idaho game commission meeting 2007

[captchee]

 

 time folks read what really was said and who was doing what.

 here is the actual minutes of the meetings held by the idaho fish and game  commission in January 2007 .
These  is the meeting supposedly where a group of traditionalist  got the Idaho rules change .

 These minutes include  who spoke at the  public meeting , what they said .
 They also  include the minutes of the closed door meeting held between the commission and the Idaho fish and game management section .
 im sorry but there is no badmouthing of modern weapons . in fact you will find a number of traditionaists  speaking against this change
while suporting the move on managment

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/about/commission/2007/jan10.pdf

[NONYA]

Nice to see some of your common sense hunters making the meeting and voicing their opinions.

[captchee]

 simply not enough IMO . its sad when even when the commission moved  their last meeting on this up to salmon . mind you this is one of the areas where so many are supposedly upset about these rules changes
  Less the 12 showed up . none  I have been told spoke out against the changes  .

Sad  when you think about it . Folks seem to be will to complain yet not willing to take a couple hours and be part of the solution

[Will Bison]

It seems like Human nature to let "the other guy" attend meetings.

[mspaci]

This whole Idaho situation is really complicated, & confusing.  I hope it works out for you guys & you have a safe & succesful season.  Mike

[captchee]

yep mspaci , i hope it will be to . only time will tell .

so lets go back alittle further to the minutes of the  meeting that the commission had after  the week long work shop put on by the fish and game .
 what did the commission take away from these .
 here is what they said  back in 2006

Discussion of November 2 Workshop Scoping for Non Biological Rules
Chairman Wheeler asked Commissioners for their input from the workshop. After that discussion, the Commission decided the following items would be scoped with the public and to consider action on these items at the January 10-12, 2007.
Archery:
• Let-off weight change from 65 % to 85%
No change for overall success
User friendly for young people
Easier for older folks
Would not shorten the hunting season (fear expressed)

• Minimum Arrow weight
Change from 400 g to 300 g (most other states are 300 g)

• Minimum Arrow size
Change 12 inch minimum to 24 inch

• Broad heads
No expanding broad heads for big game hunting

Muzzleloader:
• Shift to more Traditional Firearms
No scopes or electronic devices
Loose powder
Bullet diameter Restrictions

• Minimum Bullet weight and caliber:
Deer – 240 g / 45 caliber
Elk – 300 g / 50 caliber

The Commission stated its intent to restrict muzzleloader hunts to traditional firearms. As a matter of policy, the Commission noted it encourage the use of “modern” muzzleloader rifles in the general firearms seasons.
The Commission also noted its intent for public scoping on all general firearms to include potential new restrictions on 50 caliber centerfire rifles and electronic devices.

so now where did that come from

 lets go  alittle further back to the end of 2005 and beging of 2006  for the next comments on  who said what  conserning muzzleloader seasons .
 notice this is concerning traditional areas spacific .
 i have found no talk concerning  any actions with the general muzzleloading areas

Al Marion, Garden Valley, spoke on muzzleloader regulations and spoke in support of use of conical bullets in traditional muzzleloader hunts. He stated that round balls create least effective wounding loss. He also took issue with defining legal projectiles based on size and shape. He does not believe that is a good way to do it and suggested using a minimum weight instead.

Michael Murray, Idaho Muzzleloaders Association, concurred with Al Marion that in traditional hunts the maxi ball should be used for better harvest rate and better kill. He stated that the Association is against the use of limited magnification (scopes) on muzzleloaders and asked the Commission to continue to reject that request. He also asked the Commission to look at pelleted powder and go back to granulated powder to keep the weapon in its original intent.

 what did the commission  decide  at the end of that meeting ?
once again take note  of Brad compton from the managment section of the idaho fish and game  bringforward the proposal

TEMPORARY RULE, CHANGES TO IDAPA 13.01.08.260 REQUIRING THAT APPLICANTS FOR OUTFITTER ALLOCATED CONTROLLED HUNTS HAVE A WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH AN OUTFITTER PRIOR TO SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION. The motion carried unanimously.
Brad Compton presented information on muzzleloader technology. He passed around samples of conical and round balls and discussed the difference in the two. Conical bullets have been around almost as long as round balls.
05-08 Commissioner Hadley moved and Commissioner Power seconded a motion TO ADOPT AS A TEMPORARY RULE, CHANGES TO IDAPA 13.01.08.410 TO ALLOW THE USE OF CONICAL BULLETS IN TRADITIONAL MUZZLELOADER HUNTS. The motion carried in a unanimous vote.
Chairman Gibbs clarified that the recommendation would change the bullet weight but not allow the use of scopes. Public input was in favor of the use of conical bullets; it was split on the use of scopes. The organized groups do not support the use of scopes, and the Department recommends no change at this time.
Commissioner Wright asked about potential issues with ADA as people have eyesight issues. Dallas Burkhalter commented on the legal implications of the rule. There is no legal liability as this is a selective,

 so what am i getting at with this ?

 folks as was said by mspaci . this is a complex issue .
 but basically  if one reads through the minutes of the closed and public meetings one will see that  the  groups being blamed  for these changes are in fact the ones working for the advancement of muzzleloading .
 you will not find requests for removal  of any weapon  by these groups

 what we ALL are dealing with here is the old Texas two step .
 The Idaho fish and game themselves brought this forward .
 Right now it seems its easiest  for them to allow  the public to see this as a conflict between two different public views  .

We need to hold the management section accountable  and make them answer  the tough questions NOT point fingers or place blame.
  Here is a link to all the public and  closed meeting minutes for the last 
4 years .  If this issue concerns you  then  I would highly recommend reading through them . It will help  you get a bigger picture  of what is actually happening  and who is really doing what
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/about/commission/meeting_notes.cfm

 be safe folks and have a good hunting season .

[cascadedad]

We need to hold the management section accountable  and make them answer  the tough questions NOT point fingers or place blame.

Now your talking, but I really don't see how this mixes with what you have written in the recent past.  You have said at least once that we should trust them and back what they are doing.

It was my impression from the first time I heard about the Idaho rule changes, based on what I read, was that these changes were being made out of necessity because too many mule deer were being killed.  Like you said, make them answer the tough questions.  As I have said many times, when I think it through logically, it just does not make sense.  I don't believe it will make a difference.  I have inquired on here as well as another forum for a study, or statistics or something to support the claim that these changes will truely make a difference.

One of your big arguements on here has been that these changes need to happen, or there will be bigger changes later that will affect everyone.

Now based on what you quote, they would like to "Shift to more Traditional Firearms".  Well, what does that have to do with it?

This whole thing still stinks to high heaven.  Just because there is no record of particular people or groups making statements in these meetings does not mean that Compton and the rest of them aren't getting an earful outside of the meetings.

So, which is it??  Are they trying to "Save the Mule Deer", or are they wanting to "Shift to a more Traditional Firearm???

I'll try to read some of the meeting minutes as I have time.

[NONYA]

I see the guy asking for "exposed side action" only,AKA traditional only.I also see that they are looking into your elk farms and "shooter bull" operations,i hope they have the foresight to do what MT did.

[captchee]

I see the guy asking for "exposed side action" only,AKA traditional only.I also see that they are looking into your elk farms and "shooter bull" operations,i hope they have the foresight to do what MT did.

 the elk farm issue isnt over hunting but over TB.  we had a problem this last fall when  a elk ranchers herd got out , was a big mess
  Now as to the side hammer . Re read  the  wording . You will see that what he is speaking of is  Traditional only  hunts . IE we  had 2 different  regulations .
1) that defined Traditional Only
2) that defined general muzzleloading

cascadedad
 let me clarify .
 when  the a game  management  departments brings forth  a proposal , i think we have support that proposal  based on that  we are paying these folks to make educated  decisions .

  now if those decisions are found to not be based on  valid documentation  but on someone personal opinions  then  then we have to hold them accountable .

HOWEVER  that’s not what I was getting at .
 What im meaning by holding the fish and game accountable is for modern folks to say ; the fish and game made this change  of their own accord. They recommended the change to the commission  as proposed changes .
 We seriously need to get away from the idea that a group of traditionalists  did this change . For that’s simply not true 
 Thus the F&G itself needs to be the one  saying “we did this and here is why “
 Not placing the  decision on traditional shooters  recommendations when in fact the only hand they had in this was  supporting the change based on the F&G recommendation . 

[mspaci]

I live in Ny but am following this thread because I think we should all be interested in other states as these problems or arguments could happen here someday & we should be prepared. From what I understand from what I have read on the board, the worry is that if modern muzzleloaders are allowd the hunting opportunities would be diminished in the future as a result of more game being taken now.  Is this correct? That being said, there must be a happy medium to this issue.  Maybe a reg such as Colorodo?  I think & correct me if I`m mistaken, only open(exposed) breaches & no scopes, plastic, pellets, etc.  In this way you could use the weapon of choice but with some restrictions. Maybe it should be explained that the cap lock is just as accurate with a peep sight as an exposed breach muzzloader equiped similarly(powder, bullets etc)? I really dont think alot of people are going to put inthe work of coming up with a load for thier gun. It eliminates the guy from walking into wally world on friday, plunking down $125 for a sccoped pre sighted package, dropping 2 pellets & killing a deer on Sat. This is just my opinion based on the guys I know around here in NY. If they had the restrictions around here not too many guys would be muzzloading. People around here forget that as little as 12-15 years ago this was a round ball state, and until 5 years ago no scoped were allowed. We used to treck north to the adirondacks years ago to hunt the early mozzloading season with our cap locks, & never hardly ever ran into anyone . Now its like opening day of the rifle season here during early muzzloading season. Any thoughts,  Mike

[trotterlg]

I don't know where anyone stands on the modern ML subject.  I think the changes are being driven by the firearms industry's effort to make the modern muzzel loaded the equivelent of a CF rifle.  I see ML's that use smokeless powder and 25 ACP brass for a primer, scopes and a bolt type of breach closure.  They shoot jacketed sabotted bullets with plastic tips at velocities greater than some older CF cartridges.  Why would anyone wonder why a State game department wants to rein them in a little?  Larry

[NONYA]

The F&G uses their seasons to control game numbers,they dont sell any more tags than the game they think can or should be killed to keep the population stable,the weapon you use has no effect on the tag numbers.I see in the minutes that they are also considering a limit on weapon weight,Im sure this related to the .50 bmg "hunters",is the use of the BMG becoming popular in ID?

[roundball]

I don't know where anyone stands on the modern ML subject.  I think the changes are being driven by the firearms industry's effort to make the modern muzzel loaded the equivelent of a CF rifle.  I see ML's that use smokeless powder and 25 ACP brass for a primer, scopes and a bolt type of breach closure.  They shoot jacketed sabotted bullets with plastic tips at velocities greater than some older CF cartridges.  Why would anyone wonder why a State game department wants to rein them in a little?  Larry

Good.....a voice of reason

[roundball]

Any thoughts,  Mike

Yes, you hit the nail on the head !  One post even has a comment to the effect:  "why can't traditionalists let go of the past"...good gracious...that totally misses the whole point of traditionalists...they are in fact trying to PRESERVE the past...PRESERVE the traditional ways.

They're trying to prevent one more aspect of our hunting heritage from being eradicated by the modern ultra high technology, long range scope sighted rifles with center fire ballistics...their whole point is NOT to let go of the past...indeed keep it alive so it's NOT forgotten.

I've done it both ways...started in the late 80's with one Knight's first MK85s...big Leupold...killed any buck I could see...EXACTLY LIKE I DID WITH MY REMINGTON 700/.30-06...too easy...couldn't possibly be what muzzleloading was supposed to be all about and I was right...discovered what was really meant by the term "muzzleloading" and it wasn't my high tech long range Leupold sighted MK85...sold it and went into caplocks, then into Flintlocks.

ANYBODY can shoot a deer with a high performance scoped sighted rifle with barely more than a casual 30 minutes at the range then walk into the woods...they're manufactured so the buyer doesn't have to put forth any effort to speak of.
Admittedly caplocks / Flintlocks, real black powder and PRBs does requires at least a willingness to learn a different way to shoot and a different way to hunt...and IMO therein lies the rub...by far the vast majority of people are geared towards instant gratiification...learning to hunt and fill tags with a Flintlock is viewed as far to much work by many.

But the payback is huge...tremendous sense of accomplishment in learning the traditional ways,dropping a 10 pointer with a Flintlock & PRB at the edge of his deep sanctuary, dropping a longbeard stone dead in his tracks at 40 yds with a Flintlock smoothbore and a load of #6s...just like the settlers did back in the early American traditional muzzleloading era...the backdrop for the establishment of all our muzzleloading seasons...and the establishment of the NMLRA in 1933...all geared towards PRESERVING and REMEMBERING the past...NOT forgetting or letting go of the past.

[trotterlg]

This is a normal thing, a small group of people looking to get by the rules using technology so they can hunt a couple of weeks earlier with rifles that are in the same class as the modern rifle season.  With the exception that they are single shots, they are now the equal of a modern rifle.  I would not see much difference in using a smokeless ML and a Handi Rifle or a Contender.  The Corparations who make these things need to share the blame, they are only interested in the bottom line, I bet they have a whole department that only studies ways to circumvent state ML rules to use the highest technology avaliable.   I now see they now have an electronic ignition ML!  Where does that fit in the traditional hunting scheme of things?  Keep going this direction and they will just blend all the seasons into one in which you can hunt with anything you can carry.  Larry 

[cascadedad]

Admittedly caplocks / Flintlocks, real black powder and PRBs does requires at least a willingness to learn a different way to shoot and a different way to hunt...and IMO therein lies the rub...by far the vast majority of people are geared towards instant gratiification...learning to hunt and fill tags with a Flintlock is viewed as far to much work by many.

And this is what makes you better than those of us that chose to hunt with an inline and therefore deserve your own season, right?

Remember......my inline does not have a scope and I don't shoot plastic or pellets.  I shoot 460 gr conicals.  In no way performs like a 30-06.

March around the woods in your loincloth if you want to, makes no difference to me.  I can't imagine why me being there with my inline so disturbs you.  How do you guys get to your hunting location, do you leave your house on a horse/pack mule or do you take your 4X4?  Hey, if you're going to go tradational, then GO TRADITIONAL.  Exeperience it all.

[trotterlg]

Bet you think you should be able to hunt with a cross bow during bow season too.  Larry

[roundball]

Admittedly caplocks / Flintlocks, real black powder and PRBs does requires at least a willingness to learn a different way to shoot and a different way to hunt...and IMO therein lies the rub...by far the vast majority of people are geared towards instant gratiification...learning to hunt and fill tags with a Flintlock is viewed as far to much work by many.

And this is what makes you better than those of us that chose to hunt with an inline and therefore deserve your own season, right?

Remember......my inline does not have a scope and I don't shoot plastic or pellets.  I shoot 460 gr conicals.  In no way performs like a 30-06.

March around the woods in your loincloth if you want to, makes no difference to me.  I can't imagine why me being there with my inline so disturbs you.  How do you guys get to your hunting location, do you leave your house on a horse/pack mule or do you take your 4X4?  Hey, if you're going to go tradational, then GO TRADITIONAL.  Exeperience it all.

1) First, my post wasn't directed at you and therefore does not justify your personal attack and sarcasm;
2) When people resort to attacking others and making demeaning put-down statements, they've just admitted their position has no basis in logic to stand on so they attack to defect the focus away from the central theme;
3) I don't care what you hunt with;
4) My post was about traditionally established seasons;

All that aside, this is always very easy to sum up based on the pure undeniable facts of what has happened in the last several years:

Traditional muzzleloading seasons were already established.
Traditional muzzleloading rifles and smoothbores were readily available if CF hunters wanted to learn how to use them.
The masses of CF hunters did not take the time to learn and hunt in the traditional muzzleloading seasons.
Then modern high performance inlines were introduced...looked like, operated like a CF rifle, and was very simple to use and clean.
CF hunters couldn't buy them fast enough and raced into the existing traditional muzzleloading seasons.

Not opinions...all facts...it happened...end of story.

[cascadedad]

Roundball, sorry you have such a thin skin.  Wish I had a dollar for every time on here you cry about being attacked.  Toughen up a little.  Maybe a little chaffing from the loincloth?   

Back to the point roundball.  IDAHO.  Why did they change the season?  Was it to "become more traditional" or "save the Mule deer"?  I've read both.

[NONYA]

If you want to call yourself traditional hunt with a homemade bow and a spear,there are many hunting traditions,traditionaly hunters use the most deadly weapon they can get their hands on.One latley have hunters decided you are more of a hunter by using an outdated weapon.MLs are fun,thats why most people like them,they add a bit of a challenge to the hunt,the TINY difference in performance between an inline and the newer "traditional" rifles with nice barrels is miniscule in anything but appearance.You keep bickering about people who choose anythingg but your prefered design and you will find yourself hunting along side centerfires in a general season.

[trotterlg]

I think that what would ultimately happen is that if ML's become the equivelent of a CF (it is getting close) that the ML season will just go away and there will be one general season for all hunters.  It is not real smart to try to get around regulations using new technology, someone will catch on and turn it all off.  I think it is a technical "cheat" but I guess it is just the nature of some people to try to take advantage of some loophole in the law.  Kind of like a sleaseball Lawyer trying to squeeze money out of someone using some little flaw in the law.  Larry

[NONYA]

I love how you"traditionalists" want to label inline hunters as sneaky,"cheaters" who are somehow "getting around the law" by using an inline,there was no "loophole" in the law,they were completely within the law as it was written and you "traditionalists" really have a "size matters" complex over it.

[cascadedad]

I think that what would ultimately happen is that if ML's become the equivelent of a CF (it is getting close) that the ML season will just go away and there will be one general season for all hunters.  It is not real smart to try to get around regulations using new technology, someone will catch on and turn it all off.  I think it is a technical "cheat" but I guess it is just the nature of some people to try to take advantage of some loophole in the law.  Kind of like a sleaseball Lawyer trying to squeeze money out of someone using some little flaw in the law.  Larry

Wahhhhhh, you called me a cheat.      Foul, personal attack, put down statement, worse than all, compared me to a lawyer.  That's not FAIR!!!!!       

Seriously Larry, since Captchee or roundball can't answer, maybe you can.  This discussion should really be about the rule change in Idaho.  What was the basis for it?  At first all the hoopla was that the mule deer numbers were such that there must be a change.  The inliners were taking too many animals, etc.  My arguement was, show me the study or statistics that would back such a change.  At least explain the logic.  Many more hunters and many more animals taken with CFs, so why a drastic change for a very small group of hunters?  When I looked at it, it just made no sense and I don't think it will do any good.

Now I read where it is about "getting back to tradition".  Does this really justify taking a group of hunters out of a very small group to start with and throwing them into a season with the largest number of hunters already?  This just does not make sense.

Just explain why the change was necessary.  Somebody as passionate about it as Captchee or roundball should be able to do this in a paragraph or two.  Then we might actually have something to discuss.

[captchee]

 couple things
1) i just got home  so i havent gottan to answer your question
2) i dont have time right now i im running out the door to work  BUT if you fellas can stop the loin cloth statment , modern  ; you traditionalists are against us  BS !.
 long enought to  keep this from getting locked  ill do my best to answer Cascadedad tonight .

[sabotloader]

One thing, actually several but...

We are talking Idaho here not the rest of the US... prior to the most recent changes I would like all of you to keep in mind - Idaho had the perfect vehicle to regulate what they needed...

Idaho had a ML season - that would allow a non-scoped, non 209, open breech, BP or substitute, pellets or loose, sabots, conical, PRB with minimum weight/size restrictions...

Idaho had a Traditional Season - no inlines, loose powder, BP or Subs, conicals or PRB, no scopes, percussion/flint only

Idaho also had a Short Range season - short range weapons, inlines-percusion/flint, recurve -compound- xbow and etc... you could even hunt with a Savage ML if you preferred....

The thought that all ML seasons should be "traditional" was not a part of the scenario at all - Idaho tried to answers the needs of the majority not the minority - but alas - CHANGE and most of you know how CHANGE in government happens... I really should say CHANGE in POLITICS..... you all no what controls POLITICS...

 

[cascadedad]

couple things
1) i just got home  so i havent gottan to answer your question
2) i dont have time right now i im running out the door to work  BUT if you fellas can stop the loin cloth statment , modern  ; you traditionalists are against us  BS !.
 long enought to  keep this from getting locked  ill do my best to answer Cascadedad tonight .

Captchee

1)  I have asked the question several times before, this really isn't the first time you've had a chance to answer.

2)  Get serious.  Go back and read roundball's and trotterlg's posts.  Is that really how the traditionalists catogorize all the inliners?  Sorry if you can't handle a little humor thrown back at you.

I certainly hope this doesn't get locked.  Besides my few attempts at humor and sarcasm, there are some very important questions I am trying to understand.

Some VERY good points from sabotloader also.  These points have been made before also.  I look forward to consise rebuttal to them also.

[sabotloader]

Cdad

Just thinking... you have said on several occasions that one of the reason the State professes is the reason for excluding inlines is the harvest rates or capabilities of the "then Idaho inline"  if that were really the reason for the change, why would not the State just change those units from ML hunts to traditional hunts... the rules in place for this move, something else pressured them to change the whole system.. .wonder what that might have been.

Even when you look up harvest rates on Mule deer on the IF&G site it does not compute....

[captchee]

cascadedad
 I cant give you numbers I don’t have access to . Now if you like  you can contact the Idaho fish and game and they will for a few send you all the documentation you would like .
 I can provide you the link if you like .
they are the ones you need to ask for spacifics from

 Myself the numbers I have  are for a couple of units close to me . I gave you those numbers  but I guess they were not enough .

 As to getting back to traditions ?
 Lets understand something
 we have always had  a cap on technologies . Be that calibers of center fires , electronics , scopes , vehicles
 The issue of technologies is one we fought back in 92 when many of us worked to get the modern weapons aloud . It was felt more numbers would bring more opportunity . Yet  according to the F&G that has not happened . Now is that from  lack of interest or lack of opportunity ?
 IMO opportunity  simply because each few years the F&G reduces the hunts they  make available ? Why ?

 If you don’t believe that take a good look on what has happened with ATV riders and those who hunt from ATV’s this last year . Basically,  no more trail , no more logging roads . They can only be used  where any other  vehicle is aloud to go . IE main forest roads only ? Why Simple put ,, management .
 Who is to blaim ?
 I cant say but  one might start by looking at those who  think its OK to take advantage of LOOP holes , abuse the system


 Each fall the commission reviews the issue of technologies . Sometimes newer advances are aloud , but most times not .

 If you look at the January  closed meeting minutes what did the Commission  vote for ?
 They vote to accept the F&G recommendation . There is no mention of anything else .

 I also have to agree with sabot shooter .
 It would have been real simple to just make everything traditional only . Yet they did not do that .
 They could also have  simply removed all modern muzzleloading weapons  from muzzleloading hunting . Yet they did not do that either as many makes are still usable even under the current  regulations ?

Don’t you think if this was a traditional push  there would have been different results ?
 I can tell you for a fact there would have been .

One latley have hunters decided you are more of a hunter by using an outdated weapon.

ahhh man   dont know how to reply to that but to say   muzzleloading  has never died off in this country or anywhere in the world that i know of .
in fact  i can say that every  generation of my family  has  used a muzzleloader  back to  around 1740 when an English trader offered  one as a gift

 it would probably be safe to say many of you all grandfathers also hunted with muzzleloaders . you may have skipped a couple generation but  basically  not to long ago  thats all you had .
 what is Johnny come lately is the modern movement which has really only been around for the past 15 years or so .
 

[captchee]

2)  Get serious.  Go back and read roundball's and trotterlg's posts.  Is that really how the traditionalists catogorize all the inliners?  Sorry if you can't handle a little humor thrown back at you.

you know what gets me about comments like this ?
Roundball  like many other shooters started of with modern weapons .
  yet some how  folks forget that .  i find he is not the only one who when  stating his background , that gets over looked .

 its also odd that not to long ago  a vast majority of  comments on modern boards were like those of Nonya.
 touting how great and advance  the modern weapons were over traditional ones .
 I believe nonya said superior ?

purist buddys just cant stand the fact that their weapon of choice has been redesigned into a superior waepon,the INLINE,and they dont want anyone in the field with anything but their choice of weapon,its rediculous,thank GOD my states F&G commision had some common sense and didnt even put their proposal up for a vote.

 Yet  now when folks are saying OK now hold on a minute . Game agencies are looking at these weapons . These very same folks  doing all the  high fiveing are now the ones saying  .. Ohm wait , we are no different. It  the traditionalist , they did it .
Ahhhh no you did it .
 The preaching been going on for so long , it may be to late to change the tune so to say .
 You cant have it both ways


 

[cascadedad]

Myself the numbers I have  are for a couple of units close to me . I gave you those numbers  but I guess they were not enough .

I sincerely appologize, I don't remember seeing them.  Was that in a post on this board, another, or in a PM?  I will go back and check my PMs.  Really, if you did provide numbers, please accept my appology.  This is really all I am asking for.