Doc

Mike- The link to the draft is in the original post on this thread. Check it out. It is pretty interesting reading. As far as the trapping mentioned, I see it listed as the third means of harvest right along with hounds and bait. These are things that they are researching and studying, not actual proposals. I'm pretty sure that they are talking about a general trapping season. Also, I have been informed that Maine has a bear trapping season, so it is not unheard of here in the northeast.

Ok, All better now. The scum-bag didn't mean it ..... ha-ha-ha. He just didn't mean to say it out loud.

I absolutely agree. If we cannot somehow become totally united, it will happen. From what I have been reading on this forum, I am beginning to think that such unity is not all that likely. I believe that the culprits will likely all get re-elected and things such as the safe act will continue to be successful here in NY. The safe act was a test. It likely will turn out that they will be emboldened by the success of their test. The culture in NY may have simply leaned so far left that it has fallen over with no real way of straightening it back up again.

My understanding of the plan is that under current seasons and regulations, there is pretty much a lack of interest in hunting bears. And yet there is a growing population of bears that somehow have to be controlled. I understand the lack of interest aspect. There is no way that I would purposely go out with the sole purpose of killing a bear. The odds against success are ridiculous. So what they are trying to do is to create a "bear-hunting culture" change where people actually enthusiastically try to harvest a bear. The baiting, hounds, and trapping thoughts are simply methods to make the pursuit practical and entice participation. While none of these methods would interest me, I was just curious how others view these possibilities, and how many would actually use any of these methods. In other words, would the allowance of these methods really create this "bear-hunting culture" that they are trying to create?

No, actually the problem is the attitudes prevalent, in NYS in particular, that the government should become the parent of the constituents. There is now an expectation that the government knows best and should be looked to as a replacement for individual initiative and responsibility. We cheered the fall of Russian communism, never recognizing that their style of government has been slowly replacing ours.

Wooly- The original topic burned out about 20 pages ago and has morphed into something that is probably a whole lot more relevant to even those people interested in crossbows. I think by now we all understand that the "Governor has announced support for crossbows in NY". We spent a few pages talking about the relevance of that. And then the thread moved into more interesting directions. We probably could have, and should have, created a bunch of new topics, but that didn't happen. So, it has turned into a free-form general discussion that is still evolving. I for one find it all kind of interesting even though it is a bit unconventional.

Oh, screw this nonsense. Haven't you realized that this thread has actually gotten way off-topic, but has moved into some pretty amazing stuff. We have some real bonafide libs here that are spouting their pinko crap, and you are still worried about some imagined journalistic omissions?.... lol. While I have ben off looking forward to November elections with the thought that gun owners were a united entity who actually cared about gun owner rights, I am now finding out that there are a few (maybe a lot more than I realized) that enjoy being wards of the state, serving their Fatherland as proper obedient children, and others that are basically saying, "I've got mine so the hell with anybody else". Suddenly, your droning on about your critique of a news article and your imagined offenses kind of pales in comparison. I think we have finally moved on to matters of a lot more significance.

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....