Outdoor Writer

Congrats on a super trip. And as always, great report and pix.

Nah, it's the fault of the AZ G&FD for giving out too many tags and scheduling too many hunts, especially all those early seasons where no one ever kills a decent buck.

Put a couple coats of FLAT EXTERIOR clear polyurethane on it.

Great job, Lance. Some super bucks. I hope our hunt up there in two weeks turns out half as good.

From my message above: In other words, as it now stands, the legislature already has the power to do everything you're concerned about. In fact, they could abolish the G&F department tomorrow, if they so choose to do.

Yup, still here for two more days. The weather has been just perfect. We haven't had to run the AC one day since we've been here. In all the years we've been coming to Mazatlan, we've never had the humidity this low. Played golf a few times and last week, three of us went out with www.insideoutsidecharters.com to do a bit of light-tackle saltwater fishing. We started out bottom fishing about 3.5 miles off the beach and caught about 40 snappers. We then moved down to the lighthouse point and got into a fabulous surface bite of 3-4 lb. jack cravels (sp?). We often had two and three fish on at once and finally called it a day after we filled a 5-gal bucket four times.

Preliminary test indicates new fish virus in Saguaro Lake Disease poses no risk for people, pets or water supply PHOENIX -- Arizona may have a new microscopic aquatic invader – largemouth bass virus, which can kill fish but is not harmful to people. “There has been a preliminary detection of this fish virus at Saguaro Lake,” said Arizona Game and Fish Department Fisheries Chief Kirk Young. Fish samples from Saguaro recently showed preliminary results for the largemouth bass virus, but due to testing timelines for this disease, Arizona Game and Fish is still awaiting a full report from federal laboratories. The full report is expected in the next three to four weeks. Confirmation of the detection will then be sought with another, independent laboratory. Young emphasized that even if the virus is present, the disease posses no risk to people and pets and the water is safe for drinking water supply and recreation. “Largemouth bass virus is not known to infect any warm-blooded animals and any fish that are caught by anglers are safe to eat,” said Young. “However, we always recommend that you thoroughly cook any fish you intend to eat and never use found dead or dying fish for food.” If confirmed, Saguaro would be the first water in Arizona to test positive for the presence of the virus. Although not previously detected in Arizona, at least 18 other states have found the fish disease in bodies of water dating back to 1991. Game and Fish is working to develop a sampling effort to determine the presence of this fish virus in other Arizona bass lakes. Largemouth bass virus can cause fish mortality but does not always do so. “It is not precisely known what triggers the activation of the virus into a disease outbreak, but it has been associated with stress events such as high water temperatures,” Young said. “The virus only affects largemouth bass, but other fish species can carry the virus as well as water itself.” In other locations around the country where the virus has been found, bass populations typically suffer one-time effects of the disease before infected waters returned to normal. The virus appears to diminish over time and not every infected fish becomes sick. For instance, only five lakes in Texas suffered fish kills even though the virus was found in 23 of the state’s reservoirs. “Usually the number of infected fish that die is relatively low compared to the entire population, with the virus mostly affecting older and larger fish,” said Young. Young emphasized that even though testing results are only preliminary at this point, Game and Fish wanted to inform the public immediately rather than waiting for full confirmation. “If the virus is present, there are precautions the public can take to help stop the spread of the virus,” Young said. “As with all aquatic invasive species such as quagga mussels, public awareness and cooperation are critically important to preventing an even larger problem.” One preventive measure that’s vital is that people absolutely avoid transporting live fish or water from one body of water to another. “You might be spreading an unwanted disease or even introducing an unwanted organism that could prove deadly to a fishery or substantially alter a lake ecosystem,” said Young. “Don’t transport live fish caught from a lake – period. It’s the wrong thing to do and it’s unlawful.” It’s also important to clean, dry and drain your boat before leaving any lake at any time, and to disinfect your boat or wait at least five days before launching your boat on another water. In fact, at several lakes it’s now the law that you do so. This is extremely important as the bass virus can live for up to seven days in standing water. Other ways anglers and boaters can help stop the spread of invasive species: * Dispose of all unused bait in the trash, never in the water. * Never transfer live fish from one body of water to another. * Rinse any mud and/or debris from equipment and wading gear. * Drain any water from boats, bilge, bait buckets, and live wells before leaving the launch area. A mild mixture of bleach and water can be used to disinfect your equipment. Allow everything to air dry before moving to another body of water. * Stage fishing tournaments in cooler weather to reduce stress on caught bass. * Run aerators continuously while fish are in live wells if temperatures are over 70 degrees. * If you see any dead or dying fish, please report your observation to Game and Fish. * Educate others to follow these steps. More information on largemouth bass virus is available at: http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/bassmas..._lmbv_factsheet

Vote Yes on Prop 109 HELP PROTECT AND PRESERVE YOUR RIGHT TO HUNT AND FISH The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for the firearms, ammunition, hunting and recreational shooting sports industry, continues to urge you to VOTE YES on PROP 109. The list of supporters of Prop 109 continues to grow. Governor Jan Brewer, Senator John McCain, Representatives Trent Franks, John Shadegg and Jeff Flake all have stated their support for the passage of Prop 109 to protect the tradition of fishing and hunting in Arizona for generations to come. An article today, talks about the number of current commissioners on the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, not to mention 11 former ones, which have unequivocally stated that they also support Prop 109. These are the exact individuals that the state of Arizona trusts to manage Arizona’s wildlife. Please visit the website that has been set-up by Game and Fish commissioners to educate Arizona voters and also to correct some of the myths about Prop 109. As you already know, Prop 109 is the number one priority for the Humane Society of the United States. They have continued to spend enormous amounts of money to defeat Prop 109. In the last two weeks, anti-hunting groups (HSUS included) have spent more than $700,000 to oppose Prop 109. Proposition 109, which would guarantee your right to hunt and fish in Arizona will be on the ballot Tuesday. Prop 109 is specifically written to pre-empt anti-hunting groups from attempting to restrict the right of Arizonans to hunt and fish and that is why they HSUS and others oppose it. The language is very simple and we encourage you to learn more at http://www.nraila.org/yeson109.

The AZ Legislature is responsible for the LAWS as it has been for decades. Those laws are incorporated in Title 17, and within those laws, the AZ Legislature may designate the task of RULE making to the AZ G&F commission. This also has been effect for decades. The rule making is what sets seasons, permit numbers, etc. And when G&F wants a LAW changesd, it MUST do so through the legislature. In other words, as it now stands, the legislature already has the power to do everything you're concerned about. In fact, they could abolish the G&F department tomorrow, if they so choose to do. NOTHING about the above will change with the passage of 109; it will merely strenghten that by making it part of the AZ Constitution. Now here is what 109 will do; it will make it much harder for any animal-rights group to change anything in regards to wildlife management by bringing an initiative to the ballot for a vote by the general public, as it did with the leghold traps. As it is now, a ballot measure to chnage a wildlife-related law simply requires 153,365 signatures and a majority vote, i.e. 51%, but with Prop 109 in place as part of the state Constitution, getting a initiative on the ballot to amend the Constitution would require 230,047 signatures. That is a MUCH tougher hill to climb and obviously why the HSUS, Sierra Club and other AR types are against passage of 109. I suggest that anyone who is unfamiliar with the way it now is, take a look at TITLE 17. Especially read the contents of the sections noted below. Chapter 2 GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT AND GAME AND FISH COMMISSION Article 1 Membership 17-201 Game and fish department and game and fish commission members; appointment; removal; meetings 17-202 Arizona game and fish commission appointment recommendation board Article 2 Director and Employees 17-211 Director; selection; removal; powers and duties; employees 17-212 Director's seal; authentication of records 17-213 Prohibition on political activity 17-214 Arizona game and fish department reserve; members; powers and duties; compensation Article 3 Powers and Duties 17-231 General powers and duties of the commission

Way to score Amanda! Super buck.

Remington's response: http://remington700.tv/#/home

I'm currently sitting on the patio overlooking the beach at our time-share in Mazatlan. As we have done for many years, we drove down through Nogales on Mon. of last week, spending the night as usual in Navajoa, then continuing on to Maz. the next day. The trip was uneventful, and as usual all the folks we came in contact with were helpful and friendly. The same applies to the time we have spent here. The other day, I dropped my wife off in the more commercial area about 4 miles from the resort so she could shop. She wound up shopping her way all the way back to our resort on foot. We leave Mon. and will overnight in Hermosillo on the way back. We expect, like the trip down, it will also be uneventful.

Ditto, Mr. Quimby!

Hey, you guys probably wouldn't want to see photos of some of these gals in the teeny 'kinis. In fact, they should have a law that bans any gal over 125 lbs. and 21 years old from wearing them. Then again, after a few cervezas, they all look pretty good.

Well, we made it to Mazatlan. We didn't get killed, beheaded or robbed. LOL The trip was uneventful and everything went smoothly. Everyone we came in contact with were helpful and friendly, as they normally are. And now, I'm sitting here on the patio with a good view of the pool. It's amazing how much some gals can cram into very tiny bikinis.

No doubt many of those cats were tainted since Prock was a crook. I recalled when they nailed his butt way back when. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1088195/1/index.htm

Casey, I'm well aware of what goes on down there since I have been driving down to Mazatlan and other places in Mexico for going on 35 years now. They even grow a bunch of tomatoes and beans in Sinaloa that pass through. Geez, I even know one of the major cartels is based in Cullican, one of the cities we pass through on the way. I hope I don't scare them too bad when we go through there. My doctor and I drove to Lake Baccarac in 2009 and had to pass through the small city of Sinaloa De Leya, which is inland and also the home of a smaller drug cartel. While on the lake, we could literally see marijuana gardens growing a short way from the shoreline. Our fishing guide told us, 'No Problema, as long as you stay away from them." He said they're all over in the foothills around the lake.

My wife and I leave Sun. a.m. for our annual 2-week stay at our time shares in Mazatlan, Sinaloa. We will be driving as usual, with an overnight stay in Navajoa where we also enjoy a hearty shrimp chipolte dinner at the Del Rio. Will report if we get killed while we're down there. In the meantime, we still avoid driving in Maryvale (west Phx) and south Phx at night without a police escort.

Congrats to Grant. Well done young man.

I see no one has commented on the editorial in Fri.'s Republic. I posted the following as a comment on AZCENTRAL.COM at: Opinions. ***** 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 comment 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 they 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 outlines the true intent of Prop 109. 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. 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.

Amanda, The Republic had a thingie in it yesterday that said they will have Prop 109 profiled on Fri. I sent the following into the editorial board and asked that it be published on that day, as well. Not sure they will, but we'll see. ***** 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 those that are endangered and threatened. 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.

Way to go, Doug. That buck has some nice mass to it.

Good looking mount. Kudos to both Scotts.

Congrats, Ron. Great bull, story and pix.

Just returned from picking up the double pedestal of the two TX bucks I killed last winter. Chris Krueger, Krueger's Creations, did the work. Note how he matched the "habitat" to the area where I hunted, as seen in the second photo. The buck on the left had a 3" hole where the 180-gr. bullet from my .300 Win. mag exited. It's now invisble. Also, at my request, he repaired the broken crab claw on the right antler of the same buck. The bottom rack in the third photo shows what it looked like broken.