Outdoor Writer

I just changed start time to 5:30. -TONY

Lance, Here's the the much smaller Photoshop version of what a bit of fill-flash would have done. -TONY

Great buck, Lance. -TONY

Moi???? I would NEVER pick on you! -TONY

Man, sure is ugly! The buck is great looking, though. -TONY

VERY dandy ram! Congrats to your BIL. -TONY

Yeah, you really need to start with the first. That's the one that introduces a main character -- other than Pickett and his family -- that plays roles in the all the subsequent books. His name is Nate Romanowski -- a sorta of loner, hippie type who is into falconry and is a crack shot with a .454 Casull revolver. Free Fire -- the one I just finished -- was a good read. It takes place in Yellowstone NP, and since I'm very familar with the park, I was able to "fact check it" as the tale unfolded. Box did his research very well with all the place names and descriptions of the major hubs such as the park service's headquarters area in Mammoth and the Old Faithful Inn.

I didn't realize you played golf. I recall when Arnold Palmer was on the Johnny Carson show one night. Carson asked him if his wife did anything special to wish him luck prior to a big tournament. Palmer said, "Yeah, she kisses my balls." Carson retorted with, "I bet that really makes your putter work good." Whoops. I can smell three more demerits on my resume. -TONY

Here's another, but I'm not especially wild about it. -TONY

Different shirt colors:

Another version for front. -TONY

Did these two real quick. The back would have been better if I had a better shed to use. I just grabbed one off the design you had already done and rotated it. -TONY

I have a pair of Alpen 12x50 binocs and a tripod adapter on their way to me for testing. If they work out, I'll keep them for tripod use and sell my Docter 15Xs. These sell for about $350 and could be an inexpensive alternative for those who can't afford the high-end glass. I might not be able to put them through an actual in-the-field test until Nov. when I go on a cull mule deer hunt in Colorado. Regardless, I'll file a full report here whenever. -TONY

The Alpen 12Xs arrived yesterday. I haven't had much time to play with them other than to take them out front at twilight last night and look around the neighborhood. They seemed quite bright and clear, though. -TONY

Can't they print in white ink, too? -TONY

Outdoor Wire snippet: The U.S. Forest Service is imposing travel restrictions on off-road vehicles across the country, reversing a principle that said areas were considered all areas open "unless designated closed". The new regulations seem to establish that all areas should be presumed "closed unless designated open." The net of the ruling means that off-road vehicles will only be allowed on trails marked on new travel maps currently being drawn up for each national forest. Those new maps, we're told, will exclude some very popular existing routes. The reasoning behind the decision is the burgeoning popularity of off-road vehicles. Land managers say they can't adequately handle the network of illegal trails created by ATVs. In fact, the land managers say there are thousands of miles of illegal ("user-created") trails in the national forests. And ATVs continue to grow in popularity with hunters, anglers and recreational riders who have purchased more than 10 million four-wheelers and dirt bikes since 1995. That number of ATVs, officials say, even if only 1-2 percent stray off-route produces a cumulative impact that is tremendous. The maps are being created today, and will gradually be phased in over the next two years at which time all routes will be either open or closed. ATVers caught on the closed routes will be ticketed. Today, there are complaints that the maps - available at only a few locations - aren't really much help. Critics say they're printed in black and white and don't show any landmarks, making navigation difficult. The federal travel rule isn't really new. It was established in 2005 but has only been applied to a few national forests nationwide. The chances in each district become official as soon as the maps are available, with some not expected until 2010, creating the potential for varying rules across boundary lines. At this point, however, the Forest Service has closed 2 million acres that have been open to cross-country travel. Ultimately, the Forest Service says it is seeking to restrict motor vehicles to designated routes on all 193 million acres. Conservationists are praising the decision, and as you can imagine, some ATV proponents are livid. But not all. Jack Welch, of the motorized users advocacy group Blue Ribbon Coalition, says most people he's been in contact with think the decision "appropriate." But both sides have admitted concern over which trails make lists of "official" routes.

Yeah, I bet those were Gould's around that area at the time. I don't recall exactly when they disappeared in AZ, but it was after that. I agree on the original Big Ten, especially with the introduced RM sheep. Wasn't Bob Householder the one that originally put together the AZ Ten thingie? That Houserock hunt was going on when I first moved to AZ and continued for quite a few years after. Getting rid of it was a no-brainer in reality, though the movie, which I have seen several times, likely hastened the demise. I just started applying for a bison tag a couple years ago, mainly because I haven't had much desire to shoot one. If drawing a tag goes the way drawing my sheep tag has gone, my bones will be long rotted into dust. -TONY

If these proposals take effect, I can see lots of citations resulting, providing the ability to enforce the rules materializes. -TONY

Bill, I think I would prefer not getting a tag rather than going through all you went through. I still need to harvest a buff in addition to a sheep for the original AZ 10. I guess it's more like 12 now with the addition of the Gould's turkey and RM bighorn to the state. I already harvested a Gould's in Mexico, but it doesn't count. -TONY

Many, many people thought the earth was flat, too. They even tried to convince others. So feel free to show how each of the activities cited meets each of the five criteria. Something can be inhuman yet not be cruel. One is emotional in nature, the other is physical. Or it can be both. cruel adj. 1. Disposed to inflict pain or suffering. 2. Causing suffering; painful. in·hu·mane adj. 1. a. Lacking kindness, pity, or compassion b. Deficient in emotional warmth; cold. 2. Not suited for human needs: an inhumane environment. 3. Not of ordinary human form; monstrous. It is inhumane to allow a pet to suffer, but hanging it from a tree limb is a cruel way to kill it. -TONY

Guess I wasn't very clear. The activity must fit ALL FIVE criteria, not just a one or more. Try again. -TONY

With all due respect for Jim Beers' opinions, he's somewhat off base. The one thing I do agree with: the USSA rep did a terrible job of addressing O'Reilly's questions. It's too bad Rick Story didn't take on the task. Now, here's a test. Match ALL of the following to any activity that involves live animals and humans: Inhumane Cruel Sheer entertainment money-oriented wasteful -TONY

I was wondering what books to have my wife get at the library for next week. Thanks, Kevin. -TONY

Keith, Did your wife you get any of Box's books yet? I just finished Free Fire, the latest. It was a good read. -TONY P.S. Though it's not a "trip," I put this thread here since no other section seemed appropriate.

I would bet those same dictionaries will show the word "fax" as a verb. There ain't no such word. Dictionaries, such as the two cited, often contain words or definitions that have crept into our lexicon because of MISUSAGE. I wouldn't doubt "googled' has already made its way into them, too. I doubt you'll find the definition for harvest applied to killing individual animals in a REAL dictionary. The ONLY time harvest should come into play when using it in reference to live sentient beings is an after-the-fact collection. If the game department does it's job, there will be a harvestable surplus of game, and when hunters kill that surplus they have amassed a collection of DEAD animals that can be expressed with the word, harvest, i.e. the total deer harvest for 2007 was 50,000. Before they became part of the harvest, however, someone had to kill them. Saying, "I harvested an elk," is akin to implying shame that one killed it. And the non-hunting fence sitters aren't naive or stupid; most people over 5 year old know hunters don't walk into the woods, pluck animals off the trees and put them in their pockets. Apple pickers do that when they harvest the apple crop. For that, there's no need to kill the apples first. It reminds me of an incident when my oldest son was about 4. We were watching a Dumbo (the elephant) movie on TV. I said to him, "That thing is humongous." He said, "Yeah, it's really big, too." Analogy: Non-hunter standing in my trophy room and asking me where my moose came from: I say, "I harvested it in British columbia. She says, "Yeah, looks like you killed it, too." Geez, the non-hunting public certainly doesn't use harvest in the context of the domestic critters we eat everyday. They no doubt are well aware that one can't effectively butcher a cow or a chicken until it's killed (slaughtered) first. Likewise for a deer or an elk. If some here want to "soften the blow" by using harvest rather than kill in their conversations or writing, knock yourselves out. Just realize that no one is being fooled by its use. Now, I'm done with this topic. -TONY