Outdoor Writer

Jeepers, To save you time, the web site is about useless with very little information on it unless you need a recipe for venison chile.

Good job, Troy!! I really enjoy it when young lads such as you are successful. -TONY

That is one dandy ram! Congrats. -TONY

TJ, I had posted a some pix of a couple javelina hunts from the 1960s in one of the other threads here. I'll see if I can locate them. I also have some scans -- bad ones -- of a few prints from our steenkin peeg hunts. I need to find them on my HD. In the meantime, the following is a snippet from one of the first articles I wrote on javelina way back in the early 1970s. It reccounts my very first successful hunt when I was a tenderfoot of 20 years old nearly a half century ago. But I still laugh when I read about it. -TONY ********** My first javelina hunt took place in 1963, a year after my arrival from New Jersey. I was 20-years-old then, and chasing squirrels and rabbits comprised my meager hunting experience. Two months before opening day, Bill McCurdy asked me to join him and two companions for the hunt. At the time, pen-raised "pigs" were the only ones with which I was familiar. Concealing my ignorance, I quickly agreed to join the trio. By the following week having a few phone conversations and reading some books made me very apprehensive about the hunt. I discovered our quarry-to-be looked like an over-grown rat with a short tail and flat nose that supposedly possessed a liking for attacking hunters. I had purchased a 30/30 lever action prior to a canceled deer hunt a few months earlier. A new Stetson and a .44 magnum handgun, both bought a week before the javelina season's opening day, completed my Western ensemble. For a while, the hunt went as planned; we ate breakfast in the dark, wished each other luck and ventured off in different directions in quest of a trophy. Shortly thereafter, Murphy's law took over, turning my day into one better suited as the plot for a Chevy Chase movie. A 100 yards from camp, a cholla cactus attached itself to my leg. I painfully removed the offending barbs. Hopping from rock to rock, I began crossing Pinto Creek in the dark and nearly made it; fortunately, the water was only knee-deep. By noon I had climbed half-way up a ridge but soon realized I had erred in my judgment. The slope was steeper than I first thought and about six inches of marble-sized, rough-edged volcanic gravel covered it. For every step I went up, I slid down at least two. Earlier, my down jacket had eliminated the chill of the March morning, but now it became a hindrance. Stripping to my short sleeve shirt, I tied the jacket around my waist and placed the rifle sling over both my head and shoulder so I could use both hands to claw at the loose rocks. Once I reached the top I gingerly lowered my battered body onto a nearby boulder. Raw, bloody fingers raised my canteen to anxious lips, while perspiration dripped from beneath my Stetson. Suddenly, a grunt disturbed my rehabilitation. The sound had come from behind me. Trying to keep the rest of me motionless, I cautiously swiveled my head. With its nose sniffing the air, my prey stared at me from 30 yards away. Other dark shapes moved through the brush. As I stood slowly and deliberately, my legs began shaking. Tales about charging beasts came to mind. "Don't panic," I told myself. "Be calm." I debated with myself whether removing the rifle from over my head would take too much time or spook the javelina. I decided to use the Ruger instead and winced when the click of the hammer locking into place broke the stillness My unsteady legs and heavy breathing caused the single-action revolver to move up and down, left and right. When the sights crossed the target for the third time, the pistol roared. The recoil pushed it and my right hand past my head, barely missing a favorite ear. The bullet tore a chunk of wood from the mesquite tree behind the hog. Motionless, it continued to stare at me. A dozen more pigs stepped into the open and milled around, apparently undisturbed by the handgun's deafening report. The .44 boomed three more times. The last shot thudded into the ground, splattering dirt and rocks in the pig's direction. The gun also tore a chunk of flesh out of hand where my thumb was attached to it. Unscathed, my primary target swapped ends, snorted a few times and headed for a thick manzanita grove. With bristles erect, the rest of the herd followed. I holstered the smoking pistol, removed the .30/30 and noisily thrashed through the head-high trees with the grace of a fox in a hen house. I was positive the commotion would surely send the fleeing pigs into the next county. Intead, I saw a lone hog standing broadside in the open, a mere 50 feet away. I soon discovered my marksmanship with a rifle far outclassed my accuracy with the handgun; my first Arizona trophy became history. Bill was eating lunch when I walked into camp. He noticed the hog hanging from my shoulder and paused in mid-bite. "What did you do, rassle'em to death?" The manzanita's sharp branches had tattered my shirt. Deep, red scratches, with a spot of blood here and there, made both my arms and face look like an ill-conceived road map. The hastily bandaged cut from the handgun's recoil didn't help my appearance, either. Since that inept but successful first hunt, I have pursued the shy javelina several more times. Each hunt has taught me more about the elusive pig's habits and haunts. Other experiences have clarified some of the myths associated with the javelina, especially the one about their penchant for hostile assaults.

Bill, As you might know, I did an annual Steenkin' Peeg Hunt for a bunch of guys from all over the country for many years. We always hunted either the WM or SC reservations so we never had to worry about evreyone getting a permit. It got to be quite an affair with a camp and food that had many guys coming back every year just to eat. I lost count of the ones I've killed here in AZ and in Texas, but it was enough to where I decided I didn't need to kill anymore about 15 years ago. So when we had the hunts, I did nothing but play camp mom for the rest of the crew. One of the guys from NY had his javelina smoked somewhere near his house one year and brought a big hunk to the hunt the next year. It was the best javelina meat I've eaten. I used to have mine done at the Real Texas BBQ that was on Bethany Home near I17 in Phx. When I heated it, I would slice it thin and put a liberal coating of a tangy bbq sauce on it. Then I put it on a rack in an oven pan with about 1/2" of water in it and slowly heated it at about 225 degs. It was both moist and flavorful. -TONY

Happy Birthday, ol' man

That's a dandy cat. He looks like he might be a tad larger than mine below, but not by much. Grong's daddy led me to it a LOT of years ago. Whadya think, Dogman?? -TONY

Heck no! Those two years in a Catholic school no doubt had a detrimental effect on his common sense. -TONY

I started a new thread with this topic here after researching the law pertaining to the NR/outfitter quota for the thread in the Hunting in New Mexico section. We've had some discussion here about what might become of baiting game other than bear in AZ. Below are some excerpts from NM's game laws/regulations that are ALREADY in effect. -TONY TITLE 19 NATURAL RESOURCES AND WILDLIFE CHAPTER 31 HUNTING AND FISHING PART 10 HUNTING AND FISHING-MANNER AND METHOD OF TAKING 19.31.10.7 DEFINITIONS: Q. "Baiting" shall mean the placing, exposing, depositing, distributing, or scattering of any salt, grain, scent or other feed on or over areas where hunters are attempting to take protected game mammals or game birds. ***** TITLE 19 NATURAL RESOURCES AND WILDLIFE CHAPTER 31 HUNTING AND FISHING PART 14 ELK 19.31.14.7 DEFINITIONS: D. “Baiting” shall mean the placing, exposing, depositing, distributing, or scattering of any salt, grain, scent or other feed on or over areas where hunters are attempting to take elk. 19.31.14.10 ELK MANNER AND METHOD REQUIREMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS: G. Use of baits or scents: It shall be unlawful for anyone to take or attempt to take any elk by use of baits or scents as defined in 19.31.10.7 NMAC. Scent masking agents on one's person are allowed. ***** TITLE 19 NATURAL RESOURCES AND WILDLIFE CHAPTER 31 HUNTING AND FISHING PART 13 DEER 19.31.13.7 DEFINITIONS: B. “Baiting” shall mean the placing, exposing, depositing, distributing, or scattering of any salt, grain, scent or other feed on or over areas where hunters are attempting to take deer. 19.31.13.10 DEER MANNER AND METHOD REQUIREMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS: G. Use of baits or scents: It shall be unlawful for anyone to take or attempt to take any deer by use of baits or scents as defined in 19.31.10.7 NMAC. Scent masking agents on one's person are allowed.

Perhaps, but perhaps not -- at least in the case of coyotes. Again, quoting from the NM statute: "...where hunters are attempting to take protected game mammals or game birds." The distinction should be obvious. -TONY

If you're talking about the case here in AZ, it involved both shooting the stray horses and then putting them out as bait to kill bears, which in itself is illegal. Jelly donuts and honey aren't the only baits bears like. As for finding something dead per chance, the NM law states: "....placing, exposing, depositing, distributing, or scattering." So if any part of that in regards to the dead carcass applies, it's illegal. Obviously, both the game warden and perhaps a judge will ultimately decide the legality of such a citation. So the hunter will be the one who must decide whether to put that decision in their hands. My now departed grandfather was my hunting partner for 15 years here in AZ. He hunted with me until he was into his late 80s and died at 94. During that time he always told me and my kids when they were growing up: “Obey the law and do only what you feel is right. If there's a doubt, don't do it.” I still abide by his wisdom and even take it a bit beyond the legal aspects as far as the, "If there's a doubt, don't do it." -TONY

Doug, The scent thing is certainly interesting, and I would agree that it basically bans the stuff mentioned here. Also, I'm not too sure tarsal glands or cow urine on one's self would quailfy as a "scent masking AGENT." Me thinks what they had in mind were those types of masking agents sold by Atsko , Hunter's Specialties, etc. that supposedly eliminate (mask) human scent by using a biochemical reaction with bacteria. That's a lot different than trying to use pee to cover human scent. Jeff, I have no doubt you are correct about everyone knowing what the law is in NM. That's one reason I started this thread. It might just save some folks -- as least those who care -- a citation. -TONY

Hmmm. So he was Taulman's BIL, huh? -TONY

Kev, Yeah, I knew they had been around for a while, but I thought some of the wording was interesting, especially the inclusion of "scent" in the statute. Here, it's more like before MLB outlawed steroids and HGH. -TONY

Is this who you mean? -TONY New Mexico - Johnson, Gary E. - Republican - 1995-2003

I wrote a report for my IN THE FIELD column in Rocky Mt. Game & Fish magazine when this statute pertaining to the quotas was enacted by the New Mexico state legislature way back in 1997 or so. If I recall it came about because of the lobbying by the state's outfitters. -TONY The statute that applies in total direct from the NM state laws: 17-3-16. Funds; special drawings for licenses. A. The director of the department of game and fish may provide special envelopes and application blanks when a special drawing is to be held to determine the persons to receive licenses. Money required to be submitted with these applications, if enclosed in the special envelopes, need not be deposited with the state treasurer but may be held by the director until the successful applicants are determined. At that time, the fees of the successful applicants shall be deposited with the state treasurer and the fees submitted by the unsuccessful applicants shall be returned to them. B. Beginning with the licenses issued from a special drawing for a hunt code on public lands that commences on or after April 1, 1997: (1) twenty-two percent of the licenses shall be issued to nonresidents divided as follows: (a.) twelve percent of the licenses to be drawn by nonresidents who will be guided by a New Mexico outfitter or guide; and (b.) ten percent of the licenses to be drawn by nonresidents who are not required to be guided by a New Mexico outfitter or guide; and (2) seventy-eight percent of the licenses shall be issued to residents of New Mexico. C. If the number of nonresidents or residents who apply for licenses pursuant to the provisions of Paragraphs (1) and (2) of Subsection B of this section does not constitute the allocated percentages for either category of nonresidents or residents, then the additional licenses available shall be granted to the other category of nonresidents or residents. D. If the determination of the percentages in Subsection B of this section yields a fraction of: (1) five-tenths or greater, the number of licenses to be issued shall be rounded up to the next whole number; and (2) less than five-tenths, the number of licenses shall be rounded down to the next whole number. E. The fee for a nonresident license for a special drawing in a high-demand hunt covered in Subsection B of this section shall be assessed at the same rate as a license for nonresident quality elk or quality deer. As used in this subsection, "high-demand hunt" means: (1) a hunt where the total number of nonresident applicants for a hunt code in each unit exceeds twenty-two percent of the total applicants and where the total applicants for a hunt exceeds the number of licenses available based on application data indicating that this criteria occurred in each of the two immediately preceding years; or (2) an additional hunt code designated by the department of game and fish as a quality hunt.

They are available from G&F but they aren't cheap, especially if you're wanting the list for the whole state. -TONY

I'VE WALKED THE LINE … HAVE YOU? By Dr. Robert D. Brown Though we may not realize it, many of us who hunt big game are approaching a line in the sand. No one will tell us where that line is, and we may not even know it when we cross it. In fact, there may not be any obvious consequences for us when we cross the line. Likewise, the game we hunt is approaching a similar line, with the same vagaries, lack of clarity, and lack of obvious consequences the hunters face. But the long-term consequences of crossing these lines will be significant indeed. The lines I am referring to are the ones you cross from being a hunter to being a shooter, and when big game changes from being wildlife to being domesticated livestock. We are now somewhere on the continuum between the Native American, dressed in buckskins and wielding his spear, stalking wily deer, elk, moose, or bear and the modern farmer or rancher who dispatches a docile, farm-raised sheep with his .22 before preparing it for dinner. Technology has allowed the hunter to gain more and more advantage over his prey, from seemingly innocuous things like camouflage clothing and high-powered rifles to telescopic sights, listening devices, range finders, Doe-in-Heat and other scents, and Deer Suckers and other lures. In the Wal-Mart in Kerrville, Texas, near my former Hill Country deer lease, I purchased a Feeder Repeater made by Moultrie Feeders. The front of the package depicts two trophy-size whitetails and states, "We make the call, you make the shot," and "Sounds like an automatic deer feeder." Yes, that's right, for $4.95 you can buy a battery-powered gizmo that fits in the palm of your hand and makes the sound of a deer feeder going off. You don't even have to buy the corn! On the back of the package, quotes are taken from a Wildlife Society Bulletin article by Dr. Scott Henke titled, "Do white-tailed deer react to the dinner bell ?" (WSB 25:2:291-195). The quotes include, "A recent study from Texas demonstrated that with a little training deer would arrive at a timed feeder when it goes off," and "Deer can easily be trained to show up at a particular time and place," and "Some deer respond from the sound alone and will run to the sound." Most hunters I know feel that this device clearly crosses the line. But where in that continuum are we, and where should we be? I'd argue that Native American hunters were not necessarily ethical by modern standards. They drove buffalo over cliffs to kill them, set baited traps, and set fires to drive game. In other continents jungle dwellers used poisoned arrows. None of that would pass the Boone and Crockett Club's Records or Ethics Committees. But these people had to hunt to survive or they would perish — we don't. A lot has been written on the topic of why we hunt. Not long ago, a member of The Wildlife Society sent out an e-mail to officers asking us to list the benefits of hunting in a modern society. For me the answers were easy: 1. Hunting is an important means of controlling wildlife populations, to prevent overpopulation and possibly irreversible damage to habitat. 2. Hunting is a family-oriented activity, with most hunters learning from their fathers, brothers, or spouses. 3. Hunting requires the hunter to know and appreciate nature — the biology and habits of the game animals and the importance of good wildlife and habitat management. 4. Hunting is a healthy outdoor activity, requiring physical fitness, shooting skills, and outdoor awareness. 5. Hunting helps maintain a heritage and tradition of living off the land, environmental ethics, and an appreciation of skills needed to survive in a preelectronic world. I received only one response (which was from another TWS officer and Professional B&C Club member): "Don't forget that game meat is a healthy food, and many of us enjoy eating it!" So we can easily justify hunting as an activity in our culture, buy why do "we," that is, you and I, go hunting? Around the country there have been numerous university and game-agency studies over the years about why some people hunt, and why others do not. In general, people hunt to be in nature, to be with their friends and families, to pass on a heritage to their children, and because they like game meat. A fairly small minority of hunters are trophy hunters. Those who do not hunt, for the most part, simply have other things to do and have never been introduced to hunting. Some say they don't like the idea of killing, or don't like guns, and a few say hunting is too expensive or they don't have a place to go. A surprising number of non-hunters say they would like to go hunting if they had the chance. One of my favorite quotes about hunters is from Aldo Leopold, the father of wildlife management in this country. He said, "A man may not care for golf and still be human, but the man who does not like to see, hunt, photograph, or otherwise outwit birds or animals is hardly normal. He is super civilized, and I for one do not know how to deal with him." He also said, "Poets sing and hunters scale the mountain for one and the same reason — the thrill to beauty." In 1942 the Portuguese philosopher, Jose Ortega y Gasset wrote a book titled, Meditations on Hunting. In it the author states that the essence of hunting is to pit our senses, instincts, knowledge, and experiences against those of a wild animal. He said that we no longer hunt because we have to, but we continue hunting to remind us of who we are and where we came from. He said the greater the confrontation, the greater the satisfaction from the hunt. That is, a true hunter must know the biology and behavior of the game, must be in good physical shape, must practice marksmanship, must have good eyesight and hearing (although those can be remedied nowadays), and have experience in the game's habitat to test his or her instincts to stalk or at least not be seen or heard. But look at what is happening to hunting as an activity these days. In Figure 1, I depict the evolution of a hunter to a "shooter." I use the term shooter to describe the person who uses no more skill or instincts than that farmer killing his sheep for dinner. Most of us would not say it is wrong to use a high-powered rifle to take most game, although some find more challenge in using muzzleloaders or archery equipment. Most would not say camouflage clothes, face paint, tree stands, or telescopic sights are inappropriate. We use grunts or whistles to call deer and elk, but what about professionally-made, recorded calls? What about the fancy listening devices we see advertised in hunting magazines, or laser range-finders, or laser sights? The Boone and Crockett Club clearly states that game cannot be entered into the Record Book if the animals have been taken with electronic devices. But what about the ethics of using these devices to take the non-trophies most of us hunt? And let's not forget the scents, like doe urine, and baits, like Deer Suckers, that can be put out, and of course the ubiquitous corn feeders, where they are legally allowed. Are we crossing a line where we are just shooting an animal and not hunting it? Believe it or not, I'm not trying to be judgmental here. I've done many of these things myself, where they were legal. And I know that in some terrain, controlling the population of deer, for instance, would be nearly impossible if it were not for the use of bait. I recall a meeting of the South East Deer Study Group many years ago, which I attended as I left Mississippi State University as their Wildlife and Fisheries Department Head to go to Texas A&M University, to take a similar position there. At those annual meetings, there is an evening "Shootin' from the Hip" session, where controversial topics are debated. The Mississippi deer biologists were browbeating the Texas biologists because Texas allows hunting deer over bait. The Texans, however, countered that the Mississippians were unethical because they allowed the use of dogs. Ethics are what your culture allows them to be. High fences, for instance (Fig. 2), can be an advantage to the hunter, if they channelize the game. But they are more often used as a means of controlling the population of game and the quality of the habitat. I tend to "sit on the fence" on this issue, as I've seen both good and bad use of high fences. But fencing is part of what I deem the transformation of wild animals into domesticated animals. The Laplanders have domesticated reindeer to the point of milking them and harnessing them to sleds. New Zealanders farm red deer for meat and antlers, and Asians have domesticated water buffalo as draft animals. What goes into the process of domestication, and are we not on that slippery slope with the ways we are managing our deer? In Figure 2 you see the general trend. Whether it is sheep, cattle, goats, or deer, we first provide better habitat by clearings and plantings, and if that's not enough, we provide supplemental feed. We control predators so we'll have more lambs and calves, and perhaps more fawns. We certainly want to count our "herd" and mark them or perhaps use infrared trail cameras to identify the trophy deer. We can dip and vaccinate our calves and lambs, and also our deer if we catch them, or we can put anti-worming agents in the feed. Breeding has gotten completely out of hand. For decades we've heard of moving Michigan and Wisconsin deer to Southern states to breed, but in recent years artificial insemination of whitetails has become commonplace in some areas, and now Texas A&M University has a private company cloning whitetails. That's right — cloning! Skin cells from the ear of one superior buck have been grown in test tubes, and dozens of clones (not just identical twins, but actual clones) have been produced, which will be sold for princely sums to "shooters" to "harvest." There is obviously a lot of money in this business. A breeding buck in Texas recently sold for $650,000. The well-to-do that are into this activity are the ones pushing for private ownership of deer and other games species to protect their investments in these "superior animals." But what are these deer superior to? These bucks didn't have to forage for their own food, they didn't have to learn to avoid predators, they didn't have to fight other bucks for breeding rights, and they won't have to learn to avoid hunters. They may still be skittish, much like skittish cattle, but they are not wild animals. Neither are the fenced, fed, bred and trained-to-the-feeder deer we see more commonly. Again quoting Aldo Leopold, "The recreational value of a head of game is inverse to the artificiality of its origin, and hence in a broad way to the intensiveness of the system of game management that produced it." My argument is that each hunter needs to individually draw our line in the sand as to what is an ethical hunt, and what is legitimate wild game. We need to consider if we are still in this for the beauty of nature and the thrill of the hunt, or are we compromising our ethics and our values for the sake of a big trophy head on the wall. Surveys have shown that most of the public approves of hunting, but only for harvesting the meat and controlling the wild population. The non-hunting public strongly disapproves of trophy hunting. What would the non-hunting public think if they understood where we were going with hunting "technology" and feeding and breeding our "wild game." Aldo Leopold said, "The ethics of sportsmanship is not a fixed code, but must be formulated and practiced by the individual, with no referee but the Almighty." Here's where I'll disagree with Aldo. I'd argue that if we don't set some standards soon, the public may decide for us. Dr. Robert D. Brown is dean of the College of Natural Resources at North Carolina State University and past president of The Wildlife Society. He is a Professional Member of the Boone and Crockett Club.

Bingo! Exactly my point and I why I would never conclude the experiences of a single hunter are indicative of overall population trends in an entire hunt unit. -TONY Already working on one. Glad you enjoyed the Coues book. -TONY

G&F supposedly gets the numbers from the POST-hunt surveys they conduct. These are generally done AFTER the hunts but before the bulls drop their antlers. They don't do game suveys when seasons are in progress. >>it is kind of hard to believe something that I did'nt see.......... << Hmmm. I can recall several times when I've hunted deer or elk and never saw a buck or bull. Should I have concluded that there were none in that unit?? -TONY "The information is relatively simple to use. Looking through the section on deer, for example, you will find a summary of the survey data for both mule deer and white-tailed deer in each game management unit having these species. This information will help you determine whether a unit has a high proportion of bucks and whether it is experiencing good fawn production. Bear in mind, however, that due to differences in survey methods the male to female and female to young ratios are only estimates."

Good shots, Doug! -TONY

I don't know any hunters over 65. -TONY

These are the stats for 5A from the 2007 AZ HUNT Book. The 2006 bull/cow ratio appears to be almost the opposite of what you saw, i.e. 31/100 or about 3 bulls for every 10 cows. Your sightings would make the bull/cow ratio more like 200+/100. Although the G&F figures are taken POST-Hunt, I would be very surprised if there's twice as many bulls over cows before the hunts. -TONY Year.....Bull/........Calf/ .........100 cow....100 cow 2002......36..........36 2003......46..........41 2004......32..........56 2005......25..........51 2006......31..........37

They use the average of the total. Thus, you will be given 4 bonus points if just the two of you apply -- 2+6=8 by 2= 4. -TONY

And here we go again....... The last time the discussion of the new G&F headquaters came up, I made several phone calls to get the FACTS in regards to it. So rather than retype them again, here are the pertinent messages from the other thread. Now y'all pay attention this time. -TONY *************************************************************** QUOTE(Red Rabbit @ Aug 7 2007, 07:51 AM) I believe the cost of the new building will be offset by the sale of the current land and buildings on Greenway. Doug, Haven't you yet learned never to put forth facts into a lively discussion? Actually, the deal for the old headquarters complex on the north side of Greenway has already been consummated with Phoenix PD. It's a done deal. I should have the sale figure shortly. The property and buildings on the south side never belonged to AZG&F; they were leasing that part. BUT...even the funding for the new building has an interesting wrinkle to it. The general contractor is building it, and the department will have a 30-yr. lease-back arrangement whereby it pays so much a year toward the actual construction and maintenance costs. In return, the contractor will shoulder all the maintenance and custodial responsibilities for the duration of the lease. After 30 years, the department owns the whole enchilada. Additionally, just the savings in energy operating costs alone, amounting to about 50% less per sq. ft than now, will be substantial at the new complex. -TONY ***** Doug, Here's the update straight from the powers-that-be -- the head of the Special Services Division. The property G&F currently occupies sits on 8 acres and has been appraised at $5 million. That area is now zoned as low-density residential, so the only thing that could be built by any developer would be a couple single family houses -- no condos or apartments. The sale is NOT finalized yet, but the city is now negotiating it where either the PD or FD will take over the site. The new quarters will be paid for with bonds up front, utilizing a limited partnership arrangement with everyone involved, and the lease back to pay off those bonds is for 25 years, with an annual payback of about $1 million. After 25 years, the agency owns it lock, stock and barrel. The breakdown of construction costs for what is called an "environmentally advanced" complex is about $16-17 per sq. foot., which as I had mentioned earlier also includes all the maintenance and custodial services. In addition to the energy savings, the rent for the area on the south side of Greenway will also be history. -TONY *** Doug, One thing I forgot to mention in my last reply: The annual funding for the new headquarters complex will come out of the Arizona Wildlife Conservation Fund, not the general operating AGFD funds. Here's how Conservation Fund receives its money: This fund was instituted after Arizona voters in 2002 approved Proposition 202, which continued limited and regulated gaming on Arizona tribal lands. Proposition 202 distributes a portion of shared gaming revenues, through the Arizona Benefits Fund, with the State of Arizona and local governments to support specified state and local programs. The Arizona Wildlife Conservation Fund is administered by the Arizona Game and Fish Commission. -TONY