Outdoor Writer

Yup. Time to outlaw them all. -TONY

One other thing I forgot to add in regards to using salt/bait and cams. I think some folks make an erroneous assumption that only bowhunters are doing it when in fact gun hunters are also doing it. Somone might liken it to a growing cancer, but I won't. -TONY

We've discussed the reporting methods and whether it should be mandatory here several times. So rehashing it all isn't something I have time to do right now. In fact, I was even reluctant to get into this thread because of that. That' said, I AGREE everyone should have to report, but it probably won't be any more accurate than the old method because lots of people will fib. In fact, the only SURE way to get accurate harvest stats is the way it has been done in many states -- a mandatory PHYSICAL checkout of a kill that gets a seal similar to one used on bighorn sheep. But then the same chronic complainers would bitch about it because of more regulations and inconvenience. The unfortunate fact is regulations become necessary for two reasons: 1. To protect the resource 2. to eliminate practices that provide unfair or seemingly unethical advantages in regards to #1. Sometimes those practices start on a very small scale and then grow into much larger and more detrimental numbers. The regulation about flying just prior to or during a season came under #2 and mostly as a result of the growing use of chute planes. The dove regulation resulted because too many "hunters" took advantage and literally became poachers by repeatedly breaking the law about daily limits on doves. The use of bait -- whether salt or food stuffs -- along with trail cams is one of the growing ones. All one needs to do is consistently look at this site to see that. Me thinks part of the problem is an inability to police our own ranks when it comes to questionable issues, and the mentality that every hunter should march along in lockstep is the wrong road to take. I will NEVER support something that *I* believe is wrong regardless if it is legal or not. To do otherwise would be a compromise and betrayal of my own ethics. Do I favor every regulation or rule that is made? Nope, far from it. But I also don't see some grand conspiracy behind them being made. And it gets real tiresome reading all the "game department is out to get us" like comments. That's likely because I'm a bit jaded since I talk to the folks at AZ G&F several times a week, and some of the conversations are off-the-record, so to speak. The long and short of it is I put more stock in what the professionals think and do than I put on the opinions of the common folk, and the latter includes me, despite my education in things wildlife related. Why? Because I'm not on the ground so to speak in the everyday management of the state' wildlife. More folks need to realize that the department's focus is two-fold -- managing wildlife (that's ALL OF THE WILDLIFE, not only those animals with targets on them ) and managing people. Both are intertwined, and when it comes to managing people...well you probably know the adage about opinions. -TONY

Then do what I do; apply for those hunts that appeal to you and don't apply for the ones that don't. Leave those other hunts where they hide all the mature critters for those who care only about getting a permit and being able to hunt at all. -TONY

Okay, I tried to answer the question since it sounded as if you didn't "understand the numbers." That said, perhaps you can clarify the relationship between that question and the "...a few people sitting over a block of salt in which a buck might wander by every other day" because I can't see a relationship between the two dissimilar topics. The point?? I agree that the harvest stats MIGHT not be totally accurate, but that goes across the board -- not for just one type of hunt and not another. In fact, I've have many discussions with G&F folks about it over the years and even denigrated how it's done in the Coues deer book. But I'm guessing those stats are a bit more accurate than pure speculation by anyone. -TONY

That would be a good question to ask the folks who draw those permits. For a small charge, G&F will supply the list. As for the 2nd question, an ethical hunter obeys the law and only does what's legal, no?? Afterall, I keep reading all this "if it's legal it's ethical." So the converse must be true as well. Otherwise, he's a poacher. -TONY

Depends on who you ask. No doubt many guys would say there is no difference and both are wrong. -TONY

The kind of numbers in the field now are little different than they were two+ decades ago. In fact, there were three times the number of deer permits available. And that would have continued to be the case IF the state's deer herds had maintained the aberrant numbers that were due to several HIGHLY unusual years of rainfall. No one complained about the number of hunters in the field back then. In fact, most hunters were thankful to be able to hunt. AND..that is likely the case with MOST hunters in this state today, contrary to the minority who constantly complain. -TONY

I don't think there are any laws preventing individuals from planting food plots, but on the whole, they probably wouldn' fare any better than the deer's natural food sources. Both take moisture to maintain, and when that is present, there's no need for supplemental feeding; deer will get all the nutrition they need from the natural foods. As for G&F doing it, it won't ever happen and shouldn't unless there is some very unnatural occurence that might cause mass starvation. -TONY

It's not really rocket science. If you take away permits for a hunt that has 40% success on average such as Dec. WT one and move them to a hunt with only 15-17% success such as an early Oct. hunt, you can increase permits even more for the Oct hunt and still keep the total harvest for the two hunts together about the same because those permits that were moved will have less than half the success rate during the early season. So...more opportuntities for more INDIVIDUAL hunters with no detrimental effect on the deer population. For discussion sake, some hypothetical figures. Before the change: Dec. hunt -- 500 permits, 40% success -- 200 dead deer Oct. hunt -- 500 permits, 15% success -- 75 dead deer Total harvest: 275 deer After removing 450 permits from one to the other: Dec. hunt -- 50 permits , 40% success -- 20 dead deer Oct. hunt -- 950 permits, 15% -- 142 dead deer Total harvest -- 162 Adding more opportunity for the early hunt to keep total harvest the same: Dec. hunt -- 50 permits, 40% success -- 20 deer Oct. hunt -- 1700 permits, 15% success -- 255 deer Total harvest -- 275 deer Any questions??? -TONY

On the grand scheme of things, do you seriously think a few piles of corn has any nutritional effect on a wild, free-roaming deer herd? In fact, while deer actively eat such, whole corn kernels have very little nutritional value due to the low level of protein and lack of fiber for a deer's rumen to work on. If someone really wanted to provide supplemental feeding, they would use such things as oats, alfalfa, soy beans, etc. -- items much higher in protein. But hey, if spreading a lot of corn with thoughts of somehow helping deer SURVIVE, go for it. Of course, then sitting over those piles so you can then KILL them would be kinda counter-productive, no? -TONY

Right. Salt definitely provides some much needed nourishment. -TONY

Don't be too concerned folks. I have it from a good source that someone is now working on a camo pattern that resembles a corn feeder, and it actually makes that magical "whirring" sound the deer associate with a free meal. So once a guy gets settled in his stand or blind, all he needs to do is flip the little switch and the deer come a runnin' to get killed. -TONY

Well if I draw it as my 2nd choice, I'll be looking for you to provide a honeyhole. -TONY

Elk: Unit 1 late rifle bull Unit 3A/3C late rifle bull Pronghorn: Unit 10 rifle Unit 19B rilfe

Below is the lead from one of my old articles on javelina. -TONY The scientific types say prehistoric peccaries once roamed much of the United States but eventually went the way of the dinosaurs. Today, only the collared peccary commonly known as the javelina, likely a migrant from Mexico, inhabits America’s southwest desert areas. The evidence from archeological sites indicate the javelina probably arrived here after 1700 A.D. Excavations of any sites that existed before that date have yielded no bones or other remnants that could be tied to the collared peccary -- an unusual finding considering the javelina makes for good eating. In the mid-1700s, two Jesuit missionaries first wrote about javelina by noting the use of “musk hogs” for food by the Sonoran Indians of northern Mexico. Then by the mid-1800s, the early explorers and trappers in Arizona were writing about the wild swine, pig, musk hog or whatever other name to they could conjure up. Many people erroneously believe the javelina’s name came about because of it pointed snout or its exaggerated canine teeth, often referred to as tusks and maybe a kin to the spear-like javelin. As a biologist at the Arizona Game and Fish Department, Jerry Day spent 25 years on javelina research. In his definitive book, JAVELINA: RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT IN ARIZONA, Day claims the common name likely resulted from "jabalina," the Spanish word for a female wild boar. The light, narrow band of hair around the javelina's neck provided its taxonomical name Tayassu tajucu -- the collared peccary. Although many folks often call them pigs, the peccaries have no biological connection to the swine family. According to Day, the first use of “javelina” showed up in some writings during the 1800s in Texas. The Spanish pronunciation of a “j”sounding like an “h” likely resulted in various spellings such as “havelenas” or “havalinas.” The earliest reference in Arizona happened when the State Game Warden declared the javelina as a “game animal” in 1929. Nearly 25 years passed before sport hunters realized they could have fun chasing the unique mammal. Historians frequently recount a story about the late Winston Churchill's experience at a dinner for some of England's more affluent citizens. As was common for Mr. Churchill, he over indulged on some liquid spirits. A prim and proper lady at the table became somewhat miffed at his behavior. She turned to him and indignantly remarked, "Mr. Churchill, you are drunk!" The statesman frowned, then curtly responded to the righteous matron. "Madam, when I wake up in the morning I will be sober. When you wake up, you will still be ugly." Some folks feel the same way about the prehistoric-looking javelina, a somewhat homely critter that chews cactus and smells bad. Yet despite the javelina’s Rodney Dangerfield reputation of no respect among some, the little critter has endeared itself in the hearts of many hunters over the last few decades. For the thousands of hunters who traipse over the southwestern foothills each year in search of the little desert ghosts, the adage, "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder," rings quite true.

Super tale and pix, Jim. -TONY

Okay, let's have a little fun. I had posted several threads on another site that contain photos for folks to ID and thought some of you here might enjoy doing such. Sooooo...here we go. I have included a numbered list at the end of this message, which you can just copy/paste into a reply with your guesses after each entry. PLEASE do not reply with a QUOTE where all the images are duplicated again. That makes for very slow load times. Since there is no "lounge" type or photo section on this site, I'll use this one for all the quizzes. We'll start with some birds. I'll toss in a few gimmies so no one feels left out. Please be SPECIFIC in your answers for each bird or critter as to species and/or subspecies. -TONY BIRD #1 BIRD #2 BIRD #3 BIRD #4 BIRD #5 BIRD #6 BIRD #7 BIRD #8 BIRD #9 BIRD #10 BIRD #1 - BIRD #2 - BIRD #3 - BIRD #4 - BIRD #5 - BIRD #6 - BIRD #7 - BIRD #8 - BIRD #9 - BIRD #10 -

How bout Gray jay ? Taadaaaaaaaaa!!!! Or often referred to as "camp robbers" or somewhat erroneously as Canada jays. Complete and correct list below. -TONY BIRD #1 - Canada Geese BIRD #2 -Bluethroat Hummingbird BIRD #3 -Brown Pelican BIRD #4 -Gray Jay BIRD #5 -Mourning Dove BIRD #6 -Western bluebird BIRD #7 -Trumpeter Swan BIRD #8 -Pyrrhuloxia BIRD #9 -Bullock's Oriole BIRD #10 -Ostrich

Hint #2: #4 has a color as part of its name and it ain't the color blue. -TONY

Hint #2: #4 has a color as part of its name and it ain't the color blue. -TONY

A 1 in 10 is a faster twist than 1 in 12. IOW, the bullet makes a full revolution for every 10 inches rather than 12 inches. Thus, it's spinning faster -- more revolutions -- before it exits a barrel of the same length. -TONY Edited: Whoops, Lark must have been replying at the same time.

Nope. It ain't even blue. Geez, I can't believe you guys. #4 is basically one of the gimmies! -TONY

Nope. Besides, that was already someone's guess. -TONY

Nope. A hint: photo taken in the Colo. high country near Gunnison. -TONY