muskrat

OK, OK ..... Stan - Some organizations that I have known or belonged to require a certain length of membership before they can be considered by the nominating committee, so I don't think my question was THAT outrageous! Yes, I enjoy writing and also have a knack for editing. Coincidentally, Allen suggested I offer my services to Amanda, ADA, et al - in a phone conversation not too long ago. I would be happy to help the ADA either by writing or editing material - in any way that I can - member or not... Amanda, Allen - I write a column in the Johnson Ranch paper every month. In March, I'll talk about the ADA....

Can new members be on the Board? What kind of travelling, time commitment, etc., is involved? Maybe if you gave us an idea of what is expected, some folks might volunteer Marshall

I finally got out on Thursday, with no luck. Headed to 37B. Spots that held a ton of sign last year were pretty skimpy this year. Some spots I couldn't get to with my 2WD. Well, let me re-phrase.. some spots I didn't try to get to, with my 2WD. Hunted along Freeman, hunted west side of the river over by Dudleyville, hunted some washes along 79. Didn't find any signs of herds. Tracks always seemed to be onesies and twosies. I did pick up 2 sheds. A pretty good Coues shed (I think) and a small fork mulie shed. Hope to get out on Saturday for a bit, but not sure where I am going...

One of our own members here, Greg at Trail's End is a great taxidernist! Don't forget him when considering a taxidermist. he's at Higley and Riggs

37B for me maybe some time in 33 next week

I got this from monstermuleys. Sorry for the length, but I thought all of the info should be posted. Anxious to see your comments.... Ranching for Wildlife: A Proposal for Arizona Prepared By: Manuel Nikel-Zueger Overview In Arizona, the quantity and quality of wildlife is not optimal. This is the result of many contributing factors, not the least of which is the imbalanced relationship between the rights of private landowners and wildlife, which is managed by the State Game and Fish Department. Many landowners, hunters, outfitters, and guides believe that a ?Ranching for Wildlife? program similar to those that exist in other western states is a fundamental step towards creating healthier wildlife with better habitat while fully acknowledging and respecting the property rights of private landowners. Description of the Problem Landowners, principally ranchers and other agriculturalists, whose livelihoods rely upon the careful management of natural resources, are encumbered in many places by elk, deer (couse deer and mule deer), and/or antelope. For example, an elk consumes a substantial amount of forage, perhaps seventy-five percent the forage a cow consumes. Deer and antelope consume less, but deer, antelope, and elk all eat the same vegetation that cows eat. Therefore each additional big game animal on a ranch reduces (to a varying extent) the number of cattle that can be run on a ranch. In Arizona, this problem has grown considerably because elk populations have grown substantially in the past two decades. Not only have numbers grown, but elk have expanded into more territory. Consumption of forage is not the only cost wildlife imposes on private property owners. Elk are the most destructive. They often tear down fences, though deer can also, while antelope either go under fences or between the wires. Downed fences have to be repaired, which incurs material and labor costs, and time is spent finding and returning cattle. Elk and other wildlife also rely on the improvements that ranchers and other landowners provide for their operations, such as water troughs, dirt tanks (which capture run-off rain water), salt, and protein supplements. Wildlife also benefit from the restricted access hunters have on private land, which can encourage the residence of wildlife. Landowners want to control the access hunters have on their land in order to ensure that the land is respected. Landowners attempt to minimize unnecessary roads, trash, and even the occasional dead cow or calf killing. In addition, landowners are legitimately concerned about preventing any easements by prescription, which limit the landowner?s property rights and ability to be a steward of the land. Stricter access controls on private lands are largely the result of increased human populations in the state, and increased hunting pressure, both of which have increased trespassing. Unfortunately, the cost that wildlife, especially big game wildlife, imposes on landowners does not create incentives for progressive steps to manage for wildlife, despite the fact that landowners enjoy wildlife. This is because private landowners have little recourse to the benefits that wildlife could otherwise provide. The benefits of seeing big game wildlife or charging access fees is too small relative to the costs wildlife impose. In fact, Arizona is the only western state where landowners do not receive any form of compensation for damages caused by wildlife. Making matters worse is that the quality of management provided by the State?s Game and Fish Department is less than satisfying. This view is not only held by private landowners but also by many hunters. Landowners complain about working with Game and Fish, noting generally that most efforts are a waste of time. Many landowners are wary about dealing with the agency because most grants for habitat improvements or other infrastructure improvements that would benefit wildlife are contingent on Game and Fish obtaining public access. With respect to big game hunters, they are given only a short time frame during which they can hunt. Short seasons also mean that hunters are out at the same time, and if they have done their scouting, hunter densities in an area can be high, leading to less enjoyable and less successful hunting experiences. High densities of hunters can also lead to a greater negative impact on the natural resources. In all, management of our wildlife and natural resources, as well as hunting experiences, can be improved. Some argue that private landowners exercise their private property rights by restricting access while offering hunters either access for a fee and/or guided hunts for a fee. While private property owners certainly can (and some do) receive revenues from such measures, landowners are merely trying to capitalize on their resources in order to stay in business. That landowners are due compensation for damages caused by wildlife is an issue distinct from a landowner?s right to charge access fees on or through private lands. Revenues from access or guided hunt fees never outweigh the costs of damages. At the heart of this issue is the question of the bundle of rights that belong to private property with respect to wildlife. Do landowners have any right to compensation for the losses they incur as a result of damage done and forage consumed by wildlife, principally big game such as elk, deer, and antelope? The State of Arizona receives all revenues from hunting whereas private landowners go empty-handed while paying many of the costs of providing for wildlife by way of land, forage, water, roads, and other infrastructure. Private Landowners should share in the revenues. Understanding that incentives matter, if private property owners were to have a stake in the hunting industry, they would certainly manage their ranches for both cattle and wildlife. Ranching for Wildlife: The Idea A certain number of hunting tags for all big game species that are found on a ranch are given to the ranch (landowner) at the price for which the hunter would purchase them from the state if he had drawn a tag. These tags are completely transferable and saleable. This is a form of compensation to the landowner which gives him a definitive stake in managing the ranch in a way that incorporates wildlife as an essential part of the mix. A Ranching for Wildlife program in Arizona must be an explicit recognition of the right a landowner has to compensation for damages, especially since there is no such recognition in Arizona. In order to make this program acceptable to the public and to the State Game and Fish Department, the landowner must participate in a ?Wildlife Management Plan? that is specific to the ranch. Annual review by a board comprised of the landowner, a representative from the Game and Fish and an independent third party (perhaps by a qualified professional from the University of Arizona Extension Service) will review progress towards the implementation of the management plan and its effectiveness. In addition, a proportion of the tags allocated to the landowner will be allotted as a public access tag on the ranch. The Pilot Program Before a wide-scale program is implemented, a pilot program should be adopted in order for the State to familiarize itself with the program and to identify ways in which the program can be improved. A pilot program would comprise several ranches which are identified as prime candidates with respect to certain criteria such as ranch size and elk populations. The duration of the pilot program is negotiable but a three year trial would allow sufficient time to judge the effectiveness of implementing the program, as well as observing initial results. With this approach, changes could be considered and attempted, perhaps even by adding one or two additional ranches to the program. The pilot program could also be extended an additional year or two if it is believed that more time is needed to make the process more effective. The pilot program would not exceed five years before the policies and procedures become final. Preliminary Policies and Procedures ? A landowner must have at least 5,000 acres of private land in order to participate. ? Landowners that border one another, none of which own 5,000 acres, can submit an application (if their combined private lands are at least 5,000 acres) that their lands be managed together in one management plan. ? A task force comprised of two Game and Fish Department personnel, two eligible landowners or their representatives, and two University of Arizona Extension Service personnel will draw up and agree on norms, by majority vote, for the application procedure and the method of scientific estimation of big game wildlife populations. ? Each aspiring participant must file an application with the State Game and Fish Department that includes legal description of all participating lands and adequate maps that indicate the topography and the borders of the participating lands. ? The application must include scientific estimates of all big game wildlife that resides on the applicant?s lands. The method of estimation approved by the task force must be used by all participants in the program. ? Upon approval of the application, a wildlife management plan that specifies the landowner?s short term and long term objectives and the actions that will be taken to achieve those objectives must be submitted. ? State and federal lands to which a landowner has a lease can be included in the landowner?s ?Wildlife Management Plan.? (Those lands, however, cannot be counted towards the 5,000 acres of private land required for participation.) ? Management of state and federal lands in the Ranching for Wildlife program does not in any way prevent the public from accessing those lands to which they have legal access. ? Upon approval of the wildlife management plan, the applicant will receive a license for the area described in the management plan. ? Licenses are valid for five years. Landowners participating in the pilot program will be licensed throughout the term of the pilot program. As the maximum possible length of the pilot program is five years, all pilot program participants must reapply at the conclusion of the pilot program. ? The number of transferable tags allocated to a landowner for each big game species (antelope, deer, and elk) will be calculated with respect to the number of acres of private property and the number of animals that use the private lands. Specific means of calculating tag numbers will be negotiated by the task force and will be subject to alteration during the pilot program. Because of the nature of transferable wildlife tags and each management plan, all participating landowners will have ranch specific harvests. In other words, there should be some measure of flexibility for setting tag numbers, given varying management objectives. ? Licensed landowners will have a one hundred day season window for all hunts on their private lands and the lands they lease. Flexible season dates allow landowners the necessary time to harvest a specific amount of animals while ensuring high quality hunts and decreased hunting pressure. ? The landowner will allocate one in ten of his or her transferable wildlife tags per specie for a public access lottery. (For example, if a particular landowner is only allocated five tags a year, in this case, the ranch specific public access tag would be granted every second year.) Ranch specific public access tags, like any other tag from a landowner are usable only on the landowner?s lands, subject to the norms delineated in the management plan. ? The Arizona State Game and Fish Department will be responsible for a lottery sale of ranch specific public access tags for each landowner. The monies collected from the lottery are payable to the landowner, with the exception of the Arizona State Game and Fish Department?s administrative costs. ? When a hunter draws a ranch specific public access tag from the lottery, that hunter must wait three years before purchasing another ticket for the same management area. ? Only Arizona residents may participate in drawing ranch specific public access tags. The price per ticket will be $20 and the maximum number of tickets that can be bought per person is 5. Tags that are won are not transferable. ? A hunter that has purchased a transferable tag or won a ranch specific public access tag can hunt with rifles, bows, and muzzleloaders at any time during a landowner?s approved season dates. ? Participating landowners will undergo a performance review annually by a review board, which is comprised of one Game and Fish Department personnel, the landowner or his or her representative and one University of Arizona Extension Service personnel. Landowners whose management plans include state and/or federal lands will invite one official from the respective departments to participate in the review. ? Landowners are solely responsible for the implementation of the objectives enumerated in their specific management plans. ? Failure to comply with the stated objectives in their management plans may result in the loss of the landowner?s transferable wildlife tags. ? The final decision to terminate any landowner?s wildlife management plan will not be given to the review board. The review board may formally declare that a landowner?s plan is suspect to termination, at which time a larger board will make a final decision. This larger board will comprise of participating landowners, two AG&F personnel, two State Land Department personnel, and two UA Extension Service personnel. Decisions are reached by simple majority. ? A landowner may terminate his or her participation in the Ranching for Wildlife program with written notification to the Arizona State Game and Fish Department and the return of his or her license. Transferable tags still held by the landowner must be returned.

OK, after looking into this, it first appeared on AZOD back in February. I can't figure out if it was just an idea that was "tossed out there" in editorial form, or whether it has some official sanction or endorsement from AZGF. Regardless, it's not new - so might not be anything to it....

I thought this was something new, but I received an e-mail saying it's been around for awhile..... it might be a false alarm Anyone know anything about this?

OK, I put in for archery bear - Unit 22. A good friend (our own couestaxi) has some spots in mind, and plans on showing me the ropes, but one can never have too much information Any hints or tips are appreciated!

Archery javelina 33/37B Struck out on the Unit 22 Bear

When is the actual draw date? (or is it a mystery, like the fall draw?)

Hey thanks everybody! My 6 yr old is taking me fishing tomorrow, for my birthday - a fella couldn't ask for more Thanks again!! Marshall MacFarlane

Well? Comments?

I also have the survey results in .pdf format if anyone wants them. There seems to be quite a disconnect between the survey results and the Commission's decisions...... shoot me an e-mail at desrtrat@cenazcom for the survey results From Bowsite.com The meeting was over around 9:00 p.m. 14. The online draw process has been eliminated for the next year only and the commission is requiring the department to find a way to bring it back at the end of one year. 15a. The loyalty bonus point passed with five years of consecutive application. The bonus point pass percentage was raised to 20%. 15b. All big game applicants will have to buy a license to apply for a permit subject to further examination by the AG?s office. 15c. The conservation bonus point will go forward in this format: 48hrs earns one bonus point, you may earn unlimited bonus points, points are lost when drawn, you may only earn one point per year. 15d. There will be a $10 administrative fee charged for each bonus point you earn. 15e. The 10% set-aside idea was scrapped. 15f. The 90% non-commercial, 10% commercial idea was scrapped. A change was made that will apply only to sheep and will make all sheep permits non-commercial and outlaw the sale of sheep parts. 90% of sheep tags will go to residents and 10 to 15 percent may be set-aside for non-residents. The non-resident set-aside may be adjusted up or down depending upon how the state can justify the impact made by non-residents upon resident hunt opportunities. This is also subject to examination by the AG?s office. This seems to be a trial run? 15g. Non-commercial only, for sheep only. 16. Yes, the smart plan was chosen. Junior hunters will have no fee increases ************** All caps or % have been done away with except for sheep, that includes buffalo. Residents and non-residents will have the same opportunity to draw all species except for sheep. Sheep was the only species that they made non-commercial and banned the sale of parts. The 10% of tags being set-aside for non-resident sheep are non-commercial just the same as the resident tags. George Taulman sent his lawyer, Jim Scaratino to attend the commission meeting yesterday and address the commission. He filled out a blue speaker's card for agenda item 14f. What he had to tell the commission was basically none of your cap ideas will work and wanted to invite the commission to negotiate with USO on how they would control non-resident tags in the future. One must wonder if our position was so week, why did it take them 7 years to win the case? Why would Taulman send him if our position is weak? Why wouldn't they just sue us again if they didn't like the new regulations? I thought it was an attempt to intimidate or scare the commission. On a brighter note, let me explain what agenda item 16, "smart pricing" is. These fee increases for permits are based more on the value of the animal. They have added two new categories. They have split deer and bull elk into two categories, "deer" and "premium deer (N. of the Colorado)". "Bull elk" and "premium bull elk (early bull)". On an average the resident to non-resident pricing will be 1/9 or non-residents being nine times higher than residents. This seems to be consistent with other states nation wide. I will give you some examples of what the new pricing may be. Keep in mind these prices are cap prices submitted to the governor and legislature, the actual prices will be lower. Deer: res. $50, non-resident $200 Premium deer: res. $150, non-resident $1200 Bull elk: res. $150, non-resident $775 Premium bull elk: res. $350, non-resident $3200 Sheep: res. $335, non-res. $3000 Bull buffalo: res. $1000, non-res. $5000 Antelope: res. $90, non-res. $630 What will probably happen is that resident fees will be below the stated caps and non-resident fees will be very close to the stated caps. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dang - why do people always seem to forget Ben Pearson and McPherson??? I had a McPherson Solo Lite and loved it. Sold it and picked up a BP Diamondback VX and absolutely love it!!

From bowsite.com July 15, 2004 and addressed to "Duane Shroufe Director Arizona Game & Fish Department". "Dear Mr. Shroufe: My clents have developed an impression that the Arizona Game & Fish Department is not receptive or sensitive to concerns relating to property damage caused by wildlife and/or inconsiderate hunters. After much thought and discussion, the following ranches have, or are seriously considering, denying any and all public access for any purpose on their private land: Aztec Land and Cattle Comapny Becker Land and Cattle Company LO Ranch 7-Up Ranch Goldtrap Ranch Willaha Ranch McCauley Ranch X-one Ranch Rock Art Ranch Aja Sheep Company Freeman Ranch Carlock Ranch Diamond A's (Cholla Livestock) K-4 Ranch Las Vegas Ranch Dobson and Dobson Livestock Company Dobson Estate Vernon 825, LLC Sheep Springs Sheep Company, LLC Timberline Cattle Company Wagon Bow Ranch Lazy YE Red Wing Ranch Cowan Ranch Yolo Ranch ORO Ranch Seibert Cattle Company As you are aware, these ranches control access to large parcels of privately owned real property and/or access to large parcels of public property in bothe northern and southern Arizona.Hunters currently enjoy free and unfettered use of many of these private parcels. The current mismanagement of wildlife has caused a detrimental impact on the ability of these ranchers to maintain viable cattle operations. Thus far, management of wildlife has been one =sided. Hunters and the AG&FD enjoy the benefit of water, range and access improvements maintained at the sole expense of these ranchers. The ranchers are recieving little or nothing in return Their only recourse at this point is to deny any type of access. In the event your department is interested in discussing a fair resolution of ongoing concerns relating to ranching and wildlife management, please have your legal counsel contact this office. Otherwise the above- referenced ranches will be closed to public access. Moreover, we will continue to seek every available remedy, including political, public and legal alternatives, to force your department to recognize the significant economic loss the mismangament of wildlife is causing to my clients. Thank you for your prompt attention in this regard."

I rarely see mention of buck urine, estrous scents, rattling, grunt calls, etc. I'd be interested in knowing peoples' thoughts on this stuff. A secondary question - if you're in an area that has both mulies and Coues - will grunts, urine, etc. that is meant for WT scare off (or attract) mulies, and vice versa? Thanks!

Not opening day, but soon after - it will be 24B for me also

Ernesto - some constructive points - thank you. I definitely agree with an earlier draw, providing it allows the Wildlife Managers to do their thing. I was speaking rhetorically, though - regarding the physically fitness requirements. I was just trying to illustrate the point that if we want to separate the serious from the not-so-serious, there are other ways to do it, besides income availability. Funny you should mention physical disabilities - my wife has been in a wheelchair since she was 5. Money is a little tight in a single income family, with lots of medical bills - I guess that's why I'm a little touchy to get lumped in with the "not-so-serious" just because my family probably won't be able to afford up front tag costs for 4 species.... Anyway, I don't post here to make enemies. I post here to learn about Arizona hunting, and contribute when I can. It's ironic that this USO mess has really made me feel like an Arizonan, for the first time. Now, because I take issue with one suggestion out of dozens, it's because I'm a not-from-around-here trouble maker. MJM This will also be my last post on the subject.

Mike - No, I'm not from here. I've only been here 7 years. If that excludes me from supporting the fight against USO, then so be it. As far as selective comprehension, I can assure you that it is not intentional. I stated quite clearly that I would also support this suggestion, if someone could make me understand it. Sorry I'm not as sharp as you'd like me to be. As far as being argumentative, I also stated quite clearly that I agreed and supported several suggestions, mentioned in these threads. My only contention now is that "separating the serious from the non-serious" has been added to the mix, under the guise of fighting USO. To me, they are 2 separate issues. My apologies that I didn't express my point in such a way that it wouldn't appear antagonistic. Marshall MacFarlane

Well - 2 things. First, I agree with couesdog. Half the time we are crying that we need to get more people into hunting. Now we're saying "but only if you're serious, and can really afford it". Some of us have issues that make it nearly impossible, regardless of budgeting or money management, to put in for even 3 or 4 species. Now we're back to excluding people because of income, which to me, is elitist. 2nd - This suggestion has been presented as a part of the "get USO" campaign. Now, when pressed, it appears (to me) that it probably will affect our own hunters more than Taulman's clients (who can afford it anyway). Now the justification is to make "Our" chances better, amongst the residents, by weeding out some that are on a different income level (or poor financial planners). If this is the justification for banning the internet draw, then it is a separate argument, and shouldn't be presented as a viable part of the USO solution. People talk about "serious hunters need to be physically fit - i.e for elk hunts and sheep hunts, especially". Maybe hunters should be required to take a physical agility test, before applying. Anyone serious about hunting would make the time and effort to get physically fit. When the not so serious hunters drop out of the process, it will make it better for the rest of us.....

My point is, that from the data I've seen (attached) there hasn't been an increase in applicants, overall. So the "it makes it too easy to apply" argument, although sound in principle, doesn't seem to hold true, as there was no increase... Another poster put this up on another board, saying that AZG&F proovided these stats.... 2000 fall Resident Non-Resident Genus app tags draw% totaltags app tags draw% Deer 85,432 46,770 54.75% 48,261 7,881 1,491 18.92% Antelope19,153 1,099 5.74% 1,131 1,231 32 2.60% Elk 81,834 23,828 29.12% 24,998 13,771 1,170 8.50% Turkey 21,690 9,750 44.95% 9,876 266 126 47.37% Sheep 6,008 94 1.56% 104 2,668 10 0.37% Buffalo 1,372 51 3.72% 52 6 1 16.67% Total 215,489 81,592 37.86% 84,422 25,823 2,830 10.96% 2001 fall Resident Non-Resident Genus app tags draw% totaltags app tags draw% Deer 84,509 46,083 54.53% 47,483 7,577 1,400 18.48% Antelope19,035 1,063 5.58% 1,094 1,281 31 2.42% Elk 84,638 28,310 33.45% 29,683 13,884 1,373 9.89% Turkey 23,211 10,025 43.19% 10,192 340 167 49.12% Sheep 6,277 94 1.50% 104 2,710 10 0.37% Buffalo 1,376 70 5.09% 70 4 0 0.00% Total 219,046 85,645 39.10% 88,626 25,796 2,981 11.56% 2002 Resident Non-Resident Genus app tags draw% totaltags app tags draw% Deer 82,412 43,123 52.33% 44,532 8,788 1,409 16.03% Antelope22,145 1,017 4.59% 1,060 2,402 43 1.79% Elk 82,724 23,055 27.87% 24,223 15,228 1,168 7.67% Turkey 25,631 10,674 41.64% 10,868 427 194 45.43% Sheep 8,884 93 1.05% 103 4,195 10 0.24% Buffalo 3,100 45 1.45% 48 230 3 1.30% Total 224,896 78,007 34.69% 80,834 31,270 2,827 9.04% 2003 Resident Non-Resident Genus app tags draw% totaltags app tags draw% Deer 83,027 37,744 45.46% 38,984 9,761 1,240 12.70% Antelope24,590 836 3.40% 892 3,097 56 1.81% Elk 84,093 21,147 25.15% 22,273 15,886 1,126 7.09% Turkey 27,149 9,516 35.05% 9,723 486 207 42.59% Sheep 10,847 88 0.81% 97 5,259 9 0.17% Buffalo 4,726 49 1.04% 51 434 2 0.46% Total 234,432 69,380 29.59% 72,020 34,923 2,640 7.56% 2004 Resident Non-Resident Genus app tags draw% totaltags app tags draw% Deer 85,129 36,813 43.24% 38,125 11,017 1,312 11.91% Antelope 27,200 815 3.00% 872 3,807 57 1.50% Elk 87,926 21,097 23.99% 22,176 17,926 1,079 6.02% Turkey 14,696 4,839 32.93% 4,885 146 46 31.51% Sheep 12,576 66 0.52% 82 6,394 16 0.25% Buffalo 5,194 71 1.37% 71 552 0 0.00% Total 232,721 63,701 27.37% 66,211 39,842 2,510 6.30% * These numbers do NOT include the additional 10 resident and 117 nonresident deer tags and 39 resident and 639 nonresident elk tags issued for compliance with the federal court order.

Sorry, but nobody has given me firm evidence of why the internet draw is harmful to the management of our wildlife. "Rich" is relative - some folks can afford USO's services, and some can afford 1000 bucks in upfront tag fees.. I'll be there's not too many advocating banishment of the internet drawing that can't afford the upfront tag fees.. Myself? Regrdless of how it affects my "personal draw strategies" or chances - if AZGF (or anyone else) shows me hard data that proves the Internet Drawing is detrimental to the Management of our wildlife, I will support it. Until then, I believe we are just stratifying into "Rich", and "Not quite as rich" - and your USO ="rich man's sport" arguments won't wash with me... As far as too many residents - agreed. Some have mentioned a system whereby - if you draw a tag, you can't put in again, for a set time period - 2 years, 5 years, etc. I would support such an idea. Hunter's Ed - Agreed.

AG is right. A good drop camp will tend to run $900-1200. Generally, though - everything is included. Some of the Outfitters that I work with (as a Booking Agent) do drop camps. I have never booked a drop camp, but do have people ask about them now and then - usually for Colorado.

I got this from another site. Anyone heard anything?? "The ball may start rolling and in our favor now! I have been told by a very reliable source that there is a group forming called "Sportsmen's for Wildlife". These individuals are a group of Arizona lawyers who are hunters that will be representing AZ and AZ hunters on the political battlefield and in the courts. They are very disgruntled regarding the recent USO lawsuit and have chosen not to sit on the sidelines to see what happens! They have just finished up their brochure and will be sending out a bunch when they come hot off the press this next week. They are taking the finalized version to the publishers this week. We should have all kinds of information next week on them and what they are trying to do. These lawyers mentioned above have started a group that would like every hunter in the state becoming a member- no charge as they have all the funds necessary. However, they need numbers behind them as they represent us in court- Ninth Circuit and Supreme which they have been in front of for many years. These lawyers have been fed up with no representation in court for the sportsmen in the state. I will keep you updated as soon as I get the info. We will probably be asking for Members and E-mail address?s in the very near future. AZ Residents Keep hope!"