Welcome to Hunting NY, New York's #1 Hunting and Fishing forum and news portal.
![]() |
Welcome to HuntingNY.com, like most online communities you must register to post and participate in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be apart of of the Hunting New York by signing inor creating an account.
|
Main
News and Articles
Hunting NY Store
Links
Our Sponsors and Partners
Contact Us
Need Help / Can't Register or Login? Click Here
Interested in sponsoring the site or a contest? Contact Us
Sportsmens Bill Clears Senate
#1
Posted 14 November 2012 - 10:58 AM
Proud member of the NRA
The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear?
The LORD is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid? (Psalm 27:1)
#2
Posted 14 November 2012 - 01:39 PM
That kind of nonsense is one of the reasons this country is doomed. Its all about them (politicians and their careers) , never about whats best for the rest of us, and BOTH parties are just as guilty as the other.
#3
Posted 26 November 2012 - 11:54 AM
http://youtu.be/VVkgjEkCIfg
http://www.facebook....365031743546569
#4
Posted 26 November 2012 - 12:03 PM
Edited by Culvercreek hunt club, 26 November 2012 - 12:03 PM.
"The trouble with Socialism is, sooner or later you run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher
"When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both.." - James Dale Davidson, National Taxpayers Union
#5
Posted 26 November 2012 - 12:39 PM
Mike...so you are for green shot for all sports even Dove hunting?
Yes for doves as well. Single projectiles like slugs and bullets dont concern me as much; but they do concern some people. For doves I use winchester Xpert loaded in one ounce of 7 shot. It retails for about $5.50 a box of 25.
I remember the first two boxes of steel I bought in the early 1980s for $25 EACH - big money back then. Screw in chokes were reserved for the richer and few hunters had them, they were not standard with the gun as today. Nobody (including the ammo manufacturers) really knew what they were doing with the new ammo and guns not designed for it....
I know a couple of old hunters who although they still hunt deer every year to this day and are politiclly connected in the world of hunting, have not used their old shotguns for well over 20 years, nor have they hunted small game for that long, with the exception of spring turkey with modern black guns... They still got boxes of steel ammo from the 1980s laying around in their gun rooms... On the same note, sometimes I go into the few remaining old fashioned bait & tackle / hunting supplies stores and in them I find some older hunters/owners with lots of connections & and even more opinions and they often have two or three boxes of those same shells I bought in 1980 something collecting dust and mold on their sales shelves....
Most of you on here are smarter than the average bear, so enough said...
http://www.facebook....365031743546569
#6
Posted 26 November 2012 - 12:56 PM
BOTH parties are just as guilty as the other.
Correct as a whole but narrowing down to the actual individuals would start a weeding out process since there are a couple good ones.
* * *
A sportsmens bill is not supposed to have involvement at the federal level.
The flow chart is:
The role of the federal government can be found in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution (http://www.law.corne...ution/articlei). If a proposed law does not fall under here, then it is relegated to the 10th Amendment.
It is by not following the rule of law of this Republic, is at the heart of this nations precipice.
* * *
To understand the General Welfare clause some research is needing in reading the actual documentation of the Founding Fathers and what that clause means and consists of. Over the centuries that clause has been misinterpreted and therefore contributing to not adhering to the proper role of government.
#7
Posted 26 November 2012 - 04:30 PM
"The trouble with Socialism is, sooner or later you run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher
"When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both.." - James Dale Davidson, National Taxpayers Union
#8
Posted 26 November 2012 - 06:23 PM
Mass die offs of birds do not enhance hunting or the public image of hunting and we should not support this bill because of the lead stipulation.
http://www.facebook....365031743546569
#9
Posted 26 November 2012 - 07:10 PM
There are about 500 studies showing lead to be a clear impact. Additionally the diagnosis of lead poisoning in dying or dead birds is straight foward. This video is not showing an isolated incident either, there are many documented cases. A few examples are 500 birds died from lead poisoning in a North Carolina refuge and 1,500 died of lead poisoning at Rice Lake in Illinios.
Mass die offs of birds do not enhance hunting or the public image of hunting and we should not support this bill because of the lead stipulation.
i dont believe thats the correct way to go about it. pushing the use of steel shot should start at home and in the businesses selling the ammo. i dont believe it should take an act of congress to tell us what shot we can use. i dont thnk this bill being passed should even have come about. ALL IMO.
#10
Posted 27 November 2012 - 09:20 AM
Edited by mike rossi, 27 November 2012 - 10:16 AM.
http://www.facebook....365031743546569
#11
Posted 27 November 2012 - 09:57 AM
I am not familair with this study, but I would like to comment on your statement "I think they were doing it to oppose the regulation to go to steel". Research is to be conducted without a political agenda and the researchers are to be objective and honest and that is policed by what is known as the peer-review process, which is described below.I remember a study the DU did way back...70's 80's. I was not a duck hunter then and pretty young so I don't recall the detials but they collected duck wings to test for lead contamination. I think they were doing it to oppose the regulation to go to steel. I don't recall them finding the contamination they are claiming here.
In a nutshell studies are conducted as follows: Researchers make predictions or hypotheseses. Then they make "alternate predictions/hypotheses'. Then they set up experiments try to DISPROVE their own predictions, not the other way around as commonly believed. After splitting all the hairs with all the variables they submit a report to a panel of other scientists who then (again) try to find deficiencies with the report. After this, what is called "peer-review" process, the study is published in a science journal.
Luckily for society, researchers are weird. They are interested at getting to the truth and are not motivated by money. They often have more education than your doctor but make less money than your garbage collecter. Sure some of them are bought, but there is a system of checks and balances in science, including wildlife/fisheries science, which ensures faulty science will not be published in journals. Not all biologists are researchers, however both are scientists. It is overdue for hunters to put that into perspective and stop unconditionally believing old tales or old tale tellers - even when its the NRA... It will bite us twice as we continue to claim we are conservationists and that we make science-based decisions while we do just the opposite.
http://www.facebook....365031743546569
#12
Posted 27 November 2012 - 09:59 AM
#14
Posted 27 November 2012 - 10:31 AM
#15
Posted 27 November 2012 - 12:00 PM
How much you want to bet that I would already have a bunch of emails from the NRA calling for us to string up the Democrats if they were the ones that blocked this.
#16
Posted 27 November 2012 - 12:07 PM
The link above was the approval to debate the bill. I heard the bill was voted down by the senate. That's too bad. Other than the lead issue Mike is talking about I think it would have been a good thing overall.
Sounds like its still "on the calender" but postponed - but I am not sure- I dont speak the same language as politicians.... I (think) what I am reading is the republicans are blocking this for budget reasons, and one democrat, Barbara Boxer from California, opposes it because of the lead provision.
Boxer's ammendment concerns the impact of lead ammo on people; which I told her office was not well documented; but that its impact on wildlife was well documented and wildlife impact was a better angle... The response I got was: Thank you, but you are not a California constituent, contact your senator in New York....
If you follow politicians (or try to) it becomes no wonder why things are so messed up!
http://www.facebook....365031743546569
#17
Posted 27 November 2012 - 12:11 PM
Does the NRA have stock in energy companies as a lot of republican polititians do? Republicans only stand up for gun rights to have us in their pocket for what they want.
Better check your statements Mike. There are plenty of Dems that share the same interests, and pull the same BS. You guys pointing fingers need to really take a look at things and point at everyone, not just your favorite scapegoats.
#19
Posted 27 November 2012 - 12:40 PM
Better check your statements Mike. There are plenty of Dems that share the same interests, and pull the same BS. You guys pointing fingers need to really take a look at things and point at everyone, not just your favorite scapegoats.
Yeah, especially in post number 10 because this legislation was sponsored and backed by the dems. I still like my analogy about the regulatory authority of the EPA though...
Edited by mike rossi, 27 November 2012 - 12:52 PM.
http://www.facebook....365031743546569
#20
Posted 27 November 2012 - 12:56 PM















