Outdoor Writer

Okay, after a couple PMs from newer members asking where they could see some of my pix, I decided to post some here since they are scattered about elsewhere in a few threads. Enjoy. -TONY Last year's CO 'management' mule deer: BC bears: VERY old photo scan of my best Kaibab buck: Randy Epperson (Dogman) with my lion: 2003 Hunt in South Africa: 2004 hunt in New Zealand:

Matt, My problem with elk has been two-fold. Over the first two decades I hunted them I was never concerned about trophy quality. I killed smaller bulls in AZ, CO, NM and ID, but only two were 5x5 or better, with the biggest a 5x6 that might have scored 300 or so. Then when getting a permit here eventually meant saying a lot of prayers, I finally drew for the 22N late season. On opening morning, however, I was too sick to go out and hunt, So I never got out of bed and stayed that way for two days. On the 3rd morning, I decided to reluctantly venture forth and shoot the first bull I might spot. That too was a smallish 5x6 with a couple broken tines. The next day I went to the doc, and he told me I had pneumonia. I've killed several exotic sheep, and it can be fun under the right circumstances if it isn't a shooting-fish-in-barrel thing. Take it for what it is and enjoy the trip. -TONY

Matt, The ones that make me jealous are the sheep and BIG elk pix. I have yet to hunt sheep, and of the 14 elk I've killed, none met my criteria to become a wall hanger. So I'm still hoping for a sheep permit and still looking for a BIG elk. As far as contributing to this thread, I'm guessing most members here have already seen many of my in-the-field pix I have already posted in other threads. -TONY

DB, I did a search and didn't find an article on that deer. Seems strange I would have missed a 195" buck, but I guess I did. Great buck, too. -TONY

Who dat be?? If it was a true hog, I probably wrote an article on it. -TONY

Some super trophies, folks! I'm jealous of many of them! -TONY

I did an article on Kirk's great buck for the Aug. issue of California Game & Fish magazine. Unfortunately, it isn't sold here in AZ; only the Rocky Mt. issue is. -TONY

Yuppers! -TONY

Some years are better than others. Looks as if that was one of the not-so-good ones. -TONY

I doubt that will ever happen, but even then...the survey is only as good as the info provided when it comes to both game and people management decisions. Those who lie on the cards do nothing for either and in fact can cause a detrimental impact on game when they claim they were unsuccessful yet killed. -TONY

Archery deer hunters who received a hunt permit-tag through the draw process are not required to call the toll free Archery Deer Harvest Reporting telephone number to report their deer kill. We encourage hunters to return the Hunter Survey they will receive in the mail. Unit 12A archery deer hunters are not required to check their deer for inspection at the Jacob Lake Checking Station. Seems pretty clear. The reason: since they KNOW someone drew a permit and where they hunted, they can mail out a survey card just as they do for the general hunts. -TONY

I bought the pulls online from some outfit in Oklahoma and the faucet set-up from one in OH. They wanted close to $800 for the latter locally. Now I'm sitting here chuckling a bit about your comment on the appliances. The stove in the one photo is a Maytag; it's more than 10 years old. Never a problem. The fridge in the photo below is an Amana; it's almost 15 yrs. old. The only repair has been the installation of two new icemakers in the fridge. Just goes to show the adage, "Everyone's mileage may vary" is quite true. -TONY

Ya... when you're getting pricing of $400 for all the door/drawer pull knobs in the kitchen alone... an $80 book is pretty minuscule. Buy my wife loves the drawer pulls and that's all that matters... Right? :D cmc I know the feeling. All the copper ones in our kitchen cost me about that when I did the remodel a couple years ago. That wasn't near as bad as the cost for the copper-plated kitchen faucet setup at $650! I'd hate to think what they would cost with the price of copper today. -TONY

I'm sure you'd be the hit of the rally -- that is if you got by the secret service dudes who talk into their wrists. -TONY

Nah, it isn't a contradiction, nor is it surprising that a LOT of guys apply for the Dec. permits. That doesn't mean they won't accept permits for an earlier season. That fact is proved true when ALL of the leftover permits disappear rather quickly once they become available. It's just the nature of the beast that many hunters will apply for the most difficult permit to pull as their 1st choice. If the department uses first&second choice applications to determine demand, then it is not a contradiction. If the survey takers really wanted to just go hunting, they would have selected these early hunts to guarantee their draw an go hunting. But they didn't. Of course they didn't because they already KNOW there will be less desirable permits available to them in the 3,4,5 choices and with the first-come/first-served leftovers. So they play the long odds early. I did it for many years, though my early choices were for the Kaibab while Coues hunts occupied the 2nd three. I quit that five years ago and don't even fill in the last three choices now. Sooo...knowing that happens, G&F removes X number of permits from a Dec. hunt that has a high success rate to another hunt where the rate is half as much or less. By doing that, they can not only add the permits from the Dec. hunt, but feasibly DOUBLE the number yet not have any more of a biological impact on the deer population in that unit. And, using simple math, more opportunites to hunt deer are available to EVERYONE. What I can't understand is how someone sees the removal of permits from a Dec. hunt as a drop in quality. That IS a contradiction. I'm not sure of the number of times I've read here about having more hunters in the woods means a less-than-quality hunt. Then when the number of hunters is cut, it still means a drop in quality. Geez, it can't go both ways. -TONY Reducing the number of December tags to 15 in u27, or to 40 in the much larger u33 & u36B is not needed for quality. U36B encompasses over 500 square miles. When the permits were at 10%, were those hunters complaining about crowding?-I didn't hear it. If lowering the Dec permit numbers increases quality, then just having ONE permit would be the epitome- UH-HUh? Now wouldn't it be a dandy hunt with one permit and a month long season? Talk about ultimate quality. But of course, the quality complaint of too many hunters in the field is not new to this year's proposals; it has gone on for while here. -TONY

Nah, it isn't a contradiction, nor is it surprising that a LOT of guys apply for the Dec. permits. That doesn't mean they won't accept permits for an earlier season. That fact is proved true when ALL of the leftover permits disappear rather quickly once they become available. It's just the nature of the beast that many hunters will apply for the most difficult permit to pull as their 1st choice. Sooo...knowing that happens, G&F removes X number of permits from a Dec. hunt that has a high success rate to another hunt where the rate is half as much or less. By doing that, they can not only add the permits from the Dec. hunt, but feasibly DOUBLE the number yet not have any more of a biological impact on the deer population in that unit. And, using simple math, more opportunites to hunt deer are available to EVERYONE. What I can't understand is how anyone sees the removal of permits from a Dec. hunt as a drop in quality. That IS a contradiction. I'm not sure of the number of times I've read here about having more hunters in the woods means a less-than-quality hunt. Then when the number of hunters is cut, it still means a drop in quality. Geez, it can't go both ways. -TONY

Yeah, one of the more famous liars in the history of this country. Oh wait, he's probably no different than most politicians. -TONY

Well, ain't that something. Actually, I already knew that, thus the reason I mentioned it. I recall where they nailed some guy for a bull elk several years ago when they checked the records of a taxidermist. A famous dude named Forest once said: "Stupid is as stupid does." -TONY

Yeah, there ya go. Then folks can bitch even more about how badly G&F manages the resource Wouldn't it be something if a guy kills a buck and posts the photos here. Then he goes about being "untruthful" on the survey card, and G&F happens to match up the two. Or perhaps they compare taxidermists' reports to survey cards? I wonder if they would have any legal recourse where something like falsifying information would kick in?? BTW, "untruthful" is like lying, no? But it's only a "little white lie." -TONY

Are the successful hunters the ones more apt to return the cards? No, I don't think so. At least the stats I have don't indicate that. Just look at the example from the book; only 18 of 43 who returned the cards tagged a deer. Do successful hunters lie about the kill and say NO, so that the published success rate will be lower and will subsequently draw less competition? We can only speculate on that. That said, I'm sure SOME hunters are less than honest, and that's unfortunate. But the only way to prevent it would be to make a PHYSICAL check mandatory every time someone goes afield, whether successful or not. That's the way the Kaibab hunts used to be years ago. BUT...you ain't gonna see that happen because it takes too much manpower to have check stations spread all over the state during all of the various deer seasons. Are hunters lying about wounding and not recovering game? See above in regards to speculation. The recent stats I have do have the reported wounding figures included. My GUESS is they are very much under the actual rates. Has a survey been done to all hunters drawn for a hunt to see how accurate an extrapolation would be? Not sure what you mean here by a "survey." In the 2007 report, surveys cards went to EVERY hunter in many units. But again, the returns do not number the same as mailed. If you mean a follow-up phone survey or such, I doubt it. -TONY

Over the last few years, I've gone round and round with a couple folks at G&F over the survey cards. In fact, I had such a discussion just two days ago. Anyone who has read the How To HunT Coues Deer book would have seen how I addressed it with this excerpt: LOTTERY PERMITS All firearms hunters must go through a computer lottery to obtain a deer hunting permit for Arizona and for certain units in New Mexico. A bowhunter may purchase a tag over the counter, however. If you’re a nonresident or not familiar with the hunting units and decide to apply for a draw permit for a do-it-yourself hunt in either of these states, do some research. Try to contact other hunters, guides or even the game departments for information and advice. Also study the hunt statistics from prior years, but consider the success rates and actual harvest with some skepticism because the figures are usually extrapolated from mail-in survey cards. The return rate of these cards for almost every whitetail hunt in Arizona averages between 25 and 45 percent. A real-time example from the 2002 season shows a harvest of 42 deer and a success rate of 42 percent for the December hunt in unit 36B, where 100 permits were issued. Only 43 hunters returned the cards. That means 18 of the 43 reported a deer kill, but with such a small sampling, the figures could be way off. Perhaps three-quarters of the hunters who didn’t send the cards back were unsuccessful, or it could be the other way around. So just use the stats as reference points to compare one unit with another. The argument they often use is that the survey cards are no different than the types of polls conducted by phone, etc. where the margin of error is generally within 4-5 percentage points. IOW, the cards that ARE returned show the general trend for those that do not get returned. And they are probably correct in that IF the sampling is fairly large -- i.e. in units with a fairly large number of permits. Where the problem comes is in those units with fewer permits, thus a too small a sampling to accurately reflect a trend. -TONY

Here ya go in context. The point doesn't change. (see below) Duh!!! BTW, the delegates from the electoral college generally vote according to the popular vote. That's why every individual's vote counts. -TONY AND... NOT voting can change the outcome to something we don't want whether it's by popular vote or through the electoral college. Even if the choices aren't what we would like, that non-vote matters because regardless, the election poceeds and the outcome stands. So yes, a vote even for the lesser of two evils is better than none at all. -TONY

Duh!!! BTW, the delegates from the electoral college generally vote according to the popular vote. That's why every individual's vote counts. -TONY

Bingo! Makes no diff if you add one by voting for either Clinton or Obama or substract one by not voting for McCain . Either results in an advantage for the Democraps. One less vote for McCain merely means the Dem. candidate needs one less to win. -TONY

I have all the harvest stats for the gun, ML and Junior hunts, including the breakdown of survey cards by unit, but nothing for the archery hunts. That report won't be done until at least mid-May because they weren't draw hunts. So the department has to wait for the license vendors to send in their 2007 sales reports, etc. I do have both general and archery elk reports, as well. -TONY