stanley

No tag for me this year, but my boys will definitely be taking advantage of the OTC tags!! I think we're going to head-up to the Kiabab! Extra challenging; getting those kids to sit perfectly still! Fun stuff!!! S.

LOL Chef!!!!! I forgot about that morning until you mentioned it! Good lord, that was some serious STINK! S.

I think it's pretty cool to! I hunt a bit in some of the areas where they are said to sometimes exist, and I think it's cool to know that they might be creeping around out there..... S.

In Arizona it is against the law to shoot someone for breaking into my truck to steal a gun. No matter how big of a S**T Bag that person is. If you feel your life is in danger or you are likely to sustain grievious bodily harm, you CAN kill the SOB. BUT you will have to articulate that fact in your court case hearing. This boils back down to the old saying.."Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6".. Not only articulate that fact in court, but also be able to prove it, right? At the end of the day, I think the law as Scotty describes it is pretty clear. You absolutely DO NOT have the right to kill anyone for breaking into your truck and stealing anything. As far as I can tell, only if you're life is in danger can you defend yourself. Bottom line; You can use lethal force to defend yourself, NOT your truck or guns.... according to the letter of the law anyway. I hope I never find myself in that position! S.

Crazy topic for sure!!! On the way home yesterday (or the day before...) they were talking about this on KTAR here in the valley. They had Grant Woods on (former AZ Attorney General...) and of course the obvious question asked of him was; "How in the heck can someone who is hear illegally sue a legal resident???"! Well, strangely enough I guess that they DO in fact have the right to sue! According to the letter of the law, you don't have to be here legally in order to utilize the justice system to sue someone here. Mr. Woods of course was of the opinion that the case will be thrown-out by any respectible judge, but I guess only time will tell.... It's disgusting and sad that this rancher will have to spend his time and money just to defend the suit though. In addtion to the time he already has to spend protecting his land.... S.

Dang it Doug!!!! Why do I find myself perpetually jealous of you????? Kudos on the great pics! Thanks for sharing! Just finished a truly crappy day at work and this was just what I needed to take me away for a bit (sincerely!)..... S.

Thanks for the link Keith! Not much info there though! Seems kind of like an 'Area 57' kind of a thing..... S.

Doesn't look like a trail cam pic to me. Two of the deer are looking at the camera. Seems like that doesn't happen much with trail cams IMO..... S.

I had not heard that number (except from this thread.... ). Where did you hear it Noel??? Was it from a valid source? I can't believe that they are down 50%. You don't actually believe that, do you???? LOL S.

Nice pics Amanda!!! Looks like those dogs are lovin it!!!!! S.

+1 on Chef's suggestion! Also stick close to this site over the coming months! Good information and advice to be found browsing these pages.... Good luck! S.

Can't believe I missed this post!! Thanks for bumping it blank!! VERY cool story! VERY cool pictures!! VERY cool memories! My little girl will be 10 in May. I just put her in with her two brothers for her first youth elk hunt this fall. She can't wait!!! I'm gonna show her this post when I get home for inspiration!!! Congrats! S.

VERY cool! Thanks for posting the video!!!!! S.

Outstanding buck!!! Congrats!!! Nothing like great friends!!! Thanks for sharing with the site! S.

Stan, I’m not asking anyone to get in line behind me. I think as hunters we need to be aware of all rules and their potential impacts, and I am very concerned that this rule may have unintended consequences, that are written plain as day. No! I do not agree! Ranchers build “tanks” for the sole purpose of providing water for cows. Ranchers do not care about providing water to wildlife. G&F build “game drinkers” to provide water to wildlife. They are built to attract wildlife, otherwise they would not be effective as drinkers. Now read the rule again: "An individual shall not take big game with the aid of edible or ingestible substances, including salt or salt based products, placed for the purpose of attracting a big game animal to a specific location." Water is certainly an “ingestible substances”, and it is not difficult to conclude that the drinkers were placed to attract “a big game animal to a specific location." Unless G&F and an underlying agenda to sneak this through and start writing tickets for hunting on drinkers, the rule is obviously poorly thought out and needs to re-written. Maybe they do have a hidden agenda to keep us from hunting on water? Why pass an ambiguous regulation for Game Officers to interpret? Their job is to enforce the law, not interpret “the spirit of law”. Letting officers have the power to interpret laws turns Game Officers into judges and juries. I also have concerns about the anti-hunters using this new rule against hunters. All they would have to do is dump a bag of salt or grain at a water hole to make the water hole illegal. If you showed up to hunt your water hole and saw grain or salt dumped, would you go ahead and hunt it hoping that the G&F officer would interpret “the spirit of law”, or otherwise convince him that some anti dumped the stuff, not you? Here is the “entire proposal”. It’s not that long. You can also find it buried on the G&F web site. Read it and let us know what you decide. R12-4-303. Unlawful Devices, Methods, and Ammunition B. Except for the use of nutritional supplements, salt, or salt-based materials produced and manufactured for the livestock industry and placed by individuals raising livestock or the Department for the benefit of wildlife, the following uses of edible or ingestible substances to aid in taking big game are unlawful. 1. An individual shall not place edible or ingestible substances, including salt or salt based products, to attract big game for the purpose of taking big game. 2. An individual shall not take big game with the aid of edible or indigestible substances, including salt or salt based products, placed for the purpose of attracting a big game animal to a specific location. Mark So Mark, at the end of the day, are you more concerned with whether this new rule will ban you from hunting over water or salt/bait? If you truly just have a problem with the wording, as opposed to the 'spirit' of the proposed rule then why don't you lobby the commission to simply change the wording to allow hunting over/on/near man made water sources? That way the G&F can get their rule passed, and you will have the rules spelled-out specifically so you don't have to worry about getting a ticket for hunting a water source. Are you concerned with the wording or the rule? My only point for joining this thread was the comment made about G&F WM's issuing tickets for hunting over water. I just can't imagine that happening.... If you're concerned with the banning of hunting over salt/bait, then say it. But if your only concern is the lack of clarification of what is an 'ingestible' substance, then say that! Seems like you're trying to shoot down the rule due to the poor wording (technicality), as opposed to making a good argument for hunting over salt/bait? Thanks for posting the specific wording on the rule. Hard to disagree with you that the wording leaves some interpretation! Respectfully, Stan PS: I truly love a good debate!!!

Absolutely no disrespect taken Mike! Venting is good! Opinions are good! Silence is not..... I definitely agree that sticking together is important, but that doesn't mean that we should all just simply get in line behind Mark (or any other person who is passionate about this topic) because we are both hunters. Sticking together as a hunting family clealy is important, but lively debate and differing points of view are also critical IMO. Maybe my post made it sound like I thought the proposed law was OK, but my intent was simply to voice my opinion that I think it's a bit extreme to think that it would lead to someone getting a ticket for hunting over a stock tank. I never said whether I supported the law or not, I just wanted to comment on the likelihood of people getting tickets for hunting over tanks as a result.... As to whether I agree with the proposed law (or rule, or what ever they call them...), I'm not sure. I haven't read the entire proposal yet. Best regards, S.

I must have beat you to the post by only a few seconds Doug!!! S.

EASY ONE!!!! It's obvious what the 'trick answer' is!!!! OJ!!!!! S.

I still think there is a 'Chicken Little' thing going on here.... I personally don't think the sky is falling..... I would have to think that most drinkers are not placed for the 'sole purpose of attracting a big game animal', so much as placed for the purpose of 'helping a big game animal, by providing a water source....'. I'm sure that to some extent, I'm ignorant. But it seems to me that the spirit of the new baiting legislation/laws is to keep people from baiting (whether by salt, grain, corn, or water) for the sole purpose of HUNTING the animal, as opposed to placing a drinker to allow an animal to drink! When a hunter sets-up a salt lick, in general, it is for the purpose of attracting animals so they can be killed. When the G&F (or a rancher...) sets-up a water source, it is generally for the purpose of helping the animals survive by providing them a water source. Yes??? Do you agree?? How many drinkers (or tanks, troughs, etc.) are placed there for the specific purpose of hunting over them? I don't expect the G&F to be 'nice guys'. I expect them to be 'reasonable guys', and I sinerely think that most WM Officers are just that. I think we all understand the spirit of this new law, and I think we know that it has nothing to do with drinkers, tanks, troughs, etc... To answer your question; YES, I expect that the average G&F Wildlife Manager will make a good decision as to whether he is going to site someone for hunting over a tank/drinker, as apposed to hunting over salt that he (the hunter) placed specifically for the purpose of attracting the animal to kill it. S. Read the proposed rule: "An individual shall not take big game with the aid of edible or ingestible substances, including salt or salt based products, placed for the purpose of attracting a big game animal to a specific location." Water is ingestible substance and and a drinker is definitely "placed for the purpose of attracting a big game animal to a specific location". (Could a cow tank be included with a drinker? I don't know) If a ticket were issued, if a judge could read this rule and easily convict you. Your only protection is the officer deciding not issue a ticket. Do you really trust G&F to pass a rule and then to be nice guys and only selectively enforce it? Mark

Do you really think you're going to get a ticket for hunting over water Mark????? Seriously, are you worried about it? Or are you just stirring the pot on the baiting topic??? S.

Way to go Riley!!!!! Congrats on your first elk!!! I'll be sure to show the pic to the boys when I get home from work tonight! S.

Outstanding!!!! Thanks for sharing the story and pic, and congrats on your archery kill!!! I have a question though. I've been a novice archer for several years. By novice, I mean that I never got into it in a hard core way and I don't shoot on a regular basis (hence, I don't archery hunt much...). My question though is regarding your comment about 'holding a little high to compensate for the uphill shot.....'; I always thought you should hold low to compensate for an uphill shot?? Again, being a total novice, I'm interested in this comment so as I grow my skills so I can improve as an archer..... I always thought that given 'physics' and the natural laws of gravity, that you should hold low (with a rifle or bow.....) while shooting on an incline or a decline of any significance.... Is this not true? Any hard-core bow shooters wanna comment please???? Thanks! S.

Spot n' stalk on a big ol' bull elk! Awesome!!!! Thanks for sharing! S.

Those that have been around a camp fire with me know that I can sometimes have a VERY foul mouth. Like most, I suppose.... As far as foul language on this site though, I try to limit it quite a lot. Primarily for the reasons that Amanda has pointed-out above. I don't really see this as a censorship issue though. This is not a public forum (as much as it might seem like it....). It is a private place that Amanda started, and she obviously has the right to set the tone she wants. To me it is more a matter of respect. We all know the type of site that Amanda is trying to run here, and I personally don't find it very hard to limit my foul language. It reminds me of when I go see my mom, mother in law, or sister, or someone like that. I'm NOT going to use foul language for the few hours I might be with her cuz I know she wouldn't not appreciate it. That's how I look at this place.... All that being said, I can definitely appreciate the fact that at the end of the day this is a hunting website, and there is plenty of times when the extra color in the written words help GREATLY to make the desired point. It's always going to be that way, and I think Amanda realistically knows this.... S.

Congrats on a great hunt Hector & Scott! Great write-up & pics!! Love this time of year!!!!! S.