Outdoor Writer

I did some "investigative journalism" on this tale today. As a result, I have put Steve in touch with someone at G&F who will try to assist him in getting his antlers returned without having to go through the auction BS. No guarantee, but it MIGHT lead to a nice reunion.

About a 1/2 mile south of my house. My wife had to drive around the crime scene on her way home from the grocery store, located at 67th and Indian School. We're just off 67th and Camelback. ******* Phoenix police investigate homicide of man by Stephanie Russo - Nov. 12, 2010 06:57 PM The Arizona Republic Phoenix police are in the initial stages of investigating a homicide that took place Friday evening. Police were at the scene where a man was killed in the 4500 block of North 67th Avenue, police spokesman Sgt. Tommy Thompson said. No further information was immediately available. Check back for updates. Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix...l#ixzz15B4xYV2M

From the U.S. Embassy website: Millions of U.S. citizens safely visit Mexico each year. This includes tens of thousands who cross the border every day for study, tourism or business and at least one million U.S. citizens who live in Mexico. The Mexican government makes a considerable effort to protect U.S. citizens and other visitors to major tourist destinations. Resort areas and tourist destinations in Mexico do not see the levels of drug-related violence and crime reported in the border region and in areas along major drug trafficking routes. Nevertheless, crime and violence are serious problems. While most victims of violence are Mexican citizens associated with criminal activity, the security situation poses serious risks for U.S. citizens as well. It is imperative that U.S. citizens understand the risks involved in travel to Mexico, how best to avoid dangerous situations, and who to contact if one becomes a victim of crime or violence. Common-sense precautions such as visiting only legitimate business and tourist areas during daylight hours, and avoiding areas where criminal activity might occur, can help ensure that travel to Mexico is safe and enjoyable. U.S. citizen victims of crime in Mexico are urged to contact the consular section of the nearest U.S. Consulate or Embassy for advice and assistance.

Yup, all of the above is true -- stuff I always heed. BTW, this part "Extreme threats of violence along Highway 15/Benito Juarez Autopista have lead to the prohibition of travel between Estacion Don and Guamuchil, Sinaloa" refers to the OLD free highway and not the toll road. Why? Because about two weeks ago, members of a drug cartel ambushed a police patrol, killing several of them. Stanley, So far, in the area of Mexico we travel, I've heard of only ONE incident of an innocent American being involved. It was the one with a hunting outfitter who had his truck stolen and then was later found dead. If I recall, he was quite a ways off the beaten path. I think we even had a thread about it here. Lastly, ANY incident where an American tourist is victimized would be prime fodder for the U.S. media; the headlines are pretty much nonexistent. And....your mother sounds much like my 89-yr. old mother. My daughter is almost as bad.

Thanks for the lecture, Casey. I neither think I'm bullet-proof or stupid, and as a grown-up feel quite capable to make my own decisions about my well-being. See, I just look at it real simple: the dangers of anything happening to US in Mexico is greatly exaggerated. In fact, I feel less safe driving in the area where I live, especially if I should inadvertantly cut off someone whose first reponse is to shoot me. And it happens quite often in the PHX metro area. Last week, two guys were shot in their car while driving. They don't have a clue who did it. This past weekend an 18-yr. old kid out jogging at 7 a.m. to lose a few pounds was shot and killed. They don't have a clue who did it. So it appears "innocents" also get killed here for no reason. Actually, I often drive to Mexico more than once a year and will continue to do so. And I'll continue to take the same precautions I take here: do not get involved with the wrong people; stay out of areas where I don't belong and obey the laws. Most importantly, I'll try to mind my own business. BTW, do you have any figures on how many American tourists have been crime victims there over the last year or so? I would be willing to bet that number is quite low, probably not more than the number of crime victims in Phoenix last weekend.

Whoops. I should have read on and saw where you addressed it.

Hmmm, I'm not real good in calculating things, but the above is off according to the laws of physics. A vacuum still has gravity at work. Thus the bullet will still drop just as fast and as far as in the normal atmosphere. The only difference: it will travel farther before doing so.

A hearty "Way to go!" to Kristi!

A bit east of the intersection of 422 and 429 at Castle Springs. Hector, Allen, my 48-yr. son and I will be in Duwane's camp. Stop by and say hello.

The fact that I look Mexicana probably helps a bit, too. Every time we hit a check point, they speak to me in Spanish to start. My standard reply is "no comprende Espanol," which usually gets a surprised look and a "No Mexicano?" in response. I answer with, "No Mexicano, Italiano." The exchange usually results in a "passe," -- go ahead. Now here's some humor. While traveling in Mexico away from the border, I questioned several folks about their opinions on SB1070. Not a one of them had the faintest idea what I was talking about, even after I provided a short explanation of what it was. Evidently the only one down there that has heard about it is Caulderon.

Good point! I did bring back 60 albuterol inhalers -- my yearly supply until my next trip. I guess those are drugs.

Or a member of the Mexican Army, a Mexican law enforcement officer or a member of a drug cartel.

Likewise. Spoke to Allen last week. Like him, my son and I will be leaving early on Thurs. morning. We'll be driving two vehicles -- a 26' RV and my Durango. See ya in camp!

I'll be taking two rifles -- a M70 .264 and a custom M700 in .300 Win. mag. I'll probably use the latter, however, since I don't have condor-friendly ammo for the .264. So it'll be a back-up.

Geez, if I had known this, I would have had armor plate and bullet-proof windows added to my Durango before my wife and I foolishly drove all the way from Nogales to Mazatlan and back last month. We even made the mistake to overnight in Navajoa on the way down and Hermosillo on the way home. BTW, the shrimp chipolte was excellent at the Del Rio in Navajoa and at the La Casa Grande in Hermosillo.

The moral of the story: Send in your applications during the CORRECTION period!

I posted the stuff about how many signatures are needed for each type because that is where a lot of the confusion comes from -- a belief it requires a higher percentage of the vote rather than a higher percentage of signatures to amend the Constitution. As for the 2/3 majority, I believe someone had proposed such as an amendment in the past (2000 maybe?) for any changes to wildlife laws. If I recall, it was Prop 102, and it also went down in flames.

Bill, This is the editorial that ran in the Repulsive -- the one I referred to as a htchet job. Prop. 109 would spur legal battles Hunting and fishing are woven into the fabric of Arizona's history and culture. Hunters and anglers, and the fees they pay, play a big role in protecting wildlife and habitat. But a proposed constitutional amendment, which goes far beyond its advertised purpose of establishing the right to hunt and fish, is a minefield of potential problems. Arizona should say "no" to Proposition 109. As we have written on other issues, the bar for changing the state constitution should be set very high. The risk of unintended consequences is too great, especially when the only remedy would be another constitutional amendment. What problem does Prop. 109 aim to fix? There are no threats to hunting and fishing in Arizona, except the waning interest among young people. The big concern seems to be the possibility of a ballot initiative to prevent hunting a particular species, as happened with mountain lions in California. But advocates are fully capable of fighting such a battle on its own merits. Prop. 109 would set a bad precedent. Amending the constitution to spell out the rights of traditional recreational activities is a slippery slope. Will hikers, skiers, ATV users and others be next? This proposed amendment - with broad, undefined terms - is ripe for legal battles. It would open up any action of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, including establishing seasons, to a constitutional challenge. Under Prop. 109, no law or rule shall be adopted that "unreasonably restrict hunting, fishing and harvesting wildlife or the use of traditional means and methods." This is open season for lawsuits. What is the meaning of "unreasonably restrict"? If hunters killed elk out of season, they could argue that it was a reasonable exercise of their rights. "Traditional means and methods" are protected but undefined. This could bring back the steel leg traps that voters outlawed. Prop. 109 would designate public hunting and fishing as the preferred means of managing wildlife. In an area with, say, problem with deer, hunters could challenge any solution besides hunting. They could argue they have a right to ignore seasons and bag limits. In the long run, it's entirely probable that Prop. 109 could work to the detriment of the wildlife population. That would be an enormous loss to all Arizonans, including those who hunt and fish. Voters should shoot down the highly flawed Prop. 109.

Amanda, It's somewhat complicated, but I'll try to explain it as best I understand it. First, there are several ways that an issue (proposition) can get on the ballot where the voters determine its fate. The two most common are the voter-driven (the anti-trapping one here was one) and the referral proposition, which is placed on the ballot by the state Legislature through a majority vote by the state House and Senate members. The Legislature MUST refer all changes to the state Constitution or to programs previously approved by a public vote to the voters. Prop 109 fell under the first part -- change to the state Constitution. To get a voter-driven initiative on the ballot, a group must file a prescribed number of VALID signatures between the close of one election and four months before the next. The number of signatures needed are decided by: A.) the purpose of the initiative B.) the number who voted for governor in the previous election. The purpose is important because it determines how many are needed for B. If the purpose is to change or enact a law, the signature total needed is 10% of B; if the purpose is to amend the Constitution, the signature total needed is 15% of B. Obviously the latter is a much more difficult task for any group. This year it took 153,365 signatures for a normal VOTER-driven initiative to make the ballot. That means one attempting to change the Constitution would have required about 230,000 signatures. In any case, once a proposition goes on the ballot, regardless of the source, it requires only a majority vote to decide its fate. So in effect, if HSUS and its ilk decides to try a ban on lion hunting or make changes to any other hunting, fishing or widlife-related issue -- think wolves and such -- the task will be much easier with the failure of Prop 109. As a side note, in 1998 the initiative process was used to protect the initiative process. It is known as the Voter Protection Act and is part of the state constitution. Basically, it prohibits the governor from vetoing any citizen-approved measure; prohibits the Legislature from repealing such measures and it permits the Legislature to amend a citizen-approved measure only if the amendment furthers the purpose of the citizen measure and passes by three-quarters majority. Essentially, this makes citizen-approved measures virtually unalterable except by a subsequent vote of the people. This is what protects the Heritage Fund from being raided. Hope this is a bit clearer than mud.

Bill, Watch the ballot next year. Wanna bet HSUS and their pardners will be going after lion hunting?? If it goes bye-bye, any sportsman who voted "no" on 109 can take some of the blame. What is really unfortunate with what happened is the ignorance many sportsmen showed of how wildlife and hunting is currently managed and regulated, as I outlined in the above. Rather than do their own reserach to find out the facts, they ate everything the opposition spewed forth. But the editorial the Repulsive published was probably the last nail in the coffin. It probably swayed the folks in the middle the most.

Amanda, My bad. I was thinking it was 36C but as someone else mentioned it's mostly 36B right along the border. It's been covered here several times, but there's nothing new about it. It was closed in 2006! http://forums.coueswhitetail.com/forums/in...hl=buenos+aires

The closed area is in 36C, not 36B. It's the southern part of the Buenos Aires Wildlife Refuge.

Well aware of all that, Bill, and I have had a couple "letters" on other topics published over the last year. The first submission I made was sent to be published as a "My Turn" op-ed (not a letter-to-the editor), which are typically 500-750 words. It was meant to run the same day the Repulsive addressed 109 and suggested a "no" vote. When I submitted it, I didn't know they would recommend the no vote, of course. Obviously, my article would have been contrary to the editorial opinion. Although I didn't post them here, I had also tacked on my qualifications to write on the topic. Here's the original again. Vote YES on Prop 109 The election ballot this year includes Proposition 109, which would guarantee the right to hunt and fish in Arizona. It also will keep the status of wildlife management with the state legislature and Arizona Game & Fish Department (AGFD) just as it has been for many decades under Arizona's Title 17 statutes. The nation's leading extremist anti-hunting group, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), in conjunction with other advocacy organizations such as the Sierra Club and Center for Biological Diversity, is working to defeat Prop 109. None of these three groups directly contributes a penny to the actual management of wildlife in Arizona. In reality, they annually cost this state and others millions of dollars because of the various, often frivolous lawsuits they file. While these groups represent the ballot proposition as a "power grab," nothing could be more untrue. In reality, Prop 109 will not change a thing. It will instead guarantee everything remains intact under Title 17: the legislature makes the laws and under those laws, they designate the AGFD as the caretaker of Arizona's wildlife. As such, the AGFD makes rules and regulations and enforces those and the laws in regards to hunting and fishing. The agency's nongame branch, using revenue mostly contributed by hunters and anglers through license sales and the federal excise taxes on the equipment they use, also manages myriad unhunted species with similar rules and regulations. Those rules often address the complete protection and preservation of many species, including endangered and threatened species. Informed voters should also be aware of the deceptively-named HSUS that has nothing to do with local animal shelters or organizations. HSUS is a self-avowed national anti-hunting group with an annual budget of over $100 million. In the past, HSUS has worked to ban specific hunting seasons, the hunting of specific species and even traditional methods of hunting. This anti-hunting organization has funded the successful campaign to close the dove hunting season in Michigan without any scientific reason to do so. And now HSUS has set its sights on Arizona. HSUS president, Wayne Pacelle, once claimed his goal is to create “a National Rifle Association of the animal rights movement.” He also said, "We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States" and "we will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state." If Pacelle has his way, it will signal the end of sound wildlife management in this state. The relentless efforts of the anti-hunting movement are exactly why Prop 109 is needed. It is specifically written to pre-empt anti-hunting groups from attempting to restrict the right of Arizonans to hunt and fish – the key reason why HSUS and the others oppose it. Prop 109, as written, will not only help protect and preserve the right to hunt and fish, it will also ensure that all of Arizona's wildlife, including that which is NOT hunted, will be managed with long-tested and sound scientific principles rather than by emotions that sometimes have disastrous consequences. Any voter concerned about the future of all of Arizona's wildlife should not allow it to be managed by the anti-hunting emotions of extremists. That means a "yes" vote on Prop 109.

Dead on for all points, Nick. I attempted to get an article/letter to the editor published in the AZ Repulsive twice -- once before the editorial in it suggesting a "no" vote and again right after. The editorial board basically ignored me. Here's what I wrote the 1st time in my e-mail with the article (which was posted elsewhere on CWT) attached. I noticed the Republic will feature Prop 109 in the Fri. issue. I've attached an item that I would like to have published as a "My Turn" or similar to run on that day, as well. Could you please get it to the proper person for consideration? And if the Republic chooses NOT to run it, please let me know so I can submit it elsewhere. I wasn't quite as nice the 2nd time I sent it. The Hatchet Job When I submitted my original item -- "Vote YES on Prop 109" -- I asked that someone inform me if it wouldn't be published so I could submit it elsewhere. Neither occurred, but after reading the editorial, I understand why. And here's another opinion that is now appearing on all of the major websites where Arizona’s hunters and anglers congregate. It was also posted as a comment to a letter on azcentral.com. ***** The hatchet job on Prop 109 by the Republic was obviously written by someone with low reading comprehension. In fact, after reading it, it's easy to assume it might have been written by HSUS president Wayne Pacelle. For example, the premise about the poacher is erroneous from the get-go. The writer of the editorial apparently does not know the difference between legal and illegal. The amendment clearly states: "A. The citizens of this State have a right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife LAWFULLY." By definition, poachers harvest wildlife UNLAWFULLY. Thus, poachers have no right under the proposed amendment. Also, another comment addresses the possible return of leghold traps. By definition, trapping is neither hunting or fishing. I submitted the item below to the Republic earlier in the week knowing the topic would be covered in the Fri. issue. It recaps the intent of Prop 109 and why it is necessary. Not surprisingly, the Republic chose not to run it, likely because it would have shown how far out in left field its own editorial is. The Republic's editorial contends there is no threat to hunting and fishing. The missing word in that conclusion is "currently." While there might be no threat now, HSUS and the other animal-rights organizations will do their best to change that. Note specifically the past quotes from Pacelle below, which point directly to the concern for the FUTURE.

Taadaaa. The reason for the perversion of hunting.