeding is further evidence, but is not definitive. Wolves and coyotes can interbreed, but they are easily distinguished genetically whereas wolves and dogs cannot be so distinguished. Nonetheless, the appropriate scientific conclusion of interbreeding between wolves and coyotes (and between dogs and coyotes) is that rabies vaccines are appropriate for use in coyotes as well. The issue you raise concerning use of modified live vaccines was not the issue discussed at the meeting. What the scientists present (myself included) agreed upon unanimously was that modified live rabies vaccine would not be used in any canids (including domestic dogs), since it breaks readily. The discussions of distemper, parvovirus, etc. was not the subject of discussion since these issues are not relevant to human public health. In any case, distemper and parvo vaccines work well in wild canids, since I have used them for years in my study animals (wolves and coyotes) and have never had a problem. Since you state that the scientific panel "agreed that the (killed) rabies vaccines currently licensed for use in dogs should protect wolves," and there is a serious public health issue with coyote-borne rabies, the only defensible position is to recommend use of killed rabies vaccines in all Canis that may have contact with humans, including captive wolves, wolf dogs, and coyotes. You assured me at the meeting on 4 April that you would make your decision based on the best scientific evidence. The decision you have reached, however, is clearly in contrast to the recommendations of your scientific panel, and appears instead to have been influenced by lobbyists for specific interest groups. I strongly encourage you to alter your decision to that which is in the best interests of both public health and the scientific evidence, and allow use of killed rabies vaccines in all members of the genus Canis that have regular contact with humans. Yours, Raymond Pierotti, Ph.D. Professor of Evolutionary Biology

Then if it's true, the wolf strain that was moved from Canada to YNP must also be part domestic dog, considering the following: ***** Disease suspected in high wolf pup mortality By MIKE STARK Of The Gazette Staff A virus that usually shows up in domestic dogs may be at least partly to blame for a sudden drop in Yellowstone National Park's wolf population. Scientists on Thursday began taking a closer look at whether parvovirus is a culprit in the 30 percent decline in wolf numbers last year. It's not unusual for the park's wolf population to fluctuate, but the 2005 numbers raised some eyebrows. "I think it's cause for concern but not alarm," said Doug Smith, Yellowstone's lead wolf biologist. Undeveloped immune systems Many of the wolves that didn't survive the year were pups, a sign that parvo may be a factor because the contagious virus tends to affect young canids without fully developed immune systems. There still hasn't been a confirmed case of parvo among Yellowstone's wolves, but it's a top suspect. "All the symptoms are consistent with a parvovirus outbreak," Smith said. Researchers recently wrapped up the first half of their annual winter survey of Yellowstone's wolves. There are an estimated 118 wolves in the park, compared with 171 a year ago, according to the latest figures. Some of the most dramatic losses were on Yellowstone's Northern Range, where wolf packs live in close proximity and competition is fierce. Of the 49 pups born on the Northern Range last year, only eight survived. In the Leopold pack, one of the most dominant in recent years, only two of 19 pups made it. In the nearby Slough Creek pack, 15 pups were born and only three survived. "That's just catastrophic mortality," Smith said. Disease strikes Territorial skirmishes and other natural factors certainly play a part in pushing the park's wolf population up and down, but disease appears to have a role in more recent changes, Smith said. Although distemper and infectious canine hepatitis can affect canids, including wolves, parvo remains a key suspect in Yellowstone. Park officials are planning to catch wolf pups this winter and test them for the virus. The infectious disease, first identified in the 1970s, is typically associated with domestic dogs, which are routinely vaccinated against parvo. The virus can cause severe diarrhea, dehydration and other problems and can be fatal, especially among young animals. It typically spreads through feces and can survive for months before finding another host. "It's quite hearty in the environment," said Mark Atkinson, wildlife veterinarian for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. While parvo may linger in the background, a convergence of factors can lead to a more serious outbreak that can prove fatal for infected animals. Animals that are experiencing some other kind of stress - severe weather or food scarcity, for example - could be more vulnerable to parvo's effects, Atkinson said. In controlled studies, about one-third of young wolves exposed to the disease became clinically ill, Atkinson said. Of those, about 10 percent died. Less is known about how the disease might affect wolves in the wild. "With any disease in wildlife, there are so many factors, getting a good handle on it can be difficult," Atkinson said. Smith said he was working as a wolf biologist at Isle Royale National Park in Lake Superior in 1980 when a suspected parvo outbreak reduced the population from 50 to 12. The Yellowstone wolf population bounced back from a suspected parvo outbreak in 1999 but pup survival was still 40 percent, a far cry from 15 percent survival in 2005. "Wolf populations can generally take a 30 percent mortality rate and stay stable," Smith said. "If this is one year, there's nothing to worry about. If it comes to successive years, we could have a problem." .

I wrote the following in 1990. It sort of provides a clue as to what I think is important. -TONY ******** Copyright by Tony Mandile ONE-DOG NIGHT Thirty years have passed since my first venture into Arizona's great outdoors. During that time I've had both some good and bad experiences. Thankfully, most have been of the former variety. One experience I never had was getting lost. Oh, I had times when I was slightly "turned around," but none where I had absolutely no clue as to my location. Consequently, I've never spent a night away from my main camp unless it was intentional -- with at least a basic supply of necessities. Like most of us probably do, though, I frequently wondered how I'd handle it. My late grandfather indoctrinated me early about the perils of being unprepared if it becomes necessary to spend the night away from camp. So I committed myself to carrying matches, an extra candy bar or two and water in areas where it is scarce. Under the right circumstances a person can live many days without food or water other than in the hot desert. So the candy and water were simply feel-good conveniences. But the matches seemed the most important to me. We often read stories about people getting lost and dying. These accounts continually upset me, especially when the victim had spent only a night or two in the woods. I always wondered how someone becomes a casualty in such a short time. Yet it happens too many times every year. Most folks who get lost and die usually succumb to hypothermia, the medical name for exposure. Characterized by a rapid lowering of one's body temperature and uncontrollable shivering, it soon causes disorientation and a loss of energy. Death is the final consequence. Hypothermia frequently follows panic, a common occurrence when a person becomes lost. Of course, it's very disheartening because the tragedy can be avoided if a person keeps his head on straight. About five years ago on a lion hunt with Joe Mitchell in the Mazatzal Wilderness Area near Rye, I finally found out what's it like to spend a night in the wilderness alone without any food, water or equipment. We had cut a fresh cat track early that morning and had followed the yipping hounds for six hours. Eventually, that track crossed another set. The dogs, confused by the second track, split into two groups. I trailed one bunch, while the guide followed the other. At sunset, my group of dogs had disappeared somewhere in the wilderness. I dropped off the ridge into the canyon where Mitchell had been about an hour earlier. He was gone, too, and everything had gone quiet. Realizing it was at least a five or six-hour uphill hike to camp and thinking I could make it before midnight, I stumbled through the darkness along the meandering trail. Bad decision. Along the way, I swore at myself several times for forgetting the flashlight I had diligently set aside to put in my daypack. It remained on my desk at home, where I had left it. I lost the trail three different times when it crossed the stream bed, got smacked in the face by an unseen branch and had more than one prickly pear cactus deposit its spines in my shins. I decided hiking in the dark without any moonlight was not my thing. Thoughts flowed readily, but panic was not among them. Instead, everything I had read or been taught about this kind of situation came to mind. At that point, I decided I was spending the night in that canyon. Although I knew where I was, my camera, a .357 handgun, butane lighter, a few six-inch square shards of black roofing paper, a candy bar, a light rain jacket and one of those reflective-silver Space blankets made up my meager supplies. Still, about the only panic came from the realization of having only three cigarettes. I knew I had to ration them to make it through the night and part of the next morning. I began looking for a protected place on the trail with enough nearby firewood to get me through the night. Such a place existed only a few yards farther up the trail under a big cottonwood. A large fallen branch from the same tree, though rotten and a bit damp, offered plenty of firewood, and the light from my cigarette lighter revealed enough dry kindling nearby to sustain the wet wood. After building a fire ring out of rocks on some level ground, I gathered enough small wood to get a blaze started, stacked it on top of a piece of tar paper and lit it. A cloud of black, smelly smoke rose as the flame grew. When the kindling began to crackle, I added a few larger pieces to the pyre to sustain it while I broke the rotten log into smaller chunks and stacked them outside the fire ring. The pieces would dry from the heat of the fire, providing me a continuous supply of larger chunks to burn. The warmth from leaping flames helped thwart the growing chill of the March evening. Hungry and weary from hiking around the up-&-down wilderness all day, I ate half of my candy bar and saved the rest for breakfast. I then cleared a "bed" next to the fire within easy reach of the drying wood. With my rolled up daypack tucked beneath my head and the Space blanket covering my torso, I snuggled up beside the now blazing fire and savored a few puffs from one of my three cigarettes. A few minutes later, a noise that sounded like something walking through dry leaves came from the blackness. Just as I reached for my handgun, one of Mitchell 's hounds wandered into the light of the fire. I let out a sigh of relief. "Here, Jake," I called. The hound moved warily toward me, then stopped several feet away, moved to edge of some oak brush and laid down on a bed of fallen leaves. Thinking it was nice to have company anyway, I shrugged and said, "Suit yourself. See you in the morning." I turned, facing the fire, and tried sleeping again but worried about Joe and what he would think. No doubt he might imagine the worst. Just then, the sound of rustling leaves made me look over my shoulder. Jake, with head lowered, cautiously crept to where I lay, circled once and then lowered himself to the ground and pushed up against my back. Providing a bit of body heat for each other, my canine buddy and I went to sleep. Over the next 11 or 12 hours, I woke often to awaken the flames with a fresh supply of wood from the dead tree. And each time, I lay back down, Jake wiggled his body closer to mine until he finally managed to get under the blanket, as well. The next morning, after the five-hour uphill trek, Jake and I reached the main road. I knew which direction I had to go but had no idea how far I was from the truck. A minute later I heard the whine of an ATV. As the three-wheeler came around a bend, the driver spotted me and stopped. "Are you Tony?" he asked. "Yes." He then told me he was Mitchell?s dad and had arrived the previous night."Joe called me and said you might be lost. He drove down to Rye this morning because he thought you might come out that way. Did you have a bad night?" "Well, I could use a cigarette and a sandwich. But other than that, I'm fine. I spent the night with a warm fire in front of me and a warm dog behind me." The man smiled. "Oh, you had a one-dog night, huh? Hop on."

Jim, Yuppers. You're right on with Marc. I built the wooden base and he did the rest. He's been doing my taxidermy work for quite a few years now. He's just finishing up a springbok for me, which is the last of nine African animals he's done. I had the warthog and zebra rug done in Africa. Now he has my stuff from NZ to do -- a nice stag, tahr, chamois and lifesize wallaby. That's why I had to recently add a 14'x28' addition to my family room. The trophy room in the above photo was already crammed full. So I convinced my wife to add the "foreign critter room." I enjoyed working with the Noble family. I also did an article on their deer hunt on the Strip. Did you see it? -TONY

Well, I haven't had a car wreck in more than 35 years either, but..... Saw two dandy silvertips when I was hunting blacks in BC two years ago. But the area was on a quota of ONE tag, and my outfitter wasn't the one that had it. It was still neat watching them through the binocs from 150 yards away. I did get a good black, though. It was the third big one I've killed there with the same outfitter. The rug on the wall is an AZ bear, though. See below. -TONY

Doug, The show was one of four in the "Hunter and Hunted" series. There was also one on gators in Fla., baboons in Africa and one other. I ran thru the menu for COX and it shows three of them reruning on 7/9 around midday, but the deer segment isn't one of them. Both of the guys were hunting alone, and both were in the process of field-dressing their deer when they were attacked. The one who died actually shot the bear that had attacked him, but all they could do was reconstruct what they *thought* happened from what they found at the scene. In the reenactment, they showed the hunter shooting while it was already moving in on him. But before the guy could get off another, the bear was on him. The whole area showed signs of a long struggle, with lots of blood spread over everything. And yes, they found the bear dead, too, but it had gone quite aways before dying. If I recall, the bear that attacked the guy who survived was fairly small as the Kodiak browns go, perhaps under 300 lbs. They concluded the size helped the guy survive because the bear's jaw spread was quite a bit smaller than an adult's, thus not able to inflict as much damge with his bite.

That's pretty much how the outfit I'm going with operates -- no guides. Once ashore, we're on our own. I did a similar hunt years ago for caribou on the Mulchatna River. We had a nice camp to stay in, and someone would ferry us on the river each day and drop us off to hunt. Then they would return to pick us up that evening. RE: bears Ironically, just yesterday I watched an hour-long show on the NG channel about two deer hunters who were attacked by bears on the SAME day on Kodiak. Both had just killed deer prior to the attacks. One died at the attack site, and the other managed to drag his bleeding body down the mountain to where his hunting partners were waiting on him. He survived to tell his story. -TONY

Doug, I'll be there from Oct. 7-14, which seems a bit early to me. BUT...I didn't have a choice. I'm going with the folks from the USSA. We'll be hunting/fishing off a boat, with daily trips into the beach to play with the deer and bears. The outfit is Ninilchik Charters .. Not sure where we'll be hunting. -TONY

Duwane called me the day he picked up the magazine. He had already read the article twice and wanted to tell me, "Man, that's just how it played out." He was surprised my editor had left in his order to Luke that basically went, "Now you'd better get your butt over there and kill that deer." -TONY

Hey, Allen, with luck I'll also finish my deer slam in Oct. on Kodiak. Did you hunt with an outfitter there? -TONY