ThomC

You were drawn in the bonus points round and your first choice hunt was already filled. http://www.azgfd.gov/eservices/BigGameDrawingProcess.shtml

IMHO "ethics" is are a moving target and is a very subjective subject. Is it going to be ethical to shoot a deer with the soon to be developed scope with a built in computer that does all the calculations including reading the wind along the bullets path? I think it is all personal opinion. As you can tell there are many different opinions concerning what is an ethical shot at a deer. Some people say that "it would be impossible to get any closer." Then how are you going to retreive that deer after it is dead? A question I always ask myself is: am I able to pack the deer out of there. Another thing that will raise its ugly head is: if hunters get more efficient will less tags have to be allocated to maintain the deer population. I can tell you that most of my non hunting friends think that just using a high power rifle is not sporting. I think that at some point we will have to call it shooting and not hunting and shooting will be only a few tags allocated to properly equiped and qualified shooters. So as we on this website (who are by my defination above average hunters) think about these questions, and what do we want to see in the future, must struggle with the word 'ethics" if our sport is to remain a sport.

Your best bet would be find somebody that has rocks on their property and ask them. Public property is owned by the public (to look at but not take) so you would have to ask everyone. Or some politition who thinks that he/she speaks for everyone.

Common sense says that daylight is when you can identify your game without using a light or the moon. I use 1/2 hour before sunrise to 1/2 hour after sunset. Sometimes weather can make it dark after or before those times.

The only thing that knows what the best load is, your rifle. And the only shot that matters for hunting is the first shot out of a cold barrel. Mister Monstercoues, You can't just shoot alot of holes in the target, pick the closest three, and put tape on the others. LOL

Here is mine. Don't forget to take plenty of NEW mosquito spray. This year was very bad in 5b. The little aggresive buggers were everywhere. Also take your allergy medicine. The yellow flowers are really thick this year. Do Elk eat them, if not they are really crowding out the grass. All the meadows were pure yellow and your pants would get covered with the yellow pollen.

I am not sure of the capacity of your GPS but generally you will need a model that will accept a external chip. Most GPS do not have enough internal capacity to download all of the overlays.

There are lots of chiggers in soaz. Spray deet on your boots, legs, and pants highter than the grass is. Or anything that touches the grass or ground. I spray the ground inside of my blind. Deep woods off is supposed to be sent free. Nasty little buggers.

If you are shooting from an elevated stand or hill (in my case it was the top of the dam of a tank) and you range the distance at say 40 yards. How do you figure how much to hold low?

I don't know if they know it but they are risking their life now, walking across our desert.

Thanks guys for your replys. Good advice. My grandson showed me the formula for a triangle which required me to estimate how high the hill was. So, in my setup I estimated the hill as 15 yards, the shot at 40 yards. I would have to shoot as if it was 37.2 yards. The formula is: a is the estimated height of the hill, b is the distance of the level shot, c is the ranged distance. b= the square root of (c squared minus a squared). That is not what I was expecting. I thought that I would need to hold lower. Well now if a buck would just stand there I am ready. Good luck to everyone.

That is a sad story, I would not call them hunters. Did you call the Land owner relations man in Region 5 Game & Fish? His number is 520-628-5376. He has been working hard to aleviate some of the problems in the Galluros. I hope that your family is okay.

I wonder how many of you who will be impatiently waiting to find out if you will be getting a tag, waited till the last day to apply? If it is sooo important that you get a tag, why did you not put in earlier? Yesterday in R5 there was a parade all day long clear up to 7P to drop off apps in 103 deg. heat. Not complaining just curious.

Simply put in for a ALS Bull tag. I get drawn every year.

The los suns announced today that they will have a los fan appreciation day. All illegial aliens will get in free to the next suns game. Bring your fake ID, false social security card or false passport to the will call office for your free pass. At half time they will be honored by los al. After the game is over they will be allowed to sneak out the back door so as to not be caught by the law. The suns appreciate what the illegals have done for them. In the future there will be reconization for the rapests, murders,and other criminals for the support that they give to the suns. The suns will be proudly known as the anti-americas team.

+1

Having idiots (they are not sportsmen) look at you thru their scope.

I did just that with a Winchester pre-64 lightweight 3006. I purchased at a swap meet in 1965. I changed the 4x scope to a 2x7. It is a little fussy with ammo but when I found what it likes then it hits the same spot every year. Of course I didn't have to pay $1500. The 06 is the best all around do everything cartridge. No muss no fuss just gets the job done.

At which shooting range did you find these problems?

Amanda if this is in the wrong section then I apoligize. This should open ypur eyes and make your blood boil. Activist ‘green’ lawyers billing U.S. millions in fraudulent attorney fees Radical environmental groups have ripped off taxpayers to the tune of $37 million. By Richard Pollock, PajamasMedia.com, March 4, 2010 Without any oversight, accounting, or transparency, environmental activist groups have surreptitiously received at least $37 million from the federal government for questionable “attorney fees.” The lawsuits they received compensation for had nothing to do with environmental protection or improvement. The activist groups have generated huge revenue streams via the obscure Equal Access to Justice Act. Congressional sources claim the groups are billing for “cookie cutter” lawsuits — they file the same petitions to multiple agencies on procedural grounds, and under the Act, they file for attorney fees even if they do not win the case. Since 1995, the federal government has neither tracked nor accounted for any of these attorney fee payments. Nine national environmental activist groups alone have filed more than 3,300 suits, every single one seeking attorney fees. The groups have also charged as much as $650 per hour (a federal statutory cap usually limits attorney fees to $125 per hour). In well over half of the cases, there was no court judgment in the environmental groups’ favor. In all cases, whether there was any possible environmental benefit from the litigation is highly questionable. Most cases were simply based upon an alleged failure to comply with a deadline or to follow a procedure. A whistleblower who was employed for 30 years by the U.S. Forest Service told Pajamas Media: Some organizations have built a business doing this and attacking the agencies on process, and then getting “reimbursed.” This week a bipartisan group of congressional members introduced legislation to end the secrecy of the payments and force the government to open up the records to show exactly how much has been paid to the groups and the questionable attorney fees. The legislation was sponsored by Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyoming), Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD), and Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah). Congressional sources have said the disclosure was necessary to determine the extent of fraud and abuse. The $37 million is considered only a fraction of what has been paid out to the activist groups. “For too long, taxpayers have unwittingly served as the financiers of the environmental litigation industry,” Rep. Bishop, who also is the chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus, said. Rep. Herseth Sandlin remarked: “Simply put, this legislation is about ensuring good and open government.” “It’s time to shine some light [on the program],” explained Rep. Lummis, who said the groups have created an industry that “supports their ‘stop everything’ agenda.” The $37 million figure is considered low. It includes less than a dozen groups and only accounts for cases in 19 states and the District of Columbia. There are hundreds of eco-activist groups in the United States. According to the whistleblower who served in the U.S. Forest Service, environmental activist groups typically file identical lawsuits to multiple agencies on procedural grounds, such as a missed deadline. The identity of the huge revenue stream was established by the Western Legacy Alliance (“WLA”), along with Wyoming-based attorney Karen Budd-Falen. Western Legacy Alliance was founded in 2008 by ranchers and resource providers who raise beef and lamb on public lands of the West. What they found was astounding. Examining court records in 19 states and in the District of Columbia, the total amount paid to less than a dozen environmental groups exceeded $37 million. “This is just the tip of the iceberg,” says Budd-Falen. “We believe when the curtain is raised we’ll be talking about radical environmental groups bilking the taxpayer for hundreds of millions of dollars, all allegedly for ‘reimbursement for attorney fees.’ And what is even more maddening is that these groups are claiming that they are protecting the environment with all this litigation when not one dime of this money goes to projects that impact anything on-the-ground related to the environment. It just goes to more litigation to get more attorney fees to file more litigation.” The whistleblower, speaking anonymously, told Pajamas Media the payments to the activists groups were “quite astronomical.” The former government agent was a line officer in a high-ranking position. That whistleblower added that the filings by the radical groups often were “canned” petitions that contained little research. In this way, environmental groups could pepper government agencies with a flood of lawsuits without much work. “They will send a myriad of lawsuits across the bow to try to stop a number of projects or programs and then they hopefully will score with one or two,” he said. He saw a lot of the activist lawsuit filings because he had been attached both to the Forest Service’s Washington headquarters and to its field offices. “Then they will send in bills that are quite frankly, quite astronomical compared to the actual work they had to do to file an actual lawsuit. Many of the lawsuits are filed under a lot of canned material, yet the hours and rates that they charge were quite high.” Here is a sampling of the number of assembly line “lawsuits” filed between 2000 and 2009 that have been painstakingly identified by the Western Legacy Alliance and Budd-Falen. Activist group Western Watersheds Project filed 91 lawsuits in the federal district courts; Forest Guardians (now known as WildEarth Guardians) filed 180 lawsuits; the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) filed at 409 suits; the Wilderness Society filed 149 lawsuits; the National Wildlife Federation filed 427 lawsuits; and the Sierra Club filed 983 lawsuits. These numbers do not include administrative appeals or notices of intent to sue. Even local or regional environmental groups have figured out ways to turn on the taxpayer spigot. WLA found the Idaho Conservation League filed 72 lawsuits and the Oregon Natural Desert Association filed 50. The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance filed 88 lawsuits. At last count, just eight local groups in nine Western states have filed nearly 1,600 lawsuits against the federal government. On the national level, over the last decade nine national environmental groups have filed 3,300 cases against the federal government. As is usual, the vast majority of the cases deal with the alleged procedural failings of federal agencies, not with substance or science. Said the Forest Service officer: “A lot of times they will sue on process, and not on substance. And substance means what difference does it mean for the resource, or what’s going in on the ground? A lot of times, it will be a process lawsuit and a lot of times the agency either missed something. … The bottom line is many, many times, when you look at the results on the ground, it [the environmental group winning the litigation] would have made very little difference.” Karen Budd-Falen said that the cases amounted to a ripoff of taxpayers and rewarded radical groups with millions of dollars. “Although those of us involved in protecting property rights and land use in the West were aware that radical groups were getting exorbitant fees simply be filing litigation against the government, we had no idea of the magnitude of the problem.” Budd-Falen highlighted one case that typifies the gravy train that has flowed to environmental groups. In 2009, the Earthjustice Legal Foundation represented the Defenders of Wildlife, the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, and the Vermont Natural Resources Council in a case dealing with the process used by the Forest Service to adopt some regulations. The Earthjustice Legal Foundation filed for attorney fees for that single case that took only one year and three months to complete. The same suit was filed by the Western Environmental Law Center on behalf of other environmental groups. The seven total attorneys who worked on the case billed the federal government $479,242. They charged between $300 to $650 per hour, far above the statuary federal cap of $125. The case was resolved at the district court level and the federal government did not appeal. The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) also files a significant amount of litigation and receives lucrative attorney fees. In Washington State Federal District Court alone, CBD received attorney fees totaling $941,000 for only six cases. In the District of Columbia, it received more than $1 million in fees. Fourteen groups identified as recipients of the Act’s funding are: the Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, Colorado Environmental Coalition, Forest Guardians, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Western Watersheds Project, Defenders of Wildlife, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, WildEarth, Oregon Natural Desert Association, Oregon Wild, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, and Wyoming Outdoor Council. One of the fourteen groups, the Center for Biological Diversity, called the two Republicans and one Democrat “rabid right-wingers” and said that the charges of abuse was “patently false and patently ridiculous,” according to Bill Snape, senior council for CBD. Another study from Virginia Tech University discovered similar findings as a result of a comprehensive Freedom of Information Act request to five federal agencies. The Virginia Tech study also revealed that two of the agencies could provide absolutely no data on the Act’s payments. Environmental organizations are among the most financially prosperous non-profits in the country. The Sierra Club alone in 2007 reported its total worth as $56.6 million. According to 2007 Internal Revenue Service records, the top ten environmental presidents receive as much as a half million dollars a year in annual compensation. Fred Krupp, the president of the Environmental Defense Fund, Inc reported $492,000 in executive compensation in 2007. The top ten highest grossing environmental executives all received at least $308,000 in compensation. Environmental activist groups also have been among the most influential in throwing around political money. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, between 2000 and this year activist environmental political action committees have given $3.4 million in campaign contributions to candidates for federal office. About 87% of the money went to Democrats. Richard Pollock is the Washington, D.C., editor for Pajamas Media and the Washington bureau chief of PJTV.

My lounger has a infared motion detector on it that vibrates and wakes me up when the quarry is near. LOL

It depends on the size of your butt. Those little triangular stools are unconfortable for me. Those little camp stools that fold up cut off the circulation to my legs after a while. The best for me is a armless folder, I also put my ground cushion on it. The important thing is to get as confortable as possible so you can last all day. Also you want to practice shooting off the stool and out of the blind. To pass the time I take my camera, tripod, and binocs to take pictures of other wildlife that I see.

As to saving the meat. After the impact with a vehicle the animal will be bruised badly with possible massive internal injuries. Most likely not much edible meat.

I grew up with the odd color out and I still do it that way. It works with any rest. Actually I fletch my arrows with all the same color and mark the out feather/vane with a marking pen.

If you see it on the internet then it probably is not the truth anyway. Not that you'll are lying, just some. LOL The worlds record coues was not taken in Pima County.