azpackhorse

Spectacular buck Scott, there's nothing like naming them months before the hunt. Nicely done.

congrats on the cow Zach! Now we can concentrate on knock'n down a big ol Coues buck! nice job young man. see ya next month.

might already be happening.......

Casey, am I still taking uncle Mick? I'll be in South Dakota this weekend so I haven't had a chance to tie one up for him but we'll get-r-done. If I were deer hunting, you sure could have the heart and liver yuk!

I've been in a couple of situations down there, yet there are people who refuse to beleive that any of this is going on......................amazing. You won't ever hear a story like that on our news stations, the only thing you hear about is how people are dying of thirst in the desert and how they just want a better life over here, for a small percentage of them that is true but if you can get ahold of some good, unbias, true, information and statistics on the type of people the majority of these people are it will flat out scare the crap out of you...........and rightly so. Be safe all.

Happy birthday young lady, have a good one!

reply from Jon Kyle Dear Mr. Fisher: Thank you for contacting me regarding health care reform. I appreciate the opportunity to respond. The U.S. health care system is the best in the world, spurring advancements in new medical treatments and technologies. Such innovation helps physicians treat and prevent diseases better than ever before, eradicates once fatal epidemics, and helps Americans lead longer, healthier lives. Despite these advances, millions of Americans struggle to find affordable health insurance options. From 1999 to 2008, the average cost of a family health plan increased by 119 percent from $5,791 to $12,680. Meanwhile, workers' wages increased 34 percent during the same nine-year period. Ensuring access to quality, affordable health care is a laudable goal. I support targeted solutions that lower health care costs and improve health care by building upon, not completely dismantling, our health care system. Unfortunately, many of the proposals being considered in the U.S. Senate will make health insurance more expensive, jeopardize Arizonans' current coverage, and expand the government's control over health care. While you will not find the words "ration," "withhold coverage," or "delay access to care" in the pending plans, that is what will result from the web of federally-dictated insurance reforms, new legal obligations, and provider reimbursement schemes that are part of them. Such policies centralize the power of medical decisions with politicians and bureaucrats, not patients and doctors, and they will result in the delay or denial of care. There are three main problems with the Majority party's proposals: the implementation of a government-run insurance plan, the use of comparative effectiveness research, and spending. Government-Run Insurance Plan First, the Majority's proposals would create a new, government-run health insurance plan to compete against private insurance plans. The argument is that a government-run plan would give consumers a better range of choices and make the health care market more competitive -- "keep the insurance companies honest," as the President put it. However, well-respected, independent analysis provides evidence to the contrary. For one thing, a government-run plan would be subsidized by the taxpayers, giving the government plan a huge advantage over competitors. Yet, even government resources are not unlimited. To save money after tens of millions of people are added to the public plan, the government would cut reimbursement to doctors and hospitals, exacerbating the difficulty Arizonans' already encounter in trying to schedule doctor appointments. To make up for low government reimbursements to providers, insurance companies would have to charge more for private insurance, making it less attractive than the government plan. Over time, there will only be room for the government plan according to the respected Lewin Group, as 119 million Americans would lose their current coverage. Remember, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were designed as independent "government-sponsored enterprises" to complement the private mortgage market. Now, Fannie and Freddie account for a combined share of 73 percent of mortgage originations in the second half of 2008. The two "government-sponsored enterprises" are now effectively owned and run by the federal government, after having sustained losses of over $100 billion last year alone. A Washington-run health care plan will do to the health care market what Fannie and Freddie did to the housing market. Comparative Effectiveness Research Second, the Majority's plan would create a new research entity to conduct so-called comparative effectiveness research (CER). CER is a mechanism used by medical professionals to provide information on the relative strengths and weaknesses of various procedures and treatments. In the hands of doctors, medical researchers, and other health professionals, CER can help patients and their own doctors make informed health care decisions. However, in the hands of government, CER can become a tool to delay or deny care. For example, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Effectiveness in Britain uses "cost-effectiveness research" to make health care decisions. By basing treatment decisions on cost rather than need, Britain prescribes fewer cancer drugs than any of the other big five European nations; its patients therefore have the lowest survival rate according to a May edition of National Review. The UK's system provides only half of the care for end-stage renal disease patients that we do in the United States. Obviously, such rationing of care is not something we should replicate in the United States. It is telling that none of the Majority's proposals in Congress would bar the federal government from using CER to deny access to care. In fact, when I offered an amendment in April to explicitly bar the use of CER to ration care, it was defeated on a near party-line vote. I have now introduced a free standing bill to ensure that any information obtained through CER cannot be used to deny access to care. The Preserving Access to Targeted, Individualized, and Effective New Treatments and Service (PATIENTS) Act of 2009 (S. 1259) will protect the doctor-patient relationship and ensure access to the highest quality medical care. I will fight at every opportunity to ensure that any health care reform plan the Senate considers later this year protects patients' access to care. Cost Finally, the Majority's plans would cost between $1 trillion and $2 trillion, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. But even that may understate the true cost. Consider that Massachusetts enacted near universal health insurance in 2006, and costs have exploded, doubling from $630 million in 2007 to an estimated $1.3 billion just two years later. To deal with those costs, the state has decided to slow enrollment of beneficiaries and eliminate dental coverage for its poorest residents. A special commission, which was established by the state legislature, has now recommended limiting coverage to those health care services that government deems to be "cost-effective"-just like government-run health systems in other nations such as Canada and Great Britain do. This will quickly lead to rationing. Furthermore, the plans would be financed by a combination of new taxes and cuts in Medicare spending, hurting seniors' access to care. The Medicare Trust Fund is already expected to reach bankruptcy by 2017, so taking money from Medicare to fund a huge expansion of health care benefits for others makes no sense. Alternatives Rather than upending the entire health care system, we should identify what specific problems exist and consider targeted solutions to lower costs and improve access to care. For example, medical liability reform must be part of any reform effort. Of course, malpractice lawsuits serve a valuable purpose for those who have truly been wronged, but malpractice law is often abused by some trial lawyers who flood courts with baseless lawsuits. The threat of these lawsuits against doctors is a big reason Americans' health-care premiums have soared. Many physicians must purchase expensive malpractice insurance -- sometimes at a cost of more than $200,000 a year -- just to keep their doors open. Hudson Institute economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth estimates that 10 cents of every dollar paid for health care goes toward the cost of doctors' malpractice insurance, with much of the cost passed on to patients. Additional costs are passed on as a result of the practice of "defensive medicine." Many doctors take extra, or defensive, precaution when treating patients, ordering tests or procedures that may not be needed, but will help protect them if they are sued. A 2008 study from the Massachusetts Medical Society reported that 83 percent of doctors said they order tests, procedures, and referrals solely as protection from lawsuits. According to a study by two Stanford economists, the use of defensive medicine increases Americans' medical costs by $100 billion a year. In addition to tort reform, the federal government should remove barriers that limit consumers' ability to shop for quality coverage at a more affordable price. For example, the government should permit the sale of health insurance across state lines to increase competition among insurers. Small businesses should be able to band together to form small business health plans to strengthen their purchasing power and negotiate affordable rates and coverage options for their employees. Additionally, individuals who purchase their own health insurance should receive the same tax incentives large businesses do. By promoting the use of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), we could encourage more responsible health care spending and allow individuals to take their coverage with them when they move from one job to another. We should also incentivize healthy behaviors and encourage catastrophic coverage. Finally, we should allow each state to pursue innovative health insurance market reforms tailored to its own needs to encourage competition and choice. I believe in the right of every American to choose the doctor, hospital, and insurance plan of his or her choice. No Washington bureaucrat should interfere with that right or substitute the government's judgment for that of a physician. Any health reform proposal should adhere to these principles. I appreciate your sharing your thoughts on this important issue. Please stay in touch. Sincerely, JON KYL United States Senator

I was talking to one of my co-workers last week about a guy he knew that was selling a no.1 tropical in .416.................................got to be the same guy, I mean how many are out there for sale?? Can you send me the contact info please, that 870 has my granddaughters name all over it

Best of luck to ya Tommy!

it looks great, I have an old .243 that I have been wanting to do this to but just haven't gotten the courage up to do it. we have some gun coat here at work now ,that will work great so I just might have to commit.

you guys are just plain silly, remember, united we stand, divided we fall.

so, I guess that would be a no on my offer?

photos requested via email. Thanks,

Sounds like you had a great, memorable hunt Scott, and afterall that's what it is all about. Congrats on your bull, I think big 5's are awesome looking critters!

http://www.medicinenet.com/adhd_in_adults/article.htm Hey BigBFever, send me a pm and we can compare notes, I've stomped around down there a little

116 2/8

Did you recieve a PM from me on this a couple of days ago?

I can remember so clear September 11th 2001, I was on an Antelope hunt in Northern Arizona and had limited access to news. I spent afternoon hours listening to the radio in my truck trying to figure out just what had happened. My youngest son deploys this Sunday for the middle East, I have mixed emotions of overwhelming pride and fear. I pray for our troops as well as our nation everyday, always remember that they are out there 24/7 fighting for us.

valiant warrior, his name is Juan, he is ex-army, 6'7" tall and a Horchata Master brewer. peace

need contact info, interested

I took Friday off and took a drive into my buddy's rifle unit and did a little scouting for him. Was driving out and noticed what looked like a rope in a scrub Mesquite up on the hill. Turned out to be a Sonoran Whipsnake with a baby cottontail it had just caught. The snake had retreated up in the tree to escape the mother cottontail, bummed that I didn't get any photos of the mother cottontail but she spooked off before I could take any. Also seen 5 good bucks but didn't get any photos

Doug, I don't go down to the Southern units very much anymore, too dangerous Here's another one, this guy was less than thrilled with my little photo session. Kinda funny, as I was laying down on the ground with this snake my buddy nudged me in the side with his foot.........I did a little girl scream........then he ran.

Happy B-Day Bill!

Came across this in the Arizona Sportsmen's Connection newsletter. Mexican Gray Wolf Recovery Proposal for Site Selection in Sonora, Mexico Elicits Concern from Commission At the August 7 meeting the Commission also discussed the controversial proposal by the Mexican government to locate their wolf recovery area on the Sonora/U.S. border. While the U.S. Fish & Wildlife has been in dialogue with Mexico for a couple of years on the siting of its wolf recovery area, the Agency says the selection of the Sonora site comes as a surprise. Ironically, the site is said to be that of a U.S. Rancher who also owns land north of the border. The Commission, while reaffriming its support for reintroduction of the wolf in Mexico had a substantial list of questions that must be addressed prior to them taking a position, pro or con, on the location. The Department was directed to delve into the matter and to provide answers at the September Commission meeting. Not surprising, the Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility were all pushing for the Commission to support the proposed site even though the issue had no been vetted by the Department and significant questions have not been answered.