Doc

Understand that Long Island is just a tiny part of NYS. Other towns and townships when faced with what they consider a state mandated unsafe condition with invasive privacy issues may see things very differently and perhaps reactions will occur that will result in hunters losing much more access than they have now. That is why I keep repeating like a broken record that deer populations are a local problem and should be dealt with at a local level.

And in the case of setbacks that is the part of the law that they should be changing, not diminishing setbacks for a whole lot of the state that doesn't need or want it. Out of control deer herds are a local problem and solutions should also be local with local accountability if or when things go wrong.

And that is the problem. Like I said before, that sort of thing should be in the domain of the local government since the situations and potential negative effects are local. If they are serious about offering solutions to a local problem change the law so that they can do that (with local voters approval).

Typo

That's not the way I read it. But even if that were the case, this is not something that I believe should be forced upon any municipality by the DEC. I see it as a local issue.

Right, and that is what needs to be changed, not the statewide default setback. It's a fine point, but if a municipality wants to create a 100' setback, 50' set-back or even a 0' setback, that should be a local decision. It should take a local vote to create situations that residents may have objections to without it being a mandated by the state. What is being proposed is that a 50' set-back be universally mandated for the entire state including the rural areas and even suburban areas that don't even need it or necessarily want it.

No, I believe the new proposal mandates it be universally (statewide) changed to 50 yards whether the municipality wants it or not (including rural situations). I am saying the 500' setback should remain as the state default with local governments being allowed to reduce that through local ordinances, approved by local voters. That puts the onus of whatever negative occurrences that come about on the local governments and local voters.

I'll be honest with you. If a municipality decides that they want to cut the set-back distance to whatever they think they need (zero feet if they can sell that notion), I think that that is something that should be made possible. That would be a decision made by that municipality with the input and buy-in of those residents effected. That community would have to live with whatever consequences that evolve with that decision, but they would be deciding their own fate at the level of those that are directly effected. I do not see it as being something that the state should be forcing on every municipality across the state, for all the reasons of safety and privacy that have been laid out in this thread. The responsibility for local decisions that effect local situations should be in the hands of local jurisdictions who are directly accountable to local voters.

Darn near impossible??? Did you miss Mike's statistic about 3,066 Environmental Conservation bills pending? Have you ever tried to read one those bills and understand what it was all about as well as research supporting issues and data to evaluate it, and then do that for over 3000 bills? I want to know who on earth can even do 1% of that. Note that these 3000 pending bills are only environmental conservation bills. The volume of pending legislation involving state and federal and local legislative activity and agency proposals dwarf that teeny contribution of environmental conservation bills and are usually of higher priority and are also expected to become a part of every one of your day's activities. So, who among us has successfully kept up with the thousands, and more likely millions of documents churned out by the various governments and their agencies? Some would try to convince us that they have, but we know they are not telling the truth. Do you get my point. It is virtually impossible to do the kind of job that should be done. Our effectiveness as educated citizens is buried under mountains of paperwork every day. And anyone who tries to tell you that they are indeed aware and fully up to speed on even 1% of all this legislative frenzy is really just messing with you. So when you say, "every so often, there will be laws that bother you that you never saw coming", understand that that is a huge understatement. I will say that percentage-wise, that will happen just about every time. Yes, as best we can, we should take an active participation on those things that we come across or that are brought to our attention. but let's not fool ourselves or try to fool anyone else that we are really effectively aware and active in even a miniscule amount of the legislative activity that effects us as hunters or citizens.

It is truly amazing when I hear people trying to convince us that as good conscientious citizens, they keep up with all of the pending legislation in the DEC, as well as state and federal proposals and now also each and every detail of every proposal of every government agency. I am trying to think of a courteous way of saying B.S. It is virtually impossible for anyone to do even if they don't have a life that they are trying to conduct. The numbers alone make it impossible. In fact there are legislators who readily admit that they don't have the time to read and research all the bills that they vote on. And they only have to worry about their portion of the bills. So if all this high and mighty talk about the responsibilities of conscientious citizens appears to be going in one ear and out the other, it is only because it is.

I don't think the trapping that they were evaluating was referring to normal and current trap and transfer activities. The items that I spotted that may generate some controversy would be: Baiting: I know that there are many that there are many that don't like any kind of baiting. That's an issue that I would have to do more thought on. I am generally not one that is in favor of training (conditioning) wild animals through bait to simply make my harvest easier. I have always said that I prefer to hunt animals as I find them rather than conditioning them for my hunting convenience. That's just a personal condition that I put on my own hunting. However, being an old trapper, I can see the inconsistency in thinking there. Hounds: That is a method that some may have problems with. I guess I have no particular problems with hound hunting right up to the point where the bear is treed. Shooting a bear that the dogs have hunted for me does seem to end in what looks contrary to fair chase principles. Shooting a bear that is in a tree with absolutely no place to go does kind of strike me in a negative sort of way. Trapping: Yes, I have been a trapper in years past, but really, are their any states that still allow trapping of bears? I'm not even sure that's still a viable method of taking bears. Anyway, I thought this all might make for some interesting discussion.

Reading down through the DEC bear management proposal, http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/bbplandraft2014.pdf I have come across some items that may be a bit more controversial than simple season changes. How do you all feel about allowing the use of hounds and the use of bait and the use of traps? Anybody have any opinions on these three harvesting practices? Just to be clear, understand that the DEC is not promoting either of these three methods of bear hunting at this time, but is looking very closely at them and evaluating their implementation.

It's hard to believe that anyone would form an opinion on an issue simply based on the fact that Cuomo is behind it. I'm thinking that there may be some people who will claim that was the reason that they oppose the x-bow proposal, but I think if you look just a little bit closer, you will find they had already made up their mind long before Cuomo got into the deal. He's not really changing minds one way or the other regardless of what they say.

I'm telling you, they're getting sillier and sillier every year. But Lawdwaz is right. That is just a dressed up version of the old Browning Serpentine that got laughed off the market years ago. We used to call them the "apple corer" .... lol. The little circular areas will fill up with hide and meat, effectively turning the arrow into a blunt ...... lol.

3,066 Environmental Conservation bills pending. Lol .... That reminds me of a recent conversation that we had where it was stated that it is the personal responsibility of every citizen to be aware and understand all of these. Oh and then that is only the environmental conservation legislation, we also have an individual responsibility to be familiar with the details of all the other bills going through the legislature. Oh and lets not forget the Federal government that dwarfs the state legislature in terms of numbers of bills initiated. So, are we all up to date on all this stuff and fulfilling our obligations as proper citizens? Sometimes it is so easy to tell people what they are expected to do as good well informed citizens, but really comes out kind of stupid in the face of reality.....lol.

American ingenuity is alive and well. Whenever I think a certain technology has just about reached it's limits, somebody not only thinks outside the box, but blows the box completely apart .... lol.

I hate his stinking guts, but even I have to admit that he is a political genius. He is so far ahead of anyone else in Albany that he is actually a dangerous man, capable of bulldozing or manipulating any situation or even his opposition into a politically advantageous situation for him. That's scary stuff!

So your claim of misinformation is based on some kind of insinuation that you conjured up in your head? Man that is lame. They simply stated that Cuomo inserted language into his budget regarding these proposals, and you see that as some kind of insinuation by them that he is the one who originated the whole idea. Do you understand how paranoid that sounds? I'll tell you who is engaging in misinformation. Anybody who could come up with that twisted logic is definitely engaging in misinformation. And just because you seem to think that this being a repeated activity is somehow relevant (for absolutely no good reason), you think it was a journalistic sin and some kind of conspiracy to mislead for them not to have mentioned that absolutely irrelevant piece of trivia. What the hell difference does that make? Look, I am no fan of the news media and am probably one of their harshest critics. But I have to tell you that you are engaging in senseless nit-picking over absolutely nothing. And spoon feeding opinions? ..... to what motive? ...... what opinions? Talk about conspiracy theorists ..... lol. It is clear now what I have been beginning to suspect. You are making a whole lot out of absolutely nothing. Honestly, sometimes you amaze me. Here I thought that you really might have something of some substance. I didn't realize that it was simply your imagination running away with you. My gosh, when I think of the time wasted....

I have to say that I have no clue as to exactly what the term "executive budget powers" really means. I have done my best to find some definition, but have been completely unsuccessful. My thought has always been that a state budget was a bunch of line items with a dollar figure after them and then some addition and subtraction and other mathematical gyrations. I never realized that a Governor had the power to stuff agenda items in there that have nothing to do with financials. Well, apparently he has such powers. I have no idea where these agenda items are delineated in the budget. I have no idea where you would look to see the exact wording and details. Somebody must know because the media is reporting on them ..... unless they are working off of press releases that are in general synopsis form. I do not know what form these agenda budget items take, a bill, a decree, or something else. I have gathered from some of what I have read that there is some legislative voting procedures required because there was some talk about him needing legislative support on these items. Anybody have any clue what the nuts and bolts of Executive Budget Powers are and how it all gets through the system?

I'll tell you what doesn't make sense to me. You keep talking about misinformation and yet you have difficulty showing me one thing that the media reported that wasn't absolutely true. As the old lady used to say, "Where's the beef?" The only thing that's being spoon fed is your constant repetition that there has been some kind of "misrepresentation" which in my dictionary means an untruth. Now, you can repeat that phrase from now until forever but if you cannot point out the falsehood, it means nothing. Where is the beef?

Interesting theory. makes absolutely no sense, but it is interesting.

So, how's it working for him? I'll answer your question exactly the same way I asked it last time you asked. I had no idea of Cuomo's role last year. This year I do. There still is nothing being spun. There is nothing untrue. There is no misinformation. If you don't like the fact that Cuomo has co-opted your cause and the news media is pointing that out, I really don't know what to tell you other than try your best to get over it.

Lol ..... Somehow I don't believe that it was Cuomo's support that tipped the scales for Belo. You might want to ask him, but I believe he's been fairly consistent on the crossbow controversy with or without Cuomo. And actually technically he's right. It is Cuomo's deal now. He has finagled ownership of it.

No it is not like saying no one should have a gun because they are unsafe. It is more like saying no one should be given legal permission to use a gun in a recognized unsafe fashion. And there's no reason to make an exception to that with archery equipment. Just the other day I was up on my archery range back by the 50 yard stake, looking at my target, and thinking, "People really think that somehow if that target were a house, I should legally be able to shoot at it". It struck me as to just how ludicrous that really is. Fifty yards is nothing..... absolutely nothing. And I will say that if I were a suburbanite and I saw some neighbor setting up his target in that fashion, I would really like a law in my pocket that I could use to put an immediate stop to that before the guy even pulled his string back, or cocked his crossbow or whatever. I really would not want to be forced to wait until something tragic happens before I have any legal recourse to put a stop to it.

Yes, I think there are some arguing the safety point, or at least they want to ignore it. When you legislate a setback, you cannot differentiate suburban/urban target practice from deer hunting. And certainly nothing like that is in any of the proposals that I have read.