Outdoor Writer

I have owned a POST-1964 M70 .264 mag since 1965, Since then it's probably let the air out of an estimated 150-175 critters from a tiny jackrabbit up to a 61" Canada moose. I don't have exact numbers but I know it's accounted for more than 50 deer of various species/subspecies, including about six or seven Coues. Along the way it accounted for at least a dozen javilina, 10 elk, three black bears, three caribou, six pronghorns, several exotics and a gaggle of game in New Zealand and Africa. IOW, it's been my go-to rifle for 50 years, and it looked exactly like that about 15 years ago. The stock and bluing were well worn from carrying it in a saddle scabbard for many, many miles. So I had Robar rejuvenate it with an NP3 coating on all the metal parts and a new McMillan composite stock. It still looks great today and still shot straight when I killed my desert sheep with it last Dec. For the most part, except for some very early experiments with the 100 gr. bullet, I've stuck with a 140 gr, load. I reloaded for many years but went to using factory loads about 10 years back and it still killed what I aimed at. Now, all that said.... My son Keith shoots a Ruger 77 in .270. A while back I ran ballistic tables for it using a 130 gr. bullet and for the .264 with 140 gr. I was quite surprised to see how close they were in both trajectory and energy. Point: if you want to burn lots of powder and/or spend a bunch of money for factory loads, the .264 would fit nicely. If you just want to kill deer, buy a .270. These show what my M70 looks like now.

Draw Results

Draw Results

Hurt Hunting Bison Guided Hunt 3-day… Bulls 5+ years - 1,200-1,600 lbs - $3,000 Cows 3+ years - 700-900 lbs - $1,600

I watched about 98% of the court proceedings, mostly on a streaming video feed with no commercials and very little input from biased talking heads on either side of the aisle. At the same time, I had two big TVs on -- one tuned to CNN and the other to Fox News. So when there was a break in the trial proceedings, I listened to all the talking heads opine on what was going on. Some were pretty astute and others were hoots. (see the CNN FB post at the end) Long before deliberations began, I told my wife Ellen why and what the outcome would be because there was NO other legitimate verdict possible, given the evidence presented and testimony provided. In fact, the prosecution witnesses pretty much sealed the verdict for the DEFENSE! That said, one can never tell what any jury will do. After watching CNN a bit today, I posted the following on CNN's Facbook page a while ago: When Mark O'Mara chastised the media for fueling the fire of racism, which became the basis for the wrongful persecution and prosecution of Gearge Zimmerman, he was dead on. AND..incredulously AFTER the verdict, the talikng heads at CNN continue to stoke the fires with all the BS about federal charges from the Justice. Dept. All the Monday morning quarterbacking as to the"what ifs" the prosecutors "would have, should have, could have" had done to find Zimmerman guilty is meaningless. The trial is over and the verdict has been read. As for Sunny Hostin's "legal" opinions, it's easy to see why she is a "former" prosecutor. All through this trial, it sounded as if she was watching a different one. And that's especially true when it came to addressing the Fla. statute regarding self-defense. The law does NOT state that a person must sustain death or great bodily harm BEFORE using force -- ANY force -- to defend themself. The only qualification that matters is one where the person FEARS possible death or great bodily harm. The fact Zimmerman did sustain injuries, even though Sunny didn't consider them serious, was enough for him to FEAR any more blows by Martin would lead to his death or great bodily harm. So here's a bit of my Monday morning quarterbacking: O'Mara probably 'might have, should have, could have' used the following example to nail that point where the women on the jury and perhaps even the biased Sunny Hostin could have related to. O'Mara>> Let's look at self-defense and what it means according to Florida's law. Picture one of you walking in the same area as Mr. Zimmerman did. A would-be rapist jumps out of the bushes, pushes you to the ground on your back and quickly pulls your panties down and off. You have a gun in your purse that you can readily reach and use to shoot the perp. So..do you wait until the rapist finishes the sex act and perhaps begins to choke or stab you to death, or do you shoot him ASAP because you FEAR you might be killed or sustain great bodily harm?<< Of course, I guess it's possible that Sunny doesn't believe rape involves great bodily harm because no visible blood or broken bones result.

The hunt that takes place in 36B -- my favorite unit -- over Thanksgiving would be my first choice with the Oct. hunt as 2nd choice. Both usually have leftovers after the initial drawing. The only hitch might be the 10% NR quota, but that's somewhat unlikely for Coues deer.

Be sure BOTH belt pulleys are lined up perpendicular so the belt isn't at any angle, which migh produce a vibration. If the key (bar) doesn't have a concave little area where the set screw contacts it, try making one. First, put it all together with a bit of lipstick on the tip of the set screw that you lightly tighten until it touches the bar. Next, you can take either drill with a bit or a roto tool with an abrasive SMALL tip that will etch metal right at the lipstick mark. It doesn't have to be very deep. Put everything back together. The only other problem could be the threads in the pulley. If they are a bit stripped, the set screw will work its way out more easily with the vibrations. In this case, it could be enlarged a bit and retapped for a bigger set scew. Or, as suggested, use Loctite on the screw.

Hmmm, that's strange. The only way that could happen is if the card was from the same issuer that automatically canceled the old one. It sounds more like you just received a new card with an updated expiration date. Was the old one also a Bass Pro card with a different number?

I've been using a Chase Visa to apply and charge tags for years with no issues ever. BUT...if you are still concerned, CALL Chase and tell them you might have charge(s) from AGFD and you would like a notation of such on your account in their computer to allow the charges. If your expiration date is current and you're not over your credit limit, there should be no problem. TJ, You didn't specifically say, but did Peggy actually cancel/close the other CC account you did use? If not, having another card wouldn't have affected anything. For anyone else who doesn't know about this, see this thread I started the other day: Consider this an early warning!

The email below arrived in my box today. I don't wanna read any complaining about CC companies rejecting charges from G&F. CALL YOUR CC NOW and tell them to expect the charges and to note such on your account in their computer. Lastly, be sure you have enough $s left under your limit to accept any and ALL charges for the tags you applied for. Also, be sure the expiration date is current. If you need to make any changes, go to the link at the bottom, scroll down the page and click on UPDATE MY PAYMENT INFORMATION. ** PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL ** THIS IS AN AUTOMATIC EMAIL AND REPLIES WILL NOT BE RECEIVED. Thank you for applying for the 2013 Fall big game draw. As a reminder, the draw will be taking place soon and our records indicate that your credit card was used to apply online for one or more big game applications. If you are drawn for any of the species you applied for, your credit card will be charged for the full amount of the tag. Failure to have a valid credit/debit card number on file at the time of the Drawing will result in your application being rejected (regardless of posted results). If you have applied for multiple species and you need to update your payment information, be sure to update your payment information for each species. Please visit the online draw page and use the option "Update My Payment Information" to update your credit/debit card number to be considered for the Draw. Online Draw Page - https://az.gov/app/huntdraw/home.xhtml

Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release July 01, 2013 Executive Order -- Combating Wildlife Trafficking EXECUTIVE ORDER - - - - - - - COMBATING WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to address the significant effects of wildlife trafficking on the national interests of the United States, I hereby order as follows: Section 1. Policy. The poaching of protected species and the illegal trade in wildlife and their derivative parts and products (together known as "wildlife trafficking") represent an international crisis that continues to escalate. Poaching operations have expanded beyond small-scale, opportunistic actions to coordinated slaughter commissioned by armed and organized criminal syndicates. The survival of protected wildlife species such as elephants, rhinos, great apes, tigers, sharks, tuna, and turtles has beneficial economic, social, and environmental impacts that are important to all nations. Wildlife trafficking reduces those benefits while generating billions of dollars in illicit revenues each year, contributing to the illegal economy, fueling instability, and undermining security. Also, the prevention of trafficking of live animals helps us control the spread of emerging infectious diseases. For these reasons, it is in the national interest of the United States to combat wildlife trafficking. In order to enhance domestic efforts to combat wildlife trafficking, to assist foreign nations in building capacity to combat wildlife trafficking, and to assist in combating transnational organized crime, executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall take all appropriate actions within their authority, including the promulgation of rules and regulations and the provision of technical and financial assistance, to combat wildlife trafficking in accordance with the following objectives: (a) in appropriate cases, the United States shall seek to assist those governments in anti-wildlife trafficking activities when requested by foreign nations experiencing trafficking of protected wildlife; (b)the United States shall promote and encourage the development and enforcement by foreign nations of effective laws to prohibit the illegal taking of, and trade in, these species and to prosecute those who engage in wildlife trafficking, including by building capacity; ( c) in concert with the international community and partner organizations, the United States shall seek to combat wildlife trafficking; and (d) the United States shall seek to reduce the demand for illegally traded wildlife, both at home and abroad, while allowing legal and legitimate commerce involving wildlife. Sec. 2. Establishment. There is established a Presidential Task Force on Wildlife Trafficking (Task Force), to be co-chaired by the Secretary of State, Secretary of the Interior, and the Attorney General (Co-Chairs), or their designees, who shall report to the President through the National Security Advisor. The Task Force shall develop and implement a National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking in accordance with the objectives outlined in section 1 of this order, consistent with section 4 of this order. Sec. 3. Membership. (a) In addition to the Co-Chairs, the Task Force shall include designated senior-level representatives from: (i) the Department of the Treasury; (ii) the Department of Defense; (iii) the Department of Agriculture; (iv) the Department of Commerce; (v) the Department of Transportation; (vi) the Department of Homeland Security; (vii) the United States Agency for International Development; (viii) the Office of the Director of National Intelligence; (ix) the National Security Staff; (x) the Domestic Policy Council; (xi) the Council on Environmental Quality; (xii) the Office of Science and Technology Policy; (xiii) the Office of Management and Budget; (xiv) the Office of the United States Trade Representative; and (xv) such agencies and offices as the Co-Chairs may, from time to time, designate. (b)The Task Force shall meet not later than 60 days from the date of this order and periodically thereafter. Sec. 4. Functions. Consistent with the authorities and responsibilities of member agencies, the Task Force shall perform the following functions: (a) not later than 180 days after the date of this order, produce a National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking that shall include consideration of issues relating to combating trafficking and curbing consumer demand, including: (i) effective support for anti-poaching activities; (ii) coordinating regional law enforcement efforts; (iii) developing and supporting effective legal enforcement mechanisms; and (iv) developing strategies to reduce illicit trade and reduce consumer demand for trade in protected species; ( b ) not later than 90 days from the date of this order, review the Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime of July 19, 2011, and, if appropriate, make recommendations regarding the inclusion of crime related to wildlife trafficking as an implementation element for the Federal Government's transnational organized crime strategy; ( c) coordinate efforts among and consult with agencies, as appropriate and consistent with the Department of State's foreign affairs role, regarding work with foreign nations and international bodies that monitor and aid in enforcement against crime related to wildlife trafficking; and (d) carry out other functions necessary to implement this order. Sec. 5. Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking. Not later than 180 days from the date of this order, the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), in consultation with the other Co-Chairs of the Task Force, shall establish an Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking (Advisory Council) that shall make recommendations to the Task Force and provide it with ongoing advice and assistance. The Advisory Council shall have eight members, one of whom shall be designated by the Secretary as the Chair. Members shall not be employees of the Federal Government and shall include knowledgeable individuals from the private sector, former governmental officials, representatives of nongovernmental organizations, and others who are in a position to provide expertise and support to the Task Force. Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable domestic and international law, and subject to the availability of appropriations. (b)Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof, or the status of that department or agency within the Federal Government; or (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. ( c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. (d) Insofar as the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.) (the "Act"), may apply to the Advisory Council, any functions of the President under the Act, except for that of reporting to the Congress, shall be performed by the Secretary in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Administrator of General Services. (e) The Department of the Interior shall provide funding and administrative support for the Task Force and Advisory Council to the extent permitted by law and consistent with existing appropriations. BARACK OBAMA

SCI Foundation Commends Intentions of Executive Order on Illegal Wildlife Trafficking Washington, D.C. — Today, July 1, 2013, President Obama signed an executive order establishing a Presidential Taskforce on Wildlife Trafficking (Taskforce). Safari Club International Foundation (SCI Foundation) is pleased that the administration has taken such a strong step to combat the growing problem of poaching and illegal wildlife trade. The Taskforce will coordinate efforts among federal agencies and work with foreign nations and international bodies to aid in enforcement against crime related to wildlife trafficking. “SCI Foundation looks forward to working with the Taskforce to address the poaching crisis and ensure a sustainable future for Africa’s wildlife,” stated SCI Foundation President Joe Hosmer. “With over 22% of sub-Saharan Africa protected in hunting preserves, it is vital that the Taskforce get the hunting community involved in this effort and SCI Foundation stands ready to help.” SCI Foundation was also pleased to see that the President took the time to make the distinction between the illegal wildlife trade resulting from poaching, and the legal wildlife trade that provides over $200 million dollars in income to rural and underdeveloped African communities through sustainable-use hunting programs. “The current poaching crisis is a nonpartisan issue that requires everyone’s attention,” concluded President Hosmer. For more information about SCI Foundation and its work in Africa, visit www.safariclubfoundation.org. To interview a spokesperson, please contact media@safariclub.org.

see Obama's Exec. Order - Combating Wildlife Trafficking in Political section

It appears to be a natural result of antler shedding. The porouis areas atop the pedicle stubbs are where the osteoclast cells grow when the bull's testosterone level increases. Those cells weaken the connection between the antler and the to cause the shedding. All but the very tops of pedicle stubbs are under and/or surrounded by the hide.

You need to split the rule into three parts. The first part is 4,and everything listed under a & b is ILLEGAL for a hunter to do!! Take note that all "edible or ingestible substances," i.e. food stuffs, are illegal under this part. Sec. 5 is self-explanatory, i.e. G&F may use such stuff as apple mash, etc.. to catch sheep, or meat, etc. to trap or kill problem bears or whatever. Then you go to Sec. 6 -- it explains that under a,b,c,d,-- water, salt, salt-based mineral products, etc. -- are NOT considered "edible or ingestible substances," thus they are LEGAL to use. R12-4-303. Unlawful Devices, Methods, and Ammunition 4. An individual shall not use edible or ingestible substances to aid in taking big game. The use of edible or ingestible substances to aid in taking big game is unlawful when: a. An individual places edible or ingestible substances for the purpose of attracting or taking big game, or b. An individual knowingly takes big game with the aid of edible or ingestible substances placed for the purpose of attracting wildlife to a specific location. 5. Subsection (A)(4) does not limit Department employees or Department agents in the performance of their official duties. 6. For the purposes of subsection (A)(4), edible or ingestible substances do not include any of the following: a. Water. b. Salt. c. Salt-based materials produced and manufactured for the livestock industry. d. Nutritional supplements produced and manufactured for the livestock industry and placed during the course of livestock or agricultural operations.

Nicely done!

Salt or salt-based mineral blocks are NOT considered "edible or ingestible substances," thus clearly allowed and noted under #6, B&C. An "edible or ingestible substance" is basically FOOD -- something a critter can eat by chewing, swallowing and digesting. Grain, corn, etc. would come under that heading.

Congressional Committee to Vote on Protecting Hunting on Public Land Urgent Calls Needed NOW! On Wednesday, June 12th, the U.S. House of Representatives is set to take the first step towards protecting hunting on millions of acres of federal public land. The House Natural Resources Committee is expected to hold a hearing on the Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act (HR 1825), consider potential amendments, and then vote on the full bill. HR 1825, introduced by Representative Dan Benishek (R-MI), is the most significant legislation protecting sportsmen's access in the past 16 years. The key provision of the bill is the "Open Until Closed" language, which mandates that U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands are open to fishing, hunting and recreational shooting unless specific steps are taken to close those lands for necessary and demonstrable reasons. This language is designed to “shut the door” on abusive lawsuits by anti-hunting groups that aim to push sportsmen and women off federal lands. HR 1825 clearly states that fishing, hunting, and recreational shooting are legitimate and important activities on National Forests and BLM lands. The Open Until Closed provision is a "game changer" for the future of hunting, fishing and recreational shooting on public land. The U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance led the charge for similar 1997 legislation that protects sportsmen's access to National Wildlife Refuge land that has resulted in new refuges open to hunting all across America. It is important to have a strong vote in the House Resources Committee. To earn that, sportsmen will need to contact members of the committee to let them know how important HR 1825 is to the future of hunting. Take Action! - Sportsmen and women should contact the following members of the House Resources Committee and ask them to vote ‘YES’ on HR 1825. The support of these members is important to having a strong bi-partisan bill. Tell them hunters, anglers and recreational shooters want their access to public lands protected. Congressman Matthew Cartwright – (202) 225-5546 Congressman Jim Costa – (202) 225-3341 Congressman Peter A. DeFazio – (202) 225-6416 Congressman Joe Garcia – (202) 225-2778

Fool Hollow is a state park -- i.e. run by the state parks department. I would guess that agency installed the lighting system, no? EDIT: Whoops, just saw your second message about the park director.

I wonder if Greg Foster's mom still owned MC Lodge? Greg is/was a river guide that I fished with often in the 1990s. Many years ago I gave his mom a 16"X20" print of a photo of mine that had a silhouetted elk against an orange sunset. It had been hanging in the motel office area where guests check-in. If it was still there, I guess it's likely only ashes now. Greg

No, it's copyright infringement. And although you don't need to do it, you can actually do a legal copyright after the fact on material you own. Since the photo was used in a catalogue, which is expensive to call back/replace, your best bet is to write or call and politely ask for just compensation for the photo use in lieu of a lawsuit.

Need someone to replace the AC compressor in my wife's 2003 Durango. The front seal is kaput on the old one. All I need is the R&R, freon recharge and whatever other labor is necessary. I will supply all of the parts that will include: NEW compressor, drier/accumulator, expansion valve, oil and O-ring kit. I'm in the west valley but can head east if absolutely necessary. Oh yeah; I prefer to have a guy that knows what he's doing. Send me a PM with a ballpark figure to do the job.

Thanks. The problem is a place like that isn't likely to install my parts.

Neat Fish. I always wondered why they named it a "tiger trout" even though it has spots rather than stripes. Seems Leopard, jaguar or ocelot trout would be more proper. If I recall, it's a hybrid of a brown and brookie, right.