Doc

But you likely know friends or relatives here in NYS that could use a heads-up about the petition and the Funke web-site address noted in this thread. Why not drop them an e-mail strongly urging them to fill out this on-line petition. And by the way, it is not only gun owners that are eligible. If you know anybody that has a problem with legislators tampering with the 2nd Amendment they might want to help out also.

You know, it may actually make some sense to take Funke's web-site address and email it to any hunting buddies or gun club members that you know. Take it to a meeting at the gun clubs. Just generally show it to every pro-gun person that you know and strongly urge them to participate. No point in keeping it a secret. Here is something that everyone can do to help get rid of the Safe Act that is almost no effort or time spent at all. You probably will not again see an effort to legislatively undo this so-called Safe Act. So it is now or never for the legislative attempt. Let's see if we can support this attempt. It's important that we at least show that we care enough to go on record as being pro-gun. Let's let another effort on our behalf fizzle because we don't support it. We're running out of options.

I think those thoughts are based on the online petitions that are started by people without position or the ability to get it in front of those that will be considering the bill. This is a state senator who is a sponsor of the repeal bill. I'm sure this petition will form a part of the supporting paperwork for the consideration of this bill. By the way, I am happy to announce that Rich Funke is the senate candidate that I voted for and supported and is the man that defeated his Democrat opponent who had signed the Safe Act, Senator Funke vigorously made the Safe Act a centerpiece of his campaign. The gun owners of our district did their thing and were successful in showing what can happen to those that support radical gun control legislation. Mister (Mister .... not Senator) Ted O'Brien thinks about that every day, I'm sure.

It's pretty hard to pick a side on this debate. There are pro and con arguments on both sides. Understanding that coyotes have not always been involved in deer population control in NYS, I am convinced that they could be eradicated, and life in the woods would continue to do just fine as it did not that many years ago. There is no doubt in my mind that hunters do the job just fine. On the other hand, I do view coyotes as a resource. Trappers find coyotes as supplemental income that joins all the other species that provide them with cash. Yes in spite of fluctuating fur prices they do serve as yet another resource from the trapline. They also serve a recreational resource for sport hunting. They are something to hunt that was not available years ago. I have no problem with that. Also, I am a bit cautious about spreading the notion that deer populations can be controlled by introducing predatory critters. Understanding how many people put up with hunting as being justified as a necessary endeavor of population control, it occurs to me that loud emphasis on the effects of coyotes on deer populations could encourage thoughts of the introduction of some rather nasty critters that I personally would not want to have to contend with. And then there is a rather self-serving notion that I champion that hunting is the only effective method of deer population control, and is the one irreplaceable method of deer population control. I'm not enthused about the general population starting to believe that there may be other avenues of deer control. Looking at all this coyote stuff, I can see elements of truth in both sides of the discussion. I think the coyote has a place in our environment, and being at the top of their food chain, I do believe that like any other species, some form of human intervention is necessary. Not to the point of eradication, but simply to the point of providing some sort of balance. I still want to have this species available to hunt. Trappers want this species to trap. I think they are a resource to be managed, and not a species subjected to eradication or total protection. I do think that like foxes, and bobcats, etc., the coyote is a species that does not benefit by being romanticized, given some undeserved high status or viewed as some mystical animal and protected beyond reasonableness, nor do I believe that they should be demonized beyond reality and removed from the landscape. Both positions are outside of reality and necessity. There is middle ground that we have discovered for other species. That's where our thinking should lie.

Definitions from Dictionary .com that align very well with the way I have always used the term: 1. noxious, objectionable, or disgusting animals collectively, especially those of small size that appear commonly and are difficult to control, as flies, lice, bedbugs, cockroaches, mice, and rats. 2. an objectionable or obnoxious person, or such persons collectively. 3. animals that prey upon game, as coyotes or weasels.

We survived this storm ok. My concern is what am I going to do when the next one hits without having gotten rid of the mess we've got on the ground now. I am running out of places to put the snow, and the snow-banks on the sides of the driveway are high enough that my plow will not throw any new snow over the top. That means that the driveway gets skinnier. Might be able to handle one more storm, but unless we get some of the snow melting, eventually things will get too skinny to use.

Well, I can't say that I have seen a lot of evidence that coyotes in our area are having any serious impact on deer populations. Of course what I know about that issue anywhere else is very little. My familiarity with how coyotes impact anyone else's area is absolutely non existent. However, I could buy into the "coyotes are ruining our herd" claims if they were ever accompanied my some kind of documentation (photos, etc.). I do think it is way too easy to blame coyotes for every instance of thinning deer density. I think it is important to be sure the right thing is being blamed for deer population changes. Coyotes do make for an easy guess, but unless those guesses are backed up with evidence, the real reasons for downward changes in local deer density may be going ignored.

Lol .... I'll let you have the last word. I have to move on to more constructive conversations.

One thing is for sure in NYS. The coyote is effectively at the top of their food chain. In other words, aside from disease and starvation, the only population control comes from man. I think that sometimes Mother Nature needs a bit of a hand in decreasing numbers, regardless of the species, but especially with species that have no other natural controls. Smaller numbers means bigger litters? ... Perhaps, but that just means that hunters and trappers have to work a little harder and knock off more of the newcomers.

I have Time Warner Roadrunner for internet service. Other than the cost, the service itself is pretty darn quick and reliable.

You're right. I did what I set out to do. I passed on my thoughts on "one license-one report harvest reporting system" to the DEC. Now it is up to them to do with it what they want. I have received acknowledgment from their web-site that they understood it. I got out of it what I put into it. That is as far (and actually even farther) than I feel obligated to go with it. That's not my problem, and it is not your place to try to make it my problem, is it? I am still waiting for you to list one reason why the concept will not work. You are unable to do so. It is obvious that you have invested no thought in this concept other than to simply be argumentative and negative. So further conversation on this makes no sense to me.

No, I am not going to form an organization, and set up web-sites, nor camp out on the DEC's doorstep. I'll not be writing articles or trying to force anyone to agree with me. Ha-ha..... Get serious .... lol. As I said before I do have a life outside of hunting issues. I pick and choose my battles and prioritize my time spent on public items, as I assume anyone in their right mind has to. And how the DEC chooses to run their shop is certainly something anyone can have opinions on, but not necessarily something worthy of initiating a campaign over. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I lay awake at night worrying that I have a disagreement with the DEC, but your notion is very wrong. I have an concept that I have passed along to the DEC. They are aware of it as noted on their own web-site, and that is as far as I intend to take it. I am not one of the AR fanatics with an agenda, and certainly do not obsess over the issue as you have mistakenly assumed that I do. It's an interesting concept that I am sure would work far better than current methods. But at the end of the day, it is not something that I have any interest in trying to force them to do.

My view of the question is that the smaller the property, the less the opportunities. Multiple stand sites become limited. Over-saturation of hunting pressure gets to be a problem. And sometimes you just choose the wrong 20 acres where the deer seldom go, which leaves you with a new property with no options. No, I would not buy 20 acres strictly for hunting use. A house site, or land speculation, maybe. But for a hunting parcel, that is truly a gamble.

15" of snow here in lower Ontario County. That's pretty much the limit for my Yamaha ATV. Pretty good workout for this old gent (manual plow lift). I'm feeling it this morning .... lol.

Oh I understand that it was meant to be a response to Grow's comment, but it still left me wondering how it relates to that either. It just went flying completely over my head and still does.

If I were ever to move (which ain't going to happen) I would add one more condition. Very few poisonous snakes. When hunting, I want to be always scanning for wild game, not some disgusting crawling thing on the ground that can do me harm. I like sitting in the woods without having to study where I am going to sit for some pissed-off viper that takes it personal when he gets sat on. I know it's not the east coast, but I am thinking Hawaii might work well.

Well, you have your ideas, and I have mine, and I guess we both think we are right. All I know is that I'm being called for supper, and right now that has priority.

Just as a point of practicality that should be added here, I have to point out that we all have lives apart from hunting. I think we can have conversations and discussions without every issue involving a full-court-press on each and every item. Don't confuse brainstorming with a "drop-everything, let's start a campaign" kind of activity.....lol. I don't know of anybody who functions that way. That all sounds real good, but it flat out ain't going to happen. The DEC answer to this idea on their website makes it pretty plain that they are not interested in outside ideas on how to run their business. I can take a hint.

I was going to say that it would take an incredible amount of research to go through the reporting systems of all states and be able to say as an absolute fact that no state anywhere has that kind of reporting system. Probably the point that should be taken from all that is that each state seems to have their own ideas as to what system is best, and I'll bet that each one of them is convinced that they have the absolute best system in the country. That's why I place no credibility in whether any one state or the other thinks that the one license-one report system can work or not. It is irrelevant.

So are you guys finally done down there? Well now the DEC can complete their final harvest tally and publish it.

Say what??? I have no idea where you are going with the racial, childless, and poverty references. You lost me with that sudden leap off the trail.

By the way, have you actually found some place that states that that system hasn't been implemented anywhere? Not that it really is relevant, but, I'm just curious if there is some info on that system that I could read somewhere.

It probably surprises no one that government agencies do have a whole lot of inertia when it comes to change. And I understand that resistance to change. In my career, I never welcomed someone lousing up systems when I had spent years becoming an expert at the systems that I used. I think it is kind of human nature. So it doesn't surprise me that people would find innovative ideas from outside their organization to be unwelcome. The direct quote from their own webpage kind of clarifies what we are dealing with. Here is their quote regarding a discussion of this exact idea: "Ultimately, the adage, "if it's not broken, don't fix it," comes into play". And yet if you look at the labor intensive methods and the man-hours of effort just trying to figure out how many hunters are breaking the reporting laws so they can factor it into their harvest count, it is pretty plain to me that the current system has always been broken. But the implication of that quote tells me that they are reacting to new ideas that come from outside with an attitude of intransigence and denial.

From what I read in most of this thread, what people find disturbing has a lot less to do with the content of the law than the fact that this guy is out there blatantly teaching his kid that game laws are to be ignored and disregarded, and that his teachings are also being backed up by some segment of the community. That attitude toward conservation law and perhaps other laws as well will be carried by that kid (and who knows how many other local kids) throughout his life of hunting. And that is disturbing.

But anyway, The argument that "it can't work because no one has tried it" makes no sense and is counter-productive reasoning. I think those with open minds and no axe to grind can see the value in it. I have heard absolutely no actual reason offered by you or anyone else why it can't work, only roadblocks as to why better methods should ever be tried. That's probably not really a very useful attitude unless you are satisfied that everything in wildlife management is running flawlessly and couldn't be better. That's the DEC's attitude when they say, "Ultimately, the adage, "if it's not broken, don't fix it," comes into play".