Adamosa
Sorry this is late, I type slow. Edit worse. I doubt you actual wade through this but someone might.
LUMPY,
I RESPECT YOUR OPPINION BUT I DISAGREE WITH THE WHOLE THING. YOU BASICALLY STATE THAT THE TAGS BELONG TO THE STATE AND THAT THEY SHOULD USE THEM THE WAY THAT THEY BEST SEE FIT.
Yes, I believe they do. By historic practice and recent law, the tags and the wildlife do not belong to the Federal Government, ie: the people of the entire country, they belong to the State of Utah, ie: the people of Utah.
I believe the State (I will use the term the State to mean the people of Utah, represented by those we elect to govern us.) may regulate it's natural resources as it sees fit, further, I believe the State should regulate consumable wildlife primarily for the purpose of preserving, hunting and taking, as well as other intrinsic values associated with a human, plant, and animal holistic existence.
RIGHT NOW YOU FEEL THAT THEY ARE DOING THE BEST THAT THEY CAN.
Right now I believe the State is ?not? doing the best it can. I believe the State is doing many things, some better than others. I believe there are things that can and must be done better if we are going preserve some of our big game species for the purpose of hunting and taking.
YOU ALSO STATE THAT PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO VOTE AGAINST THINGS IF THEY SO DESIRE.
I believe people have the right to vote for representatives that serve them as political representatives. I also believe, based on historic practice and State regulations, that people have and should continue to have, the opportunity to express their opinions, their beliefs and their desires to these representatives or to individuals that these representatives have commissioned to receive the peoples opinions, beliefs and desires. People most certainly have the ?right? to express their opinions, beliefs and desires to anyone, at any place, at any time so long as they do it without infringing on the Constitutional rights of others.
THIS IS WHERE WE REALLY HAVE DIFFERENT OPPINIONS. ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY AND WHO HAS THE MOST.
Unfortunately we do agree on the issue of money. In our present state of civilization, or lack thereof, money drives almost everything. Damnable but true, especially if you're the one that doesn't have any and I am. I guess it has since humans started to barter in order to exchange for their needs.
THE WILDLIFE BOARD AND EVEN THE GOVERNOR DOESNT REALLY CARE ABOUT THE AVERAGE GENERAL HUNTER.
I can't speak for the Governor but I know one of the Wildlife Board members. I have known him since 1976. He installed the septic system in my home in 1976 and we have known each other every since. I know he cares about the average general hunter, he has always been an average general hunter, his children, his father, his brothers and his nieces and nephews always have been average general hunters. These are not elitists or wealthy people. They all work in very small communities, scratching out a living along with most of the folks in rural Utah.
I have a distant knowledge of two other wildlife Board members. One of them is an average general hunter, much like the one I know well. I know he is as passionate about hunting and the culture of hunting as any hunter in the State of Utah. The other of the two is not someone I can say for sure is an ?average general hunter?, I know he is a hunter and loves the outdoors but I guess I would have to say the term ?average general hunter? is subjective, he may seem to be a ?average general hunter? to one of us but may not another of us. I can say this, I do not believe he is one to have thousands of dollars at his disposal to purchase a different kind of hunting experience than most ?average general hunters? have, so from that perspective I would say he is average and cares about preserving hunting and hunting species as much as you and I do.
I met the current Chairman of the Wildlife Board on an elk hunt two years ago. I was helping a crippled gentlemen find an elk and he had a friend with him. I'd didn't know the gentlemen with the elk tag nor his friend as well as I know you. I just got a phone call from a common friend to see if could help, which I did. The current Chairman of the Wildlife Board was doing his best to help his friend find an elk and during the time I spent with them, the Chairman seemed in everyway an average general hunter, like 99% of the people I've ever hunted with. I did not learn that he was the Chairman of the Wildlife Board until over a year later when I ran into him at a gathering where a large group of people had come together share our concerns over wolf issues with our State and Federal legislators. He came over and said hi, do you remember me. I didn't. I had to ask someone who he was and that is when I was told he was the Chairman of the Wildlife Board. I never have saw him again until the Wildlife Board meeting in December. He certainly seemed to care about hunting and the preservation of hunting too me the two times I have been near him.
I know nothing of the other three members of the Wildlife Board but I observed them at the December meeting and I would have to say that all three seemed care deeply about hunting and preserving hunting in Utah.
Not every Wildlife Board member agrees with me or my beliefs as to what the State should do to preserve hunting and hunting species but I certainly do not believe they don't care about the ?average general hunter?.
PAST AND PRESENT DECISIONS HAVE SHOWN THAT. THEY DO CARE ABOUT BIG BUCKS AND BIG DONORS.
I'm guessing (maybe I'm wrong) that you mean the current Wildlife Board because I don't recall hearing a lot of complaints until the current board decided to go back to managing some units for an older age class of elk, the State ruled against fisherman having access to streams and rivers passing through private property and the current unit management decision for deer. Therefore I'm assuming you did not have problems with prior Boards.
I do believe the Wildlife Board decided some units needed to be managed for an older age class of bulls again, for the express purpose of allowing a portion of Utah?s hunters to hunt and take older (larger antlered bulls). I believe the Wildlife Board listened to both arguments from Utah hunters (including but certainly not limited to the SFW) and determined enough hunters wanted to grow older elk then responded by adjusting the regulations in responds to what they believed both kinds of hunters wanted, to the best of their ability.
I do believe the Legislature, the DNR, the DWR and the Wildlife Board care about big donations. Having said that I guess I'd have to say they must then also care for big donors. However, I believe your suggesting that because they care about big donations and big donors they cannot and do not care for the ?average general hunter?. I fact, I believe they care about big donations and big donors for the express purpose of using them to keep wildlife sustainable for the ?average general hunter?. I don't want to put words in your mouth but I believe you believe they use these donors to help preserve wildlife so the donors can hunt, I, on the other hand believe they are using the bid donors to help preserve wildlife for us. Prior to the State harnessing the resources of these big donors and their big donations the non-hunters were slowly but most certainly impacting our hunting heritage. I remember when the wilderness advocates and the anti-hunting communities were taking control of every wildlife decision in the State. That influence and impact has been reduced ten fold since the State begin using the resources generated from these big donors. Many other habitat and species improvements such as turkey, moose, sheep and to some extent elk have also benefited from these donations. Cougar and bear hunting has also been preserved since we sent the anti-hunters to the back of the room. Before we had these big donor?s dollars we were losing to the antis at every turn. You could argue that we don't need the money to send those folks out the door but I'm saying we weren't getting it done and there was not evidence we were ever going to.
Regarding the stream and river fishing issue. I don't believe you can lay that one at the feet of the Wildlife Board. SFW is a group that will take a position, that is the only thing that make?s them worthwhile so thankfully they will take risks and take a position. Maybe the SFW?s support made a different, maybe it didn't. Personally, I can take some disappointment if I'm still getting 60/40 out of the organization and regardless of this particular issue I believe I'm getting far more of what I want from the organization than what it's costing me.
While I believe I've been forth right but agreeing that the current management of elk is for the purpose of growing larger antlered animals on a reasonable number of units, why is it so difficult to believe that the reason I support unit management for deer is not about antler size. Many hunters, I don't know what percentage but some say 30% (I believe more because I don't believe the survey the generated that statistic is viable) believe unit management is necessary at this time. However lets say the survey is viable and only 30% of our hunter support unit management, it won't change my belief that our deer herds are and have been declining in total numbers for many, many years, our fawn recruitment is in serious trouble and in general these deer need help or we are going to loose them as a hunt able species. Therefore it would seem disingenuous for your to continue to tell the folks that I'm only interested I grow older, large antlered bucks. It is simply not true, nor do I believe that is SFW?s motivation in supporting unit management.
The Wildlife Board?s decision regarding deer management was an open process; one year of consideration and three weeks of intense hearings went into their minds. Hundreds of letters, e-mail and hours of presentations by the DWR and hours of discussion from every hunter that wanted to express their wants and desires. The Board heard the concerns from every board member and allowed the Director of the DWR to express his views for a full day and again at the public hearing. Lets assume that every Board Member came into the public meeting with an opinion, that would seem normal to me, after all they had just studied the issue for a day and a half and had received input from hunters of all kinds for months prior to the meeting. To say that had they had their minds made up prior to the public hearing, as if that were outrageous, is difficult for me to understand. Why won't they have had a strong deposition as to what they were going to do by then. At any point of time prior to the final vote they could have changed their mind. That was and is the purpose of the public hearing, to allow the public, one last opportunity to present new or misunderstood information to the Board. I sat through three RAC meeting and never heard any new or previously undiscussed information presented to the Wildlife Board. They heard nothing they had not already heard four or five times. I repeat that. The Wildlife Board didn't hear any new compelling reasons to change their minds at the public Board meeting. Two voted as they most likely intended to prior to the start of the meeting and four others voted differently, most likely they voted has they intended to vote before the meeting started. Why? Because they heard noting new.
Where in that process is their evidence that the current Wildlife Board care about big bucks?
The SFW supported deer unit management before the previous Wildlife Board, that Board voted no. Why, if SFW control all wildlife decisions at the expense of the ?average general hunter? did they not get their wish in 2006. In 2010, a different Board, a different time, a different group of hunters, a different decision.
DO YOU REALLY EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE THAT SFW AND OTHER "WILDLIFE" ORGANIZATIONS DON?T CATER TO A RELATIVELY SMALL BUT WEALTHY AND WELL PLACED GROUP?
I don't expect you to believe that, quite the opposite, I think the well placed and the wealthy try to get catered to, just like you and I do, sometimes they win some times they loose. They are people of the State too and they want their way just like we do. The same question could be used to say that PETA, the Sierra Club and the anti-second amendment organizations don't cater to their donors. Just because these organizations want their way does not mean they always get it. As I mentioned previously, SFW wanted unit management in 2006, they did not get what they wanted. PETA wants us to stop killing animals, they lose.
Not always, but as often as not, overwhelming public sentiment trumps big money. Fortunately, there is still some integrity in our country. I know, we all wonder for how much longer but compared to other countries we still have opportunities to control our lives through our established systems.
THAT THEY WANT MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR EVERYONE AND DON?T HAVE VERY STRICT AGENDAS FOR THESE SELECT GROUPS?
No real sure what you mean by this question? I'll take a stab at it. Yes I believe they do have strict agendas, sometime I like their agenda, some times I don't. When I agree I get on board and try to help make it happen, when I disagree I resist them with the level of restrain I believe their agenda justifies. The fact that they have an agenda is not a surprise to me, we all have agendas. Individual agendas are of little consequence however group agendas have more influence as you would expect, large groups with common wants and needs represent can apply more influence whan one or two of us can. That is why it is human nature to look for people with common needs when we go to get something done. A bunch of people all pulling in different directions is what I would imagine anarchy is. Wildlife can't be sustained under a society living in anarchy, neither can anything else for that matter.
THEY ALSO USE THEIR FUNDS AND INFLUENCE TO ELECT OFFICIALS THAT ARE SYMPATHETIC TO THEIR CAUSES? DONT THEY DONATE TO GOVERNORS AND SENATORS.
They certainly do. So do those that want to change the second amendment. So do those that want to close public land to hunting. So do those that want wolves to take all our surplus wildlife, even to the degree of taking away our base herds. So don't you want to have a seat at the table with these governors and senators? (Sorry, I'm supposed to be answering your questions.) It sucks, doesn't it, I agree, especially because I don't have the resources to donate like the wealthy can, that is very much why I support SFW and the funds we can pool together through the Expo and other means to give us a seat at Senator XYZ?s table. Would it surprise me if most of the money from the Expo goes into getting Don Peay in front of the Senators, Governor, and the Presidents of the country? Wouldn?t surprise me at all, we want him there, fighting for our agenda, and our rights. I want him spending my small contribution to influence those that are sympathetic to our hunting lifestyle and our huntable wildlife herds. I'm not smart enough, nor thick skinned enough to do it myself but Don is and that is a good measure of the reason I'll set here all night to try to explain why it support the Expo and SFW via Don Peay.
YOU COMMENT WAS ASININE TO SAY THAT IF I DONT LIKE IT I SHOULD COMPLAIN TO THE GOVERNOR OR MY SENATOR. THEY ALREADY HAVE A STRONG INFLUENCE FROM DON AND THE BOYS AND COULD CARE LESS WHAT OTHERS HAVE TO SAY. BECAUSE MOST OF US DONT HAVE THE INFLUENCE OR THE MONEY TO MATTER.
I didn't say you should complain to the Governor or at least if I did say that I didn't mean complain. I meant contact him and ask him why he believes he should support the Expo or SFW or MDF. If you disagree with him, you should explain to him why and attempt to influence him to your way of thinking.
You say you're unable to do that because you don't have the influence or the money. That may or may not be entirely true but lets say that it is for the sake of this discussion. There was a time when Don had no influence with the Governor or any Senators but he believed he needed that influence if he was going to have an impact on preserving wildlife and hunting. In 1993, I was one of many that wanted influence too. Here is the difference, he put a plan together and started working to have influence and after much hard, unpleasant work, he got the door open a crack. Then he proved himself, and the door open wider, more work, more effort, yes, raising money and assisting in political campains, and after much time and much effort not only was the door open but a trust was established to the extent that decision makers started calling him to ask for his insight into wildlife issues. Because of his ability to be a-political, he gets support from leading politicians from both political parties. What is talant, Adam, or at least I think it is.
I once had a good friend that became Mr. Universe (body builder) and he used to chuckle when, after a show, people would come up to him and say, ?I would give half my life if I could have a physique like yours?. He would smile politely and say, thank you. Then turn to me as say, ?I gave a lot more than half my life for this body, he could look just like me if he gave half his life too?.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, Don wanted influence and he worked for it. We could do the same but we aren't willing to make the investment of our lives and our resources. He is and he is getting the influence he wanted. If we want it, we need to earn it. No one is going to hand it to us. I'm glad Don paid the price and plowed the field that got him where he is today when it comes to Senator and Governors. Most of the time I agree with him and I can live with it when I disagree. Could that change, yes, but after 17 years I've come to believe it is unlikely. It may seem stupid to you but it make sense to me.
YOU ARE DEFENDING THE TAGS BECAUSE YOU STATE THE BENEFITS ARE HUGE. THERE ARE MONITARY BENEFITS. BUT WHEN IS ENOUGH, ENOUGH?
Enough could be any where between 0 and ever tag in Utah. A hundred hunters would give you 50 different numbers because we all see it differently. Let me say that I support the concept of using resources generated from wildlife to improve, protect and sustain wildlife. There comes a point when, if too much of the resource has to be consumed to sustain the resource we are in big trouble. At the present number (500 or 600 or what ever it is) we are a long way from reaching that point. Could we get beyond ?too many? if we keep giving more and more permits to generate more and more money to sustain our herds? I believe we could. Do I think we need more or less than the current number? That is a very good and a certainly a fair question for me and every other hunter. I wish I had a justifiable answer to the question, the truth is I really don't know because I really don't know how much it's going to take to win this war against wolves and how much it's going to take to keep the system from letting our deer herd disappear below a huntable surplus. I'd like to think we are generating enough at the current level so we don't need to give more tags but what if it's not enough? What if we loose our herds and our hunting lifestyle because we can't fund the expense of preserving it. I have not confidence that left to the agencies we won't loose it. How much can you and I pay for a tag to be able empower people like Don Peay to fight with the Federal system, the State system, and the antis from every imaginable agenda. It seems to me the agency people can not fight the kinds of fights, in the locations (Washington DC etc) and the right times that need to be fought. It seems that these battles to protect our hunting heritage must be fought by sportsmen, not by State government employees. If that is true, how do we fund the guys that have to do it. You say you can't go to the Governor or the Senators and expect to get anything do, well neither can I, so who can and maybe more importantly, who will? I believe we have a guy that can and will win some battles that we desperately need to win if we are going to preserve our way of life.
USING YOUR ARGUMENT WE SHOULD AUCTION EVERY TAG WE HAVE
Adam, this is not a fair statement because that is not what I said nor did I infer that we should auction every tag. I discussed this above. I think we can afford to give some tags that can help fund our cause but certainly no all. How many? I hope we can do it with what we are currently using but if someone said we need 5 more and I trusted their judgment I'd swallow that vomit in my throat and agree to give up a few more. So far I'm not feeling pain from the sacrifice but you sure as hell could get there if they keep pushing it. I'm feeling a lot more pain from this quarrel that you and I are having over how we sustain our herds and our love to hunt.
---JUST LIKE MININNG AND OTHER THINGS. THERE ISNT A PUBLIC OIL TAG OR MINERAL TAG. THEY GO TO THE MOST MONEY.
YOUR ORGANIZATIONS ARE ALREADY PUSHING THIS VERY FACT.
Yes they do and I wish you other sportsmen could see their way clear to join me in supporting the reasons to use revenue from wildlife to grow wildlife.
YOU HAVE LED THE CHARGE TO GET THE PAYING HUNTER BOTH EXTRA AND EARLIER DAYS ON THE ANTELOPE ISLAND HUNT. HE WHO PAYS THE MOST SHOULD HAVE THE BETTER OPPERTUNITY.
I didn't but I think you meant SWF did. SFW may or may not have influenced this mess, I've read bits and pieces arguing both sides. If there are deer dieing from old age on the island and it's not a Federally protect piece of property I believe the State has a right to allow hunters to take deer off the island. Why is it any more or less a game preserve than any other piece of State property. I support making it a game preserve too, if that's what the State wants to do. Using a deer tag, a sheep tag or a buffalo tag to raise money to help preserve our hunting heritage is okay with me. Selling a tag off the island to the highest bidder is no difference in my mind than using a tag for any other place in the State. A tag is a tag. If you get more for a tag off the island than you would for a tag off the Fishlake or the Pahvant, why wouldn't you want to auction the tag that would being in the most revenue. Remember, we are using the proceeds to sustain our State herds. Maybe it's used for lobbing expenses but it's being use to benefit all of us that want to preserve hunting.
AS FOR THE WILDLIFE BOARD, THESE MEMBERS ARE SELECTED BY THE GOVERNOR, WHO SFW LOBBIES, DONATES TO AND HAS A STRONG RELATIONSHIP WITH. KNOWING HOW GOVERNMENT WORKS DO YOU REALLY EXPECT ANYONE TO BELIEVE THAT THE SFW DOESNT HAVE A STRONG SAY/INFLUENCE IN WHO IS ELECTED TO THE WILDLIFE BOARD?
Of course they have a strong influence, why would they invest time and effort and our membership fees, etc., etc., and not participate in the processes used to identity Board members that can, to the best of their ability, sustain and preserve hunting and our big game herds? (Sorry, another question, you don't need to answer.)
SFW has influence, we want them too, what's why we have sportsmen organizations. That cannot possibility come as a surprise to any one that has been out in the world for a few years. The NRA has a job to do for us. We want them do protect our gun rights, that's what they do. We support SFW because they exerting effort to influence wildlife decisions. If you belong to an organization that claims to want to help wildlife I'm assuming you want them be engaged and doing all they can to meet your objectives.
HOW CAN THAT DEVELOP A CHECK OR A BALANCE.
The check and balance is SFW does not get to pick the Board Members, the Governor does. They only get to influence the decision. There are others on the nominating committee that have a vote in who gets recommended to the Governor. Not everyone on the advisory committee supports SFW.
TO SUM IT ALL UP I UNDERSTAND THAT THE STATE RECIEVES MONEY FROM THE EXPO. I KNOW THAT SOME OF IT GOES TO HELP WILDLIFE. I JUST THINK THAT THERE ARE TOO MANY TAGS._
I understand, my son believes there are too many tags too. At this time, I do not. He still supports SFW. He even talks to me on rare occasion. Like I said before, there is a point were enough is enough. Adam it seems like you might be okay with auctioning some tags, if that is the case, then I believe we might be able agree on the concept, we just disagree on how many, that's not all that difficult to work around, in my mind.
UNLIKE WHAT I FELT YOU SAID I THINK THE STATE HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PUBLIC TO PROVIDE HUNTING OPPERTUNITIES.
I sure do agree with you on the State have a responsibility to providing hunting opportunities, and I'll add to that, opportunities in abundance. We have the game, we have the habitat, we just need to care for it in such a way as to insure we have sustainable herds that can product a surplus for hunter harvest.
I FEEL THAT ITS A SLIPPERY SLOPE TO GET INTO HAVING ORGANIZATIONS FEEL THAT THEY ARE OWED TAGS TO OPERATE AND PUSH THEIR AGENDA. _I HATE THE FACT THAT THEY ARE GIVING THE PAYING TAG A BETTER DEAL THAN THE PUBLIC HUNTER.
It is a slippery slope, but we've been on it for some time and we have to exercise caution not to allow the cure to be worse than the disease. Could it get carried away, absolutely, some believe it already has, I do not. Apparently the Governor and the Legislature believe we are still on safe ground as well, not that they have any better knowledge about the need than you or I.
I feel differently than you about a paying hunter getting a better deal than me. Here?s why. I figure, if I give him a better deal, with his money I can have a better deal than I currently have. It's kind of like a business I owned, I paid my people better when they made me more money because I had more money to pay them with. Does that make any sense at all? If the State can get $265,000 for a deer tag that can be used to create a thousand more fawns, so my grandkids have more opportunity to hunt than they would have had otherwise, that seems like a good decision for me.
I wish I could think of a better way to do it. I wish we had deer coming our ears. I wish we could provide enough funding through the price of tags to do what needs to be done to maintain our herds. Apparently we don't. I wish we didn't need to have people like Don Peay flying from one end of the country to the other, lobbing in our behalf. I wish I didn't need to beg 500 people to come to an SFW banguet in Richfield March 4th. I'd rather be fishing with my grandkids, or traveling to Montana to watch my grandson play baseball, or fix my busted fence that I've let go until it won't hold a lame horse, but I want SFW empowered to work for me and for you.
I ALSO KNOW THE WAY GOVERNMNET WORKS. YOUR STATEMENTS TICKED ME OFF.
Sorry, I get rhetorical. Most of the time I just try to be funny but I feel like someone besides Don needs to get on here and try to present what he is trying to do. I know about the cool aide, hell I'm 63 years old, I've been fighting these wildlife war since before a lot of you guys were born. I'm not naive as to what's gone on here. I've seen good times and bad. I had dedicated hunter, and antler restriction showed up so far up my butt it's amazing I even give a damn any more but I want deer and elk for you guys and for my grandkids and I want them here as far into the future as any of us can imagine. I believe Don Peay wants exactly that as well.
Listen, here?s a little lesson I've learned over the last sixty years. These high energy guys, the smart ones that work their way into powerful positions. When you first meet them, they have a lot of charisma and charm, they come across great. We like them, want to be around them, associate with them. But after you've been around them a while it turns out they aren't all that likeable. They are confident to the point of arrogance. They are pushy. They want their way. They think they've heard it all. They don't have time for you. They can get along with out you. They move past you and surround themselves with new people that can see the new vision, the one you can't see because you're still back where you started and they've moved on. After a few years we change our minds about them, we want nothing to do with them. That's a fact. It's normal. The bottom line is, a Don Peay type person only comes around every hundred years or so and we need them because they are 500 pound gorillas and they get things done with bulldozers while there rest of us just want to dig away with our hand shovels.
Don Peay and I are not buddies. He?s not that likeable and neither am I, when it comes right down to it. I support him most of the time but I can't keep up with him nor his energy. He can't wait for me nor worry if I'm on board every time he turns around. He?s trying to influence the United States Senate and others and can't and won't let me or anyone else get in the way. But I'll tell you what, when there a knife fight, he's the guy I want at my back because I know he'll be pack?en his load when the going get rough. If it takes an Expo and a few hundred tags to keep him there, I'm all in.
I FEEL THAT YOU ARE SAYING WE THINK THESE TAGS ARE GOOD FOR THE STATE AND IF YOU DONT LIKE IT COMPLAIN TO SOMEONE WHO CARES......_WHEN THE SOMEONE WHO CARES IS ALREADY IN YOUR POCKET ON THESE ISSUES. I THINK THE VAST MAJORITY OF SPORTSMEN THINK THAT THERE ARE WAY TOO MANY TAGS GIVEN OUT AT THESE THINGS. BUT IT WILL NEVER CHANGE BECAUSE OF THE MONEY AND INFLUENCE OF YOUR GROUPS.
Yep, I hear you, and the other guys who feel the same way you do. I've tried to explain where I'm coming from, for what it's worth. I know there are ample contradictions in this discussion and you and others may choice to point them out for the folks to consider. I'm okay with that, I'm comfortable in my skin. I won't be discussing this particular matter again for now. I may need to take another run at it again next year because this all get's brought up after every Expo. But for now I'll post some other stuff else where, as the mood strikes.
Adamosa. You?re all right. Even if you are ?respect my authorita?
Wiley, hope your feeling your oats again, you last post would indicate as much.
DC
