Outdoor Writer

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

The one place in town where you might find them sold separately (under the Bogen label) is: Photomark 2202 E Mcdowell Rd Phoenix, AZ 85006 (602) 244-1133 There are several styles of quick-release plates used in Manfrotto/Bogen heads. So be sure to take yours with you for a match.

Hunter's 911 Call.

Amanda, I posted those pix for Casey's "ejekatsion." That way he has something to shoot for when he grows up. The cowboy shot was taken on the North Kaibab the last time I had a permit there. I had killed that buck the day before, so I obviously set that shot up, using my hunting partner as the model with MY hat . The rest were taken all over N. America and include shots from Nova Scotia, NWT, the Yukon, Mexico, Florida, Wyoming, New Mexico and Lake Havasu. The one with the two guys standing in the boat on the lake was taken at MIDNIGHT in the Yukon. -TONY

Here's a treatise on Skull Cleaning from the University of AZ. -TONY

Point of clarification. -TONY The law requires employers to sign onto the Basic Pilot program, recently renamed “E-Verify,” a voluntary, experimental program that has gradually expanded to cover approximately 17,000 employers nationwide. “The Basic Pilot has been plagued with problems, including failing to identify legally authorized workers due to its reliance on the error-ridden databases of the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security, and the DHS’s lack of resources to monitor employer compliance with the rules of the program,” said Linton Joaquin, Executive Director of NILC, also representing the plaintiffs in the case. “The Arizona law requires 130,000 to 150,000 Arizona employers to join this flawed program, and this is truly a recipe for disaster and will cause grievous harm to legally authorized workers.” **** The lawsuit alleges that the new law conflicts with federal immigration law and the U.S. Constitution. The "Legal Arizona Workers Act" requires that employers verify the employment eligibility of an employee through a flawed federal verification database (the Basic Pilot Program) that was intended by Congress to be voluntary and imposes sanctions beyond what the federal government allows. "Under federal law, participation in the Basic Pilot Program is voluntary. By requiring Arizona employers to use this program, the Legal Arizona Workers Act runs afoul of the Constitution and will subject all Arizona employees regardless of legal status - Latinos in particular - to potential discrimination based on their race, ethnicity, or national origin," said Kristina Campbell, Acting Los Angeles Regional Counsel and lead MALDEF attorney on the case. *** The measure also requires employers to use an online federal database, dubbed "E-Verify," to check the employment eligibility of new hires in the border state, which is home to an estimated 500,000 illegal immigrants. *** The Legal Arizona Workers Act, now known as the Employer Sanctions Law, was passed by the Legislature in June and was signed into law in July by Gov. Janet Napolitano. The law requires employers to check the validity of new hires' identities against a federal database that taps into information maintained by the Social Security Administration and the federal Department of Homeland Security. *** Attorney David Selden said if Wake balks, it will have major financial implications for the businesses he represents. He noted that part of the law requires all firms to sign up with the E-Verify program. That means having the necessary computer equipment and training employees to use it. Selden said that could run $150 million -- $1,000 for each of the 150,000 Arizona businesses affected -- money he said would be wasted if he eventually gets a court to conclude the statute is unconstitutional. "It's not in anybody's interest to have the law go into effect before there's a ruling," he said. ***

Hmmm, remind me not to pay for any information from the AZ Hunt Club. -TONY

Great buck! Congrats. -TONY

Jack, Not sure how many members here have read it all or not. That said, some of things we read about in this forum certainly come close to that "line in the sand," IMO. -TONY

A Special MERRY CHRISTMAS for the dog lovers!

Of course, they weren't demolishing the range back then even after those flood years. BUT...given five years of the same type of moisture, they certainly would have been. Right now, however, other than a couple small areas, there isn't enough excess of anything to be concerned about. -TONY

Randy, I know you hate numbers, but... Let's say we have a deer herd that numbers 2,400 criters POST-hunt with a buck/doe ratio of 2/10 BEFORE 3-4 years of good moisture. Just for the sake of round numbers we'll say 400 bucks to 2,000 does. With fair habitat conditions, those does all have only ONE fawn each and 50% of those fawns will be bucks. That's a total of 2000 fawns with 1000 bucks, but of course some does won't get bred. Just bear with me. Now assume a natural/predation mortality of those fawns at 50%, divided equally. That leaves 1000 fawns that survive with 500 of them bucks. Thus there is a carry-over - remember, this is a POST HUNT population -- to the next fall of 900 bucks and 2,500 does, not taking into consideration any natural mortality or predation of the ADULT deer. So whatever permits were allowed in that unit could remain about the same or be increased a bit yet still maintain that same buck/doe ratio and number of bucks. In the meantime, you now have more does, thus more fawn recruitment for the following year because those same POST-HUNT 4-500 bucks can also breed the increased doe population. Now, imagine what happens to those numbers when many does start dropping twin fawns. The HERD growth then becomes exponential from year to year, and after five years of ideal rainfall, the numbers would probably start taxing the habitat. In fact, in addition to increased buck permits, I would guess a doe hunt would also be in order at some point. But remember this part from the article I posted: “Then the deer numbers shot up again in the early and mid-1980s because we had an anomaly of sorts with rains that produced three 100-year floods over a five-year period. Even the normally dry Salt River was running at 200,000 feet per second and washing out bridges in downtown Phoenix. “The result on our deer herds was quite predictable. For a few years running, all of the does had twins, their twins had twins, and those twins…and so on. So we wound up with more deer than we knew what to do with. Over the next several hunting seasons, we had more permits available than we had hunters to apply for them. In 1986, we set the all-time record with 95,821 permits. That is more than double the permit allocation for 2000. “The one thing hunters shouldn’t do, however, is think we’ll ever get to that point again. The floods were very uncommon occurrences that created the best deer habitat we’ve ever had. So unless those conditions repeat themselves, which isn’t too likely, our traditional optimum deer numbers will be considerably less than what we had in 1986.” -TONY

I did??? Then you really lost me with, "I guess it is important to have enough spikes to shoot?" -TONY

The Americans With No Abilities Act (AWNAA) WASHINGTON, DC - Congress is considering sweeping legislation which will provide new benefits for many Americans. The Americans With No Abilities Act (AWNAA) is being hailed as a major legislative goal by advocates of the millions of Americans who lack any real skills or ambition. "Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the competence and drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society," said California Senator Barbara Boxer. "We can no longer stand by and allow People of Inability to be ridiculed and passed over. With this legislation, employers will no longer be able to grant special favors to a small group of workers, simply because they have some idea of what they are doing." In a Capitol Hill press conference, House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pointed to the success of the U.S. Postal Service, which has a long-standing policy of providing opportunity without regard to performance. Approximately 74 percent of postal employees lack any job skills, making this agency the single largest U.S. employer of Persons of Inability. Private-sector industries with good records of nondiscrimination against the Inept include financial advisors (73%), retail sales (72%), the automotive industry (70%), the airline industry (68%), and home improvement "warehouse" stores (65%). At the state government level, the Department of Motor Vehicles also has a great record of hiring Persons of Inability (63%). Under the Americans With No Abilities Act, more than 25 million "middle man" positions will be created, with important-sounding titles but little real responsibility, thus providing an illusory sense of purpose and performance. Mandatory non-performance-based raises and promotions will be given so as to guarantee upward mobility for even the most unremarkable employees. The legislation provides substantial tax breaks to corporations that promote a significant number of Persons of Inability into middle-management positions, and gives a tax credit to small and medium-sized businesses that agree to hire one clueless worker for every two talented hires. Finally, the AWNA Act contains tough new measures to make it more difficult to discriminate against the Nonabled--banning, for example, discriminatory interview questions such as "Do you have any skills or experience which relate to this job?" "As a Non-abled person, I can't be expected to keep up with people who have something going for them," said Mary Lou Gertz, who lost her position as a lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint , Michigan , due to her lack of any discernible job skills. "This new law should really help people like me." With the passage of this bill, Gertz and millions of other untalented citizens will finally see a light at the end of the tunnel. Said Senator Ted Kennedy: "As a Senator With No Abilities, I believe the same privileges that elected officials enjoy ought to be extended to every American with no abilities. It is our duty as lawmakers to provide each and every American citizen, regardless of his or her adequacy, with some sort of space to take up in this great nation."