Outdoor Writer

Now why didn't I think of that!! Thanks. I'll use a cat to bait it in. Any caliber suggestions?? -TONY

I just googled 2006 HB 2127 Arizona, then went to Arizona Revised Statutes Title 17 -TONY

Dave, You were correct. I found where the AZ legislature did actually pass a statute making the 10% cap law. It was passed in 2006 as House Bill 2127, which is the law that allowed the tranfer of big-game licenses to minors. It's now part of the Title 17 revised statutes as 17-332. The wording does allow the commission to change the cap in an emerency situtaion, but only if they INCREASE the NR licenses. So any other change will now need to go through the legislature. -TONY 17-332. Form and contents of license; duplicate licenses; period of validity A. Licenses and license materials shall be prepared by the department and furnished and charged to dealers authorized to issue licenses. The license shall be issued in the name of the department and countersigned by an issuing dealer. Except as provided by rule adopted by the commission, each license shall be signed by the licensee in ink on the face of the license and any license not signed is invalid. With each license authorizing the taking of big game the department shall provide such tags as the commission may prescribe, which the licensee shall attach to the big game animal in such manner as prescribed by the commission. The commission shall limit the number of big game permits issued to nonresidents in a random drawing to ten per cent or fewer of the total hunt permits, but in extraordinary circumstances, at a public meeting the commission may increase the number of permits issued to nonresidents in a random drawing if, on separate roll call votes, the members of the commission unanimously: 1. Support the finding of a specifically described extraordinary circumstance. 2. Adopt the increased number of nonresident permits for the hunt.

Hey Bill, I planted several deer seeds in my front yard a couple months ago and watered them as regular as clockwork. Just as they were sprouting, though, the neighbor's dog came along and dug them up. Other than putting up a fence, do you have any suggestions to keep this from happening again ? -TONY

Likewise for what my wife stuffs in our Durango. We also bring along non-perishable groceries, bottled water, etc. The trip from our front door to Mazatlan is right at 950 miles. We usually leave about 6:30 a.m. and drive as far as Navajoa, arriving about 5-6 p.m. There are two or three nice motels that charge about $45 per night, and one has an excellent restaurant where we eat dinner and breakfast. The next morning we fuel up and head to Mazatlan, arriving there about 1 p.m. On the return trip, we overnight in Hermosillo, then get home about 2 p.m. Our time shares are in two different resorts, both owned by the same company. One is Pueblo Bonito Mazatlan and the other is Pueblo Bonito Emerald Bay. We own "red time" master suites in both. -TONY P.S. It appears the PB sites are temporarily down.

I wish they would do away with all that crap for the rest of Mexico, too. It would save us about $70 and about an hour each trip, but I'm not holding my breath. Between the gas, overnight stay, fuel and tolls, driving to Mazatlan now costs us just a little less than if we fly. BUT...the way my wife packs, the charges for being overweight with our luggage could pay for another week's stay at our resort. -TONY

Nope. The federal statute, introduced by Nevada Senator Harry Reid, made that unnecessary. It effectively removed the commerce clause from the equation. See what I wrote about it below. -TONY BACK TO NORMAL After several years of court battles, resident hunters in a couple of Rocky Mountain states are a bit giddy as result of federal legislation that put to rest an ongoing battle between one New Mexico outfitter and the states. The legal wrangling came to a boil in Arizona during 2004 when the outfitter plaintiffs argued that their only reason for hunting animals in Arizona involved interstate commerce. The court filing stated the reason as, "to obtain the meat of the animals, their hide, their ivories, and especially their head and rack of antlers to profit from the sale and use of the non-edible parts." The original court case before U.S. District Court Judge Robert C. Broomfield found in favor of Arizona, but in July 2004, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the Broomfield’s verdict and ruled in favor of the outfitters. The court cited the Commerce Clause of the federal Constitution, which was designed to promote unity of economic opportunity within the states. In its review, the court stated: "…the foregoing testimony does not explain why a 10 percent cap, as opposed to some other less discriminatory cap, is necessary to achieve the state's interest in conserving hunting opportunities." The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case, allowing the 9th Circuit ruling to stand. As a result, Broomfield ordered the Arizona Game & fish Department to eliminate the 10 percent cap on nonresident hunters for the 2004 big-game tag lottery drawing. The change required issuing more than 800 additional elk and deer tags in 2004 and disregarding any nonresident cap for the 2005 seasons. To compensate somewhat, the game department removed the ability to apply online and also mandated the purchase of hunting license before applying. Bolstered by the success in Arizona, the New Mexico outfitters filed suit in Nevada over its nonresident caps. The plaintiffs also had other states in their sights. Enter U.S. Senator Harry Reid, D-Nevada, who successfully co-sponsored a bill with Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, Senator Max Baucus of Montana, Senator Conrad Burns of Montana, Senator John Ensign of Nevada, Senator Benjamin Nelson of Nebraska, and Senator John McCain of Arizona that short stopped any current or future lawsuits by the plaintiffs. Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colorado sponsored a similar bill (HR 731) in the House. In August 2005, President George Bush signed the bill into law. **** Congressman Jim Matheson said legislation acknowledging the traditional rights of states to manage hunting and fishing within their borders is included in the emergency supplemental spending bill that passed the House this week. The Senate is expected to pass the measure next week. Matheson cosponsored the original bill—HR 731. The bipartisan legislation was introduced after a federal appeals court decision overturned Arizona’s limits on non-resident hunting permits. Matheson noted that for decades, state wildlife agencies have set the rules for issuing resident and non-resident licenses as part of their wildlife management plans. “Sportsmen and hunters play a critical role in protecting wildlife habitat and wildlife populations,” said Matheson. “They work cooperatively with state wildlife agencies so that the time-honored tradition of family hunting and fishing in the West will continue. Messing with that success doesn’t make sense.” Matheson said the legislation declares that it is Congressional policy that it is in the public interest for each state to continue to regulate the taking of fish and wildlife within its boundaries. It provides that the courts should not use Congressional silence as a reason to impose any commerce-clause barrier to a state’s or tribe’s regulation of hunting or fishing. **** The relevant text of the Reid bill says: (a) In General- It is the policy of Congress that it is in the public interest for each State to continue to regulate the taking for any purpose of fish and wildlife within its boundaries, including by means of laws or regulations that differentiate between residents and nonresidents of such State with respect to the availability of licenses or permits for taking of particular species of fish or wildlife, the kind and numbers of fish and wildlife that may be taken, or the fees charged in connection with issuance of licenses or permits for hunting or fishing. ( Construction of Congressional Silence- Silence on the part of Congress shall not be construed to impose any barrier under clause 3 of Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution (commonly referred to as the `commerce clause') to the regulation of hunting or fishing by a State or Indian tribe.

I thought the new setup for Sonora might have happened but wasn't sure. Since I always go to Sinaloa, I have to always get a visa and a car permit. Do you perhaps have the visa and car permit return mixed up? We always pay for our visas -- usually at a bank in Mazatlan -- but have never once been asked to return it when we leave Mexico. I have just trashed them once they expire. That is not the case with the car permit, however, which has to be returned at the little booth when driving past the area at K21. If I know I'll be returning to Mexico prior to the expiration, though, I drive past the booth. Then on the subsequent trip, I turn it in when leaving. And trust me, I learned a lesson the hard way. I never returned the vehicle permit for many years. Then when they finally got the whole system on computers, they nailed me because their data showed I hadn't returned the car pemit from the previous trip. Fortunately I still had it in my little travel pouch where I keep all the paper work. It was still a hassle, though, because the gal had me go to a special office where I had to get approval from the head dude. It took about 30-45 mins. longer than it should have. -TONY

The G&F department had little control of what occurred in 2005 once the 9th Circuit court ruled ANY NON-RESIDENT cap as UNCONSTITUTIONAL. G&F even appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which opted to not to hear the appeal. That ruling by the 9th Circuit Court would have applied to ANY rule or any STATUTE. Thus, Taulman would have sued regardless. In fact, declaring a statute unconstitutional is usually easier than doing so with a rule. >>What benefit is it to us now?<< I'm not sure what you're asking here, since it's all now a moot point once the U.S. CONGRESS enacted the federal law in regards to wildlife management. The "benefit" of that law is quite obvious -- G&F has the right to regulate who gets to hunt where and when, and the only way that can change is if Congress someday acts to alter that federal law. If G&F now decides to lower the cap or alter other aspects of it, it can do so quite easily with a simple rule change. If a statute had been enacted, every little tweak would require legislative action. And once we start allowing the legislature to approve or disapprove wildlife management issues, you start sliding down the slippery slope to disaster. Below is just one of several articles I wrote about this issue. -TONY Appeal Planned It all started on Feb. 10, 1998 when Conservation Force, Inc. and several outfitters and guides from New Mexico filed suit in the United States District Court in Arizona against the members of the Arizona Game & Fish Commission who were in office at that time. The plaintiffs, including United States Outfitters (USO) of Taos, N. Mex., claimed the 10-percent cap on nonresident permits for bull elk (statewide) and for deer north of the Colorado River (North Kaibab) violates the Commerce, Privileges and Immunities and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. They requested "a declaration of invalidity as well as damages." When the case eventually came before the federal district court in Arizona, the judge granted the Arizona Game and Fish Department's (AGFD) cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the commerce clause claim as a matter of law. Subsequently, Conservation Force, Inc. dropped out, and the other plaintiffs-- Lawrence Montoya, Filberto Valerio and Carole Jean Taulman, wife of George Taulman who owns USO -- appealed the decision as individuals to take advantage of the commerce law. The case moved to the 9th District Court of Appeals in California. It was argued and submitted in Dec., 2001. Lawyers for the commission pointed out that Arizona is home to what is considered by many hunters to be some of the best deer and elk hunting in the world, exemplified by the world-record animals harvested from its lands. "The quality of the hunting in Arizona is in large part a result of the conservation efforts supported by Arizona citizens and administered by the Arizona Game and Fish Department," the court files state. It also states, "In early 1990, the department conducted a poll of resident big-game hunters and found that nearly 75 percent favored restricting the number of hunting tags issued to nonresidents, many expressing the opinion that nonresidents should be excluded from hunting in Arizona entirely". For many years, Arizona distributed the limited hunt tags for antlered deer and bull elk through a lottery without regard to the residence of the applicant. In the late 1980s, however, the AGFD began to receive vocal complaints by Arizona hunters objecting to competition with nonresidents. Many felt that nonresidents were getting more than their fair share of the hunt opportunities, especially for premium hunts. To better meet the overwhelming desires of the resident hunting public, in 1991 the game commission amended Rule 12-4-114 of the Arizona Administrative Code. It placed a 10-percent cap on the number of tags that could be awarded to nonresidents for the hunting of bull elk throughout the state and for antlered deer in the area north of the Colorado River. The AGFD attorney explained that the continued management of Arizona's big game "is dependent on the continued support of Arizona residents" and that Arizona residents should be afforded the opportunity "to hunt Arizona's best." On the other side of the aisle, the plaintiffs, who are all professional guides who apply for hunting tags around the country for their clients, claimed that profit making is their sole purpose in hunting these animals in Arizona, and that they do not hunt for recreational enjoyment. Instead, they argued that they hunt to "obtain the meat of the animals, their hide, their ivories, and especially their head and rack of antlers to profit from the sale and use of the non-edible parts." Judge Raymond C. Fisher of the 9th District Court wrote the following conclusion for the majority opinion on August 20, 2002: "We hold that Arizona's cap on nonresident hunting substantially affects and discriminates against interstate commerce and therefore is subject to strict scrutiny under the dormant Commerce Clause. Arizona has legitimate interests in regulating hunting to conserve its population of game and maintain recreational opportunities for its citizens. We remand for further proceedings to determine whether Arizona has met its burden of showing that it has no other means to advance its legitimate interests." In effect, the 9th Circuit Court overturned the Arizona court's decision, thus finding in favor of the plaintiffs. The rationale behind the decision involved the sale of elk and deer antlers, as allowed under state law in Arizona. In other words, the plaintiffs convinced the appeals court that their purpose for applying for permits was obtaining these antlers to sell and not for the recreational hunting provided. The decision forced the AGFD to pick one of several options available: * Dump the nonresident cap * Outlaw the sale of deer & elk antlers by anyone * Raise the cost of nonresident permits high enough for a de facto cap * Appeal the decision to the U. S. Supreme Court The Arizona Game and Fish Commission voted unanimously last October to choose door #4 -- an appeal to the Supreme Court, which will have the option to hear the case and rule or simply decline hearing it altogether. On almost the same day the game commission voted for the appeal, U.S. Attorney Paul K. Charlton's office in Phoenix indicted two individuals on charges stemming from an investigation known "Operation Navajo Buck (ONB)." One of them happens to be George Taulman, owner of USO. Conducted during 1998 and 1999, the ONB investigation led to the arrest and conviction of several big-game guides based in Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico. They unlawfully used aircraft prior to and during hunting seasons to locate deer and elk for hunting clients on the Navajo Indian Reservation in northeast Arizona. As a result, 12 individuals have paid fines of $85,000 and have forfeited one aircraft and unlawfully taken wildlife. Taulman's indictment charges him with one felony violation of the Lacey Act, two felony violations of conspiracy to violate the Lacey Act, and two misdemeanor violations of the Airborne Hunting Act. The felony violation of the Lacey Act alleges one of Taulman's clients killed an elk with the aid of an aircraft in 1999. The felony conspiracy counts allege that Taulman conspired to use aircraft to aid hunting clients in the taking of elk in Arizona during 1998 and 1999. Taulman's business, USO, is also under indictment on three felony counts related to the 1998 and 1999 hunts. The indictment also seeks the forfeiture of the outfitter's Cessna 182 aircraft, which he allegedly used during the hunts. Another indictment cited David Holton III, of Lake Montezuma, Ariz., who is listed as an employee of USO. He is charged with one felony violation of the Lacey Act, one felony violation of conspiracy to violate the Lacey Act, and one misdemeanor violation of the Airborne Hunting Act. All violations relate to aiding a client with an aircraft so he could kill an elk in 1998 near Payson, Ariz. The federal Lacey Act makes it unlawful to transport, sell, receive, acquire or purchase wildlife which was taken, transported, possessed, or sold in violation of state, federal, or indian tribal laws or regulations. Violations carry maximum fines of up to $250,000 for a person, $500,000 for a corporation, and up to five years in prison. All vehicles and aircraft used in violation of the Lacey Act are subject to forfeiture. The federal Airborne Hunting Act makes it unlawful to shoot animals from an aircraft or to harass animals with an aircraft. The Airborne Hunting Act Regulations prohibits a person, while on the ground, from taking or attempting to take wildlife by means, aid, or use of an aircraft. Maximum penalty for violations of the Airborne Hunting Act include fines of up to $100,000 for a person, and $200,000 for a corporation, and one year in prison.

Geez, Casey, I thought you went to college? Even my 11-yr. old granddaughter knows the answer; it's 50 yards of course. -TONY

Hunter's Specialties® New Butt Out Field Dressing Tool Helps Keep Game Meat Free Of Contamination Proper care of harvested animals in the field is essential to having quality, great-tasting game. Cutting around and removing the anal canal on deer is a necessary step in field dressing that is difficult and potentially dangerous, often resulting in contaminated meat. With Hunter’s Specialties new Butt Out big game field dressing tool, hunters can quickly and easily remove the anal alimentary canal on deer and deer-sized game. At the start of the field dressing process, the tool should be inserted to the handle into the deer’s anal cavity, then turn it approximately 1 ½ turns and use the handle to pull out a 10-inch section of the deer’s intestine, which can then be cut off. Then the rest of the field-dressing job can be done quickly. The Butt Out is light and compact; making it easy to carry in the field and it can be easily cleaned and disinfected for re-use. The Butt Out has a suggested retail of $12.99.

Hmmm, sounds like a different scenario than what I recall. G&F did all it could to protect us and even WON it's case in the U.S District court. On appeal, the 9th Circuit court overturned that ruling, finding that the cap was unconstitutional because of the Commerce clause. That would have happened even if it was a statute, and it would still be that way were it not for the new federal legislation passed last year, which gives all authority to manage wildlfe to each state. So, it appears passing a separate statute in AZ was unnecessary. That said, I would guess the main opposition to passing a law had to do with the fact that any changes to it, unlike a G&F rule, would then require action by the state legislature. So if G&F wanted to reduce the cap to 5% at some future time, they would have to get the legislature to do that. As it is now -- and should be -- the game department can do as it pleases in regards to the cap. -TONY

I had the same experience with Dunlop tires on my then new 1974 3/4-ton 4x4 Chevy truck. Constant blow-outs, even with the free replacements. And these were the original factory tires. That's when I switched to the BFG ATs, which I ran on that Chevy, three Nissan 4x4 trucks and the Dodge I now own. I've NEVER had one AT blow and I think I've had like all of three flats in that time -- all caused by either nails or screws and never any due to tire failure or cuts. One other reason I like the ATs is the noise factor. Although the thread is somewhat aggressive, they run quiet compared to some of the other brand's aggressive threads. As for Big O or Discount, they will get you about any tire you want and will even compete over the prices! In fact, I usually buy my ATs from a Big O that's only two blocks away from me. I called both Big O and Discount yesterday to price four tires and both not only beat Walmart's ONLINE price, but matched each other for total that included mounting, stems, lifetime balance, taxes and warranty. -TONY

I'll let Daryl answer in regards to the hotel, but I can answer the other questions since I've driven down to Mexico once or twice a year for a few decades now. As of now, you do not need a passport if you DRIVE across the border, but you might if you fly. This has nothing to do with Mexico, per se, but getting back into the U.S. You will need some sort of proof, though, such as a passport or birth certificate and a PHOTO ID to obtain your visa in Mexico, which you will get about 15 miles south of Nogales on the main highway. It is well signed, so you can't miss it. Visa cost, payable at the border or any other bank, is $20. I don't believe you will need a vehicle permit if you do not go farther south than Sonora, but you can ask at the place where you obtain the visa. If a vehicle permit -- about $25 -- is needed, you get it there, as well. Hassles are non-existent unless you cause them. And yes, you do need a separate insurance policy, which is issued by a Mexican company. There are several places either before you cross the border or right near the border to buy a policy. I get mine well beforehand from a company in Scottsdale. It generally runs about $15 per day for a vehicle that's valued at about $15-20K. The highway between Nogales & San Carlos is mostly 4-lane, and it's also a toll road with toll booths scattered as you go. I'm guessing the total for that trip is about $25-30 each way. Unlike the old days, there are plenty of Pemex stations to get fuel. But if you fill up just before you cross the border at Nogales, you can make San Carlos on one tank. The most difficult part of the trip will be negotiating the by-pass around Hermosillo if you don't pay attention to the signs! And be sure to REALLY slow down when you see a sign that warns you about topes ahead. Those are speed bumps that will jar your teeth if you hit them at speed. They are quite common in the populated areas. You will also find, unlike the U.S., that drivers on the highway actually obey the rules and stay to the right. This is especially true of the truckers and buses. They also wait until you pass rather than pulling out to pass someone directly in front of you. Ask if you have other questions. -TONY

How can I have any experience with it since it's supposedly new and I never draw permits?? Actually, I rarely field dress deer any longer. I just skin and either quarter or bone them out on the spot. Which one I choose depends on how far from camp or the vehicle I happen to be. That said, I always used the tried and true method of cutting around the anus and tying it off with a small piece of twine. -TONY

Yup. I thought you had mentioned that about Bob. It might have been here or on one of the other chats boards where our paths crossed a while back. It's Don that I remember. I don't recall Dave at all. I think the guy you're thinking of was Ed Belinzki. He's on the right in the photo with the fish from Canyon Lake. The other guy on my Jeep with the bucks was Roger Beagle. He hunted with Pop and I a lot, especially on the Kaibab. I haven't talked to either of them in decades. I can't recall if Ed was on that Kaibab hunt, though. Now I remember about chasing that big 4x4 on the Strip. I had tracked him a long ways right around Poverty Mt. somewhere, if I recall. I had only one other glimspe of him after I first jumped him. -TONY

Aha, I forgot we went to the Strip together. If I recall, the deer pitched a shutout on that hunt, no? Didn't you tell me a while back that Bob had died -- cancer maybe?? I don't recall his son's name; what's he up to? -TONY

Man, I would jump at this super deal in a heartbeat, but we're already scheduled to be at our timeshares in Mazatlan from Oct. 8 to Oct. 22. -TONY

I had a good friend in Utah, Lynn Maxfield, who made knives. Sometime in the 1980s, I designed a 4" drop-point that he made for me. It's 440-C steel with a 59 Rockwell rating and has a balbinga wood handle with a brass guard, buttplate and decorative inserts. -TONY

Rick, Yep. That was a fun hunt. You were just a snot-nosed little brat at the time. Pop was standing under the tent canopy in the very first photo. If I recall, you're in some of the photos I haven't been able to find yet. Isn't that your uncle's truck next to mine in the one with the deer hanging? -TONY

This is one of the items I'll be donating to the auction at the party. It's a limited edition knife made by Buck for Whitetails Unlimited and is no longer available, i.e. it's a collector's item. The deer silhouette is cut clear thru the blade, and it comes with a walnut presentation case. I'll also be donating a hard-cover copy of How To Hunt Coues Deer that will be signed by Duwane and me. -TONY

Yeah, I have been wondering about you lately. -TONY

Neat photo. That trail is quite like the one where the horse with the tent went over the side -- nowhere to go either left or right. I had several of those variable WA Redfield scopes in the '60s & '70s, and when we lived in Colo. my wife worked in the Redfield assembly plant in Durango for two years. At the time, all the products were U.S. made. The company eventually went down the tubes sometime in the 1990s, but another company bought it. I think they had stopped making the scopes but continued to make the rings and bases, which were quite good. I heard that another company is now making Redfield scopes again, but like most of today's optics, they're made off-shore. -TONY

Hey, no one on this site would ever think of lying. I bet they all fill out their hunter survey cards with nothing but truthful answers. I have a stack of old hunting photos somewhere, but I'll be danged if I can remember where I put them so I could find them again. Most of the ones I've posted so far are outtakes that my wife had stored in a shoe box. -TONY

I've been running the BFG ATs on all my trucks for years. I'm on my 2nd set on my '98 4x4 Dodge 1/2-ton Quadcab, which has 76K miles on it. Although the tires still have a few thousand miles of tread wear remaining, I need to replace them soon because of dry rot! -TONY