Outdoor Writer

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.

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