Outdoor Writer

Bill Q, Some interesting comments in this thread for sure. I wonder how we all got along in the woods during the "good ol' days" of the ealy 1980s when more than 90,000 folks had deer permits. Maybe AZ was much bigger back then, eh? As for the current and VERY random AGFD survey, it appears every question has an optional answer at one extreme or the other or somewhere in between. So the only way the results can lead to more hunters/permits/opportunities will be if those answering the questions swing toward that end. Obviously those who DON'T want to see more permits have the option to answer the survey questions so they reflect THEIR opinions. For those who weren't around way back when or didn't pay attention, the following is a list of the general season permits going back to the record high number in 1986. The total was also above 85,000 for a couple years prior to and after 1986. The reason for the high # of permits is simple: AZ experienced TWO years of massive rainfall -- 100-yr. flood types -- in the early 1980s and the deer herd growth reflected that. I don't recall anyone complaining about overcrowding back then. In fact, most folks were happy for the chance to go hunting. Heck, some guys even got two permits. What a concept, huh? Today, there are a 1/3 the number of deer hunters in the woods. Historical Deer Permit Totals The downward trend for the number of deer permits issued annually began in the early 1990s when the ?drought? began in the West. 2006 37,975 2005 37,695 2004 36,325 (Record Low) 2003 37.025 2002 42,295 2001 44.695 2000 45,850 1999 46,820 1998 47,505 1997 51,815 1996 58,260 1995 63,900 1986 95,821 (Record High)

The snippet below is a portion from an article I did on Coues deer more than 15 years ago. It was the first time I spent any time with Duwane in the field. The photo of Duwane & I on the back cover of the "How to Hunt Coues Deer" book was taken a couple years ago in Mexico with a buck he glassed up from a high hilltop. -TONY **** Keith, my 28-yr-old son and I applied for the December hunt in the units southeast of Tucson last year. Instead, we drew permits for November, our second choice. A few weeks before the season, I called Duwane Adams, one of the top Coues deer guides in the state. I've known Adams for a few years, so he was well aware of my quest for a good trophy. When I asked him where he thought we should hunt, he told me about an area he KNEW had some big bucks. None of his clients had drawn permits there, so he had no problem with us hunting in HIS area. He even suggested we scout the area the weekend before the season. Two weeks later, I met him at our designated rendezvous. We drove a few miles off Interstate 19, then turned onto a dirt road that wound its way into the Santa Rita Mountains. The trip took only about a half-hour. I had heard Adams had a unique way of using powerful binoculars. During our earlier phone conversation, he had asked if I had a pair. Coincidentally, I recently had acquired some Jason 8-24 zooms. Adams said they would be work for the scouting trip. He also recommended I bring a tripod. We parked the truck just before daylight. By the time the sun rose high enough to see, we had arranged our tripod-mounted binoculars so we could see over the metal guard rail bordering the edge of the steep canyon. We spotted seven deer during the first hour. Suddenly, Duwane let out a long, low whistle. When I looked over at him, he still had his eyes pushed against the binoculars. I realized whatever he saw had to be above average. Adams has looked at lots of big deer. I didn't want to sound too anxious, though. "Buck?" I asked. Without turning away from the eyepieces, Adams simply nodded his head once, then pointed to a nearby ridge less than a 100 yards away. "He's bedded down under those oaks." I searched the side of the ridge for a few seconds before I heard the snort. Seemingly aware we were now watching him, the buck had jumped from its bed and bounded about 20 yards up the ridge. He stopped, facing away from us, then turned his head to look back. Quickly, I adjusted the head of my tripod so the 8-24 zoom binoculars pointed toward the buck. I cranked up the power to 15. As I adjusted the focus knob on the Jason optics, the deer's rack became sharply defined. It was my turn to whistle. The buck was unquestionably the largest I had seen in the years I had spent roaming in Arizona. His symetrical heavy antlers, spreading well past his ears, sported at least four tall and thick tines on each main beam and eyeguards that appeared about three inches high. Adams, who has seen his share of big Coues deer over the many years he has guided hunters in Arizona, seemed somewhat impressed, too. "That monster, my friend, would make the top five in Boone and Crockett and would probably go Number One in Pope and Young. I can guarantee if I had hunters in this unit that deer would never make it out of this canyon."

This is an old, sort of blurry image of part of my trophy room. The coyote has a Gambel's quail in its mouth. -TONY

Jim, That's also a 35mm scan, and there's a VERY humorous story about that pix. I shot that during the pitch black of 3:00 a.m. on property owned by the U of A. I was there with one of the biology professors to specifically take rattler pix. They had surgically implanted radios in several of them, which would make them easy to find. So we ate dinner and went to bed at 9, then got up at 2 and headed to the tract of land where the snakes were set loose several weeks earlier. Before we went to bed, however, we set out a few small critter traps, baited with oatmeal. We had hoped to catch a mouse or two to feed a snake. We each had a fanny pack with our cameras, and I wielded a big flashlight and the snake stick. My buddy carried the antenna/receiver and had a field mouse we had caught in his jacket pocket. He also had some monofilament, which we planned to tie to the mouse's leg and lead him in front of a snake. Less than 100 yards from the truck, we picked up a strong signal and started toward it. On the way, we came to the edge of a fairly deep and wide wash. My friend stopped alongside some brush and I walked within about three feet of him. He told me that we had to watch those areas close because the snakes liked to hunt alongside the washes, and he preferred if we could find one that didn't have a radio in it. That way feeding it wouldn't disrupt any of the research his students were doing. So I think I just nodded my OK. Right then, I pointed the flashlight beam toward the ground between us. The snake in the photo was all comfy and curled less them a foot from either of us. He could have had his pick on which one to bite but never even raised his head or rattled. My first words, "Oooohh, s**t" but before I got the second word out, Norm had already jumped six feet sideways and three feet up. I followed suit a second later. Unfortunately, we never did get the snake to eat. On the first pass in front of its nose, the mouse wiggled loose from the mono and left town.

And another -- taken north of the Palo Verde plant.

If you attempt to bring in the caribou racks without splitting the skull plates, take either a 1" diameter branch or a piece of 1" x2" that's a couple inches wider than the midway part of the rack width. Then tie it across the beams with twine and cover the twine with several layers of duct tape. It will help keep the rack from getting broken. Not sure when you're going, but if it's early, the antler tips might still be soft. So as others suggested, either duct tape the tips well with a piece of cardboard over the very tip or add a short length of garden hose. I've brought 'bou racks from AK, NWT and BC this way with no problem. But they will charge you extra, and how much depends on the airline. I split my red deer antlers so the shipping crate from NZ didn't have to be huge since international air shipping goes more by volume rather than weight. If you do split racks, best way is to cut about 7/8 of the way through the plate from nose to back end, then twist the plate so the remaining part breaks. It then provides a good starting point for lining up the plate to put it back together because sawing it leaves an obvious gap the thickness of the blade. I put mine back together by first drilling two holes on each side, fitting the joint together and putting long sheetrock-type screws through the skull plate into a 6' long piece of 2" x 8". That served as a heavy enough base to keep the antlers steady while I applied fiberglass resin and cloth to the joint. Once that dried, I took the screws out and did the same to the backside of the joint. Of course, you can also adjust accordingly to the spread you'd like. If you do kill two 'bous and two moose, it might a be a lot cheaper to have them shipped to you by a local taxdermist up there. The green hides are VERY heavy. The one from my BC moose weighed 60+ lbs. by itself and the antlers were about 45, if I recall. Fortunately I had driven my own vehicle on that hunt. Maybe someday if we ever get together, I'l tell you about the funny incident that happened on my way home with the moose antlers tied on top of my Coleman canoe, which was atop my shell on a Nissan 4x4. Let's just say the park rangers in Jellystone NP get nervous when they see moose antlers that aren't attached to a live moose. -TONY

Clay is a nice guy. I interviewed him once for an article I was doing on the guy who killed a big mulie on one of the auction/raffle special tags. Bundy had helped guide. Here's a little sidebar I did about him and his family -- the founders of Bundyville! -TONY The somewhat vague history of the Arizona Strip tells us the first white men to visit the area were Dominguez and Escalante when they traveled along the base of the Hurricane Cliffs on their return trip from central Utah in 1776. Nearly a century later, other Anglos attempted to take advantage of the area?s vast land resources, but conflicts with native tribes occurred as the newcomers quickly laid claim to the best water sources and vegetation. Disputes between settlers and the Navajo, Paiute and Ute tribes culminated in the Black Hawk Navajo Wars of 1866-1869. By 1870, Mormon paramilitary action had mostly quelled the native resistance, eventually leading to the "Treaty of Mount Trumbull" and the establishment of several Paiute reservations. Although the settlers included a colorful array of ranchers, sheepmen, cowboys and outlaws, the majority of the newcomers were Mormons, dispatched by the Church of Latter Day Saints to lay claim to the choicest land and resources before non-Mormons settled them. A number of large ranches were established, as well as a sawmill and a large dairy, and the rights to limited water sources of the region were swiftly claimed, though often without "valid government title." Range wars -- often settled with guns -- were quite common in this lawless frontier, and cattle rustling was a crime with hanging as its punishment. Immigration to the Strip was encouraged by two events in 1916: the Stock Raising Homestead Act and the opening of a half million acres of Utah?s Dixie National Forest to homestead entry. In addition, a climatic shift early in the 20th century brought increased rains and snows, which filled water holes and allowed the grasslands to grow lush. About the time of the immigration surge to the Strip country, Abraham Bundy and his family had been living in the Mormon colony of Moroles, in the state of Sonora, Old Mexico. But Poncho Villa and the Mexican Revolution of 1912 forced them to seek out a gentler environment. So Abraham brought his wife, eldest son Roy and several daughters to Arizona in 1916, where they settled in an area near the Hurricane Cliffs, not too far from 8,000-ft. Mt. Trumbull. Bundyville, also known as Mt. Trumbull, became the Strip's largest community. Eventually, nearly 300 people lived in the town, which included a schoolhouse that was built in 1922. Roy Bundy just happens to be Clay Bundy?s grandfather, and Clay went to classes until the third grade in Bundyville?s tiny schoolhouse. Today, little remains of Bundyville. The school had been abandoned in the early 1960s, then later restored. It recently burned, but it?s demise as part of the Strip?s history won?t last long. Clay Bundy is a contractor and has already made plans to restore it once again. He also still owns a cabin on a ranch near Bundyville. It sits on land that belonged to Roy Bundy until Clay?s father, Orvel, bought it.

Oh, I have a formal invitation alright and also several letters regarding it. In fact, it also involved an RSVP to the Cabela's offices in Sydney. I have a feeling they're having several different dealies going on. From what I understand, the Thurs. affair is called "VIP Day" and is for the *media.* The official ribbon cutting ceremony is also occurring on Thurs. at 11 am to start the day. So your Weds. deal is likely something else. -TONY

Hmmm. Are you talking about the media event the day before the grand opening on Fri.? If so, isn't that on Thurs. 27th rather than Weds.? -TONY

Nada! Shut out 0 for 5. Congrats to all the dudes who enjoyed some success. At least I get to go hunt Sika blacktail on Kodiak in Oct. -TONY

Wondering when someone would fess up. LOL She said the truck exited before she did same at 27th. She leaves the house about 7:30, so it would have likely been somewhere between 7:45 and 8:00. I also own a red Dodge 4x4 PU, BTW. Ellen drives a dark blue 2x4 Durango. -TONY

My wife was driving to work on I-10 yesterday morning and noted a red truck with a Coueswhitetail.com sticker on it. It was somewehere between 59th where she gets on and either 43rd or 35th Ave. where the truck left the freeway. She said it was a full-size truck and thought it was either a Ford or Chevy. Who's the owner??? -TONY

Hmmm, I don't see how that is possible. Third thru 5th choices are a COMPLETELY different drawing that starts anew for any leftover tags after the first draw. The first draw considers ONLY 1st and 2nd choices. So if the guys had the unit you drew as their 1st choice and all the tags weren't accounted for before their number was pulled, they would have had to draw one. IOW, as long as anyone has the 1st or 2nd choice for a unit, there is NO way they wouldn't be drawn if there are tags left to go into the 2nd draw. About the only way they wouldn't get a tag if their CC was bad. -TONY

audsley, Of course, I can't say it will NEVER happen, but I doubt we'll see any wolves in 36B for a long, long time -- if ever. First off, they would have to wait a minimum of 10 years for the final review of the Blue experiment in regards to its success or failure. And then in order to expand the range to 36B, it would take another whole new process, starting with the initial EIS, etc. Lastly, there are too many suburban areas within easy striking distance for wandering wolves down there. While 36B -- one of my favs for Coues hunting -- is relatively wild to the west, that's not the case to the east and northeast. But hey, having wolves prowling and perhaps discouraging the illegals from passing through there might not be all that bad. -TONY

DB, Hadn't heard any such meanderings. Perhaps you can illuminate further? -TONY

It's not real difficult to survey a stream/river to see what's living in it by either netting or electroshocking. Indigenous species in one stream are only of any import if they do not exist elsehere in significant numbers, i.e. a species that might be threatened or endangered overall. I think I addressed the stream closure for the Gila trout in the previous reply. Self-sustaining populations do not come about instantly like adding water to a cup of Ramin noodles. The Apache trout reintro waters were also closed to fishing for several years, just as elk hunting seasons were when they first attempted to reestablish them in AZ. -TONY

It often takes a couple generations before a species can reestablish a genuine self-sustaining population when most of the plants involved captive-bred critters. Sometimes that even occurs with animals captured in the wild. The first few plants of Gould's turkey from Mexico to AZ during the 1980s were also complete failures, with most of them becoming coyote fodder. Now there are several thriving populations in various areas to allow limited hunting opportunities. As for the controls being used on the wolves, they are more SOCIALLY related, not biologically related. The EIS set up a designated area for the experimental population and also outlined all the controls that would occur for the specifc circumstances, especially when it comes to killing domestic livestock. The two instances of killing packs for "interbreeding" involved a female wolf breeding with a domestic dog AFTER release into the recovery area. It would seem fairly obvious to most folks that allowing them to promulgate further would completely defeat the purpose of the entire experiment -- establishing a pure strain of the Mexican gray wolf. So what's going on shouldn't be a surrpise in the way of control. If you care to read the original EIS and lots of other info, check out Mexican Wolf Recovery Program. Generally they poison the water to remove all the non-native species BEFORE they restock it with native fish. The chemical they use -- often rotenone -- has a short "shelf" life in the water. The Gila trout program is fairly new, as far as reestablishing entire wild fisheries goes. The same types of closures and poisoning operations occurred when the Apache trout program began many, many years back. Today, the places that were closed to fishing are no longer, and the Apache is no longer on the ES list. In fact, most fisheries on the White Mt. Res. contain Apache trout now. BTW, even the elk populations here had to beefed up after the initial introduction. Here's a bit of historical background from an article I wrote about 15 years ago. Note more thn 20 years passed before the first hunt occurred. -TONY For instance, uncontrolled and abusive hunting practices in the late 19th century took its toll on the native Merriam?s elk. By the early 20th century, this species was extinct in both states. In Arizona, members of the Winslow B.P.O.E (ELk) Club obtained 86 elk in 1913 from Yellowstone National Park, one of the few places in the country where elk still flourished then. They transported the animals to Arizona by train and released then on the Mogollon Rim, where the Merriam's elk once lived. Over time, more Yellowstone elk supplemented the original bunch on the Rim, and other areas near Clifton, Cutter, Kingman, Williams and Alpine received transplanted elk. Even Mt. Graham near Safford received a small number, but the animals never took hold there. By 1935, when the first regulated hunt occurred, the various herds in the state had found a niche and were multiplying at a respectable rate. Of the 276 who hunted that year, 145 killed elk. The annual hunts started in 1950, and more than 4,000 hunters harvested 1,500 bulls and cows that year.

If recall some reading I did, the Mexican gray actually ranged as far north as the Colorado/Utah borders, though you're right in that the major population was concentrated from mid-AZ and NM to the south, including part of TX and of course, Mexico. I doubt any actual jaguar plants have occurred, but they are doing quit a bit of monitoring with cameras and such down there. -TONY

Jim, The condition of that hide is why I like hunting bear very early in the season when the boars first leave the dens and don't have a chance to get all rubbed up. The two big ones I killed up there back in the mid 1980s also had primo hides, but they were both coal black. Killed them all the first week of the BC season. As for articles, I always have a few slots open each fall for elk, mule and Coues deer for AZ, NM and other RM states from the previous seasons. So if you guide clients to any this coming fall, let me know. Just be sure to take some good photos -- digital preferred if you can. USE fill flash, too! -TONY

No doubt anyone who knows about the history of fish and wildlife in AZ won't want to step out on that slippery slope. Otherwise, someone might mention the stocking of non-native Rocky Mt. elk in AZ in the early 1900s to replace the extinct Merriam's species, promulgating the spread of desert sheep or the planting of RM sheep and reestablishing a Gould's turkey population. In the great scheme of things, NONE of these helped the "ecological system function better." In fact, some might argue all of the above took place merely to provide hunters with more targets. On the fishy side of things, we might even include bringing back the Apache trout (now working on the Gila!) and planting non-native fish in streams and lakes, such as the rainbow trout at Lee's Ferry. Now, if the wolf does as many believe it will -- keep big-game numbers down -- it's possible to point at that as making the "ecological system function better," because it would be working within the natural scheme of things. To the great dismay of hunters, the wolf would be then filling the same niche in nature where it did before humans mucked up the ecological system by wiping out the wolf here. -TONY

Sorry. Usually when I see a ? at the end of the sentence, I consider it a question and try to answer such as best I can with the information I have or can readily get. In any case, I don't recall adding my "opinion" about the wolf introduction program to any of the answers to those questions. Have a good night. -TONY

No question: my cigarettes. Now I always carry a spare pack or two even when I think I'll be back in camp in a couple hours. Now seriously, for me, having the ability to build a fire was most important. It would have been a long chilly night without it. Of course, if I was lost, per se, something else such as a GPS or compass or map would have mattered more. But I still would have needed the fire, regardless. -TONY

Lark, Forgot to include the following in my other reply in regards to the DNA. -TONY The evolution of the domestic dog The earliest remains of the domestic dog date from 10 to15 thousand years ago21; the diversity of these remains suggests multiple domestication events at different times and places. Dogs may be derived from several different ancestral gray wolf populations, and many dog breeds and wild wolf populations must be analysed in order to tease apart the genetic sources of the domestic dog gene pool. A limited mtDNA restriction fragment analysis of seven dog breeds and 26 gray wolf populations from different locations around the world has shown that the genotypes of dogs and wolves are either identical or differ by the loss or gain of only one or two restriction sites22. The domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the gray wolf, differing from it by at most 0.2% of mtDNA sequence15,22,23. In comparrison, the gray wolf differs from its closest wild relative, the coyote, by about 4% of mitochondrial DNA sequence14 (Fig. 4). Therefore, the molecular genetic evidence does not support theories that domestic dogs arose from jackal ancestors24. Dogs are gray wolves, despite their diversity in size and proportion; the wide variation in their adult morphology probably results from simple changes in developmental rate and timing25.

Lark, Not sure I can answer all your questions to your satisfaction, especially since I would need to do some research on some. But I'll give a couple a stab, anyway. >>so tell me this, why did all the articles in the paper and why did the bioligists i talked to say that wolves were impervious to parvo? << I've yet to find anyone anywhere that has put something like that in writing. Most comments I've read concerning the connection between parvo and wolves have been just the opposite. The only caveat I've read is that the ADULTS are pretty much immune to parvo. Obviously, in a weakened condition, even adults MIGHT be susceptable to parvo. Built up immunity to anything is never a sure thing across an entire population of any species, including Man. That brings us to the next question, of course. >>did the wolf folks just forget to innoculate the "wolves" for parvo? they shot em up for everything else. << As stated above, the general thought is that ADULT wolves, just as domestic dogs do, eventually build an immunity to parvo. If my research is correct, the only RELEASES of wolves into the wild has involved adults. Thus, supposedly no need to innoculate for parvo. That said, wolf pups do not have that same immunity, and has been stated in many of the research papers I've seen, are indeed susceptable to the parvo virus. Soooooo.... innoculating the part of the wolf population affected by parvo the most would amount to capturing every wolf pup born in the wild. I doubt that would be feasible. >>and why does it say in black and white in the usfw documentation that they all have dog dna?<< Maybe you can point me to it? So far, everything I've found in the USF&WS documentation for the program states just the opposite. Below are a couple of snippets from the service's various EIS statements and such. Of course, they're probably lying again. **** "Recent analyses of allele frequencies at ten nuclear microsatellite loci (gene locations) in Mexican wolves from the three different lineages, other gray wolves, red wolves, coyotes, and domestic dogs provide the most definitive information on the ancestry and genetic purity of the three captive wolf lineages (Garc?a-Moreno et al., 1996 and Hedrick, 1995). From these and other studies, the Genetics Committee of the Mexican Wolf Recovery Team concluded that wolves in the three lineages are all Mexican wolves and that there is no indication of any past cross-breeding with coyotes, dogs, or northern gray wolves (Hedrick, 1995). These studies also provided convincing evidence that two of the four founders of the certified lineage were probably mother and son, reducing the number of unrelated founders for this population to three. Thus the total captive population of Mexican wolves stems from seven founders. Captive breeding efforts truly have rescued this endangered subspecies from the brink of extinction." **** CASE STUDY: THE MEXICAN WOLF Abstract The Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) is the southern-most occurring and most endangered subspecies of gray wolf (Canis lupus) in North America, historically occupying montane woodlands in the southwestern United States (U.S.) and central and northern Mexico. It was extirpated from the wild in the U.S. by private and government control campaigns and was listed as an endangered species in 1976. The Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan recommends the establishment and maintenance of a captive population and the re-establishment of a wild population. Captive propagation was initiated with 5 wild wolves captured in Mexico from 1977 to 1980. In 1995, two additional captive populations were determined to be pure through molecular genetic (DNA) analyses. Currently, there are 150 living wolves in the captive population; and none are known to exist in the wild. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has proposed the reintroduction of a nonessential, experimental population of Mexican wolves. A draft Environmental Impact Statement addresses relevant issues and concerns associated with the proposal. There is broad public support for the recovery and preservation of the Mexican wolf. Most people affiliated with or sympathetic to the livestock industry are opposed. This case study demonstrates the diversity and complexity of scientific and policy issues involved in the conservation and restoration of large carnivores. **** 5. Reported wolf sightings from the Blue area have been followed up, but none have been confirmed. Even if the occasional lone wolf existed in the area, the reintroduction effort could proceed so long as there was not a ?population? (i.e., at least two successful breeding pairs for at least two years). If in fact a wild Mexican wolf existed in the area and interbred with the reintroduced Mexican wolf population, it would not destroy the genetic purity of the reintroduced wolves, but it could enhance their genetic diversity. **** >>every wild animal has to be managed. there it soo much civilization dispersed intermittently around the world to just let nature take it's course.<< You won't get any disagreement from me on either. BUT...I think that management will occur when the time is right, even though it might not be timely enough for some. If some folks in WY weren't being pigheaded, management of the wolves would be already implemented there for all three states, and the wolf would be delisted. But because WY wants it listed as a "predator" with no regulations in place for control, i.e. open season, the USF&WS turned it down. -TONY

Amen, brother. When I do take sides, it's never as a reporter but as someone writing an editorial with my opinion(s). And I try to make that plain. Yet even then, I try to have the actual facts of the issue in plain view, too. -TONY