Doc

Because if that really was the case, this is the first time I have heard about it. Funny that it didn't happen to become common knowledge and talked about until this year isn't it? And, I don't think there has been anyone here or anywhere else that has claimed that any of these issues were original thoughts created by Cuomo. I don't know exactly where you got that thought from. My claim is that his sudden interest in matters of hunting seem to coincidentally come on the heels of unprecedented anger directed at him because of the Safe Act, and the fact that he has an election coming. Frankly, I don't believe he any interest in these issues other than pacifying gun owning voters. My biggest fear is that some hunters who are unable to see the phony motivation will be swayed by these little bones being thrown their way when they mistakenly believe that Cuomo is in any way "in their corner".

Ha-ha .... Some of these trail-cam pictures are beginning to be more like ink-blot tests than animal pictures. I've got plenty of those myself .... pictures that make you ask, "What the heck is that?"

To be quite frank about it all, it really doesn't bother me that there are urban and suburban places that have out-of-control deer herds. Understanding that such places are hotbeds of anti hunting and anti gun sentiment, it brings joy to my heart to hear all the whining an wailing about the damage that deer are doing to these areas. Yes, we may see some amazing trophy deer in such places that we would like to harvest, but the pro-hunting PR that is being generated by these kinds of situations is absolutely fantastic. I'm not all that interested in law changes that allow them all to once again feel comfortable with their anti-hunting biases.

NYS politicians as well as the legislators of many other states have figured it out that if you maintain a significant percentage of the population as recipients of government programs, they become a huge voting block that will never vote to have their goodies diminished or removed. It's a self-perpetuating system. You can run away from it, but you are simply running away from the inevitable. They're all catching onto the technique of guaranteeing their own job security, and it's happening all over the country and runs all the way up to the presidency. There really is no escaping it, you can only delay it.

Back in our younger days we used to get into syrup making for a few years. It was a very crude rig consisting of basically a campfire and an old wash-tub. No special thermometers or hygrometers or any other equipment. Just a simple boiling down until it looked about right. The stuff was great although occasionally we would go too far and wind up with maple hard candy. But, it was a lot of fun making something so great tasting out of sap. My wife, two kids and myself all were involved, gathering sap, feeding the fire, and watching it boil down. It was almost like a science project that we did just to say we did. By the way, we always took the syrup right to the edge of going to candy, so it was a lot thicker and a bit more concentrated than the commercial syrup that you buy.

nykimmie- That 2nd from the bottom picture has given me an idea. I think I will start a new picture album that features some well defined animal tracks as a theme. Thanks for the idea.

Doggone it. I knew somebody was going to ask. I have spent quite a bit of time driving all over this state on vacations, and I just randomly snap pictures anytime something catches my eye. Unfortunately, I never write anything down as to where a lot of these things are. If I had to make a guess, I would guess somewhere between Watkins Glen and Ithaca. Or it might be at Stony Brook Park. It was kind of in with other Stony Brook pictures.

You should have bolded those words, "so long as you have permission". That's a huge difference from what is being proposed.

Those changes that you are referring to have never had the full weight of the Governor's office behind them. And it's not like this Governor does not get what he wants, is it? Done-deal?? .... Tell me just who is going to go up against him on this and actually stop him. I don't know about freaking out, but I do see reason for concern and a whole lot of things that could go very wrong with a shrunken set-back.

Yeah, that looks like stuff you would really be looking for instead of the crap that I always find. Look at this picture of the results of a scan of an old sugar shack in the middle of the hill (probably from some time in the 40's): What a collection of trash. These guys never dropped anything they had that was valuable. Darned inconsiderate of them!

Actually I think his handlers did. Not the idea of changing the setback rule, but more relating to the question of how can we sooth these crazy hunters now that we have stirred up the hornet's nest. What other logical explanation is there for all this sudden attention to hunting issues? He and his people may very well be sensing that there is a significant dedicated voting block that his actions have irritated. The man may be a lot of things, but stupid he is not.

I have accessed the page that you linked before and have seen the quote that you put into your last reply, and I have to say that it all sounds so much like the kind of language used by any anti-gun organization. You know the usual anti-gun mantra of, "if only there were no guns, all violence would go away". My gosh what ridiculous trash. It is still ignorance no matter whether it comes from Handgun Control Inc. or the U.N. I have expended way more time and effort than I should trying to repeatedly explain to you that there are real issues here that cannot and should not be casually passed off as fear mongering. You choose to ignore those replies, as is your right. So there probably is no real point to my continuing to respond. I have pretty much said my piece, and any further discussion will simply result in repeating. The only thing that does deserve repeating to those that have not completely buried their head in the sand is that those who voted to support this foreign intervention on our sovereignty should be made to answer for this at the polls. In the case of New Yorkers, that would be a vote against Gillibrand and Schumer.

Oh come-on ...... This is getting to be all one sided. Where the heck are the Obama apologists? Where are they all hiding?

The difference is that he is what he is, and that he is also in a position to add the weight of the governorship behind the idea. the way the legislators have been bowing down and kissing his feet lately, that makes it as close to a done-deal as you can get. That's the "new" part. No, it's not his original idea, but somehow he has gotten the idea that if throws a few bones to the hunters, all will be forgiven for his midnight raid on the 2nd Amendment. And, who knows .... maybe he's right.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't really believe that a person's ability to lead is determined by their paycheck. But whether it is or not, the reality is that the election system makes it absolutely impossible for a candidate of low income to be elected. The days of Lincoln are way behind us. Today it is the very expensive TV sound-bite that rules the election. Campaigns are so expensive that it drives honest candidates to sell their souls to get cash enough to survive. By the time the election rolls around, each candidate has encountered enough graft and corruption and promised so much favoritism and buy-offs, that they can't have a decent honest thought anymore. They really are not out-of-touch, they simply cannot keep their position without totally ignoring those that cannot do something financial for them. That's the ugly part of the system, and I have no idea what it would take to keep our Constitution and still clean up the election system.

And then when you consider those that have moved to the suburbs, you will find that one of the main concerns was some semblance of privacy. They probably won't take kindly to the grinning bowhunter in the rhododendron bush in his camo and grease-painted face ..... lol.

Don't even suggest that ..... even kidding.

I do honestly believe that if there were to be some sort of judgment against us, there would be no problem for them to shut of commercial gun trade to the U.S. I think we simply see that point differently. But beyond all that, I simply don't even like the attempt, and I really don't appreciate any of our legislators voting for such a thing. Whether you believe it to be enforceable is like I said before, totally irrelevant. It is the attempt and the willing accomplices that have been found in our own government supporting such a scheme that I find repugnant.

500' and it's likely they won't even know you're there. 50 yards, and your hunting activities makes you look like your average peeping Tom ..... lol. Really just think about how ridiculously close 50 yards really is. As far as promoting negative views by being obtrusive and inserting ourselves into other peoples private space, I guess I do actually worry about such things, and I think public relations is super important these days and will get to be even more important in the future. As a hunter, I don't want to see situations that might transform non-hunters into anti-hunters.

Ha-ha ..... I posted mine first. Look above your reply.

I believe that having a bowhunter grinning back at the homeowner at a mere 50 yards may have some negative effects on many homeowner opinions regarding hunters. I think it's a privacy thing. There is another potential problem of deer recovery, in that we are luring hunters into urban and suburban situations where difficult to impossible carcass recovery may result from a lack of trespass permissions on contiguous property parcels.

http://riverheadnewsreview.timesreview.com/2014/01/50890/cuomo-throws-support-behind-reducing-hunting-setbacks/ A mistake in my opinion. But then what else is new for good ol' Andy?

Perhaps, but if they are unable to enforce and maintain their treaties, then why are we even bothering to consider signing them? Somebody must think this thing is effective and enforceable. Actually, a lot of somebodies. But then that's not even the question is it? The point is that some outside entity is trying to usurp our second amendment rights via an end run. That is not something to simply shrug off and ignore. We have far too much of that kind of attitude already.

Cracked me up!

Do you honestly think that they would have a choice. Or are you looking for us (the end product buyers) to become recipients of black market firearms. Foreign arms manufacturers have absolutely no sway with the U.N. once the treaty is in place and eligible for enforcement. If they had any influence of the nature that you are suggesting, this whole issue would not even have gotten as far as it has.