San Carlos tag

[ALYUAZ]

I am thinking of getting a San Carlos deer tag for next year.For those of you who have hunted the res,is their tag really worth the money?Which units are supposed to be good for coues?November or january hunt?Are there places I can backpack into?I considered New Mexico for next year but since the res is only a couple of hours drive from my home in Phoenix I can scout it better.

 

Thanks in advance for any info

[TAM]

If you plan on scouting then don't buy a tag in region D. You are not allowed to scout in that unit.

[hunterdude]

Buy a small game tag to scout , you don't have to shoot anything, just carry the gun. It worked on the whitemountain res. with squirell.

[TAM]

If you want to hunt small game in region D you have to use a reservation approved guide. That idea will work in units A,B, & C though.

 

Here is a quote from the San Carlos website: * Procedural Rule for Unit D: 1. Tribal Member licensed guide is required for small game hunters in Unit D. He may accompany up to four (4) hunters at one time.

 

Here is the link: http://www.sancarlosrecreationandwildlife.com/schedule2.htm

 

I spent quite a bit of time doing some research on this same topic a few weeks ago. I finally had to go into the office to get it all figured out.

[CouesWhitetail]

ALYUAZ,

 

Personally I love the San Carlos and would hunt it all the time if I could afford it. However, whether the tag is worth is a matter of your finances. But there are some awesome deer there and the country is gorgeous.

 

Yes, there are places you can backpack into in all units. Each unit produces big bucks so it's a hard choice. If money is a consideration, maybe hunting the Nov season is best. The bucks are in bachelor groups then and the hunting pressure is light so it's not like hunting state land.

 

The Coues deer tags sell out generally the day the go on sale. So if you want a tag, you practically have to camp out at their office the day before they go on sale, which is usually in late Dec or early Jan.

 

Amanda

[.270]

Amanda is right. i was raised on the edge of the san carlos rez and when i was a kid there were few limitations as to where a white guy could go or what he could do. i don't think there is a section (square mile) on the rez i haven't been in. good bucks in all of em. coues and muleys. i've shot lions, bears, turkeys, javelinas, bobcats and a truck load o' coyotes and caught several boat loads o' fish on the rez, too. but the apaches are real stingy with "D" for some reason. might be some left over feelings from the "mineral strip" fiasco. but there oughta be some slug coues in there. it is rough, thick, steep country. i'm thinking there oughta be some huge elk there too. they've had elk there since they were introduced into Az., with little hunting pressure. they might be sorta inbred, but i'm thinkin' there oughta be some big ones. Lark.

[TAM]

I think the reason they are so stingy about access to unit D has something to do with the Apache cattle ranchers. When I spoke with the gal in the wildlife office she mentioned something about a cattle ranchers association having control over that land. Not sure of all the details, but something along those lines.

[.270]

i don't know what the deal is there now. back in the 60's and 70's there was a big controversy over that area. it was called the mineral strip. there were a lot of white guys that had ranch land leased for decades. heck, generations. they even had patented homesteads and homes and all kinds of improvements that were landlocked by the rez. i was just a kid when most of it took place, but the tribe ran all the gringos off and took over even the patented land without any payment. there were lotsa real hard feelings over it. i just sorta figgerd that maybe that had something to do with their rules there. maybe there are some apaches now that have sorta private ranches there now. the rest of the rez is a big ranch, but it's all ran by the tribe. anyway, what you say sounds reasonable. i know i'd like to be turned loose in "D" for a couple months with no restrictions. Lark.

[CouesWhitetail]

Lark,

 

I think you are on the mark for why it's more of a restricted area. At least that was always what I was told when I was working there. Although the version I heard was that the land was given to the tribe, then taken away, then given back.

 

Amanda

[treestandman1]

I think the state should take all "their" land away. I don't like reservations.

[az4life]

Reservations bother me a bit too. I have a problem with the way the Native Americans use the "Sovereign Nation" Card whenever it is convenient, and at the same time, they have their hands out for the US Gov't to take care of this or that.

 

It is a Lot like Jesse HI-Jackson or Al "race-baiter" Sharpton play the minority cards at will.

 

But since the Tribes do have the land, they make their rules. No point in arguing.

 

I think maybe if Guides like Taulman used the tribes everyone would be better off.

 

Thanks for indulging me, My Soapbox is now put away.

[ALYUAZ]

Thank you all for the info.I''ll probably try to get a November tag.It allows you to hunt units A,B and C.That will keep my options open until I get more familiar with the rez.January would be a good time to start scouting.

[.270]

Amanda, it was always indian land. at least from the time the rez was formed. there were a lot of folks that had ranches there when the rez was formed and they were allowed to continue leasing them, only from the tribe instead of from the feds and state. for a real long time. like i said, they had homesteads and homes and had made a lot of improvements in water and fences, etc. then the tribe basically threw em off and no restitution was payed. it was pretty ugly and the bad feelings were caused by both sides. there were a lot of lies both ways. i understood where the guys leasing the ranches came from, because they had been allowed to work the land for probably 60 or 70 years and then the tribe decided to take it back. it was a lot like what the ft. apache tribe did to the homesite leases in mcnary and at hawley lake. but at the same time the ranchers knew it was indian land and knew that someday it might happen. the whole deal with the "mineral strip" was that it was supposed to be a mining area, but no mine of any size was ever developed there. there were some fair sized operations up until maybe the late 40's and early 50's, but nothing like the size we see today. they employed quite a few folks at times, but it was sorta like a goldrush. anyway, it was a bad deal all the way around and i guess there are still some real hard feelings over it. i knew everyone that had ranches there. a couple real good guys lost a lot, but some real jerks did too. the jerks are the ones that really made it bad. it sorta reminds me of this uso lawsuit crap. niether side willing to negotiate. if the ranchers would have realized that they were gonna lose from the start, they could've got something for their assets, but they refused to move and refused to negotiate until they were just tossed off. oh well, that was a long time ago. Lark.