Jump to content

rossislider

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    4,266

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    53

Posts posted by rossislider

  2. Posted · Report reply

    I had two different gunsmiths do them. The shrewd was by my Lance at Dane Customs. The Badger was done by Keith at Phoenix Custom in Tempe. I have different reasons for why I would and would not use each gunsmith in the future.

     

    I was really impressed with the turn around time of Keith at Phoenix Customs. I took the rifle in on Wednesday afternoon and he called me on Thursday morning to let me know it was done. I found the work quality to be good as well. Brake and labor came to $195.

     

    Lance at Dane Customs does not have nearly as good of a turn around time. Don't plan on getting your riffle back for at least a couple of weeks. He might be able to rush it for you, but don't plan on it. HOWEVER, Lance's work is outstanding and super clean! Take my brake for example, you can't tell where the rifle ends and the brake starts. I even had a gun salesman try to argue with me that it wasn't an actual brake, rather holes drilled into my barrel. Had to measure the barrel length to prove it to him. I believe this brake was also in the neighborhood of $200.

     

    Which one will I us in the future? Perhaps both. But if time isn't an issue, Lance at Dane Customs wins hands down.

  9. Posted · Report reply

    Hopefully this is my little guys first of many. All three of them had a blast reeling them in this morning. My little princess loves catching them but isn't very excited about them once the get to shore and start wiggling and flapping around. I still can't get her to hold one. My oldest has caught his share of fish over the past several years, but he was excited and proud to catch his biggest yet today without any help from dad.

     

    post-6408-0-75008000-1369437107_thumb.jpgpost-6408-0-85466800-1369437196_thumb.jpgpost-6408-0-73288700-1369437280_thumb.jpg

    • Like 1

  10. Posted · Report reply

    With all the talk about premium/trophy hunts, folks not "dropping the hammer" for anything less then a 110" Coues or a 360" Elk, wanting hunts for " them because they have put in the time and other hunters dont use the tags/kids dont need to hunt during prime time/or they are poor hunters that dont leave or stray far from camp, closing seasons for 4-5years to "grow" bigger bucks and other statements that bring into question the posters reason for hunting, I just have to say a few things...

    Have people become so jaded/selfish/All about me that they have forgot/never learned what hunting is about???

    It's about you and the animal, NOT bragging rights amoung your "friends" and if you cant/wont realise this, maybe you should find another pastime instead for trying to limit someone elses hunting...

    If your not seeing bucks/bulls big enough for you, either hunt somewere else, or examine your reasons for hunting...

    Each person with a tag is master of their own hunt, if they are happy with a small buck/bull or just hanging out in camp, Who are you to question their choice of actions/animal taken???

    Closing seasons/hunt units for 4-5years???

    What if a tag holder doesnt have 4-5years to live??? Would you deny their last hunt??? or a Kids First Hunt???

    I spend 60-90 days a year deer hunting, here in Az and NY, I PERSONALY only shoot 8point or better bucks, MY choice, if I dont take a deer it doesnt make me a bad hunter or less of a man, and I've jumped all over and run people off when they say to a kid/person new to hunting "I would have let him go, so he would have bigger horns next year", again it's that kids/new hunters/meat hunters tag and to put antler size as the major factor of a succesful hunt is small minded and it shows what kind of hunter that person is, A hunter more worried about what "others" may say than A Hunter that hunts for their OWN happyness...

     

     

     

    +1

    Well put! To each their own. I've got a soon to be ten year old that is out of his mind excited for his first cow hunt in the upcoming years. Hope he never loses that.

    • Like 1

  12. Posted · Report reply

    Like I said, tonights meeting was low...turnout but the important meetings are the commission meetings, I believe there will be one in June and July. The meetings that have the commisioners present will be the best forum to speak about the things you dont like.

     

    As usual I found the AZ Game and Fish guys to be pretty straight shooters, they get input from so many stakeholders that it is a balancing act. The commision (four people) is kind of a separate entity from the AZGFD leadership and they wield alot of power in this case and it is important they get balanced input from everyone, not just the usual squeaky wheels from the wildlife groups and commercial interests. Even if you dont hunt premium units, you will be impacted by premium hunters jumping into your "general" unit. People need to understand that this will impact them even more than the auction/raffle tag grab attempt that happened last year. There are thousands of big game hunters in Arizona and the little posse that forms to protect the interests of the average joes could use some reinforcements at the next commission meeting.

     

    Ryan

    Nicely put Ryan, we only had 8 people that weren't from azgfd at the Mesa meeting last night.

     

    TJ

    Sorry I was not there with you all, but I very much appreciate those who attended and did send an email to AZGFD. I believe in putting your money where your mouth is and I have certainly done my share of talking on the issue. If the June/July meetings are on any day other than Monday I'll be there with you. With my job Mondays are the one day that it is not possible for me to attend. Thanks again to all who went.

  16. Posted · Report reply

    I have so many issues with these new increased prices, many of which I have posted about, but I guess the one that grinds at me the most is the 73% increase in application fees. This fee isn't even about the opportunity to hunt, its a fee for the opportunity to have the opportunity to get drawn. I see this as the biggest area where AZG&F will really be cashing in and is really taking advantage of hunters. I now have three hunters in my family; my wife, my soon to be 10 year old son, and I. We put in for the for the following species each year:

    Elk

    Deer

    Antelope

    Buffalo

    Ram

    Javalina

    Turkey

     

    With the newly proposed app fee of $13, I will now be paying $273 in app fees alone even before considering tag fees. Add license costs on top and it is really creeping up there.

  17. Posted · Report reply

    I really don't understand why you feel one hunt should have a premium while another should not? I have read several arguments for the premiums and in each one the argument seems self serving. That argument being that it would discourage many from the premium hunts and improve their own chances. I would love to hear an argument for premiums that helps me understand how this will benefit all hunters and not just those with deeper pocket books.

     

    This isn't meant to cause an argument. I am trying to have an open mind and am anxious to see if anyone can convince me.

     

    Thanks

  19. Posted · Report reply

    Glad to be of service....And I will be more than willing to appologize if this case gets re-tried/re-investigated or even gets any media attention! Even the media has legal experts review things like this and are much better at it than a bunch of redneck hillbillys like us!

    Hey richardoutwest re read that part about Larry Voyles conclusions , the investigation was "criminal in nature" .... This is why Mr. Wagner won his suit! The Investigation was not following the protocall according to the law!....Romero and Ordway were on a whitch hunt and stepped on their own dangling loose ends because they jumped to conclusions and did not file the proper paperwork/documents! The court hearing is what brought about the disiplinary actions and did not cover up a thing.... Some of the reason why more were not disiplined was due to the time line as there is a limit as to how long after an inciedent report that a charge can be filed!

    Yea, because we all know the media is an unbiased and impartial entity that seeks nothing more than to promote truth and justice...

    • Like 1

  20. Posted · Report reply

    1. Either way it really doesn't matter. Tax payer money is going at AZGFD!

     

    No, it doesn't. Tag and license money gets taken to the general fund to pay for other state services, but the money doesn't move the other way.

    Feel free to review the attached document. You will find several examples of tax money going to the AZGFD. As with many other things, the AZGFD would prefer the average person not know that they do receive tax dollars. So, like politicians they make cleaver statements like "The Arizona Game and Fish Department does not receive general funds from the State of Arizona. But here are a couple of examples from the attached document:

    Source of Revenue: Monies received through intergovernmental and interagency service agreements.

    Source of Revenue: Collections from local governments for the Urban Fishing Program, transfers from the state Risk Management Fund, proceeds from the charitable auction of bighorn sheep tags, and private donations from private contributors.

    attachicon.giffis(1).pdf

     

    Before the recession (i.e. 2007) the Legislature made attempts to pay back some portion of what they would sweep in prior years. It was never the full amount. And, in 2008, the Legislature swept more than $7.8million from the Department. You're good with percentages, so I'll let you figure out what impact that had on their $30M budget.

     

    So, would yousay that if Peter steals $10 from Paul, and then later pays Paul $5 that Paul is now operating on $5 of Peter's money?

     

    Here's a 2006 FAQ from the last price increase that lays out the budget challenges the Department must meet. Note the discussion of retirement costs--those are even higher now, and the Department doesn't get any help from taxpayers on that. http://www.azgfd.gov/temp/fee_increase.shtml

    Sorry 1uglydude, you seem like a good guy but if you won't see the forest through the trees there is nothing I can say that will convince you. I imagine I probably agree with you on 99.9% of every other issue but on this one I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree.

  21. Posted · Report reply

    1. Either way it really doesn't matter. Tax payer money is going at AZGFD!

     

    No, it doesn't. Tag and license money gets taken to the general fund to pay for other state services, but the money doesn't move the other way.

    Feel free to review the attached document. You will find several examples of tax money going to the AZGFD. As with many other things, the AZGFD would prefer the average person not know that they do receive tax dollars. So, like politicians they make cleaver statements like "The Arizona Game and Fish Department does not receive general funds from the State of Arizona. But here are a couple of examples from the attached document:

    Source of Revenue: Monies received through intergovernmental and interagency service agreements.

    Source of Revenue: Collections from local governments for the Urban Fishing Program, transfers from the state Risk Management Fund, proceeds from the charitable auction of bighorn sheep tags, and private donations from private contributors.

    fis(1).pdf

  22. Posted · Report reply

    Additionally, there is a reason we pay less as AZ residents. Because we subsidize AZ Game and Fish with our taxes each year.

     

    Actually, we don't. AZGFD doesn't receive any taxpayer money for game management. It's all through licenses and tags. And, in lean times, the Legislature sweeps their funds for the general fund.

     

    As to only going up a few percentage points each year. Okay. With no changes since 2007, what would a 3% increase per year over the course of 7 years look like? North of 20%,

     

    Let's not all forget that none of the proposed increases are above the fee caps the Legislature already had in place. In other words, the Department had authority to raise tag prices even higher than this before the "simplification" bill. They're just doing it now because they can also change the licensing structure.

     

    And to the guy complaining about they "keys to the Kingdom" license for resident and non-resident youth. Youth have always paid the same price for youth licenses, regardless of residency. Its in place, in part, to encourage new youth to try out our unique hunting experiences, but it also allows Arizonas resident fathers with children living out of state to bring their kids here for the same price as if they lived with the full time. I haven't made up my mind about all the other changes, but I support the $5 youth license 110%. They're our future hunters (and voters), and we should make it as easy for them as possible to get into the field and have a positive experience.

    So let me see if I have this correct? You want to argue against my point that “we subsidize AZ Game and Fish with our taxes each year” and then state a few sentences later, “in lean times, the Legislature sweeps their funds for (I believe you mean 'from') the general fund”. Thank you for arguing against my point by strengthening it. I never said how our tax money subsidizes AZGFD, just that it does.

     

    Second, you suggest that “With no changes since 2007, what would a 3% increase per year over the course of 7 years look like? North of 20%”. They aren’t recommending a 20% increase, they are recommending a 37.4% increase for elk, 107.9% increase for deer and a 73.3% increase in the application fee.

     

    As far as “none of the proposed increases are above the fee caps the Legislature already had in place”. Since the federal government has no cap on how much of our income they could potentially tax, I suppose that means the federal cap on income taxes is 100%. So we should be glad if one day the federal government raises our income tax to only 99% since it is short of the cap of 100%?

     

    As Obama might suggest I guess we hunters “aren’t paying our fair share” and “should pay just a little more”. You must be a democrat because yours is the most liberal arguments I have heard yet.

     

    No mistake...it's "for," not "from." The Legislature TAKES money (your tag dollars) from the Department to use in the General Fund. You obviously do a good job of staying up on the issues.

     

    As I said, other than the change for kids, I haven't made up my mind on the proposals yet. I was merely showing that there are other ways to look at it--trying to be a voice of reason. In turn, I get personally attacked? Nice.

     

    What is it with this board lately? Anyone who trys to acknowledge that there is more than one way to look at things is shouted down by belligerant bullies.

    1. Either way it really doesn't matter. Tax payer money is going to the AZGFD!

     

    2. You are welcome to your opinions and I welcome them from you. I rather enjoy the discussion and argument and don't mean bully. I apologize that it came across that way. My reason for the liberal comment was that I think that there is way to much hypocrisy anymore in these arguments. To many people claim conservative ideals but make liberal arguments when they don't agree with someone. I just want to make certain people recognize this.

  23. Posted · Report reply

    Additionally, there is a reason we pay less as AZ residents. Because we subsidize AZ Game and Fish with our taxes each year.

     

    Actually, we don't. AZGFD doesn't receive any taxpayer money for game management. It's all through licenses and tags. And, in lean times, the Legislature sweeps their funds for the general fund.

     

    As to only going up a few percentage points each year. Okay. With no changes since 2007, what would a 3% increase per year over the course of 7 years look like? North of 20%,

     

    Let's not all forget that none of the proposed increases are above the fee caps the Legislature already had in place. In other words, the Department had authority to raise tag prices even higher than this before the "simplification" bill. They're just doing it now because they can also change the licensing structure.

     

    And to the guy complaining about they "keys to the Kingdom" license for resident and non-resident youth. Youth have always paid the same price for youth licenses, regardless of residency. Its in place, in part, to encourage new youth to try out our unique hunting experiences, but it also allows Arizonas resident fathers with children living out of state to bring their kids here for the same price as if they lived with the full time. I haven't made up my mind about all the other changes, but I support the $5 youth license 110%. They're our future hunters (and voters), and we should make it as easy for them as possible to get into the field and have a positive experience.

    So let me see if I have this correct? You want to argue against my point that “we subsidize AZ Game and Fish with our taxes each year” and then state a few sentences later, “in lean times, the Legislature sweeps their funds for (I believe you mean 'from') the general fund”. Thank you for arguing against my point by strengthening it. I never said how our tax money subsidizes AZGFD, just that it does.

     

    Second, you suggest that “With no changes since 2007, what would a 3% increase per year over the course of 7 years look like? North of 20%”. They aren’t recommending a 20% increase, they are recommending a 37.4% increase for elk, 107.9% increase for deer and a 73.3% increase in the application fee.

     

    As far as “none of the proposed increases are above the fee caps the Legislature already had in place”. Since the federal government has no cap on how much of our income they could potentially tax, I suppose that means the federal cap on income taxes is 100%. So we should be glad if one day the federal government raises our income tax to only 99% since it is short of the cap of 100%?

     

    As Obama might suggest I guess we hunters “aren’t paying our fair share” and “should pay just a little more”. You must be a democrat because yours is the most liberal arguments I have heard yet.

×