40-year-AZ-hunter

Marlin Glenfield model 60 semi-auto .22 LR. $100 FTF in N. Phx. Stock has light scratches as shown in pic, bluing nice, no rear sight ramp. Must be an Arizona resident and not a prohibited purchaser. Sorry, no trades

Have a Ruger 77 in 7 mm Remington Magnum. It's the center safety with red pad vintage. Serial number 77-23xxx dates it to about 1971 (no warning BS on the barrel). Gun has been hunted so shows some blue wear and a few scratches in the walnut stock (original finish), but overall in very nice shape for it's vintage. I've owned it for many years and never shot it so I do not know the round count, but the rifling looks perfect. 24" barrel. Checkering is sharp. Buyer can have choice of regular or high Ruger rings. $375 . FTF around Shea and the 51 in Phx. Must be an Arizona resident and not a prohibited purchaser. Sorry, no trades.

Marlin Glenfield model 60 semi-auto .22 LR. $100 in N. Phx. Stock has light scratches as shown in pic, bluing nice, no rear sight ramp.

I'd like the old Kollmorgan scope and if I read it correctly, one of the bases is for a Springfield. I could use that also. I'm in Flagstaff, but will be down in the Valley the middle of next week.

I have a pair of Leica 12x50BA with all original accessories, box, paperwork. Original owner. $950. Glass and exterior like new. Replaced a few years ago with Leica 15x56. Just FYI, I'm a big Leica fan with 8x32s and 8x42s. Nothing against Swaro's, but I prefer Leica's. I'm in Flagstaff and will be in Phoenix in a few weeks.

Thanks dse for your insight with respect to twist. That makes sense to me if the custom rifle has a faster twist that is not too fast, which I know can harm accuracy. I'll have to study the physics of the spin as it slows down. Since it takes more twist to stabilize a bullet at higher velocity, it would seem fine that the spinning slows as the bullet's velocity slows, but they may not be proportionate. " I have a old almost factory hunting rifle that will not shoot better than 3/4 moa at 100 yds, but I can shoot 1/2 moa at 800 yds all day long" Now that is fascinating. Intuitively that would seem to defy geometry. Once the angle between two lines (bullet paths of two shots) is established once the bullets are in flight, for that angle to change and always get smaller is hard for me to understand. MOA is "minutes of angle" and for the angle between the lines to always bend together with increasing distance is hard to explain.

I need an education please. I'm 70 years old and been shooting and handloading since I was 15. My academic background is mathematics (geometry). I'm admittedly not a long range shooter and have owned many rifles and only one custom which was willed to me by a good buddy that passed so it was not built for me. Some on this thread have implied that a factory rifle may shoot fine at 200 yards but not at 600 or 800, whereas a custom rifle will hold groups out to those distances. Can someone please explain the science behind such? If I have a factory rifle that shoots .5moa (or .2 or .3 whatever) at 200 with load X and a custom rifle that shoots .5moa (or .2 or .3 or whatever) at 200 with load X, why would the custom do better at 600? In my mind, the trajectory of each projectile is established by 200 yards and beyond that the wind, etc will affect both the same way. The bullet does not know what rifle fired it and the path is established. The bullet was clearly well stabilized by the twist of each rifle or it would not shoot at 200 so twist is not a factor. I'm serious and hope to learn why between 200 and 600 or 800 etc. the path of the bullet would differ between a cheap rifle and an expensive rifle that both shoot the same size groups at 200. Thanks, Bruce

"Inexpensive" will be the tough part for a cartridge like the 300 H&H. Good luck with your search. The old M70s in such calibers are neat guns.

Perhaps given the tone of this thread, he is justified in not feeling like he has to explain anything to us. Someone earlier in the thread commented on the decline of comity on the site. Perhaps we all should take this opportunity to reflect on the way each of us conduct ourselves. I will. Bruce

Long story short for those who did not get to see the Commission meeting....NO committee. Davis motion. Dept will do it with input from the public. Wonder why really?

Interestingly, Rich Williams who is President of AES is on the Board of CAPAZ.

Getting short on time guys. Meeting is Thursday, 6/21 to pick the committee.

+90,000 unaffiliated hunters and conservationists!

Yesterday (5/5/18), Pete Cimelaro made a presentation at the G&F workshop in Kingman pitching the concept of additional tags to be auctioned/raffled off to support education. I tried to attach it as a PDF file. A couple things I noted. There is no mention of any of the alternative funding mechanisms suggested by people on this site or elsewhere such as the Bass Pro meeting despite Conserve and Protect Arizona professing to seek input and alternatives. That was disappointing but not unexpected. It does appear that they are downplaying auction tags altho they are still mentioned. It will very likely be an agenda item for the regular June G&F Commission meeting June 8/9 in Mesa. At least as a regular Commission meeting it will be streamed live and folks can comment on agenda items via teleconference from any of the regional offices. It appears that G&F will form a committee to study this issue. I think it is very important that all voices be represented on any such committee, not just those drinking the coolaid. I recorded the topic meeting. It's about 63 MB and about an hour long. The presentation starts with a discussion of the HPC process and at about 9 minutes in is Cimelaro's discussion. I cant seem to get it to upload to this site. Here is a link that seems to work and play on my Android phone, but gets and error on my Windows computer, but it will download and then play. You can try it. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1YENVlref6AseGLkNmt4NN0ZzjDf_HREH Bruce CAPAZ Handout 5-5-18.pdf

Jeep Wranglers from about 1987 to 2006 and some Cherokees use that bolt pattern. Should be easy to find on Craigslist. I have one you can have with an OLD (but lots of tread) 6.70x15" tire. It has 2.5" center hole. Trouble is, I'm in Flagstaff.

He was a brand new Commissioner beginning in January 2012 so was on the Commission during the HB2072 tag grab. If memory serves, after the huge outcry against that attempt, the Commission voted not to support HB2072.

From the last sentence of Flatlander's email exchange with Commissioner Davis when Andrew mentioned opposition to removing tags from the regular draw process and re-allocating them to auction/raffle; "I have never heard anyone proposing decreasing opportunities, tags,;etc...ever. kurt" If you believe that nobody has proposed that, PLEASE listen to Pete C. answer a question at 23:05 of Jay Scott's first podcast (linked at the beginning of the other long thread). The question is would the new auction and/or raffle tags come out of the existing tags in the regular draw. The short answer from Pete is YES, the Dept would have to pull the tags from the existing allocation so you are going to lose some tags. He says "so they would obviously taken away from the general draw". Now, perhaps Commissioner Davis has not heard this from Conserve and Protect, but it is their idea. Just listen to Pete, not me. There may be more going on here than Commissioner Davis is saying. Someone tried to (for lack of a better term) secretly increase the special tag limit of 3 in ARS 17-346 to 4 per species in this year's omnibus G&F bill. When the Chairman found out about it he was not happy and quickly removed that proposed change. Also, in Jay's first podcast at time 1:14;58 one of the attendees, and I could not identify the voice, talked about a conversation he had with Commissioner Ammons (the Chair) a week prior to the podcast. So it may be strictly true that the Commission has formally received "no proposal", at least some of them have had discussions about additional auction/raffle tags with one or more people from Conserve and Protect. Semantics matter. This may or may not be a more open process than we had in 2012, but we should all be alert.

Last night I went over some numbers about applications for elk, antelope, deer and sheep from 2010 to 2017 (and 2018 for elk and antelope) that showed quite an increase in applications (varies by species) for those species and I explained that I was using them as a proxy for the number of big game hunters. Pete asked if they included the applications for a bonus point only. I replied that they did. That led to one of the "heated" discussions. I believe Pete's point was that if the numbers included apps for bonus point only, they were skewed. This morning I double checked the G&F reports (BONRPT2 and BONRPT1 available on the azgfd.gov website). I was wrong last night. The numbers DO NOT include applications for a bonus point only. If I had been correct last night, one of the points of contention might have been avoided. I apologize. The numbers presented are accurate and do show quite an increase in applications for actual hunts while permit numbers have stayed relatively steady. Bruce PS. Just as one example for those not there last night. For elk: 2010 79,041 apps for 25,895 tags 2018 115,504 apps for 24,901 tags

The distain for this website and it's "keyboard killers" just drips from those folks on that radio show. They also gave out some disingenuous info. Not sure who said it, but when trying to justify possible auction tags, they mentioned there were something like 680+ leftover elk tags. Pure BS. 99% of those leftover elk tags were for those Kaibab and Strip tags the Department couldn't give away at $35 a piece. If CAPAZ is reading this, I'm trying to keep an objective mind, but when you purposely misinform to move your agenda forward, I lose respect. You guys need to understand we're on your side, but these cheap jabs and condescending radio programs are not helping your cause. I think that was meant to say - even if we take a few of the choicest tags, there will be tags for the unwashed masses. Perhaps they would be willing to settle for the ability to auction all those leftover tags Nah, probably not!

The distain for this website and it's "keyboard killers" just drips from those folks on that radio show.

Let me try to answer your question. I'm have no hate for guys who may be able to pay the most for auction tags. I just think there are some things that don't belong to the few, but belong to the many. Wildlife is one of them along with National Parks, rivers, etc. The North American model for game was established to counter the idea that kings, lords, etc controlled the game on their land. It belongs to the public, not those that can bid the most. We started down a slippery slope with "Governors" tags and I believe that was a mistake. Going further down that road is a sell out of the North American model to me. I agree we should be working for common ground, but that does not mean we need to abandon principle in my mind. Bruce

Dustin, I think you were at the Bass Pro meeting earlier this week. If so, you heard me lay my cards on the table. I am adamantly opposed to additional auction tags. I am opposed to additional raffle tags. I support a fee increase to fund education. I respectfully have a couple questions that I hope you will take seriously, -What progress do you want to see and towards what end? -Are there any States that have set up a system of auction tags with all the money specifically going to their G&F for education in the last couple years? I'd like to understand how it has worked elsewhere. We saw an article about a fee increase working in CO. -Would it take legislation to place such a fee in place in AZ? -Can P-R funds be used for ANY kind of education by G&F? - Has HSUS been successful in banning lion hunting anywhere except CA? -Someone suggested that your Avatar is Don Peay. Is that true? (I don't know Peay so I ask) Thanks in advance. Bruce

it's the funding game and fish needs to engage in the type of outreach needed to engage the uninformed public about hunters role in wildlife conservation. They can't do it with current funding methods, by law. And there are no auction tags. It was just one idea offered to the public. They are looking for input from sportsmen on these ideas. There has been discussion about whether they could use PR funds. Set that aside. They can use license fees, tag fees, etc from the general fund. They do it now with things like Wildlife Views. Please be specific - what law prevents G&F from using such general fund moneys for the education you envision? I and others have suggested, including at the Bass Pro meeting, raising the license fee a buck or two to raise the money. This would not even require legislation. If you know otherwise, please be specific and cite the Statute that prevents that. ARS 17-333 allows G&F to set fees within the limits of ARS 17-333.01. This also came up at the BP meeting. If I am wrong, please cite the law and I will gladly stand corrected. Bruce

From Websters - definition of "nefarious" flagrantly wicked or impious : evil Vicious and villainous are two wicked synonyms of nefarious, and, like nefarious, both mean "highly reprehensible or offensive in character, nature, or conduct." But these synonyms are not used in exactly the same way in all situations. Vicious may imply moral depravity or it may connote malignancy, cruelty, or destructive violence. Villainous applies to any evil, depraved, or vile conduct or characteristic, while nefarious (which derives from the Latin noun nefas, meaning "crime") suggests flagrant breaching of time-honored laws and traditions of conduct.

Fred, the way I read the statute, and I could be wrong, it's not the individual fees but the total revenue raised that is limited. As evidence of that view, the chart above shows the price of a bonus point at $7.50 and it is now $13 which of course is more than a 50% increase referenced in the law.