Outdoor Writer

The article posted above is nonsense and nothing more than the ranting from some wingnut's blog site. The actual issue in the REAL Reuter's article concerns the INTERNATIONAL trade (that's between COUNTRIES for the reading challenged) of non-nuclear arms to other countries, i.e. exporting/importing conventional arms from one country to another. The conventional arms can be anything from small MILITARY arms to tanks and jet fighters.

This is a cross-post from another hunting site I frequent. Please vote. ***** CBC.ca is having a poll about the sustainability of the "trophy" grizzly bear hunt in BC. The grizzly hunt in BC is entirely by limited entry (or in the case of non-residents, there is a quota for guide-outfitters). Using a VERY conservative estimate of the population, and annual allowable harvest is set at less than 2% of the population, and it's illegal to shoot any bear in the company of cubs. The grizzly bear population has been increasing for at least the last decade, and are re-colonizing habitats that they were pushed out of many decades earlier. We can use help maintaing this hunt in BC as we are currently under a lot of pressure from anti--hunting groups that used the Olympics as a springboard for their revived campaigns. Please VOTE here.... http://www.cbc.ca/bc/ Thanks, Canuck

Yeah, I didn't think you had, and the points you made were dead on the mark.

I think it's at the end of pg. 2

Bill, I sent that "letter," knowing it was too long for the normal opinion column. So in my e-mail I suggested they use it as a "My Turn" item, which are generally as long as need be. I haven't heard anything yet, though, so I assume it won't be published.

Don't know if it will get published, but I sent this very long "letter to the editor" earlier today. ******************************* Border Security The slaying of rancher Rob Krentz was a sad but an inevitable incident. Less than a year ago (June, 2009), three government agency employees -- an officer with the Arizona Game and Fish Department, another Game and Fish employee and an employee with Pima County Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation -- were fired upon by a group of men they encountered while scouting the area for a land access project in southern Arizona. The shots likely came from the gun of a drug smuggler. Thankfully, no one was injured during that incident. But the growing problems along the Mexican border and past incidents such as this will no doubt lead to more of the same. I and many other hunters often pursue our hobby in the areas along the border. On any given day, we can sit on a high point and watch streams of illegals crossing into the U.S. along numerous well-known corridors during the DAYLIGHT hours. While most are toting backpacks, others are toting large bales of marijuana on their backs. The latter usually have at least one firearm among them. Some even boldly hitch-hike once they reach one of the major roads. Naturally, most of the entry routes are between or skirt the Border Patrol check points. Although some hunters contact the BP via cell phone, the agents too often show up long after the illegals have moved to "safer" ground. In effect, it isn’t too much different than calling 911 to report a mugging or bank robbery; the police usually arrive just in time to take a report. Not only are the illegals a danger to U.S. citizens such as Rob Krentz, but they are also trashing our pristine landscape and the private ranches down there. It's so bad that a group known as Arizona Hunters Who Care have teamed up with the Arizona Game and Fish Department to clean up the trash annually. The volunteer group hauls out dump-truck loads of plastic bottles, clothing, backpacks, etc. that are left behind. Border Patrol agents put their lives on the line everyday to apprehend the illegals. Agents are often attacked with thrown rocks or other missiles, but if they retaliate with any force, they get tarred and feathered by the liberals. Unless there is some deterrent, any call for beefing up border security is the proverbial exercise in futility. Right now, "security" amounts to a revolving door -- get caught, get processed and get deported. A short time later, the deportee makes yet another attempt to get through the farce called "border security." Many illegals have gone through that revolving door numerous times, of course, and I would assume, many were successful at some point. That's why we have 12 to 20 million illegals in the country now. Making it worse are the do-gooders who place water stations and otherwise AID and ABET the illegal entries. Will they begin taking some responsibility as more U.S citizens are subjected to crimes, including murders, committed by illegals? Maybe it will take the brutal slaying of a family rather than just some old rancher? Unless breaking our immigration law -- and aiding the crimes -- carries a consequence, more security is meaningless. National Guard troops without live ammunition is certainly not the answer to the problem, and no wall, fence, moat or camera system will stop the influx. Putting a live body every 25 yards along the border to stop the illegals 24/7 might work, but what a waste of good manpower. So here's a suggestion for Rep. Giffords. When Congress gets back in session she should introduce a bill that makes entering the U.S. illegally into a crime with REAL punishment. Although it would be costly at first, the only way to deter reentry is a stay in a detention facility of three or more months. Each time the same illegal is caught, the punishment increases by one month; first offense carries a three-month sentence, second carries a four-month sentence, etc. And during that detention, the illegals can work by collecting the trash left all over southern Arizona. That way they will still have money to send home to their families while keeping our landscape as it should be -- clean of trash, decaying toilet paper and human feces. After word gets out that getting caught will result in spending time in jail every time, perhaps the number of illegal border crosses will eventually drop to a trickle. In fact, I would bet many of the illegals now in Arizona would be packing to head back to Mexico before Sheriff Joe locates them. Given the current political climate, though, the above has little chance of coming into being. Sadly, the liberals would never make it law. They would prefer to turn all the illegals into citizens, the ultimate vote farming. So in the coming days, there likely will be more and perhaps worse incidents like the senseless killing of Rob Krentz. Disclaimer: No doubt some readers might consider me a bigot, but they would be very, very wrong. I have LEGALLY traveled to and stayed in Mexico at least once a year over the last three decades. My wife and I own two time-shares in Mazatlan, and we have made many lifetime friends among the Mexican people. Once a week I play golf with a Mexican man who came here legally and became a U.S. citizen many years ago. No, I'm not a bigot, nor am I against anyone coming to this country to find life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. My four grandparents did just that when they immigrated here from Italy in the early 1900s. But see, they did it legally. That is the difference. Tony Mandile Glendale, AZ (metro Phx – the “kidnapping capitol” of the country)

Stevens didn't put serial numbers on many of its firearms, including the 94, until 1968-69, when they were mandated by the new gun control act.

Kent, Geez, have you been to Forest lakes in the last two decades? It sure has changed a lot from those photos. It is now covered with houses and most are well beyond the "cabin" stage. My DIL's sister and her husband have a house there that's probably worth about $500K now. Is that the Pine, Vallecito or... you're fishing in that one photo? RE: Lobos trip May will be a tough time for me since I already have two probable trips plans. They will eat up both time and money. I guess I'll have to wait until later in the year or 2011. RE: Howell The name is familar, but I don't know him presonally. Was he a gun writer who lived in Prescott?

So is the above still the case, or does the paved road go right to the beach now that it's done? I wouldn't mind heading down there for a couple days of R&R. We should organize a beach-camping trip for anyone who wants to go. I would be happy just to get into some surf fishing and cerveza drinking.

That dirt road was the pits. The dust was like talcum powder and would get through the tiniest of cracks in a vehicle. It sounds like the road you're talking about off the RP hwy is the one that goes to Desemboque, north of Lobos. So I guess you're saying they continued that paved road south all the way to Lobos then? I don't know if it's still there, but there was a store in Sonoita that sold huge bags of mesquite charcoal in its raw form, i.e. chunks of wood rather than briquet's. We would always stop and buy a couple bags to take with us. A few yards away from the store was a small outdoor taco stand where they roasted the meat on a domed metal dealie. In the 1960s, the tacos were about 10 cents each. For all we knew, the "carne asada" could have come from roadkills, but they were delicious.

Kent, On most trips, we fished in the surf, catching mostly sea trout and triggerfish with a few strange species tossed in. We did haul my buddy's 14' aluminum boat down one year and launched it from the beach. That trip was my first experience with mal de mer. I stayed green and on shore for about 3 days afterwards. We usually slept right on the beach atop air mattresses. On one trip, a fox came in and bit my friend -- now departed -- on the arm. He managed to grab it and strangle it. Thinking it was rabid, we cut off the head to take with us, packed our gear and headed back to Phx. We were right, so he had to go through the series of painful shots. Do you go into Sonora at Sasabe or Sonoita? And...is the road from Caborca to Lobos still dirt all the way?

Although I haven't been there for years, I started going to Lobos and camping on the beach in the early 1960s. This a photo of my youngest son, Scott, while he was fishing for sea trout. It was taken on New Year's Day, 1969. His mother told him not to get too close to the water. While fishing there one year with a good friend, I had a seagull pick up my silver Kastmaster and get hooked. It took me about 15 minutes to reel it in and let it loose. And man, was I ever dizzy after turning in circles for that long.

Josh, That's a good looking mount, but when I saw it, I said, "Hey, that's my idea." About 2 months ago, I dropped off a bob and a D-back at Chris Kreuger's -- Krueger Creations -- and we discussed the various options. We finally settled on something that would be almost a clone of your mount. The only difference will be that the bob in mine might have all four feet in the air. I got the idea from watching this video. This is my crawlie critter. It's a bit over 4'.

Nah. I'll leave it up to all you folks to slice, dice, spindle, staple and mutilate. I don't do controversy here anymore.

PHOENIX — A public meeting of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission will be held Tuesday, March 9 at the Arizona Game and Fish Department headquarters at 5000 W. Carefree Highway in Phoenix. The meeting will begin at 1 p.m. with an executive session, followed by the public session. Members of the commission will attend either in person or by telephone conference call. The commission will be briefed on the status of state and federal legislation, including SB1200; game and fish commission; recommendation board. The commission may vote to take a position or provide direction to the department for coordination, action, or proposed changes to legislation or other elective issues related to department responsibilities. The public can either attend the meeting in person in Phoenix or view it over the Web at www.azgfd.gov/commissioncam. Those wishing to submit “blue slips” to present oral comment during the meeting must do so in person at the Phoenix meeting. For a copy of the agenda, visit www.azgfd.gov/commission located under commission agenda.

No problem signing Keith's book. I was happy to do it.

Amanda, Looks like you had a good show! It was good to visit with you again on Sat.

I don't recall the wording from that one, but I note that this one says, "citizens of the state," which was a concern with the last one. I somewhat agree with the commission in regards to the "right." But then again we also have the right to bear arms enumerated in the AZ Constitution, but that doesn't remove the ability to regulate such. The "subject only to regulations prescribed by the legislature" seems to address that. The "regulations prescribed by the legislature" include the powers enumerated to the commission. Also, the last time the commission suggested a statute in lieu of an amendment. But like any other statute in Title 17, it is open to change as the winds blows. As it is right now, the legislature can change anything the commssion may do simply by changing Title 17. In fact, they could eliminate the commission altogether. It's a lot harder to amend the state constitution, however. That said , if I had to guess, I would say the amendment might fail when put on the ballot for the voters to decide.

The devil is in the details. The problem with the bill as written is likely a semantical one because of the wording. In reality, the legislature has been involved in "regulating" wildlife for years under all the LAWS included in Title 17 (everything listed in the booklet as A.R.S. 17-###.##). There's actually a lot more to Title 17 than what is included in the regs, so every hunter would be smart to read the entire statute occasionally . The cost of licenses and tags are an integral part of this process. AND...the possible ban on baiting also would go through the legislature. That's why it has been delayed to date. These laws are generally proposed by the department/commission but must be passed by the state legislature before they can go into effect. Actually, Title 17 spells out everything the department/commission can or cannot do, and the legislature also has the power to change anything in Title 17 on its own. As it now reads, under Title 17, the department/game commission is authorized to set RULES --not LAWS -- without any input from the legislature. Seasons, limits, etc. (everything listed in the booklet as R##-#-##) all come under the Rules rather than the state statutes of Title 17. Here's just a part of the above: A.R.S. 17-231. General powers and duties of the commission A. The commission shall: 1. Make rules and establish services it deems necessary to carry out the provisions and purposes of this title. 2. Establish broad policies and long-range programs for the management, preservation and harvest of wildlife. 3. Establish hunting, trapping and fishing rules and prescribe the manner and methods which may be used in taking wildlife. 4. Be responsible for the enforcement of laws for the protection of wildlife. Thus, if it's ambiguous and can be interpreted to give the legislature ALL the power to set regulations AND the rules, it would be a disaster. But if the wording gets clarified so it doesn't change who sets the rules, the constitutional amendment will change nothing from what it is now. This is the present version with the possible ambiguous wording in red: Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, the Senate concurring: 1. Article II, Constitution of Arizona, is proposed to be amended by adding section 36 as follows if approved by the voters and on proclamation of the Governor: START_STATUTE36. Hunting, fishing and harvesting wildlife Section 36. A. The citizens of this state have a right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife, including the use of traditional means and methods, subject only to regulations prescribed by the legislature to promote sound wildlife conservation and management. B. Public hunting and fishing are preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife. C. This section shall not be construed to modify any provision of common law or statutes relating to trespass or property rights. END_STATUTE 2. The Secretary of State shall submit this proposition to the voters at the next general election as provided by article XXI, Constitution of Arizona.

Well I hope everyone has had a great Christmas season, and Santa was kind to all of you. He treated me well by arriving a bit early and glassing up a couple great Texas bucks for me. And then yesterday he brought more miscellaneous goodies in addition to a super day with my family. So now it's on to a ....

Albuterol inhaler!

SOLD! SOLD! SOLD! SOLD! SOLD! SOLD! I'm probably buying a new vehicle, so I'm selling (or trading it in) my burgundy/red 4x4 Dodge Quad Cab SLT. It's a 1998 short bed with less than 80,000 miles. It had all new brakes, including new front rotors, and a complete tune-up done less than six months ago. The thermostat, main fan/alternator belt and hoses were replaced just over a year ago. All regular oil changes and mechanical work has been done at Performance Dodge in Glendale. There is NOTHING on the truck that doesn't work. The camper shell could use a coat of paint, though, because the clear coat is kaput. Vehicle Highlights Engine: V8 5.2 Liter Transmission: Automatic w/OD Drivetrain: 4WD Air Conditioning (COLD!) AM/FM/Single CD Premium Infiniti Stereo Power Steering Dual Front Air Bags Overhead thermometer/compass SLT Cruise Control Power Windows Power Door Locks w/remote alarm system Class II Towing set-up Tilt Wheel Running Boards Floor mats front and rear Dashmat Custom grill Bug guard/deflector Side window tint Fiberglass Shell (over $1,000 new) with fully carpeted and padded storage/bedliner that converts into a bed with storage underneath. After-market hand-painted pinstriping by Ron Hernandez Oversize Goodyear AT Tires (6 months old) The Bluebook Retail values are: Excellent $7,665 Good $7,215 Fair $6,665 I would put my truck somewhere between Good and Excellent, but closer to the latter. If anyone here is interested, I'll take a FIRM $6,500. Buyer will pay in one installment at time of pickup, no trades. BUT...you need to let me know ASAP, i.e. before I make the deal on a new vehicle. Also, I'll take some photos tomorrow and add them to this thread.

Wasn't sure where to put this, but...stopped by to wish Amanda and all my friends.....

Brent, Some background on the photo: I was crouched down with my feet in the water and used a 20mm lens the morning after the snowfall. Location is about 75 yards down the road from the driveway into the resort I owned at the time north of Vallecito Lake near Durango, CO. The stream is the Vallecito River, which flows from the high-country into the lake. The bridge going over the creek was only about 5' behind me. The mountains in the background are in the southern end of the Weminuche Wilderness Area. We had to endure that view every day from our kitchen window.