Outdoor Writer

Lark, Here's a refresher on when the spring season actually began here. This is a snippet from a bear hunting article I wrote in 1989. -TONY **** Back then the White Mountain and San Carlos Apache Indian Reservations were the only two areas in the state where spring bear hunting seasons were open. The Arizona Game & Fish Department eventually authorized the first state-run season in 1985 and issued a total of 53 permits --- 50 in Hunt Unit 31 and three in Unit 35A. Due to a few freak storms that kept the animals holed up, no bears were taken during the initial hunt. The results were the same the following year. Finally, in 1987, after the game department increased the permits in Unit 31 to 100, six hunters took trophies. For 1989, 100 permits will be available for Unit 28 (April 14-29 season) and three for Unit 35A (April 14-May 14 season). The hunting license and tag, including the special permit application fee, costs $28.50 for a resident and $208.50 for a non-resident. The low success during the state hunt can probably be attributed to the fact that both baiting and the use of dogs are not allowed. Consequently, hunters must depend on the spot-and- stalk method of hunting, which requires lots of patience and good optics.

Lark, You are correct on the baiting being legal for the fall season only, and I had meant to word it that way. My bad. The rest about the reason for making it illegal was correct, though. The department realized that an attempt to close the fall season by the AR folks because of the baiting issue would jeopardize all bear hunting in the state, including the spring hunt, mainly because it was the latter that was targeted in other states. I believe bait ban here occured about 1992/93, right after Amendment 10, which banned spring, bait, and hound hunting of black bears, was passed in Colorado by a 70% to 30% vote. In 1994, the AR folks also had bear baiting and hound hunting of mountain lions banned in Oregon via Measure 18 with a 52% to 48% vote. If the department was concerned about hunters fighting, it would make treestands and sitting over other water holes illegal, too. -TONY

M77, Did you perhaps call G&F after hours and speak with someone on the cleaning crew? -TONY

So you enjoy being in the majoiry?? -TONY

Right. Correct information always trumps wild-assed guesses. -TONY

Oh, okay. Thanks for explaining the sarcasm involved. GH -- ignore my questions!!! -TONY

GH, Can you cite the rule or law that says it's illegal to put a salt block on public land? I sure can't find anything that says that, and ranchers put them on their federal and state leases all the time. Or are you using illegal as to mean unethical by your code of sportsmanship? -TONY

In this one, the key word is KNOWINGLY. The point of the rule is to keep someone from PURPOSELY attracting bears, especially if you have a bear tag in your pocket. In any case, yes, best to just watch or take photos. -TONY

The key word in the above is INTENTIONALLY. As Wakling explained, there is no way they would prosecute a deer hunter using salt if it attracted a bear even if a game officer cited him. He said there would be no way to prove that hunter's INTENT to attract a bear. -TONY

DB, Baiting was indeed legal here at one time for the spring hunts, which is probably why you remember all the specifics being listed. And you are correct that the game department phased out the baiting as per its rules rather than state law. Having discussed this quite a bit with G&F folks when it happened, I'm aware of the main reason for it; it was to prempt a strike by the animal rights folks to put another initiative on the ballot to outlaw the spring bear season altogether, as they managed to do in Colorado and as they did here with the steel-jawed traps. THAT would have been state law and irreversible if done by initiative. As it now stands, G&F could bring back bear baiting again with a simple rule change. Don't hold your breath, though. In fact, don't be surprised if ALL baiting is banned not too far in the furture. -TONY

The following are the only comments AZ G&F makes in regards to treestands. Note that the department actually has NO enforcible rules as far as regulating their use. Instead, it will depend on the agency -- BLM, state or USFS -- that oversees the land you're hunting on. Also, in reference to "permanent;" this doesn't mean leaving a portable stand overnight or even over several days. It refers to constructing something permanently, ala a wooden nailed platform or even a ground blind that isn't removed on a timely basis. -TONY Tree Stands and Blinds Tree stands and blinds can be effective and perfectly legal tools to aid in the taking of wildlife. However, please take into consideration the following before hanging a tree stand or setting a blind: • It may be unlawful to cut any trees or branches while hanging tree stands or setting blinds. • It may be unlawful to leave tree stands hanging or blinds set for extended periods of time. They may be considered abandoned property and subject to seizure. • Construction of permanent tree stands or blinds on public lands is unlawful without appropriate authorization. • It may be unlawful to pound climbing spikes or attach anything that penetrates the surface of a tree causing permanent injury or scarring. • Placement of tree stands or blinds on public property does not give a person ownership of that area. First come — first serve is common courtesy that should be used when more than one person wants to hunt the same area (or waterhole). Sportsmen are advised to be responsible when using tree stands or blinds, and check with the appropriate land management agency regarding use and/or restrictions.

First, it is quite LEGAL -- at least for now -- to use salt, corn or other feed on either public or private land in AZ to attract deer. You guys can argue among yourselves as to it being ethical or not. In regards to bear baiting, the exact rules from the 2007/2008 regs: Under the Bear Permit list: 1. No person shall KNOWINGLY use any substance as bait at any time to attract or take bear. In the Rules section under R12-4-303 - Unlawful Devices, Methods, and Ammunition An individual shall not place substances in a manner INTENDED to attract bears. So... because these sound somewhat ambiguous, I called Bryan Wakeling just now for clarification. Everything depends on INTENT, according to him. For example, if a guy is sitting over a salt block during the Dec. Coues hunt and a bear wanders in, the hunter's INTENT is not to attract a bear, and a wildlife officer would consider that 1) there is no bear season open 2)the hunter doesn't possess a valid bear tag but does possess a deer tag for that unit. Of course, if the guy actually shoots at the bear, he'll be in deep dodo. -TONY

Need some help. I believe someone here put me in touch with Craig Cormier a few months ago, but I no longer have his mail address. So if someone knows it, please send it to me in a PM here. Thanks. -TONY

If any you guys draw a sheep tag before me, I'll be quite upset. After 38 years, I'm entitled!!! Plus, it's the only critter I applied for, opting for bonus point puchases for deer and bison. -TONY

Jim, I thought it was you. Got the info. I want to let Craig know that his pix of his big bull went full-page in the Aug. issue of RM G&F magazine. Thanks. -TONY

I feel really deprived. I've been wandering around AZ's deserts for more than 45 years and have yet to encounter a Gila monster. I have, however, found all the rattlesnakes I need thanks. -TONY

Ron, Just received my copy of the August RM G&F issue with the article on your deer in it. Turned out good; they used three photos. It likely will be on the newstands shortly. I think Fry's Grocery carries it. -TONY

I'm working on a Kaibab mule deer piece right now. Writing up three bucks killed by Duwane Adams' clients during the early hunt last fall. -TONY

Houston, Ignore my question in the other thread. -TONY

Houston, Did you see the RM G&F article about your elk in the July issue? Ron, If I recall, the article on your deer will be in the next issue --Aug. -TONY

Oh come on. Let's get real here. The article in yesterday's Republic quoted two illegals who are part of an 10-man concrete laying crew. One was the boss, and six others on the same crew are also illegals. One member of this forum who no longer lives in AZ worked at a produce farm in Tolleson. One day he brought out about 8 of his workers to gather up some furniture, carpet, etc. that I was getting rid of. The only one who spoke any English was the head guy. Do you think the owner of that farm didn't know that most of his workers were illegals? My son is a banquet manager at one of the Point resorts. Nearly every one of his set-up people are KNOWN illegals. All the contractors also know the status of those day workers they pick up at Home Depot each day. It's merely a case of the same 'don't ask, don't tell' policy the military uses. The current problem: there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING now in place to deter the hiring of illegals, and if you think the miracle cure is enforcing the current laws by rounding up and deporting the 12 million illegals in this country, I have some beach-front property in Gila Bend to sell you. It will never happen because there isn't enough manpower, money and other resources to do that, and there never will be. That's especially true of space in Sheriff Joe's Tent City. The fact of the matter is simple: eliminate the jobs and the illegals either move to another state or go home to Mexico. As for forged docs, that's an easy one; when an employer uses the database that's already in place, it must be set up to keep a record of the input information, including the employer's name or assigned number. Thus, if that employee later turns out to be an illegal with forged docs, the employer is off the hook because the database will show he checked the person on such & such a date. This will also take care of the small percentage of errors the database supposedly produces -- at least until it's up to snuff. Also, don't forget that forged docs will have to match-up with real ones now, i.e. a legit SSN AND NAME in the database. As a result, the forged docs can only mimic ones already in existence but belonging to someone else, which amounts to identity theft. That makes it a bit more difficult since the theft will pretty much have to be an Hispanic surname. As it is now with no checks in place, a forger simply creates an SSN with the illegal's real name as if he or she just got it. "Policing" employees will be no different than gun stores now do when clearing firearms sales through the database. Their only police job after that is to say to his potential employee, "Sorry, but your name and SSN is not in the database, so I can't put you to work." Any further policing is relegated to the authorities, just as you say. I certainly agree that the law the gov signed is not perfect and needs much refining. If nothing else, it will surely get the attention of the pols in D.C., and as more states pass a hodgepodge of similar laws, perhaps Congress will finally act on something meaningful.-TONY

Tam, Everything you wrote was dead on until you got to the above. The bill was written and promoted by CONSERVATIVES, not liberals. The governor had little choice but to sign it, given her prior comments on cracking down on employers, and the fact the bill's sponsors would have used any veto by the gov to burn her in the town square. -TONY

This would be one of the loads I would sight about 1 inch high at 25 yards. You didn't provide all the info, so I used a factory round with a MV of 2,800 fps, 165-gr. spitzer bullet with .407 bullet coefficent at an altitude of 2,500'. Your first zero would be at 12-15 yards and the downrange second zero is 250 yds., and it basically gives you a nice 8-9" point-blank range from 0-300 yards. The second chart is for a 25 yd. zero, which is about like sighting in for 100 yards. -TONY 0 2800 -0.75 10 2774 -0.11 20 2754 0.49 30 2733 1.04 40 2712 1.55 50 2692 2.01 60 2672 2.42 70 2652 2.78 80 2631 3.09 90 2611 3.35 100 2591 3.57 110 2572 3.72 120 2552 3.82 130 2532 3.88 140 2513 3.88 150 2493 3.81 160 2474 3.7 170 2455 3.53 180 2436 3.31 190 2417 3.01 200 2398 2.67 210 2379 2.26 220 2360 1.79 230 2341 1.25 240 2323 0.66 250 2304 0 260 2286 -0.72 270 2268 -1.52 280 2250 -2.38 290 2232 -3.31 300 2213 -4.31 310 2195 -5.39 320 2177 -6.53 330 2160 -7.74 340 2142 -9.03 350 2124 -10.4 Zero at 25 yds. 0 2800 -0.5 10 2774 -0.27 20 2754 -0.08 30 2733 0.07 40 2712 0.17 50 2692 0.21 60 2672 0.21 70 2652 0.17 80 2631 0.07 90 2611 -0.08 100 2591 -0.27 110 2572 -0.52 120 2552 -0.83 130 2532 -1.18 140 2513 -1.59 150 2493 -2.07 160 2474 -2.59 170 2455 -3.17 180 2436 -3.8 190 2417 -4.5 200 2398 -5.25 210 2379 -6.07 220 2360 -6.95 230 2341 -7.89 240 2323 -8.89 250 2304 -9.97 260 2286 -11.1 270 2268 -12.3 280 2250 -13.57 290 2232 -14.91 300 2213 -16.32 310 2195 -17.8 320 2177 -19.35 330 2160 -20.97 340 2142 -22.67 350 2124 -24.45

I don't have time this morning to address many of the comments and questions because I'm headed off to Arrowhead Hospital in a bit so a nice Swedish blond lady can carve on my torso a bit. So hang loose for a day or two and I shall return. In the meantime, here are a couple more questions to think about in regards to "trophy hunting." I'm curious to hear opinions on why hunting a trophy deer or elk has anything to do with the season. IOW, let's take a Dec. Coues hunt; do the trophies magically appear in certain units for Xmas parties, or what? Where are they when the Oct. and Nov. seasons occur? Same questions for the big bulls during the rut hunts; do they go "poof" and disappear during the later seasons? Or...perhaps because the actual hunting takes less effort is the reason these are considered "trophy hunts?" Lastly, pasted below are the figures for many years of permits stats. Mull them over a bit and then we'll talk about them when I return. Pay attention especially to the number of 1st chice applicants to the number of permits being issued over the last few years. Now everyone play nice while I'm "incapacitated." -TONY Historical - General Year 1stC Permits issued 1971 - 77437 1972 66905 74096 1973 83334 75200 1974 79664 82650 1975 80929 79750 1976 86829 83125 1977 83593 84265 1978 84017 81675 1979 85072 78215 1980 94285 79409 1981 92679 77755 1982 91673 83045 1983 71826 94285 1984 72989 92545 1985 80014 92345 1986 82982 94871 1987 84145 87340 More Recent General 2000 85091 46072 2001 83808 44978 2002 84384 42020 2003 86546 37260 2004 90057 36665 2005 83264 37918 2006 85534 3813(0) There was misprint elimnating a # on this one. Junior 2000 2427 1250 2001 2571 1625 2002 2863 1510 2003 2855 980 2004 2815 1030 2005 2634 1280 2006 2581 1332 Muzzleloader Historical 1984 424 950 1985 263 950 1986 337 950 1987 402 750 1988 556 1000 1989 877 1250 1990 713 1139 1991 772 1181 Muzzleloader More Recent 2000 1489 915 2001 1456 869 2002 1775 995 2003 1585 745 2004 1896 783 2005 1498 859 2006 1724 924 Archery - Tags sold 2000 25338 2001 23783 2002 23082 2003 22447 2004 22675 2005 22949

Bob, That's a good bullet. Although I shot 10 of the 12 critters I killed in Africa with my .264, I used 180-Core-Lokts in my .300 Win mag for the other two. And I have 3 boxes of 140- grainers sitting behind me that are for the new, never-fired Rem. 700 Ti in 7mm SAUM that I want to sell. -TONY