Doc

And don't be thinking that Remington is the only industry being forced out of the state by this governor and his anti-gun policies. American tactical is moving to South Carolina, Kahr Arms is heading for PA. and all Beikirch's expansion is heading for PA. And those are only the ones that I am aware of. The jobs, and sales and income tax money and all purchases of those potential employees ..... gone. This Governor has cost the state a pile of money, and for no good reason.

I think it is time for me to leave this thread alone. I find myself becoming more and more disgusted with hunters and gun owners who are now championing gun control, and I am sure that as a result I will eventually say something that I probably shouldn't.....lol.

This year was the most pleasant shooting experience of my deer-hunting life. Ontario County became another new county allowing rifle use for deer. This year I actually had an opportunity to sit down with my deer gun (.270) and actually spend considerable time doing lot of target practice with it. It was fun, and didn't result in a black & blue shoulder or flinching. Sighting in my deer gun was actually a pleasant and fun experience and not something to be dreaded. The old 12 ga. Ithaca may never come out again .... lol. The .270? .... two deer for two shots.

Lol .... Easy there Mike. We tend to let topics drift a bit without calling in the "topic police". If you are super concerned with topic purity, I would suggest that you at take a moment to at least scan the DEC bear management proposal just to show a little sincerity in your concern .... lol. It's not really all that long. Personally I think erussell's concern over bear predation of fawns is a legitimate comment on a topic involving a bear management plan.

Quote: " Why a New Stamp? Our Proposal:A Federal Wildlife Conservation Stamp would provide a robust, parallel revenue stream for National Wildlife Refuges, preserving habitat and wildlife — while also giving non-extractive users a funding tool and a stronger voice in habitat and wildlife decisions on our shared public lands. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That sounds like just what we want to have happen. By the way, I like that term "non-extractive users" .... lol. I guess I'm an "extractive user".

Somewhere I read that bears are a very underestimated cause of fawn predation.

Yes, there are a whole string of protections somewhere in the law that will eventually make someone pay for a tragedy (not necessarily prevent it). And that's one of the problems with our legal system. Instead of writing things out with the details included in the pertinent law, you are expected to wade through an armful of law books to figure out what the details are, instead of simply including it in the first place. When somebody reads that set-back law, I want them to read the other relative verbiage at the same time.

I understand what you are saying, and it is frustrating to be seeing things in this state circling the bowl as more and more people buy into the cradle-to-grave worship of papa government. I can't argue with any of that. And I'm sure that if I were to live long enough there will come a time when NYS will become an intolerable place for any freedom-loving person to abide. Let's just put it this way. Today we are a long way from that. It may well be in sight, but we're not to the intolerable phase ..... yet! There is also the other thing to consider that I call "the grass is always greener ....." effect. While we concentrate primarily on our own state, sometimes it is easy to look by the fact that other states have been coming toward us in terms of all the things that we find abhorrent about this state. In fact the whole country's government is very NYS-like in attitudes and conduct of government. So it comes down to a question of where are you going to run to? And how many times over the course of your life are you going to pick up and run again? And when the whole country takes on the very same attributes that have driven you out of NYS, are you then going to begin running from country to country? Sometimes it's just not as easy as running and hiding. Sometimes you have to stop and take a stand. Win, lose, or draw the right answer often is to stand and fight as best as you can and maybe pray for a miracle.

This has been a nasty winter, but in terms of all the winters that I remember, it's not really all that high on the list. We have had it pretty darn good for the quite a while such that we seem to forget what this time of year traditionally has been like. A lot of this is just the shock of returning to normal. To be honest, the only time that I ever saw a significant die-off was back in the late 80's when we had a winter that makes this one look like a piece of cake. That was coupled with a deer population that never should have been allowed to get any where near that high. The result was a huge yarding situation for an extended period of time, and that made for a significant die-off. It also turned out to be a longer than usual winter extending way out into what is normally considered to be spring. So far this year, none of that is happening (at last not here in WNY). Frankly I don't see this year as being anything noteworthy, and the deer undoubtedly will do just fine without any help as they have done forever. In areas where the population is beyond carrying capacity of the habitat there may be problems. Most likely that is not necessarily a bad thing.

I have no idea what you are talking about. This Governor and his merry bunch of libs need no "political cover". Haven't you caught on to that yet? The remainder of your reply says exactly that. So your proposed policy of appeasement is pretty much just a short-cut to eventual total confiscation. Now maybe that's exactly what you want, I don't know. We've had bigger surprises on here. But logic should tell you that stalling tactics are far better than simply buckling under and cowering before the bulldozer tactics of the left.

With archery, I think it is fine the way it is. At 500', as I said before, you would really have to be purposely shooting at a ridiculously elevated aiming point to hit anyone that far away or their house. Probably would also be true even at 100 yards as well. I also think the privacy invasions would also be alleviated with a 100yard or 500 ' setback. And even at that, I still would like to see some language added to all setback restrictions that mentions features, people, pets, etc., in the background of where a shot is aimed. Since firearms setbacks have also made their way into this discussion, I would add that the 500' setback is adequate as long as there is language added making it illegal to shoot toward buildings, people, pets, etc. How that wording ever got left out of that law is beyond me.

Cuomo is a scum-bag. A stinking, filthy, disgusting bag of scum. Pretty much the lowest form of filth that has ever crawled the earth. There! I feel so much better now.

This particular freak buck does point out in a very graphic way that number of points does not indicate age. I think that's what started the AR comments.

I don't know whether you are comfortable with that kind of logic, but I personally would simply rather see something included in that setback law that talks about what's behind the target. You must have a lot more trust in strangers than I do.....lol. Let's face it if everyone out there was doing what is safe and sane when deer get in front of them, we wouldn't really need a lot of these laws to call their attention to unsafe practices would we? I have seen people shoot in the direction of our house. With the introduction of rifles since then, the results may have turned out to be quite a bit different. But the point is that they do it. And if they do it with guns, they damned sure will do it with a bow if there isn't some language prohibiting it. If they are out at 500' shooting their bow at the house, I probably wouldn't worry a whole lot about it unless they were trying to hit the house. But at 50 yards, the arrow trajectory easily makes to the house without any particular exaggerated elevation in aiming. Also, while it is getting a bit repetitive, I have to remind you that the concerns are not just with hunting situations. Backyard target situations also have to be considered. There are a lot of suburban situations where the 50 yards can easily be accommodated, but the backdrop (houses, yards, etc.) is not so easily controlled.

But last time I checked their website, everything seemed to be out of stock and not available. Not just for NYS, but seemingly unavailable to anyone.

Amazing .... I am wondering what part of this quote from my reply indicates that I think is easy....."First of all, hunting bears with dogs is not something that I will ever be involved with. I think I have left that level of exertion behind me quite a few years ago ... lol."

This thread isn't about "why crossbows are not archery equipment" either. But as a note of interest, there was another You-tube video of another crossbow manufacturer making a 200 yard shot. Pretty darned impressive. Of course there were all kinds of warnings not to take that sort of shot while hunting. And also the guy doing the shooting was a military sniper, so he kind o knew how to execute.

Seems to have worked? Depends on who you ask. The relatives of that little 4 year old girl that was shot and killed in their livingroom might not agree with you. And then there was the other occurrence where a rifle bullet came through the wall of a house and ripped through a mattress of a crib that had moments before been occupied by a baby. Also, I have seen a few newspaper pictures of the old mom and pop characters pointing to bullet holes in their walls. And then I am sure there are many instances where the homeowner never knew his house had been hit because the bullet didn't enter a living area. But I will agree with the first part of your sentence. The 500' rule without any regard as to what is in the background is not very safe. There certainly is some more verbiage required on that one, not that we will ever see it.

Don't forget who is passing laws and interpreting the meanings of these sorts of things. The odds are very good that they don't hunt. As far as wishful thinking about the direction of shooting being specified, I have to point out that current setback laws say absolutely nothing and never did say anything about what or who is in the direction of the shot. It only talks about proximity to certain structures.

Some guys will try anything to get a deer!

I'm not sure what you mean by most versatile caliber for deer hunting. Versatile from what standpoint? There are a pile of calibers that will kill a deer very nicely. And dead is dead so I don't see any versatility in that. I recently went through the exercise of picking out a caliber for deer hunting. I wanted excellent accuracy out to a maximum of something like 300 yards (that distance chosen because of it's darned near impossible to get a longer shot where I hunt). I wanted a gun that didn't beat me up when spending time on the bench, target shooting. I wanted a caliber that didn't break the bank to reload. And I needed sufficient power to put the critter down quickly and humanely. For all that, I chose a .270. From the title of your post, I thought you were looking for something that you can hunt everything from squirrels to bear. There's only one gun that will do that, and that would be a shotgun. Now there is some true versatility.

Was that slick, or what? I'm not so sure about using structural supports on your house though. I'm thinking a tree might be a little bit safer .... lol.

You got the amount of attention that your comments deserved.

Anyone who is interested in any sort of gun ownership rights should be able to understand a little bit of history, and recognize a distinct pattern that shows that the anti-gun forces are interested in nothing other than total elimination of legal private gun ownership. If you don't understand that fact, I would suggest that you pull your head out of that dark unsanitary place and take note of a little history that has gone on in front of where your eyes should have been. In '68 we started compromising on handguns (big-time), because that promised to be the end to all violent gun crime. Anti-gun forces have been nibbling away at gun ownership until now today here we are with a freshly passed law that has made a whole class of hunting rifles illegal for sale and a proposed registration system for grandfathered owners of those guns of that "made-up" category dubbed the assault rifle. Not only that, but the whole key to using any gun, the ammo, has now had a law added to add harassment and cost to every bullet you buy. And make no mistake, that is the sole purpose of the ammo background checks. It has no impact on crime at all, but is simply designed to throw roadblocks in front of people exercising their gun rights. That fact alone should be a clue to any thinking person exactly the mindset of those that we are told to compromise with. So anyone who insists that systematic compromise is not a path to eventual gun confiscation simply is either unaware of the real motives of the anti-gun crowd, or are in the process of actively becoming part of that movement themselves. Yes you all believe that each little compromise will be the last, and apparently don't care that you really know that it won't be.

And don't forget that determining which setback (500' or 150') is the less restrictive setback is still subject to interpretation. The size of the number does not always determine just what is more restrictive. In this case, a smaller setback could be more restrictive or less restrictive depending on who's viewpoint you are considering. If you are a homeowner, the 150' setback may very well be the more restrictive to your privacy and safety rights. It all relates to just who's ox is being gored.